- The CGIAR spatial crowd get it together? Not holding my breath.
- So tell me about that biodiversity-poverty link. Well, more research is, ahem, needed. Wet, for want of a better word.
- All the different kinds of “spots” for livestock diseases. How did they cope with the poor data? And have the various hotspots and coldspots been considered in drawing up the new research priorities for livestock?
- UNDP stumps up $4 million to plan biodiversity management in Romania. Including agrobiodiversity? Not holding my breath.
- A socio-economic impact analysis of cultural diversity in cities does not consider agriculture at all. There’s a PhD there for someone.
- IUCN’s plans for the Iraqi marshes. Thesiger unavailable for comment.
- If it can be done with amphibians, why the hell can’t it be done with agricultural biodiversity?
- Biojoy swamps Bioversity as Biohappiness book is launched.
- Yeah but was there any of this? And if not, why not? Via NWFP-Digest-L.
Vegetable seed kits for Thailand; more details
We are very pleased that the World Vegetable Center has responded to our concerns about the vegetable seed kits that the Center has been distributing in the wake of the floods in Thailand. Thanks to Maureen Mecozzi for this contribution.
We appreciate and share your concern regarding seed distribution in the wake of disasters. To clarify the role of AVRDC–The World Vegetable Center in providing seed to Thailand:
The floods in Thailand affected agricultural areas, and the military is facilitating the relief operations on behalf of the Royal Project. The Project’s patron, Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, requested seed from the Ministry of Agriculture, which was unable to supply as much as was needed. Kasetsart University will launch an overall development program that will include home gardens, but it also lacked seed in sufficient quantities for distribution.
KU and the ministry approached AVRDC–The World Vegetable Center to help supply seed for these initiatives.
AVRDC’s disaster relief seed kits include hardy, fast-growing vegetable varieties with low input requirements that can provide much-needed nutrition to disaster survivors. Crops in AVRDC’s disaster relief kits are carefully selected to suit local agroecologies and food preferences. The kits include cultivation and food preparation instructions in local languages.
Each kit provides enough seed for one household to grow vegetables on 100 m2 of land to provide a balanced supply of protein and micronutrients during the initial months after a disaster.
Please note:
- Seed for the disaster relief kits was produced in Thailand.
- Crops selected for the kits are locally adapted, open-pollinated varieties (farmers can save their own seed to plant in following seasons).
- The crops are well-known in Thailand and palatable to Thai tastes and preferences.
- The crops are nutritious and quick-growing.
- Seed was properly pre-treated and stored to ensure high germination rates.
The Center’s disaster seed kits are not designed to supplant the local seed supply system. Food production systems can be severely disrupted or destroyed altogether in the wake of a disaster; supplying seed kits helps survivors in agricultural areas bridge the gap until local seed systems recover.
Brainfood: Introgression, Sorghum and drought, Rice and drought, Carrot evaluation, Wheat breeding, Legume conservation, Wild Tibet soybean, Gezira, Biochar, CA, Grass ecotypes and climate, Organic ag and nutrients
- Alien introgressions represent a rich source of genes for crop improvement. Polyploids such as wheat do it best.
- Characterization of sorghum genotypes for traits related to drought tolerance. There is diversity within the “association panel” of diverse germplasm used. What I want to know is how that is different from a core or mini-core collection.
- Rice near-isogenic-lines (NILs) contrasting for grain yield under lowland drought stress. Small genetic differences can lead to big differences in yield under drought stress. What I want to know is whether doing this on NILs is better value for money than doing it on association panels of germplasm (see above), whatever they may be.
- Towards better tasting and more nutritious carrots: Carotenoid and sugar content variation in carrot genetic resources. European accessions sweeter and more orange than Asian.
- Changes in duration of developmental phases of durum wheat caused by breeding in Spain and Italy during the 20th century and its impact on yield. Fascinating unpicking of just where the genetic changes have their impact.
- Legume genetic resources: management, diversity assessment, and utilization in crop improvement. A lot of characterization, not enough evaluation. Core collections useful, but not useful enough. Crop wild relatives being used, but not enough. Good plug for the importance of geo-referencing.
- Genetic diversity and geographical peculiarity of Tibetan wild soybean (Glycine soja). Low and high, respectively.
- Analysis of agricultural production instability in the Gezira Scheme. Went up for wheat, cotton and sorghum, down for groundnuts, on liberalization.
- Biochar effects on soil biota – A review. It’s complicated but, on the whole, not unpositive.
- A research agenda to explore the role of conservation agriculture in African smallholder farming systems. Basically, it is likely to work least well in marginal conditions. Which is kinda surprising, and not, at the same time.
- Ecotypes of European grass species respond differently to warming and extreme drought. Yeah, but, alas, not in the way one might have wished.
- Comparison of nutritional quality of the crops grown in an organic and conventional fertilized soil. Maybe lower nitrate and N, higher P in organic crops. But really too much variation to be sure.
Nibbles: Climate change, Guinea pigs, Eels, Seed
- Community local knowledge confirms scientific findings on climate change. (Or vice versa?)
- A CIAT video on “the potential of particular forage crops for improving guinea pig production, improving rural nutrition and incomes, and empowering women” in DRC.
- Sustainable eel label. Like that’ll help. h/t The Tracing Paper.
- The small scale farmer who is also Director of Communications and Public Affairs for AGRA runs into a seed shortage. So she plants an unsuitable maize variety and hopes for the best.
Plant breeder incentives; are Plant Patents a help or a hindrance?
A recent blog post added to the arguments questioning the value of property rights over plants. Rather than riff on that from a position of confusion, I sent it over to our friend Kay Chapman at CAS-IP. Here’s her take on the topic.
The original paper being discussed in the blog post asked the question “Did Plant Patents Create the American Rose?”. 1 Moser and Rhode concluded that:
“Using plant patents as the sole indicator of innovation suggests that the answer is yes … A closer look, however, suggests patents played at best a secondary role, and that U.S. breeders mostly used patents strategically to protect themselves from litigation.”
The blog post at Human flower Project (perhaps somewhat unfairly) draws the conclusion from the paper that:
“… there’s evidence that the Plant Patent Act may have served to suppress horticultural innovation rather than stimulate it”
Why is this debate of interest to us? The research is about roses, but the Intellectual Property Rights discussion could apply equally to other plants and crops. In our area this debate becomes even more heated when publicly funded research and development issues are added into the mix.
It’s always useful that we a) take note and learn from these discussions, and b) that we remember the balance that needs to be struck between protecting individual rights, and effects on the wider community. The patent system was always supposed to tread this line. There is more than one type of IPR available to plant breeders. In the US a Plant Patent is just one of three forms of formal protection available for plants from the US Patent and Trademarks Office, along with Plant Variety Protection (PVP) and the Utility Patent.
Protection is certainly not a one-way street. Plant Patent Rights are time limited and the patented plant variety enters the public domain (with no rights attached) once the patent expires. In addition US Plant Patents allow the protected materials to be used for breeding without the need for permission (or a license) from the patent holder, much like the breeder’s exemption for PVP rights. 2 This is not true for utility patent rights over plant varieties.
I would like to question the Human Flower Project’s post in its comparison to Europe. It was noted that:
“European breeders, without the benefit of patents, continued to lead rose innovation”
But what about UPOV? This isn’t mentioned.
The IPR tools are just one piece of the overall innovation puzzle, and the innovation puzzle is a complicated one! By raising the awareness of the uses and characteristics of the tools we can help ensure that public sector research navigates this area better. This could mean taking steps to ensure research falls into the public domain, or using the protections to make outputs available on specific, strategic, development-orientated terms.
The blog post included a great archive photo of the original Golden Delicious apple tree (1931) caged to “prevent competitors stealing shoots.” That’s certainly one alternative to formal protection!