It is now more than one month since I arrived in Brazil to spend a period working in Embrapa (the Brazilian Government agricultural research organisation) as part of the Labex (Laboratorio no Exterior) programme. 

For more than 10 years Embrapa have been sending scientists abroad to work in labs and organisations that they regard as of scientific and strategic importance, and a UK Labex base was established at Rothamsted Research in 2010. 

My placement is a reciprocal arrangement, sponsored by BBSRC and Rothamsted, to reinforce the partnership and further explore opportunities for collaboration between UK and Brazilian scientists working in areas relevant to sustainable agriculture, biotechnology, bioenergy and food security. For me it´s an exciting development and timely as negotiations are well advanced to put in place joint funding arrangements for UK-Brazil projects. BBSRC and CNPq (the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) have just announced their pump-prime partnering awards and a full funding initiative is expected early in 2012, and a BBSRC-FAPESP funding agreement, specific to Sao Paulo state, is already in place.

Research in action

My excitement at this opportunity is tempered by some realism about the size of the task. Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world; Embrapa has 47 centres distributed throughout, and then there are the numerous Federal and State universities and institutes engaged in biological research. Networking on this scale is a daunting thought, but there are already well-established links between UK and Brazilian research groups, and now an increased momentum to build on this.

I am based in Brasilia at Embrapa Genetic Resources and Biotechnology (Cenargen), a strategically good place to be, as it is central and close to Embrapa headquarters and several other sites. I have a research project working in conjunction with Patricia Messenberg and colleagues on host-pathogen interactions in Arachis (peanut) and related wild species. The disease in question is late leaf spot, caused by the fungus Cercosporidium personatum, a serious constraint on production of the crop in many countries. I am looking at the time course and extent of infection on cultivated peanut genotypes, as well as some wild relatives with resistance to the disease, together with transcriptome analysis to identify host genes expressed in response to infection.

It’s a new system for me, but relevant to my UK interests in diseases of wheat, as we are also using genetic and genomic approaches to study infection and host defense. It is good to be back in a lab coat again, although I have some catching up to do in terms of hands-on molecular biology. There is a healthy buzz around the place, with a large population of research students from the local University of Brasilia (UnB) and Catholic University. I already gave a seminar at UnB based on recent work in the pathogenomics group at Rothamsted and further talks, workshops and discussions are planned.

Last week Cenargen marked its 37th anniversary with a celebration and special award for two of its staff, Francisco Aragão and Josias Faria for their achievement in producing transgenic (GM) beans resistant to golden mosaic virus, a severe disease throughout the tropical region of the Americas, that impacts in particular on small-holder farmers. The GM beans, that utilize RNAi technology to control the virus, were cleared for field use in September. The refreshments included a stew made from the transgenic beans; I wondered how this might go down back home in my local branch of Waitrose?

Heading down to Rio

Two weeks ago I travelled south and east on a scoping trip to five other Embrapa centres. This was a whirlwind tour through Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Rio do Janeiro. The centres visited covered wheat research, swine and poultry, grapes and other fruit, soils, and agrobiology; one being where much of the work on nitrogen fixation by rhizosphere bacteria was pioneered by Johanna Dobereiner and colleagues in the 50s and 60s.

Fortunately I was accompanied by Alexandre Amaral, the UK Labex representative who has the contacts, as well as the language skills, to smooth such an expedition.

What struck us most about these centres was not just the range of research being done, but also the high proportion of new, young researchers starting programmes, and the investment in infrastructure, new buildings, and kit. But seeing as agriculture now accounts for up to 30% of Brazil’s GDP it’s not surprisingly an area high on the government agenda.

Space does not permit me here to comment on my daily life in this fascinating country, although I did wonder about the attractions of working at Embrapa Soils, sited in the luxuriant Botanic Gardens in Rio, at the foot of the spectacular Corcovado, and close to the famous Copacabana and Ipanema beaches.

One is almost tempted to write a song about it.

About John Lucas

Professor John Lucas is Head of the Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology at Rothamsted Research. He works on plant pathogenic fungi and infection processes on host plants. He is also interested in mechanisms of pathogen variation and evolution in response to changes in host populations and use of fungicides. He is currently working in Brazil as part of the Embrapa Labex programme with the UK, supported by BBSRC and Rothamsted.

It’s time to engage the public with the difficult choices that lie ahead, says Les Firbank.

Food and farming have rarely been away from the headlines in recent years. One of the ongoing themes has been the alleged departure of modern food production and distribution from so-called ‘natural’ practices. We have seen it in the controversies over genetically modified (GM) crops, the rapid spread of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001, and the risks to human health from BSE in cows and salmonella in chicken eggs.

But as concerns rise about food security and prices, it’s becoming clear that agriculture must try to square the circle between increased production of abundant, nutritious, safe food and maintaining the environment in a more crowded world. Unfortunately, this is far from easy and may require a rethink of public attitudes to food and farming.

For example, everyone agrees that we shouldn’t waste food by giving it to crop pests. So what’s so wrong with insecticides? The days of Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ are long behind us; current pesticides, when applied correctly, are much more environmentally benign, are applied in lower doses, are well regulated and levels of residues on food are well below safety levels.

Alternatively, many crops worldwide have a gene that kills those beetle larvae foolish enough to eat them, reducing pesticide use. This gene comes from soil bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, and has been introduced into the crops using genetic modification.

Genetic modification is hardly natural; the present generation of GM crops were developed by moving genes from one species to another, and it is possible to create ‘designer’ genes from scratch. But nor is current conventional plant breeding; this often involves using radiation or chemicals in a scattergun approach to generate lots of random mutations. Why should some methods be more acceptable than others?

Difficult decisions

We want to be environmentally friendly. During the 1990s, this seemed to be a simple matter; organic farms were good because, typically, they are home to more wild plants and animals.

Now the choices are becoming more complex: the higher levels of biodiversity can come at the price of lower productivity, and slow-growing livestock release more greenhouse gases (PDF) (GHG) in their lifetime than do those in more intensive systems.

More environmentally-friendly livestock systems of the future may involve keeping the animals indoors: productive, good for GHG emissions and control of pollution into watercourses, but hardly consistent with current ideas of more ‘natural’, free-range farming.

Furthermore, the increasing global demand for meat and dairy products is being met largely by feeding livestock with crops grown on land that could be used to grow crops for people, using fossil-fuel based fertilisers that take a lot of energy to produce. Should we try to use more food wastes in livestock feed, even though such practices led to the outbreak of the cattle disease BSE?  Or is it simply too much to expect that we can meet the rising demand for affordable meat sustainably?

Looking at food labels and marketing material from the food industry, it would be easy to assume that much of our food comes from small, family farms raising a few crops and a few happy, smiling animals. This is a very nostalgic view of productive, environmentally-friendly agriculture that, for the most part, is decades behind us.

We may well need radical changes in the way food is produced if we are to produce abundant nutritious food in an environmentally sustainable way; radical changes that are likely to appear even less natural, even further removed from farming stereotypes. A new generation of food controversies is bound to emerge.  

The food debate is already high on the agenda. Now we need to move on from discussing the issues one at a time and engage the public in the difficult choices ahead.

About Les Firbank

Les Firbank has worked for many years on the relationships between agriculture and the environment. He led the UK Farm Scale Evaluations of GM Crops and has researched the impacts of organic farming on wildlife. He is one of the team undertaking the forthcoming UK National Ecosystem Assessment and is currently based at the University of Leeds.

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.

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