2010 Analysis of the U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Pipeline 1 Dr. Jill Miller-Garvin, Dr. Seth L. Naeve, and Dr. James H.

Transcription

1 2010 Analysis of the U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Pipeline 1 Dr. Jill Miller-Garvin, Dr. Seth L. Naeve, and Dr. James H. Orf 2 Introduction The first transgenic (GMO) soybeans were grown commercially in the United States in These transgenic soybean varieties were resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. These varieties, termed Roundup Ready, provided immense value to the producer by greatly expanding their options for controlling weeds in soybean fields. Therefore, the adoption of these new varieties was extremely rapid. By 1997, nearly 13% of the U.S. soybean crop was transgenic (Figure 1). This number increased to over 80% by 2003 and over 90% by Adoption of this technology in Argentina was even more rapid, and Brazil continues to increase its production of Roundup Ready varieties annually. Today, there are about 63 million hectares of transgenic soybeans produced in these three countries. The rapid adoption of this technology had a great impact on both soybean production and soybean variety development. Recently, seed companies have been afforded greater protection for intellectual property rights for traits developed for seeds. With these rights, seed and biotech companies perceived greater value for investment in transgenic traits for crop plants. As biotech companies developed new and potentially valuable transgenic traits, they found an increased need for access to germplasm for variety development. In subsequent years, there has been a rapid and global consolidation in the seed industry which is now dominated by just three large corporations (Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta). Between 1996 and 2008, Monsanto alone purchased more than 50 companies, most of which were small independent seed companies (Howard, 2009). When used correctly, transgenic crop plants can produce bountiful yields while reducing reliance on chemical pesticides and, in general, U.S. producers have found value in GMO crops. However, conventional (non-transgenic or non-gmo) crop plants continue to be an important part of the U.S. agricultural system, in part because transgenic varieties are not yet available for every crop or crop production region in the U.S. Moreover, many farmers prefer to grow nontransgenic varieties, feeling that transgenic products do not provide value to them for a variety of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, farmers are able to purchase non-transgenic seed without paying technology fees to Monsanto while often having the opportunity to market their non- GMO crop at a premium. Because the seed industry is focused on selling farmers new transgenic varieties, many are concerned that too little effort is being applied to breeding non- GMO soybean varieties. Therefore, the goal of the 2010 U.S. non-gmo food soybean variety survey was to assess both public and private soybean breeding programs in order to compile specific information about non-gmo food grade soybean variety development - varieties released in 2009, varieties to be released in 2010, and those in the pipeline which have undergone at least one year of yield testing and may potentially be released in 3-5 years. 1 Prepared for the United States Soybean Export Council Second Soyfood Alliance Meeting in Tokyo, Japan, 1 July, Scientist, Professor, and Associate Professor, respectively; Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

2 For each new variety, the goal was to determine the following: the variety name or number, maturity group, end-use application/type (e.g. tofu, general purpose, etc.), average yield (as a percent of a comparable end-use check), protein, oil, any special characteristics (and accompanying data), seed size, hilum color, availability of commercial seed production, and supply of grain for export. How the survey was conducted Public soybean breeders: Dr. Vince Pantalone, University of Tennessee, graciously agreed to send the survey and accompanying survey invitation letter to public soybean breeders whose names comprise a database from the Soybean Breeder s Workshop. Dr. Pantalone further encouraged their participation in a follow-up . Other public soybean breeders not on Dr. Pantalone s list were contacted directly. Private soybean breeders: Dr. Clem Weidenbenner, commercial soybean breeder for Harmony Agricultural Products in Ohio, also graciously agreed to send the survey and letter, as well as a reminder , to commercial breeders listed on a database of private company soybean breeders. Additionally, The 2010 Non-GMO Sourcebook ( was used to begin a search for companies conducting their own non-gmo variety development information was derived from company descriptions in The Sourcebook and/or from company websites. Survey participation telephone requests were made to all companies that we believed developed their own varieties. Only companies that breed their own non-gmo food soybean varieties were included in order to minimize duplication of data, since the same genetic soybean line may be sold/licensed under more than one variety name. Lastly, Dr. Jim Orf made personal telephone calls to soybean breeding counterparts at large private breeding companies as well to breeders at a number of public institutions. We encouraged breeders to participate in several ways: first, by noting that their input is critical to make the survey comprehensive since they are the only source for this type of data; second, we reminded them that the economically significant food soybean export market relies on highquality non-gmo varieties like the ones they develop; and, third, we offered them a copy of the final survey analysis after the July 1 meeting. Survey responses Private breeders: individuals from eight private companies responded to the survey and we were able to retrieve data for two companies from their websites. One company respondent noted that his company was not involved in variety development (they licensed varieties), thus, those data were not included. Public breeders: twelve soybean breeders from eleven states responded to the survey request. One breeder noted that she was not involved in food soybean breeding, only breeding of commodity beans, thus, her information was not included.

3 Tables 1, 2, and 3 contain data for public non-gmo food soybean variety releases by type for 2009, 2010, and the next 3-5 years, respectively. Tables 4, 5, and 6 contain the same type of data for private variety releases for 2009, 2010, and the next 3 to 5 years, respectively. Table 7 is a tally of public and private non-gmo food soybean variety releases by state. Discussion We received survey responses from approximately 30% of all public soybean breeders contacted. However, from the smaller subset of public breeders previously identified by Dr. Jim Orf as being involved in non-gmo food soybean variety development, the response rate was nearly 50%. Overall, we believe that the public and private breeder responses effectively reflect the current status of U.S. breeding programs which are most actively releasing non-gmo food soybean varieties. The response rate from both public and private breeders may well have been even greater were it not for the unfortunate conflict between the timing of our survey request and the very busy planting and fieldwork season; some hesitancy or restrictions in releasing what may be considered proprietary information; and/or perhaps breeders not seeing a direct benefit in responding. Summarized survey responses indicate that there are numerous active non-gmo food soybean breeding programs, some of which are even increasing in size and scope, in both the public and private arenas. Many varieties for general purpose use, edamame, tofu, natto and soymilk were/are available for planting in 2009 and 2010, and more are slated to become available in the next 3 to 5 years. These varieties cover a wide range of maturities, helping to broaden the area where food soybean cultivation is successful. We included some open-ended questions in the survey to get breeders comments on the status of non-gmo variety development. The questions included were: (1a) How has your effort toward variety development changed in the past 5 years? (1b) How do you expect your effort toward variety development to change in the next 5 years? (2a) Successes in the area of non-gmo food soybean variety development in your own breeding program? (2b) Successes in the area of non-gmo food soybean variety development in the U.S. overall? (3) What areas of innovation in your non-gmo soybean variety development program are you most excited about? Summarized responses: Public breeders: there were eight public soybean breeders from seven states who responded to the survey comments section. A few of the breeders stated that they already have increased emphasis on non-gmo variety development, and the majority of respondents indicated that they plan to increase breeding efforts toward non-gmo soybean in the next five years. Traits targeted for improvement in the next five years include: disease resistance (single gene disease resistance as well as the use of tolerance and multiple disease resistance), protein, oil (including high oleic, low linolenic, mid-high oleic, and low saturate), low phytate, high yield, and general germplasm enhancement.

4 A few breeders noted plans to increase the use of molecular marker technology in selection programs to improve breeding efficiency. Regarding other innovative molecular work, one breeder noted, We are beginning to discover genomic regions that govern seed protein, amino acids, oil, fatty acids, and other traits. Molecular information can be used strategically by traditional breeding programs to more efficiently modify soybean - without the need for genetic engineering. Survey responses of the public soybean breeders noted important successes in the area of non- GMO food soybean variety development both in individual institutional breeding programs as well as in the U.S. public soybean breeding effort overall. Perhaps the most important success of all is that there has been an increase in variety development for non-gmo food soybeans and that there appears to be a significant commitment from the public soybean breeding community to continue to devote resources and effort to the development of non-gmo food soybean varieties. Private breeders: there were seven private soybean breeding companies that responded to the survey; however, their comments appeared to group into two distinct categories first, companies that plan to increase efforts and breeding program size in order to continue improving non-gmo varieties, and second, companies that plan either modest or no change in effort. In general, the first category describes the smaller company responses, while the second category characterizes larger breeding company responses. Smaller private breeding companies replied with a general enthusiasm for improving not only overall agronomic performance to make non-gmo food varieties more attractive and less risky for growers (i.e. improved yield and defensive traits), but also for improving compositional traits desirable to food grade soybean end-users (i.e. increased protein, better taste, higher tofu yield, and decreased anti-nutritional components and allergens). Additionally, the goal of expanding breeding efforts to a wider range of maturities in order to produce food types across a broader geographic area was stated; this effort will likely improve the long-term volume and stability of production of non-gmo food soybeans. Smaller companies also noted expansion in the use of molecular markers within selection programs this can improve the efficiency of breeding efforts by greatly increasing selection precision thereby reducing the time required to develop varieties improved for marker-selectable traits. The use of marker-assisted selection does not alter the non-gmo status of the final product. The larger breeding companies responded that they are not involved in non-gmo food grade variety production, though a few will continue to develop non-gmo germplam on a small scale, and a few stated that if the market for non-gmo food soybeans changes, they may possibly increase their effort in that area. One company noted that it produces food grade varieties but they are transgenic [GMOs] (Vistive Gold, high Ω 3 fatty acid, and high β conglycin varieties). Overall, private sector development of non-gmo food grade soybean varieties appears to be occurring predominantly within the smaller-sized breeding companies. These companies are not only successfully improving food types for agronomic and unique end-user traits, but also are expanding the geographic range over which their food soybeans can be grown. Further, the small

5 private companies that responded to the survey appear committed to increasing breeding efforts in the area of non-gmo food soybeans. The responding larger companies project a very modest breeding effort for non-gmo food soybeans, but will remain flexible and may increase efforts in response to changes in the market. Reference Howard, P. H Visualizing consolidation in the global seed industry: Sustainability 1: Figure 1 GMO Soybean Production By Country 100 GMO Soybean Production by Country (% of total soybean area) United States Argentina Brazil Planted areas based on USDA/FAS March 2010 Table 11 Soybean Area, Yield and Production. Biotech-enhanced percentages for the U.S. based on USDA Economic Research Service data; Argentina and Brazilian percentages based on data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). These three countries (the United States, Argentina and Brazil combined) produced 92 percent of the world's soybean exports.

6 TABLE U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Survey PUBLIC RELEASES BY TYPE Variety name or # Maturity goup End-use application (type) Average yield (%) relative to comparable end-use check Protein Oil Special characteristics size (g/100 seeds) Hilum color available for commercial production? Gardensoy Edamame 90% of Cisne large seed size 26.0 Y Y N MN0606CN 0.6 General purpose 107% of Lambert SCN resistance 14.3 Y Y MN General purpose 110% of Traill Y Y IAR2101 SCN 1.8 General purpose 116% of IA SCN resistance 13.2 BF Y N Deuel 1.1 General purpose 104% of Surge Phytophthora resistance 19.1 BL Y IAR1008BC SCN/Phyto General purpose 101% of IA SCN and Phyto (Rps1k ) resistance 17.9 Y Y N IAR3001 Phyto/SCN 2.8 General purpose 105% of IA Phyto (Rps8) and SCN resistance 15.3 BL Y N Davison 2.2 General purpose 96% of IA Phytophthora resistance 12.9 IMP BL Y Patriot 3.9 General purpose higher protein 14.0 BL Y Y S General purpose 107% of Jake SCN, root knot nematode res 12.0 BL Y Y S General purpose 103% of TN5002T BL Y Y IA General purpose & Food 103% of comparables in trials SCN Y MN0805SP 0.8 Natto 95% of Sheyenne Y Y MN0207SP 0.2 Natto 105% of Cavalier Y Y ND Tofu 100% of ProSoy 16.0 Y Y Y MN1806SP 1.8 Tofu 109% of Vinton Y Y IA3027RA1 3 Tofu soybean aphid resistance IA Tofu IA Tofu IA Tofu Grain supply available for export?

7 TABLE U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Survey PUBLIC RELEASES BY TYPE Variety name or # Maturity group End-use application (type) Average yield (%) relative to comparable end-use check Protein Oil Special characteristics MN General purpose 101% of Sheyenne Y Y MN General purpose 106% of Sheyenne Y N MN0208CN 0.2 General purpose 115% of Sheyenne (SCN) SCN resistance 13.6 Y N MN General purpose 103% of Lambert Y N size (g/100 seeds) Hilum color available for commercial production? S General purpose 110% AG SDS, SCN & root knot tolerant 13.8 BL y N S General purpose SDS, SCN & root knot tolerant 14.6 BL y N S General purpose 105% 5002T SCN, root knot & frogeye res BF y N S General purpose 106% of Jake SCN, root knot & frogeye res BF y N MN0093SP 00.9 Natto 112% of Cavalier Y N MN0501SP 0.5 Natto 100% of Cavalier Y N ND Natto 115% Y N N MN1012SP 1.0 Natto 95% of Sheyenne Y N TN Natto 85% of commodity high yield check small seeds 7.8 BF Y Y Line 1 Line 2 Natto Natto MFS Natto MN0094SP 00.9 Tofu 108% of Cavalier Y N Grain supply available for export?

8 TABLE U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Survey - PUBLIC RELEASES NEXT 3-5 YEARS BY TYPE *Variety name or # Maturity group End-use application (type) Average yield (%) relative to comparable end-use check Protein Oil Special characteristics size (g/100 seeds) Hilum color available for commercial production? (year) Multiple releases Edamame SD General purpose 105% of Surge Phytophthora resistance 17.2 GR MN0908CN 0.9 General purpose SCN resistance 11.9 Y 2011 SD04CV General purpose 102% of Surge BL SD04-CV General purpose 107% of Surge IMP BL SD General purpose 98% of IA Phytophthora resistance 16.3 BF D (Missouri) 4.1 General purpose larger seed, yellow hila Y B (Tennessee) 4.9 General purpose 104% of 5002T 2013 C (Tennessee) 5.1 General purpose 105% of 5601T broad resistance to SCN 2012 M General purpose (SCN) SCN resistance 13.3 Y 2013 M General purpose (SCN) SCN resistance 13.7 Y 2015 SD General purpose, Low-linolenic oil 94% of Surge Low linolenic acid (2.8%) 14.2 IMP BL >1 potential release Higher sucrose lines C (Missouri) 3.9 High oleic, Low-lin A (Missouri) 4.5 High oleic, Low-lin B (Missouri) 5.0 High oleic, Low-lin M Natto Y 2013 M Natto Y 2013 MN1203SP 1.2 Natto Y 2011 V9S-7456 Tofu M Tofu Y 2014 A (Tennessee) 5.5 Tofu and General purpose 104% of 5601T 2013 A (Arkansas) Tofu, large-seeded SD Tofu, Soymilk, etc. 92% of Surge BR * Alphabetized if name/number unknown

9 TABLE U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Survey PRIVATE RELEASES BY TYPE Variety name or # Maturity group End-use application (type) Average yield (%) relative to comparable enduse check Protein Oil Special characteristics size (g/100 seeds) Hilum color available for commercial production? emerge 289.TC 2.8 General Purpose 112% of P92M High Yield 17.2 BL Y Y emerge 389F.YC 3.6 Tofu 110% of P93B Medium protein YHC, high tofu yield 16.7 Y Y Y Grain supply available for export?

10 TABLE U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Survey PRIVATE RELEASES BY TYPE Variety name or # Maturity group End-use application (type) Average yield (%) relative to comparable end-use check Protein Oil Special characteristics size Hilum (g/100 color seeds) available for commercial production? EX General Purpose 107.2% OF 6 competitive chks. in test BR XC General Purpose 111% of P93B High yield 16 BL Y Y XC General Purpose 107% of 435.TCS High yield 17.5 BL Y N XC General Purpose 109% of 435.TCS High yield 16 BL Y N XC General Purpose 108% of 435.TCS High yield 17 BL Y N XC General Purpose 109% of UA Large seeded 19.5 BL Y N XC General Purpose 110% of Jake Large seeded 20.9 BL Y N EX Tofu 107.1% OF IA 1022 and IA Good iron deficiency tolerance 22.1 Y XP Tofu 108% of P93B Excellent tofu yield with high protein 18 BL Y Y XY Tofu 103% of P92M YHC and good seed size 19 Y N N XY Tofu 105% of P92M YHC and good seed size 19.6 Y N N XD Tofu 109% of P92M High Sucrose, med. protein 16 BL Y Y XD Tofu 106% of A High Sucrose, med. protein 16 BL Y Y XY Tofu 106% of P93B High Protein YHC 20.5 Y Y N XP Tofu 111% of 448F.HPC High protein 18.5 BL Y Y possible new var Tofu or soymilk 103% of OH checks Y Y Y possible new var Tofu or soymilk 103% of OH checks P+O > 65% DM basis IMPBL Y Y * GR * IMPBL * BL * BR * BL * BL/BR * BL * BL * BL * BL * IMPBL *DSR strong SCN field resistance, PRR res. BL *DSR BSR & PRR res. large Y * Date from company website, not from a completed survey Grain supply available for export?

11 TABLE U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Survey - PRIVATE RELEASES NEXT 3-5 YEARS BY TYPE Variety name or # Maturity group End-use application (type) Average yield (%) relative to comparable enduse check Protein Oil Special characteristics size (g/100 seeds) Hilum color available for commercial production? (year) B1 2.8 General Purpose 101.6% OF 25G Good seed quality & iron deficiency chlorosis 22.1 Y 2012 C1 2.9 General Purpose 109.0% OF 25G Good seed quality & iron deficiency chlorosis 19.2 IMPY 2012 N2 5.3 General Purpose 112% of Jake Large ed 20 BL 2012 A1 2.5 Tofu 105.3% OF 25G Good seed quality & iron deficiency chlorosis 21.7 Y 2012 K2 4.2 Tofu 109% of 435.TCS High Protein YHC 20 Y 2012 L2 4.4 Tofu 109% of 435.TCS High Protein 18.5 BL 2013 M2 4.7 Tofu 104% of 477.TCS High Protein YHC 17 Y 2012 G2 3.3 Tofu and Soymilk 115% of P93B High Protein 16 BL 2012 A2 2.4 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 120% of SS240F.Y High Protein YHC 20.5 Y 2012 B2 2.2 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 120% of SS240F.Y High Protein YHC 21 Y 2013 C2 1.9 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 120% of SS240F.Y High Protein YHC 19 Y 2012 D2 2.7 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 120% of SS240F.Y High Protein YHC 18 Y 2012 E2 2.9 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 105% of P92M High Protein YHC 21 Y 2013 F2 3.1 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 104% of 348.TCS High Protein YHC 19.5 Y 2012 H2 3.8 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 112% of P93B High Protein YHC 18.9 Y 2012 I2 4 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 108% of P93B High Protein YHC 18.1 Y 2013 J2 4.1 YHC Tofu and Soymilk 109% of P93B High Protein YHC 19.5 Y PER YEAR (1) PER YEAR (1) PER YEAR (1) 2015

12 TABLE U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Survey - PRIVATE RELEASE TALLY BY STATE Year State Number of Releases End-use Application (Type) 2009 Iowa 1 General purpose 2010 Iowa 6 General purpose 7 Tofu 11 Unknown (data from company website, not completed survey) Minnesota 1 General purpose Ohio 2 Tofu or Soymilk Wisconsin 2 Unknown (data from company website, not completed survey) 3-5 years Iowa 1 General purpose 3 Tofu and Soymilk 9 Yellow hilum tofu and soymilk Minnesota 2 General purpose 3 Not given 2010 U.S. Non-GMO Food Soybean Variety Survey - PUBLIC RELEASE TALLY BY STATE Year State Number of Releases End-use Application (Type) 2009 Iowa 4 General purpose 4 Tofu Illinois 1 Edamame Minnesota 2 General purpose 2 Natto Missouri 3 General purpose North Dakota South Dakota 2 General purpose 2010 Arkansas 2 Natto Minnesota 4 General purpose 3 Natto Missouri 4 General purpose North Dakota 1 Natto Tennessee 1 Natto Virginia 1 Natto 3-5 years Arkansas Michigan >1 Edamame Minnesota 3 General purpose 3 Natto Missouri 1 General purpose 3 High oleic, Low-lin South Dakota 4 General purpose 1 General purpose, Low-linolenic oil, Soymilk, etc. Tennessee 2 General purpose, General purpose Virgina 1 Higher sucrose line