Textbooks and papers on carbon dioxide plant physiology call it an “aerial fertilizer” or “aerial food.”  None call for the underground application of CO2 or the aqueous solution as fertilizer.  SCAF is thus new art.  Plant science has not been curious about the great success of humus in potting or where soil is poor.  The effects were due to the presence of organic matter and the production of carbon dioxide by the decay of the included organic matter.

          Authors Sturm and Tape (Nature 411:546-547) declare that from 1949 to 1999 average plant growth improved 10% in 52% of the 176 species examined in their study of the effects of increased CO2.  This is conservative as other studies and experimental work show 30% improvements.

In the November 15, 2002 issue of National Geographic News author Peter S. Curtis, an Ohio State University scientist summarized 159 studies spanning 20 years and 79 species.  He claimed that while crop yields were increasing the quality was declining, but he did not define "quality" and no one has reported similar results.  Curtis also noted the quality of soybeans was unaffected.  Soybeans are well known to be a very demanding crop in terms of soil nutrients. 

The low quality conclusion is in question as UN studies result in graphs, like one below from climateresearch.com showing a universal improvement in crop yields that strongly correlate with the increase in aerial carbon dioxide and no observed loss in quality.  In all cases the products of this new environment are larger, healthier and more abundant.  This is in direct opposition to the panic talk of the global warming alarmists.

Corn harvests are up by factors of five to 10 from the 1930’s, in spite of corn being a C4 plant long thought not to respond to increased CO2.  But, hybridization and genetic engineering have been done extensively with corn so it is impossible to gauge the effect of increased carbon dioxide alone.  Now with the new light on C4 plants it is likely that SCAF work with corn will get similar excellent results.  They have been shown to respond in the few studies that have been done.

More Oranges        

In the literature increases in orange grove yields have been attributed to increases in airborne carbon dioxide speculatively, but rigorous studies have not been published.  From harvest data alone the correlation seems obvious, but more carefully controlled studies should be done.  Trees like the orange, pear, apple, etc. are very good candidates for our deep injection CO2 systems as the trees are small and the roots are shallow.  This will permit simple, low cost equipment to get good results.

We are confident fruit trees would conserve 30% to 50% of the water normally used as well as produce more and better fruit.  To get this kind of benefit from such a small input in terms of time and expense is unheard of in agriculture, but it should be part of this new age.