Seed Hunter Blog

So What About Pastures

Picture of Clover stand“So what about pastures”.  I guess the ambiguity is obvious here.  For many folk living busy city lives this could be a statement that means “who gives a toss about pastures – a field of clover is no big deal to me – and besides, aren’t they the ones that produce that nasty little burr that sticks to my picnic blanket?”   Well here’s the thing, if you enjoy milk on your corn flakes a cappuccino at lunch time and a big hairy steak for dinner; if you look for that 100% wool label when you are buying clothes then I guess “so what about pastures” should have a big fat question mark at the end.  With this Blog article I want to inform you of why pasture genetic resources are so important and let you know about a national scandal that is occurring in Australia.

 

In the film you see us hunting wild chickpea and me enthusing about wheat, but we are equally concerned about those plant species that are used for pastures.  We just as enthusiastically seek out, collect and conserve pasture plants.  Let me be real clear here, pastures underpin our agricultural industry and thus are of fundamental importance.  In particular, the meat, dairy and wool industries would virtually cease to exist if it wasn’t for well adapted pastures.  So you can thank pastures for being able to throw a juicy steak on the BBQ, for being able to enjoy your favorite ice cream and for your Dairy productswoolen sox.  Not only this, legume pastures pump millions of tons of nitrogen (plant food) into our agro-ecosystem each year and thus contribute to a more sustainable cropping system – so you can thank them for your daily bread too.

 

Phil cocksI guess I am kind of have a soft spot for pastures and in particular pasture genetic resources.  As it happens my career in science got started when a wonderful man and a fantastic scientist, Professor Phil Cocks, offered me a PhD scholarship in which I studied the genetic variation of a novel pasture species.  Phil and many other very bright Australian scientists spent large parts of their career’s dedicated to researching pasture ecosystems and what make them durable. This work allowed pasture breeders to develop well adapted and productive varieties based on an understanding of what makes pastures tick.   In fact Australian pasture scientists and breeders were once global leaders in the field (the corny pun was not intended by the way).

 

Not only were Australian scientists world leaders in understanding the dynamics of pasture systems they were also busy scouring the planet, collecting and conserving pasture bio-diversity. This work was very important in the sense that genetic erosion was well advanced in many of the areas they collected in and thus the material that they collected probably does not exist in the field any more.  In this context their work was a significant contribution to the global effort to conserve agro-biodiversity and thus our food security.   And here I would like to acknowledge another dedicated Seed Hunter, Prof Clive Frances, who was out collecting clovers and Medics all over the Mediterranean basin when I was still struggling with high school chemistry classes.  Clive’sCLive in Armenia collection missions provided the raw material for many of our most important pasture varieties.  It was also Clive who got me started as a Seed Hunter when he handed me a couple of projects focused on genetic resource conservation in Central Asia and the Caucuses.  Despite the fact that Clive is now officially retired he continues to contribute to legume sciences where he donates his time and expertise to the Center for Legumes In Mediterranean Areas (CLIMA) based at the University of Western Australia.

 

Clover seedsThrough the efforts of dedicated people like Clive Frances and millions of dollars of support from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) we now have in Australia some of the most important pasture genetic resource collections in the world.  At this point let me emphasize that these collections represent a global resource that is currently made freely available to the rest of the world.  In the Australian context these collections underpinned pasture development work that, as emphasized above, underpin our agricultural system and the a supply of big hairy steaks to throw on the barbie .

 

The things is, agricultural eco-systems continue to change and we can expect some pretty dramatic challenges to agricultural production, particularly in Australia, as climate change sets in.  As emphasized in the film, one of the best ways to remain abreast of these challenges is to keep up our efforts to breed varieties that are adapted to the new sets of conditions.  This is just as true for pasture species as it is for wheat or chickpeas.  Thus, these pasture genetic resource collections held at the SARDI Genetic Resource Centre in South Australia and the Australian Trifolium GenebankGenetic Resource Centre held in Perth are of more importance now than they ever have been because they underpin our efforts to breed new more resilient pastures.  And as I have pointed out, this does eventually affect you.

 

A national scandal that you should be very concerned, if not angry, about.

 

I would like to preface the following by saying the views below are not expressed as an employee of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas – rather they are my own views expressed as a concerned Australian/global citizen.

 

Now here is the real point of this blog article.  The pasture genetic resource collections mentioned above are in grave danger of being mothballed due to a lack of funding.  Not only that, national efforts to breed new pasture varieties have also been gutted by a lack of funding.  CAN YOU BELIVE THIS.  Right at this juncture in human history when we face one of the single most important challenges to agriculture and food security, our government and industry funding bodies can’t seem to find the money to invest in pasture genetic resources and breeding.

 

To put this in context, according to The Age newspaper (Nov 25,2006),  the Australian government, that is the Australian tax payers,  have spent over 20 billion dollars on the war on “terror” since September 2001.  Now if we really sit back and consider things we would come to the unequivocal conclusion that the threat posed by climate change to our security and way of life is orders of magnitude greater than the threat posed by an incredibly small minority of disgruntled people.  In this context it would take a miniscule faction of what we spend annually on the so called war on “terror” to secure our genetic resource collections and increase our research and breeding efforts to meet the challenges of a far greater and over-arching threat.

 

Sheep in fieldIt is estimated that the value of pastures in the production of meat, wool and dairy and other industries is $13 billion annually.  Thus, the Australian government is not the only group of people who should bare responsibility for this neglect; it is also the industry bodies that are the direct beneficiaries of pasture genetic resources and research.  That is the wool, meat and dairy industries and in particular the research and development corporations: Australian Wool Innovation, Meat and Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia.  It is these bodies who could and should take some financial responsibility for supporting our pastures work. But as it turns out, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Perhaps to them “So what about pastures” is a statement as opposed to a question of concern?

 

So my question to these organizations is – for years GRDC has supported the pasture genetic resource collections and research in Australia so don’t you think it is time you collectively stepped up to the plate and shouldered your part of the responsibility to maintain and preserve what you in the past have benefited so enormously from and will continue to do so in the future.

 

If this situation bothers you as much as it does me, why don’t you go ahead and contact your state and or federal government representatives and raise your concerns or contact the CEOs of Australian Wool Innovation, Meat and Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia and ask them for an explanation.

Leave a Comment!

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.




First | Previous | Showing comments 11 to 20 of 21 | Next | Last
Jennifer Brisson
Comment
Research Assistant Professor
Comment #11 on : Sat January 10, 2009, 04:20:56
I'd like to raise a slightly different concern: the importance of resources such as the Pasture GRC for laboratory biologists. For example, I study a plant pest (aphids) and need to raise this pest on plants in the laboratory. Access to seeds of these plants through the GRC is thus indispensible for my research.
Kevin Foster
Comment
PhD student UWA
Comment #10 on : Mon January 05, 2009, 00:13:03
I would also like to thank Ken Street for using the “Seed Hunter” web page as a forum to highlight the critical funding shortfall for out Pasture GRC;s within Australia. I have worked on a wide variety of research projects on pasture improvement for over 30 years, the last 10 years involved mainly on research on the production of chemicals from clovers for the pharmaceutical industry. We should of course focus on the overwhelming benefits of our legumes to our current agricultural industries but we should also not overlook the non traditional roles for our legumes. Legumes in human diets has also increased over recent years such as alfalfa sprouts (Medicago) for salads and soybeans or red clover (Trifolium pratense) as sources of phytoestrogen to reduce menopause symptoms and to maintain bone health in women.

Morris, (2003) also proposed that with our increasing population and the need to adequately help feed people and to help prevent particular health problems that it will necessitate an even larger contribution from our legumes. The Plant genetic resource Conservation unit within the USDA is already conserving 17 species of legumes that have potential useful phytochemicals such as butterfly pea for antifungal proteins, hyacinth bean for anti hypertensive, the isoflavone daidzein from Kudzu for anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial and cancer preventive, estrogenic, (Morris, 1999). However, most of our legumes within our GRC’s have never been surveyed for biologically active constituents. With the advances in the use of bio technology such as HPLC, MS and in genetics using molecular markers in identifying new and novel compounds will only increase the value of our legumes within our GRC’s to the pharmaceutical industry.

The genetic biodiversity of our legumes in situ is already under threat though loss of habitat, desertification, or overgrazing. Many of our legume species within the Mediterranean basin will likely become extinct in the next few decades. Agricultural scientist from both here and overseas, have spend decades collecting this unique germplasm from all over the world to be cared for within the these GRC’s. Curators, researchers and technical staff then dutifully documented, catalogued characterised and preserved these seeds for our collective future needs.

It is becoming very clear, that now it is more important than ever that we explore and preserve these legume species before they are lost to us in firstly in the wild, and now secondly, the real possibility of being lost within our own genebanks and then to science. To quote the World Health Organisation (1988), we need to “Save Plants that Save Lives”.
Nigel Maxted
Comment
A Need To Think Again
Comment #9 on : Wed December 24, 2008, 04:11:07
Ken’s blog raises fundamental concerns about the sustainability of agrobiodiversity conservation in Australia and even perhaps on a broader global scale, however, it is perhaps too readily forgotten that conservation does have a real and substantial cost and that this cost is almost exclusively borne by national or more rarely international agricultural or developmental agencies, and thus indirectly by society and the general public. To illustrate this point using the most recent FAO (1998) estimates there are 6.1 million accessions in the world’s gene banks and using Smith and Linington’s (1997) figures the cost of obtaining each accession is US $ 597 and then incorporation of the material into the gene bank is a further US $ 273, which makes a gross cost of US $ 5.3 billion for collecting and conserving the world’s germplasm in gene banks (Hawkes et al., 2001). To this we need to add the annual running cost of maintaining an accession in the gene bank which again using Smith and Linington’s (1997) figures US $ 5 / year, so to maintain the 6.1 million accessions there is an annual running cost of US $ 30.5 million. So agrobiodiversity conservation is not cheap and these significant sums might otherwise be used to feed the starving, heal the sick or educate the illiterate. Therefore it is not surprising that any government might apply a simple cost / benefit analysis and question whether making such a large investment in agrobiodiversity conservation is worthwhile.
However, what needs to be made clear to governments is the benefit that accrues from agrobiodiversity use; ten Kate and Laird (1999) reviewed pharmaceutical, botanical medicine, major crop, horticultural, crop protection, biotechnology, cosmetics and personal care products usage and estimated the annual global market for these products was between US $ 500 - 800 billion and concluded that without continued access to genetic diversity most markets would be unsustainable. Therefore, although agrobiodiversity conservation has a real and significant cost, it cane be clearly seen that the benefits far out weigh the costs, continued public investment is vital if we continue to value the range of industries on which genetic resource use depends. As a non-Australian, who does not have figures on the percentage of the gross national product directly associated with some form of agriculture, and particularly the pasture-based component, my impression is the proportion is significant so to disinvest in agrobiodiversity conservation in a time of ecosystem instability would appear fool-hardy and short-sighted.
IUCN’s 1997 Red List assessment of plants concluded that 33,798 plant species were threatened or extinct (Walters and Gillett, 1998) and even this was likely to be an underestimate as not all plant species were evaluated. The Gran Canaria Declaration (Anonymous, 2000) states that: “as many as two-thirds of the world's plant species are in danger of extinction in nature during the course of the 21st century … narrowing of the genetic basis of many species”. Further Maxted et al. (1997) estimated that 25–35% of plant genetic diversity would be lost between the ratification of the CBD in 1993 and the 2010 CBD Biodiversity Target date for halting the rate of decline in species. This loss of genetic diversity means that plants may not be able to adapt to changing conditions quite so readily in the future—in a time of ecosystem instability this is a serious concern, since many of these species form the basis of our future food security.
Climate change is likely to prove the most devastating cause of ecosystem instability this century, it is predicted to increase average temperatures by 2–4°C over the next 50 years and cause considerable changes in regional and seasonal patterns of precipitation (IPCC, 2007). Within Europe Thuiller et al. (2005) predicts that by 2080 climate change will result in 27–42% species loss with potential extremes ranging from 2.5–86% of current floristic diversity and species loss; immigration or emigration per 50x50 km is thought to be between 45–63% (with extreme ranges of 17–86%). Further they concluded that the greatest changes are expected in the transition between the Mediterranean and Euro-Siberian regions, the very region that contains the highest proportion of agronomically important taxa. As a non-Australian I am sure I don’t need to point out that Australian agriculture is primarily based on exotic species from the Mediterranean and Euro-Siberian regions. I would think it is apposite for Australia to be investing now in climate change studies to assess the continued viability of Australian forage production - what genetic resources will you need in 10, 20 or 50 years time to mitigate the impact of climate change on Australia? A recent study by Jarvis et al. (2008) found a 16–22% species extinct rate for the Arachis, Solanum and Vigna gene pools and the 50% loss of distributional range in the remaining species will result in rampant genetic erosion by 2055.
Climate change is likely to have a dual impact on Australian agriculture in the next 50 years, not just because of the lose and extinction of native genetic diversity in Europe and Australia, but also due to the direct impact of climate change on the range of crops and varieties currently cultivated in Australia. It seems certain that existing varieties will be susceptible to the predicted changes in weather patterns and novel diversity, particularly abiotic adaptive genes, outside of the traditionally favoured sources will be required as a basis for breeding novel varieties that are not so susceptible to the changing agro-ecosystems. Failure to meet this challenge could have a devastating impact on Australian agriculture, the local economy and social well-being.
Maintenance and use of pasture genetic diversity offers an insurance against the devastating impact of climate change and as such the idea of mothballing the pasture genetic resources programmes at this moment in time seem ill advised to say the least. Whilst globally it is clear that at present there is increasing interest in pasture genetic resource conservation and use associated with increased valuation in recognition that:
1. Pasture genetic resources themselves are increasingly threatened by the lose, degradation and fragmentation of their natural habitats;
2. Pasture genetic resources are often associated with disturbed habitats and these habitats are not being adequately conserved by ecosystem conservation agencies;
3. Both pasture genetic resource taxonomic and genetic diversity is likely be particularly threatened by climate change, due to their common reliance on disturbed habitats and the lack of resilience of these habitats,
4. If crops are to maintain or increase production levels there is a need for new trait diversity outside that which has been historically used by farmers and plant breeders, and pasture genetic resources offer the necessary, novel genetic diversity that can enhance crop productivity or commodity improvement, promote disease and pest resistance, increase tolerance of adverse or marginal environments;
5. Globally agriculture is being practiced in more adverse or marginal environments, whether due to human degradation of habitats or the demand for food forcing the expansion of agricultural lands, and the desired traits are likely to be found in conserved pasture genetic resources.
6. There is a continuous and growing demand for novel diversity by breeders to be used in the development of new varieties due to the relatively short-term commercial lifespan of modern cultivars (up to 5-10 years);
7. Conventional and biotechnological breeding techniques have improved dramatically in recent years enabling more precise targeting of desirable traits, relatively easy transfer of the desired trait to the crop and less problems with the transfer of unwanted characteristics along with the desired trait to the crop.
Finally I must own up to being a pome, and I can understand that the last thing Australians need is more advice from pomes, but I just would like to conclude by saying I totally support the views of Ken Street in his blog. The mothballing of the Australian pasture genetic resources programmes at this juncture would be a mistake, a lost opportunity; in fact it can easily be argued that the exact opposite approach should be taken. Pasture genetic resources present a tangible resource of actual or potential economic benefit for humankind at regional and global levels, as well as directly for Australia. Although there is a real cost to maintaining the current collections now is the time reap the reward from past and present investment in these collections, you need to ensure they are actively used to underpin Australian agricultural for what is likely to be a agriculturally challenging 21st century.
John Quealy
Comment
Research Assistant
Comment #8 on : Tue December 09, 2008, 10:23:11
Ken I totally agree although I am more into crop plants than pastures. Governments need to place Agriculture as a higher priority than a 'pumped-up' war on terror. Keep up the passion!
Michael Mackay
Comment
Plant genetic resources for everyone
Comment #7 on : Tue December 09, 2008, 02:49:24
There are numerous factors contributing to the demise of PGR in Australia, but none of these are the result of the efforts made by the numerous people (scientists, technicians and some research leaders) who gave their combined energies to the proper collection, conservation, documentation and utilization of these valuable collections over many years. Sadly, the main contributing factors seem to have a political origin, including the procedures by which the State and Commonwealth Governments cooperate. As previously mentioned some of Australia’s commodity R&D agencies, resourced by industry and matching Commonwealth Government funds, are also oblivious to reliance they have on the biodiversity held by plant collections held in Australia – we can’t really call them Australia’s plant collections, because Australia seems happy to ignore them.

Putting things into perspective, the sad thing is that many of these collections could operate on the salary of a couple of commodity R & D Corporation CEOs. One could ask; which option would be the best investment in Australia’s future?

Equally sad is the fact that the ability to resolve the situation is not all that difficult. However, rather than look for technical or scientific solutions, two national reviews in recent years unsuccessfully spent at least another few CEO salaries to try to create a political solution, despite being offered several realistic scientific/technical solutions.

Australians should reflect on their lucky status; consider the origin of their steaks, woolies, leather shoes – in fact virtually everything you wear and eat has a long history of evolution by plants and animals over millennium. Will our children and grandchildren’s generations be as lucky as we have been? Probably not unless our lawmakers and bureaucrats sort out some very basic things fairly quickly – like how to maintain the plant genetic resources collections, on which our future food and other basic commodities will rely upon, for the total cost of a few million dollars per year.

Come on, I know you can do it if you try!
Anonymous
Comment
Scout, N.I.Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry, Russia
Comment #6 on : Mon December 08, 2008, 22:17:00
This is very sad and shameful – I have collected pastures alongside Australian pasture scientists in Kazakhstan – I have also collected pastures with Ken, all through central Asia and the Caucuses, and my colleagues did it with Clive Francis in Armenia – it is devastating to know that these efforts seem in vain.
As a person who has many times participated in collecting missions and research projects with Australian funding, I’ve always held high opinion of the Australian bodies in charge of funding such activities in their country and abroad – they’ve seemed to be so right- and positive thinking – and acting! – in contrast to similar bodies in my country. Australia has been benefitting so very much from germplasm and knowledge resulting from these joint activities! It’s an absolute shock to learn about the changed attitude, as it’s as clear as day – not funding ongoing collecting, conservation, research and breeding activities under conditions of the changing climate is, as we put it in Russia, CUTTING THE BRANCH ONE’S SITTING ON (=making a rod for one’s own back) !

During the siege of Leningrad in the WWII – under conditions incomparably worse than any unfavorable economic conditions in the present-day Australia - our scientists at VIR starved to death and died from enemy bombs and shells trying to save their collections, and yet a rich country like Australia cant find the money to support these globally important genetic resources. I can’t believe the spectacular lack of vision of the policy makers involved – shame on them.
Dirk Enneking
Comment
Funding model
Comment #5 on : Mon December 08, 2008, 21:14:03
It is a serious problem if we as Australians cannot honour the commitments that we have agreed to in the not too recent past.

GRDC does not get any levies from pastures. RIRDC is taking a pasture levy, so should they be pushing the issue?

http://www.rirdc.gov.au/programs/ps.html
Pasture and Range Scientist, Tunisia
Comment
Re:
Comment #4 on : Mon December 08, 2008, 19:32:02
For years Australian scientists have collected North African pasture species - they always told us they would keep them safe and available in thier collections. And over the years Australians have benifited greatly from our germplasm. And now this; occuring in such a rich country. It is outrageous.
Tony Brown
Comment
Honorary Research Fellow, CSIRO Plant Industry
Comment #3 on : Mon December 08, 2008, 12:26:58
I join Ken in being greatly concerned about the future of our genetic resources collections of agricultural plants, and the failure of our governments and industry partners to fund appropriate strategies for their stewardship and continued active use in plant improvement. Moth-balling is not an option. Use and conservation are inextricably bound together for long term sustainability. A national vision and commitment is clearly needed.
Geoff Auricht
Comment
Pasture Science Leader
Comment #2 on : Mon December 08, 2008, 11:10:33
Thankyou for raising this issue so comprehensively Ken. The South Australian pasture collection alone houses over 44,000 different seed samples of pastures collected from over 100 different countries including Australia (Dirk I'll answer your question more fully below), collected over more than 50 years. Many of these accessions are unique to this collection. It is the biggest collection of it's type in the World and is a source of plant diversity for scientists across the world seeking to improve or better understand pastures. It has proven invaluable to agriculture in Australia over the years providing plants with traits such as aphid resistance and so allowing pasture production to continue. With climate change and other challenges facing agricultural production, demand for the diverse seeds in the collection has never been stronger - yet time is running out for access to this collection as funds dry up - unless this is urgently addressed.
Australia is largely dependant on overseas plants for it's agriculture and this includes our improved pastures. Yet native plants have a role to play and this is a growing focus of investigation as our increasingly harsh environment takes it's toll on exotic plants. Therefore there have been a series of recent pasture seed collections in regional and outback Australia focused on native species which may have a role as improved pastures. So to answer Dirk's question certain of our native pastures are being preserved in the agricultural pasture genebanks in SA and WA - but access to these is largely restricted to funded projects directly investigating their agricultural potential.
First | Previous | Showing comments 11 to 20 of 21 | Next | Last