TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory Address Helping Shape the Future for US Soybeans, Dennis B ...

352 Pages·2012·14.33 MB·English

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introductory Address
Helping Shape the Future for U. S. Soybeans,
Dennis B. Sharpe •.............
Symposium
Plant Hormones: Analysis, Synthesis, Mechanism of Action,
and Regulation
Chairman: Michael G. Carnes
Factors That Control Endogenous Indole-3-Acetic Acid Levels,
Robert S. Bandurski ............ . . . . 8
Symposium
Genetic Regulation of Plant Growth
Chairman: R. T. Giaquinta
Auxin-Regulated Gene Expression,
Tom J. Guilfoyle, Gretchen Hagen and Linda L. Zurfluh 13
Concurrent Paper Session A
Chairman: Page W. Morgan
Cellulysin-Induced Ethylene Production by Tobacco Leaf Discs in
Relation to Ethylene Produced During Host-Pathogen
Interactions, E. Chalutz, A. K. Mattoo and J. D. Anderson 18
The Effect of Light on the Rate of Ethylene Production by
Tobacco Plants, Pawan K. Bassi and Mary S. Spencer. . . .. 25
Incorporation of Oxygen into Abscisic Acid and Phaseic Acid
from Molecular Oxygen, Robert A. Creelman and
Jan A. D. Zeevaart ......•.•.•••...•.. 31
Adaptation of the Radioimmunoassay for Abscisic Acid to
Enzyme-Labeled Immunosorbent Assay, K. A. Haagenson
and C. A. Stutte . . . . • . . . • . • . . . . • . . . 35
Influence of the Bioregulator Tetcyclacis (BAS 106 .• W) on
Gibberellin Biosynthesis and the Hormonal Status of Plants,
Wilhelm Rademacher, Johannes Jung, Erika Hildebrandt and
Jan E. Graebe .......•................. 36
iii
Concurrent Paper Session B
Chairman: A. Robert Templeton
Surfactant Enhanced Penetration of Growth Regulators,
N. K. Lownds and M. J. Bukovac . . . . • . . . . 42
Growth Inhibitors from Grasses: HPLC of Phenolics,
M. Madhusudana Rao and J. George Buta .... 43
Effects of Growth Retardants on Four Deciduous Woody Species
Grown as Hedges, Ronald W. Campbell . . . . . . . . . .. 49
Synergistic Growth Retardation of Grasses with Mefluidide /PGR
Combinations, Kestutis J. Tautvydas . . . . . . . . . . 51
The First Turfgrass PGR with Efficacy, Safety, and Uniform
Activity for Fine Quality Lawn Turfs, P. S. Thibodeau,
J. E. Kaufmann, S. J. Stehling and J. J. Sandbrink . . . 57
Cool-Season Grass Response to MON-4620 Application Site and
Timing, J. E. Kaufmann, J. J. Sandbrink,
S. J. Stehling and P. S. Thibodeau ............ 61
United States Evaluation of Monsanto Turfgrass Plant Growth
Regulator, Dr. T. F. Armstrong ..........•. 68
Poster Session
Chairman: John P. Sterrett
Translocation and Metabolism of Injected 14C-PP333 by Young
Apple Trees, J. P. Sterrett .. •............ 69
Hormonal Control of Transplasma Membrane Electron Transport
and Proton Flux, F. L. Crane, T. A. Craig,
P. C. Misra and R. Barr ...... . 70
Interaction of AC-94, 377 and GA with CCC and Chlorflurenol on
the Growth of Corn, Robert M. Devlin,
Stanislaw J. Karczmarczyk and I rena I. Zbiec ....•. 76
Abscisic Acid and Its Metabolites in Torosa-2 Tomato Mutant
Plant, S. Mapelli and P. Rocchi .•........... 84
The Effects of Applied Triacontanol on Growth and Enzyme
Activity in Mung Bean Seedlings,
James P. Kanaby and Egbert W. Henry .......•. 89
Enzymic (Peroxidase and Polyphenol Oxidase) Responses of
Mung Bean Seedlings to Applied Nicotine, Egbert W. Henry,
Carla J. Murmyluk and James P. Kanaby .•.••...... 100
iv
Studies of Endogenous Indole-3-Acetyl-L-Aspartate During
Germination of Soybeans, Jerry D. Cohen and Bruce G. Baldi . • 117
Plant Growth Stimulation in Bioassays by Grass Seed Extracts,
J. George Buta, David W. Spaulding,
M. Madhusudana Rao and James D. Anderson. . . . . . . . 123
Comparison of Results Using HPLC and the Avena Coleoptile
Curvature Test for the Determination of Indole-3-Acetic
Acid in Plant Material, Paul H. Terry, Maria J. Grochowska
and Robert A. Saftner . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 126
Dimethipin as a Harvest Aid on Sunflower,
A. R. Blem, R. B. Ames and A. W. Walz 131
Effect of Light and Growth Stimulants on Anthocyanin
Formation in Certain Ornamental and Fruit Crops,
P. G. Kadkade .......•.................. 132
Regulation of Phloem Loading in Phaseolus Vulgaris by Plant
Growth Regulators, Jaleh Daie and Roger E. Wyse . . . . 139
Resistance of Citrus Fruit to C H 02, C02 and H 0 Mass
2 41 2
Transport, S. Ben-Yehoshua,
S. P. Burg and R. Young ............... . 145
Concurrent Paper Session C
Chairman: Robert V. Osgood
Identification of Allelochemical from the Leaves of the American
Cranberry Plant, M. Hussain, L. Lutz, S. Stout,
E. Orloski, A. Templeton, and R. Devlin ...... . 151
Influence of Growth Regulators on Herbicide Performance in
Honey Mesquite, R. W. Bovey and R. E. Meyer 157
Regrowth Response of Growth Regulator Injected Woody Species
to Crown Size, Salt and Sulfur Dioxide,
S. C. Domir, B. R. Roberts, A. M. Townsend 159
I nhibition of Triacontanol Activity by Constituents Present in
Experimental and Field Sprayers,
Stanley K. Ries, Violet Wert and John A. Biernbaum 160
Embryoid Formation and Plant Regeneration from Cotton
Callus Tissue, Gayle Davidonis .•...•....• 161
Maintaining Vigor of Soybean Seeds with Lipid Antioxidants,
David J. Parrish and Caroline C. Bahler ........• 165
State and Federal Regulation: An Inhibitor to Plant Growth
Regulators, Charles L. Stutte and Jake W. Looney .•.. 171
v
Concurrent Paper Session D
Chairman; Edward S. Oplinger
Cultural and Environmental Factors Affecting Action of
Growth Retardants, James E. Barrett . . . . . . . . . . . .. 174
Growth Regulator and Nutritional Effects on Grapefruit Color
and Storage Quality, L. Ferguson, F. S. Davies,
M. A. Ismail and T. A. Wheaton .......... 175
Early Responses with EL500 and Paclobutrazol Trunk
Banding of Ornamental Trees, Henry Hield 182
Plant Growth Regulators and Whole-Plant Photosynthesis
of Vegetative Soybeans, David L. Sirois and Carolyn Proga 191
Peach Growth Response from PP333 (Paclobutrazol),
Roger S. Young ................. . 192
Influence of Paclobutrazol (PP333) on Apple Seedling
Growth and Physiology, G. L. Steffens, S. Y. Wang,
C. L. Steffens and T. Brennan .......... . 195
Effect of Paclobutrazol (PP333) and Analogs on Growth,
Fruit Quality and Storage Potential of 'Delicious'
Apples, Duane W. Greene and John Murray 207
Ethylene Production in Avocado Flowers and Fruit:
Its Role in Senescence and Abscission, T. L. Davenport 213
Relative I mportance of Ethylene and Water Stress in the
Postharvest Behavior of the Climacteric Tomato and
Nonclimacteric Lemon and Bell-Pepper Fruits,
S. Ben-Yehoshua, S. Lurie, B. Shapiro, L. Risse,
W. Miller, A. Dow, T. T. Hatton . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 216
Concurrent Paper Session E
Chairman: Charles A. Stutte
Novel Crop Yield Enhancing Formulations Containing Fatty
Acids and Ca+2, Andrew J. Welebir ...... . 223
Growth Regulation of Rice Seedlings, Kiyoshi Takahashi
and Peter B. Kaufman ..........•...•.. 229
Regulation of Growth in Deep-Water Rice,
Ilya Raskin and Hans Kende ..... . 235
Effect of Preharvest Application of Dimethipin of Grain
Moisture, Milling Quality and Yield of Rice,
A. R. Blem, R. B. Ames, C. S. Liew, J. M. Pryzbylek 241
vi
Early Biochemical Effects of the Defoliant and Desiccant
Dimethipin, James D. Metzger and Jenpeng Keng •.. 248
Rhythmical Changes in Ethylene Production in Relation to
Other Rhythmical Changes in Cotton Seedlings,
Arnon Rikin, Edo Chalutz and James D. Anderson 249
Effects of Planting Date on Response of Five Cotton
Cultivars to Mepiquat Chloride, G. W. Cathey
and W. R. Meredith, Jr. . .......... . 251
Comparative Growth Analyses of Mepiquat Chloride-Treated
Cotton Cultured Under Controlled Environment, J. T. Cothren,
D. W. Albers, M. J. Urwiler and D. S. Guthrie .....••• 253
Techniques to Reduce Phytotoxicity Symptoms of Methomyl
Treatment on Cotton, D. S. Guthrie and J. T. Cothren 262
Translocation and Metabolism of Injected 14C-MBR 18337 by
California Privet, J. P. Sterrett, R. H. Hodgson and
R. H. Snyder . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . • . . . 263
Herbicide Cross Resistance in Triazine-Resistant Biotypes of
Four Species, E. Patrick Fuerst, D. Penner, C. J. Arntzen,
and M. Barrett ......................... 265
Concurrent Paper Session F
Chairman: Louis G. Nickell
Comparison of Diquat and Ethephon for Prevention of Flower
I nitiation in Sugarcane (Saccharum spp. Hybrids),
R. V. Osgood, P. H. Moore, J. B. Carr ••....... 266
Effects of Plant Growth Regulators Which Delay Senescence on
Seed and Oil Yields in Oilseeds, Charles Lay
and C. Dean Dybing • . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . • . . . .. 270
Effect of Plant Growth Regulators and Nitrogen on the
Agronomic Performance of Small Grain Crops,
W. P. Leary and E. S. Oplinger ........•.....• 277
Evaluation of Triacontanol as a Potential Field Corn Growth
Regulant, Scott W. Jourdan and Edward S. Oplinger 287
Ethephon as an Anti-Lodging Agent for Small Grains,
Chester L. Foy .•..•...•••.....•.. 293
Yield Enhancement through I ncreased Fecundity of Cereal
Grains by Treatment with Cytogentm, A Bioregulator,
Jerry V. Mayeux . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 302
vii
Investigations on the Mechanism of the Brassinosteroid Response
II. A Modulation of Auxin Action, Werner J. Meudt and
Malcolm J. Thompson •...................•. 306
Investigations on the Mechanism of the Brassinosteroid Response
III. Techniques for Potential Enhancement of Crop
Production, Werner J. Meudt, Malcolm J. Thompson and
Howard W. Bennett .........•............ 312
The Effect of Cytogen tm, A Bioregulator, on Fecundity and
Yields of Cucurbits, Peppers, and Tomatoes,
Jerry V. Mayeux, Richard Beach, and Vernon L. Ilium 319
Nutrient Deficiencies in Soybeans: I mpact on Nitrogen and
Ethylene Metabolism, C. A. Stutte .........•. 324
Soybean Growth and Yield in the Field Under Minimal Soil
Stress, D. A. Brown ...•......•.....• 325
Plant Growth Regulators in Combination with Herbicides:
Effects on Soybean Yields, Deborah J. Meier and
Charles A. Stutte ....•....•......... 338
viii
PROJECT 2002
HELPING SHAPE THE FUTURE FOR U.S. SOYBEANS
Dennis B. Sharpe
I'm certainly pleased to have the opportunity to help kick-off the
10th annual meeting of the PGR Society. When Dale Hansen contacted me
about being here today, I must admit I had some reservations about how a
practitioner of a "soft" science like Economics could relate to the "real"
scientists that make up the membership of the Plant Growth Regulators
Society. But, the suggested theme for my address, "Shaping the Future of
Plant Science," seemed to tie in very well with a major project I am
managing for the American Soybean Association. It relates to shaping the
future of a plant that has become very important in my life, the SOYBEAN!
It is called Project 2002, and is a comprehensive study of the long
term future of the U.S. soybean industry. The project is being conducted
through the American Soybean Association and sponsored by Elanco Products
Company. Project 2002. It is an outstanding example of a successful firm
re-investing some of its profits for the benefit of the industry; while
helping to assure a mutually profitable future for the company, and the
farmer-growers it serves.
When I took on the assignment of Project Manager, I decided early on
that I needed a different approach to the problem than the econometric
modeling technique typically utilized for making supply/demand projections.
For one thing, these models are not especially suited to looking at the
long-term future. In fact, some would say they haven't proven too great
for assessing the near-term either! This is because there are no actual
statistics on the future. Most "forecasts" are usually extrapolatious of
the immediate past. This can be especially hazardous when the forecast
horizon is long-term. Some of you who may be familiar with the study
"Limits to Growth," know exactly what I mean.
In searching for a methodology for Project 2002, I became acquainted
with the futurist group, and am now a member of the World Futures Society:
an association for the study of alternative futures. The futurists philo
sophy is basically that the future is inherently unpredictable. At any
time, a whole range of possible futures exist.
giv~n
What actually occurs will depend on what a fellow futurist, James
O'Toole, writing in the February '82 issue of Futurist magazine calls the
"Three C's of the Future." Continuity, Change, and Choice.
Despite the earlier aspersions cast on extrapolation of trends, it is
clear that continuity, what has happened in the past, and happening in the
present, is a key element in what is likely to happen in the future.
But we also know that change is a major component of the future.
Events move trends. No one knows this better than the American farmer.
The Soviet wheat deal in 1972 ushered in what many thought was a new era
for agriculture; formation of OPEC in 1973 was associated with a quantum
jump in farmers' production costs; and most recently the 1980 grain embargo
against the Soviet Union severely limited U.S. farmers access to the Soviet
market, possibly one of the largest potential markets for U.S. soybeans.
American Soybean Association, 777 Craig Road, P.O. Box 27300, St. Louis,
MO 63141
The final C -- Choice -- is the most important element of the future,
especially long-term. It means that the options and strategies we choose
as individuals, corporations, governments, and groups (such as the Plant
Growth Regulators and ASA) will help determine the future that actually
evolves. That is really what Project 2002 is all about, bringing together
some of the best thinking available on what trends will continue, what
changes may occur, and then developing strategic options to help shape the
future for the benefit of the U.S. soybean farmer and those who serve his
needs.
As most good researchers know, the beginning is the most important
part of the work. With this in mind, the first phase of Project 2002 was
to assemble a cross section of decision makers and thought leaders from
all sectors of the soy/agriculture complex. Some of the individuals on
the Blue Ribbon Panel consisted of Bill Brown, chairman of Pioneer Hi-Bred,
Dwayne Andreas, chairman of Archer Daniels Midland, Earl Heady, the world
renowned ag economist headquarted at Iowa State, the Secretary of Agricul
ture John Block and leading soybean growers from each major production region.
As part of their commitment to Project 2002, each Blue Ribbon Panel member
agreed to a one-hour confidential interview. A unique interview format
designed by the Institute for the Future was utilized in the discussions
with the panelists. With the exception of one panelist located overseas,
all interviews were face-to-face and spontaneous. THE PURPOSE: to define
the key issues that will face the U.S. soybean industry long-term. These
issues provided direction for the research effort that followed.
In the time alloted today, I won't attempt to cover all the findings
and conclusions of Project 2002. Rather, I'm going to focus on the results
of two major surveys. The first should be of general interest because it
relates to the possible economic environment we will be facing over the
next 20 years. The second survey I will discuss should be of special
interest to this group because it relates to the "experts" projections of
future soybean yields!
ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC FUTURES
In the first survey, top economists, financial analysts and futurists
were asked to evaluate three possible, but distinctly different world
economic scenarios. The respondents were asked to assume they had 100
points to allocate between the alternatives based on how well the scenarios
fit their own view of the future in "broad brush terms."
Briefly, the three scenarios were:
Secular Stagnation -- This scenario presumes that the 1980-82 recession
marked the beginning of a secular deterioration in economic growth, sympto
matic of long-term structural changes in the world's economies. In other
words, the smokestack industries like autos and steel do not rebound to
their previous levels in major countries like the U.S. Real economic
growth slows to an average of less than 2 percent over the next 20 years,
protectionist policies proliferate, unemployment remains chronically high.
Oil prices don't collapse, but do decline in real terms. The U.S. is
2
viewed as a safe haven for investor funds in a world of financial crises,
resulting in a continued strong U.S. dollar exchange rate. I don't have to
tell you, this scenario is very bad for beans! And a lot of other important
groups and sectors of our economy as well!
The second alternative is:
Return to Post WWII growth. In the long-view of history, the era of
1950-1972 stands out as a period of unusually robust world economic growth.
This scenario presumes that the current malaise in the world's economies is
more a cyclical phenomenon that a secular phenomenon. Fiscal budget
restraints and judicious monetary policy are assumed to successfully revive
the world economy without re-kindling inflation. Real growth averages 4 1/2
percent in the industrialized countries (and even higher in the develop-
ing countries). Those of you who appreciate the "magic of compound growth
rates" know what a big difference two percentage points can make over a
20 year period (@ 5 percent your savings account will double in 14 years;
@ 3 percent it takes nearly 25 years). Under this scenario, energy prices
rise faster than general inflation, but a 1973-74 type price explosion is
avoided (conservation measures already put in place won't go away), pro
tectionism wanes as accelerated economic growth resumes, international
financial tension eases, and the exchange value of the dollar declines.
The third scenario -- Slow Recovery, Moderate Growth presumes the
economic difficulties of the late 70's and early 80's are only gradually
resolved. During most of the 80's fiscal deficits, world liquidity prob
lems, and inflation fears plague the world economy. By the 1990's the
necessary adjustments have been made, and on balance economic growth for
the entire period averages about 3 percent, significantly below the pre
vious 20 year period. Longer term, emphasis on finding new petroleum
supplies and developing alternative energy sources lends stability to
prices. OPEC holds, but is only able to raise prices more or less in line
with inflation. Protectionism persists in the 80's, but trade problems are
less acute in the 90's. The value of the U.S. dollar remains strong,
especially near-term.
Here's what the experts said.
The overwhelming favorite was Alternative III with a median score of
60. The least favored scenario was Return to High Growth. The distribution
of individual scores was skewed to the low side, with a median score of
only 10. Secular Stagnation received a score of 30.
In Part II of the survey respondents were asked how they would alter
the three scenarios to better fit their own view of the future, and then
make their own projections for three key variables. Commentary ranged from
"Your scenarios are right on the mark;" "No change;" to "None of your
scenarios really capture the reality I see emerging." With respect to
making their own projections, one respondent with long experience as a
business economist complained of a nervous affliction known as the MESSER
SCHMITT TWITCH. This condition rendered him unable to make long-term pro
jections. As he described it, "The cataclysmic developments of the past
3
several years have given me the messerschmitt twitch of WWII bomber pilots,
wondering about the when, what, and where of the next attack." Nonethless,
he went on to say that he is skeptical of any sustained recover, especially
in the midwestern U.S. where real prosperity may not return in this century
because of downsizing of durable goods manufacturing and other seemingly
incurable problems.
The experts projections for long-term real growth lies practically
right on the path of Alternative 3 which is what you would expect. The
historical trend rate of growth appears to be heading South in precipitous
fashion! In the period 1963-72 real growth averaged 5 Percent; dropped to
3 percent over the next 5 years (1973-77) and in the most recent 5 year
interval (1978-82), growth averaged less than 2 percent.
In terms of the index of world trade volume, a proxy for protectionism,
the panel projection lies between moderate growth and stagnation. This
implies the respondents forsee a smaller multiplier effect for world trade
volume for a given increase in world economic growth. This is consistent
with the concept of an ongoing structural change from smokestack to infor
mation, high-tech type industry in the major industrial countries. Those
of you familiar with the work of the currently popular author John Naisbett
will recognize this as one of his "mega trends" that is expected to impact
the world over the next 10 to 20 years.
Finally, the panelists were asked to project petroleum prices. The
survey was done before the break in OPEC pricing policy this Spring and the
attendant wide discussion of an OPEC collapse. Nonetheless, the respondents
average projections were lower than any of the three scenarios. The U.S.
import price for petroleum products was projected to average $29 a barrel
over the next 5 years. This compares to an average price of $33 a barrel
in 1982.
I guess this means you can go ahead and buy that big, new Oldsmobile!
But beware, this projection harks back to what I said earlier about pro
jecting the future from the immediate past. It was awfully hard to find
anyone back in 1974-75 that would predict the collapse of OPEC. Now few
seem to be willing to project any sharp increase in oil prices.
In summarlzlng the results of the survey, there seems to be a prepon
derance of opinion for a lackluster economic future, especially in the
80's. Clearly more than one of the respondents was suffering from the
Messerschmitt Twitch!
The true contrarian should be heartened by these results. The con
sensus for no growth/slow growth may well mean most have failed to recog
nize, or at least properly appraise, the key events that will lead to a
much brighter economic future than now generally envisioned.
Prudent planners, including businessmen and farmers, however, must
acknowledge that the experts foresee an economic operating environment much
different than the previous 20 years. The less robust world market,
especially near-term, implies strategies to "protect your own turf,"
4