RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice • Hacker News Board

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#121

Post by JTbane » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

necovek wrote: post #21

While I see people worry about the nutrient content in the resulting food, I wonder more about the nutrient content of the soil after a few years of such products. While we fertilize the soil, the mention of "longer and deeper roots" means that such plants will take out more from the ground, making ground less usable for future farming. Basically, as others have said, there is an evolutionary reason plants do not nat…

>I wonder more about the nutrient content of the soil after a few years of such products.

Sadly I don't think anyone cares about that. You can encourage the use of organic fertilizers all you want and they will still dump unsustainable mined phosphates on the fields

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#122

Post by maxFlow » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #116

necovek wrote: post #21

While I see people worry about the nutrient content in the resulting food, I wonder more about the nutrient content of the soil after a few years of such products. While we fertilize the soil, the mention of "longer and deeper roots" means that such plants will take out more from the ground, making ground less usable for future farming. Basically, as others have said, there is an evolutionary reason plants do not nat…

> Basically, as others have said, there is an evolutionary reason plants do not naturally grow this big (they'd kill themselves off in a few generations). We're very far away from the wild versions of crops at this point. Evolutionary arguments here seem pretty odd to me, most of these crops have had huge selective pressure towards whatever people value, not necessarily what is good for them in isolation, without the…

Agree. It's a complex topic, I think we should move away from "nature knows best" type of arguments. I would add, these selective pressures are not just from mankind, but potentialy from any other living thing. The "natural state" is more random than natural.

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#123

Post by omegaworks » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #113

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Modern farmers are keenly aware of soil quality and spend a lot of time and money to keep their farms running at top efficiency. You sure about that? When I was ARS, sure there were 3-4 farmers I met who took SOC and and soil health seriously; individuals who wanted to think about their soil as an ecosystem and grow their soils as they did their crops. Then there were the other 96-97 farmers you would meet who could…

Recently read the book "Running Out" about aquifers in western Kansas. Takeaway was that the overwhelming majority of farmers were explicitly targeting emptying the aquifer within their lifetimes. Unclear what they expect to happen next.

Bailouts. Every American farmer relies on the generous crop insurance policies maintained by our government.

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#124

Post by tynpeddler » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

idroveatrain wrote: post #95

bullfightonmars wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not how plants work. The increased biomass comes from carbon in the air. There is already more than enough nutrients in the ground or applied as fertilizer. In fact most of the nutrients from fertilizer are lost and wash away. This will allow plants to capture more applied ferilizer. Mostly though these plants will be pulling more carbon from the atmosphere.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an... So there are at least 3 studies performed by different teams in this article that indicates you're incorrect in your assertions as applied in practice.

That article is ... confused. Donald Davis, the main source for most of the article, suggests that a lack of selection towards nutritious crops as the cause of lower nutrition, while the article itself claims that the cause is poorer soil quality. Noticeably, neither of these points support the argument that engineered crops are any worse for the soil than past crops.

Also, the article suggests that the studies themselves are comparing current data to data generated 20-50 years earlier. Comparing two modern day experiments to each other can be quite difficult, as even small differences can have huge ramifications in the results, even if the protocols are supposedly the same (I personally saw this play a few times in grad school). For example, quality differences in the filter paper used can result in a much higher retention of mass in one experiment compared to another. Without a body of research measuring the comparability of the compared results (please link if you find it), the comparisons cited in the article are not very convincing.

Actually, if you can find the original studies cited in the article, I'd love to see them. The ideal way of measuring this would be to take a heritage strain, and grow it along side a modern strain the the same soil. That would at least help figure out if modern crops really have selected against nutrition.

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#125

Post by imwillofficial » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

Nicksil wrote: post #75

imwillofficial wrote: post #69

And there will be no downstream consequences we discover 59 years from now… Like monasto pesticides causing cancer.

>Like monasto pesticides causing cancer. Has this been determined?

Can’t tell, monasto and folks keep settling

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#126

Post by Integrape » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #2

How dangerous is this? Could we end up creating something indestructible like Japanese Knot weed except worse?

I hope it's dangerous enough that it ends up creating ninja turtles, but not enough to bring dinosaurs back from extinction.

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#127

Post by hadlock » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

idroveatrain wrote: post #95

bullfightonmars wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not how plants work. The increased biomass comes from carbon in the air. There is already more than enough nutrients in the ground or applied as fertilizer. In fact most of the nutrients from fertilizer are lost and wash away. This will allow plants to capture more applied ferilizer. Mostly though these plants will be pulling more carbon from the atmosphere.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an... So there are at least 3 studies performed by different teams in this article that indicates you're incorrect in your assertions as applied in practice.

Plants are ~70-90% water, and of the dry mass, 70-95% is carbon, the structure of the plant which is extracted from the air (splitting the C from the O2).... the remaining nutrients are from the soil + dissolved in rain water, although plants do absorb a limited amount of nutrients through their leaves via dust etc.

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#128

Post by imtringued » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #110

foxyv wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deeper roots tend to make for healthier soil. This is why dandelions are such a boon for someone with poor soil. Their deep roots break up poorly aerated soil allowing aerobic bacteria to produce nutrients for plants. Modern farmers are keenly aware of soil quality and spend a lot of time and money to keep their farms running at top efficiency. The thing that worries me the most about modern farming is the use of pet…

>Modern farmers are keenly aware of soil quality and spend a lot of time and money to keep their farms running at top efficiency. You sure about that? When I was ARS, sure there were 3-4 farmers I met who took SOC and and soil health seriously; individuals who wanted to think about their soil as an ecosystem and grow their soils as they did their crops. Then there were the other 96-97 farmers you would meet who could…

That's what we get from the "grow as fast as possible today" mentality. People aren't thinking about how to maximize economic output. That is probably the biggest failing of capitalism. People think maximum growth is the same thing as maximum output.

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#129

Post by shawn-butler » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #110

foxyv wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deeper roots tend to make for healthier soil. This is why dandelions are such a boon for someone with poor soil. Their deep roots break up poorly aerated soil allowing aerobic bacteria to produce nutrients for plants. Modern farmers are keenly aware of soil quality and spend a lot of time and money to keep their farms running at top efficiency. The thing that worries me the most about modern farming is the use of pet…

>Modern farmers are keenly aware of soil quality and spend a lot of time and money to keep their farms running at top efficiency. You sure about that? When I was ARS, sure there were 3-4 farmers I met who took SOC and and soil health seriously; individuals who wanted to think about their soil as an ecosystem and grow their soils as they did their crops. Then there were the other 96-97 farmers you would meet who could…

>> Its purely anecdotal, but the vast majority of farmers I had the opportunity were not good farmers

It is purely anecdotal. It greatly depends on the location and the generational age of the farmer the extent to which they are concerned with soil conservation. Cultural practices in farming tend to have wide adoption swings, (neighbors see what their neighbors are doing, etc) Entire counties will be using conventional methods and within a few seasons swap to lower disturbance methods.

Conservation tillage practices—including no-till, strip-till, and mulch-till—vary widely across crops and regions[0]:

• Conservation tillage was used on roughly 70 percent of soybean (2012), 65 percent of corn (2016), 67 percent of wheat (2017), and 40 percent of cotton (2015) acres.

• The share of total conservation tillage that is no-till also varied from 67 percent (45 percent of total acreage) in wheat (2017) and 56 percent (40 percent of total acreage) in soybeans (2012) to 44 percent (18 percent of total acreage) in cotton (2015) and 42 percent (27 percent of total acreage) in corn (2016).

• For individual crops, the rate of no-till varies by region. The likelihood of no-till corn, for example, is relatively high in the Northern Great Plains (50 percent of conservation tillage in corn, 34 percent of total corn acreage), Prairie Gateway (69 percent of conservation tillage, 49 percent of corn), and the South (the Eastern Uplands, Southern Seaboard, and Mississippi Portal combined) (67 percent of conservation tillage, 53 percent of corn).

• Almost 50 percent of corn, soybean, wheat, and cotton acreage was in no-till or strip-till at some time over a 4-year period (including the survey and 3 previous years), but only about 20 percent of these acres were in no-till or strip-till all 4 years.

I find your identification of 96-97% of farmers as short-term profiteers rude and borderline offensive.

[0]: Tillage Intensity and Conservation Cropping in the United States, USDA 2018

Re: RNA breakthrough creates crops that can grow 50 percent more potatoes, rice

#130

Post by bluGill » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #110

foxyv wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deeper roots tend to make for healthier soil. This is why dandelions are such a boon for someone with poor soil. Their deep roots break up poorly aerated soil allowing aerobic bacteria to produce nutrients for plants. Modern farmers are keenly aware of soil quality and spend a lot of time and money to keep their farms running at top efficiency. The thing that worries me the most about modern farming is the use of pet…

>Modern farmers are keenly aware of soil quality and spend a lot of time and money to keep their farms running at top efficiency. You sure about that? When I was ARS, sure there were 3-4 farmers I met who took SOC and and soil health seriously; individuals who wanted to think about their soil as an ecosystem and grow their soils as they did their crops. Then there were the other 96-97 farmers you would meet who could…

> You sure about that? When I was ARS, sure there were 3-4 farmers I met who took SOC and and soil health seriously; individuals who wanted to think about their soil as an ecosystem and grow their soils as they did their crops.

In the long run farmers are care about soil health make more money than those that don't. The rule of thumb is it takes 7 years before no-til is more profitable than conventional tillage. Once you get no-till going though it uses a lot less fuel (pulling a plow through soil uses a lot of energy).

Farmers have also caught onto the fact that modern computers and equipment allow you to see what parts of the field you doing what. When you sell the farm they will make it worth while to build up your soil as farms that yield better are worth more than farms that yield poorly.

In the end you are right - far too many farmers are not caring for their soil as they should. All the big ones are though as they have figured out the long term investment is worth it.