Conserving evolution

Salvatore Ceccarelli, for many years a barley breeder at ICARDA, tells us about evolutionary-participatory plant breeding, a holistic approach to adapt crops to agronomy, climate changes and people.

That the climate is changing is now accepted by most, and certainly by old farmers in developing countries who are telling us of less snow falls, less ice in winter, less rainfall, more dusty days, and more importantly declining crop production in face of increasing production costs (fuel to pump irrigation water, fertilizers, etc.).

One question farmers often ask is if and how the crops and the varieties of the crops they grow today, and which provide us with food and feed, will cope with the future climate. The question is not an easy one to answer because while we all know that the climate is going to be drier and hotter, nobody can tell the farmer who asks the question how precisely much drier and hotter it will be in the place where he/she lives. But the same farmers who ask this question also help us to find an answer when they tell us that in years of drought only those farmers who are still growing the old traditional varieties (landraces) are able to harvest something.

Many of these landraces, even when they are no longer cultivated are still kept in genebanks, under very special conditions (low temperature and humidity) to keep them alive for a long time. However, by “freezing” seeds genebanks also “freeze” evolution at the time the landraces were collected, and this is not ideal at a time when we need the crops to be exposed to the changing climate so that they can slowly evolve (adapt) and produce new types that can better endure the future climate. Even if we do not know precisely what the climate will be, we should give the plants the opportunity to find out.

These are the principles of “evolutionary – participatory plant breeding”, a program by which we make available to farmers of different countries populations made by mixtures of landraces of the most important (to the farmers) crops available in genebanks. The mixtures will be planted in contrasting locations, particularly those representing high intensity of abiotic and biotic stresses.

In each location, the population will be left to evolve under the joint forces of natural and artificial selection operated by the farmers — but also by breeders (this is why we call it “participatory”). The system can be considered as a sort of “evolving genebank”. Because the mixtures can be planted in a very large number of locations – and with time can be shared by an increasing number of farmers – the populations are expected to evolve differently, responding not to only to climate changes but also to different types of soil, different agronomy, different uses of the crops and different farmers’ preferences etc. Therefore, in addition to the most obvious benefit of generating better crops for the future climate, this program will give a major contribution to increase agricultural biodiversity with all the associated benefits.

As the populations evolve in different directions, genebanks can periodically store samples of these evolving populations, thus “conserving evolution”.

Striga beater awarded 2009 World Food Prize

Dr Gebisa Ejeta of Purdue University has won this year’s World Food Prize for his work on sorghum breeding, in particular breeding for resistance to the parasitic weed Striga.

Dr. Ejeta’s scientific breakthroughs in breeding drought-tolerant and Striga-resistant sorghum have been combined with his persistent efforts to foster economic development and the empowerment of subsistence farmers through the creation of agricultural enterprises in rural Africa. He has led his colleagues in working with national and local authorities and nongovernmental agencies so that smallholder farmers and rural entrepreneurs can catalyze efforts to improve crop productivity, strengthen nutritional security, increase the value of agricultural products, and boost the profitability of agricultural enterprise — thus fostering profound impacts on lives and livelihoods on broader scale across the African continent.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer person either. Congratulations, Dr Ejeta.

Nibbles: Coca to cacao, BXV, Chinese gardening, Forest conservation, Amazon, Soil bacteria, Prairie, Genetics, Wildcats, Milk product

Size matters

A few days ago I posted a link to an article on miniature cows on the DAD-Net mailing list of the livestock genetic resources conservation community. Here’s the gist of that piece, which appeared in the LA Times:

…miniature Herefords consume about half that of a full-sized cow yet produce 50% to 75% of the rib-eyes and fillets, according to researchers and budget-conscious farmers.

In the last few years, ranchers across the country have been snapping up mini Hereford and Angus calves that fit in a person’s lap. Farmers who raise mini Jerseys brag how each animal provides 2 to 3 gallons of milk a day, though they complain about having to crouch down on their knees to reach the udders.

Minicows are not genetically engineered to be tiny, and they’re not dwarfs. They are drawn from original breeds brought to the U.S. from Europe in the 1800s that were smaller than today’s bovine giants, said Ron Lemenager, professor of animal science at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.

This elicited quite a discussion on DAD-Net, set off by a suggestion that such smaller breeds of livestock might be useful in the Pacific Island Islands and Territories (PICTs), which have very limited resources for livestock production.

One contributor pointed out that the amount of feed consumed is not the only consideration:

Minature breeds are possibly fine for subsistence or local supply oriented production systems (which some PICT systems are, but possibly also important to consider how good such systems are at satisfying local or subsistence demands as well)…

They are, however, less efficient to process for commercialized production systems because it costs almost the same to slaughter and process a miniature as it does to slaughter and process a larger animal of the same species.

Once again, for me it is really an issue of fitness for purpose and I, therefore, believe diversification is the real answer.

Another pointed out that just because an animal consumes less doesn’t mean it consumes more efficiently:

The idea of considering miniature breeds of livestock for PICTs is a bit tricky. Animal size is naturally related to structure and function of the body, so the issue is about scaling… In short, smaller body size may require less volume of inputs but it is not necessarily more efficient in using these inputs in comparison with larger sizes of the same type.

The miniature breed of cattle referred to in the article (Hereford) is neither dwarf nor genetically engineered. They are a genetically improved beef animal also selected for their miniature body size apart from their desirable beef characteristics. They belong to an established commercial beef breed, and as such they are as demanding in terms of their input requirements to attain their top performance as are their bigger competitors, although in smaller amounts.

Another participant thought PICTs should make the most of what they already have:

I am simply of the opinion that PI countries stay with what breeds (appropriate exotic, exotic-cross locals), but make the necessary improvements where currently needed i.e. management, feed, breeding, animal health as well as the needed slaughter and meat inspection requirements.

But one did think there was a place for miniature livestock:

Miniature breeds for livestock production would be ideal to other PICTs while others may at this time not yet ready for such undertakings, since adaptability, management, husbandry and acceptance of the particular species or breeds to the local communities are yet to be researched into.

Finally, a couple of people objected to the word “miniature” itself:

I suggest that we avoid using the term “miniature” cows because this can be misleading. It is the terminology and what it is associated with that stands out more than the fundamental issues being raised in this debate. We have stigmatized a number of breeds because of issues of size, production and markets without consideration of the context. It is always important to put things in the right context.

Which is a pretty good note to end this summary on. The importance of context and of a diversity of options are things we like to talk about here. I just wish there was a place for similar discussion of plant genetic resources conservation issues…