United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Forest

Research Note

so-355

Experiment Station November 1989

Electromagnetic Treatment of Loblolly Pine Seeds

James P. Barnett and Stanley L. Krugman

SUMMARY

Loblolly pine (Pinus faeda L.) seeds were exposed to

an electromagnetic radiation treatment (Energy Transfer

Process@, marketed by the Energy Transfer Corporation), and the effects of the treatments on seed germination, seedling development, disease resistance, and

field performance of seedlings were evaluated. None of

the evaluated variables showed any improvement over

untreated controls.

Keywords: Energy Transfer Process, germination

speed, germination value, Gray Process, Pinus taeda,

seed dormancy, seedling survival and growth.

INTRODUCTION

Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) is the species most frequently used for reforestation in the Southern United

States; in fact, over 1 billion loblolly pine seedlings are

produced each year for planting (McDonald and Krugman 1985). This has lead to a great deal of interest in

any treatment that may have a potential to improve the

survival and -early growth of this tree species.

In the early 1970’s Sam Gray, Ph.D., patented an

electromagnetic radiation seed treatment process

(called the Gray Process) that claimed to speed seed

germination, markedly hasten seedling growth, and provide disease control. Gray’s Energy Transfer Corporation (ETC) marketed the seed treatment as the Energy

Transfer Process@ and promoted it across the South as

a technique that would revolutionize agriculture. Some of

the claimed results of using this process were (Helm

1976):

1. Yield of treated corn was increased by 161 percent,

and in one variety the increase was reported to be

1,200 percent.

2. Soybeans showed a 300-percent increase in yield

after treatment.

3. A crop of peanuts grown from treated seeds was

177 percent greater than one grown from untreated

seeds.

4. Seedlings from treated loblolly pine seeds grown in

a nursery had no disease or insect problems either

in the nursery or in the field.

5. Treated loblolly pine seeds germinated in 3 days

compared to 7 days for untreated seeds.

6. Loblolly pine seedlings grown from treated seeds

showed increased growth; height and diameter

growth was from 11 to 75 percent greater than

seedlings grown from untreated seeds.

An evaluation of seedlings grown from loblolly pine

seeds treated with the Energy Transfer Process was

conducted in 1978 (Hughes 1978). An increase in

seedling survival and growth was reported after 2 years

in the field. A few major forest industries made long-term

arrangements to have large quantities of seeds treated

(Runge 1975). However, controversy over the effectiveness of the process developed. Controls used in

Hughes’ 1978 evaluation had not come from the same

seedlot as those that had received the treatment. A test

of a sample of seeds from the same lots Hughes had

used showed no positive response from ETC treatments

when tested by the USDA Forest Service in Pineville,

LA. However, another study (Nelson and others 1980)

reported that certain electrical treatments could influence germination rates. In 1979 the Forest Service

agreed to conduct an impartial evaluation of the ETC

seed treatment process. Testing was conducted by the

Alexandria Forestry Center (AFC) in Pineville, Louisiana.

Southern Forest Experiment Station/l-102lO U.S. Postal Services Bldg., 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, La. 70113

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Serving Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mlsslssippl, E. Oklahoma, Tennessee, E. Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Vlrgln Islands
METHODS

Loblolly pine seeds were selected from Rapides

Parish, Louisiana. A 20-pound seedlot was chosen. It

was divided into two 7 l/2-pound sublots for two ETC

treatments and two 2 l£ sublots for controls. One

control was shipped with the seeds to be treated, but

received no exposure to the treatment. This provided for

an evaluation of any effects caused by the shipment of

the seeds. The other control was kept at Pineville.

The sublots sent to ETC for treatment were supposed

to be given different treatments; however, due to a misunderstanding, one of the sublots was given a duplicate

treatment. Another seedlot was then selected and sent

for the ETC treatment. The sublots and their treatments

are listed below:

Seed Lot Treatment

Lot 1 Control (retained at AFC)

Lot 1 Control (sent to ETC)

Lot 1 Treated with 60” AT (sublot 1)

Lot 1 Treated with 60” AT (sublot 2)

Lot 2 Control (retained at AFC)

Lot 2 Control (sent to ETC)

Lot 2 Treated with 70” AT

It is not possible to provide a clear description of the

ETC treatment. Close associates of Gray that are familiar with the treatment have stated that no one but the

inventor could make the patented process work (Runge

1975). When asked to describe his patented seed treatment process, Gray stated that: “The seeds are placed

on a conveyor belt and passed under an electromagnetic

energy field that rearranges the molecules and causes

genetic changes” (Helm 1976). The information provided

as to the treatments given to the seedlots sent for processing was as follows:

The 60” AT treatment began with a seed temperature of 57” F and a moisture content of 8.38 percent;

a coolant gas was used at 40” F, and seeds were run

through the process for 20 seconds at 740 milliamps

until the seed temperature reached 60” F. Seeds were

held under a vacuum at 10 inches of mercury for 7

minutes. At the end of the treatment process the seed

moisture content was 8.30 percent. The 70” AT treatment was similar, but with an initial seed temperature

of 56 “F and moisture content of 10.95 percent. The

coolant gas was at 49 “F and the seed exposure was

for 22 seconds at 740 milliamps until 70 “F was

reached. The seeds were held under vacuum as with

the 60” AT treatment, and the final moisture content

was 10.90 percent.

On completion of the ETC treatments, the treated sublots were returned to Pineville, where they were further

divided into four subsets (replications) for the testing.

Germination tests were run on both unstratified seeds

and seeds stratified for 28 days to evaluate any immediate effects on seed quality. To evaluate for the presence

of microorganisms, two 25seed samples from each of

the four subsets were plated on malt-agar media and

assessed after 2 days.

The effects of the treatments on speed and completeness of germination (Czabator 1962) were tested on

both unstratified and stratified seeds; testing followed

Association of Official Seed Analysts (1980) rules. Three

loo-seed samples were tested for each of the four subsets. Testing was done after 1 year of storage at 72 “F

and after 1, 3, and 5 years of storage at 34 “F.

Measurements of initial seedling development were

made using containerized seedlings following the greenhouse growing period. Seedlings grown for the 1980 test

were measured at 17 weeks; those grown in 1981 were

measured at 14 weeks.

Seedlings were grown in containers and bare-root

nurseries for evaluation of seedling development and

field performance. The container seedlings were grown

in Styroblock-4@ containers for 14 weeks at the Alexandria Forestry Center. Standard cultural techniques (Barnett and Brissette 1986) were used to grow the

seedlings. Bare-root nursery seedlings were grown at

the AFC Nursery and at the W. W. Ashe Nursery in

southern Mississippi. Seeds from each treatment replication were sown in a randomized manner in the nurseries and lifted for immediate outplanting in January.

The initial field portion of the study was begun in the

spring of 1980. However, one of the most severe

droughts on record occurred during the summer and fall

of 1980. Field survival of the container seedlings was

lower than desired, and seeds sown late in the spring (for

the bare-root seedling portion of the study) did not develop into plantable stock. The field portions of the study

were rerun in 1981-82 from a new crop of seedlings.

Container-grown stock was outplanted May 7,1981, and

bare-root stock was planted January 20, 1982.

To evaluate survival and growth, 121 seedling plots of

each of the four treatment replications of container and

Ashe Nursery bare-root stock were outplanted on the

Palustris Experimental Forest on a moderately drained,

sandy-loam soil. Seedlings were planted at 6-foot intervals in rows 6 feet apart. This close spacing was used to

minimize soil variation and facilitate remeasurements.

Survival was determined 2 months after planting, and

survival and heights were measured in the fall dormant

season. Additional measurements of survival and height

were made 2 and 3 years after planting.

James P. Barnett is principal silviculturist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Pineville, LA 71360;

Stanley L. Krugman is chief plant geneticist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber Management Research, Washington, DC 20031.

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

of any product or service.

2
A completely randomized design was used throughout

the evaluations. Analyses of variance were used to test

for significant (cc = 0.05) differences among treatments.

The nursery seedlings grown for the 1980 test at the

AFC Nursery had been evaluated for incidence of

fusiform rust (Conartium quercum, f. sp. fusiforme)

cankers. This evaluation of the AFC seedlings was made

to determine if ETC treatments affected development of

stem cankers. The seedlings grown at the AFC Nursery

were used because they had not been given preventive

fungicide treatments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Seed Germination

/nit&/ Tests. -The primary differences in germination

were between the two seedlots (table 1). Lot 1 appeared

to be less dormant than lot 2. Unstratified seeds of lot 1

had higher germination than those of lot 2. There were

no differences that could be attributed to treatment in the

germination of unstratified seeds. Germination values

(Czabator 1962) of unstratified seeds, which reflect both

speed and completeness of germination, followed the

same pattern. Values for lot 2 seeds were lower than for

lot 1 seeds. There were no biologically meaningful differences among ETC treatments.

With stratification, germination of both seedlots was

essentially the same, averaging 96 percent (table 1).

Seeds of lot 1 held at AFC (control) had significantly

higher germination values than some of the other treatments, but the differences were too small to be of practical importance.

Viability After Storage. -Storage at 34 “F for 1 year

had no adverse effect on viability. Overall germination

was slightly higher than the before-storage values, primarily due to a 2-percent increase in germination of unstratified seeds (table 2). Again, the primary differences

in viability were between seedlots, not between untreated and ETC treated seeds.

Even at 72 “F, viability dropped only about 6 percent

after 1 year of storage. In no instance did ETC treatments improve seed storability as measured by either

speed or completeness of germination (table 2).

Additional germination tests were conducted after 3

and 5 years of storage at 34 “F. The ETC treated seeds

did not show any increase in germination or germination

value after storage (table 3). There was never more than

a 3-percent difference in germination of stratified seeds,

regardless of treatment. However, overall germination of

unstratified seeds did drop about 6 percent over the 5

years of storage. Differences among treatments also developed in the unstratified seedlots after 5 years. Generally, unstratified seeds from lot 2 were more dormant,

had lower total germination and germination values, and

the control retained at AFC appeared to be more dormant than the control that had been sent to ETC.

Seedcoat Steriilty

A malt-agar medium test for seedcoat microorganisms

indicated that there were no differences among treatments. All seeds averaged a g&percent or greater microorganism infestation.

Initial Seedling Development

Seedlings grown for the 1980 test were measured at

17 weeks of age; those grown in 1981 were measured at

14 weeks. Statistical analyses of the 1980 data showed

that only top dry weights differed significantly among

treatments (table 1). When the study was rerun in 1981,

there were no differences in initial seedling characteristics with treatment (table 4).

Nursery seedlings grown in the 1980 test at AFC were

evaluated for incidence of fusiform rust cankers. Less

than 1 percent of all seedlings (control and treated) had

fusiform rust galls; this may have been due to the early

and severe drought of 1980. Normally 30 percent of

seedlings develop cankers when no fungicide treatments are employed.

Field Performance

Two-month field survival for the containerized

seedlings in the 1980 test averaged a fairly low 78 percent (table l), and there was marked variation within and

among the replications. There were no statistically significant differences among treatments.

Survival was excellent for both container- and nurserygrown bare-root seedlings in the 1981 test. Containerized seedling survival averaged 99 percent after 10

months in the field; nursery seedling survival averaged

98 percent after 3 months (table 5). Seedling heights of

the container seedlings planted May 7, 1981, were also

measured after 10 months. The seedlings averaged 0.93

feet in height. Seed treatment showed no influence on

either survival or height of these seedlings.

Measurements of survival and height of both containerized and nursery grown seedlings were made in

January 1983 and 1984; there were no differences

among treatments. In early 1984, heights of container

stock averaged 6.8 feet compared to 2.8 feet for bareroot stock (table 6). However, it should be noted that the

container seedlings had been planted about 8 months

prior to the bare-root material.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this evaluation of the Energy Transfer

Corporation’s electromagnetic radiation treatment of

loblolly pine seeds indicate no significant improvement in

either seed germination or disease resistance, development, and field performance of seedlings grown from

treated seeds.

3
!

P

Table 1 .-Summary of germination, initial seedling development, and 2-month suwival of loblolly pine seeds and seedlings grown in containers (1980 test)

Seed

stratification Treatment* Seedlot

Seed properties

Germination Germ. value Ht.

Initial seedling characteristicst

Stem diam. Top wt. Root wt.

2-month

field survival

Percent ------__- mm _________ --_______ mg __________ Percent

Unstratified Control (AFC) 1 95.4 ab* 22.6 d . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Control (ETC)

60” AT (sublot 1)

60” AT (sublot 2)

Control (AFC)

Control (FTC)

70" AT

95.6 ab

95.6 ab

97.2 ab

83.2 c

89.1 c

78.8 c

22.8 d

23.0 d

23.3 d

11.8f

16.1 e

10.4 f

. . . . .

. . . . .

...........

...........

...........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......

.......

.......

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

.........

.........

.........

Stratified5 Control (AFC)

Control (ETC)

66” AT (sublot 1)

60” AT (sublot 2)

Control (AFC)

Control (ETC)

70"AT

97.4 a 42.6 a

95.8 ab 40.2 b

95.8 ab 39.1 b

94.9 b 37.5 bc

96.8 ab 37.8 bc

96.0 ab 38.0 bc

96.2 ab 37.5 c

214a 2.9 a

213a 3.0 a

200a 219 a

204a 2.7 a

223a 3.0 a

296a 2.8 a

224a 2.8 a

1263 ab 210 a 84a

1306 a 226 a 81 a

1139 bc 220 a 81 a

1077 c 175 a 73 a

1232 ab 225 a 75 a

1142 bc 203 a 79 a

1195 abc 222 a 76 a

Mean square error 4.62 2.73 165.54 .0199 8079.12 151.49

*See text for explanation of sublot treatments.

f’VVeights are dry weights; no seedlings were grown from unstratified seeds. Values are presented in metric measurements because this is the way they are measured; to convert to English

measurements: divide mm by 25.4 mm/inch and mg by 28349.53 mg/oz to obtain inches and ounces.

keatment means, within columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level. Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was used to array treatment means.

keeds were stratified for 28 days.
Table P.-Germination percentages and values of lob/o//y pine seeds atIer 1 year of storage at either 34 or 72 “F’

Seed Stored at 34 “F Stored at 72 “F

stratification Treatment+ Seedlot Germ. Germ. value Germ. Germ. value

Percent Percent

Unstratified Control (AFC) 1 96.4 b c 21.4 d 66.4 c d 14.7 c

Control (ETC) 1 95.4 c d 20.5 d e 88.3 c d 14.7 c

60” AT (sublot 1 ) 1 94.6 c d 19.3 d e 87.2 cde 14.4 c

60” AT (sublot 2 ) 1 95.6 c d 19.1 e 86.1 cde 13.9 c

Control (AFC) 2 89.9 e 13.9 f 83.8 ef 11.1 d

Control (ETC) 2 90.7 e 14.3 f 84.3 d e 12.1 d

70” AT 2 89.1 e 13.2 f 79.8 f 9.8 d

Stratified Control (AFC) 1 96.4 b c 33.2 a b 88.4 c d 22.8 b

Control (ETC) 1 94.3 c d 30.0 c 80.4 b c 23.7 b

60” AT (sublot 1 ) I 94.6 c d 31.2 b c 87.3 cde 22.6 b

60” AT (sublot 2 ) 1 93.8 d 30.7 c 86.6 ccle 22.2 b

Control (AFC) 2 97.6 a b 33.9 a 97.4 a 29.6 a

Control (ETC) 2 97.4 a b 33.5 a 92.2 b 23.9 b

70” AT 2 98.5 a 32.6 a b 97.5 a 27.7 a

Mean source error 3.67 2.03 4.61 1.20

*Treatment means within columns, followed by the same letter, are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

+See text for explanation of sublot treatments.

Table 3.-Germination percentages and values of loblolly pine seeds afler 3 and 5 years of storage at 34 “F*

Seed Stored 3 years Stored 5 years

stratification Treatment+ Seedlot Germ. Germ. value Germ. Germ. value

Unstratified

Percent Percent

Control (AFC) 1 95.0 b 20.6 b 86.2 c d 15.7 c

Control (ETC) 1 94.8 b 19.6 b 86.8 c d 15.0 c d

60” AT (sublot 1 ) 1 92.6 b 19.4 b 90.2 d 16.9 d

80” AT (sublot 2 ) 1 94.9 b 20.5 b 82.8 bed 13.3 c

Control (AFC) 2 82.1 a 12.0 a 58.2 a 5.0 a

Control (ETC) 2 88.4 a 14.3 a 73.5 b 9.0 b

70” AT 2 84.4 a 12.2 a 78.9 bc 8.8 b

Stratified Control (AFC) 1 94.5 abc 35.2 bc 91.2 a 29.4 c

Control (ETC) 1 93.0 a 31.0 a 90.4 a 27.5 abc

60” AT (sublot 1 ) 1 94.6 abc 35.9 c 91.1 a 28.4 b c

60” AT (sublot 2 ) 1 94.2 a b 32.3 a b 89.2 a 27.7 b c

Control (AFC) 2 97.5 c d 32.5 a b 91.1 a 25.1 a b

Control (ETC) 2 96.5 bed 33.2 abc 92.1 a 26.7 abc

70” AT 2 97.6 d 33.3 abc 88.4 a 24.1 a

Mean source error 8.28 3.19 25.46 4.48

*Treatment means within columns, followed by the same letter, are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

+See text for explanation of sublot treatments.
Table 4.-Summary of initial seedling development of loblolly seedlings grown in

containers, 1981 test*

Treatment+ Seedlot

Initial seedling characteristics*

Height Stem dia. Top wt. Root wt.

Control (AFC) 1 207 2.6 660 160

Control (ETC) 1 205 2.6 600 136

60” AT lot (1) 1 216 2.6 605 169

60” AT lot (2) 1 206 2.6 615 160

Control (AFC) 2 214 2.6 604 154

Control (ETC) 2 206 2.5 622 165

70” AT 2 202 2.6 660 166

Mean square error 255.67 .0060 3,175.66 576.35

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mg _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

‘There were no significant differences in means across treatments for any seedling

c h

T

racteristics at the 0.05 level.

See text for expl’anation of seedlot treatments.

*Values are presented in metric measurements because this is the way they are

measured; divide mm by 25.4 mm/inch and mg by 26349.53 mg/oz to obtain inches

and ounces.

Table 5.-Summary of early field parformance of container- and nursery-grown loblolly pine seedlings, 1981 test’

Container grown Nursery grown

Treatment+ Seedlot 2-mo. survival 1 O-mo. survival 1 0-mo. height 3-mo. survival

------------percent------------- ___ /=mt--- ---Percent---

Control (AFC) 1 100 9 9 0.84 9 6

Control (ETC) 1 9 9 9 9 .93 9 9

60” AT (sublot 1) 1 100 9 9 .94 9 9

60” AT (sublot 2) 1 9 9 9 9 .92 9 6

Control (AFC) 2 100 9 9 1 .oo 9 9

Control (ETC) 2 9 9 9 9 .92 9 7

70” AT 2 100 9 6 .66 9 8

Mean error square 15.87 23.03 a053 17.48

*There were no significant differences in means across treatments for any seedling characteristic at the 0.05 level.

+See text for explanation of sublot treatments.

6
Table B.-Summary of second- and third-year fieldperformance of container- and nursery-grown (bare-root) loblolly pine

seedlings, 7981 test*

Container grown Nursery grown

Survival Height Survival Height

Treatment+ Seedlot 1983 1984 1963 1964 1963 1984 1983 1964

---Percent---- -_-_- fc> ____ --- Pefcent--- _ _ _ _ Feet- _ _ _ _

Control (AFC) 1 9 9 9 9 3.4 6.7 6 9 8 8 1.3 2.9

Control (ETC) 1 9 6 9 6 3.4 6.8 9 2 9 2 1.3 2.9

60” AT (sublot 1) 1 9 9 69 3.4 6.7 8 9 8 6 1.3 2.9

60” AT (sublot 2) 1 9 9 9 9 3.4 6.7 8 3 6 2 1.3 2.6

Control (AFC) 2 100 100 3.7 7.2 9 1 9 0 1.2 2.9

Control (ETC) 2 9 9 9 8 3.5 7.0 9 0 9 0 1.2 2.7

70” AT 2 9 6 9 6 3.2 6.4 6 9 9 0 1.3 2.7

Mean error square 27.28 26.53 9676 .2167 65.73 68.04 .0212 .1694

‘There were no significant differences in means across treatments for any seedling characteristic at the 0.05 level.

+See text for explanation of sublot treatments.

LITERATURE CITED

Association of Official Seed Analysts. 1980. Rules for

testing seeds. Journal of Seed Technology. 3(3): l126.

Barnett, James P.; Brissette, John C. 1986. Producing

southern pine seedlings in containers. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SO-59. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 71 p.

Czabator, Felix J. 1962. Germination value: an index

combining both speed and completeness of pine seed

germination. Forest Science. 8: 386-396.

Helm, J. Issac. 1976. A seedy idea grows up and up and

up: new seed process takes root here. Fort Lauderdale [FL] News. 1976 January 4; Sect. C 1 (col.

l-5).

the Olinkraft Forest. Tech. Paper 78-2-24. Washington, DC: American Pulpwood Association. 32 p.

McDonald, Stephen; Krugman, S. L. 1985. Worldwide

planting of southern pines. In: South, David B., ed.,

Proceedings of the international symposium on nursery management practices for the southern pines;

1985 August 4-9; Montgomery, AL. In cooperation

with Auburn University, Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative, MacMillan Bloedell, Inc., Alabama Forestry Association, and U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service: l-l 9.

Nelson, SO.; Krugman, S.L.; Stetson, L.E.; Belcher,

E.W., Jr.; Works, D.W.; Stone, R.B.; Pettibone, C.A.;

Goodenough, J.L. 1980. Germination response of

pine seed to radiofrequency, infrared, and gasplasma-radiation treatments. Forest Science. 26:

377-388.

Hughes, McDavid. 1978. Growth results of Energy Runge, Mel. 1975. “Super seeds”: Breakthrough or flop?

Transfer loblolly pine seedlings vs. untreated The Evansville [IN] Press. 1975 December 26; Sect. 4:

seedlings at the end of the second growing season on 1 (col. l-3), 2 (col. l-3), 3 (WI. l-3), 5 (col. l-3).