News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 Salt tolerant GM wheat to hit the paddock 

Salt tolerant GM wheat to hit the paddock

16 Jul, 2009 04:00 AM
RESEARCHERS expect to have genetically modified salt tolerant cereal lines in the paddock for trials next year, in a big boost for the 70pc of Australian farmers affected by salinity.

A project into salt tolerance, conducted jointly by the University of Adelaide and the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG) has had some promising results.

"I'm excited by what is happening – the preliminary results are looking good, we are confident we will be able to reduce the amount of salt that gets into the plant, which then limits the yield," project leader Mark Tester said.

He said there was huge application within the Australian grains industry for salt tolerant lines, with research out of the University of Adelaide showing that 70pc of the nation's grain belt was in some way affected by excess salinity.

"We estimate that salinity could be costing up to $200 million annually, working on yield limitations of 10pc across 70pc of the cropping area," Prof Tester said.

"It is certainly pegging back crop yields across a large part of the wheat belt, and it's not necessarily where salt is visible in the field – the major problem is with salt present in the subsoil."

Work is being done on three cereal varieties – rice, barley and wheat.

Unfortunately, Prof Tester said the wheat, Australia's most important crop, was the hardest species to build, due to its complex genetic make-up.

"We started with work on the trial species, a brassica that acts as the 'lab rat' of plant breeding, and we have then built the salt tolerant rice and barley varieties, with the wheat not far away.

"There have been results that have shown we have got it right in rice, which is a much easier plant to work with, and we're expecting some greenhouse data from the barley and the wheat this year.

"Field trials of some lines are likely to commence next year."

The core of the work involves keeping the salt in parts of the plant where it does less damage.

The genetic modificiation allows the plant to keep salt out of the leaves of a model plant species.

The researchers modified genes specifically around the plant's water conducting pipes so that salt is removed from the transpiration stream before it gets to the shoot.

"What we are doing is simply amplifying a natural process."

Prof Tester warned that the salt tolerant lines would not cure the problem of salinity.

"We are not building mangroves here – we don't yet know how much of that 10pc yield constraint we will be able to recapture – but we're hoping it will be around half, cutting yield constraints to 5pc."

The work has been conducted in the shadow of high profile research into drought tolerance, but Prof Tester believes salt tolerant lines will hit the market first.

"I think drought tolerance is really complex, there is no magic bullet there, but salt tolerance is something more tangible," he said.

However, Prof Tester did think the improvement in a plant's ability to handle salt would allow it access to more water.

"There is chatter between salt and drought tolerance, a spin off benefit of improved salt tolerance will be able to use more water in the soil profile, thus improving plant available water (PAW) levels which will be valuable in dry periods."

The news will be of particular interest to farmers in some of Australia’s worst hit salty patches, such as the eastern wheat belt in WA and parts of the south-eastern Mallee in Victoria.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The question you should be tackling, professor, is: why the salt got get there in the first place?

Do yourself a favour and go and talk to someone like Peter Andrews. This boffin-led project is much like the GP treating the symptoms not the cause of the illness.

When further degradation of the same soil takes place because of bad farming practices, what do you do then? More expensive research and more patching up? "Read gross mismanagement" for GM.

Posted by slamina, 16/07/2009 10:06:42 AM
Agriculture, and in general, the production of food is necessary...I trust that all can agree on that. So why are some so blinded by an abject hatred of new technology and instead point the finger of blame at farmers?

I for one welcome advances in food production technologies and although we cannot ignore the issue of salinity, we should not hold back technology for the sake of an unscientifically founded fear of GM crops. GM crops are the most rigorously tested food on the market.

For those that say it isn't natural, get over it and look around! Arsenic, cyanide and lead are all natural "organic" products - it does not mean they are good for you. Orange carrots on the other hand, are not natural - a natural carrot is white and full of turpenoids. Genetic manipulation introduced the orange colour. Yet somehow they haven't managed to killed us yet - and for some reason you don't see anti-GM groups waving placards with anti-carrot messages.

I like my seedless grapes, cloned grape vines and orange carrots not to mention medciines and antibiotics - all the result of gene technology.

Good work professor Tester, hopefully someday rational thought will prevail.

Posted by D Johnson, 16/07/2009 1:00:23 PM
Everything we eat and most of what we wear has been genetically modified. The only difference with modern technology is the speed at which it happens.

Things that used to take decades or centuries can now be achieved in a few years. Of course that also carries with it a heightened risk if something goes wrong.

The outcome of something going wrong in a car travelling at, 100 km/h is far worse than the outcome of something going wrong at walking pace.

There is nothing wrong with technology but safety systems must be in place and checked regular.

Posted by Qlander, 16/07/2009 2:34:45 PM
While people like D Johnson continue spouting misinformation about what foods are genetically engineered, we will continue to have the uninformed believing that GM is a cure-all for all agricultural and food production problems.

The wine growers of Australia would be horrified at the suggestion that grapes are GM, as they have recently released a statement saying that no GMOs are used at any stage in wine production and they " will only apply new practices commercially when there are clear consumer benefits and public acceptance".

Carrots are a result of cross breeding and trait selection, all non-GM methods of agriculture.

GM wheat has continuously been rejected by Canadian wheat farmers because of the known consumer aversion to GM foods, and the fact that GM wheat would have to be labelled as it does not fly under the shambolically pathetic labelling laws that protect GM producers and enable their products into our supermarkets untested and unlabelled.

Bring in labelling laws like they have introduced into France where all GM ingredients are labelled, including products from GM fed animals and let the consumer decide.

Posted by Hebe, 16/07/2009 2:56:08 PM
'Slamina', why would working out how the salt got there actually help anyone? We know how the salt got there - European farming methods in Australia basically.

We now need to develop our own solutions, much as we have done with many pests and diseases that are unique to this great continent of ours.

People like Professor Tester will be vital to this. People who want to be 'Monday experts' will not be.

Posted by Dave, 16/07/2009 4:39:37 PM
What I want to know is, why on earth we would voluntarily put our food production completely in the hands of an American-owned corporation. These people stuffed their own country and several others along the way. For Mr D Johnson, try looking up the Showa Denko Tryptophan Disaster on the internet and then tell me how harmless G M is and how happy you would be to feed it to your children.
Posted by Creeker, 20/07/2009 6:32:17 PM
I can't buy canola or soy products anymore because of GM, now wheat is gone too. The only purpose of "trials" is to contaminate the whole grain system with GM traces so that people have no option but to accept the GM product. I want these companies and the growers to carry full liability for future health problems that will surely arise despite " no scientific evidence" YET.
Posted by denis, 21/07/2009 1:55:16 AM
Oh dear, Qlander and D Johnson have so got it wrong: "Everything we eat and most of what we wear has been genetically modified." and "carrots have been genetically modified". This is not true. There is a huge difference between selective breeding and GM, or gene manipulation which crosses the species barrier and could never happen naturally even in a trillion years of evolution. There are only 5 GM commercial crops: Soy , cotton , canola, corn and now sugar beet. These substances can be hidden in thousands of ways in processed form which escape labelling. So we would be wise to avoid all processed food unless certified organic. GM foods tested on lab animals have shown alarming health effects, google Arpad Pusztai, Rowett University, for one such published study.
Posted by Merri Bee, 31/07/2009 11:50:25 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Salinity affected soil
Salinity affected soil
Project leader Mark Tester
Project leader Mark Tester
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
14 July, 2009
12 July, 2009
POLL
Q: Is Malcolm Turnbull the best person to lead the Federal Opposition?

Yes
(53.3%)

No
(35.3%)

Undecided
(11.5%)

Total Votes: 584
Poll Date: 12 July, 2009

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...