November 4-5, 1994.

College Park, MD, USA.

ATTENDANCE

Committee Members: R.G. Sears, Chair; C.J. Peterson, Secretary; H.F. Bockelman; R. Bruns; T.S. Cox;

G. Hareland; D. Hole; L. Joppa; R. Karow; F.L. Kolb; R.F. Line; P. Murphy; D. Porter; D. Van Sanford;

W.D. Worrall. Absent: R.H. Busch; C. Morris; R. Frohberg; Ellen Ferguson, NAWG.

Others: O. Anderson, ARS, WRRC, Albany, CA; A. Bettge, USDA-ARS, Pullman, WA; K. Briggs, Univ. of Alberta, Canada; I. Edwards, Pioneer, Johnston, IA; P. Gustafson, USDA-ARS, Columbia, MO; M. Hermeling, USDA-AMS-PVPO, Washington, D.C.; S. Jones, ARS, Pullman, WA; S. Leath, ARS Raleigh, NC; D. McVey, ARS, Cereal Rust, St. Paul, MN; C. Murphy, USDA-ARS-NPS, Beltsville, MD; J. Raupp, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS; B. Skovmand, CIMMYT, Mexico.

PRELIMINARIES

Chairman Sears called the meeting to order and members and guests were introduced. Peterson asked for a motion to waive reading the minutes, which were published in the Annual Wheat Newsletter, Vol. 40. Line made the motion; motion carried.

USDA-ARS RESEARCH BUDGET UPDATE

C. Murphy, USDA-ARS-NPS, provided a budget update for ARS. Murphy indicated that, in 1995, ARS fared reasonably well in the overall USDA budget. The budget was returned by OMB with $23 million of new research efforts approved, but provided only $8 million of new money. Closure of 19 ARS research locations were proposed to make up the dollar shortfall, creating a firestorm in Congress. After the House and Senate Conference Committees concluded, 9 locations were closed and 10 remained open. All persons affected in the closures were offered positions elsewhere. The 1995 budget was passed, and money from location closures was redirected; for example, $13.4 million was redirected to research efforts on replacing methyl bromide. The 1996 ARS budget proposal has been approved

within the Department, and is now at OMB. Expectations are for a flat budget in real dollars. Specific issues related to production are difficult to get through the Department, largely due to crop surpluses. Topical items emerge, such as food safety and methyl bromide. Congress wants to add specific projects, but without additional funds. Any new money comes largely from efforts of lobby groups. Lobbing efforts continue for many items, but not as much money is available now. Recent successes include $500,000 for corn germplasm enhancement in Iowa, supported by ASTA; the new rice facility at Stuttgart, Arkansas; and the swine research center in Iowa. There continues to be many opportunities in plant research, but these are difficult to get into the budget cycle.

There are no location closures expected in 1996, and probably none in 1997. Monies saved from location closures initially have been spent on costs incurred from closures, then ultimately will return to agency headquarters. There may be some flexibility in reallocating these funds, but there are lots of demands. Congressional mandates will use up a significant portion of these funds. Reallocation decisions will be made within ARS, except for needs to fulfill Congressional demands.

Murphy explained the ARS budget cycle and how proposals were developed in the National Program Staff. Initially, a list is developed of items that are both needed and politically feasible. Items are consolidated, packaged, and prioritized at the administrators' levels. The proposal then goes to the Department for review, repackaging with other agency proposals, and reprioritized. The only issue related to wheat expected to survive this year is food safety.

ARS STRATEGIC PLAN FOR GRAIN CROPS

C. Murphy presented the Strategic Plan for ARS Grain Crop Research that was developed in 1994 and distributed to all ARS crop scientists. The plan presents philosophy on the mission, strengths, weaknesses, future opportunities, strategies, and goals of ARS crops research. The ARS mission and vision relates to solving problems limiting production and providing services to meet anticipated needs with regard to 1) optimal sustainable production profitability; 2) minimizing losses to biotic and abiotic stresses; and 3) designing and utilizing plants that assure value and competitiveness in the marketplace. Nine focus research areas were listed that assure a continuum of research for the major crops. Strengths of the agency listed include a strong tradition of research excellence; well trained, productive scientists; extensive collaboration and cooperation with university scientists, industry, and clientele groups; and visible, quantifiable impact of its research. Current weaknesses emphasize lack of budgetary flexibility to effectively utilize resources and meet emerging opportunities. Competition for resources within the agency and within Congress and lack of support from grower organizations for 'production research' initiatives are key factors impacting the future.

Strategies in ARS crop research are presented as a matrix defined by the six major commodities, nine research areas, and extensive collaboration with university and industry partners. Goals are to maintain current competencies and scientific excellence in traditional areas while building new strengths in molecular technologies and designer crops. Scientific excellence, scientific flexibility, research prioritization, interdisciplinary and industry cooperation, and mentoring are highlighted in the action plan as keys to success.

Several NWIC members expressed their support for the strategic plan and expressed appreciation for the thoughtful prioritization and presentation of ARS future goals. Bruns suggested expanding the germplasm enhancement category regarding contributions to end-use quality. Murphy agreed that a wide range of traits exists in evaluations and enhancement that can be related, both directly and indirectly, to end-use potential and use of new genetic stocks. When asked about distribution of the Strategic Plan, Murphy indicated that it presently is an internal document and was distributed primarily to ARS crops researchers.

RESPONSE TO 1993 LETTERS

Sears reviewed letters sent by the NWIC during the last year and responses obtained. A letter was sent to the Idaho Wheat Commission indicating that the NWIC did not support its proposal for AOSCA to require standardized end-use quality information prior to inclusion of a new variety into certification programs. Apparently, there has been no further activity by the Idaho Wheat Commission in this regard. Sears received a letter from Essex Finney, Acting ARS Administrator, supporting NWIC activities and thanking the group for its efforts. Sears sent a letter to the U.S. Patent Office on behalf of the NWIC commenting on research-oriented use of patented technologies. The letter expressed ongoing concerns regarding possible germplasm restrictions with use of utility patents. The letter also indicated that the NWIC would support development of a research exemption should utility patents become increasingly used for plant protection.

At the 1993 meeting, the NWIC approved a resolution opposing the CSSA request that the NPGS allow for deposition and storage of germplasm with restricted distribution. The Wheat CAC also was involved in this issue and expressed its concerns in a letter to Henry Shands. However, before the NWIC resolution was distributed, the NPGS had already decided to accept restricted germplasm into the collections. Rather than distribute the 1993 resolution, Sears sent a letter to the CSSA executive committee restating our concern over the decision and enclosed copies of letters from the CAC, the Hard Red Winter Wheat Improvement Committee, and the North Central Region experiment station directors to ESCOP promoting free germplasm exchange policies.

ANNUAL WHEAT NEWSLETTER

Jim Quick, Editor, and Ian Edwards, Treasurer, concluded 13 years of service to the Annual Wheat Newsletter with distribution of Volume 40. John Raupp, Kansas State University, and David Worrall, Texas A&M, were introduced as the new Editor and Treasurer, respectively, for the AWN.

Raupp noted that Volume 40 was the first newsletter distributed on computer disk, substantially reducing production costs. A total of 440 copies was distributed; 350 on diskette and 90 hard copies. Volume 40 was 398 pages; 37 pages shorter than Volume 39. Average cost per copy was $10.19. Distribution on diskette saved about $5.00 per copy and was about two-thirds of the previous cost. All distribution was by air mail this year, saving about 2-3 months in delivery time to overseas contributors, and total mailing cost was similar to surface mail costs of last year. The AWN was also placed in its entirety on the GRAINGENES gopher and is INTERNET accessible. Raupp will encourage researchers to send contributions to him via E-mail when possible.

Raupp indicated that the AWN would continue in its current format for the near future. Quick had received relatively few negative letters regarding distribution of the AWN on diskette. The committee discussed the new distribution format and expressed concern regarding distribution of disks to less developed countries with inadequate computer resources. Hole moved that the option to buy a hard copy at a price of $40.00 should continue, but allow for free distribution of hard copy on request to those unable to pay. The hard copy price should remain sufficiently high as to help subsidize hardship distribution. Peterson added that the Editor and Treasurer should have discretion to send hard copies at no cost to those known to be unable to use diskettes and unable to pay the hard copy price. The motion was approved. It was emphasized that the call for newsletter contributions should more clearly explain the distribution format, option to purchase hard copies, and allowance for hardship hard copy distribution.

Comments:

1. The total cost of Volume 40 was $4,482.92. This costs divided by 440 copies (350 on diskette; 90 hard copy) is about $10.19/copy. Volume 40 was 398 pages.

2. Current funding balance, at the present time, is $<49.82> compared with $<1229.73> a year ago. It must be noted that there is still an outstanding balance owing for production costs in the amount of $49.82. In the past four years, contributions have not matched the rising costs, and this is an area of continued concern.

3. Some contributors have been sending in contributions by means of bank wire transfer, and this is very much appreciated. However, it is essential that they identify clearly the NWIC Annual Wheat Newsletter fund and bank account number for proper credit. It is also critical that they fully identify themselves and the institution they represent, so that they can be acknowledged and the information passed on to the editor. It is a good idea to send under separate cover a letter stating that the wire transfer has been made and the contributor's choice of how they wish to receive the Newsletter.

ANNUAL WHEAT NEWSLETTER TREASURER'S REPORT

1994 Annual Report to NWIC

I.B. Edwards, Treasurer

ITEM DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE

_________________________________________________________________________________

1. Balance reported

June 1, 1994 AWN $ 4268.03

2. Mailing request letter $ 134.21 4133.82

3. Envelopes (350) 15.00 4118.82

4. Photocopy charges 35.00 4083.82

5. Mailing, Vol. 40, June 1994 1140.74 2943.08

6. Diskettes 530.00 2413.08

7. Printing and binding 1847.57 565.51

8. Typing and editing, Vol. 40 770.00 <204.49>

(Carolyn Schultz)

9. Misc. bank charges 62.95 <267.44>

10. New contributions (since June 1) 189.60 <77.84>

11. Interest on checking 28.00 <49.84>

______________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL PRIORITIES IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Bruns introduced Fred Hoefner from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Bruns reminded the group that the sustainable agriculture groups have been highly effective in generating national funding and integrating their priorities and language into federal policies and farm bills. It is important that the NWIC and wheat researchers find means to work with these groups to identify and accomplish common goals.

Hoefner indicated that the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is part of the Midwest Sustainable Ag Working Group. There are currently five such regional working groups that include and represent nearly 450 organizations, from farmer networks and consumer groups to national organizations. The five regional groups form the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture for 1995 Farm Bill priorities. The Campaign is an evolving movement and essentially a

loose federation of the groups at this time. The Campaign primarily uses the Henry Wallace Sustainable Agriculture Institute for policy research and analyses. The Midwest Sustainable Ag Coalition efforts are in four key areas: commodity program reform, conservation programs, research and extension, and marketing and rural development. They have succeeded in obtaining new appropriations for sustainable ag research and extension programs, including new technology transfer programs, which was one of the few agriculture areas that have received any recent increases in funding.

The Coalition had some key successes in their efforts to include sustainable agriculture language and priorities in the 1990 Farm Bill. A sustainable ag emphasis was included in the National Research Initiatives program. Sustainable ag language was included in water quality areas and in reauthorizaiton of research and extension programs. Language for an ag science and technology review board was included to evaluate public purposes for research and extension investments.

The Coalition has three primary target issues for the research section of the 1995 farm bill. 1) Research purposes: include language to develop and detail guidelines that broadly define research priorities for sustainable agriculture, implement proposed research purposes, and develop means to evaluate research directions and purposes. 2) Research and education programs: reauthorize sustainable ag and integrate sustainable ag work in CSRS and Extension, particularly on water quality and IPM. There was concern over past lack of coordination of programs between these groups. 3) Extension reform: increase funding for training and technology transfer and make these efforts department wide for training in sustainable agriculture. Outreach programs, demonstrations, and participation of farmer networks are to be emphasized. Commodity reform areas of interest include involvement in the conservation reserve debate, leading the CRP program more into line with sustainable ag efforts. Farm programs are targeted to provide more flexibility for cropping decisions. Consolidation of SCS and Research and Extension programs to develop farm planning tools is proposed, as is a block grant program to develop new marketing and value-added crop alternatives.

A review of ARS research projects was conducted in 1994 to assess relevancy and impact of specific projects to sustainable agriculture. This year they are proceeding with relevancy review of state institutions; only four of 78 target institutions are completed but results to date have been consistent between state and federal programs. The ARS review identified 5% of programs that were oriented to sustainable ag systems; 30% were considered to have positive sustainable ag components; 30% were non-related; 30% were deemed to have essentially neutral impact; and 5 to 10% were considered to have detrimental impact on sustainable agriculture systems. The Coalition has urged ARS to continue the review process, but they have found it difficult to get adequate numbers from the department.

Other areas of activities mentioned by Hoefner include a new consortium of scientists and educators being formed to network on current issues; development of an electronic conference center; and a newsletter developed through the office at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Hoefner suggested that those interested in additional, or more specific, information contact Elizabeth Byrd at the Center for Rural Affairs, Walthill, NE at 402-846-5428.

An extensive question and answer session followed. C. Murphy indicated that many in the room were using genetic tools to develop disease and insect resistance, research directly related to sustainable agriculture, but it is very difficult to get funding for these activities under IPM or sustainable ag programs. Hoefner agreed with the relevancy and suggested 1) working with networks such as his and farmer advocates to push related research needs and 2) place ongoing research activities into larger, more effective packages to obtain support. Hoefner indicated that the Coalition had kept out of discussions pertaining to ARS lab closings, but when asked, they requested a research relevancy review to justify closings rather than basing the closings on cost effectiveness alone.

Edwards asked what the vision for farming might be if sustainable ag programs are successful. Hoefner replied that maintaining a place for the family farm was key to the future. Survival of the family farm is related to its ability to capture a larger share of market value and the food dollar and lower farm input costs. However, the sustainable ag

policy movement is not driven primarily by family farm issues or environmental issues, but is a new pitch for the opportunity to produce environmental quality for the consumer. As such, the program strives to combine both social and environmental quality issues into its policies.

Bruns commented that the basic research component of the sustainable ag groups was very weak. A serious risk and threat to sustainable ag priorities remains the pathology issue, for which we have had no success in obtaining new funds. How to get our group more involved with sustainable ag planning is a fundamental concern. Hoefner suggested that we become involved with the new consortium as it develops and use sustainable ag journals and newsletters to articulate our concerns. The Coalition supports increased basic research, but has been concerned primarily with an underinvestment in systems work.

Briggs commented that sustainable ag and value-added research efforts also are receiving new monies in Canada. He questioned how growers could be expected to recoup more of the total food dollar. Hoefner provided an example of a farmer-run pasta cooperative. He indicated that obtaining higher commodity prices through government programs was a dead end. Growers must reduce input costs and add a value-added component to their operations. Karow questioned whether there was an international component to the sustainable ag coalition. Hoefner indicated that, although there was a world sustainable ag association, the international component was in its infancy and still evolving. The group has had some input into trade policies, however.

C. Murphy and Gustafson expressed concern that data provided by ARS on its contributions to sustainable ag programs was not viewed as credible by the Coalition. Murphy indicated that the Department was working with Senator Daschle to more completely document its contributions, but also was concerned that the Department was not receiving adequate recognition for its contributions. Hoefner recommended that a time investment was needed to review and adequately interpret contributions and programs for key congressional leaders. Joppa, Line, and Sears reiterated concerns that increased levels of disease pressures have resulted from reduced tillage and high residue farming practices, which are promoted in sustainable ag systems. At the same time, an erosion in applied wheat pathology research has continued.

Subsequent discussions centered on how the NWIC could get more involved with sustainable ag groups. It was suggested that copies of NWIC legislative agendas should be provided to the Coalition to help foster communication. Bruns suggested that one NWIC member should be a designated contact and representative to interact with sustainable ag associations and recommended Stan Cox serve in that role. David Hole also expressed interest, and Cox and Hole were designated as NWIC representatives by consensus.

CROP ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

Cox provided a summary of discussions and actions from the CAC meeting held the previous evening. Skovmand reported on a new collection of Mexican land races that CIMMYT had obtained and was now evaluating. Waines had provided a written report on his recent collection activities for wild wheats and wheat relatives (copies available from Cox). In a discussion regarding development of a core subset for the NSGC wheat collection, the CAC again reaffirmed its lack of interest in developing a core subset. It was believed that use of ad-hoc subsets, intuition, and database information to target requests was more useful than development of a core. Bockelman indicated that he would be developing a core collection to satisfy generalized requests and for use as needed.

Possible roles of the CAC and NSGC were discussed regarding the NWIC Germplasm Subcommittee proposal to have temporary introductions of elite international germplasm collections into the NSGC. Concern was expressed about obtaining adequate, or legitimate, permission for secondary distributions of lines from such a collection. A subcommittee was appointed to develop specific options and recommendations for consideration by the CAC next year.

In other actions, the CAC approved proposed changes to the Wheat Workers Code of Ethics, pending additional modification and approval by the NWIC. Bohning report at that access to the GRIN database would be available through INTERNET within a few weeks. A tie through the GrainGenes gopher is under development. Anderson gave an update on new data placed on the GrainGenes database and demonstrated new features and menu items on the gopher system.

NWIC LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

Sears reported that the NWIC legislative team visited 22 offices in the Senate and House in February, providing copies and background information regarding the NWIC Pathology Initiative. The 1993 team included Sears; Paul Murphy; Bruce Knight, NAWG; Ben Handcock, Wheat Quality Council; Duane Grant, Idaho grower and NAWG Research and Energy Committee Chair. Don Mennell was scheduled to join the group representing the milling industry, but was forced to cancel. Bruce Knight made all arrangements and appointments for the NWIC visit. Sears indicated that the expanded industry representation on the team was much more effective and the message was better received than in past years. Although new funding was not obtained last year, overall reception and interest in the NWIC initiative has grown. He recommended that the same format should be followed for next year's efforts. P. Murphy questioned whether the team should also visit OMB. C. Murphy indicated that it might be beneficial from an educational standpoint, such that OMB might be more amenable to initiatives coming from within the Department.

CSRS LINKAGES AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Worrall and Van Sanford discussed possible options to enhance CSRS funding for wheat research. Worrall indicated that, after reading congressional testimony regarding CSRS funding, he believed that the NWIC would find it difficult, if not impossible, to influence CSRS funding. Only a small part of the CSRS could be manipulated, and many sensitive turf battles are involved. Van Sanford suggested that the National Research Initiative might be an opportunity, if modified to support more mission-oriented, long-term, research efforts. Emphasis of sustainable agriculture contributions and capitalizing on USDA reorganization through CSRS also were mentioned. Worrall brought forth communications from Stephen Baenziger regarding CSRS opportunities. Baenziger suggested that: 1) the NWIC Legislative Team visit the CSRS office to begin a dialog on enhancing wheat funding; 2) highlight CSRS research importance and contributions to both NAWG and federal legislators; 3) enhance peer reviewed grant funding and modify the NRI to enable support of mission oriented research; 4) enhance special grants through emphasis on peer-reviewed, intermediate duration projects; 5) form partnerships with other groups such as oat, barley, soybean workers, etc.

C. Murphy expressed concern over recent dogma in congress that 'peer-reviewed research is good, mission-oriented research is bad'. In fact, ARS has better accountability than national competitive grant programs. Both ARS and CSRS need to communicate successes to Congress more effectively. Worrall found that peer review was lauded consistently in Congressional testimony and agreed on the need for an education process.

Sears suggested that CSRS is currently outside of fruitful activities for NWIC. The CSRS budget is mostly salaries, and money is inflexible. NWIC could make comments on priorities for grants, but is unsure how, or to whom. Murphy indicated that CSRS funds are essentially for three areas: 1) NRI; 2) pass through for Hatch; 3) administrative special grants decided upon by Congress. Special grants are key targets for battles and cuts each year, and Congress has no say on how Hatch funds are spent.

Worrall and Van Sanford concluded by recommending that NWIC include the CSRS office on NWIC visits to Capitol Hill, continue the CSRS subcommittee for another year, and have Stephen Baenziger involved as ex-officio member on the subcommittee. Murphy also suggested a visit to the Undersecretary responsible for CSRS to communicate NWIC priorities.

FGIS UPDATE

John Giler, FGIS, reported on the status of the Single Kernel Hardness tester and plans for implementation. He indicated that the SKHT, being marketed by Pertin Instruments, would provide effective differentiation of soft-hard wheat mixtures. The ability of the SKHT to predict milling quality was also under evaluation. FGIS is purchasing 16 machines for their field offices. The first priority is to confirm that the new units perform like the original developed by USDA-ARS. Each new unit must be standardized with FGIS samples prior to operation, but once standardized, there is little apparent drift. FGIS initially will provide information from the SKHT as a testing service at $3 per sample. Field surveys also will be expanded to evaluate its potential impact. Impact assessment and changes in grading standards are required before full adoption by FGIS. The SKHT will not be used for differentiation of winter-spring mixtures.

TEST WEIGHT ISSUES

Van Sanford reviewed NWIC actions regarding the test weight issue. In 1992, the NWIC asked for formation of a test weight working group, but FGIS was unable to take leadership for such an activity. In 1993, the issue was taken out of the NWIC agenda, as a concern of those primarily in the southeast region. In fall 1994, a symposium on test weight was held in Arkansas. Small grains growers from Arkansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia agreed to fund a 2-year study evaluating potential of the SKHT to provide a better measure of grain quality. Patrick Finney will lead the project using samples from the Eastern Regional Nurseries. The goal would be to provide FGIS with data to develop new grading standards and replace test weight as a flour yield indicator; to determine the underlying causes for low test weight in SRW; and to modify the SKHT to get additional information on shrunken and broken kernels.

John Giler indicated that FGIS has been responding to the test weight controversy for several years, starting work with ARS in 1987-88. In July 1994, FGIS commissioned new funding of test weight studies to resolve the issue. ERS was asked to examine economic impact of test weight in all classes of wheat; distribution and use of SRW in different regions; and impact of low test weight on flour yield. The goal is to determine the importance of test weight in marketing and end-use. FGIS has never implied how to use test weight data. Test weight is recognized primarily as a measure of density and potential through-put on a mill.

Jim Frahm, U.S. Wheat, indicated that 40% of SRW is exported and used mostly for a general purpose flour. China, Egypt, Morocco, and the former Soviet Union are top buyers. Traditional SRW products actually constitute a low proportion of use. Foreign customers mostly specify grade with a separate specification for test weight; usually 75 kg/hl or 58.3 lbs/bu. The export market likely drives discounts seen in the U.S. market. U.S. Wheat does not have a position on the test weight issue.

Edwards asked if overseas buyers could be convinced to drop test weight as a specification based on any new data. Frahm indicated that competitors for SRW markets are primarily general purpose wheats from Australia and France. These wheats have historically higher test weights. Most buyers have a central purchasing agency that would probably not be amenable to understanding research data. Bruns reminded the group of the limited potential role for the NWIC; growers are most affected by the test weight issue and, as such, it is first a NAWG issue. Sears expressed concern over impact of changing test weight standards with increasing competition for quality in the international market.

HARD WHITE WHEAT CLASSIFICATION

John Giler reported on a Hard White Wheat Classification meeting hosted by FGIS in August. The primary issue discussed was the color standard; that is, how white is white? He indicated that many hard whites would not now meet color standards established by the variety 'Klassic' grown in California, including samples of Klassic itself grown in 1994. FGIS was forced to relax the color standard in 1994 to allow grading of new crop Klassic as Hard White.

Three proposals came out of the meeting: 1) It was agreed that color should continue to be used for commercial grain standards, but that the color line should be modified temporarily. For breeders evaluating or proposing new Hard Whites for classification, the color standard should remain at its current status. 2) Better testing methods are needed to identify and characterize grain with white seed coat. The sodium hydroxide stain test is considered inadequate at this time. 3) It was proposed that seed coat biochemical composition be used as the definitive basis for Hard White classification; then allow for grade differentiation based on visual color. At a subsequent meeting with U.S. Wheat and Wheat Commission representatives at the Portland Grain Marketing Center, potential use of biochemical composition for classification was dismissed. Visual color was considered of primary marketing importance. The group recognized that a different color standard was needed. FGIS and U.S. Wheat currently are trying to collect samples of commercial Hard Whites from competitors so that a new, comparable, color line can be established. A meeting will be set to further discuss choice of an appropriate color standard. The relaxed color standard of 1994 will be in effect for 2 years only.

Bruns emphasized that the industry needs a hard white definition that is related to unique end-use and functional qualities, rather than just color. An arbitrary 'white' color standard would place Great Plains whites at a disadvantage because of environmental and production influences on seed color. Great Plains produced whites have good potential to meet noodle quality and noodle color standards, but not to meet current white color standards.

U.S. WHEAT VIEW OF EXPORT NEEDS

Jim Frahm reported on needs and problems from the U.S. Wheat viewpoint and emphasized that end-use quality remains very important for export markets. The first desire of export customers is increased kernel size and uniformity. Uniformity is critical for any quality specification. Higher test weight is desired, not just for SRW but also for HRS. Buyers still regard test weight as an important criterion. Also needed are better understanding of, and selection for, noodle quality attributes. Noodle quality is not strictly a hard white issue, but hard red also. Substantial quantities of hard red winter wheats already are being used for noodle products.

ARS GRAIN QUALITY RESEARCH UPDATE

Wilda Martinez, ARS-NPS, reported on changes in ARS quality research efforts. Virgil Smail has resigned his position as Director of the ARS Grain Marketing Research Laboratory to become President of the American Institute of Baking. The ARS laboratory at Savannah, GA, was closed in 1994 and the Savannah postharvest entomology project has been moved, with funding intact, to the Manhattan GMRL. The change resulted in a small amount of additional funds allocated to the GMRL. She warned that congress has already earmarked all of the funds from location closings and that any pitch to Congress for new research will result in displacement rather than add-on. There is concern over drafting the 1995 Farm bill because of active efforts of environmentalists to focus on reduced pesticide usage and water quality issues. The Office of Science and Technology's research priorities currently are related to human health issues, nutrition, food safety, and biological diversity. Biological diversity issues recognized are for collection purposes only. There is critical need for groups such as NWIC to go to Congress and plead for research priorities related to production agriculture; especially to Congressmen from non-ag states. On the positive side, the Department of Energy (DOE) currently is looking for new research opportunities and means to create new jobs.

ARS POSITION UPDATE

Kolb reported that Anna Hewings, ARS Virologist at Urbana, has taken a new position in the director's office of the Midwest Area. This position has been critical for research on virus diseases of wheat, oats, and barley, but it is unclear if sufficient funds remain to refill the position. C. Murphy indicated that there was sufficient interest and desire to refill the position but a decision had not been reached. A public announcement is expected soon. Murphy also indicated that two ARS positions at Purdue were in the final stages of recruitment. A third position at Purdue was filled by transfer of Joe Anderson from Montana.

P. Murphy reported that the proposal for a cereal pathology position at Raleigh was brought to Capitol Hill by both wheat and oat groups. Enabling language was placed in the ARS appropriations bill by Senator Price, but no money was provided. Efforts will continue, but may focus on redirection of money from ARS location closings.

Sears indicated that funding status of the Manhattan Plant Science Unit has not changed and remains critical. C. Murphy concurred, suggesting that something must be done soon. In the long term, without additional resources, ARS may be forced to close some research activities at the location when retirements occur.

Line reported on ARS projects at Pullman, WA. Line's ARS pathology project now has less than 5% of allocated funds left for operating. Steve Jones, ARS Wheat Geneticist, has moved into the WSU winter wheat breeding position. Bob Allan has indicated plans to retire in early 1996. With current funds, likely only one of the two available positions will be refilled. C. Murphy indicated that a post-doc is expected to move into Jones' position, and Bob Allan's position will be refilled. The permanent position will include some club wheat breeding activity. There is strong interest and activity by the Washington wheat growers to have both positions refilled.

McVey reported on status of positions at the Cereal Rust Lab in St. Paul. Alan Roelfs retired in January, 1994 and his position was not refilled. Status of other positions with pending retirements was unclear at this time.

PVP-UPOV UPDATE

Legislation bringing the PVP act into compliance with UPOV was passed by both the Senate and House in 1994. Sears reported that ASTA was developing information on the changes and impact of revised PVP laws for seed growers. The information should be available soon. Mark Hermaling, PVP Office, indicated that the amended PVP laws go into effect on April 4, 1995. The PVP Office will continue to process PVP applications during the transition, but will not issue any new PVP certificates until April 4. Hermaling also distributed a revised PVP application Exhibit 'C' form for comment. The revised form will go to press in the near future.

NWIC STRATEGIC PLANNING SURVEY

Kolb presented results from the NWIC Strategic Planning Survey. The survey was intended to document current levels of research activities and identify critical areas needing additional research support. It also will provide the basis for developing a long-range planning document for the NWIC. In reviewing the survey, Kolb indicated the need to correct and update some of the responses.

The survey was send to 38 states, and 33 responded. Four private companies also responded to a modified survey. A total of 40 positions was identified as pending retirement or vacancy, 13 of which were listed as likely not to be refilled. A summary of FTE's for wheat research indicated 54 FTE's active in the Eastern Region, 87 FTE's in the Hard Winter and Spring Region, and 46 in the Western Region. Research areas frequently identified as needing additional research support were: germplasm development; end-use quality; physiology of temperature and water stress; production and management; and pathology with emphasis on rusts, septoria, scab, and viruses. When asked to identify research areas that could be decreased, most indicated that substantial reductions already have occurred and additional cuts will jeopardize future production. Critical issues or activities that the NWIC should address include: promotion and coordination of regional or interstate research efforts; international germplasm exchange issues; need for enhanced pathology research efforts, especially within regions; test weight and classification issues; promotion of key wheat research areas for competitive grant funding; communicating benefits of wheat research to the public.

It was suggested that each region develop a planning document, using the same basic format, then combine information and priorities over regions into a single document. Bruns suggested using the same general format as the

ARS Strategic Plan to enhance its overall usefulness. Regional Chairs will initiate planning efforts, then bring draft documents to the 1995 NWIC meeting for discussion and review.

GERMPLASM EXCHANGE POLICIES

Sears and Cox reported on recent efforts in the HRWW Region regarding germplasm exchange policies. Concerned over trends toward germplasm protection, a Regional subcommittee wrote to experiment station directors and ARS administrators promoting continued free germplasm exchange under the Wheat Worker's Code of Ethics. Administrators were urged to endorse the Code of Ethics and encourage others to do the same. The letter was signed by 40 wheat workers in the region. The Subcommittee received positive responses from several state administrators. Experiment station directors in the North Central Region were prompted to make similar recommendations on germplasm policies for consideration by ESCOP. Sears encouraged others to follow up on the HRWW initiative in their respective regions. It was noted that the Wheat Worker's Code of Ethics is essentially a Material Transfer Agreement and can be used as such.

REVISION OF THE WHEAT WORKER'S CODE OF ETHICS

Sears brought forward a proposed revision of the Wheat Worker's Code of Ethics. Drafted with input of several NWIC members, it is intended to bring the Code of Ethics up to date with modern technologies. Edwards moved for acceptance of the draft and to forward it to Canada for consideration. Discussions were focused on when permission would be required for use of materials in backcrossing. Edwards suggested that the Code should be in line with 'essentially derived' concepts in PVP and UPOV documents. Bruns suggested that, as the Code is intended for use with unreleased materials, it must be equal to or more stringent than PVP with regard to backcrossing allowed. Briggs moved to amend, with Skovmand second, permission required for 'two or more backcrosses' to permission required for 'backcrossing'. The amendment was approved. The revised Code of Ethics was approved unanimously and goes into effect immediately. It will be distributed through Regional Coordinators and through the Annual Wheat Newsletter. The revised Code also will be sent to Canada and CIMMYT for their consideration.

CIMMYT UPDATE

Skovmand reported that CIMMYT received slightly more funds in 1994 than in 1993. The CIMMYT wheat program is expected to receive several hundred thousand additional dollars in 1995, and it will reinstitute the training program. Don Winkleman resigned as Director General effective January 2, 1995. He will become Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee for CGIAR. Tony Fischer resigned as Director of the Wheat Program effective May 1, 1995, but will remain with CIMMYT conducting research. Recruitment activities for both positions are underway. Gene Saari and Jessie Dubin have exchanged positions, with Saari moving to Nepal, and Dubin returning to Mexico as Head of the Plant Pathology Unit.

Scab research is emerging as a high priority for CIMMYT research. A major epidemic occurred in the Ukraine, and the disease is endemic to South America and China. CIMMYT is looking to develop joint research proposals on Scab for application to various granting agencies. Internal funding of karnal bunt research is being terminated. CIMMYT is looking for possible industry support to continue this effort. Sears will pass on information to various groups that may have interest in either scab or karnal bunt research.

CANADA WHEAT RESEARCH UPDATE

Briggs discussed major changes underway in funding Canadian wheat research. Agriculture Canada has been reorganized into Agri-Foods Canada (AFC). Substantial research funding has been redirected into matching funds categories. The goal is to establish networks for collaborative research funding on key industry priorities. All researchers are now seeking industry support to obtain these matching funds.

The Canadian government recently has established a wheat check-off to support plant breeding and related research. It is expected to generate $5 to 6 million each year. A committee will be formed to allocate funds and will include grower representatives. Some funds likely will be used for problems common to both the U.S. and Canada.

ITMI AND TRANSFORMATION UPDATE

Anderson reported that the ITMI renewal grant proposal was not funded in 1994. They have one year left on the coordination grant. The group believes it will be unable to obtain a grant for general mapping efforts, so each lab will now seek its own funding sources. Future grants for mapping will likely be trait specific for 'fine mapping', if it can be justified. General mapping support is essentially over, and future group grants are unlikely. The key now is to apply markers and show their potential for genetic enhancement. The Plant Genome III Conference will be held in January, 1995, and the ITMI annual meeting will be held the coming fall in Norwich, England.

Anderson also indicated that wheat transformation was becoming more efficient, and more labs were having success. He has found the techniques relatively easy to transfer among laboratories, with some level of training and commitment. Two people can now generate over 500 transformed lines per year. Anderson's lab is now working on alternative procedures to increase transformation efficiency.

SCAB UPDATE

Joppa reported that the 1994 scab epidemic cost growers an estimated $858 million from lost production and lower prices. Costs to North Dakota and Minnesota were $226 and $135 million, respectively. The estimates do not include costs to the milling and baking industry. Over $1 billion has been lost in the last 2 years, and many growers will not survive a third year if the epidemic continues. The situation has been worse for barley growers, because malters will not accept any level of fungus in the grain. Joppa expressed concern that genetic tolerance in wheat may be located in the D genome, because no tolerance has been identified yet in durum. The only good news is that ruminant animals were shown to have tolerance to ingesting fairly high levels of scab-infected grain. McVey reported that Bob Busch has identified two lines with good tolerance to scab. The lines are currently being increased in Arizona. Researchers had received $1 million from the Minnesota state legislature for scab research, but this level of support will not be sustained.

Busch and Joppa proposed to establish a pathology position at the Cereal Rust Laboratory to work on scab and other fungal diseases. C. Murphy suggested that national food safety or sustainable ag programs could be targeted for funding.

LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR 1995

Sears discussed make-up of the legislative action team for 1995. He suggested that it was not critical to have a large number of NWIC members represented, but to follow the format of last year with key industry representatives involved. Sears will coordinate representatives from states where target positions are located and encourage follow-up from state grower organizations. The biggest improvement needed in legislative action is follow-up after visiting representatives.

Worrall suggested the need to more effectively document the value of wheat to the U.S. economy and provide this as background information with legislative packet. Ties of wheat improvement to sustainable ag, food safety, and environmental issues could be emphasized. Van Sanford moved that Worrall chair a subcommittee to prepare such documentation; motion approved.

Sears reviewed target positions requested in the NWIC Pathology Initiative. The targets, which have not changed for several years, include: Plant Science Unit, Manhattan; Plant Pathology/Germplasm position, Raleigh; Wheat Pathology, Pullman; Cereal Rust Lab, St. Paul. Kolb indicated that the priority for the Southeast remained the Raleigh position, but that the Hewings position was critical and, if not refilled, would be an additional priority. Priorities for other regions were essentially unchanged. Consensus was to return to Capitol Hill with a base proposal essentially unchanged.

Peterson reminded the group that the Nebraska ARS Virology position would be lost in 1995 if no additional funds were obtained. The Nebraska Wheat Board and UN-L will be lobbying Nebraska congressional representatives in efforts to obtain new funds and refill the position. Peterson was concerned that Nebraska will not support the NWIC Initiative without including this position. Bruns moved that the Chair be given flexibility to work with Nebraska to obtain support for the NWIC Initiative, while maintaining the base priorities for the Initiative. A letter to the Nebraska Wheat Board and UN-L will be drafted to indicate our support for refilling the Nebraska Virology position and explain why, from a Committee perspective, it is not a line item on the NWIC agenda. Language supporting the Nebraska Virology position will be included in the NWIC document similar to last year. Second by P. Murphy, and motion was approved.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Wheat meetings upcoming in 1995 include: 20th Hard Red Winter Wheat Workers Workshop, January 25-27, Oklahoma City; Southern Wheat Workers, May 7-9, Raleigh, NC; Western Wheat Workers, June, Logan UT; Spring Wheat Workers in January of 1996.

The North American Wheat Workers Workshop hosted by the NWIC in March, 1994, was very successful and was attended by 160 wheat workers from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Several Canadian researchers have indicated interest in sponsoring another workshop in 4 or 5 years. The NWIC encouraged Briggs to pursue the possibility with his colleagues in Canada.

NWIC CHAIR AND SECRETARY POSITIONS

Sears indicated that both the Chair and Secretary positions were up for reappointment. It was moved that Sears and Peterson continue in their respective positions for another 3-year term, if willing. Both indicated interest, and motion was unanimously approved.

Peterson asked about status of ex-officio membership of Ellen Ferguson from the NAWG Foundation. It was suggested that Bruce Knight would be a more appropriate representative from NAWG because of his knowledge and past support of NWIC lobbying efforts. By consensus, Knight will replace Ferguson as NAWG ex-officio member. Sears also proposed a letter to Plowman, ARS administrator, to express our appreciation for the contributions of C. Murphy and W. Martinez at this meeting. Motion approved.

DATE AND LOCATION OF NEXT NWIC MEETING

Worrall offered to host the next NWIC meeting in Dallas, TX, on the 16th and 17th of November (Thursday and Friday), preceded by the Wheat CAC meeting on the evening of the 15th. Motion was seconded by Van Sanford and unanimously approved. Meeting then was adjourned by Sears.

Respectfully submitted, C. James Peterson

ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL WHEAT IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE, NOVEMBER 5, 1994.