Biotechnology: Behind the Eight Ball?

by Jochum Wiersma U of M Extension Small Grains Specialist

T he National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) states on their website that “biotechnology’s introduction into the wheat crop is necessary for the wheat industry to increase productivity, attract acres back to the crop and feed a global population in a sustainable way.” This position was adopted in 2006. In the white paper “The Case for Biotech Wheat” which NAWG published last fall, the key elements of the earlier resolution are reiterated once more and compelling arguments are brought forth why biotechnology is needed to stem wheat’s tide and perhaps have it not go the way of oats or the dodo bird. Very simply put, if the gains in productivity are not substantially improved for wheat, growers will opt for soybean and corn. Dr. Bill Wilson, agricultural economist at North Dakota State University, estimates that drought tolerant corn and soybeans will result in a $.60/bu opportunity cost for wheat. In other words, wheat prices have to improve by $0.60/bu to maintain parity with the other two commodities. He estimates that the opportunity cost for ‘Roundup Ready 2 Yield’ soybeans in the coming year will already create an opportunity cost for wheat of $1.49/bu. The decline in wheat acreage in Minnesota, North Dakota and Kansas over the past decade is a clear indicator that farmers are already choosing with their wallets. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service, net return per acre for corn and beans has been consistently higher than wheat in the same period, with the gap widening substantially in the most recent years.

When considering biotechnology in wheat, it is important to distinguish between gains in productivity as a result from preventing losses in grain yield to due biotic stresses such as weed competition, fungal diseases or insect pests, versus increases in grain yield potential. In other words, has biotechnology allowed producers to close the gap between attainable grain yields and actual grain yield or did biotechnology allow for the attainable yields to increase? The attainable yield is defined as the yield that is possible in any given environment, year, and area. It is limited by the climate, weather, depth of soil, and other factors that we can not manage. I would argue that the current generation of biotechnology-derived traits have not increased the attainable grain yield but rather allowed the gap between attainable and actual to narrow. The next wave of biotechnology traits, such as drought tolerance in wheat and corn or nitrogen use efficiency in corn may be the first biotechnology traits that may actually increase attainable yields.

Dr. James Specht, the Charles E. Bessey Professor of Agronomy and Horticulture at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, argued at the 2009 Crop Pest Management Short Course that the gains in grain yield made in soybeans and corn were nearly identical in the last two decades and that the advent of biotechnology had not (yet) changed the trend line for gains in grain yield. In northeast Nebraska, yields have increased about 2.11 bu/year for corn versus 0.62 bu/year for soybeans. Although in absolute terms (a more than threefold difference) when adjusted for the physiological differences (C4 versus a C3 species) and the differences in test weight, grain moisture content and grain quality (oil and protein versus starch), yield gains were nearly identical for corn and soybeans. Much the same is likely true for wheat. Like soybeans, it is a C3 plant and like soybeans, wheat commits a larger portion of its photosynthate into products that are more complex than starch and which require more energy to produce.

Dr. Jackie Rudd of Texas A&M has argued that perhaps the largest contribution to corn yields in the U.S. has been the added investment in research made possible by hybrid seed sales and the elimination of farmer-saved seed. He points out that the number of corn breeders in the U.S. is fourfold of that in wheat. The advent of the herbicide resistant technology in soybeans and the introduction of grower agreements to protect the intellectual property rights of the technology have done much the same for soybeans what F1-hybrids have done for corn. Dr. Bill Wilson made much the same observation when he compared the R&D investment in wheat, soybeans and corn. In recent years, the total public investment in wheat approached $ 40 million. In the same time, the three largest life science companies active in agriculture invested a total of $ 2.9 billion in research and development.

In my humble opinion, biotechnology may not be needed to increase productivity of wheat at a quicker pace. The total investment made in the breeding programs is likely to be a better predictor for now. This in turn underscores the old adage that breeding is a numbers game -- the more crosses and selections you can make, the more likely it is that you find those new and unique combinations of genes that bring the next leap in productivity. Biotechnology may allow the gap between attainable and actual to be narrowed especially for those pest problems for which there are no effective controls, such as Fusarium Head Blight. After all, despite the best efforts, breeders have not found immunity to FHB nor have fungicides been able to control the disease completely.

Bottom-line: The ability to protect intellectual property and capture its value appears to be as important as anything else when it comes to generating private investments in breeding and genetics. Especially in the U.S., biotechnology and the subsequent licensing of any technology to producers through user agreements has evolved as an effective approach to recoup the investments of commercial breeding companies and fund future research and development. Other mechanisms, such as paying royalties on purchased seed under the auspices of acts analogous to the Plant Variety Protection Act, work well in the EU and other parts of the world.

The public spring wheat breeding programs in the region are still very important when it comes to providing you with improved varieties. In Minnesota, producers voted to increase the checkoff from one to two cents per bushel. This in turn will allow the Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council to invest additional dollars into public wheat research, including spring wheat breeding. It is safe to say that it will not generate the dollars that are generated with the user agreements in corn and soybeans but it is important nonetheless. Only the future will tell whether the life sciences companies see commercially interesting opportunities for biotechnology in wheat, but I’m willing to bet they (again) are looking at it hard.