Quote:

• CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Researchers report in the journal Science that they can increase plant productivity by boosting levels of three proteins involved in photosynthesis. In field trials, the scientists saw increases of 14 percent to 20 percent in the growth of their modified tobacco plants. The work confirms that photosynthesis can be made more efficient to increase plant yield, a hypothesis some in the scientific community once doubted was possible.
  

https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/430749#image-2

Interesting.

Absolutely, and towards the end of the article it breifly touches on other productivity enhancing tech in the works for various crops, which, as a suite, lead to interesting opportunities.  Commercial ag is a lowest common denominator sort of thing.  Dominated by open field cultures.  However, if we could leverage this tech combined with carbon dumping (some cereal grains and fruit crops have been shown in field trials to produce more seeds when they are grown in co2 saturation) in a controlled environment it may tilt the scales further in favor of (relatively) small, greenhouse producers economically, as well as giving us a way to manage carbon emissions as a useful byproduct rather than a nearly unmitigated waste.  This also reduces disease and pest pressure which in turn reduces consumption pesticides/herbicides (though, granted..increases consumption of fungicides).   This isn't to say that open field will or can ever go away (this process could benefit them immensely, but it's difficult to dump c into a field), or that it will cease to be a major and important sector, but more efficient uses of space (a resource with a hard cap..earth ain't gettin bigger) and sunlight (until now largely untapped because of inability) is nothing -but- a good idea.

GE, cultural, systems, and novel cultivars working in concert as a combined front are the only way we can legitimately continue to feed our growing population without, in the process, destroying this rock....and we need to work on it now so that we'll have the solutions ready when they're no longer just a good idea, but a requirement- a sentiment I share with the lead in the project linked.

Are the there no possible health risks associated with genetical modification of plants, of that sort, not even hypothetically?

If not, then yes, absolutely brilliant.

I noticed also that the Gates foundation was involved in financing these experiments with the stipulation that any product of this work may benefit people in poor third world countries. That's very good, that they managed that, I think.

Well, it would be imprudent to say without studies, but there's no reason to believe that there would be.  They're simply increasing levels of proteins already present by inserting genes from a model member of a family already used as a food crop (the model is a brassi, related to mustards and cabbages).  Basically just giving the plant faster reflexes, in more digestible human terms.

Supposing that there were some unknown and heretofore undescribed risk in having elevated levels of these substances, it could only conceivable -be- an issue if you consumed incredible quantities of the modified crop raw (since cooking largely blanches photosynthetic apparatus and compounds) at which point the very real risk of e coli (and a whole host of other shit) becomes markedly higher than any phantom problem. People already -do- eat the model crops relatives, who also have the genes used, raw, and in mass quantities, in any case. One supposes that if there were a problem, we'd know by now. Those same genes make kale my favorite border plant, chiefly because they're much more efficient at making use of available sunlight and so stay green (and even blue, I love blue) well into lowlight conditions. I don;t eat kale, mind you, I just think it;s pretty and it grows nicely even under the shade and into the winter. I use it as an ornamental, lol. Imagine, however, if spring and summer crops had the ability that winter crops currently do, to do the same. A yield increase like this can also be translated into a gain in hardiness. More work wuld be needed (for example, improving the cell walls of fruiting crops), but we might be able to engineer tomatoes that can handle frost and even ice - as many brassis already do. Tobacco (the plant used in the study) and tomatoes, btw, relatives (along with potatoes, bonus).

Smokes, maters, and taters for all!

As I recall, farmers have to double their output by 2040.  This bio-tech is the only answer unless folks are willing to accept/enforce compulsory sterilization.

Or a plague, big war, big asteroid impact, oceanic upheaval, or carnivorous mutant dandelions.

Here's to hoping for all of that, lol.  

In a green house couldn't you control that amount of sun light hitting the leaves making the recovery time protein unnecessary? 

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for increased ag out put. Or increased ag usage. It would be fantastic if an economic edible conversion for cellulose to sugar could be discovered.

Yes-ish and no-mostly.  It's technically possible to micromanage exposure but it's not practical or cost effective.  You'd have to draw and retract shade constantly, as often as clouds roll across the sky.  Widening the thresholds and increasing response time, even if you did that (draw and retract shade), would still be beneficial, but the response time of the leaf is a more cost effective solution in the broadest number of scenarios and applications.  

There's already a pretty cost effective way to convert cellulose into sugar.  Integrated sugar beet production.  Probably not what you had in mind, lol.  You're thinking more along the lines of cellulosic ethanol commercialization, with an edible byproduct, yeah? Food or fuel carbon nuetral.

(November 20, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes-ish and no-mostly.  It's technically possible to micromanage exposure but it's not practical or cost effective.  You'd have to draw and retract shade constantly, as often as clouds roll across the sky.  Widening the thresholds and increasing response time, even if you did that (draw and retract shade), would still be beneficial, but the response time of the leaf is a more cost effective solution in the broadest number of scenarios and applications.  

There's already a pretty cost effective way to convert cellulose into sugar.  Integrated sugar beet production.  Probably not what you had in mind, lol.  You're thinking more along the lines of cellulosic ethanol commercialization, with an edible byproduct, yeah?  Food or fuel carbon nuetral.

I think photochromic panels for the greenhouse ceiling/walls might work. 

As far as cellulose, not alcohol production, conversion to edible sugar. The termite gut does it.