Thousand faces of the wheat - Nil novum sub sole (Part 1)

Our complicated and extremely artificial – therefore unhealthy – man-made economic environment and the consumption of highly contaminated food products are responsible for the continually rising numbers of chronic diseases. And also for the rising numbers of the allergic, inflamed and catarrhals; the so-called incurable articular and cutaneous diseases are increasing, the occurance of gynecological and urological maladies are more distressing, the autoimmune diseases are already appearing in very young age.

The desire of mankind for a plant which can harmonically give us almost all the essential nutriments (major proteins, carbohydrates, fats, dietary fibers, vitamins etc.) that can satisfy the needs of the human organism has come true again for the third Millennium. It existed in the prehistoric age and in the antiquity, maybe even in the middle age but with the population explosion following the new age together with professional short sight, it has been forgotten.

The species from the Triticum genus gave, give and will give the most important basic food of mankind (complemented with rice in monsoon regions) and major rate of forage. The reason of this popularity that protein and carbohydrate content is relatively balanced in them. But there are significant differences per species. The common wheat belongs to those which have lower physiological effects. The wheat has adopted well to the temperate zone – it comes from there – where the majority of the population can be found.

Historical overview

It was 8-10.000 BC in Asia Minor, when the spelt – the untreshable, hulled wheat – had appeared in the diet of the neolithic man. Its kernel size was bigger than other ancient wheats, that is why it had become popular. After another 2-3000 years, bare-type wheats were also consumed by men. The settlement, the beginning of cultivation had started in this period – the prehistoric man used artificial selection, namely, he systematically propagated the mutated spelt forms (which became treshable) further. 3-4000 years BC, in the territory of recent Hungary, the spelt and bare wheat were already there.

The wheat got norther with the wanderings, and with the activities of the early trademen as the inhabitation happened. Excavational traces in present Switzerland, Austria and southern areas of Germany can testify the cultivation of spelt in 2-3000 years BC.

In the Antiquity and Middle Age, adaptive regional varieties of the already widespread species were the main food-material for the majority of mankind for hundreds of years.

From the middle of 19th century, we have been only knowing the ordinary food varieties, in international level the durum started to spread in the 20th century, then from the middle of 1990s the spelt (as a more ancient wheat) has been trying to take root again – with little success.

Why was the wheat of old ages forgotten?

In the 19th century, the European and the US population went through a demographic explosion as the effect of the industrial revolution. The productions from the regional varieties of the common wheat that has been grown thus far, could not keep up with the standards that time.

Cross-breedings had started, the artificial selection and crossings had transpired (Mendel-thesis).

The quality of those aestivum types which belonged to the first breeding circle was quite good (14-15% crude protein), they exceeded the contemporary average yields with 20-40%. They were bare, had shorter stem, therefore they satisfied the new (early mechanization) demands. They served mankind for almost 50-60 years, but with the push of pathogens in the first decades of the 20th century, a change was needed.

However, by that time the scientific world has forgotten the ancient lines and they reached for the crossing method again; they mixed those aestivum genotypes which were able to adapt in several continents. USA and Canada succeeded the most in this task, currently the best common wheat for bread-making is can be found there.

In Hungary, in the 1950s, the good-quality, awned, but quite weak-stemmed Bánkúti, Fleichmann, Fertődi varieties were spread. In the meantime, the news about Leibig’s law of the minimum reached Hungary, therefore fertilization and plant protection has started. These varieties were not fit for the technical innovation. So, the soviet Bezostaja with shorter-stem, medium-quality, good nutrient-reaction appeared, then the italian Libellula and San Pastore with more lower feed-quality followed, specifically developed for fertilization.

The path-searching has been continued and the varieties of the yugoslav Rana appeared. These types were able to show 6-8 t/ha yields with the help of intensive plant protection and heavy application of fertilizers. But in the same time we destroyed our soils (with maize monocultures as well), we forgot the organic manuring – although it was always educated – soil life has ceased, the waters have started the nitrification.

Fortunately, life has intervened! The world has finally realized the finite availability of fossil fuels, therefore the prices of energy resources exponentially started to increase, which of course affected the prime costs of agricultural products.

We can say, that nature takes back what was taken from her, therefore it is better if we give her back before! The environmental awareness must be secured by the principle of balance.

This rendition meant a very small amount decrease in chemicals. Meanwhile in 1989 a turn of events happened. As the result of the severely decreasing expenditures, the average yield of cereal grains started to to fall. Why? The used varieties were only able to grow and show appropriate quality with the fertilization and plant protection. They were over-bred for genotype, their ecological adaptability has ceased.

The new hungarian varieties appearing from the middle-end of 1990s have a slightly better quality comparing to the last decades. There are some adaptive varieties, but the prime cost is still higher than the american with 30-40% and the quality is not better.

Why the hungarian wheat is not bought in a calculable way than it was before? Why the availability of the good price is rapsodic in the correlation of demand and supply? Except the years of 2003 and 2007. Because it is not economical, it’s expensive! USA, Australia, Canada, Agrentina are satisfied with 3 t/ha average yield, they still economical, and their quality is almost the same as the hungarian (not to mention other Western-European wheats).

Although Western-Europe grows a lot of wheat, the quality is still low, protein content is 10-12%, it is hardly good for forage. That’s why the european forage needs 80% transgenic soy, maize gluten, argentine sunflower meal, distillers grains (DDGS), all from overseas.

If there are a lot of wheat then the price is low, and that is a problem. If there is a low yield then the price is high (as currently) it is also a problem, especially in animal husbandry. This unbalanced and unreliable yield level is mainly responsible for the downfall of the domestic stock-raising.

The farming practice cannot eliminate the weather anomalies and the weaker production site abilities without paradigm shift.

The land area of Hungary could produce more food-material than its needed for feeding the population, consequently the currrent problems have been induced artificially!

Thus, the grain production was and still is in crisis in Hungary, as in other countries of Europe. The governance of the EU’s agriculture has not found (or they does not even intend to) the appropriate answer for correcting the fallback from the US yet.

Briefly about GMO

The science and the breeding have been trying worldwide to make such crops which are mostly fit enough for our physiological needs – not just in evolutionary way. (Controlled mutations, irradiations, anther-manipulations, biotechnological genetic engineering etc.) But the present and recent past human methods (mostly the GM) – which ignore the ecosystem – are not in compliance with the principles of the living world, so they cannot result substantial success in long term.

It may only have justification for industrial purpose – and only those which will not get into the food chain (biodiesel, bioethanol, cotton) – but only if the environmental pollution is 100% exterminable (pollenscatter, blending etc.). Technological discipline must be fully kept (like during the production of chemicals, medicines, in operation of nuclear power plants).

There is no more dangerous activity for wildlife than this! Because it is able to reproduce itself! Life wants to grow, to multiply constantly. It is only waiting for the opportunity, and not for the stimulus to do it.

Why is GMO needed?

In the case of such transgenetic crops in which the new genetic material has no relation with the original plant, not even in genus, the technology is absolutely against the evolution. It only serves the business interests of their makers with support of intellectual but still pseudoscientific argument. Where are the most GMO’s grown? In the US, in Brazil and in Argentina. These countries are huge, their population density is low (in the US 25 pop./km2; in Brazil and Argetina 15-20 pop./km2) And what is that number in the EU? Approximately 150 pop./km2. So, we live here ten times as many as them, therefore the harmful effects from there will appear faster and more powerful here, in Europe!

The genestock of these crops has already narrowed, consequence: their production still costs more. In 6-8 years, resistant pathogens and pests had appeared, so the promised positive effects haven’t proved true. Those who have been growing GMO’s since 8-10 years, would run away – if they could – from growing of those crops.

These are some elemental truths:

besides the freedom of research, it should not hail irreversible consequences to the society and wildlife – without restrictions
liberalism and free trade is necessary, until that point when the inhuman greed starts to abuse with it
science is not able to teach us what is right, therefore it can not make us happy
only the direct and close observation of the liveing material can lead to results of capital importance, but…
the analysis, the mathematical complex of details in living organs mostly have nothing to do with the essence of the whole
the depths of our biological ignorance regarding the essence of life is shocking, therefore…
it’s so childishly naive hoping to fix, or create better organisms, when we do not understand their structure and mostly their function yet.

Only 30-40% of biological potential of the traditionally bred varieties is being exploited, even the best farmers are unable to exploit more than max. 50%. This is where we should look for solutions first.

We forgot that nature – it has had one thousand years to do it – has created the perfect, suitable vegetal diversity for every larger geological regions and climate zones. Each plant has the proper specification for the superior species living each territory (mammals, humans). These crops are currently shaping, changing, we only have to notice!

Life is built upon identical and finite principles. The first is organization. The process of evolution is not a coincidence.

Under organization we mean when two or more part-processes are becoming one; something new is being born, which quality is not equal with the complexity of the quality of part-processes’ and absolutely not definable by knowing of these qualities. So, the organisation created with synthesis is not understandable by analysis.

Biological phenomenons are mostly the expressions of variations which take place in dimensions (quantum-biophysics) unknown for the smoother, classic chemistry and biochemistry. We are only in the stoneage of genetechnology. That’s why there is a small hope that we can analyse the interactions of large molecules like proteins and nucleic acids in the near future. The mapped genes give the structure (skeleton) of the DNA, but do we know their essence? Can we figure out the operation of human organism by the skeleton? No, we can not.

We should know the essence of the function and the process of energy transformation. In the DNA, it is based on the motions and interactions of the electrons.

Testing the newer and newer varieties (not GM-s) in public growing, and the narrowing of variety change to 8-12 years, is clearly not for to satisfy the quality, the customer needs and the healthy food, but they are the frequent mistakes of the overdriven market-acquiring struggle and the not always rational marketing activity. They still cannot tolerate the climate anomalies. The more intensive the chemical use is, the weaker the physiological effect of the product will be.

The efficiency of the crude protein transformation decreased from 70-75% to 55-65%. In case of the environmentally sound spelts this number is 85-90%.

Beyond satisfying the food demands, the problems of energy-supply have come to the front which just sharpened the situation.

Although there is re-pricing regarding agricultural goods, valorization regarding the future of renewable energy unfortunately there is a much greater raw material-competition is in development between the energetic goods and food related agricultural goods. (Worth to take a look at China: though they have the most money even so, they have halted bioethanol investments to have food and forage. Food is more important than the composition of fuel. Food is the primary strategic product!)

In the interest of solving these stressing tasks, we have to find new, undiscovered ways no one has ever walked before. It is not enough to recognize the problems – this is not so hard if you have proper discretion – but more important to remedy them which is harder.

The outlined negative effects so far, made me to look for new ways in order to reform the wheat-growing excercise. I realized that the breeding strategy has barely been changed in the last 40-50 years (except GMO) not just in Hungary but abroad. They have been trying to mix the variations, varieties from the genebanks in order to create something with better value (P5%=SzD5%).

While I was searching for new ways – in 1993 – I became acquinted with the spelt. I recognized its high specification, remarkable tillering, lesser demands, frost and drought tolerance, relative disease-tolerance as positive features. I also noticed negative features: excessive height, late ripenning, untreshability, earbreaks at harvest etc. Among the negativities, I considered untreshability and yield losses as the most significant (it has influence to the uniformity of the vegetation). The tight demand can tolerate these negativites a bit because of the quality. However it cannot get to the majority of consumers because of the high final product price. Therefore it remains unknown for public consumption. Thus: „Healthy lifestyle is the privilege of the wealthy only?!” Far from it, especially from the third Millennium! I have found the treshable form of the spelt, among others, the novum wheat!

Generally it is impossible to convience elder people about anything new. The man’s acts are determined by the values formed during the younger age. If something unusual and new comes to the front; the reception might happen in two ways:

1. The audience has minimal knowledge, adequate intelligence, so they are open minded towards their narrow and wide surroundings. In this case, only the intellectual knowledge is not sufficient (mostly disadvantagous).

2. Faith. If we don’t know anything about the subject, not even superficially then only faith remains. But not just regarding parts of the issue, but towards the presenter, if the presenter shows professional, persuasive and suggestive.

Keeping in mind the requirements of sustainability, I have put into words strategic questions widely different from the current exercise regarding the renewal of the wheat:

Is there a possibility for higher protein content than then the current 12-14%?
Does it make sense to concentrate only to 2-5mm/h of spreading?
How is it possible to reduce the current expense level with 20-30%?
How can we avoid direct fertilization which seems to be always required?
How can we take out chemical weed control?
Is the accustumed 220-260 kg/ha seed-dose necessary?
What is the best solution regarding plant protection?
Are there lines with good tillering?
What is the optimal height for the given utilization?
Is there any realistic, and moreover profitable base for biomass-production?
Are there variations with amino-acid content close to animal protein?
Can nonpollution and harmonic relation to habitat (process of contradiction and interaction) couple with 4-5 t/ha yield at least?
What utilization trends can it fulfill?

Will the old saying prove to be true?! 'Nil novum sub sole – There is nothing new under the sun.' We just have to look for it. This is what breeding stations dislike. Although there is a collection of at least 30.000 wheat variations in the world, it is a huge work to determine which have the most advantageous behaviour in the current environment besides providing good quality. Analyzing only one line – not in planthouse, phytotron – under natural circumstances is at least 10-15 years. It is hard to undertake this is what they dislike, because breeders are interested in partial results. This is the main reason for that in the EU there are much more wheat varieties than it is necessary.

To be continued...