Wheat Seed Treatment in Australia - Research Paper Example

Wheat Seed Treatment in Australia I Introduction Seed treatment is an agricultural term used to refer to the process of ing plant seeds to either pesticide treatment or any other process that will reduce, control or repel insects or any other organism that attack and destroy seeds. Seeds are subject to attacks not only externally but also internally as fungi or bacteria may attach to their coating or even within eventually causing plant diseases. The dangers that threaten seeds are present during storage and after planting. The soils upon which seeds are planted also contain fungi and bacteria that could harm them and the degree to which they could endanger seeds depend upon the condition of the soil at the time seeds are planted, which do not favour fast germination. Thus, seed treatment is resorted to protect seeds from the following: fungi and bacteria that can cause rotting, blights and smuts; soil insects; storage insects, and; birds and rodents. Seed treatment becomes a necessity in these cases to ensure stand quality and better yields (Munkvold et al. 2006 7). Seed treatment had been practiced as early as 60 A.D. when seeds were treated with wine and crushed cypress leaves to deter insects from destroying them while in storage (Munkvold et al. 2006 7). Also, during the Egyptian and Roman periods sap from onion was used; in the Middle Ages, chlorine salts and liquid manure, and; in the 1600s, hot water started to become a ST method, one that is still being used even to this day (Australian Seed Federation 2010). The earliest treatment for wheat seeds was accidentally discovered in the 17th century when a ship carrying a load of wheat grains sank. When grains that got soaked in the seawater were recovered from the sunken ship and were planted they produced plants that have less bunt or stinking smut than the usual crops planted using ordinary seeds. Thus, soaking seeds in seawater became one of the earliest treatments to seeds to prevent bunt until in the year 1750 a Frenchman discovered that salt and lime can control bunt in wheat significantly. The advent of the mercurial compounds in the 1920s, although later banned, had revolutionised contemporary seed treatment (Munkvold et al. 2006 7). II Wheat and the Seed Treatment Industry One of the valuable crop seeds that undergo seed treatment in Australia are the wheat seeds. Wheat is grown in Australia extensively and as a matter of fact, in 2003-04 30,000 farmers, more or less, grew wheat in Australia accounting for about half of the country’s agricultural land Fig. 1 Wheat-producing regions in Australia (Source: ABARE 2010 iv) devoted to cropping (Australian Bureau of Statistics 432). Fig.1 shows the regions in Australia where the different varieties of wheat, like premium white wheat and hard wheat, are grown. Wheat is Australia’s largest and most valuable crop representing 15% of the country’s overall farm production and earning sales in exports amounting to $3.4 billion in the same period. Wheat seeds, however, are known to be susceptible to different kinds of fungi, bacteria and other plant pests. In 1868, flag smut, a plant disease caused by a kind of fungus called urocystis agropyrii was reported to have spread and affected wheat in Australia, the second incidence after the first in Europe twenty years before that (Singh & Pandey 2002 43-44). Diseases that often plagued wheat are carried by fungi (Fusarium spp., Tilletia spp., Drechslera spp., Septoria spp., and Ustilago spp.), bacteria (Corynebacterium, Pseudomonas, Xanthomonas) and nematodes (Anguina tritici) and are the most significant because they occur worldwide and bring about catastrophic loss in crop production (Australian Seed Federation 2010 3). Wheat seed treatment is essential to control diseases and is principally done through the application of chemicals targeting particular organisms. In addition to disease control, seed treatment also benefits crop growth and yields, a fact noted in the use of certain systemic fungicides such as Baytan, Raxil and Vitavax (van Gastel et al. 2002). Seed treatment methods employed in Australia today cover such processes as seed dressing, seed coating and seed pelleting. Seed dressing refers to the treatment of seed with dry formulation or wet ones, like slurry or liquid treatments and is conducted either by the farmer himself or through a contract with a professional applicator. Seed coating is an advanced treatment technology where the treatment formulation is used with a special binding formula to ensure that the treatment sticks to the seed and coats it whilst seed pelleting is considered the most sophisticated of the three seed treatments and by far, the most expensive. It reshapes the seed so that it can be handled and planted more easily and requires the use of a special application machine and techniques. Both seed coating and seed pelleting can only be conducted by professional applicators (Australian Seed Federation 2010 3). In Australia, a peak national body called the Australian Seed Federation (ASF hereafter) was created to represent the interests of the sowing seed industry and has membership all over and in all states of the Commonwealth, counting among others, plant breeders, seed growers, seed processors, seed testing laboratories, and seed marketers. The annual turnover for seed sales of its members runs, on the average, 80% of the total market shares of the overall seed sales in Australia (Melham 2007). Its membership does not only cover those engaged in the production of wheat but a diverse number of crops as well under different climate, geography and cultivars (ASF 2010 3). The body has also accredited member companies for seed labeling and marketing as well as for use of seed treatment. ASF has crafted documents pertaining to practices in the seed industry and among them is the National Code of Practice for the Use of Seed Treatments, which was drafted to ensure that all treated seeds used for sowing in Australia had undergone safe, accurate and efficient seed treatment and requires that all seed treatment formula should have prior registration with the National Registration Authority. The Code embodies the proper methods and processes of seed treatment, including seed dressing, seed coating, and seed pelleting and also requires the applicator to maintain and keep a “record of the actual Seed Treatment Rate per line of seed.” The applicator must also set aside a 100gram reference sample of treated seed per line, which must be kept for one entire sowing season, properly labeled and stored safely. The Code has also set forth the responsibilities of the applicator and the criteria upon which accreditation for applicators are based on such as a showing of competency in the following areas: equipment calibration; label information interpretation; record keeping; seed loading knowledge; grain quality; “slurry: mix and quantity per tonne; application distributions, and; applied chemical losses. In addition, the Code also subjects the applicators to annual audits to identify corrective areas, among others, and recommend penalties like suspension of accreditation in case of non-compliance (ASF 2010 4-7). To date, ASF has accredited five companies for seed-treatment purposes to ensure that the process follows best practices methods and to ensure safety and high performance yields only. These companies are: Bayer CropScience Australia Pty Ltd, which had been in operation since 2002 and is a merger of Bayer CropProtection and Aventis CropScience; Frances Seeds; Hansen Seed Cleaners; Lawson Seed Graders Pty Ltd, and; SeedTech Pty Ltd, which was established in 2000 (ASF 2010). There are other seed-treatment companies operating in Australia, which are not, however, affiliated with or members of ASF such as Crompton/Chemtura Corporation (ISF) operating through its subsidiary, the Hannaford company (Hannaford), In 2009, the global market for seed treatment was estimated at US$2.5 billion with the United States taking the lead in its use accounting 50% of the market, followed by Brazil at 15%. Corn is the number one crop that utilises seed treatment followed by other crops like cotton, potatoes, rice, soybeans, sugar beets, and wheat. The two most widely-used pesticides in seed treatment are fungicides and insecticides, with the former leading on a hectare-treated basis and the latter former having a value of more than 50% although only used on one-third of on a hectare-treatment basis (Kline & Company 2010). The steady rise of the seed treatment industry can be accounted not only by increasing crop acreage but also by a parallel steady increase in pesticide prices. The rise in the latter can be attributed to the rise in seed prices because of the cost in producing genetically modified seeds. Farmers are compelled to resort to seed treatment to ensure high harvest yields to recoup expenses in seed acquisition, contributing to the jacking up of seed treatment prices as a result (Fugate 2010). Presently, the commercial market worldwide for seed and other planting materials are approximately placed at $30 billion in 2005, with the US as the largest market. Globally, the market for the seed industry is expected to rise because of the rising standard in global farming underpinned by the need for certified seeds that yield high value crops. Such varieties are being developed by biotechnology, and are presently cornering one-fourth of the seed market. Biotech seed varieties are expected to raise market prices of seeds as well as maintain the need for seed treatment since biotech seeds, although containing gene resistant to disease and insects, still needs protection from certain pests. The seed treatment industry was valued at US$1.40 billion in 2005 up from its US$800 million worth in 2000, a steady increase which is predicted to persist in the years to come for the following reasons: the introduction of new fungicides that have better features than their predecessors like lesser use rate and ability to control a wider range of pathogens, and; the introduction of neonicotinoid and phenylpyrazole systemic insecticides that can exterminate not only soil-borne pests but also early foliar-sucking ones (Business Wire 2008). It is expected to steadily rise at the rate of 3.5 annually, according to a study in 2009, and the fastest growth will be in the countries of Argentina and Brazil (Kline & Company 2010). Australia has a law called Plant Breeder’s Right Act 1994 that protects the rights of a breeder of a new variety of plant in accordance with the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1991 (UPOV hereafter), of which Australia is a contracting state. An infringement of the PBR can mete out penalties as high as $55,000 for individuals and $275, 000 for companies (PlantTech 2009). Under the 1991 UPOV, contracting states are allowed to grant exemption to farmers who may want to save seeds of such new plant variety for reproduction notwithstanding that a PBR has already been granted to a particular breeder relative to such plant variety. Thus, under the PBR 1994, a farmer may save the propagating materials of a new plant variety although such is already covered by a PBR. The term for such practice is called farm-saved seeds and propagating materials refer not only to seeds but to any part or product of the plant which can be used to reproduce a plant of the same variety. In the case of Grain Pool of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14, the Australian High Court declared that the PBR is a form of Intellectual Property Protections because of its parallelism to patent protection (Adams). Section 17, the provision granting that exemption, is conditioned on the fact that the farmer has legitimately acquired the PBR-protected propagating materials. This exemption has a limitation however, because it extends only to the first generation seeds but not to subsequent generations. Thus, when a farmer purchases a new variety of wheat seeds and plants them, he has a right to keep some of the produce and use it as seeds for future planting. The seeds he keeps are called ‘first-generation’ seeds and the harvested wheat, first-generation wheat of that variety. When he plants the ‘first-generation’ seeds and harvests wheat, he can keep some for use as seeds but he cannot sell the grain without authority from the PBR (see Fig. 2) (Adams). Usually, royalties on the amount of grain produced are paid by farmers to PBR’s or government agencies that have developed the improved varieties of grains (Sanderson 2007 279). At present, another kind of set-up of compensation for the PBR has taken over the royalty system. Called the End Point Royalties or EPR, this set-up is a kind of levy on the total produce of the seed rather than Fig. 2 The farm-saved exemption of the PBR (Source: GRAIN 2010) increasing the price of the sowing seeds of newly released varieties. EPR is calculated by estimating the possible crop production on the basis of the seeds of new variety plant on the day of purchase. The aim of the EPR is to equitably compensate the breeder for growing a new crop variety and encouraging him and other breeders to remain competitive globally with the EPR serving as the user’s equitable contribution to the breeding industry (PlantTech 2009). Farm-saved seeds (FSS), however, are ancient practices in agriculture and, aside from PBR protected varieties, farmers and users are free to keep their own seeds from their own crops for future sowing. There are, however, influential groups lobbying to make FSS, with respect to new varieties totally prohibited and the reason is purely economics. In 2005, the International Seed Federation (ISF) conducted a survey among its seed company members to estimate the ratio of crop area being planted to farm-saved seed (FSS). Although there is an absence of official statistics on this matter, it has been estimated that many of the developing countries are still dependent on FSS as much as 80% to 90%, especially in the South Asia and sub-Sahara areas. Many rich and middle-income countries like Argentina, Australia and Canada are not far behind with 65% to 95% of their crop areas being planted with FSS. The estimate is that on a world-wide basis, FSS represents a $7 billion loss to the seed trade, which is the reason why the big players are presently lobbying for the total prohibition of FSS, a movement that began even as far back as the 1920s (The End of Farm-Saved Seed? 2007). III Recommendations/Conclusions Wheat is a very valuable crop not only in Australia because it constitutes one of its biggest export-earning crops but also worldwide because more than half of the world population consumes it. This makes wheat a very valuable crop and a possible huge economic source, especially for big businesses. First, the seed treatment thrives in Australia and in the world because of the needs of crops like wheat, which needed to be protected from disease-carrying organisms that hinder it from yielding healthy production. Its susceptibility to different kinds of diseases such as stripe rust, powdery mildew and smut, brought about by fungi and bacteria as well as insect attacks before and during planting require wheat seeds to undergo seed treatment. Seed treatment involves processes that employ chemicals for use in fungicides and pesticides that kill disease-carrying and causing organisms. Fungicides, insecticides and other pesticides can pose harm to humans and animals and even with stringent rules on seed treatment application, there is always the possibility that chemical residues of systemic fungicides may be ingested by humans and animals. Besides, the ASF, with its stringent Code for seed treatment applicators, is a mere voluntary association, implying that non-members are not regulated. Another possible issue looming in the horizon is the advent of genetically modified wheat variety. Since wheat is a huge commodity in the world market with more than half of the world population using it, a strategic move for the introduction of a GM wheat variety by the big agricultural corporations is not a very surprising scenario. On April 6, 2010, Syngenta announced that it would work with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center to do extensive research on the possibility of developing hybrid wheat that will accelerate high yield wheat performance, with initial focus on the North American and Australian markets (Syngenta Global 2010; CBAN 2010). Likewise Monsanto and BASF Plant Science came up with their own announcement last July 2010 to conduct joint research on GM wheat, although the group had already previously announced a synchronised commercialisation of biotech wheat in Canada, Australia and the USA (CBAN 2010). This development will expose wheat, a crop that had been cultivated in its pure form since 10,000 years ago to modification and being consumed by more than half of the world population, to the very contentious process of genetic modification whose side effects on humans are still, up to now, subject to heated debates. References (2007). The End of Farm-Saved Seed? GRAIN. http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=202. ABARE (2010 June 16). Australian Crop Report. http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/cr/cr_10/cr10_june.pdf. Adams, K. Intellectual Property: Understanding Plant Breeder’s Rights. Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture. http://www.acipa.edu.au/frame_pbr.html. ASF (2010 July 12). Australian Seed Federation. http://www.asf.asn.au/content.php?id=39. Australian Seed Federation (2010 April). National Code of Practice for the Use of Seed Treatment. http://www.asf.asn.au/userfiles/April%202010%20ASF%20Code%20of%20Practice%20for%20Seed%20Treatments%281%29.pdf. Business Wire (2008 Jan 14). Seed Treatment Seeds and Opportunities Report is Out Now. BNet. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_Jan_14/ai_n24229231/. Fugate, D. (2010Feb 18). Kline Sees Continuous Growth on the Seed Treatment Market Due to its Cost Effectiveness in Protecting Valuable Seeds, KlineBlog. http://blogs.klinegroup.com/2010/02/18/kline-sees-continuous-growth-on-the-seed-treatment-market-due-to-its-cost-effectiveness-in-protecting-valuable-seeds/. Grain Pool of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14. Hannaford. http://www.hannafords.com/hannaford-history.php. Melham, C. (2007). Submission to the NSW GM Crop Moratorium Review. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/187291/Australian-Seed-Federation.pdf. Munkvold, G. & Sweets, L. & Wintersteen, W. (2006). Seed Treatment. Iowa State University. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/CS16.pdf. PlantTech (2009). End Point Royalties (EPR) – General Information. http://www.planttech.com.au/epr_faqs.php. Sanderson, C.J. (2007). Understanding Genes and GMOs. World Scientific. Singh, D.V. & Pandey, V. (2002). “Fungal Diseases of Wheat and Barley,” Diseases of Field Crops by Gupta, V.K. Indus Publishing. Van Gastel, A.J.G. & Bishaw, Z. & Gregg, B.R. (2002). Wheat Seed Production. FAO Corporate Document Depository. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4011e/y4011e0v.htm. ISF. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UmrpQKL7aIQJ:www.worldseed.org/cms/medias/file/TradeIssues/SeedTreatment/Seed_Treatment_Directory.pdf+seed+treatment+companies+in+Australia&hl=en&gl=ph&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgBybYc2ufPd-9BsU30ICyybeR5whP3b8xWs9djW6qLiOtugv_-LubVJRHs42ud7_Q7UVhQf12GFDcaJGcBau73x_93winiMxFW9d6UgdEtIhc_UeyiUN0umwAQjFZKikBCSl8y&sig=AHIEtbRDnXQYJixI2g2EkWvmfN2TFmyGjg. Read More