2017 HARVEST UPDATE

The 2017 crop year was a record breaker.  Never in my lifetime have we received 20.4" of rain/snow in a crop year at our SJ/Ewan operation.  Also, we have had near record or record breaking temperatures for the 2017 crop year.  That sounds like it should be a banner year with plenty of moisture and heat.  Well, not for us.  Timing of the rain and heat trumped everything.  The harvest of 2017 was mostly disappointing.
WINTER WHEAT:   (Brundage 96)  All of our winter wheat was seeded on pea ground (no ww on fallow ground).  The ground was dry, which meant we didn't consider seeding until after Oct. 1st, --a bad decision this year.  October was extremely wet all month.  Lesson learned?! --Seed in September regardless of dryness, and seed it deep (1.5-2") so it takes a significant rain to start it.  Had we done that, the Thornton winter wheat crop would have probably been 100-110% of average, and the less forgiving SJ/Ewan area winter wheat crop would have been in the range of 90-100% of average.  As it was, Thornton was ~90% of average, and SJ/Ewan was ~50% of average.
SPRING WHEAT (DNS):  (Glee)  The season started out with great soil moisture, and timely seeding, that developed into a very nice looking stand of spring wheat.  The unusual heat wave (~ three weeks ± 100 degrees) damaged the bloom and seed development.  Our quality was remarkably good, --the meshes were just blanked out.  Test weight was good and shriveled kernels were few, and protein was just under 14%.  Our yield was ~ 90% of average.

[Update 6/28/18] --Meetings held during the winter and spring on Canola have emphasized the importance of proper timing for chemical applications.  There will be a yield loss to the crop if chemical is applied after bolting commences.  We didn't get to the in-crop application until bolting started showing, along with some flowering, --this is probably why we were ~200#/a below a neighbors yield although we had a better stand and population.  The neighbors field was a couple of hundred feet higher, and that may have been a factor as well in terms of heat effect.
SPRING CANOLA:  (hyCLASS 930 rr) The crop was timely seeded.  The plant population was good.  The crop was growing well, but the heat hit in early bloom (for 2016 trials, we had nearly a month of bloom).  The high heat over the extended time did not let a re-bloom establish pods.  In fact the spring canola continued to bloom through the beginning of 2018, although no pods set.  The yield was ~ 30-40% of what we expected.  Any other field would have probably done better this particular year.  This field was our poorest soil, lowest elevation and all faced S and SW.  It took the brunt of the heat.  We are not deterred.  We think that spring canola is going to be a great alternative to winter wheat.  Also, it appears that we will be able to cut spring canola with the stripper header which is a big plus.  This field went into winter in great shape, --good residue, standing tall with most of the plants still living.   The tall canola stubble, although not thick like wheat stubble, is great for reducing wind velocity near the soil surface, and snow catch.  Winter of 2017-2018 was not a big snow year like 2016 but we haven't seen any drifting in that field compared to mowed or tilled fields.
      I haven't sorted out the data for any comparison between CF/winter wheat and CC/winter wheat, or our canola on ground that has had a cover crop and ground that has never had a cover crop.  I may include that as an update to this post or it may take a post of it's own.

STEWARDING OUR SOILS

This post is an update on our progress to improve the health of the soils we steward.
      Ten years ago we were still trying to stop water erosion after nearly 20 years of actively working the problem, and soil health was a general term without specifics.  Today, we have stopped ~95% of erosion by water, and have an idea on how to stop another ~4%, --I'm leaving ~1% as uncontrollable at this point.  We are now hearing more of a consensus of what Soil Health means, --it turns out to be multi-faceted.  For us, Soil Health breaks down too four basic elements, --1) maintain surface residue, 2) minimize soil disturbance,  3) diversify crops, 4) keep a live root growing as long as possible during the year.  Working to maximize these four elements will hopefully remove soil erosion, build soil structure, feed the biota, build SOM that will result in improved soil health.
                                                 WHERE ARE WE TODAY:

 The pic on the left:  --2006 WW seeded on CF following SB.  We were using a high disturbance hoe drill, and you can see a lot of exposed soil.  Along with WW we were inadvertently planting weed seed that existed as well.  With the exposed soil and impressions left by the hoe, the field was vulnerable to soil erosion going into winter. 

 The pic on the left:  --2015 WW seeded on SP stubble.  We have progressed from high disturbance no-till to ultra-low disturbance(ULD) no-till through the use of the stripper header and the CrossSlot drill.  We have enough residue on the ground that you see no dirt.  In our environment with high summer temperatures, freezing winter temperatures, and most of our moisture coming during the winter(~15"), it's important to conserve as much of our rainfall as possible by increasing percolation and moderating our near surface soil temperatures.  The ULD system does this better than any other system out there.  The system also reduces erosion from the common forces of wind, water and tillage to near zero.
 More detail on the four basic elements mentioned above:
        --RESIDUE:   The need to maintain 100%+ surface cover (a good gauge is that if you see dirt you need more residue).  Unfortunately our most vulnerable ground still has some dirt exposed.  Residue protects the soil surface from the destructive forces of the raindrop which helps prevent surface sealing, and slows water movement. Surface residue moderates soil temperature.  In the summer we have measured ≥20 degrees cooler temperatures under the residue compared to bare soil. This is a definite moisture saver.  It slows the replacement rate of the boundary layer (the 100% humidity zone at the soil surface).  In the winter, soils remain 2-4 degrees warmer than bare soil.  When we do our spring seeding, seed zone temperature lags about three days behind bare cultivated soil.  We find that insignificant when compared to the benefits. 
         --TILLAGE:  We have decreased soil surface disturbance to the absolute minimum.  This maximizes residue retention, and maximizes channeling from worm activity, and decayed root structure, which continue to build over time.  Those channels help reduce the time our soils stay in a water saturated (anaerobic) state, and that in turn, reduces the buildup of various pathogens, and conditions that negatively impact our cash crops.

  ---Another benefit from maximizing residue retention and minimizing soil disturbance is less weed pressure.  Minimum soil disturbance combined with heavy residue leaves a very hostile environment for any cultivar to get a start.  If you enlarge the pic at the left you can clearly see that disturbed ground, even if it is only a wheel track encourages weed growth. The undisturbed areas do have some growing cultivars, but the number is significantly less and tend to be spots with the least or no residue.   Also, maximizing residue retention and minimizing soil disturbance makes for faster water percolation into the lower soil profile.  This drys the soil surface faster reducing compaction from heavy equipment during early spring seeding.    

      --CROP DIVERSITY:  We have started to stretch our cropping system to include winter wheat, spring wheat, spring  barley, billy beans,mustard, canola, winter and spring peas.  The rotation is dynamic (meaning no particular crop following a particular crop).  More crops may be added to the mix in the future like soybeans, sunflower, millet, and sorghum.  Crop diversity along with a dynamic rotation is being used  to address weed and disease issues as they become evident.  A mono-culture crop promotes certain weed types, --downy brome in winter wheat is an example.  Crop diversity allows us to use herbicides with different modes of action.  This will lengthen the useful life of the chemistry available to us by lengthening out the time when weed species develop resistance to a specific herbicide.  Keep in mind that we haven't had a herbicide with a new "mode of action" marketed for 30 years, and there is none currently in the pipeline.  Crop diversity helps improve soil health through the root exudes.  The more variety of cultivars we can get into the rotation the better for the soil biota as well.

       --LIVING ROOTS:  The biggest challenge for us will be lengthening the time we keep living roots in the soil during the year.  Research is showing this to be a major factor in feeding soil biota and increasing SOM.  Currently we use CF in front of our WW.  In our arid environment that has to change to make a positive increase in SOM.  Currently we are bumbling along, doing a variety of things that are not well understood or coordinated.  Last spring we attempted to establish a ~30ac perma-cover with White Dutch Clover.  That has failed, but we will try again this fall.   We do have a ~70ac field that we have replaced CF with green fallow (GF).  This spring we will be seeding the GF which will include lentils, forage peas, forage oats, and radish and dutch white clover.  This is the second rotation of GF on this field.  Unlike the past we plan to terminate the CC at the high N production cycle instead of letting the cover continue through maturity.  How we terminate is yet to be decided.  This fall (2018) we will seed this field to WW.
      --Soil Biota:  In 2015 we took soil samples of the 70ac field and sent them to Earthfort Labs in Corvallis, OR.  We plan to retake those tests in 2020 for comparison. The early tests (more detailed in an earlier post) showed we were very high in bacteria, very low in fungi, flagellates, ameba, and beneficial nematodes.  Fortunately we were also low in ciliates, and harmful nematodes.  The low fungi count along with the high bacteria count is the natural occurrence from a history of raising only  grass cultivars, which are bacteria dominate.  I'm reading where healthy soils have a Fungi/Bacteria ration ~1/1 which requires raising higher secession plants.  We are no where near that ratio.  There is no history of higher cessation plants like brassicas or pulses, that support fungi on that ground.  The Earthfort report summary stated that the biota needed food.  We have to figure out whether we can buildup the fungi numbers from the remanent we have or whether we need to add inoculant of fungi and support them with higher cessation plants.  Also, can we successfully feed the biota with biological amendments, --there are several available from a variety of sources.  Currently we are riding a train that is accelerating down the track in the use of commercial inputs.  The only hope to reverse this trend is to increase our knowledge of what makes a healthy soil, and apply that knowledge.  There is evidence that this can be done.  How do WE do it in our specific climate/environment is the question.

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.

EARTH WORMS and RESIDUE

   
     It is becoming more common to see articles and presentations referencing the presence of earth worms as an indicator of soil health.  Does that mean you have reached the goal of returning the ground back to it's original self sustaining condition that was present prior to man's intervention?  NO, --it is one of many indicators!  The compaction layers, low pH, low SOM, and high erosion can be present and still have a significant population of earth worms, both horizontal movers and vertical movers.  I'm not convinced that every acre of ground has a native population of earth worms, --they either were never there, or conditions became so bad over time that they disappeared.  I am convinced that earth worms will move into an area if conditions change that will allow them to survive.  I have always been able to find earth worms in the early spring in the low areas where moisture was plentiful, even prior to no-tilling, --just not very many.  I soon learned as a kid that it took a lot of spading in the crop ground to find enough worms for a day of fishing, where, if I went to an area that had a lot of residue and was pretty wet, it only took a few spade full of dirt to fill my needs.
       What will encourage earth worms to inhabit cropped fields?  They need food, and shelter just like any other living thing.  If their homes and food are not destroyed on a regular basis they will be there or move there.
       The recent No-Till Farmer magazine had an insert titled "12 UNRIVALED BENEFITS OF EARTHWORM ACTIVITY IN YOUR SOILS".  When I first read them, several seemed to be repetitive, but they were different, but had similarities.  These 12 points come from various university studies throughout the US.  I'm going to paraphrase a two page article to shorten this post.  1--Improve Water infiltration:  Pencil thin burrows allow rainwater to penetrate deep into and throughout the soil profile.  2--Improve Soil Aeration:  Burrows are conduits for air moving into the soil profile and CO2 movement out to stimulate plant growth.  3--Increased Hardpan Penetration:  Earthworm tunnels once bored through the hardpans stay and improve root access.  4--Reduced Soil Compaction:  Burrows both vertical and horizontal encourage root growth, which helps breakup compacted areas.  5--Mix Surface Residue Into Soil:  Some species pull residue into the soil.  63000 worms per acre will make about 18 tons of castings.  In ten years they are capable of complete renewal of 2" of topsoil.  6--Release Of Crop Growth Stimulants:  Earthworms break down crop growth inhibitors, phenols and formaldehyde from decaying residue and lace the material with growth stimulants, auxins and cytokinins.  7--Bring Minerals Up From Subsoil:  Earthworm castings contain 5-10 times the soluble plant nutrients of the original soil.  8--Neutralization of Soil PH:  Earthworm processed soil is always closer to neutral pH.  9--Rapid Growth Of Beneficial Microbes:  Earthworms carry around and deposit beneficial microbes as they go.  These thrive and help decompose residue.  10-- Improve Soil Tilth:  Earthworm castings contain sugars and enzymes which help build soil aggregates.  Fields bulk up being more sponge like.   Fields with high worm populations have 4 times infiltration rate of fields without earthworms.  11-Improved Nematode Control:  Earthworms eat harmful nematodes and leave  soil conditions that limit nematode numbers.  12-- Increase Micronutrient Chelation:  Earthworms link micronutrients, such as zinc and boron to other nutrients for easier uptake by plant roots.  13--Reduce Erosion:  I'll add this one to the list.  The surface residue required for the listed benefits above, along with the earthworm tunneling to the surface slows water loss, hence, reduces erosion.
      Earth worms are truly natures plows, only they do a much better job by leaving a less erosive soil, cycling minerals through the soil, and improving moisture infiltration.  The higher the population the better.  Earth worms are a great indicator of which direction your soil is headed, --to a healthier state or to DIRT.
      The Take Home Message Here Is:  DON'T TILL AND DON'T REMOVE RESIDUE!
   

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.

WHEAT U --- 2017

      There was a good attendance and age diversity at the Wheat U in Spokane, Dec. 5th.   All the presentations will be available on < Wheat U > in the near future.  An earlier Conference in Kansas can also be viewed on that website.   I'll limit my comments to two parts of the agenda that most interested me, --the luncheon speaker,  Dr. Pete Berry (Crop Physiologist for ADAS,UK Ltd.), and Cat Solois' (McGregor's Director of Research & Technology) presentations.
        Berry:   Dr. Berry's presentation described the Yield Enhancement Network (YEN) which is part of the ADAS (stands for ??).  The YEN links producers that share information on how to enhance yields.  They have a competition that is broke down to several categories that include soil capability.  Fields are ≥5ac, with the average size ≈10ac.  Many of the participants have relative small acreages, or small fields for their farm operation.  Out-of-the-box ideas are encouraged.  Berry shared a lengthy list of ideas, some sounding ridiculous.
        I didn't have much interest in this presentation until it dawned on me that this concept may be useful to gain experience and ideas on cover crops, --how to use plant cultivars to replace commercial inputs.  The idea here would be to solicit participation of farmers around the region to devote a small acreage to a project where all plant nutrients and weed control would be done through the use of plant cultivars, whether they be cash crop or cover crop cultivars.  The only rule for a participant would be that no applications of commercial inputs would be allowed on that acreage.  A business plan with more detail of the project needs to be worked up along with rewards/awards that participants may expect.  This is an idea in early development stage.
        Solois:  Cat started by showing the locations around the region of McGregor plants.  She stated that they have 2 years of data taken in fields they service to baseline soil fertility levels.  These are taken in three locations within each field indicating high-medium-low management areas.  In the midwest, when you pull up a fertility map of a region it is very detailed about what the usage is and what element is short.  In the west it is a grey page with no data.  Her general topic was plant nutrition.  She talked about factors that effect the efficiency of plants taking in various nutritional elements like, N-P-K.  She also showed that the Inland Pacific Northwest (IPNW) soils were very complex and pH varied dramatically in short distances.  Inadequate levels of K are showing up in low and medium management areas.  These are basically the eroded areas.  Taking core samples need to be done with care about location.  An example she shared, was where one core from a low management area included in a 10 core sample from a high management area moved the K from a high level to a marginal level.
      All in all, a day well spent.  These events are great for exchanging information with like minded people, along with the event presentations.

"DIRT" and more

David R. Montgomery has recently put out the third book of a trilogy about soil.    

     [ --DIRT, --HIDDEN HALF OF NATURE, --GROWING A REVOLUTION ].      

Event Photo: 

    All are books that we as farmers should read, and reflect on what we are doing to the soil and how to become better stewards of the land.  By our actions we have demonstrated that we really don't understand the asset we have in our soil.  We continue to flush it's productivity down the ditch year after year where it does no-one an good.  There are several uTube presentations that give you a short course on what each book is about.  The following link is the public kickoff presentation for:  < Growing a Revolution >.  I found this to be very good.  The total video is an hour and eleven minutes.  His presentation is ≈58min and than question/answer period.  I spotted this while looking at the agenda for the National Conference on Cover Crops & Soil Health, sponsored by the Soil and Water Conservation Society.   Enjoy, and think about what you are doing to the land and how you can improve your stewardship.