Post on 28-May-2020
WP1: Breeding for quality and health
COBRA final conferenceVingsted Centeret, Denmark
24-25th November 2015
Anders Borgen
WP1 structure
Task 1.1NIRS
Task 1.2.2Dwarf bunt
Task 1.2Adaptation
Task 1.3Populations
Task 1.4Peas
CRA-PAV (Italy)
CRA-FLC (Italy)
Inagro (Belgium)
Uni Ghent (Belgium)
Stende (Latvia)
Priekuli (Latvia)
Jõgeva (Estonia)
MTT(Finland)
DTU(Denmark
Uni Maribor(Slovenia
Aarhus Uni(Denmark)
Agrologica(Denmark)
BOKU(Austria)
Weihenstephan(Bavaria)
Lantmännen(Sweden)
SLU(Sweden)
Copenhagen Uni(Denmark)
Task 1.2.1Common bunt
NordGen(Sweden)
WP
1: s
peci
fic ta
sks
● Task 1.1.1 and 1.1.2: Seed analysis based on NIRS● Oral presentation by Johannes Ravn Jørgensen● Poster presentation by M. Vresak
● Task 1.2.1: Purifying specific virulence races of common bunt● Poster presentation by Anders Borgen
● Task 1.2.2: SMART breeding for resistance to dwarf bunt● Oral presentation by Almuth Elise Müllner● Oral presentation by Berta Killermann
● Task 1.2.3 and Task 1.5: Breeding for plasticity and adaptation● Poster presentation by Mara Bleidere● Poster presentation by Linda Legzdina● Poster presentation by Marja Jalli ● Poster presentation by Manfred Jakop in WP 2● Oral presentation by Rikke Bagger Jørgensen in WP2
● Task 1.3: Population breeding for quality and health● Oral presentation by Anders Borgen
● Task 1.4.1: Seed treatment to control antrachnose in peas ● Oral presentation by Luciano Pecetti in the Legume workshop
● Task 1.4.2: Breeding for resistance in peas (Task terminated)
Bunt infection in pure lines and populations
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20 parents, mean:Pop-1: 40 crosses20 parents, own sporesMean of crosses
Bunt infection in pure lines and populations
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20 parents, mean:Pop-1: 40 crosses20 parents, own sporesMean of crosses
Bunt infection in pure lines and populations
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
880 head-rows from Pop-1
160 Selected head rows grown as population
2012 2013 2014 20150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No parents tested
CCP-YQ (Elm Farm)
CCP-YQ (Hungary)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
31 parents, meanPop All, 220 crosses31 parents, own sporesmean of crosses
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20 parents, mean:Pop-1: 40 crosses20 parents, own sporesMean of crosses
Conclusion on population breeding towards resistance to plant diseases
●Populations created by natural and mass selection sometimes have advantages compared with the mean of the parents
● but plant health is neither optimal nor acceptable.
●Selecting the right parents for CCPs is crucial●The way forward is mixtures of multiple lines,
preselected for resistance to the major plant diseases
CCPWinter wheatwith a disgusting infection of stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis)
CCPGerman spring wheatStripe rust (Puccinia striiformis) in development
Accelerated evolution of CCPs for leaf disease resistance
A good “dot it yourself” tool foron farm breeding
Short grain filling period:Small hard high protein seeds
Long grain filling period:Big low protein soft seed
Quality improvement in populations
Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS)
BoMill TriQ sorters
NIR protein sorting ofPop-All-2012
Low protein fractionSoft seed
High protein fractionHard seed
casana * Ølanddacke * scalinluteus * dackefiorina * dacke
luteus * Vår Perlcasana * dacke
dacke * nadroluteus * Øland
dacke * Indigonadro * 1159
ci-14952 * dackenadro * koninidacke * 1159
dacke * koninidacke * H86-701
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Protein content in harvested grain
Fraction 1Lowest 20% of the sown seed
Fraction 6 Highest 20% of the sown seed
Protein content %
Purple wheat:Fraction 1: 13,8%Fraction 6: 14,4%Difference: 0,6%
Common wheat:Fraction 1: 13,3%Fraction 6: 14,2%Difference: 0,9%
Two years of seed sorting
D*I N*1159
CI*DD*K
D*H86701 N*K
D*1159
L*D L*VP L*Ø D*S F*D C*D N*D C*Ø
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
2015: repeated growing without sorting
Low protein seed
High protein seed
protein content %
Mean protein content:Low protein seed: 11.5%High protein seed: 12.3%Difference: 0,8%-point
Mean yield:Low protein seed: 5674 kg/haHigh protein seed: 5251 kg/haDifference: 422 kg/ha (=8%)
Conclusion quality sorting● Never forget that any seed cleaning is also see sorting, including TKW● Protein concentration can be increased in populations by seed sorting● Gravity sorting and colour sorting can be used, but NIT-single seed
sorting is the most effective● Effects can be improved by decreasing environmental effect, and by
improved calibration of the equipment● Protein improved population suffers a yield penalty of about 10% per
protein percent-point. Also total protein yield decreases● Selecting for protein quality would be better that selecting for protein
content, since this most likely can be done without yield loss● Selecting the right parents for CCPs is easier and more efficient than
seed sorting afterwards
Thank you for your attention