IdentityPreserved Systems A REFERENCE HANDBOOK
IdentityPreserved Systems A REFERENCE HANDBOOK Dennis Strayer
CRC PR E S S Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
This handbook, written under the auspices of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, does not necessarily represent the views of that organization. Responsibility for any errors or omissions remains with the author. The use of product or service names does not imply endorsement by the author.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Strayer, Dennis. Identity-preserved systems : a reference handbook / Dennis Strayer. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 0-8493-1390-2 (alk. paper) 1. Grain—Standards—United States. 2. Grain—Certification—United States. 3. Farm produce—Standards—United States. 4. Farm Produce—Certification—United States. 5. Transgenic plants—Standards—United States. 6. Transgenic plants—Certification—United States. 7. Grain trade—United States. 8. Produce trade—United States. I. Title. SB189.8 .S77 2002 633.1′02′1873—dc21
2002276806
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC for such copying. Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.
Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com © 2002 by CRC Press LLC No claim to original U.S. Government works International Standard Book Number 0-8493-1390-2 Library of Congress Card Number 2002276806 Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Printed on acid-free paper
PREFACE
The idea for an identity-preserved (IP) handbook originated in the U.S. commodity grain trade. The first need was seen as an effort by grain and oilseed traders to protect their own place in world trade. The U.S. position and ability in world grain trade was being questioned. U.S. grain and oilseed trading industries saw the need to take a new initiative to protect their market share in world trade. Identity-preserved products were becoming much more prominent in these markets. An identity-preserved system would facilitate the segregation of shipments of grains or oilseeds that are distinguishable, by some morphological, physiological, or other characteristic, from other shipments. Even though the current emphasis was centered on the genetically modified organism (GMO) issue, the long-term opportunities in identity-preserved products will develop from specialty grain and oilseed traits, whether perfected through conventional or transgenic breeding methods. The U.S. trade saw the opportunity (and probably a great need) to demonstrate the unified ability to provide identity-preserved crops to widespread markets. The U.S. has a well-established niche marketing effort that has served specialty markets for many years. Even though this effort was well established it was fragmented rather than unified. Individual efforts have basically met the markets’ needs. At this point in time, with tremendous growth in demand for identity-preserved products, there is increased opinion within the grain, oilseed, and specialty trade industries that the U.S. needs a unified and sophisticated identity-preserved program. A proposal to develop identity-preserved guidelines, in the form of a user’s handbook that could be used by various parties in the industries as they enter into new identity-preserved enterprises surfaced. The program would need to be flexible enough to allow the development of individual company programs within the overall framework of the broader program, yet demonstrate a unified U.S. effort. This unified program would help to make evident to buyers and consumers that the well-respected U.S. grain industry has the ability and means to deliver identity-preserved products, even in large quantities. Interest in a system that was not government based, but which may utilize the services of government grain inspection agencies, seems to prevail. The U.S. grain and oilseed trade is rapidly changing from commodity-based trade to value-enhanced crops that require some system of separation from their commodity counterparts and verification methods to assure that this segregation is accurate. With the availability of crops with specific value-enhanced traits it is becoming important to maintain those traits from the grower to the end user manufacturer and ultimately the consumer. As the U.S. grain and oilseed production and trade infrastructure moves into this specialized area, it is becoming apparent that a system of preserving the identity of these crops from farm to market must be implemented which producers all the way to overseas buyers understand.
This program will be based on systems used in the seed and niche crop industries that have been in place for many years. These systems are well understood by these specialty industries but have not been used within the commodity grain and oilseed industries. As the rapidly expanding production of specialized crops moves from the small niche markets into trade where commodity people and facilities will be utilized, it is becoming important that these entities become aware of systems that will be demanded by end users to assure them of values within the value-chain. It is essential to develop a system of identity-preserved verification, which will allow the U.S. seed, specialty crop, and grain and oilseed industries to easily provide products, which can be identified with a paper trail verifying identity, product quality, and special characteristics. The handbook should be very “user-friendly” for not only parties involved in IP trade but also people not directly involved in trade but who have concerns for product integrity as affected by identity preservation. The handbook will describe an overall IP system, which may be utilized in ways that will meet the particular needs of parties involved in specific trade agreements. The system can be adapted to work with “in-house” documentation, third-party verification, or third-party system accreditation. The handbook will discuss the background of IP systems originating in the seed industry, the basics of a total IP system, and the potential electronic transfer of data and documents. IP is rapidly becoming of major importance in world trade of agricultural crops that are enhanced genetically, grown under specific conditions, or have specific characteristics, which must be identified and maintained from the seed planted to the delivery of the crop to the end user. This proposal is an effort to unify the U.S. position in IP crops, to outline the protocol for IP systems, and to provide a handbook that may be used by various parties in the value-chain of this production and marketing effort. As the project evolved it became much more centered on providing a reference for the development and utilization of IP systems rather than the protection of U.S. trading efforts. The concept of this handbook began to emerge in 1999 as the grain trade and niche market industries recognized the changing atmosphere of world trade in agricultural products. The stratifications of these markets demonstrated the need for guidelines to product segregation and traceability. At first proposal the author, as a consultant, was approached to write an identity-preservation handbook for an individual company. Early in the negotiation of that proposed project the company determined that the industry was really dictating an industry-wide protocol that would be acceptable by traders around the world. Approaches to commodity groups and other broad industry organizations pointed toward a very neutral party such as the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) to provide auspices to the project. AOSCA is further identified in section 1.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Groups and individuals
Broad acknowledgment: As the concept of this handbook began to emerge it was apparent that wide audiences would best receive it if it were endorsed by some official entity. Early in the planning stages of the project it was determined that the industry was really dictating an industrywide protocol that would be acceptable by traders around the world. Approaches to commodity groups and other broad industry organizations pointed toward a very neutral party such as the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) to provide auspices to the project. AOSCA is further identified in section 1.
Special acknowledgments: Alan Galbraith, of Indiana Crop Improvement Association, provided viewpoints from a third-party certifying agency’s position. Dr. Arnel Hallauer, C. F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor in Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, provided a corn breeder’s review of technical information in biology, genetics, and biotechnology. His review and comments on the entire handbook were very much appreciated. Dr. Paul D. Meints, Assistant Professor, Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, provided insight into the technical areas of biotechnology. His review of the handbook and suggestions provided valuable analysis from an academic viewpoint. Numerous Association of Official Seed Certifying Agency members from various agencies reviewed the handbook and made comments and suggestions.
INTRODUCTION TO HANDBOOK: What to expect
This handbook is written under the auspices of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA). This introduction to the handbook describes the goals and the handbook itself. The introduction to identity-preservation in section 1 will introduce the subject in more detail and also the AOSCA organization.
Goals of this handbook regarding the topic of identity preservation • • • • • • •
Establish a position of uniformity Provide a comprehensive background Develop the basis for uniform protocols Enhance the concept of a team effort to trade Provide industry people with a reference handbook Gather a wealth of information in one document Provide the basis for individual programs that will demonstrate a unified effort
Features of this handbook which make it important • • •
•
The handbook is generated by an unbiased, third party Industries involved have provided limited overview of the project to ensure that the material produced meets industry and end user needs and is user-friendly The handbook encompasses government regulations where appropriate but the intent should not be to generate new regulations and that if possible the identity-preserved crops industries should remain self-regulated The handbook educates industries to the services and laboratory facilities of various unbiased, third-party, AOSCA individual agencies
Intent of this handbook •
The handbook develops the basis for systems of identity-preserved (IP) verification, which will allow the U.S. seed, specialty crop, and grain and oilseed industries to easily provide products, which can be identified with documentation, whether it is a paper trail or an electronic trail, verifying identity, product quality, and special characteristics. The handbook is designed to be very “user-friendly” for not only parties involved in identity-preserved trade but also people not directly involved in trade but who have concerns for product integrity as affected by identity preservation.
•
The handbook describes an overall identity-preserved system, which may be utilized in ways that will meet the particular needs of parties involved in specific trade agreements. The system can be adapted to work with “in-house” documentation, third-party verification, or third-party system accreditation and auditing. The handbook discusses the background of IP systems originating in the seed industry, the basics of a total IP system, and the potential electronic transfer of data and documents.
About this handbook
For easy reference, this handbook has 14 sections divided into three parts. It also has an appendix. This handbook will be an important reference for people developing identity-preserved systems. A “workbook” has been developed, for use of people working within an identity-preserved system, which is basically one section of the handbook.
How to use
To begin, please read the first three sections, or Part I. This gives a good background and an overview of identity preservation and some important concepts and terminology that will be basic to the rest of the handbook. Part II is briefly described on the next page and works through the considerations important in developing an identity-preserved system. This part completes an analysis of the development of a system. Part III covers several separate related topics that you can pick and choose for reading, without concern for order.
Part I: Introduction and theory
Section 1: Introduction: Background and project objectives. Introduces the topic of identity preservation and provides discussion of background to build a base for the handbook itself. The section defines IP, discusses the purpose of the handbook, identifies the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), provides an overview of the seed industry and the grain and IP industries. Section 2: Crop differentiation: Self-pollinated crops versus crosspollinated. Provides background basic to field production of crops as related to crop pollination methods. The pollination method or flower type for each crop influences the potential contamination by outside pollen. Section 3: Basics of an identity-preserved (IP) system. Details the basics as well as the theory behind an IP system. More details of the system itself and mechanics will follow later.
Part II: Application
Section 4: A complete value-chain IP system. Details the development of a complete IP system, based on theories presented in section 3, for the entire value-chain for an IP product. This section is almost a “stand-alone” handbook for an IP system, without some of the background and support materials presented throughout the rest of the handbook. Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems. Reviews how an IP system works and briefly overviews the economic considerations from a more application oriented or operational point of view. A “workbook” approach is introduced as section 5a. Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing. Introduces the additional inspection, sampling, and testing which differentiates an IP system from a commodity system. Section 7: Verification and documentation requirements. Covers verification and documentation requirements that also differentiate IP. The records or documentation that puts the verification in writing will be part of the entire IP process. Section 8: Third-party inspection, testing, and verification. Discusses the use of third parties to inspect, test, and verify parts of the IP system. This option for any IP program has philosophies and ramifications that need to be considered when developing an IP program.
Part III: Separate related topics
Section 9: Innovations in IP. Looks at some of the innovations in the rapidly developing IP industry. Section 10: Implications for each value-chain level. Reviews some of the implications for each party in a value-chain. Understanding the responsibilities of all parties in a valuechain is an important factor in the success of an IP system. Section 11: Scenarios regarding the demand for IP crops. The scenarios developing regarding the demand for IP crops are changing constantly. This section reviews what is happening at this point in time. Section 12: GMO: Genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have recently influenced the demand for IP products. This poses some unique IP requirements in a very complex subject. Section 13: Country requirements for importation. Some countries have developed standards for IP products. This presents challenges for exporters to be aware of these requirements. Section 14: Existing IP systems. Existing IP systems are reviewed in this constantly emerging industry.
Part IV:
Appendices The appendices offer several presentations that are referenced in the handbook text, which are easier to present in this format than in the text itself. Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E
Seed Certifying Agencies AOSCA Summary of IP Services Organizations Related to IP Acronyms Used in Agriculture and World Trade Adventitious Pollen Intrusion into Hybrid Maize Seed Production Fields – research paper
Glossary Defines words and phrases used in agriculture, identity preservation, and world trade that may not be familiar to all readers. It is suggested that it be used frequently, as needed. The handbook is intended to be non-technical, but because of the subject matter some words and terms may be foreign to some readers.
Who are you?
You may fit one of these categories: •
You have experience working with IP systems – and want to expand your knowledge
•
You have no experience working with IP systems – and want to get started
•
You are involved with the food production chain, but are not directly involved with the IP system – but want some background
•
You don’t really care about IP – but someone told you if you were concerned about food safety you should know about IP
Hopefully the handbook will fill your needs – no matter which category you fit.
From the supply side of IP trade there are two broad categories of trade entities: •
Those involved in trading/exporting without experience with IP (The grain trade)
•
Those with IP experience but without grain trading experience (The niche market)
CONTENTS
Preface Acknowledgments Introduction to handbook Part I: Introduction and theory Section 1: Introduction: Background and project objectives
1 3
Section 2: Crop differentiation: Self-pollinated crops versus cross-pollinated
11
Section 3: Basics of an identity-preserved (IP) system
17
Part II: Application
27
Section 4: A complete value-chain IP system
29
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
41
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
83
Section 7: Verification and documentation requirements
101
Section 8: Third-party inspection, testing, and verification
107
Part III: Separate related topics
111
Section 9: Innovations in IP
113
Section 10: Implications for each value-chain level
117
Section 11: Scenarios regarding the demand for IP crops
123
Section 12: GMO: Genetically modified organisms
127
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
135
Section 14: Existing IP systems
147
Part IV: Appendices and glossary
167
Appendix A: Seed Certifying Agencies
171
Appendix B: AOSCA Summary of IP Services
181
Appendix C: Organizations Related to IP
183
Appendix D: Acronyms Used in Agriculture and World Trade
193
Appendix E: Adventitious Pollen Intrusion into Hybrid Maize Seed Production Fields – a research paper with analysis and interpretation for application to identity-preserved systems
195
Glossary
213
The author
227
Index
229
Tables and figures Table 1.1
Potential parties in a supply-chain or value-chain
10
Table 2.1
Crop flower types, pollination methods, and natural cross-pollination
16
Table 2.2
Crop isolation requirements and seed standards for certified seed production
16
Table 3.1
Example of potential contamination in IP corn
23
Table 3.2
Example of potential contamination in IP corn with higher allowed mixture in planting seed
23
Not labeled as tables or figures – Step-by-step procedures and checklists Table 10.1
The specialty soybean value-chain
52-81 119
Tables and figures as part of Japan Bulk Commodity non-GMO Soybeans and Corn Distribution Manual
139-145
Tables as part of Canadian Soybean Export Association – Approved Identity Preservation Standard
159-165
Appendix B AOSCA summary of individual agency IP services Tables as part of research paper – Adventitious Pollen Intrusion into Hybrid Maize Seed Production Fields
181 195-208
Section 1: Introduction: Background and project objectives
INTRODUCTION and THEORY
1
Part
I Section 1: Introduction: Background and project objectives Page 3 This section introduces the topic of identity-preservation (IP) and provides discussion of background to build a base for the handbook itself. The section defines IP, discusses the purpose of the handbook, identifies the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) and provides an overview of the seed industry and the grain and IP industries.
Section 2: Crop differentiation: Self-pollinated crops versus cross-pollinated Page 11 Provides background basic to field production of crops as related to crop pollination methods. The pollination method or flower type for each crop influences the potential contamination by outside pollen.
Section 3: Basics of an identity-preserved (IP) system Page 17 Details the basics as well as the theory behind an IP system. More details of the system itself and mechanics will follow later.
2
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Section 1: Introduction: Background and project objectives
INTRODUCTION: Background and project objectives
3
Section
1
Introduction to section: This section introduces the topic of identity-preservation (IP) and provides discussion of the purpose of the handbook, identifies the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), and provides an overview of the seed industry and the grain and IP industries. The vision, mission, and goals of the entire handbook are identified below:
Vision: A comprehensive, uniform identitypreserved plan for world trade
Objectives of section: The objective of this section is to provide the mission, goals, and background of the identity-preserved reference handbook.
Mission of handbook
This handbook’s mission is to develop a uniform basis for identitypreserved (IP) efforts, to outline the protocol for IP systems, and to provide a handbook that may be used by various parties in the valuechain of this production and marketing activity. The world grain and oilseed trade is rapidly changing from commodity-based trade to valueenhanced crops, which require some system of separation from their commodity counterparts and verification methods to assure that this segregation is accurate. 3
4
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP guidelines
This handbook will develop identity-preserved guidelines, in the form of a reference or user’s manual that can be used by various parties in the industries as they enter into new identity-preserved enterprises. The program is flexible enough to allow the development of individual company programs within the overall framework of the broader program, yet demonstrate a unified effort. A system of identity-preserved verification, which will allow the U.S. seed, specialty crop, and grain and oilseed industries to easily provide products, which can be identified with traceability verifying identity, product quality, and special characteristics. The handbook is “user-friendly” for not only parties involved in IP trade but also people not directly involved in trade but who have concerns for product integrity as affected by identity preservation.
Overall IP system
The handbook describes an overall IP system, which may be utilized in ways that will meet the particular needs of parties involved in specific trade agreements. The system can be adapted to work with “in-house” documentation, third-party verification, or third-party system accreditation and auditing. The handbook discusses the background of IP systems originating in the seed industry, the basics of a total IP system, and the potential electronic transfer of data and documents.
Goals
The ultimate goal is encompassed in the vision statement, which expanded would include the following specific goals: • • • • • •
“Channeling”
Provide a unified IP background and protocol for world grain, oilseed, and specialty crop industries Provide the grain and oilseed industry – growers, first buyers, and traders – with a comprehensive IP handbook Provide traders with a protocol to take to their customers Provide the basis for individual IP programs to meet specific customer needs Provide a place where the industry can go for answers on IP Gather IP information together in one document
Channeling is a recently coined term describing alternative marketing channels for various agricultural products. The term is usually applied within a commodity or crop type, such as high-oil corn. Specific market channels are developed to maintain segregation of products with or without certain attributes. Channeling may be accomplished by a wide range of marketing methods from contractual arrangements to simply identifying limits for specified grade-determining characteristics. Growers prior to planting establish a channeling market plan. Involved first-buyers or elevators must make arrangements for segregation throughout their facilities. Channeling describes several levels of segregated marketing dependent upon factors including attribute market value, the level of special handling and management required, risks involved, and the volume of the commodity handled in the export system. Identity preservation (IP) is the highest level of channeling – requiring a documented segregation system.
Section 1: Introduction: Background and project objectives
What is IP?
5
Identity preservation is a process or system of maintaining the segregation of and documenting the identity of a product. An IP system is a strict production and delivery method, which possesses procedures of an effective internal segregation system, that includes observing, inspecting, sampling, and testing to assure the presence (or absence) of certain traits. Identity preserved refers to a crop product that has identifiable characteristics which have been maintained from the seed planted to produce the crop through all steps of production and transportation to the end user. Growers must follow strict growing and handling practices, including segregation, inspections, and cleaning of equipment to prevent other varieties from mixing with or contaminating the IP variety. Other parties that handle, transport, condition, or process the IP product must also maintain and document a similar segregation system. The key to an IP system is traceability. Each production, processing, and delivery step is documented, so that products can be traced from the store shelf back to the farmers’ fields and every stage in between. Identity preservation (IP) is a process by which a crop is grown, usually under contract, and handled, conditioned, processed, and delivered under controlled conditions, whereby the end user of the product is assured that it has maintained its unique identity from the seed planted to the end user. In common use the process or system of “identity preservation” would result in an “identity-preserved” product. “IP” seems to be used interchangeably to identify both the system and the product. The definitions above look at IP from several different aspects. From this readers can pick what best suits their system needs.
What IP is not
It should be emphasized that identity preservation must include a system of verified steps following the crop through the entire production and delivery system. Testing crop samples as a stand-alone procedure does not qualify as an identity-preservation system.
ValueValue-enhanced enhanced products products
With specific value-enhanced traits it is important to maintain those traits from the grower to the end user manufacturer and ultimately the consumer. An identity-preservation system facilitates the segregation of shipments of grains or oilseeds that are distinguishable, by some morphological, physiological, or other characteristic, from other shipments. Even though the current emphasis may be centered on the genetically modified organism (GMO) issue, the long-term opportunities in identity-preserved products will develop from specialty grain and oilseed traits, whether perfected through conventional or transgenic breeding methods.
6
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Purpose of handbook
This handbook is an effort to unify IP efforts, to outline the protocol for IP systems, and to provide a written document (handbook) that may be used by various parties in the value-chain of this production and marketing effort. The intent is not to provide an IP program, but rather to provide the basis for users to develop their own programs to fit their specific IP situations. Identity-preservation systems will all have very similar basic protocols, but may have very different tolerances and documentation requirements.
Why do we need IP?
The world grain and oilseed trade is rapidly changing from commoditybased trade to value-enhanced crops, which require some system of segregation from their commodity counterparts and verification methods to assure that this segregation is accurate. As the world grain and oilseed production and trade infrastructure moves into this specialized area it is becoming apparent that a system of preserving the identity of these crops from farm to market must be implemented which producers all the way to overseas buyers understand. There are well-established niche marketing efforts that have served specialty markets for many years. Even though these efforts are well established they are fragmented rather than unified. Individual efforts have basically met the markets’ needs. At this time, with tremendous growth in demand for identity-preserved products, there is increased opinion within the grain, oilseed, and specialty trade industries that a unified and sophisticated identity-preserved program is needed. This users’ handbook develops identity-preserved guidelines that can be used by various parties in the industries as they enter into new identitypreserved enterprises. The program is designed to be flexible enough to allow the development of individual company programs within the overall framework of the broader program, yet demonstrate a unified effort. Interest in a system that is not government based, but which may utilize the services of government grain inspection agencies, has prevailed.
IP and this handbook
This handbook provides background materials and leads a user through the steps of developing a program or system of identity-preserved verification, which will allow the U.S. seed, specialty crop, and grain and oilseed industries to easily provide products, which can be identified with traceability verifying identity, product quality, and special characteristics. The handbook is intended to be very “user-friendly” for not only parties involved in IP trade but also people not directly involved in trade but who have concerns for product integrity as affected by identity-preservation. This handbook describes an overall IP system that may be utilized in ways that will meet the particular needs of parties involved in specific trade agreements. The system can be adapted to work with “in-house” documentation, third-party verification, or third-party system accreditation and auditing. The handbook discusses the background of IP systems originating in the seed industry, the basics of a total IP system, and the potential electronic transfer of data and documents.
Section 1: Introduction: Background and project objectives
7
The handbook includes reviews of IP programs currently in place, including programs administered by third-party agencies, and countries that have initiated programs.
Who is AOSCA?
•
The handbook includes a review of some individual AOSCA programs as well as the general AOSCA program (see section 14)
•
Programs, rules, or guidelines of countries or other political entities for IP trade are reviewed (see section 13)
What or who is AOSCA and why is it the logical author of this handbook? AOSCA is the acronym for Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, an international organization of seed certifying agencies with long-standing third-party service in the seed industry. AOSCA is a non-profit organization whose stated purpose is “dedicated to the production and use of high quality seeds and propagating materials of superior plant varieties by establishing minimum genetic standards and uniform certification procedures: providing assistance to members in the development of educational and promotional programs; and coordinating the interests of members with other organizations to improve agriculture through optimum use of certified seed and other services of certifying agencies.” For many years some AOSCA member agencies have been involved in identity-preserved (IP) activities. Since IP activities fit within the stated purpose of the organization an IP committee has been part of the organization’s committee structure for more than 10 years. Individual agencies of AOSCA are listed in appendix A. Most importantly AOSCA is an unbiased, third party to IP activities. AOSCA can logically develop a system that is unbiased from the point of view of being directly involved in the production and trade of IP products. There are currently no comprehensive IP manuals available. AOSCA and some of its individual agencies have IP programs in print but there is no comprehensive background material on identity preservation and IP systems. There are some commercial, third-party service organizations as well as some exporting or trading companies that have their own inhouse programs that have manuals, again which are not comprehensive. This handbook is intended to provide a comprehensive but also unifying effort to the IP process.
Seed industry model
Many of the protocols and procedures of IP programs are based on systems used in the seed and niche crop industries that have been in place for many years. These systems are well understood by these specialty industries but have not been used within the commodity grain and oilseed industries. As the rapidly expanding production of specialized crops moves from the small niche markets into trade where commodity people and facilities will be utilized it is important that these
8
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
entities become aware of systems that will be demanded by end users to assure them of values within the value-chain. The quality control and seed certification programs within the seed industry have evolved in the last 100 years or more. Among other quality aspects, varietal purity is of utmost importance in both the seed and IP industries. As identity-preserved systems have begun to emerge in the last few years it was logical that methods of maintaining varietal purity within the seed industry would be applied. Documentation methods used to trace seed lots from the seed breeder through a system of certified seed classes to the grower planting the seed could also be extended to include the grain or oilseed products of this seed to the end user of grains and oilseeds in an IP system.
Niche markets
IP systems are not new. Niche markets in the specialty crop industries have developed systems to maintain and verify various product qualities in these special markets for many years. Industries involved in specialty corns, soybeans, wheats, and some minor crops have developed systems to meet their needs in those markets. Most of those systems were based on contractual arrangements of production contracts or contracted sales of these products. Contractual language usually defined the desired qualities and methods of verification on an individual contract basis. The systems used to meet these needs were not generally overall systems but were systems devised to meet the needs of a specific contract. In recent years some comprehensive and all-inclusive systems have evolved from those contractual systems. This handbook builds on those systems and provides the means to unify or set some industry standards or guidelines.
Commodity industries and the supply-chain
Commodity or commodities are the terms usually applied to grains and oilseeds that are grown and marketed for general uses. These are widely traded on various markets around the world. Individual commodities tend to establish their own markets and market patterns depending on areas of production and usage. Commodity corns are used for livestock feeds and unspecified industrial uses. Commodity soybeans are used for oil crushing, which result in soybean oil products and soybean meal products, which in turn are used in various food, feed, and industrial end uses. Commodity wheat is already separated to a large extent into classes or types that are grown in specific areas and are used for specific food and feed uses. Because these grains and oilseeds are so widely traded around the world we have developed a “commodity mindset.” The commodity mindset is where everything is based on a Chicago commodity or other commodity market price. Certain industry specifications have been established for each commodity, with grain quality standards set for various classes or grades within each specific commodity. This commodity mindset is present all the way from growers, through all of the handlers and traders
Section 1: Introduction: Background and project objectives
9
involved, to the end user. Buyers and sellers are continuously basing supply and demand strategies and pricing strategies on central markets. A supply-chain describes the steps (links in the chain) or path that a commodity or product takes from the production stage to the consumer. A commodity supply-chain describes the various steps in the commodity marketing process, the physical movement, and ownership of the commodity.
Establishing a “value-chain”
A value-chain carries this supply-chain concept a step further and looks at where in the chain value is added and possibly quantifies that added value. With commodities, and even with products where values of inputs change frequently, the value added at various points and even the total product value may be difficult to pin down. To maximize the utility of a value-chain it is important for all parties to shed the commodity mindset. You are no longer working with a commodity – but with a product that has enhanced value. This enhanced value may be due only to the preservation or separation of a particular trait from commodity counterparts. As the volume of a specialty product in a market increases it is likely that that particular product may establish a “stand-alone” position in the market. Pricing systems may or may not be tied to its commodity counterpart. The wheat markets are probably a good example. The wheat market has evolved into several differentiated markets. At some time in the future high-oil corn may separate from the current commodity corn market. As this takes place it does not eliminate the need for IP systems. Depending upon the requirement for complete differentiation of specific traits from their commodity counterparts there may be a need for IP systems to provide a system and verification and documentation that demonstrate this segregation. Table 1.1 lists additional parties that might be involved in a value-chain. Later in the handbook the responsibilities will be discussed. The reasoning behind the visualization exercise of the tables is to establish in our minds these relationships and interrelationships in a value-chain. Even though the parties may be similar the relationships differ considerably from a commodity supply-chain to an IP value-chain.
10
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Potential parties in a supply-chain or value-chain
Table 1.1
There are many potential parties in a supply-chain or value-chain, some physically handling the product and others involved only in the “paper” transactions. Still others may provide services that may be critical to the movement of the product or documents involved in the transaction. Some of these parties are described below.
Party
Description, services, and responsibilities
Plant breeder
Although not usually considered part of these chains may be vitally involved in the development of varieties with characteristics for specific end uses. Responsible for taking seed from breeder, increasing it while maintaining or improving genetic purity, and providing to seed company for further increase. Responsible for taking seed from breeder or genetic supplier, increasing it, and providing to seed delivery system to furnish grower seed.
Genetic supplier Seed company Grower First receiver Conditioner Contractor Third-party inspection River terminal Barge transportation Port terminal elevator Ocean transportation Export trader
Import trader Port silo Sorting plant Intermediate ingredient man. Wholesale warehouse Buyer (Food manufacturer) Wholesale distributor Retailer Consumer
Takes delivery of seed, plants, grows, harvests, stores, and delivers – all while maintaining genetic purity of product. Receiver taking the first delivery from grower. May be a country elevator, seed conditioner, or even a transportation party. May or may not take ownership. Specialized receiver taking delivery from grower and then performing services of “cleaning” and/or sizing the seed, and possibly bagging the product. May or may not take ownership. Sometimes a party not involved in the physical handling of product, but contracting with growers for production of product. Will usually also contract with a buyer for this production. Usually takes ownership. Service provider that may provide grower field inspection, sampling at various locations in chain, sample observations, and testing. Provides certificates. In bulk delivery of product, usually by ocean vessel, the river terminal takes delivery by truck or rail and loads barges. Seldom stores or takes ownership. Provides transportation from river terminal near production area to port facility. Does not take ownership. Transloads from barge to ocean vessel. May provide short-term storage, but rarely takes ownership. Provides transportation from exporting country to importing country. May be either bulk vessel or container vessel. Does not take ownership. Involved in marketing the product, including all negotiations of price, payment terms, product specifications, delivery terms, and delivery logistics. May or may not be involved with physical product and usually takes ownership at some time. Involved in purchasing the product, including all negotiations of price, payment terms, product specifications, delivery terms, and delivery logistics. Usually not involved in physical product handling and usually does take ownership at some time. Takes delivery of bulk products from ocean vessel. May provide short-term storage. Seldom takes ownership. A type of conditioning plant providing conditioning services and possibly bagging services. Seldom takes ownership. May provide short-term storage. An ingredient manufacturer may be involved in chain, manufacturing an intermediate ingredient product that will be further manufactured into a finished consumer product. A storage and delivery provider, of either bulk or bagged product. May take ownership and then becomes a distributor. Takes delivery of either bulk or bagged raw product and manufacturers a product for distribution and consumption. Almost always takes ownership. Takes delivery of manufactured product and distributes to retail outlets. May or may not take ownership. Takes delivery from distributor, takes ownership, and provides all the services of retail sales. The ultimate end user that whether intentionally or not sets the standards for all others in the supply or value-chain.
Not all of these parties are involved in every supply- or value-chain. One party may perform several of the services described in the table, which will reduce the total number of parties. The order shown above is an approximation of physical movement order, but can be modified within the chain. The physical movement will be different between bulk and bagged products. Bulk movement of IP products is a greater challenge for complete segregation. This table shows export trade but domestic movement will be similar, without the export party involvement. In an IP system all parties must maintain genetic purity at levels, which will ultimately result in meeting genetic specifications throughout the entire value-chain.
CROP DIFFERENTIATION: Self-pollinated crops versus cross-pollinated
Section
2
Introduction to section: This section provides background basic to the field production of crops as related to crop pollination. The pollination method or flower type for each crop bears on decisions which will need to be made on how and where the crop is planted. The potential for contamination is affected by the isolation or distance that the IP crop is planted from surrounding crops based on these crop differences.
Objectives of section: This section discusses the basics of botany or more specifically plant physiology, as related to plant reproduction, to provide the basis for planting decisions, and discusses implications for several of the major individual crops considered for IP production.
Importance to IP
Some background in botany is important to IP in order to understand the effect of potential contamination during the growing season by crosspollination. This discussion will be on a non-technical level as much as possible, as most people dealing with IP are not botanists, biologists, geneticists, or plant breeders. This discussion will also look only at the major crops considered in IP production. This background will affect how and where a grower plants his IP crop in relationship to other crops of his own and his neighbors. Understanding the mechanisms of crop pollination will give basis to these planting decisions.
Flower structure and pollination
The flower is the reproductive organ or combination of organs in a plant. Depending upon the plant species, a flower can contain male, female, or both structures within the flower structure. The anther, borne by the filament, produces pollen that can fertilize the ovules within the ovary. Pollination takes place when the pollen lands on the stigma and works its way down the ovary, where fertilization of the ovules occurs. Depending 11
12
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
on the flower structure and the flower location on plants this pollination process may require “help” from the wind, insects, or some other mechanical manipulation to either move the pollen or “trigger” the flower to pollinate itself.
Perfect flower
Some plants have “perfect flowers,” in that the male and female parts of the flower are totally enclosed by the petals or other appendages that are fused together or are very tightly enclosed. This flower structure makes it nearly impossible for cross-pollination to occur. In very remote cases the flower enclosure might be damaged by insects or other mechanical intrusion that would open the flower to cross-pollination. In most crops with this type of flower structure this occurrence is a very minute percentage.
Selfincompatibility
There are exceptions in the perfect flower situation where there is selfincompatibility for self-pollination. This incompatibility lies in the relationship between the pollen and the stigma (part of the female flower structure). The pollen, stigma, and related fluids all contain proteins, which are either compatible or not compatible with each other. In the cases of incompatibility the proteins of the pollen and the stigma do not allow pollen growth or penetration to complete the pollination. This forces the plant to be cross-pollinated.
Other flower structures
The relationship between the male and female flower parts also affects pollination. Flowers where the male and female parts are not in close proximity may make self-pollination difficult or at least make crosspollination much more likely. Corn is an example where the male and female flower parts are located at different positions on the plant.
Pollen type
The structure of individual pollen grains also affects how pollination occurs. Some plant species have pollen grains that are fine and dustlike which are easily carried by the wind allowing cross-pollination to occur. Other species have heavy, sticky pollen grains that tend to stick to each other and if cross-pollination were to occur insects or other vectors would need to facilitate the process.
Self-pollination
Crops that are normally self-pollinated pose the best scenario for IP production. Crops with perfect flowers are usually self-pollinated – with exceptions noted above.
Cross-pollination
Crops that are normally cross-pollinated require more care in planning IP production. These crops will usually require some isolation distances or barriers that will limit cross-pollination contamination of the IP crop.
Pollination and IP
What does this all have to do with IP? Understanding the mechanisms of pollination gives reason to decisions on how IP production is planned and consideration of the increased costs involved with providing isolation of the IP crops.
Section 2: Crop differentiation: Self-pollinated crops versus cross-pollinated
13
Seed production as guideline
The pollination of crops and varietal purity have been thoroughly studied and applied to standards for growing seed crops. Plant breeders have researched the pollination characteristics of various crops and this information has been used to formulate standards for seed production. The practical application has been adapted over the years by crop production specialists, seed certification agencies, and the seed industry to provide the best balance between desired varietal seed purity and production costs. This information is valuable to applications of identitypreserved crop production.
Projecting varietal purity
In designing an IP system one of the first steps will be to determine the varietal purity required by the buyer for his particular end use. When this is determined it can then be calculated what planting seed varietal purity and crop isolation may be required to provide that end-use purity. This will all influence production costs and therefore the price to the buyer.
Crop characteristics
Two tables are shown which provide individual crop characteristics related to flower structure, flowering, and pollination. Table 2.1 compares flower types, pollination methods, and potential contamination. Table 2.2 shows the requirements for certified seed production of these crops. This table shows the requirement for the land – what the previous crop might be and isolation considerations. Isolation standards or distances required to potential contamination pollen sources are listed for the foundation, registered, and certified seed classes. These standards can be considered when making isolation decisions for IP production. The seed standards for these same seed classes give some indication of what might be expected in varietal purity for seed purchased for IP production and also illustrates what the progression might be to an IP production class. Seed classes are discussed on page 19.
What goes around …
The varietal purity of the seed planted for IP production and the adherence to isolation needs for the crop will influence the potential varietal purity of the IP production. The effect on tolerance levels is further discussed in section 3.
Use of AOSCA expertise
It is recommended that people making decisions on IP systems become acquainted with seed certification agencies in their area of production and with the seed certification standards in their state. These can be valuable tools for application in an IP system. As far as the crop growing step of an IP system the purity of seed planted and the isolation distances for cross-pollinated crops will influence the IP purity to a large extent.
14
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Individual crop pollination considerations: A discussion of individual crops and the considerations that need to be given for IP production follows. Some crops that have very similar production characteristics are grouped together as isolation requirements and other growing and production considerations are the same. The crops are discussed in an order progressing from those with little potential IP pollination production problems to those crops that require isolation or barriers to reduce cross-pollination contamination. References to Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are given as background for production decisions.
Soybeans
Soybeans have perfect flowers and are very seldom cross-pollinated. Planting isolation need only consider that enough spacing is allowed so that mechanical mixing with surrounding crops does not occur at planting or harvest. If the IP field and surrounding fields are planted or drilled, care must be taken not to plant into the IP field from any surrounding fields. If surrounding fields are broadcast, either by ground or air, then more distance needs to be allowed for seed drift.
Barley, oats, rice, wheat
These grain crops all have perfect flowers and are self-pollinated. The percentage of expected naturally occurring cross-pollination varies between these crops from 0.2% for barley to about 4.0% for wheat. The cross-pollination that occurs in these crops is usually between very nearby plants (in the same field) rather than across greater distances. The same planting precautions should be taken as with soybeans.
Cotton
Cotton is slightly different than the above-mentioned crops in that it has a more open flower structure. There is more insect cross-pollination in cotton. The pollen of cotton is very sticky and single pollen grains gather together and form larger units. These do not move easily by air currents but are moved by insects.
Rye
Rye is a grain with a perfect flower structure, but is usually crosspollinated because of self-incompatibility. Even though this pollination may come from nearby plants in the same field it could logically come from any outside source. Veritable clouds of pollen blow from rye fields in bloom. Although most flowers in a field of one variety of rye will be fertilized by pollen of nearby plants of the same variety, there is some danger of inter-varietal crossing over distances of a mile or more.
Sorghum
The flower structure of sorghum varies widely from very compact to open. Sorghum is mainly self-fertilized with a wide variation in crosspollination rates. Wind and convection currents are the chief agents for pollen movement. Because of the ease of cross-pollination isolation distances are a major consideration for IP production.
Section 2: Crop differentiation: Self-pollinated crops versus cross-pollinated
15
Corn
Corn is different than most other crops in that the male flower structure (tassel) and the female flower structure (ear) are at different positions on the plant. The tassel is at the top of the plant, while the ear is about half way down the stem or stalk. The pollen is large (by comparison to many other plants) but is easily carried by wind movement. For these reasons pollination is generally by cross-pollination. There are many considerations when deciding upon appropriate isolation distances and buffer plantings. A separate study of corn is included in appendix E, which is a research paper on hybrid seed corn production with analysis on the application to identity preservation. This paper is a good background on corn pollination and also a good example of the type of research within the seed industry and academia for seed purity.
Sunflower
The sunflower is another crop with perfect flowers and yet is selfincompatible and therefore widely cross-pollinating. This selfincompatibility varies between lines. Sunflower pollination is mostly by insects with very little wind pollination. Since insects are needed for pollination isolation distances are greater to reduce pollination from undesired outside sources.
Rapeseed (canola)
This crop classification (the Mustard – Cruciferae family) contains a diverse group of crops. The plant types and flower types are also diverse. Some types are highly wind pollinated while others are mostly insect pollinated. This family also has several weed species. The possibility of cross-pollination between the types of brassicas raises some unusual issues. There is more concern with “escapes” of genetically modified traits to other family members than with most other crops. The flowering and crossing characteristics of sorghum, corn, sunflower, and rapeseed lend themselves to commercial hybridization more easily than the other crops. These same characteristics also present greater problems for IP production.
Pollination and isolation
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are provided as background for planting and production decisions. Table 2.2 lists some considerations for isolation distances based on the method of planting. Some definition may be worthwhile here. Broadcast seeding is an imprecise planting method of spreading seed either by ground or aerial equipment where the spreading seeds may be affected by winds and may fall in unwanted locations. Drilled seeds are planted in closely spaced rows that are usually too narrow to mechanically cultivate. Row planting is accomplished with rather precise metering and furrowing equipment that places the seed in rows that may be mechanically cultivated.
16
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Table 2.1 Crop flower types, pollination methods, and natural cross-pollination Crop (common)
Botanical name (Latin)
Flower type (structure)
Pollination (natural)
Cross-pollination (expected % and reason)
Barley, 2-row 6-row Corn
Hordeum distichon Hordeum vulgare Zea mays
Perfect
Self
0.2% in natural state
Monoecious
Cross
Cotton Oats Rapeseed Rice Rye Sorghum Soybeans
Gossypium hirsutum Avena sativa Brassica napus Oryza sativa Secale cereale Sorghum vulgare Glycine max
Perfect Perfect Perfect Perfect Varies Perfect
Self Self Self Self Cross Varies Self
Sunflower Wheat, common durum
Helianthus annus Triticum aestivum Triticum durum
Perfect Perfect
Cross Self
Wide variation depending on environment Varies widely, 5.0% mentioned 0.5% in natural state 20.0%, some self-incompatible 1.0% or less 95.0%, self-incompatible Varies 2.0–35.0% 1.0% adjacent plants within row 0.5% plants in adjacent rows miniscule from other fields Varies, self-incompatible Varies, 3.0–4.0% common
Pollination induced Wind Insects Wind, insects Wind Wind
Insects Wind
Table 2.2 Crop isolation requirements and seed standards for certified seed production Crop (common)
Land requirement Previous crop year(s)
Barley, wheat
Another kind or certified seed of same variety
Corn
None specific – consideration needs to be given to potential volunteer
Cotton
Free from volunteer
Oats
Another kind or certified seed of same variety
Rapeseed
Hybrid Found. No rapeseed 4 years Cert. No rapeseed 2 years Another kind or certified seed of same variety
Rice Rye Sorghum Soybeans Sunflower
Another kind or certified seed of same variety Another kind or certified seed of same variety Another kind or certified seed of same variety Not sunflower previous year
Consideration
Isolation distance may be modified by planting buffer rows and field acreage Upland type Egyptian type
Self-pollinated Cross-pollinated Drill seeded Ground broadcast Aerial broadcast
Field standards Isolation (distance in feet) Found. Reg. Cert.
Seed standards Other varieties (max.) Found. Reg. Cert.
Strip of ground adequate to prevent mechanical mixtures – mowed, uncropped, or other crop 660 410 * see separate table of modification by buffer rows Natural barrier or crop boundary 1320 660 Strip of ground adequate to prevent mechanical mixtures – mowed, uncropped, or other crop 2640 2640 660 330 1320 330 10 50 100 660 660 660
0.05%
990
Same type flower Other type flower
990
660
Strip of ground adequate to prevent mechanical mixtures 2640 2640 2640 5280 5280 5280
0.10%
None
0.20% 0.50%
0.03% 0.03% 0.20%
0.05% 0.05% 0.30%
0.10% 0.10% 0.50%
0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05%
0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%
0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20%
0.005%
0.01%
0.05%
0.10%
0.20%
0.50%
0.02% 0.02%
0.02% 0.02%
0.10% 0.10%
It is recommended that IP growers or people making crop planting and isolation decisions become acquainted with seed certification standards in their state. Study the standards and recommendations for the specific IP crop to be produced for isolation consideration that may affect IP purity. See section 4.
BASICS
Section
of an identity-preserved (IP) system
3
Introduction to section: This handbook section provides the basics as well as the theory behind an IP system. More details of the system itself and the mechanics will follow in later sections.
Objectives of section: The section will provide the basics around which an IP system can be developed. We will review the seed industry – which provides the basis for the current IP systems. Topics included are: • • • • • • • • • • • •
Objectives of an IP system
Objectives of an IP system Basic IP system Detailed IP system Definitions The seed industry model The certified seed system Certified seed standards example The Federal Seed Act Tolerances Potential points of contamination Cumulative effect of contamination Development of IP system
An identity-preserved (IP) system must be designed to provide assurances that the desired qualities or traits are present (or absent) in a product from the seed source, through all steps of production and delivery, to the end user. Usually these assurances will need to be documented in some way from one party to the next in the entire valuechain. Traceability is key to an IP system. An IP system is a strict production and delivery method, which possesses procedures of controlled production, observing, inspecting, sampling, and testing to assure the presence (or absence) of certain identifiable traits. 17
18
Basic IP system
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
A very basic IP process will: • • • •
Detailed IP system
An identity-preserved system should include methods to assure the following: •
• • •
•
• •
The seed industry model
Determine the level of purity desired Develop a system to meet that level Provide documentation that system was followed Determine the testing desired to assure that system worked
Seed purity – the seed used to plant the IP production should be identified as having sufficient varietal purity to produce a crop that will meet the specifications required of the IP product. It needs to be assumed that varietal impurities will also enter at later steps. Maintaining purity during production – procedures of production should be established that will not allow mixtures of other varieties and crops into the IP production Maintaining purity during storage and transportation – procedures of handling, storage, and transportation should be established to maintain varietal purity during these steps Maintaining purity during conditioning and processing – procedures that will eliminate varietal contamination during conditioning (seed cleaning) and processing (changing the physical or compositional state of the product) should be established Inspecting and testing to detect variations – visual inspections of fields at various growth stages, and visual and/or compositional inspections of the seed will detect variations or problems with varietal purity Verifying the above steps – a system needs to be established that will verify that the procedures and steps were accomplished in the IP system Documenting the above steps – a system of records (either on paper or electronically) that will record and demonstrate that the IP steps were accomplished
Development of seed purity standards – the seed industry Since the basis of much of an IP system has evolved from the seed industry we will review seed purity standards. Most of the traits identified in an IP system are genetic traits which are tied to a specific variety or hybrid that have evolved from a particular breeding program, and therefore varietal purity is of utmost importance. Varietal or genetic purity can often be identified and quantified by visual plant and seed characteristics that differentiate one variety from another variety. Refer to Table 2.2, in section 2, for seed standards. It must be recognized that the environment can influence the visual appearance of both plant and seed characteristics.
Section 3: Basics of an identity-preserved (IP) system
19
Recognizing plant or seed variances is important for all parties involved in IP production and handling. Field inspectors and seed analysts are trained in observation techniques, analytical methods, and morphological differences between varieties of crops they are inspecting and observing. It is prudent for people involved in IP production management to develop similar observation skills as these trained seed inspectors.
The certified seed system
Seed certification standards are developed for each crop or crop type to be certified. Variation of standards between crops is usually based on the pollination method for each individual crop. Differentiation between crops was discussed in detail in section 2. Classes of certified seed in the U.S. include breeder, foundation, registered, and certified. Canada has an additional class between breeder and foundation classes (select). Theoretically breeder seed would be the purest class progressive to the certified class that would have more production steps where contamination might enter. In practice foundation seed may be purest because field rouging of off-types and more precise seed conditioning may remove potential off-types more efficiently on a larger scale than in breeder seed. To further define the classes of seed recognized in seed certification the following is taken from the AOSCA Genetic and Crop Standards handbook. Breeder Seed is seed directly controlled by the originating or sponsoring plant breeding institution, or person, or designee thereof. As applied to certified seed, breeder seed is the source for the production of seed of the other classes of certified seed. Select Seed is unique to the Canadian certification system. It is the approved progeny of breeder or select seed produced in a manner to ensure its specific genetic identity and purity by those growers authorized by the certifying agency for the production of this class. Select seed is not a seed of commerce. Foundation Seed is seed, which is the progeny of breeder, or foundation seed produced under the control of the originator or sponsoring plant breeding institution, or person, or designee thereof. As applied to certified seed, foundation seed is a class of certified seed, which is produced under procedures established by the certifying agency for the purpose of maintaining genetic purity and identity. Registered Seed is the progeny of breeder, select, or foundation seed handled under procedures acceptable to the certifying agency to maintain satisfactory genetic purity and identity. Certified Seed is the progeny of breeder, select, foundation, or registered seed so handled as to maintain satisfactory genetic purity and identity, and which has been acceptable to the certifying agency. In seed production schemes for self-pollinated, non-hybrid crops each class of seed would be used progressively to produce the next class. Thus breeder seed would be used to produce foundation seed; foundation seed would be planted to produce registered seed; and registered seed would be used to produce the certified class of seed. The breeder, the company marketing the seed, or the certification agency for various reasons, may limit certified classes of seed. Some breeders eliminate the registered class of seed. Seed produced from the certified class is called
20
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
“farmer saved production” and is not included in certification schemes. It is questionable whether using farmer saved production is wise in an IP system. Some large seed companies have their own internal quality assurance programs that do not include the third-party certification or quality assurance programs. Certification standards are established for each crop type and may include a land requirement (previous crop), isolation distance to bordering crops, establishment of source of seed, field inspection, and seed inspection. Specific standards are set with allowable tolerances. All of these criteria also affect an IP system and similar methods of segregation and inspections need to be established. Refer to Table 2.2.
Certified seed standards example
As an example, certification standards for soybeans include: A land requirement that soybeans shall be grown on land which the previous crop was of another kind, or planted with a class of certified seed of the same variety or with a variety having an identifiable character difference. Seed source standards would require that breeder seed would be used to produce foundation seed: foundation seed would be planted to produce registered seed; and registered seed would be used to produce the certified class of seed. This was explained in detail above. Field standards include isolation of the inspected field from any other variety or uncertified seed of the same variety by a distance adequate to prevent mechanical mixture. Field inspection standards would allow a maximum count of plants of other varieties for foundation class of 1:1000; for the registered class 1:500; and for the certified class 1:200. These ratios calculate to 0.1% in foundation class, 0.2% in registered class, and 0.5% in certified class. Seed standards for varietal mixture for each class would be 0.1% in foundation class, 0.2% in the registered class, and 0.5% in the certified class. Other seed standards for certified seed that do not relate to IP production include pure seed, inert matter, weed seeds, other kinds of seeds, and germination. These are usually addressed in IP production as part of the quality standards set between the seller and buyer.
The Federal Seed Act
The Federal Seed Act (FSA), administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), regulates the interstate and foreign commerce of agricultural and vegetable seeds. The FSA requires that seed shipped in interstate commerce be labeled with information that allows seed buyers to make informed choices. Seed labeling information and advertisements pertaining to the seed must be truthful. The FSA helps to promote uniformity among state laws and fair competition within the seed trade. All state seed laws are intended to fall within the FSA regulations. Certification standards, as set by certification agencies, are regulated by the FSA. All international, federal, and state government agencies, as
Section 3: Basics of an identity-preserved (IP) system
21
well as seed certification agencies, attempt to work together closely to develop uniform standards for the production and trade of seed.
Tolerances
The genetic purity of a crop starts with the seed and then extends into the production of the IP crop itself. First let us look at the genetic seed purity standards in the U.S. The Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) established the following genetic purity standards for classes of certified soybean seed (allowable other varieties and offtypes): foundation class 0.1%; registered class 0.2%; and certified class 0.5%. A mathematical projection to one other class – the food-grade class – would be as follows: foundation 0.1% > registered 0.2% > certified 0.5% > food-grade 1.5% Another seed certifying standard, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) seed scheme, has similar genetic standards. Under the OECD scheme soybeans of the basic or foundation class are allowed 0.5% other varieties or off-types and the certified class is allowed 1.0%. These standards are for field inspections. In light of the above projections from seed standards it would seem that the recently adopted European standards for labeling foods with ingredients with a 1.0% tolerance would be unreasonable. Even the European-driven OECD seed scheme projections would suggest that over 1.0% tolerance should be allowed in crops produced from certified seed. The OECD certified seed standards of 1.0% other varieties or offtypes are not as strict as the AOSCA standards of 0.5% in the certified class. On the one hand the projection of varietal contamination through the seed system into the food-grade crop is the worst-case scenario. Hopefully the seed contamination would be less than the allowable limits. On the other hand the care of the genetic purity in the production system within the food-grade industry may be less than within the seed industry. Growers of food-grade crops may not take the same care in cleaning their equipment as is required in the seed industry. The lower the tolerance level, the higher the cost will be of identity preservation. A 1.0% tolerance level suggests that foundation or registered seed would need to be planted for the food-grade crop in addition to very strict growing and handling protocols. The costs of such a system to growers, conditioners, and handlers will be high. These costs will need to be passed on to the buyers. The tolerance levels discussed above relate to soybeans, a self-pollinated crop. The issues in corn, a cross-pollinated, hybrid crop, are different. The acceptable levels of variety mixtures in hybrid corn in the seed industry are lower, but the problem lies in potential cross-pollination in the food-grade production fields. Isolation distances, buffer strips, and
22
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
other potential pollen control mechanisms all affect potential pollen contamination. These are questions that the seed corn industry and seed certification officials can help to answer. The identity preservation of non-GMO corn will be more difficult than non-GMO soybeans.
Varietal purity potential points of contamination
Varietal purity can be affected at many different points in the production of IP crops, beginning at the source of seed. •
•
•
• •
• •
•
•
Seed source. It may be extremely important in IP production to specify a very low tolerance of varietal impurity in the seed source if the IP contract has a very low tolerance for varietal mixture. If the varietal mixture (contaminant) happens to be a higher yielding variety, the mixture in the resulting crop may worsen. The land requirement. Varietal contamination can occur from the choice of the land for IP production. Volunteer plants from the previous crop may produce seeds that will contaminate or, on cross-pollinating crops, may pollinate the IP crop causing mixture. Isolation. Very close proximity to other varieties can cause mixtures at harvest just by imprecise control of harvest equipment. Washouts early in the growing season can “transplant” plants from other varieties nearby. In cross-pollinating crops pollen from nearby (and even not so nearby) fields may cause varietal mixture. Planting. A mechanical mixture of seeds of other varieties can happen at planting by either dumping a bag of the wrong seed in the planter or not thoroughly cleaning the planter before planting. Harvesting. Harvesting equipment must be thoroughly cleaned between varieties. This includes the combine and any equipment used in handling and transporting the crop. As previously mentioned care must be exercised in manipulating the equipment around other varieties planted nearby. Storage. Storage facilities need to be completely cleaned. This includes handling equipment as well as the storage bins. Handling and transportation equipment. When delivering the IP product to the next step in the chain the same care is needed to check and clean the equipment used to move the grain from storage to the transportation equipment. The transportation equipment should be checked just prior to loading. Handling and processing equipment. From the point of the grower to the ultimate end user there may be a few or many points for potential contamination. The same care is required at each point of physical transfer of the IP product and any equipment used in the conditioning and processing of the product. Equipment design considerations. When considering equipment that will be used to plant, harvest, handle, transport, store, condition, and process IP crops it is wise to observe the ease of cleaning. The equipment should be “self-cleaning” as much as possible. In other words there should be few places where seed and other plant materials will lodge in the equipment.
Section 3: Basics of an identity-preserved (IP) system
Cumulative effect of contamination
23
When considering the seed purity of the planting seed for the IP crop and the thoroughness or precision of the IP procedures at each step in the production and handling it is important to remember that any varietal purity contamination throughout the IP system will be cumulative. It will be the total varietal or type impurity in the delivered product that will determine the level of IP purity delivered. As an example let’s look at several points of varietal contamination: Table 3.1 Example of potential contamination in IP corn Activity Purchase planting seed Grower planting Pollination Grower harvesting Grower handling and storage Delivery and receiving Barge loading Transloading to ship Ship unloading Receiving and storage Delivery to end user
Contaminant Varietal mixture in seed Mechanical mixture in planter Pollen contamination Mechanical mixture in combine Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Accumulated varietal mixture
Level (%) 0.40 0.01 0.50 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.00
At the time this handbook is being written the seed industry is asking for a 1.00% tolerance for GMO material in non-GMO seed varieties. If this were to be enacted the above table might look like this: Table 3.2 Example of potential contamination in IP corn with higher allowed varietal mixture in planting seed Activity Purchase planting seed Grower planting Pollination Grower harvesting Grower handling and storage Delivery and receiving Barge loading Transloading to ship Ship unloading Receiving and storage Delivery to end user
Contaminant Varietal mixture in seed Mechanical mixture in planter Pollen contamination Mechanical mixture in combine Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Mechanical mixture in handling Accumulated varietal mixture
Level (%) 1.00 0.01 0.50 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.60
These tables point up the need to manage potential contamination at each of the points in the growing and handling of IP production. When the seller and buyer agree upon tolerance levels for the IP product these will need to be considered. Obviously the goal needs to be obtainable and costs will need to be transferred to pricing of the IP product. The lower the tolerance for off-types, the higher the costs will be to obtain those specifications. These tables are only examples, hopefully showing worst-case scenarios. It is very possible to attain very low contamination.
24
Development of IP systems
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The above discussions have touched on theories to consider in an IP system. The IP system must be all encompassing to include the considerations of allowable tolerances for the particular IP production and the mechanics to accomplish the production and marketing through the steps in the value-chain. The varietal purity standards and tolerances, as well as other quality factors, should be the basis for which all other decisions on the IP system design are based. When the precision of tolerances is identified the system can be designed which will accomplish the mechanics as well as verify and document those procedures. It is well to shed any “commodity mindset” in this respect, in that goals should be to far exceed the quality standards rather than to just meet or come in under the standards. IP systems are usually built around long-term relationships rather than “spot markets” and proving that the system can deliver the highest quality is essential. To summarize, an identity-preserved system should: •
Clearly identify the desired traits, characteristics, and quality standards for the IP production. In addition the tolerances for those attributes should be agreed upon.
•
Establish the mechanics of a system to meet those standards. Exactly what procedures will be required at each step in the production and delivery system to meet the specifications?
•
Establish procedures to provide the needed inspections and testing to verify that the IP system accomplished its goals.
•
Establish a system to verify all of the procedures. Will a written record of completed procedures be sufficient or will third-party verification be required?
•
Establish a system to document all of the steps. This documentation may be a system of “paper documents” or it may be an electronic record that will accomplish the same end.
Separate sections of the handbook will address each of these areas in detail. The following looks at IP program development in the following steps: • • • • • • •
Identify Analyze Develop Negotiate Initiate Exercise Finalize
Section 3: Basics of an identity-preserved (IP) system
25
Seven basic steps to an IP program 1. Identify
Identify needs • First a need for an IP product must be identified. A buyer usually initiates this need. The buyer determines that his process requires a specific attribute, which could be a product or process that must be verified and documented, to assure his end-product quality. • Next the specific product must be identified. What genetic and compositional characteristics are desired? These attributes need to be as specific as required by the buyer. This can be initiated from either the buyer or seller side of a potential transaction. A grower or group of growers might feel the particular ability to produce a specific IP product. On the other hand a buyer might have a need for specific crop product for his manufacturing needs. • Parties in the value-chain must be identified: • Seller • Buyer • All other parties required in chain
2. Analyze
Analyze needs • Level of attribute needed • Requirements to obtain level • Costs involved
3. Develop
Development of specific IP program • IP steps required to meet needs • Third-party and other services needed
4. Negotiate
Negotiate agreements • Buyer/seller • Production (growing) • Conditioning and handling • Transportation • Pricing
5. Initiate
Initiate program • Signed agreements throughout chain
6. Exercise
Exercise program • Begin all activities
7. Finalize
Finalize project • Successful completion of all steps Refer to detailed program development in section 4.
APPLICATION
Part
II Section 4: A complete value-chain IP system Page 29 Details the development of a complete IP system, based on theories presented in section 3, for the entire valuechain for an IP product. This section is almost a “standalone” handbook for an IP system, without some of the background and support materials presented throughout the rest of the handbook.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems Page 41 Reviews how an IP system works and briefly overviews the economic considerations in a more applicationoriented or operational point of view. A “workbook” approach is introduced as section 5a.
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing Page 83 Introduces the additional inspection, sampling, and testing which differentiates an IP system from a commodity system.
Section 7: Verification and documentation requirements Page 101 Covers verification and documentation requirements that also differentiate IP. The records or documentation that puts the verification in writing will be part of the entire IP process.
Section 8: Third-party inspection, testing, and verification Page 107 Discusses the use of third parties to inspect, test, and verify parts of the IP system. This option for any IP program has philosophies and ramifications that need to be considered when developing an IP program.
A COMPLETE VALUE-CHAIN IP system
Section
4
Introduction to section: This section details a complete IP system, based on theories presented in section 3, for the entire value-chain for an IP product. This handbook section will almost be a “stand-alone” handbook for an IP system, without some of the background and support materials presented throughout the rest of the handbook. The responsibilities of each party or step and the mechanics will be covered in this section and in section 5 for a value-chain for an IP product. Section 5a is a workbook for IP systems.
Objectives of section: To design an identity-preserved system that will:
Subsections that are included
• • • •
•
Clearly identify the desired traits, characteristics, and quality standards for the IP production
•
Establish the mechanics of a system to meet those standards
•
Establish procedures to provide the needed inspections and testing
•
Establish a system to verify all of the procedures
•
Establish a system to document all of the steps
Identifying IP traits Determining inspections, observations, samples, and testing required Sourcing the seed Parties involved in the value-chain • Grower • Transportation and handlers • Delivery and conditioning • Processors and end users 29
30
Identification of IP product traits
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Almost any trait that can be reproduced genetically, that is carried from one generation to the next, can be identified and then that identity preserved through appropriate management and production techniques. The traits must be distinguishable by some morphological, physiological, or other characteristic. Practices of observation or testing for those distinguishable characteristics of the traits must be established that are repeatable in the field, receiving location, or laboratory. A broad description of traits that could be identified to be “preserved” in a production and delivery system might include: • • • • • •
Genetic traits specific to one variety or hybrid. Very narrow genetic base, specific to a single breeding program. Example – the Flavorsavor® tomato Genetic traits specific to a group of varieties or hybrids with common genetic background. Very possibly these would evolve from above. Example – triple-null lipoxygenase soybeans Genetic traits specific to a group of varieties or hybrids with uncommon genetic background. Example – high-protein soybeans Genetic traits that are not specific but are broad traits. Example – clear-hilum soybeans Physical traits not necessarily tied to genetics. Example – low stress crack corn Traits that are tied to a production system rather than to genetics. Example – organic growing
As you can see there is a wide range of traits that might be preserved, ranging from very specific genetic traits on one extreme to traits that are almost entirely related to a growing or production system, at the other extreme. The first step in designing or adapting an IP system for an IP product is to identify the trait or traits desired.
Determining IP trait tolerance levels
Early in the planning process for a specific IP production program the desired IP traits need to be quantified. Tolerances need to be determined. These will help to set the goals that must be established for each of the steps in the value-chain process. The tolerances for IP traits and other quality specifications will determine the precision required at each step, from selecting the planting seed through the complete stepped program to the end user. Very tight tolerances will require that extreme care be observed in all procedures in the IP process. Again, it is wise to set IP trait and quality goals at a higher level, rather than to stay just within tolerances set by buy/sell agreements.
Determine inspections required
Also part of the early planning process for an IP program is the determination of and arrangement for the inspections, observations, sampling, and testing that will be required to assure that specifications are met. Not only do these steps need to be identified but also responsibilities for completing each procedure need to be assigned. If these steps are part of the internal organization within the value-chain,
Section 4: A complete value-chain IP system
31
responsibilities need to be designated. If third-party organizations or people are to be used, those arrangements need to be made during the planning phase. A minimum identification of the observation and testing steps should include: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
Review the testing of the seed to determine if all of the data is available to make decisions on the seed or lot of seed to be used. All of the rest of the steps in the program will depend upon proper seed source selection. This is important. If additional seed testing or verification of testing needs to be completed arrange with a competent laboratory for this testing. This is not the place for untrained testing. This seed testing should be completed in accredited seed or analytical laboratories. Field inspections during and at the end of the growing season. Trained inspectors can observe differences in plant characteristics such as stem and leaf form, plant part coloration, and flower color. Observations both during vegetative stages and at maturity can identify potential varietal mixtures, which might have come from the seed, from volunteer plants in the field, or may identify environmental causes of visual appearance. Pre-harvest sampling will help determine when to harvest and also give an early indication of any potential quality or identity problems. There is nothing “official” about these samples, but it is a practice of many growers. The sample should be gathered over a wide area being considered for harvest – not just walking into the edge of the field and grabbing one handful of seed. Initial harvested samples are another “unofficial” sample that should be used to verify the pre-harvest sampling. Proper moisture for drying, handling, and storage should be assured, as well as combine settings for the highest quality possible under the existing conditions. A representative, composite sample of a field, lot, or bin should be obtained, tested, and saved for future reference. Sampling will be covered in greater detail later, but this sample should be gathered by taking several small samples during the harvest or the filling of a bin. The small samples are then blended together to make up the composite sample. The laboratory procedures identified earlier to determine if the product meets the quality and IP traits desired should test the above composite sample. This set testing procedure will be used at several steps in the value-chain to assure that these qualities are maintained or improved upon. Sampling and laboratory testing should be scheduled each time the IP product is physically handled or moved. Samples should be obtained before and after any commingling with other lots. Sampling and laboratory testing should be scheduled before and after any conditioning or processing of the product to determine that the qualities and traits are as specified.
32
Selection of planting seed
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
As previously mentioned the entire IP process starts with the proper selection of seed. The future compositional qualities of the crop are determined with this step. In IP production that may have a very low tolerance for varietal mixture or absence or presence of a particular trait the seed selection will be critical. Whether the grower selects the seed or whether an organization contracting IP production selects the seed this is a very important step that will influence the success of the entire IP process. An earlier reference looked at allowable levels of varietal mixtures in classes of certified seed. At this point we want to revisit some of that discussion for emphasis. The genetic purity of a crop starts with the seed and then extends into the production of the food crop itself. First let us look at the genetic seed purity standards in the U.S. The Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) established the following genetic purity standards for classes of certified soybean seed (allowable other varieties and off-types): Foundation class Registered class Certified class
0.1% 0.2% 0.5%
A mathematical projection to one other class – the food-grade class – would be as follows: Foundation class Registered class Certified class Food-grade
0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 1.5%
If a varietal purity level for varietal mixtures allowable were 1.0% in an IP contract, it is clear that seed planted would need to be better than the maximum allowable in the certified class. Seed of the registered class or a lot of the certified class that had a lower than the maximum varietal mixture should be selected. It is also obvious at this point that the use of “farmer saved” or “bin run” production as planting seed may not be wise in an IP system. Seed that is produced under a seed certification scheme or other seed quality assurance program has to meet some varietal purity criteria that are not present in farmer-saved or bin run production. If a very tight tolerance for the presence or absence of a genetic trait is part of a contract for IP production, it may be worthwhile to have a very representative sample of the lots considered for planting tested for genetic purity. This is not an inexpensive test and will probably involve a sophisticated laboratory test such as a PCR or electrophoresis test for the presence or absence of the trait. When the success of meeting very tight tolerances is critical this may be money well spent.
Section 4: A complete value-chain IP system
33
Grower activities
Land selection
Two considerations are important to selecting land for growing IP crops. One is the previous crop grown on this land. The potentials for volunteer plants that may contaminate the IP crops either directly as harvested seeds or by providing pollen contamination on cross-pollinated crops. The crop and variety should be identified to determine whether there is a potential problem. The same variety with a high varietal purity will pose little problem. A different variety, especially one with very different genetic characteristics, could pose a serious problem. The amount of crop loss at the previous harvest will have some bearing on the degree of volunteer potential. The second consideration in land choice is the isolation, or distance, from potential contaminating crops. Obviously there should be enough separation distance to avoid mechanical mixtures by harvesting equipment during harvest. On cross-pollinating crops the distance required to minimize pollen contamination needs to be planned for field layout. These isolation standards are discussed in section 2 for various crops.
Planting
Planting is the first operation of several where there is potential for mixture from seeds remaining in the equipment from previous use. The planter needs to be completely cleaned of any seeds remaining in the seed storage compartments, the metering mechanisms, or the delivery tubes. Removing excess seed from the seed storage compartments and then running the equipment is not sufficient. All areas of the planter need to be visually inspected and hand-cleaned to assure that any remaining seeds are removed. Care should be exercised when planting nearby crops that the planting equipment is not driven into the IP crop where seeds might fall into the IP crop or actually be planted into the IP crop. During planting each unit of the seed should be carefully checked to assure that it is the correct seed and lot number prior to dumping into the planting equipment.
Growing
During the growing season there are only minor activities that might affect the growing IP crop. It is important to observe the crop for anything unusual. Following a heavy rain the edges of the field where plants from nearby field could be washed into the IP field should be observed and removed if found. If off-type plants are observed early in the growing season a follow-up should be pursued to discover whether the wrong seed was planted or if other planting errors may have occurred. Discovering these types of problems early may be in time for correction or at least noted so that corrections can be made at harvest time.
34
Harvesting
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The most important step, as far as quality is concerned, is harvesting your crop. What you do will influence the quality and appearance of the seed. Proper cleaning of the harvesting equipment is time-consuming but one of the most important operations of an IP program. Proper genetic segregation for the IP program and the grain or seed quality are different but they will both affect a grower’s potential growing premiums. If any harvest activities are hired on a custom basis it is important to review these guidelines with the custom operator. As this operation is so important it may be prudent to share quality premiums with custom operators. The South Dakota Crop Improvement Association has a combine cleaning video available – see appendix A for contact. 1.
2.
3. 4.
Storage bins and storage management
Harvesting and handling equipment must be thoroughly cleaned of other crops and other varieties of the same crop prior to beginning harvest of the IP crop. • Combine should be run empty until grain stops flowing. • Drop all auger and elevator doors on combine and remove remaining grain. • Run combine again with doors open. • A high-powered leaf blower and air compressor are helpful in this cleaning process. • Be extremely careful when running the combine and blowing into augers and running/moving parts of combine. • Similar procedures need to be used to clean hauling and handling equipment. After cleaning the combine flush to be sure by combining for 100 feet into the specialty field. This distance can be used to adjust the combine also. Run the combine until empty again. Dump this grain to market rather than save. Do this twice. Harvest separate portions of fields as they reach proper moisture, if needed – don’t mix crop with correct moisture with crop that is too wet. Any place in a field that may be of lower or different quality should be harvested separately – so as not to lower quality of all deliveries. It is suggested that a separate wagon be kept in the field to dump “mistakes” or poor quality crop so as not to contaminate good crop.
Storage time can range from a very short time to almost one year. Proper preparation and management will be very important to high quality soybeans. 1.
Bins should be thoroughly cleaned and repaired well in advance of harvest. • Remove any old grain, debris, moldy grain, and loose objects from bin, underneath aeration floors, and under floor unloading augers.
Section 4: A complete value-chain IP system
35
•
2. 3. 4. 5.
Delivery
Inspect for any water leaks in roof and side walls and repair as necessary. • Check under floor unloading augers to see that they are working properly and flighting is smooth. If any of these harvest, handling, or storage jobs are contracted to outside people it is worthwhile sharing your quality premium with them – this can make or break your premium. Storage bins should be filled only to the eve level and should be leveled rather than coned up – to assure proper air and moisture movement. The top of the bin should be stirred occasionally. Storage bins should be checked on a regular schedule until delivery.
The final, physical step in the growing production steps of an IP system is the delivery. This final task is just as important to delivery of a high quality IP crop. 1. 2.
Prior to delivery the top of the bin should be checked for any mold. Molding or crusting grains should be removed separately prior to loading for delivery to a conditioning plant. Make a final check of all handling and hauling equipment prior to loading. • • •
•
Check all hoppers, pits, augers, belts, and shoots to be sure they are clean of all grains, other varieties, moldy grain, and other debris before starting to load. Check the wagons or grain trailers used to haul. Open slide gates on all hauling equipment just prior to loading – bouncing empty just prior to loading usually shakes down those unseen grains from the cracks that can now be dumped. Watch carefully during bin unloading for any sign of grain that is out of condition. Hidden wet spots, pockets of weed seeds, and moldy grain can be discarded to avoid the possible contamination and rejection of entire loads of higher quality grain.
Storing
Storage activities can take place at several different steps in the marketing and delivery process. The same considerations need to be applied to the handling equipment or facilities and storage bins, no matter where in the chain this takes place.
Grower records
A more complete discussion of records will be included in the section on documentation. It will be important that complete and detailed records be kept which will record the source of seed, the actual seed used by field, a record of all of the planting, growing, and harvesting activities and the preparation for each of these activities. Quantities harvested by field and a record of where the harvest is stored and then deliveries all need to have written records.
36
Grower equipment and facilities modification
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
If IP production is a large part of a farming operation it can be very worthwhile to consider modifying equipment to be more efficient, more easily cleaned between varieties, and potentially raise quality levels. IP operations should certainly be considered when contemplating new equipment and facilities purchase. Following are some ideas and modifications to consider: Planter – Look carefully at the seed storage compartments, the seed metering mechanisms, and the seed delivery tubes for places that seed may hang up or become lodged in cracks. Modification to make “selfcleaning” should be considered. Auto body putty can be used to fill cracks and crevices. Installing a hydraulic orbital motor on a drive shaft can facilitate running the machine without physically having to move it. Quick fasteners can replace standard bolts and nuts on access panels that must be removed for cleaning. Access to air operated tools in the field will speed up disassembly and assembly of the planter between varieties. Combine – There are too many brands and models of combines to discuss individual modifications in detail. Two types of modifications can be considered. One is to modify the machine so that seeds and plant materials does not lodge – so that the machine is more “self-cleaning.” Eliminate ledges, cracks, and crevasses where you see material collecting. Extra sheet metal or auto body putty can be used. Remember that parts move in relationship to each other when adjustments are made on the machine and also that sometimes the machine needs to be taken apart for repair. Don’t make modifications that will interfere with these operations. The second type of modification is to make the machine easier to open up to clean and easier to clean. Quick fasteners to replace standard bolts and nuts, cam action closures rather than nuts on stud bolts, and pivoting panels rather than panels that come clear off are some of the possibilities. The installation of additional access openings in the body of the machine or on long auger housings will facilitate getting into critical areas. Another possibility is to permanently install small copper tubing to direct compressed air to locations that will expedite moving grain through the machine in the initial cleaning activities. Experience in operating the machine and cleaning the machine prior to making modifications will be helpful in visualizing potential modifications. Handling equipment – Wagons, grain trailers, augers, belt conveyors, and any other handling equipment should be given the same consideration to make “self-cleaning” as much as possible. Storage facilities – Storage bins and the related loading and unloading equipment may seem insignificant because they are only used once during a cropping season but are still important to maintaining purity in the IP system. Modifications that will make equipment “self-cleaning” or easy to clean will not only improve the IP crop purity but will help to eliminate potential storage insect harbors. Grain distributors or spreaders in the top of the bin and under-floor unloading augers are areas of particular concern. Under-floor augers should be easy to remove to allow complete vacuuming of the auger tube.
Section 4: A complete value-chain IP system
37
Transportation and handling activities
Handling
Handling can best be described as activities where the crop is physically moved or transferred either within a location or from one location to another. When the crop is moved from on-the-farm storage to a receiving plant the grain is both handled and transported. As an example the grain is moved from the storage bin by an under-floor auger into a belt conveyor that in turn loads the grain onto a waiting truck. The truck then transports the grain to the receiving facilities where it is handled again by unloading and conveying or elevating into bins for storage or processing. Each of the transfer points from one piece of equipment to another is a point of potential mixing with grain from a previous operation. The equipment should be inspected closely and cleaned as needed of any grain (and other contaminating material). Handling the IP crop either by parties within the value-chain or by transportation parties not considered integral parties is an important link to maintain IP standards. Transfer equipment and transportation equipment needs to receive the same cleaning and inspection procedure as any major equipment in the total system. Since parties not integral in the value-chain many times complete this activity it is important that they understand the importance of these cleaning and inspection activities or the integral parties in the chain need to take on this responsibility.
Delivery and conditioning activities
Conditioning
Many times IP grains are conditioned as an intermediary step to further processing. Conditioning is the term used to describe cleaning or removing inert material as well as mechanically damaged, diseased, or insect-damaged grains. The grain may also be sized to uniformly sized and shaped seeds in the conditioning step. The conditioning step does not change the physical integrity or the chemical composition of the grain. Processing later will change either the physical or chemical makeup of the grain. The storage, handling, and conditioning equipment associated with the conditioning operation needs to be thoroughly cleaned and inspected. There are various types of equipment used in these operations including air-screen cleaners, spiral separators, precision sizers, aspirators, and specific gravity separators. Most of this equipment requires some dismantling to completely clean between crops or varieties of crops.
38
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Most conditioning facilities also include conveying and elevating equipment in addition to short-term storage bins that are an integral part of this conditioning operation. This equipment and the overall design of the conditioning facility should be well understood and then a plan drawn to clean and inspect between plant runs. People doing this cleanup should be well trained and it usually works best to work from a checklist with a set pattern or sequence of cleaning. High power vacuums and compressed air are helpful in this procedure. There is always a certain amount of hand labor in “picking” seeds from cracks and crevasses involved in this duty. When the facility cleaning is completed it should be thoroughly inspected – again from a checklist. It is good to have someone do the inspection other than those who do the cleanup.
Processor and manufacturer activities
Special concerns with processing and manufacturing activities
Processing and manufacturing activities range widely depending upon the end-use product being manufactured. These processes may include both physical and chemical changes to the grains. Other ingredients may be added in this processing. The same concerns with cleaning equipment as in a conditioning plant need to be applied. One additional concern with processing operations that must be addressed is the potential transfer or contamination by DNA material from previous processing operations. Any seed or plant parts will contain DNA. Equipment that is used for grinding and disintegrating will have a certain amount of buildup of this powdered material in the equipment. This buildup of powdered material can also occur in and on any of the handling equipment following the disintegration step. It needs to be determined whether this type of material is a problem in the IP scheme. Cleaning may require special equipment such as steam cleaners and solvent washes in addition to physical scrubbing of the equipment. If a non-genetically modified organism (non-GMO) product is being manufactured following potentially GMO material in the same facility the presence of DNA material may be a concern.
Section 4: A complete value-chain IP system
39
Section 4: Wrap up and reference to other handbook sections
Records of physical movement and ownership transfer
A more complete discussion of records will be included in the section on documentation. It will be important that complete and detailed records be kept which will record each physical movement of the grain – all the way through the value-chain, as well as any transfers of ownership. Any time commingling takes place records should show exactly the sources of each of the commingled components as well as quantities of each. A record or trail of all events in the value-chain will need to be included whether this record is a paper trail or an electronic trail.
See section 5
Section 5 will take the material introduced in this section and proceed through the decision-making processes of developing and utilizing an IP system. Section 5a is set up in separate “modules” for several activity areas that can be used by various parties working within the system. Section 5a modules: Module 1
Overall IP program development
Module 2
Grower and growing activities
Module 3
Transportation and handling activities
Module 4
Receiving, handling, and conditioning activities
Module 5
Processing and manufacturing activities
Module 6
Inspection, sampling, and testing activities
Module 7
Testing procedures
Module 8
Documentation activities
The modules of section 5a may be used as a “workbook” with reference to the rest of the handbook in developing and using an IP system. Individuals working in specific areas of the IP system may also use the workbook independently.
MECHANICS
Section
and economics of IP systems
5
Introduction to section: This section reviews how an IP system works and briefly overviews the economic considerations in a more application-oriented or operational point of view as applied to the IP system points discussed in section 4. We look at step-by-step procedures of IP system operation as well as economic considerations.
Objectives of section: Part of this section (5a) should provide the basic guidelines or a “workbook” for an IP system. A step-by-step system is outlined with checklists to use in administering a system at each level. Step-by-step procedures and checklists provided for each level include: • • • • • • • •
Overall IP program development Grower and growing activities Transportation and handling activities Receiving, handling, and conditioning activities Processing and manufacturing activities Inspection, sampling, and testing activities Testing procedures Documentation activities
The end of this section (5a) will present a workbook style of working with an IP system. Prior to that we will look briefly at some of the areas of economics that should be considered when establishing an IP system and negotiating contracts. There are costs involved in identity preservation. Depending upon the requirements for the IP system these costs can be minimized by close attention to the methodology of the system.
41
42
Economic considerations
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Even though economics is not a major emphasis of this IP handbook it seems logical to include these considerations as we discuss the complete IP value-chain system. Economics will certainly be part of any contract negotiations and pricing of IP product and all parties need to be aware of this part of IP production and marketing. There are many points in the IP value-chain where there may be increased costs. It is important to agricultural trade that added costs of identity preservation are kept to a minimum – but any added costs do need to be recognized. Each individual IP system will be different and will need to be reviewed to identify areas where added costs must be addressed in the product pricing. With the recent widespread interest in identity preservation there have been several land-grant university studies of various aspects of the economics of IP. These of course will vary by crop and somewhat by growing region. There are a lot of variables in arriving at any additional costs involved in IP production compared to commodity crop production. We will not try to make cost comparisons in this presentation, but will point out some areas that will need to be considered.
Grower costs
Increased seed cost – Unless there is an increased cost of genetic material for specialty corn hybrids this item will usually apply only to soybeans or other non-hybrid crops. This will usually only apply to commodity production where farmer-saved seed is the normal operating procedure. The purchase of certified or commercial seed for IP production may increase the cost of IP production over commodity production. This cost can be calculated to a per acre basis and then to a projected per bushel figure. Another seed cost consideration is the seed size issue. If the specialty production is of a variety that is extremely large or small seed size, then more or less seed is required per acre. Yield reduction – Any yield reduction (sometimes referred to as yield drag) from the IP production, compared to commodity production, needs to be considered. In the best situation this should be separated from any IP and/or quality premiums, but should be a separate calculation in the pricing formula. Also in the best scenario this yield reduction calculation would be based on yield comparisons of the IP crop with the actual alternative that a specific grower would plant. Field isolation – There are two considerations for isolation costs. First is the distance from surrounding potentially contaminating crops and secondly any of the IP crop planted as a buffer (but not harvested as IP product). If a change in cropping plans has to be made to provide distance isolation it may have economic bearing on total farm income. This is often difficult to put a figure on, but still needs to be addressed. The buffer planting of the IP crop is easier to figure, assuming that the land area for buffer will produce a marketable crop but without any IP premium. If the buffer production is not marketable as a commodity, then this consideration is more substantial.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
43
Planter preparation – Planter preparation entails thoroughly cleaning the planter seed supply units, metering mechanisms, and delivery tubes of seed of other varieties or crops. Several time and effectiveness studies of various methods of cleaning have been completed recently by Iowa State University. Harvest equipment preparation – Again this procedure is to completely clean harvesting and handling equipment of seed from previous harvest activity that would contaminate the IP production. Because of the complexity of harvesting equipment this is more tedious and time-consuming than that required of the planting equipment. Again there are university studies of the effectiveness and costs involved in various methods. Storage planning and preparation – Separate storage must be provided and this equipment and facilities must be cleaned. The highest additional cost of storage may be in resulting under-utilization of facilities if IP production does not fully fill planned bin space. Acreage planning is usually based on available bin space for IP production, but projected yields may not materialize. Utilization of some small bins in the storage plan is helpful. Third-party inspection – If third-party inspections are part of the IP program, this cost needs to be calculated and applied at some point – either at the grower level or some other point. These costs are fairly straightforward and with the exception of yield variability the per acre inspection costs can converted to a per bushel basis.
Receiving and conditioning
Facilities preparation – All incoming dump pits, elevator legs, conveyors, storage bins, and any conditioning or bagging equipment will need to be cleaned. If this is a seed or specialty crop conditioning plant this procedure will be a standard part of the operation. If the receiving plant is a grain facility this cleaning operation will need to be more thorough than the cleanup between different crops in their normal operation. Transportation equipment – All equipment used to transport the IP product will need to be thoroughly cleaned. System of verification of source (origin) – This procedure should only slightly affect the way a receiver would do business. There may be some additional steps required to assure that each incoming load of IP product is from the intended source and that it is the specified product and meets the IP identified specifications.
44
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The mission of the IP workbook The workbook, based on background and principles developed in the IP reference handbook, gathers all of the decision-making tools in one place to facilitate the development and utilization of an IP program. The goal is to provide a concise, easy-to-follow guide for developing a specific identity-preserved program, and individual guides to carrying out particular parts of an IP program.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
45
Workbook Contents
Pages
Section 5A
Workbook introduction
46 - 47
Summary of workbook modules
48 - 49
Modules Module 1
Overall IP program development
50 - 53
Module 2
Grower and growing activities
54 - 57
Module 3
Transportation and handling activities
58 - 61
Module 4
Receiving, handling, and conditioning activities
62 - 65
Module 5
Processing and manufacturing activities
66 - 69
Module 6
Inspection, sampling, and testing activities
70 - 73
Module 7
Testing procedures
74 - 77
Module 8
Documentation activities
78 - 81
IDENTITY-PRESERVED operational handbook and workbook
Section
5a
Introduction to workbook: This stand-alone operational handbook or workbook is intended as an aid in developing and managing an identity-preserved (IP) system. This workbook should be used in conjunction with the identitypreserved (IP) reference handbook in the development of an IP system. It may also be used independent of the reference handbook by parties in a production and delivery value-chain to help carry out their responsibilities in growing, handling, delivering, conditioning, manufacturing a crop or product that is identity preserved. The reference handbook details the background, principles, philosophies, and reasoning behind this operational handbook or workbook. The reference handbook is an important tool for decision makers in an IP system. The workbook is a tool for responsible parties that make the IP system work. The workbook gathers all of the decision-making and operational tools together in a concise, easy-to-follow format.
Objectives of workbook: This workbook provides the basic guidelines for an IP system. A “step-by-step” system is outlined with “checklists” to use in administering a system at each level. Modules showing step-by-step procedures and checklists for each level include: • • • • • • • •
Overall IP program development Grower and growing activities Transportation and handling activities Receiving and conditioning activities Processing and manufacturing activities Inspection, sampling, and testing activities Testing procedures Documentation activities
46
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
47
Workbook organization
The workbook is organized into several separate modules which each cover the separate topics outlined above. Each module contains two pages of introduction and then one page of step-by-step directions on the subject and a facing page with a checklist. The module on the overall program development actually will work closely with several other modules that are usually more oriented toward the total program: • Overall IP program development • Inspection, sampling, and testing activities • Testing procedures • Documentation activities
Workbook use
Each module is intended to provide guidelines for establishing and applying an IP program for those particular module activities. All modules would be used in developing an entire or overall IP system. A grower might use only the “grower and growing activities” module for guidance and record keeping of his activities. The grower might refer to other modules to see where other responsibilities fall in relation to his activities. Obviously there is some overlap of responsibilities. The personnel responsible for the overall program need to designate where each of the responsibilities lies. The overall IP program development module discusses the need to make these responsibility assignments.
Flexibility
This handbook is designed to provide wide flexibility for IP program development. Obviously an IP program could have only one participant and would be simple to administer. This program might use only specific portions of the handbook and this accompanying workbook. At the other end of the scale a large, complex IP program might have many participants on many different levels. The design and administration of this type of IP program will utilize most of the background and operational tools in the handbook and this workbook.
Responsibilities
To develop and utilize an IP system requires that many responsibilities be defined and then assigned. Potentially there can be many parties involved in a particular IP system and with the many responsibilities it would be easy for something to “fall through the cracks.” Guidelines to define and assign these responsibilities are included in the module on the overall IP program development. Most parties in an IP program will probably be involved in some documentation activity and will need to refer to that module.
Each module details the “what” and “how”
Each module in the workbook details the “what” and “how” of the particular activities for the various parties in the value-chain. The introduction to those specific activities gives an overview of decisions and activities for that module. The “step-by-step” page provides a logical listing of steps and activities that need to be addressed for that part of the IP program. The related “checklist” page may be used to record the activities as the process progresses. Several checklists are shown here which will help in planning and implementing an IP program. It is intended that these might serve as a guide to develop checklists specific to your particular IP program.
48
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Modules summarized and suggested usage The modules described below cover specific topics related to identity-preserved systems, beginning with the overall IP program development. Other modules cover topics specific to designated parties involved in the IP system. Obviously the other modules in the workbook are part of the overall IP program and need to be reviewed as the program is developed.
Overall IP program development
This module is an overview of a complete IP program. This might be used as a meeting outline in discussions between parties involved in the program. The establishment of relationships and responsibilities in the IP program is the first step to development of the program and potential program contracts or agreements. The physical movement of the IP grain between parties can be planned. The exact traits and qualities for the IP grain need to be identified and quantified and tolerances established. The IP processes or protocols for inspections, testing, and verification need to be established. This checklist can be used in conjunction with the “Inspection, sampling, and testing activities,” “Testing procedures,” and “Documentation activities” modules in this planning process.
Grower and growing activities
All grower activities from seed sourcing, through all other growing activities, to the delivery of the IP product to a first buyer, or final buyer are discussed in this module. The growing and production activities of planting, growing, preparing for harvest, harvesting, and storage are provided with item-by-item lists of points needing inspections and/or verification. Preparations to assure IP purity and verification tools are suggested.
Transportation and handling activities
Transportation between various parties physically handling, conditioning, or processing the IP product may take place between several steps in the value-chain. Transfers or handling activities are part of these transportation activities. The steps of cleaning transportation and handling equipment and inspections are just as important in these activities as at any other step. There are many checkpoints which need to be considered.
Receiving and conditioning activities
Receiving and conditioning is an intermediary step not always present in a value-chain. It might be a first-buyer or a plant doing conditioning of the product. Checkpoints to assure that all equipment is cleaned and inspected are provided.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
49
Processing and manufacturing activities
Processing and manufacturing steps are similar to other activities in the value-chain requiring that steps be taken to physically clean handling and processing equipment between plant runs. There is a distinct difference in this activity in that in many cases the processing and manufacturing activities may involve the disintegration of the product. In so doing there is DNA residue possibly left on the equipment. If this of concern, special cleaning techniques need to be employed. This module looks at these steps.
Inspection, sampling, and testing activities
Inspection, sampling, and testing activities are usually associated with or part of the other activities in the IP process. There are many checkpoints where inspections can be made or samples drawn. The determination of the need for these events should be determined early in the planning stages. The decision as to internal or third-party sampling and testing is part of this process. This module reviews possible sampling and testing points.
Testing procedures
The testing procedures for the various samples that might be generated throughout the IP system will need to be determined and laboratories to conduct the tests designated. Samples of the planting seed, leaf samples of the growing crop, samples of the seed of the IP crop, and also samples of the ingredient or product manufactured from the crop all need to be considered. It needs to be recognized that of all the procedures in an IP system that are in a state of some flux, the testing procedures area is constantly changing as new testing technologies evolve. The information in this module will need to be updated frequently as more accurate or faster procedures are developed.
Documentation activities
Documentation to give all parties the assurances that all of the IP specifications are met is key to all IP programs. This module shows a large number of potential documents that might be included in an IP program. However, it is pointed out that not all of these documents would be included in any one program. The parties to the IP production will need to determine which are appropriate or needed for their specific program. Evolving technology will make this documentation electronically which will both speed up the process of document sharing and reduce the abundance of paperwork involved.
50
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Identity-preserved overall program development module The broad overview
Step back and look at the total picture Identifying and defining: Needs Parties Traits Establishing requirements for: Inspections Sampling Testing Verification and documentation required: IP steps completed Inspections satisfactory Representative sampling procedures Positive test results
The IP program mission
The mission of this program is to develop, initiate, and exercise an IP system to provide buyers with IP products that meet their needs of identity preservation of quality and purity traits. The total program must include the utilization of high quality seed, proper planting, growing, harvesting, storing, handling, transporting, conditioning, and manufacturing to maintain and track the integrity of the product through the entire system. An effective IP system requires the due diligence of good managers throughout the value-chain. A major goal is to formulate a team and to stimulate a team effort by effective communication within the value-chain that will enhance the IP process.
What we want to accomplish in the overall plan
This module is an overview of a complete IP program. The tools included here might be used as a meeting outline in discussions between parties involved in the program. The exact traits and qualities for the IP grain need to be identified and quantified and tolerances established. The IP processes or protocols for inspections, testing, and verification need to be established.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
51
The establishment of relationships and responsibilities in the IP program is the first step to development of the program and potential program contracts or agreements. The physical movement of the IP grain between parties can be planned. The tools in this module can be used in conjunction with the “Inspection, sampling, and testing activities,” “Testing procedures,” and “Documentation activities” modules in this planning process.
Developing the details
Using the “Step-by-step” and “checklists” The overall program development module includes “step-by-step” procedures and “checklists” for identifying and working through the details for the overall program. The parties responsible for putting together the overall IP program will need to set the parameters that the other parties in the supply-chain will follow to implement the total IP system. The “step-by-step” procedure will walk through decisions that will need to be made or activities that will need to be completed. The “checklists” will follow the “step-by-step” and provide a method of keeping track of the step completions. The series included here includes: Overall IP program development Inspection, sampling, and testing activities Testing procedures Documentation activities These “step-by-step” and “checklists” can be used in the initial IP program development and may also be used later in the program implementation. The above-listed series is included on the pages following. Work through these exercises in the order within the workbook. Depending upon the specific program development you may find it helpful to work back and forth between the worksheets.
The parties
Getting started
The specific parties in any supply-chain or value-chain are not predetermined but are chosen to fill needs for product or services in that particular chain. The parties in an IP value-chain will need to be trained specifically to provide the value of product or service to help attain the overall goals of the IP system. Relationships need to be developed which will provide the team effort desirable in an IP system. This philosophy may be considerably different from that in a commodity system. The next two pages will introduce you to the system of “step-by-step” and “checklist” tools used throughout the workbook. Study the step-bystep plan on the left-hand page and use the checklist on the right-hand page to work through the decision-making process of developing an overall IP program. You may want to refer to other modules as you develop the overall program.
52
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP Step-by-step
Overall IP program development
The development of an all-inclusive identity-preserved (IP) program requires a comprehensive analysis of the requirements of all parties in the value-chain. If possible a meeting of the principal parties to the agreement for production and trade should be arranged to discuss the various considerations that are necessary to develop the IP program. The following step-by-step guide in conjunction with the accompanying checklist will facilitate an IP program development.
Step
Records needed
•
Determine need for IP program – this can be initiated by either the buying or selling party
•
Contracts will evolve in later steps
•
Identify the product traits or attributes that will be tracked in the IP system – will these be quantified and how? o Genetic traits o Quality attributes o Production method
•
These attributes will need to be spelled out in the contracts listed – either as part of the agreements or as addenda as the traits need to be both qualified and quantified
•
Establish relationships required in the valuechain – a number of parties may be required to meet the needs to fill the quantity desired – these parties, and the responsibilities of each need to be identified as the plan evolves: o Seed source o Growers o First receivers (buyers) o Handling and transportation o Trader/broker o Value-added processor o Distributors o End-use manufacturer o Distributors
•
Production contracts or buy/sell agreements will be needed – depending upon the type of business arrangement will be appropriate
•
Develop a “team” approach so that parties recognize that they are a part of a team effort rather than taking an adversarial attitude to other parties in the value-chain
•
Communicate to all parties in the value-chain what their responsibilities are and also the responsibilities on other team members and expected relationships
•
Establish the movement of the product through the value-chain – the physical movement as well as where ownership changes occur
•
Develop a “value-chain” for this particular IP system to visualize your plan
•
Analyze the costs involved in each step so that parties are compensated for products, services, and risks involved in IP production and handling o Specialty attributes have a cost o Higher (lower) tolerances have a cost o Risk increases with both specialty attributes and tolerances and needs to be spread between parties in the chain
•
The cost analysis needs to be part of the contract price negotiation
•
What verification methods will be used? o Internally o Third-party o Auditing
•
As the verification methods are identified these need to be included in the above agreements – if verification includes third parties these should be spelled out in the agreements
•
Identify documentation required – see “Documentation activities” module
•
All documents of verification of IP procedures, sampling, and testing need to be identified or developed to meet the requirements
o o o o
Grower – first buyer First buyer – exporter Exporter – foreign buyer Foreign buyer – distributors
These contracts or agreements will need to spell out quantities, and qualities, as well as the protocols required for all verification required and documentation agreed upon
All other modules of the workbook are important to this, the “Overall IP program development module,” especially the “Inspection, sampling, and testing activities,” “Testing procedures,” and “Documentation activities” modules.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
Checklist
53
Overall IP program development
This checklist is intended to facilitate the process of developing an IP program, by reviewing the relationships and their individual responsibilities, establishing the chain of intended product movement, identifying IP traits and quantifying those traits, establishing verification protocols, and the documentation required. This can be used for each individual contract (buy/sell agreement).
Identify traits (list individual traits)
Genetic traits ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Quality traits ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Production method traits ____________________ ____________________ ____________________
Establish relationships Initiating party Seed source Grower First receiver (handler) Trader/broker Value-added processor Distributors End-use manufacturer
Establish the chain of movement Seed source Grower First receiver (handler) Handling and transportation Trader/broker Value-added processor Distributors End-use manufacturer Distributors
Verification protocols Third-party inspection Third-party sampling Third-party testing Internal inspection Internal sampling Internal testing
Documentation required
Quantify traits (establish quantification or tolerances for each trait)
________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________
Responsibilities of parties ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
Identify parties ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
Identify parties and methods ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
See documentation checklist
Internal documentation of steps Third-party documentation of steps Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________
54
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Grower and growing activities module The broad overview
Step back and look at the total picture Select high quality seed: Meet the buyers’ genetic needs High genetic purity High seed quality to produce a good crop Plant and grow a crop while: Maintaining genetic purity Properly isolating from surrounding crops Harvest the IP crop while: Maintaining genetic purity Enhancing the value by careful harvest Properly store the IP crop while: Maintaining genetic purity Attaining and maintaining proper moisture Deliver the IP crop while: Maintaining genetic purity
The growers’ mission
The mission of IP growers is to maximize the resources of seed, soil, climate, equipment, labor, and management skills to enhance the value of identity-preserved production, and further to be an integral part of the team effort required maintaining crop purity from the seed planted, through the growing, harvesting, storage, and delivery of the crop to the next team member. A goal is to assist the team effort by communicating with appropriate parties of the team.
What this grower module will do
All grower activities from seed sourcing, through all other growing activities, to the delivery of the IP product to a first buyer or final buyer are discussed in this module. The growing and production activities of planting, growing, preparing for harvest, harvesting, and storage are provided with item-by-item lists of points needing inspections and/or verification. Preparations to assure IP purity and verification tools are suggested.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
55
Getting started
The next two pages provide the step-by-step procedures to develop the growers’ part of the IP program. The accompanying checklist allows a continuing record of these activities. There will be other records that will be required. Most of these records can be used in conjunction with a good set of grower crop production records.
Seed selection
Seed selection may be the grower’s choice or may be designated by the party contracting or buying the IP production. In either case the careful selection of seed that will meet the genetic needs of the buyer for his end use is critical. In addition to selecting seed with good seed qualities it is imperative in an IP system to select seed with high genetic purity. Any genetic impurities will be magnified in the growing process. The genetic purity required in the IP production will be influenced by the purity that begins the process – the seed. Certified seed or quality assured seed is much easier to verify in the documentation process of the IP system.
Equipment cleaning
All grower activities that utilize equipment to handle the planting seed and the harvested crop will need to be cleaned of seeds from previous operations that might contaminate the IP production. If this equipment is owned and managed by the grower he will need to develop a system to assure that this cleaning is effective and documented. A checklist for each specific piece of equipment is helpful. If custom operators do any of the planting or harvesting operations your IP production needs to be discussed far in advance of the operation. Hiring custom operators that are experienced in seed or specialty crop production will be worthwhile. Several land-grant universities have recently studied planting and harvesting equipment cleaning operations and may have extension publications available. The South Dakota Crop Improvement Association has a video of combine cleaning techniques.
Working with other team members
As an IP grower there will probably be several other members of the IP product team that you will be working with directly. The party contracting or buying the IP production will probably coordinate many activities with other parties. The seed supplier will place the order for the seed and deliver the seed. At both times you need assurance that the seed will meet the needs for your IP production. If your IP production is to be observed, verified, or audited by a third party this activity needs to be coordinated. Either the grower or the contracting party will need to communicate growing activities and crop progress at several times during the IP production.
Delivery
Delivery of the IP production to the next party whether this be a receiving facility or whether it is to a transportation provider that will deliver to a terminal for barge loading or other transportation will probably be coordinated by the contractor or buyer of the IP production. It will behoove the grower to assure himself that any transportation equipment is properly cleaned prior to loading. Move on to the step-by-step and checklists for further ideas.
56
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP Step-by-step
Grower and growing activities
In an identity-preserved (IP) world the way we do things and the records that we keep need to be more precise. From a grower’s point of view any production that is IP will be easier to keep separate and document if it is on a whole field or whole bin basis. This may not provide the same flexibility that was previously available – but IP is a different procedure. Refer to handbook section 4 for complete background on these steps. A basic record should be the “checklist,” or a similar document, which should become a permanent record of IP activities.
Step
Records needed
•
Seed selection – select seed that will meet the needs of contract or intended market
•
Record and document with purchase receipts for all seed purchased – with intended field(s) to be planted. Be sure that all seed is the same lot number or that genetic purity is the same
•
Field selection – select fields which will not be contaminated by volunteer plants from the previous growing season or from pollination from nearby fields
•
Record exact location of field – with exact records of previous crop – with documented seed records from previous crop. Field or farm maps will be beneficial for these records
•
Planter preparation – thoroughly clean planter of seed of other crops or other varieties of same crop
•
Use “Grower and growing activities checklist” to document this procedure and maintain as a permanent record
•
Planting – carefully check each unit of seed dumped into planter to verify correctness
•
Record units of seed used by field
•
Growing – observe crop during season and note any problems
•
Note any isolation problems or off-type plants
•
Harvest preparation – all harvesting, handling, and storage equipment must be thoroughly cleaned
•
Record all preparation activities on form
•
If third-party inspections are part of program be sure to notify for inspection prior to harvesting
•
Third-party service will provide inspection records that should become part of documentation records
•
Harvesting – careful harvest to avoid mixtures or poor quality – dump any errors to market separately
•
Record all harvesting activities with quantities harvested by field and where stored or delivered
•
Storage – care must be taken during transport to storage, handling into storage, and removal from storage to avoid mixtures
•
Record field source of all quantities into each bin as well as dates and observations for storage quality for periodic checks of storage until delivered
•
Sampling – depending upon sampling requirement for specific market representative sample needs to be obtained. Composite sampling is desirable
•
Record of how sample was obtained in addition to sample testing records
•
Delivery – check all handling and transportation equipment prior to moving
•
Record process of checking and cleaning all equipment prior to loading. Also record exact quantities delivered and where delivered
•
Records and documents – as outlined in the column to the right and any documents called for in the production contract
Visit with party contracting or buying production to see that all records and documents are kept and transferred to parties required
Grower records of IP production should document all pertinent information from the seed selection through all other steps to delivery of the IP product. All steps of interest to a buyer should be recorded until change of ownership occurs.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
Checklist
57
Grower and growing activities
This checklist is intended to facilitate the process of planning and growing an IP crop. It can be used as a checklist to assure that all activities in the process are completed successfully and may also be used as documentation that will represent part of the “paper trail.” This can be used for each individual contract.
Seed source – Seed may be sourced by the grower or by the party contracting production. The responsible party should be identified in the initial planning stages of the IP program development. Determine varieties/hybrids that qualify for desired traits Verify that variety/hybrid has desired traits Locate seed lots that will provide level of purity required to meet IP standards of contract Purchase quantity needed for contract production date __________ File purchase receipts for documentation records date __________
Planting – The necessary cleaning and preparation operations need to be performed prior to or at inspections. Verify seed quantity for acreage Verify planter (seeder) cleaned Verify previous crop in field Verify that field isolation distances are met from surrounding crops Check label on each seed container as it is emptied into planter (seeder) Record quantities of seed planted in each field
date __________ date __________ date __________ date __________ date __________ date __________
Growing season – Inspect field following heavy rains to detect washouts in isolation or plants “transplanted” from nearby fields Field inspection during growing season to detect any off-type plants Field inspection just prior to harvest to detect any off-type plants Notify third-party inspection service (if required)
date __________ date __________ date __________ date __________
Prior to harvest – Clean and inspect on-farm storage Clean and inspect handling equipment used to move grain into storage bins Clean and inspect combine (it is suggested that a checklist be developed to use as guide) Clean and inspect transportation equipment used in the harvesting operation
date __________ date __________ date __________ date __________
Harvest – date __________ Take care when harvesting edge of field for adjacent contaminating plants date __________ Inspect any transportation vehicles prior to filling to see that they are cleaned Dump any harvest “errors” into separate wagon and do not commingle with IP grain date __________
Storage – Inspect handling equipment and storage bins before dumping Take special precautions that non-IP crop is not dumped on top of IP bin Inspect and sample bins periodically to assure proper storage moisture
date __________ date __________
Sampling – Sample at harvest to assure quality Sample from each bin (composite sample as filling best) Sample at delivery (may be completed at delivery point)
date __________ date __________ date __________
Delivery – Clean and inspect handling equipment used for moving from bins to trucks Clean and inspect trucks used for delivery
date __________ date __________
Records and documents – Complete all grower IP records required
date __________
58
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Transportation and handling activities module The broad overview
Step back and look at the total picture Transportation and handling: Probably the least supervised Critical to success of IP program Assignment of responsibility: The parties responsible for arrangement The parties responsible for IP activities The parties responsible for documentation Coordination of activities: Transportation is the link that attaches other parties in the chain and coordination is critical
Transportation and handlers mission
The mission of transportation and handling providers is to provide the services of handling and transporting IP products so as to maintain the integrity and purity of the crop from the point of pickup to the delivery point. An integral part of this activity is to properly clean and inspect all bins, handling equipment, and transporting equipment prior to these activities. Our goal is to cooperate with other parties to facilitate the team efforts of the entire IP system.
What this module on transportation and handling will do
Transportation between various parties physically handling, conditioning, or processing the IP product may take place between several steps in the value-chain. Transfers or handling activities are part of these transportation activities. The steps of cleaning transportation and handling equipment and inspections are just as important in these activities as at any other step. There are many checkpoints, which need to be considered. Since these arrangements and the equipment used to handle and transport IP products are so varied it is difficult to comprehend all of the possibilities, that need to be addressed in an IP system. An outline of activities is presented.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
59
Getting started
The next two pages provide the step-by-step procedures required in an IP program for handling and transportation activities. As previously mentioned this area is so varied it is difficult to lay out procedures that will fit all potential situations. Broad areas of consideration are presented to help guide the thought process that will need to be considered and the details will need to be developed.
Responsibilities
The parties contracting the handling and transportation activities in the IP operation need to assign these responsibilities. If the grower is responsible for the first delivery arrangements, these considerations will be part of the grower duties and this module can be assigned to him. If the first receiver makes these arrangements then that party should be assigned responsibility for this module.
Importance
The varied pieces of handling and transportation equipment need the same thorough cleaning and inspection as equipment that may seem more vital to IP operations. This attitude of diminished responsibility in this area causes many problems in IP operations. It is an important part of the IP system and needs to be recognized as such.
Handling equipment cleaning
Handling equipment, including conveying and elevating machinery, is sometimes difficult to clean and inspect. This makes the attention to this detail even more critical. Augers and bucket elevators are difficult to inspect and difficult to reach with cleaning equipment. With these limitations it is important that people make every effort to perform the operations with understanding and resolve to adequately complete successfully. Belt conveyors are usually easier to access for inspection and cleaning.
Transportation equipment cleaning
Transportation equipment cleaning usually involves sweeping down and checking and cleaning the crevices between pieces of sheet metal that form the shipping container. With the exception of these areas most transporting equipment is self-cleaning. The bottom of ship holds and the bottom of barges obviously need to be emptied and cleaned. It is wise to check the bottom of hopper bottom trucks after driving empty as grain lodged in the crevices will shake out and will be in the hopper bottom. Opening the unloading gates just prior to loading will dump the contaminating materials.
Export shipping containers
Export container shipping eliminates some of the transfer points in other shipping methods but also needs special attention. If the IP product is for food use or food manufacturing, “food-grade” export containers should be specified. These containers are usually newer equipment and are also to be steam cleaned prior to delivery for loading. If the shipment is bagged, it is wise to use a plastic sheet on the floor. Container floors are wood and absorb liquids, including oil from bulk oilseed shipments. This can stain bags. Plastic liners are available for bulk shipments. Check the container for weather leeks and repair as necessary prior to loading. Poor containers should be rejected. The following two pages provide step-by-step procedures and checklists.
60
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP Step-by-step
Transportation and handling activities
In an identity-preserved (IP) system transportation and handling providers may add no value to the IP product but the service provided is critical to the system. The IP system is designed to maintain genetic purity of the IP product from beginning to end in the value-chain. The handling and movement of product is part of this chain and the proper cleaning of the handling and transportation equipment prior to these activities is vital to the success of the system. A basic record should be the “Transportation and handling activities checklist,” or a similar document, which should become a permanent record of IP activities.
Step
Records needed
Be sure of responsibility assignments
Permanent records of these activities are minimal but essential
Identify exact pickup point and product prior to loading
Pickup instructions should be in writing
Thoroughly clean all handling equipment used to move IP product from storage to transportation equipment prior to loading
A record of the cleaning activity should be maintained by the transportation and handling party, the receiving party, or by the party contracting the IP production
Ascertain that the IP product to be loaded is correct and that it meets specifications
Identification of the product should be explicit
Assure that all required documents are in order
The party responsible for the movement should assure that all documents verifying the IP procedures are in place prior to proceeding with product movement
Carry proper identification of load in transportation vehicle at all times
A Bill of Lading or similar document should accompany the load at all times – whether the shipment is made by truck, rail, or barge
At destination make assurance that product is expected and that everything is in order for product reception Present load identification to receiver
When the shipment reaches the destination the transport document should be presented and when everything is in order receiving records should show the transfer of the product
Obtain receipt (scale ticket or other document)
A copy of the receipt should be retained by each party
Trucks should be inspected and cleaned – especially the crevices between sheet metal panels used in hopper construction – always open the hopper bottom after driving empty to remove dislodged seeds
A record of the cleaning and inspection should be included on a checklist for each type of transport equipment used
Barges need to be cleaned and all debris removed Ship holds need to be cleaned and all debris removed Export containers need to be cleaned and inspected for weather leaks and repaired – a liner is suggested on the floor for bag shipments and also on walls for bulk shipments
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
Checklist
O
61
Transportation and handling activities
This checklist is intended to facilitate the process of handling and transporting of an IP crop. It can be used as a checklist to assure that all activities in the process are completed successfully and may also be used as documentation that will represent part of the “paper trail.” The movement of IP grain can be both internal (within an organization) and external (handled or transported by parties outside of an IP contract). The IP responsibilities need to be assigned and completed.
Designated responsibilities – Transportation from grower to first receiver Handling during transloading to other transportation Transportation by rail Transportation by barge Handling during transloading to ship Handling during unloading from other transportation Verify that all documentation is complete to that point
Delivering transportation – Whether the IP grain is delivered by grower trucks, hired trucks, or trucks belonging to the receiver the equipment needs to be cleaned and inspected Inspect trucks or other equipment used for delivery Assure that correct IP grain is loaded and identified
Handling – Clean and inspect all handling equipment Record all handling activities Clean and inspect any temporary storage facilities
Truck transportation – Clean and inspect truck equipment Final inspection just prior to loading Record all truck loading activities
Rail or barge transportation – Clean and inspect rail and barge equipment Record all transportation activities
Ship bulk transportation – Clean and inspect ship holds and handling equipment Record all transportation activities
Export container shipment – Clean and inspect export container Inspect for weather leaks and repair Use floor and wall liners if specified Record all activities for each container
Records – Complete all handling and transportation IP records required Assure that party responsible for all records receives handling and transportation records
62
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
.
Receiving, handling, and conditioning module The broad overview
Step back and look at the total picture Identify your specific responsibilities: Meet the buyers’ genetic needs Meet the buyers’ quality needs Identify people designated for delivery to your facility Understand sampling and testing requirements Understand record-keeping requirements Assure that incoming deliveries will meet specifications: Arrange pre-delivery sampling and testing if needed Record all sampling and sample analysis Understand document requirements: Assure that documents from incoming parties are in order prior to accepting deliveries Understand documents required from your operation Arrange document transfer upon completion
Receiving, handling, and conditioning mission
The mission of receiving, handling, and conditioning parties is to provide the services of receiving the IP crop in such a way as to maintain purity and integrity of the product. If value will be added by improving product quality, the conditioning processes required and the proper use of equipment and management skills will be important. A major part of this service is to thoroughly clean and inspect all facilities and equipment prior to these activities. Our relationship with other parties in a cooperative way will facilitate the team efforts of the entire IP system.
What this module on receiving, handling, and conditioning will do
Receiving and conditioning is an intermediary step not always present in a value-chain. It might be a first-buyer or a plant doing conditioning of the product. Check points to assure that all equipment is cleaned and inspected are needed. These checklists may need to be specific for the facility and the operations performed. Commingling from various sources often takes place in this step and needs to be well documented.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
63
Source identification
Identification of sources delivering product is vital in an IP system. Knowledge of the exact product, the expected quantity, and proper incoming load identification is critical. Pre-delivery sampling may be desirable. If the receiver is not the buyer or contracting party, then communication of this information is top priority.
Sampling and testing
Incoming product sampling and testing is extremely important. Depending upon the IP characteristics and product quality specifications this may require various visual inspections, size analysis, and product testing. If precise genetic testing is a requirement, it may be desirable to arrange pre-delivery sampling and testing so as not to hold up truck unloading. Sampling protocols should be well understood. Sampling theory and protocols are discussed in the reference handbook. New technologies for testing procedures may be required that will require training. With the changes in sampling and testing procedures in the IP industry it is important that personnel involved be updated frequently.
Commingling from various sources
Commingling of product from various growers or other sources often happens at this step in the IP system. Careful identification of each incoming source is extremely important. It should be clear that the source is approved, that the product will meet specifications, and that documentation is complete to the point of delivery. Complete records of quantities and qualities of deliveries from each source should be part of the documentation that will be part of the total IP system. Each load from each source should be identified and recorded.
Conditioning
If product conditioning, similar to seed conditioning, or other like operations is part of the receiving operation, all parties need to clearly understand what the final specifications are and what is required to reach that quality level. Checklists should be used to document preparation of the facilities prior to the conditioning operation. Records of sampling and sample analysis before and after the procedures should be well documented and samples saved for inspection or testing should problems arise in the future.
Documentation
Documentation or records of all facility preparation and operations during receiving and/or conditioning are extremely important. The standard records of this type for this operation should be reviewed far in advance of this activity to ascertain whether these standard records are adequate for the IP system or whether modification will be needed. Whether these records will be part of the documentation package that end users may be receiving or whether it is backup information for the IP documentation it is important that they be in good form.
64
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP Step-by-step
Receiving, handling, and conditioning
In an identity-preserved (IP) world the way we do things and the records that we keep need to be more precise. From a first buyer, receiver, conditioner, or handler’s point of view any production that is IP will be easier to keep separate and document if entire facilities can be devoted. This may not provide the same flexibility that was previously available – but IP is a different procedure. Refer to handbook section 4 for complete background on these steps. A basic record should be the “Receiving and conditioning activities checklist,” or a similar document, which should become a permanent record of IP activities.
Step
Records needed
•
Facilities preparation – thoroughly clean the facilities and equipment devoted to the IP operation
•
Use a checklist which will remain a permanent document each time this cleaning is completed
•
Assure that all transportation equipment (both incoming and outgoing) used for this project is cleaned and inspected
•
The transportation supplier, the shipper, or receiver should maintain checklists documenting that the equipment is cleaned and inspected prior to loading
•
Verify that all required documentation from grower is available – the trader negotiating with the buyer may assume this responsibility
•
A checklist should be used that lists all of the required documents from the grower as well as other parties in the value-chain
•
Verify what the IP specifications are and that the delivered product will meet these specifications
•
The IP specifications should be a part of all documents
•
Verify that each individual load is coming from a designated source for this production
•
A system of “load cards” or other method should be employed with information transferred to permanent receiving records
•
Sample incoming loads according to protocol designated for this production
•
Record all sampling data – including product source, date, load designation, and sample identification
•
Sample testing – follow designated procedures if sample is tested at the receiving site
•
Record all sample testing data onto sample summary data forms
•
If the designated testing procedure is timeconsuming it may be desirable to arrange a pre-delivery system of sampling and testing to be sure that the incoming product meets specifications before dumping
If pre-delivery samples are analyzed, these should be identified and tied to bin or grower records that are traceable to future deliveries
If incoming product is commingled from several sources, it will be important to document this activity carefully – the quantity and quality received from each source is important
Records should show all information from each separate source of product
If conditioning is part of the IP procedure, the exact requirements should be known and equipment adjusted to meet these specifications
Record all conditioning activities, including records of all before and after sample analysis
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
Checklist
65
Receiving, handling and conditioning activities
This checklist is intended to facilitate the process of receiving by handler or first buyer of an IP crop. It can be used as a checklist to assure that all activities in the process are completed successfully and may also be used as documentation that will represent part of the “paper trail.” This can be used for each individual contract.
Prior to delivery from grower – Verify that grower IP crop meets all specifications to point for delivery Verify that all documentation is complete to that point A system of cards to identify loads from grower to receiver can be helpful If IP grain will be commingled with similar IP grain from other growers assure that all IP specifications are met for all deliveries before commingling If testing procedures are time-consuming, pre-delivery sampling and testing should be designated
Delivering transportation – Whether the IP grain is delivered by grower trucks, hired trucks, or trucks belonging to the receiver the equipment needs to be cleaned and inspected Inspect trucks or other equipment used for delivery Assure that correct IP grain is loaded and identified
Receiving plant preparation – Establish receiving, sampling, testing, and inspection required Clean and inspect all receiving dumps, handling equipment, and storage bins Clean and inspect all conditioning equipment (it is suggested that a checklist be developed to use as a guide)
Receiving – Verify origin of each load prior to weighing, sampling, and dumping Sample each load according to established procedure Perform specified tests prior to unloading Save and label a sample from each load from each grower If IP grain is commingled from various growers, complete records of this activity are important
Commingling – commingling from several sources often takes place at this step Identify each source as approved Assure that each source product meets specifications Assure that documentation is complete from each source to delivery point Keep accurate quantity and quality records for each source
Conditioning – Assure that all physical specifications of IP grain will be met Record all conditioning activities Save and label a sample from each lot conditioned
Records – Complete all conditioning IP records required Complete any change of ownership records Assure that party responsible for all records receives grower and conditioner records These operations may be complicated enough to warrant checklists and records specific to this particular operation and these records should be a part of the total IP backup documentation
66
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Processing and manufacturing activities module The broad overview
Step back and look at the total picture Identify your specific responsibilities: Meet the buyers’ genetic needs Meet the buyers’ quality needs Identify people designated for delivery to your facility Understand sampling and testing requirements Understand record-keeping requirements Assure that incoming deliveries will meet specifications: Arrange pre-delivery sampling and testing if needed Record all sampling and sample analysis Understand document requirements: Assure that documents from incoming parties are in order prior to accepting deliveries Understand documents required from your operation Arrange document transfer upon completion
Processing and manufacturing mission
The mission of processing and manufacturing efforts is to manufacture ingredients or final consumer products from IP crops while maintaining the desirable genetic or quality attributes. If the potential transfer of DNA material from one product to another is a problem requiring the proper cleaning of equipment to minimize contamination. We need to cooperate with other parties in the value-chain to facilitate the team effort.
Possibly different from other IP steps
Processing and manufacturing steps are similar to other activities in the value-chain requiring that steps be taken to physically clean handling and processing equipment between plant runs. There is a distinct difference in this activity in that in many cases the processing and manufacturing activities may involve the disintegration of the product. In so doing there is DNA residue possibly left on the equipment. If this of concern, special cleaning techniques need to be employed. This module looks at these steps.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
67
Nearing the end of the IP process
Processing and manufacturing may indicate an intermediary step in the IP system if an ingredient product is the resulting product, or it might be the final step if a consumer product is manufactured. If the product is an ingredient that will be further processed, the IP documentation will need to proceed to the next steps. If the manufactured product is consumer ready, then any product labeling issues related to the IP process can be addressed. In either event the IP process and documentation has hopefully delivered an IP product that can be traced from the seed planted by the grower, through several steps to be delivered to an end user.
Continuing the IP process
The same care in handling the products that have delivered the IP item to this stage need to be continued to the end product. The system may seem complicated but it really is not. Each party is expected to perform certain services, which are documented, and passed on to the next step in the process. Validating the receipt of documented goods for processing and then assuring that the manufacturing process proceeds with the same care will deliver the desired goods to the consumer.
Special care for plant DNA material
As previously mentioned one potential concern in processing where disintegration occurs introduces the possibility of plant DNA material remaining in the processing equipment. If this potential is of concern whether it be a food or pharmaceutical product where allergies or labeling restrictions may be at issue, care will need to be taken that this is eliminated. These issues are internal and protocols need to be established. The final end user, the consumer, deserves assurances that the product meets his needs without deleterious material.
Additional tools on following pages
Procedures or steps in the manufacturing process are not outlined on the following pages – but broad concerns are covered that will affect any such process. Assuring that the incoming product meets specifications and that the IP processes to the point of delivery can be traced is primary. Following this with internal processes of manufacturing will bring the IP process to a conclusion. The next two pages, IP step-by-step for processing and manufacturing and the associated checklist may be helpful in finalizing this IP procedure.
68
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP Step-by-step
Processing and manufacturing activities
Processing and manufacturing in an identity-preserved (IP) world may be slightly different if we are specifying critical product content. Ingredients may have to be separated and traced throughout the process. The records that we keep need to be more precise. This may not provide the same flexibility that was previously available – but IP is a different procedure. Refer to handbook section 4 for complete background on these steps. A basic record should be the “Processing and manufacturing activities checklist,” or a similar document, which should become a permanent record of IP activities.
Step
Records needed
•
Prior to IP product delivery be assured that product meets IP and quality specifications
•
•
Product documentation for previous steps should be available to verify IP process prior to delivery
If a document trail is important, from this point forward you need to verify that all required documentation from previous parties for all critical ingredients is available
•
Facilities preparation – thoroughly clean the facilities and equipment devoted to the IP operation; if DNA contamination is critical to the IP product, then more thorough cleaning procedures may need to be initiated
•
Make a record of facility cleaning activities documenting the procedures. If potential DNA contamination is critical, make special records of those activities
•
Assure that all transportation equipment (both incoming and outgoing) used for this project is cleaned and inspected
•
If these records are not kept by the transportation provider, this should be part of the processors’ records
•
Verify that each individual load is coming from a designated source for this production
•
Records of all incoming products and ingredients should detail quantity and quality
•
If like products or ingredients are commingled, make sure that all products meet specifications prior to commingling
•
Records should document all product coming from each individual supplier
•
Sample incoming loads according to protocol designated for this production
•
Sampling records should designate suppliers and quantity represented
•
Sample testing – follow designated procedures if sample is tested at the receiving site
•
Testing analysis records should be documented
•
If the designated testing procedure is timeconsuming, it may be desirable to arrange a predelivery system of sampling and testing to be sure that the incoming product meets specifications before dumping
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
Checklist
69
Processing and manufacturing activities
This checklist is intended to facilitate the process of processing and manufacturing of an IP crop. It can be used as a checklist to assure that all activities in the process are completed successfully and may also be used as documentation that will represent part of the “paper trail.” This can be used for each individual contract.
Prior to delivery from intermediate handlers or growers – Verify that IP crop meets all specifications to point for delivery Verify that all documentation is complete to that point If IP grain will be commingled with similar IP grain from other handlers, assure that all IP specifications are met for all deliveries before commingling
Delivering transportation – Whether truck, rail, or barge delivers the IP grain the equipment needs to be cleaned and inspected Inspect trucks or other equipment used for delivery Assure that correct IP grain is loaded and identified
Processing and manufacturing plant preparation – Establish receiving, sampling, testing, and inspection required Clean and inspect all receiving dumps, handling equipment, and storage bins Clean and inspect all processing and/or manufacturing equipment (it is suggested that a checklist be developed to use as a guide) If grain is disintegrated as part of the processing and DNA contamination is a problem, this type of cleaning and inspection needs to be completed
Receiving – Verify origin of each load prior to weighing, sampling, and dumping Sample each load according to established procedure Perform specified tests prior to unloading Save and label a sample from each load from each source If IP grain is commingled from various sources complete records of this activity are important
Processing and manufacturing – Assure that all physical specifications of IP grain will be met Record all processing and manufacturing activities Save and label a sample from each lot manufactured
Records – Complete all handling and manufacturing IP records required Complete any change of ownership records Assure that party responsible for all records receives all IP records
70
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Inspection, sampling, and testing module The broad overview
Step back and look at the total picture Identifying and defining: Needs Parties Traits Decisions for: Internal inspections, sampling, and testing Third-party inspections, sampling, and testing Accredited by third party Determining needs of buyer of IP products regarding the inspection, sampling, and testing: What will fulfill buyer needs? What is most economical approach? What are legal ramifications?
The mission of inspection, sampling, and testing
The mission of inspection, sampling, and testing providers is to provide the services of inspection, sampling, and testing as required to meet the needs of the IP system to verify the level of product quality. Our goal is to work within the parameters of time and cost constraints to meet the system needs and to provide the verification required. Inspection, sampling, and testing provide support or assurance that the IP system is doing or has done its job. The strict growing, production, handling, and delivery procedures are the essence of the IP system.
Part of the total IP system
Inspection, sampling, and testing activities are usually associated as part of the other activities in the IP process. There are many checkpoints where inspections can be made or samples drawn. The determination of the need for these events should be determined early in the planning stages. The decision as to internal or third-party sampling and testing is part of this process. These decisions will be part of the overall IP system strategies and will probably be made by the party or parties involved in designing the total IP system. This module reviews possible inspection, sampling, and testing points.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
71
Whose responsibility?
The decisions on who has responsibility for deciding what inspections, sampling, and testing will be needed and who will provide those services are a front-line objective. Will the parties initiating the IP system make these decisions, or will parties in the value-chain make these decisions based on guidelines set forth in the overall agreements? Will third parties be involved in these services?
What is needed?
Identifying the inspection and testing needs may help with the decisions on who and how. There are several general types of inspections and testing that can be reviewed and then the next two pages will detail more specifics.
Seed records and testing
Checking the available records and testing of the IP planting seed is the first step and is key in an IP system. It is well to point out again that starting with certified seed or branded seed from respected seed programs gives a much more traceable entity than farmer-saved seed or other seed that has not come through a documented regimen of traceability and testing. Even with these documented systems further testing may be warranted. This testing could include genetic purity tests that are currently not part of the testing requirements for commercial seed. It is perfectly fine to ask the seed supplier if other test data is available for the seed lots being considered than the information required on the seed label. The information sought may be available. Seed and genetic testing laboratories are listed in the IP reference handbook appendices.
Field inspections
Field inspections are observations of field isolation, proper planting procedures, pollination progress and success, and identifying the presence of off-type plants. When and how these inspections are made will vary with the crop grown. AOSCA agencies and some private companies can provide this service or internal personnel can be trained for this activity. There are established methods for inspecting each crop.
Third-party verification
Each party in the value-chain should document IP process verification, of each step. Third-party verification of some or all of these steps may be indicated by the buyer or may be required by some party in the process. To a large degree IP systems are built on trust between parties – even with the involvement of third-party verification.
Sampling
Sampling of the product at various points is critical. Understanding correct sampling procedures is very important. Representative samples become more difficult as the size of the production increases. Seed sampling procedures are available from AOSCA agencies and grain sampling procedures have been developed by the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). These are referenced in the handbook. New technologies cause the development of new sampling procedures so check with these agencies frequently.
Testing
Tests and testing procedures are rapidly changing with new technologies. Testing is covered in a separate module.
72
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP Step-by-step
Inspection, sampling, and testing activities
Inspection, sampling, and testing may play a part in most steps in an identity-preserved (IP) system. Many of the various parties in the IP value-chain will need to refer to this module. Refer to handbook section 6 for complete background on these activities. A basic record should be the “Inspection, sampling, and testing activities checklist,” or a similar document, which should become a permanent record of IP activities.
Step
Records needed
•
The decisions on where the responsibilities fall on the inspections needed and the appropriate sampling and testing may come after the decisions on what will be required. This is included at the top of the checklist, but may in fact be decided after other decisions are made.
•
A record of areas of responsibility should be included in the overall IP plan.
•
The checklist contains a listing of potential inspections and tests that could be included in an IP system. As technology advances there may be others to consider. It will be wise to develop a checklist specific to the needs of your IP program.
•
Records should show the inspections, sampling, and tests required and who is responsible. If outside services are included they should be listed.
•
Planting seed analysis should include both supplier information and, if needed, additional testing for information not available from the supplier.
•
Test data from both seed supplier and additional tests should be part of IP documentation.
•
Leaf sampling and testing, of the growing crop, is usually an optional activity in an IP program. This procedure can sometimes help to determine if there are off-types present when visual observations are not easily confirmed.
•
The results of any leaf sampling and testing should be included in documentation of IP activities. This might be included as part of field inspection records as these tests usually are used to confirm visual field inspections.
•
Field inspections during and at the end of the growing season help to spot potential isolation problems that may cause contamination and also identify off-types that may be volunteer plants from the previous crop, planting seed genetic purity, or planter cleanout problems.
•
Observations made during field inspections should be made in writing and will often include field maps showing field boundaries with surrounding crops as well as visual observations of plants in the field.
•
Crop seed sampling and testing may be initiated just prior to harvest, at the first harvest, during harvest, going into storage, during storage, and at various transportation and delivery points, as well as at points during any processing.
•
Records should describe how and where the samples are obtained as well as the testing methods (including sample size) in addition to the results of the testing.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
Checklist
73
Inspection, sampling, and testing activities
This checklist is intended to facilitate the process of inspections, sampling, and testing of an IP crop. It can be used as a checklist to assure that all activities in the process are completed successfully and may also be used as documentation that will represent part of the “paper trail.” The inspection, sampling, and testing of an IP crop can be both internal (within an organization) and external (third-party services). These inspections are not the routine cleaning and inspections of equipment, but are inspections of the crop or the crop seed. The IP responsibilities need to be assigned and completed. Parties to the IP production and movement need to determine which of the checklist steps will be required for this production.
Designated responsibilities – Required Completed
Seed testing prior to purchase Leaf sampling and testing for genetic purity Field inspections Verification of growing and harvesting activities Sampling at harvest Sampling prior to delivery Inspection and testing
Party responsible
__________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________
Seed testing – Standard seed analysis Genetic testing of seed
Internal Internal
Third-party Third-party
Internal Internal
Third-party Third-party
Internal Internal Internal
Third-party Third-party Third-party
Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal
Third-party Third-party Third-party Third-party Third-party Third-party Third-party
Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal
Third-party Third-party Third-party Third-party Third-party Third-party Third-party
Leaf sampling and testing – Leaf samples for genetic testing Genetic testing of leaf samples
Field inspections – During growing season Verify isolation requirements are met Inspect fields prior to harvest
Crop seed sampling – Sampling at harvest Sampling from storage Sampling prior to delivery Sampling at delivery point Sampling at conditioning Sampling prior to processing Sampling at processing
Crop seed testing – Sample at harvest Sample from storage Sample prior to delivery Sample at delivery point Sample at conditioning Sample prior to processing Sample at processing
Identify tests to perform – _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
74
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Testing procedures module The broad overview
Step back and look at the total picture Reviewing what is available: Planting seed testing Leaf tissue testing IP crop product testing What meets the IP system needs? Product specifications Buyer requirements Assurance for production and delivery parties Comparing the procedures Time required for test Accuracy and limitations Cost
The testing mission
The mission of laboratory or testing service organizations is to provide the services of product testing required to meet the needs of verifying product integrity with documentation that will identify the samples tested and the test results. We will make every effort to provide testing results on a timely basis that will fit within the parameters required by the IP system.
Decisions and keeping abreast
The testing procedures for the various samples that might be generated throughout the IP system will need to be determined and laboratories to conduct the tests designated. Samples of the planting seed, leaf samples of the growing crop, samples of the seed of the IP crop, and also samples of the ingredient or product manufactured from the crop all need to be considered. New crop traits are being discovered or developed. The usefulness of these traits is being incorporated into products. It needs to be recognized that of all of the procedures in an IP system that are in a state of some flux, the testing procedures area is constantly changing as new testing technologies evolve. The information in this module will need to be updated frequently as more accurate or faster procedures are developed.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
Selecting testing from broad general areas
75
In the wide range of crops that might be produced under an IP system there are a huge number of potential tests that might be used to qualify and quantify characteristics or traits. It is not feasible to review all of those tests in this handbook or workbook. Parties that are involved with potential IP production systems for a particular crop need to become acquainted with the scientists specializing in those specific crops. Other parties in the testing area for contact would be GIPSA, grain quality labs, seed quality labs, genetic labs, and food quality labs. As new grain quality or genetic traits are discovered or developed, testing to identify and quantify these traits evolves and moves from the scientific arenas into service areas on university, governmental, or commercial levels. Testing can be divided into several broad general areas: • • • •
Planting seed testing
Seed quality testing • Standard seed tests – required for seed labeling • Optional seed tests – for additional quality information Leaf tissue testing • Testing the growing crop for potential off-types Grain quality testing • Standard grain tests – required for grain trade • Optional grain tests – for additional quality information Genetic testing – analysis of DNA • To determine varietal purity • To identify presence or absence of specific DNA
Seed quality testing is essential for the planting seed used in IP production. The items that must be included on seed labels include pure seed, inert matter, other crop seed, weed seed, noxious weed seed, germination, date of germination test, and the origin of the seed. Except for the date and origin all of these are reported in percentages. In addition the seed label shall show the crop (i.e., soybeans), variety, a lot number (traceable to source), and the name of the company labeling the seed. It should be pointed out that pure seed, as reported on the seed label, does not necessarily represent varietal purity. Additional testing may be warranted. First of all check with the seed supplier to see what additional test data may be available for the particular lot that you are considering. On lots with lower than optimum germination it may be good to have cold test germination or accelerated aging test information. Genetic testing can provide more precise varietal purity data. If the production is non-GMO, then genetic testing can determine potential transgenic contamination.
Leaf tissue testing
Leaf tissue testing can provide information on suspicious plants during the growing season. Routine field inspections may identify plants that are of questionable identity, which could indicate off-types in the seed planted, or volunteer plants from the previous crop. Lateral flow strip tests can be used in the field, or samples may be sent to a lab for ELISA or PCR testing.
76
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Grain quality testing
Grain quality testing includes both the tests required for movement of grain internationally and a wide array of optional testing that can provide a wealth of information on physical and compositional qualities. Grain quality testing available, for various crops, can be obtained from the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), a division of USDA. Their internet address is www.usda.gov/gipsa. Their web site also lists individual test labs with contact information. Information is also available from many university and private grain quality laboratories.
Genetic testing
Genetic testing is relatively new in the grain and specialty crop trades. This has been prompted by the GMO/non-GMO issue but will become more common as end-use quality traits are developed. Genetic testing detects qualities that are not discernible visually or by more traditional grain testing. Currently the GMO issue is attracting a lot of attention for genetic testing. There are three common methods used to detect GMOs: the herbicide bioassay; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), which includes the lateral flow strip tests; and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Each method has pros and cons, and each is appropriate for specific applications.
Herbicide bioassay
The herbicide bioassay is used to detect genetically modified herbicide resistant traits in Roundup Ready™ and Liberty Link™ soybeans, canola, and corn hybrids. The test also known as the “spray-and-sprout” test, involves placing seeds in a germination media moistened with a diluted herbicide solution. The herbicide may also be sprayed on the seedlings. The seeds that sprout with normal roots will be resistant to the herbicide, and thus are genetically modified. Those that do not develop normal roots or die are not modified. The advantages of the test: it is simple and inexpensive (US$20–30). The disadvantages: accuracy is reliant on a good germination of the seed, requires a large sample size, and the test takes up to a week. The test is specific only to specific herbicides and does not indicate other genetic modifications.
ELISA test
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods use antibodies to detect specific proteins produced by genetically modified DNA “events” in soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. The test uses a plastic plate containing 96 microwells. Antibodies are coated to the insides of the microwells. A sample is ground and the protein is extracted and added to the microwells. If the targeted protein is present, it binds to the inside of the wells. The protein is then “sandwiched” by another antibody that has an enzyme attached to it. A color substrate is added that reacts to the enzyme, creating a color change. The intensity of color indicates the amount of the protein present. The tests are specific to each GM event. The advantages of ELISA tests are speed (2 to 4 hours), userfriendliness, and low cost. The disadvantages are that only the specific proteins (events) are tested and only the raw grain may be tested because the proteins in processed food may be denatured by heat.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
77
Lateral flow strip tests
Another version of the immunosorbent assay uses lateral flow strips (similar to home pregnancy tests). These tests can be done in the field or at small receiving elevators. They give fast “yes or no” answers. The accuracy is lower, 0.25% for the strips versus 0.01% for the ELISA plate. The advantages are speed, ease of use, and cost (US$3–5). The disadvantages are that only the specific proteins (events) are tested and only the raw grain may be tested because the proteins in processed food may be denatured by heat.
PCR test
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is considered the most sensitive and precise GMO test method because it allows direct analysis of the DNA. In a PCR analysis, a sample is purified and extracted. PCR uses biochemical processes to scan through the DNA and locate genetically modified DNA sequences. Short pieces of DNA called primer sets identify the beginning and end of the targeted sequence. When a sequence is located, the PCR equipment multiplies the targeted gene billions of times until it can be measured precisely. The PCR method detects any genetic modification, even at very low levels. At this time PCR is the only method that can test processed foods – although some question whether there may be false positives or false negatives in these tests. The advantages are that it is very accurate and detects any genetic modification. The disadvantages are the time required (2–3 days) and the cost (US$75–300).
Proper sampling
Proper sampling is even more critical in GMO testing than in other sampling and testing procedures. It is imperative that the sample represents the lot under consideration. This is the major problem in shipments at this time, especially in very low tolerance levels for GMO.
Test standardization
Some of these tests are new enough that standards have not yet been developed for protocols and performance. This is in progress, but will take some time as the testing procedures evolve. In the meantime there is some risk in this area as laboratories around the world vary in both accuracy and reliability. The USDA GIPSA has just opened a biotechnology accreditation lab in Kansas City, Missouri, to help standardize test methods. The lab will review and accredit GMO testing labs that meet performance standards and evaluate test kits to ensure they are accurate and reliable. University, private, and commercial labs are also contributing to the efforts of standardization.
Testing is an evolving field
This is a critically evolving field. As new genetics evolve the methods to evaluate and test are also changing. Testing speed, accuracy, sensitivity, complexity, and cost are all important considerations when choosing the tests appropriate in each individual situation. This module differs from others in that it does not contain step-by-step and checklist tools. The testing possibilities are both complex and very broad in scope. With extreme crop differences, the wide range of tests available, and a rapidly changing technology it seemed appropriate not to try to include all details. This is an area where expert advice specific to particular IP programs may be appropriate.
78
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Documentation activities module The broad overview
Step back and look at the total picture Documentation involves most parties: Overall IP system management Grower Receiving and conditioning Processing and manufacturing All inspection, sampling, and testing Determine needs for: Buyer Value-chain parties Importing country System of moving documents: Form of documents Transfer method
The mission of documentation
The mission of documentation in the IP system is to provide a complete paper or electronic trail of both the product and the system in the application of the established IP program. The documentation will require the careful verification that all steps of the IP system were followed successfully. The proper documentation will require the cooperative efforts of team members up and down the value-chain. Documentation provides the traceability, from seed planted to final product.
Documentation – the core of an IP system
Outside of the IP procedures themselves the documentation of the satisfactory implementation of those procedures is the critical element of an IP system. Documentation, to give all parties the assurances that all of the IP specifications are met, is key to all IP programs. This module shows a large number of potential documents that might be included in an IP program. However, it is pointed out that not all of these documents would be included in any one program. The parties to the IP production will need to determine which are appropriate or needed for their specific program. Evolving technology will make this documentation electronically which will both speed up the process of document sharing and reduce the abundance of paperwork involved.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
79
Documentation – who is involved?
All parties in an IP system are involved, either directly or indirectly, with documentation that is the core of the IP system. The requirements of the buyer for his use, whether for his assurance of certain product qualities or for legal labeling requirements, may be primary in determining documentation, but it will be important to all parties. During the development of the overall IP system a document that describes the system with parties involved, responsibilities, product specifications, IP procedures, inspection, sampling, testing, and documentation will be the guideline for parties in the system.
Documentation purpose
The purpose of documentation is to demonstrate to each succeeding party in the IP system that IP procedures have been successfully completed through stages to that point. Prior to movement of the IP product through the system documentation provides this assurance. The actual document transferred may only state that required procedures have been completed, but backup documentation will be available to show the exact steps. Records are a part of any well-defined quality assurance system. An IP system is a quality-assurance system.
Transfer of documents or data
The actual transfer of documents, and the form of these documents, will be part of the agreements within the IP system. IP systems are based on trust of the system and between parties in the system. It may be agreed, after an IP system that has been in place for a period of time, that many of the documents will be available but do not need to be transferred. A level of understanding of the system and mutual trust has evolved to reach this point. Obviously the volume of records within an IP system can become overwhelming. Documents will be generated by many of the parties in the value-chain and if third-party service providers are involved those parties will provide documents. In most cases many of these documents are not actually transferred, but are available as backup to answer questions that might arise later.
Web-based data transfer
New technologies in the inspection, testing, and documentation processes are developing at this time. In the last two to three years systems have been developed that will allow the entry of information into web-based databases by various parties in an IP system. This method is still in the evolution stage but is rapidly coming into use. These systems will allow growers, third-party inspectors, conditioners and processors, laboratories, and others in an IP value-chain to enter and access data on a restricted basis. The access to enter and review data will be restricted for each individual party on an access code basis. These systems will potentially greatly reduce the need for “paper trails,” but will provide “electronic trails” that will be accessible to parties earlier in the process and on an “as needed” basis.
Country requirements
Some importing countries have specific documentation requirements for identity-preserved products. Products outside of the standard grain trade may require different documentation. At the time this handbook is being written the GMO/non-GMO issue is paramount. Some countries require or will require documentation and testing specific to this issue.
80
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP Step-by-step
Documentation activities
Documentation or data transfer is central to an IP system. It must be understood that the actual transfer of documents may or may not occur, but that backup documents are always part of the system. With the advent of potential web-based databases of IP growing, inspection, testing, conditioning, and manufacturing data much of the paper-based documentation may be replaced. Many of the various parties in the IP value-chain will need to refer to this module. Refer to handbook section 7 for complete background on these activities. A basic record should be the “Documentation activities checklist,” or a similar document, which should become a permanent record of IP activities.
Step
Records needed
•
Determine the data or documents that need to be obtained at each step in the identity-preserved system. Documents that are needed to record product transfer of ownership, IP procedures completed, inspections made, samples taken, and testing results are some of the considerations.
•
A listing of documents or data required should be developed and be part of the overall IP system plan.
•
Determine the form for each of the above documents or data accumulation. Some will need to be paper or scanned documents. Some will be on forms or on web-based databases. The transfer of information via the web will be different from paper-based documentation, but should provide the same assurances.
•
The form of documentation can be included in the list of documentation above.
•
After the determination is made on what documentation or data is required and the form that this various information will take responsibilities can be assigned. Many people within the value-chain will be involved and possibly third-party service providers may be involved.
•
A record of areas of responsibility should be included in the overall IP plan. A checklist or form similar to the opposite page can be used to assign responsibilities.
•
The “documentation activities checklist” may be used to facilitate working through the above decisions.
•
The “documentation activities checklist” or a similar format may be used to record all information required, the format, and parties responsible.
•
The “overall IP program development checklist” may also be helpful in this planning activity for documentation.
Section 5: Mechanics and economics of IP systems
Checklist
O
81
Documentation activities
This checklist is intended to identify the documentation required and to facilitate the process of documentation of an IP crop. It can be used as a checklist to assure that all activities in the process are completed successfully. The IP responsibilities need to be assigned and completed. Parties to the IP production and movement need to determine which of the checklist steps will be required for this production.
Documents – Required Completed
Party responsible (may be internal or third-party)
Seed source and testing – Verify seed variety for characteristics Standard seed analysis Genetic testing of seed Seed purchase receipt Verify seed quantity for acreage
_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________
Field planning and preparation – Verify previous season crop Verify isolation from contaminating crops
_______________________________ _______________________________
Verify planter cleaned Verify seed used, by field
_______________________________ _______________________________
Planting – Growing season – Leaf sampling and testing for genetic purity Verify field isolation distances Field inspections during growing season
_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________
Field inspections prior to harvest Verify combine cleaned Verify handling and storage equipment cleaned Sampling and testing at harvest Sampling and testing prior to delivery
_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________
Harvest –
Handling and delivery – Verify handling and trans. equipment cleaned
_______________________________
Receiving/conditioning plant – Sampling at delivery Record of commingling Verify handling equipment cleaned Verify conditioning equipment cleaned Inspection and testing
_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________
Handling and delivery – Verify handling and trans. equipment cleaned
_______________________________
Processing and manufacturing – Sampling at delivery Record of commingling Verify handling equipment cleaned Verify processing equipment cleaned
___________________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________
Crop seed testing – Sample at harvest Sample from storage Sample prior to delivery Sample at delivery point Sample at conditioning Sample prior to processing Sample at processing
_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________
It is emphasized that it is not suggested that all of these activities be documented. The parties need to determine which documents are needed for the particular IP transaction. It may be appropriate and convenient to combine areas of documentation to reduce the total number of documents. It should also be pointed out that as this handbook is being written electronic methods of documentation are being developed.
82
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
INSPECTIONS, sampling, and testing
Section
6
Introduction to section: Besides segregation, another factor that makes a value-chain, IP marketing system different from the traditional grain trading system is the need for additional inspections, sampling, and testing. In the traditional grain export system, quality is measured and tracked mainly on U.S. standard grain grades. In an IP system there are usually additional attributes which must be observed, inspected, and tested to assure that these characteristics meet the agreed-upon IP product. These additional procedures are part of the total IP program and the integrity of the total program is the inclusion of these procedures, but is not the additional procedures by themselves. We will look at some procedures that are usually outside of the traditional grain system – some measured with fairly common testing procedures and some with very sophisticated new procedures.
Objectives of section: we look at inspections required byinlaw. Then the of This section may lookFirst at some procedures that willthat be may very be commonplace the operation balance of this section at some that members will be very some members of a value-chain while almostlooks be foreign to procedures other potential of the commonplace in the operation of some chain. An introduction and basic background for this topic will members include: of a value-chain while almost be foreign to other potential members of the chain. An • Planting seed testing • Field inspections introduction and basic background for this topic will include: • Grain or seed sampling – theory and methods Testing planting seed • Testing methods • • Field inspections • Grain or seed sampling – theory and methods • Testing methods
Sampling and testing is not the whole of an IP program but it is an integral part. Testing verifies that IP procedures are successful. 83
84
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Determining inspections by law In the development of an IP program it will need to be determined if the trade of the specific agricultural products in the program will fall under laws regulating the trade or not. Identity-preserved agricultural products traded from the U.S. may come under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) or the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) or the trade or products may fall outside of these acts. Detailed information about these acts and sampling, inspection, and certification requirements can be found at the United States Department of Agriculture/Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration web pages (USDA/GIPSA) www.usda.gov/gipsa. These two acts are described below.
United States Grain Standards Act as amended (USGSA)
(SECTION 1) 7 U.S.C. 71. Short Title This Act may be cited as the “United States Grain Standards Act.”
(SECTION 2) 7 U.S.C. 74. Congressional findings and declaration of policy (a) Grain is an essential source of the world’s total supply of human food and animal feed and is merchandised in interstate and foreign commerce. It is declared to be the policy of the Congress, for the promotion and protection of such commerce in the interests of producers, merchandisers, warehousemen, processors, and consumers of grain, and the general welfare of the people of the United States, to provide for the establishment of official United States standards for grain, to promote the uniform application thereof by official inspection personnel, to provide for an official inspection system for grain, and to regulate the weighing and the certification of the weight of grain shipped in interstate or foreign commerce in the manner hereinafter provided; with the objectives that grain may be marketed in an orderly and timely manner and that trading in grain may be facilitated. It is hereby found that all grain and other articles and transactions in grain regulated under this Act are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce and that regulations thereof as provided in this Act as necessary to prevent or eliminate burdens on such commerce and to regulate effectively such commerce. (b) It is also declared to be the policy of Congress •
to promote the marketing of grain of high quality to both domestic and foreign buyers
•
that the primary objective of the Official United States Standards for Grain is to certify the quality of grain as accurately as practicable
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
•
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA)
85
that Official United States Standards for Grain shall o
define uniform and accepted descriptive terms to facilitate trade in grain
o
provide information to aid in determining grain storability
o
offer users of such standards the best possible information from which to determine end-product yield and quality of grain
o
provide the framework necessary for markets to establish grain quality improvement incentives
o
reflect the economic value-based characteristics in the end uses of grain
o
accommodate scientific advances in testing and new knowledge concerning factors related to, or highly correlated with, the end use performance of grain.
Section 202. (7 U.S.C. 1621) - Congressional declaration of purpose; use of existing facilities; cooperation with States The Congress declares that a sound, efficient, and privately operated system for distributing and marketing agricultural products is essential to a prosperous agriculture and is indispensable to the maintenance of full employment and to the welfare, prosperity, and health of the Nation. It is further declared to be the policy of Congress to promote through research, study, experimentation, and through cooperation among Federal and State agencies, farm organizations, and private industry a scientific approach to the problems of marketing, transportation, and distribution of agricultural products similar to the scientific methods which have been utilized so successfully during the past eighty-four years in connection with the production of agricultural products so that such products capable of being produced in abundance may be marketed in an orderly manner and efficiently distributed. In order to attain these objectives, it is the intent of Congress to provide for •
continuous research to improve the marketing, handling, storage, processing, transportation, and distribution of agricultural products
•
cooperation among Federal and State agencies, producers, industry organizations, and others in the development and effectuation of research and marketing programs to improve the distribution processes
•
an integrated administration of all laws enacted by Congress to aid the distribution of agricultural products through research,
86
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
market aids and services, and regulatory activities, to the end that marketing methods and facilities may be improved, that distribution costs may be reduced and the price spread between the producer and consumer may be narrowed, that dietary and nutritional standards may be improved, that new and wider markets for American agricultural products may be developed, both in the United States and in other countries, with a view to making it possible for the full production of American farms to be disposed of usefully, economically, profitably, and in an orderly manner. In effectuating the purposes of this chapter, maximum use shall be made of existing research facilities owned or controlled by the Federal Government or by State agricultural experiment stations and of the facilities of the Federal and State extension services. To the maximum extent practicable marketing research work done under this chapter in cooperation with the States shall be done in cooperation with the State agricultural experiment stations; marketing educational and demonstrational work done under this chapter in cooperation with the States shall be done in cooperation with the State agricultural extension service; market information, inspection, regulatory work and other marketing service done under this chapter in cooperation with the State agencies shall be done in cooperation with the State departments of agriculture, and State bureaus and departments of markets. Some exporting requirements depend on whether the commodity is covered by the USGSA or the AMA, as listed below.
Commodities covered by:
Information for grain exporters
USGSA
AMA
Barley Canola Corn Flaxseed Oats Rye Sorghum Sunflower seed Triticale Wheat Mixed grain
Rice Beans (dry edible) Peas Lentils Hops Processed grain products (flour, cornmeal, soybeans, vegetable oil, etc.)
Individuals or companies considering exporting grain, oilseeds, or related commodities from the United States should be aware of the following information concerning:
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
87
Registration. Anyone exporting 15,000 tons or more (per year) of grain covered by the USGSA must first register with the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s (GIPSA) Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS). The registration process involves submitting certain information on a form and paying a fee. The registration requirement does not apply to AMA commodities. Call the Compliance Division at 202-720-8262 for additional assistance. Quality and Weight Certification. Quality and weight inspection for commodities covered by AMA are voluntary. However, FGIS is required to certify the quality and weight of all export shipments of grain covered by the USGSA. FGIS is also required to test all corn exports for aflatoxin. Exceptions to this requirement include: • • • • •
Grain exports under 15,000 tons per year by any individual Grain exported for seeding purposes Grain shipped in bond Grain exported by rail or truck to Canada or Mexico Grain not sold by grade
Further information can be found at the FGIS Official Inspection and Weighing Services site, or call the Standards and Procedures Branch at 202-720-0252 Phytosanitary Certification. Phytosanitary regulations are established by the importing country. Exporters must determine if the importing country requires certification that the commodity meets that country’s phytosanitary regulations, for example, freedom from a particular prohibited insect. A computerized database of the phytosanitary requirements for most countries to which the U.S. exports agricultural products is available through Purdue University’s EXCERPT program. The actual phytosanitary certificates are issued by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Additional information regarding importing requirements can be found in the Foreign Agriculture Service’s (FAS) Food and Agriculture Import Regulations and Standards (FAIRS) reports or by calling APHIS at 301-734-8537. Shipper’s Export Declaration (SED). The U.S. Department of Commerce requires a Shipper’s Export Declaration, or SED, for export grain shipments. The SED states the type and value of the cargo, and is used to control exports and compile trade statistics. The U.S. government does not require export licenses or permits for agricultural commodities. For more information contact the Foreign Trade Division, Bureau of the Census at 301-457-2238. Embargoes. The U.S. government may impose embargoes on exports to certain countries for political or other reasons. To inquire about embargoes, visit the site of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or contact the OFAC Compliance office at 202-622-2490 or the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) at 202-482-4811.
88
Other sources of information
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service has a trade assistance office to advise exporters about potential markets, suppliers, and other trade leads. The telephone number is (202) 720-7420. In addition, FAS maintains a web page called Ag Exporter Assistance. Also, the U.S. Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration has an Export Counseling Center. The toll-free number is 800-343-4300. “A Basic Guide to Exporting” is a useful book available from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Call 202-275-2091 (or check your local listings). This information was prepared by the USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, Office of International Affairs. 202-720-0226, or fax 202-720-1015.
Mandatory and permissive services
Mandatory Export Grain Inspection and Weighing Services Under the United States Grain Standards Act, the following services are mandatory: •
Official weighing of most grain exported from the U.S. and of intercompany barge grain received at export port locations
•
Official inspection of most grain exported from the U.S.
•
Testing of all corn exported from the U.S. for aflatoxin prior to shipment, unless the contract stipulates that testing is not required
FGIS field offices and delegated states provide mandatory official inspection and weighing services at key export port locations in the U.S. and in eastern Canada along the St. Lawrence Seaway. Mandatory inspection requirements do not apply to grain, which is not sold or described by grade. These requirements also are waived for grain exporters shipping less than 15,000 metric tons of grain abroad annually; for grain exported by train or truck to Canada or Mexico; for grain sold as “seed”; and for grain transshipped through the U.S. in a bonded identity-preserved fashion. Furthermore, if stipulated in the contract, the mandatory aflatoxin-testing requirement may be waived. Permissive Domestic Grain Inspection and Weighing Services Official inspection and weighing of U.S. grain in domestic commerce are not mandatory and are performed upon request by authorized states and private agencies. These official agencies employ personnel licensed by FGIS to provide official services. Through these permissive and mandatory programs, FGIS promotes efficient and effective marketing of U.S. grain and other commodities from farmers to domestic and foreign end users.
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
89
Planting seed testing
Verifying seed quality
As stressed throughout this handbook, high quality IP grain or oilseeds, which maintain the IP characteristics desired, are dependent upon the purity of the seed planted. In addition to knowing the exact source and background of the seed it may be important to test the seed more extensively than normal seed testing required on seed labels. For IP purposes this may mean genetic testing to verify that the desired genetic attributes are present at the purity level to allow transfer to the crop at the specified purity. With many of the specific genetic traits being developed at this time this may require PCR (polymerase chain reaction), electrophoresis, ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), or immuno-assay strip testing. These tests are described in section 5a, (module 7). It is important to remember that it is possible for genetic impurities to increase during growing and production steps. If any plants from genetic impurities are higher yielding than the genetically pure seed, the percentage of genetic impurity will increase. This increase will be in addition to any physical mixtures that are bound to happen during the growing, production, and handling steps of the IP system. These facts make it imperative to use as genetically pure seed as economically feasible.
Field inspections
Philosophy of field inspection
The philosophy of field inspection usually involves a twofold function in the production of identity-preserved crops. One function deals with public relations and education of the IP grower while the second function provides a mechanism for field acceptance or rejection of a given acreage under the standards set for the IP production. The education of the seed growers is essential to any program of IP production. An appreciation of crops of high genetic purity creates within the grower a desire to improve his product through the application of approved methods of production. Acceptable methods of production must include guides which, if carefully followed, will result in the production of specialty crops of high genetic purity.
90
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The inspector
The inspector, whether he represents an AOSCA agency, a private company providing inspection and verification services, or is a crop consultant, should be well informed in both the agronomic procedures for this type of production and in the rules and regulations governing the production of genetically verified crop production.
Inspector qualification
In addition to serving as a public relations officer for the verifying agency the inspector must serve as the judge in determining the merits of a production field. In order to make such a decision in the field, the inspector must know the regulations governing the crop under consideration and must apply inspection techniques in the field, which will give an accurate basis for his decision. Such inspection techniques for genetic verification must include thorough knowledge of: 1. Varietal characteristics of the crops to be inspected (including other varieties, definite off-types and questionable off-types where such may occur) 2. Abnormalities, which may be due to nutritional deficiencies, temperature variation, and moisture tension effects on the crops inspected 3. Sampling and counting methods applicable to the tolerances allowable for all crops inspected
Objectives of field inspection
The visual field inspection should accomplish two objectives. The first is to determine planting accuracy and field isolation. Observing the planting around the perimeter of the field, and especially the starting point, will indicate whether the planter was properly cleaned and whether any surrounding crops may have inadvertently been overplanted into the production field. Excessive off-type plants at the beginning of the field planting may indicate that the planter was not thoroughly cleaned. In this case inspections may reveal that a small portion of the field harvested for commercial market may avoid contamination of a larger part of the crop. Overplanting from surrounding crop can also be noted and harvest corrections made. The second objective of field inspections is the observation of the total field to determine potential off-types, which may be present – for whatever reason. The inspection should be thorough, with observations spread over a good portion of the field. Random counts should be made and recorded. There are several potential methods for making these counts as recommended by AOSCA for certified seed production. These may be adapted for genetic verification in IP production. The method chosen will be dependent upon the crop being inspected and the tolerance levels for genetic purity.
Other observations
Other observations may be made and noted at the time of these field inspections. These might include the presence of disease, weeds, weather damage, and other factors that may influence crop quality. These observations do not reflect genetic purity but may provide additional information for the grower and party contracting the production.
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
91
Early in the growing season an additional field inspection tool might be genetic leaf testing with lateral flow strip tests. This might be applied to any suspicious plants found in visual inspection.
Crop product sampling
Introduction to grain or seed sampling
The decision on when and where to sample sometimes needs to be based on practicality. If it is determined that the required testing will require a procedure that takes three days, it is not practical to sample at the receiving plant scales to determine whether the load should be accepted or rejected. In this case a pre-delivery sampling procedure is more desirable. The sample needs to be drawn prior to delivery rather than at delivery. This also points to the important concept that sampling and testing is only part of an IP system. The testing only verifies that the other important steps of the IP system have been properly completed. The importance of using correct sampling protocol cannot be stressed enough. Many of the disputes over tests conducted by different parties from the same lot of grain can usually be traced to sampling procedures. The testing procedures may also need standardization, but sampling differences cause many problems. This topic on sampling is basically an edited condensation of a very recent publication from the USDA, Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), Technical Services Division, August 2000. The entire document is titled “Sampling Grain for the Detection of Biotech Grains,” but the theory and procedures discussed are appropriate for any IP system. It is strongly suggested that parties making decisions on sampling and testing and those involved in those procedures be very familiar with these protocols. In addition to material included in this handbook other materials are available from the GIPSA web site – www.usda.gov/gipsa. Sampling is probably one of the most important activities in an IP system, but probably is the least technically understood procedure. This is especially true at the beginning of the value-chain at the grower and possibly the first handler levels. Grain handling people further down the value-chain have had more exposure to proper sampling procedures and training.
Sample defined
A sample is defined as a portion or part taken as a representative of the whole. A consignment of grain (or grain lot) has many unknown quality characteristics. Measuring these characteristics on the entire lot is impossible; therefore, a sample is obtained which represents the lot.
92
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
While inspecting a sample is much less costly than inspecting the entire lot, the content of a sample does not always reflect the content of the lot. Fortunately, when samples are properly taken, probability theory can assign some risk values to measurements on samples. Furthermore, sampling from a lot is only one source of error when estimating a quality characteristic of a lot. Sources of error fall into three basic categories: (1) sampling, (2) sample preparation, and (3) analytical method. Sampling is an ever-present source of error when estimating characteristics of a lot. However, depending on the characteristic being measured, sample preparation and analytical method can be significant contributors to measurement errors. Minimizing these errors is necessary to assure better precision and accuracy in the final analytical result. Buyers and sellers of a lot have to agree on the quality and price of the lot before a transaction can take place. Basing the quality of a lot on a sample introduces risk to both buyer and seller. Buyers and sellers want to control their risk where possible. This handbook does not recommend any specific sampling plan. Buyer and seller should agree on a sampling and testing plan that best meets their mutual needs.
Introduction to sampling theory
A sample is simply a subset of a lot. Probability theory can describe risk for randomly selected samples. A random sample is one selected in a process in which every possible sample from a lot has an equal chance of being selected. If every possible sample from a lot could be measured, the average of the measurements would equal the content of the lot. This means that, on average, a random sample produces an unbiased estimate of the measurement of interest. Measurements on individual samples will deviate from the content in the lot. Probability will not tell what the deviation is on a particular sample, but probability can describe a likely range that the lot content will fall into. Increasing the sample size can reduce the range of estimated results.
Sampling from grain lots
In practice, a pure random sample is not always easy to obtain from a lot. A sampling technique called systematic sampling has been widely used to produce a sample that is a reasonable substitute for a random sample. In grain inspection, variations of the systematic sampling process are used to select samples. These samples are not random samples by the pure definition, but are approximations from a systematic sampling plan. Risks can be estimated when random samples are taken. If the sampling procedure is not random, or a close approximation, estimates can be biased. One sampling procedure could be to scoop a sample off the top of a lot using a can. If a lot has been loaded and unloaded many times, the lot may be mixed sufficiently that it is fairly uniform and scooping a sample may be adequate. However, some lots may be the combinations of other lots and the resulting lot can be stratified. Scooping a sample off the top may not be very representative of the lot. Grain sampling methods prescribed by the Department of Agriculture include methods for sampling moving grain streams and static grain lots.
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
93
The diverter type (DT) sampler is the most common sampling device for sampling from a grain stream. The DT takes a classic systematic sample. The DT traverses a moving grain stream and, per specific timer settings, diverts a small slice of the grain stream to the inspector. The small slices are combined to obtain the sample for the lot. A manual means of taking a sample from a grain stream, similar to the diverter type sampler, is the pelican sampler. The pelican sampler is a leather bag on the end of a pole. A person will pass the pelican through a falling grain stream at the end of spout, taking a cut from the grain stream. The pelican is passed through the grain stream frequently. The pelican is emptied between passes through the grain stream. The Ellis cup is a manual sampling device for sampling from a conveyor belt. A person will frequently dip the Ellis cup into the grain stream. Like the pelican, the Ellis cup is a manual means of taking a sample. Various probing techniques are used to sample grain from static lots. Depending on the size and shape of the container, multiple probes of the lot will be combined to obtain the sample from the lot. Patterns for probing a lot are prescribed for various types of containers. The individual probes are sufficiently close to effectively sample across any stratification that may exist.
Example of a Truck Probe Pattern
Dividing a sample
To obtain the specified test sample size, a subsample of the original grain sample must be obtained. Dividers such as the Boerner, cargo, and Gamet have demonstrated the ability to subdivide an origin sample and have the resulting samples conform to distributions expected from a random process. Detailed instructions for taking samples from grain lots and properly subdividing them for testing are given in the USDA Grain Inspection Handbook – Book 1 and Mechanical Sampling Systems Handbook. Copies can be obtained by contracting the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or by visiting www.usda.gov/gipsa on the Internet.
94
Eliminating carry-over of grains
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
If the testing procedures involve identifying or quantifying DNA, extreme care must be taken to completely clean sampling devices, containers, and testing equipment. Current testing technology for the detection of biotech grain can be very sensitive, increasing the probability that cross-sample contamination could result in a false positive detection. Furthermore, minor inadvertent commingling of biotech grain kernels with non-biotech grain could result in a positive detection at very low concentrations. Consequently, great care must be taken to ensure the integrity of the grain samples used for testing and to avoid inadvertent commingling during grain handling processes. Eliminating carry-over of biotech varieties to non-biotech varieties involves understanding and controlling the critical points in the grain handling system. Cleanliness of sampling tools is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the system chosen to handle non-biotech crops as well. Manual devices such as pelican samplers or Ellis cups are quite easy to clean, requiring only a visual examination to check that no grain or dust remains. Trier probes also require checking and cleaning when moving from sample to sample. Small amounts of grain left in the bottom of a sampling device may result in erroneous results if analyzed for biotech grains. Disassembling and cleaning sampling devices with water or pressurized air may provide added protection against crossover, but there is insufficient evidence at this time to determine if such measures are necessary. Similar precautions should be practiced with other types of samplers; any location at which grain or dust may accumulate should be checked and cleaned. A quick visual inspection to ensure no materials have been left behind or caught in the system will avoid carry-over.
The impact of sample size on risk management
In the section on sampling theory, the range of likely sample estimates was shown to decrease as the sample size increased. Several assumptions underlie the sample size effects discussed so far. One assumption is that every kernel in a sample can be determined as biotech or non-biotech without error. The variability shown in the sample estimates assumes only sampling variability. No allowance for error from sample preparation or from analytical method has been incorporated into the estimate ranges. Several considerations need to be addressed when determining the best sample size. If individual seeds will be tested, variability of seed size will affect percentages by weight. The percent by kernel count and percent by weight would only be the same if the kernels were all the same size, but kernels are not uniform. Percent by kernel count is, however, usually a reasonable approximation to percent by weight. Kernel counts can be converted to approximate weights by using average kernel weights observed from typical market samples. The type of measurement is also a consideration in determining the sample size. The analytical methods available for detecting biotech grains may be used to make qualitative or quantitative tests on a sample. A qualitative test can be used to screen lots by providing information on the presence or absence of biotech varieties. Quantitative tests may
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
95
quantify the total amount of biotech grain or the amount of individual varieties in a sample. When sampling is used in the measurement of some characteristic of a lot, the content of the sample will likely deviate from the lot content. The buyer accepts some risk because the sample may overestimate the quality of the lot. The buyer may assume that the quality of the lot is better than it actually is. Likewise, the seller accepts some risk that the sample may underestimate the quality of the lot. In this case, the seller is delivering better quality than the sample reflects. Ideally, buyers and sellers would agree to use a sampling plan that provides acceptable risk management. A contract may specify a certain quality level. However, due to sampling variation, a seller may have to provide better quality to have grain lots accepted most of the time. Likewise, due to sampling variation, the buyer may sometimes have to accept lower quality than the contract specifies.
Sample size – qualitative
In reality, all analytical methods have limits of detection. For purposes of this section, the assumption is that a qualitative test will detect the presence of a single kernel in a sample, regardless of the size of the sample. A positive result does not tell how many biotech kernels are in the sample, only that at least one biotech kernel is present in the sample. To choose a sample size, the acceptable and unacceptable concentrations must be decided upon. Since samples are subject to sampling error, acceptable lots may be rejected and unacceptable lots may be accepted just by chance. Buyers and sellers must agree upon acceptable risk. Thus, testing for lower concentrations of biotech grains requires larger sample sizes.
Sample size – quantitative
Quantification of the percent biotech grain in a lot is much more problematic than with qualitative testing. As mentioned in the introduction, sampling variability is only one source of error in measurements. Sample preparation and analytical method can be two significant sources of error in the detection of biotech grains. The currently available technologies employed for detection, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) have inherent difficulties in producing consistent and accurate quantitative results. PCR measures the genetic material, or DNA, associated with the inserted DNA. ELISA tests, on the other hand, measure the protein expressed by the foreign DNA. Both methods present significant challenges in converting the amount of DNA or the amount of expressed protein into the percent of biotech grain by weight. Analytical methods as well as sample size, therefore, will affect the overall variability of quantitative results. Sample size typically will have little influence on the sample preparation or analytical method. Sample preparation and analytical method are significant sources of error, and increasing the sample size will not reduce the overall variability in measurements as much as expected.
96
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The effect of sample size alone on sampling variability can be examined. The sample is used to estimate the percent concentration in the lot. Using percent by kernel count as an approximation of percent by weight, probability curves can be computed to examine the probability of accepting lots for which a maximum concentration has been specified. This may be called the “seller’s risk” because this is the chance that the seller will have an acceptable lot rejected. The ideal sampling plan will minimize both the buyer’s and seller’s risk. Unfortunately, no one sampling plan will produce both objectives. Increasing the sample size can reduce both buyer risk and seller risk. Theoretically, the only limiting factor on the sample size is the lot size. Sample size is often determined by a compromise between the seller and buyer risks and the cost of taking and processing a sample. Again, increasing the sample size will reduce both the buyer and seller risks. Estimates for higher percent mixtures will be less precise for the same size sample. However, the buyers and sellers may be willing to accept less precise estimates for these higher mixtures.
Multiple sample plans – qualitative testing
Previous sections discussed the effects of sample size with qualitative and quantitative testing. One way to express the effect of sample size with qualitative testing is that, for any given concentration, the probability of a negative result decreases as the sample size increases. The only time this is not true is when the lot concentration of biotech grain is zero. If the buyer of a lot has a zero tolerance for biotech grain, taking the largest sample possible will best serve the needs of the buyer. The buyer can be reasonably certain that a lot with a high concentration of biotech grain will be rejected. A single large sample serves the buyer’s interests well. However, some buyers may be willing to accept some low concentrations but unwilling to accept high concentrations. Sellers of lots with low concentrations would like to have high probabilities of testing negative. Decreasing the sample size will increase the chances of a negative result on low concentrations. Unfortunately, decreasing the sample size increases the chance of a negative result with higher concentrations. When a low concentration is acceptable to the buyer, a single qualitative test may not serve the interests of both the buyer and the seller. An alternative is to implement a multiple sample plan. Multiple sample plans specify that a certain number of independent samples will be selected from the lot and each sample is tested. The buyer will accept the lot if certain combinations of positive and negative test results are obtained. For example, the sample plan may specify that five samples of 100 kernels will be selected from a lot. If no more than three positives are obtained on the five tests, then the lot is acceptable. The components of a multiple sample plan are the number of samples, the size of each sample, and the maximum number of samples testing positive. Changing any one or more of these parameters affects the probability of acceptance. Buyers and sellers can choose a plan based on
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
97
the risks they are willing to assume, and on the cost of conducting the tests. Multiple sampling plans can be used to balance the risks between buyers and sellers when low concentrations are acceptable to buyers.
Sample preparation: obtaining a portion for analysis
Samples are typically collections of kernels from a lot. The discussions on sample size have been presented thus far as if each kernel in the sample was measured independently. The major analytical technologies for detecting biotech grains, PCR and ELISA, usually do not process individual kernels but rather make a measurement on a preparation from the sample. As mentioned in the introduction, sampling variability is only one source of error in measurements. Sample preparation and analytical methods are two other significant sources of error. Reducing a sample to a portion for analysis is often necessary to meet method limitations. For accurate analysis, the sample portion analyzed must be representative of the lot submitted. Preparation of a sample for analysis must include grinding and mixing of the grain prior to subdivision. Grinding will produce more uniform subsamples for analysis. Thorough grinding and mixing would give a much different distribution of the analyte, producing more consistent results from subsample to subsample. The analyses to be performed must be considered and may be the determining factor with respect to particle size. In a plant seed, the DNA and much of the protein is concentrated in the embryo, and the embryo may only be 10% of the weight of a seed. For PCR analysis, where analytical sample sizes are routinely only 1 gram, research studies have shown that a particle size of less than 200 µ produces a homogeneous sample. Therefore, grinding a representative composite sample to an appropriate particle size, followed by thorough mixing, will minimize sample preparation errors. ELISA testing, which routinely uses larger sample sizes, may not need as fine a particle size as PCR testing. Studies should be conducted to validate sample preparation protocols to assure suitability for the analyses to be performed.
Cleanliness in sample preparation
Carry-over of materials from one sample to another takes on an even greater significance during sample preparation prior to analysis. Due to the sensitivity seen with many methods for detection of biotech crops, care must be taken to avoid transferring materials to subsequent samples. Whole grains, dust, and residues must be removed from all equipment. Grinders should be cleaned through vacuuming of dust, washing with soap and water or solvents, or a combination of appropriate cleaning methods for the specific grinder in use. Sample dividers and mixers must also be thoroughly cleaned. Many of the analytical techniques practiced for detection of biotech crops today can detect levels lower than 0.1%. Elimination of any residues on equipment used to grind, mix, and divide samples to obtain an analytical portion is paramount. Physical separation of sample preparation operations from analytical operations is also highly recommended to avoid contamination of sample extracts.
98
Selecting a sampling protocol to minimize risk
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Sample size, theoretically, is selected to best meet the needs of the buyer and seller. Selecting a sample size often involves a compromise between precision and cost of analysis. In measurement systems where kernels are processed individually, the cost of processing a sample increases in proportion to increases in sample size. For these systems, selecting the smallest sample size that provides acceptable precision is the most cost effective sample size. Many measurement systems process and measure bulk samples. In these systems, the cost of processing a sample may not increase in proportion to increases in the sample size. Processing a large sample may cost only slightly more than processing a small sample. Under these circumstances, processing the largest sample the technology will handle may be the best sample size.
Sample handling
Samples need to be handled carefully between the time of sampling and when the sample will be tested. The sample should be packaged so other samples or other grain does not contaminate it. The sample should be handled with care so that crushing or dropping does not damage grains. The sample needs to represent the lot sampled and this means that the sample will need care to preserve the original sample quality.
Sample storage
The samples should be stored under conditions that will maintain sample quality also. Proper moisture and temperature are important as well as freedom from insect contamination. It is wise that the party requesting the sampling and testing maintain a duplicate sample in good storage conditions to retest at a later date. This may answer questions that might arise from the original sample or subsequent samples.
IP product testing
Testing decisions
In the planning stages of an IP program there are two testing related decisions. What testing will be required? And, where will the testing be accomplished? After the desired IP attributes are identified the appropriate testing procedures can be determined and the related sampling protocols developed. The selection of testing methods for use in measuring the IP attributes will depend upon several factors.
Accuracy and precision
The relative importance of the trait will determine the accuracy or precision required of the testing. Depending upon the trait, usually tolerances will need to be established. If the IP trait goal is to minimize the purchase of heat damage in corn, a test such as breakage susceptibility might be the best choice because of its low cost and speed of analysis. If the goal is to prevent the purchase of such corn, the potential for incorrect estimation by breakage susceptibility due to
Section 6: Inspections, sampling, and testing
99
moisture sensitivity of the test renders the test less than satisfactory, and stress crack measurement may be more effective.
Tolerances
When close tolerances are a part of the IP contract the precision of the test becomes important. Tests that have low accuracy may lead to wrong estimates of quality. Obviously if there is a zero tolerance, very precise sampling and testing will be required. It is also important to understand whether the test method measures the desired trait directly or indirectly. Indirect measurements are often less sensitive due to confounding factors. The balance between the accuracy required and the cost of testing has to be weighed when deciding upon testing that will fulfill both the quality and cost constraints on the IP production. Some of the more accurate procedures are also the most expensive. The question is what test will adequately fill the need of the IP production contract?
Selecting testing from broad general areas
Testing, as covered in section 5a, module 7 (or at the same location in the workbook), describes a few of the wide array of tests available. In the broad range of crops that might be produced under an IP system there are a huge number of potential tests that might be used to qualify and quantify characteristics or traits. It is not feasible to review all of those tests in this handbook or workbook. Parties that are involved with potential IP production systems for a particular crop need to become acquainted with the scientists specializing in those specific crops. Other parties in the testing area for contact would be GIPSA, grain quality labs, seed quality labs, genetic labs, and food quality labs. As new grain quality or genetic traits are discovered or developed testing to identify and quantify these traits evolve and move from the scientific arenas into service areas on university, governmental, or commercial levels.
VERIFICATION and documentation requirements
Section
7
Introduction to section: An IP system will require some type of verification of the system procedures and that the procedures were in fact completed. The records or documentation that puts the verification in writing will be part of the whole IP process. This verification and documentation process can be very simple or very complex depending on the agreements between parties in the value-chain, including the sellers and buyers.
Objectives of section: This section covers topics that will facilitate: • Establishing terms of trade • Establishing agreements for documentation to meet customer and country requirements • Establishing verification needs • In-house verification • Third-party inspection and verification • Third-party accreditation and auditing • Establishing documentation requirements • List potential documents • Detail potential documents
Prior relationships between parties
The documentation required will probably depend somewhat on the prior relationships between various members in the value-chain. Identitypreserved systems are built on a great deal of trust between parties that takes a period of time to establish. A completely new value-chain, initiated for identity-preserved business, will take a while to develop trust between members. At the same time parties that have established relationships and trust may require less documentation because of this mutual trust. 101
102
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Establishing terms of trade
Usually one of the first priorities when developing an IP system will be establishing the “terms of trade.” Although this handbook is not concerned with the contracting phase of IP, this is very important and will have a bearing on decisions made in the process of developing an IP system. An excellent reference on exporting grain and oilseed products is the VEG Exporter Manual, published by the U.S. Grains Council. Since value-enhanced grains (VEG) are a part of the overall grain market they are somewhat specialized and, therefore, at least in part, are identity preserved. The VEG manual addresses IP briefly, but is an excellent source of information on exporting and exporting documentation and contracting.
Basic export documents
Basic export documents may include the following: the Draft, Commercial Invoice, Bills of Lading, Insurance policy or certification, Official Export Inspection Certificate, Official Grain Weight Certificate, Phytosanitary Certificate, Certificate of Origin, and Landing Certificate. Other documents might include a certificate of fumigation, certificate from a private laboratory for quality tests not covered under the official grain inspection certificate, an official stowage examination certificate, and a crop year certificate. Many of these documents are mandatory, only certain countries may require some, and the buyer may specify others. It is up to the seller and buyer to agree to the documents required.
IP documents
The basic documents employed in the grain trade may be essential in those types of contracts but are different from those developed for IP specific trade. The documents specific to IP have to do with the IP system itself and not with the contracts of trade, except as the trade contracts call for these documents as a requirement for the trade. IP documents provide the “traceability” and are the “paper trail” or “electronic trail” of the IP system and will be in addition to the documentation required in the trading process. At this time there are no “standard” documents used for IP systems – although it should be pointed out that some countries are developing formats for documents that will be required. Each IP contract will usually devise documents that will fit the purposes for that specific contract. These IP documents will provide the certification or verification required by the contract that would cover all of the IP steps, by all of the parties, as discussed in section 4. As required by the contract this verification could be internal, by the parties involved, or could be provided by thirdparty agencies, and may be a combination of both types.
Establishing IP verification needs
Of major concern in any IP system is the means of verifying the procedures. There are different philosophies that will need to be addressed. The matter of trust between the various parties in the IP system will come into play. Any IP system is built on trust – trust that people did what they said they did. But trust is not the only consideration. Liabilities, as a prudent business decision, need to be considered. What if something does go wrong with the system? How will any disagreements be settled? No matter how good our trust is or how well the system works there will probably be times when there are
Section 7: Verification and documentation requirements
103
problems or disagreements. Third parties can relieve some of the pressures and liabilities. The involvement of third parties in the verification process will be discussed in the next section, but this is one of the considerations that will need to be made concerning an IP system. In all probability, if a third party is involved in the process there will be some operations that are still documented “in-house.” The documents generated for the verification process may look slightly different if generated by a third party rather than in-house. The same purpose is served – the documents establish that certain procedures were followed in the IP process. An IP system establishes the fact that certain procedures were carried out during the growing, handling, transportation, and any conditioning or processing of the crop. Sampling and testing may be part of an IP system, but the essence of the system is the procedures and verification. If agreeable to the parties an IP system can be designed that does not require any testing – because the testing is not integral to the system. Usually some testing is suggested. As discussed in the sampling and testing section any testing is only as good as the sample. Since the sample cannot completely represent the entire lot there is some flaw in relying wholly on sampling and testing.
Documents can be devised to verify the following conditions or procedures: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Breeder’s statement of variety and breeding methods Suitability of seed variety or hybrid – variety release statement – variety description Purchase of designated seed Seed purity – for each lot purchased Varietal purity Genetic testing Planting and related activities Growing season activities Harvesting activities Storage and handling activities Transportation Conditioning and bagging Processing Sampling and testing
IP documents need to verify: 1. 2.
Records of IP procedure completion Records of the physical product
104
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Potential document list – approximate chronological order Planting seed • • •
Statement of breeding methods Variety/hybrid description Seed purchase document (receipt) • Seed varietal purity • Standard seed analysis Genetic testing •
Growing • • •
Field records Grower planting and growing records Third-party inspections – if required
Harvesting and storage • • • •
Grower harvesting records Grower storage records Third-party testing – if required Delivery records
Transfer and receiving • • •
Receiver records Commingling records Quality verification
Each of the above records will rely on records of previous operations to build a complete set of documentation of IP production and delivery.
Establishing verification methods
Briefly the verification process can be in-house, third-party inspected and verified, or third-party accreditation of in-house procedures. Third-party involvement will be covered in detail in section 8. The various parties involved in the physical growing, harvesting, storing, transporting, handling, conditioning, and processing of the product carry out in-house systems. The third party carries out third-party inspections, or sampling and testing independently. Accreditation by a third party is a process of training and then the parties performing the procedures carry out the documentation process which is “spot checked” and audited by the third party. Any of these methods are appropriate to IP systems, as long as it meets the needs of the parties.
Establishing documentation requirements
The documentation needs to satisfy the needs of all of the parties involved in the IP process as well as any country requirements. The exporter or the freight forwarder needs to be aware of these country requirements and documentation required. The considerations between the parties should address the need to have in writing the confirmations that procedures were carried out as agreed. This need is for the protection of the parties and the integrity of the system.
Section 7: Verification and documentation requirements
Agreements of documentation
Document design
105
At a time early in the IP system development parties will need to agree on the requirements and form for these documents. The parties should be specific and should agree in writing with document samples included in the agreement. This agreement can be part of the sales contract. The step-by-step process and checklists presented in section 5a can provide guidelines for these documents and as pointed out earlier any country requirements need to be met. At this time there are no “standard” documents for IP systems. Each individual IP system has essentially designed documents that suit the needs of the parties involved. Some buyers in Asian countries seem to prefer “certificate” type documents for statements of breeding methods, variety descriptions, and declarations of “passing” certain testing procedures. A party usually signs these with authority for the activity described. Documents for field isolation, field inspections, and product testing may be similar to seed certification and seed testing documents. Documents describing the procedures of maintaining segregation such as equipment cleanout, planting and harvesting activities, and storage and delivery activities may be just checklists with dates and names of parties completing the operations.
THIRD-PARTY inspection, testing, and verification
Section
8
Introduction to section: The use of third parties to inspect, test, and verify parts of the IP system is discussed. This is an option for any IP program and the philosophies and ramifications need to be considered when establishing an IP program. Third-party sampling and testing has long been a part of grain trade. An IP system is more complex and the part that third parties play is an important consideration to all parties involved in the chain.
Objectives of section: • •
• • • •
Discuss the philosophies of third-party involvement Review the third-party services available • Inspection • Sampling • Testing • Certifying/verifying This section may look at some• procedures that will be very commonplace in the operation of Documentation some members of a value-chain while foreign to other potential members of the • Review thealmost levels be of third-party involvement chain. An introduction and basic background for this topic will include: • Testing Planting seed testing • Inspection and verification Field inspections • Accreditation and auditing Grain or seed sampling – theory and methods Testing methods
Third-party description
A third party can best be described as some entity other than the parties directly involved in the action or transaction. In the case of IP production this would be an entity (outsider) that has no physical, financial, or legal attachment to the IP business. This normally would be a verification or documentation service provider. 107
108
Philosophy of third-party involvement
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The philosophy behind the involvement of third parties in identitypreserved trade is to provide unbiased verification of the IP process steps or of IP product quality. Third-party sampling and testing, by parties such as the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), is common in the commodity grain trade. Third-party verification of IP procedures is much less common. The GMO issue has presented a greater need for this type of verification. Third-party verification offers protection for both the buyer and the seller. Potential disputes are easier to negotiate if an unbiased third party is involved. Buyers are often suggesting thirdparty involvement and it is a wise decision on the part of the supplier to suggest potential service providers for this request. Each party in the value-chain should document IP process verification, of each step. Third-party verification of some or all of these steps may be indicated by the buyer or may be required by some party in the process. To a large degree IP systems are built on trust between parties – even with the involvement of third-party verification.
Outside expertise
The need for third-party involvement and the level of involvement is somewhat dependent upon the sophistication of parties in the valuechain. The expertise available from within the chain in inspecting, sampling, and testing activities will dictate to a certain degree the outright need for outside services. This is outside of the philosophical considerations discussed above. If the expertise is not available in an IP organization, it is definitely needed from the outside. The general areas where outside expertise is usually required include: • • • • •
Testing planting seed Field inspections Grain or seed sampling Testing of IP production Verification of IP procedures
With the exception of the verification of IP procedures these are covered in detail in handbook section 6. Refer to section 6 for a detailed discussion of the various inspections, sampling, and testing procedures. All of these services are available from experienced third-party providers. This section is concerned more with the philosophies and the potential legal ramifications of third-party involvement. The above-listed areas of IP production procedures are indicative of the complexity of an IP marketing system compared to the process of marketing commodities. These complexities point out the potential need to involve expertise that is very specialized – related to the specialty crops industries. In addition to the actual services contracted from a third party in inspecting, sampling, testing, and verifying a more valuable service may be the education of the IP parties that will be an invaluable asset for the current production as well as future production. This education comes from the expertise and training of the third-party
Section 8: Third-party inspection, testing, and verification
109
personnel as well as their experience in the specific IP production. Third-party inspectors, samplers, and testers cannot be expected to pass on “trade secrets” of potential competitors in the IP industry but their own education of what works and what does not work is important. These third-party service providers must be very careful of what they pass on to other IP suppliers.
AOSCA as a third party
AOSCA is the acronym for Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, an international organization of seed certifying agencies with long-standing third-party service in the seed industry. AOSCA is a nonprofit organization whose stated purpose is “dedicated to the production and use of high quality seeds and propagating materials of superior plant varieties by establishing minimum genetic standards and uniform certification procedures; providing assistance to members in the development of educational and promotional programs; and coordinating the interests of members with other organizations to improve agriculture through optimum use of certified seed and other services of certifying agencies.” For many years some AOSCA member agencies have been involved in identity-preserved (IP) activities. Since IP activities fit within the stated purpose of the organization an IP committee has been part of the organization’s committee structure for more than ten years.
Unbiased non-profit
Most importantly AOSCA is an unbiased third party to IP activities. AOSCA can logically develop a system that is unbiased from the point of view of being directly involved in the production and trade of IP products. AOSCA individual agencies are non-profit service entities and have one important goal – “to improve agriculture.” This may be slightly different from commercial service organizations that also have a profit goal. The actual contracting of services from AOSCA will come from individual agencies. A listing of individual agencies can be found in appendix A. The identity-preserved services of AOSCA individual agencies can be likened to the services of Federal Grain Inspection Service labs for grain samples.
GIPSA/FGIS
The USDA Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) provides many sampling and testing services through the Federal Grain Inspection Services (FGIS) division. The standard grain grading tests are available in addition to numerous optional tests. GIPSA has also recently established a laboratory that will be accrediting commercial labs. In addition to material included in this handbook other materials are available from the GIPSA web site – www.usda.gov/gipsa.
Other third-party service providers
Other third-party services providers, outside of the AOSCA agencies, are available to provide some or all of the services that might be required. It must be pointed out that this service industry is growing very rapidly at this time so that a listing of these providers is outdated almost before the
110
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
ink is dry. Some commercial concerns are offering services similar those of AOSCA agencies, including field inspections. Some web-based providers are offering a hybrid service in that AOSCA agencies will provide the field inspection service and the data entered on the companies’ web-based database. This information is then available to eligible parties via an assigned access code.
Legal considerations
An important consideration in the involvement of third-party service providers in IP systems is the legal consideration. Even with considerable expertise within an IP supplier organization it may be worthwhile to contract at least some of the inspection, sampling, testing, and IP system verification. The presence of unbiased third-party involvement not only gives some feel of security to buyers but it can also be invaluable if there is question of results at some future time. The ability to review a third party’s records related to specific IP production could be important to settling any questions. The additional expertise available to answer questions also adds a comfort level not present with “in-house” expertise – no matter what this level of expertise may be.
Accreditation and auditing
Another third-party service that might be considered by IP suppliers that have substantial expertise in the IP activities of inspections, sampling, and testing would be that of accreditation and auditing services. The first step in this system would the accreditation of the IP procedures or system of the supplier. If the system meets the requirements of the third party for the desired IP activities, the system and the IP supplier are accredited to perform those activities. After this accreditation the IP supplier would provide some of the services from within house and the third-party provider would audit their procedures. This system would still provide third-party verification. In a closely observed accreditation and auditing system the buyer is given the assurance that the supplier has wellestablished IP procedures and that the third-party is providing further assurance that these procedures were correctly carried to completion.
Minimal costs
The cost of most third-party services is minimal when applied on a metric ton basis. Depending on the level of service these costs would normally fall between US$2.00 per ton and US$10.00 per ton. Some sampling and testing procedures would be even less. This cost can be considered an “insurance” cost by all parties.
111
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
SEPARATE RELATED TOPICS
Part
III Section 9: Innovations in IP Page 113 Looks at some of the innovations in the rapidly developing IP industry.
Section 10: Implications for each value-chain level Page 117 Reviews some of the implications for each party in a value-chain. Understanding the responsibilities of all parties in a value-chain is an important factor in the success of an IP system.
Section 11: Scenarios regarding the demand for IP crops Page 123 The scenarios developing regarding the demand for IP crops are changing constantly. This section reviews what is happening at this point in time.
Section 12: GMO: Genetically modified organisms Page 127 Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have recently influenced the demand for IP products. This poses some unique IP requirements in a very complex subject.
Section 13: Country requirements for importation Page 135 Some countries have developed standards for IP products. This presents challenges for exporters to be aware of these requirements.
Section 14: Existing IP systems Page 145 Existing IP systems are reviewed in this constantly emerging industry.
Section 9: Innovations in IP
113
INNOVATIONS in IP
Section
9
Introduction to section: Identity preservation and the techniques for application are rapidly evolving. This section introduces some of these innovations and looks a short distance into the future. The basic system of IP will remain very much the same but how the system is applied and information transferred is rapidly advancing.
Objectives of section: This section can only provide a glimpse of what is happening now. This section of the handbook will require constant updating, as new innovations are available. The principal objective is to review what is coming on line now and to demonstrate that this field is rapidly changing.
With rapidly increasing demand for IP services innovations are bound to increase also. Both public service organizations, such as AOSCA, individual agencies, and other public agricultural agencies, and many emerging private service companies are gearing up to meet the needs of this increased demand for IP services. Some of the trading companies involved in IP trade are also developing innovative in-house IP systems to meet their own needs. Even though the basic IP system will need to remain the same methods of testing, reporting, and documenting will receive innovative emphasis. Utilizing new technologies in laboratory and in-the-field testing techniques, electronic data transfer, and global positioning systems (GPS) may provide accuracy, efficiencies, and speed that will be desirable to IP parties.
113
114
Web-based data transfer
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The innovation probably receiving the most attention at this time is webbased database systems for the transfer of data between parties. Several companies have established systems that have evolved just in the last two years. These systems vary in both what they offer and how the systems work. Various parties in a value-chain access the system, through access code entrance, and enter data. Growers could enter information about varietal purity of the seed planted, acreages by field, seed used, fertility, weed and insect control. A field inspector could enter inspection data including field isolation information, field counts, and pollination progress. Testing laboratories could enter sample test data. A checklist system would allow entry of the successful completion of the IP steps that provides the crop segregation from outside contamination of the crop. Most of these systems are flexible so that innumerable data and data sources may be entered. Authorized buyers are also given access codes to allow them access to specific data. These systems offer varied services and interested IP parties should investigate to determine whether the services offered will fit their needs.
IP corn innovation
A tremendous boon to IP non-GMO corn production will potentially be on the market in a couple of years. A University of Wisconsin, Madison scientist has found a molecular barrier that, bred into modern hybrid corn, is capable of completely locking out foreign genes, such as those from genetically modified maize. The ability to build a genetic barrier into hybrid corn could permit farmers with the bred-in barrier to assure buyers that the corn from their fields does not contain genes contributed by corn in neighboring GM fields. Obviously, the same cautions for mechanical mixtures will need to be observed in this production, but the potential of pollen contamination will be eliminated. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation, will be licensing the technology non-exclusively for domestic and international use. A provision in the licensing will prohibit the use of the barrier in genetically modified varieties. The trait was discovered in teosinte, a wild cousin of maize, and is transferred to corn hybrids through the male side of the hybridization process. Since it’s a dominant trait, the male’s contribution will ensure that the hybrid progeny will express the trait. In addition to easing the production of uncontaminated non-GM corn it could also make obsolete the requirement of buffer or isolation zones between some types of corn. Testing quantities of seed should be available in 2002. Commercial quantities for planting by farmers are possible by the year 2003. Since the procedure is the result of conventional breeding, regulatory approvals will not be necessary.
Section 9: Innovations in IP
115
Several researchers, beginning in the 1920s, have observed selective fertilization (pollination) of corn and related species. It appears that there are potential specific technicalities involved with the incorporation of a crossing barrier into elite corn lines. Corn breeders considering a teosinte-derived crossing barrier are advised to contact researchers that have studied this phenomenon. Jerry L. Kermicle, Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, presented a paper, “Genetic barriers that restrict hybridization in corn and teosinte,” at the American Seed Trade Association Corn and Soybean Research Conference in December 2001. He has several papers, over a period of years, dealing with maize/teosinte hybridization. Jerry L. Kermicle, telephone 608-2621253, e-mail
[email protected].
Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
Global Positioning Systems (GPS) are making their way into IP systems. GPS, developed for military use, has come into civilian uses for determining positions on the earth’s surface for many applications. The system utilizes satellites to pinpoint the position of a receiver that may be mounted on a vehicle or may be handheld. Computer software then permits using this information to draw maps and by inputting additional data on field observations, grain harvest yield data, and grain quality data can provide a wealth of information which may be used by growers and other parties with interest in that particular production. Growers can utilize GPS to help to document field activities such as planting and harvesting. Field inspectors can use GPS to help them exactly position observations and transfer this information into field notes and then into field observation reports. The utilization of this type of information is in its infancy and we will see rapid development of GPS employment.
Testing procedures
Testing procedures were discussed in section 5a, under module 7. Testing procedures are also evolving rapidly at this time. The most innovative test that is easily used by most anyone is the lateral flow strip test. This is an immunosorbent assay that is similar to home pregnancy tests that can be performed in the field or at truck scales very rapidly compared to other tests.
116
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IMPLICATIONS for each value-chain level
Section
10
Introduction to section: It is easy to visualize from this handbook that an IP system is much easier to deal with if all parties in the value-chain are working together toward the same goals. When all team members understand their own responsibilities as well as the responsibilities of other team members the system will work well. Adversarial positions only cause problems. Obviously under production contract situations team members are chosen for their areas of expertise for their positions on the team.
Objectives of section: There are many implications at each of the value-chain levels, some of which are reviewed. We will try to visualize the important members of the value-chain. We will also look at IP without a value-chain, the “spot market.”
The team approach
Most IP production and marketing will be accomplished with contracts between various members in the value-chain. Even though there may be several contracts involved at different levels of production and delivery the entire effort and the relationships between parties can best be viewed as a “team approach.” The goal of producing and delivering IP production of high value is the same at all levels. When all team members understand their own responsibilities as well as the responsibilities of other team members the system will work well. Even though team members will have different responsibilities and areas of expertise they can help each other attain the goals set forth for the entire IP project.
117
118
Team effort
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
One of the problems in the IP or specialty crop value-chain is the commodity mindset throughout most positions in the chain, from growers to end-use manufacturers. In some cases it may make good sense to tie pricing of the specialty crop to a Chicago commodity price (or other commodity market). In more and more cases it may make sense to try to separate specialty crop prices from commodity-based prices. It may be easier to share risks, up and down the chain, by separating from commodity prices. By working as a team within a value-chain it is easier to devise methods to share risks. It is important to understand the value-chain, and the function of the various parties, to understand one’s own position in the chain. We will look at each position in a value-chain, the position functions, and reasoning for potential changes (or not changing) in the chain. Each position has inherent duties (time and equipment investment), financial obligations, risks, and other commitments involved in positions in the chain. One major differentiation between a supply-chain and a valuechain is a stronger link between the various parties involved in a valuechain. Members within a value-chain tend to act more as a team opposed to the very individualized efforts of members of a supply-chain. As greater values are added at the various steps in the value-chain it may be easier to break away from the commodity pricing mindset. This may be especially true if higher values are added early in the value-chain – such as at the breeding step. If unique and highly desirable characteristics are added to the genetics of the specific soybean type that are especially useful in further processing, it may be easier to separate from commodity based pricing. As the genetic value increases it becomes extremely important that that identity is preserved throughout all of the other steps in the value-chain. This increases the risks and therefore the costs of each step. An example would be a pharmaceutical quality, bred into the soybean, which must be maintained at a high and constant level. Careful management is required at each step in the valuechain to maintain the value in the previous step and add value prior to the next step. These concepts are important to an IP system. It will be much easier to work within an IP system to approach relationships with a team effort rather than an adversarial attitude. A successful IP system will include the input of many parties and protocols that will be important. The specific parties in any supply or value-chain are not predetermined but are developed to fill needs for product or services in that particular chain. The examples shown here is just that – examples of what might be. The value-chain may be modified, by consolidating two or more of the positions in the value-chain. A visualization chart of an identity-preserved value-chain (specialty soybeans) is shown in Table 10.1. The chart describes the relationships between parties in the chain and discusses some of the reasoning for costs related in a value-chain compared to commodity-traded crops.
Section 10: Implications for each value-chain level
The specialty soybean value-chain
119
Table 10.1
Breeder
Soybean breeders working on special soybean qualities and characteristics are the basis of a value-chain of food-quality characteristics important to consumers at the other end of the value-chain. Characteristics specific to particular end-uses help to make better soyfood and special use products. Soybean breeders must continually weigh the values of specific characteristics with the value of yield in the production field. Progress by public and private breeders in recent years has pushed the specific enduse varieties to the forefront in the soybean and soyfood industries.
Grower
Soybean growers must grow specialty soybeans using techniques to maintain the integrity of the specific variety and try to enhance the desirable quality characteristics. The grower must be compensated at rates above what commodity soybeans might bring to fulfill the needs of the extra efforts and risks involved in specialty production. It is often common that specialty varieties will yield less than comparable commodity soybean varieties. The grower faces the risks of adverse weather affecting the crop and the crop quality, which may render the crop unmarketable in the specialty market.
Handler/ conditioner/ contractor
Soybean handlers/conditioners/contractors provide various services of contracting with growers, taking delivery of specialty soybeans from growers, conditioning to buyer specifications, and bagging or loading bulk for delivery. Handlers must be compensated for their contract risks as well as their activities of handling soybeans as value is added as the soybeans are conditioned to buyer specifications. The risk of being unable to meet a contract, because of weather factors, is usually shared by the grower and the contractor, and should be shared by others in the chain.
Trader/broker
Value-added processor
Buyer (end user manufacturer)
Consumer
Soybean traders and brokers negotiate between the suppliers (growers and handlers/conditioners/contractors) and buyers or end users. Negotiation of pricing, terms of payment, the logistics of transportation, and the export documentation required by the buyer and the various countries of importation require a great deal of time and effort which must be compensated. The trader may contract the production with either handlers or directly with growers. The party writing the contracts will make a difference on the acceptance of risk by various parties in the chain. Value-added processors may or may not be involved in the value-chain of specialty soybeans. Examples of value-added processors would be ingredient manufacturers that utilize specialty soybeans to make intermediate ingredients, such as flour, grits, meal, extruded products, or oil, which will be processed into food items by food manufacturers. The economic and quality value of this segment of the value-chain is becoming more evident as new manufacturing techniques are developed and the logistical and ecological benefits are recognized. Manufacturers make products to be purchased by consumers. There may be distributors involved, either ahead of or behind the manufacturer, in the value-chain. Distributors provide storage, financing, and delivery functions. End users are becoming much more aware of differences between soybean varieties and the value of varieties with traits specifically developed for particular end uses. These special traits can be converted to higher quality and more desirable products. Food manufacturers are becoming much more consumer (market) oriented. The consumer is the ultimate benefactor of soyfoods and other products derived from specialty soybeans. The development of specialty soybean varieties, which will enhance these foods and other products and the addition of value through this chain may ultimately lead to higher per capita consumption of soy.
120
Shared responsibilities
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The value-chain visualization gives us the opportunity to look at various individuals or entities that make up the chain. Each party has its own inputs and risks that may be unique to it. It also shows that some of the risks can be shared, if a team effort is made. A crop breeder may not usually be considered part of a value-chain, but as we utilize more enhanced value crops the breeder will play a more prominent role in the total value-chain. Each party proceeding down the chain adds some value to the product either directly or indirectly by the services each performs. As the IP crops become more specialized or trait specific it becomes more of an advantage to form contractual relationships up and down the value-chain to facilitate obtaining and maintaining the desired traits. It also becomes apparent that to maximize the qualities of these traits that all parties cooperate to discover and encourage the best methods of growing, producing, storing, delivering, conditioning, manufacturing, sampling, and testing for the specific IP situation. This truly requires a team effort. Probably the most neglected area of shared responsibilities within IP value-chains has been in risk sharing. This is especially true where there may be a substantial difference in crop yields from the IP crop and its commodity counterparts. Portions of the industry are recognizing this unequal risk and are devising production contracts that will share these risks over a broader portion of the value-chain. The most prominent risk is that of weather effects on the crop that may reduce quality or possibly even cause the production to be unusable for the intended use. The growers and first-buyers may be unable to influence these weather related conditions to improve the outcome and this risk needs to be shared by others in the value-chain. If this does not happen, growers and first-buyers soon determine that this production is not worthy of the risk. Compensation equal to commodity incomes plus the recovery of additional input costs for this production may be warranted. The next topic will look at the potential of IP production without a valuechain team.
Will the “spot market” work in IP?
The markets for grains and oilseeds have generally been a “spot market” in the past. That is, most crops have been grown without production contracts and growers were free to market either prior to or after harvest as they saw fit. Will the spot market work with IP? The answer is yes – with some adjustments. The spot market in the IP business can be likened to a pickup football, softball, or basketball game. The team members may not be all that everyone would desire, but if everyone comes to play and provides the talents that they have to offer a team effort can develop in a short time. In a spot market IP situation there are no guarantees that a buyer will be able to find exactly the product that he would like and likewise a grower may not be able to find a market for his production or the premiums that he would desire. It will be easier to work with the more generic IP products in a spot type situation. Very
Section 10: Implications for each value-chain level
121
specialized IP products, especially those requiring higher premiums, will work much better under contract arrangements. To make a spot market work in IP the players will need to do much of the same preparation and documentation that they would do in an organized contract situation. Growers It will be important in agriculture as the more stratified markets develop that growers keep more detailed production records than would be required for commodity markets. It will be more important that fields be planted to only one variety. It will be important that records of seed purchases be documented and that records of where the seed is planted be kept and be verifiable. If a grower keeps records and makes the same efforts of crop segregation as outlined in this handbook, spot markets may be available. Again there is no guarantee of market availability for this “spot” or speculative production. First-buyers The same sanitation and record keeping will be required for receivers in the value-chain. The methods of trade in a spot market may be more like a commodity system where the IP grain flow will follow those types of marketing and ownership channels. In fact, some people in the trade are now calling this method “channeling” of grain. Record keeping If record keeping or documentation of all activities in the growing, handling, product movement, and testing can provide similar assurances that crop segregation has occurred and sanitation methods have been followed, there is probably demand for some of these spot IP products. Electronic or Internet markets are developing which will help to facilitate spot market trade of some IP products.
122
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Section 11: Scenarios regarding the demand for IP crops
SCENARIOS
123
Section
regarding the demand for IP crops
11
Introduction to section: This section looks at a few of the many scenarios surrounding IP crops. There are literally hundreds of scenarios involving IP today. As this handbook was being written the StarLink® situation developed, which is discussed as an example of the need for IP. As value-enhanced crops are developed for special end uses the need for IP systems will intensify. A broad cross section of scenarios is discussed.
Objectives of section: We want to review situations in various areas of the world as well as specific crop developments and events that are developing that increase the demand for IP crops and IP systems.
The broad view
Identity preservation may be today’s agricultural buzzword but the concept is not new. Situations have developed in the last few years, and continue to develop, that have brought the IP concept to the forefront. Agricultural scientists have talked for many years about the development of new or modified crops (not necessarily GMO) that would create stratification in the marketplace. In the last 10 years we have seen an almost geometric increase in specialty hybrids and varieties of several crops. To maintain the special characteristics of these crops they must be segregated from their commodity counterparts. Even though the current emphasis in IP circles may be the GMO/non-GMO issue the future will be in value-enhanced products that will make a difference in our food, fiber, industrial, and medicinal products.
123
124
The GMO issue
StarLink® wrongly portrays IP
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will be covered in greater detail in the next section. GMOs, although controversial, have caused a great deal of interest in segregation – even at what might be called a commodity level. The problem is that it is difficult for trade at the commodity level to support the premiums needed to cover costs involved in IP systems. Even though large-scale production and marketing can minimize these segregation costs, there are costs involved that bring prices above commodity levels. A team approach to IP can help to educate members in a supply-chain or value-chain of the costs and risks involved in IP production and distribution. As this handbook was being written the StarLink situation was unfolding. In the media this even had a negative effect on the IP concept. The media, in some cases, portrayed the release system for StarLink as an IP system. The author of this handbook presented a letter to the editor in response to their editorial and an article in the same issue concerning StarLink and IP systems. Excerpts from that letter are contained below in defense of IP systems. I had the same concern that a product that had not been approved for food use was released for planting. The StarLink situation should not have happened – period. When we have a situation in world trade that is as fragile as we have with the GMO issue the US needs to be ultra conservative in the approval and issuance of production permits for genetically modified varieties and hybrids. My anxiety is with the references to identity-preserved (IP) systems. Your editorial statement, “Identifying StarLink corn in taco shells certainly raises a red flag about just how secure the identity-preserved system is here in the U.S.” caught my attention. First of all I do not consider that the system under which StarLink was released to be considered an IP system. An IP system is a strict production and delivery method, which possesses procedures of observing, inspecting, sampling and testing to assure the presence (or absence) of certain traits. To my understanding the StarLink release system contained none of these procedures. The release system was a very loosely controlled grower agreement as to the disposition of his crop. Secondly, an IP system has some inherent costs involved, which are usually offset by a system of premiums to various parties in the supplychain, including growers and handlers. There was no incentive for a premium in this situation. The only trait was a pest control tool that had no market value except to the growers’ production system. The article stated that StarLink “was apparently grown and sold without a sufficient identity-preservation system in place to keep it out of food channels.” I would hope that a term similar to a “growing and distribution agreement” would be more appropriate to this situation than an “identity-preserved” system. If the seed company felt strongly enough about their StarLink® corn to put it into an IP system they would be willing to pay the premiums required to keep it in the right market
Section 11: Scenarios regarding the demand for IP crops
125
channels. Since the corn had no feed quality advantage neither a grower feeder nor a feed lot could be expected to place a higher value than just a commodity price on the corn. From the food manufacturers’ point of view there was not a good IP system in place either. Yes, the flour miller, Azteca Milling L.P., had a list of approved hybrids for purchase. But, they did not have in place a comprehensive IP system. An IP system would have checks and balances in addition to a grower’s statement that the delivery was a certain hybrid. An IP system needs to have documentation from all growers, handlers, and buyers – everyone in the supply-chain. I hope that you will help to portray IP as a sophisticated system that has been delivering IP products for many years. As the marketing of these products moves from the small niche markets to the mainstream commodity oriented system we have to be careful to educate those new parties that will be involved. The AOSCA IP handbook will help in this education process. As we move from commodity markets where a “commodity mindset” prevails to a more channeled marketing system of identity-preserved products we have to change this perception. The volume of IP products from the value-enhanced corns, to food-quality soybeans, specialty wheats, and the prospect of pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products will only increase substantially in the next few years. This is in addition to the current demand for non-GMO products. Even though the current emphasis in IP circles may be the GMO/nonGMO issue the future will be in value-enhanced products that will make a difference in our food, fiber, industrial and medicinal products. The above excerpts are somewhat editorializing, but demonstrate some of the misconceptions that agricultural scientists and marketers have to deal with. This is not to say that there are not concerns about GMOs but the above issue was the integrity of IP systems and what IP systems are and are not.
IP soybeans
The IP systems that have developed over many years were similar to the segregation procedures used in the seed industry. In the soybean crop food-quality soybeans were identified as specific varieties or types for specific food uses. Tofu required large-seeded, high protein varieties that contained protein components of special value in precipitating the protein from soymilk to make high quality tofu. Natto uses very small-seeded varieties with specific sugar content to ferment to the desired food product. More recently soybean varieties have been developed with specific oil qualities that provide low saturated fat cooking oil.
126
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
IP corn
In the corn industry the last 15 years has produced several classes of special use corns. White corn is not new, but is used for corn-based food and snack products. Waxy corn is usually wet milled to produce high value starches for both food and industrial uses. High oil corn is used primarily as an ingredient in animal feed. Nutritionally dense corn contains high protein and modified proteins with desirable amino acid composition used in animal feed because of their higher level of key nutrients.
IP wheat
Specialty wheat types have evolved which are used for specific bakery or pasta products. These products are all very much improved by the special attributes of specific types of wheat. The wheat market is already segregated largely into these specific types and a certain amount of identity preservation has been present in those markets for many years.
Enhanced values
All of these value-enhanced crops have attributes that separate them from their commodity counterparts. In order to provide the end user with maximum value for the specific end use the crops must maintain segregation from grains that do not contain the specialized attributes. IP systems provide the methodology, at some level, to accomplish this segregation.
The future
The future of crop utilization for food and industrial uses will become more reliant on the segregation of crops by specific characteristics that will improve the end products. This segregation will require identity preservation at some level. Pharmaceuticals may require a very high level of segregation with very strict production and sanitation methods that will preserve a specific attribute for the end product. A special nutritional trait for animal feed may require a much lower level of segregation, but will still require the concept of IP to provide the feed values desired.
Section 12: GMO: Genetically modified organisms
GMO:
127
Section
Genetically modified organisms
12
Introduction to section: The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the 1980s has caused concern both in the scientific community and especially with consumers lacking scientific knowledge in this very complex subject. This section does not take sides in this issue but attempts to look at the implications for IP systems.
Objectives of section: The section provides very basic background information to this subject and includes: • • • • •
Definitions Biology and biotechnology discussion Genetically modified organisms The controversy Implications for IP
.
Transgenic breeding
Various scientists have defined the transgenic breeding process. All living organisms are made up of cells that contain a substance called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). The structures of DNA molecules, whose units are called genes, contain information that is used by cells as a “recipe” for the organism. In the last 20 years, scientists discovered that DNA is interchangeable among animals, plants, bacteria, and other organisms. In addition to using traditional breeding methods of improving plants and animals through crossbreeding and selection, scientists in some cases can now transfer the genes that determine many desirable traits from one plant or animal to another. The transfer of DNA is done by various methods, such as direct injection of the cells with DNA or literally shooting cells with DNA-covered particles from a 127
128
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
special particle gun in a technique called biolistics. Another widely used method is to insert the DNA into specially modified bacteria or viruses that carry it into cells they infect. Regardless of which method is used, the general process of transferring DNA from one organism to another is called genetic engineering. Almost any desirable trait found in nature can, in principle, be transferred into any chosen organism. A plant or animal modified by genetic engineering to contain DNA from an external source is called transgenic.
Biotechnology defined
Biotechnology can be broadly defined as “using living organisms or their products for commercial purposes.” As such, biotechnology has been practiced by human society since the beginning of recorded history in such activities as baking bread, brewing alcoholic beverages, or breeding food crops or domestic animals. A narrower and more specific definition of biotechnology is “the commercial application of living organisms or their products, which involves the deliberate manipulation of their DNA molecules.” DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid is the substance within cells that carries the “recipe” for the organism and is inherited by offspring from parents. This definition, of biotechnology, implies a set of laboratory techniques developed within the last 20 years that have been responsible for the tremendous scientific and commercial interest in biotechnology, the founding of many new companies, and the redirection of research efforts and financial resources among established companies and universities. These laboratory techniques provide scientists with a spectacular vision of the design and function of living organisms, and provide technologists in many fields with the tools to implement exciting commercial applications.
Principles of biology
All living organisms are composed of cells that contain DNA in the chromosomes – a cellular structure comprised of a long, folded DNA molecule and protein. The structure of DNA molecules contains information that is used by cells as a “recipe” for the organism; that is, the characteristics of any living thing essentially are determined by the information in DNA. The “words” for the DNA recipe, called genes (a functional unit of DNA, one “word” in the DNA recipe) is derived from a 4-letter alphabet and usually contains between 1,000 and 100,000 letters. The entire recipe called the genome (the entire DNA “recipe” for an organism, found in every cell of that organism) may contain between 4 million (simple bacteria) and 3 billion (human) letters or more. Except for the sequence – the order of “letters” in the DNA “recipe” (the chemical structure that contains information) – and number of letters in each recipe, DNA from any organism is chemically and physically the same. One of the great scientific discoveries of biotechnology is that DNA from any organism will function if it is transferred into any other organism!
Section 12: GMO: Genetically modified organisms
Using biotechnology to modify plants and animals
129
Combining DNA from different existing organisms (plants, animals, insects, bacteria, etc.) results in modified organisms with a combination of traits from the parents. The sharing of DNA information takes place naturally through sexual reproduction and has been exploited in plant and animal breeding programs for many years. However, sexual reproduction can occur only between individuals of the same species. A Holstein cow can be mated with a Hereford bull because the two animals are different breeds of the same species, cattle. But trying to mate a cow with a horse, a different species of animal, would not be successful. What’s new since 1972 is that scientists have been able to identify the specific DNA genes for many desirable traits and transfer only those genes, usually carried on a plasmid or virus, into another organism. A plasmid is a small, circular DNA that is used to transfer genes from one organism into another. This process is called genetic engineering, resulting in a genetic modification, and the production of a transgenic organism. The transfer of DNA is accomplished using direct injection or the Agrobacterium, electroporation, or particle gun transformation techniques. These methods have been devised to transfer DNA between any living cells – plant, animal, insect, bacterial, etc. Virtually any desirable trait found in nature can, in principle, be transferred into any chosen organism. Once transferred, the genes cannot “jump” out any more than genes can “jump” resulting from more traditional transfer methods.
Products of genetic engineering
Specific applications of genetic engineering are abundant and increasing rapidly in number. Genetic engineering is being used in the production of pharmaceuticals, gene therapy, and the development of transgenic plants and animals. The development of transgenic plants and animals is only in its infancy as improved foods, nutraceuticals, and pharmaceuticals may soon come directly from agricultural production. Transgenic plants that are more tolerant of herbicides, resistant to insect or viral pests, or express modified versions of fruit or flowers have been grown and tested in outdoor test plots since 1987. The genes for these traits have been delivered to the plants from other unrelated plants, bacteria, or viruses by genetic engineering techniques. Transgenic animals presently are mostly designed to assist researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of human diseases. Several companies have designed and are testing transgenic mammals that produce important pharmaceuticals in the animal’s milk. Products such as insulin, growth hormone, and tissue plasminogen activator that are currently produced by fermentation of transgenic bacteria may soon be obtained by milking transgenic cows, sheep, or goats.
130
Summary
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
1.
2.
3.
GMO controversy
All living organisms are composed of cells that contain the molecule DNA. The chemical structure of DNA contains information, based on a 4-letter genetic code, that cells use as a “recipe for life.” The functional units of information, the “words” of the recipe, are called genes. DNA from all living organisms is the same, except for the sequence and number of letters in the “recipe.” Therefore, transferring the DNA genes for those traits can transfer traits from one organism into another. This transfer process is called “genetic engineering” and the organisms that are produced are called “transgenic.” Organisms can be uniquely identified by their DNA sequences. Though the DNA of all organisms is chemically and physically the same, the DNA “recipe” (sequence and number of letters) is unique to each individual. These different sequences account for the diversity of life observed in nature and are the basis for using DNA “fingerprints” to distinguish between any two individuals, breeds, hybrids, species, etc. They are also the basis of diagnosis of viral, bacterial, or fungal diseases using PCR technology.
What is all of the controversy related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs)? Many events have taken place, which have been driven by emotions, sometimes not rational, which have led to premature opinions on the various issues. On the other hand there is a lack of scientific evidence, at least presented evidence, that can alleviate some of the fears abounding. There are some logical steps, and probably more, which will evolve that can work through these problems. In 1996, some consumer advocates’ resistance to crops developed with transgenic breeding methods surfaced. Within a few months the adopted terminology evolved to “genetically modified organisms” or “GMO.” Although this term is not fully a correct description of the breeding technology the term has embedded itself in the seed and grain trades. Since the controversy surfaced, escalating since 1996, which has now been designated as GMO versus non-GMO, there has been polarization worldwide on various issues. Even though the U.S. has been largely on the outside of the issue, trade of agricultural products with other countries has definitely been affected. It is somewhat difficult to follow the exact reasoning which led to the present polarization.
Understanding the viewpoints around the world
Food safety in the U.S. is of the highest standard, yet worldwide these standards are not accepted because of a lack of understanding of the U.S. system. The U.S. system, GRAS, generally regarded as safe, is a cooperative governmental and industry method of testing and establishment of various facets of food safety. Many countries do not have the same level of business and government ethics as the U.S. and, therefore, for them, they find it difficult to believe that the GRAS method can be effective. In countries where business and governmental graft and
Section 12: GMO: Genetically modified organisms
131
corruption may be normal and even accepted practices the acceptance of a system such as GRAS would be even more difficult.
Europe
According to Giancarlo Moschini, Professor of Economics at Iowa State University, the European consumer reasoning on the GMO issue is basic to food safety prompted by a number of recent cases (unrelated to GMOs) have brought the EU citizens’ confidence in their food regulators and politicians to an all-time low. Such cases include the British “madcow” disease, this year’s Belgian dioxin scare, and the even more recent French “slurry in animal feed” scandal. A related issue is that the EU does not have a Europe-wide regulatory agency such as the Food and Drug Administration, and that food safety regulation still has to deal with the complexities of an institution comprising 15 member countries speaking several different languages. As a result, European citizens have developed considerable skepticism about what they are told is safe to eat, and politicians have read into that the need for more stringent regulations.
Japan
The Japanese reasoning on the GMO issue goes back to World War II and the effects of nuclear bombing on human genetics. The fear of the unknown comes into play when the Japanese consider potential risks of genetic manipulation in the new methods of plant breeding. Even though this is an issue of plant breeding versus the effects of radiation on human genetics, there is a fear, which will need to be dispelled by scientific proof. Following the Japanese logic probably drives the Korean and other Asian consumer pressures. Even though the scientific evidence does not support either the European or Asian points of view the scientific evidence has not been provided to dispel these consumer fears. This is an educational process, which needs to be undertaken by more than one front. Governments, food companies, genetic suppliers, and researchers need to confront this issue and provide the strong scientific information, in a very consumer-friendly form, that will dispel fears. Real consumer fears need to be separated from trade protectionism. There are some of both in play today. Even though the release of one of the first GMO products, the Flavorsavor® tomato, was an output trait or consumer oriented most of the traits in the widely traded grains and oilseeds have been input traits. With little proof of the safety of these traits consumers could find little reason for acceptance of these traits, which were seemingly being forced upon them. These ideas were picked up by non-scientifically based consumer advocacy groups and sensationalized in the press.
The future
We need to recognize the point of view that has evolved in Europe and followed in Japan and other Asian countries that they are going to require more scientific evidence of food and environmental safety than the U.S. system has provided. As previously pointed out they don’t have the same trust in the U.S. system. We need to be aware of what has and is happening to the U.S. market share in some of these markets. In 1996, the Canadians were able to fill the needs for non-GMO. In 1997,
132
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Argentina and Brazil fulfilled these needs. Recent action in Brazil indicates at least some Brazilian states may take a position to take advantage of this market. It will be interesting to see what happens when the genetic traits evolving from genetic modification are output traits rather than input traits. What will happen when traits may provide exceptional nutritional or pharmaceutical value to consumers rather than benefits to only the grower?
Implications for identity preservation
The implications for identity preservation are twofold. In the near term the part of the market that is demanding non-GMO grains and oilseeds is going to require segregation of non-GMO from the commodity GMO crops. Countries that have banned the planting of GMO crops can take advantage of this market in that they can produce crops in a commodity fashion and will be able to do so with less costs of an IP system. In reality it needs to be recognized that in many countries that have not approved the planting of GMO crops there is known to be some “contraband” planting of genetically modified seed imported illegally. In countries where genetically modified crops may be grown there will be a need for a more intense IP system to segregate the crops. The long-term implications for IP in genetically modified crops assumes that at some time in the future the safety of these crops is proven, either broadly or on a case-by-case basis. Scientific hopes would envision enhanced crops that would be designed with specific end uses in mind that would require segregation so that their special attributes would be maximized. In both the short-term and long-term genetically modified crop production will increase the need for identity preservation.
Tolerances, sampling, and testing
One of the areas of IP most impacted by the GMO issue is that of sampling and testing. This is addressed in section 6 but the implications should be emphasized again. The tolerance levels for non-GMO trade will have a large influence on any sampling and testing methods for verification of the non-GMO purity. Lower tolerances will require higher precision in sampling, sample preparation, and testing. This may imply that: • a more thorough sampling procedure will be required • larger samples will be required • a different sample preparation procedure will be required • a more precise testing method may be required There is a strong interrelationship between these four considerations. Tolerance levels of 0.01% or 0.1% would mean that a small sample might not contain a contaminating seed whereas a larger sample would be more apt to find the contaminant. The procedures required for sampling and testing at various tolerance levels are not standardized at this time. The USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is addressing this problem as well as universities and private companies. The GIPSA web site is continually updated with information as additional research is completed. The subjects of tolerances, sampling, and testing need to be discussed thoroughly by all parties involved in non-GMO trade.
Section 12: GMO: Genetically modified organisms
133
Additional reading
The subject of biotechnology is complex and users of this handbook may desire more information than is covered here. There is an almost overwhelming amount of printed material available on this subject with a full range from fairly easy to understand reports and articles for the lay person to very technical reports and books delving into genetics and transgenics that may be appropriate for only those scientists working in the field. To even attempt to list all of the references available is overwhelming. A few are listed here – all of which have been reviewed.
Available on the web
There is an abundance of material available on the web, which obviously needs to be approached with the cautions of understanding the source of these reports. On the web at the time of this writing are several that are worth your review if you have an inclination toward more depth in biotechnology. At www.extension.iastate.edu/pubs/ are two reports in Iowa State University’s “Biotechnology Information Series.” “Principles of Biotechnology,” North Central Region Extension Publication NCR #487, is an excellent 6-page background in biotechnology. “Regulation of Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products” is an excellent 11page guide to how the three federal agencies in the U.S. that are charged with overseeing the regulation of these processes and products in the U.S. This is publication NCR #557. These are in PDF and may be printed from the web. Another look at biotechnology and regulation can be found at a New Zealand site. The web site for the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification is www.gmcommission.govt.nz/RCGM/. This is an extensive report or series of reports compiled as New Zealand considers biotechnology in that country. For U.S. readers this gives another perspective, perhaps no more cautious than the U.S. approach, but more deliberate and structured. These reports are extensive and are several hundred pages in length.
Comprehensive books
A couple of books are recently available that provide in-depth viewpoints of biotechnology. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food by Daniel Charles is a 368-page documentation of the development and commercialization of genetically engineered crops. Charles, a technical correspondent with National Public Radio and for New Scientist, brings a nonpartisan position to the biotech battle. Lords of the Harvest documents all of the major scientific advances in molecular and cell biology that made the genetic engineering of plants possible. Charles brings the interviews of some 300 scientists, entrepreneurs, and environmental activists to light in a lot of inside information in telling this story. Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture – Economics and Politics edited by Gerald C. Nelson is a 344-page viewpoint from academia that looks at the current GMO benefits and costs, reviews perspectives on the controversies, and covers some other special topics of genetically modified organisms.
134
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
COUNTRY
135
Section
requirements for importation
13
Introduction to section: This section reviews known country requirements regarding IP at this time. This is another area that is constantly changing. There has been more activity in standards for IP from a country-bycountry aspect since the advent of GMO. The section points out that traders need to be aware of importation requirements for each individual country concerning specifications, testing, verification, and documentation.
Objectives of section: The section reviews on a country-by-country basis the current situation and looks at modifying IP programs to meet specific country requirements.
Specialty crops
Until very recently most IP trade has been on an individual contract basis between sellers and buyers. In the case of specialty crops such as foodquality soybeans and specialty corns much of this trade has had very precise specifications on a contract-by-contract basis. Much of the time these contracts were not based on commodity grain grades but were based on the particular contract basis – even though pricing may have been based on commodity markets. Only in the last two years have countries become involved in discussing the need for something similar to identity preservation and potential laws, rules, or guidelines pertaining to this trade.
135
136
Country requirements – Japan
– the EU
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
The progress of country specific requirements concerning identity preservation has not been as rapid as anticipated. At the time this handbook was outlined, in the summer of 2000, it appeared that several countries would have specific requirements that would govern IP systems or trade in IP products. At this time most emphasis concerns the GMO issue. In April of 2000 Japan released its distribution manual on “How to handle bulk shipments of U.S. and Canadian grown non-genetically modified farm product (soybeans and corn).” This guideline was released by the Japan Food Industry Center, under the authorization of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries (MAFF). This was obviously written by people who had practical experience in grain and oilseed trade and the system described will work very well with the basis under which this IP handbook is written. It strongly emphasizes that IP is a traceable system, “social verification” in its terms, and not just sampling and testing prior to shipment. Korea closely follows Japan’s lead in its requirements. The EU has widely discussed tolerances for genetically modified seeds in grain and oilseed shipments. These tolerances range from a zero tolerance to 1.0% of genetically modified seeds in a shipment. To date the EU seems much more concerned with sampling and testing than with comprehensive IP programs. At this date the only country information in writing is the Japanese guideline. The Japanese guidelines are included here, as translated into English by the Japanese.
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
Japan Bulk Commodity Non-GMO Soybeans and Corn Distribution Manual
Issued by Japan Food Industry Center under authorization by
Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries (MAFF)
March 31, 2000
137
138
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Japan Bulk Commodity non-GM Soybeans and Corn Distribution Manual How to Handle Bulk Shipments of U.S. and Canadian-Grown Non-Genetically Modified Farm Product (Soybeans and Corn)
Contents Contents Introduction New system of labeling genetically modified foods Table 1. Labeling system Table 2. Processed foods made from soybeans or corn covered by new labeling system Normal methods of distribution of soybeans and corn in the U.S. and Japan Glossary Identity-preserved (IP) handling Distribution manual outline Japan – guidelines for identity-preserved bulk handling of non-GM crops – U.S. Japan – guidelines for identity-preserved bulk handling of non-GM crops – Japan Issuance and storage of certificates Japan IP certificate issuance and trail Examples of certificates
Page 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9
The following materials and tables are taken from an English translation of a manual issued by Japan Food Industry Center, under the authorization by Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries (MAFF). This introductory statement has been added by Dennis Strayer, a consultant in seed and specialty crops and by Norman Makino, director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development in Japan. Norman’s background in the grain trade was invaluable in the clarification of this manual. The inserts in this document in this font style have been added to the original English document as clarification. Some additional checkpoints were also inserted in the guideline tables (pages 5 and 6). The original Japanese items are shown with asterisks. The manual itself is not a “prescription.” The segregated handling with due care of a good manager at each stage of production, distribution and manufacturing of GM and non-GM crops and verification thereof by means of documentary evidence detailing how products have been handled at each stage. The Quality Labeling Standard is the prescription. MAFF has the authority to judge whether any particular IP handling was “with due care of a good manager” or not under the standard law. The manual is to indicate how MAFF will judge it. • The process is to be set up by the contract between the parties of the transaction contract • The manual describes the function of handlers, corroborators, issuers, or importers • There is no mandated third-party verification of all steps This system is established based on the same system of trust that is inherent in the Japanese method of business. As mentioned in the manual “handlers may in some cases also be corroborators” – which means that the handler’s certificate is good. However, the certificate needs trust in the actual business and the seller has to provide the evidence to the buyer or the parties concerned how he handled the cargo “with due care of a good manager.” With this in mind a third-party certificate is recommended to avoid any trouble at a later date. It must be understood that even though the procedure outlined in the manual allows a great deal of flexibility within an IP system the manual must be followed to meet the guidelines of MAFF for labeling. If the buyer wants to sell the cargo as non-GMO in Japan, it will require the procedure described in the manual to meet the guideline of MAFF for the labeling. The intention of MAFF is to avoid the cost increase of the handling or certification as much as possible for the new regulation of labeling non-GMO. The new standard for labeling was announced on March 31, 2000 and the implementation started on goods to be sold or imported on or after April 1, 2001. Page 1.
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
139
New system of labeling genetically modified foods Identity-preserved handling is necessary in order to label products as “Identity-preserved non-GM product.” April 2000 saw the launch of a new system for labeling genetically modified (GM) crops, such as soybeans and corn, and processed foods made there from (Table 1) based on the quality labeling standards laid down under the amended JAS (Japanese Agricultural Standards) Law. • Labeling of processed foods made from soybeans or corn (Table 2) that are “genetically modified” or “not segregated from GM product” will be mandatory • Identity-preserved non-GM crops and processed foods need not be labeled, but may be voluntarily labeled as “non-GM product segregated” or “not genetically modified,” etc. • As a certain degree of unintentional commingling with GM crops is unavoidable even if non-GM crops are identity-preserved, unintentionally commingled crops will still be deemed identity-preserved if handled appropriately
Table 1. Labeling system A. If made from non-GM crops segregated throughout the production and distribution stages • Labeling unnecessary (only name of crop required) • “Non-GM product segregated” – voluntary labeling • “Not genetically modified,” etc. – voluntary labeling B. If made from crops not segregated from GM crops • “Not segregated from GM product,” etc. – mandatory labeling C. If made from GM crops • “Genetically modified (soybean) segregated” – mandatory labeling • “Genetically modified,” etc. – mandatory labeling
Table 2. Processed foods made from soybeans or corn covered by new labeling system Food Crops covered 1. Tofu, abura-age (deep-fried bean curd) soybeans 2. Kori-tofu (dried bean curd), okara (bean curd lees), yuba (dried soybean casein) soybeans 3. Natto (fermented soybeans) soybeans 4. Soyamilk soybeans 5. Miso soybeans 6. Boiled soybeans soybeans 7. Canned and bottled soybeans soybeans 8. Kinako (roasted soybean flour) soybeans 9. Roasted soybeans soybeans 10. Food made principally from any ingredient covered by categories 1 to 9 soybeans 11. Food made principally from soybeans (for cooking) soybeans 12. Food made principally from soybean flour soybeans 13. Food made principally from soybean protein soybeans 14. Food made principally from green soybeans green soybeans 15. Food made principally from soybean sprouts soybean sprouts 16. Corn snacks corn 17. Cornstarch corn 18. Popcorn corn 19. Frozen corn corn 20. Canned and bottled corn corn 21. Food made principally from corn flour corn 22. Food made principally from corn grits (except corn flakes) corn 23. Food made principally from (eating) corn corn 24. Food made principally from any ingredient covered by categories 16 to 20 corn Notes: A food is “made principally from” an ingredient if that ingredient is one of the three main ingredients in terms of weight and in addition comprises at least 5% of the total weight of the ingredients uses. The foods covered are those listed above, but as a considerable number of processed foods fall into categories 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23 and 24, care is required in determining whether or not a product is covered by labeling requirements.
Page 2.
140
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Figure 1. Normal methods of distribution of soybeans and corn in the US and Japan
A Farmer (grower) ⇓ ⇓
by truck
B Country elevator
⇓ by truck or railroad ⇓ C River terminal elevator ⇓ by barge (Mississippi river) ⇓ D Port terminal elevator ⇓ by ocean freighter ⇓
Japanese port Main soybean supply route
E Port silo
⇓ by conveyor ⇓ Sorting plant ⇓ ⇓
F Wholesaler warehouse ⇓ ⇓
by truck
H Food manufacturer’s production plant
Main corn supply route
E Port silo ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
by conveyor or truck
G Intermediate food processor ⇓ ⇓
by truck
H Food man. production plant
Glossary Country elevator – The primary collection point to which farmers deliver their crops. Areas of production have many country elevators. River terminal elevator – Loading point for transporting crops collected from country elevators by barge along the Mississippi River waterway to export ports. Export (port) terminal elevator – Port cargo-handling facility for loading crops aboard large freighters for export. Ocean freighter – “Panamax size” bulk freighter between 55,000–60,000 dwt, the largest ships capable of navigating through the Panama Canal. The illustration above shows the parties involved in the “supply-chain” and the normal methods of movement from one party to the next in the distribution channel. The physical movement of the soybeans or corn is shown above. Page 3.
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
141
Identity-Preserved (IP) Handling What is identity-preserved (IP) handling? Identity-preserved (IP) handling is the designation given to the handling of non-GM crops through every stage of production and distribution – from farms in the US through to food manufacturers in Japan – in such a way as to avoid commingling with GM crops, and the demonstration of this by means of documentary evidence. Bulk transport manual This distribution manual relates to the bulk transportation of soybeans and corn, and is designed to ensure supplies of identity-preserved, non-GM ingredients. Compartmentalized distribution of soybeans and corn by container, etc. With regard to transport by container (bagged or bulk), as in the case of some soybeans for making miso and tofu and small soybeans for natto, organic soybeans, and corn for popcorn, this manual applies up until the point when containers are sealed and from when containers are opened again. Unintentional commingling Unintentional commingling during distribution is unavoidable even if crops are identitypreserved, and a technical study group of the Food Labeling Council’s Genetically Modified Foods Committee has reported that unintentional commingling of food-grade soybeans transported in bulk would be up to 5%. If this manual is followed, identity-preserved shipments of non-GM soybeans for food consumption transported in bulk may contain no more than 5% GM product. In the case of corn, factors such as (1.) the lack of identity-preserved distribution to date, (2.) cross-pollination with other varieties on farms (which is inevitable with cross-pollinating plants), (3.) the possibility of a future reduction in commingling as a result of the development of the distribution system, and (4.) the difficulties associated with quantitative analysis make it difficult at this point in time to show a figure on the percentage of commingling of product that may occur. Social verification1 This distribution manual follows the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries’ proposed standards under the provisions of Article 7 of the Processed Foods Quality Labeling Standards and Article 7 of the Fresh Foods Quality Labeling Standards concerning the labeling of GM product, and is premised on the assumption that the GM content of product will be socially verified. Identity-preserved handling This is defined as follows under the proposed quality labeling standards: The segregated handling with due care of a good manager at each stage of production, distribution and manufacturing of GM and non-GM crops and verification thereof by means of documentary evidence detailing how products have been handled at each stage. The words “social verification” mean the verification of the process. The sample analysis data is not sufficient for the certification in this case. Sample analysis data is considered as “scientific verification.” The manual says the verification of the process is sufficient to certify the IP handling and the certificate of IP handling is good for labeling of non-GMO or GMO. The verification of non-GMO starts at the seed certificate and is followed by IP handling certificates at each stage.
Distribution Manual Outline This manual provides guidelines concerning effective means of handling product, handlers, records, corroborators and certificates at the check point where commingling may occur on each stage of production and distribution of product to ensure social verification of the non-GM product. •
Handlers and corroborators – Handlers are entities that handle product in such a way as to preserve the identity of shipments at each stage from farms to manufacturers. Corroborators are entities that confirm and certify that shipments are identity-preserved. Handlers in some cases may also be corroborators.
•
Certification – Corroborators at each stage from farms to manufacturers issue certificates confirming that product was identity-preserved by handlers. Issuers of certificates at each stage (with the exception of importers) attach copies of the certificates for each previous stage along with their own certificates to send to the certificate issuer for the next stage. Instead of copies of the above certificates, importers issue a certificate covering all stages of handling overseas.
•
Records and other documents – Handlers at each stage must keep records and other documents detailing their handling of product in order to guarantee and confirm the accuracy of certificates. Due to the potentially vast volume of such records and documents, however, corroborators need not store or attach all records and documents for each previous stage.
•
Storage period – Certificates, records and other documents for each stage must be kept for a minimum of two years. Page 4.
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
142 142
Figure 2. Japan – Guidelines for identity-preserved bulk handling of non-GM crops: handling in US/Canada Product must be handled as follows at each stage of production through to manufacturing, and records and other documents kept to certify how product was handled:
Stage of Productiondistribution
Audit points to check
Method of handling and verification
* Japan indicated
A. Farm production stage
B. Country elevator distribution stage
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Seed source *Planting Growing *Harvest *Storage *Delivery *Storage
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
terminal elevator distribution stage
1. 2. 3.
terminal elevator and transport stage
• • •
1.
D. Export
*Delivery *Storage *Barge loading
2. 3. 4.
• *Barge unloading • *Storage *Ship • preparation • *Ship loading •
*Verify terminal unloading and handling equipment cleaned *Verify terminal storage facilities cleaned *Verify barge loading equipment cleaned *Verify barge cleaned *Verify barge unloading equipment cleaned *Verify storage facilities cleaned *Verify ship loading equipment cleaned *Verify ship hold preparation
Handlers
Records/documents • • • • •
Seed name (number) Date of delivery Quantity shipped Quality verification Confirmation of audits
• •
Commingled collection of variety (hybrid) names or numbers, farmer purchased from, date, quantity Quality verification Confirmation of audits
Farmers (growers) or originators such as country elevators in a position to • supervise farmers
• River terminal elevators • • Export terminal elevators at export port of loading
•
• •
Corroborators
The originator checks the records to confirm that the handler handled the product properly in the manner shown to the left.
Commingled collection of variety (hybrid) names or numbers, country elevator delivered from, date, quantity Quality verification Confirmation of audits
The originator or importer, etc. checks the records to confirm that the handler handled the product properly in the manner shown to the left.
Commingled collection of variety (hybrid) names or numbers, river terminals delivered from, date, quantity Quality verification Confirmation of audits
The importer checks the records to confirm that the handler handled the product properly in the manner shown to the left. Page 5.
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
C. River
* Japan indicated *Identify and verify variety/hybrid Verify seed quality *Verify seed quantity for acreage *Verify planter (seeder) cleaned Verify previous crop in field Field inspection for purity Verify field boundaries *Verify combine cleaned *Verify handling equipment cleaned *Verify on-farm storage cleaned *Verify transportation equipment cleaned *Verify country elevator storage cleaned *Verify country elevator handling equipment cleaned *Verify transportation equipment to river terminal elevator cleaned
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
143
Product must be handled as follows at each stage of production through to manufacturing, and records and other documents kept to certify how product was handled:
Stage of production distribution
E. Port silo
Audit points to check 1.
stage in Japan
2. 3.
F. Wholesaler
1.
distribution stage (mainly soybeans)
G. Processor (grits starch processing plant) distribution stage
H.
3. 4.
Handlers
Conveying • equipment • Storage bins • Conditioning equipment
Verify handling equipment cleaned Verify storage bins cleaned Verify conditioning equipment cleaned
Warehouse companies, sorters, etc.
• •
Verify handling equipment cleaned Verify transporting equipment cleaned Verify storage bins cleaned Verify conditioning equipment cleaned
Wholesalers
Conveying equipment Transporting equipment Storage bins Conditioning equipment
• •
Records/documents • • • • • • • • •
1. 2. 3. 4.
1. 2. 3.
Conveying equipment Sorting facilities Grits starch production line Grits starch storage and shipment
• • • •
Ingredient conveyance Segregated ingredient storage Production line
•
Verify handling equipment cleaned Verify sorting equipment cleaned Verify grits production line cleaned Verify starch storage cleaned
Grit starch manufacturers
• • • • • • •
• •
Verify ingredient handling equipment cleaned Verify segregated storage cleaned Verify production line cleaned
Food manufacturers • • • • •
Arrival of goods Entry and discharge from storage Confirmation of cleaning Purchase of ingredients Storage of ingredients Entry and discharge from individual storage locations Sale of products Bagging (name of article, quantity, type of packing, date) Confirmation of cleaning
Corroborators The consignor (wholesaler, manufacturer, importer, etc.) checks the records to confirm the products were handled properly in the manner shown at the left. The wholesaler checks the records to confirm that the product was handled properly in the manner shown to the left.
Purchase of ingredients Receipt and payment for ingredients Production Storage location Entry and discharge from warehouse of product Delivery Confirmation of cleaning
Grits starch processor checks the records to confirm that the product was handled properly in the manner shown to the left.
Purchase of raw materials (source of purchase, quantity) Production Storage Shipment Confirmation of cleaning
Food manufacturer checks the records to confirm that the product was handled properly in the manner shown to the left. Page 6.
143
Food manufacturer distribution stage
2.
Method of handling and verification
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
Figure 3. Japan – Guidelines for identity-preserved bulk handling of non-GM crops: handling in Japan
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
144
Issuance and storage of certificates Certification is required to confirm that the identity of product is preserved at each stage of distribution. The companies (handlers) or corroborators involved in identity-preserved handling of non-GMO crops at each stage of distribution issue the next party in the distribution chain with certification giving the article name, place of origin, crop year and quantity, etc. of shipments. Where the recipient of certification sells non-GMO crops received from one party to another party, certification must be accompanied by copies of certificates received from the previous party as evidence of identity-preservation. Within Japan, certification from the importer goes as far as the food manufacturers. An importer selling non-GMO product to a wholesaler or manufacturer issues the wholesaler or manufacturer with a certificate detailing how the product was handled before reaching Japan. When a wholesaler sells to a food manufacturer through a secondary wholesaler, the secondary wholesaler issues identity-preserved certification accompanied by a copy of certification from the importer. Relevant documents must be kept at least 2 years. Certificates are issued to the next party in the chain of distribution by corroborators based on records and other documents detailing the handling of product by the handlers at each stage of distribution. These certificates, records and other relevant documents must therefore be kept for a minimum of 2 years. Figure 4. Shows a typical example of the issuing of certificates in a typical distribution route from farmer to food manufacturer.
The figures on pages 3, 5, and 6 all use the same letter designations (A,B,C,D,E,F,G, and H) for business entities involved in the process of movement of the product and the certificates from one party to the next.
It is well to emphasize again that the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) has devised this system of IP certification to minimize the costs of the IP process and to facilitate the movement of these products without restricting the process and requiring a lot of product testing (scientific verification). Rather they have chosen to use a system to verify the growing, handling, storage and transportation methods by certificates along the supply routes. The due care of good managers in both the handling of the crop and issuance of certificates to document these practices is accepted. It may be suggested that the inclusion of third-party inspection or verification (corroboration) be a part of a system to reduce potential problems of understanding and agreement.
Pages 7 & 8
Section 13: Country requirements for importation
145
Figure 4. Examples of certificates (Japan) Example of certificate issued by importer To XXX
mm dd,yy XX Co. Ltd.
Certificate 1. 2. 3. 4.
Name of article Place of origin Year of crop Quantity
5. 6. 7. 8.
Foreign port (loading) Japanese port (unloading) Name of vessel and hold number Arrival date
This is to certify that the above shipment is a shipment of non-genetically modified farm product collected, stored and transported to avoid commingling with genetically modified product. Note: We have done our best to handle the above product under strictly controlled conditions in order to preserve its identity. Even where shipments are identity preserved, however, it is inherently impossible to entirely prevent commingling, and so we cannot guarantee that the product is 100% non-genetically modified.
Example of certificate issued by grits starch maker
To XXX
mm dd,yy XX Co., Ltd.
Certificate 1. 2. 3.
Name of article Lot number Quantity
This is to certify that the above products were made from certified ingredients (copies of certification attached) which were sorted, manufactured, (bagged) and transported by us to avoid commingling with other crops.
Example of certificate issued by wholesaler in Japan To XXX
mm dd, yy XX Co., Ltd.
Certificate 1. 2. 3. 4.
Name of article Place of origin Year of crop Quantity
This is to certify that the above goods consist of certified farm product (copies of certification attached) which was selected, bagged and stored by us to avoid commingling with other farm product. Page 9
146
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Section 14: Existing IP systems
147
EXISTING
Section
IP systems
14
Introduction to section: Identity preservation is not new. The seed industry has used systems for decades on which IP systems are based. The application of these systems to the production and trade of value-enhanced crops is more recent. The basis and evolution of IP systems were discussed in sections 1 and 3 and current IP systems are reviewed in this section.
Objectives of section: Review both public and private IP programs available.
A very basic outline for an IP program is the AOSCA General Standards for the AOSCA Identity Preserved (IP) Program. This is the guideline that individual AOSCA agencies use for the development of specific programs offered by their agencies. This is presented first in the handbook so that other programs can be compared. Other programs are presented as examples. These are by no means allinclusive of what is available – only examples. Most AOSCA individual agencies will develop specific programs to fit the needs of clients. Many program descriptions may be found on web sites.
147
148
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
General Standards for the AOSCA Identity Preserved (IP) Program
General: The purpose of the Identity Preserved (IP) logo is to identify products that have met specific requirements designed to preserve the genetic and/or physical identity of the product. A. Eligibility requirements Eligibility requirements for crop varieties/brands or processes utilized are such that a detailed description of the morphological, physiological, and other characteristics of the plants and seed that distinguish it from other varieties/brands or processes utilized must be provided to the inspection agency. B. Applicant’s responsibilities 1. Care of equipment a. Applicants, growers, and handlers of IP product are responsible for determining that all equipment used for planting, harvesting, conveying, storing, handling, and conditioning is thoroughly cleaned before handling IP product. 2. Maintaining identity of product a. Each field must be identified with a number or other designation on the field application form and other pertinent documents. b. Maps showing field identities and locations must be maintained and furnished to crop inspectors. c. Field inspected product must be positively identified at all times. d. A bin or lot number must identify all bins. e. If product is bagged, bags must be identified with a stenciled lot number or a tag securely fastened to the bag. 3. Record requirements – the following records must be maintained: a. Field number b. Amount of product harvested c. Assigned bin number d. Record of any product transfers e. Assigned lot numbers f. Copies of all completed agency documents
Section 14: Existing IP systems
149
C. Application for field inspection – the application must include the following: 1. Applicant’s address and phone number 2. Grower’s address and phone number 3. Field number 4. Variety/brand 5. Program name, i.e., 99.5% non-GMO soybean grain 6. Planting date 7. Field size 8. Field location 9. Previous crop 10. Seed source identity 11. Signature of applicant D. Establishing source of seed The inspection agency shall be supplied with satisfactory evidence of the source of seed used to plant each field applied for inspection. E. Field inspection One or more field inspections shall be made each time a crop is to be harvested and when genetic purity and identity or any other factor affecting product identity can best be determined. The field shall be in such condition to permit an adequate inspection to determine genetic purity and identity. F. Field inspector report The inspector will prepare a written inspection report for each field inspected. The field will be passed if conditions are satisfactory, but all or parts of the field will be rejected if program requirements are not met. G. Product handling – the following handling requirements shall be met: 1.
Facilities shall be available to perform handling without introducing mixtures.
2.
Identity of the product must be maintained at all times.
3.
Records of all operations relating to the program shall be complete and adequate to account for all incoming product and final disposition of product.
4.
Handlers shall permit inspection agency review of all records pertaining to program product.
5.
Approved handlers shall designate an individual who shall be responsible to the inspection agency for performing such duties as may be required.
150
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
6.
Approval of handlers shall be on an annual basis.
7.
An authorized inspection agency representative shall take adequate samples.
H. Transfer of product prior to labeling – the following transfer options are available: 1.
Interagency – for completion of IP program between states, contact field inspection agency for instructions.
2.
Intrastate (within the state) – an affidavit of product transfer stating the number of bushels or pounds transferred must be provided before labels can be issued.
I. Carry-over product All eligible product not used in the crop year of production must be reported to the agency to remain eligible for future labeling. J. Labeling The product meeting specific program requirements may be labeled using the IP logo. The label must clearly state the program name. The above General Standards for the AOSCA Identity-Preserved (IP) Program is copyrighted material of: Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies 55 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 150 Meridian, ID 83642-6286 All individual agency identity-preserved programs must comply with these general standards.
Section 14: Existing IP systems
151
Minnesota Crop Improvement Association
Changing to meet today’s needs
The Minnesota Crop Improvement Association (MCIA) has been designing and implementing certification programs for nearly a century. MCIA’s work in seed certification is based on unbiased field inspection, record keeping, laboratory analysis and official labeling. With the recent introduction of biotechnology, MCIA has implemented several new Identity Preservation (IP) programs based upon its proud tradition of seed certification. These IP programs are non-regulatory and have been designed to meet the needs of the product originator and end user. Identity Preserved (IP) refers to the certification of a product’s specific traits or characteristics through the growing, production and marketing channels. The purpose of such a program is to preserve the genetic and/or physical identity of a product or process to the end consumer.
The systems approach
Each program is its own system with MCIA’s third party oversight, buyer/seller partnering and cost effective, practical, statistically sound program components include: planting stock origin verification, field inspection, product sampling and testing, auditing, official labeling and the approval of grain handling facilities. The Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) has designed and trademarked an official IP label (used by MCIA) with the objective of bringing harmonization, standardization and clarity to the IP world. AOSCA has also adopted IP standards to which MCIA IP programs adhere.
Current programs
As the agricultural industry changes, MCIA meets with clients to discuss need and make program enhancements. A number of MCIA IP programs have been developed including: • • • • •
99.5% Non-GMO soybean grain 99.5% Non-GMO soybean seed 99.0% Non-GMO corn grain 99.0% Non-GMO corn seed IP grain handler’s facility program
Program flexibility
Due to MCIA’s affiliation with AOSCA, clients are given the convenience of applying for services with MCIA even though production may occur in several geographic regions or across several state lines. MCIA representatives work with clients to identify additional applications for IP products where the identity of the product is especially important to the end user.
Contact
Dr. Gary M. Beil, President and CEO 1900 Hendon Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108
phone 612-625-7766 fax 612-625-3748 e-mail
[email protected]
152
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
99.5% Non-GMO soybean grain program requirements 1. Application requirements – application for field inspection for each variety brand is required. Applications include: a. Name of variety/brand to be certified b. Kind and variety/hybrid of previous crop c. Map indicating the location of each field d. Signature on application verifying that all handling, conveying, planting, and other equipment used for planting the seed have been adequately cleaned prior to use. 2. Seed source requirements a. All seed must be from a known source b. An invoice including the variety/brand name and lot number must be provided for all purchased seed c. A description of the phenotypic characteristics of the variety/brand must be provided d. The applicant must provide one of the following: • Proof that the seed planted is non-GMO verified by an AOSCA agency to standards that meet or exceed the 99.5% non-GMO Soybean Grain Standards • For purchased seed – a declaration by the seed producer of the non-GMO status of each of the lots planted • A sample of each of the seed lots to be planted for agency-designated GMO tests 3. Land requirements – soybeans shall be grown on land on which the previous crop was of another kind or planted with the same variety/brand 4. Field requirements a. Isolation • A distance adequate to prevent mechanical mixture shall separate fields from any uninspected, non-qualifying soybeans • A distance adequate to prevent mechanical mixture shall separate fields from any other seed-producing crop b. Sample size – a minimum of 100 plants to be counted in each of six subsamples c. Other varieties – other varieties shall not exceed 0.5% d. Field inspections – fields will be inspected prior to harvest at the best time to determine varietal purity 5. Sampling – an authorized agency representative shall take samples a. Lot size and sample size will be based on amount of product available, container, bin or transportation size. Check with inspection agency for specific size requirements 6. Testing requirements a. Agency approved laboratories will be used b. Agency approved non-GMO tests will be used c. Purity analysis testing will be required for other crop contaminants
Section 14: Existing IP systems
153
7. Grain standards (maximum allowed) a. Other crop 0.5% b. GMO 0.5% c. Total of other crop and GMO cannot exceed 0.5% 8. Labeling – see section on labeling under general requirements
99.0% Non-GMO Corn Grain Program Requirements 1. Application requirements – application for field inspection for each hybrid/variety is required. Applications to include: a. Name of hybrid/variety to be certified b. Kind and variety/brand of previous crop c. Map indicating the location of each field d. Signature on application affirming that the standards, regulations and procedures published by the Minnesota Crop Improvement Association will be followed 2. Seed source requirements a. All seed must be from a known source b. An invoice including the hybrid/variety name and lot number must be provided c. A description of the phenotypic characteristics of the hybrid/variety must be provided d. The applicant must provide one of the following: • Proof that the seed planted has been non-GMO verified by an AOSCA agency to standards that meet or exceed the 99.0% non-GMO Corn Grain Program Standards • A declaration by the seed producer of the non-GMO status of each of the lots planted • A sample of each of the seed lots to be planted for agency-designated GMO tests 3. Land requirements – corn shall be grown on land on which the previous crop was of another kind or previously inspected same hybrid/variety 4. Field requirements a. Isolation • A distance of 660 feet from any uninspected, nonqualifying corn is required • For fields 20 acres and larger: o If the isolation is less than 165 feet, the distance may be modified by post pollination removal of 16 adjacent rows o If the isolation is between 165 and 660 feet, the distance may be modified by post pollination removal of 8 adjacent rows • A distance adequate to prevent mechanical mixtures shall separate fields from any other seed-producing crop
154
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
5.
6.
7.
8.
b. Field inspections • Fields must be inspected during the pollination period to determine possible isolation problems and to verify the identity of the hybrid/variety • Fields not meeting isolation requirements may require reinspection to verify post pollination removal of inadequately isolated portions of fields • Sample size – a minimum of 100 plants to be observed in each of six subsamples • Other varieties shall not exceed 1.0% Sampling a. An authorized agency representative shall take samples b. Samples will be drawn at predetermined points throughout the production process as designated by the certifying agency c. Lot size and sample size will be based on the amount of product, container, bin or transportation size. Check with inspection agency for specific size requirements Testing requirements a. Agency approved laboratories will be used b. Agency approved non-GMO tests will be used c. Purity analysis testing for other crop contaminants will be required Grain standards (maximum allowed) a. Other crop 1.0% b. GMO 1.0% c. Total of other crop and GMO cannot exceed 1.0% Labeling – see section on labeling under “general requirements”
The above programs of the Minnesota Crop Improvement Association illustrate two programs offered for non-GMO certification. MCIA currently offers five different IP programs. The introduction to the MCIA programs stresses that their IP programs are flexible and may be modified to fit a client’s needs. Any program or partial program will need to come under the general AOSCA standards. These examples also show the difference between two crops – corn and soybeans. These two crops are at the two extremes of pollination methods that is the major reason for the difference in the level of GMO contamination allowed between the two programs. These IP programs are copyrighted by: Minnesota Crop Improvement Association 1900 Hendon Avenue St Paul, MN 55108
Section 14: Existing IP systems
155
Canadian Soybean Export Association Approved Identity Preservation Standard
New level of standards
The Canadian Soybean Export Association (CSEA) launched the National Identity Preservation Standard to give its food-grade soybean customers new confidence in their purchases. The standard is a minimum guideline that outlines identity preservation (IP) procedures for all stages of production from growing to processing. The Canadian soybean industry has been producing food grade soybeans for over 30 years and running IP programs for over 15 years. This standard will take the industry to the next level. The standard is a minimum guideline that outlines identity preservation (IP) procedures for all stages of production from growing to processing.
Assurance on a national level
Identity preservation is important for food grade soybean production because Canada’s public and private breeding programs have developed unique soybean varieties. These varieties, with traits such as large seed size and elevated proteins and sugars, were developed for specific end uses in the niche markets overseas. These customers want assurances that they are receiving the highest quality product. This national standard was designed to give food grade soybean customers an additional level of comfort to segregate individual soybean varieties.
Third-party certification
The Canadian Grain Commission will be the third party certifying body for the standard. It will conduct both a “desk audit” of processors’ IP procedures manuals, as well as physical audits of their facilities.
Evolving process
The CSEA sees IP programs as the way of the future for agricultural production. This standard will be an evolving process and changes to the standard will be made as new technologies become available. The Canadian Soybean Export Association is a voluntary association of members of the Canadian soybean industry, working as a team to promote the exports of Canadian soybeans and soy products into world markets. The National Identity Preservation Standard was developed by CSEA.
Contact
Kim Cooper, Secretary phone Canadian Soybean Export Association fax 180 Riverview Drive, PO Box 1199 e-mail Chatham, Ontario N7M 5L8, Canada
519-352-7730 519-352-8983
[email protected]
156
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
CANADIAN SOYBEAN EXPORT ASSOCIATION APPROVED IDENTITY PRESERVATION STANDARD
Canadian Soybean Export Association 180 Riverview Drive, P.O. Box 1199 Chatham, Ontario, CANADA N7M 5L8
Section 14: Existing IP systems
157
Table of Contents Review/Endorsement Amendment Record Distribution List Scope/References 1.0
Seed Standards
2.0
Planting
3.0
Field Season
4.0
Harvest
5.0
On Farm Storage
6.0
Transportation
7.0
Elevator Receiving
8.0
Elevator Storage
9.0
Processing
10.0 Loading 11.0 Audit Standards
158
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
REVIEW This Canadian Soybean Export Association Standard is subject to periodic review. The next review date is unknown. Amendments will be issued to ensure the Standard continues to meet current needs. Amendments will only be issued to registered owners of the Standard.
Scope This Canadian Soybean Export Association Identity Preservation Standard outlines specifications for the quality system that must be implemented for accreditation by the Canadian Grain Commission.
ENDORSEMENT This Canadian Soybean Export Association Standard is hereby approved
Michael Loh, Chairman August 23, 2001
Kim Cooper, Secretary August 23, 2001
Section 14: Existing IP systems
159
Minimum Level
Recommendations on Good Practice *
Documentation
1.0 Seed Standards 1.1 Certified seed accredited to Association of Official Seed Certification Agencies (AOSCA) standards or equivalent. Equivalent seed must be produced under a controlled system similar to the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA) pedigreed seed increase system. “Bin run” seed not to be used.
1.1.1 Grower should retain certified seed tag for each bag of seed. Seed lot traceability is recommended.
1.1.2 Grower must be able to produce certified seed tag for each lot of seed purchased to produce the quantity of Identity Preserved (IP) soybeans being contracted or delivered.
Section 14: Existing IP systems
Canadian Soybean Export Association Identity Preservation
Grower must retain his/her invoice or receipt of purchase for all quantities of IP seed purchased.
Bin run – Grain retained from a previous crop that is used as seed for planting. Genetic purity and identity of bin run seed is uncertain. It is not produced under an AOSCA approved pedigreed seed increase system and therefore it has not been field inspected by an accredited agency.
If “equivalent to certified seed” is used, the contracting party must have sufficient documentation to prove that the seed purity and identity has been maintained.
2.0 Planting 2.1 Planter must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to planting IP soybean variety. This must be done regardless if grower uses his/her own equipment or uses a custom planter.
2.1.1 Grower should endeavor to plant IP soybean crop before planter is used on other soybean crops. IP seed bags should be stored separately from other soybean seed and other crop seed prior to planting.
2.1.2 Growers must detail cleaning procedure used and sign this document to authenticate that they have implemented the procedures described.
Grower should refer to cleaning procedures as detailed by equipment manufacturer if available. 159
160
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
160
2.2 Approved isolation distance for the IP crop must be used. The CSGA isolation standard for certified soybean seed is 3 meters between another soybean and another pulse crop (Bean, Fababean, Lentil, Lupin, Pea or Peanut). There is no isolation distance necessary between soybeans and crops of Barley, Buckwheat, Canaryseed, Flax, Oat, Rye, Triticale, and wheat providing the crops does not overlap. 2.3 Grower must have records of previous crop grown on IP soybean field.
2.2.1 Grower should endeavor to leave minimum 1-meter isolation between an IP soybean field and fields of crops that do not require the 3-meter isolation.
2.2.2 Proper isolation distance must be documented at time of field inspection.
2.3.1 Grower should keep detailed field maps and history of crops grown.
2.3.2 Grower must be able to provide a written history of previous crop.
3.1.1 If the IP crop is not being grown under contract (in which case the contracting party should conduct the field inspection) the grower should arrange for a qualified individual, at arm’s length from the operation of the farm, to conduct the field inspection.
3.1.2 The field inspection report must document that isolation distances have been met, there is proper control of weeds and volunteer crops and that the soybean variety appears to be characteristically uniform for the appropriate growth stage. The inspector and the grower must sign and date this report.
4.1.1 Grower should endeavor to harvest IP soybean crop before combine is used on other soybean crops.
4.1.2 Growers must detail cleaning procedure used and sign this document to authenticate that they have implemented the procedures described.
3.0 Field Season
4.0 Harvest 4.1 Combine must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to harvesting IP soybean variety. This is to be done regardless if grower uses his/her own equipment or uses a custom combine.
Grower should refer to cleaning procedures as detailed by equipment manufacturer if available.
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
3.1 A 2nd or 3rd party field inspector must inspect the IP field during the growing season to confirm that isolation distances have been met and there is proper control of volunteer crops and weeds. The field inspector must also verify that the crop looks uniform as detailed in the variety description.
Section 14: Existing IP systems
4.2.1 Grower should endeavor to harvest IP soybean crop before transfer equipment is used on other soybean crops.
4.2.2 Growers must detail cleaning procedure used and sign this document to authenticate that they have implemented the procedures described.
4.3.1 If possible, grower should try to arrange for conveyance vehicles/equipment that have only been used recently to transport clean substances such as grain or food items. It is critical that all grain and meal residue is cleaned from the inside of the truck. Ideally the truck or hopper should be covered.
4.3.2 Grower must inspect truck and sign a document to authenticate that the truck/hopper was cleaned prior to loading.
5.1 Grower’s must maintain record of what was stored in their bin prior to filling with IP soybean crop. 5.2 Storage bin must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to loading.
5.1.1 Grower should keep full records with crop type and dates when bins were loaded unloaded and cleaned.
5.3 Storage bins used to store IP crops must be visually identified so that all persons working in farm operation are aware that each bin should only be used for a particular IP crop.
5.3.1 Grower should put a sign or otherwise visually identify any storage bin that will be used for IP soybean crop. All persons working in farm operation should be made aware that the storage bin is only to be used for the IP crop.
5.1.2 Growers must keep written records of what crop was in their storage bin prior to filling with IP soybeans. 5.2.2 Growers must sign a document indicating that their bin was thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to filling. 5.3.2 Grower must sign a document indicating that any storage bin used for an IP soybean crop was visually identified.
Section 14: Existing IP systems
4.2 Equipment used to transfer soybeans must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to transferring IP soybean crop. This is to be done regardless if grower uses his/her own equipment or uses custom harvesting. 4.3 Conveyance vehicles/equipment used to transport IP soybeans at harvest must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to transporting IP soybean crop. This is to be done regardless if the grower uses his/her own equipment or custom trucking.
161
5.0 On Farm Storage
5.4 Equipment used to unload storage bin must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to usage.
5.4.2 Grower must sign a document indicating that equipment used to unload storage bin was thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to usage.
161
162
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook 162
6.0 Transportation 6.1 Conveyance vehicles/equipment must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to loading. This must be done regardless if grower uses his/her own equipment or uses custom trucking. 6.2 Trucker must present documentation verifying the IP soybean variety and name of the grower.
6.1.1 If possible, grower should try to arrange for hopper/trucking equipment that has only been used recently to transport clean substances such as grain or food items. It is critical that all grain and meal residue is cleaned from the inside of the truck. Ideally the truck or hopper should be covered. 6.2.1 Trucker should be carrying a completed bill of lading. The producer, trucker and receiver should sign the bill of lading. The trucker should also carry any additional documentation required by the receiving elevator.
6.1.2 Grower must inspect truck and sign a document to authenticate that the truck/hopper was cleaned prior to loading.
7.1.1 All procedures should be described in detail. All relevant staff should be trained in IP procedures and should have access to the manual for reference. 7.2.1 Receiving procedures should be detailed in IP manual.
7.1.2 Manual must be available for inspection by auditing authority.
6.2.2 Grower must fill out documentation for the trucker that identifies the IP soybean variety being delivered and the grower name.
7.0 Elevator Receiving
7.2 Incoming loads must be identified and verified as an IP crop. The crop is not unloaded unless its identity is verified. 7.3 Any rejected IP loads that are received into the elevator must be tracked and accounted for.
7.4 Elevator must take a sample from each load of IP soybeans received.
7.3.1 Elevator should have detailed documentation showing which bins were used to store rejected loads. Elevator should be able to show documentation demonstrating the end use for the rejected soybeans. 7.4.1 If requested by grower, at time of delivery, the elevator should supply half of this sample for the grower to keep.
7.2.2 Scale tickets for incoming loads must indicate variety name and unloading/storage details for all IP crops. 7.3.2 Elevator must have detailed documentation for storage and tracking of rejected loads that were received into the elevator. 7.4.2 Elevator must retain documentation detailing variety name, moisture, and weight and grade details for each load.
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
7.1 Elevator must have an IP manual that details full IP procedures for receiving, storage, processing and loading.
Section 14: Existing IP systems
7.5.1 Cleaning procedures should be detailed in IP manual.
7.5.2 Elevator must have documentation to authenticate that pit/conveyor/legs have been thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to receiving a specific IP crop. Records must include the date and the name of the employee who conducted the inspection.
8.1 Elevator must keep detailed storage history. Records must indicate what crop or variety was stored in the bin/silo prior to it being used to store an IP soybean crop. 8.2 Storage bins/silos must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to loading.
8.1.1 Elevator should keep full records with crop type, variety name and dates when bins were loaded unloaded and cleaned.
8.3 Equipment used to load/unload bins and silos must be cleaned and inspected prior to being used for IP crop.
8.3.1 Cleaning procedures should be detailed in IP manual.
8.4 Elevator must identify all bins/silos that are used to store IP soybean variety. All elevator staff should be aware of and have access to bin/silo designation.
8.4.1 Current elevator schematic should be available at pits and all other pertinent spots in elevator.
8.1.2 Elevator must have detailed storage history records. Records must indicate what crop or variety was stored in the silo/bins prior to it being used to store an IP soybean crop. 8.2.2 Elevator must have records documenting that silo was thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to loading. Records must include the date and the name of the employee who conducted the inspection. 8.3.2 Elevator must have records documenting that all equipment used to load/unload bins and silos with IP soybean crop were thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to use. Records must include the date and the name of the employee who conducted the inspection 8.4.2 Elevator must have detailed bin and silo maps/schematics indicating which crop and variety is to be stored in each bin.
8.0 Elevator Storage
8.2.1 Cleaning procedures should be detailed in IP manual.
Section 14: Existing IP systems
7.5 Elevator pit/conveyor/legs must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to receiving IP crops. Alternatively they could also be dedicated to a specific IP crop.
163
163
164
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook 164
9.0 Processing 9.1 Conveyors/augers/legs must be cleaned when transporting different IP varieties and different crops.
9.1.1 All transferring equipment should be shut down and cleaned prior to switching IP varieties or to other crops. Cleaning procedures should be detailed in IP manual.
9.2 All processing equipment must be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to processing IP crop.
9.2.1 All processing equipment should be shut down and cleaned prior to switching IP varieties or to other crops. Cleaning procedures should be detailed in IP manual.
9.1.2 Elevator must have records showing that all transferring equipment was thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to processing IP soybean crop. Records must include the date and the name of employee who conducted the inspection. 9.2.2 Elevator must have written records showing that all processing equipment was thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to processing IP soybean crop. Records must include the date and the name of the employee who conducted the inspection.
10.1 All containers/vessels/trucks must be inspected and cleaned as required prior to loading.
10.1.1 Inspection/cleaning procedures should be detailed in IP manual. The IP manual should detail procedures for rejection of container/vessels/trucks if they are not suitable for food use.
10.1.2 Elevator or exporter must have written records showing that containers/vessels/trucks have been inspected and cleaned as required prior to loading. Records must have inspection date and the name of the employee who conducted the inspection.
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
10.0 Loading
Section 14: Existing IP systems
165
11.1 The grower must retain grower documentation unless requested by the elevator. Documentation must be retained for a minimum period subject to the requirements of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) Standard.
Section 14: Existing IP systems
11.0 Audit Standards
Rule of thumb for length of time to keep HACCP records is 3 years. 11.2 Elevator must have retained records to support an annual audit. 11.3 Elevator documentation must be retained for a minimum period subject to the requirements of the HACCP Standard. Rule of thumb for length of time to keep HACCP records is 3 years.
* Recommendations on Good Practice is not part of the official CSEA IP Standard. They are additional suggestions for the IP program but are not enforced.
165
166
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
167
Appendices & glossary
APPENDICES and GLOSSARY
Part
IV This part provides information in addition to that included in the basic text that may be helpful to readers. The appendices are not directly tied to establishing and operating an IP system, but may prove helpful as additional information. The glossary may be an important tool in reading the handbook.
Page 171 Page 181 Page 183 Page 193 Page 195
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E
Page 213 Glossary
Seed Certifying Agencies AOSCA Summary of IP Services Organization Related to IP Acronyms Used in Agriculture and World Trade Adventitious Pollen Intrusion into Hybrid Maize Seed Production Fields – research paper
168
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Appendices and glossary
169
APPENDICES and GLOSSARY: Materials related to identity-preservation
Introduction to section: This handbook section provides information outside of that in the basic text of the handbook. Some appendices are referenced in the handbook while others provide information that may be of interest or use to handbook readers.
Page Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E
Seed Certifying Agencies AOSCA Summary of IP Services Organizations Related to IP Acronyms Used in Agriculture and World Trade Adventitious Pollen Intrusion into Hybrid Maize Seed Production Fields – research paper
171 181 183 193 195
Glossary
213
169
170
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Appendices and glossary
171
Appendix A SEED CERTIFYING AGENCIES Revised April 2001
United States, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Panama, South Africa
ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL SEED CERTIFYING AGENCIES 55 SW Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Gregory H. Lowry, Exec. Vice President Meridian, Idaho 83642-6286 Telephone 208/884-2493 Fax 208/884-4201 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.aosca.org The following is a list of crop improvement associations or agencies in charge of certification in the various states, provinces, or countries with the name of the official in charge. Associations and agencies that are not currently members of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies are starred (**). Agencies starred with one star (*) are members in the international affiliate category. Many of the Web sites of the individual agencies are linked on the AOSCA Web site above. ALABAMA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION PO Box 2619 Robert A. Burdett, Exec. Vice President Auburn AL 36831 Telephone 334/844-4995 Fax 334/844-4901 E-mail:
[email protected] ALASKA SEED GROWERS ASSOCIATION Box 895 Palmer AK 99645
*ARGENTINA Instituto Nacional de Semillas Av Paseo Colon 992 (30 Piso) 1053 Buenos Aires, Argentina
Patrick Mulligan, Manager Telephone 907/745-4004 Fax 907/745-4728 Carlos Ripoll, Dir. of Seed Certification Monica Pequeno Telephone 54/1/349-2946 Fax 54/1/349-2417 E-mail
[email protected] E-mail:
[email protected]
ARIZONA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 2120 East Allen Road Allan B. Simons, Exec. Vice President Tucson AZ 85719-1522 Telephone 520/318-7271 Fax 520/318-7272 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.arizonacrop.org
172
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
ARKANSAS STATE PLANT BOARD No 1 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock AR 72205
*AUSTRALIA SeedQual Australia PO Box 3797 Weston, ACT Canberra, Australia 2611 `
Jimmie Shatsar, Manager Telephone 501/225-1598 Fax 501/225-7213 E-mail:
[email protected]
Christopher Melham, Representative Telephone 61/2/6287-2442 Fax 61/2/6287-2443 Dr. Kevin G. Boyce, Principal Industry Development Officer Seed Industry Agricultural Industries Primary Industries & Resources SA, 9th Floor 101 Grenfell Street Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Telephone 08.8226.0427 Fax 08.8463.3366 E-mail:
[email protected]
CALIFORNIA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Parsons Seed Certification Center Frederick J. Sundstrom, Executive Director University of California Telephone 530/752-0544 One Shields Ave Fax 530/752-4735 Davis CA 95616-8541 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.ccia.usdavis.edu * CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY 59 Camelot Drive Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0Y9
*CANADIAN SEED GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION 240 Catherine Street, Suite 202 PO Box 8455 Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1G 3T1 Web site: www.seedgrowers.ca *CANADIAN SEED INSTITUTE 240 Catherine Street, Suite 200 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2P 2G8
Michael Scheffel, Chief, Seed Standards Telephone 613/225-2342 Fax 613/228-6629 E-mail:
[email protected] W. K. Robertson, Executive Director Telephone 613/236-0497 Fax 613/563-7855 E-mail:
[email protected]
Jim McCullagh Telephone 613/236-5451 Fax 613/236-7000 E-mail:
[email protected]
Appendices and glossary
173
*CHILE Certification de Semillas Servicio Agricola y Ganadero AV Bulnes 140, Casilla 1167-21 Santiago, Chile
Guillermo Aparicio Munoz, Jefe Subdepto Telephone 56/2/696-2996 or 698-2244 Fax 56/2/697-2179 E-mail:
[email protected]
COLORADO SEED GROWERS ASSOCIATION Colorado State University Department of Soil & Crop Sciences Ft Collins CO 80523 Web site:
Gil Waibel, Manager Telephone 970/491-6202 Fax 970/491-1173 E-mail:
[email protected] www.colostate.edu/Depts/SoilCrop/extension/CSGA
**CONNECTICUT (No Agency) Contact: Alton Van Dyke, Supervisor, Agriculture Commodities Division Connecticut Department of Agriculture 765 Asylum Avenue Hartford CT 06105 Telephone 860/713-2565 DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2320 South DuPont Highway Lisa G. Jones, Seed Certification Specialist Dover DE 19901 Telephone 302/739-4811 ext 243 Fax 302/697-4736 E-mail:
[email protected] FLORIDA See SOUTHERN SEED CERTIFICATION SERVICE GEORGIA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 2425 South Milledge Avenue Terry Hollifield, Executive Director Athens GA 30605-1639 Telephone 706/542-2351 Fax 706/542-9397 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.certifiedseed.org HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PO Box 22159 Nilton T. Matayoshi, Chief, Chem. Control Honolulu HI 96823-2159 Telephone 808/973-9538 Fax 808/973-9533 E-mail:
[email protected] IDAHO CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 55 SW Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Meridian ID 83642-6286 Web site:
www.idahocrop.com
Gregory H. Lowry, Exec. Vice President Telephone 208/884-8225 Fax 208/884-4201 E-mail:
[email protected]
174
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
ILLINOIS CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 3105 Research Road, PO Box 9013 Dennis R. Thompson, CEO Champaign IL 61826-8638 Telephone 217/359-4053 Fax 217/359-4075 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.ilcrop.com INDIANA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 7700 Stockwell Road Larry Svajgr, Executive Director Lafayette IN 47909-9336 Telephone 765/523-2535 Fax 765/523-2536 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.indianacrop.org IOWA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 2023 Agronomy Hall Ames IA 50011-1010 Web site:
Robert E. Lawson, Secretary Treasurer Telephone 515/294-6921 Fax 515/294-1897 E-mail:
[email protected]
www.agron.iastate.edu/icia
KANSAS CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 2000 Kimball Avenue Daryl Strouts, Executive Director Manhattan KS 66502 Telephone 785/532-6118 Fax 785/532-6551 E-mail:
[email protected] KENTUCKY SEED IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION PO Box 12008 Kenny E. Perry, Secretary Manager Lexington KY 40579-2008 Telephone 859/281-1029 Shipping address: 3250 Iron Works Pike Fax 859/253-3119 Lexington KY 40511 E-mail:
[email protected] LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Seed Certification Division Benjy A. Rayburn, Director PO Box 3596 Telephone 225/925-4733 Baton Rouge LA 70806-3596 Fax 225/925-4124 E-mail:
[email protected] MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food & Rural Resources, Plant Industry 28 State House Station Augusta ME 04333-0028
Terry L. Bourgoin, Director Telephone 207/287-3891 Fax 207/287-7548 E-mail:
[email protected]
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Turf and Seed Section Dale A. Morris, Agronomist 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway Telephone 410/841-5960 Annapolis MD 21401 Fax 410/841-5969 E-mail:
[email protected]
Appendices and glossary
175
**MASSACHUSETTS STATE SEED CONTROL OFFICIAL Department of Food and Agriculture George Porter 100 Cambridge Telephone 617/727-3020 ext 141 Boston MA 02202 Fax 617/727-7235 MICHIGAN CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION PO Box 21008 Randel Judd, Manager Lansing MI 48909 Telephone 517/332-3546 Shipping address: 2901 West Jolly Road Fax 517/332-9301 Okemos MI 48864 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.michcrop.com MINNESOTA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 1900 Hendon Avenue Gary M. Beil, President & CEO St Paul MN 55108 Telephone 612/625-7766 800/510-6242 Fax 612/625-3748 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.mncia.org MISSISSIPPI SEED IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION PO Box MS Dr. Bennie C. Keith, Executive Secretary Mississippi State MS 39762-5938 Telephone 662/325-3211 Fax 662/325-8135 E-mail:
[email protected] MISSOURI SEED IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 3211 Lemone Industrial Blvd Richard Arnett, Executive Director Columbia MO 65201-8245 Telephone 573/449-0586 Fax 573/874-3193 E-mail:
[email protected] MONTANA SEED GROWERS ASSOCIATION PO Box 173140 Montana State University Bozeman MT 59717-3140
Ronald A. Larson, Manager Telephone 406/994-3516 Fax 406/994-1848 E-mail:
[email protected]
NEBRASKA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION PO Box 830911, 267 Plant Sciences Hall Steven D. Knox, Secretary Manager Lincoln NE 68583-0911 Telephone 402/472-1444 Fax 402/472-7904 E-mail:
[email protected] NEVADA STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 350 Capitol Hill Avenue Randy Bradley, Program Manager Reno NV 89502 Telephone 775/688-1182 ext 244 Fax 775/688-1178 E-mail:
[email protected]
176
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
** NEW HAMPSHIRE (No Agency) Contact: George H. Laramie, Director, Division of Markets and Standards Bureau of Markets, Department of Agriculture State House Annex Concord NH 03301 NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Division of Plant Industry, Floyd A. Yoder, Jr., Super. Cert./Control Seed Certification and Control Telephone 609/292-5443 Box 330 Fax 609/292-4710 Trenton NJ 08625-0330 E-mail:
[email protected] NEW MEXICO CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION MSC Box 3CI Dr. Charles R. Glover, Admin. Officer New Mexico State University Telephone 505/646-4125 Las Cruces NM 88003 Fax 505/646-8137 E-mail:
[email protected] or
[email protected] Web site: www.NMSU.Edu/~nmcia NEW YORK SEED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 103C Leland Lab Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853
Don K. Shardlow, Manager Telephone 607/255-9869 Fax 607/255-9048 E-mail:
[email protected]
*NEW ZEALAND SEED QUALITY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY c/o New Zealand Agriseeds LTD Selwyn Manning, Chairman Old West Coast Road No 1 Telephone 64/3/318-8514 Christchurch, New Zealand Fax 64/3/318-8549 E-mail:
[email protected] *NEW ZEALAND SEED QUALITY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY c/o National Seed Laboratory Alan Johnston, Secretary PO Box 609 Telephone 06/351-7940 Palmerston North 20, New Zealand Fax 06/351-7907 E-mail:
[email protected] NORTH CAROLINA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 3709 Hillsborough Street Myron O. Fountain, Director Raleigh NC 27607-5464 Telephone 919/515-2851 Fax 919/515-7981 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.nccia.ucsu.edu
Appendices and glossary
177
NORTH DAKOTA STATE SEED DEPARTMENT Box 5257, 1313 18th Street North Tom Sinner, Dir. of Field Seed Programs Fargo ND 58105-5257 Telephone 701/239-7210 Fax 701/239-7214 E-mail:
[email protected] OHIO SEED IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 6150 Avery Road, Box 477 Dublin OH 43017-0477 Web site:
John Armstrong, Secretary Manager Telephone 614/889-1136 Fax 614/889-8979 E-mail:
[email protected]
www.ohseed.org
OKLAHOMA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Plant & Soil Sciences Lewis H. Edwards, Secretary Treasurer 368 Ag Hall, Oklahoma State University Telephone 405/642-7117 Stillwater OK 74078-6028 Fax 405/372-8519 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.okstate.edu/OSU.Ag/ocia1 OREGON SEED CERTIFICATION SERVICE 31 Crop Science Building Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331-3003 Web site:
Ronald L. Cook, Seed Cert. Specialist Telephone 541/737-4513 Fax 541/737-2624 E-mail:
[email protected]
www.oscs.orst.edu
PANAMA NATIONAL SEED COMMITTEE Seed Certification Unit Apartado 5390, Divisa Panama, Ciudad, Panama
Ing. Vadal A. Aguilera, Sec. Ejecutivo Telephone 507/976-1558 Fax 507/976-1556
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Bureau of Plant Industry Charles Boettinger 2301 North Cameron Street Telephone 717/787-4894 Harrisburg PA 17110-9408 Fax 717/705-6518 E-mail:
[email protected] ** RHODE ISLAND (No Agency) Contact: Steve Volpe, Department of Agriculture 22 Hayes Street Providence RI 01908
Telephone Fax
401/277-2781 401/277-6047
*SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL SEED ORGANIZATION (SANSOR) PO Box 72981, Lynnwood Ridge 0040 Walter Loubster Pretoria, South Africa Telephone (27-12) 349-1438 Shipping address: Ground Floor, Building 19A Fax (27-12) 349-1462 C.S.I.R., Meiring Naude Road E-mail:
[email protected] Brummeria, Pretoria, South Africa
178
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
SOUTH CAROLINA FERTILIZER AND SEED CERTIFICATION SERVICES Clemson University David S. Howle, Department Head 511 Westinghouse Road Telephone 864/646-2142 Pendleton SC 29670 Fax 864/646-2178 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: http://fscs.clemson.edu SOUTH DAKOTA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Ag Hall, Box 2207A Robert J. Pollmann, Director South Dakota State University Telephone 605/688-4606 Brookings SD 57007-1096 Fax 605/688-6752 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.abs.sdstate.edu/labs_services/seedcert/index SOUTHERN SEED CERTIFICATION INC PO Box 2619, South Donahue Drive Auburn AL 36831-2619 Web site:
Robert A. Burdett, Exec. Vice President Telephone 334/821-7400 Fax 334/844-4901 E-mail:
[email protected]
www.ag.auburn.edu/SSCA
TENNESSEE CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 2640-C Nolensville Road David N. McKinney, Manager Sec./Treas. Nashville TN 37211 Telephone 615/242-0467 Fax 615/248-3461 E-mail:
[email protected] TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PO Box 629 Giddings TX 78942
UTAH CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 4855 Old Main Hill Utah State University Logan UT 84322-4855
Kelly Book, Seed Quality Branch Chief Telephone 512/463-7136 Fax 512/463-8225 E-mail:
[email protected] Floyd Kostelka, Coordinator Seed Cert. Telephone 979/542-3691 Fax 979/542-1126 E-mail:
[email protected]
Stanford A. Young, Secretary Manager Telephone 435/797-2082 Fax 435/797-3376 E-mail:
[email protected]
VIRGINIA CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 9142 Atlee Station Road David L. Whitt, Exec. Secretary Treasurer Mechanicsville VA 23116 Telephone 804/746-4884 Fax 804/746-9447 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.virginiacrop.org
Appendices and glossary
179
WASHINGTON STATE CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 414 South 46th Avenue Keith M. Pfeifer, Manager Yakima WA 98908-3232 Telephone 509/966-2234 Fax 509/966-2494 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.wscia.com WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 21 North 1st Avenue, Suite 203 Graydon F. Robinson, Program Manager Yakima WA 98902 Telephone 509/225-2630 Fax 509/454-4395 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.wa.gov/agr/cpp/seed **WEST VIRGINIA CROP GROWERS PO Box 6108 West Virginia University Morgantown WV 26506
John Balasko, Secretary Telephone 304/293-6256
WISCONSIN CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 554 Moore Hall-UW, 1575 Linden Drive Eugene R. Amberson, General Manager Madison WI 53706-1597 Telephone 608/262-1341 Fax 608/262-0210 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: www.wisc.edu/wcia WYOMING SEED CERTIFICATION SERVICE University of Wyoming, Seed Certification Service PO Box 983, 109 West 14th Street Powell WY 82435 Web site:
www.wyseedcert.com
Mike D. Moore, Manager Telephone 307/754-9815 Fax 307/754-9820 E-mail:
[email protected]
180
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Appendices and glossary
181
Appendix B AOSCA summary of individual agency IP services
Y
Y
Y
Y
Arizona Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Arkansas State Plant Board
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
California Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Canadian Seed Growers' Association
Y
Y
Y
Canadian Seed Institute
Y
er act. Audit o f hand ler act. Doc. o f all ac tivities Cert. o f all ac tivities Flexib le prog ram Will de velop to suit
f grow
tracing
Alabama Crop Improvement Association
Audit o
nt. and
testing Y
Lot ide
Sample
Seed lo t verific ation Field in specti on Bin sa mpling
Agency
IP serv ices
IP services offered
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Colorado Seed Growers Association Georgia Crop Improvement Association
Y
Hawaii State Department of Agriculture
N
Y
Y
Y
Idaho Crop Improvement Association Illinois Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Indiana Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Iowa Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Kansas Crop Improvement Association
Y
Kentucky Seed Improvement Association
Y
Louisana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
N
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Y
Michigan Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Minnesota Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Mississippi Seed Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Missouri Seed Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nebraska Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nevada State Division of Agriculture
N
New Mexico Crop Improvement Association
Y
New York Seed Improvement Project
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Montana Seed Growers Association
Y Y Y
Y
North Carolina Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
North Dakota State Seed Department
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Ohio Seed Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Oklahoma Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
South Carolina Fertilizer and Seed Services
Y
Y
Y
Y
South Dakota Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Southern Seed Certification Inc (Florida)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Oregon Seed Certification Service
Y
Y
Y
Y
FLD Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Tennessee Crop Improvement Association
Y Y
Utah Crop Improvement Association Virginia Crop Improvement Association
Y Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Washington State Crop Improvement Association
Y
Y
Washington State Department of Agriculture
N
Y
West Virginia Crop Growers
N
Wisconsin Crop Improvement Association
Y
Wyoming Seed Certification Service
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
182
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Appendices and glossary
183
Appendix C ORGANIZATIONS RELATED TO IP Revised April 2001
National Trade Organizations
AMERICAN PEANUT COUNCIL 1500 King Street, Suite 301 Alexandria, VA 22314
Jeanette Anderson, Pres. Telephone 703-838-9500 Fax 703-838-9508
AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 12125 Woodcrest Executive Drive, Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63141 Web site:
Steve Censky, CEO Telephone 314-576-1770 Fax 314-576-2786 E-mail
[email protected]
www.amsoy.org
INSTITUTE OF SHORTENING AND EDIBLE OILS 1750 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 120 Robert Reeves, President Washington, DC 20006 Telephone 202-393-7960 Fax 202-393-1367 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.iseo.org NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARGARINE MANUFACTURERS 1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 202 Richard Cristol, Executive Director Washington, DC 20005 Telephone 202-223-9741 Fax 202-223-9741 NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 1000 Executive Parkway, Suite 105 St. Louis, MO 63141 Web site:
www.ncga.com
Chris Wehrman, EVP & CEO Telephone 314-275-9915 / 314-275-9948 Fax 314-275-7061 E-mail:
[email protected]
184
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
NATIONAL COTTONSEED PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION PO Box 172267 Lynn Jones, Exec. V.P Memphis, TN 38187-2267 Telephone 901-682-0800 Fax 901-682-2856 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.cottonseed.com NATIONAL GRAIN TRADE COUNCIL 1300 L Street, N.W., Suite 925 Washington, DC 20005
Robert Petersen, President Telephone 202-842-0400 Fax 202-789-7223
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OILSEED PRODUCTS 1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 202 Richard Cristol, Exec. Dir. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone 202-785-8450 Fax 202-223-9741 NATIONAL OILSEED PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION 1235 23rd Street, N.W., Suite 220 Allen Johnson, President Washington, DC 20037-1174 Telephone 202-452-8040 Fax 202-835-0400 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.nopa.org NATIONAL SUNFLOWER ASSOCIATION 4023 State Street Bismark, ND 58501-0690 Web site:
Larry Kleingartner, Exec. Dir. Telephone 701-328-5100 Fax 701-328-5101 E-mail
[email protected]
www.sunflowersa.com
NORTH AMERICAN CORN MILLERS ASSOCIATION 600 Maryland Ave., S.W., Suite 305 West Betsy Faga, President Washington, DC 20024 Telephone 202-484-2200 Fax 202-488-7416 E-mail
[email protected] ORGANIC TRADE ASSOCIATION 50 Miles Street, PO Box 1078 Greenfield, MA 01302 Web site:
Katherine DiMatteo, Exec. Dir. Telephone 413-774-7511 Fax 413-774-6432 E-mail
[email protected]
www.ota.com
THE PEANUT INSTITUTE PO Box 70157 Albany, GA 31708-0157
John Powell, Exec. Dir. Telephone 888-8PEANUT Fax 912-888-5150
Appendices and glossary
185
SOY PROTEIN COUNCIL 1255 23rd Street , N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20037-1174 Web site:
David Saunders, Dir. Telephone 202-467-6610 Fax 202-466-4949 E-mail
[email protected]
www.spcouncil.org
SOYFOODS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA 1723 U Street, N.W. Nancy Chapman, Exec. Dir. Washington, DC 20009 Telephone 202-986-5600 Fax 202-387-5553 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.soyfood.org UNITED SOYBEAN BOARD 16640 Chesterfield Grove Ct. Suite 130 Chesterfield, MO 63005-1422 Web site:
www.unitedsoybean.org
U.S. GRAINS COUNCIL 1400 K. Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Web site:
Exec. Vice President Telephone 703-351-8161 Fax 703-351-8162 E-mail:
[email protected]
www.usarice.com
U.S. WHEAT ASSOCIATES 16201 I Street, N.W., Suite 801 Washington, DC 20006 Web site:
John Mentis, Exec. Dir. Telephone 202-789-0789 Fax 202-898-0522 E-mail
[email protected]
www.grains.org
USA RICE FEDERATION 4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 305 Arlington, VA 22203 Web site:
John Becherer, CEO Telephone 636-530-1777 Fax 636-530-1560 E-mail
[email protected]
www.uswheat.org
Alan Tracy, Pres. Telephone 202-463-0999 Fax 703-785-1052 E-mail:
[email protected]
186
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
State Trade Organizations ARKANSAS SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 1501 N. Pierce, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72207-5222
Dawn Howe, Exec. Dir. Telephone 501-666-1418 Fax 501-666-2510 E-mail
[email protected]
CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH CAROLINA 2109 Hillock Drive, Box 30513 Joyce Woodhouse, Exec. Dir. Raleigh, NC 27622 Telephone 919-782-4094 Fax 919-881-9522 CORN MARKETING PROGRAM OF MICHIGAN 6206 West Saginaw Hwy Keith Muxlow, Exec. Dir. Lansing, MI 48917-2467 Telephone 517-323-6600 Fax 517-323-6601 GEORGIA AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY COMMISSION FOR CORN 328 Agricultural Building Donald Chase, Chairman Capitol Square Telephone 404-656-3678 Atlanta, GA 30334 Fax 404-656-9830 GEORGIA AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION FOR SOYBEANS 328 Agricultural Building Marcia Crowley Capitol Square Telephone 404-656-3678 Atlanta, GA 30334 Fax 404-656-9830 GEORGIA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION Hwy. 41 N. & I-75, PO Box 1209 Tifton, GA 31793
ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION PO Box 2901 Bloomington, IL 61702-2901
ILLINOIS CORN MARKETING BOARD PO Box 487 Bloomington, IL 61702-0487 Web site:
www.ilcorn.org
Bart Waller, Pres. Telephone 912-386-3430 Fax 912-386-7308
Vince Sampson Telephone 309-557-2551/2552 Fax 309-557-3185
Rod Weinzierl, Exec. Dir Telephone 309-827-0912 Fax 309-827-0916 E-mail
[email protected]
Appendices and glossary
187
ILLINOIS SOYBEAN PROGRAM OPERATING BOARD 1605 Commerce Parkway W. Lyle Roberts, Jr., Exec. Dir. Bloomington, IL 61704-9608 Telephone 309-663-7692 Fax 309-663-6981 E-mail
[email protected] INDIANA CORN GROWERS 225 S. East St., Suite 737 Indianapolis, IN 46202
INDIANA SOYBEAN BOARD 5757 West 74th St. Indianapolis, IN 46278-1755
IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 4554 N.W. 114th St. Urbandale, IA 50322-5410 Web site:
Steve Ludwig, Exec. Dir. Telephone 765-482-7256 800-735-0195 Fax 765-482-0992 E-mail
[email protected]
Marvin Wilson, Mktg. Dir. Telephone 515-251-8640 Fax 515-251-8657 E-mail
[email protected]
www.iasoybeans.com
KANSAS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 109 W. 4th St., PO Box 446 Garnett, KS 66032 Web site:
Mike Aylesworth, Pres. Telephone 317-692-7151 800-313-7423 Fax 319-692-7148 E-mail
[email protected]
Jere White, Exec. Dir. Telephone 913-448-6922 Fax 913-448-6932 E-mail
[email protected]
www.kansa.net/~corn
KENTUCKY CORN PROMOTION COUNCIL 9201 Bunsen Parkway, PO Box 20700 Louisville, KY 40250-0700
KENTUCKY SOYBEAN PROMOTION BOARD 1001 US Highway 62 W., PO Box 30 Princeton, KY 42445
Todd Barlow, Exec. Dir. Telephone 502-495-7700 Fax 502-495-5197 E-mail
[email protected] Debbie Ellis Telephone Fax E-mail
800-232-6769 270-365-7214 270-365-2506
[email protected]
188
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
LOUISIANA SOYBEAN & GRAIN RESEARCH & PROMOTION BOARD PO Box 95004 Kyle McCann, State Checkoff Mgr. Baton Rouge, LA 70895-9004 Telephone 504-922-6200 Fax 504-922-6229 MARYLAND GRAIN PRODUCERS UTILIZATION BOARD 53 Slama Road Lynne Hoot, Exec. Dir. Edgewater, MD 21037 Telephone 410-956-5771 Fax 410-956-0161 E-mail
[email protected] MARYLAND/PENNSYLVANIA SOYBEAN BOARD PO Box 319 Sandra Davis, Exec. Dir. Salisbury, MD 21803 Telephone 410-742-9500 Fax 410-548-5824 MICHIGAN SOYBEAN PROMOTION COMMITTEE PO Box 287 Gail Frahm Frankenmuth, MI 48734 Telephone 517-652-3294 Fax 517-652-3296 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.michigansoybean.org MID-ATLANTIC SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 9530 Spring Hill Lane Salisbury, MD 21801
Susan B. Arnold, Exec. Dir. Telephone 410-896-3583
MINNESOTA CORN RESEARCH AND PROMOTION COUNCIL 738 1st Avenue E. Bruce Stockman, Exec. Dir. Shakopee, MN 55379-1508 Telephone 952-233-0333 Fax 952-233-0420 MINNESOTA SOYBEAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 360 Pierce Avenue, Suite 110 Mike Youngerberg, Dir. N. Mankato, MN 56003 Telephone 507-388-1635 Fax 507-388-6751 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.mnsoybean.org MISSISSIPPI CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION PO Box 9661 Mississippi State University, MS 39762
Charlie Pilkinton, Pres. Telephone 662-325-8023 Fax 662-325-5204
MISSOURI CORN MERCHANDISING COUNCIL 3118 Emerald Ln. Gary Marshall, Exec. Dir. Jefferson City, MO 65109-6860 Telephone 573-893-4181 Fax 573-893-4612
Appendices and glossary
189
MISSOURI SOYBEAN MERCHANDISING COUNCIL 3337 Emerald Land, PO Box 104778 Dale Ludwig, Exec. Dir./CEO Jefferson City, MO 65110-4778 Telephone 573-635-3819 Fax 573-635-5122 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.mosoy.org NEBRASKA CORN DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZATION AND MARKETING BOARD 301 Centennial Mall South, 4th Floor Don Hutchens, Exec. Dir. PO Box 95107 Telephone 402-471-2787 Lincoln, NE 68509-5107 Fax 402-471-3345 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.cornstalk.nrc.state.ne.us/cornstalk NEBRASKA SOYBEAN BOARD 1610 S. 70th St., Suite E200 Lincoln, NE 68506-1565
NEW JERSEY SOYBEAN BOARD 941 Whitehorse Ave., Suite 2 Trenton NJ 08610
NEW YORK CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 2269 DeWindt Rd. Newark, NY 14513
Victor Bohuslavsky, Exec. Dir. Telephone 402-441-3240 800-852-2326 Fax 402-441-3238 E-mail
[email protected] Debbie Hart, Acct. Exec. Telephone 609-890-9207 Fax 609-581-8244 E-mail
[email protected] Ann Peck Telephone Fax
315-331-7791 315-331-1294
NORTH CAROLINA PEANUT GROWERS ASSOCIATION PO Box 8 Robert Sutter, CEO Nashville, NC 27856 Telephone 252-459-5060 Fax 252-459-7396 E-mail
[email protected] NORTH CAROLINA SOYBEAN PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION 211 Six Forks Rd., Suite 102 Jim Wilder, Exec. V.P. Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone 919-839-5700 Fax 919-839-5775 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.ncsoy.org NORTH DAKOTA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 418 2nd Ave. North Darby Buchholtz, Secretary Wahpeton, ND 58075 Telephone 701-642-8037 Fax 701-642-7774
190
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
NORTH DAKOTA SOYBEAN COUNCIL 1351 Page Dr., Suite 103 Fargo, ND 58103-3536 Web site:
www.ag.uluc.edu/’nd-qssb
OHIO CORN MARKETING PROGRAM 1100 East Center Street Marion, OH 43302 Web site:
Deborah Johnson, Exec. Dir. Telephone 701-239-7194 Fax 701-239-7195
Mike Wagner, Exec. Dir. Telephone 740-382-0483 Fax 740-387-0144 E-mail
[email protected]
www.ohiocorn.org
OHIO SOYBEAN COUNCIL Two Nationwide Plaza, PO Box 479 Columbus, OH 43216-0479
SOUTH CAROLINA SOYBEAN BOARD PO Box 11280 Columbus, SC 29211-1280
John Lumpe, Dir. New Use Mktg. Telephone 614-249-2422 888-SOY-OHIO Fax 614-249-2200 E-mail
[email protected]
Margaret Owens, Exec. Dir. Telephone 803-734-1767 Fax 803-469-6739
SOUTH DAKOTA CORN UTILIZATION COUNCIL 1406 West Russell Lisa Richardson, Exec. Dir. Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Telephone 605-334-0100 Fax 605-334-0505 SOUTHWEST SOYBEAN COUNCIL 1501 North Pierce, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72207
VIRGINIA CORN BOARD 1100 Bank St., Room 1005 Richmond, VA 23219
VIRGINIA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 151 Ktristiansand Dr., Suite 115 E&F Williamsburg, VA 25188
Dawn Howe Telephone Fax E-mail
501-666-1418 501-666-2510
[email protected]
Phil Hickman, Admin. Telephone 804-371-6157 Fax 804-371-7786 Marlo Allen Telephone Fax E-mail
757-564-0153 757-564-8165
[email protected]
Appendices and glossary
191
VIRGINIA-CAROLINA PEANUT PROMOTIONS 103 Triangle Court, PO Box 8 Betsy Owens, Exec. Dir. Nashville, NC 27856 Telephone 252-459-9977 Fax 252-459-7396 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.aboutpeanuts.com WISCONSIN CORN PROMOTION BOARD 2976 Triverton Pike Madison, WI 53711
Robert Oleson, contact Telephone 608-274-7522 Fax 608-274-3988 E-mail
[email protected]
Service Organizations
ASSOCIATION OF GRAIN INSPECTION AND WEIGHING AGENCIES (AAGIWA) 1629 K Street, Suite 1100 Paul Weller, Exec. Dir. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone 202-785-6710 Fax 202-331-4212 E-mail
[email protected] GRAIN ELEVATOR AND PROCESSING SOCIETY (GEAPS) 301 Fourth Avenue, S., Suite 365 Chuck House, Director PO Box 15026 Telephone 612-339-4625 Minneapolis, MN 55415-0026 Fax 612-339-4644 E-mail
[email protected] Web site: www.geaps.com INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS 221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601
Stan Butler, Manager Telephone 312-782-8424 Fax 312-782-8348
192
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Appendices and glossary
193
Appendix D ACRONYMS USED IN AGRICULTURE AND WORLD TRADE Acronym
Organization or meaning
AAGIWA AASCO AID AMS AOSA AOSCA APEC APHIS ARS ASTA ATO BCFM CAP CBOT CCC CFR CIF CNF CRP CWB
American Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies Association of American Seed Control Officials Agency for International Development Agriculture Marketing Service Association of Official Seed Analysts Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Agricultural Research Service American Seed Trade Association Agricultural Trade Office Broken Corn and Foreign Material Common Agricultural Policy Chicago Board of Trade Commodity Credit Corporation Cost and Freight Cost, Insurance and Freight Cost and Freight Conservation Reserve Program Canadian Wheat Board
COD DNA EEP ELISA EMO EPA ESCOP ETA ETC ETD ETS EU FAO FAS FAS FDA FGIS FIS FMD FOB FSA
Cash on Delivery Deoxyribonucleic Acid Export Enhancement Program Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Emerging Markets Office Environmental Protection Agency Experiment Station Committee on Policy Estimated Time of Arrival Estimated Time of Completion Estimated Time of Departure Estimated Time of Sailing European Union Food & Agriculture Organization Foreign Agriculture Service Free Alongside Ship Food and Drug Administration Federal Grain Inspection Service Federation Internationale du Commerce des Semences Foreign Market Development Program Free on Board Federal Seed Act
Further definition
technical association U.S. government agency USDA technical association see page 7 trade USDA USDA trade organization U.S. grain terminology EU regulations U.S. commodity exchange U.S. government owned shipping abbreviation shipping abbreviation shipping abbreviation U.S. long-range crop production Canada quasi-government agency shipping abbreviation see page 217 USDA see page 217 U.S. program U.S. government agency U.S. coalition shipping abbreviation shipping abbreviation shipping abbreviation shipping abbreviation government organization United Nations USDA shipping abbreviation U.S. government agency USDA international seed association USDA shipping abbreviation U.S.
194
FTAA GAFTA GATT GDP GEAPS GIPSA GM GMO GNP GRIN GRT GSP HACCP HOC IMF IP ISST ISTA MAFF MFN MPP MT NAEGA NAFTA NGRL NIR NIT NPGS OECD PCR PVP RUSSL SPS SCST TBT TEU TRQ USDA VEC VEG WTO
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Free Trade Agreement of the Americas Grain and Feed Trade Association General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Gross Domestic Product Grain Elevator and Processing Society Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Genetically Modified (interchangeable with GMO) Genetically Modified Organism Gross National Product Germplasm Resources Information Network Gross Register Tonnage Generalized System of Preferences Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point High Oil Corn International Monetary Fund Identity Preserved International Society of Seed Technologists International Seed Trade Association Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries Most Favored Nation Market Promotion Program Metric Tonne North American Export Grain Association North American Free Trade Agreement National Germplasm Resources Laboratory Near Infrared Reflectance Near Infrared Transmittance National Plant Germplasm System Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Polymerase Chain Reaction Plant Variety Protection (Act) Recommended Uniform State Seed Law Sanitary Phytosanitary Standards Society of Commercial Seed Technologists Technical Barriers to Trade Standard 20-foot Export Container Tariff Rate Quota United States Department of Agriculture Value-Enhanced Corn Value-Enhanced Grain World Trade Organization
trade agreement trade association international measure of market value international grain USDA
measure of market value U.S.-NGRL measure of internal capacity international trading framework food safety program hybrids with higher than typical oil content international banking technical association trade association several countries commitment between countries U.S. government program 1000 kilos trade association trade agreement U.S. electronic grain test electronic grain test U.S. international genetic grain test, see page 220 U.S. U.S. applying to import/export technical association non-tariff barriers negotiated allowances
trade organization
Appendices and glossary
195
Appendix E
ADVENTITIOUS POLLEN INTRUSION INTO HYBRID MAIZE SEED PRODUCTION FIELDS J.S. Burris
[email protected] Representing the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies Funded by United States Department of Agriculture/Foreign Agricultural Service/Emerging Markets Program (USDA/FAS/EMP). American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) Contributors S.K. Christensen, D. Curry, A.T. Ewalt, D.S. Ireland, F.L. Kaltenberg, J.R. Keiser, M.J. Lauer, M.R. Miller, D.W. Monke, T.S. Newman, L. D. Rieffel, R.J. Sabata, D.R. Thompson, H.L. Wahls, M.T. Wall, D.O. Wilson
BACKGROUND Beginning with the domestication of maize and especially with the introduction of hybrid seed production, seedsmen have been attempting to control maize pollination. For the plant breeder the task is simply a matter of “shoot bagging,” e.g., covering both male (tassel) and female (ear-silk) flowers with paper or glycine bags. This is practical for the plant breeders nursery and for initial breeders seed increases, however, significant seed increases require large field plantings which incorporate various practices to insure acceptable pollination control and the resulting seed purity. These measures include but are not limited to: •
Crop rotation to minimize volunteer maize plants and reduce the need for roguing.
•
Selection of parent seed of high purity.
•
Vigorous roguing of both male and female rows to insure only the desired parents remain.
•
Aggressive detasseling of the female parent to prevent self-pollination.
•
Time isolation of the silking period so as not to coincide with corn in nearby fields.
•
Inclusion of border rows of the pollen parent around the field to insure that the field is flooded with the appropriate pollen and to dilute potential adventitious pollen.
•
Adequate isolation distance to insure acceptable levels of protection from adventitious pollen.
In general, hybrid maize field production practices are based on seed certification guidelines and on empirical evidence gathered over the years by seed producers. These practices have remained basically unchanged for 30 or more years. Current Association Official Seed Certification Agency (AOSCA) isolation standards required for the production of hybrid maize seed (Table 1). These standards have proven to be very useful when genetic purity was defined by the morphological phenotype and when 95– 98% purity was satisfactory. However, as the detection methodology improved, the applicability of the current standards has been questioned. The study reported herein was conceived to address these concerns via a thorough review of the existing literature and coordination of an industry-wide study of adventitious pollen intrusion under normal seed production conditions.
196
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Table 1. Minimum border rows of isolation for hybrid corn production according to AOSCA Standards Minimum Distance from Contaminant 410 370 330 290 245 205 165 125 85 0
--------------------- Field Size -------------------------Up to 20 Acres 20 Acres and more 0 0 2 1 4 2 6 3 8 4 10 5 12 6 14 7 16 8 Not permitted 10
LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Maize Zea mays L. is normally cross-pollinated and freely crosses with nearly all members of the genus, reported to include several hundred mutants. Most pollinations result from pollen transported by wind or gravity but there have been reports of pollination carried out by bees. There are two general situations that involve contamination by adventitious pollen. One is the occurrence of contamination in seed production fields (the focus of this investigation) and the other is the contamination of hybrid grain production fields (of primary concern to farmers). The primary difference between the two situations relates to the amount of desirable pollen present. Depending on the planting pattern, as much as 80% of the plants in a seed field may be either sterile or emasculated, whereas the grain field will likely contain 100% fertile parents, which provide copious amounts of the desirable pollen to buffer against intrusion by adventitious pollen. Thus the information gathered in this study has direct application to seed production and represents a “worst case” scenario as it pertains to grain production. In addition, this study represents a comprehensive evaluation of pollen intrusion based upon modern laboratory analyses of the collected samples by electrophoresis. However, parameters such as geography and diurnal pollen background values during the production season have not been reported but will be an important consideration during the sampling period.
Pollen Morphology and Viability Within the grass family, maize produces one of the largest pollen grains (90-125 × 85 µ) (Smith, 1990). Maize pollen grains are mono-porate and nearly spheroidal to ovoid in shape with a slightly protruding aperture (Erdtman, 1952). Pollen volume is approximately 700 × 10-9 cm3 with a weight of 250 × 10-9 g (Goss, 1968). Because of its large size and even though it is disseminated by wind and gravity, maize pollen normally travels only short distances as compared to other members of this family. Maize pollen settling velocity is at 30.95 cm.s-1, or about an order of magnitude greater than that reported for other wind pollinated pollen species being measured (Di-Giovanni et al., 1995).
Appendices and glossary
197
Determination of pollen viability, an important aspect of pollination potential, is problematic with some considerable range in accepted values depending on the genetics and the methods used to determine viability. It is safe to assume that pollen can maintain viability from a few hours to several days. Elevated temperatures negatively affect viability and reduced humidity although elevated temperature appears to result in a more rapid decline than humidity. Pollen exposed to ambient field conditions decreased to 80% viability in one hour and was 100% nonviable in 2 hours (Luna et al., 2001). Pollen viability decreased more slowly under more humid conditions, to 58% after one hour, yet still fell to zero after two hours (Luna et al., 2001). Johnson and Herrero (1981) reported that pollen viability was greatly reduced by temperatures above 38oC. While Schoper et al. (1987a) reported considerable variability in heat tolerance associated with different genotypes. Jones and Newell (1948) reported pollen survival for up to nine days when stored in refrigerated conditions. They also reported survival of only three hours in a pollination bag under midsummer field conditions and suggested that this would be adequate time for pollen to be transported to adjacent fields. This is in sharp contrast to the distances reported by Hutchcroft (1958) when he suggested that the majority of the effective pollen fell within the first 20 feet of the individual plant. If the distance that pollen is able to travel is not well defined, the determination of viability is even less well defined. Many authors have used simple pollen tube germination in a sucrose media while others have used the development of the extended pollen tube to determine growth into a sucrose/agar media. In less sophisticated studies the methods may utilize the simple occurrence of a phenotypic off-type as evidence of effective pollination. In many ways these studies are the most revealing in that they address the question of pollen viability as well as availability.
Biology of Pollination Maize, although self-fertile and monoecious, is typically cross-pollinated by the wind because of differences in floral synchrony between male (tassel) and female (silk) flowers on a single plant. Although modern breeding efforts have tended to reduce protandry (floral synchrony) the tassel may begin to shed pollen before silks emerge. The degree of male and female floral synchrony is genotype specific and sensitive to plant population, soil fertility and environmental stress. Usually the tassel opens completely before pollen shed begins. Pollen shed begins on the central rachis about one-third of the distance below the apex and progresses in both directions toward the apex and the base of the tassel. Tassel branches also begin shedding somewhat below the branch apex, and then extend toward the branch base and tip. The last part of the tassel to shed is typically anthers at the tip of the basal branches. Timing for this event varies with hybrid and planting date but is typically approximately 950 to 1500 GDU (GDU = Sum total of degree units, where degree units are based on average of the daily high and low minus 50) after planting. The typical tassel may shed pollen for 2-14 days depending on genotypic and environmental factors with the majority shed during a 5-8 day period beginning on approximately the third day after the tassel is expanded (Purseglove, 1972). During the shed period the pollen is released for approximately four to five hours commencing approximately one hour after sun rise. The period may be delayed by one to two hours if the weather is cool and cloudy. For average maturity hybrids this translates into a pollen-shed period of from 6:30 to 11:00 am under normal sunny field conditions. Each plant, depending upon genotype, is capable of producing 9,000 to 50,000 pollen grains per kernel set (Jones, 1948, Raynor, 1972). There is considerable variation in the estimates for specific tassels with a range of 14 to 50 million reported by Miller (1985) to 2 to 5 million reported in modern hybrids. If it is assumed that approximately 1000 silks (female flowers) per plant are produced, then approximately 5,000 to 30,000 pollen grains are available for each female flower. This range is typical for wind-pollinated species.
198
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Because of selection for female dominance the size of the average dent hybrid tassel has declined over the last three decades. A similar decline has not occurred in sweet corn and the work of Nowakowski and Morse (1982) that reported nearly 150 lbs of pollen per acre is still reasonable. These results are based on an approximate production of 3.5 g of pollen per plant and 20,000 plants per acre. Female flower production typically lags behind that of the tassel and anthers with a minimal overlap resulting in approximately a 5% self-fertilization. Silks emerge on the ear over a period of time. The spikelets at the base of the ear are the oldest and produce the longest silks, which become the first to protrude from the husk. Silks originating from the middle of the ear are next to emerge followed by apical silks. The numbers of female spikelets per ear varies by genotype and environment but only rarely are all the spikelets fertilized and develop into seed. The silks are receptive at emergence and can remain receptive for more than 10 days. Once fertilized the silk stops elongation and desiccates rapidly. If it is not fertilized the silk will continue to elongate until it is fertilized or cellular elongation is complete.
Pollen Dispersal Most studies of pollen dispersal have focused on the down wind distances required to provide adequate isolation to insure production of hybrid seed with acceptable purity. These studies reported between 1940 and the late 1970’s (Jones, 1948, Jones and Brooks, 1950, Hutchcroft, 1958, and Raynor et al., 1972) have used visual phenotypic characteristics to measure the dispersal. More recent studies (Garcia et al., 1998, and unpublished sweet corn and white corn data) have clearly shown that the majority of the pollen is deposited very close to the source. However, even though less than one percent of the pollen (Raynor et al., 1972) may be present beyond 60 m 1% of 5 million grains per plant remains as a considerable pollen source. Paterniani and Stort (1974) used a dominant yellow corn pollen source in the center of white cornfields of differing sizes. They demonstrated that 50% of the kernels on an individual plant could result from pollen sources within 12 m. They also reported that as distance increases away from the pollen source, a low background level of outcrossing is attained and that remains constant at less than 0.1% out to the edge of the field. As discussed earlier, maize pollen is one of the largest of the wind borne pollens (700 × 10-9 cm3 with a weight of 250 × 10-9 g) and generally is not widely dispersed. The degree to which it is disseminated has been investigated and a useful term to describe those results is the concept “half distance” (HD) which is the distance required to reduce the pollen amount by 50%. Considerable range in HD has been reported depending upon where and how the study was conducted. Bateman (1947) reported an HD of 3.7 m while Hodgson (1948) reported a HD of 8.3 m. Both of these values are consistent with the predicted values that would be expected based on the work reported by Raynor et al. (1972). In sharp contrast, Jones and Newell (1948) reported a HD of less than 25 m. These differences in HD point out some of the inconsistency in data supporting the current isolation standards. This is especially important in that the reports noted relied on visual phenotypic characters and may have been even more variable if laboratory determination of genotype had been used. The variation in the actual field measurements has prompted considerable interest in predictive models of pollen dispersal. In a study of settling velocities of various pollen types Di-Giovanni et al. (1995) reported that maize settled nearly ten times faster than the other pollen types. These rates were measured using the methods described by McCubbin (1918). Other workers have used other models with varying degrees of success. One problem is that because of its size maize pollen does not behave in a Gaussian fashion. Gaussian models require that the particles be distributed normally around their source. The vertical distribution of maize pollen normally does not increase with distance from the source and typically drops off rapidly (Raynor et al., 1972). Even though considerable effort has been devoted to attempting to model maize pollen distribution, model accuracy has done little to refute the actual
Appendices and glossary
199
sampling results. Models provide good descriptive data that can be helpful in explaining specific field results. But, since many important variables, i.e., wind speed and direction and surface turbulence, cannot be predicted, they do not provide strong predictive data. In a study on outcrossing, Jones and Brooks (1950) discussed the effect of distance and border rows as production practices in Oklahoma. They reported that isolation distances of greater than 40 rods (200 m) from the potential contaminate was required to result in less than 2% contamination. Jones and Newell (1948) observed <3% outcrossing at 250 m, but Airy (1955) found little difference in outcrossing between 100 and 200 m from the potential contaminate. The effect of border rows is inconclusive and dependent on the direction of the contaminate. But in general when isolation distances were less than 200 m five border rows were required to achieve satisfactory purity (Jones and Brooks, 1950) although few authors have addressed the contribution of border rows. Other outcross data include those of Jones and Newell (1948), who reported 8.9% at 125 m and less than 3% at 200 m. Airy (1955) found little difference in outcrossing between 100 and 200 m from the potential contaminate. The industry standards that were developed using visual characters have survived relatively unchanged for more than 50 years. With the additional concerns raised by the relatively recent inclusion of modified traits, an examination of these standards is in order.
METHODS AND MATERIALS The industry-wide study of seed production fields was conducted during the 1998, 1999, and 2000 production years. Production locations across the corn belt were asked to nominate production fields for inclusion in this study. Potential fields had to meet the following criteria: satisfactory male and female stands, appropriate nick (reproductive match) between the seed and pollen parents, and pollen shed in the potential contaminate should match the seed field silk emergence. In the selected fields additional agronomic data were collected including: previous crop, dry land or irrigated land, male pollen shed rating (1 = good, 2 = fair, 3 = poor), row pattern (female: male), field size, block size, number of border rows, plant population of male and border rows, compass orientation to contaminate field, distance to contaminate, and size and type (CC = conventional corn, WC = white corn, SC = sweet corn, PC = popcorn or purple corn) of contaminate field. Prior to harvest, fields were sampled along a line perpendicular to the source of the contaminate and in the pattern described in Figure 1. Each field map had an arrow denoting a “sampling path.” Each path had five sampling locations. These locations were within the following female blocks: 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th and the middle of the field or 200 m (whichever was closest to the potential contaminant). At each of these locations a sample was collected from the center two rows of the designated female block. In the center two rows, a random plant was selected and then all ears with seed from the next ten consecutive plants were collected. Then ten consecutive plants from the other center row were collected moving in the same direction (Figure 2). If the female blocks were not aligned across the potential contaminant (that is, rows run away from the contaminant), the center two rows of the female block that corresponded to the middle of the potential contaminant were sampled at distances from the most inside male border row: 2 m, 10 m, 20 m, 35 m and the mid-point or 200 m, whichever was closest to the potential contaminant.
200
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Figure 1. Sampling path indicated by arrow. The black points on the arrow denote the five sampling positions in the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th female blocks and the middle female block or 200 m (whichever was closer to the potential contaminant).
Figure 2. Ear collection points within selected female blocks. All ears that set seed from ten consecutive plants were collected from each of the middle two rows. Each sample from each position contained all ears that set seed from 20 consecutive plants; ten plants from each of the center two female rows. After collection, the samples were husked and dried to 12% moisture using standard techniques. After drying, samples were shelled and screened (scalped) to pass a 26/64 and held over a 16/64 screen. The composite samples were submitted to electophoresis testing using the standard number of loci appropriate for the genotype involved. Entire seed fields were harvested, dried and conditioned as a lot. Weighted outcross values for each field were calculated from the five samples collected to determine whole field estimates of outcrossing. Sample results were weighted rather than averaged because each sample represented a larger proportion of the field as sampling progressed from the edge to the center of the field, away from the adventitious source. Sample results were also weighted based on the size and shape of the seed field and on the proportion to the total seed field area represented by each electrophretic sample.
Appendices and glossary
201
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Because of the nature of this study, a level of caution needs to be used when interpreting or applying the results. Most agricultural scientists are familiar with experimental methodology, which controls or provides measurement of the known variables. The work reported here is not such an experiment and, in fact, is more similar to studies typically reported by the social scientists or economists. Validity or accuracy of the information is not in question, rather the typical tests of significance are based on important assumptions related to the values being representative of the sampled population and that the values are distributed normally. The sampling design is statistically sound, however, as is clear from the field selection criteria, the fields sampled would likely be considered problematic by most producers and typically represent only a small fraction of the total number of production fields. Also because the outcross percentages are in general less than 5% and in most cases 0%, the distribution is skewed towards the bottom end of the scale with many of the values being zero. Thus the variance associated with these numbers is distributed differently than would normally be encountered in a typical randomized block design. This is not to diminish the accuracy of the data but to point out that it has what is referred to as “issues of colinearity,” which is to say that many important variables could not be controlled and, in the case of wind direction and velocity, were not measured nor were all outcross determinations made by the same laboratory although in general the same criteria were used. Accepting these concerns, the data represents an extremely ambitious and expensive study, which thanks to the cooperation of the hybrid seed corn industry provides the most robust data available in the last forty years that addresses the issue of adventitious pollen movement in actual seed production fields. In most tables, two outcross values will be reported; they are margin (the weighted average of the first four sampling locations) and background (the value from the midpoint or 200 meters into the field). The background value is very similar to the weighted average for the entire field.
Independent Variables Year of sampling is one of the major variables having a significant effect on the outcross percentages (Table 2). There are a number of environmental and agronomic factors, which contribute to this variation but since they are nearly impossible to control or define the year effect will be averaged into most of the additional variables presented.
Table 2. The effect of year on the percentage of outcross occurrence in hybrid seed production fields. Production Number Mean OC Mean OC Standard Year of Fields Margin Background Error Mean 1998 60 0.98 0.73 0.12 1999
94
2.05
1.12
0.22
2000
212
2.03
1.27
0.15
202
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Field location has a major impact on the level of adventitious pollen intrusion, Figure 3. It is also clear that the level of intrusion is quite random and attempts to improve purity by moving production to any specific location are unlikely to be successful. Those factors, which contribute to adventitious intrusion, are clearly not related to any specific location in the central Midwest.
Figure 3. Background outcross percentage by location across year.
Sample location effect on outcross percentage demonstrates a classical pattern of protection near the border rows (Table 3.). There is some apparent protection provided to the first sample location by the border rows, then an increase in outcross percentage initially with increased distance into the field, then a gradual decline as the distance into the field increases ultimately reaching its lowest value (background) at 200 m or the middle of the field. Just as importantly, the median value remains at 1.00 until the middle of the field where with a median of 0.00 more than one-half of the values are without contamination. Further the values at 200 m values very nearly describe the weighted average value for the entire field, suggesting that high purity seed can be produced even under the most difficult conditions.
Appendices and glossary
203
Table 3. The effect of sample location on the percentage of outcross occurrence in hybrid seed production fields averaged across years. Sample Location Mean Standard Meters from Outcross Error Border Row N Percentage Mean Median 2 353 1.98 0.16 1.00
10
361
2.00
0.15
1.00
20
362
1.81
0.15
1.00
35
364
1.72
0.14
1.00
200
351
1.11
0.09
0.00
The year effect is graphically represented in Figure 4. The patterns are similar in two of the years and differ somewhat from the third year. However, data from all three years indicate that the potential for contamination decreases rapidly reaching a low level within 20 to 30 m in from the edge of the field. The variation among years clearly demonstrates the difficulties faced by production departments when they attempt to insure adequate isolation. But it is also clear that the practices currently in place are capable of producing seed of exceptionally high purity. This is especially true considering that the detection methodology used in this study was a magnitude more sophisticated than the morphological traits used as measures in earlier studies.
204
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Effect of Field Location on Outcross Percentage 4
Outcross Percentage
3.5 3 2.5
1998 1999 2000
2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0
50
100
150
200
250
Meters from Border Row Figure 4. Outcross percentage affected by sample location and year of production. The contaminate direction has often been considered an important factor in mediating the severity of the outcross contamination (Table 4). The foundation for that position is supported by the mean values from the first four sample locations. Sources to the north and south are similar in pollen pressure and somewhat more severe than sources to the east and as expected sources to the west are the most severe. However, when the outcross levels from the center of the field are examined there is little if any pattern. This suggests that the adventitious pollen in the center of the field or background is not originating in any particular field or coming from any specific direction. This poses a significant challenge for all seed producers operating in the central cornbelt. This is not a new or unexpected revelation but likely reflects the prevailing conditions under which seed corn is produced. It does underscore the importance of achieving a very good match (nick) between the male and female flowering.
Appendices and glossary
205
Table 4. The effect of contaminate direction on the percentage of outcross occurrence in hybrid seed production fields averaged across years. Contaminate Field Mean OC Mean OC Standard Error Direction Number Margin Background Mean North 62 1.85 1.14 0.29
South
96
1.81
1.01
0.22
East
89
1.64
1.20
0.23
West
105
2.13
1.11
0.23
Male classification is routinely considered by seed producers and often affects the field planting plans. A prolific male, which is well matched with the female parent, is often considered the best insurance against adventitious pollen. To compensate for poor male performance, the production plans will often call for increased border rows and increased male percentages. Assuming that these precautions were taken in the fields represented in this study, one would expect to see little, if any, influence resulting from male classification. The results presented in Table 5 show that the quality of the male parent strongly influences the level of outcrossing present. This effect is consistent both along the margin of the field and in the center. This obvious yet often-overlooked trait may be an important tool to improve the genetic purity of the seed produced. However, the prevalence of poor male performance is likely strongly linked to the shifts in harvest index, which result in higher grain yields. Thus, modifying this trait will not be easily accomplished in high yielding genotypes. Table 5. The effect of male classification on the percentage of outcross occurrence in hybrid seed production fields averaged across years. Number Mean OC Mean OC Standard Error Male Class of Fields Margin Background Mean Good 146 1.73 0.98 0.15
Fair
163
1.81
1.02
0.14
Poor
57
2.37
1.94
0.35
When production plans require a poor male a potential solution often implemented is an increase in the male percentage (planting pattern) (Table 6). Although this would seem to be a reasonable solution the data do not support this alternative. There is little or no improvement in outcross contamination by modifying the male percentage. The confounding influence of male classification and other agronomic characteristics may make a clear identification of this management option difficult from the data available in this study.
206
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Table 6. The effect of male percentage on the percentage of outcross occurrence in hybrid seed production fields averaged across years. Number Mean OC Mean OC Standard Error Male Percentage of Fields Margin Background Mean 17% 6 2.17 2.33 1.56
21%
109
1.52
0.88
0.15
25%
241
2.01
1.25
0.13
33%
4
2.28
0.26
0.49
50%
4
2.56
1.75
1.52
Seed field size is a management option, which is often considered when planning for high quality seed production. The results in Table 7 indicate that in general there are two size categories, which appear to impact the final quality. Those fields with less than 100 acres consistently resulted in greater pollen intrusion regardless of whether the margin or the center of the field was sampled. Parent seed fields are often small; thus the improved purity resulting from large field size will be difficult to achieve. Recognizing this limitation will force parent seed producers to manipulate other management variables to compensate for the reduced field size and still achieve a high degree of purity. Table 7. The effect of seed field size on the percentage of outcross occurrence in hybrid seed production fields averaged across years. Number Mean OC Mean OC Standard Error Seed Field Size; ac of Fields Margin Background Mean 1–60 53 2.22 1.19 0.28
6 –80
74
2.30
1.41
0.28
81–100
45
2.30
1.51
0.34
101–120
53
1.53
0.94
0.27
121–140
54
1.50
0.94
0.21
141–180
48
1.42
0.69
0.21
>180
39
1.57
1.29
0.26
The contribution of distance to improving seed purity is much less clear than was expected (Table 8). When isolation distances are compared over a large number of fields there is a clear advantage to increasing the isolation distance. However, the confounding effects of wind direction and other uncontrolled variables may overshadow the contribution of distance. Outcross percentages are reduced when the isolation distance is increased from 1–50 m to 76–125 m. Not unsurprising this trend was less evident in the middle of the field, which would be confounded by the distance to the center of the field.
Appendices and glossary
207
Table 8. The effect of distance to the contaminate source on the percentage of outcross occurrence in hybrid seed production fields averaged across years. Distance to Number Mean OC Mean OC Standard Error Contaminate, m of Fields Margin Background Mean 1–50 119 1.84 0.92 0.16
51–75
67
2.79
1.79
0.31
76–125
163
1.62
1.11
0.15
>125
13
0.73
0.55
0.21
The relationship between field size and isolation distance is shown in Figure 5. When the field size is relatively small (<100 ac), there is little difference between the fields at distances of 125 m or less which as a group exhibit higher values than the fields at distances greater than 125 m. As field size increases to greater than 140 ac, there is little change in contamination level associated with increased distance from the contaminate source. Allowing that the number of fields represented at each distance is not equal and with the associated variation, the data do not show a strong relationship between increased distance and reduced contamination level.
6 5 1-50m 51-75m 76-125m >125m
4 3 2
>181ac
141-180ac
121-140ac
101-120ac
81-100ac
0
61-80ac
1 1-60ac
Outcross Percentage
Field Size and Distance
Field Size acres Figure 5. Outcross percentages as affected by field size and isolation distances averaged across year.
208
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Border rows are often inserted to insure that the edge of the production field adjacent to a potential contaminate will be flooded with the desirable pollen (Figure 6). Increasing the number of border rows does not appear to have a significant effect on the outcross percentage measured either just adjacent to the border rows or in the center of the field. Again this is a set of data, which is confounded by the adjustments related to male classification, and may not be representative of values found when adjustments for male classification are not made.
Border Row Effect
Outcross Percentage
3.5 3 6 Rows 12 Rows 14 Rows 16 Rows 24 Rows
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Field Margin
Background
Field Location Figure 6. Effect of border row number on the outcross percentage in the field adjacent to the border rows and in the middle of the field.
INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY This study was a departure from the traditional balanced randomized block design experiments that are common in the agronomic literature. It does, however, represent the largest published study of its kind under actual seed production conditions. Conducted over a 3-year period, it included wide participation by the seed corn industry bringing diverse environmental and genotypic differences to the data set. Before discussing the variables associated with pollen intrusion, it is important to acknowledge that the outcrosses identified could have originated as minor contaminates in the parental seed, or from unwanted volunteer plants that were not removed. It is clear from the results of the outcross percentages by sample location that the pollen cloud associated with a specific field extends some meters beyond the field edge. It is also clear that the dominance of that cloud increases rapidly as the distance into the field (protective cloud) increases and the influence of most measurable factors, except male quality, rapidly approaches insignificance. The data suggest that border row number is not important, but the true relationship is likely masked because of the tendency of border row number to go up when male quality goes down. However, because male quality is such a significant factor, the increased border male population has little impact. Distance to the contaminate source is important but its contribution to reducing adventitious pollen intrusion is often overshadowed by other factors such as wind intensity, direction and the protective strength of the field pollen cloud. All this considered, this study clearly demonstrates that exceptionally high quality seed can be produced in the central cornbelt when reasonable precautions are implemented.
Appendices and glossary
209
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The results presented in this study represent the work of hundreds of individuals who participated from the planning through to sampling and to the laboratory personnel who conducted the testing. These individuals contributed thousands of hours of labor which provided the data that has been and continues to be analyzed. The companies that participated include: Burrus Brothers & Assoc. Growers Cargill Inc. Curry Seed Co. Inc. Dairyland Seed Co. Inc. Fontanelle Hybrids Garst Seed Co. Golden Harvest, JC Robinson Great Lakes Hybrids, Inc. Kaltenberg Seed Farms LG Seeds Monsanto Seeds Co. Mycogen Seeds Pioneer Hi-Bred Int. Inc. Syngenta Seeds Inc. Wyffels Hybrids, Inc. Special recognition is due Dale Ireland, Dale Wilson and Michael Lauer for personally devoting countless hours to assembling this data set, contributing to the analysis and reviewing this manuscript.
REFERENCES: Airy, J.M., 1955. Production of hybrid corn seed. In: Corn and Corn Improvement, chapter IX: 379-422. Bateman, A.J., 1947. Contamination of seed crops. II. Wind pollination. Heredity I: 235-246. Di-Giovanni, F,.P.G. Kevan, and M.E. Nasr, 1995. The variability in settling velocities of some pollen and spores. Grana 34: 39-44. Erdtman, G., 1952. Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy. Angiosperms. Almquist and Wiksells, Sweden. Garcia, C., M.J. Figueroa, M.R. Gomez, L.R. Townsend, and J. Schoper, 1998. Pollen control during transgenic hybrid maize development in Mexico. Crop Sci. 38: 1597-1602. Goss, J.A., 1968. Development, physiology and bio-chemistry of corn and wheat pollen. Bot. Rev. 34: 333-358. Hodgson, H.J., 1949. Flowering habits and pollen dispersal in Pensacola Bahia grass, Paspalum natatum. Flugge. Agron. J. 41: 337-343.
210
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Hutchcroft, C.D., 1958. Contamination in seed fields of corn resulting from incomplete detasseling. Agron. J. 267-271. Johnson, R.R. and M.P. Herrero, 1991. Corn pollination under moisture and high temperature stress. Proc. Corn Sorghum Res. Conf. American Seed Trade Assoc. 36: 66-77. Jones, M.D. and L.C. Newell, 1948. Longevity of pollen and stigmas of grasses: Buffalograss, Buchloe dactyloedees (NUTT) Engelm., and corn, Zea mays L. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 40 (3): 195-204. Jones, M.D. and J.S. Brooks, 1950. Effectiveness of distance and border rows in preventing outcrossing in corn. Oklahoma Agricultural Experimental Station Technical Bulletin No. 38. Luna, S., V.J. Figueroa, M.B. Baltazar, M.R. Gomez, L.R. Townsend, and J.B. Schoper, 2001. Maize pollen longevity and distance isolation requirements for effective pollen control. Crop Sci. 41: 15511557. McCubbin, W.A., 1918. Dispersal distance of urediniospores of Cronartium ribicola as indicated by their rate of fall in still air. Phytopathol. Notes 8: 35-36. Miller, P.D., 1985. Maize Pollen: Collection and Enzymology. Chapter 45, pp. 279-282. In: Sheridan, W.F. (ed.). 1985. Maize for Biological Research. A Special Publication of the Plant Molecular Biology Association, USA. Nowakowski, J. and R. Morse, 1982. The behavior of honeybees in sweet corn fields in New York State. Am. Bee J., January: 13-16. Paterniani, E. and A.C. Stort, 1974. Effective maize pollen dispersal in the field. Euphytica, 23: 129–134. Purseglove, J.W., 1972. Tropical Crops. Monocotyledons 1. Longman Group, London. Raynor, G.S., E.C. Ogden, and J.V. Hayes, 1972. Dispersion and deposition of corn pollen from experimental sources. Agron. J. 64: 420–427. Schoper, J.B., R.J. Lambert, B.L. Vasilas, and M.E. Westgate, 1987a. Plant factors controlling seed set in maize: the influence of silk pollen, and pollen, and ear-leaf water status and tassel heat treatment at pollination. Plant Physiol. 83: 121-125. Schoper, J.B., R.J. Lambert, and B.L. Vasilas, 1987b. Pollen viability pollen shedding, and combining ability for tassel heat tolerance in maize. Crop Sci. 27: 27-31. Smith, E.G., 1990. Sampling and identifying allergenic pollens and molds. Blewstone Press, Texas.
Appendices and glossary
211
Research paper analysis and interpretation for application to identity preservation and this handbook Seed corn production versus IP grain production The above research paper, Adventitious Pollen Intrusion into Hybrid Maize Seed Production Fields, was presented at the American Seed Trade Association meeting in December 2001. It is a background on corn pollination as well as a good example of the type of research within the seed industry and academia for seed purity. This study also sites references over the last 50 years and notes research almost 80 years old. Seed corn genetic purity is not a new issue. It must be pointed out, as it is in the paper, that this study pertains to hybrid seed corn production that is somewhat different from identity-preserved corn grain production. The quantity of pollen available for pollination of the crop produced will be much larger in a grain production situation than in seed production and will therefore be more apt to be pollinated by pollen from within the production field. The potential contamination levels in the seed corn study should be “worst-case” levels indicated in identity-preserved production.
Applying to IP production The paper presents several conditions affecting the pollination process that may allow pollen from outside sources to pollinate the crop being produced. This adventitious pollen will cause a percentage of the resulting crop to have slightly different genetic trait than if pollinated by pollen from the crop itself. There are steps that can be taken that can reduce the potential of pollen from outside sources that are addressed in the study. The results of the experiments included in the study, though applied in hybrid seed corn production, can be used in the decision-making process for developing production techniques for identity-preserved corn grain production. This thought process should consider the following: 1. The size (acreage) of identity-preserved production – the larger the production block (contiguous growing area), the more desirable pollen will be produced for crop pollination 2. The potential contaminants need to be considered and management decisions made to control a. Pure seed – the tolerances set for genetic purity in the IP contract will determine the seed purity required – as well as the level of other production techniques b. Volunteer corn elimination – volunteers from the previous crop will need to be reduced – unless the same hybrid was planted the previous year c. Surrounding corn needs to be considered as a potential contaminant – the contamination can be reduced by isolating the crop by: i. Distance between the IP production field and the contaminating crop ii. Border or buffer rows of the same hybrid as the IP production which will be harvested as market grain rather than IP production iii. Other isolation considerations include the direction to the contaminating crop (prevailing winds), the size of the field of contaminating crop compared to the IP crop, and the pollination timing of the contaminating crop compared to the IP crop d. Mechanical mixtures must be controlled i. Planting – the planter must be cleaned and seed kept from mixing ii. Harvesting – the combine must be cleaned and care taken to keep the combine from taking in other than the IP crop iii. Storage and handling equipment must be cleaned and care taken to avoid mixtures with other crop
212
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Setting up an identity-preserved corn grain program The precision required for each of these steps will need to be determined by the tolerance level set for genetic purity of the identity-preserved production contract. Low tolerance levels of 0.1 to 0.5% will require much higher precision than tolerance levels of 1.0 to 5.0% tolerance for genetic contamination. With the exception of mechanical mixtures considerations for each of the steps above are addressed in the seed corn study. The steps discussed in the handbook are applicable to IP corn production but the additional emphasis on isolation required is further covered here. The list on the previous page lists all of the considerations but major emphasis needs to be placed on the interrelationships between production field size, location and size of potential contaminating fields, isolation distances, and border rows used on the production field. The starting point in the process of determining manageable isolation standards for specific IP corn production is the IP contract tolerance for genetic purity. A combination of the results of this seed corn pollination study and certified seed corn isolation standards can be used to develop isolation standards to fit the requirements of IP genetic tolerances. The steps discussed in the main body of the handbook will be used to set up the total IP system, including isolation standards.
Differences in corn IP production compared to self-pollinated crops In self-pollinated crops (soybeans, wheat, rice) potential contamination basically comes from two sources, planting seed purity and mechanical mixtures during the planting, harvesting, handling, and storage processes. In cross-pollinated crops, such as corn, the additional potential for genetic contamination becomes much larger from pollination from outside pollen sources. Isolation considerations become an important decision and the distance to potential contaminating pollen sources and the amount of border or buffer rows at the edge of production areas are critical to IP contract tolerances. These considerations are of low importance in self-pollinated crops. Self-pollinated crops require only enough distance to other crops so that mechanical mixtures do not occur at planting or harvesting.
Future studies specific to IP corn grain production The recent interest in the genetic purity of identity-preserved corn grain production and improvements in genetic detection methodology are indicating the need for review of production methods. Studies of grain production concepts, similar to the seed corn study, may be forthcoming in the near future. Considerations such as the pollen shedding ability or rating of different hybrids used in IP production, the pollen flow in grain production fields, and surrounding potential contaminating pollen sources have not been studied in grain production similar to the above hybrid seed corn study. As specific end-use production for unique genetic traits becomes a larger part of corn grain production the need for studies of pollen flow and isolation in grain fields becomes more apparent.
Appendices and glossary
213
GLOSSARY of words and terms related to IP
Introduction to section: This section provides the definitions of words and terms related to identity preservation. The handbook is intended to be a non-technical approach but there are some terms which may need definition. We also realize that the audience may be widely varied in background. Some terminology has developed which is specific to the IP industry that may vary some from the common usage of a word or phrase. Some of these may seem straightforward, but it is well to be sure that everyone has the same understanding.
Accreditation
a process of vouching for the fulfillment of requirements, to certify as meeting requirements, usually by a third party.
Adventitious pollen
in this usage pollen, which is not inherent, accidental; it is acquired, not inherited; it is pollen out of place – coming from an outside source; adventitious pollen intrusion would describe pollen coming from surrounding, undesirable sources.
Aeration floor
the floor of storage bin that is perforated to allow air to flow into and from stored grain.
Aflatoxin
a highly carcinogenic toxin produced by a fungus (Aspergillus flavus), which occurs when crops are stored under warm, humid conditions. Most commonly associated with corn, peanuts, and soybeans. Shipments of grain containing high levels of aflatoxin are generally rejected.
Anther
male flower part, the saclike structure in which the pollen (male gametophyte) is formed; the pollen-bearing part of the stamen; anthers commonly have two lobes or cavities, which open by longitudinal slits or by terminal pores and release the pollen. 213
214
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Antibodies
proteins that are produced by an organism in response to exposure to foreign substances called antigens. Antigens are most often foreign proteins. Antibodies to an antigen are very specific for that antigen and usually bind very tightly to the antigen. The ability of antibodies to bind strongly and specifically to antigens can be used as the basis for qualitative and quantitative assays (see, for example, ELISA).
Arabidopsis
a small weed plant possessing 70,000-kilo base pairs in its genome, with very little repetitive DNA. This makes it an ideal model for studying plant genetics.
Attribute
a measurable characteristic or trait that differentiates from similar products.
Audit
a process of certifying a process by a third party.
Auger
a piece of equipment used to move grain within larger equipment, from one piece of equipment to another, or into or out of storage facilities; consisting of spiral flighting moving within a tube.
Bioengineering
the technique of removing, modifying, or adding genes to a chromosome to change the information it contains. By changing this information, genetic engineering changes the type or amount of proteins an organism is capable of making.
Biosafety protocol
(Convention on Biological Diversity) the international treaty governing the conservation and use of biological resources around the world that was signed by more than 150 countries at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
Biotechnology
the science of using living things, such as plants or animals, either to develop new products or to make modifications to existing products. Current methods include the transfer of a gene from one organism to another. The application of the techniques of molecular biology and/or recombinant DNA technology, or in vitro gene transfer, either to develop products or impart specific capabilities to organisms. Also see “genetic engineering” and “transgenic.”
Blending
the process of drawing measured amounts of different lots of cultivars from bins and mixing these parts into a uniform blend by grain assemblers and millers.
Breeder seed
breeder seed is a class of certified seed directly controlled by the originating or sponsoring plant breeding institution, or person, or designee thereof, and is the source for the production of seed of the other classes of certified seed.
Broadcast seeding
seeding method where seeds are scattered on the ground by mechanical methods that do not place the seeds in rows, may be accomplished either by ground or by aerial application methods.
Appendices and glossary
215
Bt
Bacillus thuringiensis – a group of rod-shaped soil bacteria found all over the earth, that produce “cry” proteins which are indigestible by – yet still “bind” to – specific insects’ gut lining receptors, so those “cry” proteins are toxic to certain classes of insects (i.e., corn borers) but are harmless to mammals.
Bu
an abbreviation for bushels.
Bucket elevator
conveying equipment consisting of metal or plastic buckets attached to a belt or chains used to move materials vertically in storage, handling, conditioning, and manufacturing facilities.
Canola
“Canada Oil” a strain of the rapeseed plant with a low level of toxic erucic acid used by Canadian breeders to produce oil used for cooking.
Cell
the basic structural unit of living organisms. It is comprised of protoplasm enclosed, in plants, in a cell wall.
Cereals
members of the grass family in which the seed is the most important part used for food and feed.
Certified seed
certified seed is a class of certified seed which is the progeny of breeder, foundation, or registered seed and is produced and handled under procedures established by the certifying agency for producing the certified class of seed, for the purpose of maintaining genetic purity and identity.
Certify
Webster’s – 1. To give certain knowledge of; attest. 2. To assert as a matter of fact; assure. 3. To give a certificate of. 4. The act of making attestation as to truth or excellence.
Channeling
a recently coined term, used to describe the process of maintaining commodities in separate market channels. For producers, channeling means having a contract for specialized grain, especially bioengineered varieties, before the seed is planted. For elevators, it means taking responsibility to keep that grain separate; to monitor its movement and make sure it goes only to approved markets. Channeling systems do not have the strict traceability that is part of identity-preserved systems.
Character
an identifiable hereditary property, such as a specific component of color, a structural detail, a color pattern, or resistance to pests.
Chromosome
a linear nucleoprotein body of the cell nucleus that carries a portion of the genes of an organism; the bearer of the hereditary material.
Combine
the harvesting equipment that extracts the crop from the field and threshes (removes) the seed from other plant parts.
Commingle
the act of bringing together or mixing of more than one lot of grain.
216
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Commoditize
a word formed from commodity, which describes the movement of an item with low volume of trade that moves into higher volume and becomes like a commodity.
Commodity
something bought and sold, in agriculture usually a common item of grains and oilseeds as opposed to specialty grains and oilseeds, crops used for general uses rather than special uses.
“Commodity mindset”
the frame of mind that deals with commodities, that bases all trade off of commodities – as opposed to specialty items – commodities tend to have a continuously fluctuating price, that is affected by many worldwide factors of weather, supply, demand, economics, and politics – specialty items may place a more stable price based on end use values.
Composite sample
a sample assembled from several subsamples of equal size – a composite bin sample might be made up of equal size samples taken from each truckload going into that bin.
Conditioning
the act of cleaning, which removes impurities or foreign mater, damaged or diseased seeds from a lot of seed or grain; this procedure may also include sizing the seeds into like or uniform size groupings.
Contractor
the party that contracts for growing, conditioning, or processing of products for trade.
Conventional breeding
those plant-breeding procedures that do not involve transgenic methods.
Corn
in American terminology, Zea mays; in most countries maize is the primary crop or grain produced from a member of the grass family.
Counter trade
any trade transaction of goods or services without the exchange of money. Forms include barter, buy-back or compensation, counterpurchase, offset requirements, swap, switch, or triangular trade, evidence or clearing accounts.
Cross-pollinate
to apply pollen of one flower to the stigma of another; commonly refers to the pollinating of the flowers of one plant by pollen from another plant; referring to pollination by another plant, as opposed to “self” pollination (pollen from the flower pollinates the stigma of the same plant).
Cry proteins
a class of proteins produced by Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria. Cry proteins are toxic to certain categories of insects but harmless to mammals and beneficial insects.
Cry9C protein
one of the “cry” proteins, it is a protoxin that – when eaten by European corn borer, southwestern corn borer, black cutworm, and some species of armyworm – is toxic to those insects. However, the cry9C is nontoxic if eaten by a mammal.
Appendices and glossary
217
Cultivar
the term in common usage that is synonymous with variety.
“Custom operator”
an equipment owner that uses the equipment for hire in production activities for other parties; party doing custom planting or harvesting of someone else’s crop.
Dioecious
having stamens (male organ) and pistils (female organ) on different plants. The plants are unisexual; therefore, both sexes must be grown near each other to produce fruit.
DNA
deoxyribonucleic acid, the substance within cells that carries the “recipe” for the organism and is inherited by offspring from parents, transmitted from parents to offspring.
Dockage
a factor in the grading of grains and oilseeds, which includes waste and foreign material which can be readily removed by the use of screens, sieves, and other cleaning devices. Dockage is always determined and reported on the inspection certificate. The term is also used to describe the amount of money deducted due to a deficiency in quality.
Document
the certificate, paperwork, or electronic record conveying authoritative information, which might be trade, legal, or testing information related to identity-preserved (IP) trade.
Double cross
the first generation hybrid between two single crosses.
Drill seeding
seeding method usually referring to close row spacing, which does not allow cultivation of the crop after planting.
Dump pit
a concrete or steel lined pit that provides holding and feeding capability to facilitate dumping from transport equipment to move into storage facilities or vice versa, sometimes just referred to as pit, may have a belt conveyor or auger to move material from the pit to a vertical auger or bucket elevator.
Electrophoresis
testing method, which separates genetic material based on attraction to polarized currents.
ELISA
enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA). Immunological assay techniques that can be used to qualitatively and quantitatively measure a specific protein.
End user
the ultimate user of a product; at the user end of a supply- or value-chain; sometimes this may be the last manufacturer in a chain or sometimes the ultimate consumer is referred to as the end user.
Enhanced value
in IP a product having a value higher than a commodity; usually containing a special trait or attribute, which increases the value over similar products.
218
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Event
specifically referring to transgenic breeding processes to describe a particular attribute or characteristic transferred by this process into a new variety or crop, e.g., the transfer of a gene into a target plant.
Expression
production of the desired trait (e.g., protein concentration) in a transgenic plant. Expression varies with the gene, its promoter, and its insertion point in the host DNA.
Feed grains
also known as coarse grains. This category includes corn, sorghum, barley, oats, rye, and millet.
Feed wheat
although wheat traditionally is used as food for human consumption, large amounts of wheat are fed to livestock and poultry, especially in years when prices of lower quality wheat are competitive with those of coarse grains.
Filament
the stalk that supports the anther in a flower. The filament and anther together make up the stamen, the male organ of plants.
First receiver
the party involved in receiving the grain or oilseed from the grower – the first physical movement of the product – that may or may not be involved in ownership of the product.
Flower structure
the relationship between individual parts in a flower; there are many variations in these relationships that may affect the pollination process.
Foundation seed
a class of certified seed, which is the progeny of breeder or foundation seed and is produced and handled under procedures established by the certifying agency for producing the foundation class of seed, for the purpose of maintaining genetic purity and identity.
Foundation single cross
a single cross used in the production of a double cross, a three-way, or a top cross.
Fumigation
application of a pesticide or chemical to a cargo in order to rid the cargo of insects. The most common type of fumigant is phosphine gas, which is applied, in several different methods, to grain while in the elevator or vessel or barge. A firm licensed by the government should handle fumigant, which can be toxic.
Gene
the physical unit of inheritance, made up of a particular sequence of nucleotides found on a particular chromosome. In bacteria, genes can also be found on small extrachromosomal pieces of DNA called plasmids. Viruses also contain small fragments of DNA (or RNA) that contain genes. Regardless of the source, a specific gene is composed of a sequence of DNA that usually represents the coded description or blueprint for a specific protein.
Appendices and glossary
219
Gene flow
the concept that in natural ecosystems genes can move within and among plant species, often by cross-pollination.
Gene stacking
involves combining traits (e.g., herbicide tolerance and insect resistance) in seed.
Genetically modified organism
“GMO” the phrase applied to crops developed by a transgenic breeding process, having introduced genes from another species – see handbook section 12.
Genetic engineering
the selective, deliberate alteration of genes (genetic material) by humans. This term has come to have a very broad meaning including the manipulation and alteration of the genetic material of an organism in such a way as to allow it to produce endogenous proteins with properties different from those of the normal, or to produce entirely different proteins altogether.
Geneticist
a person involved in genetics, whether by “conventional” methods or by transgenic methods.
Genetics
the branch of biology which deals with the interaction of the genes in producing the similarities and differences between individuals related by descent; the science of plant- and animal-breeding.
Genetic trait
attribute or characteristic that is carried from one generation to another in the reproductive cycle.
Genome
the basic set of chromosomes of an organism; the entire DNA “recipe” for an organism, found in every cell of that organism.
Genotype
the genetic makeup of an individual.
Germinate
the resumption of growth by the embryo and development of a young plant from seed.
Germplasm
in crop breeding, the totality of genes and genetic materials available for the improvement of a crop.
GMO
genetically modified organism; the general term or nomenclature given to crop varieties resulting from transgenic breeding techniques; varieties resulting from the insertion of genes from other organisms.
Grain
crops or seeds produced from the cereal crop species.
Half distance
a concept “half distance” (HD) which is the distance required to reduce the pollen amount by 50% in a crop isolation situation. Many variables make this a difficult science.
Handler
usually referring to people or companies that move, transfer, or store products, but are not involved in the growing, conditioning, or processing of that product; handling refers to moving, transferring, and
220
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
storing activities and may be performed by almost anyone in a supply- or value-chain. Hereditary
transmission of genes from parent to offspring or progeny.
Hilum
the scar left on the seed at the place of detachment from its base or seed stalk.
Hybrid
the progeny produced from crosses of parents of different genotypes, strains, species, or genera.
Identity preservation
a system of maintaining the segregation of a grain or oilseed crop from planting the seed to delivery to the final end user. A carefully controlled production and distribution system that maintains integrity of the crop being delivered.
Import quota
a set volume of grain or other products that can be imported into a country. Once the quota amount has been reached, an import tariff may be applied to additional imports or imports may be restricted above the quota amount.
Import tariff
a tax paid on imports. The tax may be calculated as a percent of the imported product value or as a fixed amount per unit ($/metric ton).
Inbred line
a term meaning a relatively true-breeding strain resulting from at least five successive generations of controlled self-fertilization or backcrossing to a recurrent parent with selection, or its equivalent, for specific characteristics.
“In-house”
a term used to describe functions or services provided by the named company rather than an outside or third-party service.
Inspection
the visual observation of procedural or product qualities in a production or delivery system.
IP
an abbreviation for identity preserved or identity preservation in the agricultural field. It should be recognized that the IP abbreviation is also used for intellectual property and Internet protocol, probably among others.
Isolation
in planting field isolation refers to the distance required from other fields of the same crop to minimize cross-pollination. Sometimes referred to as “buffer” strip. The isolation distance can sometimes be modified (reduced) by planting additional IP crop along the field edges and harvesting as non-IP product.
Isolation standards
standards giving distances and modifications by crop for the production of seed or identity-preserved crop; see section 2, table 2.2. Isolation
Appendices and glossary
221
standards may be set by a third-party certifying body or by a production company. Maize
the common name for Zea mays; in most countries maize is the primary crop or grain produced from a member of the grass family. In America the word “corn” is more common.
Marker
a genetic flag or trait used to verify successful transformation and to indirectly measure expression of inserted genes. For example, a gene used as a market in Bt11 confers tolerance to the herbicide Liberty.
Mechanical mixture
referring to mixtures of grains caused by commingling with other grains inadvertently in the growing, handling, transporting, and storing activities as opposed to mixture or off-types caused by cross-pollination.
Molecular genetic engineering
a more accurate term describing genetic engineering, which includes the techniques of gene isolation by recombinant DNA methods, subsequent alteration of the recombinant gene by in vitro mutagenesis techniques if necessary, introduction of the gene into the plant, and recognition of the altered genotype.
Monoecious
male and female organs in separate flowers on the same plant.
Morphological
pertaining to form and structure of plants and seeds.
Niche market
markets of specialty items, usually having higher value than commodity items – special markets set up around specialty products.
Non-GMO
an organism that has not been modified by transgenic breeding techniques as opposed to GMO (genetically modified organism).
Nutraceuticals
either a food or a portion of food that possesses medical or health benefits.
Off-type
a plant or seed that does not conform to the described characteristics of a variety or hybrid. Any plant or seed that is not a part of the variety in that it deviates in one or more characteristics from the variety as described and may include a seed or plant of another variety; a seed or plant not necessarily any variety; a seed or plant resulting from crosspollination by another kind or variety; a seed or plant resulting from uncontrolled self-pollination during production of hybrid seed; or segregates from any of the above.
Oilseed
seeds or crops produced from crops in which a major component is oil which may be used for food and industrial uses.
Open-pollinating
a plant that is capable of being pollinated by other individuals of the same or closely related species. Pollination that occurs naturally as opposed to controlled pollination, such as by detasseling, cytoplasmic male sterility, self-incompatibility, or similar processes.
222
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Outcross
the mating of a hybrid with a third parent; also an off-type plant resulting from pollen of a different sort contaminating a seed field.
Ovary
the ovule-bearing part of a pistil in the female organ.
Ovules
the female sex cell with the immediate surrounding parts; the future seed.
“Paper trail”
the documents that provide assurance in every step of a transaction that traces the production from its very beginning to the point of reference at present; traces all origins and procedures of handling the item.
Paper transactions
the documentation that refers to a sale, the contracting of a process, or other work with a product or process; the physical movement of the product may or may not happen at the same time.
PCR
polymerase chain reaction. A very sensitive, rapid biochemical assay system for detection of specific sequences of DNA that is often used to indicate the presence or absence of specific genes. PCR can be used to determine whether an organism contains specific DNA sequences. The presence of specific sequences might be an indicator that a plant has been modified through biotechnology. See section 5a, testing procedures module.
Pedigree
the record of the ancestry of an individual, hybrid, or variety.
Perfect flower
having both pistil and stamens (female and male organs) in the same flower.
Phenotype
the observed characteristics of an individual, hybrid, or variety.
Physiological
pertaining to the functions of living organisms.
Pistil
the female organ of a flower composed of the ovary, style, and stigma.
Plant breeder
a person manipulating the genetics of plants –through either conventional or transgenic breeding methods.
Plasmid
a small circular DNA molecule, capable of self-replication that can carry genes; used as vectors in recombinant DNA experiments.
Pod
a fruit that is dry and nonfleshy when ripe and splits open to release its seeds.
Pollen
the fine yellowish powder, which contains the male sex cells, formed within the male organ (anther) of the flowering plant.
Pollen flow
the normal flow or path of pollen, in a cross-pollinated crop, carried by wind or other means, from the male sex organ to the female sex organ.
Pollination
the transfer of pollen from the anthers to the stigma, a part of the reproduction process in plants that reproduce by seeds.
Appendices and glossary
223
Progeny
offspring. Plants grown from the seeds produced by parent plants.
Promoter
a DNA sequence that regulates where, when, and to what degree an associated gene is expressed.
Protein
a complex biological molecule composed of a chain of amino acids that are assembled in the linear order specified by the gene that encodes the protein (see also gene). Proteins are almost always biologically active only when the chain of amino acids is folded into a specific threedimensional conformation. Proteins have many different biological functions; for example, enzymes, antibodies, and hair are proteins.
Protocol
the rules or process describing a procedure.
Random sample
a limited sample of product or observation, so assembled from the total array as to be truly representative of its characteristics or properties; taken without personal bias of the sampler or observer.
Receiving
the act of taking in product from another source or party; sometimes the equipment used for these operations.
Recombinant DNA methods
breeding technology based upon the ability to fractionate and then join fragments of DNA from widely different sources.
Refuge
an area planted to nontransgenic plants (e.g., non-Bt corn or alternative host for European corn borer), where susceptible pests can survive and produce a local population capable of mating with any possible resistant survivors from Bt corn.
Registered seed
registered seed is a class of certified seed which is the progeny of breeder or foundation seed and is produced and handled under procedures established by the certifying agency for producing the registered class of seed, for the purpose of maintaining genetic purity and identity.
Rogue
an off-type plant; to remove an off-type plant.
Row planting method
planting method that places the seed in rows that may then be cultivated mechanically during the growing season.
Sample
a part or piece taken randomly as representative of a whole, in agricultural products a sample of grain or oilseeds that is taken to observe or test as representative of a larger lot.
Seed certifying agency
means (a) an agency authorized under the laws of a state, territory, or possession, to officially certify seed and which has standards and procedures approved by a higher authority to assure the genetic purity and identity of the seed certified, or (b) an agency of a foreign country determined to adhere to procedures and standards for seed certification
224
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
comparable to those adhered to generally by seed certifying agencies under (a). Seed purity
determined by observation or testing that gives the percentage of pure seed that is of the described variety/hybrid and not other materials such as inert mater, weed seeds, or other crop seeds.
Segregation
the process of keeping separate; keeping crops separate by variety or type.
“Self-cleaning”
in reference to equipment or storage bins that are designed to essentially clean themselves; that is, that positions where grain is flowing or stored are made so that the grains will flow by gravity and not become lodged on or in the equipment or in crevices within the equipment (all selfcleaning equipment or facilities must be inspected to assure that it is in fact free from lodged grains).
Self-incompatible
inability to set seed from application of pollen produced on the same plant.
Self-pollinating
stigma pollinated by pollen from a flower on the same plant.
Shoot bagging
the process of covering flower parts with glycine or paper bags to contain pollen movement in a plant breeding or seed increase project.
Silk
the stigma and style of the female corn flower, through which the pollen tube grows to reach the embryo sac.
Single cross
the first generation hybrid between two inbred lines.
Soybean(s)
a legume, the botanical name of which is Glycine max (L.) Merrill; a summer annual varying in height from less than a foot to more than 6 feet and in habit of growth from erect to prostrate. The seeds (soybeans) are borne in pods that grow in clusters of three to five with each pod usually containing two or three or more seeds. The oil content varies from 13 to 26% and from 38 to 45% protein (on a moisture-free basis). Both the oil and protein components are used extensively for food, feed, and industrial uses.
Soymilk
a protein-rich, milk-like liquid typically obtained from the soaking and grinding of whole soybeans with water, cooking the resultant slurry, and filtering all or part of the soy pulp or fiber from the cooked liquid.
Species
a category of biological classification below the genus. The individuals within a species are able to intercross.
Spot market
a market based on an immediate, momentary response based on the conditions at that time as opposed to a contracted market.
Appendices and glossary
225
Stamen
the part of the flower bearing the male reproductive cells, the pollen. Each stamen is composed of a stalk (the filament) and pollen sac (the anther).
Stigma
that part of the pistil that receives the pollen.
Style
the more or less elongated part of the pistil between the ovary and the stigma of the female organ.
Synchrony
the timing of the receptive stage of a flower and the availability of pollen; the timing of pollination.
Systematic sample
a sampling method used to provide a reasonable substitute for a random sample; designed to remove some of the fallacies of a completely random sample by using a system to define the method.
Tassel
the flower cluster at the tip of a corn plant comprised of pollen-bearing flowers; the staminate inflorescence of maize or corn.
Third party
a party not involved directly in services or business; an outside party.
Three way cross
a term meaning a first generation hybrid between a single cross and an inbred line.
Tofu (soybean curd)
formed, or formed and pressed curds, resulting from the coagulation of protein from soymilk by the use of calcium sulfate, magnesium chloride (nigari), calcium chloride, or other suitable coagulating agent. A staple food in many Asian diets.
Tolerance
the permissible variation from the standard for a product; in IP would usually refer to the allowable limit for mixture of other varieties or types.
Top cross
the first generation hybrid of a cross between an inbred line and an openpollinated variety or the first-generation hybrid between a single cross and an open-pollinated variety.
Traceability
the ability, within an identity-preserved (IP) system, to trace both the crop product and the system of product segregation, from the beginning of the production process (the seed source) to the end use of the crop.
Trait
a synonym of character with respect to function and performance but less so with respect to form.
Transformation
(see also event). The process of moving a gene from one organism into another. Transformation is used for the introduction of genes conferring potentially useful traits into plants, microorganisms, livestock, fish, and tree species.
Transgenic
a plant or animal modified by genetic engineering to contain DNA from an external source is called transgenic. An organism whose cells contain
226
Identity-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
genetic material derived from a source in addition to or other than the parents. Also see “genetic engineering” and “biotechnology.” Transparency
applied to a political process, transparency means that nothing has been hidden from view. Meetings have been announced in advance, hearings have been open to the public, public comments have been collected, and, once decisions have been made, the rationale for the policy adopted is explained clearly.
Value-chain
a descriptive term for a supply-chain where product values are increased along the movement from initial product to the final product.
Value-enhanced traits
a crop variety or hybrid that has value higher than its commodity counterparts because of some attribute or trait that sets it apart.
Varietal contamination
seed of the same type but of another variety/hybrid than the described variety/hybrid.
Varietal purity
the seed purity pertaining only to the crop seed itself; the percentage of the described variety/hybrid itself in a sample of seed.
Variety
a category within a species of crop plants. Plants of a variety are related by descent and are characterized by morphological, physiological, and adaptation traits. In seed certification terms variety means a subdivision of a kind which is distinct, uniform, and stable; “distinct” in the sense that the variety can be differentiated by one or more identifiable morphological, physiological, or other characteristics from all other varieties of public knowledge; “uniform” in the sense that variations in essential and distinctive characteristics are describable; and “stable” in the sense that the variety will remain unchanged to a reasonable degree of reliability in its essential and distinctive characteristics and its uniformity when reproduced or reconstituted as required by the different categories of varieties.
Vector
a fragment of DNA that carries the appropriate information to allow the DNA to be replicated in a host cell.
Verification
the process of verifying.
Verify
Webster’s – 1. To prove to be true or accurate; substantiate; confirm. 2. To test or ascertain the accuracy or truth of.
Volunteer plants
plants that are produced from seeds of the previous cropping cycle – seeds that have fallen to the ground during harvesting activities and then germinate and grow in the following crop.
“Yield drag”
slang term indicating a yield reduction of a specialty crop variety compared with similar commodity type varieties.
Appendices and glossary
227
THE AUTHOR
Dennis Strayer was born in 1938, into a family steeped in midwestern U.S. agriculture. The farm on which he was raised was a diversified farm, specializing in seed production and marketing. As was the practice of that era the author grew up with experiences of work and play very closely involved in the operation of the farming and seed production processes. He could very literally say that he was raised in the seed business. The author’s education concluded with a B.S. degree in agronomy from Iowa State University in 1960. His college summers were spent doing seed field inspection work for seed certification programs of the Iowa Crop Improvement Association and working on the home farm. Work during the school year included work in the soybean-breeding program at Iowa State University. Following graduation the author was employed by Pioneer Hi-Bred International in seed corn production management. After 18½ years with this multinational seed company the author’s parents and aunts and uncles involved in the family seed business were reaching retirement age and a family decision led him to become involved in the family business. In addition to the seed enterprise a well-respected food-quality soybean business had evolved as part of this family operation. The author spent 17 years in the management of this family operation. During this time he was involved in activities of seed and business organizations. He served on the boards and as president of the Iowa Seed Association, the Iowa Crop Improvement Association, and the Committee for Agricultural Development. He was also active in the American Seed Trade Association for several years. In 1996, the author began a consulting business dealing with issues in seed production, seed certification, specialty crops, identity preservation, and international trade. As any consultant has probably experienced this has led to many varied projects, some outside the areas originally envisioned by the consultant. Consulting clients and industry people who were witnessing the evolution of the changing face of agriculture in the 1990s recognized the author’s wide, first-hand experience with identity preservation, in both seed and specialty crop production. As crops with specialized attributes useful to end users emerged the need for the segregation of these crops from their commodity counterparts was apparent. The development of crops utilizing new crop breeding techniques brought to the marketplace genetically modified organisms that presented another need for crop segregation and traceability. The author’s involvement with the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) began in 1981, when he was elected to the board of directors of the Iowa Crop Improvement Association. Attendance at AOSCA’s annual meetings provided the opportunity to meet and interact with seed certification people from around the world. These interactions provided occasions to discuss seed certification and identity-preservation needs under various worldwide scenarios that were invaluable to the writing of this handbook.
227
INDEX
A Accelerated aging test, 75 Accreditation services, 101, 104, 110 Acronyms listing, 191-192 Adventitious Pollen Intrusion into Hybrid Maize Seed Production Fields (Burris), 195-208, 211 Aflatoxin testing, 87, 88 Agricultural experiment stations, 86 Agricultural Marketing Act (1946), 84, 85-86 Agricultural Marketing Service, 20 Agrobacterium, 129 Airy, J.M., 197 American Seed Trade Association, 115, 211 AMS, 21 Analysis of needs, 25, 26 Analytical method (sampling), 92, 94-95 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 87 Anther, 11 AOSCA agency IP services, 181 agency listings, 177-179 description, 7 education, 125 field inspections, 71, 90 General Standards for the AOSCA Identity Preserved (IP) Program, 147, 148-150 Genetic and Crop Standards, 19 isolation standards, 193, 194 purity standards, 21, 32 purpose, 109 resource for IP systems, 13 soybean purity tolerances, 21-22 APHIS, 87 Argentina, GMO, 132 Asia, GMO viewpoint, 131 Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, see AOSCA Auditing Canadian Soybean Export Association, 155, 165 services, 101, 110 Azteca Milling L.P., 125
B Bacteria, genetic engineering use, 128, 129 Barley pollination, 14, 16 USGSA, 86 Barriers, see Isolation distance A Basic Guide to Exporting, 88 Bateman, A.J., 196 Beans, AMA, 86 Bees, pollination, 194 Beil, G.M., 151
Belgian dioxin scare, 131 Bills of Lading, 102 “Bin-run” production, 32, 159 Biolistics, 127-128, 129 Biological principles, 128 Biotechnology description, 128 genetic engineering, 127-128, 129, 130 Boerner divider, 93 Border rows, see Buffer planting Brassica, 15, see also Canola Brazil, GMO, 132 Breeder seed description, 19 value-chain, 119 Broker/trader, 119 Brooks, J.S., 197 Buffer planting costs, 42 effects, 202-203, 208, 211 importance, 212 innovations, 114 Bureau of the Census, 87 Bureau of Export Administration, 87 Burris, J.S., 195
C Canada certification systems, 19 GMO, 131 Japan’s import requirements, 138-145 Canadian Grain Commission, 155, 158 Canadian Soybean Export Association, 155-165 Canola ELISA test, 76 pollination, 15, 16 USGSA, 86 Cargo divider, 93 Carry-over of grains, 94, 97 Certificate of Origin, 102 Certification, Japan, 141, 145 Certified seeds description, 19 standards, 16, 19-20, 32 Channeling, 4 Charles, D., 133 Checklists documentation, 81 grower, 57 inspection/sampling/testing, 73 overall IP program development, 53 processing/manufacturing, 69 receiving/handling/conditioning, 65
229
230
transportation/handling, 61 Cold test germination, 75 Combine, 34, 36 Commercial Invoice, 102 Commodities description, 8-9 grain quality standards, 8 need for IP, 7-8 USGSA/AMA coverage, 86 Commodity-based trade/value-enhanced crops cost differences, 118-119 shift, 3, 6, 7-8 Commodity mindset description, 8-9 replacement, 9, 25, 118, 125 Commodity supply-chain, 9 Conditioning, see Receiving/conditioning Consumers, IP assurance, 5, 67, 119 Contact information/sources, see also Resources AOSCA agency listings, 171-179 Canadian Soybean Export Association, 155 grain exporters, 86-88 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association, 151 product testing, 99 Contamination, see also Equipment cleaning avoidance costs, 42-43 cumulative effects, 23, 55 direction, 204-205 DNA residue, 38, 49, 66, 67, 68, 69 planting, 22, 33 pollen intrusion research, 195-208 seed vs. production system, 21 sources, 22 volunteer plants, 33 Contracts program development, 52 sampling plan, 95 specialty crops, 135 verification, 102 Contractual systems, 8 Cooper, K., 153 Corn aflatoxin testing, 87, 88 commodity corn use, 8 demand/products, 126 distribution/handling in Japan, 140, 141, 142-143 ELISA test, 76 foreign gene barrier, 114-115 Japan’s import regulations, 137-145 MCIA non-GMO requirements, 151, 153-154 pollen contamination research, 195-208 pollination, 12, 15, 16, 152 purity tolerance levels, 21 StarLink, 123, 124-125 teosinte, 114-115 USGSA, 86 Corroborators, Japan’s requirements, 138, 141, 142-143 Costs analysis, 52 IP considerations, 13, 41-43, 124 pollination considerations, 13 purity tolerance levels, 21, 23 sampling, 91-92, 98 selection of planting seed, 32
Identify-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
testing, 76, 77, 99 third-party services, 110 Cotton ELISA test, 76 pollination, 14, 16 Country elevators, 140, 142 Country requirements documentation, 79, 102, 104 importation, 135-144 Japan’s imports, 136, 137-145 Crop differentiation, pollination, 11-16, 19 Crop rotation, 193 Cross-pollination, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 CSEA, IP standards, 155-165
D Databases EXCERPT program, 87 field inspection databases, 110 web-based, 79, 80, 110, 114 Delivery, 35, 37-38 Deoxyribonucleic acid, see DNA Di-Giovanni, F., 198 Distribution (corn/soybeans), 140, 141, 142-143 Diverter type sampler, 92-93 DNA description, 127, 128, 130 “fingerprint” use, 130 residue cleaning, 38, 49, 66, 67, 68, 69 Documentation AOSCA standards, 146 Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 159-164 checklist, 81 chronological verification list, 104 databases, 79, 80, 87, 110, 114 design, 105 electronic advantages, 78 establishing procedure, 24 export, 102 growers, 35, 56 importance, 8, 17, 18 innovations, 113-114, 115 inspection/sampling/testing, 71, 72 IP “spot market,” 121 Japan, 141, 142-145 mission, 78 ownership transfer, 39 processing/manufacturing, 66, 67, 68, 69 program development, 52 receiving/handling, 62, 63, 64, 65 “step-by-step,” 80 transportation/handling, 39, 60 verification, 101-105 workbook activities, 49, 78-81 DT sampler, 92-93
E Education GMO issues, 131 IP issues, 124, 125
Index
Electrophoresis, 32, 200 Electroporation, 129 Elevators Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 162-163 description, 140, 142 ELISA description, 76 leaf tissue testing, 75 sampling, 95, 97 Ellis cup sampler, 93, 94 Embargoes, 87 End user, IP assurance, 5, 67, 119, 126, 155 Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, see ELISA Equipment growers’ modification of, 36 preparation costs, 43 Equipment cleaning AOSCA standards, 146 Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 159, 160-162, 163, 164 growers, 33, 34, 36, 55, 56 importance, 22, 48-49, 209 Japan’s requirements, 142-144 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association standards, 150 processing/manufacturing, 66, 67, 68, 69 receiving/conditioning, 62, 64, 65 sampling, 94, 97 SD Crop Improvement Association techniques, 34, 55 transportation, 58, 59, 60, 61 Europe/EU GMO tolerance levels, 136 GMO viewpoint, 131 EXCERPT program, 87 Export (from U.S.), see also Import documents, 102 grain regulations, 86-88 Export Counseling Center, 88 Export/port terminal elevators, 140, 142
F FAIRS reports, 87 “Farmer saved production,” 19-20, 32, 71 FAS, 87, 88 Federal Grain Inspection Service, see FGIS Federal Seed Act, 20-21 FGIS grain exporter regulations, 87, 88, 108 sampling/testing services, 109 Field inspection AOSCA standards, 149 Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 160 certification standards, 19, 20, 21 databases, 110, 114 description, 31, 71 function, 89-91 GPS, 115 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association standards, 151, 152, 154 Field isolation, see Isolation distance Field location, 202 Field size, 206, 207, 211 Field standards, 20, see also Isolation distance Filament, 11
231
Flavorsavor tomato, 131 Flaxseed, USGSA, 86 Floral synchrony, 197 Flower structure, 11-12 Food and Agriculture Import Regulations and Standards reports, 87 Food-grade seed, 32 Food Labeling Council’s Genetically Modified Foods Committee (Japan), 141 Foreign Agriculture Service, 87, 88 Foreign Trade Division, 87 Foundation seed description, 19 standards, 32 Fresh Foods Quality Labeling Standards (Japan), 141 FSA, 20-21
G Gamet divider, 93 Gaussian models, 198-199 GDU, 195 Genes description, 128, 130 genetic engineering, 128, 129 Gene therapy, 129 Genetically modified organisms, 127-128, 129, 130, see also GMO issue Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture - Economics and Politics (Nelson), 133 Genetic barriers that restrict hybridization in corn and teosinte (Kermicle), 115 Genetic and Crop Standards (AOSCA), 19 Genetic engineering, see also GMO issue description, 127-128, 129, 130 products, 129 Genetic purity importance, 8, 18, 212 pollination considerations, 13 seed source, 55 testing, 71 tolerance/standards, 21, 30, 32 Genetic testing, 76-77, 89 GIPSA grain exporter’s registration, 87 sampling, 71, 91, 93, 109 testing, 75, 76, 77, 99, 109 web resources, 76, 91, 93, 109, 132 Global positioning systems, 113, 115 Glossary of terms, 213-226 GMO issue controversy, 130-132 current emphasis, 5, 124 definitions, 127-128 documentation requirements, 79 genetic engineering, 127-128, 129, 130 IP implications, 132 Japan’s import requirements, 136, 137-145 processing/manufacturing, 38 resources, 133 sampling, 94, 95, 132 teosinte-derived crossing barrier, 114-115 testing, 75, 76-77, 132 third-party involvement, 108 use/products, 129
232
viewpoints, 130-132 GPS, 113, 115 Grain, AMA/USGSA, 86 Grain exporters, regulations, 86-88 Grain Inspection Handbook - Book 1 (GIPSA), 93 Grain quality testing, 76 GRAS, 130-131 Gravity, pollination, 196 Growers activities, 33-36 activities (workbook), 48, 54-57 checklist, 57 costs/risks, 42-43, 119 GPS, 115 mission, 54 “spot market,” 121 “step-by-step,” 56 web-based data transfer, 114 Growth hormone production, 129
H HACCP standards, 165 “Half distance,” pollen dispersal, 198 Handbook goals, 4 mission, 3 purpose, 6 vision, 3 Handling AOSCA standards, 147-148 costs/risks, 119 Japan’s requirements, 138, 141, 142-143 samples, 98 Handling/transportation, see Transportation/handling Harvesting contamination avoidance, 22 equipment preparation costs, 43 inspection sampling, 31 IP considerations, 34 HD, pollen dispersal, 198 Herbicide bioassay, 76 Herbicide tolerance, 129 Herrero, M.P., 197 Hodgson, H.J., 198 Hops, AMA, 86 Hutchcroft, C.D., 197
Identify-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
overview, 3-10, 29-39, 123, 124-125 7 steps, 24-25 Import, see also Export (from U.S.) Japan’s requirements, 136, 137-145 Korea’s requirements, 136 “In-house” verification, 101, 103, 104, 110 Innovations in IP, 74, 77, 113-115 Insects, pollination, 12, 14, 15, 16, 196 Inspection, see also Field inspection; Sampling; Testing checklist, 73 establishing procedures, 24, 30-31, 50 importance, 18 product testing, 99 regulations, 84-88 sampling, 31, 91-98 “step-by-step,” 72 third-party, 31 verifying seed quality, 89 workbook activities, 49, 70-73 Insulin production, 129 Insurance policy/certificate, 102 International Trade Administration, 88 Internet, see Web resources Iowa State University, 43 IP, see Identity preservation Isolation distance Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 160 certification standards, 16, 20 contamination, 22 corn, 21, 114, 193 costs, 42 effects, 202-204, 206-207, 208, 211 importance, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 212 land selection, 33 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association standards, 152, 153 Isolation in time, 193
J Japan GMO viewpoint, 131 import requirements, 136, 137-145 Japan Food Industry Center, 136, 137 Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries, 136, 137, 138, 141 Johnson, R.R., 197 Jones, M.D., 197, 198, 199
K I Identify traits, 24, 25, 30, 50, 52, 53 Identity preservation (IP), see also Value-chain AOSCA agency services, 181 AOSCA standards, 145, 148-150 basic system, 18 Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 155-165 description, 5, 17 detailed system, 18 education regarding, 124, 125 innovations, 74, 77, 113-115 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association standards, 151-154 organizations related to, 183-191
Kermicle, J.L., 115 Korea GMO viewpoint, 131 import requirements, 136
L Labeling AOSCA standards, 148 DNA residue concerns, 67 Federal Seed Act, 20-21 Japan’s standards, 138, 139, 141 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association standards, 151
Index
seeds, 75 Land-grant universities economics research, 42 equipment cleaning studies, 55 Landing Certificate, 102 Land requirement certification standards, 20 contamination avoidance, 22 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association standards, 152, 153 selection, 33, 56 Lateral flow strip tests description, 77, 115 leaf tissue testing, 75, 91 Leaf tissue testing, 75, 91 Lentils, AMA, 86 Liberty LinkTM soybeans, 76 “Load cards,” 64 Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food (Charles), 133
M McCubbin, W.A., 198 Mad-cow disease, 131 MAFF (Japan), 136, 137, 138, 141 Maize, see Corn Makino, N., 138 Male classification/quality, 205, 208 Male percentage, 205-206 Manual sampling, 93 Manufacturing/processing, see Processing/manufacturing Marketing Agricultural Marketing Act (1946), 84, 85-86 “spot market,” 120-121 MCIA, 151-154, 175 Mechanical Sampling Systems Handbook (GIPSA), 93 Miller, P.D., 197 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association, 151-154, 175 Mission documentation, 78 growers, 54 handbook, 3 inspection/sampling/testing activities, 70 IP program, 50 IP workbook, 44 processing/manufacturing, 66 receiving/conditioning, 62 testing, 74 Models, pollen dispersal, 198-199 Morse, R., 198 Moschini, G., 131 Multiple sample plans, 96-97
N National Identity Preservation Standard (Canada), 155-165 Natto, 125 Nelson, G.C., 133 Newell, L.C., 197, 198, 199 New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, 133 Niche marketing, 6, 7-8 Nick, 197, 202
233
Non-profits (third-parties), 109 Nowakowski, J., 196 Nutraceutical products, 125, 129
O Oats pollination, 14, 16 USGSA, 86 Ocean freighter, 140 OECD, 22 Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), 87 Official Export Inspection Certificate, 102 Official Grain Weight Certificate, 102 Off-types, see Contamination Organic growing, IP trait, 30 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 22 Organizations related to IP, 183-191 Ovary/ovules, function, 11
P Particle gun transformation techniques, 127-128, 129 Paterniani, E., 198 PCR description, 76, 77, 130 leaf tissue testing, 75 sampling, 95, 97 seed selection, 32 Peas, AMA, 86 Pelican sampler, 93, 94 Perfect flowers, 12, 14, 15, 16 Pest resistance, 129 Pharmaceutical products, 118, 123, 125, 126, 129, 132 Phytosanitary certification, 87, 102 Planter cleaning, 33, 36 preparation costs, 43 Planting, contamination, 23, 33 Plasmid, 129 Pollen, see also Pollination dispersal, 196-197, 198-199 function, 11-12 morphology (maize), 196, 198 type importance, 12 viability, 195 Pollination corn, 12, 15, 16, 154, 197-198 crop differentiation, 11-16, 19 cross-pollination, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 floral synchrony, 195 flower structure, 11-12 introduction, 11-16 self-pollination, 12, 14, 16 soybeans, 14, 16, 154 Polymerase chain reaction, see PCR Port/export terminal elevators, 140, 142 Pricing, see Costs Pricing systems central markets, 9 value-chains, 9 Principles of Biotechnology, 133
234
Identify-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
Q
Responsibilities documentation, 79, 80 establishment, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53 inspection/sampling/testing, 71, 72, 73 “team approach,” 117-120 transportation/handling, 61 Rice AMA, 86 pollination, 14, 16 Risk management risk sharing, 118, 120 sample size, 94-97, 98 sampling, 92, 94-97, 98 Risk sharing, 118, 120 River terminal elevators, 140, 142 Roguing, 195 Roundup ReadyTM soybeans, 76 Rye pollination, 14, 16 USGSA, 86
Quality Labeling Standard (Japan), 138, 139 Quality and weight certification, grain exporters, 87
S
Probability theory, 92 Processed Foods Quality Labeling Standards (Japan), 141 Processing/manufacturing Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 164 checklist, 69 documentation, 66, 67, 68, 69 equipment cleaning, 66, 67, 68, 69 IP considerations, 38, 119 mission, 66 “step-by-step,” 68 workbook activities, 49, 66-69 Program development checklist, 53 “step-by-step,” 52 workbook activities, 48, 50-53 Purdue University’s EXCERPT program, 87 Purity, see Genetic purity
R Random sample, 92 Rapeseed, see Canola Raynor, G.S., 196 Receiving/conditioning checklist, 65 costs/risks, 43, 119 IP considerations, 5, 37-38 mission, 62 sampling, 63, 64, 65 “step-by-step,” 64 workbook activities, 48, 62-65 “Recipe for life,” 127, 128, 130 Registered seed description, 19 standards, 32 Registration, grain exporters, 87 Regulation of Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products, 133 Regulations APHIS, 87 exporting grain, 86-88 FAIRS reports, 87 FGIS, 87, 88, 108 inspection, 84-88 Japan, 136, 137-145 Relationships establishment, 48, 51, 52, 53 trust, 71, 79, 101, 102, 103, 108 Research contamination in seed production, 195-208 future studies, 212 IP economics, 42 marketing, 85-86 planter cleaning costs, 43 Resistance to pests, 129 Resources, see also Contact information AOSCA agency listings, 171-179, 181 GMO issues, 133
Sampling, see also Inspection; Testing checklist, 73 GMO testing, 77 growing crop, 72 inspection requirements, 31 leaf tissue, 72 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association standards, 151, 152, 154 procedures, 91-98 processing/manufacturing, 68 receiving/conditioning, 63, 64, 65 sample defined, 91-92 sample preparation, 92, 97 sample size/risk management, 94-97, 98 seed, 72 sources of error, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 103 step-by-step, 72 workbook activities, 49, 70-73 Sampling Grain for the Detection of Biotech Grains (GIPSA), 91 Schoper, J.B., 197 SED, 87 Seed certification agencies/programs, see also AOSCA history, 8 resource for IP systems, 13 Seed certification standards, see also AOSCA Canadian Soybean Export Association, 159 classes of seeds, 19-20, 32 description, 19-20 isolation requirements, 16, 20, 21 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association, 151, 152, 153 soybean example, 21 tolerances, 21-22 Seed industry model, 18-19 Seeds costs, 42 labels, 75 sampling, 72 selection, 22, 32, 55, 56, 57 soybean breeders, 119 testing, 31, 75, 89 Select seed, description, 19
Index
Self-cleaning equipment, 22, 36 Self-incompatibility, IP, 12, 14, 15, 16 Self-pollination, 12, 14, 16 “Seller’s risk,” 96 Services accreditation, 101, 104, 110 AOSCA agencies, 181 auditing, 101, 110 FGIS sampling/testing, 109 Shipper’s Export Declaration, 87 “Shoot bagging,” 195 Sorghum pollination, 14, 16 USGSA, 86 South Dakota Crop Improvement Association, 34, 55 Soybeans Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 155-165 certification standards, 21-22, 32 commodity soybeans use, 8 demand/products, 125 distribution/handling in Japan, 140, 141, 142-143 ELISA test, 76 genetically modified, 76 Japan’s import regulations, 137-145 MCIA non-GMO requirements, 151, 152-153 pollination, 14, 16, 152 storage, 34 value-chain example, 118-119 Specialty marketing, 6, 7-8 “Spot market,” 117, 120-121 “Spray-and-sprout” test, 76 Standardization of testing, 77, 132 StarLink corn, 123, 124-125 “Step-by-step” documentation, 80 grower activities, 56 inspection/sampling/testing, 72 overall IP program development, 52 processing/manufacturing, 68 receiving/handling/conditioning, 64 transportation and handling, 60 Stigma, 11, 12 Storage Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 161, 163 contamination avoidance, 22 costs, 43 IP considerations, 34-35 modification of facilities, 36 samples, 98 Stort, A.C., 198 Strayer, D., 138 Studies, see Research Sub-sampling, 93 Sunflowers pollination, 15, 16 seeds/USGSA, 86 Supply-chain description, 9 individualized efforts, 118 Systematic sampling, 92
235
T “Team approach,” 52, 117-120, 124 Temperatures, pollen viability, 197 Teosinte, 114-115 “Terms of trade,” 102 Testing, see also Inspection; Sampling as evolving field, 74, 77, 114, 115 importance, 18 leaf tissue, 75, 91 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association standards, 151, 152, 154 mission, 74 planting seed, 75 procedures, 75-77 processed foods, 77 product, 99 standardization, 77 web-based data transfer, 114 workbook activities, 49, 74-77 The Draft, 102 Third-party use Canadian Grain Commission, 155 coordination, 55 costs, 43 decision regarding, 49, 52 description, 107 expertise, 108-109 inspection, 31 Japan’s recommendations, 138 legal considerations, 102-103, 110 Minnesota Crop Improvement Association, 151 overview, 107-110 philosophy, 108 verification, 24, 71, 103, 104 Time isolation, 193 Tissue plasminogen activator production, 129 Tofu, 125 Tolerance levels description, 21-22 GMO implications, 132, 210 setting, 30 Tomato, Flavorsavor, 131 Traceability documentation, 78, 102 importance, 5, 17 Trader/broker, 119 Transgenic breeding, 127-128 Transgenic organisms, 127-128, 129, 130, see also GMO issue Transportation/handling Canadian Soybean Export Association standards, 160 checklist, 61 costs, 43 documentation, 39, 60 equipment cleaning, 22, 37, 60 IP requirements, 5 mission, 58 “step-by-step,” 60 workbook activities, 48, 58-61 Trier probes, 94 Triticale, USGSA, 86 Truck probe pattern (sampling), 93 Trust, importance, 71, 79, 101, 102, 103, 108
236
Identify-Preserved Systems: A Reference Handbook
U
W
Unintentional commingling, 141 United States Agricultural Marketing Act (1946), 84, 85-86 Department of Agriculture, see USDA Department of Commerce, 87, 88 distribution of corn/soybeans, 140 GMO viewpoint, 130-131 Grains Council, 102 Grain Standards Act, 84-85, 86, 88 Japan’s import requirements, 138-144 USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 87 Federal Seed Act, 21 Foreign Agricultural Service, 87, 88 Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration, see GIPSA USGSA, 84-85, 86, 88
Washouts (contamination source), 22, 33, 57 Weather risks, 120 Web resources documentation databases, 79, 80, 87, 110, 114 FAS, 88 FGIS, 87 GIPSA, 76, 91, 93, 109, 132 GMO issues, 133 seed certifying agencies, 171-179 Wheat commodity wheat use, 8 demand/products, 126 differentiated markets, 9 pollination, 14, 16 USGSA, 86 Wind, pollination, 12, 14, 15, 16, 196, 197 Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 114 Workbook, 44-81 documentation, 49, 78-81 grower/growing activities, 48, 54-57 inspection/sampling/testing activities, 49, 70-73 mission, 44 overview, 46-51 processing/manufacturing activities, 49, 66-69 program development, 48, 50-53 receiving/conditioning activities, 48, 62-65 testing procedures, 49, 74-77 transportation/handling activities, 48, 58-61
V Value-chain, see also Identity preservation (IP) description, 9 documentation, 17 example chart, 118-119 potential parties involved, 9-10 Value-enhanced grains (VEG), 102 Varietal purity, see Genetic purity VEG Exporter Manual (U.S. Grains Council), 102 Verification costs, 43 documentation/methods, 101-105 establishing procedure, 24, 50, 52, 53, 102-105 importance, 6, 18 seed quality, 89 Virus, genetic engineering use, 128, 129 Visual inspection plant/seed traits, 18-19, 90 sampling devices, 94 Volunteer plants, 33, 208, 211
Y Yield drag, 42 Yield reduction, 42
Z Zea mays, see Corn
