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