Posts

Posted on

Bees? We don’t need no stinkin’ bees

It’s obvious really. If you have a problem in a billion-dollar industry — almonds — because your workforce — bees — are dying like flies, what do you do? Forget the bees. Breed almonds that don’t need pollinators!

Which is exactly what breeders at the USDA are doing. Actually, self-pollinating almonds are apparently nothing new. There’s a Spanish variety, Tuono, 1 that “has been around for centuries”. But it doesn’t suit the almond industry of California. Even before Colony Collapse Disorder became a problem the USDA geneticists were busy using Tuono as the pollen parent in a series of crosses, because in addition to dispensing with bees it has other good properties. And now eight new, self-pollinating varieties have been evaluated. In time, they may replace the standard, bee-demanding variety Nonpareil, which apparently accounts for 37% of California’s almond trees. 2

Oh, and if you’re really into almonds, you probably already know about The Almond Doctor.

Posted on

Featured: Drought-resistant maize

Anastasia has a diverse point of view on drought-resistant maize:

To me, we must nurture as many solutions as possible because the exact solution(s) needed in each area will vary. We need breeding/engineering, we need crop diversity, we need creative methods… I don’t think there’s any conflict in embracing all of them.

Ramen to that.

Posted on

Assisted migration: all there is to know (at the moment)

We’ve written before about assisted migration — giving plants (and animals) a helping hand to ensure that they can keep up with shifts in the areas in which they can thrive. “Managed relocation” is becoming a hot topic, which may be why the Chicago Botanic Garden is holding a one-day seminar on 11 June 2010. Details are currently sparse, but if you go, and especially if anyone says anything about crops or wild relatives, please share a report.

Posted on

Diverse points of view on feeding Africa

We like to embrace different points of view here ourselves, though we also like to think there’s a certain consistency to most of what we say and do. Maybe that’s why I find it strange that a single blog, on a single day 3 can feature two such divergent posts. One — Homegrown Solutions to Alleviating Hunger and Poverty — is a thorough look at the role of indigenous fruit and vegetable crops in delivering a healthy and nutritious diet. The other — Breeding for Climate Change — links, almost without comment, to a report on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s project to deliver just two (one conventionally bred, one genetically engineered) drought-resistant maize varieties to sub Saharan Africa.

I have no doubt that genetic engineering, precision farming and other high-tech tools of modern intensive farming can supply all the calories the world will need even when it hosts 9 billion people. I do doubt that the 9 billion will actually get those calories. And I know that calories alone are not enough. People need nourishment, not merely calories.

Posted on

Costs, benefits, and the search for disease resistance

An epidemic of Fusarium head blight swept through the United states between 1998 and 2000, costing the wheat industry an estimated US$ 2.7 billion. That’s right: billion.

Salvation came from Chinese and Japanese landraces, especially a Chinese wheat called Sumai 3. To prepare for the inevitable mutation of the fungus, scientists at the USDA have broadened their search for resistance. They examined 87 Asian varieties of wheat, many of them old landraces, and found good levels of resistance in 26 of them. Better yet, some of the resistance genes seem to be different from the ones derived from Sumai 3, which means that they might offer protection against different varieties of the fungus.

Just knowing that various resistance genes exist, and having markers to select more resistant crosses from breeding efforts means that future outbreaks can probably be more effectively dealt with, which is reassuring. More to the point, for our purposes, this research raises again the question: how can anyone doubt the value of genebanks? Just one disease cost just one country US$2.7 billion over three years. Genebank accessions contain the solutions. Do you really need to know the cost of every accession to decide whether genebanks are worthwhile?