Nitrogen-fixing genes could help grow more food using fewer resources

[Chris F]

This is worth a read and looks like it could work for Spring Crops:

Nitrogen-fixing genes could help grow more food using fewer resources

Scientists have transferred a collection of genes into plant-colonizing bacteria that let them draw nitrogen from the air and turn it into ammonia, a natural fertilizer.

phys.org

Scientists have transferred a collection of genes into plant-colonizing bacteria that let them draw nitrogen from the air and turn it into ammonia, a natural fertilizer.

 

[Brisel]

As I also posted on Twitter when this was mentioned, there’s a Nobel Prize for the person who perfects this and a P45 for the nitrogen fertiliser industry. Azotic have been working on this for years but I’ve yet to see consistency in the results. Legumes seem to be the only successful example of this.

 

[Brisel]

Azotic – Azotic

Just another WordPress site

www.azotictechnologies.com

 

[Chris F]

As I also posted on Twitter when this was mentioned, there’s a Nobel Prize for the person who perfects this and a P45 for the nitrogen fertiliser industry. Azotic have been working on this for years but I’ve yet to see consistency in the results. Legumes seem to be the only successful example of this.

I honestly think its going to take a break through like this for us to keep the same yields and still hit net-zero in the arable world. I also read over the weekend that the nitrogen fert industry is now twice as efficient as it was, so there are being gains made on that side too.

 

[John Slejpner]

My tuppence worth is that this will never fly.

Legumes do it and grasses would have done it now if if it made evolutionary sense.

The capital cost to the plant of symbiotically fixing atmospheric N "must " by all logic and scientific knowledge - be just TOO high

 

[som farmer]

figures you see, state fert has a 7 to 1 return, whether true or not, that's what we are told. But I do know a lot of us spend to much money on it, and put to much on. Soil structure wise, it a cheap alternative, it also degrades the soil, it's very acidic, polluting, but easy to use. We export sh1t to an arable farmer, heavy clay soils, anal about even spreading, I realised why, when driving past, you could see the 'light' green bits we had missed ! He is a good arable chap, very efficient, now talking about paying for the sh1t. Corn yields have not improved a lot, when compared to pigs, chickens, and dairy yields, and I do wonder, if the missing gene, is the soil itself, where it has been cropped for so long, its virtually sterile, and yield is dependant on rainfall and fert, if you had a good soil structure, it would hold more water, and decrease fert usage, but increase yield.

 

[Chris F]

figures you see, state fert has a 7 to 1 return, whether true or not, that's what we are told. But I do know a lot of us spend to much money on it, and put to much on. Soil structure wise, it a cheap alternative, it also degrades the soil, it's very acidic, polluting, but easy to use. We export sh1t to an arable farmer, heavy clay soils, anal about even spreading, I realised why, when driving past, you could see the 'light' green bits we had missed ! He is a good arable chap, very efficient, now talking about paying for the sh1t. Corn yields have not improved a lot, when compared to pigs, chickens, and dairy yields, and I do wonder, if the missing gene, is the soil itself, where it has been cropped for so long, its virtually sterile, and yield is dependant on rainfall and fert, if you had a good soil structure, it would hold more water, and decrease fert usage, but increase yield.

I do also hear older farmers say its not as effective as it used to be. I've also seen evidence of massive overuse in places like China has had catastrophic effect on soils.

 

[som farmer]

and the bit I missed out, absorbs more carbon, win win
our plan for years, 3 bags acre of n, and 3bags of 20.10.10, for first cut, 2 bags n and 2 bags aftercut, the n to suit, grazing, 2 bags n to start of, 1 1/2 bags n every 3 weeks. Went really modern, had urea injected, lasted all grazing season. 1975 finished that, nothing grew. With everything about the enviroment now, we can not put that amount on, the value of sh1t is recognised, and we have become more efficient, and quite rightly. One of the noticable advantages, brought home, only this week, no problem of silage effluent, those massive heaps of succulent grass = effluent, used to get up middle of the night, to empty tank, EA chap in this week, where's the effluent pit ? I covered it over 25 years ago, no need to use it, downside, i have now got to install a 18 cubic meter tank, and never likely to ever use it !!!!!!

 

[ajd132]

figures you see, state fert has a 7 to 1 return, whether true or not, that's what we are told. But I do know a lot of us spend to much money on it, and put to much on. Soil structure wise, it a cheap alternative, it also degrades the soil, it's very acidic, polluting, but easy to use. We export sh1t to an arable farmer, heavy clay soils, anal about even spreading, I realised why, when driving past, you could see the 'light' green bits we had missed ! He is a good arable chap, very efficient, now talking about paying for the sh1t. Corn yields have not improved a lot, when compared to pigs, chickens, and dairy yields, and I do wonder, if the missing gene, is the soil itself, where it has been cropped for so long, its virtually sterile, and yield is dependant on rainfall and fert, if you had a good soil structure, it would hold more water, and decrease fert usage, but increase yield.

You have hit the nail on the head. We need to focus on the soil and not wait for some expensive bought in Input that covers symptoms rather than the problem, we are on a treadmill and controlled by big business.