Ratted out: Scientific journal bows to Monsanto over anti-GMO study

William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consultant whose internationally best-selling books have been translated into thirteen foreign languages.

Get short URL

Published time: December 02, 2013 12:34

AFP Photo / Evaristo Sa

Share on tumblr

Tags
Biology, Conflict, Food, GMO, Globalization, Health, Medicine, Scandal

Rigid criteria exist for a serious scientific journal to accept a peer-reviewed paper and to publish it. As well there exist strict criteria by which such an article can be withdrawn after publication.
The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has apparently decided to violate those procedures, announcing it is retracting a long-term study on the toxic effects of Monsanto Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)—GMO Maize it published a year ago. 
The bizarre reports come only six months after Elsevier created a special new position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology (i.e. GMO), and filled it with a former Monsanto employee who worked for the giant Monsanto front-organization, the International Life Sciences Institute, which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations. Sound like something wrong with this picture?

Some background

In its November, 2012 issue, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. It was a highly important study as it was the first and, astonishingly, still the only long-term study under controlled conditions of possible effects of a diet of GMO Maize treated with Monsanto Roundup herbicide.
Seralini submitted his study results to the respected journal following a rigorous four-month review by scientific peers regarding methodology and such. Seralini’s group tested more than 200 rats of a diet of GMO corn over a period of a full two years at a cost of 3 million euro. The study was done in absolute secrecy to avoid industry pressure.
The publication created an atomic blast rocking the entire edifice of the GMO industry. Pictures of test rats with grotesque cancer tumors appeared in newspapers around the world.
Seralini’s group studied the effect of a Monsanto GMO maize diet on the rats for much longer than Monsanto had done in their study submitted to the EU European Food Safety Authority for approval. The group conducted its study for the full two-year average lifetime instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long-term span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared four to seven months into the study. In the industry's earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen, but were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA alike. 
It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful.
The later study was also done with the highest number of rats ever measured in a standard GMO diet study. They tested “also for the first time three doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the Roundup-tolerant NK603 GMO maize alone, the GMO maize treated with Roundup, and Roundup alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed.”
Their findings were more than alarming.

AFP Photo / Mychele Daniau

Mammary tumors that developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of Roundup. From the paper "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," published in Food and Chemical Toxicology
The Seralini study concluded, “In females, all treated groups died two to three times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in three male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second-most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…”.

Monsanto on defensive 

Monsanto and the related GMO industry immediately went on a war footing to control the potentially fatal damage from the Seralini study. Suddenly, with worldwide attention to the new Seralini results, the EU Commission and its EFSA was under fire as never in their history. How they reacted was worthy of a bad copy of an Agatha Christie murder novel. They piously announced that they had passed the Seralini study on to their EFSA scientific panel for evaluation.
The Brussels EU scientific food regulatory organization, EFSA, was under the gun from the damning results of the long-term Seralini study. EFSA had recommended approval of Monsanto’s NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in 2009 without first conducting any independent testing. It admitted it had relied on“information supplied by the applicant (Monsanto).” EFSA also admitted that the Monsanto tests on rats were for only 90 days. Seralini’s group noted that the massive toxic effects and deaths of GMO-fed rats took place well after 90 days, one reason longer-term studied were obviously warranted.

A picture released by the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) shows a combination image of three pictures featuring rats with tumors after they were fed a diet of genetically modified (GMO) maize produced by US chemical giant Monsanto. CRIIGEN researchers examined a two-year study, that shows the long-term toxicity of GMOs and chemical weed killer "Round-up", establishing "alarming" results according to professor Gilles-Eric Seralini. (AFP Photo / Griigen)

EFSA concluded at the time of its initial Monsanto NK603 approval in 2009 that, “data provided [by Monsanto - author] are sufficient and do not raise a safety concern.” The Brussels body added, “The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize NK603 is as safe as conventional maize. Maize NK603 and derived products are unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health in the context of the intended uses.” Oops!
Now comes this guy Seralini and puts EFSA and the entire regulatory control process for GMO under grave doubt.
The EU Commission was on record stating that no independent non-GMO industry long-term studies were needed on animals to test their safety. The EU guidelines for testing stated, “Toxicological assessments on test animals are not explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US. Independent experts have decided that in some cases, chemical analyses of the food’s makeup are enough to indicate that the new GMO is substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart…In recent years, biotech companies have tested their transgenic products (maize, soy, tomato) before introducing them to the market on several different animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects have not yet been observed.” 
The ‘up to 90 days’ is the key statement. Seralini’s study only observed serious tumors and other effects after 120 days in their two-year study.

EFSA cover-up

On November 28, 2012, only a few weeks after the study was published, EFSA in Brussels issued a press release with the following conclusion: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine [sic!] previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”  Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said “EFSA’s analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue.” 
EFSA argued that Seralini had used the wrong kind of rats, not enough rats and that the statistical analysis was inadequate. By these standards, all toxicity studies on glyphosate and GMOs should be retracted because they used the same type and approximate number of rats as those in the Séralini study.

Professor of the University of Caen, Gilles-Eric Seralini (2ndR), poses in a laboratory with his team in Caen. (AFP Photo / Charly Triballeau)

At the very minimum, the ‘precautionary principle’ in instances involving even the potential for grave damage to the human population would mandate that the EU Commission and its EFSA should order immediate further serious, independent long-term studies to prove or disprove the results of the Seralini tests. Refusal to re-examine its earlier decision to approve Monsanto GMO maize, no matter what flaws might or might not have been in the Seralini study, suggested EFSA was trying to cover for the GMO agrichemical lobby at the very least.
Many members of the EFSA GMO review panel had documented ties to Monsanto and the GMO industry, a conflict of interest to put it mildly. Corporate Europe Observer, an independent EU corporate watchdog group noted about the EFSA response, “EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflicts of interest; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe's largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.” 

New blood at Elsevier

While the official EFSA statement seemed to take pressure off Monsanto, it clearly was not enough so long as the Elsevier journal study could circulate and be cited around the world.
Then, out of the blue, in May 2013, six months after the Seralini study release, Elsevier announced that it had created a new position, ‘Associate Editor for Biotechnology’. The person they hired to fill it was Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who in addition was with the Monsanto pro-GMO lobby organization, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations.
As one critical scientific website posed the obvious ethical sham of hiring Monsanto people to control GMO publications, “Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?” 
Then on November 24, 2013, six months after Goodman took control of GMO issues at the Journal, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology reportedly decided to retract the study by the team of Professor Séralini.
The reasons for the extraordinary retraction a full year after publishing are in violation of the guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member. According to the guidelines, the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are:
• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error;
• Plagiarism or redundant publication;
• Unethical research.
Séralini’s paper meets none of these criteria and Hayes admits as much. In his letter informing the professor of his decision, Hayes concedes that examination of Séralini’s raw data showed no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. 
As Claire Robinson of GM Watch points out, "inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid ground for retraction. Numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, which are often mixed in with findings that can be presented with more certainty. It is for future researchers to build on the findings and refine scientific understanding of any uncertainties.” 
Elsevier, the publisher of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, is one of the giants in worldwide scientific publications. And they are apparently not so rigorous when it comes to making money over scientific principle.
In 2009, Elsevier invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. Merck provided the papers, Elsevier published them, and doctors read them, unaware that the ‘Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine’ was simply a PR vehicle for the drug giant Merck.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

CHEMICAL SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER IS A NEGATIVE

Stangl’s understands Insects and disease will not go away. Drought and floods will not go away. Extreme heat and cold will not go away and most of all that weeds are your number one concern. Weeds indicate high bacterial and low fungus - unbalance. Number one cause for unbalanced soil and increased weeds is from the use of chemical synthetic fertilizers on your lawn from the past and now.

Weeds like a bacterial soil caused by chemical synthetic fertilizers which stimulates the bacterial side and kills the fungal mass. Coming off of these chemical synthetic fertilizers takes time to get a lawn more fungal, so until that time soil will favor weeds. Stangl’s has introduced a fungal Inoculum as well as included two fungal maintenance applications in the Classic Program to establish fungal mass to balance the fungal to bacterial ratio for the reduction of weeds.

Stangl’s provides the life force to heal and activate soils while due to strong marketing forces paid by advertising bias advice research, if you purchase product/service “A” (which the advertiser will sell or apply for you) the problem will be fixed. Many people then buy the product/service. However one question still needs to be asked; does this fix the problem in the long term or just treat the short term symptoms until next time. Our competitors, big box stores and manufactures continue to increase emphasis on the use of CHEMICAL SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER which is indicating that our soil’s natural fertility is declining (due to the fertilizer itself) and increased artificial supplementation is necessary.

CHEMICAL SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER’S NEGATIVE EFFECTS

·         Synthetic Fertilizer is often applied at excessive rates damaging soil microbial populations and the organic matter that sustains them and subsequently plant life.
·         Nitrogen and Phosphorus are recognised as groundwater contaminates because they are mobile and relocate to surface water with erosion and runoff then into streams, rivers, lakes and oceans creating large algae blooms killing marine life, and turn into nitrous oxide greenhouse gas (which accounts for 25% of the atmospheric greenhouse gas) www.dirtthemovie.org
·         Excessive use of Nitrogen can also promote plant disease, insects, increase water use and weeds.

Stangl's understands the relationship of the DIRT to all plant life. Since 1981 Stangl's has provided the best in lawn care and along the way has transformed the typical quick fix lawn care company that used pesticides and granular fertilizers, to a company that focuses on long term results by providing results today without compromising the environment.

Stangl’s provides the healthiest green approach to lawn care. There have been great advancements to obtain Healthy Lush Lawns through Healthy Soils. Please review www.stangls.com for updates and new additions. At Stangl’s we continually update and add to ensure that our lawns are getting the best products and care. With every service call done this year, Stangl’s has come up with solutions and integrated new products for the 2014 Season to advance the soil and results that we are all looking for.

Stangl’s Healthy Soils Program combined with the Classic Program is the Green Link that produces a healthy soil with beneficial bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes for a strong healthy structure that supports the plant life above. It`s time to get rid of your "junk" fertilizer program and step up to Stangl’s for:

·         Balanced soils
·         Energized Microbial Life
·         Massive root system.
·         Increased survival
·         Increased Phosphorus absorption to the detriment of Blue-Green Algae
·         Improves soil structure, prevents erosion
·         Thicker lawns
·         Increased Insect and disease resistance
·         Reduced weeds
·         Drought tolerance
·         Neutralizes soil acidity
·         Stimulates Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria

 

From RODALE INSTITUTE, Soil biologist and researcher Elaine Ingham Ph.D

“Good naturally healthy soil is crucial. Amazingly, the condition of the world’s soil today is so poor that it can be classified as a crisis.

Today we try to reverse poor soil with treatments of various chemical fertilizers. Yet no amount of chemical fertilizers will improve the structure of your soil because soil structure is maintained by the microbes living in the soil. Beneficial, anaerobic organisms build and maintain healthy soil while disease-supporting anaerobic organisms build and support unhealthy soil. In addition, soil structure is hindered by having to recover from numerous applications of synthetic chemicals such as salt-based fertilizers and chemicals.

A healthy vibrant lawn requires a healthy soil with beneficial bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes for a strong healthy structure that supports the plant life above. Soil biologist and researcher Elaine Ingham Ph.D., who studies soil as chief scientist at the renowned Rodale Institute in Kutatown, Pennsylvania, argues that one soil does not fit all. She also disputes soil experts who claim just having soil with the right pH allows you to grow any plant you want. “This is not going to be the case, unless you want to load your soil with inorganic fertilizers and pesticides and all those things that kill the beneficial organisms in that soil,” Dr. Ingham said. For that matter, she continues, “There is no purpose in putting inorganic fertilizer into the soil that (from the start) contains sand, silt, and clay because you have all the mineral nutrients in that material your plants require.” The soil needs the ability to take the nutrients that are present in the soil and convert them into a form available for the plant. Therefore, Dr. Ingham said, there has to be organic matter, food to feed the life in the soil to keep it alive, active, functioning and doing its job.”

 "Water and Air,     
     The two essential fluids on which all life depends,
             have become global garbage cans."

                                                                    Jacques Cousteau

 

Have a Mindful Day!

Stangl’s Enviro Lawn Care

  

Doctor OZ, Nov 5/13 PESTICIDES IN OUR FOOD

What the Food Industry Doesn't Want You to Know

Investigative reporter Elisabeth Leamy and Dr. Michael Hansen join Dr. Oz to debunk the food industry's pesticide cover-up.

FERTILIZER IS A KNOWN CONTAMINANT

U.S. and Canada need to reduce algae blooms in Lake Erie, report says

 

By Clare Clancy, The Canadian Press August 29, 2013

 

 

 

 

Satellite photo from a NASA website show algae blooms on Lake Erie in this Oct. 5, 2011, file photo. A new report says Canada and the U.S. should take urgent steps to crack down on sources of phosphorus runoff blamed for a rash of harmful algae blooms on Lake Erie. THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP Photo/NASA, File

Canada and the U.S. should crack down on sources of phosphorus runoff blamed for a rash of harmful algae blooms on Lake Erie, an advisory agency said Thursday.
The International Joint Commission said in a draft report that urgent steps are needed to curb runaway algae — which produce harmful toxins and contribute to oxygen-deprived "dead zones" where fish cannot survive.
The issue prompted both nations to reach their first agreement to improve Great Lakes water quality more than 40 years ago, when some considered Erie ecologically dead.
Tougher standards for municipal and industrial waste treatment produced improvements by reducing the flow into the lake of phosphorus on which algae feeds.
The report's Canadian co-author, Glenn Benoy, said algae blooms had almost disappeared but now there is a recurrence.
"Some of the worst blooms we've seen in the lake happened in the last five to seven years," he said from Ottawa.
In 2011, the largest mass on record formed in the lake's western basin, eventually reaching more than 160 kilometres from Toledo to Cleveland, Ohio.
Benoy — a senior water quality and ecosystem adviser — said there is evidence an algae bloom is starting to spread now, but he doesn't know how severe it will be as blooms tend to peak in the fall.
The report says different sources of phosphorus runoff have emerged — primarily large farms, where manure and other fertilizers are washed into tributary rivers during storms and snowmelt.
They accounted for more than half of the phosphorus that reached the lake in 2011, while one-third came from smaller farms and nearshore communities as well as city sewers.
More intense storms likely caused by climate change are sweeping more nutrients into the lake, the report says. Additionally, unlike decades ago, much of the phosphorus dissolves in water, making it easier for algae to consume.
"The ultimate concern is that there will be some toxicity associated with severe blooms and it's this toxicity that can affect human health, animal health," Benoy said, adding that this is in an extreme scenario.
The report includes 15 key recommendations, including prohibition of nearly all use of phosphorus fertilizers for lawn care and the monitoring of sewage plants and other facilities that discharge into the lake.
It also calls for a cleanup plan developed by the governments of Ontario, Ohio and Michigan.
Benoy said other ecosystems surrounding Lake Erie could be affected.
"It's not confined to the western basin of Lake Erie," he said, adding that blooms have also been found in Lake St. Clair.
He said researchers are looking at a multi-year solution to "turn the phosphorus taps off."
The report sets targets for sharp reductions in phosphorus runoff over three to six years, including a 46 per cent decrease in total phosphorus and a 78 per cent cut in the dissolved type for the lake's central and western basins.
"The idea that we could turn time back and go back to a Lake Erie like it was pre-war or something, that will take centuries," Benoy said, adding that the goal is to have the lake in an environmental condition that is "desirable and acceptable" to the public.
"If nothing is done with the recommendations, well, then we get into a scenario where the likelihood of further blooms continues, the severity, the duration, intensity," he said. "There will be nothing to curtail that."
To reach the targets, the report recommends that governments in both countries should require "best management practices" that reduce the amount of phosphorus applied to fields and slow the flow of water to drainage systems. The report suggests one step would be to ban spreading manure on frozen or snow-covered ground.
Another proposal would link the cost and availability of government-subsidized crop insurance to farmers' willingness to curb phosphorus runoff.
"The idea is that if you're contributing to pollution, you're going to pay more," said Lana Pollack, chairwoman of the commission's U.S. section. "There's really a strong need to change agricultural practices, or else just say you're going to sacrifice Lake Erie."
Pollack said if the governments take action on the report "it will make a big difference."
"What happened in 2011 was such a shock that people realize more of the same is just not tolerable," she said.
_ With files from The Associated Press.

FERTILIZER IS A KNOWN CONTAMINANT

STANGL'S EXCLUSIVE TRI-FESCUE BLEND

A Blend That Excretes  a Natural Herbicide!

Tri-Fescue Blend is a mix of  three elite varieties of fescues developed and researched at world renowned facilities since 1998. Each variety of turf trails provided excellent results in all aspects of growing turf.


DESCRIPTION:
Tri-Fescue Blend was created because of their unique and exclusive abilities for both endophyte and allelopathy (meta-tyrosine) qualities. For a superior seed mix to meet today’s demands the Tri-Fescue Blend will naturally take care of top feeding insects while excreting a natural herbicide into the soil that retards the germination of crabgrass and broadleaf weeds while limiting the root growth of weeds. The blend is an excellent combination for colour, quality, heat and drought tolerance, as well as disease resistance that is superior to nearly all commercially available varieties of Fescues.

NOT ALL FESCUES ARE CREATED THE SAME!
These improved cultivars are tested on lawns, golf course fairways and over seeding, have better stress and wear tolerance. The Tri-Fescue Blend has the natural ability of allelopathy which is the excreting of a natural herbicide into the soil that retards the germination of crabgrass and broadleaf weeds while limiting the root growth of weeds. Remember, when you use improved cultivars such as the Tri-Blend, you reduce your maintenance.

USAGE:
Tri-Blend Fescue mix is versatile for all conditions found on the golf course, parks, home lawns and commercial applications. This blend is well suited for acidic soils, shady conditions, roadside salt from winter use, medium to high levels of fertility. It does particularly well in lower maintenance situations and to low mowing.

DISEASE RESISTANCE:
Tri-Blend Fescue mix has been evaluated for nearly all the common cool season turf diseases, with excellent results. They have demonstrated good to excellent resistance to a broad range of diseases including Leaf Spot, Red Thread, Dollar Spot, Summer Patch, Powdery Mildew, Brown Patch and Net Blotch.

SEEDING:
The Tri-Fescue Blend has approximately 450,000 seeds/ lb., and should be seeded at about 4-6 lbs. / 1000 sq. ft. Under normal situations, seedling emergence can be expected in 5-12 days. Aeration should be done with it for improved germination during your regular mowings or when starting on open soil the first mowing can be done 24 to 35 days. Fall seeding is best, but spring seedlings are also acceptable. Dormant seedings in northern areas are also recommended when conditions are suitable.

To ensure the best performance in your already existing lawn, Tri-Fescue Blend should be over seeded regularly to change your lawn over to a majority of this blend to further reap the benefits and desired outcome.

MANAGEMENT:
Tri-Fescue Blend requires regular mowing from 2-3inches. A lawn care program that feeds the soil flora along with regular waterings of 1 inch per week will keep this blend at peak performance. No need to use those damaging granular fertilizers and high iron products such as FIESTA. This blend is a slower growing turf grass that can be enjoyed for years to come.

Fertilizer use responsible for increase in nitrous oxide in atmosphere

Fertilizer use responsible for increase in nitrous oxide in atmosphere

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | April 2, 2012

BERKELEY —

University of California, Berkeley, chemists have found a smoking gun proving that increased fertilizer use over the past 50 years is responsible for a dramatic rise in atmospheric nitrous oxide, which is a major greenhouse gas contributing to global climate change.

 

 

 

 

The Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania,where air samples have been collected since 1978. These samples show a long-term trend in isotopic composition that confirms that nitrogen-based fertilizer is largely responsible for the 20 percent increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide since the Industrial Revolution. Photo courtesy of CSIRO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Climate scientists have assumed that the cause of the increased nitrous oxide was nitrogen-based fertilizer, which stimulates microbes in the soil to convert nitrogen to nitrous oxide at a faster rate than normal.

The new study, reported in the April issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, uses nitrogen isotope data to identify the unmistakable fingerprint of fertilizer use in archived air samples from Antarctica and Tasmania.

“Our study is the first to show empirically from the data at hand alone that the nitrogen isotope ratio in the atmosphere and how it has changed over time is a fingerprint of fertilizer use,” said study leader Kristie Boering, a UC Berkeley professor of chemistry and of earth and planetary science.

“We are not vilifying fertilizer. We can’t just stop using fertilizer,” she added. “But we hope this study will contribute to changes in fertilizer use and agricultural practices that will help to mitigate the release of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.”

Since the year 1750, nitrous oxide levels have risen 20 percent – from below 270 parts per billion (ppb) to more than 320 ppb. After carbon dioxide and methane, nitrous oxide (N₂O) is the most potent greenhouse gas, trapping heat and contributing to global warming. It also destroys stratospheric ozone, which protects the planet from harmful ultraviolet rays.

Not surprisingly, a steep ramp-up in atmospheric nitrous oxide coincided with the green revolution that increased dramatically in the 1960s, when inexpensive, synthetic fertilizer and other developments boosted food production worldwide, feeding a burgeoning global population.

Tracking the origin of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, however, is difficult because a molecule from a fertilized field looks identical to one from a natural forest or the ocean if you only measure total concentration. But a quirk of microbial metabolism affects the isotope ratio of the nitrogen the N₂O microbes give off, producing a telltale fingerprint that can be detected with sensitive techniques.

Archived air from Cape Grim

Boering and her colleagues, including former UC Berkeley graduate students Sunyoung Park and Phillip Croteau, obtained air samples from Antarctic ice, called firn air, dating from 1940 to 2005, and from an atmospheric monitoring station at Cape Grim, Tasmania, which has archived air back to 1978.

 

 

 

 

Law Dome, Antarctica. Air trapped in the consolidated snow from this region provides historical air samples going back to 1940.

 

 

 

 

Analysis of N₂O levels in the Cape Grim air samples revealed a seasonal cycle, which has been known before. But isotopic measurements by a very sensitive isotope ratio mass spectrometer also displayed a seasonal cycle, which had not been observed before. At Cape Grim, the isotopes show that the seasonal cycle is due both to the circulation of air returning from the stratosphere, where N₂O is destroyed after an average lifetime of 120 years, and to seasonal changes in the ocean, most likely upwelling that releases more N₂O at some times of year than at others.

“The fact that the isotopic composition of N₂O shows a coherent signal in space and time is exciting, because now you have a way to differentiate agricultural N₂O from natural ocean N₂O from Amazon forest emissions from N₂O returning from the stratosphere,” Boering said. “In addition, you also now have a way to check whether your international neighbors are abiding by agreements they’ve made to mitigate N₂O emissions. It is a tool that, ultimately, we can use to verify whether N₂O emissions by agriculture or biofuel production are in line with what they say they are.”

Changes in fertilizer use can reduce N₂O emissions

Limiting nitrous oxide emissions could be part of a first step toward reducing all greenhouse gases and lessening global warming, Boering said, especially since immediately reducing global carbon dioxide emissions is proving difficult from a political standpoint. In particular, reducing nitrous oxide emissions can initially offset more than its fair share of greenhouse gas emissions overall, since N₂O traps heat at a different wavelength than CO₂ and clogs a “window” that allows Earth to cool off independent of CO₂ levels.

“On a pound for pound basis, it is really worthwhile to figure how to limit our emissions of N₂O and methane,” she said. “Limiting N₂O emissions can buy us a little more time in figuring out how to reduce CO₂ emissions.”

One approach, for example, is to time fertilizer application to avoid rain, because wet and happy soil microbes can produce sudden bursts of nitrous oxide. Changes in the way fields are tilled, when they are fertilized and how much is used can reduce N₂O production.

Boering’s studies, which involve analyzing the isotopic fingerprints of nitrous oxide from different sources, could help farmers determine which strategies are most effective. It could also help assess the potential negative impacts of growing crops for biofuels, since some feedstocks may require fertilizer that will generate N₂O that offsets their carbon neutrality.

“This new evidence of the budget of nitrous oxide allows us to better predict its future changes– and therefore its impacts on climate and stratospheric ozone depletion – for different scenarios of fertilizer use in support of rising populations and increased production for bio-energy,” said coauthor David Etheridge of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Aspendale, Victoria.

Boering’s colleagues include D. M. Etheridge, P. J. Fraser, P. B. Krummel, R. L. Langenfelds, L. P. Steele and C. M. Trudinger of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research; D. Ferretti of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in Wellington, New Zealand; K-R. Kim of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Seoul National University in Korea; and T. D. van Ommen of the Australian Antarctic Division in Tasmania. Park is now at Seoul National University, while Croteau is at Aerodyne Research, Inc., in Billerica, Mass.

The work was supported by UC Berkeley’s Atmospheric Sciences Center, NASA’s Upper Atmosphere Research Program, the Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Award, the Brain 21 Korea Program, a Korean government research grant through Seoul National University, and the Australian government’s Cooperative Research Centres Programme.

For more information:

• Trends and seasonal cycles in the isotopic composition of nitrous oxide since 1940 (Nature Geoscience, 4/1/2012)
• Kristie Boering lab

LAWN CARE RENEWAL TIME

 

With the cold of winter at your door and windows, now is the time to discuss your 2013 lawn care program. If you haven’t received a call from your lawn care provider as of yet, you will. Lawn care providers are getting their numbers together for the products they will be purchasing for the upcoming season.
 

As for the homeowner, this is the time to reflect on what your lawn needs? How you may ask? There are many variables that can contribute to a great lawn as well as a bad one. Take for example the weather of 2012! The weather will always have a negative or positive effect on your lawn as well as you! Let me ask you these questions and answer them on a separate paper:

 

How often did you cut?

What height did you cut?

What type of grass plants are growing in your lawn?

How often do you over seed and with what type of seed?

Did you water? How long? How many days per week? What time of day?

Does your lawn have thatch?

Is the soil compacted? What type of soil do you have?

Is there a tree on the property or adjacent? How much shade to sunlight for each area

What about foot traffic?

What insects or disease was there or have a history of?

There are many more variables, but these are the more important right now.
 

There are two variables that have an effect on your lawn that you may never have considered? 1) What products does your lawn care provider or you use? 2) What is the history of what has been done to your lawn? The philosophies differ from each company as well as from consumer to consumer. What the lawn care provider and consumer have applied, have long term effects not only to the lawn, but to the environment and us. Thou we’ve had a ban in Ontario since 2009 for cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns, these products are still in the environment today; as well as still being used in the golf and agricultural industry.

At an Acres USA Conference held December 6-8, 2012 inLouisville, KY, many revered speakers were present to provide scientific facts such as “The Myths of Safe Pesticides”, by  Andre Leu “synthetic pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. These poisons are used in food production to kill pests, diseases and weeds. Major international studies have raised the issue of agricultural chemicals as significant contributors to negative global environmental change and human health due to toxicants that are responsible for cancer, endocrine disruption, immune system diseases and developmental toxicity.”
 

Today’s lawn care companies and consumers who “do-it-themselves” need to stop an out of date lawn care practices that continually destroy our soils; as well as increase greenhouse gases. Some may say “that we’ve been doing this for years” or “I am not going to be here for long.” Here at Stangl’s we use Professor Albrecht’s system for success and this is what Neal Kinsey had to say about Albrecht: “Albrecht's soil balancing protocols work equally well - or even better! - in organic production systems than when accomplished by synthetic fertilizers on less alive soil. When calcium, magnesium, and the other nutrients and micronutrients are in the proper balance on the soil colloid, crops thrive, weed and insect pressures lessen, and yields and soil tilth improve season after season.” “Following this past growing season, most are interested in drought-proofing soils, but many still often ignore minerals.”
 

Deeper understanding and due diligence is required for all. Many consumers have high expectations of what their lawns and gardens should look like, but are unable to understand the requirements from both the lawn care provide and themselves. From your answers, go to the net and research what is needed for each of your questions. Please do not stop at one site, but search many to find what is consistent and what resonates with you. As for your lawn care provider, I highly recommend not using any synthetic granular fertilizers. It is not needed, but their sales team will tell you different. Did you know that granular fertilizer has only 5 nutrients and that only 20% of the nitrogen fertilizer applied is used? Nitrogen is mobile; thus will move into our water table,streams, into rivers, lakes and oceans creating large algae blooms killingmarine life, and then it will turn into nitrous oxide that will increase greenhousegas. That is what you are paying for!

 

Majority of lawn care providers follow an outdated business plan to provide quick fix results to meet the consumer demand of unrealistic expectations. Continuing this plan will not only continue to cost the consumer more and more; while damaging the soil, environment and us. They’re lawn care providers that copycat each other without their own due diligence. They’ll use the latest quick fix products say for weed control that does not live up to expectations.  Repeat applications are required which will incur further costs as well as it damages your soil and thus your end result gets farther and farther away due to endless quick fix solutions.

 

The process starts in the soil, but healthy soils do not happen overnight. Starting now will restore and balance your ecosystems diverse system to develop a healthy lush lawn with very few if any weeds, insects and disease. This is where the lawn care provider and consumer again fall short. Weeds are not a plant out of place, but the opposite. They are required where they grow to heal the soil. Each weed will grow in specific area due to a lack of; in the soil. This is where your lawn care provider and you fall short. A quick fix is not the solution for what is lacking in the soil; thus another weed will take its place to continue the healing
 

Each of our applications contains a minimum of 42 nutrients to heal and activate the soil. This process is ongoing; requiring six applications per year. When chemistry is involved with the many positive or negative variables, results will vary, but our process will always move your soil into the positive. With your combined efforts you will soon see results leap frogging to meet our expectations. As we continue to restore the soils balance, the insects, weeds, disease and crabgrass will become virtually none because of the healthy soil which in turn provides a healthy strong lush green lawn.