About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

How to make more food with transgenic crops

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

SAN DIEGO—In the next 50 years, humans will have to produce as much food as we have over the entire history of civilization. The planet’s ever-expanding population demands it. Yet productive farmland is scarce, and other resources such as water and fertilizer (which is made from fossil fuels) become more constrained by the day.

Such is the dilemma of the world’s agronomists, as described this weekend at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Fortunately, clever scientists are not without solutions. Jonathan Lynch of Pennsylvania State University argued that our present circumstances demand what amounts to a “second Green Revolution.” The first, he said, occurred in the 1960s. The widespread use of fertilizer in the developed world actually reduced the yields of crops such as corn—the extra nutrients made the plants grow so tall that they would simply fall over. The solution involved the development of dwarf varieties of corn and rice that could (quite literally) stand up to added fertilization.

What we need now, he says, is a system that expands yields in poor soil without the use of fertilizer, which is still prohibitively expensive in much of the world. The need is dire: every year Africa loses 95 percent of its potential corn yield to infertile soil, and more than seven million children under five die from hunger.

The primary constraint on many soils, he said, is low phosphorus content. The phosphorous that does exist is concentrated in the top layers of soil. He described a program in the highlands of Latin America that was able to extract more of the phosphorus from the soil by breeding varieties of the common bean—a critical food source for over one billion people—that have root structures that spread out horizontally beneath the soil. The new roots capture more of the phosphorous. They also have the added benefit of protecting the soil against erosion in the mountainous regions where beans are grown. He is currently extending his research to corn, which has the converse problem: it needs deep roots to capture nitrogen, which sinks deep beneath the surface.

In addition, Robert Fraley, the chief technology officer of Monsanto, told me in a private conversation about the power of genetic engineering to help build yields in corn and soybeans. He said that this is the first year that people will have access to the full genomic sequence of corn and soy, a development that he said was like turning on a light when you’re trying to find your keys in a dark room. “Breeding has been based on characteristics, not genes,” he said, “but modern plant breeding looks more like CSI.” Whereas biotech crops have in the past been used to create insecticide-tolerant crops, the next generation of biotech will attempt to increase yield directly. “We’re looking at a whole series of genes that can affect yields,” he said, “genes that can tweak the efficiency of photosynthesis, or that can be used for increased drought and temperature resistance.”

He said that for corn, he expects a doubling of yield from 2000 levels in the next 20 years. Ten percent of improvements will come from agronomic improvements such as GPS-equipped tractors that can plant seeds in finely optimized locations. Thirty to forty percent will come from breeding gains. The remaining half will come from biotech. And all these gains and yield can happen while reducing inputs such as water and fertilizer and pesticides by a third. “The way that agriculture is poised, it’s like computers were in the 1960s,” he said. “Now you’ve got fundamental breakthroughs in genome sequencing to add to the breeding. On the biotech end you’ve got the modes and actions of specific genes. And then you can integrate it together to plant the right seeds on the right fields at the right plant density at the right time.”

Rights & Permissions

Comments 6 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. brainguy 6:01 pm 02/22/2010

    BTW this Michael Moyer, the guy who signs this "article" wrote some other articles here for this website.

    100% of them lobbying something for someone.

    Just like the ‘The (good and bad) future of the Internet" article by him (or maybe by whomever is paying him for these misinformation) yeah right… Web 2.0 again? REALLY? why you want to take our freedom?

    Get real… your sons and daughters will live in the world you are helping to build Mr. Moyer, please don’t do this to us!

    Link to this
  2. 2. biorover 8:44 am 02/23/2010

    No need to get personal on this guy, intelligent readers can see for themselves his lack of scruples. Rather, one should point out important holes in the article like the fact that, aside from all the dangers associated with GM crops which smarter people than I can talk about, if Monsanto develops a crop which drastically improves yields they are not likely to start spreading it our free among the developing world when they hold an exclusive patent on the genome.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Lindenmaier 1:58 pm 02/23/2010

    "The remaining half will come from biotech" is not exactly a good description for what to expect. There are certainly great benefits in genetically engineered foods but the trend to actually continue to breed for characteristics using biotech approaches and not just for genes is obvious. The result of all this should be, and even non-geneticists know that, overall healthy, viable individual plants with high yields.
    I am also not sure how well researched this article is. Weren’t the first genetically engineered (corn) plants created to tolerate the Monsanto herbicide Round-up (glyphosate) rather than an insecticide?

    Link to this
  4. 4. WildLatin 2:24 pm 02/23/2010

    I grew up in the shadow of a Monsanto plant- spewing toxins into the environment for decades. The technology and products have changed but not the mindset of the corporation.
    What is needed is for the potential of plant genomics to be disconnected from the military-industrial complex.
    Are not there humanely-funded institutions who can complete with the greed of commerce for the good of future mankind?
    Examples please !

    Link to this
  5. 5. dickr 2:45 pm 02/23/2010

    What is not said is the complexity of the ecosystem, whether grown in mono-crops or hydroponic cultures, or other production designs. The ultimate "free inputs" are from soil organisms that recycle nutrients from old plant tissue and other "free" inputs like carbon dioxide that have multiple benefits besides "plant nutrients". If you reduce the system complexity, other features (‘buffering" and multiple benefits not always part of the economic "value") are excluded from the discussion. If you change the rules and ingredients, one can convert the game from chess to "21 or bust". There are rules in biology that are not "changeable" and certainly not by oversimplifying a complex system. There is a place for simple changes, and a place where our ignorance or tools are misleading. It’s foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Link to this
  6. 6. brainguy 5:56 pm 02/25/2010

    @biorover In fact i did that, IN MY FIRST POST, THE ONE THAT WAS D-E-L-E-T-E-D

    Oh Mr Moyer was that your doing? Shame on you if it was… deleting the most content rich post and leaving the one that will make me sound like a lunatic conspiracy theorist.

    Way to shut our minds! I have a suggestion: Since we are in the shutting down the comments that are most relevant, how about remove the opinion box? Oh wait, you want our feedback to check the acceptance of the "news".

    Wait I just had another epiphany: how about paying gallop or other pool agency to get that feedback?!

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article