8 ms·

Questions I ask upon seeing these results: How much more fertilizer and water input is needed to realize these results? As these two resources become scarce, w

Questions I ask upon seeing these results: How much more fertilizer and water input is needed to realize these results? As these two resources become scarce, we should start thinking about yield per unit input rather than simply yield per acre. Is this new crop safe for humans and animals to eat? How do we know?

adrian_b 4y ago
From the description, proportionally more fertilizer (and water) is required, because one of the effects of the genetic change is an increased rate of extraction for the nitrogen compounds from the soil. The increased rate of nitrogen extraction, together with the higher rates of photosynthesis (which needs water to provide the hydrogen for reducing carbon dioxide, nitrates and sulfates) and of carbon dioxide reduction lead to a higher productivity. Unlike for some of the other genetically-modified crops, from the description there does not seem to be any reason to worry about eating such a rice, as the genetic modification does not seem to have any qualitative effects, but only quantitative effects, resulting in higher rates for the same chemical processes as in non-modified rice, obtained by multiplying the reaction sites.
- 32163704 4y ago
- owl57 4y ago
  I'm no biologist or chemist, but generally plant growth is a huge chain of chemical processes, and if you make some subset of these faster, can it lead, for example, to accumulation of byproducts that are normally used up nearly completely? Or to unexpected regulation of some other reactions, including possibly expressing something bad that's usually only made in the cells we don't eat, up to the anti-herbivore toxins?
  - adrian_b 4y ago
    Such things cannot be completely excluded, but they should also be easy to detect. I assume that for any such new cultivar many detailed chemical analyses will be done before deciding that all went well. Such side effects can also happen when using more traditional methods, i.e. selection of improved cultivars from plants that have suffered spontaneous random mutations or random mutations caused by mutagenic agents. On the other hand, when you insert a foreign gene in the plant genome, e.g. with the purpose of making it pest-resistant, the results are far more unpredictable then in cases like this, where an already existing gene has been duplicated, in order to increase its activity.
bilsbie 4y ago
Worth asking but our time and land are still very important inputs that probably need to be the top considerations. And sunlight is one of the biggest inputs which is free and constant.
bilsbie 4y ago
The safety thing is a weird question. Why is eating one pattern of DNA more dangerous than another? (Assuming you didn’t modify it to produce novel proteins, etc)
- xwdv 4y ago
  It isn’t. And that’s why people who argue that GMO food is bad for you just don’t get it. It’s not the food that’s bad, it’s the business practices. The GMO food itself is perfectly fine to eat. In fact, humans have been genetically modifying food for centuries, we’ve just gotten much faster at it.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Why are the business practices bad? Details, please.
    - yetanother-1 4y ago
      Many explinations are available on the web, but it comes down to the dependence on these seeds and thus on the producer of them.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        How is that different from use of hybrid seeds, which have been available since forever and don't breed true? The solution to dependence is to have multiple suppliers. One can always use an older variety of seed. If the complaint is that the benefits are going to the company that made the seeds rather than the farmer, then how is that different from any other patented technology? The farmer is never going to be worse off, since he can always just use older varieties if the cost > his benefit. Perhaps your actual argument is that this will reduce food prices, driving out producers who don't keep up with the latest advances. But again, how is that different from any other improvement in agricultural technology? Is this just more European objection to the steamroller of US industrial agriculture?
    - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
alexfromapex 4y ago
Or do these GMOs yield the around the same amount of nutrients which is the main desired output
- gruez 4y ago
  Rice is pretty poor in micronutrients to begin with, so you're not missing out on much even if it was 50% lower.
  - adrian_b 4y ago
    That's right. As food, rice is mainly an excellent and easy to transport and store source of energy, with up to 80% of its weight being starch, more than in most other cereals. All the other nutrients are present in a quantity so small that their contribution is negligible. Rice can cover all of the energy needs of a human, but it must be accompanied by other food for enough proteins, vitamins and minerals.

adrian_b 4y ago

From the description, proportionally more fertilizer (and water) is required, because one of the effects of the genetic change is an increased rate of extraction for the nitrogen compounds from the soil. The increased rate of nitrogen extraction, together with the higher rates of photosynthesis (which needs water to provide the hydrogen for reducing carbon dioxide, nitrates and sulfates) and of carbon dioxide reduction lead to a higher productivity. Unlike for some of the other genetically-modified crops, from the description there does not seem to be any reason to worry about eating such a rice, as the genetic modification does not seem to have any qualitative effects, but only quantitative effects, resulting in higher rates for the same chemical processes as in non-modified rice, obtained by multiplying the reaction sites.

32163704 4y ago
owl57 4y ago
I'm no biologist or chemist, but generally plant growth is a huge chain of chemical processes, and if you make some subset of these faster, can it lead, for example, to accumulation of byproducts that are normally used up nearly completely? Or to unexpected regulation of some other reactions, including possibly expressing something bad that's usually only made in the cells we don't eat, up to the anti-herbivore toxins?
- adrian_b 4y ago
  Such things cannot be completely excluded, but they should also be easy to detect. I assume that for any such new cultivar many detailed chemical analyses will be done before deciding that all went well. Such side effects can also happen when using more traditional methods, i.e. selection of improved cultivars from plants that have suffered spontaneous random mutations or random mutations caused by mutagenic agents. On the other hand, when you insert a foreign gene in the plant genome, e.g. with the purpose of making it pest-resistant, the results are far more unpredictable then in cases like this, where an already existing gene has been duplicated, in order to increase its activity.

bilsbie 4y ago

Worth asking but our time and land are still very important inputs that probably need to be the top considerations. And sunlight is one of the biggest inputs which is free and constant.

bilsbie 4y ago

The safety thing is a weird question. Why is eating one pattern of DNA more dangerous than another? (Assuming you didn’t modify it to produce novel proteins, etc)

xwdv 4y ago
It isn’t. And that’s why people who argue that GMO food is bad for you just don’t get it. It’s not the food that’s bad, it’s the business practices. The GMO food itself is perfectly fine to eat. In fact, humans have been genetically modifying food for centuries, we’ve just gotten much faster at it.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Why are the business practices bad? Details, please.
  - yetanother-1 4y ago
    Many explinations are available on the web, but it comes down to the dependence on these seeds and thus on the producer of them.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      How is that different from use of hybrid seeds, which have been available since forever and don't breed true? The solution to dependence is to have multiple suppliers. One can always use an older variety of seed. If the complaint is that the benefits are going to the company that made the seeds rather than the farmer, then how is that different from any other patented technology? The farmer is never going to be worse off, since he can always just use older varieties if the cost > his benefit. Perhaps your actual argument is that this will reduce food prices, driving out producers who don't keep up with the latest advances. But again, how is that different from any other improvement in agricultural technology? Is this just more European objection to the steamroller of US industrial agriculture?
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

alexfromapex 4y ago

Or do these GMOs yield the around the same amount of nutrients which is the main desired output

gruez 4y ago
Rice is pretty poor in micronutrients to begin with, so you're not missing out on much even if it was 50% lower.
- adrian_b 4y ago
  That's right. As food, rice is mainly an excellent and easy to transport and store source of energy, with up to 80% of its weight being starch, more than in most other cereals. All the other nutrients are present in a quantity so small that their contribution is negligible. Rice can cover all of the energy needs of a human, but it must be accompanied by other food for enough proteins, vitamins and minerals.