How erratic power supply ruins food crop gene bank, by NACGRAB

• Says indigenous germplasms climate-resilient
• Power failure puts 11,000 germplasms in danger

Aladele

NACGRAB has hosted releases of newer improved varieties, but this has not translated to higher productivity or food sufficiency. What is wrong with the new improved seed varieties of food crops?
THERE is nothing wrong with those varieties that have been released, especially in the last two years. Unfortunately, many of them are not readily available to farmers. There are reasons for this.

Before they bring it up for registration and approval, they will not produce enough seeds that can circulate because they are not sure whether it is going to pass or not. And it will be a waste of resources to begin to multiply seeds in large quantities when they are not sure of approval.

It is only when they get approval from the National Variety Release Committee that they will now plan to multiply seeds rapidly to spread it to farmers. So, that is the first problem.

The second is the publicity of such materials. During trials, either on-farm or station, only a few farmers are usually exposed to the materials, but immediately after registration, they need to go for what is called demonstration plots across the country.

So, from the time of registration, these two things must be done and that is what many of them have been doing in the last two years. Over 40 varieties of seeds were released in the last two years. If you ask me how many of them are readily available, I would say only BT cowpea, because of the interest many people have shown in it and many seed companies are buying into it, and in fact, the seed is like a hot cake now because of the yield and the resistance to the pests.
Do you see the affordability of those seeds on the part of farmers as a factor?

When we talk of the cost of seeds, what percentage is it in the total cost of production? The percentage is so small and insignificant. For example, we have some hybrid maize varieties that are so productive that the yield a farmer will obtain from a quarter of one hectare, many of the old varieties cannot give in two hectares.

We have seen it demonstrated by some of the companies, and the yield outweighs the cost of seeds and that is why you see that if you put the cost of seed over the total cost, the percentage is insignificant. It is just a matter of awareness and many of the farmers are now realising it.

If you go and pour fertiliser in a material that the genetic base is low, you cannot get beyond what is in the genetics, but when you get seeds with genetic potential and you just put small fertiliser, the benefit outweighs the cost.
Most of the hybrid varieties require much use of fertiliser …?

That is why they are not getting what they are supposed to get. There is no way you will plant something like maize and you will not use fertiliser. The yield will be low and when you look at the cost of those things, compared to what you eventually get, then it justifies using it.

Last year, a bag of fertiliser was between N8,000 and N10,000, but farmers say they buy from N15,000 to N18,000 now. What do you suggest as a way forward? Can manure do?
Yes, manure would be an alternative. My suggestion will also be that if the government wants food sufficiency, it should help farmers with fertiliser, because we know that the alternatives are also getting expensive; poultry manure is getting expensive, and in fact, some people, especially the ones who are interested in having organic material, prefer cow dung to poultry manure. I think we need to appeal to the government to still look into the issue of fertiliser.

How can the government look in?
I would say by price control, because you will discover that the price from the factory is probably 50 per cent cheaper, but by the time it gets to the hand of the merchant, it increases. So, if there is regulation and price control, the price will come down and more farmers will be able to use it.

You have talked about the use of older materials that you have in your gene bank. Would you shed more light on this?
Yes, the advantage of using older indigenous germplasms is that farmers need biodiversity. For example, a particular farmer was planting sorghum in a particular field but unfortunately, the farm was flooded except for one plant. The person was curious and he allowed that one to mature and collected the seeds, which become flood-resistance variety. You can plant it everywhere there is flood and go and sleep.

I also know that recently, flood-resistance rice varieties were released by Africa Rice Centre, and it is as a result of screening of so many germplasms from indigenous germplasms.

So, when you have diversity, you have different types of variety capable of mitigating climate change. We have discovered that some crops will just give up following a harsh climate, whereas, some crops will continue to survive till the rain comes. So, that is the importance of diversity. And, nutrition-wise, when you have diversity, people will be able to make a choice, and they will have different nutrition contents.

We have a case of pearl millet that was recently released by Lake Chad Research Institute, Borno State. The millet has 30-day maturation and is ready for harvest. When the trial was done in Kebbi State, I personally visited the field. It has been approved and released.

The institute discovered that all the children that were malnourished and fed with the millet recovered well. So, those were the selling points, and when they brought it for the varietal release, it was approved.

So, we have about 11,000 germplasms of 41 crops we are keeping and these, if exposed to farmers, everybody will be able to pick and say, ‘I love this one and even if you bring me anything that is wonderful, I will still continue to maintain this.’ 

In addition, I remember about a decade ago, all those places where Boko Haram are now, I traversed while collecting cowpea samples and others, but most of those germplasms are no more there. They were local germplasms and if you bring newly released varieties to the area, they may not do well.

But now that they are resettling people, they have access to their germplasms; they are here and they can be taken back because we documented them when we collected all those samples.

And, we have been told that the purpose of a gene bank is not like a mortuary; it is supposed to be conservation with utilisation. So, that is why this project is being funded by The German Government so that all those germplasms are still availably active to the farmers.  

With over 11,000 germplasms, how do you sustain the gene bank? For how long have you been keeping them, and for how long can you continue to keep them? 
We have been keeping these materials for over 20 years. At least, I joined NACGRAB two decades ago and the gene bank has been functioning and we have materials that have been there. If you take samples now, you just go to the field and begin to multiply.

The only thing is that we have been having ups and downs in electricity supply. We have lost some because of the power. Sometimes, the gene bank broke down and you know the gap between repairing it and putting it into order, and that is why if you get to our long-term gene bank, we have three units and we ensure that one is working, while the others are resting.

Now diesel is very expensive and what we are trying to do is to run on generators and electricity for a maximum of nine hours, after which we shut down because resources are not there and we are calling on the government to rescue the situation.

In other countries, gene banks are on dedicated power lines just like the airport, but I am not surprised that the airports have power outages sometimes. In fact, our collaborators from Germany are already asking us to talk to our government to facilitate a dedicated power line so that even if there is only one line in Ibadan, it should be in the gene bank so that these valuable genetic resources are not destroyed.

Can the gene bank be sustained by solar facilities?  
We are already looking at that because we were told that in Syria and the United Kingdom, there are things like that. I think there are modern solar systems that can do that and we are thinking of that now.  

For how long can you continue to keep these materials in the gene bank without recycling or utilising?
We can keep them for as long as 40-50 years, but it is expected that after 10 years, we go back and cross-check whether something has gone wrong or not. For example, if we keep it at 100 per cent viability and we discover that the viability has gone down to 80-70 per cent, we will have to go back to the field, remove the old one and restock, otherwise if it goes down like that and we lose it, eventually we will lose the germplasm for life.  

How often do you do this evaluation and restock?
We do it every 10 years, but in some crops, we do after five years because we have some oily crops that the viability goes down very fast, but fortunately enough, some have been maintained. For example, if you get back and you see 95 per cent viability, they are still good to go, but when you discover that after five years or after 10 years, it has gone down to 50 per cent, then you know there is danger.   

Can farmers who want older materials of crops get them at NACGRAB? 
They can get from here, but unfortunately, they may not get the large quantity that they will wish. We have samples that can be multiplied on their own.