Written by Mike Hamilton, CCA President of Turf Dietitian, Inc.
When most of us think about the Theory of Evolution, the process by which living organisms develop and expand from their prehistoric forms into successful and more adaptable organisms comes to mind.
My beliefs lean more towards this theory because of the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that it’s trussed. Regardless of what I believe, it’s just my opinion. For the millions of people who believe in Creationism, even considering that the Theory of Evolution exists is sacrilegious. So, who’s wrong and who’s right? Nobody knows which theory is correct, but extremists are on both sides of every argument. And with extremism, there is no room for further discussion.
I don’t believe either theory is absolute because man is still gaining knowledge of both presumptions. After all, the accumulation of knowledge and facts is what makes theorizing evolve. If there is complete conjecture, there is no room to further the Theory of Evolution of any species. Even a theory such as living organisms needing oxygen to survive can be subject to challenge. Is an anaerobic bacterium alive? I’m pretty sure it is, but they don’t need oxygen to survive. Also, couldn’t there be a gas, liquid, microbe, or computer program somewhere in the universe that would eventually allow our respiratory system to function without oxygen?
I may have lost a few with that statement, but I’m simply suggesting that all theories can be subject to provocation no matter how absolute they may seem. Don’t go anywhere just because you don’t believe in the Theory of Evolution… Many forms of evolution don’t include living organisms. Ideas like relationships, education, wisdom, and theories (to name a few): evolve. Even something like the game of golf has developed over time. The idea is the same, but the way we play and manage the course has evolved. These advances directly impact gameplay and the way we view the sport today.
Think about two conflicting theories, one must be correct, and the other must be wrong. Is that correct? Maybe they are both right. Or, they could both be wrong. Perhaps the smart bet would be that some are both right and some are both wrong. Consideration of every concept has to enter one’s mind because that is how theories evolve. Some hypotheses start strong but eventually fail. A great example of this is the old theory that the world is flat. People believed that for a long time. I would speculate that there are still some conspiracy theorists who operate under this belief.
I will be discussing two theories that are much like the Evolution and Creationism theories, in regards to they are on opposite sides of nature and science. In examining natural plant growth and development versus chemical controls for plant health and development it will become clear which theory I support. Though I hold stock in neither, I tend to lean one way more than the other because there are shreds of convincing scientific evidence in addition to my 50 years of observation of both theories. The first lesson we all learned in Pest 101, is that a healthy plant is the best defense against pests. A plant with superior resistance will rarely require chemical treatment even with plant predators existing in the soil. That lesson has always stuck with me because I’m inclined to prefer simple over complex fixes. The conception of Turf Dietitian started 15 years ago when I read a book called “Healthy Crops a New Agricultural Revolution” written by: Francis Chaboussou.
Francis Chaboussou was an agronomist at the French National Institute of Agricultural Research. Chaboussou introduced the term trophobiosis, describing the interdependent relationship between microbes and plants. The theory details how beneficial organisms feed and protect plants in return for the food that plants produce. Plants consume nutrients both from natural mineralization and microbial mineralization. This consumption of nutrients enables the plant to produce carbohydrates, starches, vitamins, organic acids, enzymes, proteins, and more.
So, why do plants produce all these substances? To emerge, grow, mature, reproduce, metabolize, and stay healthy. Ironically, everything the plant creates is just what every good growing young microbe needs to emerge, grow, mature, reproduce, metabolize, and stay healthy. When plants or plant material die, the organisms consume everything that once kept the plant alive. When these procedures work as intended, not only do the plant and organisms live, but they thrive. What a wonderfully simple twofold system this theory describes for something so incredibly complex as existence. When you think about what a marvel this symbiotic relationship truly is, it does lend itself to the continuation of the belief that a superior being once engineered all of creation. Hmm!
The theory of trophobiosis is complex. I’d encourage anyone interested to buy and read the text as my explanation over these pages won’t do the complexities any good. If I were to use one sentence to summarize Chaboussou’s book it would go something like this: “A plant, pest, or parasite will starve to death if it tries to feed on a healthy plant.”
Chaboussou’s primary focus in this book is nutritional balance being the key to a healthy plant. The theory expands on Justus von Liebig’s “Law of Minimums,” but is it only nutritional balance? No, nutritional balance is only the starting point for plant health. Biochemicals produced by plant-like carbohydrates, vitamins, organic molecules, amino acids, and proteins must also be balanced. The problem with this statement is that there is a lack of scientific data that tells us what the proper balance is for those biochemicals.
If a plant is deficient in its production of biochemicals it will send a signal into the soil, exposing itself to predatory pests. Similar to buzzards that hover over a dying animal in the desert. Unlike the immune system of animals, plants have developed a spectacular collection of structural, chemical, and protein-based defenses designed to detect invading organisms and stop them before they can cause extensive damage. Plants also rely on other organisms in the ground to feed and protect them. These responses come from complex signaling networks in which the plant communicates with a select group of symbiotic organisms like microbes.
There are several ways a plant communicates. Some communication comes from electrical impulses where a plant is trying to get the attention of specific organisms. Another form of communication happens when a plant secretes specific hormones, fatty acids, phenylpropanoids, amino acids, terpenoids, and proteins to attract organisms that feed on each biochemical. The overproduction of biochemicals causes a discharge into the soil. This process is like the plant ringing the dinner bell! Once the organisms finish off the excess bio food, they turn and attack the plant to get the rest.
Unlike an organism with an immune system, plant immunity is on an individual cell-to-cell basis. If a plant cell gets invaded by pathogens, each cell surrounding the compromised cell will have a hypersensitive response (HR). The HR will cause deliberate plant cell suicide at the site of infection. This response can limit pathogen access to water and nutrients by sacrificing a few cells to save the rest of the plant. Once an HR activates, plant tissues may become highly resistant to a broad range of pathogens for an extended period. However, if these responses were regularly successful, plants would never die from the disease.
Even though the book “Healthy Crops a New Agricultural Revolution” completely changed my way of thinking. I can poke holes into the theory. Do we truly know if plants and microbes communicate with each other? There is some evidence, but with no absolute confirmation that communication happens between plants and microbes, it’s only a strong concept developed by scientific observation.
Let’s shift gears and look at human-made artificial chemicals as plant protection.
As a Superintendent I would use these chemicals as plant protectants, but only on a curative basis. I never bought into preventive programs. My reasonings were unconfirmed by scientific data. Unfortunately, with the demand for the job and the pressures of shrinking budgets, I was more worried about money allocation than the effects of using said chemicals. I believe that the chemical approach to turf management is unfounded and relies on one’s bias, based on observations and skepticism. However, I’m not going to share my scrutinization without scientific proof that what I believe I am witnessing is coincidence or factual. I will let the facts speak for themselves, and the hard-working researchers on this topic provide proof.
Before we dig into the argument of nature versus chemicals, let’s first look at some unsubstantiated quotes from chemical manufacturers:
“The world’s population is set to grow from 7 billion today to 9 billion in 2050. The pesticide industry argues that its products – a market worth about $50bn (£41bn) a year and growing – are vital in protecting crops and ensuring sufficient food supplies.” – UN human rights council
“By protecting crops, PPPs contribute to the production of a plentiful supply of high-quality and affordable food, and contribute to food security.” – PRCD
“Pesticides are used in a wide range of settings with one of the most important areas being in agriculture. PPP use allows more food to be produced on a given area of land; it increases yields and improves farm revenues. Without PPPs, crop losses due to pests and diseases are between 30 and 50% depending on the crop grown.” – Crop Protection Association
Also, from that same article:
“It is estimated that up to 60% of the World’s food would not exist without crop protection products.”
“When it comes to our profit over safety, profit usually wins.” – James Frazee
So, what is it 30% or 60%?
This persuasion is nothing more than wordy jargon used to influence people and to promote an agenda. This conveyance does not need to be objective to be effective; it only serves in advancing emotional alarm. Though, complete disregard of any rational response is too common in this internet-driven era of society.
Imagine if chemical companies were more transparent, their quotes may go something like this:
“The World’s population is set to grow from 7 billion today to 9 billion in 2050. Pesticides may be vital in protecting crops and ensuring sufficient food supplies. However, some pesticides may increase your chance of dying prematurely from cancer by 30 to 60%.” Think about that!! If they were forthright and honest, do you think they would sell as many chemicals?
While doing my research to support the writing of this article, I googled this question: “Do we need chemicals to feed the world population?” I found hundreds of articles and research papers that supported the opposite backed by scientific research. Yet, I could not find one article reinforcing opinions that pesticides were vital in feeding growing populations. Instead of me sharing my unconfirmed observations, just read the conclusion from the article below.
“Chemical Pesticides and Human Health: The Urgent Need for a New Concept in Agriculture” Written by: Polyxeni Nicolopoulou-Stamati, Sortirios Maipas, Chrysanthi Kotampasi, Panagiotis Stamatis, and Luc Hens.
“The need for protection against pests is a given and has its roots in antiquity when both organic and chemical substances were applied as pesticides. Since then, numerous chemical pesticides have been produced, and now multinational agrochemical companies, which mostly control global food production, apply new chemical substances with pesticide properties and implement biotechnological advances, thus diverging from traditional agricultural methods. Furthermore, current agricultural practices are based on the wide use of chemical pesticides that have been associated with negative impacts on human health, wildlife, and the natural environment.
Current agriculture has to deal with important factors, such as population growth, food security, health risks from chemical pesticides, pesticide resistance, degradation of the natural environment, and climate change. In recent years, some new concepts regarding agriculture and food production have appeared. A concept as such is climate-smart agriculture which seeks solutions in the new context of climate change. Another major ongoing controversy exists between the advocates and the opponents of genetically engineered pesticide-resistant plants, regarding not only their safety but also their impact on pesticide use.
Furthermore, real-life chronic exposure to a mixture of pesticides with possible additive or synergistic effects requires more in-depth research. The underlying scientific uncertainty, the exposure of vulnerable groups and the fact that there are numerous possible mixtures reveal the real complex character of the problem. The combination of substances with probably carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting effects may produce unknown adverse health effects. Therefore, the determination of “safe” levels of exposure to single pesticides may underestimate the real health effects, ignoring also the chronic exposure to multiple chemical substances.
Taking into consideration the health and environmental effects of chemical pesticides, it is clear that the need for a new concept in agriculture is urgent. This new concept must be based on a drastic reduction in the application of chemical pesticides and can result in health, environmental, and economic benefits as it is also envisaged in European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
We believe in developing pesticide-free zones by implementing a total ban at a local level and in urban green spaces is easily achievable. Furthermore, alternative procedures to the current model of food production should be implemented in new agricultural policies targeting sustainable development and protection of the consumers’ health. Despite the difficulties of establishing an innovative concept, the transition to a new cleaner and safer agricultural model is necessary.”
In conclusion, I believe in using natural plant biochemicals, and organic fertilizers and only using synthetic chemicals as a last solution. Why? The answer is simple. Because there is an incredible amount of scientific data that supports that natural plant management is as effective as using synthetic chemicals. Do natural organic compounds eliminate pests? A few do. But the rule of thumb in nature always has been and always will be: Survival of the Fittest. A balanced fit plant will outperform predatory organisms for the nourishment they are both surviving on!
There is also a great deal of data that supports those human-made chemicals, data that shows them being effective as plant protectants. Notwithstanding equal amounts of data suggest manufactured chemicals are dangerous to human health and equally as threatening to plant anatomy and soil structure.
What worries me more about synthetic chemicals is speeding up the natural evolution of organisms that make up the soil food web. Most synthetic chemicals lose their effectiveness in shorter periods, not allowing for the natural adjustment a plant will make over time. Predatory organisms develop genetic resistance to the chemicals that target them, making the chemical ineffective and harder to control the pest. Instead of admitting that genetic resistance is inevitable, chemical companies will rapidly adjust. Is the creation of resilient, more dangerous chemicals the correct answer?
The reality is that growers cannot and will not just quit using synthetic chemicals and fertilizers. Most of all, on golf courses, we are managing these plants at less than a ¼ of an inch. The stress placed on these plants designed by nature to grow to heights up to 6 feet tall is unfathomable. This fact alone prevents the plant from ever living stress-free or completing its biological purpose of producing protein. These plants we grow are never healthy enough to fight off the bad guys consistently. You also work for people who have the power to fire you for losing two square feet of turf that makes them miss a putt. And, I have been where you are, so I understand. Perhaps communication and education are the keys. However, I found most of my members to be uninterested in education. They just wanted to be the greatest golfer of all time. Then there is the enormous fact that some Chemical Companies have profits of billions of dollars per year. These companies are prepared to lobby and will not be going anywhere any time soon. They have the power to squash any environmental group that thinks they are going to run them out of business.
In my opinion, human-made chemicals are not sustainable, but I will not live long enough to prove that claim. However, I do know through observation that using biological products is the more ethical and sustainable answer. Starting with the proper management of little details such as oxygen and water in the soil makes more sense and keeps control on your side. Being bold and going against the grain in our industry is not always the easiest route to take, but having the willingness to slowly back away from these preventive applications will make your soil and turf healthier and ultimately do more for the longevity of humanity.
Written by:
Mike Hamilton, CCA
President of Turf Dietitian, Inc.
Edited by:
Tyler Sherwood
Director of Marketing
Turf Dietitian, Inc.
Works cited:
“Healthy Crops a New Agricultural Revolution” written by: Francis Chaboussou
“Law of Minimums” written by: Justus von Liebig
“Chemical Pesticides and Human Health: The Urgent Need for a New Concept in Agriculture” written by: Polyxeni Nicolopoulou-Stamati, Sortirios Maipas, Chrysanthi Kotampasi, Panagiotis Stamatis, and Luc Hens.
“UN experts denounce ‘myth’ pesticides are necessary to feed the world” published by The Guardian
“Why do we need pesticides?” published by Pesticide Registration & Controls Divisions (PRCD)
Written by Mike Hamilton, CCA President of Turf Dietitian, Inc.
Edited and Submitted by Tyler Sherwood, Accounts & Marketing Director
Leave a Reply