Barley mutants take over world

Sometimes nature needs a little help. That was brought home to me in emphatic fashion last week as I listened to the formidable Udda Lundqvist summarize her more than half a century making and studying barley mutants. Some 10,000 barley mutants are conserved at NordGen. In this freezer, in fact:

nordic09 071

And Udda described some of the main ones during her talk. You can see some of them, and read all about this work, in her 1992 thesis.

Useful mutations in barley include a wide range of economically important characters: disease resistance, low- and high-temperature tolerance, photo- and thermo-period adaptation, earliness, grain weight and -size, protein content, improved amino acid composition, good brewing properties, and improved straw morphology and anatomy in relation to superior lodging resistance.

Some of these have found their way into commercial varieties.

Through the joint work with several Swedish barley breeders (A. Hagberg, G. Persson, K. Wiklund) and other scientists at Svalöf, a rather large number of mutant varieties of two-row barley were registered as originals and commercially released (Gustafsson, 1969; Gustafsson et al., 1971). Some of them have been of distinct importance to Swedish barley cultivation. Two of these varieties, ‘Pallas’, a strawstiff, lodging resistant and high-yielding erectoides mutant, and ‘Mari’, an extremely early, photoperiod insensitive mutant barley, were produced directly by X-irradiation.

Udda is in her 80s but shows little sign of slowing down.

A reply to IIED

Andre Heitz trained as an agronomist at the Ecole nationale supérieure agronomique de Montpellier, France and spent most of his career in intellectual property with several international organisations, with a particular focus on plants and seeds. He left the following as a comment to a recent post here which followed up an earlier one on an IIED press release which came out just ahead of the World Seed Conference, and has kindly agreed to our suggestion to elevate it to post status.

I recently discovered this blog, and will be an assiduous reader, and more.

The bottom line here is that an entity supposed to, or pretending to, work for development has shot against an international conference whose purpose was to promote improved access by farmers to quality seed and thereby improve their livelihoods. It has done so using the tricks that are standard tools for the many non-governmental organisations, private businesses incorporated as non-profit organisations and academics who profess, in the final analysis, that the future lies in the past.

In this particular instance there was scaremongering based on the reference to GURTs. Yet the IIED cannot ignore that there are no GURT varieties on the market and that they are the subject of a moratorium under the CBD. Furthermore, if the IIED had a minimum of understanding of agriculture and agricultural socio-economics, they would not ignore that GURT varieties are unlikely to be taken up by poor farmers (as a matter of fact, a GURT variety must incorporate an enormous improvement over ‘conventional’ varieties for the GURT system to be profitable for the breeding and seed industry and acceptable to farmers; and even then, it will have to compete with non-GURT varieties showing the same improvement).

There was also a deliberate lie with the “Western governments and the seed industry want to upgrade the UPOV Convention”, for there is no plan to tinker with the Convention.

Continue reading “A reply to IIED”