The perfect storm for environmentalists: GMO engineered rice reduces greenhouse gas emissions to near zero

From the DOE/PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY and the “you can hear green heads exploding” department comes this bit of news sure to short circuit some people that are anti GMO but think the planet is doomed unless we do something about the threat of greenhouse gas emissions.

Tiny grains of rice hold big promise for greenhouse gas reductions, bioenergy

Discovery delivers high starch content, virtually no methane emissions

GMO-rice
In addition to a near elimination of greenhouse gases associated with its growth, SUSIBA2 rice produces substantially more grains for a richer food source. The new strain is shown here (right) compared to the study’s control. Image courtesy of Swedish University of Agricultural Science

Rice serves as the staple food for more than half of the world’s population, but it’s also the one of the largest manmade sources of atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Now, with the addition of a single gene, rice can be cultivated to emit virtually no methane from its paddies during growth. It also packs much more of the plant’s desired properties, such as starch for a richer food source and biomass for energy production, according to a study in Nature.

With their warm, waterlogged soils, rice paddies contribute up to 17 percent of global methane emissions, the equivalent of about 100 million tons each year. While this represents a much smaller percentage of overall greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, methane is about 20 times more effective at trapping heat. SUSIBA2 rice, as the new strain is dubbed, is the first high-starch, low-methane rice that could offer a significant and sustainable solution.

Researchers created SUSIBA2 rice by introducing a single gene from barley into common rice, resulting in a plant that can better feed its grains, stems and leaves while starving off methane-producing microbes in the soil.

The results, which appear in the July 30 print edition of Nature and online, represent a culmination of more than a decade of work by researchers in three countries, including Christer Jansson, director of plant sciences at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and EMSL, DOE’s Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. Jansson and colleagues hypothesized the concept while at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and carried out ongoing studies at the university and with colleagues at China’s Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Hunan Agricultural University.

“The need to increase starch content and lower methane emissions from rice production is widely recognized, but the ability to do both simultaneously has eluded researchers,” Jansson said. “As the world’s population grows, so will rice production. And as the Earth warms, so will rice paddies, resulting in even more methane emissions. It’s an issue that must be addressed.”

Channeling carbon

During photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is absorbed and converts to sugars to feed or be stored in various parts of the plant. Researchers have long sought to better understand and control this process to coax out desired characteristics of the plant. Funneling more carbon to the seeds in rice results in a plumper, starchier grain. Similarly, carbon and resulting sugars channeled to stems and leaves increases their mass and creates more plant biomass, a bioenergy feedstock.

In early work in Sweden, Jansson and his team investigated how distribution of sugars in plants could be controlled by a special protein called a transcription factor, which binds to certain genes and turns them on or off.

“By controlling where the transcription factor is produced, we can then dictate where in a plant the carbon – and resulting sugars – accumulate,” Jansson said.

To narrow down the mass of gene contenders, the team started with grains of barley that were high in starch, then identified genes within that were highly active. The activity of each gene then was analyzed in an attempt to find the specific transcription factor responsible for regulating the conversion of sugar to starch in the above-ground portions of the plant, primarily the grains.

The master plan

Upon discovery of the transcription factor SUSIBA2, for SUgar SIgnaling in BArley 2, further investigation revealed it was a type known as a master regulator. Master regulators control several genes and processes in metabolic or regulatory pathways. As such, SUSIBA2 had the ability to direct the majority of carbon to the grains and leaves, and essentially cut off the supply to the roots and soil where certain microbes consume and convert it to methane.

Researchers introduced SUSIBA2 into a common variety of rice and tested its performance against a non-modified version of the same strain. Over three years of field studies in China, researchers consistently demonstrated that SUSIBA2 delivered increased crop yields and a near elimination of methane emissions.

Next steps

Jansson will continue his work with SUSIBA2 this fall to further investigate the mechanisms involved with the allocation of carbon using mass spectrometry and imaging capabilities at EMSL. Jansson and collaborators also want to analyze how roots and microbial communities interact to gain a more holistic understanding of any impacts a decrease in methane-producing bacteria may have.

###

Reference: J. Su, C. Hu, X. Yan, Y. Jin, Z. Chen, Q. Guan, Y. Wang, D. Zhong, C. Jansson, F. Wang, A. Schnurer, C. Sun. Expression of barley SUSIBA2 transcription factor yields high-starch low-methane rice, Nature July 22 (online), 2015, DOI: 10.1038/nature14673

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 29, 2015 12:34 pm

hurray!

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
July 29, 2015 2:29 pm

Big deal for two reasons. Rice yields in best practice countries like Japan and China had topped out about a decade ago after semidwarf stains like IR8 became ubiquitous. Now there is another boost. China, however has been wafflish on GMO except for homebrew.

JJM Gommers
July 29, 2015 12:37 pm

Of course, this is controversional for te greenies. After Syngenta.!

LeeHarvey
July 29, 2015 12:42 pm

I had something pithy written, but IE8 is an asshole.
The crux of it – What do they mean by?:

With their warm, waterlogged soils, rice paddies contribute up to 17 percent of global methane emissions, the equivalent of about 100 million tons each year.

RD
Reply to  LeeHarvey
July 29, 2015 1:04 pm

So true re: IE8

July 29, 2015 12:43 pm

Talk about the devil and the deep blue sea! Of Course this only matters if you are just a cuddly, love humanity too, kind of environmentalist. If you are a “human beings have to go” green Nazi then the breakthrough is nothing to crow about.

Mac
July 29, 2015 12:48 pm

Obama wont like it for sure. It feeds people and starves greenies.

JB
Reply to  Mac
August 1, 2015 7:38 am

Win win.

Bloke down the pub
July 29, 2015 12:55 pm

Been here before. It’s well known that most reliable way to cut CO₂ emissions is to go nuclear, but Greens just stick their fingers in their ears and go ‘La La La’.

Mark Bofill
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
July 29, 2015 1:15 pm

That’s exactly correct. The response will be great, but we just can’t risk it. It’s much easier for them to cheerlead feel good non solutions than actually solve problems.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Mark Bofill
July 29, 2015 3:55 pm

Its all about destroying capitalism.
1) You don’t want to solve REAL problems, you want to make them worse. The more costly a non-solution is, the better. The more destruction that a non-solution to a real problem causes, the better.
2) You also want to promote wasteful solutions to problems THAT DON’T REALLY EXIST. Nothing is more destructive than spending resources on trying to solve a non-existent problem — catastrophic global warming being the poster child for this.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Mark Bofill
July 31, 2015 8:10 am

“…we just can’t risk it.”
But they can risk the well-being of poor people around the world by depriving them of affordable portable energy.

July 29, 2015 1:02 pm

LeeHArvey – wouldn’t that mean that 17% of global methane emissions equals 100 million tons? At least that’s how I read it; an attempt to let the reader know both the absolute quantity and its proportion of total emissions.

LeeHarvey
Reply to  Randy Bork
July 30, 2015 5:28 am

If they mean 100 MT, then they should just say that.
Saying ‘the equivalent of’ implies that they’re fudging the numbers.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  LeeHarvey
July 30, 2015 9:36 am

Maybe it is the same as the methane emissions from 100m tons of BS which as we have been told is a prodigious source. If so, it is a tautology.

RD
July 29, 2015 1:08 pm

This is great news. Perhaps they can add a gene to express beta-carotene, too!

Ric Haldane
Reply to  RD
July 29, 2015 2:04 pm

It exists under the name of Golden Rice. Lots of vitamin A. In the Philippines, a bus loaded with “militant farmers” arrived at a test field and cut it all down. It is suspected that Greenpeace paid for the bus. What a shame. The Philippines has a lot of sick blind children that a diet with enough vitamin A, would be of great benefit.

Andyj
Reply to  Ric Haldane
July 29, 2015 2:36 pm

There is no vitamin A deficiency in the Philippines. The cure does not need chemists who need a 1st world wage. High vitamin A foods include sweet potatoes, carrots, dark leafy greens, winter squashes, lettuce, dried apricots, cantaloupe, bell peppers, fish, liver, and tropical fruits. Where there is a lack of “A”, they grow best. The irony is noted.comment image

Peter
Reply to  Ric Haldane
July 29, 2015 2:49 pm

AndyJ, I think you may have never worked with health Authorities in on pf these countries. There are Philippines Government estimates of the massive benefits to the poor in these countries. I have stood on the back of a truck handing out suppliments to the poor. The Golden Rice story is direct evidence of genocidal tendancies of Greenpeace. There other examples

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Ric Haldane
July 29, 2015 3:09 pm

Ric, I’m betting RD already knew about Golden Rice. RD, funny comment.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Ric Haldane
July 29, 2015 4:07 pm

Andyj
Rice is their basic food. Poor people do not have access to an organic grocer like you. Even if they did they don’t have the money to buy those things on a regular basis.
Obviously your “white privilege” blinds you to the reality of the lives of the colored poor of the world. Tsk. Tsk. Opposition to advances in nutrition for poor people of color is “soft racism”.
Eugene WR Gallun

RD
Reply to  Ric Haldane
July 29, 2015 5:38 pm

Indeed, golden rice has a transplanted gene that expresses for beta-carotene which is converted to Vitamin A in human metabolism. The fact that the rice discussed in this paper produces more starch at higher yield is wonderful all by itself. More carbon is being transformed to useful energy for people. Great! Less methane is a bonus. I’ll take it. And a GMO that decreases a GHG is priceless…..Schadenfreude to the misanthropic anti-GMO crowd.

clipe
Reply to  Ric Haldane
July 29, 2015 6:51 pm

http://waste360.com/mag/waste_death_toll_rises
You have to see Manilla ‘dumpster diving’ to believe it. I have.

Djozar
July 29, 2015 1:13 pm

So essentially we’re going to eliminate carbon by eating it?

Francisco
Reply to  Djozar
July 29, 2015 1:21 pm

Won’t we fart it then?

RD
Reply to  Djozar
July 29, 2015 1:23 pm

You either didn’t read the article or have no reading comprehension, or both.

Old Huemul
Reply to  Djozar
July 29, 2015 2:10 pm

Of course you eat carbon. What do you think you eat every day? Carbon is the basis of your diet, whatever your food preferences. That chemical element, C, is the basic ingredient of all food (peppered with some nitrogen, traces of other minerals like iron or calcium, and various vitamins). Your body cells and your entire body run on carbon, i.e. by burning carbon in the form of glucose, a simple carbohydrate made of water and carbon.

tgasloli
July 29, 2015 1:21 pm

I’m not sure this article makes any sense. I rather doubt that all the methane producing microbes in the mud and water of a rice paddy are dependent on the rice plant’s roots for nutrients. I suspect this is really another case of tying irrelevant (but in this case worth while) research to the GHG funding bonanza.

Dinsdale
Reply to  tgasloli
July 29, 2015 2:09 pm

They had to spin it against greenhouse gasses to beg for more money

ozspeaksup
Reply to  tgasloli
July 30, 2015 4:20 am

yup yet another GMO is your friend using agw as a base
sorry but they can grow rice in less water and mud
been done and produced ok
soo tell me again why another GMO moneyspinner from big aggro is just sooo good?
I AM going to enjoy sending it to my warmist agw believer mates though.
I dont like greenpeas but I like GMO as little

Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 30, 2015 4:51 pm

To zspeaksup July 30, 2015 at 4:20. Using the phrase “…big aggro…” classifies you as a warmist stooge.

Taphonomic
July 29, 2015 1:32 pm

It would boggle greenies even more if Monsanto markets the rice.

July 29, 2015 1:41 pm

How the heck can someone weigh a gas that’s lighter than air? Do they put the scale above the methane?

James Strom
Reply to  Dahlquist
July 29, 2015 2:10 pm

Methane was weighed only once, on the Apollo 12 mission, when it was put on the scale in an environment without any other atmosphere. ;>)

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Dahlquist
July 29, 2015 4:19 pm

By using a mass metric, not a weight metric.

July 29, 2015 1:51 pm

What does this do to the taste? People who eat rice as their staple food are pretty particular about it…

James Strom
Reply to  Michael Moon
July 29, 2015 2:11 pm

Have you read up on golden rice? It wouldn’t pay to be too fussy if the replacement food will preserve your eyesight or that of your children.

July 29, 2015 1:53 pm

A true GMO revolution.
Grow rice without methane pollution.
Half the world fed with rice.
Feed the hungry, how nice.
“Green heads” will explode: – Wrong solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2015/07/29/growing-gmo-modified-rice-eliminates-methane-pollution-an-inconvenient-truth-for-green-heads-a-limerick/

Joe
July 29, 2015 1:54 pm

All we have to do is remove the EPA deemed tipping point dangerous pollutant CO2 from the air, and viola, no more worries about genetically modified rice. Poor people will then depend on the IPCC for salvation. While waiting, apparently there is a romantic (or is it voyeuristic?) novel the could read.

Jon Lonergan
Reply to  Joe
July 29, 2015 3:01 pm

“Viola”? What tune are you playing here?

1saveenergy
Reply to  Jon Lonergan
July 30, 2015 1:33 am

Hope you’re not going to harp on with bass viol comments !!

Reply to  Jon Lonergan
July 30, 2015 5:10 pm

voila

July 29, 2015 2:00 pm

“…methane is about 20 times more effective at trapping heat.”
If CO2 and Methane are “trapping heat”, where is that heat going. We know, it is Hiding. I say BS to all these ‘studies’ aimed at reducing gas that traps heat in a lab/test tube but doesn’t warm the earth with any significance even with increased emissions to the atmosphere.
The excess heat is being expelled to space, thus no problem.

Jon Lonergan
Reply to  kokoda
July 29, 2015 3:04 pm

No it’s being sucked into volcano’s and buried underground. That’s why volcano’s are so hot 😉

Jon Lonergan
Reply to  Jon Lonergan
July 29, 2015 3:06 pm

Sorry about the apostrophes autofill took over

David
Reply to  kokoda
July 29, 2015 3:26 pm

Yes, and putting a blanket on your bed doesn’t keep you any warmer, because the excess heat is all ‘expelled to space’, eventually. But I wouldn’t throw out the blankets just yet. Come winter, you may detect a tiny flaw in your argument.

AndyG55
Reply to  David
July 29, 2015 5:26 pm

Hey, does anyone know of any type of blanket that COOLS you when you get too hot ?

ghl
Reply to  David
July 29, 2015 7:26 pm

David
Blankets prevent convection, GHGs aid convection.

July 29, 2015 2:08 pm

There’s a couple assumptions that I’m going to make:
First the article implies that rice either leaks carbohydrates through their roots, or the roots die and sloth off while growing,
Secondly the rice is growing in a flooded paddy where the ground is oxygen-starved due to being inundated and the bacteria are anaerobic methanogenic.
in this case the GMO rice would reduce methane generated by the organism in the water-logged soil. The world’s farmers are moving away from the traditional rice cultivation and toward a system of rice intensification which produces larger yields, uses much less water and is better suited to small scale market gardens and farms more typical in third-world nations. Quite possibly this will be a big benefit to large agri-bussiness style rice farms, but it will be interesting to see if it benefits the SRI style rice production even more.

Jerry Henson
July 29, 2015 3:01 pm

Plants do not eat methane.They eat the residue left by the methanotrophs which do.
The reason rice paddies produce methane when flooded is that the natural gas which
provides the energy to fuel topsoil is forced to the surface faster than the resident
culture can consume it. During drier time, the culture can consume the available energy
at their normal speed.(I have explained topsoil creation previously on this blog)
They are measuring the wrong thing. The cultivar changes none of the above,
The cultivar still eats only processed natural gas. Not just methane.

Editor
Reply to  Jerry Henson
July 30, 2015 5:02 am

Natural gas? That’s a fossil fuel, should people be fracking rice paddies? 🙂

Glenn999
Reply to  Jerry Henson
August 1, 2015 12:44 pm

curious about your comments on topsoil. Could you point the way to your previous posting? Thanks.

Eliza
July 29, 2015 3:26 pm

AWif you keep posting stuff like this we is all gonna die of boredom haahah LOL. BTW I think the whole issue of climate change/global warming for warmistas and skeptics and deniers is about to become a non issue. Sorry! but it was obvious from way back. No one is really interested anymore

Paul Coppin
July 29, 2015 3:37 pm

GHGs to zero?
How does it do that? Is it inedible?

RD
July 29, 2015 3:43 pm

Lewis^,
Starch is stored glucose and is in the grains – not leaves, which are largely cellulose (another carbohydrate). Regardless, methane is a product of bacterial metabolism that is feeding opportunistically from the plant roots. Anyway, the authors have data and you have uniformed opinion. Whom to believe?

redress
July 29, 2015 3:45 pm

Hi Lewis…..rice leaf is very high in Silica (8 to 14%) compared with alfalfa hay (1 to 2%). Silica is indigestible and decreases digestibility of the feed to most herbivores. As such Silica is natures natural defense against herbivores.
The leaves also have quite a sharp edge, and tiny small hairs which also contributes.
Rice straw is also low in protein ( 2 to 7%) and high in Oxalates which decrease the absorption of calcium. When harvested, rice straw…..it hardly qualifies as hay, must be treated with supplements to make it acceptable to stock, even then it is of low quality.
Harvesting rice straw for animal feed is usually only done in times of drought.

Reply to  redress
July 29, 2015 5:44 pm

dunno but we never, ever, expected to use straw as forage here in the western US. Bedding yes! Never as food so I’m sort of at a loss when you start talking about it as a possible food for animals.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  redress
July 30, 2015 9:41 am

Rice straw pellets make very good cooking fuel.

Dems B. Dcvrs
July 29, 2015 3:54 pm

“Now, with the addition of a single gene, rice can be cultivated to emit virtually no methane from its paddies during growth”
All sounds great. But before releasing this modified Rice into wild, perhaps we should take hard look as some past human foul-ups. Such as Johnson Grass, Cane Toads, Killer Bees, Snakehead fish, Starlings, Kudzu, European Rabbit, Asian Carp, and Tumbleweed.

Editor
Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
July 30, 2015 5:12 am

Yeah, given they’re using a barley gene, maybe we should gain more experience with growing barley. 🙂

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Ric Werme
July 30, 2015 10:28 am

If global temperatures start hiking south as some seem to think they will, we’ll have ample opportunity.

Alan Robertson
July 29, 2015 4:55 pm

The Greens are not interested in feeding more people, the Greens are interested in having fewer people to feed.

July 29, 2015 5:08 pm

This is green head-popping good news! Now, what about nuclear power?

Reply to  Nicholas Tesdorf
July 29, 2015 5:45 pm

+100

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights