Cotton Research and Development Corporation is pivotal in industry stewardship in ensuring growers get quality, unbiased data regarding variety performance in yield, quality and disease tolerance as well as ensuring that they are delivered high quality planting seed. To talk more about this we are talking to CRDC Research Program Manager, Greg Kauter.

Starting with variety trials Greg, what requirements are there on seed companies in regard to registered variety trials?

There are a number of different requirements under the CRDC Protocol for variety trial testing. There are a number of requirements for trial notification and for those trials to be available for inspection by CRDC or its authorised representatives. We also use the industry extension network to inspect the trials throughout the season.

There are a number of requirements in regard to trial design. Under the protocol, the number of replicates, and the randomization of the trial design for irrigated and dryland trials is spelt out.

So, there are very extensive guidelines for the seed companies, independent growers and consultants to test different varieties against each other in the same situation in the field in any one season.

Why do we need these protocols?

The protocols come about to ensure that the quite considerable amount of research that the seed companies do in regard to validating the performance of their varieties in commercial situations is captured and is credible. Also, what information is given to growers is good, applied research. This includes information presented at seed company meetings and the variety trial report booklets that are sent out each winter prior to growers ordering their seed.

The protocol ensures that this information is kept up to a certain standard, and that standard is achieved each year in variety trial testing. People can use the trials then to validate the results of the plant breeding programs that we have in Australia.

If you think of a situation where we didn’t have a trial program that had some uniform treatments in regard to testing then we would have quite a random situation with a combination of strip trials, single blocks etc. In this situation it would be very hard to judge the performance of those varieties in those different situations. It would be very hard to compare apples with apples which I think we can do under the current variety trial protocol.

How do you exactly audit that each trial has been using the correct protocol?

The seed companies will send us a list of trials that they have and the trial designs. The next step then is to field audit or inspect a number of trials.

We inspect all the joint trials, jointly conducted by CSD and Deltapine. We also inspect a number of other trials, usually a percentage of the total trials in each area. Prior to picking we have a second field inspection and we also contact the co-operating grower to ascertain whether they have been happy with the trial and the attendance of the seed companies to the trial.

After ginning, we audit a random number of trials. We audit the paperwork and ensure that ginning has been properly conducted, the lint samples have been correctly collected for the fibre quality data and so on.

What sort of results have these audits produced in the last couple of years?

We have a very high success rate with the trials against the protocol so the seed companies are quite serious about conducting the trials to the protocol. There are occasionally, some anomalies. We request that in these situations that these anomalies be reported in the trial booklets and generally that’s, been quite good. Occasionally a trial is lost but the rate of that is very low and usually it’s not through any particular problem with the protocol as much as a problem in the field.

Based on this, cottongrowers should have a fairly good level of confidence in the robustness of data that they are getting out of CRDC accredited variety trials?

Yes, occasionally trials are lost due to hail, and lately herbicide drift unfortunately is another reason why trials can be lost. But, if we deem the trial as being successful, completed properly in accordance with the CRDC protocol, then its given a certification number and a symbol, a tick of approval.

The seed companies are able to use the tick of the approval symbol in their reproduction of the trial results books or their information tours. Also the certification number that CRDC awards for the trial can be carried with the trial data in any format that the trial data is reproduced in. So, if the seed company produces a mean of data from a number of trials, it can link that to the original certification, the original trial sites. It provides a form of traceability or linkage to the original trial.

In this last season, we had about 75 registered trials. About three of those were lost due to either hail or herbicide drift and the remainder have gone through to be accredited trials that the seed companies have used.

Moving on to disease tolerance rankings, the industry has a standard way of ranking a varieties tolerance to both Fusarium and Verticillium wilt.

Can you tell me about the requirement on seed companies for this data?

The trial protocols for disease ranking are administered by the FUSCOM Committee which is jointly convened by the Australian Cotton CRC and CRDC. Those protocols are reviewed and developed each year by the FUSCOM Committee and they are again a way of capturing that significant amount of research that is done on variety resistance to both Fusarium and Verticillium wilt. It also ensures that the reporting of that research (the F.ranks and V.ranks) is done to a standard that growers can have confidence in because they have been done using the same protocol by both companies.

How do you audit that these procedures have been followed?

Within the FUSCOM structure, plant pathologists David Nehl (NSW Department of Primary Industries) and Joe Kochman (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries) have the responsibility for overseeing the trials that are conducted each year.

The FUSCOM Committee has responsibility to produce the protocol that the trials are done against, but the state agency pathologists look after the actual trials and the trial results. Under the protocol there are significant conditions which dictate whether the trials can be used or not. Generally this has to do with the incidence of disease in the standard varieties.

There are also protocols for the production of planting seed, can you tell me a bit about these?

The planting seed protocol is also administered by FUSCOM but there is a bit of history here prior to the FUSCOM.

A long time ago when the industry had a major problem with Bacterial Blight, it was deemed that there was some risk of infection from Blight to susceptible cultivars from planting seed; that the pathogen could be spread in this way.

In response to this, the Blight investigation group was formed and made huge in-roads into the level of infection of planting seed to blight by following some very simple crop hygiene rules. This included where varieties were grown and how they were treated. This action shows there is a great track record of the industry preventing risk from spreading pathogens around in planting seed.

This model was used for Fusarium as it was an immediate concern of growers, seed companies, CRDC and the CRC that we should have a situation where we were as sure as we possibly could be that Fusarium wasn’t being spread in planting seed. The current seed production protocols that we have in the industry today are aimed at reducing the risk of spread of Fusarium in planting seed. Both seed companies work within the FUSCOM Committee structure to maintain and review the Planting Seed Protocol each year.

In summary there are guidelines for the production of seed that will minimise the risk of any spread of pathogens, at least Fusarium in the planting seed. David Nehl the Plant Pathologist with NSW DPI administers and regularly reviews the protocol in the FUSCOM process. The protocol is freely available from both planting seed companies.

Further Information:
Robert Eveleigh, John Marshall,  Craig McDonald, David Kelly or James Quinn