For 17 years, soil microbiologist Robert Kremer studied what happens in the soil when we plant GMO crops.
His findings contradict conventional assumptions about modern agriculture’s impact on the invisible world beneath our feet.
Kremer, a USDA scientist with 32 years of experience, discovered that GMO soybeans and corn consistently harbored 2-10 times more of pathogenic Fusarium fungi on their roots than non-GMO crops.
Living GMO plants actively release glyphosate through their roots.
Kremer’s team detected over 1,000 nanograms per plant seeping into the soil over just 16 days, fundamentally altering the underground ecosystem.
This herbicide doesn’t just kill weeds, its a superfood for pathogenic fungi.
Fusarium species can use glyphosate as both a carbon and phosphorus source, giving them a competitive advantage over beneficial microorganisms that protect plant health.
Even untreated GMO plants showed altered behavior.
They released more sugars and amino acids through their roots than conventional varieties, suggesting genetic modification itself changes how plants interact with soil life—before any herbicide is applied.
To make matters worse, the population of fluorescent pseudomonads, bacteria that normally suppress fungal plummeted in GMO fields.
Kremer documented several negative knock-on effects.
Glyphosate chelates manganese, iron, and zinc, making them unavailable to plants.
This weakens plant immune systems precisely when pathogen pressure increases. It’s a perfect storm for crop vulnerability.
Fields under intensive GMO production saw soil organic matter drop from 1% to 3%.
This represents a fundamental degradation of soil health that affects water retention, nutrient cycling, and microbial diversity.
GMO soybeans showed reduced nodulation and nitrogen fixation even without glyphosate treatment.
The very genetic modifications meant to improve crops were disrupting ancient plant-microbe partnerships essential for sustainable agriculture.
Kremer pioneered polyphasic analysis—using multiple techniques to assess microbial communities.
While simple diversity counts often showed minimal changes, examining specific functional groups revealed dramatic shifts in soil ecology that standard methods missed.
His findings have been validated globally. Researchers in Brazil, Argentina, and Europe report similar patterns. Increased pathogens, decreased beneficial microbes, altered soil chemistry—the signature is consistent across continents and crop types.
Recent metagenomic studies using advanced DNA sequencing confirm Kremer’s work while revealing additional complexity.
Genes related to nitrogen cycling and plant growth promotion are consistently suppressed in GMO systems.
Kremer’s work shows what happens below ground matters as much as what we see above it.
His findings suggest we need to reconsider how we evaluate agricultural technologies—not just by yields, but by their impact on the foundation of all terrestrial life.
References:
1. Glyphosate Root Exudation
Kremer, R.J., Means, N.E., and Kim, S. (2005). "Glyphosate Affects Soybean Root Exudation and Rhizosphere Microorganisms." International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 85(15), 1155-1174.
2. Increased Fusarium Colonization
Kremer, R.J. and Means, N.E. (2009). "Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interactions with rhizosphere microorganisms." European Journal of Agronomy, 31(3), 153-161.
3. Effects on Beneficial Bacteria
Zobiole, L.H.S., Kremer, R.J., Oliveira, R.S. Jr., and Constantin, J. (2011). "Glyphosate affects micro-organisms in rhizospheres of glyphosate-resistant soybeans." Journal of Applied Microbiology, 110(1), 118-127.
4. Nutrient Chelation Effects
Barrett, K.A. and McBride, M.B. (2005). "Oxidative Degradation of Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonate by Manganese Oxide." Environmental Science & Technology, 39(24), 9223-9228.
5. Root Exudate Composition Changes
Kremer, R.J., Means, N.E., and Kim, S. (2005). [Same as #1] - Documents increased sugar/amino acid release from untreated GMO plants.
6. Soil Microbiome Disruption
Motavalli, P.P., Kremer, R.J., et al. (2004). "Impact of genetically modified crops and their management on soil microbially mediated plant nutrient transformations." Journal of Environmental Quality, 33(3), 816-824.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1920s, an Austrian forester developed theories about trees so radical they challenged what science thought it knew about forests
Viktor Schauberger claimed trees were bio-electrical condensers processing cosmic energy whose destruction would trigger civilization's collapse
Schauberger viewed trees as "powerhouses for transforming energy" that mediate between Earth and cosmic forces.
Working in virgin forests, he observed trees as living participants in Nature's subtle energies, forming an interconnected trinity with water and soil.
His most controversial theory proposed trees function as biological capacitors.
Electrical charge density increases from outer bark toward the inner core, with energy concentration highest at branch and root tips. Annual growth rings act as "dielectric separators".
Syntropic farming systems (SFS) achieve the same total productivity and income as conventional farming on only 10% of the land area.
SFS have a land-equivalent ratios of 2.8-4.1, meaning that 1 hectare of SFS produces the same yield as 2.8-4.1 hectares of monoculture. 🧵
This is an extraordinary example of overyielding in complex agroecosystems.
Overyielding occurs when a polyculture (multiple crops grown together) produces higher yields than equal areas of the same crops grown separately.
Other remarkable benefits of syntropic farming systems:
– Carbon sequestration potential is impressive, with one Brazilian study documenting an average annual increase of 3.9 Mg carbon/hectare in SFS
– Disease incidence can be dramatically lower (30.4% in SFS vs. 96.4% in monocultures for cocoa)
– SFS contribute significant nutrients through leaf litter (100 kg nitrogen/hectare, 5 kg phosphorous/hectare, and 10 kg potassium/hectare annually in one system)
– Tree survival rates reach 90-100% in SFS versus 70% in conventional agroforestry
– SFS maintain more favorable microclimates with lower temperature fluctuations and higher soil water content
The weather patterns that coffee farmers relied on for generations are breaking down.
While global climate change takes the blame, in reality it’s largely a self inflicted cycle of ecological degradation resulting from farming practices.
A look at the problem and solutions: 🧵
The numbers tell a sobering story:
37% of the world’s coffee grows on former forest land. The industry has cleared over 2.5 million hectares—nearly four times the size of Delaware.
For every cup of coffee consumed, approximately one square inch of forest was converted to production.
Each year, about 130,000 hectares of forest disappear for new coffee plantations.
A new study claims grass-fed beef is as carbon-intensive as industrial beef.
This conclusion relies on a narrow, linear analysis that misses the complex ecological reality of grazing systems.
Here's why this claim is wrong:
Well-managed grazing dramatically enhances biodiversity, builds healthy, resilient soils, supports water cycles, and contributes to carbon storage both below and above ground.
These critical ecological functions are largely overlooked in the study's limited analysis.
Grazing cattle create a complete nutrient cycle—improving soil biology, enhancing water infiltration, and distributing nutrients through manure.
This natural system replaces synthetic inputs (major emission sources) and delivers ecological benefits the study entirely overlooks