Photobucket

Get Jill's new lazy vegetarian cooking eBook:

Pay what you can

Order Prints:

Size


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 14:54:30 PM PST


Bookmark and Share
A bombshell has been quietly dropped on the website of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. I should disclose, upfront, that the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) is founded and run by my close friend Judith McGeary. Said bombshell is an open letter written by Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, to Tom Vilsack, presenting a finding of a correlation between either glyphosate or Roundup Ready crops and a new, previously unknown organism that may be the cause of animal miscarriages and infertility.

As the letter, printed below, notes, this research is still preliminary. However, Huber, who has 40 years experience working as a scientist for "professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks," believes this should be treated as an emergency until more research can confirm or disprove these initial findings.

Needless to say, the recent deregulation of GE alfalfa is something to think about, because that will dramatically increase the use of Roundup on animal feed and the feeding of Roundup Ready crops to our livestock. There is more to be said on this, but I want to tread carefully and stick to facts that I can confirm, so stay tuned.

Jill Richardson :: Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages
Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn-suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup.  This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen's source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties

This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

Pathogen Location and Concentration

It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.

Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease

The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income-sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss' wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).

Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure

Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.

The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

Recommendations

In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA's participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.

Sincerely,

COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Who is Don M. Huber? (4.00 / 3)
APS apparently refers to The American Phytopathological Society. Huber sits on the committee for Emerging Diseases and Pathogens, which is chaired by an Agriculture Research Service (USDA) employee from Fort Detrick, Maryland. Huber probably worked at Fort Detrick, based on what he wrote in the letter. The committee is populated by employees from various divisions of USDA and by various academics.

National Plant Disease Recovery System

The National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) is called for in Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 9 (HSPD-9) which was issued in February of 2004.   The purpose of the NPDRS is to ensure that the tools, infrastructure, communication networks, and capacity required to mitigate the impact of high consequence plant disease outbreaks are such that a reasonable level of crop production is maintained in the U.S.

Each recovery plan listed below is intended to provide a brief primer on a threatening disease, assess the status of critical recovery components, and identify disease management research, extension, and education needs for that disease.   These recovery plans are not intended to be stand-alone documents that address all of the many and varied aspects of a plant disease outbreak and all of the decisions that must be made and actions taken to achieve effective response and recovery.   They are, however, documents that will help USDA and others guide efforts directed toward preparation for and recovery from new plant diseases in the U.S.

The plans are a cooperative effort of university, industry, and government scientists sponsored by The American Phytopathological Society (APS) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  The pathogens discussed in these plans have been nominated as critical threats to U.S. agricultural production and reviewed at annual workshops of APS and USDA held in April of 2006, April of 2007, and October of 2008.   The content and recommendations of those meetings can be viewed at...

I did not exhaustively research what other committees Huber sits on or what other affiliations he may have. I only wanted to make the point that he is not a virgin in this business. It looks like he is not a crank writing an unsolicited memo to Vilsack from somewhere back of the bleachers. He's part of the system and he's doing his job.

Interesting.


he's a professor emeritus at Purdue University nt (4.00 / 2)


"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
That and a dime (4.00 / 1)
will buy him a cup of coffee at Sykes', but his role at APS means his letter should be taken seriously (I think).

Off topic, Sykes' coffee went to 25 cents a cup briefly in 2009, but when Ray bought the place, coffee with a meal went back to a dime. I don't know what it is now if you get just coffee and pie.


[ Parent ]
While I doubt that this is a brand new organism (4.00 / 4)
I wouldn't be surprised if it's an organism that wasn't present in crops we eat and feed to livestock untill the RR gene was inserted into them. If that is the case, I'll bet the what ever plant or plants the Monsanto got the RR gene from perhaps is a natural host for the pathogen. Or perhaps there's something in the corn and soy plants with the RR gene, or that when in the presence of Roundup or Glyphosate allows the organism to multiply to the point of pathogenicity.

Remember, a pathogen is only a pathogen if present in sufficient numbers to cause disease or illness. Admitedly, some pathogens require lower numbers to do that than others.

It's curious that Huber cites miscariages and sterility in horses. Horses are generally not fed a lot of grains, they have very low tollerances for high protein feeds like soy and corn, not anywhere near the tolerances that pigs or even cattle have. The only horses I'd think of off hand that would be fed a diet high in milled feed would be older animals on a complete feed who no longer metabolize hay and other forages very well. Plus, horses eat, A LOT, and bagged feeds are way more expensive than hay or even alfalfa. Also, horses who aren't fed much forage have a tendancy to colic more often. All of the roughage that hays provide keep the gut healthy, which keeps the colic down. So I'm not sure how much a pathogen like this in corn an soy would play in equine sterility and abortion. However, there have been several disease outbreaks caused by imported horses bringing in diseases and domestic horses who haven't been tested properly for reproductive diseases, spreading those diseases either through live cover or shipped semen.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


Pregnant horses (eating for two) are fed much more (4.00 / 3)
Horse feeds usually have corn in them to some degree. I would also guess that "horse operations" may refer more to race horse breeding industry. Problems in the race horse operations would get more attention and tracking.

[ Parent ]
He very well may have looked at race horse (4.00 / 3)
especially Thoroughbred breeding operations, but all horse breeding operations that are formal commercial operations are closely monitored by states and APHIS. I've been involved in the horse breeding business or associated with it over the years. Horses have to go through all sorts of health checks, especially if you're shipping semen. Sometimes things get missed, which is how things like equine herpes virus can get spread around, especially with competition and higher end breeding animals who are very mobile nationally or regionally. There was an equine herpes outbreak cause by a horse imported from Germany in 2006, here's the APHIS info on it - Equine Herpes Virus Update
Veterinary Services, December 29, 2006

Disease getting missed is how equine influenza got spread all over parts of Australia in 2007.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
brand new (4.00 / 2)
Not detracting from your main points, which are excellent, Huber only said that scientists didn't previously know about the organism.

Have you seen the term "wheatlege" before? Do you know what it is?


[ Parent ]
I haven't seen anything about wheatlage until now (4.00 / 3)
but then I don't do cattle. I have the heifer, but she's going in the freezer as soon as I have room. I don't have the acreage to keep cattle, and even if I got rid of all of the horses, I'd only have room for one or two head of cattle.

Wheatlage is a fermented forage product as is corn silage, haylage (made from grasses), etc. It's a cattle feed.

He says that a group fed wheatlage had reproductive problems that cattle fed hay only didn't. I have to wonder if the process of producing wheatlage perhaps wasn't the factor that caused pathogens (assuming it was this organism that caused the problems) to increse in population density to the point where they could cause problems. In the letter he says the animals that didn't have problems were fed hay, but he doesn't say if it was grain hay or grass/alfalfa hay that was fed. I'd have a better idea of what was going on if he'd specified that the control group was fed wheat hay of the same type as that used to make the wheatlage.

Wheatlage is a relatively new type of cattle feed. I read one article that said cattle operations had gone to feeding wheatlage as a replacement for corn silage, which people have been feeding to cattle for a very long time.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
aha! (4.00 / 1)
When I searched for "wheatlege" (from the letter quote), I got exactly zero responses. Lots of information about wheatlage, however. Thank you.

Your questions absolutely are in the bullseye. The very preliminary nature of the information might be an obstacle to postponing deregulation, but 450/1000 vs. 0/1000 is a stunning difference that needs to be sorted out in any case.  


[ Parent ]
Here's an experiment I'd love to see done (4.00 / 2)
or if it's already been done, I'd love to see the results -

Experiment #1
Cattle fed the RR wheatlage
Control group fed non RR wheatlage

Cattle fed in both groups to have identical (on average) health and breeding histories, of the same age, breed or mix, etc. and both bred to the same bull.

Experiment #2
Cattle fed the same RR wheat as grain hay
Control group fed non RR wheat as grain hay
Both hays to be harvested at the same stage in development as the wheat cut for wheatlage.

Cattle group specs the same as for experiment #1.

Another question - I wonder if this organism is similar to the epiphyte that many fescue hays contain. I won't feed fescue out here because I have horses that I may breed at some time in the future (if the horse market ever picks up). Fescue hays, unless you know for a fact, are epiphyte free can, and often do, cause abortion in horses. I know a gal up over in Carus, a few miles from here, who had these mares that kept aborting (late term at round 7-9 months). She went through this for 2 or 3 years, had the mares checked, no repro problems, nothing wrong with the stallion, the aborted foal were perfectly normal, no deformities, no disease, etc. She was mystified and invested thousands of dollars in breeding fees, vet bills, etc. Her horses were the picture of health.

Then one vet asked her what she was feeding - absolutely make your mouth water blue fescue. They had the hay tested and sure enough, the endotoxins in fescue that had been produced by the epiphyte was what was causing the abortions. Took her 2-3 years to find out. Once she began feeding different hay, she never had a problem.


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
Wheatlage and the heifers (4.00 / 2)
The heifers were fed wheatlage for their diet. This is not new and oatlage is also very good feed. Wheat however is not a Roundup Ready crop and if the wheat was chopped as wheatlage that would probably be in the doughh stage of development. The glyphosate would enter the young wheat plants through the soil, from previous applications of glyphosate to RR crops or as a weed burndown. Glyphosate persists in the soil and can be re-sorbed into new plant roots and translocate into the wheat (or other crop) tissue. Then it is in the plant when the silage is made and would go through a heating and fermenting process. That process (a warm and damp environment), I suspect would be conducive for the pathogen to reproduce at a rapid rate and be significantly higher when fed to the heifers. There is research that indicates glyphosate raises oxytocin (hormone that controls contractions) levels and then you have premature abortions in livestock or as we humans know it as a miscarriage.

[ Parent ]
Date of letter (4.00 / 2)
Jill, can you find out from Judith what the date of Huber's letter was? Sounds like it might have been written before the deregulation decision.

Interestingly, from the Record of Decision,

Nonregulated status will be granted to GT alfalfa upon publication in the Federal Register of a document entitled "Determination of Nonregulated Status for Monsanto and Forage Genetics International RoundupReady Alfalfa Events J101 and J163."

I don't think that document has been published in the Federal Register yet, although a related notice was published February 2.

Determination of Regulated Status of Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate; Record of Decision


plant pest risk (4.00 / 2)
Also interesting, the APHIS decision was based on the finding that introduction of GE alfalfa did not pose a plant pest risk. Huber's letter appears to contradict the finding, although I suppose it depends on how Obama defines "plant pest risk."

[ Parent ]
good call (4.00 / 2)
it was certainly recent, but you're right, could have been prior to the deregulation.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
nonregulated status (4.00 / 2)
I'm extremely curious about why the Determination of Nonregulated Status document hasn't appeared in the Federal Register yet. I wonder if Huber's letter has something to do with that.

[ Parent ]
Covering topics on the Glyphosate (Roundup) matter (4.00 / 3)
I know Dr. Huber personally and his concern about the safety of our food supply is genuine and well founded.

Glyphosate is the chemical name, Roundup is the trade name for Monsantos original Roundup chemical. It is sold under hundreds of different trade names since the patent has expired and now many companies manufacture glyphosate.

The last time the government reviewed the chemical was in 1983, before Roundup Ready crops were made available. There was little if any testing done with Roundup applied to Roundup Ready ( RR )crops.

The horses tested here were high value race horses, and I'm sure their diet would have more corn and bean meal included for the energy provided.

It has also been found in chickens, pigs, beef cattle and dairy cattle as well as RR soybeans, RR soybean meal and RR corn.

Now take a look at dairy cattle for a minute. If they are being fed RR corn and RR soy meal (90% of U.S. soy is RR) the dairy cows your milk and dairy products are tainted with this pathogen. Then add in RR alfalfa into the cattle ration and the reproduction of dairy cattle dries up. So where are your dairy cow replacements coming from? If you think that the diary cow is where the problem stops you are wrong. The udder is a delivery mechanism for milk, not a filter.  


Huber's letter (4.00 / 1)
Would you be able to find out the date of Dr. Huber's letter? I'm particularly interested to know if it was written before the announcement of the deregulation decision or after.

As a byproduct of reviewing Dr. Huber's publication record and the list of publications that cite his work, I was quite startled to find out how much work has been done in this field, but it's all stuff that we non-professionals aren't aware of.


[ Parent ]
the letter (4.00 / 3)
The letter was sent 10 days before Secretary Vilsack released RR alfalfa. As has been noted here that Dr. Huber is no stranger to this arena and his word carries alot of years of experience with it. One heck of a lot more experience than Tom Vilsack could imagine.

By the way, I believe it was in the release statement that Vilsack said that a panel would be put together to figure out how to deal with any malfunctions if they come about. Huh...shouldn't we do that before release at the worst and how would they know what to look for at the best case.

Once this released and you have RR alfalfa pollen being spread by bees all sorts of other perennial crops will be contaminated.

Ever try to un-ring a bell?


[ Parent ]
Thank you very much. (4.00 / 1)
That's dispiriting. It means the powers-that-be were warned but irresponsibly disregarded the information.

[ Parent ]
hell's bells (4.00 / 2)
My normally mild-mannered way of expressing myself is inappropriate here, I think. This isn't dispiriting, it's goddamned infuriating and it's scary. This means, for one thing, that the NPDRS under Vilsack is a sham and a dangerous charade, however good it looks on the USDA website.

[ Parent ]
Vilsack and Obama (4.00 / 1)
Please note that when I say "Vilsack" I usually mean "Vilsack and Obama", and that's what I meant above.

[ Parent ]
Hell's bells 2 (4.00 / 2)
Can we say campaign contributions here.

As far back as Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and now Obama (the most transparent administration in history, according to Obama), we have had people migrating back-and-forth from Monsanto to the USDA and back again. The same people (lawyers if you can call them that) that worked for Monsanto to craft legal isses to get GMO's approved then went into the USDA and were put in charge of writing the regulations for approving the use of GMO's. And this is public record! Can we say "conflict of interest" anyone. But I am sure that they left those high paying legal positions to be loyal public servants and had our best interests at heart. This isn't about feeding the world, it's about power & money.

By the way, why would you need RR alfalfa to control weeds in a crop that you mow and harvest 3 to 4 times a year? Because in the midwest now there are fields that you can't grow regular alfalfa on because after it sprouts and the roots suck up enough residual glyphosate from the soil the alfalfa dies, that's why.

There are 2 crops that you can't spray with glyphosate when you are growing the plants that produce the glyphosate resistant seeds for future crops. Alfalfa and cotton. They are so touchy that if you spray RR alfalfa or RR cotton with glyphosate (roundup) that the seeds won't grow the next crop.


[ Parent ]
residual glyphosphate (4.00 / 1)
...in the midwest now there are fields that you can't grow regular alfalfa on because after it sprouts and the roots suck up enough residual glyphosate from the soil the alfalfa dies...

Do you know that to be true? The propaganda says that glyphosphate degrades quickly after application (and therefore doesn't migrate, for example) and the residues aren't toxic.


[ Parent ]
I was wondering this myself (4.00 / 2)
According to this - Environmental Fate of Glyphosate from the Environmental Monitoring & Pest Management Department of Pesticide Regulation Sacramento, CA, glyphosate is not easily taken up by plant roots. Having used Roundup on my own farm for years, and having no problem with other plants growing into areas that have been sprayed, I wonder just how much Roundup or generic glyphosate would have to be applied to soil for residual chemical to kill crops like alfalfa, or wheat, oats, etc. through root uptake.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
FUBB (4.00 / 1)
Fucked Up Beyond Belief. I think I do not know what I thought I knew.

Root uptake is said to be inhibited by preferential binding to soil particles in some soils, but glyphos is applied to any and all soils without regard to binding capacity. Also, farmers do not apply simple glyphos salts, they apply glyphos in conjunction with surfactants, and surfactant levels in current products are much greater than in the original products.

These same intellectual booboos apply to assertions about leaching and migration. Statements are made that glyphos is not expected to migrate because of soil binding, but I didn't see studies of actual leaching and migration, much less with actual formulations. That was on my first pass, I'll read the paper again later today.

Furthermore, chemically stable glyphosphates are expected to persist nearly indefinitely in sterile soils, and isn't a goal of modern industrial farming to make soils nearly sterile?

I think KenF is onto something. I also think that might be only the tip of a large iceberg.


[ Parent ]
FUBB 2 (4.00 / 1)
European research has glyphosate persisting between 10 and 22 years in the soil, depending on SOM (soil organic matter) Ph, and clay content. It can be re-sorbed by plants with phosphorus and affect other crops and non-target plants. I have pictures and data of this. Can pictures be added to a post?

[ Parent ]
pictures (0.00 / 0)
Can pictures be added to a post?

Yes, but I'm about the only person here who doesn't know how. Many of us can help if you have problems.

I do know that you need to first upload your pics to a site such as Photobucket, which is the service Jill uses. Then you could either copy and paste the URL for the photo, which is very easy and links us to the photo, or you could use the code for embedding and displaying the photo here. I don't know the procedure for the second option.


[ Parent ]
Here's the code I used to hot link this picture of my calcots - (4.00 / 1)
I added a space between the < and img so that the code would show up instead of the pic. To insert your pic, simply replace the data that I've bolded (which is the data for my pic) with the data for your pick. And of course, you need to eliminate that extra space at the begining of the code.

< img ="width: 720px; height: 540px" src="http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af286/JoanneRigutto/Calcots20110218.jpg" alt="Walla Walla Sweet Calcots February 2011" width="720" height="540" />

Here is the pic - the Walla Walla Sweet Calcots that I am insanely proud of, and which are, inspite of being planted over a month later than their storage onion counterparts, are way more advanced in their growth. Don't know if it's because they're Walla Wallas or if it's because they're in the tunnel and the storage onions have had to tough it out in the great outdoors.

Walla Walla Sweet Calcots February 2011

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
Aaaah, Joanne. (0.00 / 0)
very very spiffy.

[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 1)
I have high hopes for these. If they work out the way I hope they will, I'm going to use all of my cull onions for calcot planting this fall.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
tech question (0.00 / 0)
When I click a Jill photo, I pass through to the pic at Photobucket, which I want to do sometimes so I can see full resolution. Joanne also uses Photobucket, but nothing happens when I click this pic.

Can someone explain the code difference?


[ Parent ]
Try this (4.00 / 1)
Photobucket

The new tunnels from a couple of weeks ago. They're covered now and two have trays and pots of plants in them.

When I posted the first pick, I used soapblox's own code to hotlink an image to my album. For this pic I used HTML coding provided by Photobucket to post an image that is a link.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
the link (0.00 / 0)
It works!

They're covered now

Much to the chagrin of the poultry, no doubt.


[ Parent ]
Right click (0.00 / 0)
And view image next time if it's not clickable.

printable coupons

[ Parent ]
Harumph (4.00 / 1)
and isn't a goal of modern industrial farming to make soils nearly sterile?

No it's not. The goal of modern industrial farming, and small scale intensive farming, all farming actually, is to get the most production you can out of your crop. You do that by providing a growing environment that is as advantageous as possible for your crop. No farmer is out there to sterilize his/her soils. To the contrary, glyphosate is used in conjunction with no till farming for some crops. Soils managed in this way are definately NOT sterile.

Root uptake is said to be inhibited by preferential binding to soil particles in some soils, but glyphos is applied to any and all soils without regard to binding capacity.

Also, I don't know if you've ever used the product, but glyphosate/Roundup are NOT applied to soils. It's a foliar herbicide, not a pre-emergent. It's applied to plants, not soils. It can get onto soils through overspray (not over application but any spray that misses a plant is overspray), but it's not purposely sprayed on soil. I don't know if you were implying that glyphosate is sprayed directly on soils, but the way you phrased the statement made it sound that way.

In all of the years we've used the product out here, neither I nor Harold have ever applied Roundup or any of the generic glyphosate products directly to the soil. One, it would be a collosal waste of money, and Two, it wouldn't do us any good. And neither have we had any problem with plants (usually the same species we sprayed months before) recolonizing a sprayed area.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
harumph yourself. (0.00 / 0)
Good morning, Joanne.

Perhaps my use of the word "sterile" implied something I didn't intend. I referred to the mantra of the chemical salespeople and the ag professors, which is that we only need soil as a place to park seeds and chemicals can do the rest. I know that if I could sterilize a plot of ground today, it would not be sterile next week. I also know, though, that the only reason we need honeybees is that industrial farmers make it their mission to destroy the thousands of species of natural pollinators that otherwise would do that job, many of which live in the soil for all or part of their life cycles. Far as I can tell, strawberry farmers strive for actual soil sterility as much as possible. Fungicides, whether foliar or not, get into the soil. The multitude of insecticides and herbicides and seed treatments get into soil and, while not specifically designed or intended to sterilize soil, come pretty close.

A side issue that I didn't have in mind when I wrote the previous comment, but it might be interesting and I raise it now: how the heck are all these chemicals consistent with biological nitrogen fixation? Obviously BNF works just fine at Little Homestead or in Jill's back yard, but what's the story on an industrial Iowa corn-and-soybean farm? Surely BNF proceeds there to some extent, but do industrial farmers need to use more nitrogen fertilizer than they would need to use if BNF was not inhibited? Just asking, I don't know the answer.

With regard to applying glyphos to soil - you're right. I know everything you wrote but my wordsmithing was sloppy.

neither have we had any problem with plants (usually the same species we sprayed months before) recolonizing a sprayed area.

I grokked that in your previous comment. Speaks to both soil persistence and availability from soil, right? It's particularly interesting information if the glyphos is in the soil only because of overspray. I would think that soil concentration would be minimal in that case, yet there's enough to be effective for months.


[ Parent ]
What I gathered from the PDF I linked to (4.00 / 1)
was that persistence in the soil has, at least in part, to do with microbial activity, both aerobic and anaerobic. Also, some plants are more sensitive to glyphosate than others. So how long glyphosate remains in soils could be a very short time or a much longer time, and I would think that becuase glyphosate is a foliar spray, I wouldn't think that plants would be too affected by taking any of the chemical up via their roots. However, having said that, maybe the alfalfa that KentF is refering to in that field is more sensitive to the substances that glyphosate breaks down into, or that the surfacants break down into?

Regarding the strawberry farmers and the fungicides, I think there are various reasons why those farms use the fungicides.  A lot of commercial strawberries are grown in plastic mulch (the black plastic sheeting that's placed on the ground). The mulch is used for various reasons, I think weed control is a big one, also I think it's to keep the berries clean? Speaking from experience as I plant through that type of mulch myself, you can get a lot of molds and other fungi growing under there. Some commercial varieties are more succepbable to fungus that others from what I've read (I've been looking into planting strawberries out here this year). I've noted that some are listed as more and some are listed as less resistance to fungus.

I planted tomatoes thorugh mulch a couple of years ago and while the rows were beautiful and clean, with almost no weeds (just in the holes the plants were planted through), I did notice that when I watered sometimes there would be clouds of spores waft up from the hole in the plastic. In the summer that plastic would get very hot and I would have thought that the soil would have been warm enough to keep the molds and other fungi from thriving, but I was wrong. I can imagine a whole big field like that. I'd be using a fungal fumigant too.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
soil talk (0.00 / 0)
Yes, the microbial activity is essential to breaking down glyphos because of its robust chemical stability. In other words, glyphos persists a long time if microbial activity is diminished. That was my point.

As to "foliar": soil sequestration is presumed to render glyphos inaccessible to the root system, or at least less accessible than spray application. That is the only reason glyphos is said to be a foliar herbicide. Glyphos is fatal to the extent that it is taken up by the roots, and the presumption of inaccessibility is false in many real-world circumstances, as your own experience proves.

My grandmother used mulch to keep strawberries clean and keep down weeds, and today's industrial growers use mulch for those reasons. Additionally, today's industrial growers use super-toxic methyl halide soil fumigants, which my grandmother did not use. The fumigants are so toxic that all possible measures must be taken to limit dispersal in air, such as injection through plastic sheeting. Unlike your experience, mold and fungus colonies don't grow under that mulch if the sheeting is properly sealed. Also unlike your experience, today's industrial strawberry growers say they can't grow strawberries without soil sterility, which is a false statement, but there we are. I think you and I agree about the strawberry farmers, the point is they're going for sterile soil.


[ Parent ]
roots (0.00 / 0)
KenF makes a good point in a comment above, or at least implies it. Roots are champion phosphate absorbers - why wouldn't they also be good at taking up glyphos?

[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 1)
They pick it up with phosphorus.

[ Parent ]
clarification (4.00 / 1)
What I gathered from the PDF I linked to (4.00 / 1)
was that persistence in the soil has, at least in part, to do with microbial activity, both aerobic and anaerobic. Also, some plants are more sensitive to glyphosate than others. So how long glyphosate remains in soils could be a very short time or a much longer time, and I would think that becuase glyphosate is a foliar spray, I wouldn't think that plants would be too affected by taking any of the chemical up via their roots. However, having said that, maybe the alfalfa that KentF is refering to in that field is more sensitive to the substances that glyphosate breaks down into, or that the surfacants break down into?

Newly applied phosphorus will recycle soil bound glyphosate into plants from the root system. The more glyphosate in the soil the bigger the problem. Glyphosate ON the soil surface breaks down faster than when it is in the soil profile from root exudates and plant residues.


[ Parent ]
I'm back - thanks for the help (4.00 / 1)
there are several issues that I will address.

As far as biological N fixation (BNF) is roundup has a very detrimental impact on Amino Acid (AA)producing organisms.

Glyphosate can reduce populations of psudomonas (sp) bacteria by 70% or more with 1 full rate application. And trichoderma and manganese (Mn) reducers as well. All of these and other beneficial bacteria are severely reduced in the soil and the pathogens like fusarium get increased by 350 to 500% in 1 season.Do that for 5 to 10 years and see what happens to your crops. Glyphosate is a biocide, it kills off beneficial biology. As aniowa agronomist puts it "the Sheriff is dead and the bad guys are taking over".

I will try to start a new thread and explain the whole glyphosate process. Please bear with me, this my second day of a new technology, "old dog....new trick".  


[ Parent ]
How it works... (4.00 / 1)
Please look below at how Roundup works.  I believe a mutual friend coached me through it.

[ Parent ]
KentF, not KenF (0.00 / 0)
sorries.

[ Parent ]
residual glyphosate (4.00 / 2)
This is a fact. A friend of mine in Eastern Iowa has verified it.

I'm new at this blog stuff, but I'll try to figure out how to start a new thread and will explain how glyphosate kills. That will help explain the persistance problem and the pathogen problem.

Sometimes it's not about what you put into an organism, it's about what you take out of an organism that matters. Glyphosate is a very strong chelator. That is the key to understand this product.

I will be gone for a while this AM but will respond ASAP.


[ Parent ]
new at blogging (4.00 / 2)
You're doing fine.

To start a new thread in this comment section, go to the top or bottom of the comments and click the "Post a comment" link.

To post a new diary, scroll to the very top of any page. The top right box contains a "New Diary" link. Click that and you're off to the races.


[ Parent ]
thanks for the help (4.00 / 1)
I want to keep it in the section about roundup. I'm assuming that would be "a new thread"

That is what I'll try.


[ Parent ]
residual (4.00 / 1)
France I believe is the country suing them and making them change their label as to the persistance.

Glyphosate is one part of the issue. Then do a search for AMPA, this is the firat metabolic breakdown phase of glyphosate and it has problems of its own.


[ Parent ]
Concur. (4.00 / 1)
This isn't dispiriting, it's goddamned infuriating and it's scary.


[ Parent ]
research (4.00 / 3)
As a byproduct of reviewing Dr. Huber's publication record and the list of publications that cite his work, I was quite startled to find out how much work has been done in this field, but it's all stuff that we non-professionals aren't aware of.

Most professionals who have spoken out against this have been slapped into line or pigeon holed somewhere to count dust bunnies hoping to keep their jobs.

See if you can find out how much money Monsanto and the others give to universities for "research". The federal funds were cut and the university heads know better than to bite the hand that feeds the budget.


[ Parent ]
KentF (4.00 / 1)
that's a story I'd like to tell. I think that's the biggest story here, that scientists are afraid to present their work on any findings that go against GMOs.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
Tell the story (4.00 / 1)
Sorry I'm a little slow posting today, we've had company this evening.

Let me know if I can help you find data for your story.

I won't let out my phone # here but somehow we should talk if you want.


[ Parent ]
How Roundup (glysophate) Works (4.00 / 1)
Roundup chelates (ties up) important nutrients in the soil such as manganese, magnesium, iron, calcium, zinc, boron and others that are important for the plant to defend itself from diseases.  

Once sprayed Roundup moves through the plant into the soil.

Roundup has a 10-12 year half life, which equals 25 years for the chemical to completely degrade in the soil.

Roundup cannot kill anything in sterile soil.

Once in the soil Roundup kills beneficial microorganisms.  The beneficial microorganisms it kills are the plants natural defense against fusarium (root rot).  Fusarium causes internal plugging of the water vessels in plants.  This the primary killing mode of Roundup (glyphosate).  If you pull up a plant that has been killed by Roundup you will note that it has root rot.

Monsanto has not conducted the studies that verify these results.  These studies were done by independent researcher at land grant colleges and universities, who were placed under gag order to not release this information.  Only now that these researchers have retired is this information becoming available.


half life (0.00 / 0)
Teensy tiny technical quibble, which does not detract from your main point but rather reinforces it,

Rigorously, a 12-year half life would mean that concentrations after a one-time application would be as follows:

12 years, 50% residual
24 years, 25% residual
36 years, 12.5% residual
etc.

In practice, any half life of more than about 6-9 months means that glyphos concentration builds up if application is repeated annually. The longer the half-life, the more dramatic the increase.

Interesting question regarding GE alfalfa, which started this discussion: alfalfa is cut from 2-3 times a year in Canada to 10-12 times a year in some more southern areas. How often will these fields be sprayed with glyphosphate chemical formulations? If farmers believe that soil concentration is irrelevant (doesn't work, doesn't help weed control), they'll spray much more than necessary, and the chemical sales force will chortle all the way to the bank.

It would be nice if farmers could be educated to use chemicals only if or as needed, but I know that's too much to expect.


[ Parent ]
Reply and back to the original point... (4.00 / 1)
Rigorously, a 12-year half life would mean that concentrations after a one-time application would be as follows:

True, if you spray today you could stil find residue 30 years or more later.  Good point.

How often will these fields be sprayed with glyphosphate chemical formulations?

One to 3 times a year.  (If one works then 3 would be better).  The awaking point is, glyphosate is not good for the soil and the plants.  Further more, it produces mineral deficient food.  Lately, (Huber's letter) it is or can be producing new and potentially dangerous microorganisms, that are effecting the health of the mammals that are eating the mineral deficient food, perhaps directly by ingesting this microorganism.

The point being is this --- Why include over 2 million acres of a crop that is currently being fed to countless animals in their feed ratio, then end up on our plate.  Why compound the problem of glyphosate poisoning to millions of acres more.  Shouldn't we stop and truly get the answers before an epidemic of "biblical proportions" breaks out (according to Huber and his associates) or just bend over again to corporate domination?


[ Parent ]
How glyphosate works (4.00 / 1)
Here is an outline of what I'll post coming up.

1  2 problems GMO gene and glyphosate chemical

2  Soil applies vs foliar applied

3  Folair applied and chelation

4  re-sorbtion the secont trip

5  the fruit and grain

6  livestock and Glyphosate grain

7  a human connection


2 problems GMO gene and glyphosate chemical (4.00 / 1)
Glyphosate the chemical is a heavy chelator of a number of elements. It is very persistent IN the soil and the breakdown will take 10 to 20+ years depending on soil organic matter, Soil Ph, Clay content and the amount of active biology in the soil. Besides the chenical itself, the inert ingredients are a problem. What are they? What do they do? They don't tell us and it has been discovered that some are carcinogens (sp). So if it is labeled as "inert ingredients" it could be almost anything.

The GMO gene gets transfered in the grain to livestock and eventually on to people. The old crop stubble will have this as well and generally speaking livestock and wild animals, birds etc. shy away from eating it because of the foreign protien. The foreign protein in an organism is what triggers allergic reaction type symptoms, inflamation, swelling, rash, congestion etc.. Given a choice livestock will shy away from RR residue....so what do you suppose the "little livestock" bacteria, fungi etc. do in the soil. Farmens have been saying for years that BT cornstalks don't break down well year to year....duh.


[ Parent ]
inerts (0.00 / 0)
If Monsanto is taken as the reference case, MSDS sheets from that company do not use the term "inert ingredients" even in the permissive US and Canada, where the term "other ingredients" is used. Monsanto does not claim "other ingredients" are inert.

Monsanto calls out formulation surfactant percents for a few products in the U.S. and Canada without specifying surfactant identities, which is a problem as you say. MSDS sheets are somewhat (not a lot) more informative where EU rules apply, for example the UK.

I do not know what terminology is used for MSDS sheets in Latin America, Africa, Asia, or Antarctica (just throwing that in).


[ Parent ]
breakdown (0.00 / 0)
Glyphosphate salts could break down eventually after one application but, as discussed above, even a moderate half life (less than one year) will cause it to accumulate in soil when it is applied repeatedly.

[ Parent ]
Soil applied vs foliar applied & foliar applied & chelation (4.00 / 1)
Soil applied is a different situation. If you are spraying a burndown in the early spring the weeds you are spraying are small and probably cover very litt of the soil, 10% at best. The glyphosate that misses the weed hits the soil surface and can breakdown faster due to the sunlight and available oxygen. If the burndown is on a more heavily populated area less contact happens with the soil and more hits the green plants. If you are doing a burndown on a lawn, pasture, CRP ground, alfalfa field etc. with taller weeds even less will hit the soil and 80 to 90% would go through the plant system as a foliar.

Foliar applied or on a heavy burndown like mentioned above more of the glyphosate goes into the plant. This is where it gets ugly, the glyphosate is absorbed into the plant tissue and translocated to the root system. Along this journey the glyphosate chelates essential minerals and removes them from the plant. Minerals in the plant are used to help perform metabolic functions so the plant can grow normaly. If the plant metabolism is compromised it becomes weak and vulnerable to disease and insect pressure. The glyphosate is exudated from the root system with the minerals bound to it much like a big magnet would attract nails to it. To "chelate" means to "claw" and the plant and soil biology are not strong enough to release the minerals away from the chemical. Going through the plant and getting into the soil some of the glyphosate goes through a metabolic process and is broken partially down into a substance called AMPA. Some researchers have noted that AMPA is actually worse than the glyphosate. Once it is exudated from the root system and in the soil it is harder to break down due to lower oxygen, no sunlight, and lower levels of biology.  If this product is allowed to be used on alfalfa it will be a disaster. Alfalfa roots run 15 to 20' deep in the soil and the conditions that deep would allow the glyphosate to last a looooooong time.

Glyphosate can reduce populations of psudomonas (sp) bacteria by 70% or more with 1 full rate application. And trichoderma and manganese (Mn) reducers as well. All of these and other beneficial bacteria are severely reduced in the soil and the pathogens like fusarium get increased by 350 to 500% in 1 season.  Glyphosate is a biocide, it kills off beneficial biology. As an iowa agronomist puts it "the Sheriff is dead and the bad guys are taking over".
As far as biological N fixation (BNF) is roundup has a very detrimental impact on Amino Acid (AA)producing organisms.
Do that for 5 to 10 years and see what happens to your crops and your ability to grow anything that isn't RR.
Then you are forced to buyu all RR seed at whatever the price would be, and it will be very high then. So who are you really farming for?


[ Parent ]
Interesting your information on the minerals (4.00 / 1)
If the minerals are being locked up and not bioavailable to the forage plants, the resultant hay and/or fodder would be deficient in minerals. That will enable disease and cause reproductive problems in livestock if the deficiencies are too much. I know around here we're very low on selenium. If you're feeding local grass hay from my part of the Willamette Valley, and you're breeding animals, especially horses, you have to supplement with a salt/mineral block that has the proper ammount of selenium, or you'll have problems getting the mares pregnant.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
Bingo (4.00 / 1)
The testing on RR alfalfa that I have here shows lower minerals across the board. They discontinued the study the 3rd year 2nd cutting, it was getting ugly.

I had the pleasure in early Feb. to talk witha man from Nebraska who got some planted the one spring before it was recalled. It yielded 1.5 ton/acre less and had 25 point lower RFV (relative feed value) than his regular alfalfa. He has since destroyed it.  


[ Parent ]
Wow! (4.00 / 1)
You know, I'd like to tell you a little story. To this day I don't know what what going on, both feeds used regular feed corn, soy, etc. All the usual ingredients, but on one my emus didn't hold their weight, on the other they gained the lost weight back and maintained it.

I feed my emus an all purpose livestock feed - pelleted with molasses. I was buying a brand from one of the local feed stores, I forget who the mill was, I'd have to go back and look at my receipts as this was a couple of years ago. It was that feed the birds lost weight on (and feeding a bigger ration). I had gone to that brand because it was less expensive than the brand I had been feeding. I switched back to the higher priced brand because the birds just weren't doing well on the cheap stuff.

When I switched I pulled the bag tags from each feed, and the formula was the same as far as the main ingredients. I'm still mystified as to what caused the weight loss, but to this day, the only time I'll feed the birds that other stuff is if I run out of the regular, and it's a Sunday when the Molalla feed store is closed and I have to go to Canby.

Your story about the drop in feed value on that alfalfa made me think of the feed situation and my emus.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
re-sorbtion the secont trip (4.00 / 1)
Once the chemical has been exudated (sp) from the root system it holds onto the minerals in the soil structure and doesn't let go. Then when you fertalize with a phosphorus fertilizer the phosphorus will grab the Glyphosate or AMPA and drag it back into the plant (same plant of a future years crop) and it will circulate through the plant and do it's deadly deed all over again. The reason this happens (the way I understand it) is because the glyphosats is built around a phosphite or phosphine molecule and the phosphorus is somewhat related and attracted to it. Phosphorus is a key element in The ATP (adenesine triphosphate)(sp)system, a key function of growth. Trust me there are people who have taught me this stuff far better qualified to explain it than I, but you should get the idea anyway.

So if you have used glyphosate for 10 to 15 yaers (especially in no-till RR crops) you have been increasing the pathogens (fusarium) amd killing off the beneficial biology in the soil and adding to the ever increasing amount of residual glyfosate and AMPA in the soil. All bad things going on there. Now try to plant a non RR crop like alfalfa, potatoes, onions, wheat, oats,non RR corn or soy, etc., etc.. Hey, would you want to eat a root crop grown in that type of soil? That is why some idiots think RR alfalfa will be a good idea. It would be resistent to the problem instead of fixing the problem. Bottom like is most farmers in Iowa don't know shit about soil biology or plant metabolism. To be fair, I use to be in the same boat but I realized things were getting worse instead of better and went looking for answers. Never expected to find all of this stuff though, helluva trip. I have some friends, Keith S., Aime B., Jeff L., Bob S. Dr. Huber, Dr. Andersen, and more, that make me look slow at this. I hope they are grading on the curve for this LOL.


[ Parent ]
correction (4.00 / 1)
Bottom like is most farmers in Iowa don't know shit about soil biology or plant metabolism.

Bottom like is most farmers using Glyphosate and RR crops  don't know shit about soil biology or plant metabolism.


[ Parent ]
gotta say it, (0.00 / 0)
sometimes I wonder if industrial farmers know much about farming.

[ Parent ]
today (4.00 / 1)
Today, farmers manage time, labor, equipment etc., and think that all this new technology saves the day. They don't think along the lines of quality crops...and to be fair commodity agriculture doesn't pay fpr quality, they pay for volume. Most don't know the difference either.

I can't begin to tell you how many "good ?" farmers don't know anything about plant metabolism, biology, or genetics. The university system indoctrinates them on how to use chemicals to solve their problems. Most all of our schools from Kindergarten to college teach students "what to think" not "how to think".


[ Parent ]
My background (4.00 / 1)
I didn't go to Iowa State or anywhere else for ag education. One of my best friends told me "You probably dodged a bullet" by not going. And he is an ISU grad.

I believe it was Albert Einstein that once said, "Education and knowledge are not necessarily synonymous"  


[ Parent ]
Yup, right on as far as the yields vs quality issue and how farmers are paid (4.00 / 1)
That's why the yield contests for corn are touted and why the farmers work the way they do. When your crop is mixed with everyone else's crop in the USA, what difference does it make if yours is a little better or worse (or even a lot better or worse), no one will ever know the difference. The only thing that counts is bushells per acre. Or, if you're growing hays ton per acre.


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
fascinating information (0.00 / 0)
Maybe something is coming into focus for me. Something has irked and bothered me since Jill posted this diary. That is, in view of Huber's letter and especially in view of your previous comment about unringing the bell, what the heck was so urgent that required GE alfalfa be deregulated now instead of a year or two from now (if at all)? The haste seems to imply something beyond Monsanto's normal desire to monopolize seed markets and sell more chemicals.

Can it be that there is a need to increase alfalfa acreage, and can it also be that indiscriminate Roundup use has so damaged soil that alfalfa acreage can't be substantially increased without using Roundup-tolerant alfalfa?

I'll be interested to see how my thinking evolves as you post your other points.


[ Parent ]
evolving (0.00 / 0)
I suppose the same rationale that compelled the deregulation of glyphos-tolerant alfalfa also will (in the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats) compel the deregulation of glyphos-tolerant wheat, parsnips, garlic, onions, oats, etc. etc. etc. Where will we be then, except in the toilet?

[ Parent ]
increased? (0.00 / 0)
perhaps not even increased, perhaps just maintained.

[ Parent ]
We have a winner! (4.00 / 2)
Can it be that there is a need to increase alfalfa acreage, and can it also be that indiscriminate Roundup use has so damaged soil that alfalfa acreage can't be substantially increased without using Roundup-tolerant alfalfa?

It is also the 4th largest crop either in the U.S. or the world, one of the two. But yes some alfalfa has been killed while trying to establish the stand and it was from glyphosate. Do you expect them to put on the label of glyphosate to wait for 10 years to rotate to alfalfa depending on your past use of glyphosate. And I know one of the fields had a heavy manure application to it (see one of my other posts concerning this).


[ Parent ]
APHIS comments (0.00 / 0)
I confess I have not read the comments received by APHIS in the alfalfa deregulation case. I wonder if this issue and the feed quality issue were highlighted, or even mentioned, in those comments. They must have been at least mentioned, right?

Hmm. I wonder if the comments are online.


[ Parent ]
They might or they might not have. (4.00 / 1)
It depends on if a farm was growing a feed or forage crop in soils that were heavily contaminated with glyphosate and its metabolites, if the farm grew a forage crop, tested the feed value and then put 2 and 2 together, which they wouldn't do if they didn't have the information regarding breakdown, rejuvenation and subsequent uptake, etc. that KentF provided.

If you didn't you probably wouldn't have any idea as to why your crop failed, or why you might have issues with nutritional value in the forage you are growing.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
Thank you for the information (4.00 / 1)
you've explained it very well. Reading your information, I can very well understand why the alfalfa crop you mentioned in your earlier comments would die.

Has anyone done any research into reclaiming soils damaged throught heavy chronic glyphosate use?

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
#5 the fruit and grain (4.00 / 1)
The grain, in the case of RR corn and RR soy carries the inserted gene, a foreign protien. This wasn't meant to be in corn or soy and negatively impacts the GI tracts of the animals it's fed to. Jeffery Smith has 2 great books about this (Seeds of Deception  and Genetic Roulette)
(www.seedsofdeception.com)and there are numerous studies as to the impact. Smaller, less vigorus offspring, sterility, increase of certain cancers also I believe, generally the kind of things I try to avoid. Livestock studies have shown the premature abortion issue and the sterility issue to be increasing in our livestock herds. So let's see....we eat the meat, and eggs and drink the milk and I have never found studies on the impact of feeding RR crops to our animals or it's produce. Has anyone here noticed an increase of people unable to conceive or an increase in the miscariage rate in the last 10 to 15 years. The way I understood the USDA when they approved this stuff that there was "no significant difference" or something like that with non RR grain. I think this is SIGNIFICANT! For years I thought USDA stood for United States Department of Agriculture. Maybe Unbelievable Stupid Dumb Asses would be a better fit. Granted not all of them would qualify as such ...but leadership and the D.C. office does.

Also in the grain you will find some residual glyphosate and AMPA from the foliar application and/or possibly the soil residue. How do I know this....shit thats how. Last summer I got a call from Dr. Dan S. and he told me that they had chicken litter (manure) sampled and they have found as high as .45ppm Glyphosate and AMPA in the litter. Why, because it was in the grain, thats why. The problem here is that more chemical went into the chicken than came out the back of the chicken. I wonder where the rest of the chemical went? Now if you apply that litter to farms you start to put the problem back on your farm. How about organic production, how's that gonna work? Depending on the rate and frequency of manure application you can have a big problem in a short time.

When they spray glyphosate under and around grape vines and citrus trees what do you suppose happens. Eventually you get a buildup in the soil and plant uptake is inevitable in the fruit and the tree will get sick. Since glyphosate is a strong chelator it removes minerals from the fruit....and just why do we eat fruit, veggies etc.. For the minerals. We are getting less nutrition from the crops but you don't see less cost. Brilliant strategy for a healthy nation huh. I'll get the link for the data that shows nutritional value of various fruits and vegetables in the 1950's and then the 2000's. Not all of that loss is due to glyphosate though, some of it is just poor farming practices in general.

Bottom line is we aren't producing nutrient rich food now. We are producing nutrient poor, toxic crap that is of little value. Look how far we have come...very sad.


[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- Kenya Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox