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

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

#61

Post by bluGill » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:55 PM UTC

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…

We have scientific consensus on roundup. We have scientific consensus on vaccines as well. In both cases there are a few who ignore the evidence for political reasons and have found a way to play the media (follow the money - in most cases the big players are making a lot of money from something helped by the attack)

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

#62

Post by kickout » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:56 PM UTC

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.

Yes. Correct. Thank you @evgen. Brazil == soybeans mostly. Those slashed rainforest acres are being chopped with safrinha corn in mind. Those statements by the parent are an easy filter to someone not knowledgeable

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

#63

Post by bluGill » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:56 PM UTC

nelaboras wrote: post #18

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…

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…

Why is random genetic mutations not a concern but GMO is?

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

#64

Post by bluGill » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:59 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #28

eloff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't really have any idea where opposition to GMO foods originates. You guess that it is reflexive and unthinking because that is convenient for you to guess. There are strong arguments against, not necessarily GMO as a technology, but practically all existing commercial uses of it. Furthermore, each use of it is potentially an independent problem with its own dangers. Thus far the only beneficial use of it I ha…

golden rice is not available because activists in courts have done everything they can to keep it unavailable. This isn't capitalism, other than capitalism will not throw good money after bad fighting things out in court.

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

#65

Post by bluGill » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #55

wongarsu wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 harv…

This is the sort of scientific illiteracy and ignorance masquerading as "reasoned response" that makes this whole exercise futile. Literally NOTHING in your comment was true. Not one single bit of it.

You are correct, but the way you wrote that deserves the downvotes you are getting.

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

#66

Post by function_seven » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

quixoticelixer- wrote: post #42

function_seven wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, hence the “Nitrogen Cycle”.

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

#67

Post by randomdata » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

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…

> Not supporting Monsanto's business model isn't the same thing as not 'listen[ing] to scientists'.

Monsanto is dead. Its assets were sold off to other players in the industry.

Further, the patents that brought disdain to the Monsanto of the past expired years ago. The business model that centred around those specific patents has not been a business model for quite some time. Even before those patents expired, it was not their business model anymore as the technology moved forward and those patents were no longer all that relevant.

> it is also a driving force in the expansion of monoculture techniques rather than more sustainable polycultures.

Yet, when I travel through the rural parts of the world, I see endless rows of rusted out row crop equipment that are older than the invention of Glyphosate itself. I am not convinced your timeline really fits.

> Monocultural key foodcrops are a long-tail risk to food security. The Irish potato famine

Another good example. The famine took place 129 years before Glyphosate was sold for agriculture use. Not to mention that it took another 22 years after that before the first roundup resistant crop made it to market.

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

#68

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

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…

"No scientific consensus" is often conspiracy-speak for "no proven harm".

If the critics never accept scientific evidence that there's no harm, they get to keep being critics. Just by using weasel words like that.

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

#69

Post by a2tech » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:23 PM UTC

kickout wrote: post #60

knaq wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

Yes ,@knaq is correct. Organic production systems _do_ spray chemicals and oftentimes those chemicals are clearly more dangerous than the chemical applied to modified crops. Its been mentioned in this thread but Roundup is actually safe compared a whole host of chemicals we were spraying in the <1970s. There is currently not a world where crop production doesn't use herbicides (but it is coming thanks to drones and a…

What I tell people that are railing against Roundup ready crops and other GM crops is this: say we decide to stop using these types of crops today--pick the millions of people that get to starve in the upcoming year. Just point to an Indian state or an African country and say 'those people get to starve' and we'll stop using GM crops.

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

#70

Post by ColanR » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:29 PM UTC

rmason wrote: post #30

ABCLAW wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was in the fertilizer business for twenty plus years. I went from Roundup's original introduction in the seventies to the beginnings of Roundup Ready seed. I kept a book in my office (as an EPA requirement) that allowed any employee or customer to view the safety of each chemical. Roundup was way safer to humans than the cocktail of other herbicides that it replaced. It felt like considerable progress at the time a…

There's evidence Monsanto influenced the science behind the safety (or not) of Roundup [1], and even tried to manipulate public opinion of it online. [2]

> According to the court documents, Monsanto started the aptly-named ‘Let Nothing Go’ campaign, which plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Roundup litigation believe is part of the agrochemical giant’s tort defense strategy to work furiously outside the courtroom producing carefully-timed “literature” and regulatory decisions that could sway the court.

> The ‘Let Nothing Go’ campaign is designed to leave nothing posted on the internet about Monsanto, its products and GMOs, unanswered. This even applies to social media comments.

> “Through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs,” according to a motion in the Roundup MDL. But the idea that Monsanto paid internet trolls to disagree with negative comments about the company on social media is just the tip of the iceberg.

[2] https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/blog/2017/may/monsanto-paid-i...

> An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-o...