News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 When more grain equals fewer nutrients 

When more grain equals fewer nutrients

24 Jul, 2009 04:51 PM
SINCE the Green Revolution of the 1960s, the world has produced a lot more grain—but there may be a lot less in it, a unique experiment in the United Kingdom has revealed.

Recent analysis of 160 years of crop samples from Rothamsted Research Station near London discovered that levels of essential micronutrients remained consistent in wheat grain from 1844 to the late 1960s, but then began a decline that continues to this day.

The nutrient decline began when traditional long-straw wheat varieties where phased out in favour of higher-yielding semi-dwarf varieties.

As wheat plants have grown smaller since the 1960s, grain nutrient density has continued to decrease.

Compared to the old long-straw varieties, Rothamsted’s modern dwarf wheat grain carries on average 20-30 per cent less zinc, iron, copper and magnesium.

For zinc, a critical human nutrient, the decline is even more pronounced if the most recent five years of data are compared, with average nutrient levels in wheat harvested from 1844-1967.

The Rothamsted work supports a United States Department of Agriculture study, published in 2006, that compared nutrient levels in hard red winter wheat varieties grown from 1873 to 2000.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) researchers found that compared to 130 years ago, modern varieties deliver 36 per cent less selenium, 34 per cent less zinc and 28 per cent less iron in their grain.

Nutrient decline in food is a driving force behind the organic farming sector, on the assumption that high-tech agricultural methods have depleted the mineral levels in soils and thus made less available for plants to take up.

But at Rothamsted, it seems that soil is not the issue.

The research project used the soil and grain archives of the research station’s 166-year-old Broadbalk experiment, the longest-running agricultural experiment in the world.

The Broadbalk wheat plots were established in 1843, and were laid out to compare the relative performance of wheat fertilised with inorganic fertilisers, farmyard manure, and wheat given no treatment at all.

Nutrient declines in grain have occurred across all these treatments to a similar degree—but mineral levels in the soil have either remained stable or increased.

Concentrations of zinc in the treated Broadbalk soils have increased 40-60 per cent since 1860, and yet zinc densities in grain have declined more than any other measured nutrient.

“We can’t put it down to soil impoverishment, so my guess is that the nutrient decline is related to plant physiology,” said Rothamsted researcher Professor Steve McGrath.

That presents three possible areas for further research.

One is that in selecting for dwarf plant genes, breeders have inadvertently dwarfed root mass and made the plant less capable of foraging for nutrients.

Another possibility arises if micronutrients are relocated from vegetative material into growing grain. “If the vegetative mass is smaller, it may mean there is less ability to translocate micronutrients into the grain,” Prof. McGrath said.

“The third possibility is dilution. The grain is bigger, the grain yield is larger than old varieties; is it just that less mobile micronutrients are just not catching up with grain production so you get a dilution effect?”

That answer isn’t likely to emerge anytime soon.

Prof. McGrath said there has been little apparent interest in the finding, and making a case for further research in a restricted funding environment is a long and complicated process with no guarantee of success.

However, he understands that micronutrient deficiency, zinc and iron in particular, are implicated in health problems across the developed and developing worlds alike.

“People are suffering growth, health and effects on mental development from lack of zinc and iron,” he said.

Dr Carole Hungerford, author of the Australian medical nutrition textbook “Good Health in the 21st Century”, wrote that zinc is an essential nutrient for fertility, bone and joint health and immunity.

It is also essential for the structural integrity of the DNA molecule, which has led some researchers to speculate that zinc deficiency may contribute to cancer.

* Matthew Cawood visited Rothamsted Research on a travel scholarship provided by the World Conference of Science Journalists.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
2


RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
And the same companies pushing to globally expand the green revolution are now wanting the broadscale adoption of gm crops. These will do nothing to help 'fix' or solve the underlying causes to our many problems, but rather help to perpetuate and worsen them. As Albert Einstein said 'you cant solve problems with the same thinking used to create them'. Industrial farming has had its go and largely been a widespread disaster. Let's now use our intelligence and work with nature rather than against and grow crops based on quality not just quantity at any cost. Humanity will be so much better off for it.
Posted by brett sanders, 24/07/2009 8:09:09 PM, on The Land
Not fewer nutrients Matt. Just not as many in relation to the overall yield. Only a journalist could put a negative spin on what can only be described as a staggering success story. Remember without the gains in crop yields over that time span 9 out of 10 people would now not have enough to eat.
Posted by Qlander, 25/07/2009 1:10:27 PM, on Queensland Country Life
This nutrient factor has been well know for some time, especially in hybrid corn grown in USA. (From Acres USA) Some of the successes that have attended corn production may have been the result of distorted accounting procedures. In terms of nutrients, open pollination still has an enviable record. Adolph Steinbronn of Fairbanks, Iowa, put the matter in perspective by having two samples of corn tested for ingredients usually added to commercial feeds. One was a sample of hybrids he had grown. The other was Open Pollinated (OP) corn. The OP corn contained 19% more crude protein, 35% more digestible protein, 60% more copper, 27% more iron and 25% more manganese. Compared to some 4,000 samples of corn tested in ten Midwest states in a single year, Steinbronn's OP corn contained 75% more crude protein, 875% more copper, 345% more iron, and 205% more manganese. The same trend has also been seen in the content of calcium, sodium, manganese and zinc. It can therefore be said that OP corn could contain an average of over 400% more of these nutrients.
Posted by ggwagga, 27/07/2009 8:27:13 AM, on Stock & Land
Nice to see results from a 165 year study. The organisation somehow has been able to safely store and keep the records for grain samples over the professional lifetime careers of at least 5 or 6 end-to-end staff. Now what is happening in Australia? In Victoria for example, the DPI is closing its research institutes. What is happening to Victoria's samples of wheat, wool etc? Will we ever be able to do such a study using samples originating over 165 years? Can any current agricultural scientist expect two 3-year grants in a row? Can we expect the private sector to provide 165 years of evidence? Does the present view that private providers should conduct research stack up over the long term when small private companies will disappear on the retirement of founding staff?
Posted by puzzled, 27/07/2009 12:31:24 PM, on Stock & Land
So here lies the problem. Do we grow enough to feed everyone or enough to feed a few well? The land resource to grow crops is a limited (and shrinking - environmental considerations, government policy, urban development and the encroachment of anti farming restrictions) resource as is the water needed to grow them. With reduced yields and decreased resistance to some disease, will the average person pay the premium required for the farmer to produce this better product? Say $3-4 for a cob of corn? We grow both hybrid and OP crops. The difference in performance v price received is so far different it makes it hard to justify growing OP in a lot of cases. Sure I can grow nutriently superior crops, but I will be out of business within a season as the demand and hence price is not there. I agree that some of the older verieties are better tasting and probably a lot better for me. I have many different varieties at home that I enjoy, but they are not practical nor viable to grow in a commercial environment in the current market. If the demand and price was there for these crops, us farmers would grow it.
Posted by The orchardist, 27/07/2009 12:39:17 PM, on Queensland Country Life
Are the nutrient levels lower on an individual grain basis, or nutrients available per acre of production? It stands to sense that nutrient levels in an individual grain might be expected to be somewhat lower when the average yield per acre of modern wheats is typically so much higher than previous varieties. If plant breeders are encouraged to produce varieties with higher nutrient levels, then I am sure GM technologies can deliver over a fairly short time span. This is also likely to mean application/higher application of the desired micro-nutrients on a much wider scale than is currently common practice. This is unlikely to offer a solution to those of a "Greenie" mentality .
Posted by lepoubelle, 27/07/2009 12:40:13 PM, on The Land
It has nothing to do with food production & everything to do with monopoly over seeds and GM crops forced onto us by naive Governments.
Posted by Genazzano, 27/07/2009 3:58:54 PM, on Queensland Country Life
A well reported article but..... Why just focus on wheat or corn?.......take a look accross the available but ever diminishing open pollenated seed bank and support the few trying to preserve some genetic diversity for the future generations. Pay the producers for nutrient quality not for presentable quantity. A complete value analysis including chemical residues should be a compulsory prerequisite for any type of food before it is sold....... including imported substitutes. Why are the seed banks in corporate hands? Surely there is nothing as fundamental as food security for any nation.......and if common sense prevailed there would be no need for a risky GM experiment.
Posted by pepper, 27/07/2009 9:14:29 PM, on Queensland Country Life

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.
The decline of zinc in wheat
The decline of zinc in wheat
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
20 July, 2009
23 July, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you agree with the ACCC's finding that last year's spike in the price of fertiliser was due to normal market forces?

Yes
(13%)

No
(81.8%)

Undecided
(5.2%)

Total Votes: 499
Poll Date: 19 July, 2009
BLOGS
22 July, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Aussie Outdoor
 
Metromax
 
Metroll
 
Win A Saddle
 
QCL Media Kit
 
QCL Subscriptions
 
photo gallery
 
Horse Deals Australia


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...