jeffgillman003

Powers of the Mind

A couple of days ago I read a journal article which seemed to show that certain individuals could, using some sort of mind powers, called biofield treatments, influence the growth of plants. You can read the article here.

In case you were wondering what goes through my mind when I read something like this, let me tell you: The first thing that enters my head are skeptical thoughts. I try to get rid of these quickly though, because I believe that, as a scientist, it is my job to critically evaluate the science behind the paper without letting my own preconceived notions influence me. It’s also important to remember when reading a paper like this, which challenges preconceived notions, that this paper has gone through a significant review process. This process does not guarantee that the paper is perfect, but it does mean that some other scientists somewhere have concluded that the paper is worth something.

OK, so now you know what goes through my head. Next question, after reading the paper am I convinced that powers of the mind can actually make plants grow bigger and have greater yields? The simple answer is no. There are a lot of things that are going on here that are just odd and which raise questions, and without answers to these questions I find it difficult to believe that everything is occurring exactly as indicated in the article. Yes, something appears to be going on, but whether it is due to “biofield treatments” isn’t clear. To begin with, I’d like to have soil tests showing the nutrient status of the soil prior to the experiments. I’d also like to see a nutrient analysis of the foliage of the plants at the conclusion of the experiment. It is odd to have added the nutrients that the researchers added to test plots and to see no effect – unless a biofield treatment was used. It also seemed odd to me that plants wilted when there was drip irrigation there. And it seemed odd that the fertilizers used weren’t described better. There were other things I was interested in knowing too, but I won’t bore you.

Another thing I noticed is that one of the authors of the article is actually a member of the foundation which paid for the research to be conducted — and is, in fact, the corresponding author (in other words, the author who you should contact should you have any questions). This isn’t “against the law” or anything, but it is odd.

As a scientist it is my responsibility to acknowledge the possibility that these biofield treatments had some effect on plant growth, but to actually convince me that they did you need to write an article that is rock solid with no opportunity to say “But what about….”. Right now this paper just doesn’t do that. Too many odd things going on.

Good Stuff

Boy oh boy, what a fun day! People yelling at me from the left and from the right. But hey, I didn’t start doing what I do to make everyone happy. With that said….Nah, I don’t feel like attacking anyone today. Instead, let’s look at a good renewable fertilizer: Cotton seed meal. It’s got a reasonably good ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus and potassium — slow release of course. Basically a waste product given a meaningful purpose. And look at the label — no mycorrhizae or other gimmicks. Just pure, unadulterated, cotton seed meal. This is what I want on my garden.

The Strawberry, And What Do You Do For An Encore?

Once upon a time, a long time ago (around 1714), a spy, posing as a merchant, was dispatched from France to Chile to investigate the defenses which the Spanish had installed there. While there, he also had the opportunity to see some truly amazing plants, but he was most impressed by the strawberries. Strawberries of one sort or another are native throughout most of the world, but most are just little bitty things. They may taste good, but you’ve got to get quite a few of them together to make a decent snack. These were mega-bruisers. Five or six could fill a small plate. The name of this spy was Amedee Frezier (which is a variation of the word for strawberry).

Anyway, being a top-notch spy, he managed to get his hands on six strawberry plants and make away with them back to France. Sacrificing fresh water needed by both himself and his shipmates to ensure that the plants made it safely across the ocean, he finally arrived in France with his precious cargo, no doubt very proud of himself.

There was only one problem. These strawberries never produced much fruit. Still, the plants were pretty enough, so they were kept at various botanical gardens across Europe and propagated using the runners which they naturally produce. But the scientific community never could figure out how to make them produce fruit on a regular basis.

Enter Antoine Duchesne, a great scientist of the 18^th century. Duchesne figured out that the problem that the Chilean strawberries were having was that they were female. Sure, they had fruit when Frezier saw them, but when he brought them to Europe they were never placed near male strawberry plants to provide pollen. So Frezier mated the Chilean strawberries with male strawberries native to Europe and Bang! There were the big beautiful strawberries that Frezier had seen in Chile. And in 1764 he presented a bowl of them to King Louis XV. Duchesne was seventeen at the time. I wonder, was the rest of his life a letdown?

Thomas Knight and the Water Wheel

Classes have begun, and this semester (and every spring semester) I have the opportunity to teach our introduction to horticulture class, otherwise known as Plant Propagation (Hort 1001). We usually have about 120 students, and I don’t want to brag or anything, but it is just about the best class out there. Watching the students learn about seeds, cuttings, and grafting in the labs is one of the most motivating things about my job (and it doesn’t hurt that the greenhouses are about 70 degrees while it’s 0 outside). But, as you might expect, there is a lecture too. Believe it or not, the lecture isn’t half bad. In fact, students actually ask questions in class. This past Tuesday during a lecture on seeds one of the students asked how the roots know how to grow down when they exit the seed. The answer is geotropism. Geotropism is a response by a plant to gravity. Some parts of a plant grow towards a gravitational pull (roots), and some grow away from it (shoots). One of the coolest experiments ever was a study done by a gentleman named Thomas Knight in the very early 1800s where he set up a water wheel which had seeds planted along the edges. As the wheel spun and the plants grew they responded both to the Earth’s gravity and to the force created by the spinning wheel. You can see the results below.

Knight also did some very interesting work showing that buds from older plants retained their physiological age when grafted onto younger plants. Basically that means that if you graft a bud from a mature ‘Honeycrisp’ apple onto a young seedling, that bud will produce a new shoot which produces ‘Honeycrisp’ apples before the rest of the tree produces apples.

Usually when we think of horticulture we think of L. H. Bailey – and we should – but let’s never forget Thomas Knight either.

Balance

By this time most of you have probably read all about Mark Lynas, the anti-GMO activist who decided that GMOs are actually a net benefit to society. I’ve been asked by a few people to comment on how I feel about Mr. Lyna’s changing sides. I think they expect me to be jumping up and down for joy. But that’s not how I feel at all. I’m happy when anyone decides to let research lead them to a conclusion rather than politics or gut feelings, but in this case it also makes me nervous. This is because some people tend to travel too far towards one side or another. I’m just as fearful of the damage that people who are radically pro-GMO may cause as I am of radically anti-GMO activists. And, in my opinion, this guy just seems to be radical. Saying that you have research that supports one side of an argument is fine, but in almost all cases there is research that supports the other side too, and you ignore it at your own peril. Balance people — Balance.

Over-Interpreting

One of the things that scientists need to be able to do is to figure out what the research that they conduct means without over-interpreting it. This isn’t as easy as it seems, for example, if a particular pesticide at a particular dose kills mice, then should it also kill humans? Without testing we really don’t know – though we certainly have suspicions. If we allow our suspicions to take over and we say that, based on the mouse data, the pesticide necessarily does or doesn’t affect humans then we’re over-interpreting. Most (dare I say all?) scientists have been guilty of over-interpreting their results – or the results of others — at one time or another in their careers. It’s a hazard that comes with the job. Unfortunately it’s a hazard that comes with journalists jobs too — often over-interpreting what scientists say. Recently I had the opportunity to see an online lecture (a TED lecture) on this very topic and thought it was worth sharing.

An Interesting Video

Every once in a while someone sends us a news story or a video to look at critically. A couple of days ago Michael got in contact with us through Facebook and asked us to take a look at a video he saw recently and let him know what we thought of it. This video was posted on Russ Bianchi’s website (he goes by the name Uncle Russ). He includes a short note with the video which says “ALL Genetically Modified Organisms, Ingredients, Crops, Livestock, Food, Drugs, Cosmetics, Beverages, Packaging, Flavors, Fragrances, Colors! Soaps and Detergents are UNSFAE AT0ANY EXPSURE LEVEL and are proven to cause cancers, disease and premature DEATH”. Wow. All that from a video? Must be a heck of a video.

Here’s the video.

As far as I can tell, The party responsible for this video is Media Roots which is defined as “a citizen journalism project that reports the news from outside of party lines while providing a collaborative forum for conscious citizens, artists and activists to unite.” Too bad they didn’t include scientists who know something about genetically modified crops. According to Youtube this video has been viewed over 250,000 times.

I can’t tell you exactly what the other garden professors think of it (it may not be printable), but from my end, much of this video is absolute hogwash.

But, having said that much of this video is hogwash, I must give credit where credit is due. The first part of the film which explains how genes are moved from one organism to another was, in my opinion, pretty well done. Sure, there were parts of it that a serious molecular biologist would complain about, but for the average person I thought it was a nice explanation. In fact, after seeing this first part of the film I was expecting to see some really serious and thoughtful critiques of genetically modified organisms – because there absolutely are some good critiques of genetically modified organisms out there. Unfortunately I was sorely disappointed. Let me go through the major problems that this video raised one by one and explain why they’re faulty arguments (I won’t go through all the problems, just the major ones):

Genetically Modified crops show lower yields – Yes, this is sometimes true, genetically modified crops aren’t genetically modified to produce more, just to resist certain pests that might reduce yields (or resist certain herbicides that help control pests). So the maximum yield for genetically modified and non-modified crops are usually pretty similar if the farmer growing the non-genetically modified crop controls pests with pesticides, or doesn’t see the pest for some reason.
Genetically Modified crops have poisons in them – Yes, this is sometimes true. Genetically modified crops may have genes from Bacillus thuringiensis in them (In the video this name was misspelled and the species was capitalized – which is a big deal to a scientist). What the video didn’t mention is that this is an organic pesticide that has been used for years with, as far as we can tell, no adverse effects to humans. The report about people being hurt in the Philippines is a complete red herring. This supposedly occurred in 2003 and all of the data that we have points to a problem besides GMO corn pollen – in fact, the data points to a flu outbreak. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that GMO corn pollen hasn’t been implicated in a similar incident since then.
Genetically Modified Insulin is bad! – This one does have a grain of truth. GMO insulin is cheap and available, which is why it is used. In the vast majority of patients there appears to be no difference between it and naturally acquired insulin. But it does seem as though some people do have a negative reaction. It terms of deaths, I can’t find much that is trustworthy to corroborate what was said on the video.

I have been chastised previously for being pro-pesticide, pro-GMO, pro-Monsanto, etc. I don’t blame people for saying this because, let’s face it, I do end up defending these things sometimes because their opponents often use bad science. But saying that I’m for these things is going a little far. There is good science and information out there that calls into question the value of certain pesticides, GMOs, and even Monsanto. Look up the new genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass that may be coming out soon. Look up atrazine. Look up how Monsanto protects its patents. These are things I’m opposed to. Another thing I’m opposed to is saying that something is bad without having a good understanding of it. If you’re going to make a video that 250,000 people watch then do your homework and get as much of it right as you can.

Planting Edibles in Cities

The snow has just started falling and I’m already thinking about what I’m going to be planting next spring. Most of my plantings won’t be at my own house, they’ll be out in the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. We’ll be looking at all kinds of fun stuff like growing trees in various new types of containers, adding compost to planting holes in different circumstances, and even pruning methods. But one of the big things that we’re starting to look at are new trees for the urban environment. Cities have always spent time considering what they plant, but with the emerald ash borer ravaging the Midwest, now they’re thinking even harder. And because of the local food movement, suddenly the cities are at least considering trees like apples and hazelnuts on a trial basis (sure, there are some places that use them here and there, but they’re less than common). Of course, if this movement stalls, the cities would be upset at having so many “messy” plants around (that’s their big concern about edibles right now), but I don’t think it will. I’m actually pretty optimistic about using fruits and nuts on public property. Sure, some plants will fail because they get too many diseases or insects, or because they’re weak wooded, but some will make it too. I think hazelnut has a great chance in the right place (it would be too bushy for most boulevards….). Do any of you have a favorite edible that you think might work well in a city? Let me know, maybe we’ll try it!

How Can Natives and Exotics Possibly Coexist?

Natives vs. exotics. We’ve heard that before haven’t we Bert? Well, here’s an interesting little nugget published recently in the journal Ecology Letters. Exotics and natives are different, and their differences allow them to coexist. In this study exotics were superior to natives in terms of growth, but were fed upon more by herbivores. Interesting. Of course there are lots of different types of exotics and natives, but the plants that these researchers looked at had been living together for about 200 years. I think that’s something that the invasive extremists and apologists consistently forget – until relatively recently the average person didn’t spend that much time thinking about native or exotic, and yet the world never turned into a desert and neither the natives nor the exotics disappeared. I’m not saying we shouldn’t think about native vs. exotic differences at all, just that sometimes we concentrate on this distinction too much. Plants tend to be able to fend for themselves.

Thanksgiving

Yesterday was the day before Thanksgiving. In my plant production class I always set up a short lab for Wednesday afternoon so that students can leave early and get to wherever they need to go (hopefully to see family). As usual, I got to lab a little early so that I could get the students going right away. Waiting for me there was one of my students.

Earlier in the year I had told the class about commercial mycorrhizae and how the beneficial spores that you think you’re buying are usually dead when you purchase the package. Well, this student wanted to check it out, so, unbeknownst to me, he purchased some mycorrhizae and placed them into a petri dish with a special nutrient mix to grow these fungi (he works in a lab which has this kind of material available). He came to lab early to tell me about his results.

As a teacher it’s easy to get discouraged in a classroom. Sometimes it’s tough to tell whether the students are listening and I wonder if I’m getting through. But then a student goes and does something like this and it’s all worth it.

The results of his little test don’t really matter (though they did confirm what I’d told the class), what matters is that the student heard what I’d said and went to the trouble to test it for himself.

So this Thanksgiving I’m thankful that I’m fortunate enough to witness and take some small role in the intellectual curiosity of students.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

PS: Just so everyone knows, The Garden Professors are becoming much more active on Facebook. Just search for The Garden Professors and Like us!