Herbicide can almost virtually eliminate nutrients to the plants because of chelations and immobilized nutrients, consquences Signifcant loss of production and revenue to the farmer! Timing is a solutons to this! Some herbcides are classified as bio-cides!

Feeding Plants without good trans location is just a waste of money!
Dr. Huber 2nd presentatons about Herbicide Chelation of Essentials Nutrients to the plants and make essentials unavailable to the plants for production, Results SDS and White Mold, Etc.

Trans-Location Problem or Immobilized Nutrients

Feeding Plants without good trans location is just a waste of money!
Dr. Huber interview explains what is wrong with much of 400 Million acres of North American immobilized Soils.

So in Short what we end up is SDS and other soil borne pathogens!

This webpage is taken out of a section of our Soysoap Introduction page. This web page deals with many issues paramount to understand agriculture production And how to achieve the Genetic Potential of the Seed!

We feel its important to understand these words and what they mean and how they impact crop production and revenue to a farmer. More and More the Farmers money is being taken away from him through various means!

So we are going to take this one subject at a time and feel free to always call me if more expanation. I doubt you will get these answers from your local chemical crop advisors so lets get on with the explanations! This is brief overview which subjects we shall cover.

      1) Liebig's Law Of The Minimum, And Below "Shelford's Law of Tolerance" or How to achieve Genetic Potential!
      2) Soysoap #2 Increased Brix Levels
      3) Electrical Conductivity (EC )(Microsiemens) the keys to production
      4) Increasing Carbon Dioxide Consumption
      5) Soil Remediation Provides Many Years of Mobilized Nutrients
      6) Trans-Location Problem or Immobilized Nutrients
      7) Soysoap Foilar Feed Tissue Analysis Prove We Feed The Plants Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Oats and Alfalfa!
      8) Ex-Monsanto Jerry Pritchard pro-clams, You have discovered the "Missing Link" that we have been searching for for 40 years.
      9) Glyphosate is a mineral chelator developed in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical Company, it ties up minerals in the soils.

Liebig's Law Of The Minimum, And Below "Shelford's Law of Tolerance"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Liebig improved organic analysis with the Kaliapparat-- a five-bulb device that used a potassium hydroxide solution to remove the organic combustion product carbon dioxide. He downplayed the role of humus in plant nutrition and discovered that plants feed on nitrogen compounds and carbon dioxide derived from the air, as well as on minerals in the soil. One of his most recognized and far-reaching accomplishments were the invention of nitrogen-based fertilizer.

Liebig believed that nitrogen must be supplied to plant roots in the form of ammonia. Though a practical and commercial failure, his invention of fertilizer recognized the possibility of substituting chemical fertilizers for natural (animal dung, etc.) ones. He also formulated the Law of the Minimum, stating that a plant's development is limited by the one essential mineral that is in the relatively shortest supply, visualized as "Liebig's barrel". This concept is a qualitative version of the principles used to determine the application of fertilizer in modern agriculture.

Liebig's Law of the Minimum, often simply called Liebig's Law or the Law of the Minimum, is a principle developed in agricultural science by Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is controlled not by the total of resources available, but by the scarcest resource. This concept was originally applied to plant or crop growth, where it was found that increasing the amount of plentiful nutrients did not increase plant growth. Only by increasing the amount of the limiting nutrient (the one most scarce in relation to "need") was the growth of a plant or crop improved.

Liebig used the image of a barrel-now called Liebig's barrel-to explain his law. Just as the capacity of a barrel with staves of unequal length is limited by the shortest stave, so a plant's growth is limited by the nutrient in shortest supply.

Liebig's Law has been extended to biological populations. For example, the growth of a biological population may not be limited by the total amount of resources available throughout the year, but by the minimum amount of resources available to that population at the time of year of greatest scarcity. That is, the growth of a population of animals might depend not on how much food is available in summer, but on how much food is available in winter.

The University of Giessen today is officially named after him, "Justus-Liebig-Universität-Giessen". Organic Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Physiology (1840), Organic Chemistry in its Application to Physiology and Pathology (1842)

Shelford's Law of Tolerance

Shelford's Law of Tolerance is probably the more accurate reflection of natural complexity. It holds that first the presence and then the success of an organism depend on the completeness of a complex of conditions. The absence or failure of an organism, then, is a function of qualitative or quantitative deficiency or excess with respect to any one of several factors approaching that organism's limit of tolerance for it.

More precisely, each organism--whether the individual or the species population--is subject to an ecological minimum, maximum, and optimum for any specific environmental factor or complex of factors. The range from minimum to maximum represents the limits of tolerance for the factor or complex. Significantly, if all known factors are apparently within their respective ranges for the subject organism and yet it fails, it is necessary to consider additional factors or a more complete array of interrelationships, including interactions with other organisms.

When faced with any such situation, it is essential to remember yet another caveat, a biological reality to be taken seriously: Studies in the intact ecosystem must accompany experimental laboratory studies, which, of necessity, isolate individuals from their populations and communities. Put another way, it is essential for field biologists to consider the wisdom to be discovered in the laboratory and for biologists ordinarily bound to the laboratory to be aware of the ecological reality associated with the processes they are investigating.

There are significant corollaries to the Law of Tolerance. An organism may have a wide range of tolerance for one factor but a narrow range for another. Logic suggests that organisms with wide ranges of tolerance for many, if not all, factors will be the most widely distributed. Within an organism or species, when conditions are non-optimum for one factor, limits of tolerance for others may be narrowed. Tolerance is most likely to be limited during periods of reproduction.

Evolution of narrow limits constitutes one form of specialization and reflects greater efficiency, but it does so at the expense of adaptability. These are the kinds of factors that contribute to increased diversity in the community as a whole.

Repeated Use of Glysosate has tied up the micro-nutrients

#2 Soysoap Increased Brix Levels, #3 Electrical Conductivity (EC ) (Microsiemens) and #4 "Increasing Carbon Dioxide Consumption" Benefits

Lets get serious about farming, Do not plant seeds until you understand this! The Foundation of good crop production and lifecycle cost management is high Brix Levels, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Consumption and Electrical Conductivity (EC )(Microsiemens). After that, You should know how your going to increase (Microsiemens) in Soils, Chemicals, Fertilizers and Plants. Your consultant needs to be an expert in "Increasing Carbon Dioxide Consumption", Plant Pathology, Entomology, Electrical Conductivity (EC) (Microsiemens) and Soil Science! When your consultant comes to your farm I would start by asking him! "How are you going to increase my (Microsiemens), Plant Brix, Carbon Dioxide Consumption! And than, Ask his help with immobilized nutrient trans-location. Note: Applications of synthetic chemical products will lower brix levels and "Carbon Dioxide Consumption" and crop production, could cost you money.
Treatment Row Brix Sap PH Sap EC (mS/cd) Chlorophyll



















Protein Plus






Protein Plus






Protein Plus










































The SFI test are the facts that Soysoap is "Clear Winner" in raising Brix/Sugar levels, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Consumption and Electrical Conductivity (EC)(Microsiemens). Soysoap topped all tested products with an average of 12.8 Brix and that is 33% higher than the control. This highlights how the products works at about the atom level and can work with all plants living cells as they electromagnetic (Electric). To work atomically you cant use picotechnology (obsoletes Nanotechnology & Graphene) it is to big, you need an about atom size particle. SFI said Sap EC (mS/cd) average was increased by 17% or 1.9 (mS/cd) Electrical Conductivity (Microsiemens) vs control. SFI proclaimed that Soysoap helps increase Carbon Dioxide consumption by 33% over the control, i.e., more money to the farmer. Now you need to deal with your soils remediation for chelated immobilized fertilizers and other nutrients which we can help you with before you plant!

The Competition did well: KSoff 2nd 12.25 Brix, Protein Plus 3rd 11.5 Brix, and Control 9.5 Brix.

These tests and their expert opinion were certified SFI (Soil Foodweb Institute), And Meag Consultancy, Colin Steddy, Australian, Wheat Trail: Brix, Sap PH, Sap EC(mS/cd) Electrical Conductivity (Microsiemens), Chlorophyll, On 26 September about 15:15 - 16.20 at Temp:72 F, Sunshine.

#5 Soil Remediation Provides Many Years of Mobilized Nutrients

Soysoap Mobilizes Nutrients In Soils Now and Following Years

#7 Ex-Monsanto Jerry Pritchard pro-clams, You have discovered the "Missing Link" that we have been searching for for 40 years, of Agriculture Trans-location. Soysoap helps plant nutrient availabilty by facturing and mobilization of tied up plant nutrient!

Don- 2006 Very impressive. Awhile back when I did analysis on your product you sent me I remember my comment was "it very definitely resembled soap!" Results look good. Mechanism for increased production would appear to be soap ingredients act as a vehicle for plant nutrient entry and assimilation. Thanks for information. Good Luck on your Biobased Products. John Noakes, Ph.D., Director, Center for Applied Isotope Studies, The University of Georgia, and Athens, Georgia 30602.

2009 Than we got comments from Ex-Monsanto Jerry Pritchard who helped start Monsanto back in the 60's. He made the comments in the following attachment published in Progressive Farmer back in 2010, "You have discovered the "Missing Link" of Agriculture Trans-location. I was baffled by the comment and it took me about 5 years to understand that comment.

2010 We also got the same kinds of comments from Tom Harris when he theorized that we were getting nutrients into the plants through what he called the back door. There has to be a simple explanation why in leaves analysis we get more nutrients into leaves.

2014 Because of the mobilization of the tied up nutrients we have had some farmers report to us that soil tests before and after Burndown with the Soysoap. There soil test showed they need PK, but after showed they didn't need any fertilizers as so much of the PK had been made mobilized to increase their amounts.

Here are some opinions of what might just be happening!

1). Dr. 1 Yesterday I went over to see to discuss the apparent "fracturing" of certain micronutrients in soils when successively higher concentrations of the soap are added before a soil test. Bert says that somehow, the product must be releasing metal ions from their attachment sites.

Dr. 2 I showed him the four andrean soil analyses from SGS Europe. He immediately asked, "What's breaking the micros loose? Very, very interesting! Yup, and your calcium is going down. That has to happen if you free up these other elements. You gotta add calcium."

3). Dr. 3 One possible protocol for determining effect of Soysoap 1 on trace elements in water at near-normal field rates. Hypothesis: SoySoap blended in a water solution with chelated trace elements increases availability of those traces to crops when foliar-applied on crops.

#8 Soysoap Foilar Feed Tissue Analysis Prove We Feed The Plants Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Oats and Alfalfa!

#9 Glyphosate is a mineral chelator in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical Co.!

Glyphosate was first patented as a chelator in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical Co. It was patented by Monsanto and introduced as an herbicide in 1974. According to Dr. Huber, an award-winning scientist and professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years, “It’s important to realize that glyphosate is not ‘just’ an herbicide. It was first patented as a *mineral chelator*. It immobilizes nutrients, so they’re not physiologically available for your body.” He says Glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic: “When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad bacteria fill that void, because there aren’t any voids in nature. We have all of these gut-related problems, whether it’s autism, leaky gut, C. difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems. All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal microflora that keeps you healthy.” So my question is, how can you in good conscience, promote Glyphosate which has been patented as both a mineral chelator and an antibiotic…both of which have enormous implications?

2012 Soils Conference Dr. Don Huber Glyphosate

Introduction: Our honored guest tonight is Dr. Don Huber. I was made aware of Dr. Huber's work about two and a half years ago, and you know, ever since then, it seems like we have more and more questions, and so, from our dealers. And I've had the opportunity to see him speak a number of times. And so we thought we'd give our dealers the opportunity to hear what he has to say. For those of you who don't know, Dr. Huber is professor emeritus of plant pathology from Perdue University. And he's got over 55 years of agricultural research from epidemiology, soil-borne plant pathogens, microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and a host of others, including micronutrient physiology, inhibition of nitrification. I found out through one of our dealers in Alberta who has been working with Don for over ten years of his distinguished military service. 41 years as active reserve military, retired as a colonel from the Medical Intelligence Center. And one of my favorite stories, he may or may not share it, is his trip to Russia, where he was working directly for the president on biological warfare. Of Don's greatest accomplishments, though, is his marriage to his wife, Paula, and their 11 grandchildren and 39 grandchildren. And so please welcome Don Huber and feel free to ask as many questions as you want.

Don Huber: Thank you, it an honor to be here. Have to update that, we just had our 40th grandchild yesterday. So we'll - we're still in the production mode. Old age caught up with me, but thank goodness for a few children that can carry on.

Really appreciate being here, and after that excellent mail that we've had, it lets you know how really important you are, if you think about it. If you're a farmer, or a producer, or in agriculture, agriculture is the basic infrastructure for any society. We take it for granted because we've been really blessed with your productivity and your labors so that we can have a meal like we've experienced here tonight. But everybody says that it impossible for us to meet the news of our growing world population. You'll hear a lot of the ads that will come out and say, this is justification for us having to have genetic engineering and everything else because we can't do it on our own. Well, we've been accomplishing the impossible, now, for several centuries, a number of centuries. We have more people on the earth today, a little over seven billion. We have more food than we've ever had per capita in the history of the world. Because of you.

Because of your work, because of what you can accomplish. We'll continue to do that, as long as we have the - the freedom, and the innovation, and the incentive to do it.

If - if those activities are stifled, we're going to lose the efficiency of our basic infrastructure.

But you can do the impossible, you've been doing it. I was reminded of one of our special forces captains, 2003, before we went into Iraq, we needed some information. We didn't have it. We'd lost all of that intelligence network that had been built up over the years had all been phased out during one of our administrators. But we had this special forces captain, he had the task of getting that information, he had to go from Saudi Arabia into Iraq. Needed some camels that could go seven days without water in order to do it. He had - every merchant that he went to told him that a camel can only go six days without water. They can't go seven days. This captain kept insisting. Finally, he said, there a way you can do it. He said, you take them off water. They're really getting hungry or really thirsty. Then you take them up to the water trough, they start drinking, and they get up to that five and a half day or five and three fourths day fill capacity, and you go around behind them, and you take two bricks, and you slam them against the tail. The camel will go - and he'll take up that seventh day of water. Well, this was a really compassionate captain, and he looked at the merchant, and he said, well, gee, doesn't that hurt? The merchant said, only if you get your thumbs between the bricks. Well, we got to make sure that we keep our thumbs from between the bricks if we're going to be able to meet those needs. We can do it. we're only harvesting 20-30% of the genetic potential of our crops already.

Tremendous potential there.

The reason that we only harvest such a small percentage is because all of the stresses, whether it nutrient, whether it weather, whether it genetic engineering, or any of the other pests and diseases, those other stresses that all take their cut out of it, and so we're left with to harvest, what left over after the stresses. If we want to harvest more, we need to remove the stresses. And that what you do in your management program. But most of those stresses all have a direct tie back to - to nutrition.

They influence the efficiency of nutrients, but they - we can also use nutrients, then, to remove those stresses so we can harvest more of that genetic potential. And you can see how those all interact in the - the process, working both ways, but we can use them, as nutrition a powerful tool for us to increase our production efficiency and to harvest more of that genetic potential that in the crop. And

if we work those out, we can manage the system to make those crops produce for us. Or to give them that opportunity. Too often, we think of agriculture as a bunch of silver bullets. Or as I've seen the ad in some of the farm magazines, you'll have a bunch of stinger anti-aircraft missiles sitting out there on a launch pad as though you're only doing one thing at a time. All of you who are farming know that you're doing a whole lot of things at one time because agriculture a system. Now, I've depicted it here as a diamond. And some of the major components of that system, you have the plant up at the top, up here. You have the physical environment, that abiotic environment of your nutrients, and soil pH, and organic matter, and all of those things that are involved and your ag chemicals.

Then you have your very dynamic biotic environment, very important for nutrient availability and nutrient recycling, as well as for biological control and all of the other biological functions that are involved in agriculture. And over here then, you have your pests, your pathogens, and insects, weeds, and all of those things that interact in that overall process. Any time we do anything in agriculture, we influence the interaction of those four components. If we want to improve our yield, we make sure that those interactions are going to favor the crop, favor the yield. But it how those four points on that diamond interact that are going to determine whether you're going to have a good yield, or a poor yield, or a nutritious product, or a deficient product, disease or a non-diseased crop.

Doesn't matter whether it crop sequence, or tillage, or fertilization. Again, any time we do anything in agriculture, you influence the interaction of all four of those components. You can't just put a gene in and say it doesn't affect anything else. Because it affects that plant and its interaction then with those other three components on the system, also.

We're working with - with a system, not with silver bullets. Now, we talk about nutrition because we know that a lot of those nutrients are components of the plant. Nitrogen is part of the physiology, the protein metabolism, the enzymes, and all of those things, calcium, cell walls, boron, and zinc, and all of those things are all involved in permeability. And various components that are thought of, but the micronutrients are critical as the co-factors for those enzyme systems that make this marvelous plant that we're growing really functional. It the micronutrients that are the activators, and the inhibitors, and the regulators of those physiologic processes. If we want to stop one of those processes and have an herbicide, we have a chelator.

And I've depicted it here as kind of the key that goes in the ignition that can start and drive that 200 or 400 horsepower engine that sitting out in your tractor. The engine can do a lot of power and lot of work for you. Doesn't do anything unless you turn the key on. If you want to stop that engine, you pull the key out of the ignition. Physiologically, we do that by the process of chelation. A chelator is the compound that can grab onto a mineral element, and it can immobilize it, change it structure, and we have some chelators that can increase solubility and can make them more available. When we want an herbicide, we want to pull that key out of the ignition, shut down that particular process. All of our herbicides are chelators. In other words, they grab onto those essential mineral elements, whether the activators or the regulators, for a particular physiologic process. We can see that chelation with glyphosate is an example. And glyphosate and glufosinate are quite different than all of our other herbicides in that they're very broad spectrum chelators. Most of our herbicides are very specific for a particular mineral element. Fenoxaprop used in our cereals as an herbicide is a copper chelator. Tordon a copper chelator. There are chelators for zinc, or for iron, or for manganese.

With glyphosate, it chelates all of the cations. When you look at manganese, you can see that the various points on the glyphosate for chelation, you actually have four different points. And you can see with the valence changes in manganese, the three valence states, that you have tremendous range for immobilizing that particular essential nutrient and shutting down specific physiological processes.

The EPSPS or the other elements there. So that with glyphosate as a broad spectrum chelator, it chelates in the tank. That why if you have hard water, don't soften it, or don't have sprayed water. You looks your herbicidal activity,

as demonstrated here by putting a little zinc in the spray tank. And we no longer have that powerful herbicide that you see over here because we've chelated in the tank, and we've destroyed its ability to chelate, then, in the plant. Glyphosate a strong chelator for nutrients in the plant. And that why we see flashing, that yellowing indicates you have photosynthesis shut down. And manganese chelated, the key been pulled out of the ignition. It also a very strong chelator in the soil. And that why glyphosate is - is detoxified, doesn't stay around as an active product once you've put it out. Not necessarily degraded, but it detoxified through that chelation with your calcium, and magnesium, and iron, other cations in the soil. There are two factors that are going to determine how effectively it detoxified.

First of those is going to be pH. You can see that the lower the pH, the greater the absorption of glyphosate in the soil structure. The other factor is clay content. And the more clay you have in your soil, the greater the absorption of the glyphosate. Now, it can be chelated even in a sandy soil. It does - it won't be as residual in that situation as it is if you have a low pH or a higher clay content, where the glyphosate, as it chelated, then, is actually absorbed into the soil structure, into your clay lattices, and to those areas which make it less available for any soil microbial activity that can take place. For instance, Supreme Court, in 2009, after the appeal from two lower court decisions, ruled that it was fraud to claim soil degradation of glyphosate in soil. That because it not a predictable entity.

Part of that unpredictability is because of the effect of the clay content and soil pH, and also most of the microbial degradation by co-metabolism rather than by a directed metabolism to break it down to provide a nutrient for a particular organism. It just happens that some organisms can break it down, degrade it. That soil that stored - or the glyphosate that stored in the soil, then, is also available for desorption. And as Bod has shown in his research here that it can be desorbed and then is available to affect plants later on, years after it was initially applied.

And you see the broad spectrum chelating effect of that in inhibiting the nutrient availability for all the cations. You can see a 70-80% reduction in availability of these cations here, and you also see about a 60% reduction in ability of the plant to take up phosphorous. That because glyphosate is an organic phosphorous compound, it a phosphite or a phosphenate that antagonizes with a phosphate that the plant uses for its own energy reactions and relationships in the plant. The more glyphosate you put on - or excuse me, the more phosphorous fertilizer that you put on, also, will release more of that glyphosate that been stored in the soil so that it can be desorbed through our normal fertility programs and have a larger factor, a dynamic effect, then, on nutrition of those plants growing later on in your crop rotation system. The other thing that well-documented is that the effect of glyphosate is much greater on the root system than it is on the top. You can see that here where there 80 milligrams of phosphorous fertilizer put out, and you see with the glyphosate versus without the glyphosate. Very impaired ability of that plant to work for you by picking up those nutrients and scavenging the soil for a lot of those nutrients that are in fairly low concentration and not readily available for the plant.

The length of time after you've applied your glyphosate going to impact how quickly it will be detoxified so that if you're planting immediately after you have a burned down application, you're burning out a cover crop or you have a lot of vegetation,

you can see that a lot of that glyphosate is still going to be available to damage even your Roundup-ready crop that might be planted after it. Part of that damage is from reduced nutrient availability, just like you see with flashing. Part of it an overall effect on your soil biology and soil nutrient availability. And you see the increase, then, in root colonization and pathogenicity, or disease-causing effect, of a lot of those soil organisms that can be stimulated by that glyphosate, as this research from Dr. Robert Kremer at University of Missouri has shown. It doesn't take very much glyphosate to have a big impact on nutrition of the plant. Just a fortieth of the herbicidal rate, or about a half ounce per acre, reduces the uptake or iron by 50%,

the uptake of manganese by the roots by 80%. Doesn't do very much as far as uptake for zinc. Still have good zinc uptake over here. But then when you look at translocation of the iron, and manganese, and zinc from the roots to the plant - to the above-ground parts of the plant, you see a very dynamic effect here of 80-90% reduced, translocation up. It not just the roots that need those nutrients. The whole plant needs them. And at very low rates, ,at a half ounce per acre, you can have a very profound effect on the nutrition of that plant.

Glyphosate been a very powerful herbicide. If you look at the reasons for that, it primarily because it a systemic compound. If you get some of it on a plant, it'll move throughout the plant, distributes itself, accumulates in the growth points on the plant, that your shoot, root, tips, and reproductive structures, and your legume nodules. So that 80% of the plant will accumulate in those growth points, and it'll stay in the plant as longa s the plant alive. But 20% of the glyphosate translocates down into the root system.

Doesn't plant - translocate downwards, you won't have any herbicide. Because it has to translocate down, pull those essential nutrients out of the ignition for those critical enzymes that are involved in disease resistance. Makes a plant extremely susceptible to those soil-borne diseases. But 20%, then, will move on out of the root and root exudates, stimulates those organisms that would normally be available as pathogens or as disease organisms. But stimulates those soil fungi especially that then come in, and attack the plant, and bring about its herbicidal activity. Glyphosate is also very toxic to the normal biological control organisms in the soil. The 1988 review, they mention that it a very powerful herbicide and a very potent biocide. It even been patented as a biocide. So it has both functions. It can stimulate some organisms, and it toxic to other organisms in the soil. Those organisms that it toxic to include the organisms that would normally control these soil-borne disease organisms, nitrogen fixing organisms, lot of microryza and those organisms that are responsible for making nutrients available for the plant. So it a very broad spectrum effect, and it gives us a very effective herbicide, but does a lot of other things in the process besides just bringing about the death of weeds.

You see in this research of Dr. Zobiole in Brazil, Dr. Robert Kremer at the University of Missouri 500% increase in root colonization, even of Roundup-ready soybeans, by fusarium. Well, what the cause of sudden death syndrome? It fusarium glycenes.

You see why we have a severe situation of sudden death syndrome when we have applied glyphosate to Roundup-ready soybeans. It increases the colonization of root infection very dramatically, suppresses those organisms that would normally control or reduce the severity of that particular organism, the fusarium, rhizoctonia, pythium of pathogens. It also suppresses the manganese reducing organisms that are responsible for making manganese available for plant uptake in the soil. So you further compromise the ability of the plant to defend itself because manganese is critical for those enzymes responsible for defense against these pathogens. The hormone producers, a number of other - other organisms are all very sensitive to glyphosate and very severely damaged when that glyphosate applied.

Again, the mode of action of glyphosate as an herbicide is to increase susceptibility of the plant to disease. Doesn't have anything to do with the direct kill by the glyphosate. The glyphosate merely predisposes that plant so that it extremely susceptible to these soil-borne pathogen. What you've essentially done is given the plant a very bad case of AIDS. You've compromised its defense mechanism.

You - Johal and Rahe were some of the earliest to demonstrate this. They showed that in sterile soil, you can't kill a plant with glyphosate. You can stun it.

It a secondary metabolism that glyphosate works on in this chemate pathway, but you can't kill it. And in a couple of weeks, these plants will go ahead, and all those lateral buds will break, and you'll end up with a big bush out here because it not going to be killed without the pathogens. If you have the pathogens present in normal field soil, in three or four days, that plant already has one foot on the - in the grave and the other one on a grease spot. Well on their way. Same thing happens above ground. So if you put a dilute solution of glyphosate where these black dots are, then put a spore of the anthracnose fungus. Above or below that, you can see that the fungus just continues to grow until it completely brought about the collapse of all that tissue. In a normal plant without the glyphosate, the plant will gradually produce enough anti-fungal compounds that it will wall off the pathogen, both chemically and physically, so that you end up with a very discrete lesion, rather than this total collapse of all of the tissue. Again, the mode of action is to make it susceptible to the diseased organisms, stimulate the diseased organism, and suppress the natural biological controls. Jessica Scafford, PhD student at Perdue last December - or December before this last one, had her defense of thesis. She took five of the resistant - glyphosate resistant weeds. Just a giant ragweed. She took five of the resistant weeds and said, well, if - if all glyphosate doing is making them susceptible to the disease organisms, we should be able to demonstrate that by applying some fungicides.

She did that. Here ridomill, very excellent compound to control pythium and phytophthora.

And you can see that when she applied the ridomill that the giant ragweed was resistant to the glyphosate. Over here, where she didn't have the ridomill applied, you can see that the plant is already starting to be degraded very rapidly. When she applied the ridomill load to her highly resistant glyphosate weeds, she didn't see any effect because what a - what a resistant weed is is a weed that resistant to the fungus, not to the glyphosate. When you're applying more glyphosate, and you find out that it'll kill the weed, what you're doing is you're stimulating the fungus to make it more virulent. You're not helping the plant become necessarily any more susceptible, but you're stimulating the virulence of the pathogen and changing the soil biology the - to reduce those organisms that would normally keep it under control. And she found that with all of the resistant weeds that she studied, it the same mechanism. We also see the occurrence of new diseases, diseases that we had never considered of economic importance in the past. This is coronospora root rot. Soil-borne fungus that 30 years ago Dr. Scott Abney at Iowa State said that the fungus is a root nibbler. Never does any economic damage because never really gets a chance to develop. However, if you put glyphosate out on a Roundup-ready plant,you'll find that this organism becomes a very serious pathogen because the glyphosate stimulates the virulence mechanism for that pathogen. This is the number two disease of soybeans in Brazil second only to Rust. I've seen losses in the Midwest, as much as 40%, from this particular pathogen. Again, with the glyphosate, we stimulate the virulence of a lot of these soil-borne organisms.

And even in inoculated soil, you can see, without the glyphosate, it can do some damage in the greenhouse. But you put the glyphosate out, and it becomes a very intense pathogen, then. Sudden death syndrome, very serious disease for us. We've had four years of epidemic. In the Midwest, there was a field in Iowa, two years ago. Had a line right down the field, very severe sudden death syndrome. Very little over here. And we asked the grower what he did differently on the two sides of the field. Said, well, it had alfalfa over on this side, and he took - applied two quarts of glyphosate as a burn down the previous fall. This side of the field had been in sweet corn for three years without any glyphosate. They sold the sweet corn at his farm - farm stand up here on the corner. And so the only difference between the two sides, other than the alfalfa, was one got glyphosate in the fall, and the other one didn't. you see that tremendous stimulation of the pathogen, then, where you have the glyphosate. Very powerful compound. Saw it this - a field in northern Illinois that we were driving by.

You can see all the areas where the farmer moved down away from the pole so he didn't hang his boom up. Had a little bit of foxtail in there, but he still had soybeans that were pumping that carbon and that sugar into those beans to give him his yield. You could see this all the way up for every one of the power

lines. Every time there was one rock outcrop there that he had also moved around, had some healthy beans. That the way they used to look. They shouldn't look like this. You look at the ends of the fields, and you'll see every place that you have a double application or you overlap your glyphosate. It'll start to die a week or two earlier than it will with one application. But if you don't have the glyphosate, you'll see a much more normal looking, much more productive soybean plants. This is a field at the agronomy farm. It research fields.

This isn't supposed to happen.

You have very severe take-all on this part of the field, almost no take-all, just some root nibbling on this side. It all been in the same crop rotation, the same fertility, the same tillage for 30 years. We want these fields just as uniform as we can get them. We don't want them split for this kind of a surprise. Yet, you see here, doesn't match the - the take-all, doesn't match the planted row or anything else, but very severe. You shell out the years on - on the left side up there, all you get a bunch of shriveled kernels and a bunch of chaff because the roots are all rotted. There isn't anything to support that plant during grain fill. Over here, you can see a little root nibbling, but you shell out the years, even on these early maturing varieties that our breeders have been developing, and you have good, plump kernels. The difference was just one application of glyphosate the previous year on the Roundup-ready soybeans. Took us a while to figure out what that red flag was. We had to go in, and get the station superintendent, and ask him what he'd done on half the field. He kind of hung his head, and he said, well, had a few weeds on up this side of the field. And he sent his crew out, told them, take care of the weeds. But there were enough on the other side to justify spraying. Told them to stop at the flag, and that what they did. And you see where the predisposition to that soil-borne fungus takes place. Had growers in Kansas, two of them, call me this fall and want to know what they can do for their weeds. Said they're going to have to quit growing wheat. Under center pivots, both of them said they averaged a bushel per acre because of take-all.

Well, it had Roundup-ready soybeans the year before.

And you see the predisposition that been reported for almost 30 years, now, that anytime you put glyphosate out, you'll increase this particular disease. You see it much more severe, then, as we've gone to the Roundup-ready crops because we're applying more glyphosate under those crops than we were when we were just using it as a burn down. Had a disease that been a very serious problem, epidemic, for 25 years, fusarium head blight. Not only a fungus that infects the head, but it also a severe root rot pathogen for us. Typical fusarium. But as Dr. Fernandez has shown that you no longer have to have the 80 degree temperature that you used to have to have to have this disease.

We still have to have the flowering, and we have to have precipitation as those two environmental factors, but the application of glyphosate changes the physiology of the plant the same as the 80 degree temperature did. So the application of glyphosate was the most important agronomic factor associated with higher fusarium head blight in wheat crop. Few years at one or more times in the previous three years, she reports a very significant increase in head blight. If you've used it every year, once or more times in the previous three years, almost a 300% increase in fusarium head blight, and also the toxins, then, that are produced. Your deoxynivalenol, your and more are all increased when you apply the glyphosate. We've had a major epidemic of Goss wilt in corn, a disease that even eight or ten years ago, we considered very localized and very sporadic. Knew it could be severe, but certainly not - never considered it really as an epidemic type disease.

We've seen it throughout the Midwest, now. It from coast to coast all over north America, and we see it being exported in a lot of our seed that also going to other countries.

Diseases that we didn't even worry about phytocanic certificates on because we considered it such a weak pathogen. Some of the agronomists, Bob Streit, and Amy Bandy, and others flew over a lot of the Midwest, did some aerial surveys. You could see the green islands sitting out there where the corn was still healthy. You saw the other areas where it was already dying two or three weeks before black layer formation.

When they checked out, did the ground truth search, all of those green islands were all non-GMO, non-glyphosate corn. This last year, we saw a lot more Goss wilt in our non-GMO than we've seen previously just because our inoculum load is so high, now, and our no-till residues, and also with the extensive use of our GMO crops that even our non-GMO are starting to have some damage from it. The other thing that occurred to create this epidemic is the research that shown that just when you put the glyphosate out or even just the surfactant, you eliminate the natural defense of this - of our corn hybrids to this particular disease. So you - you make the plant susceptible and the environment conducive for the bacteria then to enter in the natural openings of the plant. Without that foilar application of the surfactins or the glyphosate, find that there little gas bubbles. You don't find a continuous water film into the stomata and the other plant openings. You have to have a pretty good wound in order to get infection. With the surfactin or the glyphosate, you see that that bacterium can then penetrate, and it a systemic bacterium. So it grows throughout the plant. You may not see it doing a lot of damage until about tassling time,

you put the extra stress on the plant. Maybe even during late grain fill, and you see the plants starting to succumb to this particular bacterial plant pathogen.

So again, the mode of action of glyphosate as an herbicide is to give the plant a bad case of AIDS, nullify its defenses against these pathogens, stimulate the pathogens to become more virulent,

and change the soil biology that would normally provide a measure of control. Well, you can say, then, what happens with our genetically engineered crops? The only thing that the technology does is insert an alternative EPSPS gene that isn't susceptible to glyphosate, so you can apply glyphosate directly to the plant without killing it. Doesn't do anything as far as the glyphosate. All it does is make it so you're going to put the glyphosate on the plant without killing the plant because you compensate for some of that lost defense mechanism. Glyphosate still a very strong chelator, reduces the availability and the function, physiologic function, of those critical keys and micronutrients in that plant. And so the glyphosate is still going to reduce the efficiency of calcium, and cobalt, and copper, iron, and magnesium, and potassium, and manganese, all the cations that that plant needs to have an efficient factory for you for production. The other thing that happens in the genetic engineering process is that it disrupts the normal genetic integrity of the plant. It reduces the efficiency of the plant, even without the glyphosate for many of those nutrients. These are university studies. Looking at the effect on manganese, you'll find anywhere from a 30-70% reduction in efficiency of the plant for taking up manganese. You'll see the same type of thing for zinc, or for copper, or for iron.

So that it greatly - just having the gene present greatly reduces the efficiency of those crops for many of the nutrients so that they have to work harder. Plant not able to - to work as efficiently. You can see that in this research, Zobiole.

You can see in this particular Roundup-ready soybean variety, you see a 17% reduction in manganese uptake just having the gene present. 47% lower zinc uptake. Those are critical elements. Then you apply the glyphosate, and you see a further reduction in that efficiency. That effect, again, in the genetically engineered plant is going to be the same as it is in a non-genetically engineered plant when you put the glyphosate on it.

You can see that here in this work, again, of Zobiole. You can see a reduced lignin content. That comes through the plant pathway. That a structural component, it helps the plant stand against wind or - and it also a defense mechanism against some pathogens. Physical defense. Look at the carbon fixation. Photosynthesis, that why we're growing that plant, to capture the sun energy and store it as sugar. It less efficient in photosynthesis, having to work a lot harder. Amino acids is the nutrient component in that plant that we're going to feed to our animals or that we're going to eat. Lower content. You also see that less water use efficiency. It takes twice as much water to produce a pound of dry matter in a Roundup-ready plant treated with glyphosate as it does in the same plant not treated with the glyphosate.

Without the full efficiency of those nutrients, it not as functional, not able to work as well for you. And again, when you have a drought stress or your rains are a little further apart in the summertime, in late July, in August, the plant isn't able to cope with that as well if you put your glyphosate out on it. Reduces that water use efficiency. Glyphosate very toxic to your nitrogen-fixing organisms. Legume plants should be able to get 75% of its nitrogen through biological fixation using that symbiotic relationship. Look what glyphosate does.

Here your Williams 82 plant that all of our Roundup-ready soybeans were derived from. Just putting the gene in reduces the efficiency for that nitrogen fixation, for colonization. Disrupts the genetic integrity of the plant for those nutrients that are involved in forming the nodule. And then you put the glyphosate on it, you further reduce the efficiency of forming the nodule, as well as you chelate the nickel by the glyphosate that required for the youreide synthesis in fixing the nitrogen in that nodule. You see the effect here when you look at that - these are the same Roundup-ready soybeans you see with the glyphosate applied versus the control, and a great reduction in nodulation and nitrogen fixation. This affects other systems, also. This is some work of Bellaloui. He interested in iron.

And he looked at a drift rate of glyphosate of about 12.5% or about not quite two ounces per acre. Not a lot of glyphosate.

Certainly below what we would consider an herbicidal level. And he had two glyphosate-susceptible varieties and a glyphosate-resistant or glyphosate-tolerant variety. And he looked at the effect, then, of the glyphosate as it was applied to them. You can see that there no difference, really, between the leaf iron content in any of the three or seed iron content, its nutritional value certainly much less than in the non-glyphosate treated. But in this system, this becomes very important because a plant wants to work for you as hard as it can. If it goes into a low iron environment, it'll produce an enzyme called ferric reductase. That enzyme then moves out in the root, exate - exudates into the soil, reduces the oxidized iron down to the Fe2 form, the ferris form, so that the plant can take it up and utilize it, then, for all of those energy reactions that it involved in. You see the effect here of the glyphosates, much greater on your glyphosate-resistant variety than on your glyphosate-susceptible because you've already compromised that plant by just having the gene present. You see the effect here, also, in this work of Cakmak.

In this situation, you can see that the manganese level required for water splitting and photosynthesis, down 48%. Look at your magnesium required as a component for your chlorophyll, down a third. You have your calcium for cell walls, your iron, your other nutrients are all reduced. But we grow these plants as a nutrient source for us and for our animals. You see a marked reduction in nutrient value since we've gone into the genetically engineered crops. You see 45% lower manganese, 49% lower iron, 13% lower magnesium, 26% lower calcium. You're going to have to add more of those nutrients or make them more available if you're going to maintain the nutrient value of your crop for your animal feed or for our consumption.

The other thing is that the crop - the seed, germinating seed, also needs these nutrients. So if you have a shortage of those nutrients for the seed, you're going to have a spindly plant that going to be very susceptible to all of those early seedling diseases. Your damping offs, and your root rots, and your seedling blight, all going to be much more severe. Five years ago, I got a call from a veterinarian in northeast Iowa, and he wanted to know what I could tell him about manganese. Told him I could tell him about the biological cycles, I could tell him what its function was, the 26 enzymes in the plant, number of other things. Asked him why he wanted to know about manganese as a veterinarian. Said, I have swine, and dairy producers, and cattlemen that are going out of business in spite of all the drugs that I'm giving them because I can't keep them healthy. Said, when I do the necropsy on the livers, the universal thing that I find is that they're deficient in manganese. Couldn't understand why. 15 years ago, we thought we had too much manganese in the ration. So we recommended that it be reduced. Same time, we released Roundup-ready crops. We cut the manganese availability in those crops so that we hit them from both directions. Once he started compensating for that, compensating for the fact that - that glyphosate also chelates with the cobalt so that it hard to find vitamin B12 in the liver, then you can start getting them back into a healthy production mode.

If the plant doesn't have those nutrients, though, in the seed, it also going to be spindly and very susceptible to those diseases, as you see here, in this breeding program of Dr. Andre Comeau at Ag Canada at Guelph. And he selected his varieties for accumulation of those nutrients.

This happens to be boron that he looking at here. You can see the effect in the low boron seeds. He has them for manganese accumulation, for zinc, and for iron, for copper. Says, if they don't have the nutrients in the seed, they're not going to be resistant borella the yellow dwarf, they're not going to be drought-tolerant, they're not going to be cold-tolerant, not going to be able to stand wet feed or any of the other stresses. If I - he said, if I can get those critical nutrients in there, then it fairly easy to select those other traits that we want in the - in our varieties.

We see that effective glyphosate on essentially all of the Roundup-ready crops because we compromise the resistance system - resistance system when we compromise the genetic integrity of the plant. There was enough with Roundup-ready sugar beets that the USDA sugar beet lab in Fort - or Fort Collins, Colorado, put out a precautionary statement when they published their data on this - this effect on sugar beets and crown rot. Said that precaution needs to be taken when certain soil-borne diseases are present, if weed management for sugar beet is to include post-emergence glyphosate treatment. Then, it has a profound effect on all four points on that diamond of the agricultural system. And especially on the plant relative to its susceptibility to disease.

Had people tell me, well, they've never seen any injury from glyphosate, unless it killed a plant.

And all I can say, it probably because they didn't recognize what the symptoms of glyphosate injury are because when they see a dead plant, it not a symptom of glyphosate, it a symptom of a disease, it a symptom of a pathogen. We have 40 more - an increase in 40 diseases that we used to consider relatively well-controlled that are now very difficult to control since we've been using glyphosate.

Symptoms of glyphosate injury are essentially listed here from the University of Connecticut, University of Hawaii, and Ohio State University. But the predominant symptom of glyphosate injury is bud and fruit abortion. All of these symptoms that you see up here, actually, are symptoms of nutrient deficiency. Low vigor, stunting, slow growth, leaf chlorosis, leaf mottling, leaf distortion. Even down here with the abiotic diseases like drought stress, winter kill, sun scald, bark cracking. Those are symptoms of nutrient deficiency because those nutrients are required for the defense mechanisms of the plant. Hannah Mathers said that glyphosate injury causes Ohio horticulturalists about six-and-a-half million dollars because of increased drought stress, winter kill, sun scald, and bark cracking, and those other effects of - that it brings about in the plant. If you recognize what those symptoms are, then you can recognize what you're seeing in your field. Emerson Nafziger at the University of Illinois put out a bulletin two years ago,

and he said, don't apply glyphosate to your corn late in the season, or you'll end up with a lot of bubble kernels.

What happens here is that after that corn plant starts to go into the reproductive phase, the only place the glyphosate moves and accumulates is going to be in the kernels in your - in your grain. That your only active meristematic tissue. Moves in, you have enough glyphosate to kill the embryo.

The pericarp still develop, fills with water, but then as that ear starts to - to dry down, all of that - those bubble kernels all dry up, and you blow them out the combine. That your profit.

See the same thing with peas, or wheat, or barley. You see malformed seed when you use glyphosate as a ripening agent. It accumulates in those seed - developing seeds and seed structures. 98% of peas that have been treated with glyphosate as a ripening agent - thought maybe I was running out of welcome here. So we tell all of our growers not to use any of those crops for - for seed because it going to be a disappointment for you. So we put it in our food chain or our feed chain. It only takes a tenth of a part per million of glyphosate and of feed to kill the intestinal microflora that protect those animals from botulism. Now, I'll get into that a little later. But if we can't market it, then we tend to - to run it in other channels that can be even more damaging for us. If you look at those symptoms, you can see the effect here.

What do you see with tip die back?

Calcium or copper deficiency. Typical textbook symptoms. What do you if it were general necrosis - or general chlorosis?

Iron and a nitrogen deficiency. Greying, streaking. Zinc and manganese deficiency. You see all of the symptoms, but if you ask an agronomist - and if you'd have asked me, and I probably had a couple of other excuses, also, before I started working with glyphosate 20 years ago, I would've said, well, maybe it was too cold a soil. Maybe it was too wet a soil or too dry a soil. Too much residue on the top. Because we don't recognize those symptoms of glyphosate injury, that reduced nutrient availability, and uptake, and physiologic function in the plant. Our label says that it safe to apply glyphosate - or safe to plant any time before emergence of the crop. The Israeli label says that it not safe to - to plant after a glyphosate burn down application for up to three weeks. The detoxification mechanism is chelation. It takes a little while for it to be chelated, and that'll vary with soil. So if you go out immediately after your burn down application's applied and then plant your crop, you get those roots into the glyphosate area, it can do some severe damage,

as you see here, where this wheat was planted two days after the glyphosate burn down compared with waiting 14 days when you get a more normal sand established and a more normal growth of those seedlings. Takes some time to chelate it. There are farmers that'll tell me, my crops not as vigorous as it used to be, and they'll blame the seedsmen, the breeders. It not the breeders. We have a residual glyphosate problem in a lot of our soil. In Canada a month ago, they had 18,000 acres that they didn't harvest a crop on this year.

Not from drought, but from glyphosate injury. Barley got up about five inches, or wheat got up about five inches. The beans hardly got out of the ground before the residual glyphosate was released and available for them. Totaled their crop.

This is what you see with ten years of glyphosate use versus - ten years versus one year. You see that effect on nutrient availability and nutrient uptake. There was a study in Wisconsin this last year.

Six years of organic field right next to one where glyphosate had been applied. What you see here, you couldn't see in the previous one, is the ponding, the puddling of the water. You have less percolation because it those soil organisms that are responsible for soil aggregation. Glyphosate toxic to many of those. So you don't have the percolation, the permeability, and porosity in your soil when we've had a high glyphosate application over a year compared to what you'll have without it. Changes the system quite dramatically. Field in near Parma, Idaho, not too far from me, where I live now, a farmer followed the label, planted his onions, and then went out, started to put his glyphosate out, got over to this point, and his sprayer broke. We had three days of - of sprinkle after that.

And so he couldn't get back in the field, finish off his herbicide application. He was afraid to - to go out after that for fear that that shallow-seeded plant would have germinated, he'd get some injury, so that he didn't get his herbicide out over here. And you can see the - the two sides of that field six weeks later, see where the glyphosate was applied. He had his stand there, but it was a gray green rather than that bright green that you saw over here where the glyphosate hadn't been applied. Very typical of manganese and zinc deficiency. When we dug the plants, not quite a 50% reduction in overall weight of the plant, not as vigorous.

But an 80% reduction in marketable bulbs on those onions because it slowed the growth. They were deficient in those nutrients that were needed for photosynthesis to move the energy, store it in those plants. Very dramatic effect. Potato growers make the same comment that our onion growers do. And that that you can't get bulking, anymore. Can't get those tubers that are over ten ounces. That where your profit is.

I had a group of growers come to me and ask if I could help them figure out a way to - to get their bulking back up. We looked at everything from - from their petiole tissue analysis, their soil analysis, their crop rotations, crop sequence. Everything else, didn't make much sense why some of them were still getting that 35-40% of their crop was over ten ounce. That what they've done for 30 years. Some of them are about half of that, and some of them were at a real disaster situation. Had a hard time going and talking to their banker. The only thing that panned out - and differences between them, all of these had corn as the previous crop, all of them had essentially the same fertility program. But you had this group that didn't have any glyphosate applied to those fields for the previous two years. Still doing what they'd done for 30 years. These had one or two applications the previous two years as a burn down, cut their bulking in half.

Those that'd gone to Roundup-ready corn the preceding year before their potatoes, rather than conventional corn, as these had been, saw a major disaster in that additional glyphosate that was applied, as well as they'd lost the benefit of the corn as a pre-crop that will give you twice as much manganese available for a subsequent crop as wheat or barley will. Or soybeans.

But when you go to a Roundup-ready corn crop, you lose that advantage because you total the biological component in the soil that makes that manganese available for you, as Dr. Kremer had shown in his research that I presented earlier here.

So we're seeing a lot of loss, a loss in the benefit of our crop sequence, our crop rotations because we've changed the biology of the soil that those particular practices gave us the opportunity to manage the system and the interaction of those four components. And so we see an increase in diseases in our - our dry beans, and alfalfa after Roundup-ready crops, and wheat, potatoes, other crops where we used to rely on that crop sequence or crop rotation for disease control in a lot of these crops. We've lost that management capacity, now. What are the things that we need to do, then, to compensate and to get back into a full production sequence? I listed these, there are five of them.

Actually, the number four there, the plant breeders have done a good job of increasing our yield in spite of the reduced efficiency of those - those crops. Part with that, and now you can swing both arms. But first thing is to recognize what happened in - in our reduced nutrient efficiency. We need to compensate for that by - and quite often, that means that we need to increase the amount of nutrients that in the tissue. It may show up in the - in the tissue test, but if it chelated, it not physiologically available for the plant. And so as Jim Cambriato and Bill Johnson reported in their bulletin for Perdue, they're seeing manganese deficiency at levels that are twice as high as they used to consider fully sufficient.

You need to compensate for that reduced efficiency either in the plant or as it occurs in the soil from reduced soil availability, both from the glyphosate chelation, as well as the biocidal activity of the glyphosate on those soil organisms that are important in the soil. Need to detoxify the residual glyphosate in those growth points on the plant so that they can develop properly, so that they can use the energy from the sun and the carbon dioxide as an energy source for their - their function and their growth. We need to also detoxify that glyphosate that in the soil. It not going to be degraded necessarily, but we need to make sure that it not desorbed and, again, available to damage the crop. Calcium becomes very important there. Other cations, very important in that detoxification process. We need to restore soil microbial activity. That one of the things with legumes that we need to - to look and see what your nodules look like. If they're bright pin, they're probably working for you. They're fixing the nitrogen. If they're brown, they're dead, they're not doing anything. If they're green, they're a pathogen. They're eating, but they're not providing anything in return. And so you need to look at those. Ellsworth Christmas retired from Perdue University after 40 years of service as a extension agronomist. He outlined what he'd done for 40 years. He said, the first 15 years, studied legume inoculants. After 15 years, wasn't any need for them because they could establish themselves in the soil. Didn't need them. Said, in the last 15 years, I studied legume inoculants.

Every year, it becomes more important that we apply them because the glyphosate is very toxic to your rhizobium and bradyrhizobium. If you're growing a legume, whether it a Roundup-ready soybean or not, or whether it Roundup-ready alfalfa, or whether it peas, or lentils, or any other crop growing in that soil that had glyphosate on it, check and make sure that your soil can still support your nitrogen fixing bacteria. Need to look at, also, the biological amendment for some of those organisms that are involved in nutrient recycling and straw degradation. We're seeing longer persistence of our residues and our soils because those organisms are very sensitive to glyphosate. I guess the more important one is a much more judicious use of glyphosate. Been such a powerful weed control that we've forgotten that it has, also, a very powerful effect on a lot of other components in this agricultural system. Been cheap, so it been easy to abuse. And we've abused this chemical like we haven't abused any other chemical in the history of agriculture. Last records that I saw were 88 million ton of glyphosate applied in one year. And that three years ago. I'm sure it not up to date. You can see that we can compensate, though.

These are some - some different university studies. You can see with manganese when you get that nutrient up, you can get a - harvest a lot more of that genetic potential of the crop. On this one, with iron, you see that they really reduced the overall yield. Part of that because they probably didn't recognize it wasn't just iron that was deficient. Glyphosate a broad spectrum chelator. Chelates higher and, yes, makes it less available. So you go from 23 bushel down to - to eight bushel with the glyphosate, as you see here.

We put the iron seed treatment on, which, with a conventional herbicide, would bring you from 23 bushel up to 56 bushel, but with the glyphosate, only brought you up to 19 bushel per acre because glyphosate is also chelating many more of those cations.

My research would indicate that if they'd also applied manganese along with the iron, that they'd have probably had that 56 bushel, maybe even 65 or 70 bushel, because they probably didn't recognize the hidden hunger from the manganese - low manganese conditions that they were growing the soybeans in.

See, here with corn, the same thing. We can compensate for that reduced deficiency, get our zinc and manganese levels up, you can harvest more of the potential and offset a lot of the effect of the glyphosate that you see here in these hand weeded plots and Mark Bartolo studies at Colorado State. North Dakota State University research, same type of thing here. Zinc seed treatment gave a very excellent response, 12 bushel. 14 bushel if you had a foliar applied zinc. Look at your foliar applied zinc and manganese, or a seed and foliar applied zinc so that you can keep that plant healthy. Our objective is to make the plant fully nutrient sufficient so it can work for us. And we can do that if we'll recognize what happening and compensate for it. I have growers that say, well, what do I use if I don't use glyphosate? Had one of our seed dealers in Indiana that getting a lot of requests for non-glyphosate, non-Roundup-ready seed. And he asked his growers, what are you using for weed control?

He had six of those different systems that were - were being used. Here four of them up here, two sulfonated ureas that various grower were - were using in place of glyphosate. You can see that the sulfonated ureas, especially at the v6 stage, this is really late to - to apply a sulfonated urea on corn. We've recognized the damage that it can cause for a long time.

Not that these two aren't as good as the glyphosate, but look up here. All of these are Roundup-ready hybrids. Some of them have additional traded characteristics. But up here, with just selecting your herbicide, got a 44 bushel higher yield than you had with the glyphosate. Pretty good return on a $10 or $12, $15 more than it might cost you for your herbicide. Just because your glyphosate cheap doesn't mean that it going to give you the best return on your dollar. You can see that response with any of those four. Going to give you a better response than you had with - with glyphosate there. Some other things that we can do. This is one that Joe Nester had shared this data with me.

Said he went out, his field had been in a conservation reserve program for eight years. Burned it out in the fall of 2008 with two courts of glyphosate. Grew Roundup-ready corn, put another quart of glyphosate out, and then decided that he probably ought to go out and stir that field up a little bit after the corn. And went out with his chisel to shank it and get a little oxygen in the ground. Said he got partway across the field and decided he was doing more damage moving the mud around, because it was so wet, than he was good, and he pulled out of the field. So as he looked at that, planted soybeans across all of it, and you'll see a 50% increase in yield where he stirred up those organisms. Got them working for him, again. Wasn't that it'd degraded his glyphosate. When he went in and tested both soil areas for glyphosate, he had - he could account for four pounds of glyphosate on both areas. Hadn't degraded any, but he was able to get the compensation through that soil biology. And so you see a lot of these situations that we can compensate if we recognize what happening.

A lot of papers that are coming out now on food safety and concerns for health factors that are involved with glyphosate.

Listed some of them here, I'll show some of - some of those to you here very briefly. Certainly, the increasing levels of mycotoxins are continuing to be a very serious concern for us. The deoxynivalenals, the toxins, all of those are increasing in our food chain, in our feed supplies, becoming a very difficult problem for us to even find enough low toxin feeds in many of our areas. Our nutritional quality is dropping. Need to remember Isaiah statement in 800 BC that all flesh is grass.

This Roundup-ready alfalfa, you can see the reduced nutrient quantity. Third less manganese, half the iron, half the sulfur, fourth less magnesium, half the potassium. The other nutrients, it - we've got a lot of empty calories. We don't have the nutrient density that we need to maintain our own health or the health of our animals. Jeffrey Shepards reported on his five year study on stillborn calves and malformed calves. Said what he found - and his report to the veterinarians conference in Minnesota was 100% of those calves are deficient in manganese.

63% of the normal calves were also deficient. Then he started looking at the feed supply. Look at the tremendous range. He didn't sort it out for GMO and non-GMO. If you'd had done it, you'd seen what I showed you there for the alfalfa, big difference in nutrient density in - in our crops, now. 2002, the United Cattleman Association gave testimony before congress. Said there are two conditions that are threatening the viability of our industry. One of them premature aging.

Take a prime animal to market, he downgraded as, oh, it an old cow that just being culled from the herd. Second one is reproductive failure affecting 10-11% of their producers and leaving a loss of 40, 50% of pregnancies in those animals. Had a dairy call me here a month ago, 60 miles from where I live, the first one in Idaho that I'm aware of, lost 70% of their pregnancies in two weeks. You're not going to stay in business very long. You look at the situation of November Hoards Dairymen. Two veterinarians wrote and said, why are so many cows losing pregnancies? 20% is unacceptable. Well, then back to those two questions that the united stock growers brought up, premature aging. This is a study three years ago looking at animals on GMO and non-GMO feed in Iowa. You can see the premature aging. That an allergy response. That yellow tallow around the stomach lining. Not a - not a healthy condition compared to the non-GMO feed. Changes the value of the animal. Study two years ago in Iowa, pig stomachs.

GMO versus non-GMO. You see with the GMO feeds, that allergy response. You see the inflammation, the swelling of the tissues. What do we do with our children if they can't handle breast milk, or cow milk? We put them on soybeans. Then we wonder why we've had a 600% increase in autism since 2002. It an allergy response. You've got to break down the intestinal lining, intestinal integrity. You see that same type of an effect here.

Veterinarians that did the study on the pigs there went into medical records and said, wonder if there any relationship, or if we're also seeing inflammatory bowel disease.

40% increase since 1992 in - in this country. You look at the correlation with our genetically engineered feed for this very serious disease. This is a slide that Gilbert Hoffstatler shared with me. Art Legerd, most of you know, I think, shared another one, but it a TIF file, so it didn't show on the PC here.

It kind of a classic with two ears sitting in a - in a trunk of a tree. One of them GMO, a triple stack, and the other one a normal. Sat up there for nine months, you still had the full ear on the triple stack, and the other one was devoured just like the mice did here. As Gilbert said, maybe the mice know something that I ought to know. They don't like a stomach ache. Very serious disease. I get a call about once a week in this country - I was in Germany in October, a disease that they were also very concerned about, chronic botulism.

Dr. Monica Krueger, in working on this disease, finds a tenth of a part per million. Glyphosate in the feed will predispose the cows to this - this terrible condition. What it does is - is very toxic to those intestinal microorganisms that control the botulism. So that it - you can see the normal population of Alcaligenes faecalis, and lactobacillus, lactococcus, etc. All of those organisms that are important in nutrient availability in the intestine also control the clostridium and prevent its production of the neurotoxin. With the glyphosate, however, you - you take out those organisms, then the clostridium takes off, grows in the intestine, produces that very severe neurotoxin till it kills the animal. If you read the - the Warsaw Times for December 2010, there a big article about 2,000 - or 200 cows out on corn stalks found dead in the field. Initially, they reported that it was a lightning strike. I think the final conclusion was that it must've been influenza. That was very typical of what you'd see under the stress conditions in the winter. They have already been predisposed to this condition that you'll see with chronic botulism. Had dairies that have called me here in the last week, said they'll bring a cow in, put the milker on her, and she drops over dead in the stall. Very serious condition for us. Clostridium present in all our feed, and dust, and dirt. It going to be there. Normally, we don't have to worry about it because these normal intestinal organisms will keep it under control. We no longer have those there with the glyphosate that we're seeing in our feed and our food. You can have 20 parts per million in soybeans, and in wheat, and barley. 100 parts per million in corn. You can have 400 parts per million in alfalfa.

We're setting ourselves up for some very serious problems. Direct toxicity of glyphosate.

You can see at a half a part per million, you disrupt the human endocrine hormone system. Half part per million anti-androgenic. One part per million, aramatase. This means that you disrupt your pituitary, your thyroid, your reproductive structures, or functions. Very serious. Again, another TIF file in the study of the physicians at their first conference in Argentina of the, they call it, the oversprayed villages or towns. These are birth - the increase in birth defects from the drift from glyphosate in the farm field. You see, you can't see it there because they didn't show up, I apologize.

447% increase in birth defects, and heart, and musculoskeletal, thyroid, anaphlactoid purpura. Serious problem. You see the increased miscarriages and other reproductive structures, all from the drift rates of the glyphosate. Increase in cancer.

You see there our annual cancer report. What you see here is we made some progress in a year for some of these types of cancers. But look at these. What happening here? What the red flag? Where should the research be focused as far as a cause of the agent? You have to ask, does it have anything to do with what we're seeing back here, with those increasing levels that we're seeing in our food and our feed for our animals? Second thing that the cattlemen brought before congress was that reproductive failure. Both the infertility, as well as a loss in pregnancies, you can see here from the Hoard Dairymen article, 27, 25, 27% of their lost pregnancies.

Look at how many inseminations it takes. In our herd, dairy herd, we used to figure 1.2 was our average before we could get a heifer, a cow, to settle.

Takes twice as much semen, now.

Not as viable. I sat next to a bull breeder from Nebraska about six weeks ago, and he said he had to pull 40% of his bulls out of service because they can't get conception with the semen. Couldn't understand why. The answer is a new entity first discovered in 1998. It just very recently been identified. But it can be cultured, be grown in - in pure culture. That what it looks like magnified 38,000 times. Over here, grows very well with other organisms, fusarium, glycenes be loaded with it. Grows very well with bacterias, you see here, alongside it.

This is what it looks like in a scanning electron microscope. Forms a protein -protein sheath around it and causes reproductive failure.

Here your fusarium glycenes, just loaded with this - this entity in it. So as it infects the soybeans, it will transfer a lot of this material in that process.

Found in soybean meal, silage, corn grain, manure, also in soil. But it also found in placental tissue, amniotic fluids, semen, stomach contents of animals, and eggs, and milk. Cause of reproductive failure, both infertility, as well as miscarriage in cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, poultry, and also in humans.

What we know about the new entity, it very small, filterable, self-replicating, common in nature, especially if you're feeding Goss wilt-infected corn or sudden death syndrome-infected soybeans or in a fermentative type of a process.

Affects animals, affects plants, it in high population in scorch-type diseases, and we're just starting the research to show the association, then, in plant diseases. The interactions that we have with glyphosate are indirect, their correlations.

We know that glyphosate predisposes a plant, so do the diseases where we find this new entity in high concentrations. We know that it also predisposes animals to disease. The glyphosate stimulates the pathogens to make them more virulent, more severe. And it changes the - the environment to prevent a lot of these interactions to take place and become much more damaging in the system. You can say, well, then, how did we get in this situation?

And it really because we failed to honor the precautionary scientific principle that we relied on for 150 years that said that we should anticipate the unknowns, we should also have a margin of error so that we have a safety factor before we do anything. We've known the toxicity of glyphosate for 25 years of a half part per million. We didn't have a margin of error. In fact, we're upside down on it, with 20 parts per million permitted in our food. You had a half part per million disrupting the endocrine hormone system. The way we got around this was that the national academy of science came out with a new term and said, well, it substantially equivalent when we go with genetic engineering versus a sexual breeding program. As Patrick Brown has stated, there nothing substantially equivalent about it. Genetic engineering more like a virus infection. You don't have any of the precautionary or any of the functional and regulatory controls present in the genetic engineering that you do in a normal breeding program. Your toxin levels, number of other things are all different. So I think if I could summarize here briefly, and I won't get into the technology statement, I want to just - if it'll let me stop on it.

I want to just stop a little - or summarize a little bit here and just state that future historians may well look back upon our time, write about us, not about how many pounds of pesticide we did or didn't apply, but by how willing we are to sacrifice our children and future generations based on false promises and flawed science just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise. And I'll stop there, and I've gone longer than I probably should have. Appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of these concerns. We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as the human health factors that are involved with autism, with Parkinson, with Alzheimer, with inflammatory bowel disease and a number of other diseases that are just starting to skyrocket on us. It up to you whether we're going to be able to do the impossible and provide that safe, abundant source of nutritious food that every society is dependent on. Grateful for what you do and appreciate the opportunity that - again, that I've had to share some of this with you. Thanks a lot.

World's Top Herbicide In You, Me, and if its bio-degradable why are we Peeing it????

Glyphosate. Yeah, it's from Monsanto it's in those bottles of Roundup you've seen in your neighbor's garage. So perhaps it will be no surprise that independent testing by the University of California San Francisco found this chemical herbicide in the urine samples of 93% of Americans.

With vast swathes of our country covered in genetically-modified crops that require the use of Round-up to kill the weeds (and any collateral plants and animals that aren't engineered to resist glyphosate), that's not surprising.

And possibly you also won't be surprised by the fact that many authorities think glyphosate is perfectly safe. The World Health Organization (WHO) in March of 2015 declared it as a 'probable human carcinogen' but more recently a new safety review by the WHO and the US Food and Agriculture Organization said glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in people.

Amazingly, WHO says these two views are not contradictory. Instead the first declaration was about glyphosate as a possible 'hazard' for humans while the second assessed glyphosate's 'risk' to humans.

Glyphosate enters our body through crop residues in GMO foods like soy milk and corn flakes, but it also used on non-GMO row crops like wheat and even on row veggies like spinach, thus it may be in a variety of foods, from bread to beets to beer.

The UN/FAO group making the new safety review gave glyphosate an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of up to 1 milligram of glyphosate for every kilogram of body weight.

Testing carried out at the University of California at San Francisco, paid for by The Detox Project (an NGO that helps the public test for chemical levels) showed that most people (93% of a test pool of 131) have glyphosate in their bodies. That's a small test sample, but still significant. Children had the highest average levels.

So, whether risk or hazard, what should you do?

If you, like me, would rather stay away from glyphosate, eating an organic diet is a great first step. Or, you can test yourself, then go organic, then retest.

Secondarily, read some of the research around glyphosate - there's currently debate raging in the EU on whether to reapprove use of this herbicide, and some nations such as the Netherlands are saying 'no' to glyphosate. For more on The Detox Project - go here.

Copyright © 2008-2016 BioBased.US - All content including, without limitation, text, images, media files, videos, software, and source code is subject to copyright protection and may not be used except with the written permission.

Biobased USA, 805 Cottage Hill Way, Brandon, FL. 33511 800 995-9203 or INTEL 336 306 0193