2023 McGregor Research Tour

    I always find this to be an interesting tour.  Cat and her crew do a good job.  Take home points for me this year (June 13th)  are the following:

    --Canola:  A large trial plot with a number of different cultivar from different companies.  The plots all looked good, well into flowering.  The plots, visually, looked significantly better than the canola field that bordered the plots.  The field was streaky with, generally, thinner stand with fewer flowers, and the streaks being shorter and flowers turned white, and I didn't notice pods developing.  The cooperator prepared the field and plot area the same, applying 80ppa N, 10ppa S.  The field was seeded at 5ppa of canola seed.  The plot was seeded a week later and had an additional 5gpa of Kickstart for fertility, and was seeded at 6ppa of seed.  That is a lot of seed.  My preliminary information indicates that the Kickstart was the only difference, other than the type of drill used.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of Kickstart showing that much difference, but it was obvious right to the border that encircled the plot site.  Maybe waiting a week later helped the plot site.  Foliar feeding has shown some potential benefit, with the best timing being early rosette stage before rapid biomass increase.   [ Earlier, I conversed with Brian Caldbeck, of Caldbeck Consulting.  A couple of useful comments were: --1) he likes 6-7 established plants/sf, and not to count emerged plants because some will not survive.  --2) space the seed out.  When seed clumps together only one or two seeds will germinate.  The others just sit there doing nothing.  --3) hybrids tend to divide out as tall with slender branch spread and shorter with wider branch spread.  He prefers tall/slender on 7"-10" spacing and short/wide on 10"-15" row spacing.

--Wireworm:  They infest a lot of crop acreage and can do damage to yield.  Wireworms are the larva form of the Click Beetle.  They emit a clicking sound, and are highly attracted to the color of white.  An easy check is to park a white pickup in/by the field you are scouting, --if they are there, they will be all over the pickup.  Wireworms prefer soil temperatures in the 55-75ºF range with moisture.  They dive deep when soil temperature reaches ≥ 80ºF.   McGregor has found that a lot of perceived chemical damage is actually wireworm damage.  Wireworms are more widely spread then we realize.  Click Beetles survive in grasslands and crop residue.  Natural predators are: rodents, birds, bats, frogs, lizards, predatory beetles, predatory wasps, predatory mites,  Lacewings, spiders, and preying mantises.  Seed treat with Terassa is quite effective for control.  

--Seed Treats:  Terassa seems effective for wireworm control.  Systiva seems effective for Rhizoctonia.  Relenya seems effective for Bunt Smut.   The Guardian Blend controls 20 diseases, but not wireworm.

--Fertility:  Zinc is best applied to seed compared to in row, side band, broadcast.  Zinc is the #1 limiting micronutrient in Pacific Northwest.  Nitrogen applied at Tillering stage is best timing; however, stabilized N applied at time of seeding has given best yield.    Use foliar feed for needed elements found through SAP testing at flag leaf stage.

--Wheat:  Early-Late seeding.  Best yields appear to develop when seeding early with a late maturing cultivar, and when seeding late, choose an early maturing cultivar.  Winter wheats:  Shine is highly susceptible to dryland foot rot while Blackjack is tolerant to dryland foot rot.  M-Pire has high tolerance to grassy herbides.  --with an awned wheat, awnes indicate developing kernel.  A stubby(short) awn is questionable for development.  An exercise Cat had us do related to early-medium-late seeding of winter wheat.  Seeding dates for the same cultivar was Sept. 15th, Oct. 15th, Nov. 15th.  In all cases the heads were very similar in development.  The main difference was the number of tillers.  The lesson here was, plant higher seed rate as you go farther into late fall to compensate for lack of ability to tiller.

--Herbicide treatments:  This trial consisted of some common herbicides with different mixes and sprayed across several cultivar types to see the crop reaction.   Effectiveness of the treatments varied.  It was pointed out that Clethodim, Paraquat, and Glyphosate needed water conditioning to improve effectiveness.

--RO Water:  Like last year, I think Cat used distilled water in 2023 and called it RO (reverse osmosis) water, but it's not!  McGregor's interest in RO water came about because of the buzz around a few operations using processed water and cutting chemical rates.  The trials looked poor and their warnings about escapements and potential for developing resistance are valid.   In 2023,  there are 9 active water processing units serving ~ 14 farm/ranch operations in eastern Washington and northern Idaho.   Since 2020 a group of us have been looking into the Pursanova Water System.  This system first filters the water, then run it through a reverse osmosis (RO) unit, and then on through "structure" tubes containing beads of specific types of ores.   These are not random rocks.  For more information about water see my posts on "Pursanova -- RO/S Water" by clicking on the "water" label.  There is a lot more to water than we generally recognize.

Glyphosate

 Wikipedia-Glyphosate
    I don't pretend to be an expert on Glyphosate but I try to keep up on current revelations, --and factors promoting them.  After attending a few agricultural meetings this fall several statements were thrown around about glyphosate that prompted me to look further into the subject.  Wikipedia, I find to be a fantastic source of information on about everything.  They have a lot of material on Glyphosate (click on link above).  If printed out there would be thirty five pages in 12pt type.  It shows 216 different reference sources.  The material is broken out into ten major categories: General statement, Discovery, Chemistry, Mode of Action, Uses, Formulations, Environmental Fate, Toxicity, Effects of Use, and Legal Status.  If that isn't enough reading you can further educate yourself by reading the thousands of pages contained in the 216 source documents.
Here are a few things I found worth remembering about glyphosate:
     ---First synthesized in 1950 by Swiss chemist Henry Martin.
     ---1964 Stauffer Chemical patented it as a "chelator"as it binds and remove minerals such as Ca,Mg,Mn, Cu, and Zn.  We need to keep this in mind as a potential factor related to plant nutrition  and effectiveness of the chemical itself.
     ---In 1970 Monsanto became involved, and discovered many derivatives were potential water-softening agents, and a couple had weak herbicidal activity.
     ---Monsanto's John E. Franz, working with these few derivatives, developed glyphosate as we know it, bringing it to market in 1974.
     ---A broad-spectrum systemic herbicide that is an organophosphorus compound, used to inhibit the plant enzyme, --5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3phosphate synthase.
     ---Works through the shikimate pathway.  This pathway does not exist in the mammal/humane genome, but is in plants and some other life forms.
     ---Has relatively small effect on some clover species and morning glory.
     ---Is an acid molecule so it is formulated as a salt for packaging and handling.  Different companies use different salt formulations.  Monsanto uses isopropylamine salt of glyphosate.  It should be kept in mind that different salt formulations of glyphosate, along with the adjuvants that become part of the compound applied may give different results/effectiveness .
     --- Glyphosate adsorbs strongly to soil particles, and it's residues are expected to generally be immobile in soil.  Glyphosate found in water was probably carried there on soil particles.
     --- Glyphosate is readily degraded by soil microbes, but not as readily by water or sunlight; although the stated pathway for the degradation of glyphosate is through hydrolysis. (citation #35 is a good general read for a more complete explanation)
     ---Some of the aminomethylphosphonic acid found in water bodies may be from the degradation of detergents rather than glyphosate.  They degrade in a similar manner.
     ---Anaerobic conditions release phosphorous and can also release glyphosate from sediments as well.
     ---Half life of the glyphosate molecule ranges from 2-197 days depending on soils and climate.  Colder the clime the longer it seems to take to degrade below detection level.
     ---2003 Monsanto patented glyphosate as an anti parasitic.  Glyphosate combined with other agents are used as prevention and therapy of pathogenic infections such as malaria.
     ---Health. Literature reviews have reports of human consumption of the glyphosate concentrate (not diluted) running from no adverse effect to being fatal, --depending on the person and amount consumed being among the factors.  Charges of various health issues run the gamut.  Research tends to support the concept of glyphosate being safe, --but there are caveats to that.
     Glyphosate is more than a simple herbicide.  Being a potential chelator, anti parasitic, and a herbicide raises all kinds of questions in peoples minds.  I have a better understanding of how a small grain of truth can lead people to link glyphosate with every imaginable bad thing experienced by humans.
     When glyphosate herbicide was introduced back in 1974, it cost ~$100/gal and was reported to be the discovery of the century.  After 44 years I think it is living up to that report pretty well.  Will it make 100 years? --anyones guess!  It's demise, if glyphosate does go away, will be because of its popularity.  The Roundup Ready crops are a double edge sword for the farming community.  First, they are encouraging the use of glyphosate.  This rapidly expanding market is causing alarm.  Secondly, research for new chemistry has ground to a halt do to glyphosate being so effective, versatile and inexpensive.
     I don't expect glyphosate to go away anytime soon; however, I do think that more regulation will come into play, and it's effectiveness will become less as time passes. 
     More than once I have been asked how we will continue no-tilling if glyphosate is pulled from the agricultural market.  I personally don't see that being a problem.  In the short term, there is alternative chemistry to replace glyphosate.  They will be more expensive, much harsher on the environment and less safe to use, but currently not under the public microscope.  Hopefully it will give us-Kye time to figure out how to incorporated biologicals and cover crops into our cropping system that will reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals and fertilizers.  I am of the opinion that we have to remove chem fallow from our cropping system to make this all work. Vacant ground increases weed pressure.  Our current chemical fallow has to become either green fallow or be replaced with a cash crop.
     

Glyphosate

        Roundup is back in the news.  The jury verdict this past spring was surprising.  To me this looked like an easy win for Monsanto with the plaintiff being a groundskeeper with only two years history using Roundup, while there is a American Health Study (AHS) on farmers and farm families  that summarizes: --In this large, prospective cohort study (#1 link), no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL(Non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML(Acute myeloid leukemia) among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation.  This study was revisited and updated in 2018 with no change in the summary.  Links #2 & 3, describes why it is so difficult to predict an outcome with a jury trial.  The facts are so ambiguous and they can be blurred by how a question is framed/phrased/developed.   I am slowly coming to the conclusion that there is no conclusive science surrounding this subject, and that public perception, emotion, and political correctness will rule the day on the use of Glyphosate, --or any other subject that catches the publics attention.
      I'm including a link (#4) to an AHS site showing increased risk for farmers and farm families to certain diseases/conditions.  This is not a comprehensive list, but recent determinations.  It's a bit sobering.  I think I am a typical farmer in that safety frequently takes second place to expediency when it comes to working with agriculture chemistry.  An Antidote: (recently we took old, and in some cases unidentifiable (lost label) agricultural chemistry to a state sponsored collection area. Every year the Dept of Ag sponsors these collections as encouragement for  farmers to not dump this chemistry on the ground when it's determined to be unusable for their crops.  The collection "professionals" were all dressed in hazmat suits, and the farmers were delivering their jugs and other containers wearing normal working clothing of leather boots, cotton pants, shirts, bill caps and no gloves.)  After viewing PBS's documentary on "9 Months That Made Me", I have become more aware of how life style effects our health and life expectancy and general quality of life.   It's a little late for me; however, the younger generation should pay more attention to personal protection when using Ag Chemistry.  The AHS studies show that we not only have elevated levels of these chemistry's in our bodies, but we expose our families to the effects of these chemistry's when we wear contaminated clothing around them.
1)  Farmer Health study :  (This is an abstract of the AHS mentioned above on Glyphosate.)
2)  Popular Science on Jury's & Science :  (A short article on dilemma associated with Juries reconciling legal and Science evidence.)
3  SNOPES: Juries & Science :  (A long article explaining the difficulty in reconciling legal and science evidence.)
4  News & Findings (on Farmers Health)  (A list of findings on increased risks for farmers.)

GOOD SCIENCE, NOT IDEOLOGY

[Update 3/6/18] How Do You Assess if a Chemical Causes Cancer?  This is a good read, written by Dr. Guy-Andre Pelouze as published in the digital magazine "SLATE".  He is a thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon who did cancer research during his training, and lung cancer treatment during his practice.  Five things stuck in my mind from this article: --He states that when scientists and policymakers carelessly substitute risk for hazard, flawed conclusions are drawn. --there was a study of 89,000 farmers in Iowa and North Carolina showing no raised health risk.  --IARC being taken to task for publishing findings not consistent with their research.  --Benefit-risk ratio is important when it comes to regulatory action.  --Glyphosate is less toxic to humans than common chemicals like aspirin.
     At the recent Direct Seed Conference in Kennewick, Washington, one of the speaker presentations dealt with the anti-GMO, Glyphosate campaign that is gaining public acceptance world wide. Advocacy groups are driven by ideology, --good science be damned.  They are quite comfortable in substituting "it's possible" or "it probably is", for, "it does", and hype it "as fact", when it means nothing of the sort.  A lot of the public is gullible and  Laws are being written and products band or boycotted as a result of this hype.
      As near as I can determine, this demonizing of glyphosate and GMO's originates from the Organic Farming Industry.

      This is nothing more than a tug-of-war between holding on to the ways of the past, and moving on with new ways of the future.  Like everything else we encounter in life, we have to muddle through it.                              

                               ---  SCIENCE OVER ADVOCACY ---

       Below I'm including two websites that support science over advocacy.  The first is "Biology Fortified" < Biology Fortified >.   The second is the "Genetic Literacy Project" <  Science Not Ideology >
       I've also included two of the 501(c)(3) organizations that fund much, if not most, of the tirade against Monsanto and GMO's.  They are the Rodale Institute, and The Sustainable Food Alliance Inc.
                        _________________________________________________________

Biology Fortified explains the science behind GMO's and exposes the pseudo-science propaganda that shows up in the media.  < Biology Fortified >

Genetic Literacy Project (GLP), advocates “Science, not Ideology”.   Information about GLP can be obtained at:  < https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-board/ >  
I have pulled parts of the profiles of the individuals named below from the GLP website.  They are names that many of us recognize in the anti-GMO campaign. 

_____________________________________________________________________

ABOUT RODALE INSTITUTE

Rodale Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to pioneering organic farming through research and outreach. For over seventy years, the Institute has been researching the best practices of organic agriculture and sharing findings with farmers and scientists throughout the world, advocating for policies that support farmers, and educating consumers about how going organic is the healthiest option for people and the planet. Learn more at www.rodaleInstitute.org.

The Sustainable Food Alliance, Inc. (SFA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, EIN 33-1123944 registered in the state of Delaware.

The aim of the SFA is to act as a catalyst to encourage collaborative engagement between individuals and organizations working in the field of sustainable agriculture.

Our mission is to accelerate the transition to more sustainable food and farming systems.

The SFA’s programs of work are delivered primarily by working in partnership with other organizations. We fundraise for and make grants to organizations working in the field of sustainable food and agriculture. We work alongside the Sustainable Food Trust, a UK-based charity that works internationally to advance our shared mission. The link to the summary article of: The Hidden Cost of UK Food .  I found this an interesting short read.  They include a lot of different elements into "the cost".  I can't disagree with what they are saying, but, (they don't lay out the details for feeding the world population)  I can't get my mind around replacing our high capacity production with "Organic Farming".

                             ______________________________________________

Judy Carman: Activist researcher promotes GMO scare studies in fringe journals?

Updated on November 29, 2017 | [wpv-post-taxonomy type="glp-types

PROFILE DETAILS

Judy Carman (born January 31, 1964) is an academic and anti-GMO activist. Her vanity site—GMO Judy Carman—was established by Henry Rowlands, the cybermaster behind GMO Seralini and the pro-organic website SustainablePulse, which promotes claims that genetically modified foods are unsafe despite the findings of every major independent science organizations that they are as safe or safer than other conventional or organic foods.

______________________________________________

Jeffrey Smith: Former flying yogic instructor now 'most trusted source' for anti-GMO advocacy

Updated on November 29, 2017 

PROFILE DETAILS

Jeffrey M. Smith (born 1956) is a self-published American author, independent film producer, professional dance instructor and former politician known for his work in transcendental meditation and yogic flying, Lindy Hop swing dance and activism in opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

[Note: See Daily Show takedown of Smith]

Smith ran for the U.S. Congress as a candidate for the Natural Law Party (United_States), has authored several self-published books, DVDs and a movie on the dangers of genetic engineering,[1] serves on the Genetic Engineering Committee of the Sierra Club, and is a frequent conference speaker at advocacy, alternative health, organic and natural products conferences and his work is promoted on such nationally syndicated television programs as The Dr. Oz Show. Smith claims to have a background in communications and marketing,[2] has served as an occasional contributor to his local newspaper[3] and attended school at the Maharishi Institute of Management in Fairfield, Iowa where he resides.

______________________________________

Gilles-Éric Séralini: Activist professor and face of anti-GMO industry

Updated on November 29, 2017 

PROFILE DETAILS

      Gilles-Éric Séralini is a French scientist who has been a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen since 1991. He is known for his controversial research concluding that genetically modified food and the pesticide glyphosate are unsafe for human consumption.

      Séralini was born August 23, 1960 in Annaba, Algeria, then known as Bône. He is president and chairman of the board of CRIIGEN (Committee of Independent Research and Information. He has published multiple studies alleging health risks associated with plant biotechnology which have been called flawed and biased by various regulatory and academic groups.

      A professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Caen, Laboratory of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, I.B.F.A., Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen Cedex, France. Séralini studied in Nice and became a Doctor in biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Montpellier in 1987. He left then for North America to carry out fundamental research for four years, at the University of Western Ontario and Laval University Medical Center, doing research on corticosteroid-binding globulin. Qualified to supervise research, he passed, at the age of 30, the French national competitive exam for University Professors.

       Séralini chose to focus on the interface of cancer research and endocrinology at the University of Caen, where he was appointed professor in June 1991, a position he has held ever since. He has written about 100 scientific articles and conference papers for international specialist symposiums. He assumes several roles in the Commissions of the University of Caen, where he leads a research team associated to CNRS (French National Centre for Scientific Research) and INRA."

       Funding for much of Séralini's research has come directly from the alternative health and organic industries, and in particular by various organizations tied to the Rodale Institute, that bills itself as "advocating for policies that support farmers, and educating consumers about how going organic is the healthiest option for people and the planet."  Anthony Rodale–chairman emeritus of Rodale’s Organic and grandson of the founder, is a vocal supporter of Séralini's work.

       The funds are funneled to the French scientist through the Sustainable Food Alliance (SFA), headed by Patrick Holden, former director of the UK Soil Association--Britain's organic industry trade group--which is a "charity campaigning for planet-friendly organic practices" and "healthy, humane and sustainable food, farming and land use”.  A study released in December 2016 claiming GM corn is not "substantially equilvent" to non-GMO varieties was financed by SFA.

__________________________________

Don Huber: Science still looking for Purdue professor's GMO pathogen time bomb

Updated on November 29, 2017 

PROFILE DETAILS

Don M. Huber (born 1935) is a former Purdue University professor who goes on publicity tours sponsored by organic[1], alternative health[2] and anti-GMO interest groups[3] claiming glyphosate and herbicide tolerant GM crops are causing health problems in people and animals. He also claims he discovered years ago a novel pathogenic microbe caused by agricultural genetic engineering–a GMO time bomb that is wreaking havoc on humans and animals.

    Huber maintains glyphosate and GMO herbicide tolerant crops are linked to human and animal health risks. He says animals fed GM crops are dying in record numbers and that their is a correlation between GM soy and GM corn with inflammatory bowel disease in humans in the United States. He alleges glyphosate is linked to alzheimer's disease, gout, diabetes, Parkinson's, allergies and fertility issues.  To support his claims, he cites research by a Maharishi movement expert in yogic flying Jeffrey M. Smith, and the debunked activist researcher Gilles-Eric Séralini.[5]

Huber has collaborated with anti-GMO activist researchers Judy Carman and Jack Heinemann in support of anti-GMO claims sponsored by extreme organic and biodynamic food and farming products company president Howard Vlieger.

ROUNDUP -- (Good or Bad ??)

UPDATE 2/24/18:  I recently received a critique on the book "Whitewash", a bash piece on GMO's and Glyphosate by Carey Gillam.  The timing and purpose of the book was to educate the public on the cancer causing effects of glyphosate and pressure the EU to not re-register glyphosate for use last fall.  The critique by Karl Haro von Mogal shreds the book and shows how, through the misuse of data,  and using partial truths, the anti-glyphosate crowd is misleading the public for the benefit of the "Organic" movement.  It's a bit difficult to read.  Because of the mirth employed, I had to read it twice to get the straight of the message.  The critique can be read at: < "Whitewash" is hogwash>

    Glyphosate was introduced to the public in 1974 following it's discovery by Monsanto chemist John E Franz in 1970.  Since it's discovery, Glyphosate has been under constant scrutiny with research trying to prove what glyphosate does or does not do.  What we do know is that it has been a very effective herbicide.  We also know that there are some resistant cultivars, and more will become resistant to the effects of glyphosate.  There is no revelation here, all our chemistry has developed resistant cultivars, --it's merely a matter of time.
     Our operation has used a lot of glyphosate and we have been comfortable with knowing that research proved over and over that it is safe for humans and animals.  At times we seem to bathe in the stuff.  We try not to ingest the chemical, but that has probably happened as well.  The first real concern over safety I'm aware of came around 2010, when Purdue professor emeritus, Dr. Don Huber dropped a bomb, stating that Glyphosate and GMO's are harming human, animal and earth's health.  The research that he based his conclusions on has never been duplicated.  With his continual repeating the claim, and the inability to duplicate the results at Purdue and other universities, Purdue disavowed him.  He is the darling of the anti-GMO crowd and continues to lecture world wide on the evils of glyphosate and GMO's.  The next big hit on glyphosate was when the World Health Organization (WHO) through the International Agency for Research on Cancers (IARC) published a statement that glyphosate "probably" is a Group 2a carcinogen.  The label "probably" can be used on a lot of chemistry and preservatives used for growing and processing our food.  Forty three years of research should be able to determine yes or no, --not a "probable".   However, if you want it to be a carcinogen but can't prove it then the next best thing is to damn it with the adverb "probably".   In fact,  Reuters has an investigative arm.  They state that the IARC research conclusions were changed from no evidence of being a carcinogen in the draft version, to a neutral or positive conclusion of being a carcinogen in the final published version.   The < Glyphosate Battle > is an interesting read.   Reuters has been stonewalled by both WHO and the researchers of the IARC on the reasoning for changing their position, --it wasn't apparently the science.   Since WHO's pronouncement, anti-Monsanto/Roundup/GMO activists, using all available media upped the public concern to the point where several countries are considering removing glyphosate from the register of approved herbicides, along with the State of California.
      In the November 2017 edition of No-Till Farmer there is an article on glyphosate titled,  Is Glyphosate Harming Your No-Till Soils?  The article states that the glyphosate molecule is hanging around longer than anticipated.  Glyphosate is negatively effecting some soil microbe communities.  Glyphosate is encouraging some plant diseases.  Glyphosate is interfering with nutrient uptake.  And, glyphosate is effecting mycorrhiza.  Some serious stated findings.
       I have been working with WSU researcher, Tim Paulitz, for several years on glyphosate interaction with soil biota, --principally bacteria and fungi.  Over the years I have gained a lot of respect and confidence in his work and knowledge of glyphosate.  He heads up a lot of glyphosate research and reads journal entries about glyphosate research worldwide.  His own research projects have found no statistical difference in either the bacteria or fungi communities, between ground that has never had glyphosate applied, and ground that has had a lot of glyphosate applied.  He is doing this study over a wide area of the Palouse and is working in three rainfall zones, ---high, medium, low.  I asked him why this study was in conflict with his findings.  His response:
       Tracy, ---- I looked over the No-Till article.  There is nothing new in this article, except the work from Cornell. The rest of the article refers to old work by Robert Kremer. As I mentioned before, he did not have the molecular tools to really address the questions about microbial communities.  He was only working with the small fraction of fungi and bacteria that can be cultured-  less than 1% of what is out there.  Kind of like trying to paint a picture of the world by only looking through a small narrow slit. Rather than trying to rebut his work, I think it is more useful to look at the new work we have done.

        But I will comment on the article from Cornell by Aristilde.  By the way, this article was reviewed by Kremer.  First of all, the No-Till article was misleading in talking about this work, when it said that “beneficial Pseudomonas… decreased when glyphosate seeped into the surface soil layer by leaching or release from glyphosate treated plants”.  In the Cornell paper, they did not work in the soil, or with plants.  All their work was done in the lab in culture. There may have been other work that they did in soil, but I could not find it published.  They took 4 biocontrol strains of the bacterium Pseudomonas and tested them in culture to see how sensitive they were to glyphosate.  Three were relatively insensitive, but one was completely inhibited at 5 mM.  It was also slightly inhibited at 0.5 mM. This is well known- some bacteria have a form of the enzyme that is sensitive to glyphosate, others are insensitive.  Nothing new here. In fact, the original gene that was used in Roundup Ready crops came from a bacterium, Agrobacterium.  But when I converted the molar concentrations into ppm, it came out to 84 ppm and 845 ppm.  Bacteria in the soil environment will never be exposed to these concentrations, unless there is a chemical spill on the soil. So I would say that this study is not really relevant to the real world.  Many things we do in the lab are useful to develop theories and basic understanding, but the key question is, --does this really happen in the real world? If you hit just about any microbe with a high enough concentration of a chemical in culture, growth will be inhibited.  Also remember that bacteria and fungi may behave in culture very differently from in the soil.   In the study they used high tech state of the art metabolomics to show that the shikimic acid pathway and aromatic amino acids were inhibited.  This has been known for 40 years.  These are the target of glyphosate, --an enzyme in the shikimate pathway that plants, bacteria and fungi use to make aromatic amino acids, which are essential.  They also showed you could supply these amino acids to the bacteria and overcome the growth inhibition. Again, this is nothing new.

         Let me address a few other points in the article. The work on Roundup ready soybean and Fusarium was not done with isogenic lines, so the difference could have been inherent differences in the genetic background of the two lines, There is a picture  of petri dishes with bacteria in the article, and says he can tell by looking at them that there are mostly non-beneficials in the glyphosate treatment.  You cannot tell by looking at cultures.  He talks about gene issues, and having transgenic DNA in the soil, --DNA is quickly broken down in the soil, and there is no evidence of these genes being transferred to other bacteria.  He talks about nutrient complications, --again, a non-issue for us since we do not have GMO wheat, --and others from Purdue have rebutted this argument.  The amount of glyphosate in the environment is so small, it does not play a role in chelating nutrients in the soil, which are in much larger concentrations.  He also cites a study on his farm of taking out fescue and then planting soybean, and noted higher levels of fungus on the roots of soybean in the glyphosate take out.  This is classic green bridge effect, and we have known about this risk for 30 years.  

        So, in summary, I think the main risks of glyphosate that our farmers in the PNW have to worry about is the green bridge effect of carrying over root pathogens to a new crop (and we have known this for 30 years) and the risk of developing glyphosate resistant weeds by overuse, --as has happened in the Midwest.  In the end, farmers have to weigh risks with benefits.

        Timothy Paulitz,USDA-ARS,Wheat Health,Genetics and Quality Research Unit,Washington State University, Pullman, WA, Phone- 509 335-7077, 
email: timothy.paulitz@ars.usda.gov

      The Green bridge referenced by Tim P. was discovered and studied by Dr. Jim Cook of WSU.  Root diseases can be carried over from one cultivar to another when planted into a  dying cultivar.  The recommendation is to not plant within 20 days of a Roundup application. Time is part of the recipe for sanitizing a field along with cultivar rotation and cultivar diversity.

HOW DO I SEE THE FUTURE!

         Regardless of  glyphosate or any other chemistry's fate, --they are all under attack, we have to get smarter about raising crops with fewer chemical inputs.  That means we have to learn how to manage cover crops for the purpose of suppressing weed competition and supplying nutrients to our cash crops.  This is a challenge, and the "How-To Book" is just starting to be written for the Inland Pacific Northwest.

GLYPHOSATE -- NEW STUDY

              There is a lot of internet noise about the evils of glyphosate.  Trying to figure out fact from fiction is challenging. 

              Recently I attended a meeting where a report was given by a Researcher at a local University on a recent study to determine, what, if any effects glyphosate has on soil bacteria communities.  In the past, Monsanto has put out information that glyphosate does not affect soil biota, but the old research is under attack for using bad methodology.   The Researcher feels this is a very good study, it used appropriate methodology for the task, replicated, and will be peer reviewed.  They feel the study is high enough caliber to be sent on to the National Academy of Science for further review and hopefully, publication.   Soil samples from four farms scattered over a wide area (100+ miles), with different soil types, and different annual rainfall (10”- 24”)were collected.   At each location, soil was collected from ground that had little/no history of glyphosate application along with ground that had an extensive history of glyphosate use.  In our case, we had a grass area that was once conventionally farmed, —it has never had glyphosate applied.  Bordering this area is a field that has had glyphosate  applied multiple times, every year, for 31 years.  The other 3 locations, have different, but similar stories.  The testing methodology used soil DNA and next- generation sequencing.  10,000 bacteria species were identified. 

       The RESULT:  — There was no dramatic effect on the bacterial communities identified,  —out of the 10,000 species a few showed slight decreases, and a few showed slight increases from the use of glyphosate.  The populations of most bacteria groups appeared to be unaffected.  The four locations showed differences in the bacterial communities, indicating location, soils, and rainfall did have an impact on soil bacteria communities, —more so than what was identified through use of glyphosate. [ This research team was headed up by Tim Paulitz, USDA-ARS an adjunct professor with Washington State University ]

       This is very good news for those of us in the direct seeding community.

       There are plans developing to do a similar study on what effects, if any, glyphosate has on fungi species and populations in the soil.

    On Another Page:   Today I attended a meeting on soil health put together by WSU extension. Part of the agenda included a presentation on Glyphosate.  Desiccating a crop has to be done within label limits or labs can find traces of the amino acid associated with glyphosate in the end product.  Whether this is a real problem or not, it leads to poor PR in the phobia climate surrounding glyphosate.  Traces of glyphosate residue, under some conditions can persist for more than a year in the soil.  This residual material can, in some rare instances be taken up and harm the crop.  These rare instances manifest themselves with a specific  pH, soil, and moisture relationship.  THE TAKE HOME MESSAGE:  Don't deviate from the label when applying glyphosate.  We have always considered the chemistry super safe and tend to be a bit flippant with it's use.

GLYPHOSATE - A Recent Study

     Last year we were contacted to participate in a glyphosate study.  Interest in us came from the knowledge that we have land that has had many gallons per acre (≈20+)applied over the last 30 years, and also land that has never had glyphosate applied.  The researchers were looking for changes in the soil that could be attributed to Glyphosate.  There are six locations with different operators in the project that extends across the greater Palouse area.  This year they are expanding the research project to look more in-depth at each of the microbiological communities.
     To date, the short simple answer is that they have found no evidence that glyphosate is impacting our soils beyond normal variations found in soil types, crop cultivars, and location.
     In our discussion it was brought out that the glyphosate molecule is of a fairly simple structure that has P, S, and C as part of it's makeup.  With these elements, arranged as they are, this molecule should be a good food source for the soil microbiological community.  Part of the study is to identify which  communities use glyphosate as a food source.  One characteristic of glyphosate is that it has an affinity for mineral soil, and is held very tightly.  This does have an impact on what microbes use this product as food.
     Several times I have done an internet search on glyphosate.  It's amazing how many hits are out there, and the vast number are negative on glyphosate and Monsanto.  Even though I know that most of these "THE TRUTH ABOUT GLYPHOSATE", and the like, articles, are garbage, --occasionally there will be a statement that gives me pause.  In these situations, I go back to trusted, peer reviewed articles for the answer, --and sometimes, there is no answer.  What I have noticed, is that Monsanto's detractors work on emotion, with few facts to support their claims.  They will make unsupported statements like, --40 researchers from around the world support the truth that glyphosate creates "Super Weeds".  Statements like this is not a a total lie.  A grain of truth normally can be found in these proclamations, but they are always, "over the top", miss leading.  Any one in the business of production agriculture knows that every class of chemical we use is becoming less effective in killing unwanted plant cultivars, --including glyphosate (Roundup).  This gives rise to a reference of "Super Weed". We have run out of known "modes" of action on which to attack a plant cultivar, so now we are using mixes of chemicals that combine different modes of action.  Rarely is a single chemistry recommended to assure a clean crop.
     One disturbing question (for me) that I am now working on finding the answer too is:  does multiple applications of Roundup (on Rt tolerant crops, GMO's) build up in the food supply (seed, forage)?  The followup question is: if so, is that a problem for human or animal health?  I think the answer to the first is NO, if used according to the label! --which, sort of says that it could if the label is not followed, (which I am sure occurs).  I'm unsure on the second question.  Early research said no, but I'm not sure what more recent "peer reviewed" research says.  There is plenty of junk science that will say that Roundup causes grotesque cancerous warts, and is the root of every imaginable disease known to mankind.
     Groups like Earth First and EWG(Environmental Working Group) have as much credibility with me as televangelist's do.  They both live through their greed, and peoples fears they skillfully nurture, and/or create!


   

1st 2015 DOWNPOUR

 [Update: 5/29/15] --This past week the Palouse has had a series of thunder storms, and in scattered locations have resulted in serious damage to exposed ground.  Unstable weather is predicted to continue in the region.  When you look at the national weather events and see the extremes, one wonders when those extremes will engulf us, --either drought like California, or deluge like Texas.  World wide, weather appears to be increasing in severity.  My thought is that it will happen here, --but when and with what severity?  A Texas size storm would obliterate our land regardless of cropping practices; however, there is a lot of gradation between the Texas type storms and the little bangers we have received, which we can armor our land against.  It's as simple as eliminate loosening the soil with cultivation, keeping the soil surface covered, and keeping the soil anchored with roots (alive or dead) from the surface down.  These two things give us the best protection from unusual events whether temperature or water related.
     Saturday evening, May 16th, Thunderstorms hit eastern Whitman County with rains that did serious damage to some fields.  Fortunately the damage was limited to a narrow strip of land; however, the impact is going to be felt over a wide area.  Creeks in the effected watersheds were running thick.  They look more like mud flows than creeks.  Thousands of tons of soil along with attached fertilizer and chemistry left the farms and will end up in lakes, rivers and ocean.
    The fields I saw didn't even have the basic conservation practices applied.  They were denuded of residue, cultivated and seeded vertically, and the surface worked to a fine texture.  We are living in the age of 500+ horsepower tractors and the environment and ground is paying the price.
    An event in February, 2014, showed me that even fields with good armor and soil structure are subject to runoff; however, in our case the water loss was clear.  (see post of 2/27/14)
     Operations that abuse the ground, and there are many in the Palouse, will not be held accountable as past experience proves; however, they are big contributors to the publics attitude towards farmers and their out cry for for more regulations and restrictions that effect all of us.  If the appropriate regulators would target gross abusers and work with them to clean up their act we would all be better off.

VALUE OF ORGANIC MATTER

      Organic Matter and it's value in crop production was the topic of a recent Direct Seed meeting.  I've known about OM since my school days of long ago.  I didn't take it seriously until well after the Horse Escaped the Barn -- if any readers are old enough to remember that phrase.  Current research puts a little different twist to what I remember from 1960.  Organic Matter can now be divided into two basic types -- Stable OM where it is highly decomposed with very little biological activity, and Active OM that is being used, and worked on, by living plants, animals and microbes.  Food to feed these communities associated with Active OM needs to be continual and not intermittent.  Good soil is alive and needs nourishment.  I'm starting to think that production from these soils have the potential for sustainability without costly inputs.  Bad soil is dead dirt.  These soils will always require massive inputs of fertilizer and chemistry to raise a crop.  I use to poo-poo organic farming, but not anymore.  Thanks to those people, research on our micro-biological soil life and how to develop and exploit sustainable farming has taken off.  Speaking of dead dirt -- is there anything deader than fallow, and we do this intentionally.  We need to give more thought to this subject.
      When the Palouse Prairie was first put under the plow it was roughly 20% of Stable OM and 80% Active OM.  Nutrients were manufactured, and recycled by organisms in the Active OM.  Some plants are capable of tapping into a variety of nutrients deep in the soil profile and transport them to the surface where other plants can use them. Today, after a 100 years of cultivation the Active OM and the Stable OM are reversed.  The Active OM has been lost primarily through cultivation from two factors.  1)--Cultivation stokes the fire of mineralization.  By mixing air, moisture, and residue(fuel), organic matter is converts to nitrogen and carbon dioxide.  Nitrogen is released and growing plants use it for food, and Carbon Dioxide is released into the atmosphere.  Does Carbon Sequestration and Global Warming strike a bell?  Our farming practices are taking us in the wrong direction on these subjects.  I include our commonly accepted DS techniques in this statement.   2)--Every cultivation pass breaks down soil structure into ever decreasing particle size.  This results in less residue to protect the soil surface, allows soils to seal off when it rains, and increases compaction, and starves the biological communities in the soil.  One visual symptom is droughty high ground and waterlogged low ground.  There are numerous visual examples east of State Highway 195.  Should we lose the technology of fertilizer and chemistry either by availability or price, all our operations would be at risk.  In the past, civilizations have disappeared when their political and cultural practices destroyed the soil.  Professor, Jared Diamond has written three books on the subject.  The book "Collapse" is an interesting read, and a bit sobering.
      Where do we go from here?  First, move away from farming practices that deplete the soil.  A careless practice can cost you an inch of soil in one major weather event.  It takes nature approximately 1000 years to replace that one inch.  This happened in a major production area in Australia about 20 years ago.  Starting with 7"of productive soil, these farmers made a quick change.  One year they were tillage based farmers, and the next year, and since, they are DS.
       Second, start incorporating practices that will build soil structure and reestablish the soil biological communities.  There is a lot of good research on the subject and more in the pipeline.  Land Grant Universities and private laboratories are ramping up programs to meet the need.
        Third, it appears that we need to get out of fallow.  Current research by Oregon State indicates that one fallow year loses more than we gain in the two crop years of a three year rotation.  That was a real downer for me.  For years I thought I was building soil by DS.  A better understanding of soil biology and  interaction from/with different crop cultivars is going to be necessary to break traditional mind sets.

IMPORTANCE OF FALL CHEMICAL TREATMENT

         I recently spent a couple of days participating in tours designed for growers sponsored by private and public entities.  Of all the things that I saw and heard, the following was the most striking.  I'll be interested in the harvest data on this plot of spring wheat.  We all have experienced the anxiety of putting out chemical on ground that looks bare of anything growing.
         This pic demonstrates the importance of a fall chemical application when your intention is to plant a spring crop.  In this case the crop is a spring cereal.  It is a little difficult to visualize, but look at the pant line on the researcher.  The right side is about knee high.  The left side is about mid thigh.  There were no specifics given to compare the the two sides; however, the right side of the plot looked stunted, and thinner compared to the left side.   If the right side had been a field, the grower may not notice there being a problem.  Standing alone, the right side doesn't look that bad, maybe a little thin. The only difference in the treatment of this plot was that the right side was missed when the fall application of glyphosate was applied.  The researcher stated that there was very little material growing on the plot last fall.  Each side of the plot had it's spring application of glyphosate three weeks prior to seeding.  The entire plot was seeded at the same time, and all subsequent operations were done consistent across the entire plot.  The first indication that something was different was the delay in crop emergence on the right side.  Rhizoctonia was discovered to be the culprit.  The green bridge effect raises it's ugly head even when there doesn't appear to be any green.

So the lesson is:  DON'T MISS THE FALL APPLICATION OF GLYPHOSATE --- even though it appears there is nothing for glyphosate to act on.