|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 3, 2019 20:24:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 3, 2019 21:00:12 GMT
Just for the argument, I hope it works with the cold too.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 4, 2019 5:03:47 GMT
How soon before we see a protest group formed?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 4, 2019 6:30:12 GMT
I had this response from a science ma'am on a local seniors' forum: I've never heard of photosynthetic glitch and I doubt very much that the enzyme Rubisco that captures CO2 molecules to use for photosynthesis is unable to distinguish between H2O and CO2. It's possible, I suppose although CO2 is linear and bigger than H2O which is smaller and angular (105o)
Plants do use water for photosynthesis but these molecules are not captured from the air. They are pumped up from the root system to the green parts.
"Photorespiration is anti-photosynthesis" The reverse reaction to photosynthesis is respiration where glucose (a product of photosynthesis) combines with oxygen from the air to produce carbon dioxide and water. This happens 24 hours/day while photosynthesis can only occur in the presence of light. The usual way to stimulate plant growth is to keep the lights on 24/7 and water well, not forgetting to fertilise as needed.
It sounds like the solution arrived at in this study is genetic engineering but I am totally baffled by the term "photorespiration". Must check it out to convince myself that this is serious science.
A quick check reveals that it is a real thing. You learn something new every day.
I did learn that it is a complicated issue.Is anyone here qualified to comment on her remarks ..... AND give me something with which to pound respond to her?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 4, 2019 12:43:18 GMT
I had this response from a science ma'am on a local seniors' forum: I've never heard of photosynthetic glitch and I doubt very much that the enzyme Rubisco that captures CO2 molecules to use for photosynthesis is unable to distinguish between H2O and CO2. It's possible, I suppose although CO2 is linear and bigger than H2O which is smaller and angular (105o)
Plants do use water for photosynthesis but these molecules are not captured from the air. They are pumped up from the root system to the green parts.
"Photorespiration is anti-photosynthesis" The reverse reaction to photosynthesis is respiration where glucose (a product of photosynthesis) combines with oxygen from the air to produce carbon dioxide and water. This happens 24 hours/day while photosynthesis can only occur in the presence of light. The usual way to stimulate plant growth is to keep the lights on 24/7 and water well, not forgetting to fertilise as needed.
It sounds like the solution arrived at in this study is genetic engineering but I am totally baffled by the term "photorespiration". Must check it out to convince myself that this is serious science.
A quick check reveals that it is a real thing. You learn something new every day.
I did learn that it is a complicated issue.Is anyone here qualified to comment on her remarks ..... AND give me something with which to pound respond to her? Seems like a misunderstanding of evolution. All evolution does is choose the plant that survives better as they out grow and out survive the less well suited plants. Evolution is the result of mutations good and bad, in this case photorespiration is a fortuitous mutation not a precisely engineered design. Eventually, with natural evolution, after more fortuitous mutations (and lots of less fortuitous) a better chemical path might win the fight for survival. These botanists and geneticists have provided engineered mutations that short circuit natural evolution and appear to have created a better metabolic pathway for the plants. There is almost certainly some kind of trade-off that may affect those genetically modified plants with different photorespiration pathways but that is not apparent at the moment. So instead of waiting for a fortuitous mutation, the plants have been provided with a designed mutation. In the process the botanists and geneticists seem to have falsified the 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 4, 2019 19:58:37 GMT
I had this response from a science ma'am on a local seniors' forum: I've never heard of photosynthetic glitch and I doubt very much that the enzyme Rubisco that captures CO2 molecules to use for photosynthesis is unable to distinguish between H2O and CO2. It's possible, I suppose although CO2 is linear and bigger than H2O which is smaller and angular (105o)
Plants do use water for photosynthesis but these molecules are not captured from the air. They are pumped up from the root system to the green parts.
"Photorespiration is anti-photosynthesis" The reverse reaction to photosynthesis is respiration where glucose (a product of photosynthesis) combines with oxygen from the air to produce carbon dioxide and water. This happens 24 hours/day while photosynthesis can only occur in the presence of light. The usual way to stimulate plant growth is to keep the lights on 24/7 and water well, not forgetting to fertilise as needed.
It sounds like the solution arrived at in this study is genetic engineering but I am totally baffled by the term "photorespiration". Must check it out to convince myself that this is serious science.
A quick check reveals that it is a real thing. You learn something new every day.
I did learn that it is a complicated issue.Is anyone here qualified to comment on her remarks ..... AND give me something with which to pound respond to her? I could try but she wouldn't understand. You said Senior? Are you sure?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 4, 2019 23:44:25 GMT
[ Snip ] I could try but she wouldn't understand. You said Senior? Are you sure? Yep. Seen pictures.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2019 3:24:37 GMT
I am sorta quitting farming.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 31, 2019 4:03:36 GMT
I am sorta quitting farming. You're retiring? Or wealthy enough to just quit?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2019 4:18:30 GMT
I am sorta quitting farming. You're retiring? Or wealthy enough to just quit? Not wealthy. Not starving either. Want to enjoy some fruits of our labor while we can. Going to sell off the small grains machinery, continue to raise spuds. I am working at trying to get two new Spud varieties into commercial production. Can always get back into small grains. Currently, profit is fleeting on that side.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 31, 2019 4:44:58 GMT
I am sorta quitting farming. Sig, if there's any granite or sandstone on your land, you could form a joint venture with Walnut: A little farming, a little quarrying and a little RV-ing as well. No need to thank me ...
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 31, 2019 15:20:55 GMT
I bet he has a half mile of topsoil between him and any bedrock. But yes, if you happen to have the right kind of stone on your land it can be pretty good. I like the RV'ing idea.. I bet Sig is already planning on that. "I am working at trying to get two new Spud varieties into commercial production." - that sounds interesting I am sorta quitting farming. Sig, if there's any granite or sandstone on your land, you could form a joint venture with Walnut: A little farming, a little quarrying and a little RV-ing as well. No need to thank me ...
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 31, 2019 17:30:14 GMT
Not wealthy. Not starving either. Want to enjoy some fruits of our labor while we can. Going to sell off the small grains machinery, continue to raise spuds. I am working at trying to get two new Spud varieties into commercial production. Can always get back into small grains. Currently, profit is fleeting on that side. Small grains? Are we talking wheat, barley, oats? With Walnut, "small grains" means sand. We have solid cliffs of limestone (with a few sinkholes). Any hope for us ... outside of gravel?
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 31, 2019 18:40:54 GMT
Actually, yes, limestone is always popular for building stone. Depends on how cheap it would be to produce from it. That Kansas orangey limestone would not sell well, I'd guess yours is that prettier Springfield/Ozarks limestone.
I'm building a 2 strand diamond wire saw to cut slabs from boulders, I have been wondering how it would work on limestone.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2019 18:52:53 GMT
Not wealthy. Not starving either. Want to enjoy some fruits of our labor while we can. Going to sell off the small grains machinery, continue to raise spuds. I am working at trying to get two new Spud varieties into commercial production. Can always get back into small grains. Currently, profit is fleeting on that side. Small grains? Are we talking wheat, barley, oats? Yes, soybeans, edible beans etc.
|
|