Wheat research is unique, in that university and government researchers – rather than the private sector – are largely responsible for providing new varieties to U.S. farmers.
In fact, publicly developed wheat varieties accounted for 78 percent of U.S. wheat production during 2001 to 2003, an annual average of 38 million metric tons worth more than $5 billion, according to data collected at the University of California at Davis.
One of the leading lights in that effort is Washington State University researcher and genetic scientist Professor Stephen Jones, who focuses on breeding improved winter wheat varieties for both traditional and organic systems. Jones’s program relies heavily on farmer participation and grower expertise in research planning and decision making.
Along with keeping Washington’s wheat sector healthy, Prof. Jones is renowned for taking a stand against patenting of crop varieties developed with public funding. In fact, at one point four years ago, the state Wheat Commission threatened to cut off its $1.66 million worth of annual support for the WSU winter wheat development because Jones was unwilling contract with agro-chem and biotech firms to develop patented genetics as private intellectual property.
The storm eventually subsided, and Jones went back to work on a number of projects, including one particularly interesting one: He’s researching what he hopes will become a perennial strain of wheat, biologically similar to the wild grasses that once covered the Palouse, the high and dry plateau in eastern Washington where most of state’s wheat crop is harvested. Not only would a perennial strain help hold the soil in place – an important consideration in a region where rainfall can average less than eight inches a year – but since soil tillage causes a significant release of carbon into the atmosphere, it might even help forestall global warming by sequestering carbon in the soil.
That’s in the future, however. For the present, Jones is very much engaged in developing new wheat varieties to keep Washington farmers – as well as the soil – in place for the future. He recently discussed that mission and his perspective on such controversial issues as biotechnology and ownership of new crop patents, with AgNetwork.com Contributing Editor Dan Murphy.
AgNetwork.com: You helped develop a new breed of red winter wheat – Beauermeister – that has now been planted in more than 90,000 acres in eastern Washington. The variety has increased yields by as much as 25 percent, according to farmers who planted it this season. Take us through a “short course” in what it takes to develop such a remarkable new variety. What’s involved on your end, how long does it take and what role do farmers play in the process?
Jones: With Beauermeister [named after a farm family in Connell, a small town 100 miles west of the university], we started with Eltan, which is the most widely grown soft wheat in Washington, and basically converted it to a hard red. That involved only two genes. Most of the work was done in the [Washington State University] lab and greenhouse, and it proceeded fairly quickly – by the standards of such development. The Bauermeister variety took only 10 years to release, as opposed to an average of about 12 years or more for other varieties.
Our newest variety, Xerpha, is a soft white wheat that took only nine years to develop. It is named after Xerpha Gaines, a researcher here at WSU from 1911 until the 1960s. We have high hopes for this new variety, and it has been the highest yielding wheat in the state for two years in a row, as compared with 49 other wheat varieties from 11 private and public breeding programs throughout the Pacific Northwest. It was also the top yielder in trials conducted in Northern California this year.
As for farmers, yes – their participation is vital. We have growers involved in all levels of our research, especially in developing new varieties. They test what we develop, report back on performance and help us set priorities for future research.
AgNetwork.com: Washington is known as a productive region for growing wheat, especially in the eastern part of the state. Yet the dryland farming practiced there would be jeopardized if some of the more dire predictions about global warming prove to be accurate. That’s an unknown at this point, of course, but is there research at Washington State looking at ways to mitigate the potential effects of climate change on the production of wheat and other important food crops?
Jones: Climate change is tough on breeding programs, because we assume that one year will at least in part predict the performance of the next in terms of how well a variety will perform. If the change is gradual, then we’re in better shape.
In Washington, we have an advantage in that our breeding is geared for diverse rainfall and climatic regions. Our main wheat areas range in rainfall from about eight to more than 20 inches of rain a year. If climate change involves more drought and heat, we will have varieties that will fit in nicely. If water becomes more scarce yields drop, of course, but we feel confident that over time, we can adapt by providing a constant supply of the varieties best suited for growers to capture whatever yield possibilities are there.
AgNetwork.com: Agricultural research takes place against the backdrop of considerable consumer concern about – if not outright opposition towards – biotechnology. The U.S. wheat industry was divided a few years ago over Monsanto Co.'s commercialization of a Roundup-ready GM wheat. Some foreign trading partners – and domestic food processors – at the time warned that they would not buy biotech wheat, and Monsanto ultimately shelved its plans. What’s your perspective? How important is biotechnology in developing food crops to feed the world’s growing population, and how worried about public concerns about genetic engineering?
Jones: Personally, I feel that the consumers have a right to choose what they want to eat or not. If they aren't comfortable with what is being done to their food or what is being added to it, that’s fine by me. I respect that stance.
That said, there are a lot of definitions of “biotechnology,” and the fact is that the progress being made today in traditional breeding is incredible. When people say they are opposed to biotech, they’re really only focusing on a very narrow branch of the field – namely, transforming or adding genes to a plant or an animal that normally wouldn't be found in that organism.
Our program does not utilize this technology, although we do use modern techniques, such as genetic markers, to assist in our research.
As a doctoral student in molecular genetics in the 1980s, I saw great promise in genetic engineering. Today, we’re still waiting on most of it. Patent issues and ownership disputes have complicated the science and locked out many people from moving forward.
AgNetwork.com: On that subject, your bio mentions that your research was featured in the documentary titled, “Not for Sale.” Tell us about that project. What was the documentary about, and what was your contribution?
Jones: The film is about the process of patenting plants and animals developed with genetic engineering and features discussions on the implications of that movement. I was mentioned because, as a “public” scientist, I chose not to commercialize what I develop. I feel that the farmers have paid for these varieties already through checkoff funds that support my research. I don't feel it’s right for me to enter into commercial agreements that would charge them again for the same materials or the varieties I develop.
AgNetwork.com: Finally, you’ve had along career in academia, working in agricultural research and collaborating with farmers across the state. How optimistic are you about the future, in terms of recruiting enough students to choose ag science, and certainly about keeping enough young people on the farms to continue Washington’s agricultural productivity?
Jones: I’m very optimistic regarding students, I have a great crew of young doctoral candidates who conduct both lab and field work. Each of them has plots in various farms, so they’re out there, working on a day-to-day basis with real growers. They’re very passionate about helping farmers.
But for farmers themselves, the future looks pretty tough. The commodity market can be a cruel place to be. We are working directly with growers to lower their off-farm inputs and possibly add value to what they harvest, such as added nutrition that would allow wheat to be marketed as a specialty crop.
Also, I feel that the movement towards “local food,” along with growing consumer awareness of who is actually growing their food, will help farmers in the long run. But there are fewer and fewer farmers every year. If that’s okay, then the system is working according to plan. If it’s not – and I believe it isn’t – then we need to create some long-term solutions pretty quickly. Hopefully, some of our students can be the ones to come up with new ideas.
» For more information on Prof. Jones’ research, log onto http://css.wsu.edu/research/index.htm
Dan Murphy is a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator. His latest book is “The Meat of the Matter”(www.themeatofthematter.com)