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

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

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 173 posts

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

#61

Post by BiteCode_dev »

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…

Not to mention we don't need it. We don't have a problem with producing food, but with distributing it.

The result here would be only more profit for some players, it's not going to help with world hunger. It's not going to take prices down (potatoes/rice price is not a blocker, but margin is nice). But it certainly will have a systemic cost that we will all share for a gain we will not.

Problems we do have but that they are making worst:

- poorer and poorer soils;

- big companies making it hard for small player to even exist;

- weak nutritional content of our food;

- food chain dependency on a few players;

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

#62

Post by cheese_goddess »

It's amazing to me that people are still claiming to do beneficial work when they work on improving yields or size in this case. The amount of food (let alone the size of vegetables) we produce is already enough to feed everyone, but we throw away at least a third of the food we produce (the internet is full of references for that) instead of distributing it fairly where it is needed the most (one part of the world is obese, another is malnourished).

It is clear beyond doubt that the real difficulty we're facing with food production is to sensibly set the limits of supply, so that excesses are avoided and to organise distribution so that everyone has as much as they need. Larger vegetables are not really a problem in the real world.

As to resistance to drought, while we're already in the shit for good with the amount of warming expected in the next decades, the root of the problem is not that our vegetables can't handle drought, it's that we have continue to fuck the environment and destabilise the ability of the planet to feed us. Solve this problem and stop faffing about with irrelevant bullshit.

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

#63

Post by babatuba »

bullfightonmars wrote: post #60
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…

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.

I'm sorry what!? This is how everything works. If you force something to use more ingredients/nutrients/whatever at a faster pace, you will deplete something else in the ecosystem faster than previously.

Plants or otherwise: when you force the balance to tilt one way, you have to be extremely careful not to reach a breaking point.

Just want to add that I think the technology could be really beneficial though. For instance, if you planted less high-yield potatoes in smaller area than previously, you could then afford space for alternate crops and then move potatoes to a different location and counter balance with other crops the next season. This could possibly allow for increased production while still preserving nutrients, increasing overall yield efficiency.

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

#64

Post by foolinaround »

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 agree with you in general... yes, waste and distribution should be high in focus... but this would also help?

But could we then grow crops in concentrated places without need for deforestation?

We may let some of the fields lay fallow for a couple of years, and alternate?

Could we transport less because local farms produce more, bringing in carbon and cost savings?

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

#65

Post by dekhn »

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…

Generally, the longest term productive areas continually replenish the soil with nutrients due to upstream/uphill prior volcanic activity. So, for example, the Willamette Valley will probably be fertile longer than the center of the US.

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

#66

Post by bamboozled »

bullfightonmars wrote: post #60
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…

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.

Is it good for humans to eat more fertiliser, pesticides etc ?

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

#67

Post by pharke »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #61
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…

Not to mention we don't need it. We don't have a problem with producing food, but with distributing it. The result here would be only more profit for some players, it's not going to help with world hunger. It's not going to take prices down (potatoes/rice price is not a blocker, but margin is nice). But it certainly will have a systemic cost that we will all share for a gain we will not. Problems we do have but that…

If this process is simple to scale then we absolutely do need it. There is little chance of us fixing our food waste problem and increasing the efficiency of foreign aid in a timely manner. If more and larger crops could be grown on even more marginal land closer to where people desperately need the food then it is a solution we should use. I'm assuming that we'd aim for making these modified plants easily available to any farmer that wishes to grow them.

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

#68

Post by aurizon »

vagrantJin wrote: post #19
LightG wrote: post #14

Coming soon ... "RNA breakthrough revolutionises the porn industry"

How though? I'm intrigued.

More, larger, breasts, dicks etc. Get a date with 6 Breasted Annie(TM), or Double Dick Dan(TM). Possibilities endless in terms of body mods, repugnant as it sounds - it may come to pass.....

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

#70

Post by jjice »

devchix wrote: post #28

Perhaps there's a net good application to this, more yield so a plant can produce more, feed more hungry people, survive storage and shipping -- but I see 4lbs packs of Driscoll strawberries at my store, year round. The fruits are gigantic, way bigger than what a strawberry should be, firm, uniformly red, and absolutely tasteless. Same with tomatoes, bananas, potatoes, anything you could buy at a typical grocery stor…

Tomatoes are the most noticeable example to me. A grocery store tomato can't hold a candle to a garden one. Large berries are also a great point, basically just large solid water that they charge $4 a pound for.

I don't have that issue with apples or bananas however. Both in the north east and south east, I've always had solid apples and bananas, with quality varying by store (I love Aldi, but their produce is lacking in my experience). Generally speaking, if the fruit or vegetable is too big, it's probably bad in my experience.

On honeycrisps - I hate how large they are. They're good apples most of the time, but way too big for me to want to eat all of in one sitting. I much prefer a small firm apple.

Post reply on HN