World changing Technology Enables Crops to Take Nitrogen from the Air

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Who cares about atmospheric nitrogen production, my friend just grew 6 medical marijuana plants and created FREE CO2 by making wine in the greenhouse. If you combine champagne yeast (from any beer wine making shop) and a gallon of 100% pure grape or apple juice from Costco or the Supermarket, after its done fermenting in two weeks, not only did you just give your plants a go and dose of CO2, but you just made a # load of free 15% alcohol wine, which is very tasty and better than 2 buck-chuck.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is usually the N-P-K ratio you'll find with gardening, the K being potassium for those who aren't familiar.

So this Tech covers the N portion, of N-P-K.....now is there also a way to add P and K to be taken out of the Air or would you then have to plant p&K producing plants next to the Nitrogen Air Intake crops?

I'm just not too familiar with the P&K portion of the formula, as I'm just starting out with some light hobby farming ....a few fruits and berry bushes on my patio in pots, but moving on up to 20-30 acres of slow systematic farm development by next year..

....will be a big leap...must read up on many things

We've depleted the soil, so what do we do? Start depleting the air too, consuming one vital resource after another. Another step towards the complete cannibalization of the planet. Yay science.

Originally posted by NthOther
We've depleted the soil, so what do we do? Start depleting the air too, consuming one vital resource after another. Another step towards the complete cannibalization of the planet. Yay science.

Nitrogen is created by many things. It's not like we will run out.

This could be great, I do keep an open mind to this sort of thing, since they claim it is not "genetic modification" or "bioengineering."

However, in this paragraph below I am confused:

N-Fix is neither genetic modification nor bio-engineering. It is a naturally occurring nitrogen fixing bacteria which takes up and uses nitrogen from the air. Applied to the cells of plants (intra-cellular) via the seed, it provides every cell in the plant with the ability to fix nitrogen. Plant seeds are coated with these bacteria in order to create a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship and naturally produce nitrogen. Read more at: phys.org...

So how is this nitrogen fixing bacteria applied "Intracellular", in other words inside the cell?

If the bacteria were applied "Extracellular", then that would be outside the cell.

Are they modifying the seed outside or inside?

reply to post by Philippines


As far as I can tell it's a seed coating. The bacteria is contained in the coating and when the seed sprouts the bacteria can then penetrate the newly revealed sprout and makes its existence even more efficient.

This is exciting stuff.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by Philippines

 

As far as I can tell it's a seed coating. The bacteria is contained in the coating and when the seed sprouts the bacteria can then penetrate the newly revealed sprout and makes its existence even more efficient.

This is exciting stuff.

This is what I am thinking too, but the use of the term intracellular really confuses me if it is applied externally, and then after germination it becomes intracellular.

The external application would be extracellular in my opinion. I would love to know more on exactly how this works, but for now I'll chalk this up to incorrect reporting by people who also don't understand the technicalities.. Not that I do

Just out of curiosity, it is surprising that people are floored about this. Nature has a fine balance, we have already disrupted that to such an alarming degree, seems to me this is a potentially dangerous technology, and perhaps Catastrophic if proliferated. You could literally engineer plants to wreak havoc on the atmospheric chemistry of the entire planet depleting the somewhat harmonious and sustainable balance nature is imbued with . Genetic engineering is moving too fast and unfortunately I am worried about large Corporations/Military Industrial Complex/Psychopathic Elites abusing this like they do everything else. Yikes.

Oh great, new ways of destroying our food supply.

What is wrong with natural fertilizers. We have used them for millenia without problems, totally natural. Why do scientists always try to create some stupid chemical or genetic solution when we have a simple way already which does not entail changing the way the plants work by nature.

If we collected all green waste (many communities here (Italy) already do) and use that for fertilizing........keep our food natural. Nature knows best not us.

No better than Monsanto.

Of course, if we never started putting chemicals on our crops in the first place we would not have this problem....so we create a solution that isn't much different to the 'solutions' that created the problems in the first place.

The only way to GUARANTEE safe healthy crops, is to stop all this bullsh** and get back to natural farming. Cheaper and better yields every time. (Im a farmer so I know from experience).

WHat effects does this bacteria have on humans when consumed. Dont like the idea of every cell in our food having this added. What long term testing has or will be done???

If GM is anything to go by, no long term tests will be done.

This is a very sad situation.

GROW YOUR OWN.........NATURALLY. As soon as you put chemicals on your land......you will lose yeilds and quality unless you use more and more chemicals. Thats why the farmers saturate our foods with this stuff, their land is not fit for growing anymore.

The easiest solution cannot make anyone any money so they come up with these stupid unnatural solutions.

Kudzu for every one!

Nature has created intracellular bacterial infection before. At least that is one current theory.
That the mitochondria, and also chloroplasts in plants, were once free living bacteria.

endosymbiosis

Instead of people and supermarkets throwing away food, we need to get it back to the farmers to use as fretiliser. Its called recycling!!

It will get the nutrients back into the soil and our food. Chemicals destroy land after just 3 years of use.

Crop surplus usually sits in giant warehouses until its bad then just binned!!! This is what we should be composting down for our crops but business will not do this as they will not make any cash.

Originally posted by greavsie1971
Instead of people and supermarkets throwing away food, we need to get it back to the farmers to use as fretiliser. Its called recycling!!

It will get the nutrients back into the soil and our food. Chemicals destroy land after just 3 years of use.

Crop surplus usually sits in giant warehouses until its bad then just binned!!! This is what we should be composting down for our crops but business will not do this as they will not make any cash.

Exactly! Our species is addicted to scientific and technological solutions to the problems our over consumption causes, when the solutions have always been staring us in the face. There is no such thing as waste, only our inability to understand symbiotic relationships.

I understand nature has done this type of thing before with certain plants, that does not make this right for every plant we eat. Since life started on this planet,nature has genetically evolved, does that mean when we genetically manipulate food it must be ok? Of course not.

After millions of years of plants evolving, we come along and say ' we can do better'.

There is a perfectly natural way of solving our farming problems. This is just another way of creating a 'product' for profit.

The links are biased. We need to see some independent testing first before this is made available.

reply to post by greavsie1971

I understand nature has done this type of thing before with certain plants, that does not make this right for every plant we eat.

We have done this with virtually every plant we eat. Corn is completely "unnatural". So much so that it cannot exist without our help.

reply to post by Phage


Yeah, and look how bad corn is for us.

reply to post by Phage


We havent manipulated every cell in our foods untill recently.

Traditional farming was about good pruning, splicing, adding good nutrients. This created better foods. We have also cross pollinated foods to create the modern veg we see today. These are natural processes as nature cross pollinated all the time.

These new methods (genetically inserting pesticides into foods, altering foods at a cellular level) have not been done by humanity until recently. The problems they aim to solve just seem to get worse. We have a natural non-profit solution.

reply to post by greavsie1971

Yeah, and look how bad corn is for us.

Yeah. Stupid Maya.

Some people see this as a "world changing" and "wonderful" thing, and sure, this technology could be very beneficial, especially to ween the world off of fertilizers. But there are also some very real dangers we should be concerned about. This is not a grand solution, rather a mere temporary patch to quickly fill in our previous mistakes. There is a reason why some plants/trees are nitrogen fixers and some are not. They co-exist together in a symbiotic relationship, plants such as legumes fix the nitrogen in the soil while other plants use this nitrogen to do other things. It is a balance, one that we as humans have disrupted with mono-cropping and deforestation.

Regardless of what new scientific or technological advancements we make, we must at some point learn how to co-exist with the natural processes of this planet. Scientific and technological advancements aren't needed for us to do this, and unfortunately, they historically seem geared towards merely increasing our consumptive and exploitative powers. It is a double-edged sword. On one hand it is great and will help humans in the immediacy, but on the other hand it is bound to bite us and our planet in the ass. There are many more fundamental issues we must face, things that surely blur the lines between what is good for us now but damaging for us in the long run, and what might be detrimental to us in the short term but much better for us in the long run.

I, for one, am not super excited by this new finding... as you can see.

reply to post by Phage


Those pesky human sacrificing maya.