Nutritive Value of Plants Growing in Enhanced CO2 Concentrations (eCO2)

We are pleased to announce the publication of our latest research report Nutritive Value of Plants Growing in Enhanced CO₂Concentrations (eCO₂).

Despite many years of claims that increasing concentrations of CO₂ are an “existential threat” to life on Earth, one cannot identify any harm that has been done. In fact, the only clear result of increasing CO₂ has been an overall greening of the Earth and increasing productivity of agricultural and forest crops.

The evidence for greening of the Earth from eCO₂ is now too obvious to deny. In recent years, some researchers have claimed that that nutritional values are negatively affected by elevated CO2 concentrations. Media promoters of climate alarmism have seized on these results to further demonize CO₂.

In this paper we explain why the nutritional value of our more abundant crops can and will remain high as atmospheric CO₂ concentrations increase toward values more representative of those existing throughout most of Earth’s history.

While this is a somewhat technical report, it is a valuable tool for you to put in your quiver to use the next time you see increased CO₂ being linked to declining nutrition.

Nutritive-Value-of-Plants-Growing-in-Enhanced-CO2-Concentrations-2024-04-22 Download

5 20 votes

Article Rating

42 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Bob

April 24, 2024 10:08 pm

Congratulations, good job.

Phillip Bratby

April 24, 2024 11:13 pm

Why use a fake photo?

-12

mal

Reply to Phillip Bratby

April 25, 2024 1:11 am

Maybe because it avoids copyright problems.

Joseph Zorzin

Reply to mal

April 25, 2024 4:40 am

And, with AI, you can create an image that is especially relevant. Like in this case, about the abundance of food and forest products. Why bother worrying about who owns it if you can have AI create whatever you want.

MarkW

Reply to mal

April 25, 2024 9:43 am

It’s also a lot cheaper. Not everyone has billionaires funding them.

Neo Conscious

April 24, 2024 11:23 pm

Great to see this finally being focused upon.

The bottom line: Higher CO2 levels results in huge benefits to agricultural quality and quantity and minimal negative climate impacts.

Not mentioned in this study but worth further research is the enhancement of animal ecosystems and rise in wildlife population numbers worldwide. Bjorn Lomborg was an environmentalist that was red-pilled in the 90’s when he was enlisted by Greenpeace to document the drop in wildlife populations worldwide, only to discover the exact opposite was occurring.

Neo Conscious

Reply to Neo Conscious

April 24, 2024 11:50 pm

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet
https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/1541647467

Joseph Zorzin

Reply to Neo Conscious

April 25, 2024 4:46 am

People like Lomborg are NEVER mentioned in the MSM here in Wokeachusetts. 99.9% of the people in this supposedly sophisticated state are never exposed to any smart skepticism of the climate apocalypse. Unless they find it on their own- but most don’t. So, the public here considers itself the smartest population on the planet but its actually one of the dumbest on this topic.

Joseph Zorzin

Reply to Neo Conscious

April 25, 2024 4:42 am

Exactly- the world is improving thanks to so called “carbon pollution”. I do hear that term all the time here in Wokeachusetts- making me cringe of course.

RickWill

April 25, 2024 1:28 am

It is not only CO2 that is increasing.

There is a whole series of contributions from a virtuous cycle related to the spring and summer sunlight increasing over NH land.

It is resulting in more moisture in the atmosphere. The global average increase is 0.4mm/decade.

The water cycle over land is speeding up so there is more precipitation AND more surface sunlight.

Northern Africa will be a huge beneficiary of the warmer water of the Mediterranean. This will result in more tropical depressions dumping an increasing amount of water onto what is now mostly desert.

Joseph Zorzin

Reply to RickWill

April 25, 2024 4:51 am

But then the climatistas will scream that desert ecosystems are endangered! Yet:

This greening of the Sahara didn’t happen once. Using marine and lake sediments, scientists have identified over 230 of these greenings occurring about every 21,000 years over the past eight million years.

https://theconversation.com/the-sahara-desert-used-to-be-a-green-savannah-new-research-explains-why-216555

The Earth is extremely vigorous and dynamic. Yet, we hear every day how delicate it is. It’s all gonna burn up and everything will die ’cause of bad humans emitting carbon. They are truly insane. And extremely dangerous to all of us.

Richard Greene

April 25, 2024 3:57 am

The print in the article is too small to read for me but I have read at least 200 CO2 enrichment – plant growth studies since 1997

In general plant biomass increases from 10% to 100% in 600 to 800 ppm of CO2. With C4 plants in the low end of that range and C3 plants only in the upper half of the range. About 20% of all vegetation is C4 and 80% is C3.

Although small in terms of total number of flowering plant species (3%), they constitute ∼50% of the 10,000 grass species. Their productivity is high and C4 grasses in savanna regions (15% of the Earth’s vegetated surface) are responsible for ∼20% of global photosynthesis.

Nutritional value analyses, not that common, show small differences, not very important, but usually favoring the ambient CO2 control plants. Leftist Nutters made a big deal about this.

I may have figured out a likely explanation.

The CO2 enriched plant was larger and contained more fiber. The vitamins and minerals were about the same for a whole plant, but the CO2 enriched plant was larger. You might have to eat a 10% larger portion to get the same nutrition. And that would not be hard because the CO2 enriched plant would also contain more soluble sugars and most likely taste better.

The nutritional quality comparisons are done by weight, not by portion.

Six broccoli florets grown at ambient CO2 might weigh the same as 5 larger broccoli florets grown at 600 ppm CO2. The six might contain slightly more vitamins and minerals than the five, and slightly less fiber. The nutrients are more diffused in the larger broccoli plant — that may explain much of the small nutritional differences. Just eat a 10% larger portion of your vegetables.

Reading CO2 plant studies is tedious. I read one a month for several decades.

Much easier are the accurate one page summaries of sciece studies at the CO2 Science website. Use the alphabetical archives at the first link below to find a study.

I was disappointed when the website stopped adding new material after about 2020 ,,, but virtually all the studies said the same thing: Plants love more CO2

CO2 Science

Sample of a typical one page summary of a CO2 enrichment – plant growth study

CO2 Science

I believe these one page summaries were written by

Craig Idso, Ph.D.
and
Sherwood Idso, Ph.D.

Climate Howlers hate them, so they must have done good work

Joseph Zorzin

Reply to Richard Greene

April 25, 2024 4:57 am

I have several potted fig plants. The original was brought over by a grandfather from Italy around 1912. After he passed, my dad grew them- then after he passed I grow them. For some reason- this year they’re growing like crazy. They started growing sooner than usual too. Maybe the CO2 level reached a point that is causing this. Otherwise, I’m not doing anything different with them. Of course I can’t put them outside because most of the year it’s too dam cold here in Wokeachusetts. I’d like the climate here to be more like the Mediterranean. Of course the Junta that rules the state says we’re having an emergency- we must change everything or the temperature will go up another few degrees!

DMacKenzie

Reply to Joseph Zorzin

April 25, 2024 9:56 am

hmmm….”potted plants”….their growth is going to be a lot more dependent on the nutrients you add to the pots than the change in CO2 in the air….just sayin….keep up the green thumb !

Joseph Zorzin

Reply to DMacKenzie

April 25, 2024 10:02 am

over the years, I’ve given them liquid plant food- about the same every year- maybe last fall I was tired and overdosed them- regardless, they love it- they’re growing like that plant in The Little House of Horrors- when I watched that- I laughed hysterically- that plant kept saying “feed me, feed me”

D Boss

Reply to Richard Greene

April 25, 2024 5:10 am

“The print in the article is too small to read for me”

Surely you jest??? Not only do most browsers afford a zoom function, but it is a PDF, and Acrobat has simple zoom controls, including within the above article. You click on the shaded box titled “Automatic Zoom” to select a zoom level your eyes are comfortable with. Same applies if you download it and view it with Acrobat proper.

wilpost

Reply to D Boss

April 25, 2024 6:28 am

May be he was trying to read it on his phone!

Richard Greene

Reply to D Boss

April 25, 2024 9:03 am

I wish I was jesting
When I enlarge a PDF to the large size I need, most of each sentence is off the screen (to the right of the box) so I simply do not read PDFs. There are more than enough other non-PDF articles I can enlarge to the very large size I need,

Joseph Zorzin

April 25, 2024 4:38 am

“In fact, the only clear result of increasing CO2 has been an overall greening of the Earth and increasing productivity of agricultural and forest crops.”

But the climatistas don’t want us to enjoy that increased productivity. There is now a growing movement to stop all tree cutting- ending all forestry. I rage when I read about these idiots. It’s now official here in Wokeachusetts- they call it “climate smart forestry” which means very little forestry. They say to cut much lighter and much less often- while putting most forest land into reserves and parks. Even now, we already import 98% of the wood consumed in the state while less than 15% of the forest land is getting any sort of mgt. (some not so good). They aren’t saying don’t buy wood- just don’t cut trees in this state, where you’ll use it! Yet, somehow, by not cutting trees in this state, we’re gonna save the planet! I’ve explained to those idiots that if we managed all the forest land in this state we could produce most of what we consume- and actually have more carbon in the forest- but their hatred of tree cutting is so great, they won’t listen. What would I know, with only 50 years experience of managing forests here. The population of this state is less than 1/1,000 of the human population, but by getting to net zero nirvana, we’ll save the planet, or so they claim. Another person here gave the link to the state’s extinction rebellion’s web site- see below. When I read that- it dawned on me, almost everything in it is now official state climate policy. The fact that the state government is now almost totally dominated by “progressive women” – may indeed be a factor.

https://xrboston.org/climate-emergency

Someone

Reply to Joseph Zorzin

April 25, 2024 7:59 am

Are there any candidates for government positions that clearly articulate that ACGW, Net Zero, energy transition etc. are all nonsense?

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Someone

April 25, 2024 9:10 am

Trump

Joseph Zorzin

Reply to Someone

April 25, 2024 9:43 am

Ha- in Wokeachusetts? It’ll never happen. The state is the biggest employer in the state- and offers very high salaries- given the low amount and quality of work expected. A lot of people would like a state job- even if they know nothing about the climate, they’ll be happy to sing the climate opera. The state forestry agency now wants all foresters, private and state, when they write management plans, to indicate how their work will help mitigate the climate emergency. So far, the foresters are all learning that opera. I’m now retired as a consultant, but if I were still working, I’d refuse to do this- despite the larger subsidy you get singing the climate opera.

rhs

Reply to Joseph Zorzin

April 25, 2024 8:37 am

Remember, all change which is caused by man kind is bad, no matter the benefit. At least according to those who preach first world guilt.

Joseph Zorzin

Reply to rhs

April 25, 2024 9:56 am

Mankind doing anything is the primal sin- all because Adam and Eve didn’t obey God and ate of the tree of good and evil. Kicking them out of Paradise, God wanted them to suffer eternally, they and their descendants. He didn’t want them to better their lives by using their brains- to discover cheap and abundant energy. He wanted them to have a low carbon footprint. Our climate saints want to return purity to the world. We must live like wildlife- hunting for nuts and berries. /sarc

ballynally

April 25, 2024 4:41 am

I have a question: does increased Co2 levels corrolates with having to use LESS fertilizers for growth or do they go hand in hand? In other words, can you separate the two? I ask because in the Netherlands there is a lively discussion about the use of Nitrogen fertilizers. The state wants to decrease. I know plants need less water w increased Co2 (the stomata argument) but that is a separate thing.

ballynally

Reply to ballynally

April 25, 2024 4:57 am

As i currently understand it: more Co2 means more fertilizer. Those who object point to decreased (depleted) soil health (needing more and more fertilizer to get the same result)and animal species diversity as well as issues in regards to the likes of blue algae in groundwater. I would like to hear some thoughts on this as i am unsure about these relationships..

kalsel3294

Reply to ballynally

April 25, 2024 7:18 am

More precisely, increased plant growth from whatever reason will drag increased nutrients from the soil which will need to be replaced in order to maintain optimum levels in the soil.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to kalsel3294

April 25, 2024 9:12 am

One of the other evil pollutants in N2O, which studies have found fertilize areas that are nitrogen poor and increase plant growth.

Primary source (one of several) of N2O? ICE exhaust.

Steve Case

April 25, 2024 4:42 am

In recent years, some researchers have claimed that that nutritional
values are negatively affected by elevated CO2 concentrations.

_______________________________________________

Depends on the definition of recent years Here’s one from 2006:

CO2-ENRICHMENT AND NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY ALTER
ECTOMYCORRHIZAL FUNGAL COMMUNITIES

My search didn’t find those studies that found that some particular protein in some particular variety of soy beans was the basis for head lines telling us that more CO2 resulted in less nutritious food. As I recall that was prior to 2010.

dhsay

April 25, 2024 5:51 am

This is explicit validation of the importance of carbon dioxide for plant growth and its necessity for human existence. Will the popular press allow it to be seen?

kalsel3294

April 25, 2024 7:41 am

The Australian Grains Free Air CO2 Enrichment (AGFACE) research program conducted near Horsham in western Victoria over a decade beginning about 2007 with different varieties of wheat in which they replicated in open field trials, the growing conditions forecast for 2050 by varying time of sowing, irrigation and the controlled release of CO2 in amongst the rows of plants, found that generally there was an increase in grain yield along with a slight decrease in protein.
However this is consistent with what occurs in broad acre farming with varying seasons anyway, in wetter years grain yield will increase with lower protein levels as compared to dryer years with comparative lower yields but higher protein levels, but overall with the higher yields and lower protein levels it still comes down that more protein is produced per acre in the higher productive years, as it was in the AGFACE trials.

Mr Ed

April 25, 2024 7:57 am

As always, an interesting subject. As a farmer/rancher for the past 50ish yrs
I’ve seen a number of very positive changes related to weather/climate, but can’t say
I’ve seen any noticeable changes in say protein content in forage or have heard
any changes in say malt barley protein content which makes a difference in the final product
and therefor market value.
The largest changes I’ve noticed is in the different available genetic varieties such as
the Roundup Ready types of grain. On the livestock side of things the beef production
quality has improved immensely mainly through genetics. The largest risk I see is in
on the production side of the factory farm type of operations which has no relation to CO2
or crop nutrient values.

Sparta Nova 4

April 25, 2024 9:04 am

I am waiting on Keebler to introduce CO2 cookies.

pillageidiot

April 25, 2024 9:06 am

I have read many of the published articles about how plants grown under elevated CO2 conditions contain fewer nutrients.

However, every single one I have read contains a simple magician’s trick so they only reveal what they want you to see.

Each paper says something like, “the wheat grains contained 9% less protein, and 14% less zinc”. However, when I try to examine their included data, it never says what the TOTAL production yield of protein and trace minerals were measured in the wheat plants in the study.

Of course, if CO2 fertilization increases total wheat production by 30%, then I would expect certain components to be less – because they are spread over much more foodstuffs.

I am pretty sure starving peasants would rather have MORE total calories and nutrients from their tiny bit of subsistence farming, regardless of the nutrient density!

DMacKenzie

Reply to pillageidiot

April 25, 2024 10:05 am

They would likely have “control grouped” obviously by using the same soil or same level of nutrients, so if CO2 increase resulted in more growth (even pot farmers know it does) then the nutrient level is going to be somewhat lower. I think you will find a good percentage of those papers say that in some obscure paragraph, but their funding is dependent on higher up crisis-mongering…

Shoki

April 25, 2024 10:59 am

Facts, facts, facts. What about feelings… and grants?

SteveZ56

April 25, 2024 11:50 am

Congratulations to the CO2 Coalition for an excellent article!

We recently hear stories of governments in Western Europe trying to limit nitrate fertilization of farmland, under the pretext that fertilizer can break down into nitrogen oxides that can react with ozone in the stratosphere and deplete the ozone layer. These efforts have led to massive protests by farmers in European capitals.

However, this article states that the nitrate-containing fertilizers need to be increased, since the plants grow faster in a high-CO2 atmosphere, and nitrogen becomes the limiting nutrient.

One more example of the elite wannabe masters of the world doing exactly the opposite of what should be done.

It also seems like the best way to feed an increasing population is to “drill, baby, drill”!

MIke McHenry

April 25, 2024 2:00 pm

It would be wonderful if you could write a summary in layman’s language that we could post to social media

Ireneusz

April 26, 2024 10:30 am

Studies have shown that photosynthesis increases with CO2 concentration. Conversely, at low CO2 levels, plant respiration outweighs photosynthesis.
Carbon dioxide is converted into sugars in a process called carbon fixation; photosynthesis captures energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. Carbon fixation is an endothermic redox reaction. In general outline, photosynthesis is the opposite of cellular respiration: while photosynthesis is a process of reduction of carbon dioxide to carbohydrates, cellular respiration is the oxidation of carbohydrates or other nutrients to carbon dioxide. Nutrients used in cellular respiration include carbohydrates, amino acids and fatty acids. These nutrients are oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water, and to release chemical energy to drive the organism’s metabolism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Ireneusz

April 26, 2024 10:31 am

From a 2010 study by the University of Maryland, photosynthesizing cyanobacteria have been shown to be a significant species in the global carbon cycle, accounting for 20-30% of Earth’s photosynthetic productivity and convert solar energy into biomass-stored chemical energy at the rate of ~450 TW.[7] Some pigments such as B-phycoerythrin that are mostly found in red algae and cyanobacteria has much higher light-harvesting efficiency compared to that of other plants. Such organisms are potentially candidates for biomimicry technology to improve solar panels design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

Ireneusz

April 26, 2024 10:36 am

A carbon dioxide concentration in the air of about 0.036% is much lower than optimal for photosynthesis under favorable light conditions and adequate temperature. Under optimal conditions, the rate of photosynthesis increases up to a CO2 concentration of about 0.1%. At extremely low CO2 concentrations, respiration and photorespiration processes produce more CO2 than is assimilated in photosynthesis. The concentration of CO2 at which its secretion balances with photosynthetic uptake is called the carbon dioxide concentration compensation point. For plants with C4 photosynthesis, it is close to zero, and for plants with C3 photosynthesis, depending on the species and temperature, it lies in the range of 0.009-0.018% CO2. The intensity of photosynthesis for C4 plants is at low concentrations of carbon dioxide higher than for C3 plants. At values close to the optimum concentration, C3 plants gain a slight advantage in CO2 fixation intensity, and this is exploited in greenhouse crops by fertilizing plants with CO2 under favorable temperature and light conditions.

In the course of evolution, plants have had to adapt to changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Therefore, C4-type plants have developed a dual mechanism for CO2 fixation.

C4 binding is in addition to the primary and more common C3 carbon binding. The main carboxylating enzyme in C3 photosynthesis is RuBisCO, which catalyzes two different reactions using CO2 (carboxylation) or oxygen (oxidation) as substrate. The oxidation of RuBisCO gives rise to phosphoglycolate, which is toxic and requires the expenditure of energy to recycle through photorespiration. C4 photosynthesis reduces photorespiration by concentrating CO2 around RuBisCO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation

It can be seen that C4 plants do much better at lower CO2 concentrations.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photosynthesis_CO2_concentration.svg#/media/File:Photosynthesis_CO2_concentration.svg

Warren Kitchel

May 1, 2024 12:33 pm

95% of green house gas heat retentions is from H20 vapor. CO2 is responsible for less than 5%. The human contribution to the Earth’s 4%+ is roughly 5%. That means that we humans contribute about 0.28% to the existing green house gas heat retention spectrum. Given the multitude of factors, besides green house gases that affect NATURAL climate change, the statistical probability of our 0.28% having any measurable impact on the NATURAL cycle is infinitesimal.

wpDiscuz

Watts Up With That?

Nutritive Value of Plants Growing in Enhanced CO2 Concentrations (eCO2)

Like this:

Related

Share this:

Like this:

Related