From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Researchers have some bad news for future farmers and eaters: As carbon dioxide levels rise this century, some grains and legumes will become significantly less nutritious than they are today.
The new findings are reported in the journal Nature. Eight institutions, from Australia, Israel, Japan and the United States, contributed to the analysis.
The researchers looked at multiple varieties of wheat, rice, field peas, soybeans, maize and sorghum grown in fields with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels like those expected in the middle of this century. (Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently approaching 400 parts per million, and are expected to rise to 550 ppm by 2050.)
The teams simulated high CO2 levels in open-air fields using a system called Free Air Concentration Enrichment (FACE), which pumps out, monitors and adjusts ground-level atmospheric CO2 to simulate future conditions. In this study, all other growing conditions (sunlight, soil, water, temperature) were the same for plants grown at high-CO2 and those used as controls.
The experiments revealed that the nutritional quality of a number of the world’s most important crop plants dropped in response to elevated CO2.
The study contributed “more than tenfold more data regarding both the zinc and iron content of the edible portions of crops grown under FACE conditions” than available from previous studies, the team wrote.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
“When we take all of the FACE experiments we’ve got around the world, we see that an awful lot of our key crops have lower concentrations of zinc and iron in them (at high CO2),” said University of Illinois plant biology and Institute for Genomic Biology professor Andrew Leakey, an author on the study. “And zinc and iron deficiency is a big global health problem already for at least 2 billion people.”
Zinc and iron went down significantly in wheat, rice, field peas and soybeans. Wheat and rice also saw notable declines in protein content at higher CO2.
“Across a diverse set of environments in a number of countries, we see this decrease in quality,” Leakey said.
Nutrients in sorghum and maize remained relatively stable at higher CO2 levels because these crops use a type of photosynthesis, called C4, which already concentrates carbon dioxide in their leaves, Leakey said.
“C4 is sort of a fuel-injected photosynthesis that maize and sorghum and millet have,” he said. “Our previous work here at Illinois has shown that their photosynthesis rates are not stimulated by being at elevated CO2. They already have high CO2 inside their leaves.”
More research is needed to determine how crops grown in developing regions of the world will respond to higher atmospheric CO2, Leakey said.
“It’s important that we start to do these experiments in tropical climates with tropical soils, because that’s just a terrible gap in our knowledge, given that that’s where food security is already the biggest issue,” he said.
The collaboration included researchers from Harvard University (which led the effort); Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in Beer Sheva, Israel; the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; the University of California, Davis; the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service; the National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences in Ibaraki, Japan; the University of Melbourne, Australia; the University of Arizona; the University of Pennsylvania; and The Nature Conservancy, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In 1974, the White House set up a special Sub-Committee on Climate Change, as they were so concerned about the effects of global cooling.
Yet they now expect us to believe that a little bit of warming since has made things so much worse!
I have copies of the original correspondence and the first report here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/feds-alarmed-by-global-cooling-in-1974/
DirkH says:
May 7, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Latitude says:
May 7, 2014 at 2:25 pm
“I wouldn’t call a 5% reduction in zinc/iron/protein “significant”……unless I had some agenda”
Probably 20% yield increase, 5% per weight zinc decrease… just guessing. Meaning total increase of 15%. Science is all about making things sound bad. Science is the new press, now that the press has lost all reputation.
Correct. The alarmist seeem to be desperately looking to find arguments against the scientifically well established CO2 fertility boost.
bushbunny says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm
It may be of interest to you, that Neanderthals ate mainly flesh, they had larger brains than us, because of the meat they consumed. You should turn yourself in for further testing, so far they have found no DNA in present humans to connect to the Neanderthal genus.
not sure where do you have the info or what do you really mean there bushbunny, but to what I have read humans and neanderthals have 99.84% same DNA far away from monkeys which differ 3-5%
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/neanderthals-and-humans-are-9984-percent-genetically-identical-088978
The differences seem to be more of epigenetic nature – for which genes are turned on and which off.
All things being equal, as yields rise because of higher availability of CO2 to growing plants, other nutrients will reduce in concentration. Of course they will. Partly because as cereals fill out the grain they deposit protein in the grain earlier than carbohydrate. Higher yields mean more carbohydrate therefore lower protein percentage. Low yields in a drought year mean protein content is higher as less carbs are laid down in the grain. I have been growing cereals for 40 years and have long known that, as do my neighbours.
However, things do not remain equal. As my yields have risen I adjust my fertilizer and trace element application to maintain the quality. It is what farmers do. It is what farmers will continue to do. With irrigation and other technologies my yields have doubled. Proteins and other quality factors have kept pace or improved, not declined. One reason for this is, as yields improve and become more reliable, the response and payback for adjusting imputs are more predictable.
What kind of scientist doesn’t consider these kinds of things when making such predictions?
Greenhouses.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.
For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.
Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth.
Photosynthesis
Plants during photosynthesis use carbon dioxide. Rate of consumption varies with crop, light intensity, temperature, stage of crop development and nutrient level. An average consumption level is estimated to be between 0.12–0.24 kg/hr/100 m2. The higher rate reflects the typical usage for sunny days and a fully-grown crop.
When To Supplement With Carbon Dioxide
“Since photosynthesis normally occurs only during daylight hours, CO2 addition is not required at night. However, supplementation is recommended during cloudy, dull days to compensate for the lower rate of photosynthesis. Because photosynthesis increases with high light levels, the optimal CO2 concentration becomes higher. Start supplementation approximately 1 hr before sunrise and shut the system off 1 hr before sunset. However, CO2 supplementation is highly recommended when supplemental high-pressure sodium (HPS) lighting is used at night to insure adequate levels”
Cultural Practices To Improve Productivity
Depending on the crop, the increased growth rate related to CO2 application may require the nutrient solution to be applied at a higher electrical conductivity (EC). As well, the increased CO2 levels can result in partial closure of the stomata reducing transpiration and increasing leaf conductance in some crops. This decrease in transpiration reduces calcium (Ca) and boron (B) uptake, which may affect tomato fruit quality. Increased applications of these nutrients, within reason, will adequately compensate the decreased uptake.
Does that mean we have to NOW be on 4.16ppm per year OR does it assume an acceleration in the future? Increased energy efficiency, invention and innovation could throw a spanner in their assumptions. Anything out of the blue could be a game changer. PS the biosphere has been greening, who know what the future holds for their assumptions.
Here are the observations from the NOAA using the Mauna Loa data for co2 increases.
year ppm/yr
…..
1998 2.93
1999 0.93
2000 1.62
2001 1.58
2002 2.53
2003 2.29
2004 1.56
2005 2.52
2006 1.76
2007 2.22
2008 1.60
2009 1.89
2010 2.44
2011 1.84
2012 2.66
2013 2.05
About three billion people worldwide eat rice every day. I eat rice every day and the reason is for the carbohydrates. I also eat other things such as fruits, vegetables, beef, fish, oysters, shrimps etc. If Warmists are so worried about the lost nutrition then they should back Golden Rice. Yet we find many environmentalists oppose this too.
Golden Rice and the 3 billion figure
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1757-837X.2012.00140.x/abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.287.5451.303
So, some foods are more nutritious than others. And that changes with climate.
Not exactly a breakthrough nor catastrophic in any way but good to know.
If you are concerned about the nutritional value of your crops, use less fertilizer. The yield will be lower, but the iron content higher. CO2 acts as a fertilizer, so use less petroleum-based fertilizer and all will be back to normal.
Let’s not beat about the ‘dramatically reduced’ zinc and iron bush; It reeks of producing a pre-determined outcome to further their agenda. That such a minor report should be headline material in certain pro-agw organs tells us all we need to know.
On what basis did they support the statement that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would ready 550 ppm within 36 years? Where would the carbon come from to push it up to that level in such a short time?
A comprehensive survey of all the carbon fuels available (known + 100%) was made by Willem Nel, Univ of Johannesburg (see his website for his travails in trying to get his brilliant thesis published). He shows there is zero chance of ever reaching that level with what we have and might find. People roll these numbers off their tongues as if there were an infinite supply of oil and coal out there.
Next, “Nutrients in sorghum and maize remained relatively stable at higher CO2 levels because these crops use a type of photosynthesis, called C4, which already concentrates carbon dioxide in their leaves, Leakey said.”
Does he mean they went up, a bit? It is interesting how the argument about C3 grasses (the ‘others’ are not really given the prominence they should. The C4 grasses were a Darwinistic response to record low CO2 levels that were weakening and nearly exterminating the C3 vegetation that had dominated most of the history of plant life on Planet Earth. When CO2 was 280 ppm, C3’s were really in trouble. They were born and flourished in a 5000 ppm CO2 world. The idea that C3’s are unable to live and prosper in a higher CO2 environment is poppycock! They developed in that higher level (much higher) and are struggling with our current measly 400 ppm.
Finally…
Note how carefully the ‘lower metals’ argument is made without telling us that the productivity of the plants went up much more than the metals went down. Did you all notice? Carefully worded alarmism. Each square metre of soil will produce much more total nutrition, but in some cases the concentration of some elements in those larger crops may drop (until they are bred up again). As pointed out above, metals come from other foods like nuts, not grains but we can breed what we want. Are they not plant breeders for heaven’s sake? Ever hear of high lysine maize? Completely ordinary breeding and a transformed crop with amazing nutrition. Bring on the CO2. Bring on a better fed world.
Given that atmospheric CO2 has allegedly risen by ~40% since ~1850, and presuming that there is some preserved vegetable matter from this period available for analysis, has it occurred to these researchers to crosscheck for a decrease in such nutrients over that period, or is it only “new” CO2 that has this effect?
Why are y’all talking about getting iron from plants. Eat a cow. That’s what they are there for… nutrient rich food.
JJ says:
May 7, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Another plan that would make the dumbasses’ heads explode – feed the increased crop yield to animals, then eat the animals. One of the primary functions of animal husbandry is the concentration of the sparse nutrients from low quality forage into high quality meat – replete with iron, zinc, and protein. Beef, lamb and goats grow quite well on maize and other C4 grasses, the existing varieties of which show no loss of nutrients but increased yield under CO2 enrichment…
The only problem with that is that to get the same caloric value from the meat you’d have to grow about 10X more crops.
David A says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:17 pm
Thanks David.
Why are we still talking about Steven Mosher?
Fairly new to what? Anyway, I appreciate that David. In fact, inexplicably, I feel a song coming on:
🙂
And the answer is—– SOYLENT GREEN
so they took plants adapted to todays CO2 levels, exposed them to a significant increase in CO2 and watched them for 1 season … gee, I wonder what would have happened if they had only increased CO2 slightly i.e. one years worth of increase as would happen in the real world and see if the plants adapted, used the seeds from those plants for next years crop and again increased the CO2 by one year …
Oh wait, they could have just looked at regular crops over 5 years from the same field in the real world and done the same experiment …
But that would have taken years and most likely wouldn’t have been scare worthy …
Oh noes! I hope my veggies aren’t raised in a CO2 greenhouse ’cause that’s gonna give me iron and zinc deficiencies.
The timing-release of this “study” is interesting — the same time as the National climate-crap release.
All I can say to this is WOW. This is so clearly agenda driven it is hard to respond with a straight face.
First WHY do 2 billion people have zinc deficiency globally? Generally these are poor folks who have to much of their diet devoted to GRAINS. They are ALSO growing on soils (in general not universally) more likely to be deficient in zinc. Meaning they should be changing their diet ANYWAY, and if they did, lower amounts of zinc in their cereal crops is meaningless nutritionally speaking.
Interesting they forgot to mention that yields will go UP with more co2, and water usage can go down. They also didnt account for BREEDING, whether tat be conventional or GM methods.
So overall we’d have higher yields, with somewhat more stable crops that handle water stress bit better with lower amounts of something already deficient in the soils of most of those needing more of these things, and if they widened the scope of their diets, as they very clearly should anyway then this point is meaningless… so the fact this was somehow portrayed as this was above, is imo very clearly agenda driven. Increased co2 will be a great boon to agriculture and in fact already is. Being lower in a few things that you wouldnt normally rely on cereal grains for anyway hardly registers unless your bias is extreme.
Ttclod and other spinach fans,
if you really want to up your iron intake, use an iron frying pan. As any hemachromatosis sufferer (iron accumulates everywhere in their organs) will tell you, this is a sure fire way of upping your intake.
Even better if you fry some nice fresh liver in said pan!
As for the other trace elements (note the ‘trace’) if it really ever gets to be a crisis, a bog standard multivitamin pill will take care of the problem, and those are no problem at all to produce cheaply and in large quantities. (see: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-vitamin-supplements [for example]).
Next, there are some GM manipulations that can be done to up the vitamin content of foods, for example ‘Golden Rice’.
So, even if some of the nutrients contents falls in some foods, it’s not going to be a problem.
So the alarmists have turned against their patron saint and claim that Arrhenius got in wrong when he made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population.
Jimbo says:
A lot of the stuff we can’t or won’t eat goes to our livestock. When they are fat we kill and eat them. That’s the way it has worked for thousands of years.
Quite a few plant crops also get fed to fungi too. In the case of Fusarium venenatum the result is a “meat subsitute”. With Saccharomyces cerevisiae having been widely used since prehistoric times.
Dr. Strangelove says:
This study is silly. Out of 10 nutrients in rice, it cited 3 that decreased (zinc, iron & protein) and concluded it is less nutritious. Rice has negligible amount of zinc to begin with. The decreases in iron and protein are small at 5.2% and 7.8% respectively. The study failed to mention the other nutrients. Does rice have more carbohydrates, vitamin B-6 and magnesium?
The majority of both rice and wheat is the stuff plants make through photosythesis from carbon dioxide and water anyway. Potentially quite a bit of the water will be “recycled” through the formation of glycosidic bonds.
Dr. Strangelove says:
These people are deficient in zinc and iron precisely because they depend on rice which has negligible zinc and small amount of iron. They have to eat 5 kg of rice everyday to get the recommended value for iron. They will become obese before they become iron sufficient since that is almost 3 times the recommended calorie intake for normal weight humans.
With a rather high risk of T2 diabetes or NAFLD. Many people’s bodies struggle with a few hundred grammes of glucose a day. (The level which has been promoted as “healthy” for the last 30 odd years.) The actual issue here being more down to chemistry than “calories”. Even the most glucose tolerant person on the planet probably has a safe limit well below 1kg/day.
Dire Wolf says:
Why are y’all talking about getting iron from plants. Eat a cow. That’s what they are there for… nutrient rich food.
Probably just about any mammal or bird will be a better source of iron than a grass.
Animals make rather more use of iron than do plants.
I think I read all the posts….
…did we miss the fact that all of the plants we grow as “crops” were specifically bred to preform at lower CO2 levels?