We Learn to Grow Crops in Saltwater | Hacker News Reader

We Learn to Grow Crops in Saltwater

cleantechnica.com

20 pointsbaselineshift27 comments

We will need to, to survive

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.

It is a good idea from a human point of view. Local workers, who own their land actually have a dignified life.

There is no conflict. You can own the land, and only grow a single crop (as long as insurance is available).

It doesn't require massive factory farms, just that each area specialize in the crop that grows best there, and let global trade make sure everyone has a variety.

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.

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.)

"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).

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.

Depends on the energy cost for shipping. If we can get virtually free shipping through solar, wind, or nuclear energy, then yes, globalization by all means.

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?

The thing I always like to point out to people who are against genetically modified foods is that breeding is genetic modification. Mankind has been genetically modifying plants for 10,000 years, to great effect, by performing artificial selection.

This is very disingenuous because people who campaign against GM are not against GM per se, they're against GM being introduced in an abrupt way with massive changes made to the genome in a short amount of time. The modifying of plants over 10,000 years has happened over 10,000 years, not 10 or 20 years as in the case of Monsanto!

Actually, most of the people I've met who campaign against GM are against it because they're scared of the concept of some mad scientist in a laboratory making abominable lettuce with "toxins" in it. Those are the people my "10,000" years argument is for. All I'm arguing for is the idea that GM is not bad per se. I fully agree that e.g. in the case of Monsanto that GM can be used for nefarious purposes.

This is not true. Breeding and genetic engineering are not that same. With breeding you can never add a new gene that was not there before, you can only pick the ones you want from the existing set.

That existing set has been "vetted" by thousands of years of the plant living, and people eating it.

You have no such knowledge with genetic engineering. You can only do a study and hope that any bad effects are not so subtle that you have a hard time finding them (i.e. subtle things can take decades before they are discovered).

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).

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...

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...

I'm not sure they'd actually love that.

One of their big cash cows in poor countries where they have a lot of influence is using their seeds to basically steal land. The seeds from one field that paid for them will blow into another and grow there next season. A Monsanto lawyer will then serve papers to the farmer next door who, through no fault of his own, has some Monsanto plants growing within his normal crop. Of course they sue him for some ridiculous amount he can't possibly pay and he ends up losing his land. Profitable business model.

Being anti-Monsanto is one thing...

but being anti-GM is being pro-starvation. The green revolution increased agricultural output dramatically last century, and we need it to continue if we're going to feed everyone. Its first-world boutique convenience versus third world life and death.

Well not really, there are other solutions such as "have less people in the world" but I'm not sure how practical they are.

Have less people? So that means what - poor people can't have kids? Lots of people starve? Yes, not exactly practical.

Have less kids? Adopt?

Not that I'm advocating this. I think people should be responsible enough to choose how much to reproduce.

Thats a first world solution.

Thats only an option if you have enough money not to have to have enough children to support you in your old age. In much of the world, large families ensure the well-being of parents into old-age. You should be so lucky as to marry, have a ton of kids, mostly males, have them all live. Social security bling bling! This is why poverty and high rates of reproduction go together.

Stewart Brand gave a TED talk recently ( http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environme... ) in which he said that people moving into urban areas have less children, and much of the world was moving into urban areas these days.

Hopefully the population will start to decline due to lower birth rates... I hope at least. :)

Not against GM food in general, but against some specific examples of who's doing it today: More here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=706752

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com