Home » (Un)Sustainable Farming »Commentaries » Currently Reading:

The Centrality of Seed: Building Agricultural Resilience Through Plant Breeding

February 29, 2016 (Un)Sustainable Farming, Commentaries 1 Comment

by Salvatore Ceccarelli, PhD

Five of the global issues most frequently debated today are the decline of biodiversity in general and of agrobiodiversity in particular, climate change, hunger and malnutrition, poverty and water. Seed is central to all five issues. The way in which seed is produced has been arguably their major cause. But it can also be the solution to all these issues.

During the millennia before modern plant breeding began, farmers were moving around with seeds and livestock, and because neither were uniform, they could gradually adapt to different climates, soils and uses. Whenever farmers settled, they continued to improve crops and livestock. In the case of crops, the way they did it can still be seen today in a number of countries and consists of selecting the best plants, which give the seed to be used for the following season. This process was highly location-specific in the sense that each farmer did it independently from other farmers and for his/her conditions of soil, climate and uses. The enormous diversity of what we call ancient, old, heirloom varieties originated through this process.

Problems created by Industrial Agriculture

The transition to modern plant breeding was accompanied by a change from selection for specific adaptation to selection for wide adaptation: this became the dominant breeding philosophy and was the basic breeding principle adopted by the Green Revolution.

Wheat Breeding

Participatory Barley Breeding

The term Green Revolution is used to indicate an agriculture development strategy based on the use of new varieties, in conjunction with the use of fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation water and mechanization. It is now increasingly recognized that the short-term achievements of the Green Revolution had long-term penalties.

One was the reduction in food diversity with negative consequence on human health (von Hertzen et al. 2011). Another was the leaching into the ground water of fertilizers due to overuse (Good and Beatty 2011), but they also included water shortages, the emergence of pesticide resistance (Gassman et al. 2011), the increase in populations of harmful insects (Lu et al. 2013) and the bypassing of farmers in marginal areas (Baranski 2015).

GMOs, the latest addition to the industrial “toolbox,” are a short-term and unstable solution to these problems because they change the environment surrounding the organisms they intend to control (Binimelis et al. 2009). Thus, as predicted by a fundamental biological principle, namely the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, their use induces resistance (Ceccarelli 2014). It is the same process by which bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, a phenomenon that is the cause of diseases affecting yearly two million Americans and causing 23,000 deaths in the USA (Frieden 2014; Reardon, 2014). At best, GMOs can only be a short-term solution to any particular problem, but in every case they have created an often more serious problem (resistant weeds, insects or disease) that requires a new GMO and/or more chemical use. They also make a farmer completely dependent on the company producing the GMOs and chemicals (Pechlaner 2010).

Agroecology and Alternative Methods of Plant Breeding

Agroecological models of agriculture, such as organic agriculture, could be solutions to the most important problems affecting the planet, but they are often criticized for not being able to produce enough food for a growing population. We believe, however, that most of the meta-analysis showing lower yields under organic conditions are biased by the use of varieties which were not selected specifically for organic conditions.

Participatory and evolutionary plant breeding methods, while benefiting from advances in molecular genetics, reconcile increased production of more readily available and accessible food with increased agrobiodiversity. They also maintain the evolutionary potential of our crops, which is needed to cope with climate change (Seneviratne et al. 2016). Being based on selection for specific adaptation, participatory plant breeding is not only more efficient than conventional plant breeding (Ceccarelli, 2015), but is able to produce varieties specifically adapted to both an agroecological agricultural model and diverse local climates (Ceccarelli et al. 2010). Thereby food safety is reconciled with food security.

Participatory Breeding of Tomatoes for Organic Farming

An example that this is indeed possible at low cost and in a short period of time is the following three year project of participatory tomato breeding for organic conditions.

In Italy, four single crosses representing four different tomato types, namely “cuore di bue”, “long fruit”, “cherry tomato” and “green salad fruit”, were self fertilized to produce four F2 populations (Campanelli et al. 2015) (1). These F2 seeds were distributed to four organic farmers located along a 450 km transect of the Italian Adriatic coast. Each farmer grew a random sample of 72 individual F2 plants for each of the four crosses, together with 18 individual plants of a commercial F1 hybrid of the corresponding fruit type for a total of 360 plants (4 crosses x 90 plants). The four populations were also planted at the research station. In farmers’ fields, a group of farmers and a group of scientists conducted independently a visual selection on individual plants expressing their opinion with a 1 (= worse) to 4 (= best) score. At the research station, only scientists conducted the selection. After statistical analysis, seed was extracted from the fruits of the best plants and the corresponding F3 families (8 plants per family) were grown together with the same commercial hybrid as in the first year. During the process the F3 seed of the selected F2 of the green salad population was lost because of poor seed germination. Selection was repeated with the same methodology and the best plants were used to obtain the seed of the F4 families of the three remaining crosses. These were compared with commercial hybrids in a replicated (3 replications) trial on the four farms and at the research station. The trials on farms had some lines in common (selected in more than one farm) but also the unique selections on that farm.

To assess yield, we measured the production of the first three fruit clusters. These are both very vulnerable to late frosts and very valuable to the farmers for the high prices of an early season tomato. It is thus a key commercial trait for farmers.

Farmer Tomato Breeders

Farmer Tomato Breeders

The result of the three years participatory selection were identification of three families which out-yielded significantly the respective commercial hybrid and another 12 families which yielded as much as the commercial hybrids. All the three families which significantly out yielded the respective commercial hybrid were selected from the same population (the “long fruit” type). Two of these families had a yield advantage over the commercial hybrid of between 43 and 44%. The third family out-yielded the commercial hybrid in two of the four farms by 62 and 76%, but it was significantly lower yielding (-22%) than the same hybrid on the research station. Had we conducted the breeding program only at the research station, we would have missed such a line (Campanelli et al 2015).

Part of the evaluation was a score for uniformity and none of these lines was phenotypically less uniform than the hybrid. This means that they can be immediately commercialized, thus capitalizing on the work done. The lines still conserve some genetic diversity, which allows farmers to continue to improve them by extracting seeds from the best fruits of the best plants. The three advantages farmers derived from this work are 1) higher yielding varieties; 2) saving on purchased seed as they can produce their own, and 3) using varieties specifically adapted to organic conditions.

Beyond participatory plant breeding

There are several other examples of successful participatory breeding programs, but despite these successes participatory plant breeding has a weakness in requiring the collaboration of a research institute to provide breeding material and technical support such as experimental design and statistical analysis (Sthapit et al. 1996, Witcombe et al. 2003). Therefore, the sustainability of a participatory program depends on the long-term commitment of a research institution.

An interesting alternative is offered by evolutionary (participatory) plant breeding – participatory is in parenthesis because, though desirable, the participation of an Institution is not indispensable. The idea is not new as it was proposed back in 1956 (Suneson 1956). The method consists in planting in farmers’ fields with mixtures (evolutionary populations) of very many different genotypes of the same crop, preferably, but not necessarily, using early segregating generations. These populations will be planted and harvested year after year, and due to natural crossing (higher in cross-pollinated and less in self-pollinated crops), the genetic composition of the seed that is harvested is never the same as the genetic composition of the seed that was planted. In other words, the population evolves to become progressively better adapted to the environment (soil type, soil fertility, agronomic practices including organic systems, rainfall, temperature, etc.) in which it is grown. As the climatic conditions vary from one year to the next, the genetic makeup of the population will fluctuate, but if the tendency is towards hotter and drier climatic conditions, as expected in view of climate change, the genotypes better adapted to those conditions will gradually become more frequent in this farming/breeding system (Ceccarelli 2014).

The evolutionary population, which can be made by the farmers themselves by buying seed of as many different varieties (including hybrids) of a given crop, can be used by the farmers (and by researchers if they are willing to participate) as a source of genetic diversity from which to select plants with useful traits.

This has been done in Italy (data not published) using a zucchini (summer squash) evolutionary population obtained by letting 11 commercial hybrids to freely intercross. After only two cycles of visual selection, as in the case of tomato, the farmer in question selected two varieties, differing in color, yielding as much as the commercial hybrids. He has already started selling the two new varieties in local markets.

Thus evolutionary (participatory) plant breeding, being a relatively inexpensive and highly dynamic strategy to adapt crops to a number of combinations of both abiotic and biotic stresses and to organic agriculture, seems to be a suitable method to generate, directly in farmers’ hands, the varieties that will feed the current and future populations. Combining seed saving with evolution and returning control of seed production to the hands of farmers, it can produce better and more diversified varieties. These can help millions of farmers to reduce their dependence on external inputs and their vulnerability to disease, insects and climate change and ultimately contribute to food security and food safety for all.

(1) These were produced at the Headquarters of the Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria- Unità di Ricerca per l’Orticoltura di Monsampolo del Tronto (CREA-ORA).

Salvatore Ceccarelli lives in Hyderabad (India) and cooperates in organizing participatory and evolutionary programs with different organizations, with various crops and in a number of countries. He is associated with the organisation: Rete Semi Rurali, Via di Casignano, 25, Scandicci (FI) 50018, Italy (http://www.semirurali.net/). His website is: http://www.miscugli.it/. His papers can be accessed by joining: https://www.researchgate.net/.

Baranski MR (2015). Wide adaptation of Green Revolution wheat: International roots and the Indian context of a new plant breeding ideal, 1960 – 1970. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 50: 41-50.
Binimelis, R., Pengue, W., & Monterroso, I. (2009). “Transgenic treadmill”: Responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass in Argentina. Geoforum, 40(4), 623-633.
Campanelli G, Acciarri N, Campion B, Delvecchio S, Leteo F, Fusari F, Angelini P, Ceccarelli S (2015). Participatory Tomato Breeding for Organic Conditions in Italy. Euphytica 204 (1): 179-197.
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Maatougui, M., Michael, M., Slash, M., Haghparast, R., … & Labdi, M. (2010). Plant breeding and climate changes. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 148(06), 627-637.
Ceccarelli S (2014) GMO, Organic Agriculture and Breeding for Sustainability. Sustainability 6: 4273 – 4286.
Ceccarelli S (2015). Efficiency of plant breeding. Crop Science 55: 87-97.
Frieden T (2013). Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pp. 114
Gassmann AJ, Petzold-Maxwell JL, Keweshan RS, Dunbar MW (2014). Field-Evolved Resistance to Bt Maize by Western Corn Rootworm. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022629.
Good AG, Beatty PH (2011). Fertilizing Nature: A Tragedy of Excess in the Commons. PLoS Biol 9, e1001124. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001124.
Lu Y. Wu K, Jiang Y, Xia B, Li P, Feng H, Wyckhuys KAG, Guo Y (2013). Mirid Bug Outbreaks in Multiple Crops Correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China. Science 328: 1151–1154.
Pechlaner, G. (2010). Biotech on the Farm: Mississippi Agriculture in an Age of Proprietary Biotechnologies. Anthropologica, 291-304.
Reardon S (2014) Antibiotic resistance sweeping developing world. Nature, 509: 141-142.
Seneviratne, S. I., Donat, M. G., Pitman, A. J., Knutti, R., & Wilby, R. L. (2016). Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets. Nature.
Sthapit, B. R., Joshi, K. D., & Witcombe, J. R. (1996). Farmer participatory crop improvement. III. Participatory plant breeding, a case study for rice in Nepal. Experimental agriculture, 32(04), 479-496.
Suneson CA (1956). An Evolutionary Plant Breeding Method. Agronomy Journal, 1956 48: 188–191.
von Hertzen S, Hanski I, and Haahtela T (2011). Natural immunity: Biodiversity loss and inflammatory diseases are two global megatrends that might be related. EMBO reports 12: 1089–1093.
Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, A., & Goyal, S. N. (2003). Participatory plant breeding in maize: A case study from Gujarat, India. Euphytica, 130(3), 413-422.

Currently there is "1 comment" on this Article:

  1. I do not support the predication that plant breeding was once the exclusive domain of farmers.

    If you go back in history farmers usually were no breeders: Plant breeding was a domain of monasteries or done on holdings of aristocrats.
    All non-multinational plant breeding companies, that we still have in our country, are of that origin.
    Farmers in feudal times had no time for breeding and not the right to do this.

    The common farmer propagates seeds or varieties.
    Maybe there is “breeding” by selection.
    Maybe you define breeding and variety differently
    A variety has to be distinct, uniform and stable: many accessions in genebank do not match these criteria.

    My family was farming for centuries. My brother is still farmer and he propagates seeds.
    he has no interest in breeding at all. he wants to buy healthy and profitable seeds.

    In Austria AGES (a state owned agency) surveys all marketed varieties every year, to give farmers neutral information on health, yields, etc of varieties for each climate region
    This service is a main reason, why we have still local breeders. Their biggest problem is the farmers’ privilege.Regional breeders are only involved in traditional breeding. Farmers may therefore propagate seeds without licenses. For small breeding companies this opportunity causes big financial challenges

Comment on this Article:

Science News on the Web

Why Independent Science News?

Scientific inventions and ideas shape the future. As science becomes ever more beset by commercial and ideological pressures, there is urgent need for scientific reporting and analysis from an independent, expert, public interest perspective. With this standard, Independent Science News works to shape a future that is biodiverse, just, and healthy for everyone.
More about us...

Sign up to our mailing list

E-mail address:
Name (optional):



Related News Articles

Financial Conflicts at National Academy Advisory Panel on the Future of GMO Regulation

New Research Links Neonicotinoid Pesticides to Monarch Butterfly Declines

New Report Links Food, Climate and Agricultural Policies

How Agriculture Can Provide Food Security Without Destroying Biodiversity

US Crop Yield Increases Owe Little to Biotechnology

Royal Society Science and Agriculture Study Criticised

Long-term persistence of GM oilseed rape in the seedbank

Pew Commission Report: Industrial Animal Farming Poses “Unacceptable” Risks for Public Health and the Environment


The UK’s Royal Society: a Case Study in How the Health Risks of GMOs Have Been Systematically Misrepresented

by Steven Druker For more than twenty years, many eminent scientists and scientific institutions have routinely claimed that genetically modified foods are safe. And because of the perceived authority of their pronouncements, most government officials and members of the media have believed them. But when the arguments these scientists employ …

“Poison Papers” Snapshot: HOJO Transcript Illustrates EPA Collusion With Chemical Industry

The Poison Papers

by Rebekah Wilce The world of independent chemical testing has a shiny veneer. The public is reassured that chemicals they’re exposed to on a daily basis are certified by technicians in spotless white lab coats who carefully conduct scientific studies, including on animals in neat rows of cages. But a …

The Biotech Industry Is Taking Over the Regulation of GMOs from the Inside

by Jonathan Latham, PhD The British non-profit GMWatch recently revealed the agribusiness takeover of Conabia, the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina. Conabia is the GMO assessment body of Argentina. According to GMWatch, 26 of 34 its members were either agribusiness company employees or had major conflicts of …

The Meaning of Life (Part I)

DNA double helix

by Jonathan Latham, PhD Many people date the DNA revolution to the discovery of its structure by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953. But really it began thirty years before, conceived by the mind of John D Rockefeller, Sr. Thus it is fitting that DNA is named after him. …

More Commentaries...


Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA

Poison Spring Evaggelos Valllianatos

Book Author: Evaggelos Vallianatos with McKay Jenkins Reviewed by: Carol Van Strum “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” Richard Feynman famously declared in 1966. Ever quick to challenge accepted wisdom, he distinguished the laudable ignorance of science, forever seeking unattainable certainties, from the dangerous ignorance of experts …

The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Gas Boom Is Threatening Our Families, Pets, and Food

The Real Cost of Fracking book cover

Book Authors: Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald Reviewed by Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project) The first researchers to systematically document ill health in livestock, pets, and people living near fracking drill sites were Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald. Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at …

More Reviews...