- Crop-to-wild gene flow and spatial genetic structure in the closest wild relatives of the cultivated apple. Some evidence of genetic differentiation within species, but not as much as you’d think. Probably because of the significant gene flow in all directions.
- Biosynthesis of Antinutritional Alkaloids in Solanaceous Crops Is Mediated by Clustered Genes. Which means they can be fairly easily silenced.
- Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy. It’s worth it, but farmers will need incentives.
- Strengthening informal seed systems to enhance food security in Southeast Asia. Including through identifying potential commercial species and also the odd seed fair and bank.
- Can Certain Intellectual Property Rights both Protect and Promote Unique Traditional Products and Cultural Heritage from Developing Countries for Economic Benefit? The Case of Georgia. Maybe.
- In vitro conservation of chestnut (Castanea sativa) by slow growth. Ok, now what?
- Getting the most out of natural variation in C4 photosynthesis. Through sequencing of a couple of key species and lots of RNA profiling.
- Coping with climate-induced water stresses through time and space in the mountains of Southwest China. Including by changing crops, changing crop varieties and changing cropping patterns. But other ways as well.
Some reaction to ILRI call for global livestock genebank
A recent Q&A with Jimmy Smith, Director General of the International Livestock Research Center (ILRI), included this exchange:
Q. ILRI is calling for the creation of a livestock gene bank. What would it look like and how could it benefit people?
A. There are many gene banks for crops around the world, but we have no such facility for livestock breeds native to developing countries, even though animal diversity in those countries is being eroded in the same way as plant diversity…
That’s only the beginning of a longish answer, which you can read in full on SciDevNet. It elicited the following response on the DAD-Net (Domestic Animal Diversity Network) mailing list from Michèle Tixier-Boichard, chair of the French cryobank at INRA, which we quote here in full with her permission.
The advertisement for the ‘first world gene bank’ at ILRI deserves some remarks.
It is generally an excellent idea to set up genebanks for livestock, both for research and for the management of animal genetic diversity in complementarity with in situ management of populations.
Fortunately, it is not the first time that some countries think of that. For instance in Europe, several countries have a cryobank coupled with DNA samples. ((Ed.: Same in the US also, for that matter.))
In France, a national infrastructure project called ‘CRB-Anim’ has been funded from 2012 to 2019 to set up a network of biological resources centers for 22 species of livestock and companion animals. The aim is to collect, characterize, secure and distribute semen, embryos, DNA, RNA, tissues, for research as well as for the management of genetic diversity of livestock species.
In order to go beyond the national scale, a bottom-up approach is generally preferable to set up a regional network between national gene banks, with harmonisation and standardisation of procedures, sharing of technologies, distribution of samples… The system of automatic delivery which has been set up for some plant genetic resources by CGIAR international centers does not meet the current requirements of the livestock community. Ownership and principles for access and benefit sharing are not considered by the livestock community in the same terms as they are by the plant community, animal breeds are generally considered as club goods rather than public goods, particularly local breeds. So, there is a need for coordination and exchange of knowledge and practise between livestock gene banks, including the possibility of duplication for safety, rather than for systematic globalisation.
Centralisation of resources in a unique gene bank raises a number of major issues that may trigger opposition from many stakeholders, that must consider the Nagoya protocol, and, in any case, will require thorough discussions that should take place under the leadership of FAO.
Some interesting points there, in particular highlighting the differences that exist at the policy level between crop and livestock genetic resources conservation. I suspect that what is meant by the “automatic delivery which has been set up for some plant genetic resources by CGIAR international centers” is the “facilitated access” allowed for under the Multilateral System of the International Treaty, and I confess I had no idea that the livestock conservation community had such reservations about that approach. Dr Smith did not mention the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources process being led by FAO in his answers, but one of the key people involved, Irene Hoffmann, chief of Animal Genetic Resources at FAO, is quoted in an accompanying SciDevNet piece on the technical challenges involved in setting up a global livestock bank. However, it’s not quite clear whether the following statement on the possible policy hurdles, which comes right after that quote, reflects Dr Hoffman’s views or is an impression gathered by the writer of the article from other sources.
There is also the issue of ownership, as some countries do not want to deposit what they consider their national heritage into a global genebank.
Either way, ILRI will have its work cut out.
Nibbles: Ug99, Heirloom & wild tomatoes, Opium, Healthy flavours, Quinoa descriptors, Wild yak community conservation, Phenotyping facility, Tree app, ABS & EU, C4, Barley in Ethiopia, Chinese coffee
- Not totally wild genes protect wheat from Ug99.
- Not really wild Texas Wild tomato brings Texan back to gardening. These in Peru are wild though.
- Speaking of gardening, here’s Michael Pollan on his struggles with opium.
- Wild, healthy fruit flavours becoming more popular on the soft drink market, but not clear to what extent they will come from actual plants, wild or otherwise. You know, plants with yield variation and other inconveniences. Plants that some people rely on for nutrition, by the way.
- Descriptors for quinoa, including the wild species. And more, much more.
- I wonder if there are descriptors for wild yaks.
- New UK facility for phenotyping plants, including wild ones, I’m sure.
- And if those wild UK plants are trees, you can use this app to identify them, before phenotyping them. Assuming you can dig them up and squeeze them into the new facility. Anyway, maybe one of them will be European Tree of the Year.
- Of course, if you wanted access to the genetic resources of such trees, you’d have to deal with the Nagoya Protocol, which the EU is getting to grips with, don’t worry.
- Not many C4 species among UK trees, I guess.
- Teff is C4, but that isn’t stopping people trying to replace it with barley in injira.
- Next thing you know the Chinese will be swapping tea for coffee. No, wait.
Nibbles: Potato diversity sites, Potato market, Smallholders and markets, CIP genebank, African potato meet, Japanese fries & eels, Micronutrients, Pickling book
- Setting up a network of high potato diversity sites for in situ conservation. It has a Facebook page, so “Like” it.
- Some of that diversity will no doubt find its way to Lima’s markets.
- If not, Leaping and Learning will tell you how. And why.
- There’s a lot of diversity in genebanks too, of course. And thank goodness for that!
- Potatoes are important in Africa too.
- And Japan. But do they go with eels?
- What are potatoes like for micronutrients? Probably better than you think. But could be better?
- If not, you can always pickle them. Can’t you?
Where exactly is that zeitgeist?
Something is up, Jeremy said a couple of days ago, by way of introduction to a pair of pieces which he suggested, tongue no doubt at least partly in cheek, showed “the zeitgeist firmly embracing the idea of agricultural biodiversity, preferably ancient agricultural biodiversity, as a suitable response to climate change.”
Well, if something was up, it is now firmly down, and as for the zeitgeist, its name is biotech. Because yesterday some of the masterminds behind GM won the World Food Prize. And, probably not coincidentally, the Rt Hon Owen Paterson, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave a speech to Rothamsted Research which ended with this rousing call:
GM isn’t necessarily about making life easier for farmers or making their businesses more profitable, although I believe that there are great opportunities for the industry. It’s about finding non-chemical solutions to pests and diseases. It’s about fortifying food with vitamin A so that children in the poorest countries don’t go blind or die. It’s about making crops durable enough to survive sustained drought. It’s about developing new medicines. It’s about feeding families in some of the poorest parts of the world. We cannot expect to feed tomorrow’s population with yesterday’s agriculture. We have to use every tool at our disposal.
Meanwhile, the search for that elusive middle ground, in which every tool at our disposal is not only used, but gets an equal chance to be honed and oiled, continues.
LATER: How would you facilitate a truly constructive debate about that middle ground? Here’s how NOT to do it:
Setting up a debate that is framed around risk, rather than food politics, focused on a single subset of technology, rather than one that explores all the options, structured around science in an area where questions about outcomes are impossible to answer with certainty, about a technology that has unclear benefits to the public and the developing world but very obvious benefits to large firms that the public distrusts (partly because of their unclear relationships to politicians), seems to me at least like a waste of taxpayers’ money.