Part 3

Fig. 1—Soil tests tell how much of each fertilizer element is needed but not where to put it to give seedlings the much-needed “push.” With tracers it is found that:

Fig. 2—Radioactive plant nutrients injected in soil roots

Tracer experiments reveal that roots cannot distinguish potassium (needed in large amounts) from other elements which are chemically similar but quite different in size. Once inside the plant, only potassium can be metabolized and similar but heavier elements (rubidium, cesium) are useless. This is like an absentminded builder who buys brick, boulders, and gravel indiscriminately for his wall and then finds he can use only part of his materials.

The process called photosynthesis whereby green plants use energy from the sun to convert simple compounds from air and soil into complex, energy-rich substances has been termed the most important chemical reaction in the world. It is the basis for man’s entire food supply and, except for nuclear energy, all significant fuel as well. Tracer techniques have multiplied the research efforts on photosynthesis tremendously.

When only chemical tests were available, food manufacturing in green leaves had to progress for hours before scientists could measure the products. But with tracers and other new techniques they have narrowed the experimental time to minutes and finally to seconds. Today they know that a green leaf has formed sugars more complex than fructose, “fruit sugar,” after exposure to light for only one second!

When the incredible complexities of photosynthesis are finally unraveled, radioactive tracers, especially radioactive carbon-14, will have provided the significant clues.

Plant Diseases and Weeds

How Can We Combat Plant Diseases?

At one time to stop epidemic spread of plant diseases was virtually impossible; farmers had to abandon fields and crops. Such catastrophes caused by microbes have changed the course of history. For example, the Irish famines of the 1840’s resulted from the potato blight and caused mass emigrations from Ireland.

In this country today plant diseases result in losses estimated at $3 billion a year. So far, the most economical means of reducing the ravages of plant diseases has been to breed resistant plant varieties. Although such a variety may cost $100,000 to develop, its cost is usually repaid within a year or two.

But the victory is only temporary. Although plants are bred to resist the pathogen (fungus) of the moment, Nature is constantly changing the microbial population by mutation and hybridization. Within a few years virulent strains of fungi which can attack the “resistant” variety increase to such an extent that the new variety must be replaced.

For crops that provide high per-acre income such as some vegetables and vine and tree fruits, chemical control of fungous diseases is economically possible; in fact, it is a real necessity. But such treatment is too costly for most field crops, unless some cheap seed treatment or fertilizer additive can be found.

A general breakthrough in control of plant diseases is yet to come. Because of thousands of pathogenic species, with hundreds of strains, it does not seem possible that the following questions could be answered about each one. What is the life cycle of the microbe? What conditions of temperature and humidity encourage it to spread? What plant species does it attack? How does it enter? What chemical changes within the cells of the plant determine whether they resist or succumb to the invader? How long can germs remain potent? How far can they travel by wind or water? What combination of resistant varieties, cultural methods, and chemical treatment will control the disease?

With tracers it is possible for the first time to measure chemical uptake in single spores and to follow chemicals through the plant. Perhaps the most enlightening information from such studies is that some fungicides are 10,000 times less effective per unit of “body weight” than are other chemicals used to destroy weeds and insects. Obviously the breakthrough in chemical control of plant diseases is yet to come.

Why Do Chemicals Destroy Some Plants?

Weeds cost this country an estimated $5 billion annually, which is more than the loss to either plant diseases or insects. Selective chemical weed killers such as “2, 4-D” have become so widely used that more than $135 million worth was sold in the United States in 1959. In proper concentration these compounds will destroy many unwanted plants without harming lawn grasses or crop plants.

As in many other instances, beneficial use of the chemicals has far outreached an understanding of how they work. The still scanty knowledge of the process has come almost entirely from tracer studies.

All plants readily absorb selective weed killers (“herbicides”), which are not destroyed within the plants. Resistant plants show no effect of the chemicals, but sensitive plants suffer damage in actively growing roots and shoots. Sugar formation during photosynthesis is disrupted in these plants, and phosphorus movement is retarded. In order to predict what new classes of chemicals might be of value as herbicides, we must await the results of research using radioactive tracers.

Animal Nutrition and Metabolism

How Nutritious Are Various Feedstuffs?

An endless phase of animal nutrition research deals with efficiency of rations, that is, the pounds gained by the animal per pound of feed consumed. The standard form of such research is to feed groups of animals on different rations for several weeks or months and determine average change in weight per pound of feed used.

In recent years scientists have used chemical tests to compare the amount of calcium in the diet against the amount excreted. The apparent digestibility of such minerals has thus been computed for different rations. Yet one important source of error in these chemical tests plagued researchers.

There is a “turnover” in nutrients fed to animals; elements in feed are absorbed into the animal’s body, retained for a time, and later excreted. For example, a cow actually loses more calcium (through milk and excreta) during the first six months of milk production than her normal ration contains. As long as the amount of recycling was unknown, scientists could not tell, for instance, how much calcium in alfalfa hay could be digested by simply measuring incoming and outgoing calcium.

Formerly scientists could study the problem only by withholding all calcium from the diet. Under this unnatural condition all outgoing calcium came from the animal’s body.

With radioactive calcium in a steer’s diet (or injected into the blood), scientists can quickly tell how much of the excreted calcium comes from the animal’s blood and organs under normal conditions. In a typical instance a ration thought to have 24 per cent digestible calcium, chemically determined, was found to have 38 per cent by the tracer technique.

The tracer method shows that milk contains phosphorus, only 20 per cent of which may come from the feed and 80 per cent from the cow’s bones. With eggs, about 65 per cent of the phosphorus is provided by feed and 35 per cent by the hen. Radioactive tracers permit measurement of such “biological pathways,” as the biochemist calls them.

Can Lean Meat be Estimated “on the Hoof”?

The proof of the ration, one might say, is in the cutting. That is, the worth of a particular feed was formerly unknown until the carcass had been cut and priced.