9 ms·

The article focuses on GMO food production which is great. But since this process is said to be more efficient than the natural one, could this be also used for

by dreen 8y ago

The article focuses on GMO food production which is great. But since this process is said to be more efficient than the natural one, could this be also used for consuming the excess carbon dioxide in our air?

akanet 8y ago
I mean, in the sense that any plant that grows consumes carbon dioxide as long as we don't turn around and burn it, yes. Biohacking any particular species to express a particular trait isn't exactly solved yet, though.
CapitalistCartr 8y ago
I've long wondered if we could do to blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) what we've done to Penicillium fungi, mutating like crazy, to optimize for CO2 absorbtion, then bury the mass.
- Angostura 8y ago
  > bury the mass Or burn it - at least it would be a sustainable energy source.
  - PakG1 8y ago
    Create a carbon cycle similar to the water cycle then?
    - schiffern 8y ago
      Already exists. We've now identified many biogeochemical cycles. An incomplete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate-silicate_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate-silicate_cycle
  - gdpgreg 8y ago
    Easier to just burry it, treating it for use in combustion systems wouldn't be worth it given the energy density is low. Better off using Sabatier process with excess solar at that point.
- nanomonkey 8y ago
  You can also feed it to people and livestock. I've been growing Spirulina, a cyanobacteria, in aquarium tanks in my window for eating purposes. It's quite high in protein, antioxidants and beneficial oils. When I get the time, I'll likely also try making some biodiesel and/or gasifying some of it to see how feasible it is as a fuel source.
  - indymike 8y ago
    Here's the question: how does it taste?
    - nanomonkey 8y ago
      Fresh, it's pretty tasteless, and quite easy to incorporate raw into other foods such as a smoothy, soup, pesto, or a spread in sandwiches.
  - FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
    You should also look at Azolla. It grows crazy fast and is also high protein and fixes both carbon and nitrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla
    - nanomonkey 8y ago
      Thanks, I'll see if I can find some. I'm currently also experimenting with duckweed growing in my backyard, although I find that it doesn't play well with the other aquatic animals and plants, as it appears to smother them out.
      - FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
        If you have problems with duckweed smothering, azolla will probably be worse. Duckweed has to pull nitrogen from the water, azolla harvests it directly from the air. It makes a good feedstock and fertilizer though.
greendesk 8y ago
To make a differenece in CO2 consumtion, a large area has to be planted. On a global scale, think Sahara-area size. At such scales, the limiting factor would be the nutrient availibility in soil. So, such GMO might play a role; albeit not as the main factor.
- greendesk 8y ago
  To add: the change might play a role jn smaller emissions from normal agriculture.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  This is correct, but it's also accurate to say that land-management will need to play a role in mitigating climate change (to the extent that's still possible): https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/08/29/improving-soil-quality-can-slow-global-warming/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/08/29/improving-soil-quality-...
pdm55 8y ago
More efficient might mean less CO2 consumed to simply produce an identical plant. Would have to trial it. Assume this genetic manipulation might even stunt growth in some species. Again would need trials. I cannot find the particular article I was looking for regarding withered leaves that plagued a long-term (10+ years) genetic manipulation project in sugar cane, but here is a list of problems I found: http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/browse_titles.htm http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/browse_titles.htm From my observation of friends who were doing genetic manipulation of plants, it is not easy.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  From the article: > And they created super tobacco plants. "They grew faster, and they grew up to 40 percent bigger" than normal tobacco plants, Cavanagh says. These measurements were done both in greenhouses and open-air field plots. The mass of the plant is proportional to the number of Carbons in it, and the Carbons come from CO2, so a 40% of mass increase means something like a 40% increase of CO2 sequestration. [The Carbon content of the plant varies form plant to plant and in each part of the plant, and due to other reasons. The plants are made of Carbon, Hidrogen, Oxigen, and some minor but important atoms like Nitrogen, Phosphorus, ... The backbone of the molecules are made of Carbon, with some Oxygen and Hydrogen on the sides and some Nitrogen sparked here and there. So the proportion of Carbon is in a narrow range. The main exception is water, but the plant doesn't want to be too dry or too diluted internally, so also this is a narrow band.]
  - pdm55 8y ago
    Yes, impressive results, but do we really want more tobacco plants? I think the appropriate test will be if the results are transferable to other species. And which ones would make the most sense? Algae, lettuce, spinach, weeds? Weeds make some sort of sense because they are already so resilient, often being the best-adapted plants in a particular environment. But do we want weeds that grow even larger and faster? Scientific research comes with a responsibility to try and anticipate and avoid any unwanted consequences. For instance: Where are the insects? Scientists are trying to figure out what has caused the recent dramatic (80%) decline in insect numbers. One possible culprit may be a newer class of insecticide: "Of particular concern are neonicotinoids, neurotoxins that were thought to affect only treated crops but turned out to accumulate in the landscape and to be consumed by all kinds of nontargeted bugs." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalypse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalyps... Oops, the danger of unintended consequences.
gall 8y ago
Yes, have a look at the work of Erb, Schwander, and others at the Max Planck institute on the CETCH cycle, for example. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/900.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/900.full https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a23938/fix-carbon-dioxide-useful-products/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a23938/fix-c...
thinkcontext 8y ago
A field crop planted annually that grows faster or bigger isn't likely to make much of a difference to atmospheric CO2 as it will just release it again after harvest. Perennial plants (those that don't need to be planted each year) are better at sequestering CO2 in the soil, along with other benefits. The Land Institute does work on this, including developing (through traditional plant breeding) a perennial wheat variety which is being trialed [0]. There are other agricultural practices that promote CO2 sequestration in the soil. You might have a look at Project Drawdown, it ranks solutions to climate change based on impact and has a section on food [1] which includes agricultural solutions. For example, Silvopasture [1], ranked #9 overall amongst all solutions, involves integrating trees with livestock pasture. Another one is conservation agriculture (#16) which uses annual crops but promotes soil health in selection of species and method and timing of planting [3]. [0] https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/ https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/ [1] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food [2] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/silvopasture https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/silvopasture [3] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/conservation-agriculture https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/conservation-agricul...
- mrfusion 8y ago
  Why can’t you take all the leftover biomass after a harvest and sequester it? Then it wouldn’t “simply relaase it”. I’d image we only take a small part of the mass for food.
  - Maximus9000 8y ago
    for which crop? most of the leftover biomass is used in typical crops. For corn, the stalks are used as silage. For wheat, the stalks are used to make straw.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      > For corn, the stalks are used as silage. How common is this? In my area, the combines chew up the stalks and spit them out as chaff. I don't see many people collecting the chaff.
mabbo 8y ago
The individual plants are probably not enough. To really soak up some carbon at a noticeable level, you need to take a large amount of crop fields and have them go fallow, becoming forests. This has been successfully demonstrated once before by G. Khan et al[0]. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jan/26/genghis-khan-eco-warrior https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jan/26/genghis-...
systematical 8y ago
I thought I had as well. But then you're talking about reengineering whole forests.

by dreen 8y ago

akanet 8y ago

I mean, in the sense that any plant that grows consumes carbon dioxide as long as we don't turn around and burn it, yes. Biohacking any particular species to express a particular trait isn't exactly solved yet, though.

CapitalistCartr 8y ago

I've long wondered if we could do to blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) what we've done to Penicillium fungi, mutating like crazy, to optimize for CO2 absorbtion, then bury the mass.

Angostura 8y ago
> bury the mass Or burn it - at least it would be a sustainable energy source.
- PakG1 8y ago
  Create a carbon cycle similar to the water cycle then?
  - schiffern 8y ago
    Already exists. We've now identified many biogeochemical cycles. An incomplete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate-silicate_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate-silicate_cycle
- gdpgreg 8y ago
  Easier to just burry it, treating it for use in combustion systems wouldn't be worth it given the energy density is low. Better off using Sabatier process with excess solar at that point.
nanomonkey 8y ago
You can also feed it to people and livestock. I've been growing Spirulina, a cyanobacteria, in aquarium tanks in my window for eating purposes. It's quite high in protein, antioxidants and beneficial oils. When I get the time, I'll likely also try making some biodiesel and/or gasifying some of it to see how feasible it is as a fuel source.
- indymike 8y ago
  Here's the question: how does it taste?
  - nanomonkey 8y ago
    Fresh, it's pretty tasteless, and quite easy to incorporate raw into other foods such as a smoothy, soup, pesto, or a spread in sandwiches.
- FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
  You should also look at Azolla. It grows crazy fast and is also high protein and fixes both carbon and nitrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla
  - nanomonkey 8y ago
    Thanks, I'll see if I can find some. I'm currently also experimenting with duckweed growing in my backyard, although I find that it doesn't play well with the other aquatic animals and plants, as it appears to smother them out.
    - FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
      If you have problems with duckweed smothering, azolla will probably be worse. Duckweed has to pull nitrogen from the water, azolla harvests it directly from the air. It makes a good feedstock and fertilizer though.

greendesk 8y ago

To make a differenece in CO2 consumtion, a large area has to be planted. On a global scale, think Sahara-area size. At such scales, the limiting factor would be the nutrient availibility in soil. So, such GMO might play a role; albeit not as the main factor.

greendesk 8y ago
To add: the change might play a role jn smaller emissions from normal agriculture.
ForHackernews 8y ago
This is correct, but it's also accurate to say that land-management will need to play a role in mitigating climate change (to the extent that's still possible): https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/08/29/improving-soil-quality-can-slow-global-warming/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/08/29/improving-soil-quality-...

pdm55 8y ago

More efficient might mean less CO2 consumed to simply produce an identical plant. Would have to trial it. Assume this genetic manipulation might even stunt growth in some species. Again would need trials. I cannot find the particular article I was looking for regarding withered leaves that plagued a long-term (10+ years) genetic manipulation project in sugar cane, but here is a list of problems I found: http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/browse_titles.htm http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/browse_titles.htm From my observation of friends who were doing genetic manipulation of plants, it is not easy.

gus_massa 8y ago
From the article: > And they created super tobacco plants. "They grew faster, and they grew up to 40 percent bigger" than normal tobacco plants, Cavanagh says. These measurements were done both in greenhouses and open-air field plots. The mass of the plant is proportional to the number of Carbons in it, and the Carbons come from CO2, so a 40% of mass increase means something like a 40% increase of CO2 sequestration. [The Carbon content of the plant varies form plant to plant and in each part of the plant, and due to other reasons. The plants are made of Carbon, Hidrogen, Oxigen, and some minor but important atoms like Nitrogen, Phosphorus, ... The backbone of the molecules are made of Carbon, with some Oxygen and Hydrogen on the sides and some Nitrogen sparked here and there. So the proportion of Carbon is in a narrow range. The main exception is water, but the plant doesn't want to be too dry or too diluted internally, so also this is a narrow band.]
- pdm55 8y ago
  Yes, impressive results, but do we really want more tobacco plants? I think the appropriate test will be if the results are transferable to other species. And which ones would make the most sense? Algae, lettuce, spinach, weeds? Weeds make some sort of sense because they are already so resilient, often being the best-adapted plants in a particular environment. But do we want weeds that grow even larger and faster? Scientific research comes with a responsibility to try and anticipate and avoid any unwanted consequences. For instance: Where are the insects? Scientists are trying to figure out what has caused the recent dramatic (80%) decline in insect numbers. One possible culprit may be a newer class of insecticide: "Of particular concern are neonicotinoids, neurotoxins that were thought to affect only treated crops but turned out to accumulate in the landscape and to be consumed by all kinds of nontargeted bugs." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalypse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalyps... Oops, the danger of unintended consequences.

gall 8y ago

Yes, have a look at the work of Erb, Schwander, and others at the Max Planck institute on the CETCH cycle, for example. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/900.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/900.full https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a23938/fix-carbon-dioxide-useful-products/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a23938/fix-c...

thinkcontext 8y ago

A field crop planted annually that grows faster or bigger isn't likely to make much of a difference to atmospheric CO2 as it will just release it again after harvest. Perennial plants (those that don't need to be planted each year) are better at sequestering CO2 in the soil, along with other benefits. The Land Institute does work on this, including developing (through traditional plant breeding) a perennial wheat variety which is being trialed [0]. There are other agricultural practices that promote CO2 sequestration in the soil. You might have a look at Project Drawdown, it ranks solutions to climate change based on impact and has a section on food [1] which includes agricultural solutions. For example, Silvopasture [1], ranked #9 overall amongst all solutions, involves integrating trees with livestock pasture. Another one is conservation agriculture (#16) which uses annual crops but promotes soil health in selection of species and method and timing of planting [3]. [0] https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/ https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/ [1] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food [2] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/silvopasture https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/silvopasture [3] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/conservation-agriculture https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/conservation-agricul...

mrfusion 8y ago
Why can’t you take all the leftover biomass after a harvest and sequester it? Then it wouldn’t “simply relaase it”. I’d image we only take a small part of the mass for food.
- Maximus9000 8y ago
  for which crop? most of the leftover biomass is used in typical crops. For corn, the stalks are used as silage. For wheat, the stalks are used to make straw.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    > For corn, the stalks are used as silage. How common is this? In my area, the combines chew up the stalks and spit them out as chaff. I don't see many people collecting the chaff.

mabbo 8y ago

The individual plants are probably not enough. To really soak up some carbon at a noticeable level, you need to take a large amount of crop fields and have them go fallow, becoming forests. This has been successfully demonstrated once before by G. Khan et al[0]. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jan/26/genghis-khan-eco-warrior https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jan/26/genghis-...

systematical 8y ago

I thought I had as well. But then you're talking about reengineering whole forests.