Arcadia Biosciences and Mahyco Achieve Key Milestone for Salt Tolerant Rice

Technology Will Increase Productivity and Improve Food Security in Southeast Asia --

DAVIS, Calif. and Jalna, INDIA, (January 22, 2014) – Arcadia Biosciences, Inc., an agricultural technology company focused on developing technologies and products that benefit the environment and human health, and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (Mahyco) today announced the achievement of a key milestone in the development of Salt Tolerant rice.

Arcadia's Salt Tolerance (ST) technology enables plants to produce increased yields under saline water and soil conditions, expanding the range of usable acreage for crop production and reducing requirements for fresh water.

In achieving this key milestone, Mahyco demonstrated that Arcadia’s ST technology significantly increased plant growth and yield in multiple rice lines developed by Mahyco. Rice varieties incorporating ST technology showed substantial increases in key plant performance measures.

Rice is the world’s second-largest crop, grown on 161 million hectares annually. It plays a critical role in food security for more than half of the world’s population. India, with a population of more than 1.2 billion, is the second most populous country in the world. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 221 million people in India, or about one-fifth of the population, are undernourished. As such, there is significant pressure on Indian farmers to increase agricultural productivity.

“With the growing demands on fresh water and land resources for agriculture, the ability to maintain high crop yields in salt-impacted environments is critical,” said Eric Rey, president and CEO of Arcadia Biosciences. “This key technology is just one of a number of improvements Arcadia and Mahyco are developing together to increase farm productivity and reduce the overall environmental impact of agriculture in the region,” he added.

"With this milestone, we are closer to bringing the benefits of this technology to the farmers who are challenged with increased salinity in their farms and improving the overall productivity of the crop," said Usha Zehr, chief technology officer of Mahyco.

About Arcadia Biosciences, Inc.
Based in Davis, Calif., Arcadia Biosciences is an agricultural technology company focused on the development of agricultural products that improve the environment and enhance human health. Arcadia’s agronomic traits, including Nitrogen Use Efficiency, Water Use Efficiency, Salt Tolerance, Heat Tolerance, and Herbicide Tolerance, are all aimed at making agricultural production more economically efficient and environmentally sound. Arcadia’s health technologies and products create healthier nutritional ingredients and foods with lower production costs. For more information visit www.arcadiabio.com.

About Mahyco
Established in 1964 by Dr. Badrinarayan R. Barwale, Mahyco is a pioneer and leader in the Indian seed industry. The company strives to provide quality seeds. Since its inception it has been engaged in plant genetic research and production of quality seeds for the farming community of India. Currently, it is engaged in the research, production, processing and marketing of approximately 115 products in 30 crop species including cereals, oilseeds, fiber and vegetables. Mahyco is also developing genetically enhanced crops with the use of gene transfer technology. Mahyco has a national presence with its network across the country. For more information visit www.mahyco.com.

@ Arcadia Biosciences and Mahyco Achieve Key Milestone for Salt Tolerant Rice | Arcadia Biosciences:

Tanzania: Tensions over Genetically Modified Crops | Pulitzer Center

Published October 17, 2013
FINNIGAN WA SIMBEYE
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania — A typical Tanzanian family will not pass a day without eating ugali — a stiff porridge made from ground corn, somewhat like Italian polenta.

Would Tanzanians eat ugali if the flour came from genetically modified corn?

Tension over that question is tearing at the country, with scientists insisting the answer should be “yes,” while GM foes say, “No way!”
Most of Tanzania’s corn is grown by smallholder farmers who typically plant seeds from traditional varieties and rely on natural rains. But the rains have failed them. The country’s 44 million people suffered severe droughts in 2003, 2005 and 2011. Millions needed food handouts to survive.
Beyond drought, local scientists say this basic crop also is threatened by climate change, disease and pests.
Genetic modification could help overcome those problems, scientists say. The technology has been adopted by more than 17 million farmers in other countries.
Under current government regulations, though, Tanzanian scientists cannot conduct field trials with GM plants. And farmers cannot cultivate any crop developed with the new biotechnology.
Alois Kullaya is one of several local scientists who are urging the government to relax the regulations. He is principal agricultural research officer at Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute and also Tanzanian coordinator of a research consortium called Water Efficient Maize for Africa.
“We have finished confined laboratory trials from genetically modified seeds in 2009, but until now we can’t conduct field trials because of restrictive liability regulations, which means that all this research goes to waste,” Kullaya said....

@ Tanzania: Tensions over Genetically Modified Crops | Pulitzer Center:

H/T Mark Lynas on Twitter

The challenges of food security and sustainability

At the Prospect Round Table Dec 10:

...“Markets and trade are the only way we are going to feed the world” said Alfred Evans, CEO of Climate Change Capital. “But you need an effective system with good price signals and policies to make them more effective. There is a policy deficit and a lack of link-up between global organisations.”

“International negotiations are failing across different fronts,” said Professor Sandy Thomas, Head of Foresight at the UK Government Office for Science. “National governments may be aware of these problems but there isn’t a lot of political appetite for this issue and voters aren’t demanding their governments act.”

But what is the scale of the problem, both internationally and at a country specific level? Professor Sir Gordon Conway, the agricultural ecologist who heads the Agriculture for Impact Programme at Imperial College London said one of the big demands would be for meat-based diets (from the burgeoning middle classes of developing countries). Extensive use of fertiliser, rising oil prices, and the fact that we are running out of good land and water pointed to a massive crisis in which the poor would suffer.

The problem of a lack of understanding about the systemic connection between water, food and climate was raised by James Cameron, the vice-chairman of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability and chairman of CCC. His concern was a lack of long term thinking— “a scarce resource” —when it came to investment. He was worried too about the inability to value “public goods” or to change the value of assets. For instance land liable to be made infertile by flooding was a “stranded asset” which was not reflected in its price.

Climate change, and its effect on food production, was high on the agenda too. Kevin Watkins, the executive director of the Overseas Development Institute, said that there was a “total disconnect” between climate discussions and food production. A three degree rise in temperature would be unthinkable. He asked whether we wanted cheap energy or our world leaders to get to grips with climate change.

He spoke of the climate change “adaptation apartheid” between rich and poorer countries. The last big drought in the US led to insurance pay outs of $17bn to farmers which is more than all the contributions to sorting out climate change. He illustrated the point: “We have the Thames barrier while in Bangladesh they teach the children how to swim.”

Red tape also hinders investment in agricultural infrastructure, a point made by Stewart Lindsay, the director of sustainability and global corporate affairs at Bunge Ltd, the global agribusiness and food company. He said that approximately $60 trillion of investment was required in global infrastructure between 2013-2030. We need to maximise the efficiency of agriculture by connecting infrastructure—roads, rail and water systems. He said that the amounts involved were beyond the private sector and that governments must support large infrastructure initiatives as well as reduce bureaucracy. Storage infrastructure is often inadequate in developing countries causing sizeable losses to producers and excessive costs which lessen competitiveness in the market.

On the issue of diet, the panel agreed that the possibility of cultural change or “demand suppression” is important but will be hard to achieve. Professor Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University, London said “If we are going to have a meat based diet then there will not be enough food. We need to start thinking differently about the sorts of food we eat and the west is going to have to eat less and waste less.” On food waste, Robert Gladwin, the head of sustainability at BASF said the one in three calories of food was wasted, a crisis in production. Viki Hird, senior campaigner on land use, food and water security at Friends of the Earth, questioned whether there was a crisis in production, citing the huge waste in the system...

Prospect Blog @The challenges of food security and sustainability:

Agriculture Development and Nutrition Security Special PNAS USA Feature

From Joonkoo Lee, Gary Gereffi, and Janet Beauvais, Global value chains and agrifood standards: Challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries doi:10.1073/pnas.0913714108

Agriculture Development and Nutrition Security Special Feature - Perspective

C. Peter Timmer
Behavioral dimensions of food security
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12315-12320; published ahead of print September 20, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913213107

Abstract
The empirical regularities of behavioral economics, especially loss aversion, time inconsistency, other-regarding preferences, herd behavior, and framing of decisions, present significant challenges to traditional approaches to food security. The formation of price expectations, hoarding behavior, and welfare losses from highly unstable food prices all depends on these behavioral regularities. At least when they are driven by speculative bubbles, market prices for food staples (and especially for rice, the staple food of over 2 billion people) often lose their efficiency properties and the normative implications assigned by trade theory. Theoretical objections to government efforts to stabilize food prices, thus, have reduced saliency, although operational, financing, and implementation problems remain important, even critical. The experience of many Asian governments in stabilizing their rice prices over the past half century is drawn on in this paper to illuminate both the political mandates stemming from behavioral responses of citizens and operational problems facing efforts to stabilize food prices. Despite the theoretical problems with free markets, the institutional role of markets in economic development remains. All policy instruments must operate compatibly with prices in markets. During policy design, especially for policies designed to alter market prices, incentive structures need to be compatible with respect to both government capacity (bureaucratic and budgetary) and empirical behavior on the part of market participants who will respond to planned policy changes. A new theoretical underpinning to political economy analysis is needed that incorporates this behavioral perspective, with psychology, sociology, and anthropology all likely to make significant contributions.

behavioral economics, structural transformation, food crises, world rice market


Joonkoo Lee, Gary Gereffi, and Janet Beauvais
Global value chains and agrifood standards: Challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12326-12331; published ahead of print December 13, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913714108

Ted London and Ravi Anupindi
Using the base-of-the-pyramid perspective to catalyze interdependence-based collaborations
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12338-12343; published ahead of print April 11, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1013626108

Michael Kevane
Gendered production and consumption in rural Africa
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12350-12355; published ahead of print May 4, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1003162108

Daniel Maxwell, Luca Russo, and Luca Alinovi
Constraints to addressing food insecurity in protracted crises
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12321-12325; published ahead of print June 6, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913215108

Prabhu L. Pingali
Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12302-12308; published ahead of print July 23, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.0912953109

Laurette Dubé, Prabhu Pingali, and Patrick Webb
Paths of convergence for agriculture, health, and wealth
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12294-12301; published ahead of print July 23, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.0912951109

Thomas Reardon, C. Peter Timmer, and Bart Minten
Supermarket revolution in Asia and emerging development strategies to include small farmers
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12332-12337; published ahead of print December 6, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1003160108

Global standards and local knowledge building: Upgrading small producers in developing countries
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12344-12349; published ahead of print June 13, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1000968108

Ross A. Hammond and Laurette Dubé
A systems science perspective and transdisciplinary models for food and nutrition security
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12356-12363; published ahead of print July 23, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913003109

Patrick Webb and Steven Block
Support for agriculture during economic transformation: Impacts on poverty and undernutrition
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12309-12314; published ahead of print December 20, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913334108


@ Special Issue 2012

Future cereal crop yield stasis or more yield growth? That is the question -- but not in Europe where innovation is shunned

Figure 5: Trends in grain yield of the three
 major cereal crops for selected regions
 since the start of the green revolution in the 1960s.

From Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop production trends
Patricio Grassini, Kent M. Eskridge & Kenneth G. Cassman
Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2918 doi:10.1038/ncomms3918
Creative Commons license, Open access to full article

Food security and land required for food production largely depend on rate of yield gain of major cereal crops. Previous projections of food security are often more optimistic than what historical yield trends would support. Many econometric projections of future food production assume compound rates of yield gain, which are not consistent with historical yield trends. Here we provide a framework to characterize past yield trends and show that linear trajectories adequately describe past yield trends, which means the relative rate of gain decreases over time. Furthermore, there is evidence of yield plateaus or abrupt decreases in rate of yield gain, including rice in eastern Asia and wheat in north-west Europe, which account for 31% of total global rice, wheat and maize production. Estimating future food production capacity would benefit from an analysis of past crop yield trends based on a robust statistical analysis framework that evaluates historical yield trajectories and plateaus.

More @ Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop production trends : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group:

Special Interests Outvote Science: Political Stalemate over EU Biofuel Policy Continues

QUOTE from IFPRI portal:

The “food vs. fuel” debate came no closer to a resolution last week, as Energy ministers from the European Union’s 28 member states failed to agree on a compromise limiting the use of transport fuels made from food crops such as rapeseed and wheat, so-called first generation biofuels.

The EU’s current policy requires 10 percent of transport fuels to come from renewable sources by 2020; with current technologies and the low prevalence of electric cars, this amount would be almost entirely derived from liquid biofuels, mainly based on food crops. This mandate has come under fire for putting energy needs before food security, diverting necessary food crops away from hungry mouths and into gas tanks...

In July 2013, the European Parliament’s Environmental (ENVI) Committee followed the EC’s lead and voted to cap the transportation industry’s use of first-generation biofuels at 5.5 percent (a slight modification to the 5 percent proposed by the Commission) and require reporting of any indirect land use changes (ILUC) caused by biofuel production. When forests and other pristine lands are cleared for new farmland to expand biofuel production, the carbon stored in their soil and accumulated biomass is released, resulting in a net increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These ILUC effects could lower biofuels' environmental benefits... More @ Political Stalemate over EU Biofuel Policy Continues | Food Security Portal: