---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 17:37:00 PST From: Richard Winder (604) 363-0773 Subject: RE: natural herbicides For the person requesting information regarding fungal bioherbicides: I don't have much on natural products like the corn gluten thing. But on fungi, I have tons- I've been trying to develop endemic fungal biocontrol agents for weeds since '82. But before I post practical information, I would like people to consider where we are. Unfortunately, there are several very major obstacles in the the path of biopesticide development (or the marketing of other natural weed control products, for that matter). 1. Industry is not cooperating. The reasons are numerous, relating to the size of niche weed control markets. Ironically, the specific nature of many bioherbicides also limits their market size. It's a bit like the orphan drug scenario- we have a cure, but no one wants to bother selling it. Industry is needed because they are really the only ones who can stand a chance of defending the products, and they are the ones with expertise in mass-producing inoculum. Unfortunately, some quarters may actually view a successful bioherbicide as a threat to the future viability of chemical product sales. I have no proof to substantiate that- just strong suspicions, mostly based on the fact that bioherbicides are more difficult for industry to deal with in terms of technical support, etc. 2. Related to this is the start-up cost in relation to risk. It may cost millions of dollars to register a bioherbicide, and millions more to defend it in court if someone gets their hackles up. Something that small firms are reluctant to deal with. By not completely spelling out registration requirements, the U.S. has done much to hinder what industry views as a capricious and risk-riddled process. 3. Environmentalists are dropping the ball. Resistance to the use of biopesticides is stiffening in some quarters. Some view them as encouraging more of the same old mass-efficiency approach. Some have microbe-related hysteria or a natural mistrust of any technology, be it high or low tech. There is significant public pressure for alternatives, but this has not been sustained loudly and long enough to translate into alternatives for the market. I think BT is a good product, but its overuse in some quarters has probably contributed to the problem. 4. Insufficient resources have been devoted to the task. BT took over 1 scientist century to develop- most projects are lucky if they are budgeted 20 scientist years. Ironically, the success of BT is working against us. Part of the problem is that many things had to be fiddled- such as inclusion of BT toxins in the formulation. The current joke in biocontrol circles is that if BT had to be registered today, it would never get through because of the current hysteria surrounding naturally-occuring toxins. 5. Bioherbicide is an oxymoron- they do not work like chemicals. Do not expect to see clean fields. BT only averages about 60% effectiveness, by the way. There will be resistance to all of the other I.P.M. measures that will have to go hand-in-hand with using weed biocontrol agents. A book in and of itself. 6. The success and full economic impact of classical biocontrol work has gone largely unheralded in North America. Ask a North American to support biocontrol research, and they'll ask what the heck it is. Ask an Australian, and chances are they'll be able to tell you which crop industry (wheat farmers, etc.) supports the work. What can be done? A. Lobby effectively for biocontrol research, classical or other, on the weeds that cause the most economic distress B. Conduct your own biocontrol research. As far as I know, there is currently nothing preventing a private land owner from applying fungi on their own property (but you may need to check this!). A trip to the microbiology section of the library will give you most of the tools you need. If you are doubtful, consider this: Canadian scientists are teaching small-scale farmers in the Phillipenes how to seek out fungi on their weeds, culture them in crude media, and reapply them. What are we waiting for? A college degree? Richard S. Winder Research Scientist Forest Weed Biocontrol Canadian Forest Service/Ministry of Natural Resources Pacific & Yukon Region Pacific Forestry Centre 506 West Burnside Road Victoria, B.C. V8Z 1M5 CANADA Phone (604) 363 0773 Fax 363 0775 From prestons@ncatfyv.uark.edu Fri Feb 18 12:27:03 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:58:05 -0600 (CST) From: Preston Sullivan To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: Preston Sullivan Subject: weed preferences Has anyone seen a listing of weeds by species that tells what type of soil conditions and human-induced soil conditions (organic matter, compaction, nitrate conc., pH, etc) that certain weeds prefer? What I want this for is to shed some light on what farmers can do as far as selecting amendments and field operations that will affect certain weed species. From mike@ncsipm1.cropsci.ncsu.edu Fri Feb 18 12:27:17 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:36:09 EST From: Mike Linker Subject: RE: natural herbicides I didn't see the orginal posting about bioherbicides but I did see one response. Apparently someone asked about corn gluten meal. Iowa State is doing a lot of research on this and I think are in the process of patenting the protein responsible for the weed control (preemergence grass control). I have tried it and had spotty results but where it worked it did well. There were some additional comments about chemical companies and bioherbicide support. They have some legitimate concerns from a profitability viewpoint. For example, Devine was registered years ago for strangler vine control in Florida but it worked too good. It remained in the soil for years giving control. Good for growers but not so good for a company. This is a strong disencentive. Also there is a big difference in manufacturing a chemical and fermenting a live organism. Another problem is liability, there is a higher probability of failure and no one wants to face that prospect. This area is a classic case of when industry aims and public good do not overlap and public universities need to step in. But since taxpayers feel the university-industry linkage is a good idea, don't expect change soon. From ddale@cce.cornell.edu Fri Feb 18 12:36:44 1994 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:00:30 -0500 (EST) From: Dick Dale To: Preston Sullivan Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Preston Sullivan Subject: Re: weed preferences On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Preston Sullivan wrote: > Has anyone seen a listing of weeds by species that tells > what type of soil conditions and human-induced soil > conditions (organic matter, compaction, nitrate conc., > pH, etc) that certain weeds prefer? What I want this > for is to shed some light on what farmers can do as far > as selecting amendments and field operations that will > affect certain weed species. One book that I know of is called "Weeds and What They Tell" by E.E. Pfeiffer. It was published about 40 years ago. Dick Dale Crop Consultant, Central New York Crop Management Association 607 898-4851 ddale@empire.cce.cornell.edu From CLOUTIERD@qcrgmo.agr.ca Fri Feb 18 12:37:32 1994 Date: 17 Feb 1994 14:10:03 -0500 (EST) From: CLOUTIERD@qcrgmo.agr.ca To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Weeds as indicators of environmental conditions In response to the query on indicator weeds, here is a partial list of references on the topic. There is also a lot of information available through the phytosociology literature but it is often in german or french. Good reading. Daniel Cloutier Agriculture Canada Experimental Farm 801, route 344 P.O. Box 3398 L'Assomption, Quebec, Canada Tel: (514) 589-2171 Fax: (514) 589-4027 E-mail:CLOUTIERD@QCRGMO.AGR.CA Brooks, R.R. 1972. Geobotany and biochemistry in mineral exploration. Harper and Row, New York. 290 pp. Chaphekar, S.B. 1978. Biological indicators: the concept and new additions. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. 4:45-52. Chikishev, A.G. (Editor) 1965. Plant indicators of soils, rocks, and subsurface waters. Consultants Bureau, New York. 210 pp. (Translation of a Russian book). Clements, F.E. 1920. Plant indicators: the relation of plant communities to process and practice. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. No. 290. 388 pp. Cocannouer, J.A. 1964. Weeds: guardians of the soil. Devon-Adair, New York. 179 pp. Dale, M.H. 1966. Weed complexes on abandoned pastures as indicators of site characteristics. Canadian Journal of Botany 44:11-17. Dale, M.H., P.J. Harrison, and G.W. Thomson. 1965. Weeds as indicators of physical site characteristics in abandoned pastures. Canadian Journal of Botany 43:1319-1327. Duke, J.A. 1976. Perennial weeds as indicators of annual climatic parameters. Agricultural Meteorology 16:295-298. Hill, S.B. and J. Ramsey. 1997. Weeds as indicators of soil conditions. Macdonald Journal June 1997, p.8-11, 16 Holzner, W. 1982. Weeds as indicators for the whole complex of environmental factors. Geobotany 2:187-190. Pfeiffer, E.E. 1970. Weeds and what they tell. Reoriented by Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Inc. P.O. Box 550, Kimberton, PA 19442, USA. Rogers, L.H., O.E. Gail and R.M. Barnette. 1939. The zinc content of weeds of volunteer grasses and planted land covers. Soil Science 47:237-243. Rorison, I.H. and D. Robinson. 1984. Calcium as an environmental variable. Plant, Cell and Environment 7:381-390. Sampson, A.W. 1939. Plant indicators - concept and status. Botanical Review 5:155-206. Shantz, H.L. 1911. Natural vegetation as an indicator of the capabilities of land for crop production in the Great Plains area. U.S.D.A. Bur. Pl. Ind. Bul. 201:1-100.