
The Plan to Feed the World by Hacking Photosynthesis - Blahah
http://gizmodo.com/the-plan-to-feed-the-world-by-hacking-photosynthesis-1715525456
======
briantakita
“Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.”

― Albert Einstein

There are more natural ways to achieve the same results. Perennial
Polycultures use natural flora & fauna in a closed loop ecosystem. They also
have higher overall yields than monocultures.

These solutions are available to us right now. In fact there's a growing
movement of farmers who are utilizing & learning more about Perrenial
Polycultures.

Here is some literature:

[http://www.amazon.com/The-One-Straw-Revolution-
Introduction-...](http://www.amazon.com/The-One-Straw-Revolution-Introduction-
Classics/dp/1590173139)

[http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/about_book](http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/about_book)

[http://www.afforestt.com/index.html](http://www.afforestt.com/index.html)

Here are some farms that I'm familiar with (either I know the farmers or they
are well known):

[http://www.newforestfarm.net/](http://www.newforestfarm.net/)

[http://www.polyfacefarms.com/](http://www.polyfacefarms.com/)

[http://www.fieldswithoutfences.org/](http://www.fieldswithoutfences.org/)

[http://www.thevitalfarm.com/](http://www.thevitalfarm.com/)

------
Blahah
I'm working on one of these projects, trying to make C4 photosynthesis an
installable module.

Happy to answer questions.

~~~
murbard2
I was under the impression that nitrogen fixation was still the limiting
factor in plant growth. If that's the case, will improving photosynthesis
really improve yields?

~~~
afarrell
I'm a vast gaping maw of ignorance here, but I thought we had solved nitrogen
fixation with the fritz-Haber process at the cost of using fossil fuels. Am I
wrong, or are we just trying to keep farmers from having to buy ammonium
nitrate?

~~~
Blahah
Supplementing nitrogen comes with a whole host of environmental trade-offs. In
particular there are problems with pollution, where nitrogen added to fields
gets washed off in the rain and ends up in waterways. There it can totally
destabilise ecosystems by introducing a flood of nitrogen which is usually a
scarce resource, leading to massive population explosions of some kinds of
organisms, which in turn can leave huge buildups of toxic byproducts. This is
called eutrophication.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication)

------
legulere
Producing enough food is basically a solved problem, distribution and
hindering people to eat an everincreasing amount of meat is the problem

~~~
briantakita
Monoculture, petrol, chemical agriculture is often produced in a centralized
manner, which introduces inefficiencies (with environmental issues) in
transport, fertilization, pest control, etc. The current paradigm also
requires large amounts of capital to purchase machinery, mined fertilizer,
poisonous pesticides, GMOs where seeds can't be saved, etc. This cycle of
dependence has caused many small farms to be in financial crisis. Also, don't
forget that large scale factory farming is subsidized by the government.
Without these subsidizations, large scale factory farming is not viable.

Factory meat production follows the same pattern of monoculture, with
disgusting & unhealthy results.

The alternative is to decentralize food production. Small, organic,
polyculture farms reduce or eliminate the need to transport food over long
distances, import fertilizer, use pesticides. Decentralized food production
also enables the farmer to be independent of having to purchase expensive
inputs from large multinational corporations.

Small farms are more humane and, similar to startups, freer to innovate.

~~~
kiba
Large scale monoculture is a necessity to feed the world. What are you going
to do with a tiny farm that cannot benefit from the economy of scale and
agricultural tech?

~~~
briantakita
Large scale monoculture is not necessary. It's not one tiny farm, it's many
tiny farms owned by the people who live in that region.

Many of the problems that are "solved" with technology don't exist in natural
perennial polycultures. For example, pests. In a natural perennial
polyculture, you have an ecosystem that naturally manages the pests (via
predators). These organisms evolve with the pests.

Tiny farms grow more food per acre than large monoculture farms.

Agricultural tech creates problems of it's own & does not match the prowess of
nature. Natural processes grow the food, not technology. Technology can help,
however, it can also hinder, and it does in our current petrolchemical
centralized paradigm. Look at the pollution, soil degregation, erosion,
desertification, poverty, etc. Large scale monoculture ruined just about every
ecosystem that it has been used on. For example, the American Plains used to
have 10s of feet of rich topsoil built by natural processes over the years.
It's now eroded due to runoff & mismanagement propagated by large scale
monoculture.

I can provide many other examples & problems, but I'll keep this post short.

Large scale monoculture is a failed experiment & a blight on the planet. It's
also only viable because of government subsidization. Our monoculture paradigm
benefitted from, wasted, & toxified our natural inheritance in less than 100
years. So yes, monoculture is extremely efficient at creating a mess.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Large scale monoculture is a failed experiment"

That is simply not true. Crop yields continue to increase. By a lot.

[http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornYields_MO.jpg](http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornYields_MO.jpg)

We no longer need to have 90% of the population working as stoop-labor
agricultural peasants. Famine is essentially a thing of the past (it only
happens in areas where the government is severely fucked up for one reason or
another). Mechanized agriculture is the greatest success story in the history
of the human race.

If you really want to go back to the age of peasants and serfs, why don't you
lead by example? Start by producing all of your own food using intensive hand
cultivation. Then produce all of the food for 150 other people using intensive
hand cultivation.

~~~
briantakita
> Crop yields continue to increase

This is like judging someone's wealth by their ability to rapidly use a credit
card. Monoculture has destroyed our ecosystems, caused rampant
desertification, caused soil runoff, stip mined the less fortunate countries,
polluted our water, increased pests overpopulation, increased disease, etc.

> If you really want to go back to the age of peasants and serfs, why don't
> you lead by example?

Dualistic solution-centric thinking is an issue with our times. It's time to
think systemically. How can we improve existing systems? Which paradigms are
appropriate to our entire context? Can we move toward an ethics driven
paradigm, instead of a solution centric paradigm? There are many solutions to
a problem, but some have maladaptive implications in a broader context not
considered by myopic vision.

Can we start to view the world with a broader context; beyond money & a
certain strain of technological progress?

Can we move beyond reductionistic metrics & take the entire situation into
account?

Also, is it so bad to have more farmers? Many natural farmers don't seem to
think so. Is the hustle & bustle of city life with it's stress & unemployment
a good life?

Will the Pharmaceutical industry cure our Nature Deficit Disorder? What's left
when you worked hard all of your life & it's your time to die?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_deficit_disorder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_deficit_disorder)

While I don't own land (it's quite expensive in the current economic system),
I do support local farmers & participate in local economies to a certain
extend. I'd love to increase my participation because it's the responsible
thing to do.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That's a stretch. Iowa grows more every year; our soil is in the best shape
its ever been; erosion is at a low; water pollution is at a low. We can
certainly make it work.

~~~
briantakita
The best shape ever? Like before western civilization came when it was the
grand prairie?

Also, there are issues with runoff:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/us/conflict-over-soil-
and-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/us/conflict-over-soil-and-water-
quality-puts-iowa-nice-to-a-test.html)

There's also a concern about water management. Natural ecosystems tend to get
the most out of their water usage. I seem to recall that the midwest water
aquifers are a limited resource.

That aside, I can buy that soil is improving. I also agree that we can make it
work. I do applaud regenerative efforts in Iowa.

However, I'm looking at a global scale, where desertification, pollution,
runoff, lowering productivity, etc. are big problems. As an analogy, many
climate change deniers will claim that it's still winter in their local area,
but that perception is not fully representative of what is happening on a
global scale.

Re: the industrial paradigm on improving local soil systems; is importing
nutrition on a massive scale, robbing that nutrition from other ecosystems, a
responsible thing to do in a global context? I'm realistic in the sense that
some importation may be necessary, in fact nature moves nutrients via animals,
wind, etc. However, nature works in a cooperative & systemic way.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Our soil is about perfect for growing what we grow. Topsoil used to be the big
thing, before ammonia fertilizer. Now the best crops grow on clay hillsides.
Which we have plenty of, since Iowa used to be largely timber.

Confused about the 'importing nutrients' thing - ammonia fertilizer is fixed
from the air (since WWII); no more shipping bat guano around the country.

~~~
briantakita
I can't criticize your approach, since I'm not a farmer. I respect what you do
& the work that it takes to run a farm. I can only point out what I've seen &
what inspires me.

re: Amonia

> A typical modern ammonia-producing plant first converts natural gas (i.e.,
> methane) or LPG (liquefied petroleum gases such as propane and butane) or
> petroleum naphtha into gaseous hydrogen.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production)

This requires the importation or local extraction of fossil fuels. Given that
the United States is now utilizing fracking to extract natural gas, this
causes pollution within the aquifers as well as reducing the integrity of the
surface strata.

A natural approach of fertilization is animal poop from grazing & polycultures
(nitrogen fixing perennial plants, like Black Locust), similar to how the
ancient prairies were fertilized.

Mark Shepard, who's farm is in Wisconsin, has a large scale example of
"Restoration Agriculture". He has a silvopasture that feeds his livestock. The
livestock fertilize the fields. He also grows nuts. He also saves money by not
having to buy fertilizer or pesticides. He also uses keyline design, swales, &
ponds to efficiently use water & reduce runoff.

[http://www.newforestfarm.net/](http://www.newforestfarm.net/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb_t-
sVVzF0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb_t-sVVzF0)

Here's a great talk by Gabe Brown from Idaho using natural, regenerative
methods to rebuild soil.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk&feature=youtu.be)

My friends at
[http://www.fieldswithoutfences.org/](http://www.fieldswithoutfences.org/) in
New Jersey have a lush polyculture medicinal herb & food farm that started
from rocky spent earth. There was no top soil when they started a few years
ago. You can see how it looks right now.

[http://www.fieldswithoutfences.org/permaculture/](http://www.fieldswithoutfences.org/permaculture/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Natural fertilizer is a pile of manure. There's no chance the supply will come
close to serving the demand. Also, its already being used (you have to do
something with it) and its only mildly useful. Unless you have some political
point to make, its always supplemented (read: almost totally surpassed) by
ammonia and other carefully calculated amendments. Vs whatever randomly came
out of a cows back end.

~~~
briantakita
Natural fertilizer is how our ecosystems were made to be so productive. Your
land in Iowa is incredibly productive from a legacy of natural fertilization.

There are a growing number of examples of farmers using natural methods in the
modern context. There is some supplementation, especially in the beginning to
re-mediate lands that have been damaged by conventional agriculture; however
nature has a way of making things work.

Natural polyculture systems produce more food than monocultures for a number
of reasons, such as utilizing multiple layers, creating a functioning
ecological systems, more efficient water usage, etc. This is done despite the
lack of research that goes into creating natural food systems. Imagine how
much better it will be when it's fully adopted.

Re demand: Much of our demand is artificial, narrow, globally structured,
driven by subsidies, marketing, & supply. Corn based ethanol uses more energy
than it creates. The only reason for corn based ethanol is to subsidize
certain farmers. Our level of factory meat production is also destructive to
the environment, resource intensive, & unhealthy. America pushes junk food
creating an unhealthy, morbidly obese population.

I'm just pointing out how ecological & biological systems work, the
consequences of the status quo, & how things can be improved.

I stand to be a good steward of our planet by considering the global systemic
implications of our systems. That is the ethical thing to do. It's easy to
hide behind rationalizations to shirk responsibility to explore viable options
that have been proven to work.

If you see that as political, then you also being political.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
This is an urban legend. Iowa is so incredibly productive because it get sun
and rain in a good predictable quantity, and we apply man-made fertilizer to
largely level fields in controlled quantities. The rest is wishful thinking.
Topsoil became irrelevant to farming decades ago.

Returning to a Pollyanna view of a perfect agrarian society of cows
fertilizing humble fields of vegetables, would result in widespread shortages.

Corn based ethanol no longer uses more energy than it creates; that threshold
was reached years ago. Some more reading is in order, I suggest.

Just pointing out how agriculture economic systems work, and its absolutely
nothing like described above.

~~~
briantakita
> This is an urban legend.

It's an urban legend that Iowa has a legacy of good soil built up from
generations of natural processes? I'm skeptical of your assessment. Can you
dive more into it?

The ecologists I talked to seem to think that soil is very important to the
health of the ecosystem & to grow healthy food.

> The rest is wishful thinking.

That is what I call an urban legend. It's certainly a made up story.

> Topsoil became irrelevant to farming decades ago.

Your perspective on topsoil is interesting, considering how nutrition in our
food is on a downward trend. Also interesting how we are having drought,
desertification, loss of habitat, pollution, etc. Most ecologists will
disagree with your assessment that Topsoil is "irrelevant".

> Returning to a Pollyanna view of a perfect agrarian society of cows
> fertilizing humble fields of vegetables, would result in widespread
> shortages.

That's a myth & a failure of imagination; especially when you consider the
pattern of decentralizing (localizing) agricultural production around the
world. The UN endorses organic & distributed farming as the most viable
options to feed the world. They can go even further & take a restorative
approach to also heal the natural ecosystems that we are destroying.

There are studies that show that perennial polyculture systems grow more
calories than monoculture systems. Third world countries are beginning to take
the lead in growing their own food using many small scale, distributed,
perennial polycultures ecosystems, with animals.

You can't write it off just like that. There's too much evidence that it will
work...

The alternative is the status quo, destroying our ecosystems, polluting our
water, decreasing food nutrition, making more crappy monotonous food, obesity,
declining human health, desertification, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for
efficiency, however let's efficiently do healthy things, not efficiently do
unhealthy things.

> Corn based ethanol no longer uses more energy than it creates; that
> threshold was reached years ago. Some more reading is in order, I suggest.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance)

It looks like there's a controversy over Ethanol's net output. You also need
to consider the energy required to produce the fertilizer/pesticides,
transport the ethanol, etc. It's certainly an order of magnitude less
productive than fossil fuels.

I'm more interested in renewable energy, such as solar, wind, biogas, etc.
Utilizing so much land, soil, water, etc. to grow energy seems wasteful &
counterproductive to growing food that is nutritious, has variety, is
restorative, & clean.

> Just pointing out how agriculture economic systems work, and its absolutely
> nothing like described above.

I can see your point when taking a reductionistic lens to this system. When
you look at the big picture, the agricultural sector is responsible for most
of our CO2 pollution, soil runoff, loss of habitat, loss of health, etc. I'd
venture to say that our agricultural practices are not restorative/responsible
& leave much to be desired. In short, the product, it's costs, & it's
consequences suck! This is also the planet I live on & I'm relying on you to
be responsible with it's systems.

To write off improvements as "not able to work" is intellectually lazy. The
improvements will work & require more attention if we (humanity) will prosper
in the future...

------
balabaster
Naive questions (largely because this is a whole area of science I'm ignorant
to, but I am curious):

If plants could benefit from more efficient photosynthesis, over the span of
the billions of years they've been doing it, wouldn't they have evolved to do
so? Sure, it may benefit us in some way to assist, but how does the plant
benefit?

The fact they're green and not other colors could be a significant
evolutionary advantage... or wouldn't we expect to see other a large diversity
of other colour plants? Why did green win out and not some other colour that
absorbs different areas of the light spectrum?

If one of the laws of nature is survival of the fittest, what do we humans
know that makes us think that our ability to tinker with evolution without
negative consequences is a wise decision?

~~~
Blahah
There are two parts to the answer.

Firstly, some plants _have_ evolved to do photosynthesis more efficiently. One
of the projects in the article (the one I work on) is to take a particularly
efficient kind of naturally occurring photosynthesis - C4 photosynthesis - and
copy it over to species that don't already have it. Sugarcane is an example of
a plant with very efficient photosynthesis.

Secondly, there are relatively few evolutionary innovations in photosynthesis
for several reasons. The main one is that the global environment is constantly
changing - the atmosphere is very different now than it was 1.6 billion years
ago when photosynthesis first evolved. The atmosphere started out with no
oxygen, so photosynthesis first evolved to handle that scenario. But
photosynthesis releases oxygen by breaking up water molecules, so it gradually
oxygenated the atmosphere and depleted the carbon dioxide. Modern conditions
with very high oxygen and low carbon break a lot of the assumptions that were
fixed into the early photosynthetic system, so improvements tend to be
workarounds because evolution mainly builds on what is already there.

The thing that humans have that evolution doesn't is the ability to reason
about the system. Evolution is like an optimisation algorithm working within
constraints, and humans are like software engineers that can change the
constraints.

~~~
Blahah
I forgot to add a second reason why there are few innovations in
photosynthesis. In most ecosystems, photosynthesis is not the limiting factor.
Other things like water, space, mineral nutrients and predation are more
important, so there is no evolutionary pressure for photosynthesis to improve.

But in agriculture we solve those problems - we provide space, water and
nutrients, and we keep pests and competition away. Then photosynthesis becomes
the limiting factor.

------
Thiz
I believe the answer is not in agriculture but in nanofoods. The ability to
produce food from manipulating basic elements.

But for that we need to tame energy first, then water, then food.

~~~
mattzito
There's also, I fear, a trap here where we believe we understand nutrition,
only to discover there are nuances that we still don't have a great handle on.

As an example, there's the emerging posibility that one's gut flora can have a
huge impact on overall health - and that certain types of foods can have a
negative or positive impact on that gut flora.

Manipulating basic elements could easily lead to our skipping over critical
parts of our health needs, with unintended consequences down the line.

Put another way: our dietary habits and nutritional systems developed over
tens-to-hundreds of thousands of years. I'm very leery of any theory that we
can easily replace that.

~~~
tudorw
Right, gladly I believe we are some way beyond 'emerging' and into
'researching' , 'This year, the US National Institute of Mental Health spent
more than US$1 million on a new research programme aimed at the
microbiome–brain connection.' [http://www.nature.com/news/gut-brain-link-
grabs-neuroscienti...](http://www.nature.com/news/gut-brain-link-grabs-
neuroscientists-1.16316)

------
pvaldes
There are some problems with plants, and one of them is that plants are, often
misunderstood, live beings that are strategist by nature. If you put an
improved photosyntesis in rice, this could lead to more grain of course, but
also could boost the production of leaves and roots and the result could be
less or none grain in the same time. Or atract predators. Have you consider
this possibilities?

------
astazangasta
I'll make a complaint on the way this article is written which I think is
quite damaging: the sense that all of this work is being done by "scientists"
and "experts" who will develop this technology in their ivory towers and make
it available to the public at some point. Just wait around and you will be
handed these gifts.

This style sucks because it separates the reader from "experts" (you are not
one), and it implies that you cannot participate even by intent. Experts will
decide what is best for you, and you must receive it and like it. The notion
that the future is something produced by a few and the majority only receive
it passively is an affront to a free society.

~~~
maaarghk
I'm pretty confused by your logic, I certainly don't think that it implies,
for example, that the reader would be unable to go into education and go down
a career path where they would become one of the few experts who are working
in this field. It even links to papers and technical articles.

