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

71–80 of 173 posts

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

#71

Post by BiteCode_dev »

pharke wrote: post #67
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That's not going to happen. People that desperately need the food don't have a problem of not growing enough rice or potatoes because of the nature of the crop. It's not why they are hungry. It's any other reason, politics, weather, logistics, economics, you name it.

The only things this will do is allow some company to patent this, and then sell it under restricted conditions that will be unfavorable to those who are hungry.

Yield increase is not really a winner if you have no water, if you are at war, if you don't have money/land, or if corporations own your society.

We reached a state in humanity development where any improvement in agricultural yield for basic food is not only unnecessary, but will lead to more problems than solution.

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

#72

Post by aurizon »

Like anything gene based, it can be used for good/evil. That said, it has great potential for good - with full knowledge and regulation. I can recall the old Disney cartoon of the lazy sorcerers apprentice on youtube. For example, something that ate chlorophyll getting loose in the oceans - call it chlorophage - the end of all sea plants that use chlorophyll..

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

#73

Post by UncleOxidant »

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…

> While we fertilize the soil

For the most part farmers only add 3 macro nutrients when they fertilize: N,P,K. As you suggest there are many micro nutrients that are likely being depleted because they're not being replaced.

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

#74

Post by quakeguy »

thret wrote: post #47
grey-area wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No cultivated species is the result of natural selection, they have been selected for centuries, sometimes millennia, by humans for the things we value. For the most extreme example see seedless grapes.

Peas famously have been cultivated from a single mutation that does not burst when ripe. They can't reproduce without human intervention.

Even when birds or small mammals eat and digest the seeds?

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

#76

Post by postingawayonhn »

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…

It would be great if we could produce the same amount of food on less land. Low quality land can be returned to nature.

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

#77

Post by BiteCode_dev »

postingawayonhn wrote: post #76
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be great if we could produce the same amount of food on less land. Low quality land can be returned to nature.

Unless human nature has changed last week, this is not going to be used to use less land, only to produce more on the same land.

We are already overproducing food, that doesn't prevent us to try to produce more.

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

#78

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Growing more food can alleviate the distribution problem. At some point folks can grow their own, becoming less dependent on the politics of distribution.

Its not reasonable to dismiss this because 'we just have to distribute food better'. That's not been solved, with decades of trying. But eating local can be a bigger part of a real solution. And this discovery makes that 50% more effective, which is huge.

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

#79

Post by JoeAltmaier »

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…

That's all about variety, not size. They selected strawberry genes for size, color and transportability. And sacrificed flavor. (probably because flavor is related to ripening etc which is critical to the other three variables)

If you grow your own tasty 'heirloom' strawberries, now you can grow 50% more. That's a good thing.

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

#80

Post by HPsquared »

babatuba wrote: post #63
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.

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 ins…

What matters is the ratio of soil depletion to food production. If the plants produce 50% more food, you don't need to plant as many of them. This might end up actually reducing the environmental footprint.
Post reply on HN