IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v9y2019i9p190-d264083.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the Risks of Contaminating Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed with High Erucic Rapeseed and Identification of Mitigation Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas J. Warner

    (Agriculture and Environment Research Unit, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AB, UK)

  • Kathleen A. Lewis

    (Agriculture and Environment Research Unit, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AB, UK)

Abstract

High erucic acid rapeseed (HEAR) oil is under increasing demand for various industrial applications. However, many growers are concerned that if they grow the crop, they will not be able to revert to other rapeseed varieties in the future due to the risk of erucic acid (EA) contamination of the harvested seed and inability to maintain acceptable erucic acid thresholds. This review considered published literature and, using the same criteria as that used to contain transgenic crops, aimed to identify the key risks of erucic acid contamination, broadly prioritise them and identify pragmatic mitigation options. Oilseed rape has a number of traits that increase the risk of low erucic acid rapeseed (LEAR) crops being contaminated with EA from HEAR varieties. The quantity of seed produced and the potential for seed dormancy coupled with partial autogamy (self-fertilisation) facilitate the establishment and persistence of volunteer and feral populations. The large quantities of pollen produced when the crop is in flower mean there is also a high potential for cross-pollination. Self-sown volunteer plants represent the highest potential contamination risk, followed by the presence of arable weeds (e.g., wild mustard) whose seeds are also high in EA. Other risks arise from the cross-pollination of compatible wild relatives and the mixing of seed prior to sowing. It is important that both HEAR and LEAR varieties are appropriately managed since risks and their potential for mitigation arise throughout the entire LEAR crop production process. The length of rotation, type of tillage, cultivar choice, buffer zones, effective weed management and basic machinery hygiene are all factors that can reduce the risk of erucic acid contamination of LEAR crops and maintain the required thresholds.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas J. Warner & Kathleen A. Lewis, 2019. "Evaluation of the Risks of Contaminating Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed with High Erucic Rapeseed and Identification of Mitigation Strategies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:9:p:190-:d:264083
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/9/190/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/9/190/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colbach, Nathalie & Monod, Hervé & Lavigne, Claire, 2009. "A simulation study of the medium-term effects of field patterns on cross-pollination rates in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(5), pages 662-672.
    2. L. G. Firbank & A. M. Dewar & M. O. Hill & M. J. May & J. N. Perry & P. Rothery & G. R. Squire & I. P. Woiwod, 1999. "Farm-scale evaluation of GM crops explained," Nature, Nature, vol. 399(6738), pages 727-728, June.
    3. Debeljak, Marko & Squire, Geoff R. & Demšar, Damjan & Young, Mark W. & Džeroski, Sašo, 2008. "Relations between the oilseed rape volunteer seedbank, and soil factors, weed functional groups and geographical location in the UK," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 138-146.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milena Kupiec & Anna Zbikowska & Katarzyna Marciniak-Lukasiak & Małgorzata Kowalska, 2020. "Rapeseed Oil in New Application: Assessment of Structure of Oleogels Based on their Physicochemical Properties and Microscopic Observations," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ivanovska, Aneta & Vens, Celine & Colbach, Nathalie & Debeljak, Marko & Džeroski, Sašo, 2008. "The feasibility of co-existence between conventional and genetically modified crops: Using machine learning to analyse the output of simulation models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 262-271.
    2. Debeljak, Marko & Squire, Geoffrey R. & Kocev, Dragi & Hawes, Cathy & Young, Mark W. & Džeroski, Sašo, 2011. "Analysis of time series data on agroecosystem vegetation using predictive clustering trees," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(14), pages 2524-2529.
    3. Andreas Gabriel & Klaus Menrad, 2015. "Cost of Coexistence of GM and Non‐GM Products in the Food Supply Chains of Rapeseed Oil and Maize Starch in Germany," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 472-490, October.
    4. Langhammer, Maria & Thober, Jule & Lange, Martin & Frank, Karin & Grimm, Volker, 2019. "Agricultural landscape generators for simulation models: A review of existing solutions and an outline of future directions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 393(C), pages 135-151.
    5. Hossard, Laure & Gosme, Marie & Souchère, Véronique & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène, 2015. "Linking cropping system mosaics to disease resistance durability," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 307(C), pages 1-9.
    6. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    7. Le Ber, F. & Lavigne, C. & Adamczyk, K. & Angevin, F. & Colbach, N. & Mari, J.-F. & Monod, H., 2009. "Neutral modelling of agricultural landscapes by tessellation methods—Application for gene flow simulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(24), pages 3536-3545.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:9:p:190-:d:264083. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.