Document(s) 32 de 38

MAURYA: The impact has been excellent around our Narendra Dev University headquarters. Within a 40 km radius, a rainfed area comprising upland, lowland, saline and alkaline situations, more than 50 genotypes are being grown by farmers. For different micro-niches, with different soils and water concerns, farmers have picked out their own varieties. We have given them options; we have not said that this variety is the best or that variety is the best.

However, the problem I want to highlight is that of seed production. Farmers have identified varieties and these may be of local importance. But how can these varieties be notified within the formal release system and how can we get a small seed company to multiply the variety? There is a need to modify the varietal release notification system so that varieties adapted even for small, maybe risk-prone areas, can be taken up by seed companies. But the impact has been very encouraging.

SPERLING: Dr. Dwivedi, might you further explain the term 'genetic soup'? I probably missed something. Does it concern segregating materials that are being subjected to natural selection? You mention some work with farmers. Are they involved in the selection of this diverse material?

DWIVEDI: Regarding the'genetic soup': when we talk about individual crosses, we are dealing with synthetic landraces, including the bulk populations raised for elongation ability and submergence tolerance. In this case, we used more than one cross in the F3 and F4 generations and we used to mix them together and put them under an abrupt flooding situation where deepwater rice is fast emerging. A similar technique is used with the submergence-tolerant varieties: they are tested under flash flood conditions and only the best survive. The best elongated bulk and submergence tolerant types will automatically be retained in the field.

LOEVINSOHN: Dr. Mishra, you said that, in breeding for problem soils, the breeder has a distinct advantage in being able to define clearly the environment and to identify the optimal responses in the plant. According to M. Choudhary, who is working in collaboration with ICRISAT, in respect to anotherstress, the drought stress, there was a preference to go foready involvement of farmers in the selection of usef ul material. Does the diff erence in these two perspectives reflect something about the nature of the salinity and alkalinity stress? Is this stress something relatively simple and which can benefit from a breeder's relatively precise tools or might there be more space than you grant for farmer participation? ls there a role for farmers' differentiated, area-based understanding?

MISHRA: I said two things in reference to participatory varietal selection and participatory breeding. I have concerns in providing advanced materials, segregating F2 or F3 material to the farmers and giving them more responsibility. Unless you define the environment, suppose the salinity stress is more than 10, it is likely that all your material will vanish, nothing will remain available. So, it means you are losing a lot of your diversity there.

There is another issue. If you look at the [testing] network in India, farmers are supposed to be involved. The problem is that the network system is not working. Government officials are going to the village and they just go to the head of the family or the resourceful farmer. They get a good cup of tea and sitting place. Then they give the variety and bring out the results on paper. There may be some problems here.

If some network could exist, with regular monitoring, maybe with the NGOs, and maybe with the breeders actually involved, there would be interest. That is why ICAR has now asked that, in the coming years, each breeder has to give 20% of his time in the demonstration of on-farm trials. This is because we want farmers'participation. But how much responsibility we should give to farmers so breeders still have accountability has to be discussed. The genetic world is about germplasm and there are examples, like in barley, where a number of fixed lines have been lost because people put them under high stress. Our recommendation is to put them under high stress, moderate and normal stress, so that at one time you will nol lose the material. Also, the expression of a variety is different underdifferent levels of stress and you can selectthe real worth of the material for specific adaptation.

OOSTERHOUT: Dr. Mishra, I am interested to know where the germplasm has came for the salt-tolerant barleys. Is it from the area or is it exotic, and from where?

MISHRA: In India, we collected the indigenous resources for five years; we do not have exotic resources. We evaluated them, started a crossing program, and then advanced some of the material. All of a sudden, because of a serious stress, it was lost. That is why I was explaining this problem in reference to farmers. We have to be very careful. Apart from the hot spots and you also have to grow in modest areas so that you can save the material.

RILEY: In reference to this discussion on stresses, I wanted to share some experiences from Vietnam. Inland, where there is less salinity, there is almost complete less of landraces to the HYVS, while at the coast, where the salinity is higher, landraces are common. And I was wondering to what extent this is similar in India. If you are successful, is there going to be an erosion from the areas of stress. Or do you feel that you will be able to find solutions with the same degree of diversity that presently exists?

MISHRA: For inland salinity, I would say the stress is always more. For coastal salinity, because the inundation by either seawater or a good rain, there is a dilution effect and you can get a crop of rice. In the winter season, when there is no rainfall, salinity goes up to more than EC 20 and you cannot get a crop. For inland salinity in India, we do have tubewell or canal water. So, you can control the salinity stress, but the problem is sodicity ... In the inland, saline areas, we have already replaced the traditional lines, so there has been genetic erosion. You can hardly see a local variety anywhere. We have been successful in breeding a variety whose demand this year was up to 21 thousand tons. We cannot cope with the demand for seed. Why the high demand? Because there was a change in government policy and we monitored farmers' reactions.

l would like to discuss further the role of farmers as far as salinity tolerance is concerned. We have a program of adaptive research and we are doing varietal selection, at F5 onwards, in farmers' fields in Uttar Pradesh. This year we have six districts and have already planted the nursery in hot spot areas. We will be planting and transplanting for selection to be done by farmers. But I believe that farmers should only be involved at the advanced stage. If we give them F2 or F3 generations, without good linkages, without some technical support or government literate laborers or supervisors, we will not be able to select the real material ....

As for farmers' choices, they have selected some of the best varieties: the Thailand or the Basmati of India. The same is true of the quality of rice in the Philippines and in Pakistan. Nobody can replace these varieties. We have had a lot of good labs and people working on them, the cream of scientists over the years. Till today, nothing better has come up.

MAURYA: Dr. Mishra is again talking about a unilateral approach. It is not as if farmers alone will be making the decisions: breeders are also there, working together. Participatory approaches should go on at the F4, F5, F6 stages. F2 is the individual plant and the F3 population is too small. Our bulk breeding material can be exposed over large areas. I see no problem sharing this with the farmers.

STHAPIT: I want to make a point about our experience with stress work. It is much easier to get participationfromfarmersinstrdsssituations. Farmersiivinginstresssituationsfeeitheirproblem is more acutg. The breeder has the key role up to the F3 or F4 stage. After that, farmers' participation needs to be greater.

LOEVINSOHN: Dr. Sthapit, you said that there was good agreement between farmers' and breeders' criteria yet there was a distinction between the varieties selected. Could you explain?

STHAPIT: At the first stage there was good agreement between farmers and breeders for this particular location. But there are different stages at whichf armers do selection and the women, particularly, told us they wanted to see the milling, eating and cooking qualities. After this latter evaluation, we found that their choices had changed: M-7 was dropped because of a poor milling percentage and M-6 was dropped because of a peculiar smell.

Document(s) 32 de 38