National Wheat Industry Research Forum Reports Findings

By Tracy Sayler

Wheat research from across the U.S. is outlined in proceedings from the sixth annual National Wheat Industry Research Forum, held earlier this year and sponsored by the National Association of Wheat Growers and the Wheat Industry Resource Committee. The proceedings may be obtained through the NAWG office, ph. 202-547-7800, and can also be found on the Internet at www.wheatimprovement.org/Meetings/meetings.html .

Following are summaries from some of the research reported in this year’s proceedings.

Lowering Allergenicity of Wheat
It’s estimated that in the U.S. about 15% of children under the age of three and 2% of adults suffer from allergies to proteins in foods. Crop scientists at the University of California Berkeley are researching whether allergenicity of wheat can be reduced through genetic engineering, with promising early results.

Managing Wheat Protein with Remote Sensing
A study of wheat fields in Idaho by researchers at the University of Idaho and Utah State University, with the cooperation of NASA, indicated that remote sensing can help optimize nitrogen applications and increase wheat protein content.

An application of N at heading is one method of increasing protein content and therefore the quality of wheat.  In this study, images of wheat plots under various N rates (0, 60, 150, 195 lbs N/acre) were taken from a satellite and airplane during boot, with results compared to plant tissue sampling.  A second application of N was then applied to half of the plots at anthesis to increase protein.  Satellite imagery and tissue samples correlated significantly with each other and preseason N applications.  A second application of N at anthesis improved protein only marginally in wheat with sufficient N, but almost 2% in areas of deficient N.

Thus, this study indicates that satellite and aerial imagery can help identify areas of unhealthy vegetation. When N is applied to areas deficient of the nutrient, the selling price may be increased by increasing protein content and fertilizer cost can be decreased by optimizing the N application.

Wheat Science at “Beginnings of a Revolution”
That’s due to the application of genomics technologies and studies of the wheat genome and gene functioning. The genome of an organism is its set of chromosomes, containing all of its genes and associated DNA. Within the last several years, U.S. wheat genomics has been boosted by two National Science Foundation grants, according to Olin Anderson, research leader at the USDA-ARS Genomics and Gene Discovery Research Unit, Albany, Calif.

In one project, 14 wheat scientists are collaborating to identify a large portion of the total wheat genes, and to identify the location of these genes on the wheat chromosomes.  Over 27,000 unique gene sequences have already been identified, with more to come.  The other project is complementing the first, focusing more on identifying the genetic structure of wheat responsible for its value, particularly quality characteristics. The outcome will be the most detailed map of the placement of wheat genes yet accomplished, with research tools and resources to assist all levels of wheat improvement.

Costs, Risks of Testing and Segregating GM Wheat
Results of a study by William Wilson and Bruce Dahl, North Dakota State University Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, indicated that the optimal testing strategy for genetically-modified wheat was to test every fifth load at the country elevator when loading and every load or unit loading at the export elevator.

This would result in additional costs of testing and rejection for non-GM bushels of just under two cents per bushel. Adding a risk premium increased total costs per non-GM bushel to 3.36 cents/bu. The additional risk premium of about a penny per bushel was interpreted in the study as the implicit cost accrued by the shipper to continue handling and moving grain given both non-GM and GM wheat, versus the current non-GM system. The testing strategy would result in minimal GM content at the import market, and only 1.75% of the shipments would be rejected.

More testing would be required and more testing burden would be shifted upon the country elevator when loading to the export elevator when receiving as tolerances were tightened from 1% to 0.5%. Costs, premiums, rejection rates, and the proportion of flows diverted to GM within the system increased as tolerance levels were lowered. Total costs including the risk premium increased from 1.45 cents/bu with a 5% tolerance to 4.25 cents/bu with a 0.5% tolerance.

The optimal testing strategy for the domestic market had higher rejection rates, costs, and risk premiums than did the export market. Most costs per all bushels, or per non-GM bushels and risk premiums were about double those for the export market. These were higher for the domestic market largely due to increased testing costs arising from smaller lot sizes for domestic users (railcars) versus importers (ship holds).

Wilson and Dahl report several implications from these study results: First, a system based on testing and segregation can very efficiently assure buyers of GM content at a low cost. While zero tolerance cannot be achieved through a system based strictly on testing, the GM content can reasonably be assured at levels of .5% and 1%. Second, the cost of a system based on optimal testing and segregation inclusive of a risk premium is much less than most systems that have been proposed on IP and other means to control GM content. Third, there are many factors that will impact the optimal testing system, costs, and risks. Most important amongst these include price discounts/costs for being out of contract, GM declaration at delivery, and others.

In order for non-GM to gain a premium, sellers will have to provide proof that it is in fact non-GM. Buyers must be willing to pay this increased cost and, eventually through competition, price differentials will emerge to approximately reflect these costs. Fourth, an IP system to resolve marketing of GM would be much more elaborate in terms of monitoring and administration than a system involving tolerances and testing and, as a result, would be much more costly.

Wilson and Dahl report that these results are suggestive of some mitigation strategies that could be adopted in the wheat marketing system. Ultimately, these would facilitate conditioning of probabilities which are assumed in this study and would involve contract type mechanisms necessary to control the costs and risks in the system. The most crucial elements of the system would be declaration of GM content at delivery, testing for GM throughout the non-GM system, buyers aversion to GM, contract specifications for some tolerance level, and the test(s) adopted.

This study, “Costs and Risks of Testing and Segregating GM Wheat,” can be found in its entirety online at http://agecon.lib.umn.edu   Search by author or title.  Archived at that web site is a separate, compendium report by Wilson and Dahl, “Issues in Development and Adoption of Genetically Modified (GM) Wheats.”

----------------------------------------------------

NAWG Hosts Chemical Harmonization Meeting

The NAWG recently hosted a meeting of Senate staff to advance the topic of pesticide harmonization. Problems of price disparities across the northern border with Canada have continued to be a problem, and bipartisan momentum is building to remedy the situation.

The discussion used a bill introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) as the starting point. This bill, which was also introduced last fall but not passed, would allow state pesticide agencies to function as U.S. registrants for Canadian products that are similar to products registered in the United States.

Concerns with regard to uniformity, state budget resources, confidential information, EPA workload, and the possibility of trading an international border issue for state border issues have all been raised with the state-by-state approach.

The group discussed the idea of having decisions of substantial similarity done by EPA at the federal level, in response to a petition from a state agriculture department. This change would alleviate nearly all of the concerns raised. Under that approach, if EPA decided that two products were substantially similar, the products could be brought into the United States as long as they are used in accordance with the label requirements of the US version of the product.

The long-term goal of the harmonization effort is to create a “NAFTA label”  that would provide a single registration process and label for products in the U.S. and Canada. Broad support was expressed for this goal, but an interim measure is necessary until the U.S. and Canadian systems become fully harmonized.