1. Breeding Oat for Human Health B.G. Rossnagel Crop Development Centre University of Saskatchewan 8 th IOC Minneapolis, June 2008 UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. www.usask.ca

2. Crop Development Centre Not just about Nutrition  Question of practicality and delivery to the consumer  Who is the breeder’s customer?  who pays the bills?????

3. Crop Development Centre Who is the breeder’s customer?  Producers  must be profitable  Processors  must be profitable  Regulators  public good  producer/processor – consumer balance  Consumers  public good  won’t really pay for nutrition  Hungry vs overfed????

4. Crop Development Centre Human Health = Nutritional Quality???  Oat nutritional quality  Physical  Chemical / Intrinsic / Nutritional

5. Crop Development Centre Nutritional Quality???  Physical  grain size/shape  bulk density/test weight  plumpness  % groat or %hull  UNIFORMITY  Important for producers & processors thus important for human health

6. Crop Development Centre Physical Quality  Significant breeding success over past 30 years  Real genetic change to % groat & uniformity  Real practical change re milling yield  Not exclusively genetic  manipulation of environment via agronomy  physical engineering re process  Compromises????  e.g. have we gone too far with seed size??

7. Crop Development Centre Nutritional Quality???  Chemical / Intrinsic - Nutritional  starch  protein  fat (unique among cereals)  non-starch polysaccharides  fibre/ash  minor compounds antioxidants, minerals  Just begun breeding in 1980s

8. Crop Development Centre Nutritional Quality Components  Starch  amylose/amylopectin ratio  Protein  amino acid composition biological value  Fat (unique among cereals)  fatty acid composition  Non-starch polysaccharides  beta glucan (unique to oat & barley)  Fibre  Soluble vs insoluble  Minor compounds antioxidants, minerals

9. Crop Development Centre Chemical/intrinsic - Nutritional  Manipulate via genetics?  Definitely  Manipulate via agronomy  To a limited degree  Manipulate via physical engineering  Beyond concentration of specific components - Not likely

10. Crop Development Centre Breeding per se  7 – 10 years + seed ramp up to commercial  Make cross  Early generations  Agronomic, quality and disease evaluation – all about discarding  Begin with simply inherited traits  Prioritize – traits & methods  Reduce numbers and increase selection intensity  Multi-site trials  Pilot scale quality evaluation

11. Crop Development Centre Breeding per se  All about phenotyping and cutting corners  Most critical need  Need rapid inexpensive evaluation of large numbers of small samples Examples – NIR, Megazyme kits etc.  New tools (Biotech)  may allow/assist us to cheat  Remember computers & small plot equipment

12. Crop Development Centre Challenges  Moving targets  Difficult when breeding has a 10+ year time frame  Food vs feed vs fuel  Generally good food oat = good feed oat  Good feed oat likely = good fuel oat Ethanol just a feedlot for yeast  Label requirements vs nutrition  Business vs public good  Limits potential improvement  Good news = positive correlation  Reason for regulations - provide minimum standards  If consumers would really pay that would drive the innovation

13. Crop Development Centre Challenges  Phenotyping difficulties  e.g. TDF measurement - $140 per sample!!!!  Not sexy to develop  Conflict between quality control and relative difference measures  Genetic variability  Is it there? Create it? Searching………  Can we measure it?  Don’t try to turn oat into wheat  Regulatory issues  Canadian PNT definition and regulations

14. Crop Development Centre Challenges  Critical mass in oat R&D  Who cares?  Scandinavia, Canada  USA?? UK?? Australia??  G x E  change G or change E?  or deal with it via physical engineering  VARIABILITY  this is BIOLOGY not ENGINEERING  Can’t control growing environment  Quality control vs relative genetic differences  Development of measurement capability  Breeding efficiency

15. Crop Development Centre Challenges  Difficult complicated traits  e.g taste???  Interactions between traits  Application of new technologies/tools  Just new tools – still have to do the breeding!!  Often very expensive - justify  Australian low phytate barley screening example

16. Crop Development Centre Challenges  Compromises  No free lunch  All about carbon chains  Only so many carbon atoms to go around!!  Can’t have > 100%  Confidentiality vs Public Good  Pre-competitive aspects of R&D  Confidentiality drives investment  Investment drives innovation

17. Crop Development Centre Challenges  Genetic engineering/genomics saviour concept  Deliberate or inadvertent snow job  Industry and government leaders being misled  Public & Private management -unrealistic time frames  popular press misleading  biotech misleading Important tool, but JUST another tool!!! Still plant breeding  Australian drought tolerant wheat BIOBULLSHIT example!!  Can’t grow wheat without water!!  Biology and time!!

18. Crop Development Centre Opportunities  Molecular mapping  DArT, QTL, Association  TILLING  Mutagenesis  Germplasm collections  Improved phenotyping  Join phenotyping with DArT and QTL mapping  Different for publication vs practical application  Can’t do TDF on breeding program - MMAS may be of great help for initial screening  Lots of “Ifs” but definitely worth effort & cost

19. Crop Development Centre Opportunities  Financial return to breeding effort  Harrington barley example Huge financial gain to industry Not a dime shared with R&D community  Consumer interest  Apparently there, but???????  Engineering vs genetic solutions  Do most efficient  Combine & coordinate efforts  Agronomic vs genetic solutions  At what cost to producer?  Combine and coordinate efforts

20. Crop Development Centre Opportunities  Genomics  steal from other crops  polysaccharide manipulation  Pre-competitive collaboration  Pilot scale testing capability Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre  Whole grain concept  Low phytate

21. Crop Development Centre Unique Oat Opportunities  Antioxidants  e.g avenanthramides  Non-starch polysaccharides  Increase content & increase best type  Fat  Take advantage  Alter FA profile  Low phytate  Fat stability  Other…………………………….

22. Crop Development Centre Acknowledgements  Core support:  University of Saskatchewan  Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture  Pedigreed Seed Royalties  Other financial support  Quaker Oats Co. and Quaker Tropicana Gatorade Canada (QTG)  Saskatchewan Oat Development Commission (SODC)  SDAF&RR & Ag Dev Fund  Cargill Ltd.  SuperOats Canada Ltd. (Regina)  FarmPure Seeds (Regina)  CanOat Ltd. (Martensville)  Grain Millers (Yorkton)