Roundup toxic to soil fungus at doses well below agricultural dilution

[JohnyCanuck]

Roundup is toxic to a soil fungus at doses well below recommended agricultural dilutions, according to a new scientific study published in the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

The study was conducted on a soil filamentous fungus, Aspergillus nidulans*, which the researchers used as a marker of the health of agricultural soils.

The dose that caused 50% mortality of fungus (LD50) corresponded to a dilution 100 times less than that used in agriculture – an environmentally relevant dose. At a dose 50 times lower than the agricultural application rate, mortality climbed to 100%.

snip

Microorganisms such as fungi are crucial to healthy soil. Since Roundup is the most widely used herbicide in the world, soil microorganisms in many areas will be exposed to it.

The new study was carried out as part of a participatory research project called Institutions-Citizens Partnership for Research and Innovation (PICRI). It was conducted by a team of researchers led by Christian Vélot, a lecturer and researcher in molecular genetics at the University Paris-Sud, France.

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16912-roundup-toxic-to-soil-fungus-at-doses-well-below-agricultural-dilution

[JohnyCanuck]

1. kick n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Union of Concerned Scientists concerned about hidden costs of industrial agriculture

Hidden Costs of Industrial Agriculture

Much of the agriculture practiced in the United States today is industrial-style agriculture. That is, farms are often very large, highly specialized, and run like factories with large inputs of fossil fuels, pesticides and other chemicals, and synthetic fertilizers derived from oil. This industrial agriculture is sometimes considered a great success. But is it? It has had large, complex effects on our environment, our economy, and our urban and rural social fabric. A new awareness of the costs is beginning to suggest that the benefits are not as great as they formerly appeared.

snip

Many of the costs of industrial agriculture have been hidden and ignored in short-term calculations of profit and productivity, as practices have been developed with a narrow focus on increased production. The research establishment that underpins modern industrial agriculture has until recently paid little heed to the unintended and long-term consequences of these systems.
Damage to natural systems

Approaches to producing food must be measured partly by their impact on the natural ("life support&quot systems that we depend on. The currently dominant system of industrial agriculture – which voters and taxpayers have unknowingly promoted and subsidized through ill-considered government food and farm policy choices – impacts the environment in many ways. It uses huge amounts of water, energy, and chemicals, often with little regard to long-term adverse effects.

But the environmental costs of agriculture are mounting. Irrigation systems are pumping water from reservoirs faster than they are being recharged. Toxic herbicides and insecticides are accumulating in ground and surface waters. Chemical fertilizers are running off the fields into water systems where they generate damaging blooms of oxygen-depleting microorganisms that disrupt ecosystems and kill fish. Unmanageable and polluting mountains of waste and noxious odor are the hallmarks of industrial-style CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) for poultry and livestock.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture/hidden-costs-of-industrial.html

[JohnyCanuck]

3. Healthy Soil Microbes, Healthy People

[

Healthy Soil Microbes, Healthy People
The microbial community in the ground is as important as the one in our guts.
by Mike Amaranthus and Bruce Allyn

We have been hearing a lot recently about a revolution in the way we think about human health -- how it is inextricably linked to the health of microbes in our gut, mouth, nasal passages, and other "habitats" in and on us. With the release last summer of the results of the five-year National Institutes of Health's Human Microbiome Project, we are told we should think of ourselves as a "superorganism," a residence for microbes with whom we have coevolved, who perform critical functions and provide services to us, and who outnumber our own human cells ten to one. For the first time, thanks to our ability to conduct highly efficient and low cost genetic sequencing, we now have a map of the normal microbial make-up of a healthy human, a collection of bacteria, fungi, one-celled archaea, and viruses. Collectively they weigh about three pounds -- the same as our brain.

SNIP

But there is another major revolution in human health also just beginning based on an understanding of tiny organisms. It is driven by the same technological advances and allows us to understand and restore our collaborative relationship with microbiota not in the human gut but in another dark place: the soil.

Just as we have unwittingly destroyed vital microbes in the human gut through overuse of antibiotics and highly processed foods, we have recklessly devastated soil microbiota essential to plant health through overuse of certain chemical fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, pesticides, failure to add sufficient organic matter (upon which they feed), and heavy tillage. These soil microorganisms -- particularly bacteria and fungi -- cycle nutrients and water to plants, to our crops, the source of our food, and ultimately our health. Soil bacteria and fungi serve as the "stomachs" of plants. They form symbiotic relationships with plant roots and "digest" nutrients, providing nitrogen, phosphorus, and many other nutrients in a form that plant cells can assimilate. Reintroducing the right bacteria and fungi to facilitate the dark fermentation process in depleted and sterile soils is analogous to eating yogurt (or taking those targeted probiotic "drugs of the future&quot to restore the right microbiota deep in your digestive tract.

SNIP

Not only do soil microorganisms nourish and protect plants, they play a crucial role in providing many "ecosystem services" that are absolutely critical to human survival. By many calculations, the living soil is the Earth's most valuable ecosystem, providing ecological services such as climate regulation, mitigation of drought and floods, soil erosion prevention, and water filtration, worth trillions of dollars each year. Those who study the human microbiome have now begun to borrow the term "ecosystem services" to describe critical functions played by microorganisms in human health.

More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/06/healthy-soil-microbes-healthy-people/276710/

[JohnyCanuck]

4. For more fertile soils feed the microbes, don't poison them.

The Science of Soil Health: Soil Feeds Plants, and Vice Versa

[bemildred]

5. KnR nt

[Warren DeMontague]

6. As someone who has gotten pretty good at backyard composting over the years

This does not surprise me.

There is a lot going on in "soil" we dont completely understand.

[HuckleB]

7. It's rough out back ...

... But how does this type of baseless fear mongering change that?

[Warren DeMontague]

9. I don't know if it is baseless fear mongering, or not.

Seems to me there is a range from baseless fear mongering to legitimate concerns about environmental effects of certain things like pesticides or herbicides. A pesticide or a herbicide is, by definition, a substance designed to kill some living things; it's not hugely a stretch to imagine that it might also kill other living things, not to my mind.

As for "baseless"--It's one study, probably worth additional studies, but I don't know enough about the credentials of either the organization or the scientists involved to either take it as gospel truth OR dismiss it out of hand.

Personally, on the topic of GMOs, my position is that it is a powerful technology with incredible promise, and one which it is ludicrous to categorize as inherently "evil" or "bad" or "unnatural" (a meaningless word if there ever was one) --- but at the same time I question whether selling more roundup, specifically, is really the best use of this powerful, promising technology.

[HuckleB]

10. Unfortunately, it is, most of the time.

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 05:16 AM - Edit history (1)

It hurts the progressive cause.....

[womanofthehills]

16. I don't think the progressive cause includes destroying the soil

it sounds more like the Republican cause.

[HuckleB]

17. Then why do you work so hard to promote a return to more toxic herbicides?

[womanofthehills]

24. I promote no herbicides

[HuckleB]

37. Nice fantasy.

[Major Nikon]

19. All you really need is common sense

If Roundup actually were killing soil microbes at the rate claimed by the "study" farms all over the world would have gone barren decades ago.

See post #18 for why the OP is complete shit.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Well, see, an actual answer with actual information

I'm all for it.

[JohnyCanuck]

22. Check this out: USDA Scientist: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Damages Soil

USDA Scientist: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Damages Soil

What Roundup is doing above ground may be a stroll through the meadow compared to its effect below. According to USDA scientist Robert Kremer, who spoke at a conference last week, Roundup may also be damaging soil—a sobering thought, given that it's applied to hundreds of millions of acres of prime farmland in the United States and South America. Here's a Reuters account of Kremer's presentation:

The heavy use of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide appears to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of the genetically modified crops that farmers are cultivating, a US government scientist said on Friday. Repeated use of the chemical glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup herbicide, impacts the root structure of plants, and 15 years of research indicates that the chemical could be causing fungal root disease, said Bob Kremer, a microbiologist with the US Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service.

Now, Kremer has been raising these concerns for a couple of years now—and as Tom Laskaway showed in this 2010 Grist article, the USDA has been downplaying them for just as long. Laskaway asked Kremer's boss at the Agricultural Research Service, Michael Shannon, to comment on Kremer's research. According to Laskaway, Shannon "admitted that Kremer’s results are valid, but said that the danger they represent pales in comparison to the superweed threat."

So let's get this straight: The head of the USDA's crop-research service agrees that Roundup damages soil and thinks the superweed problem is even more troublesome. In the face of these two menaces, you might expect the USDA to intervene to curtail Roundup use. But Shannon meant his statement as a rationale for ignoring Kremer's work. Meanwhile, the USDA keeps approving new Roundup Ready crops—ensuring that the herbicide's domain over US farmland will expand dramatically.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/08/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-soil-damage

FYI Dr Robert Kremer has now retired from the USDA after 32 years of service and is now a Professor of Soil Microbiology at the University of Missouri and still campaigning for stricter testing of glyphosate herbicides. He continues to warn that his work experience as a microbiologist at the USDA leads him to believe that the long term harmful effects of glyphosate based herbicides are being underestimated. Those interested can listen to a podcast of a 47 minute interview with Dr. Kremer here (link to podcast at the bottom of the text): http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/05/dr-robert-kremer-gmos-glyphosate-and-soil-biology/

Now take a look at the video below with particular attention at the 8:34 mark where a German plant physiologist shows that fields which have been sprayed with glyphosate over an 11 year period produce crops which are unable to thrive and suffer higher disease rates because they have stunted root systems and are unable to take up water like a normal plant. In contrast, plants in neighboring fields where glyphosate has only been used for 2 years are still growing normally.

Also check out the 34 minute mark where plant pathologist Don Huber, former chairman of US National Plant Disease Recovery Association, claims that comparing US farm soils that have been sprayed with glyphosate to those that have not show that the microbial life in the sprayed soils show a steady decline over time leading to a situation where glyphosate sprayed soils have fewer good bacteria available to counteract the pathogenic bacteria which cause plant disease.

Poisoned Fields - Glyphosate, the underrated risk?

[Major Nikon]

23. Benbrook's buddy who managed to make the news 5 years ago with a story that went nowhere

So now he works for at least two different organic industry advocacy groups and stars in a video produced by Putin's mouthpiece, RT that features Seralini's widely discredited rat study.

So yeah, people should check that out, especially the 26 minute mark. Very telling how the cranks are still so desperate they have to keep raking something over the coals that was blown away years ago.

[womanofthehills]

25. Lots of controversy here - you always side with Monsanto

Seralini's study is the ONLY long term study of Roundup. Monsanto's study was 90 days and Seralini's study was 2 years. So why doesn"t Monsanto do a 2 yr study?

Ten things you need to know about the Séralini study

1. Most criticisms of Séralini’s study wrongly assume it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study – and a well-designed and well-conducted one.

2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. See here: Why is this study important?

3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval.

4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency to cancer increases with age.

5.Compared with industry tests on GM foods, Séralini’s study analyzed the same number of rats but over a longer period (two years instead of 90 days), measured more effects more often, and was uniquely able to distinguish the effects of the GM food from the pesticide it is grown with.

6. If we argue that Séralini’s study does not prove that the GM food tested is dangerous, then we must also accept that industry studies on GM foods cannot prove they are safe.

7. Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.

8. Séralini’s study showed that industry and regulators are wrong to dismiss toxic effects seen in 90-day studies on GM foods as “not biologically meaningful”. Signs of toxicity found in Monsanto’s 90-day studies were found to develop into organ damage, cancer, and premature death in Séralini’s two-year study.

9. Long-term tests on GM foods are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.

10. GM foods have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory and farm animals in a number of studies.

http://www.gmoseralini.org/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-seralini-study/

[Major Nikon]

27. I side against bullshit

Obviously YMMV. Kinda funny how you would refute the massive amount of debunk I linked to with rhetoric by Seralini himself. Kinda reminds me of....

[womanofthehills]

30. Seralini Study republished

Dr Jack A Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of Canterbury New Zealand, called the republication “an important demonstration of the resilience of the scientific community”. Dr Heinemann continued, “The first publication of these results revealed some of the viciousness that can be unleashed on researchers presenting uncomfortable findings. I applaud Environmental Sciences Europe for submitting the work to yet another round of rigorous blind peer review and then bravely standing by the process and the recommendations of its reviewers, especially after witnessing the events surrounding the first publication.

“This study has arguably prevailed through the most comprehensive and independent review process to which any scientific study on GMOs has ever been subjected.

http://www.gmoseralini.org/republication-seralini-study-science-speaks/

[Major Nikon]

32. Yeah, it was republished in a shit journal that will publish anything for money

Seralini had to pay to get it republished.

[womanofthehills]

33. Actually Seralini has been winning court victorys for libel

What few people realize about the original Séralini study on GMOs is that it was only retracted after a serious PR offensive from Monsanto and the Biotech industry, one that included the creation of a whole new position on the original Food and Toxicology journal: Associate Editor for Biotechnology.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/scientist-who-discovered-gmos-cause-tumors-in-rats-wins-landmark-defamation-lawsuit-in-paris_122015

[Major Nikon]

35. Which has exactly zero to do with whether or not his studies are shit

Last edited Fri May 20, 2016, 02:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Wakefield won court cases as well. That didn't mean his study was any less shitty or believable.

That's why the only people you see parroting out Seralini are cranks and quacks like your bullshit ISIS source.

Also don't forget that the IARC specifically rejected Seralini's study because it was complete shit.

You think Seralini should sue the IARC?

[womanofthehills]

29. Glyphosate the single most important factor predisposing plants to diseases and toxins

There are more than 40 diseases reported with the use of glyphosate, and the number keeps growing as people recognize the association, Huber said.

Further, glyphosate stimulates the growth of fungi and enhances the virulence of pathogens such as Fusarium, and “can have serious consequences for sustainable production of a wide range of susceptible crops.” They warn that “Ignoring potential non-target detrimental side effects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as glyphosate, may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops non-productive, and plants less nutritious.”

One way in which glyphosate can affect human health is that “micronutrients such as manganese, copper, potassium, iron, magnesium, calcium, and zinc are essential to humans. All of them can be reduced in availability by glyphosate; so glyphosate treated GT plants as well as other plants exposed to glyphosate have less mineral nutrients. “We are seeing a reduction in nutrient quality [in our food].”

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php

[Major Nikon]

31. Electromagnetic Signals from HIV

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/electromagneticSignalsFromHIV.php

Water Remembers
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WaterRemembers.php

"I view the following with considerable distrust."
...
Institute of Science in Society (ISIS)

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

Ho has been criticized for embracing pseudoscience.[7][8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

[Scientific]

8. Thank you for the information

This death dealing Chemical is everywhere in the world, bringing corporate profit and human loss.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. If you haven't seen it, check out this longer video I recently posted in the Video forum

Gabe Brown from North Dakota explains how he manages to run a profitable ranching/farming operation without having to use any chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In a nutshell he does this by continually maintaining or improving the soil's fertility using cover crops and crop rotations (as the links I posted above suggested are essential to good soil conservation and building healthy soil) and grazing his cattle in ways that mimic the natural processes that occurred in the past when the great herds of Bison and Buffalo roamed wild across the fertile great plains without destroying the soil underfoot, but actually improving the soil as they passed over it (and not just by dropping their poop on it). In other words, he continuously improves the productivity of his land based on the soil creation processes occurring in nature instead of assaulting the land with poisonous chemicals in a non-sustainable attempt to get his crops to grow and his cattle fed.

FDR quote: "The country that destroys its soil destroys itself."

[zappaman]

43. One simple cure...

[jomin41]

12. Thanks for this, JohnyCanuck,

I hope this spreads far and wide.

[JohnyCanuck]

13. You're welcome jomin41, and an observation......

It's interesting to consider that by getting farmers hooked on the intensive, industrialized, mono-cropping agriculture model as the only viable alternative to feed a hungry world, a company like Monsanto sells them the glyphosate based herbicide that goes along with their patented Monsanto GM seeds, and when their "safe" Roundup herbicide destroys the soil microorganisms (and thereby stunts plant growth as the plants now lack the ability to efficiently take up nutrients from the soil), they will get to sell the farmers more chemical fertilizers to stimulate plant growth. Furthermore, because the plants grown in the deficient soils are now more susceptible to pests, the farmers will need to purchase more big-ag supplied chemical pesticide as well. It's a win-win situation all around for the big-ag chemical/pesticide suppliers and the bankers who provide the farmers with loans to purchase farm chemicals and fertilizers.

[jomin41]

14. None of this surprises me.

Coming from an economic perspective, unregulated capitalism rewards short-term profits, predatory misbehavior, money over the health of our earth.

[womanofthehills]

15. Good info - who would want to eat food grown in soil that worms & good microbes can' t even live in

I love the idea of growing cover crops to improve the soil - thanks for the info - I am going to do this. I do a lot of composting. I feed my chickens only organic grains and vegetables - and then use the chicken manure in my garden. When I was a kid, my grandparents gardens were so loaded with worms- a scoop full of dirt would have about 50 worms. Out here in the high desert of NM, the best soil I have is beneath the pinyons, and junipers. I have also stopped turning the soil so I don't destroy the microbes.

The demand for organic food is growing big time, and the US plans of getting lots of it's organic food from Cuba. Cuba is extremely good at growing organically. Not being able to get pesticides turned out to be a big plus for them.

Cuba's organic farms are highly successful.

Meanwhile, US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who accompanied Obama on his Cuba foray, has articulated a post-embargo vision of Cuba as a major supplier of organic vegetables to the US market. In an interview with Modern Farmer after he led a trade delegation on a trip to the island in November, Vilsack marveled at the productivity of Cuba's farms, noting the "impressive array of root vegetables," the "fairly significant garlic production," and the bounty of citrus and avocados. "I think they just have an unlimited opportunity" for exporting organic produce to the United States, he said.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/03/cuba-us-agribusiness-coalition-obama-vilsack-cargill

[Major Nikon]

18. Same journal that republished the widely discredited Seralini rat study

So a shit journal with a slant against GM publishes a "study" from a researcher with a slant against GM. Kinda makes you go hmmmmmm.

This study is so obviously bogus to anyone who actually understands what kills microbes. Glypohosate solutions are acidic and acids kills microbes pretty effectively. That's why vinegar is a great disinfectant. So if you test a glyphosate solution against a microbe in a petri dish, not surprisingly the microbes are going to die. Test glyphosate under actual soil conditions and the exact opposite happens.

Glyphosate was lethal to bacteria and fungi when added to soil-free media. At the recommended sprayer concentration of 50 mM, glyphosate reduced bacterial viability 1000-fold (from 107 to 104 cells/g soil) on solid media, and completely eliminated fungal growth. Increasing glyphosate to 500 mM stopped all bacterial growth. Bacterial growth rate in liquid media also declined following additions of glyphosate (Figure 1). Results were consistent for all Garden of Eden sites, confirming that glyphosate is directly and indiscriminantly toxic to bacteria and fungi when added to soil-free media.

Contrary to the toxic response in soil-free media, glyphosate stimulated microbial growth and activity when added directly to soil. Microbial respiration, a standard measure of activity, increased with increasing levels of glyphosate (Figure 2). The response was minor at 5 and 50 mg/ha, the estimated concentration range in the upper horizon of mineral soil following field application, and greatest at highest application rate. Again, the results were consistent for all sites. Increases in total and viable bacteria were found at the highest rate of glyphosate addition, with Psuedomonas, Arthrobacter, Xanthomonas, and Bacillus spp. increasing in population dominance. Fungal population size remained relatively unchanged regardless of glyphosate application rate.

http://ucanr.edu/sites/FITNEW/files/213865.pdf

[womanofthehills]

26. I don't think something that ends with cide helps build soil

-cid

1.
denoting a person or substance that kills.
"insecticide"
2.
denoting an act of killing.
"homicide"

Origin
via French; sense 1 from Latin -cida ; sense 2 from Latin -cidium, both from caedere ‘kill.’

[Major Nikon]

28. Sure, so instead of carrying guns, criminals should just carry squirt bottles of glyphosate

Because after all, there's just no difference between homicide and herbicide.

[womanofthehills]

34. Symptoms of Glyphosate poisoning

Symptoms of Chemical poisoning -- Glyphosate

The list of signs and symptoms mentioned in various sources for Chemical poisoning -- Glyphosate includes the 23 symptoms listed below:

Reduced urination
Cough
Diarrhea
Drowsiness
Swallowing difficulty
Breathing difficulty
Nausea
Vomiting
Esophageal inflammation
Blood in vomit
Stomach inflammation
Blood in urine
Reduced blood pressure
Increased blood potassium level
Leukocytosis
Metabolic acidosis
Nystagmus
Mouth ulcers
Goosebumps
Salivation
Destruction of red blood cells
Respiratory failure
Kidney damage
more information...»

http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/c/chemical_poisoning_glyphosate/symptoms.htm

[Major Nikon]

36. Sure, believe it or not people have actually managed to do suicide by glyphosate

If you down a pint or so of super concentrated glyphosate (which isn't anywhere the strength applied to crops), you stand a good chance of fucking yourself up.

Meanwhile produce residue of diluted glyphosate is measured in parts per billion. The math here just isn't that hard.

Meanwhile glyphosate caries the least hazardous EPA warning on the label while the organic pesticide copper sulfate carries the most hazardous EPA warning, and unlike glyphosate most certainly does fuck up soil microbes and also unlike glyphosate bio-accumulates in the soil, sometimes fucking up fields for decades. People have also managed to suicide themselves with copper sulfate with far lower quantities.

[felix_numinous]

21. Soil is alive

and is a living extension of the biosphere, killing it is a form of ecocide.

[MFM008]

38. My son works at a store that sells it

He tells everyone he can how dangerous it is, killing birds, bees, butterflies.
His store is phasing out selling it at all.

[Bonx]

41. He is spreading lies. I'm surprised he has kept this job.

[NickB79]

39. Farmers take billions of tons of biomass off fields every year, and we're worried about this?

You want to keep soil microbes healthy and happy? Keep the soil rich with organic matter.

Do modern farms in the US do this? Fuck no.

We plant monocultures every year, kill all the competing vegetation between the rows until it's nothing but corn stalks and exposed dirt for miles (and both conventional and organic farms do this, FYI, using either herbicides OR mechanical cultivation), then harvest the crop portion in the fall, THEN harvest the stems and stalks for livestock bedding and biofuel biomass, and plow under the paltry remnants on the belief that feeding the soil microbiota this starvation diet is somehow enough for them. The crops and stalks may be shipped thousands of miles from the fields they were harvested from and leaving the land poorer for it.

THEN, instead of applying manures from livestock back to the fields like farmers of old did to maintain soil fertility, the manures are pumped into slurry ponds and treated like toxic waste, and the land instead fertilized with synthetic nitrogen fertilizers that are themselves horribly damaging to healthy soil microbe communities. Again, this is done by both conventional and organic farms.

The end result, even if a single drop of Round Up isn't applied, is soil that's lacking organic matter, eroding at an unsustainable rate even when best practices are applied, and increasingly dependent upon nitrogen derived from fossil fuels.

Bitching about whether or not Round Up kills soil microbes misses the entire point: modern industrial farming, even when done organically, is inherently hostile to a healthy soil microbiome. You want to help the soil, protect nature and make our food supply more resilient to climate change? Promote small, diversified farms again, because the mega-farms of today are dinosaurs, easy pickings for an extinction event.

[KamaAina]

40. Hopefully the fungus will evolve resistance to it

just as bacteria do to antibiotics, which is why we need to stop overusing antibiotics.

[womanofthehills]

42. Antiobiotic resistence from glyphosate

[div class="excerpt"

More disturbing news was revealed this week on new sources of antibiotic resistance in the environment. First, in a troublesome report in mBio⁠, the journal of the American Society for Microbiology, researchers showed that three commercial herbicides—Monsanto’s dicamba (Kamba) and glyphosate (Roundup), and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)—could make strains of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium less sensitive to antibiotics. (The response varied with different combinations of antibiotic, herbicide, and bacterial strain).

This is hugely important for several reasons: Herbicides are fairly ubiquitous in the environment. Glyphosate (Roundup) has been found in the milk and meat of cows⁠, and in human urine. According to German researchers⁠, “Glyphosate residues cannot be removed by washing and they are not broken down by cooking. Glyphosate residues can remain stable in foods for a year or more, even if the foods are frozen, dried or processed.” Thus, there is great chance for interaction of herbicides with antibiotics. Interestingly, Roundup alone had once been considered as an antibiotic, but resistance was found to develop rapidly.⁠ Dr. Jack Heinemann, the study’s lead author and professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand explains that while a bacteria alone might have been killed by an antibiotic, when exposed to an herbicide, a resistance gene is turned on, in effect “‘immunizing’ the bacteria to the antibiotic.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/04/01/antibiotic-resistance-from-unexpected-sources/#13ecf5c6740d