‘CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY 18:115-118, 196 Sustainable agriculture: introduction and summary R, James Cook President, International Society for Plant Pathology USDA-ARS at Washington State University, Pullman, Washington U.S.A, 99164-6430. Introduction to the plenary session and closing summary of lectures on sustainable agriculture presented during the th Internati al Congress of Plant Pathology held at Montreal, 28 July-6 August 1993. It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to the 6th International Congress of Plant Pathology, and this Plenary Session. On behalf of the International Society for Plant Pathology and the approximately 1600 scien- tists in attendance at this meeting, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Canadian Phytopathological Society for hosting this 6th Congress of Plant Pathology and for all their arrangements of programs and facilities here in this beautiful, historic and interna- tional city of Montreal. They have prepared for this meeting for five years, and I am confident that we will find their arrangements to be outstanding. My dictionary defines plenary as full, complete, absolute, attended by all members, an assembly. I inter- pret this to mean that a plenary session should present the “big picture” and give a sense of direction for the scientific deliberations of this Congress specifically and for our continuing efforts in research and education as plant pathologists more generally. A plenary session should set the stage for our work over the next 8 days here in Montreal and for our work as plant pathologists in our respective countries in the years ahead. Our Canadian hosts looked ahead and wisely decided that the plenary session on this occasion should focus on “Sustainable Agriculture.” As plant pathologists, we know that agriculture is not sustain- able beyond a subsistence level without disease or pest control. And by “subsistence level”, I mean when virtually all human resources must be devoted to obtaining enough food just to survive. We know that it is not a question of whether, because of our methods of disease control, agriculture can be si tained, but rather, whether agriculture can be sus- tained without the continuation of research and devel- ‘opment needed to stay ahead of the ever changing populations of plant pathogens. We also know that plant diseases do more than limit yields — diseased plants leave fertilizer unused in the soil profile, only to be transferred to another envirenment; intensive {illage used to destroy pathogen-infested crop residue also destroys top soil; and the continued use of soil fumigation as a substitute for crop rotations or other methods of disease management is not sustainable ecologically or economically. I would add that while this symposium will focus on sustainable agriculture, the same principles apply and should be considered for sustainable forestry. When we consider meeting the needs of food and fiber for people, sustainable management of our earth’s forest resources is every bit as important as sustainable management of food production. Sustainable forestry depends on healthy forests just as sustainable agriculture depends on healthy crops. Four speakers have been invited to share their thoughts and perspectives with us this morning on sustainable agriculture. Each one of our speakers comes with a unique background and experience in agricultural research and education. They have one feature in common: each has a long and distinguished career, although they have had very different respon- sibilities in their careers. It is their diversity of back- grounds as well as their distinction as scientists, lead- ers, and scholars that promises to make this sympo- sium so special. Summary ‘Our speakers this morning have given us a sense of cautious optimism that the availability of food need not become the limiting factor to growth of the human population, or possibly even to the quality of life for people on planet earth, However, they have also point- ed out that there are limits to increasing production, especially with the current situation of ever-declining availability of quality agricultural land and other natu- ral resources. Dr. Nene, in the Glenn Anderson lecture, gave us a thoughtful and challenging review of all aspects of sustainability from the perspective of the developing nations of the world. The speakers have pointed out that further increases in agricultural pro- duction will depend, increasingly, on greater yields on the existing land. Dr. Ruttan describes this as a “transi- tion from a resource-based to a science-based system of agriculture.” Dr. Rutan also points out that sustain- able agriculture is not enough; to meet the mcreased demands placed on agriculture by growth in popula- tion, we must have both sustainable growth in agricul- tural production, and growth in the economic means of this population. Obviously this makes plant pathology more impor- tant than ever, because improvements in plant health through control of plant diseases offers one of the few remaining options for increasing crop productivi- ty and the quality of our food without concomitantly116 _ CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY, VOLUME 18, or significantly increasing demands of agriculture on the finite earth resources. 1 suggest that the goal in plant disease and pest ‘management is that crops be healthy enough to yield to their full genetic potential within the physical con- straints imposed by climate, weather, and soils. In other words, our goal should be that the limits to crop yields should be the limits imposed by climate, ‘weather, and soils but not by pests and diseases. This may seem simple enough, but even in a developed country such as the United States, by all estimates, crops have the genetic potential to com- monly produce 15-25% more, and in some cases up (0 100% more, with the same amount of fertilizer, water, and land but are prevented from doing so by the constraints imposed by diseases and pests rather than just by climate, weather, and soils. It is neither economically nor environmentally sustainable to fertilize, cultivate, and irrigate for production based on expectations of healthy plants, but then allow eases and pests to limit actual yields to some fraction of the yields possible and “paid for” with the capital investments and agronomic inputs. We are among the world’s experts on how to overcome plant diseases and other production problems while helping to assure that agriculture and forestry can continue to meet the ever increasing world demands for food and fiber. Our work is cut out for us. Plant disease management is also critical to the health and preservation of our food supply — to ensure that our grains, fruits, and produce last in stor- age, and that they are free of undesirable microbial metabolites, such as mycotoxins with activity as car- cinogens or toxicants to humans or livestock. Quite often, discussions of sustainable agriculture in the context of plant protection have focused on the public concerns for pesticides in our food supply and environment. There is now also a public concern for crop plants and microorganisms developed by the new tools of biotechnology. The plant protection and plant sciences disciplines must use the most effective, eco- nomical, safe, and sustainable combinations of physi- cal, biological, and chemical methods to limit the effects of diseases and improve the yield and quality of plant products, including forestry products. We much avoid the either/or syndrome, stich as either chemical or biological control, either sustainable or conventional agriculture, and either traditional breeding or biotech- nology. Each method should stand on its own merits and not be elevated to some perceived greater impor- tance at the unfair expense of some other perfectly good method of disease management. No method of disease management, not even the use of crop rotation, and certainly not tillage, can be claimed to have no. effect on nontarget organisms in the environment, Even allowing diseases to develop uncontrolled will have effects on nontarget organisms in the environment. Dr. Wood started his talk by reminding us, as he put it “quite unnecessarily”, that we have been very successful in controlling most of the critical diseases of major crops. In fact, I think his reminder to us is, quite necessary. He used the development of crop varieties with resistance to diseases as an example of both effective and sustainable disease control. 1 ‘would like to follow up on this example and point out that. in the United States, for example, every major fungal leaf disease of the 810 major food crops and many minor crops are either controlled now or will soon be controlled through genes for disease resis- tance. Wheat, corn, and soybean are grown on rough- ly two-thirds of U.S. agricultural land with virtually 1no use of foliar fungicides other than as emergency treatments. This genetic approach to management of the leaf diseases has greatly increased the efficiency of production as well as total production of these crops. Through an international effort involving both the United States and Canada, wheat stem rust has been under control in the North American Great Plains since the last major epidemic of 1954, through strate- gic deployment of genes for resistance in response to Knowledge about the ever-changing virulence pat- terns in the population of the pathogen. Similar suc- cess stories can be told for China, Russia, Australia, Europe, and elsewhere in the world. A control that lasts for nearly 40 years would surely be considered as “sustainable”, but will not be sustained if we ignore the continuing threat of new races of the pathogen or stop breeding crop cultivars with resis- tance to these pathogens. The new tools of biotechaology allow for access of even more traits for disease and pest resistance, es} cially for such problems as root rots, plant parasitic, nematodes, insect-vectored viruses, and the leaf-feed- ing insects that heretofore have not been controlled through breeding because of a lack of useful resis- tance. Consequently, the world continues to depend on soil fumigants and insecticides. Several research groups have cloned and are cl acterizing bacterial genes for resistance to plant, pathogens. Most of the microorganisms with these useful traits occur naturally in association with plant roots, leaves, or other parts but at populations too low to provide adequate protection in all but rare situa- tions. There is the potential in the future for deploy- ment of the traits from these beneficial plant-assoc ed microorganisms as transgenes expressed in the plants, included in the specific parts of the plants that would benefit the most from such a natural defense meckanism, But for many reasons, including the difti- culties in transforming all but a few crop plants and the lack of suitable tissue-specific promoters, work has been progressing instead towards deployment of these genes in the microorganisms as biological con-(COOK: SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE/SUMMARY _117 trol agents at elevated populations on the plants rather than expressed as transgenes in the plants. This brings me to the questions directed to me by Dr. Wood: “Why, with a few notable and important exceptions. .., is biological control [of plant pathogens} so much less practised than other methods, will it be used very much more in the future, and how does it rate for sustainability?” Dr. Wood has raised some important questions, and I believe the answers are very relevant to the topic of this plenary session. Firstly, why is biological control of plant pathogens practiced so much less than other methods of control? I will answer this from the standpoint of biological con- trol with introduced microorganisms, since plant pathology has been quite successful in the use of cul- tural practices to take advantage of naturally occurring biological control of plant pathogens by “resident antagonists.” Broadly speaking, there are two reasons for the little use of introduced microorganisms for bio- Jogical control of plant pathogens: 1) the technical dif- ficulty of using microorganisms for biological control of any pest problem, whether weeds, insects, nema- todes, or diseases, and 2) the economic barrier imposed by the cost of regulatory oversight for microbial bio- control agents. Both reasons present major challenges for plant pathology because, other than resistant vari- eties of crop plants, microorganisms offer the only means for biological control of plant pathogens. Regarding the technical difficulties, in fact, there has been as good or greater success in the use of microorganisms for biological control of plant pathogens than for insect pests, where the greatest use of microorganisms has been with the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Bt has been successful because it works, dead or alive. In contrast to Bt, antag- ‘nists of plant pathogens must establish on plants or in soil, at least temporarily, and they do not work if they are dead. In the United States, the first fungus for biological control of an insect pest was registered by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1993 — Metarrhizium anisopliae for biological control of cer- tain cockroaches. Today, only two fungi are registered in the United States for biological control of weeds, however, three fungi and three bacteria have been reg- istered by the EPA for biological control of plant dis- eases. This brings me to the matter of regulatory oversight as a barrier to the use of introduced microorganisms in biological control. It is policy in many countries that parasites and predators, such as those used for biologi- cal control of insect pests and mites can be imported and released at any scale with approval by a Ministry or Department of Agriculture under quarantine authority, whereas microorganisms intended for pest control must be approved by a Department of Environment as microbial pesticides. Thus far, more than 4000 parasites and predators have been released for biological control of insect pests, mites, and weeds worldwide; of those about half have become estab- lished and are now providing some level of biological control of an arthropod pest or weed. This is a remark- able record of success, but it also means that about half of the released parasites and predators did not, work. In contrast, in the 40+ years of regulating microbial biocontrol agents as microbial pesticides in the United States, only 24 microorganisms have been registered, and nearly half of these are Bacillus strains for insect control. Each U.S. registration of a microor- ganism for commercial use as a microbial pesticide costs between $200 000 and $500 000 or more, which virtually forces us as researchers to find and work with a corporate partner. Whether this will happen depends, of course, on the size of the market, since no company can afford to invest more in registration and other costs of development than they can get back — plus a profit. And after making such an investment, there is no tolerance for microorganisms that do not work as biological control agents. Few if any of the 4000 releases of parasites and predators for biological control of arthropod pests worldwide depended on a private company to make the biological control agent available for the benefit of agriculture or forestry. This brings me to Dr. Wood's second question: “Will biological control [again, I will insert, of plant pathogens with introduced microorganisms] be used very much more in the future?” In reply, 1 would like to go back to the point about the success in disease control through plant breeding. The reason for suc- cess in plant breeding has been our ability to develop, select, and deploy many different locally adapted cul- tivars to solve local and regional problems. If biolog cal control is to be fully employed in the future, we must both find the technical means and develop the institutional infrastructure to deploy thousands if not tens of thousands of biological control agemts wocld- wide; these will include microbial biocontrol agents, but each selected on the basis of its usefulness in solving local arid regional if not national disease and pest problems, ‘This is entirely possible scientifically. ‘The more important issues are whether the use of so many biological earttrol agents will be possible politi- cally, economically, and sociologically. Dr. Rutan poitted out in his talk that the future gains in agricultural productivity will be crop-, animal-, and location-specific, Biolagical conizol is most cer- tainly crop- and location-specitic, Rt will support cot- tage industries and provide apportenities foe local busi- nesses, In this regard, biologtcal control mests some of the most fundamental definitions of sustainability — it is renewable, nonpolluting, sustainable ecologically, and of benefit to local and teal comenmities because of the potential to create local inesiness opportunities. With these comments on the future of biological control as an integral component of sustainable agei-118 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY. VOLUME 18, 1996 culture, I would like to issue a challenge to plant pathology on behalf of biological control with intro- duced microorganisms. My challenge is that plant pathology take the lead among the plant protection disciplines in the scale-up and transfer to microbial biocontrol into commercial use, and that we adopt a strategy of numbers — introducing as many species. and strains of microorganisms as it takes, so long as they work — rather than size of the market. Tam suggesting that we follow the lead of our suc- cess in cooperation with plant breeders in disease man- agement by host plant resistance. This approach has succeeded because we have delivered as many differ- ent genes and combinations of genes in the form of as many different cultivars or mixtures of cultivars as necessary to do the job, so long as they worked. With this challenge, I am suggesting that if the range of effectiveness of the microorganisms is too narrow to attract a commercial venture, the universi- ty, governmental, international center, or other pub- lic-Supported research organization find other ways to get these agents into use. I am suggesting further that we use the best genetic tools available to science to improve on the naturally occurring strains, includ- ing making them safer if safety is a concern. My challenge is that plant pathology find ways to scale up thousands of microbial biocontrol agents — both naturally occurring and genetically altered. We are already studying hundreds if not thousands of inter- esting species and strains of microorganisms in our laboratories and greenhouses. Let us move now towards scale-up of those that work. even if they only R. James Cook served as President of the International Society {for Plant Pathology during the term culminating in the 6th International Congress of Plant Pathology. He has conducted research on root diseases of wheat, particularly in biological con: trol, since 1965 at Pullman, WA, where he is Research Leader for the USDA-ARS Root Disease and Biological Control Research Unit at Washington State University. He isa past-President of the American Phytopathological Society. In 1993 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and was appointed to a 2. year term as Chief Scientist in charge of the USDA’s National Research Initiative, Competitive Grants Program in Washington, De. work in a certain environment, a few orchards, or a few hundred hectares of a crop plant. Dr. Morrissey pointed out that new crop cultivars have been produced and released by public-supported esearch agencies and that parasites and predators of sect pests and weeds have Leen discovered and released by public-supported agencies for the public ‘g00d, that is, as a public service. Surely microorgan- isms intended for disease and pest control could also be made available for the public good as a public service. Only by this approach can we gain the knowledge ‘and experience (familiarity) and create a science for scale-up that currently is lacking. And only by this approach can we build familiarity within the public for microbial biocontrol. The public does not ques- tion that it takes thousands if not tens of thousands of fungi and bacteria to make all the cheeses in the world. Our goal for familiarity should be a public that accepts and understands the use of microorganisms in the environment the way the public currently accepts and understands the use of microorganisms in the production of food and drink. Plant pathology is already the source of most of the world’s knowledge and experience in the man- agement of undesirable microorganisms — plant pathogens — in the environment. It only seems logi- cal that plant pathology also become the source of most of the world’s knowledge and experience in the management of desirable microorganisms — antago- nists of pathogens and nematodes and pathogens of weeds — in the environment, We and our science are needed now more than ever.