IMEP # 139 Nature And Climate Intersect Fisheries Restoration 1972-2020

[BlueChip]

IMEP #139 - Does Fishery Science Need Ockham's Razor?
Nature and Climate Intersect
Restoration Policy
"Understanding Science Through History"
The Contrasting Argument of Dissoi logoi
Do We Need A Public Court For Science?

This is a Delayed Report September 2019 
Viewpoint of Tim Visel – No other agency or organization
Revised to June 2022
(Tim Visel retired from The Sound School June 30, 2022)


A Note From Tim Visel

William of Ockham lived in the period of what we call the middle ages, 1287-1347.  He was an English Franciscan friar and philosopher.  He wrote about competing hypothesis. His principle stated what when faced with assumptions the one hypothesis that contained the fewest is the one most likely correct.  While this approach has been discussed for generations the "razor" is thought to be the cutting away of conclusions based on little evidence.  It is further complicated by our bias of quick decisions – often based upon incorrect or misleading assumptions. 

Mervin Roberts, a naturalist who once lived in Old Lyme, Connecticut, reinforced that we need to take a long-term view of natural events and to recognize we have a bias of presentation.  At times, this bias can be very large and pieces of it can be observed in science.  In 1985 in his book A Tide Marsh Guide to Fisheries, he mentions this science bias, especially connected to surveys of populations.  On page 355 is found this science warning:

"If you are a political or social activist, you may have pounced on "bias" and wondered how scientists apply it.  As a matter of fact, scientists used it long before it became a catch word.  Examples of bias in science are sometimes found in collections of living organisms whose population is in motion.  To be without bias, such a collection would have to be made over an extended period with no regard to inclement weather, ice, time of day or holidays ... I submit that we have no business establishing rigid categories for the works of Mother Nature."

Other researchers have raised the issue of science bias in terms of grant funding and the dangers of science being politicized.  This unfortunately is called agenda based science and has often become intertwined with grant funding.  Some research initiatives seem only to benefit grant recipients – my view, Tim Visel.

John Teal, Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in his June 1986 Biological Report "The Ecology of Regularly Flood Salt Marshes of New England: A Community Profile" 85 (7.4), US Fish & Wildlife Service, refers to "trading our credibility for political advantage" and re-issues a warning to researchers in the preface – Teal, 1986:

"Scientists should make the best information available.  They should remain skeptical about their own conclusions.  They should be willing to test their ideas repeatedly when the opportunity arises.  They should not go to the most conservative extreme and never be willing to give an opinion about the wisdom of some proposed action."

That is why a longer look at natural history is so important when it comes to marine and freshwater fisheries.  For example, many publications and reports claim to present a recent decline in eel populations.  Many times, eel fisheries declined because the people involved no longer could make a living eeling.  The number of eel fishers declined and so did their catches.  A review of eel landing statistics will show a decline and gives the perception that eels have also declined.  Eels have not declined in Connecticut, the knowledge of eel fisheries has.  Many times, scarcity of a species is what Mervin Roberts warned about – natural population changes.  Eels are abundant along Connecticut's coast.  Blue crabbers have encountered numerous dense pockets of eels – so numerous as to preclude crabbing.  There is no longer a way to determine resource abundance trends because an aspect of resource discovery is now missing – the fishery.  Someone not that knowledgeable about eels or eel fisheries might become alarmed by statements that eels are endangered or need our help.  They would have little to weigh or consider the opposite viewpoint or have data (long-term) that disputes this assumption.  Eels can be both forage and habitat limited (they eat their young and fish eggs in shallow water).  As eels became harder to sell and ice did not cover coastal ponds, the winter eel spear fishery ended.  You can still find relics of this fishery in antique shops along the coast – eel spears – metal blacksmith forged spears are rare now, so also the blacksmith, but not the eel.  Frequently, a resource decline has been thought to be the result of our actions but often just reflects natural changes.

Hans von Storch, a German climate scientist, has warned about rushing to conclusions and the politics of resource perceptions.  He, in many papers, discusses "The Waldsterben Crisis" in German forests, the dieoff and weakening of trees in German forests in the late 1970's.  Here, trees started to weaken and show signs of disease and poor "forest health."  While it was true that stands of German trees showed reduced "vigor" and health, this was quickly linked to German sulfur dioxide pollution.  While it was correct that trees near industrial centers had similar appearance, however, trees distant from population centers or pollution generally showed the same impact.  Waldsterben newsletters, indexes and grant funds were made available as this situation had both and emotional and environmental appeal.  In fact, The New York TimesTM published an article on May 25, 1984 titled "In a Dying Forest, The German Soul Withers Too."  Several grant supported projects believed that German forests will be gone by the middle 1990's.  When that did not happen, grants quickly dried up.  Eventually, the dieback was linked to changes in soil chemistry (sulfur) largely caused by a widespread drought.  Hans von Storch has written numerous articles about the politicization of science and its transformation from producing knowledge to solving specific problems or agendas.  Severe droughts do happen and climate patterns can have a huge impact upon coastal fisheries.  The movement of green crabs illustrates this impact.  As waters cooled in the 1950's, it moved north into Maine waters.  Only severe freezes seemed to halt or slow its movement north over time.  Its main habitat type in European waters is eelgrass.  The absence of a long-term environmental fisheries history, one that combines both natural and human causes, leads to the perception that most (if not all) declines are caused by human indifference.
 
This problem can also be seen in the decline of Long Island Sound lobster fishery post 1998.  Lobsters suffered a die off from many years of gradual then sudden water heating.  Simply the waters of Long Island Sound just became too hot for the lobster long acknowledged to be a cool water species.  However, the dramatic reduction in the lobster population had happened before in 1898 after a previous gradual warming and then sudden intense heating.  Fishery managers and regulators mentioned "over fishing" as a cause before seeking information about climate cycles.  If they had pursued a process of "discovery" they would have found that conditions that proceeded the 1998 lobster die off – proceeded the 1898 lobster die off almost exactly.  There was no lobster management regulation that could have save the lobster from very hot sea water.  It, for many years, was assumed to be overfishing until the die off became so intense across many life stages.  This raises an important issue how today's science handles research discovery.  It has been a concern expressed by others, even people in the science community (See Benninger et al., Debasing The Currency of Science: The Growing Menace of Predatory Open Access Journals (2016) and also ECSG Newsletter Issue 3, page 1, August 2018 -  The Microplastics and Shellfish Media Frenzy).

Madison, Connecticut 1960's

In 1967 or 1968, on a side porch at Webster Point, Madison, Connecticut, I learned how to make netting from Michael H. Bevans, a neighbor who spent his summers with his family just a few houses down from my family.  Mr. Bevans, or just "Mike" to us, watched our wheelbarrow go by as I got to go past him every morning as we took lobster bait to our dinghy to start lobstering.  He noticed my interest in fishing gear and nets, and taught me about double twine-- making net mesh by hand that could hold branches in the making of camouflage-- that could prevent identification.  Mr. Bevans was a World War II veteran, US Army Air Force, a gifted artist, and developed and taught hundreds the art both of netmaking and skills of camouflage. He pioneered the use of double twine to hold plant materials.  Double twine mesh was made with a wood net needle he carved himself; in the 1940's, net needles were all wood then and often hand made from thin wood. Sheets of meshes that were made and laced together with plants added into twine was used to hide supplies and military installations.  Camouflage saved countless lives.  (A reminder of this method is the dry ghillie suit made with netting, and covered in vegetation.) 

A mesh was made with two strands of twine and not one, which is the common nets of today; crab and landing nets often have a first row of "double twine."  Double twine has two balls of twine being loaded on to a single net needle. Each net mesh twine is then "doubled."  Although it took more material it made quick placement of plants for cover easier. The use of double twine strengthened the edges and made possible hanging to ropes. In the 1980's when I made gillnets the top row of mesh was always double twine for added strength. It is still used today in fishing gear.

The twine then was natural fiber and exposed to moisture subject to bacterial rot; so it was often tarred.  This bacterial rot plagued the fishing industry as well and the fiber of choice was then Manila twine from the Philippines. Cotton twine was a soft twine, held knots, but rotted quickly-- this twine often had a wax coating instead of tar. 

I learned how to chain out mesh on a metal hook on the side porch with Mr. Bevans demonstrating how to use a wood gauge and the wood net needle. By the time I met Charles Beebe, also of Madison, I already could make both single and double twine meshes.  Mr. Beebe would show me how to knit a lobster pot funnel and Mr. Bevans is mentioned in this bulletin in the 1999 forward in The Sound School publication, "How to Knit a Lobster Pot Funnel," which demonstrated how to make mesh netting.  Forming the 1st loop on Page 3 is the hook on the Bevans' Madison, CT cottage side porch.  (Several of Mr. Bevans' books are found on the Internet as his premier book on shells:  https://www.etsy.com/listing/765343128/1961-the-book-of-seashells-by-michael-h.   Chris Bevans, one of his sons, soon became a help to us with gillnetting and lobstering in the 1970's.  After blue crabbing, Chris helped with lobstering and, in time, could haul, clean, rebait and set a lobster pot as fast as anyone.

But my conversations with Mr. Bevans in later years was more in the area of what the Greeks had termed, "Dissoi logoi"-- the art of the contrasting argument, (also called dialexeis), is a two-fold argument, which considers each side of an argument in hopes of coming to a deeper truth. The dissoi logoi doctrine provides historical insight into early sophistic rhetoric paid speakers, who deceived others through the power of speech – a "sophist."  I often think of those summer discussions and my time with Mike Bevans and the need to examine all issues before making judgements or decisions.

In ancient Greece, students would be asked or selected to present and argue on both sides of a controversy or problem. Our porch discussions usually started in midafternoon and as evening approached a dinner plate quickly set by his wife Jean was immediately filled with delicious food. After dinner our discussions often continued very late into the evening.  They ranged from the environment, natural resources and the changes of public opinion. It is in these discussions we reviewed hunting for bird feathers, the Dust Bowl, use of natural resources, and of course fisheries and pollution.  We often discussed the need for interpretation and full discovery of knowledge of both sides.  Resources use (my topic) and conservation – Mr. Bevans side of resource management.

An emotional argument without facts was just rhetoric. We often came to the conclusion that we lacked our own discovery, a non-biased approach to learning both sides of an issue as we often did not know enough to prove a point.  Our experience had limited us because we accepted certain points of contention to be true.  I often presented the fisheries economic aspect, I was lobstering, trawling and gillnetting fresh fish for local seafood markets. While Mike put forth conservation and proper management issues.  He was a gifted artist and a keen observer of natural settings, producing renowned artworks and books on seashells.  He also because of bird life study was knowledgeable about what feather harvests had once done to bird populations.  I approached his viewpoint, and he did mine, believing that someone who fished had knowledge beyond that of the shore visitor and that access to facts and knowledge of fishing could become a part of a discovery process beyond what was just observed or just emotions that required a fact supported explanation. 

Just a few days before leaving to study oceanography at the Florida Institute of Technology at Jensen Beach in Florida, Mr. Bevans reviewed an oyster paper, Major Problems In The Oyster Industry, which I wrote for a Daniel Hand High School science class on oysters; his letter was dated September 2- 3, 1974. The letter mentions the need of bridging the gap between industry and public.  I saved his letter, keeping it in my desk drawer at the Universities of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; I would pull it out once in a while and read it over thinking about our long evening summer talks. I could say that it influenced my employment with three colleges of agriculture and Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant positions; it is reprinted without changes in Appendix #1.  Four years later after the letter was written I would start working for the Cooperative Extension Service (UCONN).  T. Visel.  The Smith- Lever Act of May 8, 1914 established the Cooperative Extension System – a state network of educators to aid the distribution and application of practical information relating to agriculture.  Cooperative Extension is a part of the USDA and the United States Land Grant Universities.  I still review Mike's letter from time to time.


A Public Court for Science

If we had a chance to talk today (sadly Mr. Bevans passed in 1998), I'm sure it would be just as invigorating as back nearly 50 years ago. Nowhere has the gap between "about fisheries" and "in fisheries" become so wide and yes, filled with rhetoric so much so at times, that I recently compared it to snake oil science of the last century.  A long pronounced heating had caused some of the best fishery conservation policies to fail – that was for the lobster industry, one we had talked about at great length.  I had many questions about the rules and abundance of lobsters about lobster data going back to 1976.  At that time I had questions as to why some lobster years were better than others – if the regulations were consistent (overfishing was a constant concern) how could catches be different.  I still research these lobster questions from 50 years ago.

Since the year of his passing, Long Island Sound waters became so warm (hot) lobsters died off and a few years later blue crabs surged. Bay scallops, once a popular seasonal fishery, became almost unknown in the late 1990's as oyster sets became strong. Black seabass a reef fish of more southern waters suddenly surged into Connecticut's waters as the colder water tautog then declined.  Winters became mild with flower blooms into late December; ice fishing became sporadic and even at time dangerous, however, there was no discovery process that provided evidence that these events had ever happened before.  There was and presently still not exists a defined practice of discovery similar to that of the legal system. No one it seems can provide the contrasting argument of natural patterns or cycles of seafood without risking it seems to be labeled as supporting pollution.  Coastal policies did not match results – there was something much larger than regulations or conservation happening to the Long Island Sound lobster population and, in this case, one that had happened before.

Resource Natural History

The coast had always been a source of seafood and some of the most productive areas were Connecticut's coastal coves.  Inshore fishers had harvested seafood and raised questions about pollution and conservation in response to questions and the CZMA (Coastal Zone Management Act).  In 1983, Connecticut had a Citizen's Coastal Cove and Embayment Board to advise state regulators on coastal issues.  The Board (volunteers representing municipal, seafood, port and harbor viewpoints) provided views by citizens and civic commissions were often not in alignment with the regulatory views. The Guilford Shellfish Commission (Sally Richards), the Waterford Flood and Erosion Control Board (John Scillieri), Christopher Percy of the then Sounds Conservancy, and Tom Steinke of the Fairfield Conservation Commission—all were members when the board was suddenly disbanded when it expressed concerns in 1994.  There was no longer a chance of presenting a dissenting opinion, and had only been in place 11 years.

The loss of the contrasting argument was not lost upon Sally Richards when the coastal embayment board raised important questions about coastal policy; the board had asked serious policy questions which then was quickly disbanded.  Concerned with the suddenness of this situation, Sally Richards remarked in an article titled Coastal Advisory Board Disbanded: Guided State on Conservation Funding in the Hartford Courant on October 26, 1994:

""Who's going to be the devil's advocate?" asked Sally Richards, a former board member and secretary of the Guilford Shellfish Commission.  The board has raised many pertinent questions about the direction and scope of the DEP's coastal restoration work, Richards said.  Indeed, many board members complain the DEP is not going far enough with its work."

In other words, the public had lost the process of discovery --no public agency existed to present the contrasting argument to itself.  The experiences and knowledge gap that Mr. Bevans spoke of between people in practices of commercial aspects of the work and those who study it but may lack in the field experience of the work or even at times opposed the work (fishery) itself.

The Discovery Process

The lack of discovery is quite evident in recent seafood public policy initiatives-- no one mentioned that 1998 lobster die off resembled almost exactly the lobster die off of 1898 a century before? (It appears a similar lobster decline happened in 1792).  The public was presented only one side of the argument without a discovery process that this appeared to be a cycle?  There was no attempt to provide a complete discovery.  In fact, often the opposite happened.  The judge, jury and clerk of this court at times all wore the same hat.  Only the references that supported current policy objectives were used – those regarding policies, which focused upon pollution or habitat loss and conservation themselves each significant and important, but ones that had a historical context as well.  That is what the Coastal Board Embayment Board had asked about, the habitat fisheries history of coastal embayments.

The case examples I often use is the lobster dieoff of 1998 and the policy initiatives surrounding the subtidal marine grass, called eelgrass Zostera marina.  Each provide an interesting habitat history of shallow waters based on observations of those who fished in them.

In 1898, lobsters died off by the tens of thousands, most likely millions. The Southern New England Lobster Fishery Failed and by 1903 states were invited to a lobster convention in Boston held September 23rd to September 24th 1903.  The response to this widespread and nearly complete failure of the Southern New England lobster was to build lobster hatcheries as a public policy fishery restoration initiative.  The 1890's was a period of intense heat and soon after lobsters died off, blue crabs then surged. In areas just a few decades before lobsters hatcheries were abundant now held the blue crab and commercial fisheries for them then started in Narragansett Bay (See H. P. Jeffries University of Rhode Island report titled "Internal Conditions of A Diminishing Blue Crab Population,"1966).  In the 1900's, Rhode Island boasted that it may soon become the leading state for the blue crab industry.

But we have the blue crab and lobster reverse to review as well.  We have a similar situation with the blue crab in the mid-Atlantic.  In the colder, energy-filled 1930's, you can see large fluctuations in catches.  The decline in blue crab caused blue crab researchers to seek other management policies such as a no harvest sanctuary, placing the decline into regulatory functions rather than looking at climate or soil studies.  After eelgrass reached a habitat dominance from 1905 to 1915, its decline was linked to fishing practices.  The concept of climate had been replaced by man's indifference and/or pollution.  The only reasons it seemed to fishery managers was to assume (however, wrong) human actions had caused a decline in eelgrass. 

In the agricultural literature, there is an emphasis on nature – "backward springs" could delay planting, an early killing frost damage apple crops and an absence of rain – drought damage.  In the marine environment, we have similar observations, storm damage, freshets from snow melt – these are things we can see but far more exist that we cannot see, including ones caused by climate change chemistry.  One of the areas I think we should research is the iron/sulfur chemistry of wintering soils.  Blue crabs spent their dormant period in a soft marine compost that can change chemically.  This is directly connected to marine soil chemistry and the presence of elemental oxygen, which changes with temperature.

The blue crab habitat soil is dominated by iron and sulfur composts.  We should examine these habitats for the blue crab as they contain complex chemical interactions.  The sulfide deadline may cause winter kill if ice and cold water allows sulfide formation.  I have mentioned the need to examine how sulfide chemistry changes marine composts and alters blue crab populations.  Donald Rhoads of Yale University described sulfide as the "silent seafood killer" it killed shellfish and fish "quietly" and out of sight.  A very cold winter with ice causes sulfide to kill fish in ponds and often described as the "winter kill."  In summer, another type of sulfide kill occurs as warm water naturally holds less oxygen.  Again, the chemistry of compost (organic) digestion by sulfate reducing bacterial action puts toxic sulfide into the water.  These kills are usually associated with a strong sulfur smell, the "smell of rotten eggs."  The chances of a sulfide kill are enhanced by soils that gain organic matter, they begin to gather a loose organic ooze or compost.  In high heat, it turns into a sapropel and releases sulfide.  Another type is a quick release of acid from sapropel.  This is when sapropel is exposed to air or when dredging occurs in marine composts.  This is the river kill described by George McNeil, water flowing below ice (rivers) creates a venturi effect and moves sapropel discharging sulfide under ice.  The iron-sulfur chemistry is what gives sapropel its black color.  Over time, once a sandy soil can become an organic compost.  This is a description from the Soil of the Year conference about intertidal flat soils.  What is not mentioned is that an increase in organic matter also increases the possibility of acidic waters.


The Intertidal Flat Soil (Wattboden)
Soil of the Year 2020
University of Hamburg Dr. Alexander Grangraft et al. Translation Dr. Einor Eberhardt Hannover, my comments T. Visel (           )

"While sand intertidal flats are stable and can be entered pure intertidal mud flats are soft and pasty (sticky, T. Visel), such that even wading birds sink into them the colonization with mussels, worms and other animals depends beside stabilization the content of organic substance.  The latter is higher in the mud flat soils then in the sand intertidal soils.  The regular flooding of the soils accounts for water saturation of most voids (soil pores, T. Visel) in intertidal flats soil.  Atmospheric oxygen penetrates into mud flats only some millimeters deep in sand flat soils – centimeters.  Along biopores and root canals, oxygen can enter several centimeters deep during low tide.  Also nitrate and sulphate trigger particular microbial oxidation and reduction processes.  The oxygen gradient and the amount of oxygen depleting organic substances control the redox potential and hence the processes going on in soils an intertidal flats, iron oxide is dissolved in reduced zones and can be precipitated together with sulphur as black iron sulfide.  In the oxidized, rust colored zone, divalent iron ions are precipitated as iron oxide.  The color of the intertidal soils is determined by these processes."

Climate Chemistry
We also have the southern New England lobster dieoffs of 1898 and 1998 both being a very hot climate period for New England.  The impact of a positive NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) phase was often "missed" in public policy documents because they were unknown to the public in general.

Very little of this information was brought forward by discussion in the years following the 1998 lobster dieoff.  The lobster die-off of 1898 was not reviewed ("no discovery"), there was no opportunity for a contrasting argument. But the lobster die-off question was it natural or human caused?  If nature was a defendant in today's legal system nature would have to a right to pursue an affirmative defense that is to provide evidence that could negate liability even if nature or natural causes was found to be the reason for the lobster die-off, good or bad, that is what nature does, it is natural.

But if it was human caused we should look to the legal process of discovery and opportunity for those being charged before legal proceedings to start the opportunity of exchanging information and evidence. This process gives both sides time to present contrasting arguments based upon evidence facts or at least time to investigate facts (evidence).  Withholding "discovery" information in the legal system can evoke severe repercussions.
When I speak of is the ability to direct discovery, this is termed a subpoena the written records documents pertinent to a legal case be turned over to the court.  In the lobster die-off case mentioned above many documents and records were available, but were not mentioned or made part of the public record at least in terms of public policy. This creates an unequal discovery process the records of the 1898 die-off in a period of intense heat was not brought forward as no similar legal responsibility exists for science except for self-imposed limits and assumed integrity or ethics.  The lobster dieoff was so severe as to cause a New England lobster convention in 1903 but none of the 1998-2010 lobster reports mention it (that I have found, T. Visel).

There is no requirement for science discovery except the requirement that similar previous works be cited but lacks the legal definition that all previous works evidence be presented for review.  It could be said that facts were selected to build a stronger case while those facts citations that provided evidence contradicting the main cause of argument or complaint left off from discovery, just never mentioned any reference or citation that did not support their "case."  The 1898 lobster dieoff was well publicized and was part of a very hot period in New England more than a century ago.  Its history, however, was not part of the 1998 lobster dieoff reports that followed.

The Eelgrass Soils and Marine Composts - A Case History Soil Example for Review

Over a century ago, Connecticut Farmers organized and developed proposals for a series of independent government supported analytical laboratories for testing fertilizers.

New England farmers, in general, faced more recent glacial "soils" thin of organic material, plant nutrients and at times, bacteria. Soils, as well as plants, need nourishment and what needed nourishment the most was oxygen requiring soil bacteria.  Many of the fertilizer claims and content ingredients were false.

Connecticut's farmers (and New England's as well) soon learned the hardship of Connecticut's thin carbon poor soils and the fraud created by those who wished to profit from it. Bogus fertilizers of all types and alterations were marketed and sold, cheating the farm communities of both their dollars and their trust.

Professor Brewer speaking before the Connecticut Board of Agriculture made a plea for both organization and support against this science fraud in the fertilizer market. Science, it seemed even then, was up for sale by those who took advantage of this need.

Speaking before the general meeting of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture on page 243 (1874-1875) – The meeting minutes of May 27, 1874 reflect this statement by Professor Brewer.  William Henry Brewer became chair of the Sheffield Scientific School's Agriculture Department at Yale University in 1864. He studied abroad at the University of Heidelberg in Germany and saw the creation of the German Agricultural Experiment Station System.

"All of our feeders who have to buy large quantities of food know how rapidly the demand for fodder material, of one kind and another, is increasing.  It is easy enough to see, that if these matters are to be investigated, they must be investigated by somebody who gives his time to it, and who has a certain amount of authority.  Who were the persons who, until this State took the part it did in the chemical analysis of commercial fertilizers, were generally accepted as authorities in regard to the composition of commercial fertilizers?  They were three-quarters of the persons who are technically called "commercial chemists"; persons who may or may not have been good chemists, but persons to whom the making of analyses was their means of living, so to speak.  They were not independent of the persons who sold the materials, and sometimes not as honest — well, they had no honesty to spare, to say the least.  I may say here, that while science is a good thing, it does not necessarily make a man honest.  I have heard of dishonest men who were scientific, after all."
   
As farmers then realized a century ago those promoting products, and researching their products and marketing them had a bias of intent and delivery.  They wanted the public to purchase the product a century ago, regardless of the long-term impact.  Hundreds of acres of farmland fell victim to toxic fertilizers, coal dust mixed with slaughter house blood meal, that left fields with sulfur, heavy metals and little to no soil nourishment benefit.  Coal is fossilized sapropel, a marine compost, which is the continued reduction [putrefaction] of organic matter and is accompanied by sulfur reducing bacteria.  (That is why some coal has high sulfur levels).  It is perhaps the best climate induced habitat indicator we have for coastal habitats; a dangerous return to the sulfur cycle in high heat. In periods of high heat and low storm activity, it tends to build up in shallow habitats, an indication of low oxygen. Sulfur reducing bacteria, naturally complex heavy metals (even mercury) as sulfate is not limiting in marine coastal waters. The presence of sulfur and mercury in coal is the natural chemical and biological result of the fossilization of composting sapropel, both terrestrial and marine; and it is not given a habitat classification or often described as a bacterial composting process (my view, Tim Visel).   


Did Eelgrass Transplant Efforts Fulfill Discovery?

A Science Court That Includes Bacteria?

Several groups in the 1980's had selected eelgrass as an indicator species for nitrogen removal or by other environmental organizations for the prevention of dredging and expansion of boating.  In 2008, I was scheduled to present at the International Conference for Shellfish Restoration about the negative regulatory aspects of eelgrass declines and restoration.  (I had to cancel my participation).  In 2014, I suggested that if the exclusion of sulfate metabolism (also termed benthic flux) by bacteria or nitrate buffering in the absence in the calculation of a nitrogen TMDL was likely inaccurate and a serious omission.  Communities spent millions to remove human nitrogen when natural bacterial nitrogen pathways were not often included, causing possible human nitrogen inputs to be mislabeled as the nitrogen source when it was a climate/chemistry - bacteria factor.  This effort often did not include the bacterial release of nitrogen.  Compounding this issue was the marine grass (eelgrass), a nitrogen indicator was frequently transplanted in sulfide rich soils and composts, a toxic soil condition linked to human causes (See IMEP #121: Why Eelgrass Transplants Fail, posted April 23, 2023, The Blue Crab ForumTM, Fishing, Eeling & Oystering thread). 

Eelgrass loss was linked as a nitrogen indicator of pollution in the 1990's.  Large amounts of grant funds were directed at linking eelgrass declines to excess nitrogen.  One researcher told me that if a granting agency paid you a lot of money to say good things about eelgrass, "You said good things about eelgrass."  That was it – in time a group think set in based upon some truths – that were then repeated so often no one thought about similar grass monocultures on land and how they react to soil chemistry of heat or with the sulfur cycle.  In time (every time it seemed) eelgrass stepped into the batter's box it was a homerun – after some years it was a grand slam as any strike outs were just removed from the record or researchers perhaps "forgot" to mention them.  Eelgrass does strike out in heat it helps produce sulfide from sulfate bacteria needing composters to produce ammonia.  Eelgrass is killed by hot organic composts rich in fungus and molds.  Inshore fishers watched these habitats change and followed the rise of eelgrass compost to the loss of shellfish habitats in the 1960's and 1970's.  It would take a half-century for science to mention these observations and today in research in Florida's Indian River Lagoon. (high heat ammonia supports macroalgal blooms – seaweed.)

Many eelgrass researchers when questioned recently sadly did not know how eelgrass even got its name or the biochemical aspects of eelgrass peat that allowed eels to hibernate in it.  We have lost a tremendous amount of fisheries habitat history, (knowledge) failed to develop a marine habitat successional concept for shallow waters that contain some of the most essential fish and shellfish "critical habitats."  Some eelgrass research is clearly absent the negative low-oxygen, hot marine compost habitat services – while extenuating just the positive, a rare form of science research misconduct "forgetting sources" often labeled as "citation amnesia."

Some researchers knew that the habitat history of eelgrass was very different at different climate times but did not mention it for fear of the "colleague syndrome" that other researchers or a "colleague" had eelgrass grants that supported student/university functions, or the funding effect – an institutional bias for the recipients of grant funds that is given influence over supplemental or additional (study funds) grants or the possible manipulation of public policy crisis itself by short term objectives.  (I often use the example of the open classroom education experience here in Connecticut the rapid almost panic like public policy reactions of the construction of schools without classroom walls in the early 1970s that was often later termed a complete disaster).  That happens when research responds to a crisis and resulting political concerns and finally to possible research misconduct itself, the inclusion of public policy concerns to funding efforts when previous research is in conflict with that public policy objective.  We have examples of these to study from overseas as eelgrass habitats and forest health (See EC #17-B: The Sulfide Winter Kill of Blue Crabs, posted April 12, 2019, The Blue Crab ForumTM, Environmental Conservation thread).

A Court for Science Discovery For Eelgrass Research

There is no codified process of "judicial science" or a "discovery" a century later similar to a legal proceeding in which information that pertains to any issue/subject to lawsuits or disputes is provided in a legal investigative action.  Instead, the failure to cite all sources, or cite them correctly or give the suggestion of previous confirming research when it was at best doubtful, lies between a fuzzy world of science tradition freedom and bibliographic negligence or "citation amnesia."  In fact, some researchers have called for a type of discovery process in a "science court", a group or special master that could sit in review of cases of alleged science fraud, misconduct or improper citations. (Some citations often conflict with the position or topic; some appear to be missing, out of print or have fee/charges to access them - T. Visel).

It could be said that the habitat services of eelgrass in colder times is high, reported as positive, and that warm water eelgrass negative habitat conditions are not.  For example, many of the eelgrass transplant programs conducted by the US Fish & Wildlife Service – Clarence Cottam reports (Status of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) of the North Atlantic Coast, February 1938) in the early 1930's were complete failures (thought to be from sulfide/sapropel impacts to marine soils). However, in the 1990's and 2000's, many eelgrass reports mention transplant programs for eelgrass as a new or novel effort. Very few papers mentioned previously the work of state and federal agencies decades before, attempting to restore eelgrass populations; that ended in failure (Bibliographic negligence and excluded direct research applications of eelgrass transplant trials or citation "amnesia.")  Often cited references are hard to find, almost impossible to link specific points to referenced articles (i.e. page numbers) or align references to major sections of the proposed new work. That is why I usually reference the author, title, page # and often provide for education purposes direct quotes.  In simple science terms, the current eelgrass papers excluded much, if not all of the eelgrass negative environmental habitat succession history – these important references (my view) were not cited- i.e., the term "citations amnesia," they were forgotten? 

For those interested, much evidence exists that the cycle of eelgrass is directly related to marine soil cycles of "soil health", the absence of sulfides and well-developed soil pore spaces with the movement of basic pH seawater in them, as soil "pore space circulation" similar to terrestrial lawn care.  During the early 1930's, the United States Dept. of Agriculture, Senior Biologist Clarence Cottam, in charge of the section of Food Habits, Division of Wildlife Research Wildlife Research and Management Leaflet PS-110, Washington, DC, April 1939 reported on the Status Of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) On The North Atlantic Coast, February 1938, (seven months before the huge marine soil cultivation event from the Great New England Hurricane of 1938 and returning cooler climate conditions – and less sulfide/sapropelic compost formation).  Pg. 5 under the section labeled "Experimental Plantings, East Coast Variety" of his report, is found this paragraph:

"Because the eelgrass was almost extirpated from much of the Atlantic Coast and because it is important to bird life, fishes and shellfishes, the Bureau deemed it advisable to conduct planting experiments to see whether the species could be reestablished. Accordingly, in October 1935, and in April and May 1935, many plantings were made from Chesapeake Bay to the more open bays of coastal Maryland and Virginia and from Mecox Bay to South Oyster Bay, on Long Island. Unfortunately, all these promptly died."

An August 1935 article in Rhodora Journal of The New England Botanical Club Vol. 37, No. 440 reviews previous eelgrass dieoffs as possibly cyclic mentioning hunter reports that eelgrass died off in 1893-94 but recovered in some sections six years later (See Appendix #7).

But the cooler temperatures after 1935, especially the winters of 1935-36 (See the 1936 North American Cold Wave), and the Hurricane of 1938, are thought to have re-cultivated thousands of areas of stagnant pore collapsed marine soils, effectively rinsing them of built-up organic matter sulfide composts. The same areas that saw eelgrass die-off in 1928 to 1933, came back vigorously after 1938.  In fact, three decades later, the opposite viewpoint of eelgrass often emerged – too dense an eelgrass monoculture, which slowed currents and smothered shellfish.  Those citations exist as well in the historical literature, but rarely appear in eelgrass studies or bibliographic references today.  This pattern clearly shows the cycle impact of energy on submerged vegetation – grass expansion after hurricanes similar to that of wildflowers and "quick" grass growth after forest fires.  The energy event on land is often a forest fire – and years later an increase in meadow grass and patches of wild flowers.  In times, the trees will come back but that may take centuries. It is often termed the law of habitat succession. The same pattern of succession exists for marine soils.

Energy Cultivation Ends Then Begins An Eelgrass Cycle

September 9, 1934 – A tropical storm hitting Long island with 75 mile per hour winds, closely followed by a September 18, 1936 storm passing near Nantucket Island. These cultivation events would be made to look small by the massive New England Hurricane of 1938- with storm driven waves and currents re-cultivating (I.e. reestablishing pore space capacity), tens of thousands of acres. This was followed by 10 named storms in 30 years. In 1954, Hurricane Carol and Hurricane Edna hit New England only 12 days apart. What this energy does is to re-cultivate marine soils (similar to core punch aerators for turf fields on land) "renewing" them with cooler temperatures allowing eelgrass to flourish. Eelgrass in recently disturbed soils spreads rapidly and like flowers or grasses on land moves, into any and all suitable space and fills it. (In fact, its ability to spread with runners and produce seed packets puts it into an aggressive strain similar to terrestrial crab grass Digitaria sanquinalis).  Eelgrass has (as other submerged grasses) the ability to produce extensive monocultures with a thick root peat.  This process begins in storm cultivated (loosened) marine soils.

This was quite different from the 1880-1920 period, which only saw eight storms – hit New England all at Category 1 strength or below. The 1880-1920 period can be considered quiet and hot – that had changed by 1936, which saw some of the coldest temperatures since the 1870's. The winter of 1936 had Washington, DC records an average January temperature of just 14oF.  The 1873-74 snowfall in New Haven was 68.8 inches as most winters had heavy snows but also brutal summer heat waves. It was the heavy snows of warmer winters that show higher warmer moisture contents rather than the bitter cold "dry Nor'easter."   See New England's snowfalls by Charles F Brocks, 1917 - "New England Winter of 1896-Ice Reports. (During that time some winters only had a trace of snow).  By the late 1960's, eelgrass monoculture dominated many shallow habitats in southern New England.  A Study of the Marine Resources of Pleasant Bay, May 1967 - Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Monograph #5, 62 pages, findings: Quahogs pg. 38 has this statement:
"In many areas, especially the upper part of the estuary, rapidly spreading eelgrass growth was noted to be taking over the quahog setting and growing bottom."

And its renewed growth even impacting bay scallop growth/habitats in the same report- page 46 contains this section:

"A main problem facing scallop fishermen is the rapid spread of eelgrass. While eelgrass provides anchorage and protection for juvenile scallops, in dense growth it hinders dredging (usually hand hauled, small scallop dredges, T. Visel) operations and adversely affects scallop growth by retarding water circulation.  The eelgrass problem, which is not unique to Pleasant Bay, has become in practically all bay waters on the South Shore of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, there is no practical method of controlling eelgrass at the present time." (page 47 top) (1967 conditions of Pleasant Bay, Cape Cod)

At this time, coastal communities from the Chesapeake Bay to Massachusetts wrote about problems of just too much eelgrass rather than not enough.  Few if any of those reports are found referenced in eelgrass papers after 1975.  Research in the Canadian Maritimes also reports the monoculture negative eelgrass impacts to shellfish in government publications. The conditions of dense eelgrass overwhelming previous habitats closely following the NAO, a climate feature well known but just recently mentioned as having seafood population impacts.

In our region, the cycle of eelgrass is much like the cycle of marine soils.  Those well cultivated, with larger soil pore sizes that allows in alkaline sea water and therefore rinse soils of sulfides and acids contain the best growing soils for eelgrass.  Hot stagnant soils with pores that are closed with organics or clay particles provide the poorest soils for eelgrass. These conditions usually occur after massive energy events (like hurricanes) that cultivate marine soils – much the same as terrestrial soil cultivation. The person who is credited with inventing a device specifically for marine soil cultivation is Richard W. Burton, who was once the Director of Rhode Island Department of Fish and Game, modified the Martha's Vineyard soft shell clam pump into a soil cultivating device in the early 1970's.

This was an effort to break up microbial mats of dead sea lettuce (Galon Barlow Jr, personal communications, T. Visel 1980's) that had formed a crust liked surface over a clam flat- many softshell clam harvesters were interested in this soil cultivation aspect. Loose cultivated soils could allow alkaline water to circulate in them as mentioned by David Belding 50 years before. This habitat enhancement was in opposition to the non-disturbance policy – mostly aimed towards dredging. The study of marine soil cultivation would never get a day in court because the verdict had already been issued, (and no discovery process would provide the soils science that supported soil cultivation/disturbance) the vast knowledge of terrestrial soil science never got a chance at the discovery process because they were never asked. Many eelgrass transplants in the last three decades were made in sapropel marine composts rich in sulfides poisonous to plants.  Many were unsuccessful with transplanted culms and root stock quickly died as they had done 60 years before when exposed to similar unsuitable soils (today termed site selection)

Eelgrass is a primarily habitat for the green crab, when it expanded into the Maritimes it was because of energy that allowed eelgrass to increase. Once north of Cape Cod (about 1950), it quickly spread north following eelgrass expansion. Soil cultivation that helped eelgrass also benefited the green crab as seed pods (eelgrass) and green crab megalops spread into northern waters from the Chesapeake (See Appendix #3). This warming was noticed by shipping interests as a dramatic increase in icebergs after 1905, extending south into east-west trans-Atlantic shipping lanes. The increase in the eelgrass then was related to previous energy it prefers colder temperatures (1870's) and is now thought that both species native to the North Sea both arrived on our shores aboard the first European fishing vessels.  It is a long practice of wrapping seafood with seaweed (See Bait Worm Packaging As A Potential Vector of Invasive Species 2011).

This northern movement of the green crab happened when shell fishers reported both the negative impacts of eelgrass to shellfish habitats and the movement of the green crab to the north. This followed marine soils cultivation of areas which allowed eelgrass to take hold north of Cape Cod. Both crabs and eelgrass arrived about the same time.  The 1880 to 1920 period is when fishers noticed strange schools of fish not seen in this region before the warm water of the Great Heat Waves, a term used by John Hammond on Cape Cod, had changed the zones of species. Cold water north of Cape Cod had been the divide between zones of cold, fed by the Labrador current (also termed the cold counter current today) and those of the warm Gulf Stream.  Rachel Carson in 1955, The Edge Of The Sea (1955) describes this change on page 23- Patterns of Shore Life as perplexing or curious. (It is important to note that marine researchers used data that was accessible about a decade later.  This lag in data is still current today - T. Visel).
Rachel Carson commented on the change in temperatures after the 1880-1920 period:

"Although these basic zones are still prominent and well-founded, divisions of the American coast, it became clear by about the third decade of the twentieth century (1930) that Cape Cod was not the absolute barrier. It had once been for warm water species attempting to round it from the south. Curious changes have been taking place, with many animals invading this cold-water temperature zone from the south and pushing up through; Maine and even into Canada. This new distribution is, of course, related to the widespread change of climate that seems to have set in about the beginning of the century (1900) and is now recognized- a general warming up (especially the 1850's – T. Visel) noticed first in the regions then in subarctic and now in the temperature areas of northern states." (Rachel Carson, 1955).
This was the same period of The Great Heat 1880 to 1920, the period mentioned to me by John Hammond on Cape Cod.

Of course, most likely the largest reminder we have today of this (1900's) huge arctic warmup was the increase in icebergs drifting south into shipping channels, the Titanic tragedy (1912) and the opening of the northwest passage, when shelf ice allowed shipping in the far north. It is at this time that eelgrass reaches its maximum habitat coverage.  What largely determines the habitat coverage of eelgrass is the chemistry of the soil in which it takes root.  Like terrestrial grasses, it is killed when sulfide levels rise when it is hot.  This factor may make eelgrass an important indicator of soil chemistry and show the danger of climate warming, not so much always the direct result of site-specific human impacts – my view, T. Visel.


Appendix #1

A Letter to Tim Visel September 1974


Sept 2-3, 1974
49 Pent Road
Madison, CT 06443

Tim,
I read your paper on problems in oyster culture and was much impressed with the amount of reading – research that must have gone into it, with the "proper scientific form" and with your admirable desire to state matters briefly and compactly – (I wish I had more of the latter!).

My chief criticism is that I think you could have used some explanatory or qualifying sentences or phrases in "connecting" descriptions at lab research with open natural environment situation, and perhaps given a bit more attention to some words uses, spelling and sentences structures or punctuation.

Of help to me has been the idea that what is written is going to be read and I must state things in a way that will give a clear flow of what I mean (or understand) to the reader.
I can't help feel that if you would visit places like the shellfish study group in Milford, CT, the people who are experimenting with tank culture of shellfish (on Long Island I think) and Woods Hole, Mass if might turn up something to your benefit (to say nothing of your contact) with Conn State Pollution Control agencies.

In reflection, one thing that often occurs is a communication gap between people in the practical-commercial aspects of a work and those who study much but lack enduring field experience.  Is it possible your best function or "role" might be a bridging one between these two?  An idea, anyway.
                        Good fortune,

                        Sincerely,
                        Mike Bevans

P.S.  Don't postpone a visit to Woods Hole forever (!)
I am told this is a fascinating place for the marine biology buff.
      
   
Appendix #2

Eelgrass and Science Discovery
Tim Visel

As eelgrass, clams (both softshell and hard shell), oysters and at times bay scallops all live in the same habitat – dominance of one species can occur.  For example, the Niantic River bay scallop fishery grew large to record breaking catches in the 1950's when eelgrass was practically absent.  Softshell clam beds that set heavily in 1901 and 1904 (Narragansett Bay and Massachusetts) were soon overwhelmed by eelgrass growths.  Hard shell clammers on Cape Cod noted (and Massachusetts biologists) that eelgrass was overtaking clam habitats in the 1950's and 1960's.  In the 1900's, shellfish researchers (Belding) on Cape Cod and Irving Field (US Fish Commission) mention eelgrass suffocating entire mussel and softshell clam beds.

Changes in habitat dominance have a natural connection to succession.  We can change succession and favor species by first providing natural or bypass limitations – water and soil cultivation for agriculture, controlled burning (fire) for meadowlands, applications of energy to kill invasive species, or lawn care (energy) for turf – sport fields and residential grasses.  But grasses can live in shallow soils, under water as well, and subject to natural cycles.

Some articles and research papers have highlighted that oyster aquaculture harms or eliminates the presence of eelgrass (Marc Skinner et al., Reductions in Distributing Photosynthesis and Productivity of Eelgrass Zostera marina Associated With Oyster Crassostrea virginica Aquaculture, 2013); they do so after culture operations commence.

These reports contain a public policy bias as they do not include policy decisions that relate to them.  For example, a cultivated farm field by its habitat use is absent of large trees.  To produce food, it was accepted that trees were removed or thinned.  It could be said in a research paper that compared cleared fields to forests, farm fields contain less trees.  That, of course, would be true.  The problem comes in when the habitat value of trees is compared to cleared fields, that habitat succession is primary to other uses, including those fields for agriculture – i.e., food production.  We alter habitat succession constantly, lawn care with mowing (energy) or turf core aeration for athletic fields.  If we did stop holding succession, sport and athletic fields would grow brush, small plants and then fast-growing soft woods – cedar trees in our area of southern New England.  Agriculture is, of course, necessary to feed us.  Without it, we could not survive as we do today. 

If energy (fire or mechanical) is prevented on grass meadows, they would, in time, succeed to woodlands.  On April 1, 2019, Patrick Skahill (New England News Collaborative) reported on Harkness Memorial State Park a controlled fire (burn) to hold habitat succession on 15 acres "It was actually a carefully-planned "burn" aimed at preserving what's been called the "last remnants of eastern prairie in Connecticut.""  This practice was, long ago, utilized by First Nation Peoples.  Many eelgrass papers and reports look like science papers and formatted as science but actually upon close review are public policy papers.  These are funded "research" efforts to alter public policy and usually contain little climate historical discovery (my view, Tim Visel).

Appendix #3

Eelgrass and Green Crabs Invade Northern Waters in the 1950's
Rachel Carson, the Edge of the Sea, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955


"One of the most impressive examples of northward moment is provided by the green crab, once unknown, north of the Cape, now familiar to every clam fisherman in Maine because of its habit of preying on the young stages of the clam. Around the time of the century (1900), zoological manuals gave its range as New Jersey to Cape Cod. In 1905, it has reported near Portland, and by 1930, specimens had been collected in Hancock County, about midway along the Maine coast.  During the following decade, it moved along the Maine Coast. During the following decade moved along to Winter Harbor and in 1951 was found at Lubec. Then, it spread up along the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay and crossed to Nova Scotia."

Appendix #4

BCF letter to Madison Officials about the Green Crab


                     February 5, 1953
Mr. Gordon L. King, Chairman
Shell-Fish Committee
Town Clerk's Office
Madison, Connecticut

Dear Sir:
   This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 4 requesting information on the culture of long and round clams and also inquiring about the reasons for the disappearance of clams from our waters.
   We still do not know the primary cause of the mortality of clams occurring several years ago.  However, we think that, to some degree, it was due to a parasite but largely to a great preponderance of clam enemies of which green crabs and horse-shoe crabs are probably the most important.   These two species of crabs, as well as related forms, have increased in number quite substantially during the past eight years.  This increase was characterized by relatively high winter temperatures.  We think there is a correlation between the temperature of the water and the number of crabs.

   Frankly, we know very little about the culture of clams, with the exception that they have to be rigidly protected against predators.  However, we have done some work in respect to their artificial propagation and may soon offer some practical suggestions for raising clams artificially.  I am enclosing reprints of two of our articles on this phase of our work, which may be of interest to you.

                     Sincerely yours,
                     V. L. Loosanoff
VLL:R                     Laboratory Director
Encs.

Appendix #5

Mussel Mud (Sapropel), Guano and Stable Manure and the Commercial
Fertilizer Scandals of the 1880's

By the 1880's, Connecticut's problems with fertilizers became so widespread it led to the Congress passing the Hatch Act of 1887, which provided federal funding for agriculture experiment stations in all states.

Agriculture education commenced much earlier. Most New England states had created Boards of Agriculture and Maine (1856) which made suggestions to local agriculture education programs. Poor thin soils and the ravages of heat and cold created habitat instability, which next to pest and diseases, was the largest fear of New England farmers. The 1862 federal Merrill Land Grant College Act set aside land and revenue from the sale of now public lands for colleges of agriculture education. The experiment stations were largely responsive to industry and not to commercial interests.

The early experimental stations looked at fertilizers (action items for farmers then) and the largest sources were then guano, "mussel mud" (Sapropel) and stable manure. Fertilizer tests would soon become a huge national issue. David Smith in his History of the Marine Agricultural Experiment Stations 1885-1978 (UMO 1980, University of Maine at Orono 1980) captures this on page 7 and is found in this paragraph - my comments (T. Visel):

"The second stream of thought favorable toward authorization of an experiment station came from the increasing problem of fraud in the United States. The Pure Food and Drug Act was a generation away, and generally speaking, the slogan of the day was "Let the Buyer Beware." However, the areas of fraud bothered Maine farmers in particular were fertilizer and seeds, with fodder not far behind. Unscrupulous dealers mixed white sand with guano from Peru and Ecuador. Heavy doses of grass and weed seeds filled the packages and sacks of grain and vegetable seeds. Sand, dirt, thistles, and daisies all formed part of the ration in commercial fodder for cattle.

In Balentine's 1882 speech (Walter Balentine, Professor of Agriculture – T. Visel) at Robinson (Hall – T. Visel), he recognized this problem when he said that a Maine station would have as its first item of business the control of commercial fertilizers, then it would go on to fodder and seeds, and finally it would turn to scientific research. Balentine closed his speech by saying, "It is to be hoped that the farmers of Maine will soon take steps to protect themselves from frauds, and at the same time aid in the advisement of agriculture in general by establishing an agricultural experiment station."

But Connecticut's experiment station had already published fertilizers' results in 1879; copies no doubt were quickly shared with New England farmers. The end of this fertilizer fraud was near.  The Maine Fertilizer Control and Agriculture Experiment Station was designated in 1885.


Appendix #6

An Agriculture Experiment Station

The Seventh Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture
TonTine New Haven, Connecticut May 27, 1874 10:00 am

Connecticut farmers had come to distrust science in the 1860's, farmers often discussed the problems with science, especially how it related to fertilizer tests. These cases of fertilizer fraud had many farmers questioning science. To put honesty back into fertilizer sales they desired an independent agency to give them honest science, accurate fertilizer tests and analyses.

Page 343 of the Board of Agriculture meeting minutes (1874-1875). Professor William Henry Brewer (Chairman of the Agriculture Department of Yale) rose to address th