• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Abbreviations/Style notes/Disc...
 Preface
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Summary
 Conversion factors/Picture...
 Introduction
 Brief history of production and...
 Semi-dwarf wheat varieties
 Semi-dwarf rice varieties
 Associated technological facto...
 Changes in yields
 Evaluating economic impact
 Institutional linkages
 Concluding remarks
 Publications on semi-dwarf varieties...
 Goals of rice breeding in southern...






Group Title: Agricultural Economics repot 455
Title: Development and spread of semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice in the United States
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053786/00001
 Material Information
Title: Development and spread of semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice in the United States an international perspective
Series Title: Agricultural economic report no. 455
Physical Description: xiv, 150 p. : ill., maps ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Dairymple, Dana G
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Office of International Cooperation and Development
United States -- Agency for International Development
Publisher: Dept. of Agriculture, Office of International Cooperation and Development : for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication: Washington
Publication Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Rice -- Varieties -- United States   ( lcsh )
Wheat -- Varieties -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by Dana G. Dairymple.
General Note: Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Agency for International Development.
General Note: Companion document to Development and spread of high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice in the less developed nations, Foreign agricultural economic report no. 95, issued Sept. 1978.
General Note: Issued June 1980.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053786
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000288211
oclc - 06442886
notis - ABR4368

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Page i
    Abbreviations/Style notes/Disclaimer
        Page ii
    Preface
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Summary
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
    Conversion factors/Picture credits
        Page xiv
    Introduction
        Page 1
        International and historical dimensions
            Page 2
            Page 3
        Background information on production and varieties
            Page 4
            Wheat and rice production in the United States
                Page 4
            Registration systems for varieties
                Page 5
                Page 6
            Defining and developing semi-dwarfs
                Page 7
        Varietal classes, production and use
            Page 8
            Wheat
                Page 8
                Botanical species
                    Page 8
                Commercial characteristics
                    Page 8
                Market classes and location of production
                    Page 9
                Market classes, protein levels, and use
                    Page 10
            Rice
                Page 11
                Botanical species
                    Page 11
                Market characteristics
                    Page 11
        References and notes
            Page 12
            Page 13
    Brief history of production and varietal improvement
        Page 14
        Wheat
            Page 14
            Production
                Page 14
                Page 15
            Varietal improvement
                Page 16
                Institutional setting
                    Page 16
                Varietal Introduction
                    Page 16
                Selections
                    Page 17
                Hybridization
                    Page 18
                Statistical summary
                    Page 19
        Rice
            Page 20
            Production
                Page 20
                The early period
                    Page 20
                The "modern" period
                    Page 21
                    Page 22
                    Page 23
            Varietal improvement
                Page 24
                Institutional setting
                    Page 24
                Varietal introduction
                    Page 25
                Selections
                    Page 26
                Hybridization
                    Page 26
        References and notes
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
    Semi-dwarf wheat varieties
        Page 30
        Development
            Page 30
            Short-strawed varieties
                Page 31
            Asian sources of dwarfism
                Page 31
                Page 32
                Page 33
            Introduction of sources of dwarfing
                Page 34
            Early crossing in the United States
                Page 34
                Page 35
            Development of first semi-dwarfs
                Page 36
            The next round of semi-dwarfs
                Page 37
                Page 38
            Expansion of semi-dwarf releases
                Page 39
        The varietal situation as of 1979
            Page 40
            Definition of varieties
                Page 40
            Varietal introductions
                Page 41
                Page 42
            Selection from Mexican crosses
                Page 43
            Varieties developed in the United States
                Page 43
                Page 44
                Page 45
                Page 46
                Page 47
                Page 48
                Page 49
                Page 50
                Page 51
                Page 52
                Page 53
            Summary of varieties introduced and released
                Page 54
        Estimated area planted, 1964, 1969, and 1974
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Total semi-dwarf area
                Page 57
            Area of individual varieties
                Page 58
            Area by market type
                Page 58
                Page 59
                Page 60
            Area by state
                Page 61
                Page 62
        Partial estimates of planted area, 1979
            Page 63
            Page 64
        References and notes
            Page 65
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
    Semi-dwarf rice varieties
        Page 70
        Development
            Page 70
            Short strawed varieties
                Page 70
                Page 71
            Varietal introduction
                Page 72
            Irradiation
                Page 73
            Hybridization
                Page 74
                Varieties released
                    Page 74
                    Page 75
                Varieties under development
                    Page 76
            Some technical notes
                Page 76
        Estimated area planted
            Page 77
            Overall rice area
                Page 78
            Semi-dwarf area
                Page 79
        References and notes
            Page 80
            Page 81
            Page 82
            Page 83
    Associated technological factors
        Page 84
        Use of production inputs
            Page 84
            Fertilizer
                Page 84
                Page 85
                Wheat
                    Page 86
                    Page 87
                Rice
                    Page 88
            Water
                Page 88
                Wheat
                    Page 88
                    Page 89
                Rice
                    Page 90
            Fertilizer-water interactions
                Page 90
        Related production factors
            Page 91
            General cultural problems
                Page 91
            Protein levels
                Page 92
                Breeding
                    Page 92
                Nitrogen fertilization
                    Page 93
        Current development in breeding
            Page 94
            New sources of dwarfism
                Page 94
            Hybrids
                Page 95
            Spring x winter crosses
                Page 96
        References and notes
            Page 97
            Page 98
            Page 99
            Page 100
    Changes in yields
        Page 101
        General trends
            Page 101
        Wheat
            Page 102
            Experimental level yields
                Page 103
                Page 104
            Farm level yields
                Page 105
                Long-term U.S. trends
                    Page 105
                    Page 106
                State-level statistics
                    Page 107
                    Page 108
                    Page 109
                Contribution of improved varieties
                    Page 110
                International yield comparisons
                    Page 111
            Effect on production
                Page 111
        Rice
            Page 112
            Page 113
            Page 114
            Page 115
        Future prospects
            Page 116
            Page 117
        References and notes
            Page 118
            Page 119
            Page 120
    Evaluating economic impact
        Page 121
        Cost of production
            Page 121
            Wheat
                Page 121
                Page 122
            Rice
                Page 123
            Semi-dwarfs
                Page 124
        Distribution of benefits
            Page 124
        Measuring returns to research
            Page 125
        References and notes
            Page 126
            Page 127
            Page 128
    Institutional linkages
        Page 129
        Domestic linkages
            Page 129
        International linkages
            Page 130
            Page 131
            Page 132
            Page 133
        Need for Internationalization
            Page 134
        References and notes
            Page 135
    Concluding remarks
        Page 136
        Direct effects: differing patterns
            Page 137
            United States
                Page 137
                Wheat
                    Page 137
                Rice
                    Page 138
                Production
                    Page 138
            Developing nations
                Page 139
        Indirect effects: Multiple cropping
            Page 140
        Facilitating varietal improvement
            Page 141
            Page 142
        References and notes
            Page 143
            Page 144
    Publications on semi-dwarf varieties of wheat in other developed nations
        Page 145
        Page 146
    Goals of rice breeding in southern United States
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
Full Text


United States
Department of
Agriculture
Office of
International
Cooperation and
Development
in Cooperation with
U.S. Agency for
International
Development
Agricultural
Economic Report
Number 455


Development and
Spread of Semi-Dwarf
Varieties of Wheat and
Rice in the
United States

An International
Perspective


Dana G. Dalrymple


(1*

















Abstract


Semi-dwarf, high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice, along with associated
inputs, have formed the basis of what has popularly been known as the "green
revolution" in many developing nations. This report traces the development
and use of comparable semi-dwarf varieties in the United States. It is the first
general publication on the subject.
Particular attention is given to the important role played by foreign varieties.
especially those generated by international agricultural research centers, in the
improvement of wheat and rice in the United States. Neither crop is indigenous
to the United States so that all the ancestors of present varieties have been
"immigrants." The genetic source of semi-dwarfism is usually the same for
both the U.S. varieties and those in developing nations.
The report covers the following main subjects: history of production and
varietal improvement, development and use of semi-dwarf wheat, development
and use of semi-dwarf rice, associated technological factors, changes in yields.
evaluating economic impact, and institutional linkages.
By late 1979, 147 semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and 6 of rice had been
released. Many of these included varieties developed in the international
centers in their ancestry. Semi-dwarf wheat was planted on about 22 percent of
the U.S. wheat area in 1974 and roughly 29 percent in 1979. Semi-dwarf
rice varieties represented about 9 percent of the U.S. rice area in 1979. The
semi-dwarfs have represented an evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.
Their use is likely to expand.






KEY WORDS: Wheat, rice, high-yielding varieties, short straw, plant breeding.
agricultural research, United States.






Development and
Spread of Semi-Dwarf
Varieties of Wheat and
Rice in the
United States

An International
Perspective


By
Dana G. Dalrymple
Agricultural Economist



















June 1980

United States Department of Agriculture
Office of International Cooperation and
Development in Cooperation with U.S.
Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C. 20250
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402













Abbreviations


AID, USAID-U.S. Agency for International Development

AES-(State) Agricultural Experiment Station (usually located at State college
of agriculture)
AR/SEA (or SEA/AR)-Agricultural Research, Science and Education Admin-
istration, USDA
ARS-Agricultural Research Service (now AR/SEA), USDA
ERS-Economic Research Service (now a part of ESCS), USDA
ESCS-Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Services, USDA
OICD-Office of International Cooperation and Development, USDA
SRS-Statistical Reporting Service (now a part of ESCS), USDA
USDA-U.S. Department of Agriculture

CIMMYT-International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (Mexico)
IRRI-International Rice Research Institute (Philippines)
INIA-Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agricolas (Mexico)

LDC-Less developed country



Style Notes

Usage of several terms in this report may differ from common practice in
other quarters. "Semi-dwarf" is hyphenated rather than being spelled as one
word. And "variety" is used in place of "cultivar."



Disclaimer

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and are not neces-
sarily those of USDA or USAID. Mention of commercial firms and/or their
products does not constitute or imply endorsement.












Preface


This study was suggested by Dr. Floyd Williams, Associate Director for
Research (Acting), Office of Agriculture, Development Support Bureau, AID.
Dr. Williams wondered about the degree to which semi-dwarf varieties of wheat
and rice were being used in the United States. AID has provided considerable
support for the development and dissemination of these varieties in less devel-
oped countries (LDC's). What degree of relationship, if any, exists between
these international activities and developments in the United States? How
transferable is this type of technology?
At the outset it was assumed that a considerable body of general literature
existed on the semi-dwarfs in the United States. It was soon found that this
was not the case. The raw materials were there (the most critical of which are
periodic varietal surveys) but they had not been put together recently. The
main reasons were, I suspect, the incremental nature of the varietal improve-
ment process and the difficulty of identifying and documenting specific semi-
dwarf varieties.
The resulting report, therefore, took on a broader and more extended
nature than originally intended. International aspects are indeed covered, but
there is also considerable information of a definitional and domestic character.
This should broaden the potential U.S. (and perhaps foreign) audience, but it
may be a bit of a burden to readers concerned only with international aspects
(and who may wish to skip most o'f Chapters V, VI, and VII). In any case,
more is said about wheat than about rice.
The disciplinary treatment of the subject matches its rather broad nature.
The report is, to use an overworked term, interdisciplinary; it draws from
history, economics, plant breeding, and agronomy. None of these disciplines,
however, are presented in great depth. Nor are they given equal weight (econo-
mists have not, for example, heretofore taken up the subject).
Several other characteristics should be noted. First, the report is essentially
a review of literature, supplemented by extensive correspondence and many
telephone calls. Second, the report tends to emphasize increased yields; other
goals, particularly those relating to grain quality, are of considerable importance
but relatively little is said about them (except for rice in Appendix B). Third,
despite a rather extended review process, some errors undoubtedly remain. I
bear the responsibility.












The report may be regarded as a companion to a study I did several years
ago on high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice in developing nations.' It is
based on data and information available through December 1979.
I hope that the subject will be of as much interest to others as it has been
to me. I would be pleased if the report stimulated further study.


'Development and Spread of High-Yielding Varieties of Wheat and Rice in the Less
Developed Nations, USDA (in cooperation with AID), Office of International Coopera-
tion and Development, Foreign Agricultural Economic Report No. 95, September 1978
(6th edition), 134 pp.






Acknowledgements

This report was made possible only by the generous cooperation and assis-
tance of a large number of individuals, both in the public and private sectors.
Virtually all of the principal breeders of semi-dwarf wheat and rice in the
United States have been contacted at one point or another. Other biological
and social scientists have also been of assistance.
It would be difficult, in this brief space, to identify all who contributed
by providing information and/or reviewing portions of the manuscript. Many
are cited in the footnotes. I would, however, like to give special recognition
to three USDA colleagues: L. W. Briggle, Larry Dosier, and T. H. Johnston.
I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of and/or review comments of:
C. Roy Adair, Henry Beachell, Charles Bollich, J. J. Bond, D. Marlin Brandon,
R. H. Busch, Howard Carnahan, T. T. Chang, Byrd Curtis, Dewayne Hamilton,
Walter Heid, Warren E. Kronstad, Marco Marchetti, C. O. Qualset, Wayne
Rasmussen, L. P. Reitz, Bob Romig, J. Neil Rutger, Henry Shands. Mark
Sorrells, Dwaine Umberger, Orville Vogel, and James R. Welsh. Aubrey Robin-
son served as editor.
But in mentioning these individuals, I find that, as did a well-known histori-
an in a different context, "The faces and voices of all that I have left out crowd
about me as I reach the end." (Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower, 1966,
Foreword)











Contents


Page
Summ ary ........................... ............ ix

I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 1

International and Historical Dimensions. ................... 2
Background Information on Production and Varieties ........... 4
Wheat and Rice Production in the United States ............. 4
Registration System for Varieties ....................... 5
Defining and Developing Semi-Dwarfs. .................... 7
Varietal Classes, Production, and Use ...................... 8
W heat......................................... 8
Botanical Species................................. 8
Commercial Characteristics ......................... 8
Market Classes and Location of Production .............. 9
Market Classes, Protein Levels, and Use ................. 10
Rice.......................................... 11
Botanical Species................................. 11
Market Characteristics ............................ 11
References and Notes.................................. .12

II. BRIEF HISTORY OF PRODUCTION AND
VARIETAL IMPROVEMENT .......................... 14

Wheat... ........................................ 14
Production....................................... 14
Varietal Improvement ............................ .. 16
Institutional Setting............................... 16
Varietal Introduction ............................. 16
Selections ............................ ........ 17
Hybridization. ................................. 18
Statistical Summary............................... 19

R ice ............................................ 20
Production....................................... 20
The Early Period ................................ 20
The "Modern" Period.............................. 21







Varietal Improvement .............................. 24
Institutional Setting .............. ................ 24
Varietal Introduction ............................. 25
Selections .................. .. ............ .... 26
Hybridization................................ ..26
References and Notes.................................... 27

III. SEMI-DWARF WHEAT VARIETIES .................... 30

Developm ent ...................................... 30
Short-Strawed Varieties ............................. 31
Asian Sources of Dwarfism ........................... 31
Introduction of Sources of Dwarfing. ................... 34
Early Crossing in the United States ...................... 34
Development of First Semi-Dwarfs ...................... 36
The Next Round of Semi-Dwarfs ....................... 37
Expansion of Semi-Dwarf Releases ...................... 39
The Varietal Situation as of 1979 ......................... 40
Definition of Varieties .............................. 40
Varietal Introductions .............................. 41
Selections From Mexican Crosses ....................... 43
Varieties Developed in the United States .................. 43
Summary of Varieties Introduced and Released .............. 54
Estimated Area Planted, 1964, 1969, and 1974. ................ 54
Total Semi-Dwarf Area............................... 57
Area of Individual Varieties ........................... 58
Area by Market Type ............................... 58
Area by State.................................... 61
Partial Estimates of Planted Area, 1979 ................... .63
References and Notes.................................... 65

IV. SEMI-DWARF RICE VARIETIES ...................... 70

Development .................... ...... ....... .... 70
Short-Strawed Varieties ............................. 70
Varietal Introduction ............................... 72
Irradiation ...................................... 73
Hybridization.................................... 74
Varieties Released ............................... 74
Varieties Under Development ....................... 76
Some Technical Notes .............................. 76
Estimated Area Planted ............................... 77
Overall Rice Area .......................... ......- 78
Semi-Dwarf Area................................... 79
References and Notes.................................. 80






V. ASSOCIATED TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS .............. 84

Use of Production Inputs .............................. 84
Fertilizer. ....... ......... ...................... 84
Wheat ......................................... 86
Rice ........................................ 88
W ater ......................................... 88
Wheat ....................... ................ 88
Rice ................................... ... 90
Fertilizer-Water Interactions ......................... 90
Related Production Factors. ................... ......... 91
General Cultural Problems ......... ................... 91
Protein Levels. .................................... 92
Breeding ....................... ............... 92
Nitrogen Fertilization.............................. 93
Current Developments in Breeding ........................ 94
New Sources of Dwarfism ........................ .... 94
Hybrids........................................ 95
Spring x Winter Crosses ............................. 96
References and Notes....................... ........ ... 97

VI. CHANGES IN YIELDS ............................. 101

General Trends ..................................... 101
Wheat ............................................ 102
Experimental-Level Yields ........................... 103
Farm-Level Yields ................................. 105
Long-Term U.S. Trends ........................... 105
State-Level Statistics .......................... .. 107
Contributions of Improved Varieties ................... 110
International Yield Comparisons ..................... 111
Effect on Production ............... .......... .... . 111
Rice ............................................ 112
Future Prospects ................... .. ................ 116
References and Notes. ................................. 118

VII. EVALUATING ECONOMIC IMPACT .................... 121

Cost of Production .................................. 121
Wheat ....................................... 121
Rice ......................................... 123
Semi-Dwarfs...................................... 124
Distribution of Benefits ............................... 124
Measuring Returns to Research ........................... 125
References and Notes. ................................. 126







VIII. INSTITUTIONAL LINKAGES ........................ 129

Domestic Linkages. ............................... 129
International Linkages ............................. ... 130
Need for Internationalization. ................... ....... .134
References and Notes................................ .135

IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS............................ 136

Direct Effects: Differing Patterns ......................... 137
United States .................................... 137
Wheat ........................................ 137
R ice ........................................ 138
Production..................................... 138
Developing Nations ............................ ... 139
Indirect Effects: Multiple Cropping. ....................... 140
Facilitating Varietal Improvement ........................ 141
References and Notes ................................. 143

X. APPENDIX ..................................... 145

A. Publications on Semi-Dwarf Varieties of Wheat
in Other Developed Nations. ........................... 145
B. Goals of Rice Breeding in the Southern United States. ......... 147












Summary


Semi-dwarf wheat and rice varieties, together with a package of improved
production inputs, have formed the basis for what is popularly known as the
"green revolution" in many developing nations. Semi-dwarfs are considered
high-yielding varieties in these countries because of their ability to respond to
higher levels of fertilization without lodging or falling over. They also have
some other improved plant characteristics.
To what extent have semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice been developed
and adopted in the United States? Have the varietal improvements in the
developing nations had any relationship to those in the United States? Wheat
and rice are not indigenous to the United States and improvement in varieties
grown here has long depended on introductions from abroad. (While the
United States is largely a nation of immigrants with respect to its population, it
is entirely so with respect to the ancestors of present wheat and rice varieties.)
Has the same pattern been involved for semi-dwarfs? Despite the importance of
the subject, surprisingly little of a general nature has been written about it.
This report is intended to correct that situation.
The United States has had a close and early involvement with the develop-
ment of semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice. Virtually all semi-dwarf wheat
varieties are descendants of a cross originally made in the United States in the
late 1940's. The first modern semi-dwarf wheat variety was released in the
United States in 1961. It was followed by several more varieties in the United
States and by a host of varieties developed under the direction of an American,
Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico (in cooperation with the Mexican national agri-
cultural research program, INIA). Similarly, two United States rice breeders
helped develop the semi-dwarf rice varieties first released by the International
Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines in the 1960's.
Despite this involvement, the United States may seem to have developed
and used semi-dwarf varieties, with a few notable exceptions, at a relatively
slow pace. To some extent this is true, but for good reasons. First, the United
States has had a longstanding program of varietal improvement for wheat and
rice. Short varieties have been developed which have met the needs of many
regions. Semi-dwarf varieties have emerged and been adopted as the demand
for them has grown. Secondly, even where such a demand exists, it takes time
to develop and test semi-dwarf varieties which are: (1) an improvement over
existing varieties, (2) well adapted to local growing conditions, and (3) up to
United States grain quality standards. But it is also true that a great deal more
has been accomplished in terms of the development and use of semi-dwarf
varieties in the United States than has generally been recognized.







The lack of general information on this subject may be partly due to the
difficulty of identifying or distinguishing the semi-dwarf varieties. While semi-
dwarfs are generally somewhat shorter than traditional varieties, the difference
may be slight or nonexistent in certain cases. Little or nothing is said about the
semi-dwarf nature in advertising or promoting these varieties; as a result,
many farmers only know that they are relatively short-strawed. Yet there is
usually a significant genetic difference, and this difference is used to identify
the varieties discussed in this report.
The difference is the presence of distinct dwarfing genes: two, and possibly
a third, in the case of wheat and usually one in the case of rice. Essentially all
semi-dwarf wheats used in the United States trace their dwarfing gene back to a
Japanese variety, Daruma; in most cases this gene was transmitted through
another Japanese variety, Norin 10. In the case of semi-dwarf rice, the gene is
derived from the Chinese variety Dee-gee-woo-gen; it is usually transmitted
through the IRRI varieties (except IR-5) or through the Taiwanese variety,
Taichung Native 1. A "similar" (allelic) dwarfing gene has also been produced
by induced mutation in California and is present in several commercial
varieties.
Use of a genetic definition of semi-dwarfs, while fairly precise, entails some
operational problems. It necessitates a knowledge of the genealogy of each
variety, which in some cases is difficult to obtain. It involves imposing some
other height criteria because the dwarfing genes are recessive and their presence
does not necessarily mean semi-dwarf height. Some other classification prob-
lems are also involved. Even so, it appears to be the most systematic procedure
presently available.
Altogether, 147 semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and 6 semi-dwarf varieties of
rice were identified through late 1979. All are the result of hybridization, but
they are not hybrids since they do not represent the F1 generation. The semi-
dwarf varieties may be divided into three categories: (1) introductions from
abroad, (2) selections from crosses made abroad, and (3) selections from
crosses made in the United States. Several rice varieties have also been devel-
oped through irradiation. Of the 147 wheat varieties, 18 were introductions
from Mexico, 34 were selections from Mexican crosses, and 95 were selections
from United States crosses (14 of which had Mexican varieties in their gene-
alogy). Of the 6 rice varieties, 1 was an introduction, 4 were a result of hybrid-
ization, and 1 was a product of irradiation.
Once the semi-dwarf varieties have been sorted out, it is a relatively easy
task to go through the existing national varietal surveys (one every 5 years for
wheat and every year for rice) and to determine the area planted to the semi-
dwarfs.
In the case of wheat, this process revealed that 69 semi-dwarf varieties were
commercially planted in 1974. The area planted to semi-dwarf wheat varieties
has increased as follows in the United States (starting from a figure of 0 in
1959):







Semi-Dwarf as Proportion
Year Semi-Dwarf Area of Total Area
of Total Area

Acres Percent
1964 1,609,000 2.92
1969 3,806,000 7.01
1974 15,756,000 22.14

Similar national data are not yet available for 1979, but preliminary and
partial data suggest that the semi-dwarf proportion may have risen to about 29
percent of total wheat area-or slightly over 20 million acres.
The semi-dwarf wheat area may also be summarized in several other ways.
In terms of origins, the breakdown, on a percentage basis, was:

Category 1964 1969 1974

Introductions 0.3 7.3 5.4
Selections 0 4.5 20.3
Crosses 99.7 88.2 74.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

The introductions, with one exception, came from the CIMMYT/INIA pro-
gram in Mexico, and the selections were made from CIMMYT/INIA crosses.
Thus, in 1974, 25.7 percent of the semi-dwarf area in the United States (or 5.7
percent of the total U.S. wheat area) had a Mexican base.
In terms of market type, the largest proportion of the semi-dwarf wheat
area in 1974 was of the Hard Red Spring type (42.1 percent), followed by
White (25.4 percent), and Hard Red Winter (24.5 percent). Soft Red Winter,
Club, and Durum accounted for the remaining 8 percent. The semi-dwarfs
represented particularly large proportions of the area planted to White wheat
(63.6 percent), Club (48.1 percent), and Hard Red Spring (45.0 percent).
In terms of States, the 1974 leaders in total semi-dwarf area were (in descen-
ding order): Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Idaho, and Oregon. States with the highest proportions of their total area
planted to semi-dwarfs were (also in descending order): Arizona, California,
Nevada, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. On the other
hand, the semi-dwarf area was smallest in the Midwest (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
and Missouri).
Semi-dwarf rice varieties have only recently come into use, and then in one
State, California. Semi-dwarf rice area in California was unofficially estimated
at about 50,000 acres in 1978 and about 265,000 acres in 1979-or roughly
1.6 percent of the total U.S. rice area in 1978 and 8.8 percent in 1979. In
terms of origins, one variety with an IRRI parent occupied about 45 percent
of total semi-dwarf area in 1978 and about 60 percent in 1979- or about 0.76
percent of the total U.S. rice area in 1978 and 5.27 percent in 1979.







Use of semi-dwarfs is generally associated with relatively high degrees of soil
fertility and good water supply. Although specific data are not available for
semi-dwarfs, several parameters can be identified for wheat and rice as a whole.
In 1974, according to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, about 62 percent of the
total wheat area and nearly all (99.6 percent) of the rice area was fertilized;
irrigated area was 5.2 percent for wheat and 100 percent for rice. Wheat is
grown under relatively extensive conditions; rice under intensive conditions.
This means that the proportion of area potentially suitable for semi-dwarfs is
considerably less for wheat than for rice. Current breeding work may lead to
further improvements in tolerance of environmental conditions.
The proof of the value of semi-dwarfs and their associated technology lies in
their effect on yields. Unfortunately, it is difficult to judge the effect of the
semi-dwarfs with the data at hand. During the period when the use of semi-
dwarf wheat expanded most sharply, there was a tapering off in the rate of
yield increases of all crops. Also, while yield increases can be fairly well docu-
mented at the experimental level (where most semi-dwarfs appeared to have a
yield advantage of 5 to 25 percent), the same cannot presently be done at the
farm level. Moreover, yield levels are influenced by the use of associated inputs
which must share some of the credit. And in the case of wheat, at the time that
the area planted to semi-dwarfs was expanding most rapidly-1969 to 1974-
there also was an increase in the total area planted (particularly during 1972-
1974), which undoubtedly brought less productive land into cultivation. After
1974, however, yields rose steadily, reaching record levels in 1979; some, but
as yet undetermined part, of this increase probably was due to increased use of
semi-dwarfs. The situation for rice is uncertain, but the current release and
development of semi-dwarf rice varieties may soon further stimulate yields.
This apparently has already happened in California where record yields were
achieved in 1979. In the South, some of the standard varieties are already
short-statured and capable of high yields.
Just as it is difficult to assess precisely the impact of semi-dwarfs on yield
levels, it is even more difficult to assess the more general economic impact of
semi-dwarfs. The cost of production per acre may well increase because of the
use of additional fertilizer, but the cost per unit of product should decrease.
The latter reduction, to the extent it is realized, could benefit both producer
and consumer. However, because of the tendency for overproduction of both
crops and the inelastic domestic demand for each, the benefits may fall much
more to consumers than producers-depending, in part, on the extent to which
the crop is exported. In any case, the overall benefits to society should be sub-
stantial and should mean a substantial return to investment in research. Some
of this return can be traced to work done by the international agricultural
research centers partly supported by the U.S. Agency for International Devel-
opment (AID).
If the United States is to share more fully in the benefits of the work of
these centers, and in the increasing work done by other national programs, it







might do well to give more attention to improving its institutional arrange-
ments for acquiring this technology. Considerable liaison and contact exists,
but these could well be strengthened. At present, the United States is better
organized at the public level to provide technology to developing nations than
it is to obtain it from developed or developing nations. Relatively modest
efforts in assisting the acquisition of international technology could pay
substantial benefits in the future.












Conversion Factors


1 acre = 0.4047 hectare (ha.)
1 hectare (ha.) = 2.471 acres
1 inch = 2.54 centimeters (cm.)
1 centimeter (cm.) = 0.3937 inch
1 ton (short) = 2,000 pounds
1 metric ton (mt) = 2,204.6 pounds
1 bushel (bu.), wheat = 60 pounds
= 27.22 kilograms
1 hundredweight (cwt.), rice = 100 pounds
= 45.36 kilograms
1 pound (lb.) = 0.4536 kilograms (kg.)
1 kilogram (kg.) = 2.2046 pounds
10 bu. (wheat)/acre = 672.5 kg./ha. = 0.6725 mt/ha.
1,000 lbs. (rice)/acre = 1,120.8 kg./ha. = 1.1208 mt/ha.
1 mt (wheat)/ha. = 14.87 bu./acre
1 mt (rice)/ha. = 892.2 lbs./acre




Picture Credits


Plate Source
1. Harper's Weekly, July 30, 1887, p. 541.
2. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (Neg. Cen-31). Photographed by Underwood and
Underwood; original in Library of Congress (LOC LC USZ 62 16180).
3. Harper's Weekly, January 5, 1867, p. 8.
4. Texas A & M University, Agricultural Research and Extension Center,
Beaumont.
5. Oregon State University, Dept. of Crop Science, Corvallis.
6. B. Rodney Bertramson, Pullman, Wash.
7. Cornell University, Dept. of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Ithaca, N.Y.
8. University of California, Dept. of Agronomy and Range Science, Davis.
9. University of California, Dept. of Agronomy and Range Science, Davis.
10. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (Neg. BN46191).
11. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (Neg. BN43651).
12. Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis.













I. INTRODUCTION


The greatest service which can be rendered
any country is to add an useful plant to its
culture; especially, a bread grain ...

-Thomas Jefferson, 1821*


Semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice, along with fertilizer and irrigation,
have helped bring about a much-heralded "green revolution" in many less
developed nations. While the term "green revolution" is an unfortunate one
that leads to inflated expectations, grain production has undergone profound
changes in numerous countries.
If the semi-dwarf varieties have played a vital role in this process in de-
veloping nations, what has been their role in the United States where varietal
improvement has been carried out for over a century and where improved
cultural practices such as fertilization have long been thought to be the norm?
Surprisingly little appears to have been written about this potentially important
matter.
Possibly this is because an on-going process of varietal improvement has
brought about shorter strawed varieties that have lessened the potential impor-
tance of semi-dwarfs. It might also be suggested that food supplies are in much
shorter supply in developing nations than in the United States, where, in fact,
the problem is often one of surpluses of these two crops. To some extent both
propositions are true.
But it is also true that the United States is the world's leading generator and
user of improved agricultural technology. If semi-dwarf varieties held promise
of increasing output at reasonable cost, then it would seem that they must have
been considered and utilized. As it turns out, this is indeed the case, but the
story is not well known.
It is the purpose of this report-as suggested by the title-to examine the
development and spread of semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice in the
United States. For good reason, special attention is devoted to the international
dimensions of this process.
Given this orientation, the report is relatively broad. But the focus on plant
height means that many other important aspects of plant improvement are not
covered (general goals for rice breeding in the South, for example, are sum-
marized in Appendix B).









International and Historical Dimensions

Wheat and rice are not native to the United States. All varieties used
throughout the history of this nation have at some point in their ancestry been
imported from other countries. These foreign roots are now obscure in many
cases. In respect to these crops, as well as others, the United States is truly a
nation of "immigrants."I
Thus, any improvement in wheat or rice varieties must necessarily involve
varieties which have already been imported, new varieties from abroad, or-more
recently-induced mutations. For much of early U.S. history, the main path
lay in the import of new varieties. During the late 1800's and early 1900's,
greater attention was given to selection and crossbreeding to achieve varietal
improvement.
One of the many desired characters in varietal improvement is a stiff stem-
one which will not easily fall down or bend (lodge) before the grain is har-
vested. Lodging reduces both grain yields and quality and makes mechanized
harvesting more difficult. Lodging resistance is needed in fertile areas and is
particularly important with increased use of fertilizer. Heavy rains and wind
can intensify lodging problems.
Compared with many other nations, wheat was at first grown under rela-
tively extensive conditions in the United States. Land was plentiful and if more
grain was desired, more could be planted. With the closing of the frontier,
however, production gradually became more intensive. More emphasis was
placed on improving yields. Fertilizer was one key way to improve yields. Rice
was nearly always raised under relatively intensive conditions.
For many years, wheat and rice varietal improvement that simply empha-
sized stronger straw was sufficient to limit lodging at the levels of fertilizer
then utilized. In fact, aside from lodging, it was thought that taller plants were
more productive. But as the need for higher yields increased, and as fertilizer
became relatively less expensive and was more widely and more heavily applied,
lodging became more of a problem. Increased mechanization also reduced the
use of livestock for draft and, hence, lessened the demand for straw.
Gradually, the importance of shorter height was realized. It was possible to
select from crosses between existing varieties for this characteristic. The height
of wheat and rice plants gradually declined. But there was a concurrent need
for better methods of grass and weed control because short-strawed varieties
are poor competitors. Also, there were limits to how far this process could go
with the existing germplasm resources. One potential was to be found, as in the
past, overseas. Semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice had, in fact, long been in
commercial use in certain other nations, particularly where these crops had
been raised under relatively intensive conditions.
In 1873, Horace Capron, former U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture who
headed an agricultural advisory group to Japan, wrote that "the Japanese
farmers have brought the art of dwarfing to perfection." Capron noted that








"on the richest soils and with the heaviest yields, the wheat stalks never fall
down and lodge."2 Crossbreeding was undertaken in Japan in the 1920's and
1930's to further develop short-strawed varieties. The same was true in Italy.3
In the case of rice, increased use of commercial fertilizer (fishmeal and soy-
bean cakes) in Japan in the late 1800's led to an interest in the development of
varieties with short stems. One of the first was selected in 1877 and more
intensive improvement work was undertaken with the introduction of chemical
fertilizer in the early 1900's. Similar work was initiated by the Japanese on
Taiwan in the early 1920's.4
But aside from Japan and Italy, relatively little was done elsewhere to
develop short varieties until the mid-1950's and early 1960's. In the case of
wheat, semi-dwarf varieties were imported into the United States in 1946 and a
useful cross with a U.S. variety was obtained in the early 1950's. The first
semi-dwarf wheat variety was released in the United States in 1961. It was
shortly followed by a host of semi-dwarf varieties jointly developed by the
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and released
by the Mexican national agricultural research program (INIA). The early
Mexican semi-dwarf varieties obtained their short stature from the Japanese-
American cross developed in the early 1950's.
Semi-dwarf rice originated in Southeast Asia and was first grown in main-
land China. The first modern variety (Taichung Native 1) was developed on
Taiwan in the mid-1950's. With the establishment of the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines in 1962, development of semi-
dwarf varieties moved into high gear; the first tropical variety (IR-8) was
released in 1966 and was quickly followed by many others.
The semi-dwarf varieties developed by CIMMYT and IRRI not only had
shorter stems than traditional varieties, but they also had several other com-
plementary plant features. They were generally early maturing and had high
tillering capacity (the plants send out many shoots-which include roots, stem,
and leaves-more fully utilizing the ground area available). Other features
include larger grain number per spikelet in wheat, and improved structure of
the leaf canopy in rice.5
The CIMMYT and IRRI varieties provided the basis for the "green revolu-
tion" that began in Asia in the mid-1960's. I have calculated elsewhere that by
1976/77 roughly 135 million acres of high-yielding varieties, principally semi-
dwarfs, of wheat and rice were planted in the less developed nations-more
than one-third of their total wheat and rice area.6
Has anything of comparable magnitude occurred in the United States
following the release of the first semi-dwarf wheat cross in 1961? This report
is devoted to this question.
In order to better set the stage for the reader who is not familiar with wheat
and rice production in the United States or with semi-dwarfism in these plants,
the next two sections of the Introduction provide background information and
definitions. Those who are familiar with these matters may wish to move
directly to Chapter II.








Background Information on Production
and Varieties

There are three somewhat different types of background information which
may be useful for the general reader: the importance and nature of wheat and
rice production in the United States; the registration system for new varieties
of wheat and rice; and the definition and development of semi-dwarf varieties.
The latter section also may be of broader interest.


Wheat and Rice Production in the United States7

The importance of wheat production in the United States is well known;
the significance of rice may be less generally recognized.8 In 1977, the United
States produced 77.2 million metric tons of wheat, more than any other nation
in the world, except the Soviet Union. This output was valued at $4.7 billion,
down from the value of the 1976 and 1975 crops. Cash receipts from wheat in
1977 ranked sixth among all agricultural commodities in the United States in
1977. Similarly, in 1977, rice production totaled 4.5 million metric tons,
which put the United States in twelfth place in the world. This output was
valued at nearly $940 million, less than that of 1975 but above 1976's level.
Cash receipts from rice ranked fifteenth among all agricultural commodity
groups in 1977. Thus, wheat is easily the more important crop, but rice is of
substantial importance.
The location of production varies considerably between the two crops.
Wheat is widely spread over the continental United States and commercial
production is found in every State, except in New England. However, produc-
tion is heavily concentrated in the Great Plains States and to a lesser extent in
the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest (see figure 1). Rice production is much
more concentrated-and is almost entirely found in four South Central States
and in California (see figure 2).
A comparison of the utilization of the two crops in 1976 follows:9

Category Wheat Rice

Percent
Domestic use
Food 32.6 27.0
Seed 5.4 9.5
Feed 6.1 2.9
Subtotal 44.1 39.4
Exports 55.9 60.6
Total 100.0 100.0








Background Information on Production
and Varieties

There are three somewhat different types of background information which
may be useful for the general reader: the importance and nature of wheat and
rice production in the United States; the registration system for new varieties
of wheat and rice; and the definition and development of semi-dwarf varieties.
The latter section also may be of broader interest.


Wheat and Rice Production in the United States7

The importance of wheat production in the United States is well known;
the significance of rice may be less generally recognized.8 In 1977, the United
States produced 77.2 million metric tons of wheat, more than any other nation
in the world, except the Soviet Union. This output was valued at $4.7 billion,
down from the value of the 1976 and 1975 crops. Cash receipts from wheat in
1977 ranked sixth among all agricultural commodities in the United States in
1977. Similarly, in 1977, rice production totaled 4.5 million metric tons,
which put the United States in twelfth place in the world. This output was
valued at nearly $940 million, less than that of 1975 but above 1976's level.
Cash receipts from rice ranked fifteenth among all agricultural commodity
groups in 1977. Thus, wheat is easily the more important crop, but rice is of
substantial importance.
The location of production varies considerably between the two crops.
Wheat is widely spread over the continental United States and commercial
production is found in every State, except in New England. However, produc-
tion is heavily concentrated in the Great Plains States and to a lesser extent in
the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest (see figure 1). Rice production is much
more concentrated-and is almost entirely found in four South Central States
and in California (see figure 2).
A comparison of the utilization of the two crops in 1976 follows:9

Category Wheat Rice

Percent
Domestic use
Food 32.6 27.0
Seed 5.4 9.5
Feed 6.1 2.9
Subtotal 44.1 39.4
Exports 55.9 60.6
Total 100.0 100.0








Figure 1

Location of Harvested Wheat Area, United States, 1974
All Farms-County Unit Basis
















1 dot = 10,000 acres

Source: 1974 Census of Agriculture, Vol. IV, Part 1, April 1978, p. 148.


Clearly, export markets are very important for both crops. In fact, the United
States is usually the world's leading exporter of both crops. In 1976, Govern-
ment programs accounted for 18.7 percent of U.S. wheat exports and 23.0
percent of the rice exports.


Registration System for Varieties

Hundreds of wheat varieties and about two dozen rice varieties are grown in
the United States, with more being introduced every year. How can one keep
up with the current and new varieties? And how can one identify semi-dwarf
varieties? These are important questions and probably help explain why little
has been written about semi-dwarfs in the United States.
Varieties in common use are reported in different ways for wheat and rice.
Since 1919, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the States have conducted
a wheat varietal survey every 5 years. The last published report is for 1974;10
the 1979 survey is now being summarized. A few States also conduct annual
varietal surveys on their own. Rice varieties are reported yearly by the Rice
Millers' Association (Arlington, Va.); both acreage and production by variety
are included.11








Figure 2

Location of Harvested Rice Area, United States, 1974
Farms With Sales of $2,500 and Over-
County Unit Basis
















1 dot = 2,000 acres

Source: 1974 Census of Agriculture, Vol. IV, Part 1, April 1978, p. 155.



Nearly all varieties of wheat and rice introduced, selected, or developed in
the United States are made a part of the World Collection, maintained by the
Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Science and Education Administration,
USDA, Beltsville, Md. Foreign introductions are given a plant introduction
number (the actual numbers are preceded by P.I.) All others are given a cereal
investigation number (preceded by C.I.). These numbers are often used in
identifying varieties. The Germplasm Resources Laboratory maintains an
information card and a small stock of seed of each accession in the collection.
This process has been going on for decades and is remarkably complete.
Concise and authoritative background information on new wheat and rice
varieties (as well as other crops) is published as "Registration of Crop Cultivars"
in Crop Science, issued every other month by the Crop Science Society of
America. Crop Science has been issued since 1960 (before that some registra-
tions were carried in the Agronomy Journal). The only problems are an inev-
itable delay in registering new varieties and a lack of complete coverage due to
the voluntary nature of the process. Varieties developed by private firms are
less likely to be entered for publication than those developed at public institu-
tions.







Information on most of the new varieties developed by private firms, how-
ever, is now on file with the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA at Belts-
ville. As a result of the Plant Variety Protection Act, enacted December 24,
1970, breeders may in effect patent their new varieties.12 As with patents,
a detailed application must be filed. This is then examined and if the variety
is found to be new and novel, a Certificate of Protection is issued. Once the
certificate is issued, the application is open to public inspection in the Plant
Variety Protection Office at the National Agricultural Library in Beltsville.
An Official Journal of the Plant Variety Protection Office is published every 3
months, listing the applications and certificates issued.


Defining and Developing Semi-Dwarfs

Semi-dwarfism is at once both easy and difficult to define. At one level, it
is simply a plant which has a distinctly shorter stalk than traditional varieties.
This shortness is brought about by a specific gene or set of genes (generally two
or possibly three genes in wheat; usually one gene in rice) that can be identi-
fied in genetic tests. In the case of wheat, semi-dwarfs are insensitive to the
growth hormone gibberellin. Visually, however, it is sometimes difficult to
draw the line between short-strawed varieties (without dwarfing genes) and
semi-dwarf varieties (with dwarfing genes). The semi-dwarf gene-or genes-
generally used is recessive in nature and the resulting plants can show a grada-
tion in height. Thus, in some instances, certain short-strawed varieties can be
shorter than some semi-dwarf varieties.13
Moreover, each variety varies in height from location to location and from
year to year. For example, from 1973 to 1976 in five locations in the United
States, Blueboy wheat (one of the first semi-dwarfs) averaged 9 percent shorter
than Atlas (normal height), but the range was from 19 percent shorter to 16
percent taller.14 Height fluctuations in rice may be considerably less, due in
large part to more uniform growing conditions, but still may differ appreciably
according to nitrogen fertilization levels and timing. Obviously, these variations
lead to difficulties in drawing the line between short stature and semi-dwarf
varieties. The problems will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapters III and
IV.
All widely used semi-dwarf varieties developed in the United States, or else-
where in the world, are the result of crossbreeding. This process is commonly
known as hybridization. The first generation product of this cross (F1) is a
hybrid. The subsequent generations (F2, etc.) are not generally known as
hybrids. All semi-dwarf varieties in commercial use in the United States are
selections from subsequent generations. Thus, although the result of hybridiza-
tion, the present semi-dwarf varieties themselves are not considered true
hybrids. Development of true hybrids (F1) for commercial use is a complex
process which has been undergoing research development for a number of
years. It is discussed more fully in Chapter V.







Varietal Classes, Production, and Use


Wheat and rice varieties in the United States are often discussed in terms of
their market characteristics. Some of these terms will be used in the following
chapters. The systems are quite different in the case of wheat and rice.


Wheat

Wheat may be viewed in terms of botanical species or commercial charac-
teristics. The former can be treated quite briefly; the latter requires more
extended discussion. Market classes are then related to areas of production
and types of use.

BOTANICAL SPECIES. There are three species of Triticum wheat grown
in the United States: (1) Common, Triticum aestivum; (2) Club, Triticum com-
pactum; and (3) Durum, Triticum durum. Most wheat in the United States is
of the Common type. In 1974, the planted area was divided as follows among
the three species (in percent): Common 93.0, Durum 5.6, and Club 1.4.15

COMMERCIAL CHARACTERISTICS.16 Commercial characteristics relate
to hardness or softness of the grain, whether the crop is winter or spring in
growth character, and the color of the grain.
Hardness and softness are of significance both in terms of production and
marketing. Hard wheats, which include Durum, are generally grown in dryland
areas with relatively low rainfall; wheat is usually grown every other year with
a year of fallow in between. Soft wheats, which include Club, are raised in
areas of relatively abundant rainfall, and they are usually grown in rotation
with other crops. Hard wheats, other than Durum, are used primarily for
making bread; Durum wheats are used for macaroni, spaghetti, and noodles.
Soft wheats are used for making cookies, crackers, pastries, cake mixes, and
other similar items. Over the 3-year period from 1976 to 1978, hard wheats,
including Durum, accounted for an average of 72.7 percent of the total produc-
tion (of which 5.9 percent was Durum), while soft wheat accounted for 27.3
percent.
Wheat may be of winter or spring growth habit. Winter wheat is planted in
the fall and harvested in the spring or early summer; spring wheat is planted
in the spring and harvested in late summer or early fall.17 Winter crops are
generally preferred by farmers because of higher yields. Spring wheats, because
they mature later in the season, are more susceptible to hot weather, drought,
rusts, and other hazards. They are usually planted only where severe winter
weather is apt to kill off part or all of the fall seeding, or in regions with
cooler summers where spring wheat can outperform winter varieties. In the







Varietal Classes, Production, and Use


Wheat and rice varieties in the United States are often discussed in terms of
their market characteristics. Some of these terms will be used in the following
chapters. The systems are quite different in the case of wheat and rice.


Wheat

Wheat may be viewed in terms of botanical species or commercial charac-
teristics. The former can be treated quite briefly; the latter requires more
extended discussion. Market classes are then related to areas of production
and types of use.

BOTANICAL SPECIES. There are three species of Triticum wheat grown
in the United States: (1) Common, Triticum aestivum; (2) Club, Triticum com-
pactum; and (3) Durum, Triticum durum. Most wheat in the United States is
of the Common type. In 1974, the planted area was divided as follows among
the three species (in percent): Common 93.0, Durum 5.6, and Club 1.4.15

COMMERCIAL CHARACTERISTICS.16 Commercial characteristics relate
to hardness or softness of the grain, whether the crop is winter or spring in
growth character, and the color of the grain.
Hardness and softness are of significance both in terms of production and
marketing. Hard wheats, which include Durum, are generally grown in dryland
areas with relatively low rainfall; wheat is usually grown every other year with
a year of fallow in between. Soft wheats, which include Club, are raised in
areas of relatively abundant rainfall, and they are usually grown in rotation
with other crops. Hard wheats, other than Durum, are used primarily for
making bread; Durum wheats are used for macaroni, spaghetti, and noodles.
Soft wheats are used for making cookies, crackers, pastries, cake mixes, and
other similar items. Over the 3-year period from 1976 to 1978, hard wheats,
including Durum, accounted for an average of 72.7 percent of the total produc-
tion (of which 5.9 percent was Durum), while soft wheat accounted for 27.3
percent.
Wheat may be of winter or spring growth habit. Winter wheat is planted in
the fall and harvested in the spring or early summer; spring wheat is planted
in the spring and harvested in late summer or early fall.17 Winter crops are
generally preferred by farmers because of higher yields. Spring wheats, because
they mature later in the season, are more susceptible to hot weather, drought,
rusts, and other hazards. They are usually planted only where severe winter
weather is apt to kill off part or all of the fall seeding, or in regions with
cooler summers where spring wheat can outperform winter varieties. In the







Varietal Classes, Production, and Use


Wheat and rice varieties in the United States are often discussed in terms of
their market characteristics. Some of these terms will be used in the following
chapters. The systems are quite different in the case of wheat and rice.


Wheat

Wheat may be viewed in terms of botanical species or commercial charac-
teristics. The former can be treated quite briefly; the latter requires more
extended discussion. Market classes are then related to areas of production
and types of use.

BOTANICAL SPECIES. There are three species of Triticum wheat grown
in the United States: (1) Common, Triticum aestivum; (2) Club, Triticum com-
pactum; and (3) Durum, Triticum durum. Most wheat in the United States is
of the Common type. In 1974, the planted area was divided as follows among
the three species (in percent): Common 93.0, Durum 5.6, and Club 1.4.15

COMMERCIAL CHARACTERISTICS.16 Commercial characteristics relate
to hardness or softness of the grain, whether the crop is winter or spring in
growth character, and the color of the grain.
Hardness and softness are of significance both in terms of production and
marketing. Hard wheats, which include Durum, are generally grown in dryland
areas with relatively low rainfall; wheat is usually grown every other year with
a year of fallow in between. Soft wheats, which include Club, are raised in
areas of relatively abundant rainfall, and they are usually grown in rotation
with other crops. Hard wheats, other than Durum, are used primarily for
making bread; Durum wheats are used for macaroni, spaghetti, and noodles.
Soft wheats are used for making cookies, crackers, pastries, cake mixes, and
other similar items. Over the 3-year period from 1976 to 1978, hard wheats,
including Durum, accounted for an average of 72.7 percent of the total produc-
tion (of which 5.9 percent was Durum), while soft wheat accounted for 27.3
percent.
Wheat may be of winter or spring growth habit. Winter wheat is planted in
the fall and harvested in the spring or early summer; spring wheat is planted
in the spring and harvested in late summer or early fall.17 Winter crops are
generally preferred by farmers because of higher yields. Spring wheats, because
they mature later in the season, are more susceptible to hot weather, drought,
rusts, and other hazards. They are usually planted only where severe winter
weather is apt to kill off part or all of the fall seeding, or in regions with
cooler summers where spring wheat can outperform winter varieties. In the







Varietal Classes, Production, and Use


Wheat and rice varieties in the United States are often discussed in terms of
their market characteristics. Some of these terms will be used in the following
chapters. The systems are quite different in the case of wheat and rice.


Wheat

Wheat may be viewed in terms of botanical species or commercial charac-
teristics. The former can be treated quite briefly; the latter requires more
extended discussion. Market classes are then related to areas of production
and types of use.

BOTANICAL SPECIES. There are three species of Triticum wheat grown
in the United States: (1) Common, Triticum aestivum; (2) Club, Triticum com-
pactum; and (3) Durum, Triticum durum. Most wheat in the United States is
of the Common type. In 1974, the planted area was divided as follows among
the three species (in percent): Common 93.0, Durum 5.6, and Club 1.4.15

COMMERCIAL CHARACTERISTICS.16 Commercial characteristics relate
to hardness or softness of the grain, whether the crop is winter or spring in
growth character, and the color of the grain.
Hardness and softness are of significance both in terms of production and
marketing. Hard wheats, which include Durum, are generally grown in dryland
areas with relatively low rainfall; wheat is usually grown every other year with
a year of fallow in between. Soft wheats, which include Club, are raised in
areas of relatively abundant rainfall, and they are usually grown in rotation
with other crops. Hard wheats, other than Durum, are used primarily for
making bread; Durum wheats are used for macaroni, spaghetti, and noodles.
Soft wheats are used for making cookies, crackers, pastries, cake mixes, and
other similar items. Over the 3-year period from 1976 to 1978, hard wheats,
including Durum, accounted for an average of 72.7 percent of the total produc-
tion (of which 5.9 percent was Durum), while soft wheat accounted for 27.3
percent.
Wheat may be of winter or spring growth habit. Winter wheat is planted in
the fall and harvested in the spring or early summer; spring wheat is planted
in the spring and harvested in late summer or early fall.17 Winter crops are
generally preferred by farmers because of higher yields. Spring wheats, because
they mature later in the season, are more susceptible to hot weather, drought,
rusts, and other hazards. They are usually planted only where severe winter
weather is apt to kill off part or all of the fall seeding, or in regions with
cooler summers where spring wheat can outperform winter varieties. In the







3 years from 1976 to 1978, the winter crop accounted for 70.5 percent of the
harvested area and the spring crop (including Durum) represented 29.5 percent.
In terms of production in the same period, winter wheat accounted for 72.6
percent and spring wheat for 27.4 percent. Yields for the winter crop averaged
31.7 bushels per acre, while those for the spring crop were: Durum, 29.6; and
other spring, 28.4.
The color of wheat grain is often used in classification. Over the same 3-year
period, 81.6 percent of U.S. production was red and 18.4 percent was white.
Club wheats are white while Durum is amber.
In general use, the above characteristics are combined into six market
classes. These classes, and their relative proportion of production from 1976 to
1978, are:

Class Percent

Hard Red Winter 46.9
Soft Red Winter 14.9
White Winter 10.9
Hard Red Spring 19.9
Durum (Spring) 5.8
White Spring 1.6
Total 100.0

In the varietal surveys, White Winter and White Spring are combined and
reported simply as white.

MARKET CLASSES AND LOCATION OF PRODUCTION.18 As noted in
the previous section, some market characteristics are related to rainfall and
temperature. Thus, in geographic terms, the "east" (east of the Great Plains)
produces soft wheat, the Plains States produce hard wheats, and the Western
States produce both. Winter wheat production predominates in the "eastern"
States and in the central and southern plains, while spring wheat production is
found in the northern plains; the Western States produce both spring and
winter wheat.
This distribution may be pictured more precisely by consulting figure 3. The
"eastern" States refer to regions IA, IB, and II; Plains States to regions III and
IV; and the Western States to regions V and VI. On this basis, some States
(Minnesota, Montana, and Texas) represent as many as three regions.
In terms of the individual regions, the dominant (but not exclusive) market
types are:
IA, Northeast. White Winter.
IB, Ohio Valley (extended). Soft Red Winter.
II, Southeast. Soft Red Winter.
III, Northern Plains. Hard Red Spring, Durum.
IV, Central Plains. Hard Red Winter (some Hard Red Spring).







Figure 3

Adaptation Regions for Wheat, United States


IA. Northeast V /A
IB. Ohio Valley (extended) (VII)
II. Southeast
III. Northern Plains
IV. Central Plains VI. California-Arizona
V. Pacific Northwest VII. Wheat seldom grown
Source: Adapted from L. P. Reitz, Wheat in the United States, USDA, Agricultural
Research Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 386, February
1976, p. 3.



V, Pacific Northwest. Soft White (including Club); Hard Red Winter, Hard
Red Spring.
VI, California-Arizona. Hard Red Spring,a White (including Club), Durum.

planted in the fall and grown like winter wheat; sometimes classified as Hard Red
Winter (as in table 13, p. 122).

MARKET CLASSES, PROTEIN LEVELS, AND USE.19 The use of wheat
varieties is largely dictated by their protein level. For the production of yeast-
leavened bread and rolls, flour with a protein content of at least 11 percent is
usually preferred. To produce such flour, the wheat must have a protein level
of at least 12 percent. The hard U.S. wheats usually meet such levels and are
used for this purpose (one exception is Durum wheat, which is used for maca-
roni and similar products).
Flours for purposes other than yeast-leavened bread are generally made
from wheats of lower protein content-in the 8 to 11 percent range. In some
cases, the optimum protein content range is quite narrow. Approximate levels
for some products are (in percent): cookies 8-9, pie crust 8-10, cake 9-9.5,
biscuits 8.5-10.5, and crackers 10-11. The soft wheats-Soft Red Winter and
White-have protein levels in this range.







In the case of hard winter wheats, there is concern that protein levels have
been declining for some time and that this now may be a limiting factor in
meeting domestic and export requirements.20 The hard winter varieties have
been bred for increased yields but often do not receive adequate nitrogen
fertilization to keep protein levels up (this point will be discussed in Chapter
V).


Rice

As in the case of wheat, rice may be considered in terms of botanical species
and market characteristics.

BOTANICAL SPECIES. Asian or common rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the only
species of cultivated rice in the United States.21 The two major eco-geographic
races within this species found in the United States are indica and japonica.
The tropical varieties largely belong to the indica race and most of the temper-
ate varieties to the japonica race. Both races, however, have been extensively
crossed in the South Central United States and the distinction is relatively
minor there.22 Japonica varieties have predominated in California, but crosses
with indica varieties are coming into use. Virtually all of the work of IRRI has
centered on semi-dwarf indica varieties, while the japonica varieties have been
emphasized in Japan. There can be difficulties in transferring the dwarfing gene
from indica to japonica varieties in the United States because of sterility in
early generations and the possible transfer of unacceptable grain quality and
cold susceptibility.23

MARKET CHARACTERISTICS. Rice in the United States is classified and
marketed under three market categories: short-grain, medium-grain, and long-
grain. In 1978, 8.9 percent of U.S. production was short-grain, 27.2 percent
medium-grain, and 63.9 percent long-grain. Traditional indica rice tends to be
long-grain, and japonica short- to medium-grain. Most of the short-grain rice
was produced in California, and essentially all of the long-grain rice in the
Southern States; medium-grain rice was produced in all the main rice States.24
Short- and medium-grain rice varieties are quite distinct from long-grain
rice in cooking and processing characteristics.25

Short- and medium-grain types are sometimes referred to as soft rice.
When cooked, they are more moist than the long-grain varieties and the
grains tend to stick together. They are preferred for manufacture into
such products as dry breakfast cereals or baby foods, and for brewing
uses.
Long-grain rice is frequently called hard rice. It usually cooks dry and
flaky with a minimum of splitting, and the cooked grains tend to remain
separate. It is generally preferred for use in prepared products, such as







In the case of hard winter wheats, there is concern that protein levels have
been declining for some time and that this now may be a limiting factor in
meeting domestic and export requirements.20 The hard winter varieties have
been bred for increased yields but often do not receive adequate nitrogen
fertilization to keep protein levels up (this point will be discussed in Chapter
V).


Rice

As in the case of wheat, rice may be considered in terms of botanical species
and market characteristics.

BOTANICAL SPECIES. Asian or common rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the only
species of cultivated rice in the United States.21 The two major eco-geographic
races within this species found in the United States are indica and japonica.
The tropical varieties largely belong to the indica race and most of the temper-
ate varieties to the japonica race. Both races, however, have been extensively
crossed in the South Central United States and the distinction is relatively
minor there.22 Japonica varieties have predominated in California, but crosses
with indica varieties are coming into use. Virtually all of the work of IRRI has
centered on semi-dwarf indica varieties, while the japonica varieties have been
emphasized in Japan. There can be difficulties in transferring the dwarfing gene
from indica to japonica varieties in the United States because of sterility in
early generations and the possible transfer of unacceptable grain quality and
cold susceptibility.23

MARKET CHARACTERISTICS. Rice in the United States is classified and
marketed under three market categories: short-grain, medium-grain, and long-
grain. In 1978, 8.9 percent of U.S. production was short-grain, 27.2 percent
medium-grain, and 63.9 percent long-grain. Traditional indica rice tends to be
long-grain, and japonica short- to medium-grain. Most of the short-grain rice
was produced in California, and essentially all of the long-grain rice in the
Southern States; medium-grain rice was produced in all the main rice States.24
Short- and medium-grain rice varieties are quite distinct from long-grain
rice in cooking and processing characteristics.25

Short- and medium-grain types are sometimes referred to as soft rice.
When cooked, they are more moist than the long-grain varieties and the
grains tend to stick together. They are preferred for manufacture into
such products as dry breakfast cereals or baby foods, and for brewing
uses.
Long-grain rice is frequently called hard rice. It usually cooks dry and
flaky with a minimum of splitting, and the cooked grains tend to remain
separate. It is generally preferred for use in prepared products, such as







In the case of hard winter wheats, there is concern that protein levels have
been declining for some time and that this now may be a limiting factor in
meeting domestic and export requirements.20 The hard winter varieties have
been bred for increased yields but often do not receive adequate nitrogen
fertilization to keep protein levels up (this point will be discussed in Chapter
V).


Rice

As in the case of wheat, rice may be considered in terms of botanical species
and market characteristics.

BOTANICAL SPECIES. Asian or common rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the only
species of cultivated rice in the United States.21 The two major eco-geographic
races within this species found in the United States are indica and japonica.
The tropical varieties largely belong to the indica race and most of the temper-
ate varieties to the japonica race. Both races, however, have been extensively
crossed in the South Central United States and the distinction is relatively
minor there.22 Japonica varieties have predominated in California, but crosses
with indica varieties are coming into use. Virtually all of the work of IRRI has
centered on semi-dwarf indica varieties, while the japonica varieties have been
emphasized in Japan. There can be difficulties in transferring the dwarfing gene
from indica to japonica varieties in the United States because of sterility in
early generations and the possible transfer of unacceptable grain quality and
cold susceptibility.23

MARKET CHARACTERISTICS. Rice in the United States is classified and
marketed under three market categories: short-grain, medium-grain, and long-
grain. In 1978, 8.9 percent of U.S. production was short-grain, 27.2 percent
medium-grain, and 63.9 percent long-grain. Traditional indica rice tends to be
long-grain, and japonica short- to medium-grain. Most of the short-grain rice
was produced in California, and essentially all of the long-grain rice in the
Southern States; medium-grain rice was produced in all the main rice States.24
Short- and medium-grain rice varieties are quite distinct from long-grain
rice in cooking and processing characteristics.25

Short- and medium-grain types are sometimes referred to as soft rice.
When cooked, they are more moist than the long-grain varieties and the
grains tend to stick together. They are preferred for manufacture into
such products as dry breakfast cereals or baby foods, and for brewing
uses.
Long-grain rice is frequently called hard rice. It usually cooks dry and
flaky with a minimum of splitting, and the cooked grains tend to remain
separate. It is generally preferred for use in prepared products, such as







parboiled rice, quick-cooking rice, canned rice, canned soups, dry soup
mixes, frozen dishes, and other convenience-type foods.

The physical difference between short- and medium-grain rice is largely one
of length and length/width ratio; in the case of brown rice the kernel length
of short-grain rice is up to 5.5 millimeters, while medium-grain rice is 5.51
to 6.6 millimeters. (Long-grain rice is 6.61 to 7.5 millimeters.) Short- and
medium-grain rice differ considerably from long-grain rice in amysose content
which primarily determines dryness of cooked rice.




With these terms and definitions in mind, we now turn to a brief historical
review of wheat and rice production and varietal improvement in the United
States.




References and Notes

*The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, ed. by John P. Foley, Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1900,
p. 697, item 6677.
'The extent of U.S. dependence on plants introduced from other nations is reviewed
in popular terms by Claire Shaver Haughton in Green Immigrants: The Plants that Trans-
formed America, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, 1978, 450 pp.
2 Horace Capron, "Agriculture in Japan," Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture
for the Year 1873, Washington, 1874, p. 369.
3These developments are described in Dana G. Dalrymple, Development and Spread of
High-Yielding Varieties of Wheat and Rice in the Less Developed Nations, USDA (in coop-
eration with AID), Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD), Foreign
Agricultural Economic Report (FAER) No. 95, September 1978 (6th edition), pp. 10-14.
4Ibid., pp. 1, 24, 25.
s D. S. Athwal, "Semidwarf Rice and Wheat in Global Food Needs," The Quarterly
Review of Biology, March 1971 (Vol. 46, No. 1), pp. 24-26. Dr. T. T. Chang of IRRI
adds that in the case of rice:
Shortening the culms has generally led to more erect and shorter leaves, more uniform
distribution and increased light penetration of the canopy, and a greater photosyne-
thetic capacity with heavy nitrogen application. Semi-dwarfism in rice is also associated
with vigorous tillering, faster leaf development, and adaptability to spacing and plant-
ing methods, with consistently higher grain-to-straw ratio.
(Memo from Dr. Chang, May 7, 1979; also summarized by Chang, et al., "Crop Adapta-
tion," in Plant Breeding Perspectives (ed. by J. Sneep and A. J. T. Hendriksen), PUDOC,
Wageningen, 1979, p. 248.)
SDalrymple, op. cit., pp. x, xi, 113-126.
SMuch further background information is provided in two recent Agricultural Economic
Reports (AER's) issued by the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service of USDA:
Walter G. Heid, Jr., The U.S. Wheat Industry, AER No. 432, August 1979, 117 pp.; and
S. H. Holder, Jr., and W. R. Grant, The U.S. Rice Industry, AER N 433, August 1979,
141 pp.








SData reported in this paragraph were obtained from: Agricultural Statistics, 1978,
USDA, pp. 1, 4, 9, 10, 19, 20, 25; Fact Book of U.S. Agriculture, USDA, Miscellaneous
Publication No. 1063, November 1978, pp. 83, 84.
SCalculated from data reported in Agricultural Statistics, 1978, USDA, pp. 4, 11, 20,
23.
0 L. P. Reitz and W. G. Hamlin, Distribution of the Varieties and Classes of Wheat in
the United States in 1974, USDA, Science and Education Administration, Statistical
Bulletin No. 604, June 1978, 98 pp.
'' See, for example, "Rice Acreage in the United States, 1978," 6 pp. and "Rice Pro-
duction in the United States, 1978," 6 pp. One limitation of the rice data is that the
statistics for California do not provide a detailed breakdown by variety. Prior to 1979 the
data were grouped under what amounted to three generic classes; the 1979 data provide a
breakdown only by length of grain.
'1 Details may be obtained from the following publications issued by the Agricultural
Marketing Service of USDA: "Plant Variety Protection; How It Works for You," PA-1191
June 1977, 8 pp. (leaflet); United States Plant Variety Protection Act... Regulations and
Rules of Practice, 1973, 44 pp.
"Several other characteristics might also be noted. Although dwarf varieties usually
exhibit stunting of height or deformation of grains, this is not the case with semi-dwarfs.
Also, the semi-dwarf genes have high heritability in that once the recessive state is attained,
the short stature becomes stabilized in the subsequent generations. (Comments attached
to letter from T. T. Chang, IRRI, Dec. 14, 1979. Also see T. T. Chang and B. S. Vergara,
"Ecological and Genetic Information on Adaptability and Yielding Ability in Tropical
Rice Varieties," in Rice Breeding, IRRI, 1972, pp. 431-452.)
"Derived from reports of the 5th to 8th International Winter Wheat Performance
Nursery, Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station (in cooperation with USDA and AID),
Research Bulletins 276 (April, 1976), 279 (December 1976), 281 (October 1977), and
285 (July 1978).
15 Reitz and Hamlin, op. cit., p. 8.
"The statistics reported in this section were calculated from Crop Production, 1978
Annual Summary, Acreage, Yield, Production, USDA, Economics, Statistics and Coop-
eratives Service, Crop Reporting Board, Jan. 16, 1979, pp. B-22 to B-24.
In California, Arizona, and South Texas, "spring" wheat is planted in the fall and
in that sense could be considered "winter" wheat.
Based on L. P. Reitz, Wheat in the United States, USDA, Agricultural Research
Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 386, February 1976, pp. 6-14.
Based on: L. P. Reitz, "World Distribution and Importance of Wheat," in Wheat
and Wheat Improvement (ed. by K. S. Quisenberry and L. P. Reitz), American Society
of Agronomy, Madison, 1967, pp. 1, 3; and Lawrence Zeleny, "Criteria of Wheat Quality"
in Wheat Chemistry and Technology (ed. by Y. Pomeranz), American Association of
Cereal Chemists, Inc., St. Paul, 1971, p. 30.
2"Summary Progress Report-1978, U.S. Grain MarketingResearch Laboratory, USDA,
Science and Education Administration, ARM-NC-1, February 1979, p. 7.
2 American wild rice belongs to Zizania aquatica.
22Telephone conversation with Dr. T. H. Johnston, AR/SEA, USDA, Stuttgart,
Arkansas, May 3, 1979.
"J. N. Rutger and M. L. Peterson, "Improved Short Stature Rice," California Agri-
culture, June 1976 (Vol. 30, No. 6), p. 6.
24Calculated from Crop Production, op. cit., p. B-25. The Rice Millers' Association
reported a small area (1,657 acres) of long-grain rice in California in 1978. A detailed
breakdown is reported in table 8 on p. 78.
25Information taken from D. F. Houston (ed.), Rice Chemistry and Technology,
American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, 1972, pp. 5-6 and 104-106.












II. BRIEF HISTORY OF
PRODUCTION AND VARIETAL
IMPROVEMENT

...I feel that there is a latent feeling
among nearly all farmers-sophisticated or
traditional-that the seed (variety) is the
elixir upon which his crop production is based.

-Norman E. Borlaug, 1969*

Semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice are, despite a fairly extended history
in Asia, relatively new to U.S. agriculture. Their reception and adoption have
been conditioned by long-evolving patterns of production and varietal improve-
ment. The patterns will be briefly outlined in this chapter. Wheat and rice have
followed quite different paths, especially in terms of production, and will be
treated separately.


Wheati

Wheat is one of the traditional crops of U.S. agriculture. Yet certain histori-
cal aspects of its production and improvement-particularly the use of foreign
varieties-may not be well recognized.


Production2

Wheat production in the United States began along the Atlantic Coast early
in the 1600's and moved westward with the settlement of the country. It was
reportedly grown in the Jamestown Colony as early as 1611 and at Plymouth,
Mass., soon after 1621. The first great westward shift in wheat production took
place during the period from 1783 to 1840 with the settlement of western New
York, the eastern Lake Region, and the Ohio Valley. As of 1839, about 60 per-
cent of the nation's wheat was produced (in decreasing order of importance) in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia. Wheat growing began around
1838 in the Willamette Valley of western Oregon.
Changes taking place from 1840 to 1920 may be summarized as follows:
1840's. Start of production in Utah and New Mexico.
1850's. Second great shift in production: Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
14












II. BRIEF HISTORY OF
PRODUCTION AND VARIETAL
IMPROVEMENT

...I feel that there is a latent feeling
among nearly all farmers-sophisticated or
traditional-that the seed (variety) is the
elixir upon which his crop production is based.

-Norman E. Borlaug, 1969*

Semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice are, despite a fairly extended history
in Asia, relatively new to U.S. agriculture. Their reception and adoption have
been conditioned by long-evolving patterns of production and varietal improve-
ment. The patterns will be briefly outlined in this chapter. Wheat and rice have
followed quite different paths, especially in terms of production, and will be
treated separately.


Wheati

Wheat is one of the traditional crops of U.S. agriculture. Yet certain histori-
cal aspects of its production and improvement-particularly the use of foreign
varieties-may not be well recognized.


Production2

Wheat production in the United States began along the Atlantic Coast early
in the 1600's and moved westward with the settlement of the country. It was
reportedly grown in the Jamestown Colony as early as 1611 and at Plymouth,
Mass., soon after 1621. The first great westward shift in wheat production took
place during the period from 1783 to 1840 with the settlement of western New
York, the eastern Lake Region, and the Ohio Valley. As of 1839, about 60 per-
cent of the nation's wheat was produced (in decreasing order of importance) in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia. Wheat growing began around
1838 in the Willamette Valley of western Oregon.
Changes taking place from 1840 to 1920 may be summarized as follows:
1840's. Start of production in Utah and New Mexico.
1850's. Second great shift in production: Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
14












II. BRIEF HISTORY OF
PRODUCTION AND VARIETAL
IMPROVEMENT

...I feel that there is a latent feeling
among nearly all farmers-sophisticated or
traditional-that the seed (variety) is the
elixir upon which his crop production is based.

-Norman E. Borlaug, 1969*

Semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice are, despite a fairly extended history
in Asia, relatively new to U.S. agriculture. Their reception and adoption have
been conditioned by long-evolving patterns of production and varietal improve-
ment. The patterns will be briefly outlined in this chapter. Wheat and rice have
followed quite different paths, especially in terms of production, and will be
treated separately.


Wheati

Wheat is one of the traditional crops of U.S. agriculture. Yet certain histori-
cal aspects of its production and improvement-particularly the use of foreign
varieties-may not be well recognized.


Production2

Wheat production in the United States began along the Atlantic Coast early
in the 1600's and moved westward with the settlement of the country. It was
reportedly grown in the Jamestown Colony as early as 1611 and at Plymouth,
Mass., soon after 1621. The first great westward shift in wheat production took
place during the period from 1783 to 1840 with the settlement of western New
York, the eastern Lake Region, and the Ohio Valley. As of 1839, about 60 per-
cent of the nation's wheat was produced (in decreasing order of importance) in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia. Wheat growing began around
1838 in the Willamette Valley of western Oregon.
Changes taking place from 1840 to 1920 may be summarized as follows:
1840's. Start of production in Utah and New Mexico.
1850's. Second great shift in production: Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
14








become the leading wheat producers. Texas, Arizona, California, and Idaho
begin wheat production.
1860's. Initiation of production in Colorado, Montana, and eastern
Washington drylandd).
1870's. Wheat Belt moves westward across the prairies with substantial
production in the Red River Valley, Kansas, and Nebraska. Dryland production
in West Coast States increases greatly. Overall area and production nearly
double.
1880's. Sharp increases in area in the northern Great Plains, central
Kansas, and the West Coast States.
1890's. Production intensifies in Red River Valley, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, and eastern Washington, but starts to decline in California. Con-
centration and intense specialization is evident.
1900's. Wheat belt shifts farther west on Great Plains. Large increase in
Montana, Idaho, and eastern Oregon and Washington. After 1900, much of the
expansion was on to drier and more hazardous areas.
1910-20. Due to stimulus of World War I, sharp increase in area and
production; both set new records in 1915. Area increases sharply again in
1919.
1920-40. Both area harvested and production drops to a low point in the
Depression drought year of 1934.
Many factors influenced the changes that took place in the century between
1840 and 1940, and in the decades since.3 Mechanization, weather, and
changes in transportation and demography are certainly to be included among
them. In the remainder of this section, however, we will focus on only one-
changes and improvements in varieties.





















Plate 1. "Wheat harvesting in Dakota as depicted in Harper's Weekly, 1887.








Varietal Improvement


Varietal improvement in wheat has typically followed three stages: intro-
duction, selection, and hybridization. These steps involve:
Introduction of varieties from foreign countries;
Isolation of selections from (a) mixtures and natural hybrids in fields,
and (b) pure line or single-line varieties; and
Hybridization, the selection from progeny of artificial crosses.
A fourth stage, irradiation breeding, also has been utilized recently.
Several improved wheat varieties developed in the United States form part
of the ancestry of three Asian varieties, which in turn provided the dwarfing
characteristic now used in nearly all American varieties.

INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. The period of wheat improvement until the
late 1800's, or possibly even 1900, might be regarded as the pre-research
period. Varietal improvement was largely a matter of trial and error. The U.S.
Government helped import new varieties, but otherwise improvement was
largely in private hands. The development of State agricultural experiment
stations was spurred by the passage of the Hatch Act in 1877, but the stations
needed more time to get organized and to get work underway. Wheat research
was begun or at least first reported in some of the States as follows: Kansas,
1874; Nebraska, 1890; Colorado, 1893; Texas, 1894. Wheat research done by
USDA from 1895 to 1897 was summarized in 1900.4
A cooperative Federal-State wheat investigations program was developed
in the late 1920's and grew to include three regional programs: Hard Spring
wheat, 1928; Hard Red Winter wheat, 1930; and White wheat, 1930.

VARIETAL INTRODUCTION. All wheat varieties grown in the United
States have been derived from imported varieties.
In the earliest days, settlers had relatively little choice: they had only the
seeds they happened to bring with them from a foreign nation. These seeds
were often not well-suited to local conditions. Thus, during the 1600's, corn-
a native crop grown by the Indians-usually fared better.
One exception in terms of adaptability was the introduction of Spanish
wheats into Texas as early as 15825 and into California in 1770. These seeds
were brought by Columbus to the West Indies, from whence they were taken
to Mexico. By the time they reached California, they had gone through a selec-
tion process that sorted out the most adaptable. Sonora was one such variety.
With the passage of time and greater shipments of seeds from other coun-
tries, it was inevitable that better adapted varieties were identified. Many of
these varieties have long since passed out of cultivation, but several were grown
for 100 years or more. Most of these early varieties appear to have been soft
winter wheats; white grains were preferred to red because the latter discolored
the flour.








Varietal Improvement


Varietal improvement in wheat has typically followed three stages: intro-
duction, selection, and hybridization. These steps involve:
Introduction of varieties from foreign countries;
Isolation of selections from (a) mixtures and natural hybrids in fields,
and (b) pure line or single-line varieties; and
Hybridization, the selection from progeny of artificial crosses.
A fourth stage, irradiation breeding, also has been utilized recently.
Several improved wheat varieties developed in the United States form part
of the ancestry of three Asian varieties, which in turn provided the dwarfing
characteristic now used in nearly all American varieties.

INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. The period of wheat improvement until the
late 1800's, or possibly even 1900, might be regarded as the pre-research
period. Varietal improvement was largely a matter of trial and error. The U.S.
Government helped import new varieties, but otherwise improvement was
largely in private hands. The development of State agricultural experiment
stations was spurred by the passage of the Hatch Act in 1877, but the stations
needed more time to get organized and to get work underway. Wheat research
was begun or at least first reported in some of the States as follows: Kansas,
1874; Nebraska, 1890; Colorado, 1893; Texas, 1894. Wheat research done by
USDA from 1895 to 1897 was summarized in 1900.4
A cooperative Federal-State wheat investigations program was developed
in the late 1920's and grew to include three regional programs: Hard Spring
wheat, 1928; Hard Red Winter wheat, 1930; and White wheat, 1930.

VARIETAL INTRODUCTION. All wheat varieties grown in the United
States have been derived from imported varieties.
In the earliest days, settlers had relatively little choice: they had only the
seeds they happened to bring with them from a foreign nation. These seeds
were often not well-suited to local conditions. Thus, during the 1600's, corn-
a native crop grown by the Indians-usually fared better.
One exception in terms of adaptability was the introduction of Spanish
wheats into Texas as early as 15825 and into California in 1770. These seeds
were brought by Columbus to the West Indies, from whence they were taken
to Mexico. By the time they reached California, they had gone through a selec-
tion process that sorted out the most adaptable. Sonora was one such variety.
With the passage of time and greater shipments of seeds from other coun-
tries, it was inevitable that better adapted varieties were identified. Many of
these varieties have long since passed out of cultivation, but several were grown
for 100 years or more. Most of these early varieties appear to have been soft
winter wheats; white grains were preferred to red because the latter discolored
the flour.








Varietal Improvement


Varietal improvement in wheat has typically followed three stages: intro-
duction, selection, and hybridization. These steps involve:
Introduction of varieties from foreign countries;
Isolation of selections from (a) mixtures and natural hybrids in fields,
and (b) pure line or single-line varieties; and
Hybridization, the selection from progeny of artificial crosses.
A fourth stage, irradiation breeding, also has been utilized recently.
Several improved wheat varieties developed in the United States form part
of the ancestry of three Asian varieties, which in turn provided the dwarfing
characteristic now used in nearly all American varieties.

INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. The period of wheat improvement until the
late 1800's, or possibly even 1900, might be regarded as the pre-research
period. Varietal improvement was largely a matter of trial and error. The U.S.
Government helped import new varieties, but otherwise improvement was
largely in private hands. The development of State agricultural experiment
stations was spurred by the passage of the Hatch Act in 1877, but the stations
needed more time to get organized and to get work underway. Wheat research
was begun or at least first reported in some of the States as follows: Kansas,
1874; Nebraska, 1890; Colorado, 1893; Texas, 1894. Wheat research done by
USDA from 1895 to 1897 was summarized in 1900.4
A cooperative Federal-State wheat investigations program was developed
in the late 1920's and grew to include three regional programs: Hard Spring
wheat, 1928; Hard Red Winter wheat, 1930; and White wheat, 1930.

VARIETAL INTRODUCTION. All wheat varieties grown in the United
States have been derived from imported varieties.
In the earliest days, settlers had relatively little choice: they had only the
seeds they happened to bring with them from a foreign nation. These seeds
were often not well-suited to local conditions. Thus, during the 1600's, corn-
a native crop grown by the Indians-usually fared better.
One exception in terms of adaptability was the introduction of Spanish
wheats into Texas as early as 15825 and into California in 1770. These seeds
were brought by Columbus to the West Indies, from whence they were taken
to Mexico. By the time they reached California, they had gone through a selec-
tion process that sorted out the most adaptable. Sonora was one such variety.
With the passage of time and greater shipments of seeds from other coun-
tries, it was inevitable that better adapted varieties were identified. Many of
these varieties have long since passed out of cultivation, but several were grown
for 100 years or more. Most of these early varieties appear to have been soft
winter wheats; white grains were preferred to red because the latter discolored
the flour.








As wheat production spread west into the prairies, the soft eastern varieties
did not prove to be well adapted to the increasingly dry lands. There was an
expanded need for drought-resisting varieties. These were initially provided
through the introduction of several hard types of wheat.
In 1860, a Hard Red Spring wheat from Canada known as Red Fife was first
raised by a farmer in Wisconsin. Red Fife was later one of the parents of
another Canadian variety, Marquis, which was introduced in the United States
in 1912.6 For 20 years, Marquis was the king of wheat varieties in the United
States, and has subsequently been used as a parent in breeding many improved
varieties.
In the early 1870's, a Hard Red Winter wheat known as Turkey was intro-
duced in Kansas by Mennonite settlers from Russia. Whereas other settlers had
had difficulty in raising wheat, the Mennonites succeeded. They came from a
similar region, and brought a variety well adapted to the environment.7 M. A.
Carleton of USDA was so impressed with the performance of Turkey that he
went to Russia in 1898 to secure additional strains of Turkey (including
Crimean) and other drought-resistant varieties.8 For many years, Turkey wheat
was the most important variety grown in the United States. One strain, Turkey
Red, later became one of the parents of Norin 10-the source of dwarfism for
most of the semi-dwarfs now raised in the United States.
A Russian Durum variety, Arnautka, was introduced by USDA in 1864 but
it did not find wide use. In 1900, Carleton brought back a number of other
Russian Durum varieties including Kubanka. Seed of Kubanka, along with
some Arnautka seed from North Dakota, was distributed to farmers in 1902.9
They outyielded the standard spring varieties in the dry areas in the northern
plains.
While the original white wheats raised in the United States were soft, the
situation changed with the introduction of Baart wheat in 1900 and Federation
wheat in 1914, both hard varieties from Australia. Baart wheat was initially
utilized in Arizona and then spread to other Pacific Coast States and to Idaho.
The hard varieties, while well accepted by growers, were at first resisted by
millers who used stones for grinding. Steel roller mills and purifying machinery
came into use in Minneapolis in 1878 and facilitated the grinding of hard
wheats. While the millers seem to have taken up the hard spring types, they
were slower to accept the hard winter varieties. And they were quite reluctant
to accept Durums. Hard winter and Durum varieties were discounted at first,
but eventually were accepted.10

SELECTIONS. The improvement of wheat by selection has gone through
two stages. The first began in the late 1700's and early 1800's when farmers
and seedsmen began to make selections from the mixtures and natural hybrids
in their fields. The second stage started around 1900 when scientists began to
make pure line or single-line selections (the progeny of a single self-fertilized
individual of homozygous or nearly homozygous composition).








It is not certain when the first stage started in the United States. In another
publication, I have noted the emergence of an improved new variety known as
Forward in 1794; it had been selected 7 years earlier. The variety is notable in
the context of this publication because it reportedly produced one-third less
straw on a short stem.11
Better-known early selections include:
Red May, selected by General Harmon in 1830 from the white-kerneled
May of English origin and grown in Virginia before the Revolutionary War.
Fultz, a descendant of a mixture or hybrid found in a field of Lancaster
(Mediterranean), was selected by Abraham Fultz, a farmer in Mifflin, Pa., in
1862. Fultz later became one of the parents of Norin 10, and, in turn, of most
of the semi-dwarfs grown in the United States.
Perhaps the first and best-known example of single-line selection is Kanred.
It was selected from a single head of Crimean, imported by Carleton in 1900
(Crimean can be considered a strain of Turkey). Kanred was one of a group of
seeds first selected at the Kansas State Agricultural Experiment Station in
1911. Field testing started in 1914 and it was named and released in 1917. By
1925, nearly 5 million acres were planted in Kanred.12 Kanred later became an
ancestor of two Korean semi-dwarf varieties (Suweon 92 and Seu Seun 27),
which are included in the parentage of several semi-dwarf varieties now grown
in the United States.

HYBRIDIZATION. The use of artificial crosses as a means of varietal
improvement in the United States dates from about 1870. C. R. Ball notes,
The making of wheat hybrids in this country apparently began
with Cyrus G. Pringle... His work with wheat was done at Char-
lotte, Vt., where he released at least four varieties, of good quality,
between 1870 and 1877. His first variety, Champlain, was brought
out in 1870; his second, Defiance in 1871; and a fourth, Surprise,
in 1877.13
The three varieties became rather widely grown in the Western States.
Two farmers next played a major role. In 1886, D. M. Schindel of Hagers-
town, Md., crossed Fultz and Lancaster (Mediterranean) and named one of the
selections Fulcaster. It was high-yielding and widely grown. A. N. Jones of New
York State (Newark and Leroy) produced at least 15 varieties from hybrids
between 1886 and 1906. Two of these were still grown in the mid-1930's.
Starting around 1890, much of the hybridization work was taken up by
Federal and State agricultural research institutions. A. F. Blont of the Colorado
Agricultural Experiment Station was one of the first. W. J. Spillman developed
four club wheats which were released in 1907 and 1908. One of these, Ceres,
was developed at the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station and was
one of the most successful early examples. The original cross (Kota x Marquis)
was made in 1918 and distributed in 1926. By 1933, about 5 million acres of
Ceres were grown in the United States and Canada.





























Plate 2. Combining wheat in Walla Walla, Washington, with a 33-horse team, 1902.


STATISTICAL SUMMARY. Altogether, from 1900 to 1950, 284 new varie-
ties were grown in the United States. Of these, 55 (or 19 percent) were intro-
ductions, 88 (31 percent) were selections from existing varieties, 127 (45
percent) originated from hybridization of two or more varieties, and the origin
of 14 (5 percent) is undetermined.
From 1931 to 1950, nearly 80 percent of the varieties were of hybrid origin.
Of these, State and Federal experiment stations were responsible for the distri-
bution of 197 (69 percent), farmers, seedsmen and other commercial interests
for 79 (28 percent), and the record is not clear for 8 (3 percent).14
A further comparison is available for the 51-year period from 1924 to
1974. Reitz has calculated that changes in the U.S. wheat area seeded to
varieties of different origin were as follows:15

Unidentified
Year Introduction Selections Crosses UniTotal
Varieties

Percent
1924 57.0 25.8 7.2 10.0 100
1934 50.0 32.2 13.5 4.3 100
1944 25.1 27.1 45.8 2.0 100
1954 5.5 11.2 81.8 1.5 100
1964 6.1 8.2 84.1 1.6 100
1974 4.6 7.2 86.3 1.9 100

Over time, it was increasingly likely that the introductions and selections also
originated from crosses. Clearly the overall variety picture is now one almost
entirely of hybrid crosses.


;







As a result of these activities, growers have been provided a succession of
improved varieties. A particularly vivid example is provided in graphic form for
New York State (fig. 4). While single varieties tend to predominate more in
New York than in other States, the succession of varieties is typical of other
areas.

Figure 4

Succession of Cornell Wheat Varieties Used by New
York State Farmers from 1926 to 1977

Distribution of varieties in percent






1926 34 42 50 58 66 74
Note: Distribution based on sales of certified seed.
Source: W. D. Pardee, Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.




Rice

Rice has deep roots in American agricultural history. Production practices
have rapidly modernized and foreign varieties have played an essential role in
varietal improvement.


Production'6

Rice production in the United States may be divided into two major stages.
The first-termed the early period-was represented by rice production in tidal
delta areas in the Southeastern States and extended from about 1685 to the
mid-1880's, or roughly 200 years. The second stage-termed the "modern"
period-began in the mid-1880's and was represented by mechanized cultiva-
tion under irrigation in prairie areas in the South Central States (at first in
Louisiana) and in the Sacramento Valley in California.

THE EARLY PERIOD. A trial planting of rice is thought to have been made
in Jamestown, Va., in 1622. Some rainfed (upland) rice for domestic use was
raised in North Carolina and South Carolina before 1680. Continuous culture







As a result of these activities, growers have been provided a succession of
improved varieties. A particularly vivid example is provided in graphic form for
New York State (fig. 4). While single varieties tend to predominate more in
New York than in other States, the succession of varieties is typical of other
areas.

Figure 4

Succession of Cornell Wheat Varieties Used by New
York State Farmers from 1926 to 1977

Distribution of varieties in percent






1926 34 42 50 58 66 74
Note: Distribution based on sales of certified seed.
Source: W. D. Pardee, Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.




Rice

Rice has deep roots in American agricultural history. Production practices
have rapidly modernized and foreign varieties have played an essential role in
varietal improvement.


Production'6

Rice production in the United States may be divided into two major stages.
The first-termed the early period-was represented by rice production in tidal
delta areas in the Southeastern States and extended from about 1685 to the
mid-1880's, or roughly 200 years. The second stage-termed the "modern"
period-began in the mid-1880's and was represented by mechanized cultiva-
tion under irrigation in prairie areas in the South Central States (at first in
Louisiana) and in the Sacramento Valley in California.

THE EARLY PERIOD. A trial planting of rice is thought to have been made
in Jamestown, Va., in 1622. Some rainfed (upland) rice for domestic use was
raised in North Carolina and South Carolina before 1680. Continuous culture







As a result of these activities, growers have been provided a succession of
improved varieties. A particularly vivid example is provided in graphic form for
New York State (fig. 4). While single varieties tend to predominate more in
New York than in other States, the succession of varieties is typical of other
areas.

Figure 4

Succession of Cornell Wheat Varieties Used by New
York State Farmers from 1926 to 1977

Distribution of varieties in percent






1926 34 42 50 58 66 74
Note: Distribution based on sales of certified seed.
Source: W. D. Pardee, Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.




Rice

Rice has deep roots in American agricultural history. Production practices
have rapidly modernized and foreign varieties have played an essential role in
varietal improvement.


Production'6

Rice production in the United States may be divided into two major stages.
The first-termed the early period-was represented by rice production in tidal
delta areas in the Southeastern States and extended from about 1685 to the
mid-1880's, or roughly 200 years. The second stage-termed the "modern"
period-began in the mid-1880's and was represented by mechanized cultiva-
tion under irrigation in prairie areas in the South Central States (at first in
Louisiana) and in the Sacramento Valley in California.

THE EARLY PERIOD. A trial planting of rice is thought to have been made
in Jamestown, Va., in 1622. Some rainfed (upland) rice for domestic use was
raised in North Carolina and South Carolina before 1680. Continuous culture







of rice in the tidal areas is considered to have been started about 1685 (the
date is sometimes given as 1694) near present-day Charleston, S.C., utilizing
imported seed. The practice became well established within the next few years
and soon moved into similar areas in North Carolina and Georgia, and later into
Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida.
The Civil War severely weakened the rice industry in these States and recovery
was difficult. Fields and irrigation systems were neglected. Slave labor was
no longer available. Capital was short and plantations were being broken up.
There also was increased competition from Louisiana. "The aftermath of the
Civil War actually stimulated the Louisiana rice industry, for along the Missis-
sippi flood plain many an impoverished and carved-up sugar plantation was
converted to the cheaper cultivation of rice."17
The South Atlantic region, moreover, was not in a strong competitive
position. "Clinging to the old fields along the tidal rivers, it was unable to
employ mechanized methods of cultivation because of its soft soil, small fields,
and unskilled labor."18 Production was expensive. A series of violent hurri-
canes after 1880 caused further difficulties.

THE "MODERN" PERIOD. The "modern" period arrived in the mid-
1880's. It was marked by a shift from tidal areas to prairie regions where rice
was "grown in essentially the same manner as wheat, oats, and barley, except
that the crop is irrigated."19 Crop rotations were utilized.
The switch began with the establishment of a land development scheme in
southwestern Louisiana in the early 1880's. The area to be developed included
both marshes that were to be used for rice, and prairie areas that were to be
used for general farming. Seaman A. Knapp, president of Iowa State College,
was induced to resign and take charge of the prairie portion. By a curious turn
of events, rice culture ended up dominating the prairie development while the
marsh portion of the project was eventually dropped.20
The prairie development attracted thousands of farmers from the North
Central States and the Midwest. The first arrivals in 1884 had no intention of
raising rice, but they noticed that the Cajun natives were doing so by catching
water in pockets and then allowing it to drain down over the lower rice lands
(this was known of as the "Providence" system).

The Westerners copied the Cajuns' methods of irrigation and found
that their own mechanized farm equipment was admirably adapt-
able to rice cultivation, since the prairie lands were hard and easily
drained and thus able to bear the teams and heavy equipment.21

Some equipment adjustments were necessary, especially to the binders.22
According to Knapp, the principal difficulties were overcome by the end of
1886.23 By 1889, Louisiana became the leading rice-producing State.
The Providence method of irrigation worked well until 1893 when a series
of dry years set in.







But this new industry ... had considerable ingenuity, and by 1896,
an entirely new and dependable system of irrigation had been
devised, consisting of a network of large irrigation canals with
steam pumps to lift the water into the canals from the nearby
streams, lakes and bayous. Almost at once a further system was
introduced: the digging of irrigation wells, which made dependence
upon surface water unnecessary and thus unlocked new rice areas
away from the lakes and streams.24

As of 1895, the rice area in the State totaled 170,000 acres; by 1905 it had
grown to 250,000 acres, and by 1910 to 360,000.25
From Louisiana, prairie rice production extended into similar areas in
neighboring States. Production first moved to southeast Texas. In 1891, a small
pumping station for irrigation was constructed in Jefferson County. This ven-
ture expanded in 1898 into the Beaumont Irrigation Company which initially
irrigated 3,000 acres of rice. The State rice area expanded from 175 acres in
1892 (all on the Beaumont prairie) to 8,700 acres in 1899 (8,500 in the
Beaumont district and 200 acres in Colorado County). By 1909 the State's
rice area had grown to 238,000 acres.26
Rice was first grown on an experimental basis on prairie land in Arkansas
in 1902, near the town of Lonoke, as a cooperative effort of a local farmer
and the Arkansas Experiment Station. In 1903, with USDA technical help, a
well was sunk and levees constructed. An experimental crop of 10 acres was
planted in the spring of 1904, and in 1905 that area was expanded to about 30
acres (in the same year a total of about 450 acres were planted in Lonoke
County). The statewide rice area in 1906 was estimated at 5,000 acres in 1906
and 60,000 acres in 1910.27
Rice variety tests were begun by the USDA near Biggs in the Sacramento
Valley in California in the spring of 1909 and were continued for the next 2
years. In 1912, the first commercial crop of 1,400 acres was grown near Biggs.
The area expanded quickly, reaching 162,000 acres by 1920.2
Elsewhere, rice was first grown in the Elsberry district of Missouri in 1923
(though evidently not in the prairie-type areas noted above)29 and has been
raised in Mississippi since about 1948.
While these developments were taking place, planting of rice declined in the
Southeastern States and rice crop reports were discontinued in 1910 in North
Carolina, and in 1920 in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Upland rice,
however, continued to be grown as a subsistence crop in several of the South-
eastern States until the early 1940's.30
Thus in the course of a few decades, the traditional system of rice culture
was largely swept away and replaced by a highly mechanized one in new areas.
An article written in 1914 stated that "the production of rice has probably
undergone greater changes than that of any other crop grown in the United
States."31













/


PPI.


..... ...M.. -j U


Plate 3. "Rice Culture on the Ogeechef, near Savannah, Georgia," as depicted in Harper's Weekly, 1867.








Varietal Improvement32


As with wheat, rice improvement usually has consisted of three stages:
introduction, selection, and hybridization. These steps involve:
Introduction of varieties from foreign countries;
Isolation of pure-line selections from introduced varieties; and
Creation of new varieties by crossing (hybridization), followed by
selection.
A fourth stage, mutation breeding, also has been utilized.

INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. Virtually all of the rice improvement work
(with one notable exception to be discussed) has been done by publicly spon-
sored research stations. The more technical work has usually involved USDA
employees at State agricultural experiment stations. Farm groups are also
sometimes involved in the sponsorship of this work.
USDA involvement in rice improvement might be said to have begun in
1898 with the appointment of Knapp as plant explorer. He brought back rice
varieties from Asia in 1899 and 1901 (to be discussed in further detail in the
next section) and arranged farm demonstrations of varieties and cultural
methods in Louisiana and Texas. In 1906, studies of varieties, irrigation,
cultural methods and fertilizer were begun, mainly near Crowley, La. Experi-
ments or demonstrations with rice were started in 1909 in Arkansas, South
Carolina, and California, and in 1910 in Texas.33
Specialized rice research stations were organized by the States, and USDA
cooperation was obtained at an early date. As noted, USDA first became
involved in Arkansas in 1903. USDA work on rice was moved to Crowley, La.,
in 1905, where it was conducted in cooperation with the State prior to the
establishment of a State Rice Research Station in 1909.34 A Rice Experiment
Station was also established at Beaumont, Tex., in 1909; USDA cooperation
was obtained in 1912 and it became known as the Cooperative Rice Experi-
ment Station. The first observation and seed increase plots were grown in 1912
and formal experiments were initiated in 1913. In California, the Biggs Rice
Field Station was established in 1912 by a group of ranchers (organized as the
Sacramento Valley Grain Association) so that the USDA work might be
expanded and conducted under conditions more favorable for experimental
work.35 A Rice Branch Experiment Station was established near Stuttgart,
Ark., in 1927.36 And the Elsberry Rice Experiment Field Station was estab-
lished in Missouri in 1928.37
Although the stations have been established as a result of State initiative,
the research programs have traditionally been carried on in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA scientists are located in each princi-
pal State, and a coordinated rice improvement program was begun in 1931.38








Varietal Improvement32


As with wheat, rice improvement usually has consisted of three stages:
introduction, selection, and hybridization. These steps involve:
Introduction of varieties from foreign countries;
Isolation of pure-line selections from introduced varieties; and
Creation of new varieties by crossing (hybridization), followed by
selection.
A fourth stage, mutation breeding, also has been utilized.

INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. Virtually all of the rice improvement work
(with one notable exception to be discussed) has been done by publicly spon-
sored research stations. The more technical work has usually involved USDA
employees at State agricultural experiment stations. Farm groups are also
sometimes involved in the sponsorship of this work.
USDA involvement in rice improvement might be said to have begun in
1898 with the appointment of Knapp as plant explorer. He brought back rice
varieties from Asia in 1899 and 1901 (to be discussed in further detail in the
next section) and arranged farm demonstrations of varieties and cultural
methods in Louisiana and Texas. In 1906, studies of varieties, irrigation,
cultural methods and fertilizer were begun, mainly near Crowley, La. Experi-
ments or demonstrations with rice were started in 1909 in Arkansas, South
Carolina, and California, and in 1910 in Texas.33
Specialized rice research stations were organized by the States, and USDA
cooperation was obtained at an early date. As noted, USDA first became
involved in Arkansas in 1903. USDA work on rice was moved to Crowley, La.,
in 1905, where it was conducted in cooperation with the State prior to the
establishment of a State Rice Research Station in 1909.34 A Rice Experiment
Station was also established at Beaumont, Tex., in 1909; USDA cooperation
was obtained in 1912 and it became known as the Cooperative Rice Experi-
ment Station. The first observation and seed increase plots were grown in 1912
and formal experiments were initiated in 1913. In California, the Biggs Rice
Field Station was established in 1912 by a group of ranchers (organized as the
Sacramento Valley Grain Association) so that the USDA work might be
expanded and conducted under conditions more favorable for experimental
work.35 A Rice Branch Experiment Station was established near Stuttgart,
Ark., in 1927.36 And the Elsberry Rice Experiment Field Station was estab-
lished in Missouri in 1928.37
Although the stations have been established as a result of State initiative,
the research programs have traditionally been carried on in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA scientists are located in each princi-
pal State, and a coordinated rice improvement program was begun in 1931.38







VARIETAL INTRODUCTION. The first known introduction was Carolina
White. The accounts of its introduction vary, but it is thought to have originally
come from Madagascar and was put ashore at Charleston about 1685 (or pos-
sibly 1694).39 The second variety was Carolina Gold, which probably came in
as a mixture in Carolina White and was later isolated and grown as a separate
variety (alternatively, it may have been a later introduction).
Between 1685 and 1889, few or no other rice varieties appear to have been
introduced. As Jones notes, "the growers seem to have been satisfied with the
yields and quality of Carolina White and Carolina Gold."40 But late in the
period it became evident that these varieties were not as productive as those
grown elsewhere.
In 1890, a variety known as Honduras was, introduced from that country
through commercial channels and was widely grown on the new ricelands. In
1899, Knapp traveled to Japan to obtain varieties of better milling quality. He
returned with 10 tons of Kiushu rice, which reduced the milling breakage by as
much as one-half. Another 1,000 tons was imported in 1900 and it soon
became the most common variety. Fifteen other varieties were introduced
following a second trip by Knapp in 1901.41 Carleton of USDA obtained a
collection of rice varieties from foreign exhibitors at the Louisiana Purchase
Exposition in St. Louis, Mo., in 1904.42
During the next 30 years, several thousand varieties were introduced, mainly
through USDA. Between 1909 and 1929, the Rice Experiment Station at
Crowley alone grew 8,000 samples of 3,000 varieties of rice from 40 countries,
including 2,000 from the Philippines alone.43 However, only a few were found
to be well adapted.






















Plate 4. Cutting and binding rice near Spindletop, Jefferson County, Tex., 1915. Note oil
tanks in background.







SELECTIONS. Selections from introduced varieties have been an important
source of varieties in the United States. Practically all varieties grown here from
1920 to about 1945 were developed by this method.
Selection work was begun in 1907 by S. L. Wright of Louisiana and many of
the important varieties subsequently grown in the Southern States were
selected by him.44 A number of USDA and State scientists also took up
selection in the next several years.
Varieties developed through selection which are still well known-but no
longer widely grown-include Bluebonnet 50, Blue Rose, Caloro, Colusa,
Fortuna, Nira, Rexoro, Sunbonnet, and Zenith.45 Fortuna was selected from a
variety selected from Taiwan; Nira and Rexoro from hill rices introduced from
the Philippines. Fortuna was widely grown in the late 1920's and 1930's, but
was replaced by Bluebonnet, a cross between Fortuna and Rexoro. Rexoro also
was used as a parent for several other crosses. Thus, Fortuna and Rexoro had a
substantial impact on present varieties.46

HYBRIDIZATION. While selection represented an important step in varietal
improvement, it did not provide all the improved characteristics. In 1922,
improvement through hybridization was begun by J. W. Jones in California.
The first variety developed was Calady, selected from a cross made by Jones in
1924 between Caloro and Lady Wright. By 1935, it was in commercial produc-
tion in California. Crossing was begun in Arkansas and Texas in 1931 by C.
Roy Adair and H. M. Beachell. Early hybrid-derived varieties included Arkrose
(Arkansas, 1942, Jones and Adair), and Texas Patna and Bluebonnet (Texas,
1944, Beachell). All varieties released since 1942, except for mutations, are
progeny of hybrids (crosses).
The development of a new rice variety through hybridization is normally a
time-consuming process. According to one Arkansas publication, "About 12
years are required from the time carefully selected parents are crossed until an
offspring with the desired combination of characteristics can be released.'47 In
California, the process has been speeded up by raising two generations per year.



Further details on the development of semi-dwarf wheat and rice varieties
will be provided in the next two chapters.







SELECTIONS. Selections from introduced varieties have been an important
source of varieties in the United States. Practically all varieties grown here from
1920 to about 1945 were developed by this method.
Selection work was begun in 1907 by S. L. Wright of Louisiana and many of
the important varieties subsequently grown in the Southern States were
selected by him.44 A number of USDA and State scientists also took up
selection in the next several years.
Varieties developed through selection which are still well known-but no
longer widely grown-include Bluebonnet 50, Blue Rose, Caloro, Colusa,
Fortuna, Nira, Rexoro, Sunbonnet, and Zenith.45 Fortuna was selected from a
variety selected from Taiwan; Nira and Rexoro from hill rices introduced from
the Philippines. Fortuna was widely grown in the late 1920's and 1930's, but
was replaced by Bluebonnet, a cross between Fortuna and Rexoro. Rexoro also
was used as a parent for several other crosses. Thus, Fortuna and Rexoro had a
substantial impact on present varieties.46

HYBRIDIZATION. While selection represented an important step in varietal
improvement, it did not provide all the improved characteristics. In 1922,
improvement through hybridization was begun by J. W. Jones in California.
The first variety developed was Calady, selected from a cross made by Jones in
1924 between Caloro and Lady Wright. By 1935, it was in commercial produc-
tion in California. Crossing was begun in Arkansas and Texas in 1931 by C.
Roy Adair and H. M. Beachell. Early hybrid-derived varieties included Arkrose
(Arkansas, 1942, Jones and Adair), and Texas Patna and Bluebonnet (Texas,
1944, Beachell). All varieties released since 1942, except for mutations, are
progeny of hybrids (crosses).
The development of a new rice variety through hybridization is normally a
time-consuming process. According to one Arkansas publication, "About 12
years are required from the time carefully selected parents are crossed until an
offspring with the desired combination of characteristics can be released.'47 In
California, the process has been speeded up by raising two generations per year.



Further details on the development of semi-dwarf wheat and rice varieties
will be provided in the next two chapters.







References and Notes


*Norman E. Borlaug, "Improving Plants... Seed for the Future," International
Conference on Mechanized Dryland Farming, Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois, 1970,
p. 70 (proceedings of conference held in August 1969).
'This section is based, except as noted, on: J. Alien Clark "Improvement in Wheat,"
Yearbook of Agriculture, 1936, USDA, pp. 209-227; and Carleton R. Ball, "The History
of American Wheat Improvement," Agricultural History, April 1930 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pp.
48-71. Further detail prior to 1900 is provided by Mark Alfred Carlton, The Basis for the
Improvement of American Wheats, USDA, Division of Vegetable Physiology and Pathol-
ogy, Bulletin No. 24, 1900, 87 pp. Further detail on the subsequent period is found in
S. C. Salmon, O. R. Mathews, and R. W. Leukel, "A Half Century of Wheat Improve-
ment in the United States," Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 5, Academic Press, New York,
1953, pp. 1-151. Also see John W. Schmidt, "Wheat-Its Role in America's Heritage,"
Agronomists and Food: Contributions and Challenges, American Society of Agronomy,
Special Publication No. 30, 1977, pp. 45-52.
SThe material in this section is largely taken from C. R. Ball, C. E. Leighty, O. C.
Stine, and 0. E. Baker, "Wheat Production and Marketing," United States Department
of Agriculture Yearbook, 1921, USDA, 1922, pp. 87-96. (Contains dot charts showing
location of U.S. wheat production every tenth year from 1839 to 1919.) Dates cited do
not necessarily signify first date of any production.
'Changes over the period from 1920 to 1955 are discussed in C. W. Nauheim, W. R.
Bailey, and D. E. Merrick, Wheat Production: Trends, Problems, Programs, Opportunities
for Adjustment, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin
No. 179, March 1958, pp. 12-21.
'Partly based on K. S. Quisenberry and L. P. Reitz, "Turkey Wheat: The Cornerstone
of an Empire." Agricultural History, January 1974 (Vol. 48, No. 1), pp. 106-107. The
report referred to was Carleton, op. cit.., pp. 40-63.
s Letter from I. M. Atkins, Denton, Texas, August 1, 1979. Further details will be pro-
vided by Atkins in A History of Small Grain Crops in Texas... 1582-1976, Texas Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, B-1301, in press.
For further background on the development of Marquis, see J. W. Morrison, "Marquis
Wheat-A Triumph of Scientific Endeavor," Agricultural History, October 1960 (Vol. 34,
No. 4), pp. 182.188.
'For further details on Turkey, see Quisenberry and Reitz, op. cit., pp. 94-114.
SSee Mark Alfred Carleton, Russian Cereals Adapted for Cultivation in the United
States, USDA, Division of Botany, Bulletin 23, 1900, 42 pp.
SMark Alfred Carleton, Macaroni Wheats, USDA, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin
3, 1901, pp. 28-48; Mary W. M. Hargreaves, "The Durum Wheat Controversy," Agricul-
tural History, July 1968 (Vol. 42, No. 2), pp. 212.213. The account of the introduction of
Arnautka presented here differs from Clark, op. cit., p. 217.
"Ball, op. cit. (1930), p. 58; Hargreaves, op. cit., pp. 211-229; Quisenberry and Reitz,
op. cit., p. 108.
"Dana G. Dalrymple, Development and Spread of High-Yielding Varieties of Wheat
and Rice in the Less Developed Nations, USDA/OICD, FAER 95, September 1978 (6th
edition), p. 10.
Quisenberry and Reitz, op. cit., pp. 94-114; Robert J. Dunbar, "Turkey Wheat: A
Comment," Agricultural History, January 1974 (Vol. 48, No. 1), p. 113; B. B. Bayles and
J. Allen Clark, Classification of Wheat Varieties Grown in the United States in 1949,
USDA, Technical Bulletin No. 1083, March 1954, pp. 130-131.
"Ball, op. cit., p. 60 (the third variety is not noted). The parentage of the varieties and
other information about them is provided by J. A. Clark, J. H. Martin, and C. R. Ball,







Classification of American Wheat Varieties, USDA, Bulletin 1074, November 1922 (rev.
August 1923), pp. 63, 67-68, and 139-140. A detailed listing of varieties released by State
and Federal Stations, including introductions and selections, through the mid-1930's is
provided by Clark, op. cit. (1936), pp. 271-293.
Salmon, et al., op. cit. (1953), p. 109.
15 Louis P. Reitz, "60 Years of Wheat Cultivar History in the United States," Annual
Wheat Newsletter, Kansas State University (Dept. of Agronomy) and Canada Department
of Agriculture, June 1979 (Vol. 25), pp. 12-17.
16 Based, except as noted, on: Jenkin W. Jones, "Improvement in Rice," in Yearbook
of Agriculture, 1936, USDA, pp. 418-419; C. Roy Adair, M. D. Miller, and H. M. Beachell,
"Rice Improvement and Culture in the United States," in Advances in Agronomy,
Academic Press, Vol. 14, 1962, pp. 63, 66; C. Roy Adair, "Introduction," in Rice in the
United States: Varieties and Production, USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 289, June
1973, pp. 2-22; S. A. Knapp, The Present Status of Rice Culture in the United States,
USDA, Division of Botany, Bulletin No. 22, 1899, pp. 12-17; Arthur H. Cole, "The Ameri-
can Rice-Growing Industry: A Study of Comparative Advantage," Quarterly Journal of
Economics, August 1927 (Vol. XLI, No. 4), pp. 565-643; and Edward Hake Phillips, "The
Gulf Coast Rice Industry," Agricultural History, April 1951 (Vol. 25, No. 2), pp. 91-96.
Further historical details may be found in The Rice Journal (Vol. 47, 1944, is particularly
useful) and in Robert S. Anderson, "Rice Revolution in the Southern United States,
1865-1945; The Technical and Political Ingredients of Agrarian Transformation," Simon
Fraser University (Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada), Dept. of Communication, unpub-
lished manuscript, February 1979, 84 pp.
"' Phillips, op. cit., p. 92.
lbid.
9 Jones, op. cit. (1936), p. 420.
20 Phillips, op. cit., pp. 92-95; Knapp, op. cit., pp. 21-25; and Joseph C. Bailey, Seaman
A. Knapp, Schoolmaster of American Agriculture, Columbia University Press, 1945, pp.
120-122, 127-128.
21 Phillips, op. cit., p. 95.
22 Bailey, op. cit., pp. 120-121.
23 Knapp, op. cit., p. 22. Also see Cole, op. cit., p. 608.
24 Phillips, op. cit., p. 95.
2s Rice, Popcorn, and Buckwheat; Acreage, Yield, Production, Price Value; By States,
1866-1953, USDA, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Bulletin No. 238, pp. 2-9. This bulle-
tin is the source of most of the area data cited in the remainder of this section.
"J. P. Craigmiles, "Advances in Rice-Through Research and Application," Six Dec-
ades of Rice Research in Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Mono-
graph 4, June 1975, p. 1.
27 Cole, op. cit., pp. 609-610; and the following bulletins of the Arkansas Agricultural
Experiment Station: W. G. Vincenheller, Rice Growing in Arkansas, No. 89, 1906 p.
119; R. J. Nelson, Rice Culture, No. 94, 1907, p. 31; R. J. Nelson, Rice, No. 98, 1908,
p. 133; Twentieth Annual Report, 1907, pp. 8, 24.
2 See Charles E. Chambliss and E. L. Adams, The Culture of Rice in California, USDA,
Farmers Bulletin 688, September 1915, pp. 1-2. (Revised editions issued as: Chambliss,
Rice Growing in California, F. Bulletin 1141, September 1920; and Jenkin W. Jones,
How to Grow Rice in the Sacramento Valley, F. Bulletin 1240, March 1924, revised June
1931.) Also see: Cole, op cit., pp. 611-613; and Jack H. Wilson (ed.), Rice in California,
Butte County Rice Growers Association (P.O. Box 128 Richvale, Calif. 95974), 1979,
254 pp.
2 Cole, op. cit., pp. 610-611.
30 Letter from Henry M. Beachell, Cooperative CRIA-IRRI Program, Bogor, Indonesia,
Aug. 13, 1979.
31 Census of Manufactures, 1914, pp. ii, 424 (cited by Cole, op. cit., p. 596).







"Based, except as noted, on: Jones, op. cit. (1936), pp. 428-433, 442-445; Adair et
al., op. cit. (1962), pp. 96-98; Adair, et al., op. cit. (1963), p. 22; C. R. Adair, et al.,
"A Summary of Rice Production Investigations in the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1898-1972," The Rice Journal, March 1975 (Vol. 78, No. 3), pp. 26-29, April 1975
(Vol. 78, No. 4), pp. 24-26; C. N. Bollich and J. E. Scott, "Past, Present, and Future
Varieties of Rice," in Six Decades..., op. cit., pp. 37, 38; Craigmiles, op. cit., pp. 1-2;
and T. H. Johnston, et al., "The Development of Early-Maturing and Nitrogen-Responsive
Rice Varieties in the United States," Rice Breeding, IRRI, 1972, pp. 61-64.
"Adair, et al., op. cit. (March 1975), pp. 26-29. This reference is an excellent source
of information on the names and dates of USDA personnel assigned to various rice re-
search activities.
34Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture for the Year Ended June 30, 1906,
USDA, 1907, pp. 38, 227. (Also noted in 1907 Report, p. 314.)
3 Chambliss and Adams, op. cit., pp.1-2.
6 "Rice Branch Experiment Station," University of Arkansas, undated leaflet. This
date is sometimes given as 1926.
37 Adair, et al., op. cit. (March 1975), p. 27.
"Johnston, et al., op. cit., p. 61.
3 For a review of some of the differing accounts, see Adair et al., op. cit. (1962), p. 63.
40Jones, op. cit., pp. 428-429.
41 Bailey, op. cit., pp. 133-135; Knapp, op. cit., p. 4; Phillips, op. cit., p. 95.
42 Adair, et al., op. cit. (1975), pp. 26-29.
4"J. Mitchell Jenkins, "Twenty Years Experience in Rice Investigational Work in
Louisiana," Rice Experiment Station, Crowley, Aug. 8, 1929, p. 19 (cited by Anderson,
op. cit., pp. 47, 71).
"Wright's life and work are presented in fictionalized form by Frances Parkinson
Keyes in Blue Camellia, Julian Messner Inc., New York, 1957, 432 pp. One of Wright's
best known varieties was Blue Rose (C.I. 2128). Blue Rose was selected from an unknown
variety found in a field of Japanese rice; by 1934 it represented about 50 percent of the
rice grown in the United States (based on registration of Blue Rose reported in fn. 45
below). It subsequently became, through Century Patna 231, one of the ancestors of
IR-24, IR-26, and IR-30 (derived from T. R. Hargrove, W. R. Coffman, and V. L.
Cabanilla, Genetic Interrelationships of Improved Rice Varieties in Asia, IRRI, Research
Paper Series No. 23, January 1979, p. 10, Fig. 1).
45Details on these varieties are provided by T. H. Johnston in "Registration of Rice
Varieties," Agronomy Journal, November 1958 (Vol. 50, No. 11), pp. 694-700.
"Letter from Beachell, op. cit. Beachell notes that C.I. 5094 from the Philippines was
also one of the parents of Texas Patna. Also see Bollich and Scott, op. cit., p. 39.
"7Bobby A. Huey, Rice Varieties for Arkansas, Arkansas Cooperative Extension
Service, Leaflet 518 (1977).












III. SEMI-DWARF WHEAT
VARIETIES


Civilization is in part a product of wheat ....
It is not too much to say that the improvement
of wheat, by genetic or other means, is impor-
tant to man in proportion to the importance
of the plant itself.

-J. Allen Clark, 1936*

Semi-dwarf wheat varieties have undergone a long period of development in
the United States and, with a few exceptions, have been adopted gradually.
The semi-dwarf growth habit is of principal value in reducing lodging and in
improving yield responsiveness to added fertilizer.
The previous chapter noted that historically varietal improvement usually
has had three major components: introduction, selection, and hybridization.
In discussing semi-dwarfs, use of these terms is slightly different. The reason is
that all semi-dwarfs are the result of hybrid crosses. Some were made overseas,
with the resulting selection introduced into the United States. Also, some
crosses were made overseas, but the final selections were made in the United
States. And finally, crosses and selections may have been made wholly in the
United States (though in some cases the parents may have resulted from crosses
made elsewhere).
Within this context, this chapter reviews the introduction and development
of semi-dwarf varieties in the United States, delineates all the known semi-
dwarf varieties released and/or in use, and provides estimates of the area
planted to these varieties.


Development

Since about 1940, there has been a gradual increase of interest in the devel-
opment of short (as well as early-maturing and disease resistant) wheat varieties
in the United States. Prior to that time, most U.S. wheat breeders believed that
only tall wheats had potential for high yield. A new stage of development was
provided by the introduction of semi-dwarf germplasm in 1946 and by the
introduction of the first American semi-dwarf variety, Gaines, in 1962.












III. SEMI-DWARF WHEAT
VARIETIES


Civilization is in part a product of wheat ....
It is not too much to say that the improvement
of wheat, by genetic or other means, is impor-
tant to man in proportion to the importance
of the plant itself.

-J. Allen Clark, 1936*

Semi-dwarf wheat varieties have undergone a long period of development in
the United States and, with a few exceptions, have been adopted gradually.
The semi-dwarf growth habit is of principal value in reducing lodging and in
improving yield responsiveness to added fertilizer.
The previous chapter noted that historically varietal improvement usually
has had three major components: introduction, selection, and hybridization.
In discussing semi-dwarfs, use of these terms is slightly different. The reason is
that all semi-dwarfs are the result of hybrid crosses. Some were made overseas,
with the resulting selection introduced into the United States. Also, some
crosses were made overseas, but the final selections were made in the United
States. And finally, crosses and selections may have been made wholly in the
United States (though in some cases the parents may have resulted from crosses
made elsewhere).
Within this context, this chapter reviews the introduction and development
of semi-dwarf varieties in the United States, delineates all the known semi-
dwarf varieties released and/or in use, and provides estimates of the area
planted to these varieties.


Development

Since about 1940, there has been a gradual increase of interest in the devel-
opment of short (as well as early-maturing and disease resistant) wheat varieties
in the United States. Prior to that time, most U.S. wheat breeders believed that
only tall wheats had potential for high yield. A new stage of development was
provided by the introduction of semi-dwarf germplasm in 1946 and by the
introduction of the first American semi-dwarf variety, Gaines, in 1962.






Short-Strawed Varieties


The new era in varietal type began in the early 1940's with the distribution
of three varieties-Triumph, Pawnee, and Wichita-that were distinctly shorter
and earlier than the conventional varieties while producing as much or more
grain. In the late 1940's and early 1950's, a number of additional short varie-
ties were released which had much improved straw strength (Brevor, Ramona
50, Lemhi 53, Lee, and Knox). Others followed in the mid- to late-1950's
(Burt, Dual, Vermillion, and Monon). Several of these varieties, and others,
were developed in Indiana, where the well-known Arthur variety was intro-
duced in 1968. Beginning in 1960, short straw was introduced into Durum
lines (Wells, Lakota).1
One variety that played a particular role in pointing the way for shorter
varieties in the Pacific Northwest was Elgin, a 1932 selection (from Alicel).
Elgin was a short, stiff-strawed variety which was high yielding and of excellent
quality in experimental trials. Salmon, et al., commented on it in these terms in
1953:

Previous to the creation of Elgin, it was often believed that short,
stiff-strawed varieties could be obtained only with some sacrifice in
yield. Elgin proves conclusively that this is not true in the Pacific
Northwest and for this area, at least, has done much to determine
the objectives of varietal improvement for the future. Hereafter, no
variety for the Pacific Northwest can be expected to be endorsed
enthusiastically by farmers unless it has short, stiff straw similar to
or better than that of Elgin.2

Elgin, however, was a Club wheat limited to the Palouse region and was suscep-
tible to bunt. And while it soon retired from the field, the authors' comments
about short straw proved to be prophetic.


Asian Sources of Dwarfism3

Semi-dwarf stature in wheat is due to a specific set of dwarfing genes.
The Asian wheat varieties originally carrying these genes were not suitable
for commercial production in the United States. The genes, therefore, had to
be transferred to U.S. varieties through hybridization.
Essentially all of the present U.S. semi-dwarf varieties derive their dwarfing
genes from three Asian varieties, which in turn had a common ancestor. The
development of these varieties is presented in graphic form in figure 5.
The common ancestor is a Japanese variety known as Daruma.4 A white
variant of Daruma was known as Shiro-Daruma, and a red variant as Aka-
Daruma. In 1917, Shiro-Daruma (or perhaps Daruma) was crossed with the






Short-Strawed Varieties


The new era in varietal type began in the early 1940's with the distribution
of three varieties-Triumph, Pawnee, and Wichita-that were distinctly shorter
and earlier than the conventional varieties while producing as much or more
grain. In the late 1940's and early 1950's, a number of additional short varie-
ties were released which had much improved straw strength (Brevor, Ramona
50, Lemhi 53, Lee, and Knox). Others followed in the mid- to late-1950's
(Burt, Dual, Vermillion, and Monon). Several of these varieties, and others,
were developed in Indiana, where the well-known Arthur variety was intro-
duced in 1968. Beginning in 1960, short straw was introduced into Durum
lines (Wells, Lakota).1
One variety that played a particular role in pointing the way for shorter
varieties in the Pacific Northwest was Elgin, a 1932 selection (from Alicel).
Elgin was a short, stiff-strawed variety which was high yielding and of excellent
quality in experimental trials. Salmon, et al., commented on it in these terms in
1953:

Previous to the creation of Elgin, it was often believed that short,
stiff-strawed varieties could be obtained only with some sacrifice in
yield. Elgin proves conclusively that this is not true in the Pacific
Northwest and for this area, at least, has done much to determine
the objectives of varietal improvement for the future. Hereafter, no
variety for the Pacific Northwest can be expected to be endorsed
enthusiastically by farmers unless it has short, stiff straw similar to
or better than that of Elgin.2

Elgin, however, was a Club wheat limited to the Palouse region and was suscep-
tible to bunt. And while it soon retired from the field, the authors' comments
about short straw proved to be prophetic.


Asian Sources of Dwarfism3

Semi-dwarf stature in wheat is due to a specific set of dwarfing genes.
The Asian wheat varieties originally carrying these genes were not suitable
for commercial production in the United States. The genes, therefore, had to
be transferred to U.S. varieties through hybridization.
Essentially all of the present U.S. semi-dwarf varieties derive their dwarfing
genes from three Asian varieties, which in turn had a common ancestor. The
development of these varieties is presented in graphic form in figure 5.
The common ancestor is a Japanese variety known as Daruma.4 A white
variant of Daruma was known as Shiro-Daruma, and a red variant as Aka-
Daruma. In 1917, Shiro-Daruma (or perhaps Daruma) was crossed with the







American variety Glassy Fultz at the Central Agricultural Experiment Station
(Nishigahara, Tokyo) to produce Fultz-Daruma. The date and location of the
cross of Aka-Daruma with Glassy Fultz are not clear. (Glassy Fultz was a selec-
tion of the American variety, Fultz, discussed in the previous chapter; Fultz
was imported by the Japanese Government in 1887.)
The Fultz-Daruma progeny were then used to make two other critical
crosses with two related U.S. varieties: (1) Fultz-Daruma with Turkey Red; and
(2) (Aka-Daruma x Glassy Fultz) with Kanred. (Kanred was selected from
Crimean, which is a strain of Turkey.)
-The first cross was made at the Ehime Prefectural Agricultural Experiment
Station in 1925. Seed from the initial cross was planted at the Konosu Experi-
mental Farm of the National Agricultural Station in 1926. Seed was subse-
quently sent to the Iwate Prefectural Agricultural Experiment Station. A semi-
dwarf selection developed from the seventh generation in 1932, Tohoku No.
34, was particularly promising. Following further testing, it was named Norin
10 and registered and released in October 1935.
-The second cross was made at the Rikuu Branch Station (Omagari, Akita
Prefecture) in Japan. The F3 seeds were sent to Korea where Suweon 85 was
developed; it was released in 1932. Suweon 85 was then crossed with Suweon
13 to produce Suweon 92 and Suweon 90, which were released to farmers in
1934. Suweon 90 was crossed with Shiroboro (from Japan) at the Seu Seun
Branch Experimental Station in 1936 to produce Seu Seun 27, which was not
released but used for breeding.5
Although Norin 10 was to become the major source of dwarfism in U.S.
varieties, Seu Seun 27 also has been extensively used. Suweon 92 has received
more limited use.
Several other Norin varieties also have been used to a limited extent. They
are Norin 16, Norin 26, and Norin 33. The pedigree of these varieties is:6
Norin 16 (released in 1936): F5-31/Konosu 25. F5-31 was developed
from a cross of Shiro Daruma and Velvet; Konosu 25 from a cross of Florence
and Igachikugo.
Norin 26 (released in 1937): Shin Chunaga/Saitama 29. Shin Chunaga
was developed by pure line selection of Chunaga; Saitama 29 from the cross
California/Sojuko Akage/Haya Komugi.
Norin 33 (developed in 1936): Hon-Iku 49/Konosu 26. Hon-Iku 49 was
developed from a cross of Turkey Red and Martin's Amber; Konosu from a
cross of Florence and Shiro-Chabo.
In Japan, these varieties are somewhat taller than Norin 10 (61 centimeters),
growing to 80, 88, and 108 centimeters respectively. The first two are in the
semi-dwarf category while the third, Norin 33, is in the medium-height cate-
gory. Norin 16 probably gets its dwarfing gene from Shiro-Daruma. It is not
clear what the source of dwarfism is in Norin 26 or whether it is related to
Daruma (Shiro-Daruma).





Figure 5
Genealogy of Norin 10, Suweon 92, and Seu Seun 27
Semi-Dwarf Wheat Varieties


/
Japan I
\ I
Shiro (white)-Daruma |
I


Japan


Aka (red)-Daruma

I


x Glassy Fultz (1917)1 ---x Glassy Fultz


Fultz Daruma

I


(Aka Daruma x Glassy Fultz)


x Turkey Red (1925) - x Kanred*


Korea


Tohuku No. 34
Norin 10 (1935)
United
States
x Brevor (1949)

Nor 10 x Brevor
Norin 10 x Brevor'


Suweon 85 (1932)
x Suweon 13
x Suweon 13


Suweon 92 (1934)


*Kanred was selected from Crimean, which is
a strain of Turkey.
Source: Derived from information provided by
T. Gotoh of Japan and
Chang I Hwan Cho of South Korea.


Suweon 90 (1934)
I
-F---
x Shiroboro (1936)

I
Seu Seun 27 (1936)







Introduction of Sources of Dwarfing


The story of the introduction of Norin 10 into the United States is well
known. In 1946, Dr. S. C. Salmon, a U.S. Department of Agriculture scientist
acting as an agricultural advisor to the occupation army in Japan, noticed that
farmers were growing a number of remarkably stiff, short-stemmed wheat
varieties. Salmon first saw Norin 10 at the Morioka Branch Station. He sent a
number of these plant types to the USDA research facilities at Beltsville, Md.,
in 1946.7
USDA plant introduction records indicate that the first receipt of the Norin
varieties cited in the previous section was as follows:8

-Norin 10. August 21, 1946 (P.I. 156641)
-Norin 16. June 3, 1949 (P.I. 182570)
-Norin 26. July 11, 1946 (P.I. 155266)
-Norin 33. July 11, 1946 (P.I. 155267)

Further packets of these and other Norin varieties were received in subsequent
years.
Two Korean varieties, Seu Seun 27 (P.I. 157584) and Suweon 92 (P.I.
157603), were part of a larger packet presented by the Central Experiment
Station in Suweon and sent by V. H. Florell. They were received by USDA on
February 21, 1947.
The Norin varieties were first grown in a detention nursery in Sacaton,
Ariz., for 1 year (the 1946/47 season) and then made available to U.S. wheat
breeders at seven locations during the 1947/48 season.9 The Korean varieties
also would have been grown in a detention nursery and were probably distrib-
uted to the same group a ear or so later (Seu Seun 27 was reportedly grown at
Lincoln, Neb., in 1949).10


Early Crossing in the United States

The main use of the Japanese semi-dwarfs was, as noted, for breeding.
However, this was not easy. With respect to Norin 10, Reitz stated:

Crossing this dwarf with the U.S. varieties posed problems. Many
of the flowers were male sterile and crossed promiscuously with
adjacent plants. Timing mechanism of the wheat sprout was
triggered wrong; it began unfolding before it reached the surface
... Norin 10 seemed susceptible to all of our diseases. Years of
intensive selection and development were needed.11

One of the first groups to take up work was located at the Washington Agri-
cultural Experiment Station at Pullman. It was composed of several USDA
scientists stationed in Washington as well as State experiment station staff.







Introduction of Sources of Dwarfing


The story of the introduction of Norin 10 into the United States is well
known. In 1946, Dr. S. C. Salmon, a U.S. Department of Agriculture scientist
acting as an agricultural advisor to the occupation army in Japan, noticed that
farmers were growing a number of remarkably stiff, short-stemmed wheat
varieties. Salmon first saw Norin 10 at the Morioka Branch Station. He sent a
number of these plant types to the USDA research facilities at Beltsville, Md.,
in 1946.7
USDA plant introduction records indicate that the first receipt of the Norin
varieties cited in the previous section was as follows:8

-Norin 10. August 21, 1946 (P.I. 156641)
-Norin 16. June 3, 1949 (P.I. 182570)
-Norin 26. July 11, 1946 (P.I. 155266)
-Norin 33. July 11, 1946 (P.I. 155267)

Further packets of these and other Norin varieties were received in subsequent
years.
Two Korean varieties, Seu Seun 27 (P.I. 157584) and Suweon 92 (P.I.
157603), were part of a larger packet presented by the Central Experiment
Station in Suweon and sent by V. H. Florell. They were received by USDA on
February 21, 1947.
The Norin varieties were first grown in a detention nursery in Sacaton,
Ariz., for 1 year (the 1946/47 season) and then made available to U.S. wheat
breeders at seven locations during the 1947/48 season.9 The Korean varieties
also would have been grown in a detention nursery and were probably distrib-
uted to the same group a ear or so later (Seu Seun 27 was reportedly grown at
Lincoln, Neb., in 1949).10


Early Crossing in the United States

The main use of the Japanese semi-dwarfs was, as noted, for breeding.
However, this was not easy. With respect to Norin 10, Reitz stated:

Crossing this dwarf with the U.S. varieties posed problems. Many
of the flowers were male sterile and crossed promiscuously with
adjacent plants. Timing mechanism of the wheat sprout was
triggered wrong; it began unfolding before it reached the surface
... Norin 10 seemed susceptible to all of our diseases. Years of
intensive selection and development were needed.11

One of the first groups to take up work was located at the Washington Agri-
cultural Experiment Station at Pullman. It was composed of several USDA
scientists stationed in Washington as well as State experiment station staff.







The work was headed by Dr. Orville A. Vogel of USDA.12
Norin 10 was one of a packet of Japanese varieties received by Vogel in
1948. Vogel gave the Norin 10 seeds and those of Brevor13 to Dick Nagamitso,
a graduate student, to cross. (Nagamitso was a student of Dr. F. C. Elliott and
needed greenhouse experience in making crosses.) Nagamitso made the crosses
during the winter of 1948/49 and gave the resulting F1 seed to Vogel.14 The
cross produced a small number of semi-dwarf plants in the F2 generation
having good kernel types that appeared more productive than either parent.
Three of the F4 progeny raised in 1952 (Nos. 1, 4, and 10) were notably
resistant to lodging and were advanced to cooperative varietal trials conducted
in Washington and at Pendleton, Oreg.
Subsequently, it was noted that most of the plants had the same male-
sterility problem as Norin 10. An intensive search for normal self-pollinating
lines was undertaken, resulting in the identification of two reselections (Nos.
14 and 17), which performed satisfactorily in preliminary yield trials in 1953.
These were included in the 1954 varietal trials. The selections were about two-
thirds as tall as Brevor, which up until that point had been considered a very
short variety.15


Plate 5. Drs. Orville A. Vogel and Norman E. Borlaug at the Columbia Basin Agricultural
Research Center, Pendleton, Oreg., circa 1973.







Selection 14 (C.I. 13253) has since been extensively used in the breeding
program in Washington and was sent to many U.S. and foreign breeders.
(Borlaug in Mexico, however, had received seed of the F2 generation of the
Norin 10/Brevor cross in 1953 and started using it in his breeding program in
1954.)16
Norin 10 seed, as well as that of other semi-dwarf varieties, was distributed
to several locations in addition to Pullman. While it is not known precisely
where these locations were, one appears to have been the Kansas Agricultural
Experiment Station, where a breeding program to develop semi-dwarf cultivars
was established in 1949 utilizing Norin 10 and Norin 66 (P.I. 155276).17
Another was the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station. Breeding of short-
stature wheats was initiated in Texas in 1951 when crosses involving Norin 10,
Norin 10 x Brevor, and Seu Seun 27 were made. Early generation selections
from crosses made in Kansas and Nebraska were received about the same
time.18 Research involving semi-dwarfs appears to have started in New York in
1952,19 in Arizona in 1954,20 in Montana in 1955,21 in South Carolina in
1957,22 and in Wisconsin in 1960.23 (In some cases, the research may have
actually started earlier than the date indicated.) Research also was begun in
California in the late 1950's.24


Development of First Semi-Dwarfs

The first commercial semi-dwarf to be developed and released in the United
States was Gaines. The immediate history of Gaines goes back to 1954 when
Dr. E. H. Everson, a USDA member of the Vogel team, crossed NorinlO/Brevor
14 with a high performing selection (Orfed/Hybrid 50). Later in 1954, he
crossed F1 progeny to another high performance line (subsequently released
in 1956 as Burt, C.I. 12696). In July 1956, when this cross was in the F3
generation, Everson left Washington, but later that year the Vogel group
identified Selection 9 as being superior. Following further testing and seed
multiplication, this selection was released in 1961 as Gaines (C.I. 13448).25
The multiplication of the seed prior to release was a noteworthy process in
itself. In 1958, Vogel began to think about release and, in cooperation with
others, selected 1,000 representative plants (F7 generation) which could be
plant-row seeded in 1959 (plate 6). In 1960, about 75 bushels of Fg breeder
seed were obtained after rouging and cleaning. Of this, 25 bushels were allo-
cated to Oregon and Idaho to increase as foundation seed. The 50 bushels
retained in Washington were increased on three seed growers' farms to yield
about 6,800 bushels of F9 foundation seed in 1961. This seed was sold to the
Washington State Crop Improvement Association and 500,000 bushels of
registered F10 seed were produced in 1962, enough to plant about one-fourth
of the wheat area in Washington.26
Gaines is a soft White Winter wheat. At soil fertility levels generally used for
standard-height varieties, it usually yielded 5 to 20 percent more than the
highest yielding commercial varieties, while on well-managed productive soils






















Plate 6. Planting breeder seed of Selection 9, later to be released as Gaines wheat, Pullman,
Wash., fall 1959. Dr. Orville A. Vogel is driving the nursery planter, which was of his own
design.


the differential increased up to 50 percent or more. One Washington farmer
obtained a yield of 155 bushels/acre on an 11-acre field in 1962. The variety
was quickly adopted in the Pacific Northwest.27
A sister selection of Gaines, Nugaines (C.I. 13968), was released in 1965.
It is very similar to Gaines in most characteristics, but is superior in milling
quality, test weight, and in adult plant resistance to stripe rust.28
Another product was Selection 101 (C.I. 13438). It was even higher yield-
ing than Gaines, but was not suitable for commercial production because of
inferior baking quality.29 However, it has been widely used in breeding pro-
grams-particularly in Oregon.
Gaines and, to a lesser extent, Nugaines have been tested in all parts of the
United States. They have limitations in many areas outside of the Pacific
Northwest. They are winter wheats and may not head out unless the seedlings
are subjected to a period of cool weather. They are also late in maturity and
suffer attacks from some diseases, insects, and severe winter cold.
In 1963, the first Mexican semi-dwarfs were commercially planted in Cali-
fornia. (This step followed the introduction of tall Mexican varieties the
previous year in order to provide resistance to stem rust.) The varieties were
not certified, however, until 1966 because extensive seed purification was
needed to meet certification standards. Pitic 62 was the first to be grown
extensively.30


The Next Round of Semi-Dwarfs

From 1966 to 1968, five more semi-dwarfs were developed and released for
commercial use. All were based on work originating in the 1950's.







Three were released in 1966: Blueboy, Maricopa, and Sturdy.31 Although
the original cross for Blueboy was made in South Carolina, the selections were
made at the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station (AES). The
variety showed excellent straw strength and yield potential.32 Maricopa,
released by the Arizona AES and USDA, was adapted to the irrigated areas of
Arizona.33 Sturdy was developed by the Texas AES and USDA. Unlike the
others, it obtained its dwarfing genes from Seu Seun 27; at the time of intro-
duction it was 6 to 10 inches shorter than the other varieties in commercial
production. It was recommended for dryland conditions.3 In terms of market
type, Maricopa is a semi-hard to hard White Spring wheat, Blueboy is a Soft
Red Winter, and Sturdy is a Hard Red Winter; the latter two were the first of
their type to be released.
Subsequent releases included Timwin in 1967 and Yorkstar in 1968. Tim-
win, another Soft Red Winter variety, was released by the Wisconsin AES and
USDA.35 Yorkstar, a soft White Winter variety, was developed by the New
York AES (at Cornell University).36




5EMII-DWARFF
PARENTAL MATERIAL













Plate 7. "Semi-Dwarf Parental Material (left foreground) Used in Cornell Breeding Pro-
gram," Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., July 1958.

In 1968, two selections from crosses made in Mexico by Borlaug and his
associates were introduced: Chaparral and Red River 68. Chaparral, a Hard
Red Spring variety, was released by DeKalb AgResearch, Inc., for use in
southern Texas. The original cross was made by CIMMYT and the variety
evolved from a selection made by DeKalb from an F5 population.37 Red River
68, another Hard Red Spring variety, was introduced by World Seeds for use in
the North Central States. The original cross was made in Mexico (where off-
spring are known as Tobari "S") and selections made in the United States.38







Also in 1968, the California AES reported on tests of several introductions
from Mexico. Two-Siete Cerros 66 and INIA 66-were found to have out-
standing performance and were approved for certification by the California
Crop Improvement Association.39
Thus, by the close of 1968, the U.S. wheat industry began to experience a
pattern that was to be repeated with increasing frequency in the future: The
release of varieties developed from hybridization in the United States, or, to a
lesser extent, the release of selections from crosses originally made by CIMMYT
and the introduction of varieties developed in Mexico.


Expansion of Semi-Dwarf Releases

During the 11 years from 1969 through 1979, there was a significant
increase in the number of semi-dwarf varieties released. While it is difficult (as
indicated in footnote 31) to be precise about exact year of release, it appears
that about 120 varieties-selections and crosses-were released. In addition,
some CIMMYT/Mexican varieties were introduced. Of the total of 120 varieties,
32 represented (with one exception) selections from CIMMYT/Mexican crosses,
and 87 were derived from crosses made in the United States. In the latter case,
14 of the crosses had one or more parents or grandparents of CIMMYT/
Mexican origin. (Further details on the varieties noted here may be found in
tables 1 to 3 in the next section.)
States initially releasing varieties (usually in cooperation with USDA) were
generally around the border of the country: Arizona (1966), California, Ore-
gon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan (1979), New York, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Colorado and
Utah were the main exceptions. Illinois, Oklahoma, and Kansas released their
first semi-dwarfs in 1977. No semi-dwarfs have yet been released by the State
agricultural experiment stations in the important wheat States of Indiana,
Ohio, Nebraska, and South Dakota (semi-dwarfs are not grown in the first
three States, but are rather widely raised in South Dakota). In 1966, Missouri
developed a variety that might be considered a semi-dwarf. Some reasons for
the relative lack of development in the Midwest and Central Plains States will
be discussed in following chapters. The private firms do not follow a similar
geographic pattern.
In any case, it takes substantial time to develop a new variety. Once the first
cross is made, many further selections must be made and many field tests
conducted. A review of genealogical information gathered for this study
suggests that the average interval from first cross to release in the public
sector was 10 to 12 years. If this estimate is correct, and continues to hold,
the first crosses of most of the varieties to be released during the 1980's
already have been made.







The Varietal Situation as of 1979


As of late 1979, at least 147 semi-dwarf varieties of wheat have been released
or introduced for use in the United States. Of this total, 18 varieties represent
known introductions; the actual number may be larger. Another 34 represent
selections from crosses made, with one exception, in Mexico by CIMMYT and
INIA. Finally, 95 represent crosses made in the United States, 14 of which
have some Mexican parentage. This section outlines the process used in select-
ing these varieties and then provides certain details on each in tabular form.


Definition of Varieties

Some of the difficulties in defining semi-dwarf varieties of wheat were noted
in Chapter I. Because of the wide variability in height from region to region,
and, to a lesser extent, from year to year, it is not possible to identify a specific
absolute or relative height level. Also, non-dwarf varieties may sometimes be as
short or shorter than a given semi-dwarf (though this would not normally be
expected to be the case).
Hence, we shall partly make use of genealogy in defining semi-dwarfs.
Specifically, a semi-dwarf wheat variety is normally one that carries a semi-
dwarf gene of Daruma ancestry-usually from Norin 10, but sometimes from
Norin 16, Seu Seun 27, or Suweon 92. This process excludes several short to
medium varieties (such as Arrow and Guide).40 In some cases, Daruma ances-
try was not evident from the published pedigree but was established through
conversations with the breeders involved41 and/or through study of unpub-
lished records.42
But it is not enough that the variety have Daruma ancestry because the
dwarfing gene is recessive; the plant must also be at least short. Thus, while
three current U.S. varieties (Argee, Bannock, and Potomac) have Norin 10
ancestry, they are medium in height and are not included in the listing pro-
vided here.43
Another category also is excluded: varieties having a semi-dwarf in their
ancestry, but getting their shortness from some other source. This is true of
several short to semi-dwarf varieties (Hart, S-76, S-77, and S-78).44 It could
well be argued that these varieties should be included in the semi-dwarf listing,
but this has not been done here.
On the other hand, a few varieties, which might be considered too tall to
properly qualify as semi-dwarfs, are still included. I particularly have Blueboy
and Yorkstar in mind, though others might be mentioned. Yorkstar has been
variously described as short, medium-short, and medium.45 If either variety
were a recent release I might exclude it, but since both were early releases and
short for their time (1966 and 1968), I have decided to include them. A some-







The Varietal Situation as of 1979


As of late 1979, at least 147 semi-dwarf varieties of wheat have been released
or introduced for use in the United States. Of this total, 18 varieties represent
known introductions; the actual number may be larger. Another 34 represent
selections from crosses made, with one exception, in Mexico by CIMMYT and
INIA. Finally, 95 represent crosses made in the United States, 14 of which
have some Mexican parentage. This section outlines the process used in select-
ing these varieties and then provides certain details on each in tabular form.


Definition of Varieties

Some of the difficulties in defining semi-dwarf varieties of wheat were noted
in Chapter I. Because of the wide variability in height from region to region,
and, to a lesser extent, from year to year, it is not possible to identify a specific
absolute or relative height level. Also, non-dwarf varieties may sometimes be as
short or shorter than a given semi-dwarf (though this would not normally be
expected to be the case).
Hence, we shall partly make use of genealogy in defining semi-dwarfs.
Specifically, a semi-dwarf wheat variety is normally one that carries a semi-
dwarf gene of Daruma ancestry-usually from Norin 10, but sometimes from
Norin 16, Seu Seun 27, or Suweon 92. This process excludes several short to
medium varieties (such as Arrow and Guide).40 In some cases, Daruma ances-
try was not evident from the published pedigree but was established through
conversations with the breeders involved41 and/or through study of unpub-
lished records.42
But it is not enough that the variety have Daruma ancestry because the
dwarfing gene is recessive; the plant must also be at least short. Thus, while
three current U.S. varieties (Argee, Bannock, and Potomac) have Norin 10
ancestry, they are medium in height and are not included in the listing pro-
vided here.43
Another category also is excluded: varieties having a semi-dwarf in their
ancestry, but getting their shortness from some other source. This is true of
several short to semi-dwarf varieties (Hart, S-76, S-77, and S-78).44 It could
well be argued that these varieties should be included in the semi-dwarf listing,
but this has not been done here.
On the other hand, a few varieties, which might be considered too tall to
properly qualify as semi-dwarfs, are still included. I particularly have Blueboy
and Yorkstar in mind, though others might be mentioned. Yorkstar has been
variously described as short, medium-short, and medium.45 If either variety
were a recent release I might exclude it, but since both were early releases and
short for their time (1966 and 1968), I have decided to include them. A some-







what similar process was followed for several other "marginal" cases (I may
not have been entirely consistent).
In a few cases, the requirement of proven Daruma ancestry has been relaxed.
It has not been possible to ascertain Daruma ancestry for Norin 26 and Norin
33. However, Norin 26 is a semi-dwarf and in the cases where it was used as a
parent (Plainsman V, 5411, 5422, and 5466) there is a possibility that it may
have outcrossed with Norin 10.46 Norin 33 is a more difficult problem. Al-
though an authoritative source indicates that it has Daruma/Fultz in its ances-
try,47 recent information from Japan suggests that this is not the case.48
Since the two varieties carrying it in their pedigree, Coker 68-15 and Coker
68-19, are slightly shorter than some other varieties classified as semi-dwarfs,
I have elected to retain them.49
In one case, McNair 4823, it has not been possible-despite an extensive
search-to determine the source of shortness. The published pedigree and
other information simply do not reveal any known source of dwarfism. Yet the
variety is clearly short-shorter than the other McNair varieties of known Norin
10 ancestry. Possibly the pedigree was incompletely listed at some point, or
there was an accidental outcross with Norin 10. Tests could verify the presence
of Norin-type genes, but these have not been carried out as yet.50
A new breeding technique, "male sterile facilitated recurrent selection,"
recently has been utilized to develop a semi-dwarf wheat variety (WestBred
Aim). It is a breeder's delight, but a genealogist's despair because of the large
number of varietal crosses involved-about 50 in the case of WestBred Aim.51
Any decision on where to draw a line between semi-dwarf and short vari-
eties necessarily will involve troublesome twilight questions such as these.
There simply is no clear-cut and widely accepted definition, or at least one that
I have been able to determine. Nevertheless, a starting point has been defined
and some of its limitations and exceptions outlined.


Varietal Introductions

At least 18 semi-dwarf varieties appear to have been introduced into the
United States, with all but one coming from Mexico (and the exception has a
Mexican parent). The total may have been even larger, in that 10 other
CIMMYT/INIA bread varieties have been released during the 1973-77 period,
and at least some have probably been introduced.52
The 18 known varieties-partly based on USDA varietal surveys and partly
on registrations in Crop Science-are listed in table 1 along with major sources
of information and notes. All are based on crosses or hybridization and all
derive their semi-dwarf nature from Norin 10.








Table 1-Semi-Dwarf Wheat Varieties Introduced Into the United States

Market P.I. C.I. Crop Science Listing in Other Names
Variety1 Type Number Number Registration S&R2 Zeven3 and Notes
(Volume/Number)


1. Bluebird 2
2. Cajeme 71
3. Ciano 67
4. Cocorit 71
5. Inia 66
6. Lerma Rojo 64
7. Mexicali 75
8. Nadadores 63
9. Norquay (Canada)

10. Penjamo 62
11. Pitic 62

12. Prospur (75)
13. Protor (75)
14. Siete Cerros 66
15. Sonora 64
16. Super X (66)

17. Tanori 71
18. Yecora 70


HRS/HWS
HRS
HRS
D
HRS
SRS
D
HRS
HWS

SRS
HRS

HRS
HRS
HWS
HRS
HRS

HRS
HWS


412954


422277


14490

14195
13929

13931
17343

13924
13927

17408
17409
14493
13930
15230

17416
15390


1972(12/1), p. 131

1972(12/1), p. 1305


1972(12/1), pp. 130-
131


1972(12/1), p. 131s
1972(12/1), p. 130
1972(12/1), p. 131


p. 2 p. 17
p. 3 p. 20
p. 4 p. 25
p. 26
p. 6 p. 52
p. 6 p. 63

p. 7 p. 73


p. 8 p. 81
p. 8 p. 83


p. 86
p. 86
p. 100
p. 101
p. 103


p. 10 p. 105
p. 11 p. 117


Yecora 70 (white grain)
Bluebird 4


Lerma Rojo/Sonora 64/Justin
Dev. at U. of Manitoba


4
4
White-grained sister of Super X

Red-grained sister of Siete
Cerros 66

Bluebird 2


Key: HRS = Hard Red Spring


HWS = Hard White Spring


SRS = Soft Red Spring


D= Durum


'Year after number indicates year of release in Mexico (in case of Prospur, Protor, and Yecora Rojo, year of U.S. release).
S"S&R" refers to B. Skovmand and S. Rajaram, Semidwarf Bread Wheats, Names, Parentages, Pedigrees, Origins, CIMMYT Information Bulletin No. 34,
1978, 16 pp.
3A. C. Zeven and N. Ch. Zeven-Hissink, Genealogies of 14000 Wheat Varieties, CIMMYT, 1976, 119 pp.
4 Released by Northrup King Co. Protor was not released in Mexico (it was not competitive at lower altitudes).
' Also see California Agriculture, December 1978 (Vol. 22, No. 12), p. 6.







Selections From Mexican Crosses


Another 34 varieties have been selected, with one exception, from crosses
originally made by CIMMYT and INIA in Mexico. They are listed in table 2.
Somewhat more information is provided than in the case of the introductions
noted in the previous section: the year of release (approximate in some cases),
the organization releasing the variety, and, for some, the Plant Variety Protec-
tion number. The relatively important role of private firms, particularly of one
firm, is evident. All but one of the selections derive their semi-dwarf nature
from Norin 10.


Varieties Developed in the United States

Following the procedure outlined earlier, 95 varieties developed in the
United States have been identified as semi-dwarfs. These include a few varieties
which are marginal and exclude a few others which might be included. Of
these varieties, 14 have one or more Mexican parents or grandparents. The 95
varieties and associated information and sources are listed in table 3.
All derive their semi-dwarf stature from Norin 10 except the following:

-Norin 16: TAM W-101. Also, along with Norin 10, in pedigree of Lindon,
Wings, and Vona (in KS 62136).
-Norin 26 (and possibly Norin 10): Plainsman V, 5411, 5422, and 5466.
-Norin 33: Coker 68-15 and Coker 68-19.
-Suweon 92: Coulee, Faro, and Paha.
-Seu Seun 27: Caprock, Maverick, Payne, Sturdy, TAM 105 and TAM 106,
TexRed, III, 4555 (Century II), 4578, 5210, 5221, and 5232. (All but
Caprock through Sturdy.)
















(Text continued on p. 54.)







Selections From Mexican Crosses


Another 34 varieties have been selected, with one exception, from crosses
originally made by CIMMYT and INIA in Mexico. They are listed in table 2.
Somewhat more information is provided than in the case of the introductions
noted in the previous section: the year of release (approximate in some cases),
the organization releasing the variety, and, for some, the Plant Variety Protec-
tion number. The relatively important role of private firms, particularly of one
firm, is evident. All but one of the selections derive their semi-dwarf nature
from Norin 10.


Varieties Developed in the United States

Following the procedure outlined earlier, 95 varieties developed in the
United States have been identified as semi-dwarfs. These include a few varieties
which are marginal and exclude a few others which might be included. Of
these varieties, 14 have one or more Mexican parents or grandparents. The 95
varieties and associated information and sources are listed in table 3.
All derive their semi-dwarf stature from Norin 10 except the following:

-Norin 16: TAM W-101. Also, along with Norin 10, in pedigree of Lindon,
Wings, and Vona (in KS 62136).
-Norin 26 (and possibly Norin 10): Plainsman V, 5411, 5422, and 5466.
-Norin 33: Coker 68-15 and Coker 68-19.
-Suweon 92: Coulee, Faro, and Paha.
-Seu Seun 27: Caprock, Maverick, Payne, Sturdy, TAM 105 and TAM 106,
TexRed, III, 4555 (Century II), 4578, 5210, 5221, and 5232. (All but
Caprock through Sturdy.)
















(Text continued on p. 54.)









Table 2-Semi-Dwarf Varieties Developed by Selection From Mexican Crosses


Variety Type Year Released By br P
Released Number P


1. Anza



2. Bonanza

3. Bounty 208

4. Bounty 309

4. 5. Chaparral

6. Colano

7. DK-22S

8. DK-33S

9. DK-49S

10. INIA 66R
11. Lark
12. Peak

13. Peak 72

14. Portola


HRS



HRS

HRS

HRS

HRS

HRS

HRS

HRS

HRS

HRS
HRS
HRS

HRS

HRS


1971 California AES & USDA



1969 DeKalb AgResearch Inc.

1971 Cargill Wheat Research

1974 Cargill Wheat Research

1968 DeKalb AgResearch Inc.

1971 Colorado AES

1978 Douglas W. King Co. Inc.

1978 Douglas W. King Co. Inc.

1978 Douglas W. King Co. Inc.

1969 California AES
1971 World Seeds Inc.
1971 Idaho AES & USDA

1972 Idaho AES & USDA

1975 California AES


17744



14077

15078

17315

14076

15333






15328
17338
14587

15319

17415


~lant Variety Crop Science


olant Variety Crop Science
protection No. Registration
(Volume/Number)
(California
Agriculture,
Feb. 1973,
pp. 14-15)
7100023 1972(12/1)
3/19/74 p. 129
1973(13/4)
pp. 495-496
7400068 1975(15/1)
10/17/75 p. 104
1972(12/1)
p.129
1974(14/5)
p.777
7800002
9/13/79
7800003
8/10/78
7800004
12/28/78


1972(12/2)
p.259
1973(13/2)
p.288


Other Notes


Sister of Chaparral





Sister of Bonanza








2
Sister of WS-1651


Selection from Peak

Jilguero "S" in Mexico











15. Probred

16. Prodax

17. Produra

18. Profit 75

19. Red River 68
20. Solar

21. WestBred
1000D
22. W433
23. W-444

24. WS-15

25. WS-3

26. WS-6

27. WS-25

28. WS-1616
29. WS-1651
30. WS-1809

31. WS-1812
32. WS-1859
33. WS-1877
34. Yecora Rojo


HRS

HRS

D

HRS

HRS
HRS

D

HRS
HRS

HWS

D

HRS

HRS

HRS
HRS
HRS

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS


1974

1974

1975

1975

1968
1978

1978

1972
1976

1974

1973

1973

1976

1971
1969
1971

1969
1969
1969
1976


Northrup, King Co.

Northrup, King Co.

Northrup, King Co.

World Seeds Inc.

World Seeds Inc.
Northrup, King Co.

Western Plant
Breeders4
Germains Inc.
Germains Inc.

World Seeds Inc.

World Seeds Inc.

World Seeds Inc.

World Seeds Inc.

World Seeds Inc.
World Seeds Inc.
World Seeds Inc.

World Seeds Inc.
World Seeds Inc.
World Seeds Inc.
California AES


17410

17407

17406

17348

14193




17245


17347

17346

17345




15334
15012

14585


17414


75000033
6/30/75
7500005
6/30/75
7400009
6/30/75
7400087
4/18/75

7800010
3/29/79
7900004
11/27/79

7600079
12/20/76
7400099
12/12/75
7300074
1/10/75
7300067
3/5/76
7605019
5/16/77

7200029
5/16/74


Selection from
Bluebird 2




Sister of WS-25

Sister of Tobari 66
3

Italian ancestry


Sister of Profit 75


Sister of Lark







Key: HRS = Hard Red Spring D = Durum

'Developed by Dr. I. M. Atkins while at Texas AES.
2 Reselection of INIA 66 (INIA 66 was not certified after 1969).
3Derived from a single-head selection made in 1969 in a plot of UM-953A at the University of Manitoba. UM-953A was derived from the cross Sonora/
Tezanos Pintos Precoz.
4 Valley Seed Co. and Montana Seeds.
SA standardized abbreviation has been used for the World Seeds varieties. WS-3, for instance, is technically recorded as W.S. 6, while WS-1616 is listed World
Seeds 1616.
6 Red-seeded sib of Yecora 70.










Table 3-Semi-Dwarf Wheat Varieties Developed From Crosses Made in the United States

Market Year Developed and/or C.I. Plant Variety Crop Science Other Notes
Variety Type Released Released By Number Protection No. Registration
(Volume/Number)


1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

S 7.

8.
9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.


Aldura'
Angus

Augusta
Barbee

Blueboy

Blueboy II

Borah

Calvin
Cando'

Caprock

Chanute

Coker 68-15

Coker 68-19

Coker 747

Coulee


D
HRS

SWW
C

SRW

SRW

HRS

D
D

HRW

HRW

SRW

SRW

SRW

HWW


1979
1978

1979
1976

1966

1971

1974

1978
1975

1969

1969

1971

1970

1976

1971


Northrup, King Co.
Minnesota AES & USDA

Michigan AES
Washington AES & USDA

North Carolina AES

North Carolina AES

Idaho AES & USDA

North Dakota AES
North Dakota AES & USDA

Texas AES & USDA

DeKalb AgResearch Inc.

Coker's Pedigreed Seed Co.

Coker's Pedigreed Seed Co.

Coker's Pedigreed Seed Co.

Washington AES & USDA


1979(19/5)
pp. 749-750

1977(17/4)
p. 675
1967(7/1)
p.82
7200033 1972(12/3)
2/26/74 p. 398
1975(15/1)
p. 104

1976(16/6)
p. 885
1969(9/6)
p.852
1970(10/4)
p. 461
7200014
3/6/74
7200015
3/6/75
7605015
9/20/78
1974(14/2)
p. 340


For Arizona, Calif.
Sister of Kitt














Sister of Sturdy

Sister of Palo Duro,
Satanta, Yukon




From a cross of Coker
68-15, Arthur


17744

17831
17417

14031

15281

17267

17747
17438

14516

14581

15291

15229



14483








Table 3-Semi-Dwarf Wheat Varieties Developed From Crosses Made in the United States (Continued)


V t Market Year Developed and/or C.I.
variety Type Released Released By Number


16. Daws

17. Era

18. Faro

19. Fielder

20. Fieldwin

21. Fletcher

22. Frakenmuth
23. Fremont

24. Gaines

25. GB-2148
(Century II)
26. House

27. Hyslop

28. Kitt


SWW

HRS

C

SWS

SWS

HRS

SWW
HRS

SWW

HRW

SWW

SWW

HRS


1976

1970

1976

1974

1977

1970

1979
1970

1961

1975

1977

1971

1975


Washington AES & USDA

Minnesota AES & USDA

Oregon AES & USDA

Idaho AES & USDA

Idaho AES & USDA

Minnesota AES & USDA

Michigan AES
Utah AES & USDA

Washington AES & USDA

Greenbush Seed & Supply

New York AES (Cornell)

Oregon AES

Minnesota AES & USDA


17419

13986

17590

17268

17425

13985

17830
14056

13448



17736

14564

17297


Plant Variety Crop Science
Protection No. Registration
(Volume/Number)
1977(17/4)
pp. 674-675
1971(11/4)
p. 604
1978(16/6)
p. 1095
1975(15/1)
p. 104
1978(18/5)
p. 916
1971(11/4)
p. 604

1972(12/1)
p. 130
1964(4/1)
pp. 116-117
7600025
3/16/78
1979(19/3)
p. 415
1972(12/3)
p. 398
1976(16/5)
p. 744


Other Notes


Sister of Fletcher,
Wared


Sister of Fieldwin

Sister of Fielder

Sister of Era, Wared






Developed by SRI'
Sister of 5210




Sister of Angus










29. Len
30. Lindon'

31. Luke

32. Marberg'
33. Maricopa

34. Maverick

35. McDermid

36. McNair 701

37. McNair 1003

' 38. McNair 1587

39. McNair 1813

40. McNair 2203
41. McNair 4823

42. Modoc'

43. Newana

44. Newton'

45. Norana


HRS
HRW

SWW

HRS
HWS

HRW

SWW

SRW

SRW

SRW

SRW

SRW
SRW

D

HRS

HRW

HRS


1979
1975

1970

1979
1966

1977

1974

1972

1977

1973

1975

1970
1972

1975

1976

1977

1973


North Dakota AES & USDA
Colorado AES

Washington AES & USDA

Montana AES & USDA
Arizona AES & USDA

Harpool Seeds Inc. & McGregor
Milling & Grain Co.
Oregon AES & USDA

McNair Seed Co.

McNair Seed Co.

McNair Seed Co.

McNair Seed Co.

McNair Seed Co.
McNair Seed Co.

California AES

Montana AES & USDA

Kansas AES & USDA

Montana AES & USDA


17790
17440

14586

17829
14129

17728

14565

15288



17279

15289

15228
15290

17466

17430

17715

15927


7600076 1977(17/2)
3/18/77 p. 346
1974(14/1)
p. 129

1967(7/4)
p. 405


7700108
9/29/78


7200038
2/26/74
7700084
8/10/78


7500006
5/1/75


1976(16/5)
p. 745
1973(13/5)
p. 585


7200037 1973(13/5)
4/8/75 p. 585
1978(18/5)
p.916
1977(17/4)
p.674
7800100 1978(18/4)
3/1/79 p. 696
1974(14/1)
p. 128


Sister of Vona, Wings






Sister of TexRed2



Selection from McNair
2203


Not marketed; sister
of McNair 701


Sister of Norana







Table 3-Semi-Dwarf Wheat Varieties Developed From Crosses Made in the United States (Continued)


Market Year Developed and/or C.I.
Variety Type Released Released By Number


46. Nugaines

47. Olaf


48. Omega 78
49. Paha

50. Palo Duro
Qn
a 51. Payne
52. Peck
53. Plainsman V

54. Pondera'
55. Powell'
56. Pronto

57. Purcell
58. Raeder

59. Roland
60. Roy


SWW

HRS


SRW
C

HRW

HRW
SWW
HRW

HRS
HRS
HRW

SWW
SWW

SRW
SRW


1965 Washington AES & USDA

1973 North Dakota AES & USDA4


1978
1970

1969

1977
1974
1974

1979
1978
1970

1979
1976

1977
1979


Georgia AES
Washington AES & USDA

DeKalb AgResearch Inc.

Oklahoma AES & USDA
Idaho AES & USDA
Dixie Portland Milling Co.

Montana AES & USDA
Utah AES
DeKalb AgResearch Inc.

New York AES (Cornell)
Washington AES & USDA

Illinois AES & USDA
North Carolina AES


13968

15930


17721
14485

14584

17717
17298


17828
17761
14078

17787
17418

17716
17763


Plant Variety Crop Science


Plant Variety Crop Science
Protection No. Registration
(Volume/Number)
1974(14/4)
p. 609
(North Dakota
Farm Research,
March-April 1973)

1972(12/2)
p. 260
1970(10/3) Si
p. 462


7500082
9/07/76


Other Notes


ster of Chanute,
Satanta, Yukon


Developed by SRI2


1971(11/6)
p. 944

1977(17/4)
p. 675

1979(19/3)
p. 414










61.

62.

63.
64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.
72.
73.

74.

75.

76.


Satanta

Sawtell'

Shasta'
Shortana

Sprague

Springfield

Stephens

Sturdy

TAM W-101

TAM W-103

TAM 105
TAM 106
TexRed

Ticonderoga

Timwin

Twin


HRW

HRS

HRS
HRS

SWW

SWS

SWW

HRW

HRW

HRW

HRW
HRW
HRW

SWW

SRW

SWS

SWS


1969

1977

1976
1971

1972

1970

1977

1966

1971

1973

1979
1979
1977

1973

1967

1971


DeKalb AgResearch Inc.

Idaho AES & USDA

California AES
Montana AES & USDA

Washington AES & USDA

Idaho AES & USDA

Oregon AES & USDA3

Texas AES & USDA

Texas AES & USDA3

Texas AES & USDA3

Texas AES & USDA3
Texas AES & USDA3
Esco, Harpool, & George
Warner Seed Co.
New York AES (Cornell)

Wisconsin AES & USDA

Idaho AES & USDA


14583

17424

17651
15233

15376

14589

17596

13684

15324

17336

17826
17827
17729

17290

13787

14588

17413


1977(17/4)
p. 673
1974(14/6)
p. 908
1972(12/2)
p. 259
1976(16/5)
p. 742


7700109
8/10/78


1970(10/4)
p. 461
1978(18/5)
pp. 915, 916

1971(11/6)
pp. 944-945
1978(18/4)
pp. 695-696
1972(12/2)
p. 259
1978(18/6)
p. 1097
1967(7/4)
p. 406
1974(14/4)
p. 608
1976(16/5)
pp. 744-745
1980(20/1)
1980(20/1)


1975 Washington AES & USDA


Sister of Chanute,
Palo Duro, Yukon












Sister of Caprock







Sister of Maverick3


77. Urquie








Table 3-Semi-Dwarf Wheat Varieties Developed From Crosses Made in the United States (Continued)

Variety Market Year Developed and/or C.I. Plant Variety Crop Science Other Notes
Type Released Released By Number Protection No. Registration


78.

79.
80.

81.

82.

U 83.

84.


85.

86.

87.

88.

89.


17441

17759
15070

15926


(Volume/Number)
7700029 1978(18/4)
5/16/77 p.695

1974(14/6)
p.910
1974(14/6)
p.910
7900005 1978(18/4)
10/18/79 p. 6985
7700053
8/11/77
7900074
Apl.


Vona'

Walladay
Wandell

Wared

WestBred
Aim'
Wings'

WS-13'
(World
Seeds 13)
Yorkstar

Yukon

III

4555 (Cen-
tury II)
4578


HRW

SWS
D

HRS

HRS

HRW

SWW


SWW

HRW

HRW

HRW

HRW


1976

1979
1971

1972

1978

1977

1979


1968

1969

1974

1977

1978


Colorado AES

Washington AES & USDA
Washington AES

Washington AES & USDA4

Western Plant Breeders (Valley
Seed/Montana Seeds)
North American Plant Breeders

World Seeds Inc.


New York AES (Cornell)

DeKalb AgResearch Inc.

Shallow Water Grain Co.

Greenbush Seed Co.

Seed Research Inc.


14026

14583


7500080
9/7/76
7600050
7/19/77
7800006
10/18/79


1968(8/5)
pp. 641-642
1970(10/4)
p. 462


Sister of Lindon,
Wings



Sister of Era, Fletcher



Developed by Col. AES.
Sister of Lindon, Vona





Sister of Chanute,
Palo Duro, Satanta
Developed by SRI2

Developed by SRI2










1973 Dixie Portland Milling Co.


1976 Seed Research Inc.

1976 Seed Research Inc.

1973 Dixie Portland Milling Co.

1977 Seed Research Inc.

1978 Seed Research Inc.


90. 5210


91. 5221

92. 5232

93. 5411

94. 5422

95. 5466


Developed by SRI2
Sister of GB-2148
and 5232


Sister of GB-2148 and
5210
Developed by SRI2
Sister of 5422
Sister of 5411


n, KEY: HRS = Hard Red Spring HWW = Hard White Winter
a HRW = Hard Red Winter SRW = Soft Red Winter
HWS = Hard White Spring SWS = Soft White Spring

'One or more ancestors of Mexican/CIMMYT origin.
2 SRI = Seed Research Incorporated.
3Developed by I. M. Atkins while at Texas AES.
4Not released by USDA.
s Registration of parental germplasm.


SWW = Soft White Winter
C =Club
D =Durum


HRW


HRW

HRW

HRW

HRW

HRW


7600045
12/20/76

7600049
9/28/77
7600051
6/7/77
7600046
10/29/76
7700105
1/25/79
7700106
8/16/79







Summary of Varieties Introduced and Released

An integrated, alphabetical listing of the 147 varieties reported in the previ-
ous three sections and tables is provided in table 4. The origin is indicated by a
code letter: I for introduction, S for selection, and X for cross. The list
includes known semi-dwarf varieties released or introduced from 1961 through
late 1979. As noted earlier, some additional introductions may have been made
from Mexico.
The listing, reflecting reservations mentioned earlier, has some limitations.
Certain varieties might not be considered semi-dwarfs by everyone, while some
other varieties-particularly Hart, S-76, S-77, and S-78-might be added to the
list. In addition, not all of the varieties may be in active use, as of 1979; a fuller
picture will be available when the national summary of the 1979 variety
survey-to be discussed in the next section-is released.
Of the 129 selections and crosses listed, 71 were released by the public
sector and 58 by the private sector. The role of the public sector (Federal and
State agricultural experiment stations) was relatively larger in the case of
crosses, where it was responsible for 64 of the 95; the private sector was rela-
tively more important in the case of selections, developing 27 out of 34. Alto-
gether, USDA, 19 States, and 17 private firms were involved. Among the
States, two released 22 varieties (Washington, 13 and Idaho, 9), while two
private firms produced 25 varieties (World Seeds, 14 and Seed Research, Inc.,
11-though 6 of the latter were marketed through other firms). In many cases,
private firms utilized parental materials developed in the public sector.


Estimated Area Planted, 1964, 1969, and 1974

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with 42 States, has
conducted variety surveys every 5 years since 1919.53 The surveys reveal the
breakdown of the area planted/seeded. Since the first U.S. semi-dwarf, Gaines,
was introduced in 1962, the results of three surveys have been published-for
1964, 1969, and 1974.54 Another national survey was conducted in 1979, but
it has not yet been published. Partial data from this survey are briefly sum-
marized in the final section of this chapter.
Once a list of semi-dwarf varieties has been prepared, it is relatively easy to
determine the area planted to these varieties in the survey years. Results of
such tabulations will be presented on the following pages. In viewing the
statistics, it should be noted that the actual harvested area of all varieties is
always less than the planted area. For the 3 survey years, the total harvested
area formed the following percentages of planted area: 1964, 85.7; 1969, 88.2;
and 1974, 92.0. Consequently, the semi-dwarf area actually harvested would be
less than the area reported planted here. Whether the nonharvested proportion
would be the same as for other varieties is not known.







Summary of Varieties Introduced and Released

An integrated, alphabetical listing of the 147 varieties reported in the previ-
ous three sections and tables is provided in table 4. The origin is indicated by a
code letter: I for introduction, S for selection, and X for cross. The list
includes known semi-dwarf varieties released or introduced from 1961 through
late 1979. As noted earlier, some additional introductions may have been made
from Mexico.
The listing, reflecting reservations mentioned earlier, has some limitations.
Certain varieties might not be considered semi-dwarfs by everyone, while some
other varieties-particularly Hart, S-76, S-77, and S-78-might be added to the
list. In addition, not all of the varieties may be in active use, as of 1979; a fuller
picture will be available when the national summary of the 1979 variety
survey-to be discussed in the next section-is released.
Of the 129 selections and crosses listed, 71 were released by the public
sector and 58 by the private sector. The role of the public sector (Federal and
State agricultural experiment stations) was relatively larger in the case of
crosses, where it was responsible for 64 of the 95; the private sector was rela-
tively more important in the case of selections, developing 27 out of 34. Alto-
gether, USDA, 19 States, and 17 private firms were involved. Among the
States, two released 22 varieties (Washington, 13 and Idaho, 9), while two
private firms produced 25 varieties (World Seeds, 14 and Seed Research, Inc.,
11-though 6 of the latter were marketed through other firms). In many cases,
private firms utilized parental materials developed in the public sector.


Estimated Area Planted, 1964, 1969, and 1974

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with 42 States, has
conducted variety surveys every 5 years since 1919.53 The surveys reveal the
breakdown of the area planted/seeded. Since the first U.S. semi-dwarf, Gaines,
was introduced in 1962, the results of three surveys have been published-for
1964, 1969, and 1974.54 Another national survey was conducted in 1979, but
it has not yet been published. Partial data from this survey are briefly sum-
marized in the final section of this chapter.
Once a list of semi-dwarf varieties has been prepared, it is relatively easy to
determine the area planted to these varieties in the survey years. Results of
such tabulations will be presented on the following pages. In viewing the
statistics, it should be noted that the actual harvested area of all varieties is
always less than the planted area. For the 3 survey years, the total harvested
area formed the following percentages of planted area: 1964, 85.7; 1969, 88.2;
and 1974, 92.0. Consequently, the semi-dwarf area actually harvested would be
less than the area reported planted here. Whether the nonharvested proportion
would be the same as for other varieties is not known.












Table 4-Summary Listing of Semi-Dwarf Wheat Varieties
Introduced and Released in the United States


Variety Origin
1. Aldura X
2. Angus S
3. Anza S
4. Augusta X
5. Barbee X
6. Bluebird 2 I
7. Blueboy X
8. Blueboy II X
9. Bonanza S
10. Borah X
11. Bounty 208 S
12. Bounty 309 S
13. Cajeme 71 I
14. Calvin X
15. Cando X
16. Caprock X
17. Chanute X
18. Chaparral S
19. Ciano 67 I
20. Cocorit 71 I
21. Coker 68-15 X
22. Coker 68-19 X
23. Coker 747 X
24. Colano S
25. Coulee X
26. Daws X
27. DK-22S S
28. DK-33S S
29. DK-49S S
30. Era X
31. Faro X
32. Fielder X
33. Fieldwin X
34. Fletcher X
35. Frakenmuth X
36. Fremont X
37. Gaines X


Variety
38. GB-2148 (Century II)
39. Houser
40. Hyslop
41. INIA 66
42. INIA 66R
43. Kitt
44. Lark
45. Len
46. Lerma Rojo 64
47. Lindon
48. Luke
49. Marberg
50. Maricopa
51. Maverick
52. McDermid
53. McNair 701
54. McNair 1003
55. McNair 1587
56. McNair 1813
57. McNair 2203
58. McNair 4823
59. Mexicali 75
60. Modoc
61. Nadadores 63
62. Newana
63. Newton
64. Norana
65. Norquay
66. Nugaines
67. Olaf
68. Omega 78
69. Paha
70. Palo Duro
71. Payne
72. Peak
73. Peak 72
74. Peck


KEY: I = introduction; S = selection; X = cross made in United States.


Origin
X
X
X
I
S
X
S
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
I
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
S
X












Table 4-Summary Listing of Semi-Dwarf Wheat Varieties
Introduced and Released in the United States (Continued)


Variety
75. Penjamo 62
76. Pitic 62
77. Plainsman V
78. Pondera
79. Portola
80. Powell
81. Probred
82. Prodax
83. Produra
84. Profit 75
85. Pronto
86. Prospur
87. Protor
88. Purcell
89. Raeder
90. Red River 68
91. Roland
92. Roy
93. Satanta
94. Sawtell
95. Shasta
96. Shortana
97. Siete Cerros 66
98. Solar
99. Sonora 64
100. Sprague
101. Springfield
102. Stephens
103. Sturdy
104. Super X
105. TAM W-101
106. TAM W-103
107. TAM 105
108. TAM 106
109. Tanori 71
110. TexRed
111. Ticonderoga


Origin
I
I
X
X
S
X
S
S
S
S
X
I
I
X
X
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
S
I
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
I
X
X


Variety
112. Timwin
113. Twin
114. Urquie
115. Vona
116. Walladay
117. Wandell
118. Wared
119. WestBred Aim
120. Westbred 1000D
121. Wings
122. W-433
123. W-444
124. WS-1'
125. WS-3
126. WS-6
127. WS-13
128. WS-25
129. WS-1616
130. WS-1651
131. WS-1809
132. WS-1812
133. WS-1859
134. WS-1877
135. Yecora 70
136. Yecora Rojo
137. Yorkstar
138.Yukon
139. III
140. 4555 (Century II)
141.4578
142.5210
143.5221
144.5232
145.5411
146.5422
147.5466


'Standardized abbreviation for World Seeds Co. varieties (see table 2, fn. 5).


Origin
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
X
S
S
S
S
S
X
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
I
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X







Total Semi-Dwarf Area

Although the composite listing of all known semi-dwarfs in 1979 totaled
147 (table 4), the number of varieties reported in early varietal listings was, of
course, considerably less. The actual totals were: 1964, 3; 1969, 24; and 1974,
69.55 A number of varieties (60 selections and crosses) have been released sub-
sequently, others have gone out of use, some may not have been used com-
mercially, and the varietal names of some may not have been known. The semi-
dwarfs were part of a more general proliferation of varieties.
The total area planted to semi-dwarf wheat varieties as defined in this report
increased as follows:

Year Semi-Dwarf All Varieties Proportion Semi-Dwarf
Acres (rounded) Percent
1964 1,609,000 55,046,000 2.92
1969 3,806,000 54,312,000 7.01
1974 15,756,400 71,169,000 22.14

Clearly there was a significant increase in the semi-dwarf area, both in terms of
actual area and in proportion of total area. The increase was particularly sharp
between 1969 and 1974. Actually, the semi-dwarf area was probably slightly
higher in each year because a varietal breakdown is not available for a small
portion of total area (1.54 percent in 1964; 1.23 in 1969; and 1.95 in 1974),
and a part of this may be composed of semi-dwarfs.
In terms of origins, the breakdown of the semi-dwarf area was:

Category 1964 1969 1974
Acres (Percent)
Introductions 5,059 (0.3) 277,342 (7.3) 861,063 (5.5)
Selections 0 (0) 169,938 (4.5) 3,183,811 (20.2)
Crosses 1,603,867 (99.7) 3,358,759 (88.2) 11,711,491 (74.3)
Total 1,609,006 (100.0) 3,806,039 (100.0) 15,756,365 (100.0)

Clearly, there were substantial increases in each category. In terms of total
wheat area in 1974, the semi-dwarfs-broken down by origin-represented the
following proportions: introductions, 1.21 percent; selections, 4.47 percent;
and crosses, 16.46 percent. Although 14 of the U.S. crosses extant in 1979
contained one or more Mexican parents, all of these varieties were released
after 1974 and hence do not show up in the area figures.







Area of Individual Varieties


Changes in the area of the 69 semi-dwarf varieties reported in the 3 survey
years are listed in table 5, divided on the basis of origin.56 Gaines and Nugaines
occupied over 1.6 million acres, or 99.7 percent of semi-dwarf area in 1964
(0 for Nugaines that year); nearly 2.5 million acres, or 66 percent in 1969;
and nearly 2.2 million acres, or 14 percent in 1974. Nugaines gradually re-
placed Gaines. Between 1964 and 1969 the largest increases, aside from
Nugaines, were for Blueboy and Sturdy. Between 1969 and 1974, the largest
jumps (about 300,000 acres or more) were for: Bonanza, Bounty 208, Lark,
WS-1809, Caprock, Era (the largest increase of any variety), Hyslop, Olaf,
Paha, Palo Duro, Satanta, Springfield, Sturdy, and Twin. Decreases were
reported for Blueboy, Gaines, and Red River 68.
As of 1974, the top 12 semi-dwarf varieties occupied 68.3 percent of the
semi-dwarf area. The largest areas were occupied by Era (15.4 percent of
semi-dwarf area), Nugaines (10.5 percent), and Sturdy (9.8 percent). The other
nine leading varieties, in decreasing order of importance, were: Lark, Bounty
208, Hyslop, Satanta, Gaines, Palo Duro, Paha, Bonanza, and Chanute. (Lark,
Bounty, and Bonanza were selections; the remainder were U.S. crosses.)
Of total area in 1974, 85.3 percent was composed of varieties developed by
public agencies and 14.7 percent was composed of varieties released by private
firms.


Area by Market Type

The varietal surveys broke the area down into six market types. These were
the same as those listed in the Introduction and in tables 1 to 3, with the
exception that the Soft White Spring and Soft White Winter wheats were com-
bined into a White category.
The breakdown of these types is as follows for the 3 survey years:

Market Type 1964 1969 1974
Acres (Percent')
Hard Red Spring 5,139 (0.1) 396,479 (5.4) 6,639,509 (45.0)
Hard Red Winter 0 303,330 (0.9) 3,859,491 (10.6)
Soft Red Winter 0 479,625 (7.7) 776,360 (8.1)
White 1,603,867 (33.0) 2,626,605 (54.0) 3,995,139 (63.6)
Club (white) 0 0 479,301 (48.1)
Durum 0 0 6,565 (1.6)
Total 1,609,006 (2.9) 3,806,039 (7.0)15,756,365 (22.1)
'The percentage figure in parentheses indicates proportion of total area
of that market type planted to semi-dwarfs.







Area of Individual Varieties


Changes in the area of the 69 semi-dwarf varieties reported in the 3 survey
years are listed in table 5, divided on the basis of origin.56 Gaines and Nugaines
occupied over 1.6 million acres, or 99.7 percent of semi-dwarf area in 1964
(0 for Nugaines that year); nearly 2.5 million acres, or 66 percent in 1969;
and nearly 2.2 million acres, or 14 percent in 1974. Nugaines gradually re-
placed Gaines. Between 1964 and 1969 the largest increases, aside from
Nugaines, were for Blueboy and Sturdy. Between 1969 and 1974, the largest
jumps (about 300,000 acres or more) were for: Bonanza, Bounty 208, Lark,
WS-1809, Caprock, Era (the largest increase of any variety), Hyslop, Olaf,
Paha, Palo Duro, Satanta, Springfield, Sturdy, and Twin. Decreases were
reported for Blueboy, Gaines, and Red River 68.
As of 1974, the top 12 semi-dwarf varieties occupied 68.3 percent of the
semi-dwarf area. The largest areas were occupied by Era (15.4 percent of
semi-dwarf area), Nugaines (10.5 percent), and Sturdy (9.8 percent). The other
nine leading varieties, in decreasing order of importance, were: Lark, Bounty
208, Hyslop, Satanta, Gaines, Palo Duro, Paha, Bonanza, and Chanute. (Lark,
Bounty, and Bonanza were selections; the remainder were U.S. crosses.)
Of total area in 1974, 85.3 percent was composed of varieties developed by
public agencies and 14.7 percent was composed of varieties released by private
firms.


Area by Market Type

The varietal surveys broke the area down into six market types. These were
the same as those listed in the Introduction and in tables 1 to 3, with the
exception that the Soft White Spring and Soft White Winter wheats were com-
bined into a White category.
The breakdown of these types is as follows for the 3 survey years:

Market Type 1964 1969 1974
Acres (Percent')
Hard Red Spring 5,139 (0.1) 396,479 (5.4) 6,639,509 (45.0)
Hard Red Winter 0 303,330 (0.9) 3,859,491 (10.6)
Soft Red Winter 0 479,625 (7.7) 776,360 (8.1)
White 1,603,867 (33.0) 2,626,605 (54.0) 3,995,139 (63.6)
Club (white) 0 0 479,301 (48.1)
Durum 0 0 6,565 (1.6)
Total 1,609,006 (2.9) 3,806,039 (7.0)15,756,365 (22.1)
'The percentage figure in parentheses indicates proportion of total area
of that market type planted to semi-dwarfs.











Table 5-Area Planted to Individual Semi-Dwarf Varieties
Of Wheat in the United States 1964, 1969, and 1974
(In Acres)

Source/Variety 1964 1969 1974
INTRODUCTIONS
Bluebird 2 87,686
Cajeme 71 130,604
INIA 66/INIA 66R' 2,018 242,985
Lerma Rojo 64 748 7,329
Nadadores 63 962 12,235
Penjamo 62 14,903 68,000
Pitic 62 4,391 111,098 133,712
Prospur 377
Protor 15,453
Siete Cerros 66 50,162 157,248
Sonora 64 90,682 3,736
Super X 188 8,669
Yecora 70 358
Subtotal 5,059 277,342 861,063


SELECTIONS
Anza
Bonanza
Bounty 208
Chaparral
Colano
Lark
Peak
Peak 72
Prodax
Produra
Profit 75
Red River 68
WS-1
WS-3
WS-6
WS-1616
WS-1651
WS-1809
WS-1812
WS-1859
WS-1877
Subtotal


178,419
659 373,031
786,735
24,200
24
791,261
15,304
13,650
20
5,409
3,168
130,068 100,582
1,330
806
21,493
400
1,447 40,424
10,405 728,839
27,359 19,753
2,854
76,109
169,938 3,183,811








Table 5-Area Planted to Individual Semi-Dwarf Varieties
Of Wheat in the United States 1964, 1969, and 1974 (Continued)
(In Acres)

Source/Variety 1964 1969 1974


CROSSES
Blueboy
Blueboy II
Caprock
Chanute
Coker 68-15
Coker 68-19
Era
Fielder
Fletcher
Fremont
Gaines
Hyslop
Luke
Maricopa


475,871 340,472
59,368
293,456
1,224 342,067
165,496
70,932
323 2,431,361
970
6,922
10,280
1,603,867 1,043,435 533,175
680,216
63,101
4,037


McDermid 9,680
McNair 1813 386
McNair 2203 59 5,247
McNair 4823 3,408
McNair 701 107,302
Norana 10,243
Nugaines 1,455,245 1,649,090
Olaf 296,432
Paha 479,301
Palo Duro 499,445
Pronto 80,387
Satanta 1,516 650,539
Shortana 4,548
Sprague 6,860
Springfield 314,385
Sturdy 300,590 1,538,365
TAM W-101 281,249
TAM W-103 3,627
Timwin 2,733 23,749
Twin 327,843
Wandell 350
Yorkstar 73,726 250,883
Yukon 170,356
Subtotal 1,603,867 3,358,759 11,711,491

Total 1,609,006 3,806,039 15,756,365

'INIA 66R is a reselection of INIA 66 and technically should be
listed as a selection. The statistical reporting does not distinguish
between the two.








In terms of the total 1974 semi-dwarf area, 42.1 percent was Hard Red
Spring, 25.4 percent White, 24.5 percent Hard Red Winter, 4.9 percent Soft
Red Winter, 3.0 percent Club, and negligible for Durum.
Clearly, the semi-dwarfs quickly started out as a significant portion of the
White wheat area and moved up fast. They started out later for Club wheat,
but increased quickly as a proportion of total area. They started out slowly for
Hard Red Spring wheats, then expanded quickly between 1969 and 1974.
They grew more slowly -in the case of Hard Red Winter, Soft Red Winter, and,
particularly, Durum wheat.


Area by State

The area of semi-dwarf wheat planted in individual States during the 3
survey years is presented in table 6. (The figure in parentheses indicates the
area of semi-dwarfs as a proportion of the area of all varieties planted in that
State.) The number of States represented grew from 18 in 1964 to 39 in 1969,
and to 42 in 1974.
The largest areas in absolute terms as of 1974 were found in Minnesota
(15.3 percent of total semi-dwarf area), North Dakota (13.4 percent), and
Washington (13.3 percent). Other leaders, in decreasing order of area, were;
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Oregon, South Dakota, and California.
The total semi-dwarf area in the four Midwestern States of Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, and Missouri was only 114,000 acres, consisting principally of Blue-
boy and Blueboy II. The area in Nebraska, an important wheat State, was
negligible.
As a proportion of total wheat area in a State in 1974, the semi-dwarfs
were highest in the Southwestern States of Arizona (98.8 percent), California
(89.6 percent), and Nevada (88.8 percent). Other leading producing States,
in decreasing order, were: Minnesota, Oregon, and Idaho. Among the smaller
producers, Florida, New York, and South Carolina had relatively high propor-
tions. Despite the rather large areas of semi-dwarfs in some of the States noted
in the preceding paragraph, their proportions of semi-dwarfs were moderate (in
percent): North Dakota, 20.5; Texas, 28.4; Oklahoma, 16.5; Kansas, 9.4; and
South Dakota, 24.9. The proportion in the four Midwestern States was only
1.8 percent.
Major changes in absolute area between survey years were as follows.
Between 1964 and 1969, the increases were largest (more than 100,000 acres)
in (in decreasing order): Washington, California, North Carolina, and Idaho.
From 1969 to 1974, the increases were largest (more than 500,000 acres) in (in
decreasing order): Minnesota, North Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South
Dakota, Washington, California, and Idaho. A substantial decrease was
recorded in North Carolina from 1969 to 1974 because of a decline in the use
of Blueboy due to disease problems (leaf rust and powdery mildew).








Table 6-Area Planted to Semi-Dwarf Varieties of Wheat in Individual
States, 1964, 1969, and 1974

State 1964 1969 1974


1. Alabama
2. Arizona
3. Arkansas
4. California
5. Colorado
6. Delaware
7. Florida
8. Georgia
9. Idaho
10. Illinois

11. Indiana
12. Iowa
13. Kansas
14. Kentucky
15. Louisiana
16. Maryland
17. Michigan
18. Minnesota
19. Mississippi
20. Missouri


21. Montana
22. Nebraska
23. Nevada
24. New Jersey
25. New Mexico
26. New York
27. North Carolina
28. North Dakota
29. Ohio
30. Oklahoma

31. Oregon
32. Pennsylvania
33. South Carolina
34. South Dakota
35. Tennessee
36. Texas
37. Utah
38. Virginia
39. Washington
40. West Virginia


41. Wisconsin
42. Wyoming


Acres (Percent1)
16,888 (14.8)
26 (2) 66,549 (82.2)
32,361 (8.5)
6,653 (1.8) 222,308 (57.1)
449 (2) 6,854 (.2)
1,667 (7.6)

11,641 (11.8)
302,285 (24.4) 454,030 (38.9)
423 (2) 309 (2)


473 (2)
158 (2)


317 (2)


20,630
140
1,189
2
275
2,762


(.5)
(2)
(5.7)
(2)
(2)
(2)


429,041 (53.0)




2,520 (2)
8,351 (3.7)

833,312 (39.8)


37
2,740
15,644
5,811
12,366
4,211
25,351
15,215
6,731


31,372 (.8)

7,882 (60.6)
91 (.2)
4,175 (1.4)
69,404 (35.4)
178,381 (78.6)
85,896 (1.2)
613 (2)
18,994 (.4)

431,790 (51.8)
1,056 (.3)
33,658 (38.2)
40,863 (1.9)
47,621 (17.4)
294,810 (7.1)
29,374 (12.1)
99,173 (56.7)
1,525,060 (52.8)
1,965 (11.6)


3,076 (6.5)
72 (2)


69,981 (37.8)
246,946 (98.8)
36,955 (7.9)
738,133 (90.5)
71,726 (2.5)
6,626 (18.9)
42,000 (80.8)
47,866 (22.3)
951,267 (61.4)
79,251 (.4)

129 (2)
610 (1.4)
1,132,191 (9.4)
23,602 (5.1)
612 (.8)
28,178 (17.8)
80,187 (8.4)
2,409,622 (84.3)
69,627 (35.7)
30,749 (2.1)

321,469 (6.4)
8,451 (.3)
17,768 (88.8)
13,641 (22.7)
31,905 (7.4)
170,015 (77.3)
72,098 (22.2)
2,117,799 (20.7)
4,189 (.3)
1,151,797 (16.5)

925,000 (72.4)
44,137 (12.6)
96,922 (53.8)
828,345 (24.9)
33,893 (8.6)
1,589,400 (28.4)
77,070 (24.2)
57,988 (19.3)
2,098,980 (64.0)
3,735 (17.8)

22,107 (26.6)
3,396 (1.2)


Total 1,609,006 (2.9) 3,806,039 (7.0) 15,756,365 (22.1)

' Percent refers to proportion of total wheat area in State represented by semi-dwarfs.
2 Less than 0.1 percent.







The introductions from Mexico were heavily concentrated in Arizona and
California. In 1974, 85.3 percent of the total area of semi-dwarf introductions
was found in these two States. The introductions represented 68.9 percent of
the total wheat area in the two States. If selections from Mexican crosses are
added, the total use of Mexican varieties represented 86.8 percent of the total
wheat area (82.2 percent in Arizona and 88.2 percent in California).
Varieties developed in one State are also commonly planted in other States
(in more general terms, this is referred to as the pervasiveness of agricultural
research). Of the 9.6 million acres planted in 1974 to crosses released by public
agencies, 38.6 percent (3.7 million acres) represented varieties developed in
another State. Among the major varieties, the proportions were particularly
high for: Blueboy (North Carolina), 90.6 percent; Caprock (Texas), 72.4 per-
cent; TAM W-101 (Texas), 71.6 percent; and Twin (Idaho), 65.8 percent.
Blueboy was raised in 21 States, far more than any other variety. Virtually all
States "borrowed" varieties developed by public agencies in other States.


Partial Estimates of Planted Area, 1979

As noted earlier, a wheat varietal survey was conducted in 1979, but the
national summary report may not be available for awhile (the 1969 report
carried a publication date of May 1972; the 1974 report a date of June 1978).57
Many of the States, however, have issued summary reports of their findings.
These reports have some limitations, chiefly because of the summary nature of
the reporting. The varietal reporting is less detailed than in the national report
(more are grouped in the category marked "other") and the area is sometimes
given only as a rounded percentage of total rather than as an actual area.
While a complete and precise tally will not be available until the national
report is issued, some trends may be discerned. Available State data (including
a 1978 estimate for Oregon), as of December 1979, are summarized in table
7.58 The major wheat States not included are Idaho and Washington, both of
which have high proportions of their area planted to semi-dwarfs. It may be
seen that the semi-dwarf area in the 32 States totaled nearly 16.98 million
acres in 1979, or 26.2 percent of the total planted area in these States.59
The 1979 semi-dwarf area increased nearly 4.56 million acres or 36.7 percent
over the 1974 total. The increase was largest, in absolute terms, in Oklahoma
(+ 1.8 million acres), followed by North Dakota (+ 1.2 million acres), and
Montana (+0.95 million acres). Substantial increases were also recorded in
Kansas, Texas, and South Dakota. The increase as a proportion of total area
also was largest in Oklahoma (+ 26.2 percent), followed by Montana, Georgia,
and North Dakota. There were, on the other hand, modest declines in several
mid-Atlantic, Southern, and Midwestern states, chiefly because of decreased
use of Blueboy (due to previously noted disease problems).
It is difficult, as noted earlier, to make up a precise compilation of individ-
ual varieties, but some indication of changes in leading varieties can be secured.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs