

We Learn to Grow Crops in Saltwater - baselineshift
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/we-learn-to-grow-crops-in-saltwater/
We will need to, to survive
======
ars
There is a much simpler solution: Globalization, and never buy anything local.

Only buy products grown in the environment best suited to them. Different
crops grow better in different parts of the world. Plant each crop in the
place best suited to it.

The are plenty of areas that get far more water than they can use.

Contrary to popular opinion this will not use more energy either.

Buy local is a very very bad idea from an ecological point of view.

~~~
dylanz
I disagree.

If I can grow avocado's locally, and it's not the "optimal" place for growth
but produces perfectly good avocado's... why wouldn't you?

If my area was a desert, and required an obscene amount of water to grow the
avocado tree... that is obviously a no-brainer... don't grow the avocado. I'd
grow date palm instead.

However, if I could return more water to the ground using water harvesting
techniques, and am able to passively water the avocado, I'd would definitely
do it.

The water issue is farmers tapping the aquifers for mass watering, and doing
nothing to help replenish what they've used. Aquifers take a looong time to
refill.

~~~
ars
If it's not "optimal" then you are wasting. Either water, or energy, but you
are wasting.

It could work - it might even be profitable (if you only waste a little), but
if your goal is minimizing resources, it's not the way to go.

In your example, grow the optimal plant, and still do the water techniques you
suggest.

(The optimal plant, is not just one plant, usually there are many options
available, which is good since you also don't want to grow to much if there is
no demand for it.)

~~~
dylanz
"If it's not "optimal" then you are wasting. Either water, or energy, but you
are wasting."

Not really. "Optimal" means "most desirable". There are a lot of places that
aren't the "most desirable" locations where you can plant an avocado tree and
the inputs are not at all comparable to the outputs.

I definitely agree that the optimal plant is not just one plant. Farmers in
India have been learning the hard way, for the past 10 years, that putting all
their eggs in one basket is not the best idea. They are slowly trending toward
profitable multi-crop output, where handfuls of other beneficial species are
in the mix.

For example, many nut crop farmers are now interplanting sweet potato as a
ground cover, which not only yields another crop, but also prevents surface
evaporation (which is crucial in low rainfall areas).

~~~
ars
By Optimal I don't mean most desirable, but rather whichever plant(s) grow(s)
best in that area.

By "one plant" I had a different meaning than what you wrote, but that's OK
because I agree with what you wrote.

I meant you are not limited to just one choice in a given area, usually you
have several choices.

If people choose "locally grown", then every area will need to plant a large
variety - it might be profitable, and people will pay for it. But
environmentally it's a bad idea. It's better for each area to specialize.

Say you can plant an avocado tree, and it grows OK. Instead plant some other
plant that grows really great. Sell that and buy avocado from someplace where
avocado grows really great.

You have now minimized the use of resources.

------
antipax
It's great research like this that makes me wonder why some people are against
genetically modified foods. I'm sure some modifications are bad, but how could
ones like these do anything but help people survive that otherwise wouldn't?

~~~
locopati
Monsanto is a company that would probably love to have seeds that only are
good for one generation and need to be purchased every planting season (they
already do have these for some of their innovations, but I bet they'd love to
have total control over the crop). Now, that's neither something that should
spread into the wild nor something one company should have control over
(closed-source, single-point-of-failure and all that).

~~~
humbledrone
What do they call that? Genetic Rights Management? GRM? I've gotta say that
the idea of GRM makes me more angry than DRM ever could...

~~~
patio11
Genetic Use Restriction Technology. (Called the "terminator gene" by
detractors.)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology)

------
dylanz
This is silly.

They were doing something similar in Nevada, where they brought in salt water,
and planted salt water species in for bio-fuel and fodder.

The thing is, the natures process turns organic matter into a salt binding
agent on decomposition. So, salt levels end up going down as organic matter
(like leaf fall, etc) is added. I've studied with this man before, and he's
extremely knowledgeable in this field. I've linked to this video, and I'll
link to it again: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk>

The technique in the article is riding the problem, not fixing it.

~~~
frossie
Is it silly? There is a problem already noted with rising ocean levels
increasing the salinity of fertile soil in many coastal nations. In fact I
remember reading a story about rising storm lines killing rice fields and the
search for more saline-resistant strains. So yes, doing this in order to turn
Nevada into arable land may not be the best idea, but there is merit to the
research.

~~~
dylanz
True, it is worth the research... however, what about spending that money on
establishing mangroves in the areas where the coastal nations are being
affected? The benefit from a small coastal mangrove buffer is amazing.

