The impact of decentralized and participatory plant breeding on the genetic base of crops.

Author(s):  
J. R. Witcombe
1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Witcombe ◽  
A. Joshi ◽  
K. D. Joshi ◽  
B. R. Sthapit

SUMMARYFarmer participatory approaches for the identification or breeding of improved crop cultivars can be usefully categorized into participatory varietal selection (PVS) and participatory plant breeding (PPB). Various PVS and PPB methods are reviewed. PVS is a more rapid and cost-effective way of identifying farmer-preferred cultivars if a suitable choice of cultivars exists. If this is impossible, then the more resource-consuming PPB is required. PPB can use, as parents, cultivars that were identified in successful PVS programmes. Compared with conventional plant breeding, PPB is more likely to produce farmer-acceptable products, particularly for marginal environments. The impact of farmer participatory research on biodiversity is considered. The long-term effect of PVS is to increase biodiversity, but where indigenous variability is high it can also reduce it. PPB has a greater effect on increasing biodiversity although its impact may be limited to smaller areas. PPB can be a dynamic form of in situ genetic conservation.


1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Witcombe ◽  
A. Joshi ◽  
K. D. Joshi ◽  
B. R. Sthapit

SUMMARYFarmer participatory approaches for the identification or breeding of improved crop cultivars can be usefully categorized into participatory varietal selection (PVS) and participatory plant breeding (PPB). Various PVS and PPB methods are reviewed. PVS is a more rapid and cost-effective way of identifying farmer-preferred cultivars if a suitable choice of cultivars exists. If this is impossible, then the more resource-consuming PPB is required. PPB can use, as parents, cultivars that were identified in successful PVS programmes. Compared with conventional plant breeding, PPB is more likely to produce farmer-acceptable products, particularly for marginal environments. The impact of farmer participatory research on biodiversity is considered. The long-term effect of PVS is to increase biodiversity, but where indigenous variability is high it can also reduce it. PPB has a greater effect on increasing biodiversity although its impact may be limited to smaller areas. PPB can be a dynamic form of in situ genetic conservation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 19-20
Author(s):  
Taylor M McWhorter ◽  
Andre Garcia ◽  
Matias Bermann ◽  
Andres Legarra ◽  
Ignacio Aguilar ◽  
...  

Abstract Single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) relies on the combination of genomic (G) and pedigree relationships for all (A) and genotyped animals (A22). The procedure implemented in the BLUPF90 software suite first involves combining a small percentage of A22 into G (blending) to avoid singularity problems, then an adjustment to account for the fact the genetic base in G and A22 is different (tuning). However, blending before tuning may not reflect the actual difference between pedigree and genomic base because the blended matrix already contains a portion of A22. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of tuning before blending on predictivity, bias, and inflation of GEBV, indirect predictions (IP), and SNP effects from ssGBLUP using American Angus and US Holstein data. We used four different scenarios to obtain genomic predictions: BlendFirst_TunedG2, TuneFirst_TunedG2, BlendFirst_TunedG4, and TuneFirst_TunedG4. TunedG2 adjusts mean diagonals and off-diagonals of G to be similar to the ones in A22, whereas TunedG4 adjusts based on the fixation index. Over 6 million growth records were available for Angus and 5.9 million udder depth records for Holsteins. Genomic information was available on 51,478 Angus and 105,116 Holstein animals. Predictivity and reliability were obtained for 19,056 and 1,711 validation Angus and Holsteins, respectively. We observed the same predictivity and reliability for GEBV or IP in all four scenarios, ranging from 0.47 to 0.60 for Angus and was 0.67 for Holsteins. Slightly less bias was observed when tuning was done before blending. Correlation of SNP effects between scenarios was > 0.99. Refined tuning before blending had no impact on GEBV and marginally reduced the bias. This option will be implemented in the BLUPF90 software suite.


OCL ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. D606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Vincourt ◽  
Pierre Carolo

The Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) concept emerged twenty years ago, particularly with the aim to build alternative organizations of the plant breeding activities in developing countries. It now as well questions the developed countries, in the frame of a more global expectation to make all the stakeholders more involved in the agricultural production, from the farmers to its final clients. We discuss here some of the questions addressed by this trend with regard to the definition of the ideotype: (a) different forms of PPB? (b) changing the paradigm: Client Oriented Breeding? (c) a new way to manage {genotype * environment} interactions? (d) mainly societal concerns at stake? (e) biodiversity and ideotypes. As the same key, technical, limiting factors are involved in both PPB and classical breeding, it is suggested to consider PPB as one of the ways in the frame of a general expectation for diversification, thus eventually resulting in the promotion of alternative ideotypes, rather than an alternative process.


LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Harish Chandra Pandey

The use of biotechnological tools and other techniques to improve crops has given rise to a significant increase in the patenting of plant components and plants. As a result of these trends, it becomes critical to examine the impact of concentration on market competition. This is especially important in a globalized world, where seed varieties are continuously imported and exported by countries with various levels of economic development. This aspect of globalization should be kept in mind while analyzing the consequences of market concentration on societal welfare.


2019 ◽  
pp. 161-177
Author(s):  
Rene Salazar ◽  
Gigi Manicad ◽  
Anita Dohar ◽  
Bert Visser

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document