It was good to read this weekend in the Land Institute's The Land Report that they're now working hard to develop perennial rice varieties (in addition to their well-known perennial prairie polyculture experiment, which could transform large parts of the American plains back into a wildscape that produces lots of food).
Because agriculture is technically the world's largest ecosystem, moving it toward a perennially-cropped system will have major impacts on soil health/soil building, biodiversity, energy use, and possibly carbon sequestration.
Rice is the second most important cereal crop in the world; developing a variety that does not require annual plowing, planting, flooding, etc. would increase food security thoughout Latin America and Asia. Researchers working with the Land Institute in Yunnan Province in southern China are now isolating and developing a variety that forms rhizomes, from which a rice plant could perennially sprout. Hopeful news.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Comments
View as Flat
sindark Posted 12:31 am
01 Dec 2008
One significant example has to do with photosynthesis: the process whereby plants produce sugars from carbon dioxide and sunlight, generating oxygen as a by-product. Some plants use enzymes to turn CO2 into sugars composed of three carbon atoms (these are called C3 plants) while others have an enzyme (PEP Carboxylase) that allows them to produce four carbon sugars (C4 plants). The latter variety are much better at turning solar energy into sugars at temperatures above 25 degrees Celsius. The evolution of the C4 process has apparently taken place more than fifty times, in nineteen families of plant. Helping a few more important plants make the transition seems like it could be very beneficial.
C4 plants can be up to 50% more efficient than C3 ones in hot climates, while also using less water and nitrogen. Maize, a C4 plant, can yield a harvest of 12 tonnes per acre, while rice, a C3 plant, does no better than eight. If we could genetically modify rice to be a G4 plant, we could simultaneously increase crop yields, reduce the water and fertilizer needs of farmers in hot areas, and produce crops that would be less vulnerable to global warming. While there could certainly be some nasty unintended consequence of doing so, that does not seem like sufficient cause not to try.
The idea that the foods we eat now are `natural' is not one that meshes very well with the fact that they have been ceaselessly modified, over thousands of years, through selective breeding. While there may be special dangers involved in mixing genes in the lab rather than out in the fields, there are also special opportunities, like the one listed above. It will be interesting to see if someone manages to pull it off.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:06 am
01 Dec 2008
Those of us who engage in organic gardening were concerned by the introduction of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into plants. Bt is our major weapon against chewers. And we don't have many organic weapons. Put it in plants on a routine basis and run the risk of evolving a new chewer that is resistant.
Then the seeds with the death gene. No more seed saving. We now become hostage to the big seed companies.
Then herbicide resistant crops. That means that farmers can bomb their field with more and more herbicides which will not only foul their soil but also wash off into our waterways.
Things like this left very bad taste for GM crops in the mouths of many.
Permalink
sindark Posted 2:56 am
01 Dec 2008
These are good and very understandable points.
I think the private sector has done a poor job of focusing GM efforts. It would be a lot better if the research was government supported. That way, it would be more aligned with the general interest and less with the profit interests of aspiring monopolists.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:25 am
01 Dec 2008
We should have a world-wide One Child policy and not allow people to have that one child until they are at least 30 years old. Then we can work on some new rice...
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:25 am
01 Dec 2008
We've allowed corporations to become major funders of research, even at the university level.
In doing so we reorient our research toward quick return - exactly where corporate research should be directed.
Corporations have the goal of making money. We shouldn't expect them to fund things that serve "the greater good" if those projects don't bring timely returns to them.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 6:01 am
01 Dec 2008
No, it wouldn't be like a Green Revolution. Perennial plants would need a fraction of the chemicals that Borlaug's scions do, if any. So long as people will continue eating/farming rice, seems like a good idea to develop, thru careful selection and not genetic engineering, perennial varieties.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink