SportsTurf provides current, practical and technical content on issues relevant to sports turf managers, including facilities managers. Most readers are athletic field managers from the professional level through parks and recreation, universities.
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/765909
FIELD SCIENCE 22 SportsTurf | January 2017 www.sportsturfonline.com So, yes, Roundup resistance is indeed a residual from the laboratory. But I believe we can turn it into a selling feature. Spraying any herbicide increases the chance of creating herbicide-resistant weeds. Roundup is not unique in this regard. Any time we reuse an herbicide multiple times, we 'up' the chances of creating resistant weeds. With Roundup-resistant turf, we are not required to spray Roundup each time we need to kill a weed. You can always switch back and forth to 2,4-D to knock out any dandelions or weeds that may have become tolerant of Roundup. Keep in mind that there are weeds that are already naturally Roundup-resistant. Clover is a good example. Also, common bermudagrass can tolerate a quart per acre with only superficial discoloration. Cornfields will not be overrun by escaping GM turfgrass. When was the last time you saw lawngrass escape from your farm and overtake a neighbor's Ag production field? Maybe if you were growing kudzu. But turfgrass? Seriously? GM turfgrass is no different in this regard than conventional grass. Genetic modification does not endow it with super powers to escape and populate nature. There are selective and nonselective herbicides that can be used to control the occasional plant that makes it over the fence. FEDERAL OVERSIGHT NEEDS TO CHANGE By some estimates it costs north of $20 million to put one single GM variety through federal regulatory approval. While all this oversight does prevent the occasional mad scientist from releasing an evil product, it does inadvertently create a monopoly for giants like Monsanto. Startup companies don't have the financing to get federal approval. With turfgrasses it's even more costly. In a cornfield you have a single variety of corn growing. In a turf field you might have five varieties of various species in the mix. If you intend to spray Roundup on that mixture, the seed inventor would have to put five varieties through federal registration, at the expense of $100 million. (Hmmm… I wonder if they offer volume discounts?) So how did Scotts afford it? How did they get Roundup- resistant turf approved without breaking the bank? Unbeknownst to many, no federal agency has ever been created by legislation to approve GM plants. This authority was bootlegged from existing programs based on the fact that some pathogenic organisms and virus genes are used in the creation of GM plants. These federal agencies do indeed have the authority to regulate transport of potential pathogens or parts thereof. But in a stroke of near genius, scientists at the Scotts Company created Roundup-resistant grass using no pathogens or viruses. Therefore their innovation does not fall under federal jurisdiction. I understand from a Scotts' scientist that they are voluntarily putting it through some of the same regulatory paces, just for safety's sake. ARGUMENTS AGAINST GM TURF Opposition to GM turf is expected to come from both the far left and far right, politically. The only difference is whether they believe scientists are tinkering with nature or tinkering with God's creation. And possibly (though not probably) you might find both sides uniting to picket your farm for growing unnatural grass. One fact in favor of those who want GM turf is that no one "eats" our product. People are very touchy about what goes into their mouths. But they may give a pass to GM turf because no one eats their lawn. Or do they? When grass seed is cleaned, it is common practice to sell the chaff to feedlots. Even this simple consideration would require years of animal testing for safety, and would likely face suspicion from people whose cat or dog occasionally grazes on their lawn. Other possible drawbacks of GM turf: ■ Roundup resistance isn't bulletproof: During certain times of the year when the plant is exporting into its roots it can become susceptible to damage from Roundup. ■ Pollen escape: Although most turfgrasses don't creep very far vegetatively, they can take a ride on the wind when pollen is shed. Scotts found out this the hard way when pollen from Roundup Ready bentgrass wafted 15 miles to cross with other bents in the landscape, creating Roundup-resistant weeds. ■ Value proposition: Can I make money on this product? Do my customers really want Roundup Ready fescue? Are they willing to pay extra for this trait? Will the cost of the seed be cheap enough to allow me to make a profit? Will it create more problems than it solves? Lesson learned from Roundup Ready bentgrass. Back in 2001, Scotts was introducing their new miracle invention to the golf world: Roundup Ready bentgrass. Like a bull in a china closet, they appeared poised to corner the golf grass seed market. From a business standpoint, this may have been the right course to take. But it made them no friends and several powerful enemies. The opponents dogged Scotts every step of the way, until finally GM turf hit a brick wall when the Fish & Game department gave thumbs down. Turns out, they didn't want to switch herbicides for weed cleanup. This time, Scotts appears to have learned a lesson or two about diplomacy, and rather than go it alone, seems to be putting out feelers for others who want to participate in the benefits and risks of GM turf. Recently retired, Doug Brede, PhD, served as research director for Jacklin Seed by Simplot for nearly 30 years. He is the author of Turfgrass Maintenance Reduction Handbook and more than 500 articles on turf maintenance. In the interest of full disclosure, Brede and Jacklin Seed are not involved in GM turf, although Simplot has a program that recently released the first GM potato.