51–60 of 62 posts
No doubt we'll see this transplanted into GM crops for reduced fertilizer need.
Using this to reduce the need for fertilizer would be awesome, but the engineer in me has to ask “What could possibly go wrong”. Interstellar showed one scenario. A nitrogen absorbing crop-blight or species out-evolving out food crops and overtaking them. With far more fuel the odds would be in favor of species that can consume nitrogen, and how do you keep those at bay when it happens?
Reminds me of this ancient plant that produces its own fertilizer from Nitrogen with bacteria https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/amaizeba...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the only plot hole, but yeah, agreed.
It’s not a mere plot hole, it’s the premise of the movie. To me that was a major turnoff
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing the nitrogen bottleneck would let them capture carbon faster. Given our predicament I'd say we should take all the help we get.
Remove too much carbon however and the plants die. We don't want a Great Decarbonification Event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nitrogen is inert. Even if you could run out of N2 (unlikely), it would have no effect.
That's wrong, the fact that is inert doesn't mean it's useless If you remove all nitrogen from atmosphere, there WILL be consequences
Eliminating a gas while keeping all other partial pressures constant only affects physical processes. Biochemistry on the other hand only relies on partial pressures, and the number of organisms which interact with atmospheric nitrogen are literally so few that you could count them on one hand.
This is all pretty far afield though. There's no way biological processes are even going to have a dent in the ocean of N2 surrounding us.
Using this to reduce the need for fertilizer would be awesome, but the engineer in me has to ask “What could possibly go wrong”. Interstellar showed one scenario. A nitrogen absorbing crop-blight or species out-evolving out food crops and overtaking them. With far more fuel the odds would be in favor of species that can consume nitrogen, and how do you keep those at bay when it happens?
It is curious that, apparently, almost all agricultural technology is focused on to break the ecosystem between the crops. That tech discards the nitrogen that would be produced by microorganisms and animals like worms, included seasonally shed leaves plants with deep roots, while promote "solutions" towards the soil desertification and the dependence on multinational corporations that destroy such sings of life arou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is curious that, apparently, almost all agricultural technology is focused on to break the ecosystem between the crops. That tech discards the nitrogen that would be produced by microorganisms and animals like worms, included seasonally shed leaves plants with deep roots, while promote "solutions" towards the soil desertification and the dependence on multinational corporations that destroy such sings of life arou…
My brother has lost a whole crop to snails and had to replant, I was redirected to you by the insurance to get a refund.
so crazy is it? It's just an Akira Miyawaki style applied to crops plus tech.
What I was expecting is a comment in line about the harvest is a nutrient extraction process, similar to a mineral mine. Therefore, even with a balanced ecosystem, there may come a time when the compost from the harvest, or animal excrement that consumed the crop, is needed to replenish what was taken by the crop for to close the loop. In such a case, it should be applied in liquid form by injecting it underground at the same time the seed is planted, but not in the same quantities that are required today, thanks to the balanced ecosystem, which rewards also with high-quality crops.