Growing better vegetables with added CO2

Discussion in 'Planting, growing, nurturing Plants' started by Flying Binghy, Apr 7, 2010.

  1. Sundry extracts -

    "... A recent article in Pedosphere was produced by eight scientists from China and New Zealand. They grew tomato plants hydroponically in near ambient CO2 concentrations (near 350 ppm) and in elevated concentrations (near 800 ppm). Wang et al. reported in their abstract ..... elevated CO2 treatment also significantly improved root hair development and elongation, thus enhancing nutrient uptake.” Obviously, elevated CO2 definitely makes tomato plants bigger and stronger...

    ...grew four types of carrots in a controlled environment room with carrots grown at various levels of atmospheric CO2; results were published in Photosynthetica. When comparing the near-ambient (350 ppm) and elevated (650 ppm) CO2 levels, all four carrot types increased the rate of photosynthesis, PN, by 43%, decreased stomatal conductance, gs, by 17% thereby reducing evaporation rate, E, by 15%, and increasing the water use efficiency of the plants by an amazing 75% ..... “These results suggest that future enrichment in the atmospheric CO2 may lead to adjustments in PN and gs, which could improve carrot productivity and water utilization.”....

    ...Like virtually every other plant on the Earth, elevated CO2 will cause cabbage to grow faster and bigger while using less water. Cabbage is particularly vulnerable to a chewing insect, called the diamondback moth, that can spoil all the fun. Recognizing the serious threat of this insect, a team of four scientists from Finland grew several types of cabbage in ambient (360 ppm) and double ambient (720 ppm) atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, the focus of the Reddy et al. group was not on the cabbage, but on the larvae feeding on the plants. Plants produce a remarkable array of chemicals to protect themselves from the unwanted herbivores, and you guessed it … cabbage in elevated CO2 severely stunted the growth of the larvae. One of the cabbage varieties decreased the relative growth rate of the larvae by 45% while the other decreased the rate by 65%.....

    And now for some good news about lettuce. Six scientists from China and Australia tell us in their introduction that “It is considered that the optimal concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) for plant growth is 800–1000” ppm. We agree wholeheartedly and wonder why so many people refuse to acknowledge the incredible biological benefit plants receive from elevated CO2. Jin et al. introduced a method of increasing CO2 concentrations in greenhouses by composting plant residues and animal manures (you might wait to try this in your own home). They tested their idea and found they could double atmospheric CO2 in the greenhouses with the composting materials. They grew plants in these greenhouses, and the edible shoot weight of leaf lettuce increased by 257% while for stem lettuce, the yield increased by 87%. If you are interested, celery yield increased by 270% and Chinese cabbage increased yield by 227% — all thanks to elevated CO2.

    Full article via - https://www.worldclimatereport.com/...viewing-vegetable-puppets-about-co2/#more-418


    .
     
  2. ppp

    ppp Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think these alleged benefits will out weight the disadvantages, unfortunately
     
  3. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think your statement needs to be reworded

    I don't think these benefits will out weight the alleged disadvantages, unfortunately


    What do you mean alleged? It is common knowledge that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more available to plants and the greater their growth rates as proven by this research. It also cannot be alleged when it is proven by empirical evidence.

    Then again the alleged effects of climate change are based on models that have no solid empirical evidence and have been proven time and time again to be wrong (every time they are said to underestimate the effects). Most likely because the models don’t take into account the full effects of natural feedback and this is one of those feedbacks.

    So we are comparing actual proven benefits vs alleged disadvantages.
     
  4. pebble

    pebble Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    inland Otago, NZ
    Climate:
    Inland maritime/hot/dry/frosty
    Is greater growth rate inherently a benefit? Depends on what you want from a vege I suppose. Increasing yields in farming by using artificial fertilisers has resulted in less nutritious food and greater depletion of the land. Lower yields in organic farming is associated with more nutritious food and less damage to the land.

    I'm sure there are a few situations where hydroponics is a good idea, but in general it's not a sustainable practice.
     
  5. Yukkuri_Kame

    Yukkuri_Kame Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not interested in hydroponics, but this does remind us of the natural symbiotic relationships between plants and animals, and the design opportunities presented by co-habitating with plants.
     
  6. Surely your not suggesting CO2 is an artificial fertiliser ?




    .
     
  7. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes because it means that you can use less space to provide a greater yield and feed more people on less land.

    This is because quantity has been emphasised over quality. Why spend effort on improving the quality of your product when it doesn’t result in an increase in income?
    Adding artificial fertilisers enables you to enhance growth at a single period of time, however if the nutrients existed in the ground the nutrients are slow released to the plants overtime.

    There is little regard given to nutrients embedded in the soil and also the plant growth in modern agriculture due to the ability to import these at a later time. Fields are ploughed resulting in organic matter being destroyed through sun exposure, plant growth is removed from the paddocks and roots are pulled out as well.

    This is because organics are based on quality rather than quantity. The other issue is most organic farms are built on the same design of monoculture plantings just without the addition of artificial fertilisers; they therefore apply less fertiliser than would be ideal. Look at a few permaculture farms and you will see that the yields exceed what modern agriculture could produce.

    Hydroponics can be compared to modern agriculture in its use of artificial fertilisers and inturn unsustainable yields. Look into aquaponics for a sustainable form of hydroponics.

    By using companion planting, keyline ploughing and natural fertilisers you can increase yields beyond any modern agriculture system. A plant grown in soil that has previously had vetch or lucernce grown in it that has been turned with a yomen plough, with added liquid nitrogen and phosphorus in the growth stages followed by potassium in the flowering stage will outperform any modern crop no matter how much fertiliser you add.
     
  8. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are two ideas that you can see about the relationship between animals and plants

    The first is aquaponics which is similar to hydroponics but instead of importing nutrients you obtain them from the fish grown in tanks.

    The second is a greenhouse / chicken coop where the manure and CO2 from the chickens increases the temperature and yield of the crops grown.
     
  9. pebble

    pebble Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    inland Otago, NZ
    Climate:
    Inland maritime/hot/dry/frosty
    Of course not. I was using conventional farming as an example of why bigger yields aren't inherently good.

    Dreamie, I think you missed my point too. Which is that just because something increases yield doesn't make it inherently good. There are other, more complex ways of understanding what is good and useful. Which I'm sure you know :)
     
  10. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I understand your point and was trying to explain the difference between high yield from available nutrients and high yields from imported nutrients. These are two very different outcomes.

    Available nutrients exist in the soil or air for the entire growth phase of the plant (such as a permaculture garden) as an example the plants has available to it all the nitrogen it will need over it’s life from day one, how it uses it over this time dictates the end yield. It is able to take on small amounts overtime to have a solid growth from seedling to mature plant. The plant will take only as much as it needs to grow and any extra is not used.

    Imported nutrients are proved in spurts (with enhancers) and the plant takes as much as possible in a short period of time due to the fact it has a deficiency in the past and also the chemical is designed to be taken up more readily.

    You can have greater yields from both solutions but the first is like having a fruit tree in the backyard and enabling a child to eat as much fruit as they like over a period. They eat only as much as needed to fill their stomach as they are able to go back in an hour and eat more. However on the other hand if you starve the child for the whole day and give them all the apples in one sitting their body stores the nutrients in a different way.
    Both would end up with the same inputs of nutrients and would be assumed to have the same weight however one is able to use the nutrients for sustained growth over time while the other needs to store large amounts of nutrients for the drought and stores this in inefficient ways. One child would end up 90kg and 6 foot tall while the other would be 90kg and 5 ½ foot.

    They both have the same yield but one is good yield and one is poor yield. Your views seems to be that a child that is going to be 5 ½ foot tall and 80kg is force fed and ends up 90kg and 5 ½ foot.
     
  11. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does bigger yield mean the same number of fruits / veges but of larger size? Or more of them but the same size?
    I can't imagine why anyone would think that a 200 kg cabbage would be an improvement on a 2 kg cabbage. All that would do is generate waste. And you can't get a cabbage plant to make more than one head at a time....
    It seems to me that many (but not all possibly) plants are programmed to a set output and you can't change the number without some serious genetic meddling.
     
  12. butchasteve

    butchasteve Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so how is this CO2 that is going to be used created?

    what, we just back the car up? how do we sequester higher levels of CO2 into our greenhouse?

    sounds all a bit contrived to be cost effective and/or viable..
     
  13. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is looking at the effects of increased CO2 on plant growth, not looking at ways to increase CO2 in greenhouses. CO2 levels are increasing as we burn fossil fuels, this is what they are looking at using.

    However increasing CO2 levels in a greenhouse is extremely cost efficient and viable. A few options include;

    Build a chicken coop and run at one end of the greenhouse.
    Place compost bins in the greenhouse.
    Enclose any form of animal enclosure in a greenhouse – Pigs, Cows, Horses etc.
    Burn wood and capture the gases (Get charcoal for the garden and CO2 for the greenhouse)

    This is the one of the ultimate permaculture design principles reusing waste to improve production.
     
  14. Currently underway.

    From reading some of this research yer get the idea that plants have evolved in an aproximatly 900ppm CO2 atmosphere. Are we humans just putting the atmosphere back to where plants like it ?




    .
     
  15. Yukkuri_Kame

    Yukkuri_Kame Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One design I like: Say you have a home in a cold climate with an attached greenhouse... woodstove is used to heat the home. Woodstove is built into a thermal mass wall between the home and the greenhouse. The door is in the greenhouse, but the belly of the stove inside the home. Cuts down on indoor air pollution (the smoke that escapes when loading the woodstove) and feeds the plants. Another design would be to build a greenhouse up slope from the home, and run at least part of the chimney into the greenhouse....that would re-capture both waste CO2 and heat otherwise lost to entropy.
     
  16. kaviare

    kaviare Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I remember hearing a report ages ago (so, anecdotal and VERY unreliable) possibly on a Radio National program about CO2 and plants. It basically said that up to a point, it is very good. After that, it's sort of like too much nitrogen. You get excellent growth, and with CO2 you get really large veggies, but the nutrient value doesn't go up past a point. So you have lots of mass, but less vitamins etc per gram of biomass.

    To complete the unreliability of this narrative, I can't remember the explanation of this effect, and why it was so.
     
  17. DiHydrogen Monoxide has a simular effect.




    .
     
  18. ppp

    ppp Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that burning wood purely to create CO2 (of which a small part might go into you plants, but most into the atmostphere) is a CRIME.
    Ok, if it is very cold or it is part of a animal / plant system, fine, a good use of bi-products, but wasting the wood? I don't think this is a good idea.
     
  19. sindhooram

    sindhooram Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if you live in a cold place the keeping animals in a greenhouse may be Ok but in the summer having them sweat in there doesnt sound very nice to me.....
     
  20. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does it grow better people too?
     

Share This Page

-->