agric.re~,23(2):71-92,2002 breeding for oil and seed meal … · 2018. 5. 15. · eicosenoic and...

Agric.Re~,23(2):71-92,2002

BREEDING FOR OIL AND SEED MEAL QUALITY INRAPESEED-MUSTARD IN INDIA - A REVIEW

J.S. Chauhan, M.K. Tyagi, P.R. Kumar, Poonam Tyagi, Maharaj Singh and S. KumarNational Research Centre on Rapeseed - Mustard

Sewar. Bharatpur - 321 303. India

ABSTRACTVarieties having oil with < 2% erucic acid and glucosinolates < 30 11 moleslg defatted seed meal

are termed as "Canola" ( 00 ) and fetch premium in the International market. Indian cultivars possesshigh erucic acid (About 50 %) and high glucosinolates (100-28011 moleslg defatted seed meal). Indianrapeseed-mustard breeding programme was also reoriented to accommOdate quality parameters andlay emphasis to develop "Canola" varietil"S. The present paper reviews the on going quality improve-ment programme in India and suggests future plan. Initial efforts concentrated on the development ofgenetic stocks for low erucic acid in the indigenous background using exotic sources. Sustained effortsat PAU Ll,ldhiana, TERl New Delhi, IARl New Delhi, GBPUA & T Pantnagar and NRCRM Bharatpl,lr'have led to the development of zero erucic mustard (LEB 15, LES 39 CRL 1359-19, YSRL 9-18-2, TERl (DE) M 9901, TERl (DE) M 9902, PRQ9701, BPR6-205-10 and BPR 91-6). Several"0"1 "00" strains of rapeseed mustard have been registered with NBPGR New Delhi (INGR98001(0), INGR 98002 (0), INGR 98005 (0), INGR 99007 (00), INGR 99008 (00). Work is inprogress and efforts have been underway to improve the agronomic base of low yielding zeroerucic lines and to recombine low erucic acid and low glucosinolate to develop '00' varieties.

Rapeseed-mustard comprising Indianmustard (Brassica juncea), rape (Brassicacampestris var. yellow sarson, var. brownsarson, var. toria), gobhi sarson (Brassicanapu.~, karan rai (Brassica carinata), whitemustard (Sinapis alba), taramira (Eruca sa-tiva), banarsi rai (Brassica nigra), are the sec-ond most important oil seed crops in India af-ter groundnut and play pivotal role in Indianeconomy. Besides major sources of edible oilin the Indian diet, they account for 24.7 and22.9 per cent respectively, of the total oil seedhectarage and production. The 'crop also hasdiversified potential industrial uses such as formanufacturing soaps, paints, varnishes, hair oil,lubricants, textile auxillaries, slipping agents inplants and various other products. India earneda sizeable foreign exchange equivalent to Rs.375.79 crores in 1997-1998 by exporting0.924 million tonnes of rapeseed-mustard seedmeal. India's share in the oil meal export inthe international market stood at 21 per centduring 1997-1998 (Anonymous, 2000 a). Thepotential is more than double of what we earntoday.

Chemical CompositionRapeseed-mustard seeds, in general,

consist of 35-45 per cent oil, 17-25 per centproteins, 8-10 per cent fibres, 6-10 per centmoisture and 10-12 per cent extractable sub-stances. Oil is predominantly (92-98%)triacylglycerol of fatty acids (Ct6-C22). The re-maining portion of the oil is composed of anumber of lipid compounds includingunsaponifiable hydrocarbons, tarpins, sterols,tocopherols, glycolipids and phospholipids. Ofall the fatty acids, erucic acid (C22) comprisesnearly 50 per cent. In comparison to Indianvarieties of mustard (8. juncea) and rape (8.campestriS) European varieties of gobhi sarson(8. napuS) and turnip rape (8. campestriS) had

.low erucic acid.

The seed meal of rapeseed-mustardmainly consists of protein (35-40%), carbohy-drates (14-15%), fibre (10-12%), moisture (6-8%), ash (4-6%), minerals and vitamins (1-1.5%), glucosinolates (2-3%), tanin (1.6-3.1%),sinapin (1-1.5%), and phytic acid (3-6%).Among all the constituents fibre, tanin, phyticacid, glucosinolate and sinapin lower the feed I', .

72 AGRICULnJRAL REVIEWS

value of seed meal, otherwise could bean use-ful feed for animals as it possesses well bal~anced amino acids composition of proteinscomparable to that of milk. •

QUALITY IN RAPESEED MUSTARDErucic acid in oil and glucosinolate In

deoiled cake are two nutritionally toxic unde-sirable factors in rapeseed-mustard (Kumar and·Tsunoda, 1980; Ahuja and Banga, 1992). Itwas also reported that high erucic acid rape-seed oil was not metabolized and was reportedto impair myocardial conductance and periph-eral vascular system decreases survival andcoagulation time and increases blood cholestrol(Renard and Me-Gregor, 1976). Monkeys re-ceiving 20 - 25 per cent mustard or rapeseedoil showed cardiac lipidosis with the accumula-tion. of erucic acid (Gopalan et aI., 1974,Ackman eta/., 1977). However, no epidemio-logical evidence. exists for cardiac lipidosis orlong term lesion in man similar to that observedin the experimental weaned rats and even inthe man consuming the highest levels of eru-cic acid (Shenolikar, 1980). The reasons forthe differences between human and experimen-tal rats may be explained 'py either metabolicor physiological differences. in dietary intakeon body weight basis (Barlow and Durthie,

1985). Experiments with laboratory animalsfrom 1950's to 1970's indicated that the nu-tritional value of rapeseed-mustard oil could beenhanced if the proportion of erucic acid in oilwas reduced to less than 5 per cent. Manycountries put a statutory limit on the intake ofoil having erucic acid « 2%). To meet humanconsumption need, low erucic acid varieties ofB. niipus (Stefansson et aI., 1961),B.Campestris (Downey, 1964) and B. juncea(Kirk and (iram, 1981) were developed inCanada and Australia.

Linoleic acid is an essential fatty a{#idwhich is the basis for production of prostag-landins and other essential body regulators andan increase of this fatty acid in brassica oil wouldbe of great value for the people with low fatintake. Linolenic acid although polyunsaturatedand an essential dietary fatty acid, is undesir-able in edible oil because of its three doublebond structure which are prone to auto-oxida-tion resulting in off-flavours and reduced shelf-life of the oil. Hydrogenation of linolenic acidis not considered economical as it gives rise tobiologically inactive isomersThe oil with modi-fied fatty acid composition has varied uses(Table 1).

Table 1. Diversified usage of oil with modified latty acid composition.Type Use

Zero erucic acid « 2',\(»)High erucic acid (40-55'Yt,)(>80%)

High stearic acid (20-40')1,)High petroselinic acid

Epoxy fatty acids

Wax estersVery low linolenic acids «3%)

High linoleic acid (40-50%)

Oleic acid (upto 700/0)

Fatty~ Synthesis: Fatty acid bio-synthesis in oil seed BTlIssicas fonows a path-way similar to that,of many other oilseed crops.

Nutritionally superiorIndustrial polymers, lubricants, plasticindustryCosmetics, pharmaceuticals.MargarinesPolymers

Resins

Cosmetics, lubricants

Prolonged shelf life. margarines

Nutritionally superior

Nutritional\y superior

The carbon chain elongation and desaturationsteps are under enzymatic co~1 and ame-nable to genetic manipulatiah (Stumpf and

73Vol. 23. No.2. 2002

Pollard, 1983) Erucic acid is synthesized by the . while it is absent in low erucate varietieselongation of oleoyl Co A via eicosenoic acid (Stumpf and Pollard, 1983).(Pollard and Stumpf, 1980). High erucate The main biosynthetic pathway of fattystrains of rapeseed possessed oleoyl elongase acid synthsis is as follows :

C 16: 0Palmitic acid

C 18: 0Stearic acid

1C 18: 1Oleicacid

1C 18: 2Linoleic acid

1C 18: 3Linolenic acid

)

C 20: 1·Eicosenoicacid

C 22: 1___-'--~) Erucic

acid

Fig. 1. Biosynthetic pathway of main fatty acids (Jonsson. 19771

Both erucic and linolenic acids are the acid levels.end products of the biosynthetic pathway in Glucosinolate: Besides, high erucicwhich oleic acid either undergoes decreasing add in oils, glucosinolate in seed meal 'is an-saturation or further chain elongation to form other anti nutritional factor. Glucosinolates areeicosenoic and then erucic acid (Bartkowia~- a group of plant thioglucosides found princi-Broda and Kryzmanski, 1983). The genet~c , pally among members of family Brassicae. Theblocks in the chain elongation step of steanc vegetative tissue and seed of cruciferous plantacid. controls the biosynthesis of erucic acid contain one or more of over 120 knownfrom oleic, linolenic and linoleic acids were glucosinolates (Fenwick eJ ;M., 1983). Most ofpractically·feasible and achieved by Canadian the Indian cultivars are rich in totalbreeders (Do~Qey and Craig, 1964). A reduc- glucosinolates (120 - 280 I! moles/g defattedtion of these fatty acids ( linolenic and erucic) oil). Indian mustard samples from many coun-is possible if the enzymes for the synthesis of tries contain only or mainly sinigrin but thosethese fatty acids are eliminated. Linoleic and from India and Pakistan have gluconapinaslinolenic acids are prod~ced by the same bio- the major component in combination with sini-synthetic desaturation pathway, selection for grin (Anand, 1964).The major glucosinolateshigh linoleic acid has resulted in increased lev- present in different primary and originatingels of linolenic acid, while selection for low li- spades of oil seed Brassicaeare as under:noleic add tended to result in lower linolenic

74 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

Species Major gIucosinoiate component

B.junceaB.carinataBnapusBcampestrisBnigraBoleracea

Sinigrin. gluconapinSinigrinProgoitrinGluconapin.g!ucobrassicanapin. glucobrassicinSinigrinProgoitrin

Bt::..;nyl producing glucosinolates are 2). This enzyme is specifically present in idio-doml!l,ant in B 1II:Jcea samples from the blasts (Robbelen,1980) and is released whenindian subcontinent while European or Chinese plant tissue is crushed. Sinigrin breaks downstocks are nch 10 aliyl isothiocyanates (Downey, to allyl isothiocyanate, which is the major1~90). The glucosinolates are broken down flavour component in mustard. Progoitrin, al-by the enzyme thioglucoside glucohydrolase though present in Jow quantities, has great sig-';~;jmmf):-jiy known as myrosinase to yield sul- nificance because of goitrogenic properties ofpilate, glucose and other glucon products (Fig. its breakdown products.

Neutralconditionsj

SH

/Glue""R-C,~-o-so,

Aglucons

~

+ H20

Myrosinase

S-C6H 1Ps

/R-C

"N - 0 - S03 .GlucosinolatesS+R-C=NNitriles

Thiocyanates R - N = C = S + HSO4 .and ( (Isothiocyanates)

oxazolidlnethiones~~

Fig. 2. The general.structure of glucosinolates and products formed by enzymatic hydrolysis.

Cleavage products from hydrolysis of the iodine uptake by the thyroid glands thusglucosinolates like isothiocyanates, reducing feed efficiency and weight gains (Bell,oxazolidimethiones and nitriles are very toxic 1977; Fenwick etai, 1983). Experimental eVi-to non-ruminants such as pigs and poultry, is a dence suggests that continued intake ofstrong non-tariff barrier. Their presence in rape- progoitrin affects liver and kidney weights andseed - mustard and brassica forages is detri- can cause liver haemorrhage (Vermorel et ai,mental to animal health because of the harm- 1986). More than one hundred glucosinolatesful effects of their breakdown products. These have been reported in plants primarily amongstcompounds reduce the feed palatibility, affect the members of Brassicae, but only 15-20 have

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002

been reported in the genus Brassica.

Genetic Regulation: Various reportson genetic regulation of fatty acid suggestedthat fatty acids in oil of rapeseed-mustard aresimply inherited and controlled by 1-2 majorgenes (Table 2). Howeve'r, glucosinolate con-tent per se or specific component(s) are con-trolled by complex genetic mechanism and alsomaternally influenced (Table 3). The geneticcontrol of glucosinolate is also influenced bycytoplasm. Low glucosinolate content typeshave been identified in B. campestris and B.napus due to genetic block between methion-ine affending 3-butenyl and 4-pentenyl

75

glucosinolate in the biosynthetic pathway(Josef'5S0n, 1971, 1973; Downey, 1990). TheB donor genome (Brassica nigra) to Brassicajuncea carries the main gene factors for sini-grin synthesis (Hemingway et aI, 1961).Progoitrin was chiefly controlled by genes lo-cated on 'C' genome of Brassica oJeracea.Multiple additive effects have also been reportedto control glucosinolates. Genes controlling thelevel of erucic acid and glucosfnolate are inher-ited independently (Ahuja and Banga,1992). However, Niewiadomski (1990) ·ob-served interrelationship between genes forglucosinolate and erucic acid.

Table 2. Mode of inheritance of fatty acid profiles in rapeseed-mustardErucic acid

Crop No. of genes Mode of inheritance Reference

Kirk and Hurlstone, (1983), Tiwari (1995)Potts and Males (1999)Monpara and Jaisani (2000)

Downey and Hatvey (1963),Hatvey andDowney (1964), Stefansson and Hougen(1964),Krzymanski and Downey(1969)Johnsson (1977), Kirk and Hurlstone(1983),Zhou and Liu (1987),Chen andHeneen (1989), Siebel and Palus (1989),Chen and Beversdorf (1990), Luhs andFriedt (1995)Li and Qui (1987). Singh et al. (1995)Moller et al. (1985)

AdditivePartial dominance toovel'clominance

Additive and dominance

Additive

Additive

Additive

AdditiveTwo genes

Two genes

Two genes(Codominant)

One geneFive genes

Single major gene

B.juncea

B. campestris

B.napus

Qui et a! (1993)Anand and Downey (1981)

Dorell and Downey (1964),Downey (1966), Kumar (1978)Lin et al.(1988)

B. carinata Two genes Additve Fernandez -Escobar et al.(l.988)

Non-additive gene effects were reported for palmitic and stearic acids (Singh et a1., 1995)

Oleic acid

Crop No of genes Mode of inheritance Reference

B. juncea Single Dominance with someminor additive effects forlow oleic acid

Woods et al. (1999)

B.napus

Single

High oleic transgressivelyepistatic to low oleicacid content

Potts and Males (1999)

Chen and Gertsson (1988)

(Contd.

76

Crop

Linoleic acid

Crop

B.juncea

B. napus.

Linolenic . acidB.junceaB.napus

EicosenoicB.napus.

No of genes

Two genes,with maternalinfluenceTwo genes

One gene

No. of genes

Single

Single reccessiveas well as partiallydominant for highlinoleic acidTwo major genes

Single recessiveas well as partialdominance for lowlinolenic acid

Two genesThree locus

Five genes

Two genes andgenotypes of. theembryoOne gene

AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

Mode of inheritance

Simple additive andpartial dominance

Additive

High heritability (0.94)

Mode of inheritance

Dominant with some minoradditive effect for highlinoleic acid

Additive.

AdditivePartial dominance anddominance of lowlinoleic acid

Dominance

Dominance for lowlinolenic acidAdditiveAdditiveNon additive

Dominance for higheicosenoic acid

Additive

Non additive

Reference

Zhou and Uu (1987)

Chen and Beversdorf (1990)Kondra and Thomas (1975)

Qui et a' 41993)Li i'l!1d"t2ui (1987), Li and Liu (1990),

.S!hgh etal (1995)Schierholt and Bec~r (1999)

Reference

Woods etal (1999),Potts and Males (1999)

Brunklaus and Robbelen (1987),Qui eta!. (1993)

Jourdren et al (1996)Chen and Beversdorf (1990)Li and Qui (1987), Singh etal (1995)Kondra and Thomas (1975)

Kondra and Thomas (1975)Brunklaus and Robbelen (1987),Qui et al(1993), Hu and Quiros (1995)

Kondra and Thomas (1975)

Jourdren etal(1996), Daryl etal (1999)Chen and Beversdorf (1990)U and Qui (1987),Singh etal (1995)Spasibionek et al (1998) .

Harvey and Downey (1964)',Kondra andStefansson (1965)Zhou and Uu (1987)Quiet al (1993)Li and Lui (1990)Singh etal (1995)Li and Qui (1987)

Table 3. Genetics of glucosinolate content in rapeseed - mustardGene action Reference

B.junceaHigh glucosinolate Nuclear with additive gene Love et al (1990bl

(Contd.

2-propenyl and 3-butenyl

Low glucosinolate

B.campestrisPresence of gluconapin and progoitrinAbsence of gluconapin and progoitrin

B. nigraSinigrinB.napusHigh glucosinolate

High glucosinolate

Low 5-vinyl-2-oxazolidioneglucosinolate (OZnProgoitrinGlucosinolateAbsence of sinigrinHigher values of gluconapin,glucobrassicanapin, progoitrin,High glucosinolate

Aliphatic giucosinolateAliphatic glucosinolate

Total glucosinolateLow glucosinolate

Total glucosinolateHigh glucosinolate

Aliphatic glucosinolate

Vol. 23. No.2, 2002

Gene action

Genes with multiple alleles havingadditive effectsThree partial recessive genes,maternally controlled

Alleles with partial dominanceSingle recessive gene for each compoundand 2 genes segregating independently

Modulating role of cytoplasm

3-5 gene loci

Additive and non-additive

3 pairs of recessive genes

Additive-dominanceEpistaticThree dominant genesThree,four to five. four loci,respectivelywith dominance or partial dominanceAdditive, dominance andadditive x additive interactionPredominance of non-additive gene effectSix unlinked genesMaternally controlled

High heritability (87-95 %)4-5 recessive genes acting inadditive mannerTwo dominant genesThree major genes with partialdominance; maternal influenceTwo genes with partial dominance;maternal influenceAdditive and non additive gene

77

Reference

I.DJ=et a/. (1990b)

Ahuja and Banga (1992)

Kondra (1967)Kondra (1967)

Hemingway eta/. (1961)

. Kondra and Stefansson(1970), Lein (1972)Gupta et a/. (1989), Guptaand Labana (1989)Lee et a/. (987)

Rahman and.Poulsen (1995)Rahman and Poulsen (1995)Gland (1985)Kondra and Thomas(1970),Bochkareva (1982)Gupta et a/. (1993)

Gupta et a/. (1989)Magrath et al,(1993)Magrath and Mithen(1993), Lein (1972)Rucker and Robbelen (1994)Rucker and Robbelen (1994)

Gland (1985)Zhou and Liu (1987),Mou andLiu (1988,1990)Mou and Liu (1988.1990)

Krzymanski et a/. (1995)

Environmental Influence: Various fac- (Sang et al. 1986). Finlayson et al. (1969) re-tors, viz., period of seed storage, mechanical ported increase in seed glucosinolate contentadmixture, cross pollination, seed maturity and with the increase in sulphur application to theenvironmental factors have been reported to soil. These factors result in changes ininfluence quality of oil and seed meal (Table glucosinolate content of the seed-meal and fatty4). Delayed sowing of B. napus increased acid contentof oil between sown and harvestedprogoitrin component of total glucosinolate seed (Cookt1 et 81., 1987).

Table 4. Influence of different environmental factors o~ fatty acid profiles andglucosinolate content in rapeseed-mu$tard-----------;;.-.--------",--- ------------

Environmental factor Effect Reference

Temperature High temperature decreased eruJc acidand degree of unsaturationof oil ., higherucic acid cultivars and linolenic .cid inlow erucic acid cultivars

Marquard (1985),Cooke eta/. (1987)

lContd.

78

Environmental factor

Temperature with adequatemoisture in late sown

High temperature during spring

Temperature with low rainfall

Freezing

Late sown

Effect of multi yearEffect of environmentUnder open pollination

Green house conditions

Photoperiod

AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

Effect

Increase in temperature consistentlyproduced high oleic acid in high oleicacid lines and decreased lenolenic acidGlucosinolate increased

Low temperature reduced oleic acidcontent in "canola"cultivars andincreased linolenic acidErucic acid level reduced and linoleicacid level increased at reproductive stageErucic acid was reduced(effect was not consistent)Erucic acid stableOleic acid stable (h2 = 0.94)I..il:r:ieCa::iiirJEa:eib tu - linolenicacid remains unaffectedInfluence the variation of fatty acids -linoleic and a- linolenic acidsLonger photoperiod increased fat content

Reference

Salisbury et al. (1999),Triboi-Blondel andRenard (1999)Triboi-BIondel andRenard (1999)Pritchard et al. (1999),Triboi-Blondel andRenard (1999)Gupta et a! (1996)

Triboi-Blondel andRenard (1999)Mahmoud et al. (l999)Antje and Heiko (1999)Laakso (1986)

Laakso (1986)

Marquard (1985)

Correlations: Negative relationship oferucic acid with oleic and linoleic acids has beenobserved (Craig ,1961; Mikolajezak et al..1961; Downey and Craig, 1964; Gross andStefansson, 1966; Stefansson and Hougen,1964: Lee et al., 1974; Kumar and Singh,1979 ; Zhou and Liu, 1987; Siebel and Palus(1989), Ecker and Yaniv, 1993; and Singh andGupta, 1994). Oleic acid content was nega-tively correlated with linoleic acid (r = - 0.98**)and linolenic acid (r = -0.59*) and positivelycorrelated with oil content (Ahajua etaI., 1984;Schierholt and Becker, 1999). The zero erucicvarieties are marked by increased oleic, linoleicand linolenic acid contents because of nega-tive association of erucic and eicosenoic acidswith oleic acid (Ahuja et aI., 1984). However,Loof and Appelqvist (1964) and Shiga et al.(1974) found positive correlation between oleicand linoleic acid content. A high negative cor-relation between linoleic and linolenic acid wasreported by Appelqvist (1969). However, posi-tive correlation in rapeseed (B. napu~ was alsoreported (Loof et aI., 1964; Gross andStefansson, 1966; Lee et aI., 1974 and Shigaet at., 1974: Zhou and Liu. 1987).The asso-ciation between erucic and eicosenoic acid var-

ied among generations of B. napus (Zhou andLiu, 1987). A positive correlation ofglucosinolates was found with oil and erucicacid contents (Palmer et aI., 1987).

Breeding for Quality Rapeseed-Mustard in IndiaDevelopment of canola or '00' variet-

ies and their cultivation in India would havemany fold advantages :

To elevate nutritional value of oil and seedmealTo fetch remunerative market priceTo increase market value and versatileusage of oil and seed mealTo enhance export potential of seed meal.

Quality breeding in India started in1970's. Efforts during this phase confined toevaluation of existing variability available in theindigenous germplasm (Anand, 1964; Kumar,1978; Singh et aI., 1983; Ahuja and Banga,1992). However, neither zero erucic acid norglucosinolate types could be identified. In in-digenous selection/ collections, glucosinolateranged from 63 to 102 ~L moles/g on seedbasis. The achievement of this phase was theidentification of SM 1, a low erucic acid (10%)accession. This genetic stock, however. had

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 79

poor agronomic base and could not be ex- najJus for yield and quality parameters.ploited either as commercial variety or donor • Development of low erucic and/or lowsource for quality improvement. The slow pace glucosinolate rapeseed-mustard varieties.of research got strengthened with the launch- • Basic studiesto understand the genetics anding of the Indo-Swedish collaborative project breeding behaviour of erucic acid andin 1975. Several 'a' erucic strains were identi- glucosinolate content.fied during this phase. Although no variety of • Generation of information on the reactionIndian mustard containing < 40 per cent eru- '0/00' types to endemic pests and diseases.cic acid is at present available (Varade et The concerted efforts on the evalua-aJ.,1992) (Tabl~.6). In India, the rapeseed oil tion of germplasm both indigenous and exotic,and seed meal quality improvement programme revealed wide range of variation for differenthas the following objectives. fatty acids (Table 5) in Indian mustard (Anony-

Evaluation of available low erucic acid/low mous, 1987-1998).glucosinolate lines of B. juncea and B.

Table 5. Mean fatty acid composition of 474 germplasmfbreeding materials of Indian mustardFatty acid Range (%) Mean±SEm CV (o/()) Promising accession

47.1

59.1

453

54.1

45.2

0.96±O.02

5.38±0.13

18.03±0.49

20.78±0.43

14.39±0.30

42.02±0.91

0.1-3.6

6.3-83.2

2.7-48.5

0.0-61.4

9.2-58.0

0.5-18.5

Palmitic 0.7-11.6 3.12± 0.06 41.9 K.-30/21-1(11.6),PC01(1O.5),(C16:0) K-30/1O-11(1O.0), CM-48-39

(10.0),EC333574(>10), EC33357(>10), EC 3335789 (>10),EC 333594(>10)PR 8960 (3.6), CSR 292(3.2)8802 (3.2), VKT-2 (2.7) PR 8969 (2.6)CM 59-42-53(83.2) EC333582 (60.2) OKBC-12 (57.2).OKBC 3 (56.9) CM-60-106 (56.4),CM-60- 89 (56.1)

45.0 .. TERl (OE) M 21-1 (58.0)TERl(OE) M 07 (54.8),TER! (OE) M 10 (51.5)TERl (OE) M 12(50.5)OKBC-21 (47.2)CM 60-89(2.7), CM 60-3 (3.7),K317 (3.8), CM 60- 143 (3.9),CM 83-2 (4.8)EC333592(~,EC333594

(0) CM 59-42-65(0.5)CM 59-42-77 (0.6) CM-59-42-79(0.6)CM-19-6 (0.6) PBCM 326 (0.7)TERl (OE) M21-1(0),TERI (OE)M 12(0), TERl (OE) M 10(0),TERl (OE)M 07(0), PBCM 326(0)

Linoleic(C 18:2)

Stearic(C 18: 0)Oleic(C 18:1)

Linolenic(C18:3)

Eicosenoic(C20:1)

Erucic(C22:1)

The wide range of erucic acid centl=!nt duced from Sweden for testing in India viz.,in Indian varieties/lines of rapeseed-mustard ZEM1 and ZEM 2 of B. juncea, Torch, Tobin,were observed, it varied from 1.3 (TERI [OEl Candle and Span of B. campestris, Tower,M 21) to 61.5 (YSK1) (Table 6). However, no Altex and Westar of B. napus (Kumar 1994).Indian variety had zero erucic acid .Thirty ex- This collaborative project remained operativeotic .strains with low erucic acid were intro- until 1988. The introduced strains had low yield


Table 6. Fatty acid composition of rapeseed-mustard varieties of India (Anonymous 1987-98).Varieties Fatty acid (')10)

Palmitie Stearic Oleic Linoleic Linolenic Eicose;noic Erucie ' References

MustardRLC 1356 2.1 0.6 9.7 15.6 10.8 6.9 48.9 Anonymous (1988)RLM 198 3.2 0.8 9.9 17.8 9.9 7.7 48.0 Anonymous (1988)Varuna 1.0 0.7 19.3 16.5 10.9 4.7 46.9 Anonymous 11988)Kranti 1.6 0.6 18.9 13.7 9.8 3.5 51.9 Anonymous (1988)Vardan' 1.2 0.2 11.9 13.1 15.0 8.7 49.8 Anonymous (1988)Vaibhav 0.4 0.7 15.4 20.2 13.2 7.3 42.7 Anonymous (1988)Rohini 1.2 0.8 15.7 13.4 12.7 3.5 51.4 Anonymous (1988)Krishna 3.4 1.5 30.4 17.1 11.4 5.3 47.8 Anonymous (1988)RK9 0.8 0.3 i6.0 17.1 14.6 8.7 42.4 Anonymous (1988)RK 14 1.4 0.7 16.9 19.7 9.8 2.1 50.3 Anonymous (1988)KRV 74 0.3 1.0 16.7 12.0 10.9 6.5 ·51.8 Anonymous (1988)NDR 8501 1.5 1.5 12.4 15.5 11.2 6.6 50.3 Anonymous (1988)RH 30 2.4 0.9 10.6 13.6 12.2 7.7 52.7 Anonymous (1989)RH 819 2.6 0.8 14.3 12.4 11.6 10.2 48.4 Anonymous (1989)RH 781 2.4 1.1 12.6 12.0 11.1 11.6 50.2 Anonymous (1989)RH 8113 2.6 0.7 9.5 15.3 10.1 10.6 51.8 Anonymous (1989)Yellow Raya '2.4 0.6 8.7 16.27 13.1 6.84 49.93 Anonymous (1990)RLM 514 4.2 0.6 10.6 17.7 9.9 6.0 51.1 Anonymous (1993)RLM619 2.1 0.6 11.9 16.4 1.0.7 6.3 49.6 Anonymous (1993)Pusa Bahar 1.6 0.5 10.7 14.4 12.4 5.1 53.5 Anonymous (1993)Pusa Bold 2.0 0.6 11.7 15.6 10.3 6.1 53.5 Anonymous (1993)PCR 7 3.6 10.1 13.0 9.5 6.0 7.5 58.3 Anonymous (1993)TERI (GE) M21 4.2 1.1 26.8 43.3 1.3 Anonymous (1998)

ToriaT9 2.0 1.2 19.5 18.05 34.91 Anonymous (1987)PT303 1.4 1.0 16.1 16.25 51.18 Anonymous (1987)Sangam 4.1 1.4 13.2 11.71 16.07 18.81 46.30 Anonymous (1989)PT 30 4.4 1.3 11.8 15.56 9.58 6.56 50.88 Anonymous (1988)Bhawani 1.6 1.2 14.3 16.15 50.98 Anonymous (1988)TLC 1 3.4 1.3 11.1 14.71 0.06 7.53 51.93 Anonymous (1990)TL 15 2.3 0.70 11.4 13.01 8.03 7.83 54.48 Anonymous (1993)TH68 2.2 0.50 12.9 !4.46 8.74 7.72 51.41 Anonymous (1993)

Yellow sarsonYSK 1 3.2 1.0 15.7 9.29 5.80 3.50 61.51 Anonymous (1988)K88 2.9 1.0 16.2 17.26 4.92 4.89 52.87 Anonymous (1988)YSK24 3.4 0.7 9.2 17.42 9.10 5.41 53.63 Anonymous (1990)

Brown sarsonBSH 1 2.7 0.9 11.7 14.82 10.93 10.39 48.01 Anonymous (1990)

Gobhi sarsonGSL 1 3.7 0.4 20.4 12.45 7.09 13.53 42.53 Anonymous (1987)GSL2 3.4 0.8 18.3 14.01 9.58 14.40 39.12 Anonymous (1990)Sheetal' . 4.9 - 17.0 16.88 39.34 Anonymous (1998)Hyola 401 4.3 61.2 23.16 - 0.00 Anonymous (1998)Culture 2 3.7 48.2 24.41 - 7.69 Anonymous (1998)

Taramira

ITSA 4.0 0.3 14.58 9.32 10.61 11.07 49.23 Anonymous (1987)ST27 4.8 0.9 18.06 5.47 5.53 10.56 53.56 Anonymous (1983)

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 81

and were unadapted to Indian conditions. Fur- traits to Indian mustard varieties (Kumar, 1990).ther they were late maturing besides showing Efforts have also been made to transfer lowsegregation for various morphological traits. erucic trait from B .napus to B .juncea. Seg-Thes:'!Jbesb::ha.\.e:iJkeexot±B.juncea. This regants from cross between the Indian mus-was probably because breeding and selection tard Rl,M 198 and the B .napusvariety 'Oro'was carried out.in Sweden. This resulted in fixa- showed good variation in erucic acid and com-tion of charaters needed under long day length. bined early ripening with yield (Ahuja,1990).conditions not suitable for Indian condition'. Six lines of B. juncea,QM 13, QM 14, QMAttempts were made to transfer zero erucic 15, QM 43 and QM 47 and six of B. napusacid Gharacterfrom exotic strains to the agro- (GSL-6001, 6007, 6009, 6032, 6047 andnomically superior background of Indian mus- 6063) had low « 2.5%) erucic acid (Anony-tard types, Pusa Bold, Varuna, RLM 514, RLM mous, 1992), PBCM 51 was found very prom-619 and RH 30. With a view to develop low ising. Among the 545 germplasm lines oferucic acid and low glucosinolate content 'toria' mustard evaluated for fatty acid profile, 34 hadand 'brown sarson' a breeding programme was zero erucic acid content.. A strain NQM 2 (RLMinitiated at the Department of Genetics and 619 x Zem 1) had only 0.32 per cent erucicPlant Breeding HAU, Hisar during 1978 -79. acid. Oleic and linoleic acids in the strain wasA total of 548 F

1crosses were made to reduce 48.0 and 34.9 percent, respectively (Anony-

erucic acid and glucosinolate contents at dif- mous, 1994).Low erucic character was incor-ferent collaborating centres such as NRCRM porated to B. juncea from Eruca sativa by theBharatpur, GBPUA&T Pantnagar, PAU use of tissue culture techniques. The promis-Ludhiana, HAU Hisar, CSAUA&T Kanpur, ing zero erucic acid lines were (TERl 5, TERINDUA&T Faizab~d, TERI New Delhi and 6, TERI 7). The TERI 7 contains low erucicHPKW, Kangra, utilizing donors with '0' eru- acid (2.4 !Yo) whereas TERI5 and TERI6 havecic acid and/or '0' glucosinolate content like low butenyl glucosinolate (Sharma and Anand.,Zem 1, Zem 83, Zem 2, TERI (GE) M 08, ]9)4).The strain CM 17, CM 60-33, CM 60-

ITERl (DE) M21, PBCM 1150 _6, NRCQ 1, 67, CM 60-?0,.CM 84-43, had less than 2NRCQ 2 NRCQ 3 QM 14 BJ 1058 Shiva per cent erucIc aCId. From the analysis of 1511EC 322090, EC 322091, 'EC 322092 EC F3 seed in the crosses CM 60, CM 45, CM 4-

.322093 EC 287711 EC 333591 'EC 6 the range of oleic, linoleic, linolenic and eru-333589: EC 333590,' EC 333581: EC cicacid were 12.1- 52.4 percent, 13.0-44.6333580, EC 333578, EC 333577, EC percen!, 6,1-23,2 ~ce~t, 0.0-49.6 percent,333576, EC 333575, EC 33357


free meal were identified (Agnihotri et aI., At CCS HAU Hisar, 84 zero erucic1995).Selfing coupled with half seed selection acid plants were selected in 60 progeniesin crosses have resulted in the identification of (Anonymous, 1998). 1630 F

4single plants

several mustard genotypes having zero erucic showed wide variability of fatty acid composi-acid, namely, NQM 2,5, 13, 16,20,23,41 tion. Single plants selection 83-1 (52.4%), 83-(Banga, 1995). 2 E (5-1.0 %), CC (45.5%) had high oleic acid

Indian Council of Agricultural Re- while usingle plant s:lection. nun:ber .5-7 . Esearch launched "National Network on Im- (44.3 Yo), GCC (43.0 Yo) had high linoleic aCid.,provement of oilseed Brassica" in 1996 with a . Five pla~ts, 52-1, 53-10, 2-9,. ~9-~ and 32-total out-lay of Rs. 85.51 Lacs to intensify ef- 10 contamed > 8 per cent p~rTlltic ~cld (~nonyforts to improve the standard of Indian culti- mo~s, 1998). At ~AU Ludhlana.' mt~nsl~e se-

f d t d . II th I tt lectlon for the oleiC and lenolemc aCids m thevars 0 rapesee -mus ar especla yea er f b tw CM 59 42 84. '" progeny 0 cross e een - - xso as to bnng t~em at pan.~lthmternatlOnally CM 102-88 and CM 59 -42-75 x Tristar ledaccepted quahty norms Ie., < 30 moles t th 'd 'f' t· 'f t h' 60I . I t / d f tt d d I and 2 0 e I entl Ica IOn 0 segregan s avmgg ucosmo a es g e a e see mea < 8 "d 0 3to 7 per cent oleiC aCI compared to 3 - 5

per cent erucic acid in seed oil. B. napus per centin traditional '0' erucic acid genotypesgenotypes namely GSL 881:, GSL 8884, of mustard. Genotypes KG 18, 19 and 20 hadGSL 8981, GSL 6034 (India) and Westar zero erucicacid and low glucosinolate content(Canada) had desirable erucic acid « 2 per (Anonymous, 1998 a).cent). These genotypes also had more than 60per cent oleic acid. One of the zero erucic At NRCRM, Bharatpur, efforts havelines GSL 8981 also had high level 127 .5%) of been underway to transfer '0' erucic acid/ '0'linoleic acid (Chopra and Prakash. 1996). glucosinolate to the genotypic background of

Varuna and Rajat. Of the three hundard andAt CCS- HAU, Hisar, 60 plants were sixty eight single selfed F plants analysed for

selected from a exotic population, EC 287711 fatty acid composition fro:n the crosses NRCQon the basis of morphological traits. Seeds of 1 x PCR 7 and TER! (OE) M21 x Varuna, eru-these single plants were analysed for fatty acid cic acid ranged from 0 to 50 per cent. Eightcomposition and glucosinblate content. Out of plants were observed with zero erucic acid con-this 16 plants possessed zero erucic acid and tent and 15 plants were found to contain be-moderate glucosinolate.(Anon~ous,1997). low 10 per cent erucic acid. Thirty-two acces-

At PAU Ludhiana the"available varia- sions of B. campestris, B. napusand B. junceation in erucic acid was fr~m 0.0 - 49.8 per' .were analysed for fatty acid composistion. Ofcent in individual seeds in segregating genera- these Zem 1, NRC Q1, NRC Q3 (Selectiontions of crossCM 45, CM-bO, CM 46 (Anony- from EC 287711), PBCM 3390, NQM 12,mous, 1997). Among, tested genotype of TERI (OE) M08, TERI (OE) M21, EC 333577,B.juncea, erucic acid rahged from 0.02 - 1.76 EC 333564 (B. juncea), Westar, Electo, Cy-per cent, 6 lines, viz., CM 6 -2, CM 10 -2, clone, Culture 1, AG Excel (EC 400803) (B.CM 10-7, CM 21 -4, eM 21-8, CM 21-4 napus) and EC 34785r and Tobin (B.had oleic acid varying from 39.0-42.0 per cent, campestris) were of zero erucic acid typeswhereasCM 10-3, CM 1-6, CM 15-1,CM 19- (Anonymous,1998 b). During 1998-1999,7 and CM 10 - 3 contained linoleic acid rang- single plant progenies of eight F2 '0' erucicing from 41.1-47.1 per cent (Anonymo\ls, plants ofTER! (OE) M21 x Varuna were grown.1998). Of the 319 F3 plants analysed for fatty acid

VoL 23, No.2. 2002 83

compositi'on. 213 were found to have low eru- 14 and Zem 1) were crossed with three high·cic acid «2 per cent). However, in 105 yieldinggenotypesnamelY,YSRL9,RLM619segregants,erucic acid content varied from 5- and Varuna. Analysis of individual BC2 F4 gen-55 per cent. Out of 356 F

2plants of TERI eration from the three crosses, using half seed

(OE) M21 x PCR 7 analysed for fatty acid com- t~chnique, led to the identification of severalposition, 17 plants contained low «2 per cent) zero erucic acid segregants. Of the 1889erucic acid (Anonymous, 1999). Several zero samples analysed for fatty acid composition aterucic segregants were identified from the cross PAU, Ludhiana , 761 were having low erucicQM 14 x YSRL 9 with enhanced oleic acid acid content (Anonymous, 1999).(56 %) and linolenic acid (5.3 %) (Banga etaI., Five foUowing quality strains of rape-1998). In order to develop improved zero eru- seed- mustard have been registered by TERI,cic acid genotypes suitable for cultivation un- New Delhi (Singh and Gautam, 1998 andder Indian condition, zero erucic donors(QM Kumar et ai., 2001) .

.Crop Strain INGRno. Specific traits

Bjuncea Swarna ITERI (OE) M 21J 98001 Zero erucic acid, yellow seeded and earlymaturity (117 days)

B napus Phaguni ITERI (OE) R 03J 98002 Zero erucic acid, early maturity (136 days)

B.napus Shyamali [TERO (OE) R 09J 98005 Zero erucic acid with high oleic acid (70.1')1,)and high oil content

Bnapus TERI Gaurav ITERI (00) R 985J 99007 Zero erucic acid, low glucosinolates(15.3 moles/g defatted seed meal),early maturity (125 days) dwarf doublelow rapeseed

B.napus TERI Garima ITERI (00) R 986 99008 Zero erucic acid, low glucosinolates(12.2 moles/g defatted seed meal),high oleic acid (57%), double low rapeseed

Yield Evaluation: Seven strains of and yielded better than checks RL 1359 andmustard were evaluated for seed yield and qual- PBR 91 (Anonymous, 1993). NQM 2 had lowity characters under AICRP-RM. EC 287711, erucic acid (0.3 °/6), high oleic (48.0 lj'6) anda '00' strain, recorded the highest seed yield linoleic (34,9 %) acids (Anonymous, 1994).of 2218 kg/ha as compared to 1644 kg/ha GSL 8814, GSL 6001, GSL 9001, GSLof Kranti, the best check variety. (Anonymous, 8884, GSL 6016 of gobhi sarson (Table 7)1992) QM 14 which had low erucic acid con- had yield advantage ranging from 11.1 to 28.3tent and about 45 p moles/g glucosinolate was per cent over GSL 1 at Ludhiana (Bangaextensively tested in 1992-93 and 1993-94 etal,1994).

Table 7. Performance of '0' and '00' B. napus lines at PAU Ludhiana (Banga et ai, 1994).

Stra, Yield Oil content Maturity Quality status(kglha)(%) (days)

GSL 6001GSL6016

'GSL8814GSL8884GSl9001GSI.. 1 (Check)

1445 41.0 1651662 40.2 1631440 41.6 1581603 43.7 1601492 .. 41.4 165

1296 40.8 162

'OO'Low erucic and glucosioolate'00' Low erucic and glucosinolate'O'Low erucic acid'0' Low erucic acid'00' Low erucic acid and glucosinolateHigh erucic acid


PBCM 55 strain of Indian mustardalso had high oleic and linoleic acid besideslow erucic acid. PBC 2096 gave maximumyield (2257 kg/ha) and increase of 13 percent over the best check, Varuna (Anonymous,1995). Of the 18 quality strains of B. napus,promising '0: or '00' genotypes were GSL8888, GSL 8973, GSL 9000, GSL 8914 andPGSH 124 (Anonymous, 1995). At Ludhiana,two strains, namely QM 19 and PBCM 1150-6 with desired quality standards, marginallyexceeded the best check (Anonymous, 1996).Fatty acid analysis revealed that TERI ( OE) M08 possessed low erucic acid while. PBCM

1150-6had 9.2 per cent erucic acid, respec-tively (Anonymous, 1997). Fatty acid compo-sition of advanced promising strains evaluatedin coordinated trials revealed that PBCM 326had less than 2 per cent erucic acid. (Anony-mous, 1998 a).

. Three zero erucic strains PRQ 9701(0), PRQ 9705 (0.3 %) and PRQ 9707 (0.6%) were evaluated in randomized block designwith checks, Varuna and Kranti (Anonymous,1998 b). These strains significantly outyieldedKranti whereas PRQ 9505 and PRQ 9707were significantly superior to both the checks(Table 8).

Table 8. Performance of low erucic acid mustar? strains at GBPUA & T. Pantnagar {Anonymous,"1998).Strain Maturity Seed ~yield 1000 Seed Oil content Erucic

(days) (kg/ha) -weight (g) (%) acid (%)

1.5

PRQ 9701PRQ 9705PRQ 9707VarunaKrantiCD (0.05)CV{')o(,)

135 1319 3.6 41.8 0.0131 1533 3.5 41.8 0.3138 1805 3.6 41.1 0.6133 978 3.5 40.1 55.6134 1041 3.7 40.7 55.8

341 - 0.910.2 5.5 1.0

In 1998-1999 crop season threestrains Viz., PRQ 9701 (1.3 %), PRQ 9705(2.0 %) and PRQ 9707 (2.1 %)) showed con-sistencyin erucic acid content, however it Wasslightly higher than that of the earlier season(1996-1997) (Anonymous 1998 b).

At JARI, New Delhi forty eight selec-tions with low erucic acid were evaluated inprogeny rows. Except LES 20, other yieldedbetter than checks. Nevertheless, all the F4-F5selections had lower oil content (33.3 - 38.9%)than the checks except LES 30 which wascompareble to. Varuna (Anonymous 1998 b).38' low erucic bulks (LEB) were evaluated in3 - row plots along with Varuna and Pusa boldas checks. Three selections (LEB 15, 16, 27)showing. traces of erucic acid yielded higher(1271-1526 kg! ha)than Varuna (1174 kgfhal. Nevertheless, these selections had low?il

content (33.1-34.4%) than Varuna (38.6 %)(Anonymous, 1998 b).

At TERI,. New Delhi large scale test-ing of mustard genotypes in yield trial during96-97 showed that lines TERI (OE) M 21 andTERI (OE) M 08 seemed to be the potentialquality lines. In the coordinated varietal trial ofquality mustard, only PBCM 178, TERI (OE)M 981, TERI (OE) M 982 had low erucic acid·« 2%). TERI (OE) M 981 and TERI (OE) M982 were also good yielders (1600-1800 kg!hal. Oleic acid content ranged from 42-46 percent. In B. napusaccessions , TERI (OE) R 984,TERI (OE) R 983, TERI (OE) R 15 ,GSC '3' A,Hyola 401, TERI (OE) R 985, TERI (OE) R986 had low erucic acid whereas GSC '3'Aand Hyola 401 also had low glucosinolate «30 ~ moles/g oilfree meal). Strains TERI (OE)R984 is near double low (00). Among the low

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 85

erucic entries TERI (OE) R 984 had maximum eicosenoic acid (Anonymous, 1999).yiel~ (1800 kg/ha). Among the double low Of the 18 genotypes of B napus inentries TERI.(OE) R 986 and TERI (OE) R 985 the initial varietal trial at PAU, Ludhiana, onlywere good YIelders (Anonymous, 1999). seven genotypes viz., GSC '3'A (00) TERI (OE)

In initial varietal trial of B juncea con- R 984, TERI (OE) R983, TERI (OE) R 15,ducted at CCS- HAU Hisar, PAU Ludhiana, Hyola 401, TERI (OE) R 986 and TERI (OE)CSAUA & T Kanpur and TERI, New Delhi, R 985 had below 3 per cent erucic acid. Geno-entries PBCM 178, TERI (OE) M981 and TERI types GSC 3A (00), Hyola 401 (00) and TERI(OE) M 982 possessed low erucic acid. How- (OE) R 985 had oleic acid ranging from 60 toever genotype PBCM 314 had variable erucic 62 per cent (Anonymous, 1999).During 1999-

· acid over locations. These genotypes also had 2000 at NRCRM Bharatpur some promisinghigh oleic, linoleic and low level'of eicosenoic yellow seeded lines with zero erucic acid hav-.acid. TERI (OE) M 981 had the highest con- ing high oleic acid we~ identified in B juncea.tent of oleic, linoleic and the lowest content of (Table 9).

Table 9. Characteristics of some promising yellow seeded lines (F4) with zero erucic having high oleic acidin the cross TERI (OE) M 21 x Varuna.

Progeny Oleicacid (%I

Maturity Plant height Seed Yield!(days) (cm) weight (g) plant (g)

Oilcontent

(%)

Proteincontent

(%)

91-18 51.1 134 131 3.5 17.791-21 50.5 134 150 3.4 11.791-25 50.0 131 152 3.0 14.091-52 49.8 129 155 2.3 10.7205-11 49.6 135 196 3.6 7.0

39.638.038.738.038.7

20.720.819.620.421.6

. Table 10. G1ucosinolate composition of Indian mustard (8. junce~ cultivars (Kaushik et aI, 1995).Cultivar Glucosinolate content (jJ. mole!g dried seed)

Allyl" Butenyl* OH-lna** Total

Pusa BoldVarunaKrantiKrishnaRH819RLM198RH30RLM619RLM100Lalla T 59

7.076.94

32.479.86

16.2919.528.36

12.0117.7412.88

35.52 2.72 45.3129.53 1.79 38.2652.55 2.12 87.1424.74 2.57 37.1731.73 2.12 50.1436.49 2.18 58.1926.82 2.19 37.3734.49 2.21 48.7i26.36 3.38 47.4834.43 2.90 .. 50.21

• Mean of 3 replications•• Total of mean values inclusive otOH-lnd.

· GlucosinolatesScreening: Efforts to develop low

· glucosinolate varieties have not been very sue-· cessful since the genetics of total glucosinolate

biosynthesis is complex and highly regulated(Vageeshbabu and Chopra, 1997 ). Threehundard and fifty eight germplasm lines havebeen screened for glucosinoiate using TES-

The main sources of low glucosinolatesare C 247, RC 280, RC 79 and RS 81, BJ1058 of B.juncea, Tobin, Candle ofB. campestris and Westar of B.napus(Kumar, 1994).

Improved and traditional germplasmshave been screened for glucosinolate contentusing TES TAPE. Varieties TLC 1, Pant rai1002, KRS 1, Ramp, SIJ 13-4, SIJ 22-2, SIJ-23-?,·~itd CWF 4-3-3 had 0.5 per centgluc:osinolate content (Anonymous, 1984,1989). During 1990-1991 Canadian variet-ies were tested for glucosinolate content.Among tested genotypes, Tobin, Parkland (B.campestrieSi, BJ 1058 (B. juncea)exhibited lowglucosinolate content (Anonymous, 1991).Eighteen plants of exotic material showedvariation from 0-42 J..l moles/g defatted seedmeal. Six genotypes out of 76 from promisingbreeding materials had low glucosinolate con-tent ranging from 6-8 J..l moles/g seed. LineEC 287711 had 13.0 m moles/g seed(Anonymous, 1993). TL 9001 (B.campestris)had the minimum glucosinolate content (26.8~l moles/g). K 44/2 which had erucic acid con-tent of 3.6 per cent, was also very low inglucosinolate content. Other notable materialswith low gl\,lcosinolate content were K 47/1and K 50/4 (Anonymous, 1994).


TAPE rrtethod at various centres under All Yellow seeded '00' mustard geno-India Coordinated Research Project on Oil- types, QM 8814 and QM 9164 were devel-seeds. A wide variability for glucosin.olate con- oped through the transfer of genes from B.tent was observed. However, most ofthe ma- campestriscv. Tobin to B.junceacv. WH. Thisterials' had high glucosinolate content except. resulted in aevelopment of a good number of

. a few indigenous and exotic accessions. Range, zero glucosinolate genotypes like CCWF 116mean (J..l moVg defatted seed meal) and coef- (LG)and CCWF 112 (LG). All the zeroficients of variation, were 25-130, 58.9 0.3 glucosinolate genotypes hqd intermediate leveland 9.8 per cent, respectively .Five accessions of erucic acid. The hybridization of lowwith low glucosinolates were TERI 5 (0), TERI glucosinolate with low erucic genotypes and6 (0), CM 9154 «10), CM 9614 « 10), K single plant selection for '00' genotypes in F

2

44/4 (25), K 47/1(25), K 50/4 (25), KG18 has resulted in the identification ofthree geno-«30), KG19( 30). Glucosinolate content of ten types, namely CM 8814, CM 9154, and CMpopular varieties of mustard is presented in 9164. They had very low glucosinolate levelsTable 10. '(10 J..l moles/g defatted meal), whereas 21

genotypes had glucosinolate contant rangingfrom 10 to 25 Jl moles/g defatted seed meal.More than 5000 samples from segregating.population of 22 'O~ erucic acid genotypes with5 donors of '0' glucosinolate content werescreened, eM 1 with 57 per cent erucic acidand '0' glucosinolate level was identified forindustrial uses (Anonymous, 1995). The strainK 37/4 also had low glucosinolate contentwith low erucic acid and higher oil content(Anonymous, 1995). At CSAUA&T, Kanpursome promising lines of low glucosinolate ofB. juncea (K series) 44/4, 47/1, 50/4 with(25 ~l mole/g) and RC 182, RC 184, RC199, RC 203 (1.5 %) have been developed..TERI 5 and TERI 6 were identified as '0'glucosinolategenotypes. At HPKW, Kangraduring 1995-96, 33 samples were 'identifiedwith glcosinolate content less than 25 J..l moles/g seed meal: However, genotypes K 19-11,K 19-12 had both low erucic acid (5.9-6.4 %)and glucosinolate content (Traces). At TERI,twelve plants have been indentified havingglucosinolate less than 30 J..l moles/g defattedseed meal. (Anonymous, 1996). Glucosinolatecontent ranged from 16.8 - 110,6 J..l moles/gdefatt~d meal in F

3and F

4generation. The

promising genotypes were CM 99-34-13(16.8), CM 60 - 18 {19.9}, CM 59-42-39(19.9), CM 60-8(24;4), CM59-42-65 (24.4),

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 87

CM 99-34-4 (24.4), CM 59-42-21 (29.0) 6,827-1,906-8,115-5, SIJ 19, CCWF 16,(Anonymous, 1997). Out of large samples KG 18, KG 19, KG 20 of Indian mustardanalysed at different cooperating centres, four- (B.juncea) have been identified. The genotypesteen samples exhibited low glucosinolate con- viz. GSL 8884,6016,9001,6001 and 8814tent ( < 30 !! moles/g defatted meal), three of had yield superiority ranging from 11.1 - 28.3these namely KG 18, KG 19, KG 20 had low per cent over the standard high erucic checkglucosinolate with low erucic acid also (Anony- GSL 1 ((Banga et al, 1994). The double zeromous, 1998). At NRCRM ,Bharatpur during quality characters were successfully transferred1998-1999 a tDtalof 650 F3 plants were from Heera to Pusa bold of B. juncea (Malodeanalysed from the cross BJ 1058 x PCR 7 for etal, 1995). SeveraIplantswere identified withglucosinolate content, few plants c.ontain low zero erucic acid and less than 30 !! molesto medium glucosinolate and one outof 57 Fz glucosinolate/g of defatted seed meal in theplants were also found to have low glucosinolate back ground of Pusa bold (Kaushik and(Anonymous, 1999). Agnihotri, 1996).

Yield Evaluation: Seed yield of low Current Statusglucosinolate and low erucic acid genotypes, Rapeseed mustard quality improve-revealed that PBC 2096, WW - 1702 and E ment programme has come a long way since3590 had marginally increased yield over the inception. Ti~ early 90's, predominantly rape-check Varuna. Maximum yield was recorded seed-mustard ~xotic accessions were evaluatedin CCWF 104 (LG) (2319 kg/hal followed to judge their suitability for growing underCCWF 87 (LG) (2097 kg/hal and low erucic Indian condians. Only EC 287711 having lowacid strain E 2093 (2125 kg/hal. The per erucic acid and glucosinolate content showedcentage increase ranged from 9 to 12 per cent some promise. The number of strains specially(Anonymous, 1995). All the strains possess- of Indian mustard (8. juncea) offered for evalu-ing quality attributes were late maturing. In All ation increased since 1994-95.A total of 36India Coordinated Varietial Trial of Gobhi strains of Indian mustard (8. juncea L.) devel-sarson, the strains Hyola 401, TERI (OE) R oped in India have been tested under All India986 and TERI (OE) R 985 had low Coordinated Research Project on Rapeseed-glucosinolat~ contents «30 !! moles/g defat- Mustard (AICRP-RM) programme at variousted seed meal. These strains also had low eru- stages (Anonymous 2001a,b).There was incre-Cit acid. The culture TERI (OE) R 984 was mental improvement in yield of genetic mate-near '00' with glucosinolate content of 33!! rials developed over the years. The yield levelmoles/g defatted seed meal. Among the '00' of low erucic lines under advanced stage of test-entries, TERI (OE) R 986 and TERI (OE) Ring (IVT/ Avn reached at least 90 per cent of985 were also good yielders. (Anonymous the best Indian mustard checks, Varuna and1999). TERI (OE) M 990.1 and TERI (OE) M Kranti. During 1999-2000 seven low erucic9902 both low erucic strains were tested dur- acid strains, viz., TERI(OE) M 9901, TERI (OE)ing 1999-2000 in All India Coordinated Re- M 9902, PRQ 9701, LEB 15, LES 39, CRLsearch Project on Rapeseed mustard (Anony- 1359-19 and YSRL 9-18-2 have been evalu-mous, 2000). ated in Initial Variety Trial under (AICRP-RM)Development of Near Double Zero Mustard (Anonymous, 2000) of which LES 39 and

The promising douole zero lines of YSRL 9-18-2 have been promoted to Ad-gobhi sarson (8. napus)are GSL 6001, 6016, vanced Variety Trial I and II for zone II and III6034, 8884, 8814, 8816, 9001 and 1157- (Anonymous 2000, 2001a). PBCM 17R ,.


double low strain developed at .pAU,Ludhianawas marginally lower yielder (1865 kg/ha) ascompared to Varuna (1911 kg/ha). Recently(Anonymous 2001 b), 4 new low erucic strainsBIO QM 1, PRQ 9701-46 and CRL1359-175-18, YSRL 9-18-23 have been recom-mended for advanced testing under AICRP-RM(AVT I) (Anonymous 2001 b).

Twenty one low erucic and/or lowglucosinolate strains of gohhi sarson (8. napu~developed in India have been evaluated till2001 under AICRP-RM. However, their yieldpotential is still lower than that of the nationalIndian mustard checks, Varuna and Kranti.However, fourteen strains having at least 90per cent yield of gobhi sarson check, GSL 1have been at advanced stage (AV1) of testingin different agro climatic zones. The promis-ing· low erucic and/or glucosinolate contentstrains are TERI (OE)R 03, TER! (OE) R 09(high oleic acid also),TERI(OO) R 985 and TERI(00) R 986. Of these TERI (00) R 985 andTER! (OO)R 986 had glucosinolate content of12-15 ~ moles/g defatted seed meal. Similarly,an early maturing, dwarf and high yieldingdouble low strain GSC'3A' was at advancedstage of testing during 1999-2000 underAICRP-RM. Five low or double low strains, viz.,INGR 98001(0), Swarna ITER! (OE) M 21)yellow seeded, early (117 days) of B. juncea ;INGR 98002 (0), Phaguni ITERI (OE) R 03)early (136 days); INGR 98005 (0), ShyamaliITER! (OE) R 09) high oleic acid (70.1%); INGR99007 (OO),TERI Garauv, early (125 days);INGR 99008 (00), TERI Garima, high oleicacid (57.0 %) of B. napus have also been reg-istered with NBPGR, New Delhi (Singh andGautam, 1998 and Kumar et ai, 2001) byTERI, New Delhi. Recently TER! (OE) R 03(TERI Unnat) a low erucic strain with high oleicacid has been identified for release for parts ofMadhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (Anony-mous, 2001b).

The progress in the development of

low glucosinolate/double low Indian mustard(B.juncea) strains was slow due to lack of suit-'able donor in the genotypic background ofIndian cultivars and also due to involvement ofseveral genes with strong mooifiers and largeenvironmental influence on· the expression ofthis trait. Nevertheless low glucosinolate/doublelow B.juncea lines are now available but neededimprovement in agromorphological trait to im-prove their yield potential.The current effortsare to recombine low erucic acid with lowglucosinolate content in Indian mustard andrefining the agronomic base to improve yieldpotential of double low gobhi sarson strains.

Future Strategies• Development of rapid cycling facilities to

hasten the process of generation advanceand multiplication of quality materials.

• Use of biotechnological tools like dihaploidbreeding to improve the selection efficiencyand marker aided selection.

• Shuttle breeding approach in generationand evalution of breeding materials.

• Diversification of sources of low glucosino-lates (because BJ 1058 only source in B.juncea is derived from interspecific source)and their utilization in the breedingprogrammes.

• Development of inexpensive and rapidmethod for mass screening for fatty acidsand glucosinolates to facilitate early gen-eration selection.

• Understanding genetics of fatty acid pro-files and glucosinolates content in Indianmustard.

• Bi-parental mating and inter se crossingamong the selected low erucic/lowglucosinolates lines should be·followed to

.broaden genetic-base.• Selection in early generation should also

consider agronomic characters in additionto quality traits.

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 89

REFERENCESAckman, RG. et al. (1977). Nutr Dieta. 25 : 170-185.Agnihotri, Abha etal (1995). In: Rape-Seed Today and Tomarrow.Proc. 9 th International Rapeseed Congress, 4-7

July, G C I R C , Cambridge: UKAhljja, KL. (1990). In: Research on Rapeseed and Mustard(Ohlsson, I. and Kumar, P.R. eds.). Swedish Univ. of

Agril. Sci., Uppsala, Sweden: 23-33.Ahuja, KL. and Banga, Shashi, K (1992). In: Breeding OilseedBassicas(Banga K S. et ai, eds.).Narosa Publishing,

New Delhi, p: 76-93.Ahuja, KL. etal (1984). J OJ1seeds·Res. 1: 71-75.Anand, I.J. (1974). PI Biochem, J 1: 26-63.Anand, I.J. and Downey, RK (1981). Can. J Plant Sci., 61 : 199-203.Anonymous (1982). Annual Progress Report on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

Directorate of Oilseed Research Project, Rajendranagar,. Hyderabad.Anonymous (1983). Annual Progress Report on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

Directorate of Oilseed Research Project, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Anonymous (1984). Annual Progress Report on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

. Directorate of Oilseed Research Project, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. .Anonymous (1985). Annual Progress Report on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

Directorate of Oilseed Research Project, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Anonymous (1986). Annual ?rogress Report on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

Directorate of Oilseed Research Project, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Anonymous (1987). Annual Progress Report on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project



Directorate of Oilseed Research Project, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Anonymous (1990). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project

Directorate of Oilseed Research Project. Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Anonymous (1991). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

Directorate of Oilseed Research Project, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Anonymous (1992). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

Directorate of Oilseed Research Project, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Anonymous (1993). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

Directorate of Oilseed Research Project. Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Anonymous (1994). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

National Research Centre on Rapeseed - Mustard, Sewar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).Anonymous (1995).Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

National Research Centre on Rapeseed Mustard.Sewar,Bharatpur (Rajasthan).Anonymous (1996). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard All India Coordinated Research Project.

National Research Centre on ~apeseed -Mustard, Sewar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).Anonymous (1997). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Must1'lTd All India Coordinated Research Project.

National Research Centre on Rapeseed -Mustard, Sewar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).Anonymous (1998 a). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Project.

National Research Centre on Rapeseed-Mustard, Sewar, Bharatpur. (Rajasthan)Anonymous (1998 b). Annual progress Report of National Network on Improvement of Qualityof Oilseed Hrassica.

National Research Centre on Rapeseed - Mustard, Sewar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).Anonymous (1999) Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coorrlinated Research Project.

National Research Centre on Rapeseed-Mustard. Sewar, Bharatpur. (Rajasthan).Anonymous (2000 a). 29'h Annual Report.The Solvent Extracters' Association of India.Anonymous (2000 b). Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research Pro!l'ct

National Research Centre on Rapeseed-Mustard, Sewar, Bhilfatpur. (Rajasthan)Anonymous (2001 aj. Annual Progress Reports on Rapeseed-Mustard. All India Coordinated Research ProJect.

National Research Centre oh Rapeseed-Mustard. Sewar, Bharatpur. (Rajasthan).Anonymous (2001 b). (Proceeding) Annual Workshop. All India Coordinated Research Project. I.G.KV Ralpur.

July 26-28, 2001.


Antje, S. and Heiko C. Becker (1999). (Abst) 1(Jh InternationalRapeseed~ 26-29 Sep.Canberra - Australia. p: 187.Bang", Shashi K et aJ. (1994). In: Sustainabilily In Oilseeds (PrasacJ,~. V. R. et al ,Eels), Indian Society of Oilseed

Research, Hyderabad.Banga, S.S. etal (1998). Croplmprov., 25: 21-25.Barlow. S.M. and Durthie, I.E (1985). In: The Role ofF,jI/{s inHuman NutritiDn.(padley, R.B., Podmore, J. eds) Ellis

Harwood, p: 132-145. . .• -Bartkowiak-Broda, S. and Krzymanski, J: (1983). In: Proc. 6th Int. Rapeseed Con! Paris, May 17-19, p: 477 - 82.Bell, J.N. (1977). Proc. 5ymp. RapeseedOil-mealby-prcxJuct Utlization Rapeseed. Ass. Canada, Publ. No. 45. p : 137-194.13ochkareva, E. V. (1982). Selektsiya-i-Semenovodstvo, USSR, 12 :36-38.Brunklaus, J E and Robbelen, G. (1988). PI Breed., 1 : 9-16.Chen, B.Y. and Beversdorf, WD. (1990). Theor. Appl Genet., 80 : 465-469.Chen, BY and Gertsson, B. (1988). Cruciferae-Newsl., 13 : 46-47.Chen, B.Y. et al (1995). In:9h Intern. Rapeseed Congress,4-7 July, Cambridge, UK, p: 419- 21.Chen, B.Y. and Heneen, WK (1989). Heredily, 63 : 309-314.Cook, R.J. etal(1987). In: Proc. 7thlnt RapeseedCongr., 11-14 May, Vol. 12. Poznan-Poland, p: 60-63.Craig, E}.M. (1961).Can.J. PI Sci., 1: 204-210.Daryl, J. etal (1999). (Abst)1(Jh Int. Rapeseed Cpngr., 26-29 Sep.,Canberra - Australia, p: 278.•Diepenbrock, W (1983). In: Proc 6th Int Rapeseed con! May 17-19, Paris,p:302-307Diepenbrock, W. (1987). In: Proc.7th Int. Rapeseed Congr., 11-14 May (Vol. 12), Poznan-Poland.Diepenbrock, Wand Wilson, R.E (1987). Crop Sci, 27 : 75-77.Donak!, L. Woods etal (1999). (Abst) 10th International Rapeseed Congress, 26-29 Sep., Canberra - Australia, p : 142.Dorell, D.C. and Downey, R.K (1964). Can. J. PI. Sci., 44 : 499 - 504.Downey, R.K (1966). Qualitas Plantarum et Materia/Vegetables. 13 : 171-180.Downey, R.K (1964). Can. J. PI Sci., 44: 295.Downey, R.K (1990). PI Breed. Abst, 60 : 1165-1170.Downey, R.K and Craig, B.M. (1964). J. Am. Oil Chern. Soc., 41 : 475-478.Downey, R.K and Harvey, B.L. (1963). CanJ. PI Sci., 45 : 271-275.Ecker, R. and Yaniv, Z. (1993). Euphytica, 89 (1-2) : 45-49.Fenwick, G.R. et al (1983). Food Nutrition, 18 : 123-201.Fernandez-Escobar, J. etal (1988). PI. Breed., 100: 310-315.Finlayson, A.J. et a/. (1969). Can. J. Bot., 47: 679-685.Finlayson, A.J. et al (19'7'3). Oil Chern. Soc., 50 : 407-410.Gopalan, CD. et al (1974). Nutr. Metab., 16 : 352 - 365.Gross, A.T.H. and Stefansson, B.R. (1966). Can J. PI. Sci., 46: 389.Gupta, S.K et-al (1989). Indian J. Genet., 49 (3) : 385-387Gupta, S.K and Labana, KS. (1989). Indian. J. Genet.,49: 385 -387.Gupta, S.K et al (1993). J. Oilseeds Res. 10 (2) : 294-295.Gupta, S.K. et al (1998) Cruciferae- Newsl No. 20 : 81-82.Gupta, S.K. et al (1996). Cruciferae- Newsl No. 18: 58-59.Harvey, B.L.and Downey, R.K (1964). Can. J. PI. Sci., 44: 104-111.Hemingway, J. S. etal (1961). Nature, 192: 993.Hu, J. and Quiros, C. (1995). In: Rapeseed Today and Tomarrow. vol. 2. 9th Int. Rapeseed Congr., 4-7 July,

Cambridge,U.K., p: 392-394.Jonsson, R. (1977). Hereditas, 86: 159-170.Jourdren, C. etal (1996). PI Breed., 115: 11-15.Josefsson, E. (1971). Physiol PI, 24: 161-175.•Josefsson, E. (1973). Physiol. PI, 29 : 28-32.Josefsson, E. and Appelgvist, L.A. (1968). J. Sci. Food. Agric., 19: 564 -570.Kaushik, N. et al (1995). In: Rapeseed Today and Tomarrow. vol. 2. 9th International Rapeseed Congr., 4-7 July,

Cambridge,U. K. p : 916-918.Kaushik, N. and Agnihotri, A. (1996). Cruceferae-Newsl, 18: 86 - 87.Kirk, J.T.O and Oram, R.N. (1981). J. Aust. inst Agric. Sci., 47 : 51-52.Kirk, J.T.O and Hurlstone, C.J. (1983). Z. Prianzenzuech, 90: 331 - 338.Kondra, Z.P. and Stefansson, B.R. (1965). Can. J. Genet. Cytol, 7 : 500-510.;~ondra, Z.P and Stefansson, B.R. (1970). Can. J. PI Sci., 50: 643 - 647.Konrlril. Z.P. and Thomas, P.M. (1975). Can. J. PI Sci., 55 : 205-210.

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 91

Krzymanski, J. and Downey, R.K.(1969). CaJ?J. PI Sci., 49: 313-319.Krzymanski, J. et al. (1995). Rosliny-Oleiste., lEi (1) : 13-24.Kumar, P.R. (1978). Proc. 5th Int. Rapeseed Con!., Maimo, June12-16, Sweden, Vol. 1: 131 -135.Kumar, P.R. (1990). In: Research on Rapeseedand Mustard (Ohlsson, 1. and Kumar, P.R. eds). Swedish Univ. of

Agril.. Sci., Uppsala, Sweden: 10-12:Kumar, P.R (1994). In: Sustpinability in Oilseeds. (Prasad, MV.R et al eds). Indian Society of Oilseeds Research,

Hyderabad, p: 39-47.., ' . , 'Kumar, P.R and Singh, RK (1979). Proc. Int. Symp. Oilseeds and Oils, Feb. 9-13, New Delhi.Kumar, P.R. and Tsunoda, S. (1978). J. Am. Oil. Chem. Soc., 55 : 320-323. 'Kumar, P.R and Tsunoda, S. (1980). In: Brassica Crops and Wild allies. (Tsunoda, S. et al Ed.). Japan Sc!entific

Societies Press, Tokyo, p: 235-252.Kumar, P.R et al (2001). Rapeseed Mustard Commodity-Germplasm Resources. In: Crop Genetic Resources:

"An Indian Perspective" (B.S. Dhillon eds.). NBPGR, New Delhi (communicated).Laakso, 1. (1986). Agric. Sci., Anland, 58, 3 : 103-141. .Lee. J.l. et al (1974). Bull. Natl InstAgric. Sci. Series D., 25 : 1.Lee, J.I. et al (1987). Korean J. Cr:cp Sci,32 (2) : 196-200.Lein, KA. (1972). Z pBanzenzuecht. 67 : 243-256.U, D.E and Uu, H.L. (1990). Acta-Agronomica-Sinica. 16 (3) :193-199.U, J.H. and Qui, J. (1987), Oil Crop China, 4 : 7-11.Loof, B.L. and Appelqvist, A. (1964), Z PBanzenzuecht. 52 : 113.Love, H.K. et al (1990 a). Can.J. PI Sci., 70 : 419-424.Love, H.K. et al (1990 b). Can.J. PI Sci, 70 : 425-429.Luhs, W. and Friedt, W. (1995). In: Rapeseed Today and Tomorrow, vol. 2, 9th Int. Rapeseed Congress, 4-7 July,

Cambridge-UK, p : 449-451.Magrath, R etal (1993). PI Breed. 111: 55-72.Magrath, Rand Mithen, R (1993). PI Breed. 111 (3) : 249-252.Mahmoud, KT et. al. (1999). (Abst).10h Int. Rapeseed Congr., 26-29 Sept. Canberra - Australia. p : 216.,Malode, S.N. etal (1995). In: Rapeseed Today and Tomorrow, vol. 2. 9th Int. Rapeseed Congre~s. 4-7 July,

Cambridge, U. K, p : 431-433.Marquard, R (1985). Agrochimica, 29 (2-4) : 145-153.Mikolajizak, KL. etal (1961). J. Am. OilChem. Soc.. 38: 678 - 681.Moller, P. et al. (1985). In: Possibilities for Improvement of Rape Adapted for the Growth Conditions in the

Production and Utilization of Cruciferous Crop. Nijhoff JunkThe Hag~e, p : 120-125.Monpara, B. A. and Jaisani, B. G. (2000). In: National Seminar on OIlseed and Olls-Research and Development

Needs in the Millennium, Feb. 2-4, Hyderabad, IndiaMou, TM. and Uu, H.L. (1988). Cruciferae- Newsl 13 : 52-53.Mou, T M. and Uu, H.L. (1990). Acta-Agronomica-Sinica. 16 (2) : 97-105.Niewiadsmski (1990). In: Rapeseed Chemistry Technology. PWN-Polish Scientific Publishers, New-York-Tokyo. p: 22.Ohlson, R (1970). Annual ReVIew (1969). Dept. Industry, Trade and Commerce, Canada. 2-25.Palmer, MV. et al (1987). J Agric. Food. Chem. 35 : 262-265.Pleines, S. and Friedt, W. (1988). Fett Wess Technol, 90 : 167-171.Pleines, S. and Friedt, W. (1989). Theor. Appl. Genet., 78 : 793-797.Pollard, M.R and Stumpf, RK (1980), PI Physiol, 66 : 647-655.~tts, Derek A. and Males, Daryl R (1999). (Abst) 101> Int. Rapeseed Congr., 26-29 Sep., Canberra -Australia, p : 9.Pritchard, EM. et al (1999). (Abst) 10" Int. Rapeseed Congr., 26-29, Sept. Canberra- Australia. p : 343.Qui, C.K. etal (1993). JiangsuJ. Agric. Sci. 9: 11-15.Rahman, M.H. and Poulsen, M.H. (1995). In: Rapse~ Today and Tomorrow, vol .3. 9th Inter. Rapeseed Congress,

Cambridge, 4 - 7 July - UKRakow, G. (1973). Z pBanzenzuecht. 62 : 68.Renard, S. and Gregor, L. Mc (1976). Rev. Fr. Cros., 25: 339-396 (d. Chern. Abstr. 85,1583-1695).Robbelen, G. (1980). In : Production and Utilization of Protein in Oilseed Crops. (Bunting E.S. ed) Nijthoff-Junk.

The Hague, p: 91-106.Robbelen, G. and Nitsch, A. (1975). Z~ Pflanzenzuecht. 75 : 93-105.Rucker, B. and Robbelen, G. (1994). PI Breed. 113: 206-216.Salisbury, P.A. et al. (1999). (Abst) 10" Int. Rapeseed Congr., 26-29 Sep.. Canberra - Australia, p: 267.Sang, J.P. etal (1986). Aust. J. Exptl. Agric. 26: 607 - 611.

92 AGmCULTURALRE~EWS

Schierholt, A. and Becker. H. C. (1999). (Abst) )(]h Int. Rapeseed Congr.. 26-29 Sept. Canberra-AustraUa, p :187.Sharma. Navin K and Anand. I.J. (1994). In : Sustainability in OilseedslPrasad, MV.R. etaI., eds.). Indian Society of

Oilseeds Research, Hyderabad. p: 48-53.Shenolikar, L.I. (1980). Lipids. 15 : 980-982.Shiga, T. et al. (1974). Jap. J. Breed., 24 : 291.Siebel, J. and Pauls, KP. (1989). Theor. Appl. Genet., 77 (4) : 489-494.Singh, R. and Gautam. PL. (1998). In : Seminar - cum -Annual Workshop on Rapeseed - Mustard, 6-8 Aug. Birsa

Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi (Bihar).Singh, P. and Gupta, v.P. (1994). Crop Improv., 21 (1-2) 54-60.Singh, P. et a/. (1995). Crop Improv. 22 (1) : 29-32Spasibionek, S. eta/. (1998). RoslinyOleste., 19 (2;: 627-632.Stefansson. B.R. eta/. (1961). Can. J. PI Sci.. 41: 218-219.Stefansson, B.R. and Hougen. FW. (1964). Can. J. P/. Sci., 44: 359-364.Stumpf, P.K and Pollard, M.R. (1983). In: High and Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oils (Kramer et a/., eds.) Academic

. Press, London, p : 131-141.Tiwari, A.S. (1995). 9h Int. Rapeseed Congr., 4-7 July, Cambridge-UK,p: 434-436.Tiwari, A.S. et a/. (1988). Genome, 30 (Suppl 1) : 464.Triboi-BIondel, A.N. and Renard, M. (1999). (Abst) 1(}h Int. Rapeseed Congr., 26-29 Sep., Canberra - Australia: p: 346.Vagaashbabu, H.S. and Chopra, V.L. (1997). PI. Biochem. Biotechno/., 6 : 53-62.Varade, P.B. et a/. (1992). Adv. OJ/seeds Res., 1: 267-274Vermorel, M. eta/. (1986). J. Sci. Food Agric. 37: 1197-1202.Wilhelmina, J. Drost et a/. (1999b). (Abst) 10h Int Rapeseed Congr.,26-29 Sept. Canberra - Australia, p: 139.Zhou, YM. and Liu, H.L. (1987).Acta-Agr~omica-Sinica, 13 (1) : 1-10.

agric.re~,23(2):71-92,2002 breeding for oil and seed meal … · 2018. 5. 15. · eicosenoic and...

Documents