Building Global Capacity to Combat Wheat Blast

Jun 21, 2024

Researchers and experts from 15 countries convened in Zambia, between 4-15 March 2024, for an international training on wheat blast disease screening, surveillance, and management.

Wheat blast, caused by pathogen Magnaporthe oryzae pathotype triticum, is threatening global wheat production especially in warmer and humid regions. The disease was ﬁrst observed in Parana state of Brazil in 1985 and subsequently spread to Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina. Outside of South America, wheat blast incidences were recorded for the first time in Bangladesh in 2016 and in Zambian wheat fields in 2018.

To mitigate the impact of this potential plant pandemic, the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI), in collaboration with CIMMYT and other partners, organized a comprehensive training for building research capacity and raising awareness within the local and international community, especially in at-risk countries.

“This collaborative effort, supported by various international partners and funders, underscores the importance of global cooperation in addressing agricultural challenges such as wheat blast. The objective of the training was to empower researchers with knowledge and tools for enhanced wheat production resilience in regions vulnerable to this destructive disease,” said Pawan Kumar Singh, principal scientist and project leader at CIMMYT. Singh collaborated with Batiseba Tembo, wheat breeder at ZARI-Zambia, to coordinate and lead the training program.

Thirty-eight wheat scientists, researchers, professors, policymakers, and extension agents from countries including Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia, and Zimbabwe convened at the Mt. Makulu Central Research Station in Chilanga, Zambia.

“Wheat blast is a devastating disease that requires concerted efforts to effectively manage it and halt further spread. The disease is new to Africa, so developing capacity amongst country partners before the disease spreads more widely is critical,” said Tembo.

Highlights from the training: discussions, lab exercises, and field visits

During the training, participants engaged in lectures, laboratory exercises, and field visits. There were insightful discussions on key topics including the fundamentals of wheat blast epidemiology, disease identification, molecular detection of the wheat blast pathogen, isolation and preservation techniques for the pathogen, disease scoring methods, disease management strategies, and field surveillance and monitoring.

The course also provided practical experience in disease evaluation at the Precision Phenotyping Platform (PPP) screening nursery located in Chilanga research station. This involved characterization of a diverse range of wheat germplasm with the aim of releasing resistant varieties in countries vulnerable to wheat blast. Additionally, participants undertook field visits to farmers’ fields, conducting surveillance of wheat blast-infected areas. They collected samples and recorded survey data using electronic open data kit (ODK) capture tools.

Click here to see more...

Video: The 15-Year Bet Behind Every New Variety!

Canada is trying to decide how much agricultural research capacity it can afford to lose. Brian Rossnagel believes the better question is whether the country can afford to rebuild it.

The longtime barley and oat breeder makes the case with a simple fact about his profession: the consequences of today’s decisions may not become visible for 10 or 15 years.

“Pick the right parents. That’s the biggest thing,” Rossnagel says. “If you pick the wrong parents, you’re not going to get anywhere—and you don’t know that until 10 years, 15 years later.”

That warning carries particular weight as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada moves to reduce spending and streamline parts of its science operations. The department’s 2026–27 plan anticipates the loss of approximately 665 positions by 2028–29 and says some research will be reduced where capacity exists in academia or industry. AAFC says the changes will make its science operations more cost-effective over the long term.

For Canada’s seed industry, Rossnagel’s career illustrates what is at stake.

This fall, the retired University of Saskatchewan breeder will be inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame. During his 35-year career at the Crop Development Centre, he helped develop more than 100 barley and oat varieties, including CDC Austenson—one of Western Canada’s most widely grown feed barleys. His induction recognizes not only those varieties, but the collaboration and research system that made them possible.

Rossnagel is quick to emphasize that none of it was the work of one person.

“The first thing I thought about was all the other people who contributed to whatever success I and my program had over the years,” he says. “We know that it’s not an individual who does this. It’s a group—a team.”

That team extends well beyond the breeder whose name appears beside a variety. It includes technicians, pathologists, quality specialists, statisticians, regional testing sites, seed growers and industry partners. It also includes the breeders who came before and those who will carry the germplasm forward.

CDC Fraser barley, for example, moved through three breeding careers. Its parents came from Brian Harvey’s program. Rossnagel advanced the material after Harvey retired, and Aaron Beattie later guided it through registration and release.

That kind of handoff is normal in plant breeding. The person who makes the original cross may never see the resulting variety reach farmers.

It also explains why lost research capacity cannot simply be switched back on when budgets improve.

“If you shut it off, it’s very, very difficult—and particularly costly—to start it up again,” Rossnagel says. “If you have to start from scratch, it’s going to be at least 10 years before anybody notices whether you’re getting anything done or not.”

The concern is not simply how many experimental lines Canada can process. Modern equipment, statistical tools and genetic technologies allow today’s breeding programs to evaluate tens of thousands of lines—far more than Rossnagel could handle when he entered the field in the early 1970s.

But efficiency and automation do not generate every idea.

“If you pare back down, and instead of having six or seven individual scientists concentrating on wheat breeding, you go down and say three people could handle all this, well, that’s half the ideas gone,” he says. “Particularly if you happen to lose the three people who had the really neat and innovative ideas, boy, that’s a problem.”

It is a timely distinction for Canadian agriculture. Consolidating programs may preserve the volume of material moving through a system, at least initially. It may not preserve the diversity of thinking, regional knowledge or willingness to pursue unconventional crosses.

That regional knowledge matters because Canadian agriculture is not one uniform production environment. A variety suited to southern Alberta may face different disease, moisture and maturity pressures than one grown in Manitoba, Ontario or Atlantic Canada.

“Agriculture is applied biology,” Rossnagel says. “Biology, all around the Earth, moves from the poles to the equator. It does not move from Newfoundland to B.C. like politics do.”