Posts

Posted on

The complexities of conserving crop diversity in Italy

A certain Mario C. has collected 178 signatures for a petition to save the “Banca dei Semi di Bari”:

We the undersigned ask the judges responsible, the National Research Council, and the political authorities at national, regional, provincial and city levels to “Save at any cost the Seed Bank of Bari.” Including if necessary delivering these seeds to us or other third parties who love nature, so they do not die. For example, as has been done by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Brescia when they delivered Green Hill beagle dogs to ordinary citizens (about 2500 beagles) to save them from vivisection.

The Italian genebank in question, the largest in the National Research Council’s (CNR) network, is thus described:

It’s the first seed bank in Italy and the second in Europe. It maintains 84,000 germplasm samples from more than 60 genera and over 600 species of cultivated plants. It was established by FAO to expose the high genetic erosion caused by the Green Revolution.

Skipping blithely over the somewhat distorted version of the history of the Bari genebank, the numbers quoted 1 suggest that this is a reaction to a recent article in a local paper, which had this to say about the nature of the threat to the genebank, unhelpfully not mentioned in the petition:

Way back in 2003, the temperature of the cold rooms rose above the optimal, that is -20-0°. Failure to repair the rooms in timely fashion by the CNR has caused extensive damage to the genetic heritage so that, following a dispute between the Bank and the National Research Council (CNR), an investigation by the judiciary found CNR to be responsible. Although the samples have been released from seizure since 2009, the Region of Puglia apparently has not yet acquired them to provide for their regeneration. No one else has offered to do this and they are back in the hands of the CNR. Meanwhile an immense and invaluable genetic agrobiological patrimony is perishing abandoned.

In past years appeals by, among others, Dr Perrino to protect the biodiversity represented and perpetuated through these seeds from being destroyed have gone unheeded. To prevent the worst is simple, just regenerate this germplasm by planting it. Inexplicably, no one seems interested in doing this, starting with the political class, according to Perrino, former director of the Institute of Germplasm of CNR, Bari (1983-1993, 1998-2002).

Now, I don’t know to what extent these allegations are justified. There’s no mention of any problem in Italy 2 in the recent big official EU document on PGRFA. Not that you’d necessarily expect to find mention of such problems in big official EU documents. There’s been nothing much on the grapevine. Not that that’s always reliable. The whole thing may just be a misunderstanding. But this has been going back and forth for years now. It would be nice to have some data from the Bari genebank to settle the question once and for all. Regular germination tests are surely carried out there. The results are surely documented. Why not publish them, and set everybody’s mind at rest? And to what extent is the issue moot anyway, the material in Bari being duplicated elsewhere?

Meanwhile, there’s a press release from the Italian ministry of agriculture contextualizing the recent EU court decision that the prohibition on commercializing seed of traditional varieties is invalid. Jeremy said there was probably more to it than that, and of course there is. Apparently, you still have to register your traditional variety in Italy. But it only takes 150 days, the ministry assures us, it’s not too difficult, and entirely free.

Ex situ or in situ, conserving crop diversity can sometimes seem a vale of tears.

Posted on

Featured: Accession identity

On that “wild landrace” rice, Mike Jackson echoes a thought we’ve often had:

I wonder if the accession number(s) of Kasalath (presumably from the International Rice Genebank Collection – IRGC?) is cited in the full article. I have often argued with IRRI scientists of the need to cite the actual accession ‘provenance’ of the germplasm used in research and breeding, rather than just referring to this variety or that. There is a myth that a variety with the same name is genetically the same. And from our own evaluation of IR36 accessions (I think that was the variety, or maybe IR64) in the IRGC made in the 1990s there were at least six different types – even though the breeders stated, with confidence, that they knew what was the variety and what was not. I also hope that the actual lines in which this gene was discovered have been pure-lined and a sample entered into the IRGC – under a new accession number, of course!

I looked at the paper, and couldn’t spot anything resembling an accession number, but it is pretty dense.

Posted on

Wild about rice landraces

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.

Posted on

Europe wants to hear from you. No, really.

Have your say on the Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy! Word, from Mrs Isabelle Durant, Vice-President of the European Parliament.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, Europe has been going through a period of profound change.

One vital challenge is linked to agriculture and rural areas, and the relationship between farmers and consumers. This is the domain of what is known as the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union (or CAP).

As we speak, the reform of the CAP is underway, and the European Parliament, through a lengthy democratic process, is preparing the final response.

We invite you to take part in this process of participative democracy by filling in the following questionnaire.

We hope to hear from you.

Satire, or any other form of snit, would be pointless.

Posted on

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. 3

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.