The Australian Competition:

A Call for Response by our Industry and Institutions

by Richard Smiley

Oregon State University, Pendleton

(abbreviated text was published in Oregon Wheat, Sept. 1998, vol. 49(8):13-16)

Australia is the world's fourth largest exporter of wheat and their level of production is increasing rapidly. Export of Australian Standard White Wheat to Japan is increasing at the expense of Western White Wheat from the Pacific Northwest. This should be a cause for alarm because Japan has been our primary cash customer for Western White Wheat. I examined the Australian production, research and extension systems from the viewpoint of a plant pathologist and science administrator during a visit in October 1997. Administrative insights are presented in this report.

Australians claimed that their trade advantage is due to their rigorous adherence to a zero tolerance policy for insects and pesticide residues, low tolerance for trash, and rapid measurements that facilitate immediate segregation of grain by product variety and/or quality parameters at the point of delivery (country elevators). They also stated that US grain standards involve a complex matrix of tolerances which allow marketing of grain regarded as both infested (by insects) and dirty by their standards. My examination of information available in Oregon lends credence to their claims. The Australian wheat appears to be more profitable to mill because it has an advantage in both raw product quality (millable wheat value index) and cleanliness (percent clean tempered wheat) (Table 1). In particular, reports of analyses by the Japanese Wheat Flour Institute reveal that PNW wheat averages twice the rate of dockage, damaged kernels, and foreign material, a lower test weight, and higher percentages of moisture, protein, and shrunken and broken kernels. PNW wheat does, however, have more favorable kernel weight and flour yield (Table 2). The Australian emphasis has shifted from maximum productivity to producing for niche markets through quality assurance, product segregation from farm to customer, and sacrificing yield potential to capitalize on premiums associated with high-quality products. Our industry and research institutions must address these issues if we have a serious interest in regaining the competitive advantage for sales to quality-conscious consumers overseas.

The Australians were particularly keen on capturing a larger share of exports to China and Hong Kong, where the market for biscuits, cakes, noodles and breads will apparently exceed $7 billion US dollars by the year 2000. Australian soft white wheat exports to Hong Kong have increased by 70% over the past four years. The entire Australian wheat industry has placed a major emphasis on meeting the quality requirements of international markets, and particularly the anticipated 150% increase in wheat-product imports into China over the next decade.

This "trip report" contains observations of importance to PNW wheat producers and research and education programs in both the public and private sectors. In Western Australia I visited scientists and participated in two plant pathology workshops and a conference. In South Australia I visited scientists, grain marketing agency, department of agriculture, farms, extension offices, private companies, and wheat and barley improvement trials.

Field Crops in Western Australia and South Australia: Crops are produced on 47 million acres in Western Australia, including 10 million acres of wheat representing 40% of the Australian wheat crop. Rainfall in the principal wheat producing districts is winter dominant and varies from 10 to 18 inches. The climate is Mediterranean, with warm to hot summers and cool to mild winters. Depressed wool and meat prices have caused farmers to reduce the size of their sheep herd or to eliminate sheep from the farming enterprise. Sheep are still common on farms that produce cereals in rotation with medic or subterranean clover, but there is more wheat being planted and more annual cropping and direct drilling. Most planting is now performed by direct drilling (no-till) into the previous crop. Fallowing is practiced on less than 10% of the cropped areas. Most cultivated soils are sands overlying gravel or clay, and wheat production is dependent on routine application of nitrogen, phosphorus, copper, zinc and, sometimes, molybdenum and manganese. Western Australia is widely recognized for developing the sweet lupin industry. Other important grain crops include barley, oats, chickpea, canola, and fava bean.

In South Australia I first visited the Eyre Peninsula which lies west of the Spencer Gulf between Adelaide and Western Australia. Rainfall (10 to 20 inches) is winter-dominant. The Peninsula has nearly two million acres planted to wheat (47% of wheat acres for South Australia). Other major crops include barley, peas and oats. They use modern equipment such as JD 9100 tractors, Case 8930 tractors, 60-foot wide sprayer systems, Flexi-Coil air drills, and John Deere 9500 combines with straw chopper, chaff spreader and 36-foot header. After leaving the Eyre Peninsula I traveled to Adelaide for visits in other farming districts and at research facilities.

As in Western Australia, there is a very strong move toward stubble retention and direct drilling (no-till) in South Australia. Rotations are used to minimize the impact of diseases and weeds. The majority of growers now use only one cultivation between harvest and planting, and very few farmers go over their fields as many as three times between crops. Compared to cultivated soil, planting by direct drilling typically results in a 30-50% reduction in seedling biomass due to diseases and/or nematodes. Never-the-less, profitability is increased by reduction in management costs and a concentration on product quality rather than quantity.

Soil and water conservation are given very high priority. In South Australia there is a farmer-owned and farmer-driven extension program named "Right Rotations." More than 2,000 participating farmers are divided into 90 groups based on production districts. The program operates through a concept of easily scored sustainability indicators evaluated on each field of each farm. The emphasis is on the concept that sustainability and profitability are interrelated. Indicators scored on each field include water-use efficiency (average yield and percentage of the potential yield for that crop in that region), number of tillage passes, surface residue score, erosion risk, soil structure, soil fertility (based on soil tests for phosphorus and organic carbon), crop rotation, seeding rate, and severity of root diseases (take-all, Rhizoctonia root rot, and cereal cyst nematode). The program generates enthusiasm, progress toward conservation farming systems, and funding from the public and private sectors.

Two Contrasting Farms: I visited a progressive farm that encompasses 7,500 acres of rolling terrain on the Eyre Peninsula. The farm has fields averaging 14- to 18-inches of rain and none of the crops are irrigated. Soils are mostly sand over clay, and one to 7 feet deep. Crops included hard red and soft white wheats, feed and malting barleys, canola, fava bean, safflower, and vetch for either grain or green manure. Other crops on nearby farms included lupin, dry peas, alfalfa, and oats. Wheat yields average 30-45 bu/ac. Beans are not profitable but are incorporated into the rotation because they strongly increase yields for the following wheat crop.

All arable acres (6,500) on this farm are now direct drilled (no-till) and cropped every year. This recent change was based on many years of progressive adoption of this conservation system. The success of the system was attributed to crop rotations, liberal use of herbicides, and keen attention to timeliness of all operations. The only stubble management after harvest is an application of herbicide to eliminate weeds before planting. Fertilizer is applied mostly as a pre-plant broadcast of ammonium sulfate. They treat their own seed with zinc plus a fungicide similar to Vitavax Thiram. The largest field I saw was 650 acres of peas. They are planning to plant fields according to soil type rather than as complete blocks of individual crops.

This farm owns two 25-foot seed drills. Both are air-delivery systems based on a Flexi-Coil seed hopper. Openers at 9-inch spacing are spaced widely on five gangs to avoid problems with standing straw. Openers have a narrow shank (½ inch wide) followed by a wider plate (1.5 inches) placed immediately in front of the seed drop tube. The opener creates a deep trench and the wide plate closes the trench to prevent seed from dropping into it. The trench is part of the Rhizoctonia root rot management system named the CDSS System (e.g., "Cultivate Deep - Sow Shallow"). They have not burned any stubble for more than a decade and plugged up a drill with stubble only once during the past year. Some of their land was recently an active wind blow area that is now under total control.

Sulfonylurea herbicide resistance in foxtail, barley grass, bromegrass, and other weeds is a serious problem throughout South Australia. The farmer I visited has only a minimal problem at this time because he uses an active crop rotation program that allows grass herbicides to be used in the broadleaf part of the rotation. He minimizes use of SU's and kills off a 5-foot-wide border around every field, providing good control of encroaching wild oat and other grass weeds.

These progressive farmers appear to be effectively managing diseases with their rotations. Cereals in the region are subject to damage from the same diseases and parasites that attack cereals in the inland PNW: Rhizoctonia root rot, take-all, cereal cyst nematode, root lesion nematode, Septoria leaf spot, "Helminthosporium" diseases, and rusts. I saw no evidence of significant damage from root diseases. Foliar diseases were present on all plants but the heads were being filled and significant crop loss was unlikely. Except for aphid control on canola, they seldom need to apply foliar fungicides or insecticides.

They do not have any on-farm grain storage other than to store seed saved from their most productive paddocks. They do not own a truck fleet sufficient for harvest. They contract all transport with long-haul truckers who take grain directly from the combine to one of several ports. Logistical coordination is done on-the-go by radio. A tractor-trailer or set of doubles arrives less than five minutes after the farmer radios his impending need to empty the combine bins. The exact elevator used for delivery depends on the line of trucks waiting to dump at each elevator. It is sometimes faster to drive another 30 miles to another elevator than wait in line at the nearest one.

This remarkably productive and attractive farm was obviously above the norm for the region. The owners are pleased that other growers have been looking over the fence and following their innovations.

I also visited a less productive farm in a 12-inch rainfall zone of central South Australia. The soil was a sandy loam. Cropping is mostly restricted to wheat-fallow rotation because there is no economically profitable upright grain legume adapted to this rainfall zone. The grower can't grow peas at less than 4-year intervals because of damage by root diseases, and because peas don't produce enough residue to hold the land. Continuous cereals also don't work, as was exemplified by a field that had much more herbicide-resistant bromegrass than wheat, and by several entire fields of wheat that had already been sprayed with Round-up to prevent the bromegrass from producing seed. The bromegrass is no longer controllable with pre-plant or in-crop herbicides. Conservation systems with standing stubble and annual cropping also become heavily damaged or totally destroyed by mice. Poison baits are no longer allowed. This was not a nice "scene" for making a positive statement about sustainable systems in low-rainfall zones.

Privatization of Public Services in Australia: There has been a strong movement toward commercialization of agricultural services previously performed by public agencies in Australia. Many government agencies have been quasi-privatized in response to reduced funding by state and federal governments. These agencies continue to be operated by the government but fees are assessed to recover the full cost of services. For instance, in some areas the availability of services by an extension agent are available only by subscription. A fee is paid for on-farm visits. Reports, diagnostic procedures and other follow-up services are charged separately. A typical disease identification sample costs $30 for a visual assessment, $50 for a microscopic assessment, $65 for incubation and microscopy, and $75 for isolation and identification of a fungal pathogen on a culture medium. Tests for viral and bacterial diseases cost $100. Pre-plant assays cost up to $100 to predict the risk for damage to a subsequent wheat crop by cereal cyst nematode, take-all or Rhizoctonia root rot. While expensive, these important services are available and are providing efficient and useful guidance that growers use to make profitable crop management decisions.

Privatization has resulted in increased research and extension efficiency by reducing labor costs and creating private-sector competition for national grants and testing services. The minimum wage in Australia during my visit was $12.50 per hour, which did not include the required employer contributions to the employee's insurances and retirement fund. Reduced labor inputs are given great emphasis in public and private organizations.

Many agencies have been restructured for greater efficiency in serving the public. Examples include the multi-state, multi-agency consortia now known as the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI; "the research institute") and Primary Industries of South Australia (PISA; "the extension service"). Until 1985 the parent of both agencies was the former South Australian Department of Agriculture. SARDI and PISA are now quasi-government agencies that include many public and private partnerships. They provide research and education services in a manner comparable to our state agricultural experiment stations and extension services.

Research, Education and Marketing Institutions: Australian's believe their public service sector is being significantly inhibited by reduced funding. It was my observation that money did not appear to be a constraint compared to research centers in the PNW. By our standards, their principal research facilities are huge and are fully staffed and equipped. Individual scientists are funded by public and private sources in about the same proportion as university scientists in the PNW; 60% from their agency and 40% from grants. The public money pays for key salaries and facilities, and the private money is needed for research projects and travel.

I was astounded by the huge investment in public education by the Western Australia and South Australia governments and industrial sectors. Farmers in Australia are provided much more written crop production and pest management guidance compared to growers in the PNW. Extension materials include newsletters, fact sheets, technical bulletins, CD ROMs, videos, internet web sites, and automated "fax-on-request" services. Public meetings focus on production for quality enhancement rather than on political and marketing aspects of their industries. Literature is prepared mostly by the state departments of agriculture but also direct sponsorship by commodity associations and seed, fertilizer, and pesticide industries. Even the private company literature is available at extension offices. There is simply no close comparison between the amount of production guidance material available to our farmers and theirs. Australians are blowing us away by providing growers an efficient transfer of information generated by science and industry throughout the world, including recent research performed in the PNW.

The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) is a national company funded jointly by growers and the national government. The mission is to provide directed investment in research by linking research to marketing priorities and by developing high-caliber teams of researchers. The vision is for a profitable, internationally competitive, and ecologically sustainable grains industry. A levy on grain growers ($1/tonne on every program crop) is matched with funds by the federal government. Program crops include 25 cereal (wheat, barley, oats, corn, etc.), oilseed (canola, safflower, sunflower, soybean) and pulse (lupin, peas, chickpeas, fava beans, vetch, peanuts, lentils, etc.) crops. In 1997 the GRDC disbursed more than $66 million to scientists for research and development on grain crops in Australia.

GRDC is structured as a corporation and has dual accountability to the grain industry and the national Parliament. They have four objectives: develop products for markets by establishing better links between growing and processing sectors, improve production efficiency, establish more sustainable land use methods, and apply corporate business management and customer service standards to the delivery of research products to the public. They set research priorities for five-year periods and seek proposals to meet the priorities. Public and private scientists throughout the country are asked to submit preproposals for preliminary screening. If selected for further evaluation, the scientists submit full proposals that include a mandatory benefit/cost analysis. Preproposals and full proposals are judged by a panel of scientists and farmers, with the growers having a very strong influence in funding decisions. This is a highly regimented, results-oriented commodity development program.

Before embarking on this trip I was asked to examine how Western Australia developed the lupin industry and how that might relate to our capabilities in the PNW. I discussed this question with the principal agronomist for the Grain Pool of Western Australia and with a lupin pathologist. Western Australia produced essentially no lupines in 1969. The Department of Agriculture lobbied intensively for a broadening of perspectives by the wheat and barley industries. The original thought was to find a crop that could expand the capacity to control grass weeds in wheat fields, and thereby break some root disease cycles and improve yields. Wheat growers, through funding by the Australian Wheat Research and Development Council, agreed to start funding research on a range of cool-season food legumes, with lupin soon becoming the focal point for this research. The early years began with 12 scientists and principal research technicians working on lupin. As the lupin acreage grew production problems emerged rapidly. The scientific staff quickly swelled to more than 50 to address the new challenges. All of the original money came from levies on wheat and barley. By 1992 Western Australia was producing lupin on 2.7 million acres. Average yield over that period increased from 300 to 1,150 lbs/ac. There was also a rapid doubling of the average wheat yield, to 27 bu/acre from a previous level of 15 bu/acre. This increase prompted wheat and barley growers to continue funding the expansion in lupin research. The lupin industry currently has its own levy, is self sustaining, and exports more than a million tonnes annually. The lupin research staff has been cut back to about 20, excluding the extension field staff, private consultants, industry representatives, and other important contributors to this thriving industry. A comparable effort is now underway with rapeseed. By developing varieties with exceptional oil content (averaging 42-43% oil) and low moisture and chlorophyll, Western Australia has already captured a significant portion of the canola export market dominated by Canada.

Compared to the entire PNW, Western Australia is a very large state and their agricultural region is separated geographically from the rest of Australia. They are forced to work as a regional unit to improve crops and marketing programs. Most research and extension funding is focused into the department of agriculture and one university. Progress achievable by such a large concentration of effort is unlikely to occur in the PNW unless our society and industry are willing and able to restructure region-wide political, institutional and economic systems in a manner that effectively reduces fragmentation of priorities and fiscal resources.

I also visited a large agricultural research and extension complex in Adelaide, South Australia. The complex includes offices, labs, greenhouses, and field facilities for SARDI, PISA, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO; comparable to our USDA-ARS), University of Adelaide (Waite Institute), Australian Wine Research Institute, and five Cooperative Research Centers (CRC's for Soil and Land Management, Molecular Plant Breeding, Viticulture, Weed Management Systems, and Premium Wool Quality).

The Plant Research Centre (PRC) is SARDI's headquarter building. It was completed four years ago and is world-class research and extension facility comparable to modern corporate headquarters I have visited, including Monsanto (St. Louis, MO), Ciba (Basel, Switzerland), Bayer (Leverkusen, Germany), and Rhône-Poulenc (Lyon, France). The PRC building is huge and is aptly nicknamed the "Crystal Palace". There are 24 large greenhouses, 27 walk-in plant growth rooms, and expansive laboratories and offices for modern research in all aspects of the plant and pest management sciences. It includes a co-generation plant that provides 70% of the building's energy requirement. The building intermixes staff of several institutions to stimulate people to work together on integrated research and development programs. Occupants include staff from SARDI, PISA, University of Adelaide, and CSIRO. The Field Crop Improvement Centre (FCIC) and the plant pathology laboratories were among my interests.

The FCIC consists of an integrated breeding, agronomic and product quality evaluation center that is supported by world-class biotechnology capabilities. The staff perform tests of new plant varieties at over 70 sites across the state. The most notable aspect of Australia's increasing competitiveness in export markets appears to reside in truly integrated research and extension structures that emphasize production of new varieties aimed directly at specific end-use markets. This is examined further in the plant breeding section of this report.

State governments are eliminating diagnostic services and private companies are only taking up the most profitable tests. SARDI therefore established a quasi-commercial National Agronomy Testing Service that establishes contracts for "cropwatch" pest management surveys, pest identification, and training in plant protection. A comparable national facility for horticultural crops was established earlier in the state of Victoria. SARDI's Agronomy Testing Service currently offers package deals to fertilizer companies and consultants. Soil nutrient tests cost $50 to $100. An additional $60 fee provides a pre-plant soil test that estimates the likely yield loss from root diseases (take-all, Rhizoctonia root rot and cereal cyst nematode) if wheat is planted. About 5,000 disease-risk samples are currently run each year on soil samples submitted by fertilizer companies. Disease-risk assessments will be used to generate a large database and risk-analysis maps for these root diseases. Scientists are trying to expand this service by developing similar biochemical and molecular tests to rapidly identify and quantify pathogens in the Fusarium foot rot complex, root lesion nematode complex, and Pythium root rot complex. Ultimately, the testing service will provide diagnostic services for individual farmers.

The national government has established about 600 centers of excellence in Australia. Each Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) has a primary purpose of strengthening collaborative links between researchers, industry, and other knowledge users, to increase the efficiency of multi-agency and multi-disciplinary research teams, and to capture the benefits of research more effectively. CRC's have been established for topics including various specialties in medicine, pharmacy, biology, soil and land management, plant pathology, plant breeding, and wheat quality. Each CRC is funded for a maximum of seven years. Reviews for continuation at the third and fifth year are performed by overseas teams of scientists and industry leaders. The CRC's either terminate after the seventh year or reorganize into self-sustaining quasi-commercial organizations. The goal is to bring significant seed money together to cause rather independent agencies to start working together more closely, and to make research more relevant to the needs of the industry. I met with leaders of two CRC's; Soil and Land Management, and Molecular Plant Breeding.

The CRC for Soil and Land Management received $2.5 million annually for seven years, in addition to all normal funding by participating agencies that include CSIRO, University of Adelaide, SARDI, PISA, Victoria Department of Agriculture, and industry. Several sub-programs within this CRC are being converted into commercial companies as the seven-year funding term ends in 1998. This is encouraged by the national government; successful programs continue as private or quasi-governmental businesses, and programs that were unable to generate sufficient ongoing public interest and funding are eliminated. This CRC funded four post-doctorates, six Ph.D. students, four technicians, and the program operation. Accomplishments included improved management of sodic and saline soils, discovery that much of the organic carbon in South Australian soils is in the form of inert charcoal, release of a deep burrowing earthworm to improve soil sustainability, development of molecular disease diagnosis tests to predict the level of yield loss under various cropping sequences, improved management of orchard and vineyard soils, improved management of Rhizoctonia root rot of cereals, and development of a model to predict soil organic carbon levels in response to altering crop rotations, residue management, and climatic conditions.

The CRC for Molecular Plant Breeding was just beginning the seven-year cycle. It is initially funded at $600,000 per year in addition to all previous funding by participating agencies. Partners in the CRC include international wheat research centers in Mexico (CIMMYT) and Syria (ICARDA).

Plant Breeding and Development in South Australia: SARDI is responsible for breeding oats, peas, lentils and vetch, while the University of Adelaide is responsible for breeding wheat, barley, triticale, rye and fava beans. The University maintains two wheat breeding programs at comparable strength and separate locations (Waite Institute and Roseworthy College) to assure diversity of germplasm and breeding strategies. Regional testing is, however, done cooperatively in shared plots. Multiple groups are assigned responsibility for each field plot.

Cereal breeding and regional testing are performed in a regimented five-stage process. In stage 1, the breeders carry out their normal germplasm improvement functions such as crossing and evaluating early generations (F0 to F4/F5) in single plants, headrows, and small replicated plots. But the breeders don't do all of their own evaluations. For instance, the two wheat breeders perform all the breeding at their home locations and then co-locate and co-mingle their regional field plots. For consistency and independence, another breeder/pathologist has statewide responsibility for evaluating diseases in all plots set out by all wheat, barley and oat breeders. Agronomists do all the other field management and operations on these plots, and a chemist assesses grain quality. In stage two, the breeders reselect to produce advanced generations (F4/F5 to F7) that are grown in replicated plots for additional screening. Possible new varieties are identified in stage two. In stage three the independent Crop Evaluation and Agronomy Unit of SARDI's Field Crops Improvement Centre is given responsibility for further evaluation of advanced lines (F8/F9) in larger replicated plots at 70 sites across the state, mostly on commercial farms. Agronomic trials incorporating herbicide, fertilizer, and tillage treatments are run in parallel at four regional sites with contrasting climates and soils. These teams identify probable new varieties (F9/F10 to F11/F12) and in stage four they are tested at all 70 regional sites, as in stage three. Detailed commercial end-product testing is performed across environments. In stage five the decision to release or not to release is made on the balanced advice of breeders, growers, marketers, chemists, and end users. Commercial partners are then invited to bid for a contract to increase seed. Once released, the South Australian Field Crop Evaluation and Agronomy Program develops and delivers information to improve production efficiency over soil types, environments, and farming systems. This evaluation program is operated by a team of 22 persons based at six regional centers, and is funded by SARDI, GRDC, South Australian Grains Industry Trust Fund, and cooperating farmers. This integrated team-oriented system is contributing greatly to the success of plant variety improvement programs in Australia.

The SARDI Plant Research Centre has developed a unique cereal disease screening system for testing seed treatments and screening individual wheat, barley, triticale and oat plants for resistance and tolerance to cereal cyst nematode, take-all, Rhizoctonia root rot, common bunt, stripe rust, and common root rot. Last year they screened 88,000 plants and this year they anticipate more than 100,000. After each seedling is scored in a nondestructive process the resistant plant is grown to maturity to collect seed. The nursery is very compact (1/3 acre). The key to such a large and compact screening program is the computer system they developed to manage it. The software program alone cost $30,000. A single technician can rate about 600 plants/day, compared to 45/day in standard greenhouse tests and 60/day in open field tests. Every time a disease-resistant score is given the computer kicks out a label with a comprehensive genetic history of that individual plant, the label is placed on the pot, and the plant is selected for preservation and harvest.

The University of Adelaide's Root Pathology Laboratory in the Field Crops Improvement Centre works mostly with wheat breeders. They are currently concentrating on identification of root lesion nematodes that cause root damage almost identical to Rhizoctonia root rot. Laboratory procedures are required to determine the difference in these diseases. An excellent source for resistance to lesion nematodes was identified in winter wheat from Italy. The Root Pathology Lab screens breeding lines and rotational crops, produces inoculum for screenings, and screens weed species to determine their ability to allow nematode multiplication. The Lab developed risk assessment data for large numbers of hosts and varieties. Wheat varieties range from highly susceptible to very resistant. Breeders now screen about 60,000 plots of wheat annually for nematode resistance, using 25 sites across South Australia.

Oats are produced on nearly 240,000 acres in South Australia. Pamela Zwer, former OSU club wheat breeder at Pendleton, is SARDI's principal plant breeder for the oat improvement program. She also administers the pea and vetch breeding programs and land allocations and for a very large bird-proof (net enclosed) field research facility. More than $850,000 in industry grant funds are allocated to these three breeding programs each year. Dr. Zwer maintains 24 field-testing sites across two states (Victoria and South Australia), produces a newsletter for oat producers, and coordinates the industry advisory committees.

Field Crops Pathology: As anticipated, the Australasian Plant Pathology Society Conference had a high proportion of papers of importance to diseases of field crops in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). The conference also had a strong emphasis on breeding strategies for resistance. Scientists in South Australia are now producing doubled haploid barley lines from pollen grains for about one-tenth the cost of existing breeding techniques using anther cultures. The process further reduces genetic instability and allows new lines to be field tested very early in the selection process, saving three years in the breeding-to-release cycle. Australian scientists also harvested their first transgenic wheat. The procedure will expedite breeding for specific product quality and disease resistance traits.

CSIRO scientists determined that infection of wheat by Rhizoctonia causes growth reduction even without rotting roots. A signaling system apparently retards root growth upon contact with pathogenic Rhizoctonia fungi. This fungus has also been shown to cause damping-off and hypocotyl rot of canola without being readily isolatable for confirmation. Molecular probes are facilitating additional studies of these phenomena. This fungus is considered a major constraint to no-till (direct drill) farming in Australia, and the major reason for the failure of the no-till "era" during the late 1970's. The fungus is more aggressive on plants that are affected by any kind of stress, including micronutrient deficiencies.

Renewed attention is being given to the importance of root lesion nematodes. There is strong evidence that these nematodes are causing more grain loss than had been previously believed. Major differences in susceptibility occur among varieties of wheat and among species of cereals, rotational crops, and weeds. Australian workers had been misidentifying these root invaders as Rhizoctonia root rot until a breeder found that wheat varieties with resistance to lesion nematode were far more productive than susceptible varieties. Pathologist cleared and stained roots to determine why this occurred. I saw photographs and fresh roots with symptoms that looked remarkably identical to what we would classify as Pythium root rot or Rhizoctonia root rot in our laboratory. While visual symptoms are nearly identical, rotted cortical tissue on roots of susceptible varieties was loaded with eggs and juveniles, whereas roots of resistant varieties had much lower levels of infestation. This should be re-examined in the PNW. Moreover, as in the PNW, it had been thought that the problem in Australia involved Pratylenchus thornei alone. It is now clear that P. neglectus is a major part of the complex in some areas, and that these nematode species differ in effects on host plants. Also, host plants differ in tolerance and resistance to these nematode species. The only way to distinguish among the species is a slight difference in the vulval position on the adult female.

A predictive model for yield losses caused by take-all is being used commercially in Australia. The model is based on quantification of DNA from Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici in soil samples, using slot-blot hybridization, and coupling that information with rainfall and crops planted during the current and previous season. The yield loss model is quantitative for the range of 0 to 70% yield reduction. A similar system is available for estimating yield losses from cereal cyst nematode. Both of these tests are performed on subsamples from soil collected for nutrient analysis. A comparable system for Rhizoctonia root rot is being finalized.

A leading biological control scientist challenged participants to seriously question the value of additional research in this area. He pointed out that after nearly 50 years of intensive research throughout the world there is still only one example of effective and economical biological control for a plant disease, and it is the crown gall control system worked out by Alan Kerr in Adelaide during the late 1960's. This challenge was of interest because several of the foremost biocontrol scientists in the USA have issued comparable beliefs in recent years.

The workshop on Rhizoctonia diseases was opened with a presentation on the history of Rhizoctonia diseases in Australasia. Bare patch was first identified in South Australia in 1928. Dramatic increases in no-till agriculture during the 1970's led to much greater damage and a resultant increase in research in each major wheat-belt state. Research advances during the 1990's include development of easy, accurate, rapid biochemical assays to define various species and strains of Rhizoctonia fungi, development of DNA probes to detect these fungi, and development of the first assay that can detect and quantify the amount of Rhizoctonia inoculum in soil. Development of the molecular techniques to distinguish among strains of these fungi will be of tremendous value in future research. Previous laborious techniques to identify these strains were either not used by researchers or were used infrequently because even when analytical equipment and skilled technical assistance were readily available, the identification of each fungal isolate required at least one day; i.e., 40 isolates would require at least 40 days of labor for the easiest strains and longer for the more difficult cultures.

An update on management practices for Rhizoctonia root rot (bare patch) of cereals indicated that repeated tillages and fallow continue to be the most effective controls and they are not ecologically acceptable. Biological controls and fungicide seed treatments are not good enough for commercial use because none are profitable for this purpose. Searches for resistance in wheat and barley have been fruitless.

Other presentations included reports on Rhizoctonia root rot of lupin, hypocotyl rot and damping-off of canola, description of a newly identified strain, effects of tillage system and tillage timing on damage to wheat, yield loss assessment techniques, engineering plants for resistance to Rhizoctonia root rot, and the use of DNA signals to quantify R. solani population density in field soils and compare the density inside and outside of bare patch areas and in various sizes of organic debris.

I traveled in South Australia with a wheat breeder who works for SARDI, is very active in international wheat and barley genetics organizations, and is the program leader for their new Cooperative Research Center for Molecular Plant Breeding. This national center of excellence for plant breeding is funded at a level of $600,000 annually in addition to all previous funding. The breeder is also a keen plant pathologist and mycologist who is closely linked to international wheat research centers in Mexico (CIMMYT) and Syria (ICARDA). His job is to perform disease assessments and screening for other scientists who breed cereal crops at SARDI and the University of Adelaide.

We assisted a research officer who studies the epidemiology of Fusarium (dryland) foot rot, collect Fusarium-infected plants for isolates to incorporate into their breeding program. Their principal objective at this time is to determine why the seedling screening test developed earlier works well on bread (hard red and hard white) wheats but not at all with durum wheat. Attempts to bring levels of resistance in durum wheat up to the Australian standards for bread wheat are being stymied until this screening system becomes reliable for durum wheat.

Another goal was to visit four plant breeding nurseries to evaluate diseases. The first was located on the farm of a director on the South Australian Wheat Quality Board. The nursery was jointly established for crown rot screening by two University of Adelaide wheat breeders based at different locations; the Waite Institute in Adelaide and Roseworthy College. The University maintains both wheat breeding programs at comparable levels to assure diversity of germplasm and breeding approaches in South Australia. This is no different than the complementary and/or competitive breeding programs that exist in each of the comparatively smaller states in the USA. We examined new hard red and durum wheat varieties, and lines proposed for release. All of this material had heavy inputs from germplasm introduced from CIMMYT. Fusarium foot rot was not present this year. Some varieties and lines had resistance to cereal cyst and/or root lesion nematodes. A recent introduction of resistance to root lesion nematode greatly increased yields, which had surprised everyone because there had been no previous evidence, even from nematicide studies, that root lesion nematode was causing significant yield constraint. Now this has become an essential target for all new releases. Resistances to these nematodes is being pyramided into cultivars already known for resistance to rusts and smuts and several other foliar diseases such as tan spot and Septoria diseases.

The farmer uses a 2-year rotation of wheat and medic. His soil is near pure sand and the rainfall averages 12 inches annually. He would like to put canola into the rotation but it isn't profitable at that level of rainfall. Barley had been in his rotation at one time but there was too much loss from shatter in the hot dry winds. Most of his fields are larger than 500 acres. One field we inspected was exhibiting whiteheads caused by a complex of take-all, Rhizoctonia root rot, cereal cyst nematode, Fusarium foot rot, and tan spot.

At another field site we examined feed barley cultivars used to reduce populations of cereal cyst nematode. This was a large 10-acre nursery also operated jointly by the two wheat breeders. There was a lot of scald in the crop and on the barley grass, stem rust on the wild oats, flag smut on the wheat and ryegrass weeds, wheat streak mosaic on some entries, and a little stripe rust on the club wheat entry they use as a susceptible check for this disease. Research on these plots present an interesting contrast to the methods for research in Oregon. In short, two competing (or complementing) breeders perform all the breeding and co-locate and co-mingle their field plots. Another breeder/pathologist scores the diseases and agronomists do all other work on the plots.

The third trial examined was a barley yield nursery on pure sand in a very dry area. It was established to test tolerances of the entries to direct-drill farming systems. The entire stand was poor and there was an abundance of the spot form of net blotch, Rhizoctonia root rot, take-all, scald, physiologic leaf spot, and Fusarium foot rot. A seed treatment trial was incorporated into the nursery. None of the treatments looked better than the untreated controls.

My host produces a seed treatment fact sheet each year, and also publishes an annual brochure on relative coleoptile lengths for all major cereal varieties. Measurements are all relative to a standard variety, and are based on 100 seedlings grown in a rag doll test at standard temperature and light. Coleoptile lengths on their wheat varieties range from 6 to 12 cm. Farmers use this information as a guide to maximum allowable planting depth for the variety they choose for their farming conditions, thereby avoiding problems with emergence and establishment.

The fourth site highlighted a feed and malting barley trial on pure sand. There was a very high incidence of the spot form of net blotch, cereal cyst nematode, Rhizoctonia root rot, take-all, physiologic leaf spot, and boron toxicity. My host placed special emphasis on explaining the history of one particular variety in the nursery. He called it "just another classic story of the massive waste of molecular efforts in plant breeding." He explained that one of their breeders had taken a single gene from a Hordeum grass and moved it into barley as a source of scald resistance. They performed massive amounts of molecular work on the gene so they could track it with isozyme markers, DNA probes, and other techniques. The industry quickly imposed pressure to release the barley as a measure of breeding progress. The variety with a single gene for resistance lost its resistance during the first year of production. Pathogenic races of the scald pathogen are very diverse and they rapidly adapted to the narrow source of resistance. My host indicated that this story is being told repeatedly where ever breeders are failing to pyramid multiple genes for resistance into their advanced lines. He indicated that this is caused mostly by the industry and the administrators putting on excess pressure for premature release of lines that would have otherwise exhibited great potential if left in the breeding program for a longer period. In his view, single gene transfers by molecular means "just won't cut it".

One area we traveled through during this trip was the district where the sexual stage of the strawbreaker foot rot fungus was first discovered. Interestingly, this disease is not a problem in South Australia, even though both the sexual and asexual stages are present. We think we only have the asexual stage in the PNW.

I visited a soil microbiologist who studies the microbial ecology associated with stubble management. He has found evidence that suppressive soil is related to predation of fungal hyphae by amoebae, and he can quantitatively describe amoeba populations in soils that are suppressive or non-suppressive to pathogenic fungi.

Another CSIRO mycologist works with Pythium pathogens. He finds that root rot symptoms caused by this pathogen are often mis-diagnosed as Rhizoctonia root rot, and therefore the importance of Pythium is often under-estimated. He has used molecular markers to differentiate types that are most pathogenic to cereals. He has DNA probes to quantify the proportion of each "pathotype" that occurs in a specific field.

Overall Impressions of Australian Agricultural Research and Development Systems: Research and extension programs in Australia are at least a decade ahead of those in the PNW. This is true for each discipline to which I was introduced; plant pathology, plant breeding, agronomy, and extension. Their lead was particularly evident for coordinated systems research. The reason for their technological advantage appears to be the result of larger but fewer government agencies (i.e., states and counties), a higher resolve to restructure public institutions to meet emerging needs, private-sector consultants becoming increasingly competitive for research contracts once held mostly by public-sector scientists, a higher level of need to overcome severe production challenges, a more profound respect among land owners for the need to preserve soil quality, placement of most research and extension into institutions administratively but not spatially separated from the academic teaching and promotional systems, distribution of research funds more equally across disciplines, and greater continuity of development programs through emphasis on longer term (3 to 7 year) funding cycles for research grants.

Australia has only seven states, of which only four produce significant amounts of wheat. They therefore have fewer but larger principal wheat research facilities and country extension centers. They are much better at putting productive teams together and having the members work in harmony. They are also much more prone to restructure their research facilities to achieve optimal performance and location, and to reassign scientists and extension staff to new locations to achieve the intended team balance. Their system excels at putting together results-oriented systems research programs. In particular, the Grains Research and Development Corporation provides the Australians a significant competitive advantage. This organization is a great asset and is one of the driving forces for formulating results-oriented multi-state teams of scientists to solve prioritized lists of production problems that cross state borders and/or parochial regional boundaries. By contrast, the agricultural research system in the PNW and USA is much more segmented by commodity and political boundaries, and more competitive and under-funded at the unit level. Compared to Australians, our university-based scientists are assigned more conflicting responsibilities and are more widely dispersed both inter- and intra-state. It is therefore more difficult for institutions in the PNW to generate effective teams and to perfect research structures with sufficient mass and longevity to effectively compete with the Australians.

Average wheat yields in Australia are less than in the PNW only because many of their soils have very poor native fertility and water-holding capacity. The precipitation in Australia is equivalent to that in wheat production areas of the PNW, but their winters are less harsh. They have all the modern equipment available to our growers. Australians also seem to more effectively separate commodity organizations responsible for political lobbying and directing research. Their grower meetings are well attended and are mostly oriented toward production and quality issues. The attendance at their meetings suggests that they are attracting a much higher proportion of growers who allocate little time for active participation in political issues.

It will be difficult for us to formulate an adequate response to the Australian challenge. We must first develop a firm resolve to either meet the challenge to our traditional export markets, or to focus our efforts on bulk wheat markets that have a higher emphasis on low price than high quality. We probably can't compete effectively in both types of markets.

Australian research, extension, and industry systems are fundamentally different from those in the USA. A broad new approach to each of these systems and to their level of interaction in the PNW will be required to meet the Australian challenge to our traditional wheat markets. There are no easy answers to this dilemma.

Further Details? A paper copy of this report can be obtained from Dick Smiley (phone 541-278-4397, or email "richard.smiley@orst.edu")

Table 1: Comparative Costs for Australian and PNW

Wheat Milled in Japan

The presence of unmillable material and moisture in wheat are important factors in purchasing decisions. The Millable Wheat Value Index (MWVI) permits buyers to evaluate these factors in terms of the price they pay for the wheat. The MWVI represents the real milling cost and is based on two simple mathematical equations. The first step is to determine the percentage of Clean Tempered Wheat (CTW; calculated at 15% moisture). CTW depends on percentages of foreign material (FM), shrunken and broken kernels (S/B), and dockage (%). The calculations are completed as follows.

CTW = (100% - FM - S/B - D) x (100% - moisture)

100% - temper moisture

MWVI = 100% ÷ CTW

Source: Wheat Products for the World: Pacific Northwest Soft White Wheat. Published by the Idaho Wheat Commission, Oregon Wheat Commission, and Washington Wheat Commission

When evaluated by these criteria, wheat cargo quality data for wheat imported into Japan from Australia and the PNW revealed the following.

* US$, assuming each lot arrived in the mill at US$200/metric tonne