Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#61

Post by bpp »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #5

As someone in this industry, I doubt this will become a reality. The real problem is cost. When you use yeast, you have to supply the energy for the entire system. When you grow a plant, you get free energy from the sun. The cost savings are hard to beat. Nicotine extracts aren't made from yeast either. That should be a big warning flag for the business sides of these cool projects.

Roughly 1/3 of cannabis is grown inside [1], primarily for reasons of quality control. I'd actually expect this number to grow as the legal market expands and tighter control is needed to keep up with regulations. Which is to say that I'm sure there's a market for this.

[1] https://sweatingthebigstuff.com/percentage-medical-cannabis-...

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#62

Post by vanderZwan »

vanderZwan wrote: post #47
dumbfoundded wrote: post #5

As someone in this industry, I doubt this will become a reality. The real problem is cost. When you use yeast, you have to supply the energy for the entire system. When you grow a plant, you get free energy from the sun. The cost savings are hard to beat. Nicotine extracts aren't made from yeast either. That should be a big warning flag for the business sides of these cool projects.

So this accidentally made me go down a speculative rabbit hole... Cannabis is apparently a C3 plant[0]. It's also not a perennial. So while you have a point, there is still room for improving efficiency. I tried looking up what the current status with genetically modifying plants with high photosynthetic efficiency was. First thing I found was... tobacco[1]. Yeah, that's not all that useful. More generally, I wonder…

By the way, as always it turns out that things are not so simple as just adding a more efficient photosynthesis pathway to a life-form and everything will be better. There are complex trade-offs between the different photosynthesis pathways, and some results are counter-intuitive. Despite having evolved independently multiple times, practically no tree species with the C4 pathway seem to have evolved: only "grasses, herbs, bushes and shrubberies"[0]. According to the summary on Wikipedia[1], C4 has an advantage in high temperatures and low rainfall environments, and needs more sunlight. Furthermore, as a linked article on the researchgate discussion[3] mentions:

> While growth and photosynthetic potentials are typically less in the woody species relative to the C4 plants, the woody seedlings often tolerate low light within the C4 canopy, and will steadily grow until they overtop the C4 plants, unless they are reduced or killed by an episodic disturbance (Bond and Midgley, 2000; Wedin, 2004; Bond, 2008)

So there is a reason the trees win in the long-run if left undisturbed, and that could mean that adding C4 to other plants isn't a panacea as it is less robust under poor sunlight conditions. And in another article[3] comparing a C3 tree with one of the few known C4 trees:

> The results show that the carbon-gaining capacity of E. forbesii is comparable to that of a C3 species in a moderately cool, shaded forest environment. There appears to be no particular advantage or disadvantage associated with the C4 photosynthetic pathway of E. forbesii in this environment.

Perhaps most disturbing is this opening sentence in the abstract of a paper from 2006:

> Plants with the C4 photosynthetic pathway dominate today's tropical savannahs and grasslands, and account for some 30% of global terrestrial carbon fixation. Their success stems from a physiological CO2-concentrating pump, which leads to high photosynthetic efficiency in warm climates and low atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Since "low atmospheric CO2 concentrations" are not exactly our biggest concern at the moment, does C4 actually help then?

So as always, improving on nature is complicated.

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_trees_with_C4_photosynt...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis#Wh...

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arvind_Singh56/post/Do_...

[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00384538

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626541/

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#63

Post by logfromblammo »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #59
std_throwawayay wrote: post #51

One of the reasons why the prohibition of alcohol failed but cannabis is illegal has to do with the DIY-supply. Everyone could brew some alcohol at home. Growing a hemp field is not so easy to do undetected and therefore much easier to enforce. Cheap artificial lighting did have some impact but this yeast (if it works well) could be a real game changer.

The prohibition of cannabis also failed. More people than ever are using it, and where it’s illegal it’s run by gangsters, the predictable outcome, exactly the same as prohibition of alcohol. Actually I think it’s easy to grow weed in your backyard with the sun, just make sure to kill the male plants and you’re good. Whereas say growing tobacco requires much more onerous and is generally done on large farms.

I just had a vision of a bunch of cops growing exclusively male plants, and concentrating the pollen in a centrifuge device, to be used later in neighborhood foggers.

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#64

Post by klmr »

mrfusion wrote: post #50
klmr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you use yeast, you have to supply the energy for the entire system The “entire system” is a vat with yeast in it. For starters, that’s a much more space efficient way of growing something than in plants. Secondly, the energy you provide to the system, in brewing, is just sugar, which is incredibly cheap. In fact, given that this works well, at large scale, for beer brewing (i.e. ethanol production), why do you…

How does yeast get amino acids? How does it get nitrogen for that matter? Doesn’t it need those to grow? Seems like we just give it sugar.

You’re right. The parent comment focussed specifically on energy, so I did as well. But obviously both cannabis plants and yeast need other nutrients. That said, a minimal yeast broth is extremely simple.

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#65

Post by sorryforthethro »

willvarfar wrote: post #29
dumbfoundded wrote: post #5

As someone in this industry, I doubt this will become a reality. The real problem is cost. When you use yeast, you have to supply the energy for the entire system. When you grow a plant, you get free energy from the sun. The cost savings are hard to beat. Nicotine extracts aren't made from yeast either. That should be a big warning flag for the business sides of these cool projects.

My understanding of illicit cannabis production is only from films like "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" but it seems to be heat lamps in basements and caravans etc. And the impression the news gives me is that UK Police regularly use heat cameras from helicopters and analysis of electricity bills to find illegal growers. Would this approach allow test-tube illegal cultivation with a much less detectable footpri…

This is somewhat outdated, LEDs are now powerful enough and emit much less heat.

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#66

Post by dnautics »

spunch wrote: post #10
cf498 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That happened a while back https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/stanford-r...

Hasn't this been around for a little time also? Yeast Can Now Produce THC, Marijuana’s Infamous Compound - September 15, 2015 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/09/15/modifie...

Those yeast were fed a precursor. There is however a patent that takes it all the way from sugar.

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#67

Post by justtopost »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #5

As someone in this industry, I doubt this will become a reality. The real problem is cost. When you use yeast, you have to supply the energy for the entire system. When you grow a plant, you get free energy from the sun. The cost savings are hard to beat. Nicotine extracts aren't made from yeast either. That should be a big warning flag for the business sides of these cool projects.

You are clearly not in the brewing industry. Pot gorwes could olnly dream of this level of efficiency.

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#68

Post by cr0sh »

olefoo wrote: post #3

THC and CBD is kind of meh. The real fun (for perverse values of fun) is when someone starts making heroin starter that can reliably turn sugar into enough opiate to risk an overdose. And then bootleg biologics and other patent drugs, I would totally buy a yeast that let me make my own Humira and let me control the supply; even if possessing it meant a hefty prison term.

> The real fun (for perverse values of fun) is when someone starts making heroin starter that can reliably turn sugar into enough opiate to risk an overdose.

I personally think "the real fun" will be when it is possible to create electronic devices that "interface" with the brain to create similar-opioids-type "highs".

If you do some digging (it's been a while since I last found it) - supposedly some research who at one time worked at ASU actually did come up with such a method; I can't recall what it stimulated with - I want to say ultrasound, but it might have been transcranial magnetism.

I honestly don't know if you can still find his work out there; I wish I had more information...

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#69

Post by bullfightonmars »

vanderZwan wrote: post #47
dumbfoundded wrote: post #5

As someone in this industry, I doubt this will become a reality. The real problem is cost. When you use yeast, you have to supply the energy for the entire system. When you grow a plant, you get free energy from the sun. The cost savings are hard to beat. Nicotine extracts aren't made from yeast either. That should be a big warning flag for the business sides of these cool projects.

So this accidentally made me go down a speculative rabbit hole... Cannabis is apparently a C3 plant[0]. It's also not a perennial. So while you have a point, there is still room for improving efficiency. I tried looking up what the current status with genetically modifying plants with high photosynthetic efficiency was. First thing I found was... tobacco[1]. Yeah, that's not all that useful. More generally, I wonder…

Given that tobacco is also a C3 plant your link to the post about improving tobacco photosynthesis by reducing the cost of photorespiration is exactly the mechanism I expect to be exploited by any scientist/company seeking to improve C3 photosynthesis.

This work is based around is tobacco because it is an excellent model crop for transformation and in situ agricultural studies. Not because this lab is explicitly seeking to improve tobacco.

This work is probably the most impressive improvements made to the science of practically improving photosynthesis.

It was published by one of the best labs in the best department for the study of photosynthesis in the world.

* http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/eaat9077 * Ort lab http://www.life.illinois.edu/ort/OrtCV.html * Ripe Study https://ripe.illinois.edu/

Re: Scientists brew cannabis using modified beer yeast

#70

Post by cma »

klmr wrote: post #39
dumbfoundded wrote: post #5

As someone in this industry, I doubt this will become a reality. The real problem is cost. When you use yeast, you have to supply the energy for the entire system. When you grow a plant, you get free energy from the sun. The cost savings are hard to beat. Nicotine extracts aren't made from yeast either. That should be a big warning flag for the business sides of these cool projects.

> When you use yeast, you have to supply the energy for the entire system The “entire system” is a vat with yeast in it. For starters, that’s a much more space efficient way of growing something than in plants. Secondly, the energy you provide to the system, in brewing, is just sugar, which is incredibly cheap. In fact, given that this works well, at large scale, for beer brewing (i.e. ethanol production), why do you…

> For starters, that’s a much more space efficient way of growing something than in plants.

You have to account for the land use by the sugarcane (no idea how things would net out).

Post reply on HN