Interesting article on Bloomberg about replacing pesticides with bacteria

They are heading in the right direction.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-16/indigo-s-scientists-are-replacing-pesticides-with-bacteria

I sort of like the ACT since I can do this at home now.

Great link Dennis.

Fascinating article.  We know so little about microbes and their impact upon plant life.  This is the future.  

David Perry is a great guy, I'm glad he is working that end of the microbiome world, he will get it figured out and fairly soon it would seem.

It makes me uncomfortable to think about the consequences of this kind of research in our kind of industrialized world.
Just like Bt, if made and used ultra locally then it possibly could be useful without nasty consequences. But through selection for efficacy in this or that and then the widespread use of primarily that species worldwide, we {are creating} (perhaps 'would be' as it hasnt happened yet i guess) the perfect circumstances for a surprise comeback from nature in the form of a resistance/superbug/disease/as yet unimagined something. And thats not talking about any possible effect/imbalance/as yet unforseen side effect it may create in the plant and then us.

All in all it seems like we may be making the same mistakes that are causing us trouble today by applying too fast and on too big a scale research that should be kept isolated and tested till kingdom come before ever thinking about being made commercial. (Research that absolutely should be kept up that being said)

Adapting your seeds to your local climate, using effective microorganisms from healthy soil that you have been nurturing... there are many ways to increase our production and minimize our losses without going the route of industrial biotech. We are on the perfect forum for that.

This technology seems to be thought for our current industrial agriculture which is unsustainable any way you look at it in my opinion.

Is a precautionary approach unnecessary?

I'm up for changing my opinion about the whole thing.

this type of science is more complicated than it needs to be.  john kempf and AEA are inoculating with microbes.  they are now working with farmers on 4 million acres in the u.s.  without deciding for the plants what microbes they need, using rather a pan microbe concoction.  plants and their microbe partners have been the method nature uses for fertility for billions of years.  by using this, AEA drasticallty reduces the amount of external inputs (fertilizers) needed increasing the productivity of the plants and thus increasing the farmers bottom line.

\https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/regenerative-agriculture-podcast/id1372359995

charlotte anthony wrote:this type of science is more complicated than it needs to be.  john kempf and AEA are inoculating with microbes.  they are now working with farmers on 4 million acres in the u.s.  without deciding for the plants what microbes they need, using rather a pan microbe concoction.  plants and their microbe partners have been the method nature uses for fertility for billions of years.  by using this, AEA drasticallty reduces the amount of external inputs (fertilizers) needed increasing the productivity of the plants and thus increasing the farmers bottom line.

\https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/regenerative-agriculture-podcast/id1372359995

Which type of science do you refer to?  Or is it that you meant discipline of science (such as chemistry, biology, physics, microbiology, oceanography, etc.)

John and company are not directly working on diseases or insects being controlled by the use of microbes, which is what this thread's focus is about.
The consensus of my field is that we put every species we can into the soil and let the plants sort our those they need through the use of their exudates.
Those who are doing plant specific research provide a knowledge of which bacteria and fungi would be best to have in the soil, a valuable set of data for a person like a corn grower, since it would allow a stacking of microbes in the farmer's favor.
I am a generalist when it comes to which microbes to add, I know the plants will sort thing out, so why bother trying to "stack the deck" which would only promote a continued lack of diversity which is what "Modern Ag." has done since its inception.

Redhawk

Fouad Yammine wrote:It makes me uncomfortable to think about the consequences of this kind of research in our kind of industrialized world.
Just like Bt, if made and used ultra locally then it possibly could be useful without nasty consequences. But through selection for efficacy in this or that and then the widespread use of primarily that species worldwide, we {are creating} (perhaps 'would be' as it hasnt happened yet i guess) the perfect circumstances for a surprise comeback from nature in the form of a resistance/superbug/disease/as yet unimagined something. And thats not talking about any possible effect/imbalance/as yet unforseen side effect it may create in the plant and then us.

All in all it seems like we may be making the same mistakes that are causing us trouble today by applying too fast and on too big a scale research that should be kept isolated and tested till kingdom come before ever thinking about being made commercial. (Research that absolutely should be kept up that being said)

Adapting your seeds to your local climate, using effective microorganisms from healthy soil that you have been nurturing... there are many ways to increase our production and minimize our losses without going the route of industrial biotech. We are on the perfect forum for that.

This technology seems to be thought for our current industrial agriculture which is unsustainable any way you look at it in my opinion.

Is a precautionary approach unnecessary?

I'm up for changing my opinion about the whole thing.

The industrial world is always trying to limit diversity, which is what is putting us in a Food Disaster scenario and has been always heading that way. That is what should be making you uncomfortable, not research aimed at being able to increase diversity and thus productivity, viability and longevity.
The human race has created an atmospheric time bomb that has already gone off and we have perhaps 100 years to fix the screw-ups of generations of greed induced monogamous agriculture and CO2 air pollution.
It has been determined that most of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (the cause of global warming by extra heat being captured and held) is ancient CO2, which can only come from burning fossil fuels, which verifies that humans have done it.
It is absolutely necessary to adapt seeds for the coming increase in overall temperatures (we have already experienced a 2 degree rise), if we don't plants will not be able to survive long enough to give us the production we must have from them for food supplies.

I don't believe that I would term it precautionary.
I would term it greed fueled reigning in, like when you slow a galloping horse.
The Corporate world is not about changing to save the planet, they only think of their bottom line.
That is the mind set that must be hammered out of existence, or there will be no "life as we know it" in 200 years.

What we  (the scientific community) are working on is a way to use nature to help reduce the amounts of CO2 that go into the atmosphere every year in a way that does not mess with nature.
If we don't, then within 50 years or perhaps sooner, costal living will be under water, Catastrophic weather events will be more frequent and larger than ever before.
The atmospheric engine is not only self perpetuating it will exponentially increase in speed unless we do everything we can to slow the process.
Currently we are looking at CO2 level numbers that are higher than they have ever been on this planet, what will happen is sea level will rise rapidly as the ice caps and glaciers continue to melt, their melt rate and flow to the oceans will increase speed.
Trees take in 1/4 of the current CO2 produced and found in the atmosphere, the oceans take in another 1/4, the rest is simply going to stay and hold in more heat.
Rainforest cutting will have to not just slow down, it will have to stop completely if we want a chance to slow the effects of global warming, that means greed has to be shut down, for it is what fuels the entire corporate machine.

Redhawk