Generation Challenge Programme
GCP website		Integrated Breeding
IBP website		Sunset Blog
Sunset blog		   Connect with us GCP on Facebook GCP on Twitter GCP on LinkedIn Subscribe to GCP Newsletter Subscribe to GCP RSS feeds

The Integrated Breeding FieldBook – An African agronomist’s perspective

 Africa, Capacity building, Cassava, Crop information and data management, Integrated Breeding Platform  No Responses »
Feb 242014
 
For this ‘IBP story-telling season’, our next stop is  very fittingly Africa, and her most populous nation, Nigeria. Travel with us!

Having already heard the Integrated Breeding Platform (IBP) story on data from Arllet (spiced with a brief detour through Asia’s sun-splashed rice paddies), and on IBP’s Breeding Management System from Mark (where we perched on a corner on his Toulouse workbench of tools and data), we next set out to get an external narrative on IBP, and specifically, one from an IBP user. Well, we got more than we had bargained for from our African safari…

Yemi Olojede

Yemi Olojede

Yemi Olojede (pictured) is much more than a standard IBP user. An agronomist by training with a couple of decades-plus experience, he not only works closely with breeders and other crop scientitsts, but is also a research coordinator and data manager. As you can imagine, this made for a rich and insightful conversation, ferrying us far beyond the frontiers of Yemi’s base in Nigeria, to the rest of West Africa,  further out to Africa , and as far afield as Mexico, in his travels and travails with partners. We now bring to you some of this captivating conversation…

Yemi  has been working for the last 23 years (since 1991) at Nigeria’s National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) at Umudike in various capacities. After heading NRCRI’s Minor Root Crops Programme for 13 years, he was last year appointed Coordinator-in-Charge of the Cassava Research Programme.

But his involvement in agriculture goes much further back than NRCRI: Yemi says he “was born into farming”. His father, to whom he credits his love for agriculture, was a cocoa farmer. “I enjoy seeing things grow. When I see a field of crops …what a view!” Yemi declares.

Yemi is also the Crop Database Manager for NRCRI’s GCP-funded projects. He spent time at GCP headquarters in Mexico in February 2012 to sharpen his skills and provide user insights to the IBP team on the cassava database, on the then nascent Integrated Breeding Fieldbook, and on the tablet that GCP was considering for electronic field data collection and management.

To meet the farmers’ growing need for improved higher-yielding and stress-tolerant varieties, plant breeders are starting to incorporate molecular-breeding techniques to speed up conventional breeding.

Flashback to 2010: GCP was then piloting and testing small handheld devices for data collection. Field staff going through a training session for these under Yemi's watchful eye (right).

Flashback to 2010: GCP was then piloting and testing small handheld devices for data collection. Field staff going through a training session for these under Yemi’s watchful eye (right).

But for this to happen effectively, cassava breeders require consistent and precise means to collect and upload research and breeding data, and secure facilities to upload that data into the requisite databases and share it with their peers. Eighty percent of farmers in Africa have less than a hectare of land – that’s roughly two football fields! With so little space, they need high-value crops that consistently provide them with viable yields, particularly during drought. For this reason, an increasing number of Nigerian farmers are adopting cassava. It is not as profitable as, say, wheat, but it has the advantage of being less risky. The Nigerian government is encouraging this change and is implementing a Cassava Transformation Agenda, which will improve cassava markets and value chains locally and create a sustainable export market. All this is designed to encourage farmers to grow more cassava.

Enter GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platform (IBP), which has been working closely with NRCRI and other national breeding programmes to develop the right informatic tools and support services for the job. The International Cassava Information System (ICASS), the Integrated Breeding Fieldbook and the tablet are all part of the solution, backed up by a variety of bioinformatic tools for data management, data analysis and breeding decision support that have been developed to meet the specific needs of the users.

I enjoy working with the team. They pay attention to what we as breeders want and are determined to resolve the issues we raise”

Fastfoward to 2012: Based on feedback, a larger electronic tablet was favoured over the smaller handheld device. Yemi (centre) takes field staff through the paces in tablet use.

Fastfoward to 2012: Based on feedback, a larger electronic tablet was favoured over the smaller handheld device. Yemi (centre) takes field staff through the paces in tablet use.

The database and IB Fieldbook
“When I received the tablet I was excited! I had heard so much about it but only contributed ideas for its use through Skype and email,” Yemi remembers, echoing a sentiment that is frequently expressed by many partners who have been introduced to the device. “I experimented with the Integrated Breeding Fieldbook software focusing on pedigree management, trait ontology management, template design ‒ testing how easy it was to input data into the program and database.”  Yemi noted a few problems with layout and data uploading and suggested a number of additional features. The IBP Team found these insights particularly useful and worked hard to implement them in time for the 2nd Scientific Conference of the Global Cassava Partnership for the 21st Century (GCP21 II), held in Kampala, Uganda, in June, 2012.

“I enjoy working with the team. They pay attention to what we as breeders want and are determined to resolve the issues we raise,” says Yemi. He believes the IB FieldBook and the tablet, on which it runs, will greatly benefit breeders all over the world, but particularly in Africa. “At the moment, our breeders and researchers have to write down their observations in a paper field book, take that book back to their computer, and enter the data into an Excel spreadsheet,” he notes. “We have to double-handle the data and this increases the possibility of mistakes, especially when we are transferring it to our computers. The IB Fieldbook will streamline this process, minimising the risk of making mistakes, as we enter our observations straight into the tablet, using specified terms and parameters, which will upload all the data to the shared central database when it’s connected to the internet.”

The whole room was wide-eyed and excited when they first saw the tablets”

Bringing the tablet to Africa
After his trip to Mexico, Yemi was concerned that some African breeders would be put off using the IB Fieldbook and accompanying electronic tablet because both require some experience with computers. “I found the tablet and the FieldBook quite easy to use because I’m relatively comfortable with computers,” says Yemi. “The program is very similar to MS-Excel, which many breeders are comfortable with, but I still thought it would be difficult to introduce it given that computer literacy across the continent is very uneven.”

Slim, portable and nearly invisible. A junior scientist at NRCRI Umudike tries out the tablet during the 2012 training session.

Slim, elegant, portable and nearly invisible is this versatile tool. A junior scientist at NRCRI Umudike tries out the tablet during the 2012 training session.

At the GCP21 II meeting in Uganda, Yemi helped the IBP team run IB Fieldbook workshops for plant breeders from developing countries, with an emphasis on data quality and sharing. “The whole room was wide-eyed and excited when they first saw the tablets. They initially had trouble using them and I thought it was going to be a very difficult workshop, but by the end they all felt confident enough to use them by themselves and were sad to have to give them back!”

They … go back to their research institutes and train their colleagues, who are more likely to listen and learn from them than from someone else.”

Providing extra support, cultivating trust
Yemi recounts that attendees were particularly pleased when they received a step-by-step ‘how-to’ manual to help them train other breeders in their institutes, with additional support to be provided by the IBP or Yemi’s team in Nigeria. “They were worried about post-training support,” says Yemi. “We told them if they had any challenges, they could call us and we would help them. I feel this extra support is a good thing for the future of this project, as it will build confidence in the people we teach. They can then go back to their research institutes and train their colleagues, who are more likely to listen and learn from them than from someone else.”

In developing nations, it is important that we share data, because we don’t all have the capacity to carry out molecular breeding at this time, and data sharing would facilitate the dissemination of the benefits to a wider group”

Sharing data to utilise molecular breeding
Yemi asserts that incorporating elements of molecular breeding has helped NRCRI a great deal. With conventional breeding, it would take six to 10 years to develop a variety before release, but with integrated breeding (conventional breeding that incorporates molecular breeding elements) it is possible to develop and release new varieties in three to four years ‒ half the time. Farmers would hence be getting new varieties of cassava that will yield 20‒30 percent more than the lines they are currently using in a much shorter time.

“In developing nations, it is important that we share data, because we don’t all have the capacity to carry out molecular breeding at this time, and data sharing would facilitate the dissemination of the benefits to a wider group,” says Yemi. “I enjoy helping people with this technology because I know how much it will make their job easier.”

Links

Food for thought on video: a ‘rice-bowl of research’ spiced with flavours from Africa and Asia

 Africa, Asia, Capacity building, Crop breeding, Rice, Women in science  2 Responses »
Feb 212014
 

 

Steaming rice bowl

Steaming rice bowl

What’s the latest from ‘GCP TV’? Plenty! With a world-favourite – rice – featuring high and hot on the menu.

Now serving our latest news, to tease your taste-buds with a tantalising and tingling potpourri of memorable cross-continental rice flavours, all captured on camera for our viewers…

Our brand-new series on YouTube serves up a healthy seven-course video feast inviting our viewers to sink their teeth into rice research at GCP.

First, we settle down for a tête-a-tête in the rice research kitchen with chef extraordinaire, Marie-Noëlle Ndjiondjop, Principal Investigator (PI) of GCP’s Rice Research Initiative in Africa, and Senior Molecular Scientist at Africa Rice Center. Target countries are Burkina Faso, Mali and Nigeria.

Photo: A Okono/GCP

Marie-Noëlle Ndjiondjop

Starters, palate and pocket
Marie-Noëlle opens the feast with a short but succulent starter, as she explains succinctly in 30 seconds just how rice is becoming a staple in Africa. In the second course, Marie-Noëlle chews over the questions concerning combatting constraints and boosting capacity in rice research in Africa.

The third course is pleasing to the eye, the palate and the pocket! Marie-Noëlle truly sells us the benefits of molecular breeding, as she extolls the virtues of the “beauty of the marker”. Why should you use molecular tools? They’ll save you time and money!

Rice as beautiful as the markers Marie-Noëlle uses in molecular breeding

Wherefore art thou, capacity building in rice research in Africa?
The Shakespearean language alludes to the why of capacity building in Africa, as does video episode number four, which also tackles the what of this fourth dish in our banquet. Course number five offers the viewer a light look at how capacity building in Africa is carried out.

In the 6th course, Marie-Noëlle takes us out of this world and into MARS: she teaches us that ‘two are better than three’, as she explains how the novel bi-parental marker-assisted recurrent selection (MARS) method is proving effective when it comes to duelling with drought, the tricky three-headed monster comprising physiological, genetic and environmental components.

Blooming rice in the field

Of stars and scoundrels
The 7th and final course offers us a riveting tale of heroes and villains, that is, many heroes and a single villain! Our rice raconteuse, Marie-Noëlle, praises the power of the team, as a crew from cross-continental countries come together, carefully characterise their combatant (drought), before striking with environment-specific drought-tolerant varieties! AfricaRice’s project partners are Burkina Faso’s Institut de l’environnement et de recherches agricoles (INERA); Mali’s Institut d’économie rurale (IER); and Nigeria’s National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI). Collaborators are France’s Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique (CIRAD); the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

We hope these tasty teasers are enough to whet your appetite – you can savour each of the courses individually à la carte, or, for those with a daring desire to try the ‘all you can eat’ buffet for true rice gourmets, all seven courses are presented as a single serving on our YouTube channel.

Jonaliza Lanceras-Siangliw

Jonaliza Lanceras-Siangliw

Tastes from Asia
To further please your palate with our rice bowl of delights, our next stop is Asia. We are  pleased to offer you the Asian flavour through a peek into the world of molecular rice breeding in the Mekong region. Our connection to this project is through a GCP-funded capacity-building project entitled A Community of Practice for strengthening rice breeding programmes by using genotyping building strategy and improving phenotyping capacity for biotic and abiotic stresses in the Mekong region led by PI Jonaliza Lanceras-Siangliw, of the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC), Thailand (see project poster, and slides on a related drought-tolerance project led by Boonrat Jongdee). BIOTEC’s partners in the Mekong rice breeding CoP are the Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI); LAO PDR’s National Agricultural and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI);  Myanmar’s Department of Agricultural Research (DAR); and Thailand’s Kasetsart University and Ubon Ratchathani University). The video also features former GCP PI, Theerayut Toojinda (BIOTEC) whose project was similarly entitled The ‘Community of Practices’ concept applied to rice production in the Mekong region: Quick conversion of popular rice varieties with emphasis on drought, salinity and grain quality improvement.

BIOTEC

Boonrat Jongdee

Shifting gears: golden oldie
If all of this talk of eating has been a little overwhelming, we also offer you the perfect digestif: a ‘golden oldie’ in terms of GCP video history showing a 2012 BBC interview with former GCP PI, Sigrid Heuer, then at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), who explains how her project isolated the rice root-enhancing gene PSTOL1. Bon appétit!

 

Might you still have a corner of your mind yearning for more material on rice research? If so, check out the following:

  • Our lip-smacking selection of rice-related blogposts
  • A gorgeous gallery of PowerPoint presentations on rice research (SlideShare)
  • Check out our one-stop Rice InfoCentre for all things rice and nice, that we have online!

 

A new breed of Workbench – Introducing the Breeding Management System

 Crop breeding, Crop information and data management, Integrated Breeding Platform  2 Responses »
Feb 182014
 

Mark Sawkins

Mark Sawkins

Mark the man in the middle, and of the markers…

Today, we talk to Mark Sawkins (pictured), the ‘middleware’ man in our Integrated Breeding Platform (IBP) so to speak, seeing as he is the human ‘interface’ between crop breeders on the one hand, and the developers of our Integrated Breeding Platform (IBP) on the other hand. Mark is the ‘bridge’ that connects IBP users and IBP developers – a special position which gives him a privileged and fascinating perspective on both sides of the coin, with a dash of public–private sector pragmatic partnership thrown in too. Here’s more on Mark, in this dispatch from and on his special perch on the bench…

Bridge to bench, abuzz on BMS: A ‘tinker’ at Toulouse…
Mark Sawkins is always busy tinkering away on his Workbench at his base in Toulouse in southern France. It’s not your traditional wooden workbench, covered in sawdust, soil or splattering of paint. Nor is it one carpeted in documents lit by the warm glow of a computer monitor. In fact, the workbench Mark is working on is virtual, having no physical form and residing solely online, or on a user’s computer, once downloaded.

Known as the Breeding Management System (BMS) the Workbench, comprising software tools linked to a database for access to pedigree, phenotypic and genotypic data, has been developed by GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platform. The BMS has what a crop breeder would require to conduct an analysis of phenotypic and genotypic data generated as part of a crop-breeding or evaluation experiment, covering a broad spectrum of needs from conventional breeding to advanced molecular breeding applications. Version 2 of the Breeding Management System was released just last month.

… it [BMS] will be of most help to breeders both in the public and private sector in Africa and Asia who, up to now, have had little or no access to tools and data to allow them to shift gears in their breeding programme…The BMS has a lot of tools and all the foundational data necessary for a breeder’s routine day-to-day activities…The BMS is also anticipated to have enormous positive impact on food security in developing countries in the years ahead, enabling crop breeders to evaluate their progenies using the most sophisticated statistical methods available”

A hands-on BMS orientation workshop underway for breeders in Africa, held in Ethiopia in July 2013 under the auspices of the GCP-funded cassava breeding community of practice. Standing, Yemi Olojode, of Nigeria’s National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umidike, who was one of the trainers.

Previously known as the Integrated Breeding Workflow System (IBWS), the BMS incorporates both statistical analysis tools and decision-support tools. The tools are assembled in a way that data can flow seamlessly from one application to the next in tandem with the various stages of the crop-breeding process. It allows the breeder to accurately collect, securely store and efficiently analyse and synthesise their data on a local private database, and also share, or compare, their data with other breeders via a central public crop database.

“The BMS has a lot of tools and all the foundational data necessary for a breeder’s routine day-to-day activities,” explains Mark, a plant geneticist who joined IBP in 2011. “Any breeder can use it, but it will be of most help to breeders both in the public and private sector in Africa and Asia who, up to now, have had little or no access to tools and data to allow them to shift gears in their breeding programme, particularly in adopting modern breeding practices, including the use of molecular markers.”

The BMS is also anticipated to have enormous positive impact on food security in developing countries in the years ahead, enabling crop breeders to evaluate their progenies using the most sophisticated statistical methods available, and make selections on which lines to advance to the next phase of development in the progression towards more productive and resilient crop varieties.

Phenotyping and field trials are becoming the most expensive part of the breeding process… The biggest hurdle in the public sector in the past was the massive investment required to set up genotyping laboratory facilities… outsourcing, we believe, will help convince breeders to consider integrating molecular techniques into their breeding programmes”

Why integrated breeding?
For almost 30 years, the private sector has been implementing molecular-breeding approaches in developing more productive and resilient crops. These approaches allow breeders to select for plant characteristics (traits) early in the breeding process and then test whether a plant has the targeted trait, which they cannot visually identify.

“Phenotyping and field trials are becoming the most expensive part of the breeding process,” says Mark. “Using molecular markers is a way to reduce the investment in that process. By using markers, early in the development of a given crop line, you can reduce the number of plants you need to grow and test, reducing the time and cost associated with field trials.”

Mark hopes that the Workbench will in time enable breeders, in under-resourced public breeding institutes to access some of the leading molecular-marker databases, and make use of the markers therein for the desired traits they are breeding for, along with technical support from molecular breeders to guide them in making their breeding decisions.

“The biggest hurdle in the public sector in the past was the massive investment required to set up genotyping laboratory facilities,” explains Mark “but now there are plenty of professional service providers that people can send their samples to and get back good results at a very reasonable cost. This time- and cost-saving reality of outsourcing, we believe, will help convince breeders to consider integrating molecular techniques into their breeding programmes.”

We are currently conducting a three-year course to train scientists from national programmes in West and Central Africa, East and Southern Africa and South and Southeast Asia, who we hope will promote and support the adoption of modern breeding in their institutes and countries.”

An IB-MYC training course in session in April 2013 for the West and Central Africa group. Clarissa Pimentel, IBP's Data Manager/Training Specialist, at the front, traching trainees tricks on using Fieldlab in the tablet for data collection.

An Integrated Breeding Multiyear Course (IB-MYC) training course in session in April 2013 for the West and Central Africa group. Clarissa Pimentel, IBP’s Data Manager/Training Specialist, at the front, giving trainees tricks and tips on using FieldLab on the electronic tablet for field data collection.

Running with champions
Mark knows that giving breeders the tools and means to integrate molecular breeding into their programmes is one thing. To actually have them adopt them is another. But he has a plan.

In keeping with the core mission of GCP, which is to build sustainable capacity in developing-country breeding programmes, Mark proposes to recruit and train selected breeders in molecular-breeding techniques and set them up as champions and advocates for their particular crop or region.

Marker implementation methods can be varied but the tools required need to help the breeder make a quick informed decision on what to take forward to the next generation: What plants need to be crossed? Which plants should be kept and which ones discarded? The decision-support tools provided by the IB Workbench will help the breeder make these decisions.

“We are currently conducting a three-year course to train scientists from national programmes in West and Central Africa, East and Southern Africa and South and Southeast Asia, who we hope will promote and support the adoption of modern breeding in their institutes and countries,” Mark enthusiastically explains. The three-year training programme is known as the Integrated Breeding Multiyear Course (IB–MYC). Mark continues, “We believe that people will be more willing to listen to someone who is right there on the ground, whom they know and trust and can easily get in contact with if they need help.”

While the champions concept is still in its infancy, Mark believes it has real merit but must overcome two major barriers – time and confidence. “Identifying the champions won’t be hard,” he observes, “What will be hard is getting them to add this extra task to their already busy agenda. It will require buy-in from management at the institutional level to enable the champions to carry out their mission. It will also be individually hard for each champion, who will only be successful when they have the confidence in their own integrated breeding and extension skills. This confidence would be the thing that would really help sell the message.”

Engaging the private sector
Mark oversees the design, testing and deployment of the system that underpins the BMS, ensuring that both the system and the tools embedded in it are easy to use and meet the needs and expectations of the breeders. However, he and his team have had some trouble getting feedback on the system from the breeders it is intended for, due to their inexperience with such tools and systems. That is why he has called on his private-sector contacts, developed when he was at Syngenta where he worked for five years prior to his current assignment.

“We hope to show them what we’ve been doing in IBP with the Workbench, and hopefully get some private-sector buy-in and see how they can help us – not in developing tools, but with feedback on functionality and usability of the tools we are developing,” he explains. “We don’t have a core set of breeders who are routinely using markers in their breeding programme amongst the partners we are working with on the IBP project. So we are tapping into the private sector which has teams of molecular breeders who are more familiar with the types of breeding workflows and tools we are developing. We’re hoping that we can take advantage of their knowledge and experience to get some really useful feedback, which we will use to improve the usability and effectiveness of our tools.”

To maximise adoption and use, GCP has been actively engaged in extensive capacity building, and this will be reinforced with a comprehensive awareness-creation and communication effort immediately before and after a projected mid-year release of a newer BMS version incorporating the all-essential user feedback. The impact of the analytical pipeline in developing countries will be particularly enhanced with the availability of efficient user support services, which Mark will be overseeing.

Access the Breeding Management System (no-cost registration required)

More information

VIDEO: IBP’s comparative advantage for developed countries, while also relevant for developed countries.

SLIDES: IBP’s Breeding Management System

 

Cultivating a culture of change – Tools and tips for ‘SHARP’ data management, in and for the Information Age

 Crop breeding, Crop information and data management, Integrated Breeding Platform, Researchers, Women in science  No Responses »
Jan 312014
 
Arllet Portugal

Arllet Portugal

Today, we chit-chat with Arllet Portugal (pictured) on crop research data management. Arllet’s greatest daily challenge is convincing crop breeders and other crop researchers that their research data are just as important as their core research work. She also educates us on what she means by ‘SHARP’ data management. But first, a little background on Arllet…

Transitions, travels and tools
Plant breeding is in Arllet Portugal’s blood. Her father (now retired), one of the original field staff of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) at Los Baños in The Philippines, nurtured it in her from a tender age. It’s easy to picture him sharing fascinating tales daily with his family upon coming home, after a day of hard work in sun-splashed paddies where he nurtured mysterious and exotic new lines of rice which he was told may hold the solution to world hunger.

“He loved what IRRI stood for and admired the research they did,” reminisces Arllet. “I think he hoped one day he would have a son or daughter working alongside the researchers, so I guess I fulfilled that wish!” She adds “His IRRI stories still continue to this day, and I have learnt much from him which continues to give me deeper insights in my work and interactions with crop scientists.”

Having lived most of her life under the canopy of IRRI, including 12 years working as a database administrator at the Institute, she decided it was time for a change, and she spread her wings – an adventure that would take her across the oceans, pose new challenges, and plunge her deeper into agricultural research beyond IRRI’s mandate crop, rice. So, in 2009, she packed her bags and headed to Mexico, having accepted a position as a crop informatician for wheat at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), and then moving over to GCP the following year as Informatics Coordinator, and later on Data Management Leader of GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platform (IBP).

The Platform is a one-stop shop for crop information, informatics tools and services designed to propagate and support the application of modern approaches to crop breeding, particularly targeting developing countries.

We are trying to show breeders that their ‘system’ can be enhanced and streamlined if they enter data straight into a computer when they’re in the field and then upload them into an online database.” 

Gunning for a digital data revolution: The challenge of changing mindsets
Arllet’s greatest daily challenge is convincing crop breeders and other crop researchers that their research data are just as important as their core research work, and they should therefore dedicate as much time, energy and resources to managing data.

“Like everyone else, most plant breeders tend to be generally comfortable with the ‘systems’ that they and their predecessors have always used,” says Arllet. “For plant scientists, this often consists of recording results using pen and paper when they are out in the field, then coming back to their office and either filing those paper records as is, or re-entering the data into a basic Excel spreadsheet that is for their eyes only. They will then pull these data out when they want to compare them with their previous data.”

Arllet explains that this age-old system is not necessarily wrong, but it wastes valuable time, is insecure and limits the capacity of breeders to efficaciously reuse and also share their data with colleagues – a practice by which they would help each others’ work. “We are trying to show breeders that their ‘system’ can be enhanced and streamlined if they enter data straight into a computer when they’re in the field and then upload them into an online database,” she says.

Walking with giants…” 

Dealing with data: maximising efficiency, security, value and sharing
“These data can then be better secured and managed for their benefit and that of other researchers doing similar or related work, in essence increasing their working capacity. They would also have access to the most current analytical tools to verify their results and do their research more efficiently.”

Arllet explains that such improved systems have been in place for decades in the developed world, particularly within the private sector but not as prevalent in the developing world or public sector. This is largely attributable to the high cost of the equipment and informatics tools, and a lack of personnel with the appropriate skills to make use of the tools.

Through a collaborative effort bringing together a wide array of partners, with funding primarily from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, supplemented by the European Commission and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, IBP is working to overcome some of these barriers. With the release of the Integrated Breeding (IB) FieldBook, the foundational informatics tool for the proposed system, Arllet believes a giant step has been made towards achieving this objective.

Breeders will be able to use it to plan their trials from start to finish”

What is the IB FieldBook?
The IB FieldBook is a user-friendly computer program that facilitates the design of field trials and produces electronic field-books, field plans and labels. It collects together – in a single application – all the basic tools that a plant breeder requires for these diverse but intertwined functions.

“Breeders will be able to use it to plan their trials from start to finish,” says Arllet. “This is important as it will, for example, keep track of all the identities of plant crosses, minimising the chance that the breeder, or assisting technician, will record the data incorrectly, while emphasising the importance of accurate data for correct crop-breeding decisions.”

Live demonstration: Taking the tablet through the paces at a training workshop for research technicians in January 2012. The regional workshop for West Africa (in French and English) was hosted by L’Institut d’économie rurale (IER) at Sotuba, Mali. A similar workshop was held in Ethiopia in English for the Eastern and Southern Africa region.

She and her team have been conducting training workshops on data management for breeders at which they demonstrate the IB FieldBook and the use of handheld electronic devices (such as tablets) for data collection, which breeders can conveniently take to the field with them and directly enter the phenotyping data they would normally capture in paper field-books.

Tablets and feedback
“The training has been challenging but fun,” says Arllet. “When we present the breeders with a tablet at the start of the exercise, they get really excited. It takes a while for them to learn how to use it, but once they do, they see how this technology could save them time and reduce the risk of mistakes. It’s a little sad for them and for us though when we have to take the tablets back at the end of the exercise, as demand always outstrips supply. We have however distributed around 200 tablets to breeders, university academic staff, researchers and postgraduate students of plant breeding. Majority of the recipients are from Africa and Asia. And the good news is that,  as a result, some of the institutes and programmes the recipients come from have gone ahead to purchase more units for themselves.”

Arllet observes that the workshops have not only allowed her team to educate breeders and build awareness, but also to receive valuable feedback on how the IB FieldBook could be improved to make it even better, and learn what other tools breeders need. “Based on this feedback, we worked on the IB FieldBook version 4, which was released in June 2013, as well as on a number phenotypic and genotypic data management tools to incorporate into both the FieldBook and the primary crop databases.”

‘SHARP’ data – shareable, available, reusable and preservable. 

Left to right: Diarah Guindo (IER), Ardaly Abdou Ousseini (L’Institut national de la recherche agronomique du Niger, INRAN) and Aoua Maiga (IER) at the January 2012 training at IER Sotuba, Mali.

SHARP and secure data management
Plant breeders are collaborating more often than they used to, and also drawing much more on specialised experts for each stage of the crop variety development chain. These experts are able to verify the data to make sure they are correct, do their job quickly and pass the data onto the next expert, an economical resource- and time-efficient process. However, as Arllet explains, consistent and secure data management is key to the success of these collaborations.

For Arllet, data that are properly managed are ‘SHARP’ – shareable, available, reusable and preservable. “By collecting data in a consistent format, uploading them to a secure database with easily identifiable tags, and making them available to other researchers, the data will be more accessible to partners, enable reliable analysis and conclusions, be more likely to be reused, and most importantly, save time and money. For example, breeders who share their data on the IBP database will receive support from researchers outside of their own breeding programme and enlist the help of experts and specialists  they require for particular tasks,” says Arllet. “This includes access to, say, a molecular biologist in Europe or Asia for the breeder in Africa or America who may need that kind of specialist help, for example.”

Arllet and her team of four consultants are currently helping breeders from all around the world upload their historical research data into the central crop databases of the Integrated Breeding Platform, a massive task given the issues of trust, language barriers, slow internet connections, inadequate computer skills and the sheer volumes of the data. However, these are challenges that are becoming easier to handle with greater awareness and the enthusiasm that comes with that.

What next, and what difference will it make?
Adoption and broad use of the FieldBook will of course also make the process easier in the future, enabling a single step uploading of phenotypic data – hence setting breeders free to get on with their work without the wastefulness of having to enter and re-check the data multiple times.

“What it all means is that we will facilitate the more rapid and efficient development of higher-yielding  more stress-tolerant crops that can benefit the farmers and the people they feed,” says Arllet, “and that is the ultimate goal of a plant breeder’s work.”

Links

See videos below: ‘ Masses of crop breeding information: How can it be handled?’ and “Why use IBP’s breeding and data management tools?“, which, in the view of one of our Australian partners, explains why IBP is particularly important for developing countries, and why they have a comparative advantage compared to the developed world.

Next video below:

PRIZE AND FUN! If you’ve survived this far, you deserve a prize, in the form of seeing Ms Portugal in party mode. To see what Arllet gets up to when she’s not crunching data, flip through this fun album

Cassava’s gain, and surgery’s ‘pain’: Career crossings and causerie with Chiedozie Egesi

 Africa, Capacity building, Cassava, Crop breeding, Researchers  No Responses »
Nov 202013
 
Chiedozie Egesi

Chiedozie Egesi

Despite the social injustice around me, I always thought there was opportunity to improve people’s lives…GCP helped us to build an image for ourselves in Nigeria and in Africa, and this created a confidence in other global actors, who, on seeing our ability to deliver results, are choosing to invest in us.”
 – Chiedozie Egesi, a would-have-been surgeon who switched sides to biology and crop genetics, and who got acquainted with GCP through the Internet.

Backdrop: A booming economy and a wealth of natural resources may be among some of the common preconceptions of the average Jane and Joe regarding Africa’s most populous nation. Lamentably, however, Nigeria, like numerous robust economies worldwide, is still finding its feet in addressing severe inequality and ensuring that the nation’s wealth also flows to the poorest and most marginalised communities.

It’s a problem Chiedozie Egesi (pictured above), a molecular plant breeder at Nigeria’s National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), understands well: “Nigeria is an oil-producing country, but you still see grinding poverty in some cases. Coming from a small town in the Southeast of the country, I grew up in an environment where you see people who are struggling, weak from disease, poor, and with no opportunities to send their children to school,” he reveals. The poverty challenge, he explains, hits smallholder farmers particularly hard: “Urban ‘development’ caught up with them in the end: some of them don’t even have access to the land that they inherited, so they’re forced to farm along the street.”

Maturing cassava fruits.

Food first! A man with a mission and fire in his belly, determined to make a difference
For this gifted and socially conscious young man, however, the seemingly bleak picture only served to ignite a fierce determination and motivation to act: “Despite the social injustice around me, I always thought there was opportunity to improve people’s lives.” And thus, galvanised by the plight of the Nigerian smallholder, plans for a career in medical surgery were promptly shelved, and traded for biological sciences and a PhD in crop genetics, a course he interspersed with training stints at USA’s Cornell University and the University of Washington, Seattle, along the way, before returning to the motherland to accept a job as head of the cassava breeding team, and – following a promotion in 2010 – Assistant Director of the Biotechnology Department, at NRCRI.

As evident from the burgeoning treasure chest of research gems to his name, it was a professional detour which paid off, and which continues to bear fruit today.

Making a marked difference, cultivating new partnerships, and looking beyond subsistence
In 2010, work by Chiedozie and his NRCRI team resulted in the official release of Africa’s first molecular-bred cassava variety which was both disease-resistant and highly nutritious – an act they followed in 2012 with the release of a high-starch molecular-bred variety. The team’s astute navigation of molecular markers resulted in breeding Latin American cassava varieties resistant to cassava mosaic disease (CMD), leading to the release of CMD-resistant cassava varieties in the African continent for the first time. Genetic maps intended to enhance breeding accuracy for cassava – the first of their kind for the crop in Africa – have been produced, and quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for cassava breeding are in the making. In 2011, the team, together with their partners at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and HarvestPlus (a CGIAR Challenge Programme), released three pro-vitamin A-rich varieties of cassava, which hold the potential to provide children under five and women of reproductive age with up to 25 percent of their daily vitamin A allowance – a figure Chiedozie and his team are now ambitiously striving to increase to 50 percent.

These new and improved varieties – all generated as a direct or indirect result of his engagement in GCP projects – are, Chiedozie says, worth their weight in gold: “Through these materials, people’s livelihoods can be improved. The food people grow should be nutritious, resistant and high-yielding enough to allow them sell some of it and make money for other things in life, such as building a house, getting a motorbike, or sending their kids to school.”

Prior to my GCP work, I was more or less a plant breeder, and a conventional one at that. Whilst I’d been exposed to molecular tools during my early work on yam and other crops, I was not applying them in my work back then…GCP was not only there to provide technology but also to guide you in how to operate that technology… Now all our staff understand what is meant by good breeding, data analysis or applying genotypic data. My whole team benefitted.”

A chance ‘meeting’, with momentous manifold connections
Having first stumbled across the GCP website by chance when casually surfing the internet one day in a cyber café back in 2004, Chiedozie’s attention was caught by an announcement for a plant breeders’ training course in South Africa, an opportunity which he applied for on the off chance…and for which, hey presto!, he was accepted! Thus, his GCP ‘adventure’ began!

Chiedozie Egesi (left) and Emmanuel Okogbenin (right) in a cassava field.

Chiedozie Egesi (left) and Emmanuel Okogbenin (right) in a cassava field.

Promptly revealing an exceptional craftsmanship for all things cassava, Chiedozie soon became engaged in subsequent opportunities, including a one-year GCP fellowship at the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Colombia, a number of GCP Capacity building à la carte-facilitated projects, and, more recently, a major role as a Principal Investigator in the GCP Cassava Research Initiative (RI), teaming up with NRCRI colleague and Cassava RI Product Delivery Coordinator, Emmanuel Okogbenin. The Cassava RI is where Chiedozie’s energies are primarily invested at present, with improving and deploying markers for biotic stresses in cassava being the name of the game.

The significance of his GCP engagements was, Chiedozie affirms, momentous: “Prior to my GCP work, I was more or less a plant breeder, and a conventional one at that. Whilst I’d been exposed to molecular tools during my early work on yam and other crops, I was not applying them in my work back then.”

Collaboration in a GCP-funded project with CIAT led to the development of a new laboratory space for NRCRI, bolstered by support for basic materials as well as training. “GCP was not only there to provide technology but also to guide you in how to operate that technology,” Chiedozie comments. (For more on how it all began, see At home and to go and Molecular bonds in pp 26–29 in this e-book)

GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platform (IBP), he says, has played a vital role in this regard: “By opening the door to training, generation of data, analysis of data, and by giving support in making decisions, GCP’s IBP serves as a one-stop shop for cassava breeding.” It’s a sentiment shared by his NRCRI colleagues, he says: “GCP is providing a comprehensive full-package deal. Besides myself, several colleagues have been trained at NRCRI. Now all our staff understand what is meant by good breeding, data analysis or applying genotypic data. My whole team benefitted.”

A real deal-breaker is the facilitation of self-empowerment amongst national programmes, and the new avenues unfolding for enhanced collaboration at the local, national and regional level…What we’re seeing is a paradigm shift. In the past there was a general belief that this kind of advanced molecular science was only feasible in the hands of CGIAR Centres or developed-country research institutes – the developing-country programmes were never taken seriously. When the GCP opportunity to change this came up we seized it, and now the developing-country programmes have the boldness and capacity to do molecular breeding and accurate phenotyping for themselves.”

Growth in numbers, capital, capacity, collaboration, reach and impact
Strength in numbers, Chiedozie says, is a vital lifeline for cassava, a crop which has suffered years of financial neglect. As such, a real deal-breaker in Chiedozie’s eyes is the facilitation of self-empowerment amongst national programmes, and the new avenues unfolding, thanks to his involvement in the GCP cassava breeding Community of Practice (CoP), for enhanced collaboration at the local, national and regional level: “We now have a network of cassava breeders that you can count on and relate with in different countries. This has really widened our horizons and also made work more visible,” he offers, citing effective links formed with Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Mozambique, Malawi and Côte d’Ivoire, amongst several other cassava-breeding neighbours near and far.

Cassava leaf

Cassava leaf

The achievements amongst this mushrooming community are, he stresses, unprecedented: “Participation in the CoP means many countries can now create their own hybrids and carry out their own selection, which they could not do before,” he affirms.

And it’s a milestone Chiedozie and colleagues are justifiably proud of: “What we’re seeing is a paradigm shift. In the past there was a general belief that this kind of advanced molecular science was only feasible in the hands of CGIAR Centres or developed-country research institutes – the developing-country programmes were never taken seriously. When the GCP opportunity to change this came up we seized it, and now the developing-country programmes have the boldness and capacity to do molecular breeding and accurate phenotyping for themselves,” Chiedozie confirms.

GCP helped us to build an image for ourselves in Nigeria and in Africa, and this created a confidence in other global actors, who, on seeing our ability to deliver results, are choosing to invest in us.” 

Building on success, going from strength to strength as the sands shift

With internal capacity now blossoming of its own accord – in no small measure due to the leading role played by NRCRI in the sensitisation of cassava plant breeders throughout Nigeria and beyond – the sands are certainly shifting: “GCP helped us to build an image for ourselves in Nigeria and in Africa, and this created a confidence in other global actors, who, on seeing our ability to deliver results, are choosing to invest in us.”

Anthony Pariyo (left) of NaCRRI, Uganda

Visitors with working clothes on: NaCRRI Uganda’s Anthony Pariyo (left) and Williams Esuma (right) visiting NRCRI Umudike on a breeder-to-breeder visit in July 2012. Williams’ postgraduate studies were funded by GCP through the cassava CoP.

And the beauty of it, Chiedozie continues, is that the cassava crew is going from strength to strength: “Nigeria is seen as a really strong cassava-breeding team, not only within Africa but also globally. And we have not yet realised all the benefits and potential – these are still unfolding,” he enthuses.

Also yet to unfold are Chiedozie’s upcoming professional plans, which, he reveals, will soon see him engaging with the USA’s Cornell University, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and Uganda’s National Crop Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) in an initiative which, through its focus on genomic selection in cassava breeding, promises to be, Chiedozie reveals, “at the frontier of cutting-edge technology.” Genomic selection for this initiative is already underway.

Readers intrigued by this tantalising taster of what to expect in Chiedozie’s next professional chapter are encouraged to watch this space over the coming years…Judging by his remarkable research record to date, we feel confident that future installments will not disappoint!

Meantime, here’s Chiedozie’s presentation at the GCP General Research Meeting in September 2013. We are also working on videos of Chiedozie and his work. Yet more reason to watch this space!

Links
  • For a picture of Chiedozie’s work near the beginning in 2006, see pp 26–29 here (At home and to go and Molecular bonds)
  • More recent updates are on the Cassava InfoCentre

 

A bout with drought and disease: Beans that beat the heat and odds in Zimbabwe

 Africa, Beans, Capacity building, Genomics, Legumes  2 Responses »
Feb 282013
 

Drought stalks, some die
Despite the widespread cultivation of beans in Africa, yields are low, stagnating at between 20 and 30 percent of their potential. Drought brought about by climate change is the main culprit, afflicting 70 percent of Africa’s major bean-producing regions in Southern and Eastern Africa.Bean plant by R Okono

Today we turn the spotlight on Zimbabwe, where drought is a serious and recurrent problem. Crop failure is common at altitudes below 800 meters, and livestock death from shortage of fodder and water are all too common. In recent history, nearly every year is a drought year in these low-lying regions frequently plagued by delayed rains, as well as by intermittent and terminal drought.

The ‘battleground’ and ‘blend’
Zimbabwe is divided into five Natural Regions or agroecological zones. More than 70 percent of smallholder farmers live in Natural Region 3, 4 and 5, which jointly account for 65 percent of Zimbabwe’s total land area (293,000 km2). It is also here that the searing dual forces of drought and heat combine to ‘sizzle’  and whittle bean production.

The rains are insufficient for staple foods such as maize, and some of their complementary legumes such as groundnuts. In some areas where temperatures do not soar too high (less than 30oC), beans blend perfectly into the reduced rainfall regime that reigns during the growing season.

A deeper dig: the root of the matter

Godwill Makunde

Godwill Makunde

Research from Phase I of the Tropical Legumes I (TLI) project under GCP’s Legume Research Initiative showed that deep rooting is one of the ways to confer drought tolerance in common beans. High plant biomass at pod-filling stage also confers drought tolerance. “These important findings from TLI refined our breeding objectives, as we now focus on developing varieties combining deep roots and high plant biomass,” reveals Godwill Makunde (pictured), a bean breeder at Zimbabwe’s Crop Breeding Institute (CBI), which falls under the under the country’s Department of Research & Specialist Services. Zimbabwe is one the four target countries in Eastern and Southern Africa for GCP’s bean research (the other three being Ethiopia, Kenya and Malawi).

From America to Africa…the heat is on, so is the battle…

The battle is on to beat the heat: through the project, CBI received 202 Mesoamerican and Andean bean breeding lines from the reference set collection held by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT, by its Spanish acronym). A ‘reference set’ is a sub-sample of existing germplasm collections that facilitates and enables access to existing crop diversity for desired traits, such as drought tolerance or resistance to disease or pests. The Institute also embarked on bringing in more techniques to breed for heat tolerance.

Kennedy Simango

Kennedy Simango

Drought, pests and disease
“We embraced mutation breeding in collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and we primarily look for heat tolerance in small-seeded beans,” says Kennedy Simango (pictured right and below), a plant breeder at CBI. “Preliminary results suggested that just like drought, the reproductive stages of common bean are when the crop is most sensitive to heat. Flower- and pod-drop are common. Yield components and yields are severely reduced. In addition, we also focus on developing pest- and disease-resistant varieties.”

 

Kennedy Simango at work a the Crop Breeding Institute.
Kennedy Simango at work a the Crop Breeding Institute.

The CBI project’s primary diseases and pests of focus are angular leaf spot (ALS), common bacterial blight (CBB), rust and bean stem maggot, and aphids. “This came from our realisation that drought co-exists with heat, diseases and pests,” Kennedy adds. “So, a variety combining drought, heat, disease and pest tolerance all together would increase common bean productivity under harsh environments or drought-prone areas.”

At first glance, piling up all these vital survival traits may appear insurmountable, but it is all feasible, thanks to advances in plant science. “Breeding methods are changing rapidly, and it is vital that we keep up with the technology,” says Kennedy.

The CBI team is using molecular breeding to identify drought-tolerant parents, and then cross them into preferred bean varieties to confer to the ‘offspring’ the best of both worlds – drought tolerance and market appeal.

All-round capacity and competence
GCP’s support does not stop at enabling access to breeding lines alone, or introduction to molecular breeding. “We got a lyophiliser, which is specialised equipment that enables us to extract DNA and send it for genotyping,” says Kennedy. “From the genotyping exercise, we hope to be able to trace the relationships among breeding lines so that we design better crossing programmes, and thereby maximise the diversity of our breeding lines. In addition, we hope to select recombinants carrying desirable genes in a short period of time, and at times without even needing to test them in the target environment.” GCP assists with genotyping through its Genotyping Support Service offered through the Integrated Breeding Platform.

For phenotyping, CBI has benefitted from a mobile weather station, a SPAD meter (for measuring chlorophyll content), a leaf porometer (for measuring leaf stomatal conductance) and water-marks (probes for measuring soil moisture).

Human resources have not been forgotten either. Godwill Makunde, a CBI bean breeder, is studying for a TLII-funded PhD in Plant Breeding at the University of the Free State, South Africa. A group of four scientists (Godwill and Kenedy,  plus Charles Mutimaamba, and Munyaradzi Mativavarira) are in GCP’s three-year Integrated Breeding Multi-Year Course (IB–MYC). The curriculum includes design of experiments, data collection, analysis and interpretation, molecular breeding and data management techniques. In addition, GCP also trains research technicians. For CBI, Clever Zvarova, Anthony Kaseke, Mudzamiri and Chikambure have attended this training. Their course also includes phenotyping protocols (data collection and use of electronic tablets in designing field-books). To date, CBI has received five tablets for digital data collection , of which two are outstanding.

Photo: CBI

Godwill doing what he does best: bean breeding.

Bringing it all together, and on to farms
But how relevant are all these breeder-focused R&D efforts to the farmer? Let’s review this in proper context: in the words of Mr Denis Mwashita, a small-scale farmer at the Chinyika Resettlement Scheme in Bingaguru, Zimbabwe, “Beans have always carried disease, but from the little we harvest and eat, we and our children have developed stomachs.”

“What Mr Mwashita means is that despite the meagre harvests, farm families fare better in terms of health and nutrition for having grown beans,” explains Godwill.

With this solid all-round support in science, working partnerships, skills and infrastructure, the CBI bean team is well-geared to breed beans that beat both heat and disease, thereby boosting yields, while also meeting farmer and market needs. Trials are currently underway to select lines that match these critical needs which are the clincher for food security.

“The Zimbabwe market is used to the sugar type, which is however susceptible to drought. We hope to popularise other more drought-tolerant types,” says Kennedy. “We plan to selected a few lines in the coming season and test them with farmers prior to their release. Our goal is to have at the very least one variety released to farmers by mid-2013.”

A noble goal indeed, and we wish our Zimbabwe bean team well in their efforts to improve local food security.

VIDEO: The ABCs of bean breeding in Africa and South America, with particular focus on Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe

Related blogposts

Other links

 

 

Extract from a ‘genomicist’s’ diary: Excited in Seattle!

 Genomics, Integrated Breeding Platform  No Responses »
Aug 222012
 

Which we promise you is a much greater thriller than ‘Sleepless in Seattle’. We’d like to share with you an exciting day in the life of our Comparative Genomics Leader, Rajeev Varshney (pictured). And yes, we just made up the word ‘genomicist’ featuring in this blogpost’s title: if those who study economics are ‘economists’, then it’s logical that those who study genomics are…’genomicists’ of course!

Rewind to early July, and here’s the extract from Rajeev’s jottings in his diary on that day…

10 July 2012 – I had a wonderful day in Seattle today: I delivered a presentation on Genomics and informatics for digitalisation of crop breeding in the brainstorming session on A digital revolution in agriculture at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The meeting was chaired by Bill Gates and attended by his former and present associates (high-level business executives, entrepreneurs, philanthropists) and selected officials from the Gates Foundation. Discussions centred on four main topics – architecture, genomics, ecological intensification and ICT for a digital revolution in agriculture.

I was privileged to be invited to the meeting as one of three specialists in genomics (the other two being Jun Wang, Executive Director of BGI [Beijing Genomics Institute in Shenzhen China]; and Bob Reiter, VP at Monsanto). In total, there were 10 external experts from all four core areas in the meeting. I never thought that I would have the opportunity to spend a day with such a group of eminent personalities!”

GCP’s work on the Integrated Breeding Platform and on crop ontology were of relevance at the meeting.

A couple of snapshots from that meeting follow, and do look at the links below the photos…

 

Rajeev (standing left) gives his presentation during the meeting

Rajeev on the left, and guess who’s on the right?….That’s right! Bill Gates!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links: Rajeev’s profile | Comparative and Applied Genomics Theme | Comparative Genomics Research Initiative | Integrated Breeding Platform | Crop ontology (click on crop of interest from the menu along the top, then follow the ‘crop ontology’ link from the links in the box on the left)

A chat with the Chief

 Closing GCP, GCP, History  No Responses »
Jul 082012
 

Inside GCP today

Do a deep dive with Jean-Marcel into GCP’s ‘engine room’. What makes the Programme work? How is it structured and governed? For a geographically dispersed Programme with multi-institutional teams, what’s the trick that keeps the different parts moving and well-oiled to maintain forward motion and minimise friction? Get acquainted (and hopefully ‘infected’) with the ‘GCP Spirit’…

Jean-Marcel Ribaut (pictured) is the GCP Director. His work involves coordinating the research activities and overseeing finances, ensuring that at the end of the day that the overall Programme objectives are met. This means much multitasking, a great asset in running a multi-institutional partnership-based Programme. Jean-Marcel comes from a research background, although the research team he led while at CIMMYT was nothing the size of GCP…

…we’ve moved from exploration to application…underpinned by services and capacity building. To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and incomes for poor farmers, we knew that building capacity had to be a cornerstone in our strategy.”

How long have you been GCP Director?
Since 2005. My first two years were a steep learning curve!

The GCP tagline – ‘Partnerships in modern crop breeding for food security’  – what does this mean for you?
GCP is a very dynamic Programme. The kind of research that we were doing in 2005 is quite different from what we are doing today. As we implement our strategy, we’ve moved from exploration to application. We therefore revised our tagline to match this evolution, with the Programme now focussing much more on modern crop breeding and related aspects. We had naturally started by looking for diversity in the alleles, then evolved to gene discovery and developing supporting tools and markers alongside capacity building. Now, our focus is on application – using this diversity, markers and tools to progress to the next level, and boost the genetic gains for our nine key crops in challenging environments.

This application is underpinned by a service component through our Integrated Breeding Platform, as well as a strong capacity-building component for both human resources and infrastructure.

To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and incomes for poor farmers, we knew that building capacity had to be a cornerstone in our strategy.

We take an integrated approach … exploring new avenues but exercising due caution …we are not promoting molecular breeding as the magic bullet and only solution – it’s an additional useful tool for arriving at educated breeding decisions.

One of our objectives was to bridge the gap between upstream and downstream research in the teams we brought together. While we did have some failures where groups worked together for the project duration alone and didn’t continue their collaboration, we have had other cases where the teams we forged then have not only grown but also continued to work together – with or without us.”

Why is GCP’s work important?
Through our Research Initiatives, we focus on several crops, with relatively limited funding for each of them compared, say, to other much larger crop-specific initiatives supported for example by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So,  we operate on a proof-of-concept model: our goal is to demonstrate the use of new technologies and the application of out-of- the-box strategies which – if proven effective – will be funded and expanded by other agencies, including governments.

We take an integrated approach to problem-solving, exploring new avenues but exercising due caution while so doing. For example, for modern crop breeding which is our current focus, we are not promoting molecular breeding as the magic bullet and only solution – it’s an additional useful tool for arriving at educated breeding decisions.

…more than half our projects are led by scientists in developing countries

…The ‘GCP Spirit’ is visible and palpable: you can recognise people working with us have a spirit that is typical of the Programme.”

For you, what have been the major outcomes of the Programme so far?
Seeing developing-country partners come to the fore, and take the reins of project leadership. During Phase I, most project leaders were from CGIAR and advanced research institutes. However, over time, there has been a major shift and we are proud that today, more than half our projects are led by scientists in developing countries. They’ve moved from the position of implementers to the role of leaders, while CGIAR Centres and universities have taken a back seat, being more in a supporting role as mentors or tutors.

We have created this amazing chain of people, stretching  from the labs to the fields. This ‘human’ component is a terrific living asset, but it is also very difficult to scientifically quantify. Perhaps the best way I can describe it is as a ‘GCP Spirit’ created by the researchers we work with. The Programme’s ‘environment’ is friendly, open to sharing and is marked by a strong sense of community and ‘belonging’. The ‘GCP Spirit’ is visible and palpable: you can recognise people working with us have a spirit that is typical of the Programme.

One of our objectives was to bridge the gap between upstream and downstream research in the teams we brought together. While we did have some failures where groups worked together for the project duration alone and didn’t continue their collaboration, we have had other cases where the teams we forged then have not only grown but also continued to work together – with or without us.

A number of the partnerships we’ve forged have had a win–win outcome for players at opposite ends of the research–development spectrum. For example, academia tends to place a high premium on publications and theory, and relatively lower value on application and the real-world context. GCP provides a window for academics to apply their expertise, which benefits developing-country partners.

GCP’s relationship with project ppartners goes beyond funding. We are not just giving money; we are engaged in partnership with our project teams. We in management consult with them, interact and grapple over the technical issues with them in candour, and we toast and celebrate the successes together. I see our management style as fairly ‘paternal’, particularly for projects led by scientists from developing countries, but paternal in the positive sense of wanting to see these groups of people succeed, and us helping them to do so.

If a research site needs a pump for fieldwork, we work with a local or international consultant who will visit the partner and evaluate their needs, advise them on what type of pump they need, as well as other infrastructure they’ll need for the whole system to be sustainable. We’ll then provide training on how to use the pump most effectively.

It’s an investment in the people as much as in the products they are working on because we are trying to change the system of how science within partnerships is conducted and supported, as much as we are trying tap genetic diversity and breed resilient crops for the developing world.

Our successes have only been possible because of our ‘slim’ structure and the structural support we have enjoyed. With governance and advisory roles vested in an Executive Board and Consortium Committee, and with CIMMYT providing us with a legal and administrative home, we have minimal overheads and much flexibility. This agility has allowed us to adjust rapidly to changes when needed than, say, a classic research institute which would – quite rightly – have more rigid and elaborate obligatory steps, over a much longer time horizon.

…advocacy, persuasion and presenting a compelling business case are all necessary ingredients. Because we cannot be ‘directive’ with our partners in the manner their own institutes can be since they don’t ‘belong’ to us, we need to demonstrate success and convince people to adopt new business models.

How will GCP ensure sustainability?
Through our project Delivery Plans which link up a chain of users of our research products, and our Transition Strategy which shows how our research activities are embedded in the new CGIAR Research Programmes. We also hope to see our nascent communities of practice confer a sense of ownership to community members, and therefore sustainability. All that is on the ‘systematic’ and ‘documentation’ side of things.

Even more compelling is something I mentioned earlier, on the ‘organic’ and community side of things. Although it is completely outside our control, so to speak, it is wonderful to see that some of the partnerships we brought together have acquired a life of their own, and the teams we constituted are working together in other areas that have nothing to do with their GCP projects.

What are some of the lessons learnt so far?
The first one was focus. It’s very difficult to coordinate too many tasks, carried out by too many partners. Midstream in 2008, we had to review the way we were working and change course.

People management is the other. Cultivating relationships with people is critical. The trick is in balancing: by being cordial and friendly managers, we perhaps erode some of our authority over some of our project partners!

Another big lesson is that if it’s not working, don’t push it. Learn the lesson, cut your losses, and move on. Two main lessons have come from both our research and service aspects. For research, we invested in a massive fingerprinting exercise to characterise reference sets for all our 18 mandate crops at the time. [Editor’s note: A ‘reference set’ is a sub-sample of existing germplasm collections that facilitates and enables access to existing crop diversity for desired traits, such as drought tolerance or resistance to disease or pests]

The results were not great, the documentation was poor, and it was very difficult reconciling the different datasets from the work. We ended up incurring extra costs for genotyping, to salvage the investment. Then for building the Integrated Breeding Platform, we’d initially involved all major actors in developing the ‘middleware’ – the ‘invisible’ part that links the tools, services and resources IBP provides to breeders, with the respective crop databases. This did not work, and we subcontracted the work to an external service provider.

In both cases, we erred on the side of inclusiveness since we wanted to have all the players on board, and to also facilitate their capacity-building-by-engagement. We have learnt the need to strike a balance between inclusiveness and capacity building on the one hand, and outsourcing to get the job done on the other.

Then there is behaviour change – changing people’s mindsets to adopt technology, since people tend to be naturally conservative. We’ve learnt that developing the tools and techniques is the easy part. The human component – changing how people do business, getting them to adopt a corporative and cooperative over an institutional focus – is a real challenge, and needs to be strongly demand-driven with clear short-term benefits.

Data management and quality control, their documentation, publication and sharing continue to dog us and it’s probably the greatest challenge, although not unique to GCP.

Finally, advocacy, persuasion and presenting a compelling business case are all necessary ingredients. Because we cannot be ‘directive’ with our partners in the manner their own institutes can be since they don’t ‘belong’ to us, we need to demonstrate success and convince people to adopt new business models.

What is the most enjoyable aspect of your position at GCP?
More than one, actually.

We enable people, research teams and institutes to grow, thrive and stand on their own, and this is deeply gratifying; it is very rewarding to see people from developing countries growing and becoming leaders.

Working on different crops, with different partners, in different circumstances, and of different capacities is highly stimulating and brings a lot of diversity. My job is anything but boring!

I also appreciate being sheltered from the administrative burden our multi-institutional approach carries. The administrative load is ably borne by CIMMYT. This allows me to dedicate more of my time to supporting our research partnerships, institutional relationships and services to researchers.

I work with a small and dedicated team. As you can imagine, things are not always rosy, since a small team also means we operate in a ‘tight’ space and occasionally knock knuckles, and we also come from different cultures, but all these work to the good. This cultural diversity is actually a big plus, bringing a broader array of perspectives to the table. And the benefit of the ‘tight’ space is that, when there is a task to be done, the team spirit is incredible – everyone in the group, from management to office assistants, apply themselves to the task at hand. This is a fantastic experience!

Beyond the management and staff group, there is also the real GCP that is out there, which is highly stimulating, and I will end by sharing an excerpt from the external mid-term review report:

“Perhaps the most important value of GCP thus far, is the opportunities it has provided for people of diverse backgrounds to think collectively about solutions to complex problems, and, in the process, to learn from one another.”

Related blogposts

GCP website

External links

 

 

 

Bird’s eye view from the Board

 Closing GCP, GCP, History  No Responses »
Jul 042012
 

The GCP community, its labours and joys

If tools and resources are not put to use, then we labour in vain...GCP contributes to food security by providing breeders with integrated tools, techniques and services to speed up the selection cycle, be this by conventional or molecular breeding. GCP focuses on developing new materials and new techniques and delivering these, and the appropriate breeding tools, technologies and services, to breeders. I think GCP has been one of the most successful builders of research and development partnerships.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme, and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.”

Seatbelts on please! Time to take a tour with Andrew, for an ‘aerial’ view of GCP from the very  ‘top’.

Please meet Andrew Bennett (pictured), the Chair of GCP’s Executive Board. Among other responsibilities, he is also President of the Tropical Agricultural Association, UK, chairs the SciDev.Net Board, and previously chaired the CIFOR Board. He was formerly Executive Director of the Syngenta Foundation and Director of Rural Livelihoods and Environment at the Department for International Development (DFID, UK) where he was responsible for professional advice on policy and programmes on livelihoods, natural resources, environment, sustainable development and research. Andrew has worked on development programmes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and the Caribbean.

Today, Andrew shares his perspectives on GCP’s work, its impact, the challenges, the community GCP has built, and the role of the Board. Please read on…

When was the GCP Board established, and what is its profile and role?
The Board was set up in mid-2008 towards the end of the first phase of the Programme. A review recommended that there be a fully independent Board, comprising people who had no conflict of interest with the Programme to facilitate decision-making.

Board members have between them a wide variety of skills and backgrounds, ranging from expertise in molecular biology to development assistance, socioeconomics, academia, finance, governance and change management.

We are committed to the role that can be played by science in development, and to the Programme. We have offered advice and helped the Programme’s Consortium Committee and management refocus the Programme. By all accounts, they seem happy with how things have evolved.

Because GCP is hosted by CIMMYT, the Board does not have to deal with any policy issues. That is the responsibility of the Consortium Committee. Our role is more to provide advice and to help with decision-making and implementation, which is great as we’ve been able to focus on the Programme’s science and people.

How long have you been involved with GCP?
Since the Board was established in 2008.

What does the GCP tagline – ‘Partnerships in modern crop breeding for food security’ – mean for you?
It means that all our undertakings are geared towards producing crop varieties that are tolerant to a range of environments, as well as being socially acceptable and appealing to farmers and markets.

How do you upgrade the planting material farmers have by fortifying it to combat the biotic and abiotic stresses? Half the challenge is breeding and selecting good material, and the other half is ensuring delivery of tools to breeders and new planting materials to farmers.

So GCP focuses on developing new materials and new techniques and delivering these, and the appropriate breeding tools, technologies and services, to breeders.

Why is GCP’s work important, and what does it mean for food security?
People who are food-secure have access to adequate food at all times to maintain healthy active lives. There are two sides to making this happen – access and availability.

GCP is increasing the number of varieties and lines tolerant to the conditions farmers are facing. What we cannot do is put money in the hands of poor people. If we supply people with the means to produce sustainable and healthy crops, they will have the means to produce food for themselves, and a means of making an income.

GCP contributes to food security by providing breeders with integrated tools, techniques and services to speed up the selection cycle, be this by conventional or molecular breeding.

For you, what have been the major outcomes of GCP so far?
GCP has shown that it is possible to form very productive partnerships across CGIAR institutes and advanced research establishments and those countries that have less scientific capacity. I think it has been one of the most successful builders of research and development partnerships. GCP has also shown public researchers can work very well with the private sector. The public sector has the means to build a lot of capacity.

I think GCP has demonstrated that it is possible to establish molecular breeding programmes in those parts of the world that do not have well-developed scientific infrastructure.

Just a little bit of money – relatively speaking of course – clear vision, and good leadership, can go very far, and produce tremendous benefits and progress.

GCP has also identified the constraints that we have to work within – the challenge of phenotyping and restrictions on the movement of genetic material to other parts of the world. GCP has paid particular attention to intellectual property [IP] because the information and materials GCP produces must remain in the public domain. IP in the international arena within which the Programme operates must span potentially conflicting national legislation regimes. It is a very complex area.

‘Challenge’ is in GCP’s name. What are the major challenges that the Programme has so far overcome?
Quite a number and more could be on the horizon. GCP has overcome some of these challenges. They include the problem of poor-quality phenotyping. This has been addressed through a comprehensive capacity-building programme, including laboratory and field infrastructure, and the training of research support staff in the developing-country field sites where GCP projects are being implemented.

Another challenge was focusing the Programme. At the start, the Programme was spread too thin, spanning too many crops and partners, but these have been progressively narrowed down in Phase II.

This narrowing is no mean feat in the public sector. In the private sector, you start with, say, a hundred projects, then after six months you halve them. After a year, you are down to 10 projects and you put all your resources into making those 10 ‘winners’ work. In the public sector, you keep the entire hundred going for three years, then you look for funding to keep them all running for another cycle. It’s a different culture: the private sector is product-oriented, while some aspects of the public sector emphasise contributing to the growth of knowledge and information, and to building or maintaining relationships, without necessarily asking about their usefulness and benefits to society.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.”

What are the future challenges that the Programme must overcome to remain sustainable?
There are many GCP activities that can be integrated into the new CGIAR Research Programmes. However, there may be other activities such as capacity building and IP management which – at this point in time – appear somewhat less easy to integrate into the new CGIAR Research Programmes.

There is also a danger – not unique to GCP but with all aid-assisted programmes – that when the money ends, everything will disappear into the archives. We have to make sure that doesn’t happen in this instance.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.

What are some of the lessons learnt so far?
GCP was born at a time when we thought molecular biology could solve all our problems quickly and efficiently. What I think we are finding is that molecular tools –while extremely useful – cannot entirely replace understanding the agronomy and phenotypic activities. Molecular biology alone is not a panacea or silver bullet for crop breeding; but it is a valuable tool.

Then there is capacity building: molecular breeding is a tool that you can only use if you have the capacity. Many parts of the world will require a lot of capacity building and support to be able to use the tools. GCP and its Integrated Breeding Platform can make a modest contribution to meeting this need through the proof-of-concept GCP Research Initiatives for selected crops and countries and establishing communities of practice.

If tools and resources are not put to use, then we labour in vain.

What has been the most enjoyable aspect of your position with GCP?
Without a doubt, attending the General Research Meetings has been the most enjoyable, meeting scientists from a wide range of institutes, backgrounds and countries.

These scientists come together because they share the same interests and a common goal. There’s a lively buzz of conversation. It is good to hear about what they are doing, what their aspirations are, and to learn from the knowledge and posters they bring to the meeting.

You don’t have to be a cutting-edge scientist to listen to these people whose enthusiasm is palpable. They are passionate, have a strong sense of community, enjoy what they are doing, and are just as keen to share this knowledge and enthusiasm. It’s all highly infectious!

Relevant links

GCP now, then, and after

 Closing GCP, GCP, History  No Responses »
Jul 032012
 

Where we’ve come from, where we are, and where we’re going

Travel with Dave from the beginning – and before the beginning – of GCP, and how the Programme will be brought to an orderly close. Dave also elaborates on the role of the Consortium Committee.

There’s no doubt that the Programme has enabled new partnerships and rekindled and rejuvenated old or existing partnerships amongst the different partners. Some of these are between the different CGIAR Centres and others are between these Centres and partners outside the CGIAR. These partnerships have been very fruitful.

People speak of GCP almost as if it were the 16th Centre. They speak of it with pride and respect. They understand the important role it can play.

GCP has a lot of credibility with national programmes. When you go to GCP’s General Research Meetings, there’s clearly a feeling of being part of the community, and that we are all improving our efficiency because of the Programme.

…I think it’s been one of the more successful Challenge Programmes.

Dave Hoisington (pictured)  is the Chair of GCP’s Consortium Committee, and currently ICRISAT’s Director of Research. Dave was previously with CIMMYT, GCP’s host Centre. He has therefore been involved with GCP “since day minus one” in his words. “It’s equally exciting to be involved in the Programme’s closure, because I think that is even more important with regard to keeping its legacy alive.” Dave now walks us through the workings of the Programme today, its achievements and challenges, and what the early formative years were like….

What is the role of the GCP Consortium Committee?
GCP was set up as a multi-institutional endeavour. As an elaborate and broad partnership representing various interests, the decision at the Programme’s inception was to set up a committee representing all the key members from CGIAR Centres, developing-country programmes and advanced research institutes.

This Consortium Committee is ultimately the one that ‘owns’ GCP and oversees the basic functioning of the Programme to make sure that it is going in the right direction. We have an Executive Board which the Consortium appointed and it’s that Executive Board that Jean-Marcel [GCP Director] reports to. Because we set up the Board, they actually report to us.

…by having this Committee of the key players in research as well as an independent Board, we can all make sure GCP is going in the right direction, by giving voice to both the ‘players’ and ‘referees’.

Why have a Committee as well as a Board, and why seek broad partnerships?
During a mid-term review of GCP, the need for both a Committee and an independent Executive Board was recognised to give the Programme more structure and guidance. The Consortium Committee was established in 2008, and its precursor was the Programme Steering Committee.

GCP is not a research programme run by a single institute but really a consortium to enhance effectiveness. So, by having this Committee of the key players in research as well as an independent Board, we can all make sure GCP is going in the right direction, by giving voice to both the ‘players’ and ‘referees’.

There’s no doubt that the Programme has enabled new partnerships and rekindled and rejuvenated old or existing partnerships amongst the different partners. Some of these are between the different CGIAR Centres and others are between these Centres and partners outside the CGIAR. These partnerships have been very fruitful.

GCP’s tagline – ‘Partnerships in modern crop breeding for food security’ – what does this mean for you?
It really captures the essence of GCP – GCP is about creating opportunities for these partnerships. It’s about using a modern approach, a more integrated approach to breeding, to aid food security in the developing world.

Why is GCP’s work important?
The whole premise of setting up GCP 10 years ago was really the fact that our major crops were not registering the necessary increases in yield to meet food needs in developing countries. There are many reasons for that. The reason that became the main driving force for GCP was that we had not been able to tap the rich genetic diversity that exists for almost all of these crops. So the idea was to come up with mechanisms, methods, examples and proofs-of-concept that tap into this genetic diversity, and package it such that breeding programmes can integrate it into their operations. By so doing, we would broaden the horizon of breeding programmes for more rapid gains in yields and productivity in farmers’ fields.

Originally, the whole idea was mostly a proof-of-concept. Once we realised it could work, we realised that capacity needed to be built within national programmes since GCP’s scope was 10 years. So, the emphasis began to rightly shift from exploration and discovery to application and impact, buttressed by more training and capacity building within national programmes for sustainability. Genetic research was – and still remains – the backbone, but there has been a growing reliance on other tools including IT and molecular breeding. Now the technology has matured, costs have decreased, making it more viable for public research.

Unfortunately, we don’t have the alternative case of what it would have been like without GCP… but I think that many institutes within and outside CGIAR are trying to use genomics as a technology, and I think a lot of that can be traced back to projects that GCP supported.

What have been the major outcomes of GCP so far?
The greatest overall outcome is a stronger awareness and use of genomics in our research programmes across the board.

Unfortunately, we don’t have the alternative case of what it would have been like without GCP, which we could compare to, but I think that many institutes within and outside CGIAR are trying to use genomics as a technology, and I think a lot of that can be traced back to projects that GCP supported and encouraged.

In the early years, characterisation of genetic resources was very beneficial and it’s encouraging to see it still continues, with characterising genetic resources now considered routine.

What outcomes are you most looking forward to?
I think one of the most promising, and potentially important outcomes will be the adoption of GCP’s Integrating Breeding Platform.

‘Challenge’ is in GCP’s name. What are the major challenges that the Programme has so far overcome?
When GCP was being designed, there was no definition or case study for what a Challenge Programme had to do. The preliminary idea was that for projects to succeed and overcome major challenges, partnerships were key and no single institute could do it alone: they needed to do business differently, whether among the CGIAR Centres, or with partners outside the CGIAR. We had all these genebanks, all this diversity, genetic and genomic tools for some crops but not all crops. So, we put our heads together and asked ourselves, “What if we combine these modern molecular approaches used in one crop and apply them to another crop? Can we unlock the genetic diversity within it to improve quality and yield? How do we get all partners to work together towards a common goal?”

At the beginning, GCP had probably way too many facets and we were trying to move ahead on all the different fronts, so I think the mid-term reshaping and redefinition of the Programme helped it gain more focus to actually do what it set out to do.

GCP has built capacity, tools, methodologies and technologies. All these need to continue so as to increase and improve outputs and enhance outcomes.

What future challenges must the Programme overcome to remain sustainable?
Ensuring its achievements are sustained. While it was a time-bound programme from day one, the results and successes are not time-bound. They should be sustained and continued in other shapes and forms.

The challenge now is filtering these successes and figuring out how best to continue them. GCP has built capacity, tools, methodologies and technologies. All these need to continue so as to increase and improve outputs and enhance outcomes.

What are the main lessons learnt so far?
Partnerships are not easy. They take a lot of time. It’s one thing to write a proposal and say we will work together but it’s another thing to make that work effectively. I know GCP has had some instances where partners brought in have not been effective. I’m sure the GCP management has learnt lessons on how to deal with that.

People work together because they trust and respect one another and recognise and understand each other’s roles. They don’t view it as a competition. Some partnerships occur spontaneously, while others take time. They have to build trust, understanding and communication.

We’ve all learnt lessons from the research side, such as what does and doesn’t work. Focussing was a good lesson that GCP and all of us have learnt. At the beginning, we just spread ourselves too thin, trying to do too many things, making it very difficult to measure progress.

What is the most enjoyable aspect of your involvement with GCP?
I’ve been involved in GCP from day minus one. I used to be at CIMMYT and was involved in the ‘pre-pre-birth’ of the Programme, even before it had been conceptualised. Through the years since then, I’ve had different levels of engagement – and even periods of disengagement – but have always enjoyed my involvement.

It’s always been a good group of people working together, even when there have been problems. I think the Programme has scored high on successes. Jean-Marcel and his team deserve a lot of credit. They’ve really been able to keep the momentum going.

It’s equally exciting to be involved in the Programme’s closure, because I think that is even more important with regard to keeping its legacy alive.

People speak of GCP almost as if it were the 16th Centre. They speak of it with pride and respect. They understand the important role it can play.

GCP has a lot of credibility with national programmes… Ithink it’s been one of the more successful Challenge Programmes.

Jean-Marcel talks of the ‘GCP spirit’ and how successful partners share this spirit. What are your thoughts on this?
GCP definitely has a strong ‘entity’, although I’m not sure if this is a spirit! People speak of GCP almost as if it were the 16th Centre. They speak of it with pride and respect. They understand the important role it can play.

GCP has a lot of credibility with national programmes. When you go to GCP’s General Research Meetings, there’s clearly a feeling of being part of the community, and that we are all improving our efficiency because of the Programme.

I think it’s been one of the more successful Challenge Programmes.

Relevant links

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
cheap ghd australia