I’m wondering if there’s any reason to produce the acetate in the same place where the plants are grown. How hard would it be to ship? Acetic acid is the main component of vinegar. It looks like...
I’m wondering if there’s any reason to produce the acetate in the same place where the plants are grown. How hard would it be to ship?
Acetic acid is the main component of vinegar. It looks like for industrial use, acetic acid is derived from petroleum, while for use in food (as vinegar) it’s by fermentation from alcohol, using acetic acid bacteria.
If this could be made cost-effective, could they sell the chemical and skip growing the food?
I’m surprised that the vertical farming industry still exists! The spate of failures over the last decade or so seemed like its death knell, but apparently the market still thinks that farming...
I’m surprised that the vertical farming industry still exists! The spate of failures over the last decade or so seemed like its death knell, but apparently the market still thinks that farming with sunlight is disruptable! It’ll be interesting to see if that’s the case.
Whenever I read about agricultural startups that attempt to compete with the ground we stand upon, I think back to this ancient Mitchell and Webb skit (caution: vulgar). It truly is a wild turn of events that our solution to having built McMansions and suburbs on all the prime agricultural land is to build warehouses of genetically engineered lettuce. I feel like sometimes subtraction is the solution, not addition.
Perhaps! Although I’d question whether this is more efficient than shipping food there (since so few people live that far away from the equator), and whether large scale greenhouses would be...
Perhaps! Although I’d question whether this is more efficient than shipping food there (since so few people live that far away from the equator), and whether large scale greenhouses would be better suited to addressing that demand anyhow (see the folks growing bananas in Saskatchewan).
Re. Space, I have no comment, but that would be cool!
The article itself points out some of the critiques I'd thought of, but overall the idea seems quite immature and trying to hype itself up for more research funding dollars. Which is what it is,...
The article itself points out some of the critiques I'd thought of, but overall the idea seems quite immature and trying to hype itself up for more research funding dollars. Which is what it is, but I'm not holding my breath for its rollout.
Article mentions that it's only been successfully tried for fungi, yeast, and algae. Of those, fungi and yeast don't even photosynthesize, while algae are quite simple organisms vs. vascular plants. Also, vascular plants use light not just as an energy source but also in growth signalling. As an example, plants grown in poor light become pale and leggy, or etiolated (an academic review for those curious about etiolation, though it's rather dense reading). So, from a bioengineering perspective, I'd imagine there's not only the task of conferring acetate metabolism (which the article notes) but also potentially engineering for the side effects of lack of light.
To top it off, while the article does mention the concern about technology availability in regions most needing food solutions, i didn't notice mention of seed resource availability: Even if this technology were ready, and distributed appropriately, if it relied on genetically engineered plants, would growers not be beholden to those seed manufacturers? This has already proven problematic in the past.
Not to say there isn't some type of potential applications/use cases in the future, just the article seems to paint the utility in broader strokes than seems realistic to me.
Might I ask why? I don't personally see why one might have a pessimistic attitude towards attempts to improve both space and energy efficiency in agrigulture. It seems a good-thing to find...
Might I ask why?
I don't personally see why one might have a pessimistic attitude towards attempts to improve both space and energy efficiency in agrigulture. It seems a good-thing to find solutions for growing crop in areas in which it is otherwise less environmentally / economically viable. I'm not sure how increasing food yields / quality, and reducing potential shipping costs / emissions is something to be dismissed so derisively.
Unlike the meat industry's attempts to do the same, which are morally questionable at best.
I’m wondering if there’s any reason to produce the acetate in the same place where the plants are grown. How hard would it be to ship?
Acetic acid is the main component of vinegar. It looks like for industrial use, acetic acid is derived from petroleum, while for use in food (as vinegar) it’s by fermentation from alcohol, using acetic acid bacteria.
If this could be made cost-effective, could they sell the chemical and skip growing the food?
I’m surprised that the vertical farming industry still exists! The spate of failures over the last decade or so seemed like its death knell, but apparently the market still thinks that farming with sunlight is disruptable! It’ll be interesting to see if that’s the case.
Whenever I read about agricultural startups that attempt to compete with the ground we stand upon, I think back to this ancient Mitchell and Webb skit (caution: vulgar). It truly is a wild turn of events that our solution to having built McMansions and suburbs on all the prime agricultural land is to build warehouses of genetically engineered lettuce. I feel like sometimes subtraction is the solution, not addition.
I think this would be more useful for growing food in places that don't get enough or the right kind of sunlight. Antarctica, maybe, or in space.
Perhaps! Although I’d question whether this is more efficient than shipping food there (since so few people live that far away from the equator), and whether large scale greenhouses would be better suited to addressing that demand anyhow (see the folks growing bananas in Saskatchewan).
Re. Space, I have no comment, but that would be cool!
The article itself points out some of the critiques I'd thought of, but overall the idea seems quite immature and trying to hype itself up for more research funding dollars. Which is what it is, but I'm not holding my breath for its rollout.
Article mentions that it's only been successfully tried for fungi, yeast, and algae. Of those, fungi and yeast don't even photosynthesize, while algae are quite simple organisms vs. vascular plants. Also, vascular plants use light not just as an energy source but also in growth signalling. As an example, plants grown in poor light become pale and leggy, or etiolated (an academic review for those curious about etiolation, though it's rather dense reading). So, from a bioengineering perspective, I'd imagine there's not only the task of conferring acetate metabolism (which the article notes) but also potentially engineering for the side effects of lack of light.
To top it off, while the article does mention the concern about technology availability in regions most needing food solutions, i didn't notice mention of seed resource availability: Even if this technology were ready, and distributed appropriately, if it relied on genetically engineered plants, would growers not be beholden to those seed manufacturers? This has already proven problematic in the past.
Not to say there isn't some type of potential applications/use cases in the future, just the article seems to paint the utility in broader strokes than seems realistic to me.
I hope not.
Might I ask why?
I don't personally see why one might have a pessimistic attitude towards attempts to improve both space and energy efficiency in agrigulture. It seems a good-thing to find solutions for growing crop in areas in which it is otherwise less environmentally / economically viable. I'm not sure how increasing food yields / quality, and reducing potential shipping costs / emissions is something to be dismissed so derisively.
Unlike the meat industry's attempts to do the same, which are morally questionable at best.
Care to elaborate?