Attn:David Erskine/Parasitic plants etc...
Michael L Roginsky
d_micro at ix.netcom.com
Sun Oct 12 13:37:26 EST 1997
In <61ejqg$2qs_001 at griffith.dwr.csiro.au> erskine at griffith.dwr.csiro.au
(David Erskine) writes:
>In article <34343049.0 at nt.dave-world.net>,
> "Dodderin' Ol' Don" <donw1948 at NOSPAM.dave-world.net> wrote:
>> David & Richard -
>>Excuse me for nosing into this thread but ...
>>>Sugar is easy to transport and stores well. Preferably, sugar
>>>will be synthesised where it is used, using local carbon,
>>>hydrogen and oxygen. Food combusts to CO2 and water, and CO2 and
>>>water can, in principle, be made back into sugar again, using
>>>electric energy from, say, radioisotopes.
>>Doesn't "food" constitute more than just sugar (and what particular
>>you have in mind?)
>Of course. But the quantities are much less than for sugar, and once
>production system is set up, other nutrients are recycled as
>>>> I am unaware of any parasitic plants that may be or are capable
>>>>providing any kind of significant nutrition. Maybe, someone out
>>>>knows of some.
>>How about the mushroom & fungus families (mycilea? spelling?) Would
>>possible to genetically engineer a fungus that would not depend upon
>Parasitic plants tap into the sap of photosynthetic plants. I suppose
>mushrooms could be changed to do the same. Or parasitic plants are
>harvested, and mushrooms feed off decaying parasitic plants.
>The point is to get food plants which do not depend on photosynthesis.
I wonder, what's the practicality of plant food that requires no
sunlight to grow? Even in polar regions the energy from the sun can be
used to grow plants within temperature ranges that are available now!
More information about the Plantbio