Information

There’s been some interest in a new rice variety that grows better in soils deficient in phosphorus. The BBC touted Wild rice gene gives yield boost and said that

A gene from wild Indian rice plants can significantly raise the yield of common varieties in nutrient-poor soils.

Moments later, however, the report informs readers that

The gene came from a variety called Kasalath, native to nutrient-poor soils of eastern India.

I guess we all have a ways to go in raising media awareness about the subtleties of genetic resources. A wild plant would hardly be a variety that has a name now would it?

IRRI’s press release and the scientists’ paper in Nature are both clear that the gene in question came from a “traditional rice variety”. And the BBC’s report — despite later referring to “wild varieties” — picked that up. But someone, probably some poor put-upon sub, decided they knew better.

What does it matter? Partly for reasons of conservation. That’s of no interest to the BBC, but IRRI proudly “conserves more than 114,000 different types of rice in the International Rice Genebank”. If they are there, does it matter whether they are still in farmers’ fields? At least one person, however, is using the mistaken characterisation to ask an odd (rhetorical?) question:

[T]his research supports claims that wild crop relatives hold an inventory of genes, the value of which is huge. How do we protect more effectively this rich resource?

I’ll leave others to answer that one, if they must.

As for the gene in question, it seems to promote root growth, which is what enables the plant to scavenge more nutrients from poor soils. I may well have more to say on that in a day or two.

August 21, 2012August 21, 2012

Big report make no noise: PGRFA in the European Union

I’m a little late to the warm beer and stale sandwich that is Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: roles and research priorities in the European Union. This report, issued by the European Academies Science Advisory Council, “draws on” a workshop organised by the Italian Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei and sets out to identify key priorities for research areas. Naturally these require support funding.

Success in tackling these research areas requires increased policy commitment to co-ordinated and sustained EU-wide programmes and improved collaboration between the relevant scientiﬁc disciplines (including genetics and genomics, plant sciences, ecology, social sciences). In addition there must be improved linkage between all the activities inherent in plant conservation, research and breeding and improved use of the scientiﬁc evidence to inform strategic development for agriculture and land use.

Bring it on, obviously.

That said, the report does seem to have had its sights set so firmly on high that it doesn’t have a lot to say for the small growers and gardeners that Europe generally tramples underfoot. For example, the report namechecks “On-farm managed diversity” and “Links between conservation and use” and has an informative section of genetic erosion. And yet, when it comes to “Constraints on use” there is no mention of the single biggest constraint in Europe: European legislation. The report does say:

In Europe, genetic erosion associated with the introduction of deliberately bred cultivars has been signiﬁcant for many crops.

It doesn’t say that if you don’t want to grow the specific deliberately-bred varieties Europe lists as acceptable, you’re mostly out of luck. ¹

That’s not to do the effort down completely. There are some good summaries of what plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are all about, and their role in plant breeding, climate change and so on. The summaries of access and benefit sharing, and an overview of the European scene for PGRFA are worthwhile too.

In fact, as reference document, this report is pretty handy. It could, however, have issued a clear call to open up Europe’s seed markets to genuine diversity.

I wonder why it didn’t.

August 21, 2012August 21, 2012