From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
Who would have thought!
Global demand for food may rise by 60% mid-century. A central challenge is to meet this need using less land in a changing climate. Nearly all crop carbon is assimilated through Rubisco, which is catalytically slow, reactive with oxygen, and a major component of leaf nitrogen. Developing more efficient forms of Rubisco, or engineering CO2 concentrating mechanisms into C3 crops to competitively repress oxygenation, are major endeavors, which could hugely increase photosynthetic productivity (≥ 60%). New technologies are bringing this closer, but improvements remain in the discovery phase and have not been reduced to practice. A simpler shorter-term strategy that could fill this time gap, but with smaller productivity increases (c. 10%) is to increase leaf Rubisco content. This has been demonstrated in initial field trials, improving the productivity of C3 and C4 crops. Combining three-dimensional leaf canopies with metabolic models infers that a 20% increase in Rubisco increases canopy photosynthesis by 14% in sugarcane (C4) and 9% in soybean (C3). This is consistent with observed productivity increases in rice, maize, sorghum and sugarcane. Upregulation of Rubisco is calculated not to require more nitrogen per unit yield and although achieved transgenically to date, might be achieved using gene editing to produce transgene-free gain of function mutations or using breeding.
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.20298
All a bit arcane!
But this is what it really means in English, as revealed by New Scientist:
A simple change to maize, sorghum and sugarcane that allows them to take advantage of rising CO2 levels can boost their growth by around a fifth.
The growth of maize, sugarcane and sorghum has been greatly boosted by modifying the plants to take advantage of higher carbon dioxide levels now found in the air.
This was done by simply increasing the activity of two genes, says Coralie Salesse-Smith at the University of Illinois. The finding should lead to the creation of new varieties whose yields go up as CO2 levels continue to rise.
Thank you Coralie and your colleagues.
You are doing what proper scientists have always done in the past, and should be doing now. Contributing to the knowledge of how the world works, and finding ways to make all of our lives better.
You shame the bunch of charlatans and cowboys, who hide behind their fake computer models and tell us we are destroying the planet.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We keep coming up with evidence that more CO2 is good for the planet whilst the evidence for damaging climate changes is simply not arriving.
All the damaging weather events are well within past natural variability.
There needs to be more of these good news science stories, this is vital work to improve plant growth efficiency and feed humanity. A more worthy cause than `saving the Planet from climate change’.
Yeah, but what if we run out of nitrogen? /sarc
Whilst this is laudable science the psychological onslaught goes on.
How to teach climate change so 15-year-olds can act
OECD’s Pisa program will measure the ability of students to take action in response to climate anxiety and ‘take their position and role in the global world’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/24/how-to-teach-climate-change-so-15-year-olds-can-act
Anthro…
…will measure the knowledge and ability of 15-year-old students from 92 countries and economies to act on climate change, under a new heading: Agency in the Anthropocene.
Education is a thing of the past
There is no such thing as the Anthropocene.
Does remind me of an old Josh cartoon, though.
They are.. maladjusted.
This is child abuse and those doing it need to be jailed and railed.
We should teach kids that climate related deaths have decreased by 97% in the last century. That may improve their psychological outlook!
We should, but they have absolutely no intention of doing that.
Having “Child soldiers” is generally a frowned-upon concept….
I am sure the eco brigade will be up in arms, against it and invent fictitious dangers to have it outlawed.
Let’s hope that the new administration will allot more money for real R&D and take funds
away from the pseudo-scientists.
Amen and Amen…….uh…….Hear,Hear
Well now, if demand for food is going to increase that much we need to push as much Co2 into the atmosphere as possible, plants gobble that stuff up!
Does this mean I’ll have to start eating TRANS-CEREALS?
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
No, he’s cereal, super cereal!
GMO. While the early and preliminary results show positive benefits, I will withhold my opinion until the long term effects (if any) are documented.
Playing with genetics, like anything else, has a very real risk (however small the probability) of unexpected consequences.
Selective breeding has gone on for a long time. I wonder if this effect could be produced in that way, though much more slowly.
…although achieved transgenically to date, might be achieved using gene editing to produce transgene-free gain of function mutations or using breeding.
I believe “…or using breeding” is referring to the possibility of not using GenMod. So, there is hope for “natural” methods.
I don’t have the time to wait for the long term results. That responsibility falls onto my grandchildren, who will have to figure it out all by themselves, just as every other generation has had to do in the past.
I’m also not purchasing any 25 year warrantees.
There are a number of medical drugs and procedures that have not studied the long term effects. Some of those are starting to be realized and the results are not good.
If you do not wish harm to your grandchildren due to unforeseen consequences, you might start to see the need to address the possibilities today.
Are you against selective breeding? That is downright Meldelian!
Selective breeding is different from genetic manipulation.
With older selective breeding, the entire organisms are mixed through breeding, so many, many genes are potentially affected. With genetic engineering, only one or a few genes are added and usually tested one at a time and then combined. So one could argue that it is less extreme than breeding a horse and a donkey or a peach tree and an orange tree, etc.
One could also argue the opposing point of view.
I don’t think that it said that increasing protein rubisco by 20% would increase growth by 20% in that synopsis. It also didn’t mention better CO2 uptake, but less oxidation in a nitrogen compound and better photosynthesis in leaf cover — demonstrating increase of nitrogen (vs carbon) by 14 1nd 9% in two spedific food crops. Most of it seemed to be about potential for research and not accomplishment or result.
This is a pitch for more grant money.
Far more sensible to put funds in to this work than, eg carbon capture.
Let’s maximise the benefits of high CO2 concentrations.
How about neither: increase crop yeilds through proven methods and improved (petro based) fertilizers, and carbon capture the carcasses of climate activists – through composting?
Demand for food going up 60%? How do they arrive at that figure?
Everyone ‘migrates’ to the US and they all get fat on government programs?
ok I guess that if 3 billion are undernourished by half, world population levels out at 11 billion, and nobody goes hungry anymore, that would be 4.5/8 = 56%
Then round up.
Seems exaggerated.
That’s in the naughty corner as well, isn’t it?
Undernourishment is almost exclusively caused by lousy government, war, and instability caused by, well, lousy government and war. We already produce more than enough to feed everyone, but not everyone gets it. More food production isn’t the solution to feeding most of the undernourished. Ending war, tyrants, and bad government is.
Yes, yes and yes.
It’s pretty paradoxical that the leaders of some countries who wage war because it’s good for that country’s economy also claim to be one-worlders.
Global demand for food may rise by 60% mid-century.
Sorry, what? Global population is 8 billion. I don’t see any studies projecting growth to nearly 13 billion in the next 25 years. That’s a ludicrous number. The median projection is just over 10 billion by about 2080, then a decline. The most aggressive projection is about 10 billion by “mid-century” which, wait for the math… is about a 25% increase. Unless we intend to fatten everyone up like pigs, it’s difficult to imagine a need for 60% more food.
Ban evil oil, mandate ethanol so that food must be burned in cars, et voila.
Ban evil capitalist efficiency, enforce totalitarian Socialism, et voila.
Let Cheney’s friends start enough wars that half the crops get nuked, et voila.
Have the corruptocracy decide that a quadrillion-dollar eco-idol made out of miscellaneous grasses is necessary to save the world from evil carbon, et voila.
What the study actually says is that they expect a moderate population rise with a large increase in wealth, and the usual demand of those who can afford it that more grain be converted to meats.
In other words, in a world perfect and without a care, the most we could ever want to increase grain production is 60%. Therefore we must pursue something that will gainfully employ these researchers. And plus, Science.