Syngenta Thrive

by

When growers apply fungicides and other inputs to permanent crops, such as tree nuts, grapes and citrus, the carryover effects from one year to the next are relevant to lifelong production.

“A grower planting almond or pistachio trees may use fungicides for Phytophthora root rot and may or may not see immediate benefits in the current crop year,” says Garrett Gilcrease, Syngenta agronomy service representative in Hanford, California. “But since the grower enhanced the plant health of the crop, it helps long term.”

John Taylor, Syngenta agronomy service representative in North Palm Beach, Florida, sees a similar thought process when citrus growers make input decisions, particularly where citrus greening is a major factor.

“Citrus greening has made the crop much more unpredictable,” Taylor says. “Growers find it much more challenging to predict benefits and returns of all their inputs.”

Supporting root development, however, reaps benefits for healthy and stressed trees. One way to do that is by controlling Phytophthora, which can be managed but not eradicated.

Taylor works with growers who use Orondis® and Ridomil Gold® fungicides to manage Phytophthora, and thus support healthier roots and increased root mass. Growers, Taylor says, should consider ongoing fungicide applications as a way to protect their investment.

“Even in years of light disease pressure, timely fungicide applications can help reduce inoculum and improve root mass,” Taylor says. “This puts the grower ahead when the disease inevitably rebounds.”

Cover image: Healthy orange groves like this one in Florida benefit from regular fungicide applications, even in years when disease pressure is light. Photography by Stephen Williams. 

by

Kathy Eichlin, head of internal communications for Syngenta Crop Protection in North America, and Robin Thomas, early talent acquisition manager for Syngenta in North America, were recently awarded Honorary American FFA Degrees.

Both Eichlin and Thomas were recognized for the exceptional service they’ve provided to the National FFA Organization, specifically for agricultural communication and education.

Eichlin says she appreciates FFA’s recognition, which “continues to shape and guide the future leaders of the agriculture industry.”

Thomas, who was active in 4-H and FFA during her childhood on a West Virginia farm, once served as her state’s FFA vice president. Now leading early talent acquisition at Syngenta, Thomas says, “I’m grateful that Syngenta provides me the opportunity to serve FFA, the organization that gave me so much.”

The names of Honorary American FFA Degree recipients are permanently recorded as recipients of the highest FFA honor, and recipients receive a plaque and medal.

For more information, visit www.ffa.org/participate/awards/honorary-awards.

Cover image: Photography by Bryan Moberly

by

Q. What sources do you find the most helpful for evaluating new ag technology?

A. David Zaruk, Ph.D., professor of communications and marketing at Odisee University College in Brussels, environmental health policy risk analyst at Risk Perception Management: Farmers. If a technology works, they will demand it again. If it doesn’t, they will not waste their money the next season. Researchers need to work closely with farmers, especially those with a pioneering spirit who are actively working for a better, more sustainable means to harvest.

A. Tim Pastoor, Ph.D., president of the Health & Environmental Sciences Institute, founder of Pastoor Science Communications, LLC: Go to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Food and Drug Administration; they are qualified, and they are the referees in these situations. You need a referee because if you left it to the players, there would be a considerable amount of bias in every single call. Those government agencies have access to all the relevant facts and must come to an objective decision that’s in the best interest of everyone.

Q. How can ag consumers determine bias in a study?

A. Zaruk: A lot of times, they can’t. Before the internet revolution, studies were published and debated before science communicators conveyed the information to the public. Most news organizations no longer have science editors. This means consumers are “doing their own research,” which generally is simply confirming their own biases. Objective, quality research rarely has the support to reach the public, but it does still exist, and critically thinking consumers can pick it out if they’re looking.

A. Pastoor: I accept and expect some level of bias in everything. That’s human nature. It’s too easy to say, “Hey, you’re biased. I’m not.” Bias is about our individual perspectives and context. The same data can be interpreted and cast in many different lights. But I try to triangulate information against three pillars: First, I look at the opinion in terms of the speaker’s qualifications. Is this person an expert? What makes him or her an expert? Ask your doctor for an opinion on health, and you’ll get expert advice. Ask your doctor about climate change, and you might get an opinion that isn’t much better than your own. Second, accept that this person has biases, but seek out their objectivity. If an opinion is objectively supported by facts, I can be OK with that, even when I disagree with the interpretation. Lastly, I look for other opinions to find a consensus viewpoint. If several experts express the same or similar viewpoints, that strengthens the conclusion.

''

Participants up and down the agricultural supply chain need to make sure they share new information with each other as it becomes available, because what is relevant to one is also relevant to their industry partners.

David Zaruk, Ph.D. Professor of Communications and Marketing at Odisee University College in Brussels, Environmental Health Policy Risk Analyst at Risk Perception Management

Q. The information flow is a raging river these days. How can retailers and farmers find information relevant to their operations?

A. Zaruk: Unfortunately, there is often poor communication and coordination between researchers, ag retailers and farmers, which also extends to food processors, manufacturers, brands and consumers. Participants up and down the agricultural supply chain need to make sure they share new information with each other as it becomes available, because what is relevant to one is also relevant to their industry partners.

A. Pastoor: We have a human tendency to believe what we want to believe. But if you’re sincerely interested in learning and forming a solid perspective, use this three-step process: consensus, qualifications and objectivity. When reading an article, wherever it happens to be, ask yourself, “Is it referencing consensus information from qualified sources that try for objectivity?” It needs to check those boxes. Avoid yoga teachers opining about pesticides while trying to sell their own dietary supplements. Do go to the EPA website and look for fact sheets and FAQ that can help you form your opinions.

Q. When we see inaccurate information on social media, is there a strategy that can help change the perception?

A. Zaruk: It seems that more and more, social media is becoming a divisive world of echo chambers with limited levels of stakeholder dialogue. Public trust is eroded when even the experts are seen attacking and silencing those who may disagree. The first point in any strategy is to engage openly, professionally and calmly; it is not about winning each argument for the sake of winning the argument, but about developing public trust.

A. Pastoor: It’s important to take a deep breath and decide if engaging would make a difference. Walk away from extreme positions. Onlookers may see you as the same. If you decide to engage, ask for or state facts and qualifications, and look for objectivity, especially in yourself. Cool headedness often starts with opening our ears before opening our mouths, then engaging in factual discussion and civil debate.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

Recalling a visit to a peanut field outside of Tifton, Georgia, in the late 1980s, Timothy Brenneman, Ph.D., University of Georgia (UGA) plant pathologist, says, “I remember walking out of that field scratching my head because this was a new type of beast that we were not used to dealing with.”

Brenneman was responding to a report of an unknown disease infestation. He and Albert Culbreath, Ph.D., a fellow UGA plant pathologist, walked the field but could not identify the disease, let alone the cause. The unknown beast turned out to be tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). That day set the stage for a three-decade war between the disastrous disease and a cross-discipline team of researchers, extension personnel and industry leaders. This collaboration brought the Southeast’s peanut industry back from the brink of disaster. The team won the battle, but the war continues.

Detection of Threat to Peanut Industry

First discovered in Texas in 1971, TSWV didn’t pose a significant threat to the rest of the U.S. peanut crop until it moved into the Southeastern peanut states. Severe outbreaks of TSWV in peanuts occurred as the insect vectors for the virus — most commonly tobacco thrips (Franklinella fusca) or western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) — transmitted TSWV. In some regions of Georgia, peanut fields saw infection rates ranging from an estimated 40% to nearly 100%.

Culbreath remembers that when he began working with Jim Demski, Ph.D., UGA plant virologist, and Jim Todd, Ph.D., UGA entomologist, they suspected the horrendous possibilities of TSWV. “We really didn’t know exactly what the potential damage was,” Culbreath says, as he recalls that first encounter with TSWV. “Ultimately, we suspected it had great potential, and, unfortunately, we were correct.”

''

Every year, it seems a different factor is thrown in with this virus, and it’s a challenge to keep it in check. But thankfully, there are people from all over contributing to the management of this virus.

Wilson Faircloth Ph.D. Agronomic Service Representative Syngenta

The disease spread rapidly, and leaders in the Southeast feared losing the region’s peanut industry, which is a significant economic driver. However, an interdisciplinary team known as the Spotted Wilt Eradication Action Team (SWEAT) rose to the challenge.

Hard Work and SWEAT

SWEAT, an acronym that Culbreath notes is highly fitting when he recalls the team’s long hours in the field, quickly garnered support from Southeast peanut researchers determined to find solutions for the puzzling disease.

“It was not like we all got together and said, ‘We’re going to put this team together to work on spotted wilt,’” Culbreath says of SWEAT’s origin. “Most of us involved recognized the necessity of it [SWEAT], both in terms of the scope of the problem and because, early on, no single project had the resources to achieve the progress we’ve since made with spotted wilt. The teamwork was born out of necessity. We didn’t have a choice.”

SWEAT has gone through many changes in the past 30 years, with notable players in the peanut industry pitching in and creating management strategies for the challenges the virus poses each year. Many management strategies developed by the team, such as the discovery of resistant varieties, remain successful today.

Solutions for TSWV

William Branch, Ph.D., UGA endowed seed development professor in peanut breeding and genetics, developed Georgia Green, the first popular cultivar with resistance to the virus. Georgia Green worked in concert with the other practices identified for managing TSWV such as mid-May planting, increased plant population, at-plant insecticide (phorate) application, twin-row-pattern spacing and strip tillage. This integrated approach was critical in reducing disease losses since no single component provided the protection needed. The genetic resistance in Georgia Green was a key component, and peanut breeders in the Southeast responded by developing more cultivars resistant to spotted wilt.

Investments in molecular studies have improved researchers’ understanding of the virus. “But there’s still a lot we don’t know,” Brennemen explains, “and in many ways, we still rely heavily on genetic resistance.”

Although management strategies haven’t completely eradicated the virus, research over the last few decades has produced tools to identify peanut disease pressures throughout the growing season.

Risk Index Established 26 Years Ago

The Spotted Wilt Risk Index for peanuts, created in 1996, assigns risk values based on the symptoms of TSWV to determine the most effective integrated approach to manage the virus. Culbreath helped develop the index, but credits Steve “Bug” Brown, Ph.D., UGA extension entomologist, as the “father” of the project. Using the index, now known as Peanut Rx, farmers can determine a field’s disease and TSWV risk level. Peanut Rx was initially developed and is reviewed each year by peanut specialists at the University of Georgia, the University of Florida, Mississippi State University, Clemson University and Auburn University. Today, Peanut Rx helps growers evaluate their risk not only for TSWV, but also for leaf spot and white mold.

TSWV Today

Wilson Faircloth, Ph.D., Syngenta agronomic service representative, explains that, even after all these years, the common challenge for growers managing TSWV in peanuts remains the unpredictable factors that initially cause the disease.

“Last year, some peanut fields had trouble with germination, and that was a big contributor,” Faircloth says. “But this season, seed germination and quality were better, which led to good stands and just a perfect early season. We also had some adequate rains. Then one day we walked out and went, ‘Oh no, what’s going on?’ Every year, it seems a different factor is thrown in with this virus, and it’s a challenge to keep it in check. But thankfully, there are people from all over contributing to the management of this virus.”

The day of TSWV’s eradication isn’t here yet, but the progress made so far is a testament to a successful, ongoing collaboration within the peanut industry.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

The Peanut Rx sheet offers growers a valuable tool for assessing a field’s disease risk, including its risk for tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), using a simple four-step process that assigns points for various factors that can make the disease more likely.

TSWV Risk Factors Risk Points Assessed to Factors Range From
Variety Selection 5 to 30
Planting Date 5 to 30
Plant Population (final stand, not seeding rate) 5 to 25
Insecticide Used at Planting 5 to 15
Row Pattern 5 to 50
Tillage 5 to 15
Herbicide Use 0 to 5

Once points are assigned and tabulated, growers can see the level of risk that a particular field has for TSWV.

TSWV Levels of Risk
Low Risk 65 or less
Moderate Risk 70 to 110
High Risk 115 or more

With that information, growers can then formulate a management plant to mitigate the risk of TSWV on a field-by-field basis, including steps such as using less-susceptible varieties and the adjustment of planting dates.

For more detailed information about your TSWV, leaf spot or white mold disease risk index, talk to your local Syngenta representative or visit syngenta-us.com/peanut-doctor. You can find Peanut Rx sheets for four key U.S. peanut-growing regions on this website.

by

In 2020, Seven Springs Farms in Cadiz, Kentucky, had a cluster of four farms that shared fence rows and should have had comparable yields. But, they didn’t.

One farm wasn’t treated with a fungicide because it included a seed grower’s test plot. The treated farms averaged 231, 226 and 228 bushels per acre (bu/A). The untreated farm averaged 205 bu/A.

“Needless to say, we aren’t skipping fungicide applications for test plots anymore,” says Nick Woodruff, technology manager at Seven Springs Farms.

Corn Growers See Fungicide Benefits

Crops undergo a constant struggle to maximize genetic potential in the face of root, stalk and foliar diseases, as well as stressful environmental conditions. Perpetually reacting to both biotic and abiotic stressors, plants constantly fight to achieve optimal performance. Fungicides are a key tool growers use to mitigate damage from stress and diseases that can negatively impact their bottom line. But certain fungicides, such as strobilurins and Adepidyn® technology, which are ingredients in Miravis® Neo fungicide, or Solatenol® technology, an ingredient in Trivapro® fungicide, can also provide plant health benefits lasting into harvest and driving up yield potential. As such, row crop growers are rethinking the way they incorporate fungicides into their input decisions.

“The decision to invest in crop inputs is typically driven by the grower’s desire to maximize yields,” says Tyler Harp, technical product lead at Syngenta. “The 2021 season saw favorable gains in commodity prices, which helped underscore the value of fungicide applications to increase yield. And, although most corn acres remain untreated, treated acreage has steadily increased over the last 20 years as growers continue to realize the value and benefits of fungicide use on corn as well as other row crops, regardless of the current commodity prices.” Currently, about 20 million acres of corn are treated with a fungicide, up from under 1 million in the late 1990s.

Controlling Southern Rust

Seven Springs Farms incorporates fungicides into its annual business plan. Established in 1994 by Joe Nichols, managing partner and 2010 Kentucky Farmer of the Year, Seven Springs Farms now encompasses nearly 30,000 acres across multiple counties in western Kentucky. The operation consists of row crops, cattle, tobacco, excavating and straw blanket production.

Southern rust has been an agronomic challenge at Seven Springs Farms for several years. The disease robs corn of nutrients and affects plants’ ability to manage water loss, which can lead to increased lodging and reduced yields. To manage Southern rust, the operation applies Trivapro, which they’ve found provides the best control. However, it isn’t just the threat of Southern rust that drives input decisions at this farm.

“Our decision to apply corn fungicide is now based more on yield potential than on disease pressure,” Woodruff says. “We’ve seen improvements of 20+ bu/A on check strips from yield benefits alone.”

In some parts of the U.S., disease epidemics can be destructive, and fungicide applications are driven by consistently high pressure. In other locations, disease pressure varies year to year.

“A well-placed fungicide application that provides plant health benefits still protects crops from potential disease outbreaks,” Harp says, “while also increasing the efficiency of the crop and management of abiotic stresses, or environmental pressure like hail or windstorms.”

In recent years, Seven Springs Farms had light disease pressure at the time they made their application decisions. “We’ve done some checks in the past where we have shown 20+ bu/A increases in light disease years,” Woodruff says. “If we have a farm that we expect to have a high yield potential, we are going to spray it with fungicide, regardless of disease pressure.”

''

A well-placed fungicide application that provides plant health benefits still protects crops from potential disease outbreaks while also increasing the efficiency of the crop and management of abiotic stresses, or environmental pressure like hail or windstorms.

Tyler Harp Technical Product Lead at Syngenta

Increase Crop Resilience

Beyond disease control and easing stress, the physiological plant health benefits of fungicides include prolonged duration of green leaf tissue, improved water and nutrient-use efficiency, and enhanced energy (photosynthetic) efficiency.

“The physiological effects on crops increase overall efficiency of energy production and water use, which allows the crop to better withstand abiotic stresses — such as drought, humidity and extreme temperatures — along with biotic stresses from diseases and insect pressure,” Harp says. Syngenta fungicides, such as Miravis Neo and Trivapro, typically provide a delayed senescence and/or extended green leaf duration leading up to harvest, ensuring maximum late-season grain fill and higher yields.

The symbiotic relationship between healthier plants and higher yields starts with ensuring crops are cleaner and greener, Harp says, meaning diseases are under control and the plant’s overall health is maintained. Greener leaves allow plants to capture more light. That light, referred to as “photochemistry” in the plant, is important for optimal energy production and allows for higher yields. Greener plants also hold more water, ensuring better conservation and efficient use of water and nutrients. In corn, plant health fungicides promote a healthier and thicker stalk, increasing harvest efficiency and potentially contributing to higher yields.

Three Factors for Higher Yield Potential

“All three of these factors — more light capture, better conservation of water and nutrients, and superior harvest efficiency — contribute significantly to a healthier crop and higher yields,” Harp says.

Woodruff recognizes how fungicides help improve plant health in addition to boosting yield potential, and he specifically likes the standability late in the fall because it holds crops up better for harvest.

“Across 56 locations in the Corn Belt from 2018 to 2020, including many with little or no disease severity reported, Miravis Neo provided just over 15 bu/A on average increase in yield over the untreated across all locations,”1 Harp adds. “In soybeans, we have found yield increases of ~6 to 9 bu/A over untreated in fields previously scouted and reported as not requiring a fungicide  application.”1

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

1“See the Difference in Corn with Miravis Neo.” 2020 Corn Fungicide Trials – Miravis Neo | Syngenta US, Syngenta, syngenta-us.com/p/boost-your-bushels/trials/corn/neo/index.html. Assuming representative of average user experience and supported by reproducible data.

by

At the 2021 CropLife America (CLA) annual meeting, Caydee Savinelli, stewardship team and pollinator lead, won the Pillar Award, which recognizes an individual who has shown dedicated service to the pesticide industry and CLA over the last year. Savinelli has been the Syngenta lead on all pollinator-related activities for 8 years and consistently demonstrates her willingness to work on this challenging topic as well as many others, including the Endangered Species Act. She works collaboratively with all interested stakeholders, seeking and finding common ground. During Savinelli’s time on the stewardship team, she helped establish many pollinator habitat sites under the Operation Pollinator banner — including all Syngenta facilities, many golf courses and a large number of grower fields.

At the same meeting, Tony Burd, senior regulatory stewardship manager, won the Rising Star Award, which recognizes emerging leaders in the agricultural community who’ve shown exceptional growth and increased levels of leadership and responsibility within the industry. Burd has worked with many stakeholders at the highest levels of the industry. His contributions to CLA and the pesticide industry regarding the Endangered Species Act and the consultation process between the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service are incomparable. An advocate and champion for diversity and inclusion, Burd has stood up for fellow employees when others were less sensitive.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

There isn’t much that’s more valuable to a grower than seeing how new products and practices work locally. It’s the sort of thing that gets noticed. It’s also the sort of thing that Stacey Wright, sales representative for Pitchford Elevator; Barry Beaupre, sales representative at Syngenta; and Trent Funk, owner of Funk Farms, make happen with their own test plot.

Consistency Is Key

Pitchford Elevator is a full-service retailer providing fertilizer, crop protection products and seeds primarily to corn, bean and wheat growers in Richview, Illinois. “When it comes to providing growers with the best recommendations for their farms, local partnerships are essential,” Beaupre says, “because growers know you understand their needs.”

Wright has worked with Beaupre for more than 25 years and says Beaupre’s consistency is what has made their partnership last.

“Barry has always been a constant and a good person to work with,” Wright says. “Sometimes, with other companies, you meet with a different sales rep every time, which makes it hard to develop a trusting relationship. Barry is so close in proximity to us that it helps keep the relationship strong, and our growers get to know him.”

Funk Farms, which is also located in Illinois, primarily grows corn, soybeans, wheat and milo. Fifteen years ago, Funk switched from his former retailer to Pitchford Elevator. Funk had a preexisting relationship with Wright and was confident in Wright’s ability to meet the needs of Funk Farms.

“Pitchford serviced our farm as it grew and helped make our operation more efficient,” Funk says. “The prices and services of the products were also very reasonable.”

''

I am there to help growers achieve a good return on investment and provide what they need. I don’t consider myself a sales rep so much as a business partner.

Barry Beaupre Sales Representative at Syngenta

Local Data Wins

Wright says that although growers see lots of trials, they don’t always get to see them right at their back door. Wright knows growers want to see trials working in their locations with fields mirroring their own. That means the same soil and same weather patterns. Results from other geographies don’t always translate well to areas outside those geographies, and that frustrates growers. Wright and Beaupre have teamed up with Funk to use Funk’s local farm to conduct trials to help neighboring farmers avoid those frustrations.

Their test plot, a 30-acre field site located on Funk Farms, uses block trials to research problems, find answers and understand the challenges local growers are experiencing. The site helps Wright and Beaupre understand growers’ concerns and offer practical solutions that provide the best yields. A farm that participates in field trials within 15 miles of other growers provides a treasure trove of pertinent data for use in those growers’ fields.

“It is almost like tests from their own farms because the factors are so similar: soil, weather, etc.,” Wright says. “Even the growers who already trust you will trust you even more when they can see your trial results for themselves.”

Wright brings his customers to Funk Farms to view the trial results in their field trials, so they can make informed decisions after seeing how products affect crops on farms like their own.

“We walk from one part of the field to the next, so growers see products, trials, yield results,” Wright explains. “They ask questions and see product performance in real time.”

Trial Shows Best Herbicides

When growers in the area began having issues with weed resistance, Wright, Funk and Beaupre designed a trial showing which herbicides worked the best and provided the most residual control. They applied herbicides and evaluated results, so the team could make the best grower recommendations.

“It wasn’t a seed issue,” Wright says. “It was that weeds had developed resistance to the herbicides, and they were no longer working on the weeds.”

In addition to showing bare-ground studies, the partners brought in agriculture experts — like Jason Bond, Ph.D., professor of plant, soil and agricultural systems at Southern Illinois University, and Bryan Young, Ph.D., professor of weed science at Purdue University — to discuss proper weed management with growers.

Local Partnership Builds Trust

Everybody wins in a good partnership because everybody is happy with the results. The idea is to build trust and confidence between the growers, retailers and Syngenta.

Funk says a partnership like this one is valuable because it means quicker service in the face of problems. He says it’s a key factor in the success and growth of all parties involved.

“Barry is a very hands-on rep and is instrumental in trials,” Funk says. “It’s not just what we learn, but also what he learns for his sales programs.”

“I trust Barry, and we’re in it for the long haul,” Wright says. “It all circles back to trust.”

“Retailers have to trust Syngenta sales reps, and the grower has to believe that both have the best interests of growers in mind,” Beaupre says. “I am there to help growers achieve a good return on investment and provide what they need. I don’t consider myself a sales rep so much as a business partner.”

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

Corn and soybean yield results show NK® hybrids consistently performed under varied pest pressure — from corn rootworm to tar spot — and under extreme conditions, including damaging winds and drought. In particular, the new NK Field Forged Series™ products demonstrated their worth in field trials by consistently topping competitor products.

As yield-robbing problems pervaded cornfields this season, top-of-the-line NK corn genetics demonstrated resilience. NK hybrids were particularly successful against tar spot.

Check out corn yield results near you at nkseeds.com/cornresults. For soybean results, go to nkseeds.com/soyresults.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

Cover image: Matt Dolch (left), Syngenta district manager for the western Corn Belt and NK retail channel, and Mike Egger (right), master seed adviser at Central Valley Ag Cooperative in York, Nebraska, work together to provide seed options to fit grower needs. Photography by Syngenta. 

by

Just as geographic information system (GIS) technology transformed planting and harvesting, advancements in DNA-driven seed production are revolutionizing seed choices. For wheat growers, predictive breeding using DNA is getting new seed varieties to market faster and is on a path to increasing end-user specificity and on-farm profit opportunity.

According to Paul Morano, head of North American cereals for Syngenta, using DNA markers to confirm traits in existing wheat strains eliminates multiple generations of hit-and-miss field trials that were the norm.

“Today, we can look at 100 wheat tissue samples and find the ones that have the DNA string we want,” he says. “We know for a fact it’s in there.”

From there, confirming that the trait was picked up when the cross was made simply requires a DNA test.

“So, there’s a huge difference in the number of plants, the number of trials and the amount of labor you need,” Morano says. “It’s much, much better than the way we were doing it before.”

''

Today, we can look at 100 wheat tissue samples and find the ones that have the DNA string we want.

Paul Morano Head of North American Cereals
at Syngenta

Although technology such as CRISPR — clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats — further reduce the timeline by allowing scientists to manipulate the plant’s DNA in a lab versus in a field, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently prohibits genetic modification of wheat through a non-natural process. Genomic editing is often defined as changes made within a plant’s own DNA, with genetic modification defined as the insertion of a gene.

“That’s where the crux of gene editing comes in, because there is no genetically modified wheat; GM wheat is not accepted,” Morano says, adding that even the definition of genetic modification is a gray area. Some interpret it as the insertion of genes from one species into another, while others apply the term to any artificial movement of genes, even same-species transfers.

The Search for Consumer Acceptance

That’s a frustration for Dave Milligan, Michigan farmer and president of the National Association of Wheat Growers.

“Wheat’s kind of fallen behind some of the other crops as far as the technology other crops have used,” he says. “Consumers are resistant to products produced by genetic modification, and it’s really been detrimental to moving wheat research ahead, wheat breeding particularly.”

Milligan hopes the precision of CRISPR will result in wider acceptance of the technology, and he appreciates the gains being made in that arena.

“We’re growing a lot more bushels on a lot fewer acres than we were 50 years ago,” he says. “They have made improvements, and we need to continue to do that.”

Morano says Syngenta continually breeds for increasing yield and disease resistance, but those aren’t the only goals in the breeding program. Breeders also test for consistent performance under a variety of conditions and increased flour quality. They also research gluten properties to improve digestibility.

“Growers want yield, but I think another thing they want is consistency,” he says. “Wheat is grown on some tough acres, and in many places, you can grow a good crop if conditions are right; but when conditions change, your crop goes bad in a hurry. So, farmers want — need — consistent performance.”

Another focus in breeding is finding DNA markers for wheat quality attributes that will improve, and perhaps define, the final flour product.

“That’s important, because then you can breed for a specific end use, whether that’s a bread, a cracker or a cookie,” Morano says. “So that’s one thing a lot of people are working on.”

Another is gluten, the substance that provides the viscoelastic properties that give rise to bread but can also cause problems for those with celiac disease. Allan Fritz, Ph.D., a professor of wheat breeding at Kansas State University, says while a celiac-safe wheat may not be possible, identifying problematic proteins in gluten is a realistic target.

“As a research community, we could look at whether we can make that gluten less reactive in the digestive system so people are less likely to develop sensitivities,” he says.

Wild Relatives’ Promise

Breeders are exploring the vast resource of “wild relatives” — naturally occurring wheat species — to improve commercial varieties. Fritz notes that these wild relatives give breeders access to unique genetics that are not currently available in commercial varieties.

“Only a handful of those plants were involved in the hybridizations that led to modern-day wheat,” he says.

Researchers, including Fritz and the team at the USDA’s Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research Center in Manhattan, Kansas, are exploring what the wild species of wheat can contribute to commercial production goals for wheat varieties.

The research already shows that wild relatives can contribute disease and insect resistance, as well as nutritional traits that would make a healthier crop. One of the most promising, Fritz says, is wild emmer, an ancient grain native to Israel that shares 28 of domestic wheat’s 42 chromosomes.

“If we could redomesticate these plants, we could give people something that is actually better for them — better antioxidant capacity, or better iron and zinc nutrition, which is needed in some parts of the world,” Fritz says. “I think there’s a story there, about this natural goodness in the grain we’re providing through these new materials. If we can make things that really are better for people from a health standpoint, there’s a tremendous amount of value in that.”

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

Cover image: Emmer wheat, an ancient grain native to Israel, holds promise for wheat breeding because more than half of its chromosomes are the same as those of domestic wheat. Photography by Syngenta.