When a cotton harvest turns to worms - The importance of Integrated Pest Management

There is no doubt that farmers have their jobs cut out for them.  They can't control the weather for one.  Even when the weather cooperates there are other fast balls that get thrown at them such as pests or disease.

I recently listened to a presentation at work on the pink cotton bollworm.  This is a huge pest in the world of cotton.  The female lays its eggs in a cotton boll (the fruit that houses the cotton lint).  As the eggs hatch the larvae eat through the cotton lint to feed on the cotton seeds located in the boll.  The insects are doing damage to the lint and the seed both of which are used for cotton fabric and seed oil, receptively.  They also put wounds on the bolls that allow other insects and fungi to get in and cause additional damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_bollworm

The first generation of GM bollworm control came from Monsanto in 1996 and was called Bollgard I.  This was a single gene that controlled bollworms with a Bt protein.  This is the same protein that is approved and still used by many organic farmers.  Instead of applying the protein on the plants, the pants naturally produce this protein.  When a pest ingests the Bt protein, pores (or holes) form in the insect's gut, ultimately killing them while being completely harmless to humans.  This product was amazing and cotton farmers quickly adopted this new technology.

The problem is one gene can be overcome by a pest, bacteria, or virus.  I want to make a few things clear going forward.  In this story, a single gene was inserted into plants through a genetically modified approach.  Conventional breeding is used to do the same thing.   For instance there are many cultivars from various crops that have one gene bred to control something.   When I worked in tobacco, the "N" gene was conventionally bred into commercial lines to give tobacco mosaic virus resistance.  

This story is not a GM vs conventional breeding thing.  The real issue that these technologies compliment each other and both give farmers the tools to reduce the impacts from insects and disease.   We are facing a world wide problem today of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance.  The same thing can  happen with insects and crop diseases.  They are always working to find ways to overcome the defenses we put into plants.  The comparison of bacteria and antibiotics and vrops and disease/pests is so similar.  The reason we are developing antibiotic resistance so fast is because we are overusing antibiotics and even when we need them we don't always follow the instructions and take them till completion.  The same goes with these insect and disease resistance genes.  The tools work, but good practices must be followed to keep that tool working.

Bollgard I was an example where the bollworm overcame resistance.  Bollgard II followed  Bollgard 1 and this new product contained 2 genes that control bollworms instead of just one.  Multiple genes, or stacks are always preferred because it is much harder to overcome.  That still means the "prescription" needs to be followed to make the product last as long as possible.  The prescription in this case is insect resistance management  (IRM),   Integrated Pest Management (IPM)  is another popular term.  Even though the plants have a gene to control these worms, we want to do other things on the farm to protect the product and not give the worms a chance to develop resistance.   IPM to relies on multiple forms of control rather than just relying on couple genes no matter if  those genes come from a conventional method or GM approach.   Crop rotation, using beneficials, using correct cultivation methods, and using the right chemical at the right time are all other aspects of managing a pest.

Bollgard II is an incredible product.  However as Spiderman says, "with great power comes great responsibility."  This technology has great power, but there may be cracks forming in certain regions because that IPM "prescription" was not followed.  In Gujarat, India bollworms successfully became resistant to Bollgard I.  And now there are at least some rumors that boll worms have resistance to Bollgard II in Gujarat, India as well.   One source:  http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/wily-pink-bollworm-survives-monsantos-bollgardii/article7814810.ece

The US really pushes IPM and in some places are working towards eradication of pink bollworm.  In parts of India these practices are not being followed and we can see the results.  This video highlights what happens when when we have great technology, but we don't bring it all together.  A colleague shared this video which is mind is mind-blowing and sad.  The video is of a cotton harvest in Gujarat, India.  Look closely and you have wonder whether they are harvesting cotton or pink bollworms.

There are many tools at a farmers disposal to combat insects, disease, drought, and other challenges. All of these tools including,  biotech, conventional breeding, cultivation practices, insecticide and pesticide use, beneficials, and others are indispensable.  This story highlights what happens if only a couple of the tools are used and others are ignored.   All the work the research companies and the farmers are doing everyday are keeping yields sustainable and growing, but disease and insects are not sitting idle.

Parts of Arizona have shown what can be achieved if IPM is used correctly.  There some farmers don't even know what a pink bollworm looks like.   Hopefully all regions of the world will work to make this chart reality everywhere.

http://ipmwest.blogspot.com/2014/01/pest-loss-survey-in-cotton-quantifies.html

Resources:

More info on IPM:

The National Academy of Science breaks down GM crops in a HUGE report

The National Academies of Science just released a HUGE study with a large amount of information on GMOs.  I am still reading through it, but I really encourage everyone to take a good look at the info in the report.

The report can be found here: http://www.nap.edu/23395   It is a PDF that you can download for free.  You may need to put your email in at one point to get the download, but it is fairly straight forward to get a copy.

The Academy also put out a video that gives a short synopsis of each chapter of the report of which there are 9 chapters.  It comes in kinda long, but has a lot of information straight from the report summed up quite nicely.

https://vimeo.com/167020587

Here are just a few shots of the key points from the video.  Of course much more detailed information is in the report if any of these points below interest you.


Background information and reason for the study:

More evidence on GMOs is always welcome especially one that is as comprehensive as this one.  As the authors point out there still exists a very confusing landscape for the public on the GMO issue.  Even in the US states are having different opinions on GMO labeling emphasizing the lack of clarity on this topic. 

The Study

This study was one of the most comprehensive studies I have seen.   No only did they look at a LOT of previous studies, but they also reached out and went through comments from the public.

Differences in crop-improvement approaches:

One of the more interesting aspects of the study is that is getting harder and harder to determine the differences in our crops between GM and conventional breeding.  Both methods are changing the plant's genome in ways that is becoming harder and harder to differentiate.  That also means to make generalizations about just GM crops because conventional breeding and GM are so closely interlocked.  Due to the blurring lines of these approaches, we need to look at the safety of  conventional breeding just as much GM approaches.  

Safety:  

Of course safety did come up.  The study looked at many original studies and agreed with what has been found for years.  There is no evidence of adverse health affects.  They did put the cavet that we we can never scrutinize every variable and therefore we can never know everything there is to know.  However any effects we don't measure, both favorable or non-favorable could come from non-GM food just as much as from GM food.

Environmental effects:  

Again the message is no adverse environmental effects of gene flow from GM crops to the wild have been documented.  One interesting point from the study is that data from the USDA does not show GM crops have increased the RATE at which US crops yields are increasing.   I must admit this was an interesting finding and not one I expected.   However if we deep dive into just insect resistance GM crops, they do reduce yield losses from pests, and application of synthetic insecticides has gone down in Bt maize and cotton crops.  Further more insect diversity is actually higher in these populations of crops.   There are benefits.  The downside is insects can develop resistance to GM crops and thus insect resistant management  really needs to to followed by the farmers.  Don't forget insects can develop resistance to non-GM crops too.   In regards to herbicide resistance, we also know weeds develop resistance.  This is true for both GM and non-GM crops with resistance.  From the GM perspective Round-Up is an example where weeds can still grow even after application of the herbicide.  Yields can sometimes be better, but the real benefit is the flexibility farmers get from a logistics view on their farms.  

These slides are just some highlights.  There is lots of data and information in this report including all kinds of supplemental information.    It is great to see a study come out like this.   Once again there is no evidence of adverse safety concerns.  The study also points out that GM crops are not the only answer, but it is a technology we need to embrace just like every other technology that will allow our farmers to grow the food we need to feed the world.

Talc Powder and Cancer - Does the science support the Lawsuits?

 If you have younger siblings you probably remember helping your parents change diapers or at least watching and being grateful you didn't have to do it.  If there is one thing I remember very clearly it was every clean diaper got a good shake of baby powder.  That nice fresh smell of Johnson's baby powder really did the room good when my little sister decided to fill a diaper.

However times have changed and Johnson's baby power or talcum powder is not associated with clean and fresh anymore.  Instead it is associated with cancer.  There used to be a time when talcum powder included asbestos and that definitely had an association with cancer.  Asbestos was removed in the 70s, but there are still claims it is correlated with ovarian cancer.  I don't really have any answers today.  I was just reading and listening to some stories about talcum powder decided to dig a little deeper.

The first question is what does the science say?   Secondly, should juries be awarding large settlements to women who develop ovarian cancer they claim is from talcum powder?

Just do a Google search for Talcum powder and cancer and you will see this:

  

The next big thing to see is that settlements are being handed out, thus I guess the reason for the prevalence of these lawyer ads.

Here is one source talking about the settlements awarded so far:  http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/talcum-powder-cancer-johnson-johnson-1.3563809

A St. Louis jury awarded a family 72 million dollars in another case.

I don't want to take away from the deaths and sickness these families are going through.  I do want to look at the facts though.  Is talcum really causing cancer?  If so then of course these lawsuits have merit.  The entire reason I bring this topic up is that I have found conflicted evidence that seems inconclusive in some cases are more conclusive in others that talc powder causes cancer.

The first paper I found was published in 1999 from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute :  http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/3/249.full

Take a read, but here is the summary.

Of course this paper admits that they lacked information.

The American Cancer Society says:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/talcum-powder-and-cancer

They bring up a point we need to consider which is recall bias.  If someone has cancer they may remember talc powder more than other factors simply because it has been in the news as a possible cause.

Another paper that just came out in May of 2016 thinks talc may be more of a factor in causing cancer.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4820665/

We have studies that say yes, there may be some correlation to ovarian cancer and genital talc use.  Many more studies are are much less clear.  Some have trends that show cancer correlations, but no statistical differences.  And most papers have a hard time controlling for recall basis.

Does talc powder cause ovarian cancer?   I would certainly be cautious after reading literature, but at this point the science is still trying to figure it out.  Is there enough scientific evidence to dish out 72 and 55 million dollar lawsuits?   There are over 1200 more lawsuits pending.  How should we handle cases where juries really need to dig into scientific evidence and not rely on emotion?   I do not feel like Johnson and Johnson was hiding evidence like the big tobacco companies may have in our past.    Even now the papers are divided, but how liable should Johnson and Johnson be? I also am trying to wade through these waters in my own mind.

Any other opinions?

Kid Science: Extracting DNA from Plants

Oklahoma State conducted a survey a couple of years ago that for me really hits home the need for exposing people to science as much as we can.  The survey asked "Do you support mandatory labels on food produced with genetic engineering?"  As expected 82% of people polled agree with that statement.  However another very important question was on the survey that asked  "Do you support mandatory labels on food containing DNA?"   For that that question 80% of participants supported this idea..

Let's think about this one for a minute.  DNA is the building block of life.  Everything living contains DNA including our food which means every food product we eat contains DNA.  The worrisome part is if our society has this misconception on DNA, then of course they are going to have misconceptions on GMOs.  People might support labeling GMOs but it is hard to know if they really understand why they are asking for labels if labeling all food with DNA get the same response.

Well there is a a quick and fun way to show that even our food contains DNA.  We just had National Bring your Kids to Work Day.  A shout out goes to all the awesome people I work with at Bayer CropScience for organizing a great day that not only let us take our kids to work, but introduced them to the fun side of science.   My two boys Landon and Carter got spend a day learning and doing science.  Landon wanted to do one of the experiments we learned again   So we both are on a mission to prove that even plants have DNA.  In this experiment we are going to actually extract the DNA and there will be so much of it we will actually see it .

The items we need are:

Fruit:  Strawberries or Bananas work best
Detergent (Dish Soap)
Salt
Zip-lock bag
Coffee Filter (an funnel if you have one)
Toothpick, paperclip, or wooden stick
COLD Alcohol:  95% ethanol works best   but 70% rubbing alcohol will work too.

The first step is to make sure your alcohol is cold.  This is important to protect the DNA.  Go ahead and put your alcohol in the freezer and get it very cold (it will not freeze).

The experiment:

1.  Put piece of banana or strawberry in a Ziploc bag
2.  Push air out, close bag and and mash for 2 minutes
3.  Add 10 mLs of salty water (just add 3-4 good pinches) + 2-3 drops of dish soap in the bag.  Mash for 2 more minutes
4. Take a coffee filter, place in funnel on top of a tube or container.  Pour fruit paste in filter and let the liquid pass through.  You may have to squeeze the filter.  Bananas are a little pasty and need more help getting the liquid through than strawberries.
5.  Pour 2 ml of the filtered contents into a clean tube.
6.  Add 5 mL of COLD ethanol by running it gently down the side of the tube (2.5 volume ethanol to 1 volume fruit juice).  Do no stir or shake..
7.  Wind the DNA with a stick.  Even before you wind it you will see the DNA suspended in your fruit juice.

Here are the supplies you need:

Put the banana in the bag

Mash the fruit:

Add Salty water and dish soap and mix again.  The soap breaks the cells apart so the DNA will be released out of the cells.  The salt keeps the other stuff in the cells from separating with the DNA.

Pour the fruit paste into a coffee filter and filter the juice into a tube:

Squeeze the paste to get the pure fruit juice:

Get 2 mL of the juice in a new tube.:

Add 5 mL of ethanol down the side.  Do not shake or stir.  DNA is not soluble in alcohol.  So once you add it the DNA is not in a dissolved state like it was was in the fruit juice.  Once it becomes insoluble you can see it with the naked eye.

The DNA is already precipitated out:

Place a wooden stick in the tube and twirl.  The DNA will stick right to stick.  Bananas work so good!!

Yep... It looks like a big snot ball.

Strawberry works too and you get the added benefit of the red color.

Even the baby wanted to do some science. While we were doing this experiment I turned around to find her like this:

Science is fun!  And what an easy and great learning tool.