Genebanks are valuable, even without climate change

national-plant-germplasm

As agriculture adapts to climate change, crop genetic resources can be used to develop new plant varieties that are more tolerant of changing environmental conditions. Crop genetic resources (or germplasm) consist of seeds, plants, or plant parts that can be used in crop breeding, research, or conservation. The public sector plays an important role in collecting, conserving, and distributing crop genetic resources because private-sector incentives for crucial parts of these activities are limited. The U.S. National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) is the primary network that manages publicly held crop germplasm in the United States. Since 2003, demand for crop genetic resources from the NPGS has increased rapidly even as the NPGS budget has declined in real dollars. By way of comparison, the NPGS budget of approximately $47 million in 2012 was well under one-half of 1 percent of the U.S. seed market (measured as the value of farmers’ purchased seed) which exceeded $20 billion for the same year.

Couldn’t have put it better myself, though admittedly I’m more likely to have done it for the CGIAR genebanks than for the NPGS. The diagram, and the sentiment, derive from a USDA publication that came out back in April: Using Crop Genetic Resources to Help Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change: Economics and Policy. We did blog about it at the time, but USDA seem to be plugging it again, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t too.

Nibbles: Youthful ideas, IK, Variety testing, GMO philosophy, Organic GMOs, Oline disease, Cacao doctors, US wheat, Cary Fowler, Bison renaissance, UCDavis, Andean grains, Alaskan ag, Lettuce latex, Collecting strategies, Pulses racing, Huitlacoche, Ecoagriculture, Bowel movement

The rough value of genebanks

In 2012, The NPGS [the US National Plant Germplasm System] budget was approximately $47 million. Funding for the NPGS has been relatively stagnant over time. In real terms, agency funding peaked in 2003, at approximately $53 million in 2012 dollars (fig. 1). While direct comparisons between costs of a genebank and its benefits are not possible, ((Emphasis added.)) for context, we note that U.S. farmers paid $20.3 billion for seed in 2012 (USDA\National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2013). Thus, the costs of public ex situ plant conservation in the United States are a small fraction—under half of 1 percent—of the value of the eventual seed market. At the same time that budgets have decreased, demand for NPGS germplasm has reached historic highs (fig. 2).

Gotta love it when economists give up on quantitative data, and settle for qualitative comparisons.

When compared to the rather large benefits of genetic enhancement, the costs of genebank operation appear relatively small.

But do read the whole of USDA’s Using Crop Genetic Resources To Help Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change: Economics and Policy by Paul W. Heisey and Kelly Day Rubenstein. There is some data in there, and that perennial fall-back of economists, a model. The main findings, if you just want to just skip to the bottom line, were that genebanks are worth it, but that better data and some pre-breeding would help.

Brainfood: IBPGR collecting, Persimmon diversity, ABS, On farm economics, Wild Colombian potatoes, Indian rice cores, Tibetan chickens, Ligonberry antioxidants, Tanzanian veggie IK, Melon sugar genes, Moroccan lentil diversity, Grasspea diversity, Quinoa ABS

Brainfood: Camelina improvement, School garden impact, Biodiversity rice, Seed networks, Indian wheat geography, Protected areas, Late blight resistance, Peanut biotech