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

A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#41

Post by candiodari »

londons_explore wrote: post #38

This would seem like a good candidate for regular old cross-breeding. People in the past would select which seeds and plants to cross breed by hand. You could imagine an automated system which could cross breed 1 billion (1e9) plants at once by using cameras and ML techniques looking for good traits on each plant, using just 3% of US farmland. It doesn't need perfection - a 10% error rate simply requires 10% more pla…

These days people are doing selective breeding by simply sequencing genes. It can produce the same results as transplanting genes in a matter of months for a lot of plants (because they don't use normal procreation).

It's not cheaper or faster.

And of course, now there's a massive debate whether this is GMO or not.

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#42

Post by quixoticelixer- »

function_seven wrote: post #35
quixoticelixer- wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do ruminants add nitrogen to the soil?

They pee on it. http://fertsmart.dairyingfortomorrow.com.au/wp-content/uploa... (Image hotlinked from https://fertsmart.dairyingfortomorrow.com.au/dairy-soils-and... )

Yeah but where is that nitrogen coming from? It's coming from plants.

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#44

Post by pegasus »

candiodari wrote: post #40
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GMO's are disliked not just because of gene editing, but the decidedly non-organic way that GMO's are typically grown. My understanding is that GMOs are typically used on industrial scale monocrop farms, with pesticides. So it gets tarnished by association.

I find that when you do find one of these people there is no depth to their thinking. They don't even know what GMO is, or why it's done, or why it's not so different from every other crop that was selectively bred for sometimes thousands of years. And even when you do find someone who does they are making arguments like "the modified genes will break loose" ... which is absurd ... and that was a very smart individua…

The same accusation of shallowness can be leveled at the opposite camp. Including your comment.

Yes, GMO is a refinement of crop modification techniques humans have employed throughout history. So the argument is that since those were "good", this can't be otherwise. But it's not that simple, a lot of the consequences of these modifications are at a closer inspection not that beningn. For example, the transition from hunter-gatherer cultures to agricultural ones came with severe detrimental impact on the health of those populations.

There is such a thing as something being more or less natural, that's why we have this concept. It's just that it's not easy at all to formalize. Maybe even impossible. But it won't go away, because it actually correlates to an essential aspect of reality.

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#45

Post by pegasus »

eloff wrote: post #15
mulmen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this post insightful generally but I don't think the last sentence was necessary. It is possible to be an organic advocate irrespective of "listening to the scientists" on this or any other topic. Constructing and attacking this straw man doesn't really add anything to your post.

I think it's true though. The opposition to GMO foods is typically reflexive and unthinking. It's not grounded in logic or science. That's not to say throw all caution to the wind, but I've yet to hear anyone make a sound argument in this case. And there are at least good arguments to be made on both sides referencing the existing literature.

Sure. But a lot of pro-GMO thinking is also quite glib ("we've modified crops for thousands of years so what's the problem?").

I think mostly what's behind anti-GMO attitudes is the fear of unknown and unintended consequences. We've seen a lot of those ever since technology has been invented and they do seem to have proliferated in the last couple of centuries. So, it's not unjustified, especially when messing with extremely complex and barely understood systems. It's the same for weather engineering, for example. Parable of the sorcerer's apprentice and all that...

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#46

Post by pegasus »

evgen wrote: post #33
legulere wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how burning huge rainforest areas for monoculture corn plantations that now produce part of the insecticides that you use on their own and that you use tons of herbicides on to keep everything else out is in any way leading to more sustainability.

If you are going to create a strawman at least get it right. The rainforests are being burned to grow soybeans, not corn.

Is it a strawman though? It's all tied together, the fixation with using our technological prowess to increase yield at all costs leads to these types of solutions: monocultures, GMO crops, weather engineering. Even though our understanding of the "solutions" is many times ridiculously poor. But it seems to work... somehow... for now. And by "work", what's meant is that it maximizes a metric which is ultimally chosen to maximize the wealth of an economic agent. It's what got us into this climatic bind. We need to take a step back and look at the root of the problem.

This article for example, points into a saner direction: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/06/enough...

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#47

Post by wongarsu »

ovi256 wrote: post #39
nelaboras wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so straightforward. Those with financial interests in the matter manipulate opinion and pay for lopsided science. That's why many globally and especially in the US still 'doubt' climate change. The evidence today is overwhelming but 20 years ago was still more muddled as Shell & co were funding biased studies, while experts and environmentalists were screaming for action and simply ignored. And still today t…

it's not self-contradictory to be eager for low-co2 energy and oppose nuclear due to its large-scale damage in case of an incident (and with Fukushima, 3Mile, Tchernobyl and various smaller incidents it's not like this is just theory) It is contradictory if one believes excess CO2 emissions cause global warming which may cause up to a billion people to become climate refugees in 2100 . A Chernobyl every year pales in…

Nuclear isn't out only option. Solar and wind are economically much more viable, and are safer (as in: they don't produce population displacing disasters, even if they might kill more people on average). Grid scale storage is becoming cheaper as well.

Of course the belief that nuclear will be replaced by solar and wind is a bit naive: in the short term it's replaced by coal and gas, and only in the medium term can we hope for better

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#48

Post by wongarsu »

candiodari wrote: post #40
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GMO's are disliked not just because of gene editing, but the decidedly non-organic way that GMO's are typically grown. My understanding is that GMOs are typically used on industrial scale monocrop farms, with pesticides. So it gets tarnished by association.

I find that when you do find one of these people there is no depth to their thinking. They don't even know what GMO is, or why it's done, or why it's not so different from every other crop that was selectively bred for sometimes thousands of years. And even when you do find someone who does they are making arguments like "the modified genes will break loose" ... which is absurd ... and that was a very smart individua…

>GMO is about transplanting genes, so any gene used has already "broken loose" before it is ever transplanted into any GMO crop

you can however transplant genes across species, which just doesn't happen in nature. The fear that these improved crops would outcompete native grasses outside the farm wouldn't be unjustified if it weren't for Monsanto doing everything they can to prevent farmers from replanting their harvest.

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#49

Post by uCantCauseUCant »

ABCLAW wrote: post #19
rmason wrote: post #10

This is an extremely hard problem. I've been following efforts to replace nitrogen for around forty years. It's part of a bigger trend of the seed industry grabbing a larger portion of the crop production dollar. It's the science of GMO's. We've replaced some insecticides by letting the plants produce their own. We've eliminated some herbicides (weed sprays) by producing resistance in the plant to first Roundup and l…

Not supporting Monsanto's business model isn't the same thing as not 'listen[ing] to scientists'. The issues with blanket application of Glysophate combined with roundup resistant crops are real; application volumes have ballooned and we still don't have a scientific consensus on it's effects on humans. Ignoring, in the immediate, the potential health effects of the molecule, it is also a driving force in the expansi…

The problem is also a lack of good studies regarding the autcome- "Upgraded" corn & wheat are for a reason on the suspicion list regarding societys diggestive health problems over the last 25 years

Re: A variety of corn has evolved a way to make its own nitrogen (2018)

#50

Post by knaq »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #20
rmason wrote: post #10

This is an extremely hard problem. I've been following efforts to replace nitrogen for around forty years. It's part of a bigger trend of the seed industry grabbing a larger portion of the crop production dollar. It's the science of GMO's. We've replaced some insecticides by letting the plants produce their own. We've eliminated some herbicides (weed sprays) by producing resistance in the plant to first Roundup and l…

I think GMO's are disliked not just because of gene editing, but the decidedly non-organic way that GMO's are typically grown. My understanding is that GMOs are typically used on industrial scale monocrop farms, with pesticides. So it gets tarnished by association.

It's often the other way. The GMO doesn't need to be sprayed with pesticides. That is the case with Bt corn for example. Bt corn has a protein that stops caterpillars from eating.

Organic stuff is normally grown on industrial scale monocrop farms, with pesticides. Yes, really. All sorts of toxic pesticides are on the list of chemicals permitted for organic labeled foods. Many of them are worse. Go read the list if you doubt this. Simply put, "organic" is a marketing ploy, and the certification is a racket.

Post reply on HN