To provide more crop yield on less land with fewer inputs undoubtedly requires alteration to the fundamental physiological attributes of plants. Included in these is the increase in efficiency of photosynthesis, recently identified by BBRSC as a focus of special interest and subject of a previous post on this blog.

The relationship between photosynthesis and crop yield is controversial. On the one hand, the interception and conversion efficiency of solar radiation by plants is directly proportional to biomass accumulation. On the other, linking photosynthetic activity at the leaf level (the pre-occupation of the plant scientist) to crop yield per unit land area (the concern of the farmer) has proven very difficult.

The reasons for this difficulty are numerous and at least in part result from the complexity of the system.

25 years ago researchers, including myself, first tried to set out some elements of this complexity, describing the various sub-stages of photosynthesis, from light capture by the chlorophyll-protein complexes in plant thylakoid membranes, to the electron transport processes, carbon assimilation, carbohydrate synthesis and partitioning, and product accumulation in the grain – the part that we most often eat.

The key idea was that each of these was connected not only by the fluxes between them, but by the presence of various feed-back and feed-forward regulatory processes, which tuned photosynthesis to external environmental factors, developmental processes and metabolic constraints. This network of interactions buffered the effects of internal and external change, providing balance and homeostasis, a universal feature of all biological systems. Such a model provides a means to analyse processes including stress tolerance and exemplifies the challenges presented to the plant breeder when wishing to ‘improve photosynthesis’ – where to intervene, what to change, what will be the consequences to name a few considerations.

Light the way

This formulation was redefined to provide a context for the work done by my group at the University of Sheffield on rice photosynthesis in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute. This work revealed some striking insights, mainly how poor photosynthesis was in the field, even under conditions widely regarded as optimum.

In general, in many leaves, for significant periods of the day, photosynthetic activity was far below capacity. Causative factors included: closure of the stomata shutting off the supply of carbon dioxide to the leaves; reduction in the efficiency of light collection by the chloroplasts; and feedback from the accumulation of carbohydrate products of photosynthesis.

The conclusion from this study is important but so far widely ignored: There is enough photosynthetic activity in the existing cellular machinery to sustain a much larger yield if only plants could be induced to perform at their full potential.

So why don’t plants perform at their full potential?

Optimal operation

One reason why photosynthetic activity is not maximally expressed is inappropriate optimisation. Put simply, stability and survival (a low risk strategy) in the natural environment are driving forces of evolution, not necessarily high growth rate and photosynthetic rate (a high risk strategy) or high grain yield. Photosynthesis is held back below its potential because growth is optimised in the face of the particular properties of the plant’s habitat. Therefore, we have to consider the evolution and basic biology of each crop species.

Particularly important is that the environment is never constant- there are fluctuations in levels of sunlight, temperature and rainfall. Plants record, memorise and (try to) predict their environments to ensure that they always have enough energy storage from photosynthesis to power their growth and development. For example, plants have to determine the size of their reproductive sinks (i.e. grain capacity) in advance, predicting what the photosynthetic rate will be to give maximum grain filling. Over-estimation of future photosynthesis results in poor grain filling and/or poor quality grain; under-estimation of future photosynthesis results in a decrease in the efficiency of solar energy use and losses of potential productivity. Trade-offs inevitably result from optimisation of the internal regulatory mechanisms involved (dynamic range, kinetics, precision), and this readily explains the apparent under-performance of photosynthesis.

A particularly clear example of how optimisation points may differ in different plant genotypes is our observation that stress tolerant varieties of bean have a low growth rate under favourable conditions, whereas others have high yield under favourable conditions but suffer badly when grown under stress. Consequently, there may be opportunities for the breeding of higher yielding crops by tailoring regulatory responses to specific agricultural scenarios, where man’s intervention has moderated some of the environmental constraints on productivity, by irrigation, provision of fertilisers and elimination of weeds.

A key point is that optimisation will vary according to plant species or variety, the climate and season, the agronomic practice, the locality and so on. Thus, significant benefits will come from understanding at the molecular and genetic levels how to alter the optimisation of the biochemistry and physiology of individual leaves, their performance in the whole plant, and the way individual plants interact in the crop canopy.

Indeed, such knowledge may also be necessary to offset the inherent conservatism of plants that could thwart current attempts to increase photosynthetic efficiency, and hence yield, by manipulation of with the basic biochemical processes of carbon assimilation.

About Peter Horton

Peter Horton FRS is Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry in the Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology at the University of Sheffield. He holds a D.Phil. and D.Sc. from the University of York, received postdoctoral training at Purdue University and has worked at Sheffield since1978. In 2010 he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society. His principal research interest is in photosynthesis and related aspects of plant biology. He has made wide ranging contributions to photosynthesis research across the boundaries between biophysics, biochemistry and structural biology into physiology, ecophysiology and agriculture. This multidisciplinary approach increased our understanding not only the molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis but also how these are integrated into the growth and development of the whole plant. Currently he serves as adviser to several projects, including Sheffield’s overarching research programme in food and energy sustainability Project Sunshine.

We are too reliant on too few crop species. Using more underutilised plants will improve global food security, says Sean Mayes.

The world depends for its basic diet of carbohydrates, fats and proteins on a very limited number of crop species.

For carbohydrates, three related species, wheat, rice and maize, dominate human consumption. Any short term improvement in food security will need to include modification (either transgenic or through conventional breeding) of these and other staple crops.

However, a focus purely on current major crops often developed under high intensity agriculture cannot form the whole solution to the production aspect of food insecurity – a square peg in a round hole is still a square peg in a round hole, even if we can sand down the edges a little for a better fit.

Diversification of crops and (eventually) displacement of some major crops will be necessary under current predicted changes to climate because of the need to make agriculture more sustainable and less energy intensive. Water availability for agriculture will also become one of the defining concerns over the next fifty years. Changing crops is likely to be particularly necessary where climate change will have most impact – in the developing world. Novel approaches to food production in urban communities will also need to be developed.

Developing other options

Underutilised, orphan or neglected crops are labels often applied to plant species that are indigenous, rather than non-native or adapted introductions, and often commonly form a complex part of the culture and practice of the people who grow them. One of the legacies of colonial times is that many well adapted native crops were displaced by introduced species. In many cases, the displaced crops, if still cultivated at all, are seen as of ‘low status’ and often it is women who cultivate them, while men cultivate the major crops.

From the 7000 estimated underutilised plants which currently exist as minor or niche crops, we also need to develop a limited number which will become the (additional) major crops of tomorrow. Identifying the crops which have the genetic potential to be used beyond their current geographical and community boundaries is critical.

One way to identify underutilised crops with the potential to make more of a contribution would be to look for crops with trait values that currently exceed the equivalent trait in major crops. For example, bambara groundnut is more drought tolerant than the equivalent major crop, peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), which was introduced from South America into Africa and has partly displaced bambara groundnut. Bambara groundnut is still grown widely in sub-Saharan Africa although often at a small holder level and it currently commands a premium price at the markets compared with other legumes.

There is clearly also an issue of fair access to germplasm (genetic resources) for underutilised crops. Recent international agreements, such as the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which came into force in 2004, are designed to ensure that the originator community benefits directly from any wider exploitation of their crop resources and such agreements will, hopefully, ease some concerns. This is also clearly the ‘just’ approach to accessing germplasm developed over millennia by indigenous populations.

Making it happen

Crops for the Future (CFF) is a global organisation that works with its partners to advocate research, policies and build capacity to use underutilised crops for the diversification of agricultural systems and diets. It was formed following a merger between the International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) and the Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilised Species (GFU) in 2008.

An independent institution, CFF is hosted in Malaysia jointly by Bioversity International of the  Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus (UNMC). Bioversity brings extensive research and advocacy expertise and outreach, while UNMC brings specific crop research expertise.

The Malaysian government has recently approved funding and initial running costs to build a Crops for the Future Research Centre, adjacent to UNMC, which will allow the systematic evaluation of a series of crops with potential for wider use and which could make a useful contribution to food security (and develop crops for non-food uses, such as fibres for textiles or construction.)

The establishment of CFF will also help focus efforts for diversification of the plant species that humans exploit. Shifting away from our over-dependence on a limited number of crop species is crucial. If climate change and other pressures on food production, such as pests and diseases, lead to the catastrophic and long term failure of a major crop in some parts of the world, it is important to have a Plan B available – and preferably Plans C, D and E, as well…

About Dr Sean Mayes

Dr Sean Mayes is an Associate Professor in Crop Genetics at the University of Nottingham, UK and is involved in research on both temperate and tropical crops.

Crops for the Future and partners will be co-hosting the Second International Symposium on Underutilised Crops in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 27th June to 1 July 2011.

Livestock enterprises contribute substantially to the world’s greenhouse gases, largely through deforestation to make room for livestock grazing and feed crops, the methane ruminant animals give off, and the nitrous oxide emitted by manure.  Estimates of this contribution vary widely (10-18% (PDF), or more, of global greenhouse-gas emissions) and are still being researched – it’s a complex question and hotly debated.  

Whatever the exact figure, many worry these greenhouse-gas emissions will only grow due to increasing livestock production to meet the surging demand for meat and milk in developing countries.

But significant livestock-related greenhouse gas reductions could be quickly achieved in tropical countries by modifying production practices, which were recently detailed in a paper by myself and a colleague published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. For example, switching to more nutritious pasture grasses, supplementing diets with even small amounts of crop residues or grains, restoring degraded grazing lands, planting trees that both trap carbon and produce leaves that cows can eat, and adopting more productive breeds can all be employed relatively quickly to reduce emissions.

Such changes could increase the amount of milk and meat produced by individual animals, thus reducing emissions because farmers would require fewer animals.

For example, in Latin America switching cows from natural grasslands to more nutritious sown pastures can increase daily milk production and weight gain by a factor of three. Fewer animals would then be needed to satisfy demand, while farmers’ incomes could be raised substantially.

There are several other well-documented options that could increase incomes for smallholders while at the same time reducing overall emissions.

Supplementing grazing with feed consisting of crop residues, such as the leaves and stalks of sorghum or maize plants, is one example. There is also potential to boost production per animal by crossbreeding local with genetically improved breeds, so providing more milk and meat than traditional breeds while emitting less methane per kilo of meat or milk produced. Supplementing cattle diets with the leaves of certain trees, such as Leucaena leucocephala, has similar effects on meat and milk production and incomes.

These options could not only reduce methane emissions, but some of them, such as planting improved pastures and agroforestry tree species, can also sequester carbon directly.  For example, if about 30 percent of livestock owners in the tropical regions of Latin America switch from natural grass to improved grasses such as some of the Brachiaria species, this alone could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 30 million tons per year.

Payback time

It would be a useful incentive if these farmers were allowed to sell the reductions they achieve as credits on global carbon markets. Overall, at US$20 per ton, which is roughly what carbon is currently trading for on the European Climate Exchange, we calculate that poor livestock keepers in tropical countries could generate about US$1.3 billion each year in carbon revenues.  Such carbon payments could make a meaningful contribution to many livestock-keeping households.

My colleague and I have calculated that, for a range of readily-available options for poor livestock keepers to increase production in the tropics, these could save about 7 percent of all livestock-related global greenhouse-gas emissions (a conservative estimate, as we did not consider the full range of options available to livestock keepers, nor did we consider nitrous oxide emissions). Consumption of milk and meat may double in the developing world by 2050, so it’s critical to adopt sustainable approaches now that reduce the negative effects of increasing livestock production while allowing countries to realize the benefits, such as better nutrition and higher incomes for livestock-producing households.

At the same time, reductions in the consumption of livestock products in developed countries could result in additional and substantial reductions in emissions. 

But back in the tropics, many livestock keepers are highly dependent on their animals for food, for income, as ‘engines’ to prepare their land, and as tradable assets. They need technological options and economic incentives that help them intensify their production in sustainable ways. Hence, carbon payments would be a welcome additional incentive that could help to bring about useful and much-needed changes in smallholder livestock production as well as bringing about a more conducive enabling environment.

About Philip Thornton

Philip Thornton is a Theme Leader and Senior Scientist with the Challenge Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in Nairobi, Kenya, and an Honorary Research Fellow in the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at the University of Edinburgh.  He has worked mostly in Latin America, Europe, North America and Africa, on systems modelling and impact assessment. His current research interests revolve around integrated assessment at different scales and evaluating the possible impacts of global change on agricultural systems in developing countries.

Next week, over 200 farmers, policymakers, agricultural researchers, agrodealers and non-governmental organisations from across Africa and around the world will be gathering in Namibia for the annual FANRPAN Policy Dialogue to discuss the state of food security in sub-Saharan Africa and future priorities for continuing progress.

Food security on the continent is still only a goal; the reality is that agricultural growth has been erratic, leaving one third of the African population chronically malnourished.

But with the right agricultural policies and programmes in place to support farmers, an economically productive and stable food supply is a viable future for Africa.  In fact, one estimate is that agricultural output in Africa could increase from $280Bn today to $880Bn by 2030.

To achieve this growth, farmers need access to quality inputs that help them to increase agricultural productivity, including improved seed, fertiliser and crop protection products as well as secure access to land and water resources. They need to be trained on crop and natural resources management, in particular climate change adaptation strategies, and given the means to changes the techniques they use in their fields.

Finally, farmers need to be supported in accessing markets through better post-harvest storage facilities and stronger infrastructure links, as well as information technologies that provide weather, crop and market alerts. These can form the basis for an inclusive marketplace and a fairer trading environment.

At the core of agricultural development lies the need for increased funding. The World Bank has calculated (PDF) that agricultural growth is at least twice as effective at eliminating poverty as growth from any other sector. Without investment into the back end of the agricultural production chain, these economic gains remain untapped.

Africa has a history of underinvestment in agriculture, which is being addressed by the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program (CAADP).  CAADP was set up by the African Union  as part of its New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in 2003 to help African countries reach a higher path of economic growth through agriculture-led development.  In adopting the CAADP goals, twenty African governments have agreed to increase public investment in agriculture to a minimum of 10 per cent of their national budgets – substantially more than the four to five per cent average they commit today – with the aim of raising agricultural productivity by at least six per cent on average each year

And there is more promise. FANRPAN’s research into Malawi’s agricultural input subsidy programme has shown that from 2005, when the initiative was launched, to 2008, average maize yields in Malawi increased from 0.8 tonnes per hectare to 2.9 tonnes per hectare. In the space of five years, Malawi has transformed itself from being a food deficit nation to a grain exporter.

My recent video interview with the Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika outlines how this transformation can occur across the continent.

But while Africa has one-quarter of the world’s arable land, it produces only 10 per cent of its total global output, whilst holding an estimated 60 per cent of the world’s uncultivated, arable land. Better knowledge sharing, technology transfer and public-private collaboration are needed to help bridge this gap into the future.

The challenges for food security are multi-faceted.  Sectors such as livestock and fisheries, an area of focus at this year’s FANRPAN Policy Dialogue, are also important sources of livelihoods for many Africans. After many years of neglect, these sectors are also being recognised as means of entering new markets and generating wealth as well as being key social safety nets during lean times

However, livestock and fisheries are also amongst the most climate-sensitive agroeconomic sectors. Consequently, for the 200 million Africans who rely on livestock for their livelihoods, and the 10 million Africans employed in fisheries(not to mention the 70 per cent of Africa’s rural poor who keep livestock), climate change will have serious implications and must be addressed in the region’s climate adaptation strategies

Achieving food security in Africa will require a sustained effort from experts in every sector and from every discipline. Collaborative approaches and committed investments of time, technologies and research funding will guide the way to a more prosperous tomorrow

As a supporter of the Farming First coalition, we call on policy-makers and practitioners to develop locally sustainable value-chains fairly connected to global agricultural markets, and to continue creating knowledge networks and policies centred on helping subsistence farmers to become entrepreneurs.

About Lindiwe Majele Sibanda

Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda is the CEO of the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) and is a spokesperson for the Farming First coalition

It’s more than two years since the peak of the last spike in world grain prices, back in mid-2008. Since then prices have been drifting back to the levels last seen in 2005, or earlier.

Then suddenly this July all hell breaks loose in the world wheat market with prices up more than 50% from late June and analysts predicting increasing food prices.

The cause? Reports from Canada that harvests will be low on account of too much rain early in the season; while in Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine drought has cut the forecasts for the harvest. These countries feature amongst the top eight wheat exporting countries, shifting around one third of wheat traded globally in the mid-2000s. Failing harvests in these countries hits world markets hard.

The grain trade is already reacting strongly. Prices are up by US$50 a tonne in a month and by US$70 a tonne for some export wheats. The Financial Times says these increases are the fastest seen since 1973. That year saw the largest spike in cereals prices since the Korean War, prompting apocalyptic predictions of future famine which, incidentally, added impetus to the ‘green revolution’ period that saw major increases in cereal yields.  

As if this was not bad enough, Thursday 5 August produced a bombshell as Russia announced suspension of wheat exports from mid-August to December. In three days of trading, the wheat futures market in Chicago saw a full US$55 a tonne added, an extraordinary addition to the rises seen in late July.

Are we facing the prospect of replay of the food prices spikes of 2007/08 or even – heaven forbid – 1973/74? Not quite.

This is not 2007 or 1973. First, world wheat production may fall – perhaps 26M tonnes down on the forecasts – but this is a 4% reduction on a 2010 harvest that was expected to the be the third largest in history. Probably 650M tonnes will be harvested in 2010/11; compare that to 597M tonnes in 2006/07 and 606M tonnes in 2007/08.

Second, stocks that had been driven to their lowest levels in more than 30 years by the 2007-08 food crisis have been rebuilt. As a ratio of annual use, end-of-season stocks of wheat that had slumped to 23% in 2007/08 were almost up to 30% by 2009/10.

Third, harvests for the other two major grains, maize and rice, are not likely to be affected and some consumers deterred by higher wheat prices will have the chance to switch to other grains. Whether there will be a knock on inflationary effect on other grain prices remains to be seen.

Fourth, forecasts of demand for feed wheat by livestock producers have been reduced because less meat than expected is consumed during an economic downturn.

Hence, the ‘market fundamentals’ of supply and demand suggest that while wheat prices will be pushed up by harvest failures, this will be at most a minor spike. But what may we expect from harvest failures on the scale currently contemplated?

Before 2007/08 the last minor spike followed the 1994 harvest that was 37M tonnes, 6.6% down on 1993 and over the next two years prices climbed from US$167 to US$222 a tonne, or by 33%. If that’s any guide to current events, then it may well be that spot price increases seen in July, at 29%, are the worst of it.

But policy can be as destructive as drought, as the rice market showed in 2007/08 when India’s rice export ban led other rice exporters following suit. Rice prices tripled in the ensuing panic, so the key question is whether other countries follow Russia’s lead and restrict wheat exports.

Amongst the top eight wheat exporters, there are two likely candidates: Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Both countries have been affected by the same drought, and both restricted exports in 2007/08. Their combined wheat exports were expected to be not far short of those from Russia, so were they to ban exports it would be another heavy blow to the market.

Another key question is whether markets are likely to take fright as they did for rice, with importers over-ordering in a tight market fearing that soon there will be no rice at all on offer?

To judge by last week’s reaction on the futures market in Chicago, traders have been shocked by Russia’s move – but not for long.

The last two days of trading have seen those same prices fall back, by US$50 a tonne, more or less to where they were before the surprise of the export ban.

Are there lessons to learn from this shock? Yes – things can always go wrong and so it is wise to have some resilience in the system, in this case adequate stocks. Trade also helps. Some harvests fail somewhere in the world pretty much every year and trade can prevent people in local economies taking the full force of localised mishaps. In this case, a wheat surplus in China and the US is having a significant braking effect on prices. 

However, abrupt and unexpected policy interventions, such as Russia’s export ban, can throw further spanners into the works.

Finally, it is intriguing to read reports of the impact of industrial animal feedlot decisions on grain markets. Why can’t we reduce their feeding activities when grain harvests fail? Most of us can live for a while without meat, but not without bread.

About Steve Wiggins and Sharada Keats

Steve Wiggins and Sharada Keats are agricultural economists working for the Overseas Development Institute who have strong interests in food security and nutrition. For the last two years they have studying causes, impacts and responses of the spike in grain prices on world markets of 2007/08.

© The University of York

No one says to their children, “Go into the woods and eat anything you can find. It is all natural, so it must be good for you.” But for some reason when we walk into the supermarket ‘natural’ is a key selling point for all kinds of foods.

My favourite example is a sweetcorn you can buy that claims to be ‘naturally sweet’. This is an absurd idea. Naturally, seeds are tough and indigestible – they are not sweet. Seeds are a plant’s babies, and the last thing most plants want you to do is eat their babies.

Naturally, plants don’t want to be eaten at all. We know this. We know natural plants are potentially extremely dangerous and not at all generous in providing us with food, otherwise we would let our children eat whatever they find in the woods.

There are some interesting exceptions. Plants bribe animals to help them carry their pollen to another plant, or their seed to a new location, but for the most part, natural plants are bristling with defences. It is precisely this reason that 10,000 years ago people invented agriculture.

The crops that feed the world today are not remotely natural. It’s taken farmers 10,000 years of selection to breed out the defences and other features inconvenient for farming or consumption that natural selection spent millions of years putting in.

So if we know that plants were not put on the planet for our personal benefit, and indeed natural plants are dangerous, why are we beguiled by the supermarket sales pitch that natural food is good for us?

I think it comes from the very clear evidence that we are not living sustainably and we are not eating healthily. High input farming and highly processed foods are damaging to the environment and to us.

The easy-to-sell solution to these problems is that since the things we are doing now are bad and the things we used to do were good, everything would be better if we ‘went back to nature’.

But since nature, as everyone really knows, is red in tooth and claw, this argument makes no sense at all.

We should not do less things; we should do different things. We need science to help us work out how to do farming more sustainably and eat more healthily. We need to work hard at this, and it is going to be difficult and involve changes to our lifestyles that we will not like.

Buying products labelled ‘natural’ in a supermarket is not going to help. Trying to sell things on this basis merely exploits peoples’ desire to do the right thing when we need that energy and idealism to bring about genuinely positive changes.   

About Ottoline Leyser

Professor Ottoline Leyser CBE FRS from the University of York received the Royal Society’s Rosalind Franklin Award in 2007 for her work on plant hormones and how they control plant development, which led to the publication of the book Mothers in Science: 64 ways to have it all (PDF) to show how women can manage both science and family.

Tracking plant pathogens is a vital part of agro-economic development, says Maurizio Vurro.  

As with human and animal diseases, the emergence or re-emergence of plant diseases is often due to man’s activities – a consequence of mass tourism, global trade, or changes to farming practises or the environment. 

Although our ability to diagnose and control diseases is greater than in the past, emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are still able to cause tremendous crop losses. In developing countries in particular, the economic and social impact is often underestimated as I, with colleagues, recently discussed in the journal Food Security. 

Cassava Mosaic Virus Disease, for example, is capable of reducing yields by 80-90% and suspends cassava cultivation in many areas of East Africa. Striga hermonthica, a parasitic weed, affects cereal cultivation across at least 5 million hectares in sub-Saharan Africa. And the rust fungus Ug99, which has overcome resistant varieties, has spread from Uganda and threatens most of the wheat-growing countries in the world. 

Countries with limited resources are threatened when pandemics occur on important food crops, such as Xanthomonas Banana Wilt, a bacterial disease that affects the food security of 70M people in Uganda. This kind of low crop productivity contributes directly to malnutrition, and indirectly to the spread of human diseases and the collapse of the environment because poor rural areas are abandoned with a concomitant phenomenon of urban overcrowding. 

In developing countries there are clear links between food insecurity and institutional fragility. The 2008 food crisis highlighted the acute vulnerability of net food-importing developing countries in the sub-Saharan Africa. In the past two decades, those countries have reduced investment in rural areas, exacerbating migration to cities and increasing the demand for food imports. This vicious circle further undermines the capacity of agriculture to produce the required food and increases dependence on food imports. 

Hunger is further worsened by the lack of public interventions, institutional fragility, limited public investments in rural areas, political and administrative chaos, war and local guerrilla action, and climate change. In this context, the effectiveness of humanitarian aid, in the absence of appropriate conditions to start productive activities, is largely frustrated. 

Surveillance of EIDs is thus crucial for developing countries’ agricultural self-sufficiency and wider social economy, but these technologies are often expensive and require technical preparation, economic investment and personnel. Given the cost, many developing countries have limited control systems; nor can they acquire and update lists of emerging pathogens within their borders. 

The consequence is that many diseases in developing countries simply spread without being recognized and monitored. 

In Western countries surveillance systems are easier to deploy because of existing community networks, there are more economic opportunities, and greater availability of the necessary technologies at affordable prices. Furthermore, in developed countries there are social safety nets to support those most affected; food reserves that limit the risk of famine; research systems and technical support services that enable management of those diseases or diversification to alternative crops; and warning systems that allow the prompt application of control measures. 

Similar systems must be urgently established in developing countries to avert the socio-economic disasters that can be caused by plant diseases. The development of a large EID-monitoring organization on a territorial basis, with clear roles and accountabilities, is of utmost importance.

About Maurizio Vurro

Maurizio Vurro has been a senior researcher at the Institute of Sciences of Food Production, National Research Council, since 2001. His main scientific interests are the use of microbes and natural metabolites in biological control, in particular against weeds. He recently led the project ‘Enhancement and exploitation of soil-biocontrol agents for bio-constraint management in crops’ within the 6th EU Framework Programme and is the author of more than 70 articles in scientific journals, three books, and seven book chapters.

Plants must secure high levels of nitrogen, and in conventional agriculture nitrogen is added at high concentrations in the form of inorganic fertilisers. Artificial nitrogenous fertilisers can increase yield by as much as 50% and the global farming system, and hence our own food supply, is now dependent on them. We would face very severe food shortages if nitrogen fertilisers were to become unavailable.

However, their use comes with high economic and environmental costs.  Farmers, especially in developing countries, spend a high proportion of their income on fertilisers that account for a significant proportion, sometimes the majority, of the costs of crop production.  Fertiliser synthesis and application leads to high amounts of nitrous pollution in aquatic systems causing algal blooms and dead zones in shallow seas as well as nitrous pollution of the atmosphere causing poor air quality and significant greenhouse gas emissions.

But we cannot stop using fertilisers and meet a food security agenda; nor can we afford to keep using them and meet an environmental sustainability agenda.

Producing nitrogenous fertilisers requires lots of energy that currently comes from the burning of fossil fuels. It is anticipated that by 2050 2% of global energy will be used in fertiliser production [ref 1]; this represents the single largest energy input into intensive agriculture. This is unsustainable, and if the price of oil increases, so does the price of fertilisers, and so our food. Add to this the environmental costs of these fertilisers and it is clear that we need to find another way. I believe the answer lies in plants themselves – finding a biological and sustainable means of fertilising plants.

My research looks at leguminous plants, such as peas and beans. On the roots of these plants are small growths called nodules which are factories that supply all of the nitrogen the plant needs. Within the nodules are specialised bacteria that form a mutually beneficial relationship with the plant. The bacteria take nitrogen from the air and covert it into a form that the plant can use. In exchange the bacteria are supplied with sugars produced by the plant. It’s a beautiful and elegant system, and I’m interested in understanding the fundamental science behind this association. 

This interaction involves signals between the bacteria and the plant. The signals trigger the plant to produce nodules to house the bacteria and also control the exchange of nutrients. Getting a complete understanding of the process will take a long time, but the driving force behind it is that if we can get a better understanding of the process we can look to transfer it into non-leguminous crops like wheat, rice or maize, the world’s three most cultivated crops. This would slash the amount of oil needed to grow them, and the amount of pollution caused by the fertilisers they currently need. However, transferring this process can only occur with the use of genetic modification (GM).

I see GM as a natural and biological solution to this huge problem. However, I know many people have a negative perception of GM. In this case I think the benefits are clear.

We are working very carefully and thoroughly to understand the process [ref 2,3], and then to predictably and safely transfer nitrogen fixation to crops. We know the effects of nitrogen fertiliser pollution on the environment, and we know the effect that burning huge amounts of fossil fuels has on our climate. But we do this anyway out of necessity to support current food supplies.

Balancing these very detrimental impacts against the perceived dangers of GM will, in my opinion, be the key to delivering the second, greener revolution in farming that we need to secure our food supply now and into the future.

References

1. Is it possible to increase the sustainability of arable and ruminant agriculture by reducing inputs?
2. Nodulation Signaling in Legumes Requires NSP2, a Member of the GRAS Family of Transcriptional Regulators
3. Nodulation independent of rhizobia induced by a calcium-activated kinase lacking autoinhibition

About Dr Giles Oldroyd

Dr Giles Oldroyd leads the Plant Perception and Response to the Environment Programme at the John Innes Centre. He received a David Phillips Fellowship from the BBSRC and has received a number of awards for his research, including European Molecular Biology Organisation young investigator, European Research Council young investigator, Society of Experimental Biology President’s medal and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit award.

Contact details

Dr Giles Oldroyd
John Innes Centre
Norwich Research Park
Colney
Norwich
NR4 7UH

Tel: 01603 450000
Email: giles.oldroyd@bbsrc.ac.uk

Why is such a policy important?

Because for developing countries, the consequences of insecure food supplies are severe and undermine development and progress. 3 out of 4 people in developing countries live in rural areas, and most depend on agriculture for their livelihoods.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation says developing countries may experience a decline of between 9-21% in overall potential agricultural productivity as a result of global warming.

When crops or livestock are affected by climate change impacts or other factors, such as disease, the effect on local families, communities and the wider country is devastating.

Lack of available produce means less food and less income for small-holder farmers and their families. Consequently, cases of malnutrition rise – particularly in children – resulting in potentially long-term health problems which inhibit people’s capacity to attend school or earn a living.

The food crisis of 2008 caused an additional 110M people to suffer from hunger and permanent damage to 40M malnourished children.

We have only 5 years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and the first of these, to reduce the proportion people who suffer from hunger, is veering further off target thanks to the food crisis, global economic crisis and climate change impacts. 

But UK science can help.

The UK has historically been seen as a world leader in both research and knowledge exchange in development agriculture. As detailed in the UK Agri-Food Science Directory, we have at least 280 agricultural and food-related research organisations and 5 research councils committed to research that is either directly relevant or applicable to developing countries.

Take the near elimination of rinderpest as an example. A major outbreak of this infectious viral disease in 1982-1984 had a devastating impact on Africa’s livestock, causing losses valued at over £300M. UK scientists have been behind the development of a vaccine that will soon result in an announcement of the eradication of the disease.

Links between development funders and UK researchers are strengthening. The Department for International Development (DFID) has made agricultural research a priority and will now double its support over the next 5 years from £40M in 2009 to £80M per year by 2014.

New research programmes between DFID and BBSRC like Sustainable Agriculture Research for International Development (SARID) and its follower CIDLID (Combating Infectious Diseases in Livestock for International Development), supported by the Scottish Government, are opening the door for more development-focused agricultural science.

And international funders like the Gates Foundation are backing more UK research projects on development agriculture, such as the Africa and Europe: Partnerships in Food and Farming project at Imperial College, London. 

The launch of the UK Cross-Government Food Research and Innovation Strategy this month is another demonstration of the UK’s commitment to food-related research.

It’s through this type of coordinated, collaborative approach to food and agricultural research, combined with the proposed new plans for an EU policy on food security and developing countries, which can help steer the Millennium Development Goals back on track.

About Dr Andrée Carter, Director of the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS)

Dr Andrée Carter is the Director of the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS), a collaboration of research councils, government departments and charitable foundations working to maximise the impact of UK research on international development.

Originally trained as a soil scientist, Dr Carter has worked closely with UK and EU governments, research and corporate organisations to protect and improve the quality of the environment and those dependent on it for their livelihoods.  

She was previously the Director of Science and Environment in ADAS UK Ltd., an agricultural and environmental research consultancy and prior to that worked at Cranfield University.

Contact details

Dr Andrée Carter, Director
UK Collaborative on Development Sciences
Gibbs Building
215 Euston Road
London
NW1 2BE

Tel: 0207 611 7330
Email: a.carter@ukcds.org.uk