3 ms·

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 grow

by 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.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    The article mentions this. The technology was proven on tobacco, only because it is a "model organism" for plants. Researchers are attempting to replicate the results in cowpea, as it is a staple food crop in sub-saharan Africa. This tech is explicitly being developed for increased crop yields. The results will be transferable to nearly all plant life, as the photosynthesis proteins are the most common proteins in the known universe. We are refactoring code that is billions of years old, full of evolutionary cruft, to remove the technical debt.
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  > a 40% of mass increase means something like a 40% increase of CO2 sequestration The carbon in annual plants is not considered "sequestered". Most of it will be released after harvest, either when the end product is consumed or the non-product organic waste degrades. Agricultural sequestration is usually talked about in terms of getting carbon into the soil and leaving it there. This tends to be done through promoting soil health, composting, selecting plants with deep root systems, perennials over annuals, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Agricultu...
  - gus_massa 8y ago
    I agree, but I think that indirectly there is an increase. From the same article in Wikipedia: > The decreasing of SOC content can be counteracted by increasing the carbon input, this can be done with several strategies, e.g. leave harvest residues on the field [...]

by pdm55 8y ago

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.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  The article mentions this. The technology was proven on tobacco, only because it is a "model organism" for plants. Researchers are attempting to replicate the results in cowpea, as it is a staple food crop in sub-saharan Africa. This tech is explicitly being developed for increased crop yields. The results will be transferable to nearly all plant life, as the photosynthesis proteins are the most common proteins in the known universe. We are refactoring code that is billions of years old, full of evolutionary cruft, to remove the technical debt.
thinkcontext 8y ago
> a 40% of mass increase means something like a 40% increase of CO2 sequestration The carbon in annual plants is not considered "sequestered". Most of it will be released after harvest, either when the end product is consumed or the non-product organic waste degrades. Agricultural sequestration is usually talked about in terms of getting carbon into the soil and leaving it there. This tends to be done through promoting soil health, composting, selecting plants with deep root systems, perennials over annuals, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Agricultu...
- gus_massa 8y ago
  I agree, but I think that indirectly there is an increase. From the same article in Wikipedia: > The decreasing of SOC content can be counteracted by increasing the carbon input, this can be done with several strategies, e.g. leave harvest residues on the field [...]