Slashdot Log In
Saline Agriculture As the Future of Food
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Dec 04, 2008 03:17 PM
from the rice-goes-with-shrimp-and-mango dept.
from the rice-goes-with-shrimp-and-mango dept.
Damien1972 writes "To confront rising salinization, authors writing in the journal Science recommend increased spending on saline agriculture, which proposes growing salt-water crops to feed the world. Jelte Rozema and Timothy Flowers believe that salt-loving plants known as halophytes could become important crops, especially in areas where the salt content of the water is about half that of ocean water."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
No spices needed. (Score:3, Funny)
I fully endorse this. (Score:5, Funny)
Next step, salt water taffy farms.
Necessary (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like to recommend the book "Collapse," by Jared Diamond (the author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel," another book I'd recommend). He spends several pages explaining the damage that salinization has done to farmland in places like Australia. It's kind of an eye opener about how wasteful irrigation policies have ended up basically permanently ruining large ares of Australia's farmlands by drawing salt up into the soil.
The damage, once done, is ridiculously expensive to fix, so we need to find crops that can grow in the unusable land, especially as the world's population grows -- especially its meat-eating population as third world countries acquire first world living standards, which multiplies the need for vegetable crops.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Necessary:
The article is about utilizing salt water for plants, not about damaging soil with current practices.
The current practices are why we need to use plants capable of growing in salt water. I mean, that's what the second paragraph of the article points out! Excessive irrigation has destroyed the usability of acres and acres of farmland in Australia, California, Northern China, Iraq, South Africa, etc, etc. It's pretty much a problem everywhere in the world.
This article is about finding a suitable use for the ruined areas, not about adding salt water to good soil. Please reread TFA.
Guns, Germs, and Steel = Eugenics, Racism, Sexism. The kind of box only children with small imaginations like.
I can only conclude that
Bioremediation (Score:4, Interesting)
I love to hear about innovations like this. However it can be taken a step further.
Not only can we make crops resistant to salty conditions, we can breed them to fix the soil and remove that salt. Bioremediation works on all sorts of poisoned soils, removing all sorts of poisons.
Hell, we could have pre-salted potato chips!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You've obviously never eaten Pringles then.
Re:Bioremediation (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"Hell, we could have pre-salted potato chips!"
STOP! Stop right there. Let this line of thought go before we think too much about the manure they're grown in.
Though it does explain plain dorritos.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, we could have pre-salted potato chips!
That probably wouldn't be good. The salt would be distributed evenly through the chip instead of on the surface where more comes in contact with our taste buds like current chips. To get the same "flavor" of saltiness, the amount of salt would have to be several times higher and we have too much salt in out diets as it is.
extracting salt with barley and/or sugar beets (Score:4, Informative)
I found some information [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia about that:
"Salt-tolerant (moderately halophytic) barley and/or sugar beets are commonly used for the extraction of Sodium chloride (common salt) to reclaim fields that were previously flooded by sea water."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Not only can we make crops resistant to salty conditions, we can breed them to fix the soil and remove that salt. Bioremediation works on all sorts of poisoned soils, removing all sorts of poisons.
You mean that it will concentrate heavy metals and other materials into crystals that could be harvested, returned to a refinery and the products fed into adjacent factories that can turn out weapons?
vaporware.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounded interesting until..
The only crop they suggest grow is Salicomia bigelovii crops.. Good for making soap but not so great for eating..
What we really need is more research into GM crops which the environmentalists hate for some reason.
It's proven to work in the past and has 30 year track record of bringing food into places where it was once not liveable.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with researching GM crops.
When it starts to get more complicated is when you put them into production without sufficient testing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're forgetting also the legal ramifications of patented GM organisms which require licenses to grow.
Nothing like GM crops accidentally creeping into an unwitting farmer's crop, giving the GM-corporation (coughmonsantocough) an excuse to sue the heck out of people who didn't even want anything to do with their modified crops.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
GM Crops (Score:5, Informative)
What we really need is more research into GM crops which the environmentalists hate for some reason.
I'll try to field this one. I'm a moderate on the issue. I don't think GM crops are themselves a bad idea, but I am studying environmental law, and I have pretty good exposure to what people in the movement worry about.
You can summarize the problem with GM crops into a few distinct worries:
1) A love of "natural" foods.
2) Worries about crop contamination.
3) What GM technology is *actually* being used for. (Instead of the "feel good" science.)
4) Safety issues in the creation of GM crops.
First, a lot of people worry about "frankenfoods." They don't want "unnatural" crops because they're worried about the safety of these crops. As my use of quotation marks suggests, I'm not a big supporter of this viewpoint, but a lot of customer do feel that way which is one reason why organic food certifications don't allow GM crops. I won't defend this view because it's not my own, and I haven't gotten a good solid explanation of it.
But it brings us to point 2. Pollen from GM crops is a HUGE problem for organic farmers. Planting GM crops freely in an area can destroy the market for organic crops at home as well as for selling to Europe and other parts of the world where GM crops are disdained by customers. You simply cannot protect your crop against contamination in many cases. (Also, besides market concerns, there's the infamous Canadian patents case, Monsanto v. Schmeiser [wikipedia.org].)
The third point is one that really cheeses of a lot of environmentalists. You hear a lot of awesome things in the news about how scientists have invented rice with extra vitamin A or tomatoes with longer shelf life. The truth is that there are really only two major types of changes which companies have fought to get onto the market -- crops that come with their own built-in Bt insecticide and crops that let you liberally sprinkle around the herbicide RoundUp. (A notable exception to this would be GM papaya engineered to resist the papaya ringspot virus which saved the Hawaiian conventional papaya industry while wiping out the organic industry there.)
Personally, I would have no problem with eating crops modified to be more healthy, but both of the above practices do nothing but help prolong the survival of crop monocultures. A lot of farming pest problems exist largely because farmers fight tooth and nail to plant the same plant over and over again, providing excellent feeding grounds for pests and opportunistic species. The use of Bt has taken a surprisingly long time to create resistance pests, but hey, so it begins. [sciencedaily.com] Oh, and RoundUp resistance is starting to become increasingly common, meaning that farmers are going to start turning to more toxic chemicals.
It's like disease resistance and the use of antibiotics in farm animals, another tragedy of the commons situation. People realized that if you give cattle antibiotics, they grow larger, so farmers started pumping cattle full of a variety of antibiotics. One by one, bacteria have become resistant in the animals themselves, through plasmid swapping in the soil and environment, and through exposure throughout the environment thanks to runoff of cattle urine and wastes into streams. So, they keep trying new chemicals as the old ones cease to work (or in the case of tetracycline resistance endanger human health).
So, as insecticides & pesticides become useless, farmers will turn to increasingly more hostile and dangerous chemicals to farm. ...Which they wouldn't need so much if practiced more sustainable agriculture methodology. But the USDA subsidizes the current monoculture-friendly, heavy petroleum byproducts using methods, so as game theory suggests, no one wants to change.
Anyway, the la
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The third point is one that really cheeses of a lot of environmentalists. You hear a lot of awesome things in the news about how scientists have invented rice with extra vitamin A or tomatoes with longer shelf life. The truth is that there are really only two major types of changes which companies have fought to get onto the market -- crops that come with their own built-in Bt insecticide and crops that let you liberally sprinkle around the herbicide RoundUp. (A notable exception to this would be GM papaya
Re:vaporware.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What we really need is more research into GM crops which the environmentalists hate for some reason.
I consider myself an environmentalist, but I'm not against GM crops per-se. I'm against the most prominent examples of how they've actually been implemented and the companies responsible.
Basically, it comes down to this: If DRM is a bad idea for software, it's a fucking insanely retarded thing for food crops.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not "brainwashed" by bad examples. I'm talking about, and am only against, as I explicitly stated, the bad examples.
Feeding someone today, at the cost of the right for them to control their own food sources in the future, and eliminating the foundation of millennia of agriculture in the right to plant seeds from last year's crop, is not "good work". It's an act of cruelty and enslavement. It's the "good work" of the devil, taking advantage of the desperate in order to control them. Some African coun
Re: (Score:2)
Just wanted to note that it's only a subset of environmentalists who oppose GM crops... and there are plenty of people who don't consider themselves environmentalists who oppose GM crops.
Some reasons, outside of fear of the unkown and religion, that people oppose GM crops:
GM crops tend to promote monoculture, which heightens risk of catastrophic widespread crop failure.
GM crops can be used to make farmers d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here you go [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You are blinded by your faith of environmentalism that you can not see other peoples points of views. I bet you didn't even watch the video to the end.
It's easy to just ignore things as propaganda just because you don't agree with the point of view. A lot of environmentalists do this, which is why no one listens to them or takes them seriously. I can only hope one day you'll wake up and realise how wrong you have been to not even look at all points of view.
I voted for the green party in the UK where I live
Re: (Score:2)
Any proven benefits of GM foods ? Some companies make tons of cash out of it.. definitely a benefit for them!
More hope than practical reality (Score:2)
Gills for everyone! (Score:3, Funny)
So why don't we just artificially mutate the human race, to have have gills, so that we can all just live in the ocean?
And eat coral and seaweed, and stuff like that.
If we lived in the ocean, we might more enjoy eating stuff that grows there . . . like each other!
Re: (Score:2)
Brawndo (Score:4, Funny)
The present is the future (Score:4, Insightful)
The future of food is exactly like the present. There's plenty of food. There's so much that they're converting it into transportation fuel to prop up the price of the food. They're subsidizing food production because farmers can't pay their bills because huge surpluses drag down the market price. Obesity is a growing international problem because there's so much food.
Great idea! How about resistance to polution too? (Score:4, Informative)
This article (at Mongabay, not Science) starts out strong, saying "accessible and unpolluted freshwater is a necessity for every nation's stability and well-being." Unfortunately, that first sentence was the last reference in the article to the issue of pollution or non-salt contamination.
What we really need is the ability to farm directly in the ocean without producing inedible food. The article's referenced halophytes [wikipedia.org] (plants that can grow in salt water) are just one piece of the issue, as the ocean is also filled with other contaminants (mercury, industrial waste, and so very much more). We can probably do some farming with net-like filters around enclosed areas (similar to the way most fish farming [wikipedia.org] works). Wikipedia calls this "open cage aquaculture." However, these filters can only get so much, and once you get complex enough to need a treatment facility, you've defeated the purpose of farming in the ocean (unless you treat the whole ocean...).
The referenced Science Magazine [sciencemag.org] article gets published tomorrow, but you can see related documents by searching for the authors (Rozema and Flowers) and salination [google.com]. Perhaps the actual article will discuss this issue...
Mushroom mycelium can sequester salt (Score:2)
Greening the desert [youtube.com]
Dont fight it, use it (Score:3, Interesting)
Seasteading (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no global food production problem (Score:5, Insightful)
We have vast excesses of food in this world. There are now more fat people than starving people.
Talk to any farmer (as I do, living in a rural area) and the problem they face is not production, but stimulating consumption to help increase demand and prices.
Feedlots are highly inefficient ways to process food. Take 20 to 50 food units of grain, put them through a feedlot and get one food unit out. A vast % of the food stream is handled this way. Reducing feedlot meat consumption by 20% and the world's food supply will probably double.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is no global food production problem (Score:4, Informative)
That's just plain wrong. Many crops, especially soy beans and nuts, will provide tons of proteins.
Pick up any environmental studies textbook and they will confirm that a vegetarian diet is more efficient from an environmental standpoint.
Having said that, the only nutrient that cannot be obtained from plants is Vitamin B12 [wikipedia.org], you must consume some animal product (even a small amount of something like milk or eggs is enough) to get enough of it.
Note: I'm not trying to force a vegetarian diet on you, go on and enjoy your steak. But know that it is possible to do without it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All proteins are broken down and resynthesized in your body, so you don't need to worry about getting some protein from animals. There are 20 amino acids that are common to all life as we know it (needed to make polypeptides), 10 of these can be synthesized from the other 10, so as long as you've got these ten essential amino acids in your diet, you're all set (assuming you've got all the fats, lipids, etc. you need).
Re: (Score:2)
You could go the middle road : make chicken the only meat that's produced. Or pigs, who are much, much more efficient than traditional cattle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you familiar with the actual practice of chicken (esp. layers - egg production) or industrial pig farming? They may be more efficient grain-consumption-per-pound over beef but are incredible polluters.
Chickens are treated as pure product in a typical egg facility and it is not much better for meat birds. Arguably, "ichto" or "octo"-vegetarians have a less ethical stand than a meat diet WRT chicken farming. Fish farming produces more sewage than humans in cities.Pig farming has created massive water-poll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parent is disinformative (Score:3, Informative)
The idea that the sun is the dominant factor in global warming has been resoundingly debunked. [newscientist.com]
And the idea that warming has increased carbon dioxide (and that somehow carbon dioxide is just an innocent bystander in the whole affair) is frankly facile. Carbon dioxide is the dominant cause of global warming (with methane coming in second). Global warming is increasing the release of some natural carbon dioxide sources. However, these natural releases are DWARFED by industrial releases, a fact commonly igno
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to the completely made-up data and completely erroneous and overly-simplistic models by the "global warming" crowd.
I hear that said a lot by people who aren't willing to back up their wild claims. If you've got some proof that data is "completely made-up" or that modeling is "overly-simplistic," I'd love to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There should not be any list of scientists opposing global warming. A scientist would never be opposed to any interpretation. They might consider the interpretation incorrect, but that is a VERY different thing from being opposed to it.
As an example: I think intelligent design is incorrect, I am opposed to teaching intelligent design as science. I am NOT opposed to intelligent design itself. That would be stupid.
I'm sure you'll accuse me of being pedantic, and nit-picking, but if you do you are missing
Re:Just curious... (Score:5, Interesting)
Zimbabwe, physically, is actually one of the best places to grow corn in Africa. They were once a breadbasket of the region.
Of course now, the entire economy has completely collapsed, so much of the country is starving.
That aside, it's a decent place to grow some corn.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What? Arabs created the Sahara?
Um...
"The Sahara is currently as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
Were Arabs destroying the Sahara 13,000 years ago?
Your ignorance astounds me (Score:3, Interesting)
Holy crap, you are frighteningly misinformed about a great many things. Firstly, the government in Zimbabwe is in no way socialist. Taking property from one private owner and giving it to another private owner could hardly be called socialist. As for white-hating, well, 1% of the population is white, but they owned 70% of the land. And they got it the old fashioned way, by stealing it.
Your grasp of history is equally ridiculous. Security a problem for 1000 years? What about the colonial era, the Mutapa empi
Other seafood.... (Score:2)