review of university of alberta canola breeding program · s. j. campbell investments ltd. ... the...

A review and assessment of canola breeding at the University of Alberta.

October 4, 2005

Correspondence

Phil Thomas, M.Sc, P.Ag.BrassicaCorp Ltd.Site 4 Box 18 RR1

Lacombe, AB T4L 2N1Phone: 403 885 4377 Email: [email protected]

Review of University of Alberta Canola Breeding Program

Prepared for

Alberta Crop Industry Development Fund

by

BrassicaCorp. Ltd.S. J. Campbell Investments Ltd.


BrassicaCorp Ltd. S. J. Campbell Investments Ltd.

Executive Summary This document reviews the history of canola breeding at the University of Alberta and assesses the value of continued investment in this activity at the University of Alberta.

The University of Alberta canola breeding program was initiated by Dr. Z. P. Kondra in 1969 to develop varieties that would grow better in Alberta because of differences in alti-tude and temperature. Under Dr. Kondra, regionally adapted varieties such as Altex and Andor were released and captured significant market share in the Alberta area.

Dr. Gary Stringam was appointed canola breeder at the University of Alberta in 1988. The program was funded jointly by the University, Agriculture Canada, Alberta Agricul-ture and Canola Council of Canada. The program also developed a public/private part-nership in canola research with the Alberta Wheat Pool. Dr. Stringam’s research focused on line breeding, disease resistance, and use of tissue culture and double haploidy tech-niques to enhance the selection process and decrease the time and cost of cultivar devel-opment. In 2003, Dr. Stringam retired from the University of Alberta.

The University of Alberta estimates that its canola breeding program to date has contrib-uted approximately $276 million to the economy of Alberta. Varieties released by Dr. Stringam earned almost $7 million in royalties.

Dr. Habibur Rahman was appointed canola breeder at the University of Alberta in 2003. He previously was Senior Breeder of Canola/Rapeseed for Danisco Seed in Denmark where he was responsible for spring and winter cultivar development. Dr. Rahman established an efficient breeding program which resulted in the release of many commercially significant varieties and hybrids. At one time, Dr. Rahman’s Danisco cultivars occupied 15-20% of the German acreage and 25-30% of the French and Danish acreage.

In conducting this review, we found that the canola industry including the science com-munity has not articulated a unified consensus statement of the expectations of research to help the industry achieve its goals. This is particularly true with respect to canola plant breeding initiatives.

To benchmark the value of canola breeding at the University of Alberta, performance tar-gets for cultivars were needed. This review presents our targets for new Alberta-adapted cultivars of Brassica napus and Brassica rapa to be achieved by 2015. These targets are aggressive but achievable given the known science, focused investment in R&D, reason-able expectations of future discoveries, and their application during the next 10 years.

Dr. Rahman recognizes that the University of Alberta is not in the commercial plant breeding business or the seed trade. He proposes to exploit the genetic diversity of the various Brassica species to develop elite germ plasm and hybrid systems which will pro-vide growers, commercial breeders, the seed trade and processing industry with quantum improvements in yield, field performance and crop quality. His breeding targets are aligned with the 2015 canola cultivar targets we have described. When these targets are achieved by the breeding industry, the economic benefit will exceed $150 million per year to the Alberta economy and be greater considering production elsewhere in Canada.


BrassicaCorp Ltd. S. J. Campbell Investments Ltd.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 2. Canola Breeding in Canada ........................................................................................ 1

2.1 Public Breeding in Canada.................................................................................. 1 2.2 Private Canola Breeding in Canada .................................................................... 3

3. Public Canola Breeding in Other Countries................................................................ 7 3.1 Australia.............................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Germany.............................................................................................................. 9

4. Performance of Canola Varieties and Hybrids ......................................................... 10 4.1 Field Performance............................................................................................. 10 4.2 Diseases and Insects.......................................................................................... 11 4.3 Oil Quality ........................................................................................................ 12 4.4 Canola Meal Quality ......................................................................................... 13

5. Canadian Canola Breeding Objectives ..................................................................... 14 5.1 Product Quality Objectives ............................................................................... 14 5.2 Agronomy Objectives ....................................................................................... 15 2015....................................................................................................................... 16 5.3 Targets for Canola Cultivars............................................................................. 16

6. Impact of the University of Alberta Canola Breeding .............................................. 17 6.1 Varieties Developed at the University of Alberta............................................. 18 6.2 Royalties Earned ............................................................................................... 20 6.3 Publications and Workshops............................................................................. 20 6.4 Graduate Student Development ........................................................................ 20 6.5 Value of Current Germ Plasm and Varieties .................................................... 20

7. Exploiting Genetic Diversity in Canola Breeding at the University of Alberta ....... 21 7.1 Dr. Habibur Rahman, Associate Professor ....................................................... 21 7.2 Teaching and Graduate Students ...................................................................... 22 7.3 Centre of Excellence in Canola Genetic Diversity ........................................... 22 7.4 Scientific Collaborations................................................................................... 23

8. Components of a Successful Public Canola Breeding Program ............................... 25 9. Feasibility of a Public Canola Breeding Program..................................................... 26

9.1 Cost of Research ............................................................................................... 26 9.2 Rationale for Public Research........................................................................... 27 9.3 Rational for Public Canola Breeding ................................................................ 28

10. Impact of Having a Canola Breeding Program at the University of Alberta........ 31 11. Impact of Not Having a Canola Breeding Program at the University of Alberta. 32 12. Conclusions and Recommendation....................................................................... 32


BrassicaCorp Ltd. Page 1 S. J. Campbell Investments Ltd.

1. Introduction This document reports on a review of canola breeding at the University of Alberta and assesses the value of continued investment in public investment into canola breeding at the University of Alberta. This review was conducted for Agriculture Funding Consor-tium in Alberta. The steering committee included representatives from:

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AAFRD)

Alberta Agricultural Research Institute (AARI)

Alberta Canola Producers Commission (ACPC)

Alberta Crop Industry Development Fund (ACIDF)

It is understood that the review will be used by the stakeholders to determine the future role of canola breeding at the University of Alberta.

2. Canola Breeding in Canada

2.1 Public Breeding in Canada Rapeseed breeding in Canada started shortly after World War II at the Agriculture Can-ada Research Station at Saskatoon. This led to the licensing in 1954 of the first Canadian variety of rapeseed named Golden. This research continued on a very small scale until 1962 when Dr. Keith Downey was appointed as a full time rapeseed plant breeder. The University of Manitoba researcher Dr. B. R. Stefansson started an oilseed breeding program in 1952. However, it wasn’t until 1966 that the program concentrated on rape-seed. The University of Alberta started a rapeseed breeding program under Dr. Z. P. Kondra in 1969. The University of Alberta program was initiated to develop local varieties that would grow better in Alberta because of differences in altitude and temperature. Research by these public institutes led to the development of rapeseed strains with the improved quality characteristics of low erucic acid content in the oil and low glucosi-nolate content in the meal. The first “double low” cultivar to be registered that was low in both erucic acid and glucosinolates was “Tower” from the University of Manitoba in 1974. With these improved quality traits, the rapeseed industry called the new type of oilseed “Canola” to distinguish the new improved quality from that of common rapeseed. These major public canola breeding programs were joined in the early 1980’s by smaller canola breeding programs at Agriculture Canada in Beaverlodge, an evaluation program at Agriculture Canada in Lethbridge, and a breeding program at the University of Guelph.



Table 1. Chronology of Major Canadian Rapeseed Cultivars Year

Licensed Brassica napus Brassica rapa Low Erucic

Low Glucosinolate

1954 Golden – AC* 1958 Arlo - Swedish 1961 Nugget – AC 1963 Tanka – U of M 1964 Echo - AC 1966 Target – U of M 1968 Oro – AC XX 1969 Polar – AC 1970 Turret – U of M 1971 Zephyr - AC Span – AC XX 1973 Midas – AC Torch – AC XX 1974 Tower – U of M XX XX 1977 Regent – U of M Candle – AC XX XX 1978 Altex – University of Al-

berta XX XX

1981 Andor – University of Alberta

Tobin – AC XX XX

* AC – Agriculture Canada The University of Alberta canola breeding program under Dr. Z. P. Kondra was funded by the University and various organizations such as the Rapeseed Council of Canada (later renamed the Canola Council of Canada), New Crop Development Fund from the federal government, and the Western Grain Research Foundation. In 1986, Dr. Kondra resigned and an arrangement was negotiated by the University with Agriculture Canada, Alberta Agriculture and the Canola Council of Canada to continue the canola breeding program at the University of Alberta. Dr. Gary Stringam was ap-pointed in 1988 as canola breeder. The University of Alberta breeding program contin-ued with a major emphasis on a traditional line breeding and use of tissue culture and double haploidy techniques to enhance the selection process and decrease the time and cost of cultivar development. This tri-partite agreement continued for nine years. The University program also developed a public/private partnership in canola breeding with the Alberta Wheat Pool. In 2003 Dr. Stringam retired from the University of Alberta. In 2003, Dr. Habibur Rahman was hired as canola breeder at the University of Alberta.

In Saskatchewan, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Saskatoon Research Centre has long been a leader in canola breeding. The Saskatoon Research Centre’s focus today is specific germ plasm development in Brassica napus, cultivar development in Brassica rapa and pioneering work to develop several other Brassica species as food, condiment and industrial uses for Western Canada (Table 2). Researchers at the Saskatoon Research Centre are capable of isolating, characterizing and manipulating enzymes and genes and developing chemical and molecular markers in support of crop breeders.



Table 2. Canola Breeding at the AAFC Saskatoon Research Centre

Canola Researcher Focus Areas Varieties Dr. Rakow high-yielding, disease-resistant,

herbicide-tolerant, high-quality Brassica napus

canola quality Brassica juncea potential of Brassica carinata and Sinapis alba as oilseed crops

high-yielding, disease-resistant, high-quality varieties of yellow, brown and oriental condiment mustard

Developed glufosinate ammonium tolerant Brassica napus varieties Innovator (1995), Independence (1996) and Exceed (1998) in col-laboration with AgrEvo Canada Inc.

Co-developed canola quality Bras-sica juncea canola germ plasm in collaboration with Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

Dr. Falk Utilizing new varietal concepts to develop agronomically supe-rior Brassica rapa with high seed oil and meal protein con-tent, and resistance to white rust, blackleg and Alternaria black spot

Developing early-maturing, high-yielding Brassica carinata (Ethiopian mustard)

pioneered the synthetic variety concept in Brassica rapa

developed and registered five syn-thetic Polish canola varieties

Cultivar testing of Brassica rapa is conducted at the AAFC Beaver-lodge, Alberta research farm

Dr. Katepa-Mupondwa Developing oilseed Sinapis alba

Dr. Séguin-Swartz Identification and introgression of disease resistance genes into canola and mustard

Studies of genetic variability of fungal pathogens of Brassica

Genetic and cytogenetic studies Outcrossing studies in Brassica

member of the Innovator Devel-opment Team

At the University of Manitoba, Dr. McVetty is the Senior NSERC/Bunge Can-ada/Manitoba Canola Growers Association Industrial Research Chair in high erucic acid rapeseed (HEAR) research and development. Dr. Genyi Li is the Associate Chair in the same program specializing in development of disease-resistant canola/HEAR germ plasm using DNA-based molecular markers, gene identification and gene pyramiding. Dr. Scarth is breeding low linolenic oil quality in canola in collaboration with Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Dr. L. Kott’s canola program at the University of Guelph works on spring and winter ca-nola cultivar development and insect resistance.

2.2 Private Canola Breeding in Canada At one time, the private sector in Canada was not engaged in breeding canola. This situa-tion began to change during the late 1970s with the expectation of plant breeders’ rights and plant variety protection legislation. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that hu-man-made organisms were patentable and the Canadian government formally passed



Plant Breeders Rights Legislation in 1990. Plant breeder’s rights allow plant breeders to register and collect royalties on crop varieties. The first private canola variety was regis-tered in Canada in 1985 by Svalof. During the time period of 1986 to 1990, the private sector began to make substantial in-vestments into several canola breeding projects in Canada. By the mid 1980’s, there were ten companies involved in canola breeding including firms such as Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Alberta Wheat Pool and Biotechnica Canada in Alberta, and Allelix Crop Technologies and Paladin Hybrids in Ontario. The latter three firms were eventually ac-quired by Pioneer Hi-Bred International. There have also been more recent acquisitions of firms by Bayer Crop Science and Monsanto. The annual private investment into canola breeding in Canada in 2000 was reported to be ~$Cdn 22.5 million (1989 dollars).1 This was about a 3-fold increase in investment from the average of ~$Cdn 7.1 million per year invested during 1988 – 1990. By comparison, investment in soybean breeding was ~$2.0 million (1989 dollars) in 2000. We think it’s important to note that some Canadian canola breeders have global mandates in which the Canadian market is just a part of their firm’s global business in oilseed genetics and seed trade. These early investments in canola breeding were driven by growing demand for canola in Canada, the large size of the global market for canola genetics, the crop’s high seed mul-tiplication ratio, the potential for hybrids, and lack of competition in the canola breeding industry in Canada. These opened the door for a marked increase of privately-funded canola breeding research. The demand for canola planting seed is reflected in the general increase in acreage in western Canada following the introduction of canola quality varieties in 1974, the open-ing to US edible oil markets in 1985, and the expansion of crushing capacity in the 1990s (see Figure 1). Towards the end of the 1980’s, most canola cultivars grown in Canada were still those developed by the public sector. However, this changed dramatically as the private sector greatly expanded their development and testing of canola cultivars. This occurred at the same time that budget-conscious government’s modestly scaled back research funding in canola breeding.

1 Serecon Management Consultants. 10-Year Review of Canada’s Plant Breeders’ Rights Act. For Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2002.



0

5000

10000

15000

43 48 60 75 82 87 90 95 99 2Years

Acr

eage

(000

)

Acreage by year (000's)

Figure 1. Canadian Canola Harvest Acreage (selected years)

The entry of a large number of private canola breeders resulted in a major shift in the availability of canola varieties from public programs to private programs as shown in Figure 2.

010203040506070

Varie

ties

Reg

iste

red

85 88 90 92 94 96 98 0 2 4

Years

PublicPrivate

Figure 2. Public and Private Recommended Varieties by Year (1985-04)

We note that not all varieties and hybrids recommended by the Western Canada Ca-nola/Rapeseed Recommending Committee for registration are submitted for registration by the sponsoring firms. Also, firms may withdraw registered products from the market. The number of varieties and hybrids registered by the CFIA for sale by firms as of Sep-tember 29, 2005 is shown in Table 3. It is seen that producers have a lot of choice amongst firms and cultivars for their planting seed. Hybrids are increasing their market share. With the increased private breeding ac-tivities, the public breeding programs have found it very difficult to compete for market share given the rapid advances in variety performance and the sheer number of varieties registered and promoted by large marketing programs of the seed trade.



Table 3. Private Canola and HEAR Varieties and Hybrids, 1998 - 2004 CFIA Registered 2005 Company Species Recommended

WCC/RRC Line Hybrid Advanta Seeds Brassica napus 48 Agricore United “ 2 Agriculture Canada “ 4 Agriprogress “ 17 10 5 Aventis Crop Science “ 21 Bayer Crop Science “ 25 14 Bonis & Company “ 1 16 1 Cargill Specialty Oils “ 28 22 4 Dow Agrosciences “ 11 DSV Brett-Young “ 32 18 1 Monsanto Canada “ 62 21 17 Newfield Seeds “ 1 Oseco “ 1 Pioneer Hi-Bred “ 39 7 9 Proven Seed “ 2 Saskatchewan Wheat Pool “ 24 8 1 Secan “ 3 Seed-Link “ 3 3 SW Seed Ltd. “ 44 4 5 University of Alberta “ 7 6 University of Manitoba “ 7 1 Agriculture Canada Brassica rapa 5 5 Advanta Seeds “ 2 4 Bonis & Company 9 Pioneer Hi-Bred “ 2 1 SW Seed Ltd. “ 2 1 Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Brassica juncea 5 Bunge Canada HEAR 3 Ref. WCC/RRC and CFIA

Another factor that changed the complexity of canola breeding and seed trade in the mid 1980s was the introduction of biotechnology and patenting of genes for herbicide toler-ance and development of hybrid pollination control in canola. The first canola variety exploiting herbicide resistance technology was registered in 1995. Because the technology was patented or the variety protected by plant breeder’s rights, public breeding programs required licensing agreements from the owners of these varie-ties before they could utilize this technology in developing herbicide tolerant varieties within their own breeding stock. Herbicide tolerant varieties revolutionized canola production as canola producers rapidly adopted this technology and these varieties quickly gained market share of the acreage in Alberta and western Canada (Figure 3). The University of Alberta Canola Program en-tered into a licensing agreement with Monsanto and developed the Roundup Ready vari-ety Conquest that was registered in 2000. The University of Alberta also registered Cou-gar CL in 2003 which is a Clearfield herbicide resistant variety.



0

20

40

60

80

100Pe

rcen

tage

of A

cres

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Roundup Liberty Clearfield Conventional

Figure 3. Canola Herbicide Tolerant Systems as a Percent-

age of Seeded Canola Acres in Canada

3. Public Canola Breeding in Other Countries

3.1 Australia A public canola breeding program in Australia began in 1973. This program operates with a similar number of scientific and technical staff to the University of Alberta Canola Breeding Program. The program’s funding is eighty percent from the state government and twenty percent from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC). The latter is a national funding organization whose funds come from crop production lev-ies matched with federal government funding. Since inception, this program has released two Brassica rapa varieties (very early in the program) and nineteen Brassica napus varieties. During the period of rapid expansion of canola production in Australia in the 1990’s, varieties from this program accounted for up to ninety percent of the acreage of the state and sixty percent of Australia’s acreage. However, similarly to what happened in Canada, the Australian private sector in the early 1990’s made significant investments to expand their breeding programs. The private companies emphasized yield, herbicide tolerance and disease resistance and were able to develop blackleg disease resistant and herbicide tolerant cultivars that were very success-ful. The Australian public breeding program, like the University of Alberta program, was slower to develop herbicide tolerant cultivars. However, unlike the University of Al-berta’s program, the varieties from this Australian public breeder were not competitive with private sector varieties for blackleg resistance. Therefore, in the past five years, the market share of the varieties from this public program in Australia dropped to about 15% in the state and only 5% nationally. Blackleg disease is a major problem in Australia and the genetic resistance originating from sylvestris in private varieties is breaking down. The plant breeder in charge of this



particular public program stated that he had just released two new varieties (a triazine tol-erant cultivar and a Clearfield variety) and expects these two varieties to recover some market share, to perhaps forty percent of the state and twenty percent of the Australian acreage. It should be noted that to date Australia has not permitted the registration of ca-nola herbicide tolerant varieties developed through biotechnology. Both the triazine and Clearfield herbicide tolerance are not developed through biotechnology. The plant breeder indicated that their major priority has been variety development, al-though the GRDC now wants the program to use GRDC funds for germ plasm develop-ment. The program’s current project with GRDC is part of the National Brassica Im-provement Project that ends in June, 2007. Any future funding beyond that date from GRDC will only be for germ plasm developmen. Germ plasm developed with GRDC funding will be offered to all Australian breeding programs under terms agreeable to all parties. The plant breeder was not specific on what those terms might be. The plant breeder indicated that he expected to continue to focus on variety development. From a varietal development aspect the program’s priorities are:

Blackleg resistance (number 1 priority with the most effort)

High yields

High oil content

Canola quality – further reduction in glucosinolate content

Early and mid maturities

Herbicide tolerance – the program is 40% triazine, 40% Clearfield and 20% non-herbicide tolerant

A small program on high oleic and low linolenic fatty acid content – this project could be scaled up as end-users become aware of the benefits

Other traits of interest are:

Sclerotinia resistance

Reduced height

Shattering resistance

Tolerance of manganese toxicity

Drought tolerance Currently, this public canola breeding program does not have any collaboration with pri-vate companies. However, the program has formed an alliance with two organizations (bulk grain handling companies and a seed production and marketing company). This alliance is interested in establishing links with private companies, particularly if this can bring access to new technologies. One of the organizations has funded a second plant breeder in a different state which has allowed selection for blackleg resistance at a second nursery and expands the programs evaluation trials. Collaboration also exists with the



program’s NBIP partners - three other state government institutes which operate selection programs for local adaptation with breeding material developed by the program.

3.2 Germany In Germany, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) organized and supported a cooperative program called ‘NAPUS 2000’ which involved twenty part-ners from science, private plant breeding and the processing industry to research the po-tential for functional food properties from canola. This 5-year program cost 20.5 million euros, of which BMBF contributed 13.6 million. NAPUS 2000 will finish in November 2005. BMBF and the 20 partners of NAPUS 2000 are:

Norddeutsche Plansensucht Hans Georg Lembke KG

Deutsche Saatveredelung Lippstadt-Bremen GmbH

Saaten-Union Resistenzlabor GmbH

Raiffeisen Olsaatenveraarbitungs GmbH

BASF AG

Numico Research Group Germany

Unilever Bestfoods Deutschland GmbH

Rovita GmbH fur Milch und Stasrkederivate

Univ. Hamburg, Inst. F. Allg. Botanik (a. Pfl.physiologie, b. FSP BIOGUM

Rheinisch-Westfalische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Inst. Fur BiologieI – Spez. Botanik

Institut fur Pflanzenbiochemie Halle, Abt. Sekundarstoffwechsel

Justus Liebig Universitat Giessen, Inst. fur Pfl.bau u. Pfl.ziuchtung I

Georg August Universitat Gottingen, Inst. fur Pfl.bau u. Pfl.ziuchtung

Christian-Albrechts-Universitat Kiel, Inst. f. Humanernahrung u. Lebensmittelkd.

Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fur Lebensmittelchemie, Garching

Fraunhofer Institut fur Verfahrenstechnik and Verpackung, Freising

Fachhochschule Munster, Fachbereich Oecotrophologie

Fraunhofer Institut fur Toxikologie and Experimentelle Medizin, Hannover

The functional food properties investigated in NAPUS 2000 were:

Neutral lipids – Long-chained, poly-unsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs) are valu-able for human nutrition especially in terms of prevention and therapy of coronary heart diseases. These high value specialty oils could be used for the production of high concentrated supplements. Only a transgenic approach is possible.



Tocopherols – vitamin A is a highly effective anti-oxidative substance. Canola al-ready produces tocopherols in the oil. The classical breeding approach would select breeding material with a target of 1000 ppm in the oil. The transgenic approach through transgenic plants, have a target of 1359 ppm.

Resveratrol – is known as a health improving compound in red wine with anti-oxidative and anti-carcinogen effects. Classical breeding approach is not possible. Transgenic approach to use the stibensynthase gene to synthesize resveratrol in the canola meal.

Protein – the biological value of canola protein is very high due to the high levels of essential amino acids in a valuable combination. To be able to utilize this protein for human consumption requires classical breeding to reduce the phenolic com-pound sinapine. A yellow seed coat would be required.

Polarlipids / lecithin has multiple uses in food products as an emulsifier or for pharmaceutical applications. Classical breeding approach to reduce sinapine in a yellow seed coat cultivar. Transgenic approach to over express glycolipids and phospholipids in transgenic plants.

The research approach between the twenty partners is based on expertise. For example, Universities, Institutes and private breeding companies may investigate useful materials. The same researcher or others may then identify the gene(s) involved and make constructs. The gene(s) and constructs are then utilized for transformation into plants and then multi-plication. The transformed plants are then utilized in a University or private breeding pro-gram to develop cultivars. Other partners such as refiners and food manufacturers then re-search methods of extraction and processing. This is followed by nutritional physiology to determine the effectiveness of the functional food product. Finally the socio-economic im-plications are researched.

4. Performance of Canola Varieties and Hybrids Modern mutation and transgenic technologies have opened the possibility for canola plant breeders to develop a range of agronomic traits, fatty acid oil profiles and protein meal compositions of economic importance.2, 3,4,5 Some specific developments in canola are noted in the following.

4.1 Field Performance Farm yields of canola in Canada increased by 24.5% during the ten years from 1990 to 2000.6 The increase in farm yields reflected contributions of:

2 Röbbelen G. Mutation breeding for quality improvement. A case study for oilseed crops. Mutation Breeding Review 6:1-44, 1990. 3 Davies, H.M. Engineering new oilseed crops from rapeseed. p. 299-306. In: J. Janick (ed.), Progress in new crops. ASHS Press, Alexan-dria, VA. 1996. 4 Scarth, R and Peter B.E. McVetty. Designer Oil Canola - A Review of New Food-Grade Brassica Oils with Focus on High Oleic, Low Linolenic Types. Proceedings of the 10th International Rapeseed Congress, Canberra, Australia. 1999. http://www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/4/57.htm 5 Warner, K. Soybean Oil Products: Composition, Quality and Stability. Adding Value to the Oil. 2002. http://www.pbi.nrc.gc.ca/en/bulletin/2002issue1/page6.htm 6 Serecon Management Consultants. (2002) “10-Year Review of Canada’s Plant Breeders’ Rights Act”. Prepared for Canadian Food In-spection Agency.



Improved varieties with higher yields, particularly varieties with herbicide resis-tance and improved resistance to diseases.

Improved agronomic practices with the adoption of herbicide resistant varieties.

Better soil management, and fertilizer application practices.

We believe that farm yields are poised for a further increase in the next few years now that canola hybrids are becoming more widely available. As seen in Figure 4, the yield of the best hybrid canola variety with a normal fatty acid profile was 128% of the check va-riety in the 2004 Prairie Canola Variety Trials.7 The yield of the best low linolenic hy-brid was 106.4 % of the check variety.

92.0%

99.9%

97.7%

106.6%

103.6%

106.4%

111.5%

128.1%

75% 100% 125% 150%

Low Linolenic, Average Open Pollinated

Low Linolenic, Best Open Pollinated

Normal, Average Open Pollinated

Normal, Best Open Pollinated

Low Linolenic, Hybrid, Average

Low Linolenic, Best Hybrid

Normal, Average Hybrid

Normal, Best Hybrid

Figure 4. Yield Comparison of Canola Hybrids and Varieties in 2004

Low linolenic canola varieties have been fighting to keep up with the rapid advances in yield of varieties and hybrids with normal canola fatty acid composition. This is believed to be due to the relatively lower investment that has made over the past 15 years to breed low linolenic cultivars compared to those with normal fatty acid composition. The yield difference between the normal and low linolenic canola genotypes represents a “lag” in the yield due to the lower investment in breeding and fewer generations of plant improvement. Research has not been done to determine if there is any “drag” or impair-ment in the crop yield because of, for example, possible changes in the membrane lipid composition associated with the low linolenic or high oleic traits.

4.2 Diseases and Insects At present, all canola breeding programs in Canada develop breeding material with some level of blackleg resistance. The cooperative testing program evaluates all cultivars and a variety not achieving at least a moderate level of resistance would not be recommended to CFIA for registration.

7 Saskatchewan Pool 2005 Seed Guide. www.swp.com



A fusarium wilt screening trial is being developed by Ralph Lange at ARC Vegreville so that all cultivars competing in the cooperative trials for registration will be tested for lev-els of resistance to this disease. The AAFC Saskatoon/Beaverlodge B. rapa program has developed some cultivars that have improved tolerance to brown girdling root rot. This disease is quite devastating in Brassica rapa varieties in the grey wooded soils of western Canada and especially in the Peace River Region. In the area of insect resistance, Dr. Laima Kott of the University of Guelph and Dr. Lloyd Dosdall of the University of Alberta project are working jointly to identity strains that are resistant to the cabbage seed pod weevil.

4.3 Oil Quality Canola is low in the C22:1 erucic fatty acid and low in glucosinolates. The latter reduce the nutritional value of the canola meal remaining after oil extraction. Normal canola oil contains 9% - 11% linolenic acid (C18:3), which is desirable nutrition-ally, but which has a negative impact on the oxidative stability and flavour of some foods processed using canola oil. Canola oil delivers additional health benefits by being low in saturated fatty acids. It is the only salad oil sold in the retail markets around the world with < 7% saturated fatty acids. New fatty acid profiles that are fundamentally different to the composition of the normal (original) oil have been identified in many oilseed species (Figure 5).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fatty Acid Percentage

Palm - CPalm olein - C

Cottonseed - CCorn - C

High stearic canola - R&DHigh stearic sunflower - R&D

High stearic low oleic soy - R&DHigh stearic hi oleic soy - R&D

Normal sunflower - CMid oleic sunflower - C

High oleic sunflower - CHigh oleic low lin canola - C

High oleic soy - UDLow linolenic canola - C

High oleic canola - CNormal soy - C

Low saturate soy - UDNormal canola - C Palmitic C16:0

Stearic C18:0

Oleic C18:1

Linoleic C18:2

Linolenic C18:3

C = Commercial

UD = UnderDevelopmentR&D = Germ Plasm

Figure 5. Fatty Acid Composition of Vegetable Oils

The low linolenic canola being commercialized today by Dow AgroSciences, Cargill Specialty Canola Oils and Dupont/Pioneer benefits from mutation breeding initiated by



Rakow while working in Germany over 30 years ago.8 Rakow continued this line of re-search once he was appointed canola breeder at the AAFC Saskatoon Research Centre. Over the years, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and CSP Foods (now Bunge Canada) have also supported research at the University of Manitoba to develop low linolenic canola. Warner from the USDA has recommended that salad and frying oils be developed with moderate levels of oleic acid (< 80%) and low linolenic acid (< 3%). In addition, satu-rated fatty acids were recommended to be low (<7-8%) and linoleic acid at least 20-30%. Oils with this profile should have sufficient oxidative stability for use in many salad, fry-ing and spray oil applications and do not need light hydrogenation. By avoiding hydro-genation, trans and saturate fatty acid levels are not increased.

Canola oil could soon face significant new competition from soybean oil with improved quality. Soybeans with < 3% linolenic acid have been developed by Iowa State Univer-sity, Monsanto and Pioneer and are beginning to enter commercial channels in the US.9 Bunge’s Nutrium™ low linolenic soybean oil comes from Pioneer Hi-Bred genetics and seed stock. Cargill and Ag Processing Inc. are introducing a low linolenic soybean oil from soybean varieties bred by Monsanto’s Asgrow division and marketed under the Vis-tive™ brand name. A soybean variety with < 1% linolenic acid developed by the ISU is being contracted for production by the Iowa Quality Agriculture Guild and the oil sold by Asoyia, LLC under the AsoyiaTM brand name.

With the superior quality and expanding demand for low linolenic genotypes in both ca-nola and soybean driven in part by the trans fat issue and negative nutritional attributes of partially hydrogenated oils, expanded investment into the breeding low linolenic canola adapted for Alberta certainly seems appropriate. Also driven by the same trans fat issue, it seems appropriate that the canola breeding in-dustry discuss with canola oil refiners the strategic need for plant breeding investment to develop high stearic canola genotypes targeted for the solid fat markets. High stearic oils may require fractionation but not hydrogenation in order for oil processors to manufac-ture solid fat margarine and shortening products that are trans free and also not high in palmitic fatty acid, the latter of which some nutritionists believe also contributes to car-diovascular disease.

4.4 Canola Meal Quality Canola meal is the residue remaining after the extraction of oil from canola seed. The product contains ~ 35% protein and is used extensively in livestock rations. The product is priced competitively with 48% dehulled soybean meal based on its protein content, amino acid composition, fibre content and energy. The ~11% crude fibre content of ca-nola meal however limits its use in many feed formulations. There are also other con-

8 Rakow et al. “Opportunities and problems in modification of levels of rapeseed C18 unsaturated fatty acids. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc, 50:400 – 403, 1973. 9 Low-Linolenic Soybean Oil. http://www.zerotransoy.com/sol_lowlin_main.htm



stituents such as sinapine, polyphenolics, phytic acid and non-starch polysaccarides in canola meal which affects its utility. As a result, the protein in canola meal, which actu-ally has a very favourable amino acid composition, is often only able to achieve about 65% of the value of soybean protein on a per unit of protein basis when canola meal is sold for feed formulation. These quality and pricing relationships of canola meal to soybean meal have been known since the 1970s when the first canola quality varieties with reduced levels of glucosi-nolates were developed. There unfortunately has not been any substantial improvement in the quality of canola meal since then. Some research efforts have been targeted at improving the quality and utilization of ca-nola meal. These include breeding for yellow seed Brassica napus varieties with reduce fibre content (later in this review we describe a very significant invention in this area by Dr. Rahman while he was working for Danisco in Europe). There is also germ plasm de-velopment in progress by various researchers to identify canola strains with reduced lev-els of certain anti-nutritive compounds.

5. Canadian Canola Breeding Objectives In conducting this review of the University of Alberta canola breeding program, we were not able to find a vision statement of what the canola industry collectively wants to achieve or look like in 5 – 10 years time. It appears that the canola industry including the science community has not reviewed for some time and articulated a unified consensus statement of the expectations of research to help the industry achieve its goals. This is particularly true with respect to plant breeding initiatives.

5.1 Product Quality Objectives Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of canola oil and canola meal towards which the Canola Council of Canada has been directing some attention. Table 5 identifies the top priorities for quality improvements identified by Dr. Hickling to a recent convention of the Canola Council of Canada.

Table 4. Important Characteristics of Canola Oil and Canola Meal Canola Oil Quality Canola Meal Quality

Saturated fat level Mono-unsaturated fat level Poly-unsaturated fat level Erucic acid level Functional characteristics, taste, stability Sterols and tocopherols Non-food use functionality Variability

:

Protein level Amino acid levels (lysine, methionine,

Histidine Amino acid digestibility (heat damage,

structural matrix) Energy level (fibre content – carbohy-

drate digestibility) Vitamins and minerals (choline, phos-

phorus, selenium) Antinutrients (glucosinolates, phytate,

tannins, sinapine) Colour Variability

Ref. Dr. David Hickling, 38th Annual Convention, Canola Council of Canada, July 18, 2005.



Table 5. Quality Improvement Priorities Canola Product Priority

Seed High oil content Lower chlorophyll content

Oil Saturated fat content Extra value components (omega-3, tocopherol) Functionality (oxidative stability)

Meal Energy content Ref. Dr. David Hickling, 38th Annual Convention, Canola Council of Canada.

5.2 Agronomy Objectives The Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Saskatchewan Canola Development Com-mission and Manitoba Canola Growers Association provide financial support to a Canola Agronomic Research Program administered by the Canola Council of Canada. Table 6 identifies the current agronomic research priorities of these grower organizations. Table 6. Agronomic Research Priorities of Provincial Grower Organizations Grower Organization Priority Alberta Canola Producers Commission

Maximize agronomic efficiency of canola production in an environmentally sustainable manner

Development of accurate seed vigour tests Agronomic practices for rapid emergence, uniform stand establish-

ment, vigorous plant growth, low chlorophyll levels and frost toler-ance

Tillage systems that provide optimum seed bed soil characteristics Optimum harvest technology for each soil/climatic zone Maximizing moisture use efficiency Effective intercropping practices Demonstrating the effectiveness of agronomic practices through ap-

plied research & demonstration Emphasizing the economic return derived from research

Solutions to current and emerging disease and insect pest threats Pest forecasting methods, base yield losses and economic threshold

levels and life cycle/physiology where required Surveys and monitoring systems Effective and economical pest and disease management systems

Germ plasm and variety development that benefits growers Increase genetic disease and pest resistance Reduced chlorophyll at maturity, including de-greening

Saskatchewan Canola De-velopment Commission

Seeding rates based on seed size and plant population Low versus high inputs for economic production – integrated studies

of seed population, fertility, varieties, weed population Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency Economic evaluation of different agronomic production practices

Manitoba Canola Growers Association

Diseases specifically sclerotinia and blackleg Pest control – main focus on flea beetles, but interested in other poten-

tial insect problems Agronomic practices that help producers cut costs or increase produc-

tivity such as straight combining of canola or studies on the use of common seed

Ref. John Mayko, Agronomic Research & Extension Manager, Canola Council of Canada. May 9th, 2005.



5.3 2015 Targets for Canola Cultivars To benchmark the value of proposed canola breeding at the University of Alberta, per-formance targets for cultivars are needed in order to assess the merit of proposals for re-search programs submitted for funding. Table 7 identifies our vision for the cultivar descriptions for new cultivars of Brassica napus and Brassica rapa to be achieved by 2015. These cultivars will have competed in the Western Canada Canola/Rapeseed Recommending Committee (WCC/RRC) perform-ance trials and recommendations for registration made to CFIA. The 2015 cultivars de-scribed in Table 7 are aggressive but achievable we believe given the known science, rea-sonable expectations of focused investment in R&D, future discoveries and their applica-tion during the next 10 years. Given rapidly advancing competition from soybean, sunflower and palm in terms of pro-duction efficiency and quality, our view is that the canola industry should not set targets for cultivar development lower than indicated. Furthermore, our expectation is that can-didate cultivars recommended for registration by 2015 would possess all the characteris-tics identified for each species, not just a few of the traits identified. In other words, we expect that all the individual traits identified will have been pyramided (stacked) into each cultivar being commercialized by 2015.

Table 7. 2015 Targets for Canola Cultivars

Characteristics Brassica napus Brassica rapa Agronomic Pollination control Hybrid Hybrid Yield 20% above the highest yielding

candidate hybrid cultivar tested in WCC/RRC trials in 2005.

40% above the highest yielding candidate synthetic cultivar in WCC/RRC trials in 2005.

Herbicide Tolerant Roundup Ready Clearfield tolerant Maturity Equal to 5-7 days earlier Equal Blackleg Resistant Resistant White rust Already immune Tolerant Brown girdling root rot Already resistant Resistant Nitrogen use efficiency New trait being introduced to the

market

Quality Traits Oil content 1% above 2005 hybrid 1% above 2005 synthetic Fatty acid composition Low linolenic, high oleic, <7%

saturate Low linolenic, high oleic, <7% saturate

Protein content 1% above 2005 hybrid 1% above 2005 synthetic Seed coat colour Yellow Yellow Fibre content, defatted meal Decrease of 5% Decrease of 2% Anti-nutritive components Low phytate, low phenolic

Table 8 identifies desirable input and output traits which we think are appropriate 2015 targets for elite strains arising from germ plasm development during the next 10 years. By 2015, we see the performance of specific strains having been proven in field nurseries



and that germ plasm and elite strains are ready for technology transfer to commercial cul-tivar developers.

Table 8. 2015 Targets for Elite Strains

Characteristics Brassica napus Brassica rapa Agronomic Pollination control Alternative hybrid system Alternative hybrid system Heterosis genes Validated in field Validated in field Maturity 5-7 days earlier Blackleg Backup resistance gene ready for

release Backup resistance gene ready for release

Sclerotinia Tolerance identified Tolerance identified Cabbage seed pod weevil Tolerant line ready for technol-

ogy transfer Tolerant line ready for technol-ogy transfer

Nitrogen use efficiency Additional gene ready for tech-nology transfer

Phosphorus use efficiency New gene identified Energy efficiency New canola ideotype identified

requiring less non-renewable energy inputs based on life cycle analysis

Improved agronomic traits Pod-shatter resistance Quality Traits Seed size Large, suitable for dehulling High stearic acid Germ plasm identified and per-

formance tested

Industrial oil profile Germ plasm identified and per-formance tested

We believe there is merit for canola breeders to consider developing high stearic acid va-rieties of Brassica napus with the oil intended to replace hydrogenated oils or imported palm oil fractions used in solid fat products – margarine, vegetable shortening, baking fats, etc. To be accepted in the marketplace, new high stearic acid canola cultivars would have to be fully competitive in yield with the 2015 Brassica napus target, but may need to be deficient in one or more of the other 2015 traits. Brassica juncea is emerging as a new canola oilseed crop adapted to the southern prai-ries. Research is also underway at the AAFC Saskatoon Research Centre to develop Brassica carinata or Sinapis alba as oilseed crops for western Canada. Similar 2015 cul-tivar targets could be developed for these three Brassica species. However, these targets are not critical to the analysis and conclusions of our current review.

6. Impact of the University of Alberta Canola Breeding The historical impact of the University of Alberta Canola Breeding Program can be measured by assessing the number of varieties registered, royalties earned and royalties reinvested in the program, number of scientific publications and patents, number and type of formal consultations and invited participation in scientific societies and conferences, number and types of company and university collaborations and the number of graduate students.



6.1 Varieties Developed at the University of Alberta The University of Alberta Canola Breeding Program licensed the following cultivars: 1978 Altex 1991 Eldorado 2000 Conquest 2003 Cougar CL 1981 Andor 1995 Quantum 2001 Peace 1988 Alto 1998 Q2 2001 Kelsey 1990 Eclipse 1999 Hi-Q 2002 Roper 1978 - Altex, a Brassica napus variety, was the first canola quality variety regionally adapted for the cool growing areas of the parkland in Alberta. It was two days earlier in maturity than Tower or Regent with a similar yield. This variety was distributed by Cen-Alta Seeds. 1981 - Andor, a Brassica napus variety was similar to Altex in oil, protein, erucic acid and glucosinolate content but higher in yield than Tower, Regent or Altex. The variety was suitable for the long growing season areas of Alberta as it was two days earlier in maturity than Regent or Tower and is a replacement for Altex. Plant height was similar to Altex but shorter than Regent or Tower. This variety was distributed by Cen-Alta Seeds. 1988 - Alto, a Brassica napus variety, was two days earlier maturing that Westar in cen-tral Alberta. Alto had 2% higher protein and 1% higher oil content than Westar. Alto had a similar yield to Westar and slightly higher than Legend. Alto was distributed by Cen-Alta Seeds. 1990 - Eclipse, a Brassica rapa variety, was the first Alberta developed canola quality variety. Eclipse was higher in oil and protein content and slightly higher in yield than Tobin. Maturity was about one day later than Tobin. Resistance to white rust was less than Tobin. Eclipse was distributed by the Alberta Wheat Pool. 1991 - Eldorado, a Brassica rapa variety, was deregistered in 2000. This variety was adapted to all zones in Western Canada. On average the variety was 3.5 percent higher in yield (performing slightly better in the short- and mid-season zones), 1.3 percentage points higher in oil and 0.3 percentage points higher in protein than Tobin. Lodging resis-tance was similar to Tobin. Shattering resistance was fair. The variety matures slightly earlier than Tobin. White rust resistance was similar to Tobin. 1995 - Quantum, a Brassica napus variety, set a new standard for disease resistance and yield. In two years of Coop testing yields were 21 % higher than Legend in the mid sea-son zone, 16% higher in the long season zone and 24.4% higher in the irrigated zone of western Canada. Equal to 2 days later in maturity than Legend. Higher oil and lower protein than Legend. Superior to Legend, Delta, and Excel at all test locations for lodg-ing resistance. Seed chlorophyll is superior to Legend, somewhat lower than Excel but higher than Delta. Lower glucosinolate levels than Legend. Quantum was rated resistant to blackleg disease. Quantum was distributed by Agricore.



1998 - Q2, a Brassica napus variety, in cooperative trials yielded 16% higher than the checks Cyclone, Excel and Legend over all zones. Plant height is similar to Cyclone. Maturity is similar to Legend. Lodging was better than all the checks. Oil content is higher +0.8% and protein content was lower -0.8%. Q2 rated resistant to blackleg dis-ease. Q2 was distributed by Agricore. 1999 – Hi-Q, a Brassica napus variety, in cooperative trials yielded 8% higher than the checks Defender, Excel and Legacy across all zones. Plant height was similar to the checks. Maturity was earlier -1 day than the checks. Lodging was similar to the checks. Oil and protein content was higher than the checks. Hi-Q rated resistant to blackleg dis-ease. Hi-Q was distributed by Agricore. 2000 – Conquest, a Roundup Ready herbicide tolerant Brassica napus variety, in coop-erative trials yielded 5% higher than the checks Excel, Defender and Legacy in all Zones. Plant height was similar to the checks. Maturity was later +2 days than the checks. Lodg-ing was slightly better than the checks. Oil content and protein content was higher than the checks. Conquest rated resistant to blackleg disease. Conquest was distributed by Agricore. 2001 – Peace, an early Brassica napus variety, in cooperative trials yielded 44% higher than the checks Maverick, Parkland and Reward in the Short Season zone. Plant height was taller +7 cm than the checks. Maturity was equal to the checks AC Excel, Defender and Legacy. Lodging resistance was equal to the checks. Oil content is slightly lower and protein content is higher. Peace was rated moderately resistant to blackleg disease. Peace was distributed by Agricore United. 2001 – Kelsey, a Brassica napus variety, in cooperative trials yielded equal to the checks Excel, Defender and Legacy over all zones and 6% higher in the Short Season zone. Plant height was similar to the checks. Maturity was equal to the checks. Lodging was equal to the checks. Oil content and protein content was higher than the checks. Kelsey was distributed by Agricore United. 2002 – Roper, a Brassica napus variety, in cooperative trials yielded was 10% higher than the checks AC Excel, Defender and Legacy over all zones. Plant height was similar to the checks. Maturity was 2 days later than the checks. Lodging resistance is equal to the checks. Oil and protein content was much higher than the checks. Roper is rated re-sistant to blackleg disease. Roper was distributed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. 2003 – Cougar CL, a Clearfield herbicide tolerant Brassica napus variety, in cooperative trials yielded 5% lower than the checks 46A65/Q2 in the short and mid season zones. Maturity was 1 day earlier than the checks. Height was 2 cm shorter and lodging resis-tance was similar to the checks. Oil content was slightly lower and protein content was higher. Cougar CL rated resistant to blackleg disease.



6.2 Royalties Earned The royalty data for the varieties Altex, Andor and Alto were not available. The variety Quantum was by far the most successful of the University of Alberta’s Canola Breeding Program followed by Conquest. The royalties for Quantum for the time frame of 1994 to 2002 were $4,946,536.60 while the royalties for Conquest from 1999 to 2003 was $1,777,801.40. The royalties for other varieties such as Peace, Kelsey, Hi-Q were $287,484.35.

6.3 Publications and Workshops The Canola Breeding Program has resulted in 52 published research papers that have ad-vanced knowledge in the Brassica napus and Brassica rapa species that are utilized in canola breeding and agronomics. This published research contributed towards a greater understanding of the genetics involved in canola breeding and the agronomics in growing the crop. This research led to improvements in the efficiencies of cultivar development. For example the development of double haploid technology in canola decreased the num-ber of years to develop and release a cultivar. Researchers in the canola breeding program at the University of Alberta have presented workshops on plant breeding and contributed to numerous international workshops and conferences. Dr. Stringam’s papers have been presented at several International confer-ences such as the 8th International Crucifer Genetics Workshop, the 8th Groupe Consultif International de Researche Sur Le Colza (GCIRC) “International Repeseed Congress”, 5th International Symposium Genetics and Molecular Biology of Plant Nutrition and 13th Eu-carpia Congress. Dr. Rahman was chairman of the plant breeding committee that organ-ized that section’s research papers and presentations for the 2003 GCIRC conference in Copenhagen Denmark. Both Dr’s Stringam and Rahman reviewed scientific research papers for various scientific Journals such as the Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Theoretical and Applied Genetics, Plant Breeding, etc.

6.4 Graduate Student Development The canola breeding program at the University of Alberta since inception supervised 16 graduates with MSc’s and 4 PhD’s. The expertise developed in these graduates through courses and practical experience in plant breeding research has had significant direct and indirect benefits to the canola industry in Canada. Most of these students are now em-ployed by the private and public sectors as canola breeders, crop specialists and research-ers.

6.5 Value of Current Germ Plasm and Varieties At present, the current registered varieties from the University of Alberta Canola Breed-ing program have very little share of western Canada’s canola acreage. Because of the transition from Dr. Stringam to Dr. Rahman, there are currently no candidate cultivars in the cooperative variety trials. However, canola germ plasm that the University of Alberta canola breeding program has developed since inception of canola breeding has consider-able residual value, especially in regards to blackleg resistance and early maturity.



7. Exploiting Genetic Diversity in Canola Breeding at the University of Alberta

7.1 Dr. Habibur Rahman, Associate Professor Prior to his appointment at the University of Alberta in 2003, Dr. Rahman was the Senior Breeder of Canola/Rapeseed for Danisco Seed in Denmark where he was responsible for both spring and winter cultivar development. From his spring rape/canola breeding program, Dr. Rahman registered 31 cultivars (28 lines and 3 hybrids) of different types (conventional, high oil, high oleic low linolenic, high-erucic acid, Round-Up Ready, white-flower) for sale in Europe and/or in North America (Canada). From his winter canola program, 16 cultivars (11 line and 5 hybrids) were registered for European markets. In only a few years and with limited resources, Dr. Rahman established a very efficient breeding and research program which resulted in the release of many commercially significant lines and hydrids. At one time, Dr. Rahman’s Danisco varieties occupied 15-20% of the German acreage, 30% of the Danish acreage and 25-30% of the French acreage. While at Danisco, Dr. Rahman conducted research on interspecific hybridization in Brassica for developing yellow seeded Brassica napus, from which he was able to develop yellow seeded Brassica napus of canola quality. The breeding scheme pursued by Dr. Rahman to develop yellow seeded Brassica napus was extremely innovative (ref. UK Patent Application GB 2348208, 2000). The breeding scheme illustrated in Figure 6 is indicative of Dr. Rahman’s ability to understand and exploit the genetic diversity in Brassica in order to achieve commercially significant outcomes. The objectives of breeding pure breeding yellow seeded Brassica napus with reduced fibre content and improved meal color characteristics have been achieved and elite germ plasm developed. This technology is now being commercialized by Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans-Georg Lembke KG of Germany. Using mutagenesis, Dr. Rahman also developed high oleic acid oil and dwarf plant traits which he incorporated into the breeding programs for the development of commercial varieties, e.g. high oleic low linolenic spring canola varieties and dwarf winter canola lines.



Figure 6. Breeding Scheme for Yellow-Seeded Brassica napus

7.2 Teaching and Graduate Students Dr. Rahman is supervising two PhD and one MSc graduate students in the science of plant breeding. There is a constant demand for graduate students by not only the private sector but also research institutes. Over the past two years, Dr. Rahman has received two requests from the private sector for trained PhD plant breeders. Training of future canola breeders is crucial for the long-term viability of the canola industry in Canada.

7.3 Centre of Excellence in Canola Genetic Diversity Dr. Rahman has only recently assumed leadership of the University of Alberta canola breeding program. He seeks to establish the University of Alberta canola breeding pro-gram as a centre of excellence for broadening genetic diversity in canola, both for in-creasing the yields, competitiveness and sustainability of canola production in Alberta as well as for diversifying Brassica crops in Alberta in respect to producing value-added ca-nola products. Several research projects have already been identified, components of which tie into the final goal of germ plasm improvement and value-added product development. These projects will contribute to the development of superior canola cultivars by:

Broadening genetic diversity in canola Brassica napus through introgression of genes from genetic diverse germ plasm, including its parental species Brassica rapa and Brassica oleracea.



Heterotic gene pool development, including identification of QTL for hybrid vigour.

Canola quality Brassica oleracea development for efficient introgression of genetic diversity from parental species (NSERC funded project).

Alternate pollination control system development.

Enhanced disease resistance (AARI/ACIDF funded project); and

Improved agronomic traits, e.g. pod shatter resistance, earliness, etc.

Hybrid system development in Brassica rapa for reviving its cultivation is Al-berta’s short season zone.

Hybrid system development in Brassica juncea.

Value-added product development in collaboration with other scientists in Al-berta/Canada (e.g. Drs. Weselake and Shah and Dr. Keller of the NRC Plant Bio-technology Institute in Saskatoon) for diversifying canola production.

Low-saturated fatty acid (Agriculture Funding Consortium funded project). Yellow seed coat in Brassica napus (participant as a project leader in a new

Genome Canada funded project led by Dr. Weselake of University of Al-berta).

Anti-carcinogenic compound production in canola meal.

High-saturated fatty acid in canola for margarine and shortening industries.

A few of these projects are currently funded by the agencies indicated above. In case of other projects listed above, preliminary studies (e.g. feasibility, material development, etc.) have already been initiated. However, the final decision to proceed and complete these projects will depend on the availability of research support from funding agencies and potentially private partners.

7.4 Scientific Collaborations Alberta has world-class capacity in many aspects of canola science. The capacity resides in public institutions as well as private firms. Some of the key scientists within the prov-ince that will be important mentors and scientific collaborators of Dr. Rahman are noted in Table 9. Equally, these scientists will value Dr. Rahman’s expertise as a plant breeder and see collaborations as being critical to moving their basic discoveries in canola ge-nomics and genetics closer towards practical application in the field through development of elite strains and commercial cultivars.



Table 9. Potential Collaborators of the Canola Breeding Program Researcher Organization Focus

Dr. Nat Kav PhD Student: Sanjeeva Srivastava

University of Alberta Proteomics research on disease resistance (AARI project #2003A018R) Drought and salt tolerance genes

Dr. Lloyd Dosdall University of Alberta Cabbage seedpod weevil resistance (AARI project #2001J014).

Dr. Saleh Shah Alberta Research Council Low saturate canola cultivar de-velopment

Dr. Randal Weselake University of Alberta High oil canola cultivar develop-ment; Designing Oilseeds for To-morrow’s Markets (Genome Prai-rie)

Drs. Wilf Keller Plant Biotech Institute, Saskatoon Designing Oilseeds for Tomor-row’s Markets (Genome Canada)

Dr Allan Good University of Alberta and AgriGe-nomics Inc.

Genes for abiotic/biotic stress tol-erance and nitrogen use efficiency.

Dr. Kevin Falk AAFC Saskatoon Brassica rapa hybridization Dr. Maurice Moloney SemBioSys Genetics Inc. Value-added traits

Germ plasm already developed by Dr. Rahman in the Canola Breeding Program has been made available to other researchers. Dr. Nat Kav at the U of A has received canola breeding lines carrying blackleg tolerance gene(s) transferred from B. carinata for his proteomics based research on disease resistance (AARI project #2003A018R). Breeding material has been supplied to Dr. Lloyd Dosdall for his study on cabbage seedpod weevil resistance (AARI project #2001J014). Dr. Saleh Shah at the Alberta Research Council has research on low saturated fatty acids in canola.

Genome Canada has approved funding of about $13 million to a project “Designing Oil-seeds for Tomorrow’s Markets”. This research project is a collaboration between Dr. Randal Weselake at the University of Alberta and Dr. Wilf Keller with the Plant Biotech Institute in Saskatoon. This project, to start in 2006, will focus on seed quality including modifying the seed coat and lowering anti-nutritional factors. It is generally agreed with Dr. Weselake and Dr. Shah that any value-added traits developed in their basic canola research will be transferred to the Canola Breeding Program for further development into elite germ plasm and cultivars. Dr Allan Good’s project at the U of A is identifying genes for abiotic/biotic stress tolerance. Dr. Kav’s PhD student Sanjeeva Srivastava is working on development of a drought and salt tolerant trait.

Alberta’s Agriculture Research and Innovation Strategic Network has identified an op-portunity of $7.6 billion from the food and health product sector, where crop based prod-ucts will play an important role. Dr. Rahman has ideas to diversify as well as enhance the value of the canola crop in Alberta through the development of different value-added products in collaboration with other scientists in Alberta, elsewhere in Canada and inter-nationally.



8. Components of a Successful Public Canola Breeding Program

To achieve maximum benefit from these canola research programs in Alberta, a chain of expertise and facilities are needed to complete the whole process from start (research de-veloping a gene or trait) to finish (cultivar for commercialization of the products). A product (trait) developed in the laboratory or greenhouse needs to be tested in the field to investigate its stability under field conditions. Economic production of a product (trait) depends not only on the value-added trait itself, but also on the agronomic and quality characteristics of the cultivar producing the trait (optimum maturity, resistance to dis-eases and insects, oil and protein content, etc.). These attributes all exert significant in-fluence on the quantity and quality of the final product. In fact, this chain extends, simi-lar to the German NAPUS 2000 program, to the extraction and refining stages. The Ca-nola Breeding Program will play a significant collaborative role in this area of industry development through developing elite strains and hybrid systems out of plants with novel genes.

A canola breeding program must have the right components to be successful. Beyond the obvious requirements for expertise and facilities, a successful program will need to:

Be aligned with the needs of the industry, governments and consumers. Hence our efforts in this review to define the 2015 targets for cultivars that we think are important for the industry.

Have access to a diversified germ plasm.

Develop collaborations with other public as well as private canola scientists and plant breeders so that there is constant communications and development of new techniques, technology and breeding materials.

Develop awareness amongst a diverse group of industry players - grower organi-zations, seed trade, crushers and refiners so that the program is seen to address their particular concerns for new canola technologies.

Develop financial sponsors and partnerships – amongst grower organizations, pro-vincial and federal agencies, and in the private sector.

An annual cash budget for a successful canola breeding program at the University of Al-berta is suggested in Table 10. The University of Alberta Canola Breeding Program has most of the necessary facilities and equipment required for a viable canola research and breeding program. It should be noted that the University of Alberta previously covered the cost of the canola breeder and the assistant breeder/field trial manager. Capital costs, for the replacement of equipment, are not included in the above budget. However, capital expenditures will be needed soon to replace a gas chromatograph and plot combine.



Table 10. Annual Budget for Canola Breeding Program Requirement Description Cost Personnel Breeder and assistant breeder/field trial manager

Field/greenhouse technician Laboratory technician – chemical analysis Laboratory technician – molecular markers Laboratory technician – cell and tissue culture Laboratory technician - plant pathologist Greenhouse technician Summer students Casual labour

$ 150,000 45,000 60,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 20,000 50,000

Facilities Greenhouse and growth cabinets –User fees and supplies Laboratory – Chemical analysis Laboratory – Cell and tissue culture Laboratory – Molecular markers Laboratory – Disease Miscellaneous

45,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 6,000 4,000

Field trials Rent, supplies, equipment maintenance, etc 45,000 Hybrid Cultivar development 40,000 Winter Nursery Seed production in Chile 25,000 Travel Summer travel, conferences and communications 10,000 Coop Tests Fees for variety testing in cooperative trials 20,000

Total Costs $ 760,000 Even though personnel and facilities are two of the most critical elements of a breeding program, the success of the program depends critically on the research being aligned and directed towards strategic initiatives that address the industry’s and public’s (govern-ment’s) vision of what they require for canola varieties in the next ten years. The budget suggested in Table 10 is required if the targets described in Tables 7 and 8 for 2015 are to be achieved. There is a clear need for agreement amongst the industry, funding organizations as well Dr. Rahman and other canola scientists in Canada on the vision for the industry and the strate-gic roles canola scientists in Alberta can play to help the industry achieve that vision.

9. Feasibility of a Public Canola Breeding Program

9.1 Cost of Research Spokesperson’s for the biotechnology companies Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syn-genta estimate that it takes about $80 to $120 million dollars in research and product sup-port to bring a new biotechnology crop to the market.10 Note: considering the invest-ment in canola breeding, agronomy and utilization that was needed starting in the mid-1960s up to 1985 when Canada achieved GRAS for canola oil in the US, this estimate seems entirely reasonable.

10 Mikkel Pates, Agweek Magazine. “Will biotech wheat research be revived?” Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. September 27, 2005.



Interestingly, its also been stated that the cost of getting a 1-bushel increase in yield (we believe this commentary refers to corn) has tripled in the past five years with biotechnol-ogy tools such as "molecular markers" to take a "chip off the seed" to know if a seed or plant contains the gene or DNA of interest. Facing such costs and long-term for a cash payback, firms are focusing their efforts – in the case of Monsanto on four crops - corn, soybeans, canola and cotton. Drought tolerance, cold tolerance and nitrogen utilization are seen to be some of the primary opportunities. This creates a question of why government and non-government organizations should support publicly funded canola breeding research if the costs are so high?

9.2 Rationale for Public Research In a recent address to the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, Kurt Klein, Profes-sor of Economics at the University of Lethbridge, proposed five main arguments for pub-licly funded research:11

1. Continuing high-risk research: private organizations have a low incentive to put money towards basic research deemed too risky or with a low return on invest-ment (ROI).

2. Continuing public good research: while private sector mainly focuses on research where benefits can be more easily protected by law, areas where appropriation is difficult to attain require some form of public research.

3. Continuing external and environmental research: unless mandated by govern-ment, there is very little incentive for the private sector to invest in socially useful research on external (i.e. environmental) impacts of agricultural-based technolo-gies.

4. Lack of Intellectual Property protections: even with recent improvements to intel-lectual property laws and regulations, there are significant weaknesses with IP protection which stifle private sector research, creating a vacuum only filled from the public sector.

5. Lack of Intellectual Property enforcement: Canada and the United States have come a long way from implementing IP protection legislation. However, en-forcement in many other countries has been severely lacking, leading to a sup-pressed interest in the private sector to put research resources into areas such as agriculture.

Klein goes on to says that while a continuation of public funding for basic research is re-quired to help ensure more scientists pursue a variety of basic research questions, perhaps a more important question might be - why are there not more private-public partnerships (PPP)?

11 Tony Bassett Ag-West Bio Inc.and Carni Ryan, University of Saskatchewan. “Realizing yields from publicly funded research in agriculture.” AgBiotech Bulletin, Volume 2, Issue 3, September, 2005.



PPPs are defined as any collaborative effort between the public and private sectors in which each sector contributes resources (time, money or manpower) needed to accom-plish a mutual objective. Literature argues that PPPs are an optimal policy approach to promoting social and economic development by bringing together the competencies of both the public and private sectors. The challenge in all of this is to strike a balance between the incentives and interests that motivate the public sector and the private sector, as well as other participants including associations and other institutions (Spielman and von Grebmer 2004). Engaging in such partnerships often requires shifts in organizational thinking for all part-ners. Finding common ground means organizing activities and institutional structures that follow mutually beneficial objectives which, ideally, lead to commercially or socially valuable outcomes. Ag-West Bio could be used as an example of one such organization facilitating linkages between private and public research organizations. There is clearly a role for both public and private partnerships at the research table. An inclusive approach offers better opportunities for innovation and can lead to a more com-petitive national economy.

9.3 Rational for Public Canola Breeding It seems evident from this review that it will difficult for a small independent canola breeding program with the purpose of registering a continuous stream of outstanding va-rieties and hybrids to compete successfully with the large, well financed private sector plant breeding program. However, there are many important areas where a University canola breeder can be very successful and provide substantial value to all segments of the canola industry in Alberta and in Canada.

1) Continued public funding of high-risk basic research as the private sector focuses mainly on research that has an adequate return on investment. The private plant breeders have a low incentive to invest funds towards basic research that they deem too risky or the target market too small to be profitable. The broadening of genetic diversity in canola through introgression of genes from genetically diverse germ plasm is one area of higher risk basic research. The de-velopment of a broader genetic diversity could lead to higher yield potentials, im-proved disease and insect resistance, earlier maturity, pod-shatter resistance so producers could straight combine, etc. The genetic diversity present in most canola breeding programs in Canada is quite narrow, probably due to the use of very limited genetic material in the programs. Adequate genetic diversity within the canola germ plasm is required for continued improvement in canola as well as for sustained production.



This is especially important in the production of canola hybrids. Hybrid cultivars are now sown on over 50% of western Canada’s canola acreage due to their higher yield potential and in some hybrid cultivars superior agronomics. One of the critical steps in hybrid cultivar development is the identification of parental combinations that produce hybrids with superior yield. Several scientific studies have clearly demonstrated that hybrid performance is positively correlated with genetic distance between the parents. The utilization of genetically diverse lines as hybrid parents can result is greater heterosis and therefore hybrids with more than 30% higher seed yield. The Canola Breeding Program will be carrying out research on the Lemke pollination management system, however, a different hy-brid system will be utilized in the program’s hybrid cultivar development. Identification and development of advantageous genotypes could be incorporated into either a successful cultivar or released by license to the private breeders. An example of what is presently a small market need is a small but growing prob-lem with club root disease in canola north of Edmonton. This devastating disease while slow in invading new areas has the potential to spread throughout the lower pH (<6.5) soils of western Canada. The lower pH soils account for about 45% of Alberta’s canola acreage. For the canola producers who have this disease, it can force them out of the option of growing canola. The private sector would be unlikely to invest funds to develop resistance to this disease because of the uncertainty of any return on their investment. All canola varieties now grown in Canada are very susceptible to club-root. European resis-tance to club-root is available from other Brassica species such as turnips, forage rape, and rutabagas and has been incorporated into some European canola varie-ties. Breeding for club-root resistance is quite complicated because the infected soil frequently contains populations of resting spores that are heterogeneous in viru-lence. The University researcher Dr. Steven Strelkov is working on the biology and control of this disease and would provide valuable input to this problem. The development of club root resistant genotypes could be achieved as a scientific pursuit of the University or through private-public partnerships with grower or-ganizations. Resistance could be incorporated into existing elite cultivars and hy-brids and licensed for sale to the private sector.

2) Explore research that contributes to the enhancement of the canola industry. An example would be the development of Brassica rapa cultivars with high yields, herbicide tolerance and disease resistance. This species occupied over sixty percent of Alberta’s canola acreage only ten years ago. Now, cultivars of this species account for only about two to three per-cent of the acreage. Canola producers switched to higher yielding herbicide tol-



erant Brassica napus varieties as there were no herbicide tolerant varieties in Brassica rapa available and only a low level of resistance to brown girdling root rot which devastates Brassica rapa in the grey-wooded soil areas of Alberta. Plant breeding of Brassica rapa is quite difficult due to its self incompatibility. Presently, the only public program breeding in Canada breeding Brassica rapa is at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Saskatoon Research Centre. With the low potential for return on investment, most of the private sector have either dropped their Brassica rapa program or greatly reduced funding in the develop-ment of cultivars. We believe that Brassica rapa cultivars would be widely grown in the short and mid season zones of Alberta (one-third of the provincial canola acreage) if culti-vars were developed that were thirty to forty percent higher yielding than the best Brassica rapa variety presently available. The development of a hybrid system in Brassica rapa could have the potential of achieving this yield target. Some hy-brids in the Brassica napus species have resulted in thirty to forty percent yield increases over open-pollinated cultivars. A yield potential of this range would place these Brassica rapa cultivars into the mid range of present Brassica napus cultivars. Canola producers especially in the short season zone would quickly adopt high yielding Brassica rapa varieties with the advantages of earlier maturity to reduce risk, broaden the fall workload and this species can be straight combined. Dr. K. Falk at AAFC Saskatoon has communicated with Dr. Rahman indicating that he would be very willing to work with Dr. Rahman especially in the area of hybrid system development. A successful hybrid system for Brassica rapa could either be incorporated into commercial cultivars, licensed to the private sector or released under a private-public partnership.

3) The private sector companies carry out research that will provide an adequate re-turn to their investments. The firms seek to protect their investment through pat-ents and trade secrets. There are certainly many research areas that the University Program can be proactive in where legislative and commercial protection that the private sector seeks is not so easily attained.

4) The private sector does not train graduate students and these highly qualified in-

dividuals are a major benefit to all aspects of society. The private sector depends on the public education system for their professional employees. Cooperative education and research programs are excellent ways to create the next generation of science and industry leaders.



10. Impact of Having a Canola Breeding Program at the University of Alberta

The University of Alberta has estimated that its canola breeding program has to-date con-tributed approximately $276 million to the economy of Alberta. Maintaining the well established canola breeding program at the University of Alberta would continue to pro-vide benefits to the canola industry of Alberta and Canada. Table 11 presents estimates of the economic impact that our 2015 cultivar targets will have on the Alberta and Canadian canola industry.

Table 11. Economic Impact of the 2015 Targets for Canola Cultivars

Characteristics Target Benefit 2015 Impact $/year

Brassica napus Yield 20% above the highest yielding

candidate hybrid cultivar tested in WCC/RRC trials in 2005.

20% x 1.5 Mil tonne x $300/tonne

$90,000,000

Blackleg Resistant. Reduced risk to 20% of 1.5 Mil tonne annual production @ $300/tonne

$90,000,000

Oil quality Low linolenic oil trait 2 cent/lb of oil x 1.5 Mil tonne annual pro-duction of B. napus

$27,800,000

Yellow seed coat, low anti-nutritives

Higher protein, lower fibre, higher digestible energy

Protein valued at 80% of soybean meal protein

$24,000,000

Oil content 1% higher oil in seed $5.20/tonne x 1.5 Mil tonne of B. napus

$7,800,000

Protein content 1% higher protein in meal $2.00/tonne seed x 1.5 Mil tonne B. napus

$3,000,000

Maturity Equal to 5-7 days earlier. Bene-fit is reduced risk of green seed and grade improvement on 10% of B. napus

10% x 1.5 Mil tonne x $15/tonne grade im-provement

$ 2,250,000

Nitrogen use efficiency

New trait 25% reduction in $25/acre cost of nitro-gen on 3 Mil acres (~ 1.5 Mil tonne B. napus)

$18,000,000

Brassica rapa Yield 40% above the highest yielding

candidate synthetic cultivar in WCC/RRC trials in 2005. Re-quires resistance to brown gir-dling root.

20% x 0.5 Mil tonne x $300/tonne plus 20% x 0.4 Mil tonne x $15/tonne grade improvement

$31,200,000

Oil content 1% above 2005 hybrid $5.20/tonne x 0.5 Mil tonne of B. rapa

$2,600,000

Protein content 1% above 2005 hybrid Marginal in Peace River area

$ 0



When the 2015 B. napus and B. rapa cultivars are achieved, they will provide significant economic returns to Alberta canola growers and the industry in general. Table 11 illus-trates the tremendous benefits of advances in yield. It also illustrates how vitally impor-tant resistance to blackleg is. Blackleg can be extremely devastating as known by the Australian experience. Seed quality parameters also demonstrate significant benefits. The increasing importance of nitrogen, phosphorus and energy efficiency in crop produc-tion is also evident by the benefits illustrated in Table 11for increased nitrogen efficiency. In the private sector, canola breeding is focused towards yield and specific traits and technologies useful in farming and profitable enough to achieve adequate returns on re-search investment. Private breeding programs must continually introduce new cultivars so as to stay one step ahead of their competitors. The U of A Canola Breeding Program, unlike the private sector, has opportunity to focus on the big picture of what is required in canola cultivars for the long-term. This stance allows the Canola Breeding Program to be a strategic leader influencing the future direc-tion of canola breeding, both in the private and public sectors.

11. Impact of Not Having a Canola Breeding Program at the University of Alberta

The impact of not having a canola breeding program at the University of Alberta would mean that the potential for varieties adapted to Alberta’s ecology with 20-40% yield in-creases and quality improvements as targeted would not be available to Alberta farmers. It likely would mean that breeding for resistance to emerging diseases such as club root disease would not be pursued. While graduate students may still be trained in plant breed-ing at the University, they may not be trained in canola breeding. Nor would these graduate students benefit from the hands-on experience of studying with a world-class scientist in a world-class canola breeding program, and particularly one focused on deliv-ering elite germ plasm and superior breeding stock to industry through mining for genes and exploiting genetic diversity and heterosis in Brassica species.

12. Conclusions and Recommendation It is vital that canola breeding programs in Canada have strategic objectives that address the industry’s vision of what it requires in canola cultivars in the next ten years. For pub-lic breeders, this vision for the cultivars of 2015 should be a composite vision of canola growers, the seed trade, canola processors, canola markets, consumers and of govern-ments interested in economic development and prosperity in the sector. For private breeders, this vision obviously must embrace the needs of their commercial organization. At present, the collective canola industry does not have a vision for the cultivars it re-quires by 2015. We have suggested descriptions for these 2015 cultivars. Dr. Rahman seeks to:

Establish the University of Alberta canola breeding program as a centre of excel-lence for broadening genetic diversity in canola.



Achieve ”quantum” type improvements that “raise the bar” in the field perform-ance, yield and quality of hybrids marketed to Alberta canola growers.

Provide commercial canola breeders with diverse germ plasm and commercially competitive cultivars to the seed trade with important input and output traits.

We support Dr. Rahman’s ambitions and strategies for canola breeding and germ plasm development. Some of the targets proposed by Dr. Rahman need validation with the in-dustry, particularly those for quality improvements beyond what we have described for the target 2015 cultivars. Dr. Rahman recognizes that the University of Alberta is not in the commercial plant breeding business or the seed trade. He seeks to develop elite germ plasm and cultivars which will provide growers, commercial breeders, the seed trade and processing industry with quantum improvements in field performance and crop quality. The elite germ plasm and cultivars Dr. Rahman develops can be made available to the industry through appropriate royalty earning variety release or technology transfer proce-dures. Elite materials may be transferred through technology transfer procedures, licens-ing procedures for superior genotypes that are recommended for licensing, or developed collaborative and released through various types of public/private partnerships. We have not attempted to define these for this review. The research approaches proposed by Dr. Rahman are long term. They have elements of high science risk. For the most part, the research approaches to exploiting genetic diver-sity for heterosis, pollination control, disease and insect resistance, and quality improve-ments are unlikely to be pursued to the extent envisioned solely by the private sector. In any discussion of public funding of canola breeding research, it is often not appreci-ated that the Canadian taxpayer is investing in private canola breeding through scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) tax credits that commercial plant breeding companies earn through their investments in cultivar development. The Uni-versity of Alberta Canola Breeding Program provides a different forum and direct oppor-tunity for canola growers and the public sector to participate in pursuing priorities not being effectively pursued by the private breeders. The outcomes of this research of course should be that farmers, the industry and governments as economic development agencies better able to achieve their objectives. All plant breeders regularly evaluate where their breeding programs are heading and how their varieties stack up with the competition. It is evident is that Dr. Rahman is an ex-tremely capable plant breeder and that private breeders recognize Dr. Rahman’s experi-ence and skills. By taking on scientific risk that private breeders are not able to pursue given their need to focus on near-term market share successes, Dr. Rahman will be able to focus on achieving quantum discoveries that will be extremely beneficial for canola growers, the industry and consumers. We do not see Dr. Rahman competing in the same science space as private breeders who are compelled to churn out new varieties regularly to support the marketing programs of their firms.



The canola seed market is already competitive in western Canada. The University of Al-berta canola breeding program should not expected to churn out cultivars offering only incremental gains in performance. The University of Alberta’s canola breeding pro-gram’s greatest contribution will be to raise the bar for the entire canola industry and de-velop the germ plasm and elite cultivars for release to the private sector that achieves all and more of what we seek for canola growers in the canola cultivars we have described for 2015.

review of university of alberta canola breeding program · s. j. campbell investments ltd. ... the...

Documents