April/May 1997
Minnesota Wheat, Barley Work
to Maintain State Wheat Breeder
By Tracy Sayler
Library
Home
E-Mail
Back
Prairie Grains is the
official publication of
the Minnesota
Association of
Wheat Growers,
North Dakota Grain
Growers Association,
South Dakota Wheat,
Inc., and the
Minnesota Barley
Growers Association.
Robert Busch (right) discusses new varieties with wheat growers at a summer field day in Crookston. Busch, who heads Minnesota's spring wheat breeding efforts, will soon retire, potentially leaving Minnesota without a plant breeder.
The Minnesota Barley Growers Association and the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers are working this legislative session to obtain state support for a public wheat breeder.
Robert Busch, who heads the spring wheat breeding efforts in Minnesota, will soon retire. Busch is employed by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, and technically is a wheat geneticist, not a wheat breeder. A wheat geneticist conducts basic research, which mainly involves the screening of germplasm. A wheat breeder takes basic germplasm screening work and applies it to develop new public varieties for farmers to grow.
Over the years Dr. Busch has been wearing two hats as wheat geneticist and wheat breeder, coordinating regional germplasm screening efforts and also working with the U of M to release wheat varieties in Minnesota.
However, the USDA has indicated that it plans to eliminate the variety development responsibilities of any new geneticist position, with replacements focusing only on basic research to enhance germplasm. This could leave Minnesota without a plant breeder after Busch retires. Further, USDA may choose not to replace the vacant position without a commitment from the state to maintain a public breeding program, similar to other wheat-producing states.
"Now is the time to prepare for Dr. Busch's retirement, so that we can maintain the current program, if not enhance it," says Bruce Hamnes, vice chair of the Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council.
The success of businesses from pharmaceutical companies to the defense industry, and from the auto makers in Detroit to 3M in Minnesota, is a direct result of research and development, Hamnes says. "The public wheat breeding program is the R&D for this state's wheat industry - an industry that contributes about $1.3 billion annually to Minnesota's economy."
A public wheat breeding program has a definite impact, says Hamnes: if a wheat breeder can increase wheat yields by one bushel, it would contribute an additional $27.5 million to Minnesota's economy. Thus, he says a ten-year commitment to a wheat breeding program of $200,000 per year would yield the state a 13-fold rate of return on its investment.
Minnesota's spring wheat industry relies on a public breeding program, says Hamnes, because most private breeding companies do not have spring wheat breeding programs, due to the long process of developing a new wheat variety (up to 10 years) and the fact that more money can be made from selling hybrid seed such as corn and other row crops. Only one major private breeding company maintains a spring wheat program geared toward Minnesota's unique environment.
What about biotechnology? Genetic engineering will change the face of crop science, Hamnes believes. But he says the bottom line with genetic engineering is that germplasm created by this revolutionary process must still be incorporated by plant breeders into varieties that can be grown by producers.
Replicated breeding in ND, SD
North Dakota and South Dakota have spring wheat breeders; does a wheat breeder in Minnesota duplicate the breeding programs in those states? Duplicate no, replicate yes, says Hamnes. The very nature of research requires testing and retesting, or replication, to ensure the validity of a research process or project, he explains.
"Wheat breeders in different states replicate trials to find how a variety performs under varied conditions. And even though there is replication, plant breeders still must focus on varietal characteristics that are suited to the unique growing conditions and climatic environments of their respective states. Many of the varieties grown in western North Dakota or South Dakota, for example, are not suitable for Minnesota," says Hamnes.
In addition, he says multiple breeding programs are needed to create diversity in the spring wheat gene pool, to reduce the risk of having an entire wheat crop susceptible to unknown pests or diseases that could appear in the future.
The diversity that separate breeding programs provide is, in effect, insurance against potentially disastrous plant problems, says Hamnes.
"In the case of scab there is one variety, 2375, which has some modest resistance to the disease. Prior to the scab epidemic it was grown sparingly in Minnesota; however, it is now the number one variety. It came from the Pioneer breeding program that was shut down prior to the scab outbreak. But without this separate breeding program and the variety it produced, wheat producers would have had only very susceptible varieties to choose from and the scab epidemic would have been a lot worse," says Hamnes.
Under a proposal put forth to the State Legislature, the state would fund a breeding position at a specific amount per year or per biennium, and the industry would assist in covering the operating costs, which would include equipment, technicians, travel and program costs.
Wheat growers in Minnesota have contributed many of their own dollars to wheat breeding, says Hamnes, through the state's wheat checkoff, administered by the Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council. Since 1980, Minnesota wheat producers have spent $984,702 on wheat breeding and associated disease research. This is about 45% of the Council's total research budget. "We would continue our funding commitment to wheat breeding in a partnership with the state," says Hamnes.
The outcome of a bill to maintain a state wheat breeder should be known at the conclusion of the 1997 legislative session.