Forage and fodder tree selection for future challenges: Linking users to genebanks
Apr. 3, 2015•0 likes
1 likes
Be the first to like this
Show More
•1,224 views
views
Total views
0
On Slideshare
0
From embeds
0
Number of embeds
0
Download to read offline
Report
Science
Presented by Daniel Debouck, Jean Hanson, Ahmed Amri and Alice Muchugi at the Workshop on Forage and Fodder Tree Selection for Future Challenges—Linking Genebanks to Forage Use, ILRI, Addis Ababa, 16-20 March 2015
Forage and fodder tree selection for future challenges: Linking users to genebanks
Forage and Fodder Tree Selection for Future Challenges—Linking
Genebanks to Forage Use, Addis Ababa, 16-20 March 2015
Forage and fodder tree selection for
future challenges: Linking users to
genebanks
Daniel Debouck, Jean Hanson, Ahmed Amri and Alice Muchugi
purpose(s) of genetic collections
contents of genetic collections
uses (distribution) of genetic collections
Contents
Forage diversity
Grasses
90% of cultivated genera originated
in sub Saharan Africa
Over 1000 species used as feed
Forage legumes and other
herbaceous plants
Most important legumes species
originated in the Americas or the
Mediterranean regions
Food feed crops – Cowpea, Lablab
are African
Fodder shrubs and trees
Most commonly grown
originated in Central America
and sub Saharan Africa
Problems of anti-nutritional
factors
Purpose of CIAT tropical forage collection
to make tropical forage options available to small-holder farmers in lowland tropics
as ground cover
against drought
as living fence
against flooding
Focus of ILRI forage diversity
activities
Forages for smallholder livestock systems
• 18640 accessions
• ≈1400 species
• ≈ 600 genera
19%
24%56%
1%
fodder trees
grasses
forage legumes
other forages
Major genera represented in the ILRI genebank
genus num
Trifolium 1512
Vigna 1138
Stylosanthes 1126
Leucaena 773
Sesbania 653
Indigofera 597
Brachiaria 535
Neonotonia 500
Rhynchosia 479
Alysicarpus 460
Macroptilium 419
Panicum 399
Tephrosia 352
Lablab 340
Triticale 339
Teramnus 317
Centrosema 296
Cenchrus 293
Phaseolus 265
Zornia 258
What has been distributed from the CIAT in-trust forage collection?
Total accessions (1980-2014): 13,506 (58.4%)
Total samples (1980-2014): 89,573
Accessions distributed to CIAT users (1980-2014): 9,886 (and 40,288 samples)
Accessions distributed to external users (1980-2014): 11,022 (and 49,285 samples)
Countries receiving germplasm (1980-2014): 110
Countries providing germplasm (1980-2014): 75
Top five countries receiving germplasm (1980-2014) (samples, on a total of 89,573, or 29.2%):
Colombia 16,062 17.9%
Brazil 4,513 5.0%
Peru 2,083 2.3%
Venezuela 1,845 2.1%
Mexico 1,661 1.8%
Time periods Total accessions internal users Total accessions external users
1980-1984 2,707 2,520
1985-1994 7,386 6,781
1995-2004 2,640 3,211
2005-2014 837 3,440
CIAT total samples distributed 1980-
2014
Colombia
rest of LAC
Africa
SSE Asia
rest of the World
Colombia: 16,062 (32.6%)
rest of Latin America: 18,829 (38.2%)
Africa: 4,299 (8.7%)
South Southeast Asia: 2,608 (5.3%)
rest of the World: 7,487 (15.2%)
countries of Africa and SSE Asia do not use the collection as LAC countries!
demand of internal of users has slowed down as compared to external users
What has been distributed from the CIAT in-trust forage collection?
for which users (accessions)?
1980-1989
NARS
Universities
Farmers
CGIAR
Reg Org
Com Co.
2005-2014
at the beginning most recent period
farmers have become the most important users, on top of NARS!
question: have NARS reduced their work as compared to universities?
question: has CGIAR reduced its work between the two periods?
question: has the commercial sector increased its work between the two periods?
58.3%
21.8%
18.1%
21.7%
11.1%
43%
7.2%
1.3%1.2%
8.4%
What has been distributed from the CIAT in-trust forage collection?
for which purposes (accessions)?
1980-1989
Agronomy
Basic research
Training
Applied research
2005-2014
at the beginning most recent period
Breeding
question: have agronomy and training lost importance between the two periods?
applied research (e.g. entomology) has gained importance over time
basic research (e.g. legume/ grass taxonomy) has not lost momentum
breeding of a few forage species has gained importance over time
53%
1.4%
19.8%65.5%
17.4%
17%
14.9%
9.7%
How can we increase the use of the CIAT in-trust forage collection?
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/urg
numbers of visits:
8,289 7,917
12,750
10,436
9,400
5,858
to enable requests from cell phones!
to put at forefront data useful to users
ICARDA new collected Forages, pastures and
rangeland species, 2009-2014
Crop
Samples collected
Annual Medics
349
Clover
633
Grasspea
96
Pastures and rangeland
787
Pea
28
Vetch
149
Total
2003
Activities to support forage use in ILRI
• Diversity in Napier grass
– Phenotyping for biomass under drought
– Genotyping using SSRs
• Diversity in Buffel grass
• Phenotyping for biomass under drought and cold environments
• Nutritional diversity
– Improved diagnostics for forage diseases
– Forage seed production of promising genotypes
– Forage seed agribusiness development
Concluding remarks
the four genebanks keep large options in legumes unmatched elsewherer
(tremendous assets in post CBD context, when N fertilizers are expensive)
the four genebanks do not distribute to the expected high levels
the distribution is regional and with a strong neighborhood effect
users have been shifting over time, with farmers and commercial sector
gaining
purposes have shifted over time, with agronomy declining and
breeding gaining
there is a need for another mindset in genebanks: not curators, but
users!