exchange. (iii) National program – Universities and agricultural research institutes work on new crops. (iv) Industrial programs – These are conducted by the private sector and may include the search for new crops of pharmaceutical value, as well as bioactive compounds. Sometimes, the research is conducted by the private sector, but public sector institutes may be engaged.
International plant breeding
There are other private sector efforts that are supported by foundations and world institutions such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. These entities tend to address issues of global importance, and also support the improvement of the so‐called “orphaned crops” (crops that are of importance to developing countries, but not of much economic value to attract investment by multinational corporations). Developing countries vary in their capabilities for modern plant breeding research. Some countries, such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, have advanced plant breeding research programs. Other countries have national research stations that devote efforts to the breeding of major national crops or plants, such as the Crops Research Institute in Ghana, where significant efforts have led to the country being a leading adopter of quality protein maize (QPM) in the world.
1.9.3 Public sector versus private sector breeding
Public sector breeding is disadvantaged in an increasingly privatized world. The issues of intellectual property protection, globalization, and the constraints on public budgets in both developed and developing economies are responsible for the shift in the balance of plant breeding undertakings from the public to the private sector. This shift in balance has occurred over a period of time, and differs from one country to another, as well as one crop to another. The shift is driven primarily by economic factors. For example, corn breeding in developed economies is dominated by the private sector. However, the trends in wheat breeding are variable in different parts of the world and even within regions in the same country. Public sector plant breeding focuses on problems that are of great social concern, even though they may not be of tremendous economic value (having poor market structure), whereas private sector breeding focuses on problems of high economic return. Public sector breeders can afford to tackle long‐term research while the private sector, for economic reasons, prefers to have quicker returns on investment. Public sector breeders also engage in minor crops in addition to the principal crops of importance to various states (in the case of the land grant system of the US). A great contribution of public sector research is the training of plant breeders who work in both public and private sectors. Also, the public sector is primarily responsible for germplasm conservation and preservation. Hence, private sector breeding benefits tremendously from public sector efforts.
It has been suggested by some that whereas scientific advances and cost of research are relevant factors in the public sector breeding programs, plant breeding investment decisions are not usually significantly directly impacted by the market structure and the organization of the seed industry.
A major way in which private and public breeding efforts differ is on the returns to research. Public sector breeders are primarily not profit‐oriented and can afford to exchange and share some of their inventions more freely. However, it must be pointed out that access to some public germplasm and technologies is now highly restricted, requiring significant protocol and fees to be paid for their use. The public sector plays a critical role in important activities such as education and training of plant breeders, development of new methods of breeding, and germplasm preservation and enhancement. These activities are generally long‐term and less profitable, at least in the short run, and hence less attractive to the private sector.
1.10 Duration and cost of plant breeding programs
It is estimated that it takes about 7–12 years (or even longer) to complete (cultivar release) a breeding program for annual cultivars such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, and much longer for tree crops. The use of molecular techniques to facilitate the selection process may reduce the time for plant breeding in some cases. The use of tissue culture can reduce the length of breeding programs of perennial species. Nonetheless, the development of new cultivars may cost from hundreds of thousands of dollars to even several million dollars. The cost of cultivar development can be much higher if proprietary material is involved. Genetically engineered parental stock attracts a steep fee to use because of the costs involved in their creation. The cost of breeding also depends on where and by whom the activity is being conducted. Because of high overheads, similar products can be produced by breeders in developed and developing economies, but for dramatically higher cost in the former. Cheap labor in developing countries can allow breeders to produce hybrids of some self‐pollinated species less expensively, because they can afford to pay for hand pollination (e.g. cotton in India).
1.11 The future of plant breeding in society
For as long as the world population is expected to continue to increase, there will continue to be a demand for more food. However, with an increasing population comes an increasing demand for land for residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Sometimes, farm lands are converted to other uses. Increased food production may be achieved by increasing production per unit area or bringing new lands into cultivation. Some of the ways in which society will affect and be affected by plant breeding in the future are as follows:
New roles of plant breedingThe traditional roles of plant breeding (food, feed, fiber, and ornamentals) will continue to be important. However, new roles are gradually emerging for plants. The technology for using plants as bioreactors to produce pharmaceuticals will advance. The technology has been around for over a decade. Strategies are being perfected for use of plants to generate pharmaceutical antibodies, engineering antibody‐mediated pathogen resistance, and altering plant phenotype by immunomodulation. Successes that have been achieved include the incorporation of streptococcus surface antigen in tobacco, and the herpes simplex virus in soybean and rice.
New tools for plant breedingNew tools will be developed for plant breeders, especially in the areas of the application of biotechnology to plant breeding (Table 1.4). New marker technologies continue to be developed and older ones advanced. Tools that will assist breeders to more effectively manipulate quantitative traits will be enhanced. Genomics and bioinformatics will continue to be influential in the approach of researchers to crop improvement. Marker‐assisted selection (MAS) will continue to be important in plant breeding in the twenty‐first century.
The key players in the plant breeding industryThe last decade saw a fierce race by multinational pharmaceutical corporations to acquire seed companies. There were several key mergers as well. The modern technologies of plant breeding are concentrated in the hands of a few of these giant companies. The trend of acquisition and mergers are likely to continue in the future. Publicly supported breeding efforts will decline in favor of for‐profit programs.
Yield gains of cropsWith the dwindling of arable land and the increasing policing of the environment by activists, there is an increasing need to produce more food or other crop products on the same piece of land in a more efficient and environmentally safer manner. High‐yield cultivars will continue to be developed, especially in crops that have received less attention from plant breeders. Breeding for adaptation to environmental stresses (e.g. drought, salt) will continue to be important, and will enable more food to be produced on marginal lands.
The biotechnology debateIt is often said that these modern technologies for plant genetic manipulation benefit developing countries the most since they are in dire need of food, both in quantity and nutritional value. On the other hand, the intellectual property that covers those technologies is owned by giant multinational corporations.
