by Kyle Scott, Agribusiness and Applied Economics major

his blog post will be more about my personal life because I do believe right now my internship relates to this class very well and I thought it might be nice to share. I work at a company called GPD and within the company I work for the Environmental Service department and I spend most of my time in the “field” instead of the “office”. What I do in the field is mostly plotting and scouting many “assets” (culverts, bridges, buildings, utilities, foot paths, parking lots, crest gauges, trail cams, and railroad crossings) along the the Cuyahoga River and its tributaries. Now during our scouting, we look for other problem sites that could be possible erosion and other utilities or really if the creek has began to change its path and affect structures. On the job, I work with two people who have both graduated college with science degrees in biology and they both help point out many of the plants we see along the way. Many of the plants have been invasive species which is what we are currently learning about. I have fought my way through Reed Canary Grass, Phragmites, Common Reed, Garlic Mustard, and once we came across Purple Loosestrife. So I have had an up and close relationship with a few of these, specifically Phragmites and boy those are quite a problem when they have time to grow as high as my head (6ft).

Now not only am I scouting assets but starting next week I will begin to help with delineating wetlands. Part of that job includes testing the soil and determining what type of soil it is and if it indicates we may be in a wetland, taking note of every plant that is in the area and counting how many are heavily reliant on water scaling down to a plant that does not need water to survive, digging for a water table, and so on and so forth. I am very excited at the prospect of delineating a wetland and I’m happy to be in this class right now because my internship seems to be going hand and hand with it. I look forward to learning more in each and using it to help me for the rest of the summer.

**********
This blog post was an assignment for Societal Issues: Pesticides, Alternatives and the Environment (PLNTPTH 4597). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the class, Department of Plant Pathology or the instructor.

by Sierra Mayle, Animal Sciences major

Over the course of history and its evolving agricultural techniques, plants have adapted –like humans- to resist pathogens and harmful entities that try and take over its defense systems. With humans learning to fight plant disease through pesticides and herbicides though, comes the risk of plants being able to defend themselves less due to a lower tolerance created with the offset of chemicals running through its system (that is, resistance to pesticides).

Andrew Fogg, the author of this article, explains that plants have a mechanism inside them for naturally resisting invading pathogens. He describes it as a lock and key scenario. Basically, the resistance protein acts as a “lock” and it will only correspond to its proper pathogen “key”. If this so called combination does not correspond, the plant will not detect the pathogen.

Let’s keep in mind that plants only have the disease resistance genes they were given from their parents.  Humans can produce new antibodies and are better adapters to begin with. With that being said, breeding a variety of plants is a key factor in dispersing a variety of pathogenic resistance.

One way scientists have been fighting back is through GM foods, and essentially using a technique called genome editing to incite new resistance genes within plants. In popular opinion it has been noted many consumers would rather eat food that has been treated with an added gene versus the implementation of chemicals in plants.

Note that chemicals placed onto crops must not be too harmful for human consumption, but has this statement been scientifically studied and evaluated enough? People everywhere seem to have different adaptation mechanisms based on genetic variation, and that is why some are more or less resistant to certain types of sickness, but is there the possibility of the chemicals sprayed on our crops causing mutation within our bodies to give some a lesser or greater advantage at survival and immunity mechanisms in general?

https://theconversation.com/can-we-vaccinate-plants-to-boost-their-immunity-54698

**********
This blog post was an assignment for Societal Issues: Pesticides, Alternatives and the Environment (PLNTPTH 4597). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the class, Department of Plant Pathology or the instructor.

by Deniz Ozkardas, Psychology major

Genetically modified food is a controversial topic about which many Americans are confused (Hallman et al, 2013). Is it a villain or superhero which could help feeding 10 billion guests on Planet Earth?

First : USDA defines Genetically modified foods as “the production of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific uses, via either genetic engineering or other more traditional methods.: (USDA,2017)

In the last post, I explained a potential threat to exportation of pear crops in Turkey known as fire blight, a bacterial disease which causes plant to look like it burned its leaves and can lead to the death of the plant.

If fire blight can be crucial in commerce, could it be a global threat instead of a local concern?

To start with, I will compare two countries which is known for their pear industries; China and Turkey (Britannica,n.d).

A key difference between these countries is the difference of exportation.

China  is in global rise of fresh pear exportation whereas the recent reports suggest a declining trend in Turkey which was shown in the previous post.

China exported  6.706 tons of pear with 11.04 million USD revenue  in 2016 (Producereport,2016) whereas Turkey’s exportation declined from 677.843 to 419.445  kg in one year (April 2016-April 2017

From the 1980’s and onwards, agricultural biotechnology (using organisms in technology) become important in China to improve food security, farmers income, environment and human health (Huang &Wang,2002).

Technology could be one of the reasons behind China’s success in pear exportation since fire blight is also related to temperature (icenucleation + bacteries).

Moreover, fire blight resistant varieties which are currently developing  (Broggini et al,2014) demonstrates importance of technology in agriculture.

According to cabi.org, which combines multiple databases worlwide, fire blight is absent in China whereas in Turkey it is widespread and regarded as invasive species. One problem is though the authors suggest that some cases might have been hidden by the authorities for protection of international trades.

However, technology in China might be the reason behind their success. Since fire blight is a big problem in pear production of Turkey such approach could mean a new economic avenue.

As a sidenote, it should be noted that trading is strongly the primary reason of introduction to USA.

For more information visit www.cabi.org.

******************

I am a rising Sophomore studying Psychology with Architecture and Landscape Architecture minor. I am taking PP4597 class to learn more about plants and their impact.

**********
This blog post was an assignment for Societal Issues: Pesticides, Alternatives and the Environment (PLNTPTH 4597). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the class, Department of Plant Pathology or the instructor.

Bibliography

Broggini, G., Wöhner, T., Fahrentrapp, J., Kost, T., Flachowsky, H., Peil, A., . . . Gessler, C. (2014). Engineering fire blight resistance into the apple cultivar

‘Gala’ using the FB _ MR 5 CC ‐ NBS ‐ LRR resistance gene of Malus  ×  robusta 5. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 12(6), 728-733.

Cabi.org. (n.d.). CABI.org. www.cabi.org

Huang, J., & Wang, Q. (2002). Agricultural biotechnology development and policy in China. AgBioForum, 5(4), 122-135.

Encyclopedia Britannica. (2017). pear | tree and fruit. https://www.britannica.com/plant/pear

Hallman, W., Cuite, C. and Morin, X. (2013). Public Perceptions of Labeling Genetically Modified Foods. [online] Available at: http://humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_PDF/news/GMlabelingperceptions.pdf [Accessed 15 Jun. 2017].

Usda.gov. (2017). Agricultural Biotechnology Glossary | USDA. https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary

by Alec Miller, Sustainable Plant Systems major

Organic is such a fancy word when you go to the grocery store. Big signs that standout screaming “Hey, overpriced food right over here!!” Social media spreads this hype while putting down conventional farming. When people don’t know anything about a topic they grew up far from, it’s easy for them to criticize. What bothers me is some states offer funding to grow organic crops. Where’s my check for putting out my conventional crops? Why are we promoting a type of farming that won’t be able to feed half the word? It’s ruining our conventional market. In the last 10 years, organic farming has grown significantly. I understand if a small farmer wants to be able to survive these tough times that they are going through but it’s the market stores that are killing us. They display the foods in a way that organic will stick out better. We also made up a scary name for conventional crops labeling them as GMO’s. That’s not an appealing word to anyone. Yes it’s the correct term but people who grew up far from it have no idea what it means.

**********
This blog post was an assignment for Societal Issues: Pesticides, Alternatives and the Environment (PLNTPTH 4597). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the class, Department of Plant Pathology or the instructor.