Oats Nutrition and Technology E-Book
154,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
A considerable amount of research has emerged in recent years on the science, technology and health effects of oats but, until now, no book has gathered this work together. Oats Nutrition and Technology presents a comprehensive and integrated overview of the coordinated activities of nutritionists, plant scientists, food
scientists, policy makers, and the private sector in developing oat products for optimal health.
Readers will gain a good understanding of the value of best agricultural production and processing practices that are important in the oats food system. The book reviews agricultural practices for the production of oat products, the food science involved in the processing of oats, and the nutrition science aimed at understanding and advancing the health effects of oats and how they can affect nutrition policies. There are individual chapters that
summarize oat breeding and processing, the many bioactive compounds that oats contain, and their health benefits. With respect to the latter, the health benefits of oats and oat constituents on chronic diseases, obesity, gut health, metabolic syndromes, and skin health are reviewed. The book concludes with a global summary of food labelling practices that are particularly relevant to oats.
Oats Nutrition and Technology offers in-depth information about the life cycle of oats for nutrition, food and agricultural scientists and health practitioners interested in this field. It is intended to provoke thought and stimulate readers to address the many research challenges associated with the oat life cycle and food system.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 827
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013
Ähnliche
Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
List of Contributors
Preface
Acknowledgements
Part I: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction: Oat Nutrition, Health, and the Potential Threat of a Declining Production on Consumption
1.1 A landmark health claim
1.2 The growing interest in oats and health
1.3 Declining production poses threats to the growth of oat intake
References
Part II: Oat Breeding, Processing, and Product Production
Chapter 2: Breeding for Ideal Milling Oat: Challenges and Strategies
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Breeding for single traits: Genotype-by-environment interactions
2.3 Breeding for multiple traits: Undesirable trait associations
2.4 Strategies of breeding for an ideal milling oat
2.5 Discussion
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 3: Food Oat Quality Throughout the Value Chain
3.1 Introduction: Oat quality in the context of the value chain
3.2 Physical oat quality
3.3 Nutritional oat quality
3.4 Agronomic factors affecting physical and nutritional quality
3.5 Oat end-product quality
3.6 Mycotoxins
3.7 Summary
Acknowledgements
References
Part III: Oat Nutrition and Chemistry
Chapter 4: Nutritional Comparison of Oats and Other Commonly Consumed Whole Grains
4.1 Introduction to oats as a cereal grain
4.2 Overview of the nutritional composition of oats
4.3 Conclusion
References
Chapter 5: Oat Starch
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Native oat starch organization: From the molecular to the granular level
5.3 Starch minor components, isolation, and extraction
5.4 Beyond native starch granule: Gelatinization, pasting, retrogradation, and interactions with other polysaccharides
5.5 Industrial uses
5.6 Conclusion and perspectives
References
Chapter 6: Oat -Glucans: Physicochemistry and Nutritional Properties
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Molecular structures and characteristics
6.3 Extraction
6.4 Solution properties
6.5 Oat β-glucan nutritional properties
6.6 Conclusion and perspectives
References
Chapter 7: Health Benefits of Oat Phytochemicals
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Oat phytochemicals
7.3 Health benefits of oat phytochemicals: Epidemiological evidence
7.4 Summary
References
Chapter 8: Avenanthramides: Chemistry and Biosynthesis
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Nomenclature
8.3 Synthesis
8.4 Chemical stability
8.5 Antioxidant properties
8.6 Solubility of avenanthramides
8.7 Analysis of avenanthramides
8.8 Biosynthesis of avenanthramides
8.9 Victorin sensitivity
8.10 Environment effects on avenanthramide production
8.11 Hydroxycinnamoyl-CoA: Hydroxyanthranilate N-hydroxycinnamoyl transferase (HHT)
8.12 Cloning HHT
8.13 Metabolic flux of avenanthramides
8.14 Localization of avenanthramide biosynthesis
8.15 Plant defense activators
8.16 False malting
8.17 Conclusion
References
Part IV: Emerging Nutrition and Health Research
Chapter 9: The Effects of Oats and Oat-Glucan on Blood Lipoproteins and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Hypocholesterolemic effects of fiber
9.3 Hypocholesterolemic effects of oats and oat β-glucan
9.4 Summary/Conclusions
References
Chapter 10: The Effects of Oats and -Glucan on Blood Pressure and Hypertension
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Dietary patterns and blood pressure
10.3 Oats and oat β-glucan: Effect on blood pressure and hypertension
10.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 11: Avenanthramides, Unique Polyphenols of Oats with Potential Health Effects
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Avenanthramides, the bioactive phenolics in oats
11.3 Anti-inflammatory and antiproliferative activity of avenanthramides
11.4 Summary and conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 12: Effects of Oats on Obesity, Weight Management, and Satiety
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Effects of oats and oat β-glucan on body weight
12.3 Effects of oats on appetite
12.4 Possible mechanisms of action
12.5 Summary
References
Chapter 13: Effects of Oats on Carbohydrate Metabolism
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Epidemiology
13.3 Mechanisms of postprandial blood glucose reduction
13.4 Clinical studies using whole oat products
13.5 Clinical studies using oat bran products
13.6 Clinical studies using oat-derived β-glucan preparations
13.7 Dose response
13.8 Longer-term glucose control
13.9 Summary
References
Chapter 14: Effects of Oats and -Glucan on Gut Health
14.1 Oats and β-glucan
14.2 Digestive health
14.3 Short chain fatty acids and fiber fermentability
14.4 Large bowel effects of whole grains
14.5 Fermentation of individual dietary fibers
14.6 Prebiotics
14.7 Other mechanisms underlying the effect of oats on gut function
14.8 Conclusion
References
Chapter 15: Oats and Skin Health
15.1 History of colloidal oatmeal use
15.2 Oat structure and composition
15.3 Clinical properties
15.4 Clinical applications of oats
15.5 Side effects of oats
15.6 Conclusions
References
Part V: Public Health Policies and Consumer Response
Chapter 16: Health Claims for Oat Products: A Global Perspective
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Definition of health claims
16.3 Substantiation of health claims
16.4 Health claims and dietary recommendations for oat products
16.5 Benefits of health claims
16.6 Nutritional information and health claims: How can health claims ensure clarity versus confusion?
16.7 Considerations in conducting research for health claim substantiation
References
Chapter 17: Oh, What Those Oats Can Do: Quaker Oats, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Market Value of Scientific Evidence 1984–2010
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Wild oats: The oat bran craze 1988–1990
17.3 Brantastic voyage: Oats through dietetic history
17.4 Gruel intentions: The NLEA and Quaker's health claim 1990–1997
17.5 Cash crop: Leveraging scientific evidence 1997–2010
17.6 Conclusions
References
Part VI: Future Recommendations
Chapter 18: Overview: Current and Future Perspectives on Oats and Health
18.1 Chapter summaries
18.2 Relevance to the nutrition and dietetic communities and the medical profession
18.3 Future needs and recommendations
References
Index
This edition first published 2014 © 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Oats nutrition and technology / edited by YiFang Chu. pages cm Includes index. ISBN 978-1-118-35411-7 (cloth) 1. Oats. 2. Oats as food. 3. Oats–Analysis. 4. Oats–Processing. I. Chu, YiFang, editor of compilation. TX558.O3.O28 2013 641.3′313–dc23
2013018937
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Cover image ©iStockphoto/OliverChilds Cover design by Meaden Creative
List of Contributors
Nancy Ames, PhD Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Jenna A. Bell, PhD, RD Chair-Elect (2012–2013), The Sports, Cardiovascular and Wellness Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group, Academy for Nutrition and Dietetics, Chicago, IL, USA
Nicolas Bordenave, PhD Associate Principal Scientist, Global R&D Technical Insights – Analytical Department, PepsiCo Inc., Barrington, IL, USA
Robert C. Brown, R&D Nutrition Senior Director, Global R&D Nutrition, PepsiCo Inc., Barrington, IL, USA
YiFang Chu, PhD Senior Manager, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, PepsiCo R&D Nutrition, Barrington, IL, USA
Chad M. Cook, PhD Senior Scientist/Medical Writer, Biofortis Clinical Research, Addison, IL, USA
Shaowei Cui, MPS Technician, Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Jennifer Mitchell Fetch, Research Scientist (oat breeding), Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Robert Fitzsimmons, Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, USA
Judith Frégeau-Reid, PhD Research Scientist (grain quality), Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD Assistant Professor of Medicine (Dermatology)/Physiology and Biophysics, Director of Dermatologic Research, Associate Residency Program Director, Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA, Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA
Apeksha A. Gulvady, R&D Nutrition Senior Scientist, Global R&D Nutrition, PepsiCo Inc., Barrington, IL, USA
Bruce Hamaker, Whistler Center for Carbohydrate Research, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Stephanie Jew, RD Sector Specialist – Regulation, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Madhuvanti Kale, Whistler Center for Carbohydrate Research, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Prabhakar Kasturi, Global R&D Technical Insights – Analytical Department, PepsiCo Inc., Barrington, IL, USA
Chor San Khoo, PhD Nutritionist, Mt. Laurel, NJ, USA
Renee Korczak, MS Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA
Penny Kris-Etherton, PhD RD Distinguished Professor, Department of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Allison Kutner, MS IV Research Fellow, Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA
Rui Hai Liu, MD, PhD Professor, Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Joy Makdisi, Research Fellow, Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA
Kevin C. Maki, PhD Chief Science Officer, Biofortis Clinical Research, Addison, IL, USA
Mohsen Meydani, DVM, PhD, FAAA, FASN Professor of Nutrition, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University Senior Scientist and Director of Vascular Biology Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
Tia M. Rains, PhD Principal Scientist, Biofortis Clinical Research, Addison, IL, USA
Camille Rhymer, MSc Research Assistant, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Joanne Slavin, PhD, RD Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA
Joanne Storsley, MSc Cereal Research Biologist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Susan M. Tosh, PhD Research Scientist, Guelph Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Guelph, ON, Canada
Mitchell L. Wise, PhD Research Chemist, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI, USA
Weikai Yan, PhD Research Scientist (oat breeding), Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Preface
Why a book on the life cycle of oats?
To our knowledge, a book that discusses the life cycle of oats from on-farm production to finished product to health and policy has not previously been presented. As a result, we felt that such a compendium of articles from multidisciplinary fields would be interesting and educational.
Oats Nutrition and Technology presents a comprehensive and integrated overview of the coordinated activities of plant scientists, food scientists, nutritionists, policy makers, and the private sector in developing oat products for optimal health. Many areas of expertise are integrated, necessarily so, to create the continuum that we know as the contemporary food system (i.e., from “farm to fork”). Readers will gain a good understanding of the value of best agricultural production and processing practices that are important in the oats food system, as well as of all other aspects of today's food system. The book reviews plant agricultural practices for the production of oat products, the food science involved in the processing of oats, and nutrition science aimed at understanding the health effects of oats and how they can affect nutrition policies. There are individual chapters that summarize oat breeding and processing, the many bioactive compounds that oats contain, and their health benefits. With respect to the latter, the health benefits of oats and oat constituents on chronic diseases, gut health, and skin health are reviewed. The book concludes with a global summary of food labeling practices that are particularly relevant to oats.
The book is framed from the perspective of multiple disciplines: plant breeding and processing, the nutritional value of oats (i.e., nutrients and bioactive components) and related health effects, and nutrition policies related to food labeling and health claims. There is much we have learned about the oat food system, but the reality is that much remains to be learned about all of these areas and the advances that are needed to develop the best and most cost-effective oat products for farmers and processing companies in a way that benefits consumers' health as much as possible. In addition, oats and oat products must meet consumer quality expectations that relate to both their sensory preferences and nutritional expectations. Oats must be acceptable to consumers with respect to appearance, texture, flavor, and aroma.
The contents of this book are deliberately organized to familiarize the readers with the various stages of the oat product life cycle. This approach underscores an appreciation for building on the scientific discoveries and knowledge contributed by each discipline, and how important this process is to the development and validation of future oat products for human health.
The eighteen chapters in this book are divided into six sections, with an introductory section (Chapter 1) on oat nutrition research and production. The five remaining sections include Part II: Oat Breeding, Processing, and Product Production; Part III: Oat Nutrition and Chemistry; Part IV: Emerging Nutrition and Health Research; Part V: Public Health Policies and Consumer Response; and Part VI: Future Recommendations. Each section provides readers with an overview on current insights into research, issues, and opportunities.
Part II: Oat Breeding, Processing, and Product Production: This section consists of two chapters (Chapters 2 and 3) that focus on the importance of oat breeding and current challenges in farming and agriculture. Readers will gain a good understanding of the value of best agricultural production and processing practices that are important in the oat food system, and also an appreciation of all other aspects of today's complexity of food production, farming challenges, and product developments.
Part III: Oat Nutrition and Chemistry: This section comprises five chapters (Chapters 4–8) covering chemical and nutritional compositions of whole oats. Discussions also include recently discovered bioactive compounds/phytochemicals in oats, such as avenanthramides, which have strong antioxidative properties and potential health effects. Biosynthesis of bioactive compounds is also discussed.
Part IV: Emerging Nutrition and Health Research: This section consists of seven chapters (Chapters 9–15) that cover emerging research on lipid and lipo-protein metabolism, blood pressure, weight and satiety, diabetes and carbohydrate metabolism, gut health, and skin health. Current insights on studies related to the effects of oats and whole grains on disease and health are presented.
Part V: Public Health Policies and Consumer Response: This section comprises two chapters (16 and 17) that provide global insights into regulatory claims, substantiation requirements, and health policies in the USA, Canada, and the European Union. These chapters also discuss the impact of health claims on government public educational programs (food labeling and advertising), food industry innovation in oat products and sales, and consumer and professional responses to oat products.
Part VI: Future Recommendations: In this section, summaries of the previous 17 chapters are discussed in a single chapter. Future research needs and recommendations are discussed as well. There are many opportunities to expand our knowledge of oats and their development to optimize nutrition, as well production and sustainability.
This book is intended to offer scientists and health practitioners interested in this field in-depth information about the life cycle of oats. It is intended to be thought provoking and stimulate readers to address the many research challenges associated with the oat life cycle and food system.
YiFang Chu
Acknowledgements
In the field of nutrition, having the opportunity to work with oats and to edit a book about them is a true blessing. I am deeply grateful to Marianne O'Shea and Richard Black for this privilege. I am also thankful for colleagues and mentors who made the process fun and rewarding: Yuhui Shi, Alan Koechner, Yongsoo Chung, Sarah Murphy, Debbie Garcia, and Maria Velissariou. Special thanks go to Chor San Khoo, who challenged and drove us to bring this book to a much better place.
My sincere gratitude goes to the contributors who took the time to provide excellent reviews of the current science and to help bring awareness to the challenges facing oats. Your diligent efforts come through in each chapter brilliantly.
I would also like to acknowledge colleagues, friends, and collaborators who helped with various aspects of this book: Andrea Bruce, John St. Peter, Prabhakar Kasturi, Jan-Willem van Klinken, Debra Kent, Gary Carder, Laura Harkness, Mike Morello, John Yen, John Schuette, Nancy Moriarity, Jeanette Ramos, Ellen Moreland, Michelle Slimko, Bonnie Johnson, Steve Bridges, Tia Bradley, Tiffany Richardson, Chris Visconti, Lori Romano, and Renuka Menon from PepsiCo; Boxin Ou from International Chemistry Testing Inc.; and David McDade from Wiley-Blackwell.
I am profoundly indebted to my parents, Pi-Chi and Li-Chiu, whose unwavering love has been the constant anchor in my life. Finally, thank you April, Winston, and Isis – you have filled my life with simple joy and made me about the happiest person on earth every single day.
Part I
Introduction
1
Introduction: Oat Nutrition, Health, and the Potential Threat of a Declining Production on Consumption
Penny Kris-Etherton1, Chor San Khoo2, and YiFang Chu3
1Department of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA 2Nutritionist, Mt. Laurel, NJ, USA 3Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, PepsiCo R&D Nutrition, Barrington, IL, USA
1.1 A landmark health claim
The landmark approval of a health claim for oats in 1997 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marked the first food specific health claim. The FDA had concluded that an intake of at least 3 g β-glucan from oats as part of a diet low in saturated fats could help reduce the risk of heart disease (Chapter 17). Of importance is that the oat health claim signifies for the first time recognition by a public health agency that dietary intervention could be beneficial in disease prevention, and that certain foods or food components, when consumed as part of a healthy diet, may reduce the risk of certain diseases. It is, therefore, not surprising that the first food-related health claim was approved for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the leading cause of death in the United States and many western countries, including Canada (Health Canada, 2010). Often under communicated is that CVD is the leading cause of death among women in the United States (Roger et al., 2012). The FDA approval of a health claim elevated the role of diet in overall health, adding emphasis to disease prevention in addition to treatment. For example, many of the risk factors associated with CVD are preventable by dietary interventions, including high blood pressure, high total serum cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and very low density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and high blood glucose associated with type 2 diabetes, and obesity.
1.2 The growing interest in oats and health
The oat health claim that underwent extensive scientific review for approval by the FDA sparked great interest in the scientific community. For the first time, health practitioners (dietitians, nutritionists, and physicians) had the option to recommend that a specific food be incorporated into a diet for an adjunct intervention in the management and prevention of disease.
The unique chemistry and nutritional composition of oats suggest that the benefits of oats may not be confined to just a cholesterol-lowering effect but, as demonstrated by further research, that they may also have other favorable health benefits. As of 2010, ischemic heart disease (number 1 ranking) and stroke (number 3 ranking) were two of the top 12 world health problems that could be favorably affected by oat consumption (Cohen, 2012; Lim et al., 2012). Important risk factors recently highlighted by the Global Burden of Disease Study that could be affected by oats include high blood pressure, high body mass index, and high fasting blood glucose levels (Cohen, 2012; Lim et al., 2012), as well as an elevated LDL-C level as noted by the American Heart Association (Roger et al., 2012).
The oat health claim has sparked interest in developing a better understanding of oats, from breeding for the best oat cultivar, processing, nutrition research on oats and health, as well as public health education and policy. It has become clear that the challenges to improving the quality of oats are not just yield but rather a combination of three possible dependent traits—yield, groat percentage, and β-glucan level (Chapter 2).
Recent advances in research have focused on oat chemistry and nutrition with the goal of demonstrating the mode of action of oats on lipid and glucose metabolism. Of interest is the form of β-glucan in oats, which differs from other whole grain soluble fibers. In oats, the majority of the soluble fibers are β-glucan, accounting for 3–6% of whole groat weight. Although β-glucan also exists in barley and wheat, the β-glucan in oats differ in many physicochemical properties, such as solubility, gelation, and molecular weight, all of which affect physiological functions in the gastrointestinal tract, for example, bile acid binding, colonic viscosity accumulation, and fermentation. These differences in β-glucan structure may explain the reduction in cholesterol and postprandial blood glucose levels with oat consumption (Chapter 5)
The health benefits of oats can be attributed largely to their unique chemistry and nutrient profile. Recent efforts have focused on isolating, identifying, and characterizing the bioactive constituents unique to oats. Compared to other whole grains such as corn, wheat, and rice, oat nutrition profiles are uniquely “complete” across many constituents, ranging from nutrients to phytochemicals and bioactive compounds. Nutritionally, oats provide many essential nutrients. On a 100 g basis, oats are a significant source of dietary fiber, soluble fiber mostly as β-glucan, thiamin, folate, iron, magnesium, copper, and zinc. Additionally, oats are an excellent source of potassium and are low in sodium, with a Na:K ratio less than one (Chapter 4).
Avenanthramides are phytonutrients in oats known to have anti-inflammatory and antioxidative activity, and may be involved in some of the health effects unique to oats. Avenanthramides are emerging as an interesting class of chemicals that may be beneficial for skin health, including treatment for atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, pruritic dermatoses, sunburn, drug eruptions, and other conditions. Colloidal oatmeal has also been used to relieve skin irritation and itching, and for cleansing and moisturizing. The flavonoids in oats may also protect against ultraviolet A radiation.
More recently, research has focused on the impact of oat intake on other health outcomes beyond the lipid lowering effect, such as blood pressure, body mass index and weight, glucose metabolism and type 2 diabetes, as well as caloric regulation and satiety. These studies are ongoing and the data are still preliminary. A consistent finding is that oat β-glucan lowers serum cholesterol, and although the magnitude of cholesterol lowering varies, it correlates to the amount of β-glucan consumed.
1.3 Declining production poses threats to the growth of oat intake
Although oat and health research have advanced significantly, a very different picture is emerging on the global scene with respect to oat production and consumption. Since the approval of the health claim for oats in 1997, there has been a steep growth in the demand for hot breakfast cereals and oats sales have soared. This positive trend developed in North America was also observed in eastern and western Europe over the same period. On the other hand, world production of oats has declined and is at a record low rate. In 2011, world oat production lagged behind wheat, corn, and barley, dropping to its lowest level since 1960, from 6.8 to 0.8% of the world's crop production. In the United States, oats are fading from a commodity to a specialty crop. The worldwide drop in production may be attributed to several factors, including more land devoted to growing more profitable crops for foods, feeds, biofuels, and vegetable oils; low amounts of funding for research, little innovation in production techniques; and a weak demand for oats as a feed source (Strychar, 2011). Today, oats are considered an orphan crop, receiving little research investment from either government or industry.
If the trend of decreased oat production continues, oats will become so expensive that affordable and widely accessible oat products for the public may be limited. Reversing this trend will require programs that involve both public and private collaborations to assure an adequate level of research investment for advancing the understanding and securing the accessibility of this important crop.
References
Cohen, J. (2012) A controversial close-up of humanity's health. Science338, 1414–1416.
Health Canada (2010) Cardiovascular Disease Morbidity, Mortality and Risk Factors Surveillance Information. Public Health Agency of Canada (www.publichealth.gc.ca; last accessed 14 May 2013).
Lim, S., et al. (2012) A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet330, 2224–2260.
Roger, V.L., et al. (2012) Executive summary: Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2012 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation125, 188–197.
Strychar, R. (2011) The Future of Oats. Presentation at the Nordic Oat Days conference, 10 October 2011, Helsinki, Finland.
Part II
Oat Breeding, Processing, and Product Production
2
Breeding for Ideal Milling Oat: Challenges and Strategies
Weikai Yan1, Judith Frégeau-Reid1, and Jennifer Mitchell Fetch2
1Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
2Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
2.1 Introduction
Both acreage devoted to oats and oat production have dramatically decreased worldwide since the 1960s, as working horses have been replaced by modern farm machinery. The introduction of short-seasoned and more profitable corn and soybean cultivars to the northern regions of the United States and southern areas of Canada in the recent decade is another major reason for reduced oat production. However, the oat acreage in Canada has more or less stabilized at around 1.5 million hectares in recent years (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2010). This is partially due to the need for growing oats as a rotation crop and the use of oats as a forage crop, oat grains as feed, and oat straw for animal bedding. However, more important are the increased purchase and processing of oat grains by the milling industry and increased awareness and human consumption of oat products as healthy food.
Oats are a minor crop compared with other cereal crops and oilseeds. In addition, it is a self-pollinated crop, obviating the need for purchasing hybrid seed every year. Because of its lower profitability, relatively little breeding and research on oats are carried out. The limited breeding and research effort has been supported primarily through government funding with support from the oat milling industry and growers of oat seed and grain. As a result, breeding for superior milling oats has become a main driving force for oat breeding and related research. Although there are some differences in the specifications for oats used as feed or fodder, oats that are excellent for milling are also suitable for forage and feed. In this chapter, an attempt is made to define the ideal milling oat cultivar and the challenges and strategies in breeding such an oat cultivar to discuss.
2.1.1 What is an ideal milling oat?
An ideal milling oat cultivar must be defined from the perspective of the oat value chain, which starts with the oat growers and ends with consumers of the oat product, with the oat processors serving as the key link between the two. An ideal oat cultivar must benefit each of these stakeholders. A reliably high yield, along with supporting agronomic traits (good resistance to important diseases and pests, lodging resistance, and proper maturity), is the number one consideration of oat growers when choosing a crop cultivar. The second factor they consider is whether the quality of their oat grains meets the requirements of potential buyers (i.e., millers), because selling to millers is often more profitable than using or selling the oats as feed. The requirements of the millers include higher groat percentage, so that more oat product can be produced per unit weight of purchased oat grains, uniform grains and easy dehulling to reduce the energy cost for processing, and better compositional quality so their oat products meet consumers' expectations. Consumers consider oat products to be nutritious and especially healthy because of the dietary fiber contained in the oat groat (β-glucan in particular). Oat products must contain a minimum level of β-glucan and total dietary fiber to be labeled as healthy food (Chapter 6). The traits of an ideal milling oat cultivar are listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Trait compositions for an ideal milling oat cultivar
For growersFor millersFor consumersHigh and stable grain yield for the target environment Good lodging resistance Proper maturity Good resistance to relevant diseases and pests Good tolerance to relevant abiotic stresses High test weight Large kernels High straw yieldHigh groat percentage (milling yield) Easy dehulling Uniform kernels Low groat breakage during dehulling White groat colorHigh β-glucan and dietary fiber content High protein content High levels of essential amino acids Low oil content High antioxidant content Other desirable ingredientsDespite the tremendous effort of oat breeders and great progress made in improving oat cultivars throughout the world, a cultivar with all the desired traits has not yet been developed. Why is this so? Is it even possible to achieve such a goal? What are the challenges for developing the ideal cultivar? What strategies should be used in breeding towards such a cultivar? These are the questions this chapter attempts to answer.
To facilitate the discussion, a real data set from the 2011 “Nationwide Oat Test” is examined in this chapter. The breeding lines tested at seven locations across Canada included 45 new covered oat breeding lines developed from the oat breeding program at the Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Center (ECORC) of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC or AAC) located in Ottawa, Ontario, and 45 lines from the Cereal Research Center (CRC) of AAFC located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, plus six official check cultivars for the Prairies, Ontario, and Quebec. These locations were: Lacombe (AB), Saskatoon (SK), Portage (MB), Ottawa (ON), New Liskeard (ON), Normandin (QC), and Harrington (PE). The experimental design was randomized incomplete blocks with three replications at each location. Grain yield and important quality characteristics (e.g., test weight, kernel weight, groat percentage, and concentrations of β-glucan, oil, and protein) were determined for each location.
The data analysis method used in this chapter is GGE biplot analysis (Yan et al., 2000; Yan and Kang, 2003). A GGE biplot summarizes the information of genotype main effect (G) and genotype-by-environment (location in this case) interaction effects (GE) in a genotype-by-environment two-way data set. G and GE are the two pieces of information pertinent to cultivar and test environment evaluations. The biplot was first developed by Gabriel (1971) to graphically display the principal component analysis results of a two-way data set, such as the yield data of a set of genotypes in a set of environments. It is so named because it displays both genotype names and location names in the same plot. The unique features of the GGE biplot allow visual examination of the data to answer the important questions a plant breeder needs to ask.
2.2 Breeding for single traits: Genotype-by-environment interactions
Breeding for a single trait is limited by two factors: the availability of genetic variation, (i.e., availability of germplasm with desired levels of that trait) and its heritability. Germplasm collection, preservation, evaluation, and utilization have always been the key components of plant breeding that set the ultimate limit of crop improvement. However, for the current discussion, it is assumed that sufficient genetic variation exists for each trait within the breeding lines tested and discussion focuses on the second factor, trait heritability. Ignoring experimental errors at individual test locations, the heritability of a trait in the multilocation scenario is a matter of the relative magnitude of genetic variance versus genotype-by-location interaction variance (i.e., the G/[G+GE] ratio), which can also be expressed as genetic correlations among test locations. A high heritability across environments (high G/[G+GE] ratio) or a close genetic correlation among test environments means that the test environments (or locations) are relatively homogeneous; therefore, selection for general adaptation for the whole region based on mean yield across all environments is feasible and effective. Otherwise, the target environments must be divided into subregions or mega-environments, and specific adaptation to each subregion must be sought (Yan et al., 2007a).
2.2.1 Grain yield
The yield data for each of the 96 genotypes (90 breeding lines plus six check cultivars) at each of the seven locations in the 2011 Nationwide Oat Test are summarized in the form of a GGE biplot (Figure 2.1).1
Figure 2.1 The “environment association” view of the GGE biplot for grain yield. (Biplot based on location-standardized data and location-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
A GGE biplot can be viewed in many different ways by adding supplementary lines to the biplot to explore specific aspects of the two-way data. The biplot shown in Figure 2.1 is the “environmental relationship” view, which is useful for visualizing genetic correlations among the test locations. The biplot explains 73% of the G+GE of the yield data and is adequate for displaying the main patterns of the data. The cosine of the angle between any two locations approximates the genetic correlation between them. The locations appear to be positively correlated to each other, because the angles between them are all smaller than 90°, except the angle between locations PEI (Harrington, PE) and SASK (Saskatoon, SK), which is close to 90°. This biplot presentation of genetic correlations among test locations can be verified by using the numerical correlation matrix of test locations (Table 2.2). The correlation matrix shows that all locations are positively correlated with each other, except for PEI, which is uncorrelated with SASK and is also less correlated with the other locations. The biplot presentation is much easier to comprehend.
Table 2.2 Genetic correlations among test locations for grain yield
Lack of positive genetic correlation between any two test locations is due to the presence of a large GE; a large GE relative to G can cause significant crossover GE (i.e., obvious rank change of genotypes at different locations), which in turn can lead to differentiation of subregions or mega-environments. Indeed, the “which-won-where” view of the same biplot (Figure 2.2) reveals that although breeding line OA1347-3 appeared to be the highest yielding line at most locations, the highest yielding line at PEI was OA1357-2. The “which-won-where” view of the GGE biplot contains an irregular polygon, which is formed by connecting the genotypes farthest from the biplot origin at various directions, such that all genotypes are either on the sides of the polygon or enclosed within the polygon. This biplot view also contains a set of straight lines that originate from the biplot origin and are perpendicular to each side of the polygon, dividing the biplot area into sectors. Each of the environments inevitably falls into one of the sectors. For example, the location PEI falls into one sector, and all other locations into another. An interesting property of the “which-won-where” view is that the genotype placed at the vertex of the polygon in a sector is nominally the one with the highest values for all environments falling into that respective sector. Thus, the highest yielding genotype for PEI was OA1357-2, whereas the highest yielding genotype for the other six locations was OA1347-3.
Figure 2.2 The “which-won-where” view of the GGE biplot for grain yield. (Biplot based on location-standardized data and location-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
Figure 2.2 suggests that the seven test locations may be divided into two subregions or mega-environments. However, this cannot be considered conclusive because the biplot was based on data from a single year, and the suggestion contradicts previous reports that PEI belonged to the same mega-environment with New Liskeard and Normandin (Yan et al., 2010). Given that most locations were positively correlated, the test locations may be relatively homogenous in terms of yield response. Indeed, the G/(G+GE) ratio for this data set was 57.5%, and the heritability across test location was 0.887, supporting this idea. Accepting that all test locations belong to the same mega-environment simplifies cultivar evaluation. It means that genotypes can be evaluated based on their mean yields across test locations. The “mean-versus-stability” view (Figure 2.3) was designed for this purpose. The red line with a single arrow points to a higher mean yield across all environments and is called the average environment axis. It is drawn to pass through the biplot origin and the small circle that represents the average environment. Thus, genotypes are ordered in terms of their mean yields across the seven locations on the biplot: OA1347-3 > OA1260-1II > OA1357-2 ≈ Orrin > OA1347-1 >… The line with two arrows pointing outwards represents genotype instability. The closer the placement of a genotype to the red line, the more stable it is in yield performance. The biplot shows that the check cultivar Morgan is highly stable and that the check cultivar Orrin is more stable than the new breeding lines with higher mean yields.
Figure 2.3 The “mean-versus-stability” view of the GGE biplot for grain yield. (Biplot based on location-standardized data and genotype-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
In conclusion, high-yielding genotypes can be easily selected based on their mean yields across environments. The genotype-by-location interaction did not seem to constitute a main challenge in selecting high-yielding genotypes.
2.2.2 Test weight
Like the yield data, the GGE biplot for test weight data (Figure 2.4) shows significant positive genetic correlations among the test locations, although the Ottawa site (OTT) was less correlated with the locations Lacombe and Normandin. Ottawa is the southernmost location of the seven test sites, and resistance to crown rust is usually an important genetic factor for traits such as yield and test weight. The heritability among locations was 0.846 and the G/(G+GE) was 52%, which are considered relatively high. As a result, genotypes with high test weight (e.g., Dancer, OA1356-1, and OA1342-2) can be easily selected.
Figure 2.4 The “environment association” view of the GGE biplot for test weight. (Biplot was based on location-standardized data and location-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
2.2.3 Kernel weight
Kernel weight has even higher heritability (0.956) and G/(G+GE) ratio (79%) than grain yield and test weight. This is reflected in the close genetic correlations among the test locations (Figure 2.5). Consequently, genotypes with high kernel weight (e.g., OA1339-1 and OA1343-1) can be easily selected from any single test location.
Figure 2.5 The “environment association” view of the GGE biplot for thousand-kernel weight. (Biplot based on location-standardized data and location-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
2.2.4 Groat percentage
The genetic correlations among test locations for groat percentage (Figure 2.6) were not as high as those for kernel weight but were higher than those for yield or test weight. All test locations were positively correlated, although to varying degrees. Its heritability across locations was 0.926 and its G/(G+GE) ratio was 69%. As a result, genotypes with high groat percentage (e.g., Dancer and OA1342-2) can be easily identified at any single location.
Figure 2.6 The “environment association” view of the GGE biplot for groat percentage. (Biplot based on location-standardized data and location-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
2.2.5 β-glucan concentration
β-glucan had very high heritability (0.957) and was only slightly affected by genotype-by-location interaction, with a G/(G+GE) ratio of 87%, as reflected by the narrow angles among locations (Figure 2.7). The genetic correlation between any two locations was higher than 0.88. As a result, genotypes with high β-glucan levels (e.g., several CRC lines from the 06p30 family) can be easily selected at any location. High heritability for β-glucan has also been reported in other studies (Holthaus et al., 1996; Cervantes-Martinez et al., 2001; Yan et al., 2011).
Figure 2.7 The “environment association” view of the GGE biplot for β-glucan concentration in the groat. (Biplot was based on location-standardized data and location-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
2.2.6 Oil concentration
Oil concentration had the highest heritability among most quantitative traits in oat. Across-location heritability was 0.989 and G/(G+GE) ratio was 93%, as reflected by the very acute angles between locations (Figure 2.8). As a result, genotypes with high oil concentrations (e.g., OA1361-1) or low oil concentrations (e.g., OA1362-1) can be easily identified at any location. High heritability for oat oil concentration was reported as early as the 1970s (Baker and McKenzie, 1972; Frey and Hammond, 1975).
Figure 2.8 The “environment association” view of the GGE biplot for oil concentration in the groat. (Biplot based on location-standardized data and location-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
2.2.7 Protein concentration
The magnitude of heritability (0.943) and G/(G+GE) ratio (75%) for protein concentration were similar to those of groat percentage and test weight. All locations were positively correlated (Figure 2.9) such that high-protein genotypes (e.g., OA1362-1 and 07q132-al2c) can be easily identified.
Figure 2.9 The “environment association” view of the GGE biplot for protein concentration in the groat. (Biplot based on location-standardized data and location-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
To summarize this section, β-glucan and oil concentrations were highly heritable and the rank of genotypes for these traits was similar across locations. As a result, selection for these traits can be conducted at a few locations. Grain yield, test weight, groat percentage, and protein concentration were somewhat affected by genotype-by-location interactions. Nevertheless, most test locations were positively correlated and no negative correlations among locations were found. This means that each of these traits can be improved relatively easily based on data from multiple representative locations. Improvement for any single trait does not generally constitute a major challenge in breeding for an ideal milling oat cultivar.
2.3 Breeding for multiple traits: Undesirable trait associations
2.3.1 Pairwise associations
Successfully combining the desired levels of two traits in a single genotype depends on the nature of the genetic association between them. A positive correlation or lack of correlation means that they can be combined easily, whereas a negative correlation means they cannot be combined easily. Interrelationships among the measured traits in the 2011 Nationwide Oat Tests are summarized graphically in Figure 2.10 and numerically in Table 2.3. The biplot revealed positive correlations (acute angles) among groat percentage, thousand-kernel weight, and test weight and a positive correlation between oil and β-glucan concentrations. However, these two groups of traits were negatively correlated (obtuse angles). The biplot also revealed a negative correlation between grain yield and protein concentration.
Table 2.3 Genetic correlations among oat grain traits
Figure 2.10 The genotype-by-trait biplot involving seven traits: grain yield (YIELD), groat percentage (GROAT), β-glucan concentration (BGL), oil concentration (OIL), protein concentration (PROTEIN), test weight (TWT), and thousand-kernel weight (TKW). (Biplot based on trait-standardized data and trait-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
In Figure 2.10 and Table 2.3, β-glucan concentration behaved like a “troublemaker” among the traits and in the breeding for an ideal milling oat. It was negatively correlated with groat concentration, grain yield, test weight, and thousand-kernel-weight but positively correlated with oil concentration. All these associations are undesirable. Deleting test weight and kernel weight from Figure 2.10 led to the biplot in Figure 2.11. This biplot best summarizes the key undesirable associations in milling oat breeding as follows: (i) negative association between β-glucan concentration and groat percentage (obtuse angle); (ii) negative association between β-glucan concentration and grain yield (obtuse angle); (iii) positive correlation between β-glucan and oil concentration (acute angle); and (iv) negative correlation between protein concentration and grain yield (obtuse angle). These associations are consistent with previous observations. For example, Yan and colleagues reported a relatively consistent negative association between protein concentration and grain yield and a positive association between β-glucan and oil concentrations from the Quaker Uniform Oat Nursery data obtained at seven to nine locations across Canada and the United States during 1996 to 2003 (Yan et al., 2007b). Yan and Frégeau-Reid (2008) reported a negative correlation between β-glucan and groat percentage and a positive correlation between oil and β-glucan concentrations for an oat breeding population. However, other studies reported the opposite findings. Kibite and Edney (1998) reported a negative correlation between oil and β-glucan concentrations, and Peterson and colleagues reported a positive correlation between β-glucan concentration and groat percentage in the American oat nurseries (Peterson et al., 1995).
Figure 2.11 The genotype-by-trait biplot involving five traits: grain yield (YIELD), groat percentage (GROAT), β-glucan concentration (BGL), oil concentration (OIL), and protein concentration (PROTEIN). (Biplot based on trait-standardized data and trait-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
Among the undesirable trait associations observed in this example data set, the first two are most challenging, because they involve the three most important traits for an ideal milling oat. Grain yield is the trait oat growers care most about; groat percentage is the trait millers care most about; and β-glucan concentration is the trait consumers care most about. Therefore, discussion here focuses on associations among these three traits.
2.3.2 The three-way association
Figure 2.12 is the biplot containing only grain yield, groat percentage, and β-glucan concentration as traits. As in Figures 2.10 and 2.11, this biplot shows a modest negative association between β-glucan concentration and grain yield, a modest negative association between β-glucan and groat percentage, but a near-zero association between grain yield and groat percentage. The r-squared values between any two traits did not exceed 16%, suggesting that a reasonable combination of any two of the three traits is not an impossible task. The real challenge, however, is to combine high levels of all three traits.
Figure 2.12 The genotype-by-trait biplot involving three traits: grain yield (YIELD), groat percentage (GROAT), and β-glucan concentration (BGL). (Biplot based on trait-standardized data and trait-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
Among the check cultivars, Dancer had an excellent groat percentage but a low β-glucan level. Morgan had an excellent yield potential but below average groat and β-glucan levels. Leggett was a well-rounded cultivar; it is positioned near the biplot origin, meaning that it had an average level for each of the three traits. Among the breeding lines, OA1225-2, OA1343-1, and OA1348-1 exhibited a combination of high grain yield and high groat percentage. Unfortunately, and as expected, they also had low β-glucan levels. In contrast, genotypes with high levels of β-glucan (e.g., 06p30-a13a4 and many of its “sisters”) resulted in low grain yield, low groat percentage, or both. Some genotypes produced modest groat percentage and β-glucan concentration (e.g., 06p29-a26b5 and 06p29-a26e4) but also produced the lowest grain yields in the test. Some genotypes produced a combination of modest β-glucan and grain yield (e.g., 06p30-a13b4) but nearly the lowest groat percentages. Some genotypes produced very high groat percentages (OA1341-1 and OA1342-2) but only average grain yields and nearly the lowest levels of β-glucan. No single genotype produced a good combination of all three traits.
Therefore, the real challenge in breeding for an ideal milling oat is not lack of genetic variation for any single trait nor undesirable associations between any two traits but the three-way association between grain yield, groat percentage, and β-glucan concentration, as depicted in Figure 2.12. This three-way association was repeatedly observed in the Canadian Prairies trials (Yan et al., 2011). These three traits are interconnected in such a way that improving the level of any one leads to the decrease of one or both of the other two. Thus, combining any two traits at a higher level would almost certainly lead to the lowering of the level of the third. Admittedly, groat percentage and grain yield were not negatively correlated; however, their simultaneous improvement was accompanied by lower β-glucan levels. Adding other traits to this picture, such as oil and protein concentrations and other traits listed in Table 2.1, would add further complexity to the breeding task.
2.4 Strategies of breeding for an ideal milling oat
Given the three-way association among grain yield, groat percentage, and β-glucan concentration (Figure 2.12), a two-step selection strategy is proposed here for breeding ideal milling oats. This strategy consists of independent culling followed by comprehensive selection based on an integrated index.
2.4.1 Step 1: Independent culling to select for promising genotypes
Independent culling is conducted using check cultivars as a reference to set a bar (minimum required level) for each key trait. Although the check cultivars differ from each other in various ways, they are all considered milling oats and meet the minimum requirements for each of the key traits. For each trait, the check cultivar that shows the lowest level of that trait was used as a bar to reject breeding lines. All breeding lines performing below this bar for any single trait were discarded, no matter how well they performed for other traits. Thus, only those that exceeded the bar for all three traits were retained for the second step of selection.
In the data set discussed here, there were six check cultivars (Bradley, Dancer, Leggett, Morgan, Orrin, and Rigodon). The poorest check cultivars for β-glucan, groat percentage, and grain yield were Dancer, Morgan, and Leggett, respectively, so they were used to set the bar for each respective trait (Figure 2.13). Using these criteria, only 13 of the 90 new breeding lines were tentatively selected (Table 2.4). Figure 2.13 is a snapshot of the “multitrait selection against checks” tool in the GGE biplot software package (www.ggebiplot.com) used in this work, which allows easy selection of the appropriate check cultivar for each trait and setting of the bar relative to the check for each trait. However, independent culling can be conducted with other software packages with the same functionality; even a spreadsheet will do the job.
Figure 2.13 A snapshot of the “multitrait selection against checks” tool in the GGE biplot software. This tool offers flexibility for choosing traits to be used in selection, check cultivars to be used as references for each trait, and the cut-off value (bar) to be used to reject genotypes.
Table 2.4 Trait values of the genotypes retained after independent culling.
2.4.2 Step 2: Index selection to identify promising genotypes
Breeding lines that survive independent culling may not be better than the current check cultivars. Given the negative correlations among traits, it is essential to develop an integrated index, so that genotypes can be compared for overall superiority. This involves standardizing the data by trait, assigning a weight to each trait, and then applying weights to calculate a superiority index for each genotype. The weights are subjective and reflect the researcher's understanding of the relative importance of each trait. For example, on the basis of independent culling, weights may be given to the three traits as grain yield (1.0), groat percentage (0.8), and β-glucan concentration (0.6) (Figure 2.14). A superiority index can then be calculated and the genotypes ranked accordingly (Table 2.5).
Table 2.5 Ranking of the genotypes after independent culling.
Figure 2.14 A snapshot of the “multitrait decision maker” in the GGE biplot software. This tool combines three selection strategies: independent selection based on any trait to select useful parents, independent culling based on key traits to reject inferior genotypes, and index selection to rank genotypes based on an integrated index. The index selection component was used to generate Table 2.5.
Although 13 breeding lines were accepted as potential cultivars, only one line (OA1357-2) was ranked better than the best ranked check cultivar (Orrin) and only four lines (OA1357-2, OA1225-2, OA1347-2, and OA1347-3) were ranked better than the second best ranked check cultivar (Dancer). These lines deserve more attention in future tests. Table 2.5 was generated by the “multitrait decision maker” of the GGE biplot software package (Figure 2.14) but any other software with similar functionality can accomplish this task.
Another way to compare the accepted lines with the check cultivars is to display the data from Table 2.4 in a biplot (Figure 2.15). Similar to the biplots shown in Figures 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12, this biplot shows a negative correlation between groat percentage and β-glucan concentration across the 19 genotypes (6 check cultivars and 13 breeding lines). Grain yield did not correlate with either of these two traits. These relationships are reflected in the trait profiles of the genotypes. OA1357-2, which ranked first in Table 2.5, had a good combination of grain yield and β-glucan level. Unfortunately, but expectedly, it had a below-average groat level and is, therefore, not an ideal milling oat cultivar as defined earlier in this chapter. OA1225-2, ranked third in Table 2.5, had a combination of above-average groat percentage and grain yield but below-average β-glucan level. Therefore, it is not an ideal milling oat, either. A truly ideal milling oat cultivar would combine the characteristics of OA1357-2 and Dancer. Are such cultivars obtainable?
Figure 2.15 The genotype-by-trait biplot involving three traits and 19 selected genotypes, which approximates the mean trait levels of the six check cultivars and 13 promising genotypes for grain yield (YIELD), groat percentage (GROAT), and β-glucan concentration (BGL). (Biplot based on trait-standardized data and trait-focused singular value partition, SVP.)
2.5 Discussion
2.5.1 Identification of the main challenges
There are only three types of challenges for any plant breeding program: (i) insufficient genetic variability for each of the key traits that make up the ideotype; (ii) any genotype-by-environment interaction for each of the key traits; and (iii) undesirable associations among the key traits. Although germplasm availability sets the ultimate limitation to the improvement of any crop type, the breeder must assume that the current germplasm pool has sufficient genetic variability to make further progress, even though the second and third types of challenges may be rooted in the first challenge and can be solved only by the introduction of new germplasm.
The genotype-by-location interactions observed for each of the key traits in the 2011 Nationwide Oat Test were small to moderate and, therefore, did not constitute a great challenge. Of course, this conclusion is based on data from only a single year and the genotype-by-year interaction may constitute a greater challenge. Another important reason for this result may be that the test locations belong to a relatively homogeneous mega-environment. By definition, a mega-environment is a subregion for the production of a given crop within which the same genotype(s) perform best across years at all representative locations. Very large genotype-by-location interactions can occur by including a wider range of test locations. However, once mega-environments are well defined, and selections are confined to a single mega-environment, genotype-by-location interactions become a minor challenge to breeding progress. It is necessary to base decisions on data from multiple representative test locations. Very large genotype-by-year interactions can occur within a mega-environment. There is not much the researcher can do other than to base selections on data from multiple years, which slows breeding progress. The challenge imposed by strong genotype-by-year interactions can be relieved only by developing higher yielding and more stable genotypes, which may depend on introducing new germplasm.
Undesirable associations among key traits are the greatest challenge identified in this chapter. Four undesirable pairwise associations were identified, but the three-way association among grain yield, groat percentage, and β-glucan concentration was the most important. Among the 90 new breeding lines, some were identified to have a good combination of grain yield and β-glucan (e.g., OA1357-2) or a good combination of grain yield and groat percentage (e.g., OA1225-2). However, no lines exhibited a good combination of all three traits. Given the persistent negative association between groat percentage and β-glucan, it is fair to ask whether it is possible to develop such a cultivar.
2.5.2 The possibility of developing a truly ideal milling oat cultivar
To tackle this question, it is necessary to examine how groat percentage and β-glucan concentration are defined. Groat percentage is calculated as:
which predetermines a negative correlation between groat percentage and grain yield. In fact, it is necessary to ask why the correlation was positive although nonsignificant (0.086) rather than the expected −1 (Table 2.3). The explanation is that the large genetic variability in groat yield among the genotypes overcame the negative relationship between its two components, grain yield and groat percentage.
Similarly, β-glucan concentration is calculated as:
which can be expressed as:
From this formula, it is not surprising that β-glucan was negatively correlated with both grain yield and groat percentage. On the contrary, it is surprising that the correlations were not stronger (Table 2.3). The reason is that large genetic variability exists among the genotypes in terms of β-glucan yield per unit area of land. Therefore, the only way to combine these three traits in a single genotype is to increase the genetic potential of oats in terms of β-glucan yield per unit area of land. This is similar to the idea of Cervantes-Martinez and colleagues, who proposed that improving β-glucan yield could simultaneously improve both β-glucan content and grain yield (Cervantes-Martinez et al., 2002). Although achieving this goal is a challenging task, there is no concrete evidence that the genetic potential of β-glucan yield in oats has been reached and cannot be further improved. In other words, it may be possible to develop an ideal milling oat that combines all three traits at a high level. However, this possibility would again lie in the introduction of new germplasm.
2.5.3 Long-term goals and current strategies
The reality is that it is difficult to combine all three traits at a high level, but it is relatively easy to combine two of the three traits at relatively high levels. Therefore, it may be meaningful to define subideal breeding goals that are more achievable. There may be three types of subideal oat cultivars:
Currently, there are examples of Type I (e.g., OA1225-2) and Type II (e.g., OA1357-2), but an example for Type III is still lacking. Currently all known high β-glucan cultivars or breeding lines exhibit only intermediate groat percentage at best. Type III does not yet exist, but it is an essential step toward developing a truly ideal milling oat.
Are the subideal Type I and Type II genotypes acceptable to the producer–miller–consumer oat value chain? They probably are, with a condition. Type I genotypes must have an acceptable β-glucan level, so that the oat products derived from their grains can be labeled as healthy food. Type II genotypes must have an acceptable groat level, so that oat millers can draw a profit. This can be achieved through independent culling using acceptable cultivars as references, as described earlier. Breeding lines that survive independent culling will surpass existing cultivars. Breeding lines with merits relative to check cultivars can be selected based on a single superiority index, as described earlier. These lines will inevitably fall into the Type I or Type II subideal group or somewhere in between.
Classifying promising genotypes into proper subideal groups can be beneficial to breeders, producers, and oat processors. It can help the breeders choose parent cultivars, formulate new crosses, and select among the progenies. It may help the producer choose cultivars according to their intended end use. Finally, it may help processors to select cultivars to purchase oat grains from. All stakeholders in the oat value chain have important roles in shaping the breeding programs. They can help the breeder choose the cultivars to be used as checks in independent culling and decide the weights for each of the key traits to determine the superiority index.
As a final note: the data set discussed in this chapter was used only to demonstrate concepts and methods. Although the comments on the check cultivars are consistent with long-term observations, the comments on the new breeding lines should be considered tentative, because they are based on data from only a single year.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following colleagues who contributed to obtaining the 2011 Nationwide Oat Test data: Richard Martin, Allan Cummiskey, Denis Pageau, Isabelle Morasse, John Roswell, John Kobler, Dorothy Sibbitt, Brad DeHaan, Steve Thomas, Aaron Beattie, Tom Zatorski, Kim Stadnyk, and Wes Dyck. The Nationwide Oat Test project was funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and the Prairie Oat Growers' Association (POGA).
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2010) Oats: Situation and Outlook. Market Outlook Report [Online]. Available: http://www.agr.gc.ca/pol/mad-dam/pubs/rmar/pdf/rmar_02_03_2010-08-03_eng.pdf (last accessed 18 April 2013).
Baker, R.J. and McKenzie, R.I.H. (1972) Heritability of oil content in oats Avena sativa L. Crop Science2, 201–202.
Cervantes-Martinez, C.T., et al. (2001) Selection for greater β-glucan content in oat grain. Crop Science41, 1085–1091.
Cervantes-Martinez, C.T., et al
