international maize and wheat improvement...

A n n u a l R e p o r t 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 1

G l o b a l R e s e a r c h fo r L o c a l L i v e l i h o o d s

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

Dear Friends,

We are delighted to bring you this report of ourimpacts, activities, and partnerships around the worldfor the past 12 months. We have given it the title“Global Research for Local Livelihoods” to reflect ourtruly worldwide research program—maize and/orwheat are major food crops in all regions of thedeveloping world—and our emphasis on making adifference in the lives of poor people.

If we cannot improve the livelihoods of people wherethey live, then the problems of civil conflict, refugees,and immigration will only be accelerated. Urgentaction is required by all of us working together. Nosingle organization has the answers, or indeed theresources, to solve this alone.

Thirty-Five Years ofEndeavor and Impact

In 1966, CIMMYT was founded. This event wasa welcome formalization of a program that hadbeen underway for decades under the leadershipof Norman Borlaug, Edwin Wellhausen, andmany others who had come to Mexico as part ofa joint agricultural project initiated in the 1940sbetween the Government of Mexico and theRockefeller Foundation.

Thirty-five years of endeavor have seen manymilestones and many internationally recognizedimpacts from CIMMYT’s work with its partners.Together we have bred wheat and maize varieties anddeveloped agronomic practices that have securedlarger, more reliable harvests, raised incomes, andhelped sustain natural resources. We have developedresearch initiatives whose relevance and vitalityreflect our extensive field experience and our linkswith advanced research institutes. We continue tostrengthen scientific capacity in developing countries.Our researchers are widely recognized for theircontributions to scientific knowledge and humandevelopment. The bottom line, however, is that ourmission is not finished, and much remains to be doneif the gross inequities between the North and theSouth are to be addressed effectively.

CIMMYT Today

It is interesting to reflect in our 35th year on theimportant changes that have influenced CIMMYTand our work today. They are many: external andinternal, scientific and political, people-related andenvironment-related. As I consider my six-plus yearsat CIMMYT, it is clear to me that the need for ourwork has never been greater, but the work haschanged and must continue to change to meet newneeds and more complex challenges.

In earlier days, our mandate focused largely on G x E(germplasm x environment), and no organization inthe world has been more successful in putting bettercrop varieties into the hands of poor farmers. Forexample, CIMMYT-related wheat varieties coveralmost 90% of the spring bread wheat area in thedeveloping world—almost 53 million hectares—andaccount for a significant proportion of production inthe North! These higher yielding varieties possessdiverse pedigrees, multiple gene resistance todiseases, and are tolerant to heat, drought, and soilacidity. This accomplishment really is one of theagricultural success stories of the world. The large“market share” for wheat, the world’s mostconsumed crop, is never likely to be matched byany other public or private organization. The humanimpact was ably summarized in an interview byPaul Raeburn in his 1995 book, The Last Harvest:

‘The specific use of the dwarfing gene fromNorin 10 has affected the food supply ofone-quarter of the people of the world—onebillion plus,’ said Garrison Wilkes [of theDepartment of Biology, University ofMassachusetts]. ‘And for over 100 million ithas been the margin of survival.’ A singlegene from a seemingly unimportant varietyof wheat has saved 100 million lives.

New varieties of maize and wheat are still important,as they are the easiest way for poor farmers to adoptnew technology. The more improvements we can putinto that new grain—enhanced nutrient content and

A Message fromthe Director General

disease resistance, greater drought and heattolerance—the more new technologies the poor farmercan adopt just by changing varieties. However, ourresearch paradigm at CIMMYT in the 21st century isnow G x E x M x P (germplasm x environment xmanagement x people). The new challenge is to getthe best varieties incorporated into sustainablefarming systems (M) focusing on the participation andlivelihoods of people (P). “P” can also emphasize theimportance of sound policies in the relief of humansuffering. This “plots to plate” approach has seen ourresearch portfolio shift from a program-focusedagenda to a project-focused agenda that bringstogether a broader mix of skills, disciplines, andpartners to ensure continuing impact in farmers’fields. More often than not, today’s multifacetedproblems require a multifaceted approach to produceappropriate solutions. Our integrated projectsfacilitate and support these interactions.

Perhaps one of the greatest changes that CIMMYThas embraced, however, is in the nature of ourpartnerships. Traditional friends and partners in thenational agricultural research systems remain ouranchor point, but we have sought to widen our effortsfor the resource-poor through the participation of abroader and more diverse range of partners. Thesenow include more targeted and strategic allianceswith advanced research institutes, both public andprivate. Good examples of this include the ApomixisConsortium and the Insect Resistant Maize for Africa(IRMA) Project. In addition, the changes in (and,in many cases, the demise of) national extensionorganizations have caused the comparative advantagein evaluating, refining, and delivering newtechnologies to farmers to shift to non-governmentalorganizations (large and small), seed dealers, ruralschools, and farmer groups. Our best examples of thisapproach include the Southern African Drought andLow Soil Fertility (SADLF) Project and our program inBangladesh. It is essential that we deliver new andbetter technologies faster into farmers’ hands.

CIMMYT Tomorrow

The proposed changes in the CGIAR, the fundingenvironment, and the global situation will all ensurethat CIMMYT in the coming five to ten years willbe much different from what it is today. Who knowswhat will come from the tragic events in the UnitedStates on 11 September? Some fear a hardening ofattitudes between North and South on many issues.

Such a scenario would be in itself devastating,as there has never been a more importanttime to address global inequities. Let us allwork together in supporting the latter.

Science-wise there is little doubt in my mindthat new technologies will play an increasinglyimportant part in contributing to solutions thatimprove the livelihoods of the resource-poor.Biotechnology will be an important facet ofthis effort, with functional genomics beingperhaps the area of most exciting potential.

Director General

Alliances of public and private organizationswill be a key factor in exploring the potentialof biotechnology, and we must find ways ofenhancing such alliances to ensure highlyeffective, but also transparent, collaboration.

This is my last message as Director General ofCIMMYT, as next year’s Annual Report will bethe first for a new leader. When I leave, I willhave spent seven years in the most demandingand challenging job I’ve ever had. It is an honorand a privilege to work for CIMMYT, to enjoyfriendships throughout the world, but aboveall to play a part in reducing inequity, andreaching the unreached. Thank you for yourwonderful support.

CreditsWriting/editing/creative direction: Kelly Cassaday,G. Michael Listman, Satwant Kaur, Alma McNab,and David A. Poland, with CIMMYT staff, visitingresearchers, and research partnersProduction/design/creative direction:Miguel Mellado E., Wenceslao Almazan R.,Antonio Luna A., Marcelo Ortiz S., and EliotSánchez P.Photography: Kathryn Elsesser, Satwant Kaur, G.Michael Listman, Alma McNab, David A. Poland,and Ana María Sánchez

Bibliographic InformationCorrect citation: CIMMYT. 2001. CIMMYT in 2000-2001. Global Research for Local Livelihoods. Mexico,D.F.: CIMMYT.ISSN: 0188-9214.Agrovoc descriptors: Zea mays; wheats; varieties;genetic resources; plant breeding; sustainability;plant biotechnology; economic analysis; innovation

adoption; organization of research; research projects;research policies.AGRIS category codes: A50, A01.Dewey decimal classification: 630

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center(CIMMYT) 2001. All rights reserved. Printed in Mexico.Responsibility for this publication rests solely withCIMMYT. The designations employed in thepresentation of material in this publication do not implythe expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofCIMMYT or contributory organizations concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiersor boundaries. Learn more about CIMMYT atwww.cimmyt.org.

CIMMYT supports Future Harvest,®a not-for-profit organization that

catalyzes action for a world with less poverty, a healthierglobal population, well-nourished children, and a betterenvironment (see www.futureharvest.org).

ContentsA Message from the Director General

Africa2 Elisabeth Dyoka: Traditional Healer and Maize Farmer4 Mahindi Yanayotengeneza Dawa Ya Kujikinga Dhini Ya Wadudu Waharibifu7 “If Women Are to Get Ahead, We Must Make Ourselves Heard!”8 Are Researchers Giving Up on Africa?

10 The Life of an Itinerant Researcher11 A Global Alliance to Stop Epidemics in Their Tracks13 CIMMYT’s Genebank: Insurance for Farmers, Consumers, and Economies

Worldwide14 The Almanac Characterization Tool: Click on “Accessible GIS for Africa”16 Bringing Genomics to Bear on World Crop Problems

Latin America20 Elvira Murguía: Single Parent in a Struggling Rural Community22 The Mexican Mixteca: Trapped in Agriculture’s Tailspin24 When Trading Melons for Maize Doesn’t Work26 Modern Maize Hybrids Respond in Tough Environments28 Empowering Farmers to Save Seed and Diversity30 Maize Diversity in Oaxaca, Mexico: Simple Questions but No Easy Answers31 No More Parched Wheat Fields33 Wheat Yield Potential Increasing in Marginal Areas34 What’s in a Name? Great Diversity!35 Research Collaboration to Benefit Wheat Farmers Worldwide

Asia38 Khushi Muhammed: Dry Fields and Lower Yields40 Zero-Tillage: Averting Dry Wells and Depleted Soils in South Asia43 Joint Efforts by CGIAR Centers and Funding Partners on Rice-Wheat Systems44 Farmers Keep Breeders on Target in South Asia46 Farmers’ Knowledge Key to Greater Asian Maize Production49 In India and Pakistan, Grain Farmers Mean Business52 Seeds of Life for East Timor53 Saving Ecosystems, Long-Distance

55 CIMMYT Funding Trends and Topics, 2000-200158 Meeting the Needs of the World’s Poor through Wheat and Maize Research59 Trustees and Principal Staff62 “Our Visit Changed My Vision of Agriculture”

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABC Applied Biotechnology Center, CIMMYTACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural

ResearchACT Almanac Characterization ToolADB Asian Development BankAFLP Amplified fragment length polymorphismAMS Africa Maize Stress ProjectBt Bacillus thuringiensisCGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural

ResearchCIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement

CenterCIP International Potato CenterCIRAD Centre de Coopération Internationale en

Recherche Agronomique pour leDéveloppement, France

CRC-MPB Collaborative Research Centre for MolecularPlant Breeding

DAA Department of Agricultural Affairs, East TimorDFID Department for International Development, UKDGIS Directorate-General for International

Cooperation, the NetherlandsETTA East Timor Transitional AdministrationFONTAGRO Regional Fund for Agricultural Technology, Latin

America and the CaribbeanGIS Geographic information systemsGRMN Global Rust Monitoring NetworkICAR Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in

the Dry AreasICRAF International Centre for Research in

AgroforestryICRISAT International Center for Research in the Semi-

Arid TropicsIDIAP Instituto de Investigación Agropecuaria de

PanamáIDRC International Development Research Centre,

CanadaIFAD International Fund for Agricultural

DevelopmentILRI International Livestock Research InstituteINIFAP Insituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales

y Agropecuarias, MexicoINTA Instituto Nicaragüense de Tecnología

AgropecuariaIRD Institut de Recherche pour le Développement,

FranceIRMA Insect Resistant Maize for AfricaIRRI International Rice Research InstituteIWMI International Water Management InstituteKARI Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteNARC National Agricultural Research Council, Pakistan

Nepal Agricultural Research CouncilNARS National agricultural research systemNGO Non-governmental organizationNRG Natural Resources Group, CIMMYTOFWM On-Farm Water Management Directorate,

Punjab, PakistanPRA Participatory rural assessmentRWC Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic

PlainsSADLF Southern Africa Drought and Low Soil Fertility

ProjectSDC Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationUNTAET United Nations Transitional Administration in

East TimorUSAID United States Agency for International

DevelopmentWANA West Asia and North Africa

a f r i c a

a f r i c a

I ’ve had this gourd since 1976,”

Elisabeth Dyoka says. Tapping a

gray powder out of the gourd, she

adds, “This is from my first

concoction. It was part of my test for

becoming a traditional doctor. It

contains many different and special

ingredients. Some are secret, so I can’t

tell you. But a very important one is a

maize tassel from my own field.”

“

For decades people have come from miles

around to seek Elisabeth’s services. The

initial)charge is little or nothing, but when

her)patients feel better, they often return

with)“something to show their appreciation.”

Those)gifts have helped Elisabeth and 23

family)members in her compound survive

the)past several years, when drought has

besieged her hilltop farm in Kenya.

“Over the past ten years we’ve gotten less and

less rain. Last year the drought was very, very

bad and we had to sell almost all of our livestock

to buy food, which was going for high prices.

It)was the same for most people. The price we

got for our oxen was very low. Later the Red

Cross arrived with famine relief food, but by

then our money and livestock were gone.”

Elisabeth estimates that the family’s

food consumption dropped about

25–30%. Her grandchildren grew

skinnier and became lethargic, but

no one starved.

At sunset, Elisabeth’s family prepares a

meal of ugali (a stiff maize mash), some

beans, and a bit of pumpkin. Without a

radio for entertainment, the family will

sit and chat by lantern light into the

evening. The grandchildren will banter

with their grandmother, who says she is

looking for signs that one them has

inherited her healing powers, but that

hope is tempered by what the dry hills

of Kitanga might hold for the

generations to come.

4 CIMMYT Annual Report 2000-2001

Songa, a scientist with the Kenya AgriculturalResearch Institute (KARI), works with nationalcolleagues and CIMMYT entomologist DavidBergvinson on the Insect Resistant Maize forAfrica (IRMA) Project. Funded by the NovartisFoundation for Sustainable Development, theproject develops improved maize that is adaptedto Kenya’s main growing environments andresists destructive stem borers.* Resistance isbeing obtained from conventional sources andalso through genetic engineering to incorporategenes from Bacillus thuringiensis, commonly calledBt. Knowledge and technologies generated by theKenya-based project will be offered to othercountries in the region.

In this, the third year of the project, theentomologists are a focal point for manyactivities. Progress has been made in four keyareas, according to Bergvinson: yield assessment,baseline studies to characterize insectpopulations, management of insect resistance,and bioassays on conventional and Bt maize.

Getting a Handle on theStem Borer ProblemThe assessment of yield losses in Kenya’s fivemajor maize-growing environments, onexperiment stations as well as farmers’ fields,helps scientists identify where each borer is most

Mahindi YanayotengenezaDawa Ya Kujikinga Dhini YaWadudu Waharibifu

Although the terminology of insect-resistant maize and control strategies is difficult

to express in Swahili, Kenya’s national language, “There is never a need to tell

farmers why we want to control stem borers,” says entomologist Josephine Songa.

“They know the damage these pests wreak.”

Swahili for “maize that makes medicine to

protect itself against damage from insect

pests” (insect-resistant or Bt maize)

* See “Without Protection from Insects, No Field of Dreams for Kenyan Maize Producers,” CIMMYT Annual Report 1999-2000 (Mexico City, CIMMYT, 2000).

problematic. CIMMYT economist Hugo DeGroote heads up the on-farm trials (see p. 12),while KARI entomologist Macharia Gethioversees the on-station trials.

Preliminary results from the on-station trialsunder artificial infestation showed crop losses of15–20%. Researchers will develop strategies forhelping different groups of farmers cope withthese losses.

“We have two extremes,” Bergvinson observes.“We need to help poor farmers in the tropicalareas, where borers are more problematic butfarmers have less access to new technologies—including income to buy them. We also needmaize varieties for the more productive, high-input areas, where farmers supply most of themaize for the urban market and use more newtechnologies.”

Checking on the InsectCommunityThe IRMA Project emphasizes controlling stemborers in ways that are environmentally friendlyand sustainable. Songa, KARI extension officers,and contact farmers are determining exactlywhich insects inhabit maize fields under differentcropping systems in the respective agroecologicalzones. Their studies supply data to determine the

Global Research for Local Livelihoods 5

effects, if any, of insect-resistant maize on ahost of nontarget organisms, includingbeneficial insects that control the borers orother pests, pollinators such as bees, and useful“decomposers” such as ants and earthworms.A reference collection is also being establishedto classify the insects and organisms, to allowrapid identification in future studies.

Collecting and classifying insects is intensivework, says Songa, and she relies heavily onfarmers, five in each of the five targetedregions, to maintain the plots and traps.Extension staff and KARI technicians trainedby Songa visit the farms every week to collectthe catch. Songa herself visits the on-farm sitesto monitor the insect collection and talk withfarmers about their maize problems andperspectives on new technologies.

“In most areas,” she says, “farmers can’t affordinsecticides. Even if they can, many problems arise.Applying insecticide to each plant is an incredibleamount of work: the shortage of labor is a realproblem. Timing can also cause trouble. Often farmersapply insecticide too late to control the borers—sothey lose both time and money. That’s why Bt maizewould be a tremendous benefit to these farmers.”

The farm of Pauline Mweu in Masii, Machakos, is oneof Songa’s favorite stops and illustrates the plight ofmany farmers. Pauline sets down a five-gallon pail ofwater she has retrieved from a distant river and greetsSonga in a warm but weary voice. She is eager to askabout a problem she observed in her maize, whichSonga diagnoses as charcoal rot.

It is her ability to help farmers with a range ofproblems, Songa says, that motivates them to workwith her. Sometimes Songa’s assistance is as simple asreading the instructions on a seed or chemical label.

Farmer Pauline

Mweu (right)

wants to

eliminate the

insects that feed

on her much-

needed maize

crop.


Pauline tends her half-acre virtually alone,occasionally with help from one of her six grownchildren. Unlike many farmers, Pauline still has abit of harvested maize left as the new maize iscoming on. She keeps it inside her house so as notto tempt her less fortunate neighbors into stealingit. The modest but crucial extra productivity sheekes out of the land is earned by long hours ofweeding and care. Still, no amount of attentionhas deterred the stem borers, which already infestabout a quarter of her crop. Many plants showsigns of “deadheart,” which results in total loss ofthe plant.

Songa and Pauline check the traps together. Thefarmer had no idea that her maize plots hosted somany different, often beneficial, insects. To date,the IRMA Project has identified 65 insect familiesin Kilifi, in the humid coastal lowlands, and 45 inKakamega, in the moist transitional zone in thewest. Work continues in the other three zones.

Once the trapping and collecting are done,researchers will expose the beneficial organismsto Bt toxins under laboratory conditions todetermine what effect, if any, the toxins may haveon them. The next stage calls for experimentsunder open-quarantine conditions in which theimpact of Bt maize on nontarget organisms willbe monitored closely once again. An interesting

twist to this work is that the baseline data will becompared with data from plots whereconventional insecticides and Bt sprays areapplied to determine their relative impacts on theinsect community.

“This thorough approach to insect ecology wasnot done prior to the release of Bt maize in theUnited States and elsewhere,” Bergvinsoncomments. “I think we’ve learned from thoseexperiences and have incorporated those lessonsinto this project.”

Managing Insect ResistanceA critical part of the long-term success of insect-resistant maize is to slow the development ofborers that resist the toxin and explore otherconventional lines of defense (e.g., tougherleaves). One way to achieve this result is to ensurethat many susceptible borers mate with those thathave acquired resistance. In industrializedcountries, farmers growing Bt maize areinstructed to plant 20% of their maize area tovarieties that are susceptible to borers (50% inmaize areas in close proximity to Bt cotton). Theseareas, known as refugia, provide breedinggrounds for susceptible individuals and are themain constituent of most insect resistancemanagement strategies.

Bergvinson explains that Kenyan farmers may bereluctant to plant part of their small fields tosusceptible maize. If farmers perceive thatplanting refugia is uneconomic, they will quicklyabandon it. “Now we’re looking for alternateplant hosts within existing cropping systems thatwe can use as refugia. The host crops must provesusceptible to the borers, but their economic valuefor farmers must not be threatened.”

KARI entomologist Margaret Mulaa identifieshosts that are preferred sites for egg laying by thepests and also provide a high rate of larvalsurvivorship—this in addition to meeting theeconomic criteria. By mid-2001, Mulaa wasstudying approximately 30 alternate hosts in 4environmentally diverse sites. By 2002, test plotsto assess alternate hosts should be established.Preliminary results indicate that sorghum may beeffective in drier areas, and napier grass, a widelygrown forage crop, may work well in areas withsomewhat higher rainfall.


“If Women Are to GetAhead, We Must MakeOurselves Heard!”

On school holidays, Josephine Songa’s five-year-old

daughter often accompanies her to work at the

Katumani Field Station. There the youngster adamantly

insists on “helping” her mother with her tasks. “She’s

just like me,” Josephine says proudly. “Once she gets

started on something, she puts her whole being into it

until it’s completed.”

While many of her equally well-trained colleagues have

been lured out of Kenya, Josephine, a KARI scientist who

works in the IRMA Project, remains committed to staying

the course. “I love my country and I treasure being near my

family,” she says. She is similarly dedicated to improving

the lives of farmers. “I enjoy the intellectual challenge, but

the real satisfaction would come from seeing farmers use

our solutions and getting positive results.”

Josephine’s drive to help others extends especially to

women. “This is particularly important in a country such as

Kenya, where the culture dictates that women yield to

men, both in farm fields and professional fields.” As

recipient of the Cambridge-based International

Biographical Centre’s International Woman of the Year

Award in 2000-2001 for her services in pest management,

Josephine aims to influence other women to fulfill their

potential. “Many women in Kenya give up on their

aspirations because of our culture—be it in a meeting or

whatever,” she says. “In most cases, only the men will be

talking. So if women are to get ahead, we must make

ourselves heard. We will not be handed the opportunity.”

Bioassays: Bt Maize MeetsKenyan Stem BorersIn early 2001, a bioassay was conducted in Kenya onBt maize leaves imported from CIMMYT–Mexico.Leaves were fed to the main Kenyan borers: spottedstem borer (Chilo partellus), African maize stalk borer(Busseola fusca), C. orichalcocliellus, African pink borer(Sesamia calamistis), and African sugarcane borer(Eldana saccharina). The importation of the leavesfollowed an intensive approval process by Kenyanauthorities. Leaves were used for the experiment toensure that no seed or living maize plants couldinadvertently move into the Kenyan environment.

The bioassay—conducted by Songa, Gethi, andKARI technicians—showed that Bt genes cry1B,cry1Ab, and cry1Ab-1B were effective againstC. partellus and C. orichalcocliellus, while cry1Ab-1Band cry1Ab proved lethal to S. calamistis andE. saccharina. None of the Bt genes, however, provedequally lethal against B. fusca, demonstrating aneffectiveness of 50–60%.

“These bioassays allow us to transfer the mosteffective gene combinations into locally adaptedmaize,” says David Hoisington, director ofCIMMYT’s Applied Biotechnology Center.“Although we’ve found a prospective control forC. partellus, the most destructive and widelydistributed stem borer in Kenya, we must identifyother genes to better target B. fusca.”

A Range of ResistanceWork on conventional resistance has continuedunder project coordinator Stephen Mugo.Approximately 500 maize lines developed in Mexicowere screened in Kiboko during the first half of2001. The best lines will be evaluated under artificialinfestation in late 2001 to further assess resistance toC. partellus and B. fusca and their adaptation toKenyan conditions. By identifying a range of Bt andconventional resistances, breeders can “pyramid” orstack the toxins and defenses to slow thedevelopment of resistance in the borers. “The maizevarieties that are developed will be recycled byfarmers anywhere from two to fifteen years,” notesBergvinson, “so their resistance needs to be asdurable as we can make it. That includesincorporating conventional resistance.”

For more information:David Bergvinson ([email protected])



Because he has worked in Africa since 1986, HugoDe Groote’s perceptions come from ground-levelcertainty. “When technologies are adapted tofarmers’ needs and preferences, farmers generatemore food, more production, and more income.When farmers see good stuff, they try it.”

De Groote, a CIMMYT economist, makes hisremarks in the fields of Nguno Ndunda, whosefarm is located in a dry, midaltitude region ofKenya. It was an unplanned stop. De Groote wason his way to see another farmer who wasenlisted for a participatory rural assessment (PRA)when he spied deep ridges cut into the red soil ofa hillside and a bounty of fruit trees, vegetables,and grain. Recognizing an innovative farm whenhe saw one, he decided to stop.

De Groote communicates with the farmer with thehelp of Daniel Mulwa, a KARI field assistantwhose native tongue is the local language, Ki-Kamba. Once Ndunda learns of their interest inmaize and farming, she invites them to tour thefarm that she works with her daughters,granddaughters, and great-grandchildren.

Ndunda recounts that her husband, who workedon a settler’s farm in colonial days, brought backthe idea of planting maize in rows tilled by ox-drawn plows, rather than hand-hoeing small hillsfor plants. This complemented the ridges—cutduring a government project of that era—byallowing better collection of runoff and moistureand eventually the formation of terraces. Theground now retains enough water to supportbananas, papayas, avocados, pumpkins, and otherhigh-value crops in addition to pigeonpeas, beans,and cassava. But maize production is the

“Don’t believe it. You hear people say there’s nothing

happening in Africa—no progress, no movement. But

actually there’s a lot happening at the farm level, with

the farmers initiating it themselves.”

backbone of the operation and her family’s diet. Inthe past, Katumani Research Station provided somenew crops (cassava) and improved maize varietiesthat helped Ndunda’s family meet their needs.However, major threats to production still greatlyconcern the matriarch—specifically, stem borersand drought.

It has been by listening to farmers like Ndunda, notby chance, that CIMMYT has placed these twoproblems at the top of its research agenda for EastAfrica. De Groote and KARI economists collect andanalyze the farm data needed to keep the stemborer and drought research on track. The data willalso help measure whether new technologies areworking for farmers.

Ground-Level Information onStem BorersAs part of the Insect Resistant Maize in Africa(IRMA) Project, De Groote and his KARI colleaguesorganized and conducted PRAs in the five majorecologies where maize grows in Kenya. They arelearning which maize varieties farmers prefer, whatfarmers consider their major productionconstraints, and which pests farmers believe aremost damaging to their maize.

The surveys involved more than 900 farmers in 43discussion groups, as well as intensive interviewswith key informants. In addition, 5 farmers from 27of the PRA sites agreed to plant farm plots (135total) so researchers could assess losses from stemborers under typical farm conditions. A clear farm-level view of the stem borer problem will guidedevelopment of insect-resistant varieties adapted to

Are ResearchersGiving Up onAfrica?


Kenyan conditions. It will also provide data forimpact assessment once these varieties reach thefield.

This first set of 135 on-farm studies will befollowed by five more sets.

“Our studies show that farmers consider stemborers and storage weevils the top pest problemsfor maize. Both pests ranked within the top threeconstraints in all the maize ecologies,” says DeGroote. (He adds that a project to address storageweevils is in the works.) Farmers’ estimates ofborer damage ranged from 25% to 60% across thevarious regions, while actual losses measuredbetween 11% in the highlands and 46% in themoist midaltitude areas. Unfortunately, thesefigures were confounded by the severe droughtthat hit Kenya at that time. Of the 135 plotsplanted, only 45 produced what could beconsidered a harvest. “The time and effort lost onthe research were tough,” De Groote laments,“but that’s nothing compared to the effects onfarmers, whose crops were decimated.”

The devastating drought and crop losses squaredwith the high rank (third) that farmers accordedto drought tolerance for selecting maize varieties.Early maturity ranked first, perhaps because of

farmers’ desire for maize to escape drought late inthe growing season by moving more quicklythrough its growth cycle.

Farmers’ Local Concerns DirectResearch on DroughtDeveloping drought-tolerant maize varieties forEast Africa—and promoting their use in the field—is the focus of another CIMMYT project utilizingDe Groote and KARI economists, the Africa MaizeStress (AMS) Project. More than 2,000 experimentalcultivars have been tested by the project underdrought and low nitrogen conditions, and the mostpromising were bred with locally adapted maizecultivars. Although several varieties show greatpotential, getting farmers, particularly in drierareas, to adopt the improved maize may bedifficult, based on their past reluctance to take onnew varieties. Many believe that the failure to

Maize is the backbone of the farm run

by Nguno Ndunda (left) with help

from her daughters, granddaughters,

and great-grandchildren.


deliver improved varieties to the field can beattributed to the communication gap betweenbreeders and farmers.

To bridge this gap, De Groote and his colleagues inthe project selected one or more villages near theKARI experiment stations where AMS research wasdone. Group sessions were convened in those villagesto hear about farmers’ preferences and productionproblems and gather information on farming systems,the cropping season, availability of extension, andlocal market conditions. At the conclusion of themeetings, farmers were asked if they would beinterested in evaluating the varieties being tested atthe nearby station.

“At all four sites,” says De Groote, “farmers wereenthusiastic about evaluating the varieties. In fact,they wanted to evaluate them twice: once during thevegetative stage and again at harvest. Some of thebreeders have really caught on to this. In oneinstance, a group of farmers was ‘hijacked’—figuratively speaking—from our AMS plots when aKARI breeder absolutely had to get their evaluationsof some varieties provided by CIMMYT–Zimbabwethat he was working on. It’s great to see that give-and-take in action.”

The farmers judged 13 of 52 varieties to besignificantly superior to the most popular localvariety. Breeders will narrow these 13 selectionsdown to 8 or 10, based on other performance factors,and provide them to farmers for testing. Thisapproach also lends itself to the mother/baby trialsystem, which has worked successfully in Zimbabwe*and is being introduced into Kenya.

“Our participatory methodology still needs somework,” De Groote observes, “but its outline isemerging. The farmers are eager to participate inselecting new varieties, and this shows great promisefor increasing collaboration between farmers,breeders, and social scientists. By learning aboutfarmers’ preferences at an early stage of the research,and talking to farmers as they grow and evaluatetheir preferred experimental cultivars on their ownfarms, we should be able to help adoption advancemore successfully than in the past.”

The Life of anItinerant Researcher“I don’t think I’ve had a boring day in the 20 years

since I left my home country, Belgium,” reflects

CIMMYT economist Hugo De Groote. “I’m still

enjoying it, still hoping to make my small

contribution to the needy in the developing world,

and still finding the work incredibly interesting.”

It’s a long journey from constructing latrines and

wells in a small village in northeastern Thailand to

conducting surveys with maize farmers in the hills of

Kenya. Stops along the way have included Togo, the

University of Wisconsin, Mali, and Benin—working

on everything from new crop varieties to water

hyacinth invasions and locust plagues.

The life of an itinerant researcher has its

downside, Hugo concedes. A price is paid in terms

of maintaining close relationships with family and

friends. The work can be tough physically.

Residing and working among people living with

malnutrition, high crime, tropical diseases, AIDS,

and—especially—grinding poverty can also take

an emotional toll. Observing the chasm between

the haves and the have-nots of the world, with an

unflinching eye, is not for everyone.

For Hugo, everything balances out when he goes

to the field and finds farmers eager to learn and

try something new. “Many times, when we go to

a new village, the farmers are so anxious to help

with testing a new variety or technology,” he says.

“If it’s successful, you know you’ve helped bring

something positive to some very poor people.”

For more information:Hugo De Groote ([email protected])


* See “Farmers’ Voices Are Heard Here,” CIMMYT Annual Report 1999-2000(Mexico City, CIMMYT, 2000).


Holding the line against invading rustpathogens is a multinational network which,like the wind, knows no borders: the GlobalRust Monitoring Nursery (GRMN). TheGRMN, which is in its start-up phase, girds theearth from Africa, the Middle East, CentralAsia, the Indian Subcontinent, and China all theway to Mexico, CIMMYT’s host country. It wascreated to keep a vigilant eye on the rusts,which constantly develop hardier strains thatcan defeat the built-in genetic protection ofwheat varieties.

“The network operates thanks to thecooperation of more than thirty nationalagricultural research systems, our partners inthe developing world,” explains Ravi Singh,geneticist/pathologist in charge of rust researchat CIMMYT.

The cooperation of these nations hinges uponCIMMYT’s involvement, considered by manyto be the sine qua non of collaboration. This trustis due in part to CIMMYT’s long history ofhelping nations equally and apolitically, as wellas to the good relations between CIMMYT andcolleagues in developing countries. Evencountries in open conflict with each othercooperate willingly if CIMMYT is involved.

An Old Enemy, ConstantlyRenewedThe rusts are probably as old as wheat itself. Asfar back as the 4th century BC, Aristotle mentionsthe devastation wrought by rust epidemics. Untilfairly recent times, when control measures weredeveloped, rusts regularly provoked ruinouslosses for farmers all over the world.Incorporating genetic resistance into wheatvarieties has proved to be the most effective, low-cost, and environmentally friendly means ofkeeping the rusts in check.

Today most wheat varieties can resist one orseveral rusts, but that is not always enough toguarantee their survival. Rust fungi have theirown defenses. When confronted by geneticresistance, they evolve into stronger forms, or“races,” to overcome it. This, plus their ability tospread on the wind, leaves countries powerless tokeep new forms of rust from entering theirterritories. As an example of how efficiently rustsspread, experts believe that stem rust fungi wereblown or otherwise transported 8,000 kilometersfrom East Africa to Australia at least three timesin the past century.

Another instance of rust advance is thedissemination of a virulent race of stripe rust that

A Global Alliance toStop Epidemics inTheir Tracks The wind is an innocent carrier of pathogens, with no

regard for national borders. One group of pathogens—

fungi that cause rust diseases—can ride the wind for

thousands of kilometers until the rain scrubs them out

of the air. If they fall on a wheat field, they may start

epidemics of stem, leaf, or stripe rust, the three

deadliest wheat diseases. Rust epidemics can destroy

healthy wheat in a few weeks.


arose in East Africa in 1986 and then migrated toNorth Africa, crossing West Asia and South Asia toreach Southeast Asia around 1998 (see map). Onthe way, the new race caused major epidemics andsevere production losses in Ethiopia, Turkey, Iran,Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The multi-milliondollar losses could have been reduced or avoidedthrough concerted monitoring and controlefforts—if governments had cooperated.

Pathologists without BordersThe opportunity to bring nations together tocombat the rusts arose after the 1997 ExternalProgram and Management Review at CIMMYT.Banking on CIMMYT’s reputation as an honestbroker, the panel strongly recommended (withendorsement of the CGIAR’s TechnicalAdvisory Committee) that the CIMMYT WheatProgram monitor the evolution of the threerusts in the developing world. In response, theProgram promoted the establishment of rustmonitoring nurseries in regions affected by therusts (see table).

CIMMYT researchers based in Africa, Asia, andLatin America were key to implementing theGRMN with national research organizations. Inthe region spanning West Asia, North Africa, andCentral Asia, national researchers receive thevaluable cooperation of Amor Yahyaoui, senior

cereal pathologist at the International Center forAgricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),a CGIAR center and our partner in this effort.

Nurseries: An Early-WarningMechanismA “nursery” may not sound like a powerful meansof fighting an epidemic, but these carefully chosenassemblies of seed help pathologists screen forpotentially dangerous strains of rust pathogens.

CIMMYT prepares regional nurseries (except thosefor West Asia, North Africa, and Central Asia,assembled by ICARDA under the CIMMYT-ICARDA Dryland Wheat Program for WANA) bygathering together different kinds of wheat seed:seed of varieties with well-known resistance todifferent rust pathogens, internationally importantvarieties, and the most popular wheats in eachparticipating country. This seed is shipped toGRMN partners, who sow it at carefully chosensites within each region, including a few disease“hot spots.” During the crop cycle, the researchersevaluate how severely each type of wheat isaffected by rust at each site. They take samples ofrusted plants and test them to determine which rusthas caused the damage. Finally, they send CIMMYTinformation on which wheats may succumb towhich rust races. This year they are returning datafor the first time.

Regions participating in themonitoring of rust pathogens

Region and rust

Indian SubcontinentLeaf, stripe

ChinaLeaf, stripe

West Asia and North Africa (WANA)*Leaf, stripe

Eastern and Southern AfricaStem, leaf, stripe

Central AsiaStripe, leaf

Southern Cone of South AmericaLeaf, stripe

* In collaboration with ICARDA, underthe CIMMYT-ICARDA Dryland WheatProgram for WANA.

Blowing in the wind: movement of a virulent strain of stripe rust.

1986

1991

1991

1992/93

1993/94

1994/95

1995/96

1997/98

1998

Global Research for Local Livelihoods 13Global Research for Local Livelihoods 13

CIMMYT’s Genebank: Insurancefor Farmers, Consumers, andEconomies Worldwide

“When people visit our genebank, I try to show them thatit’s more than a collection of frozen seed,” says BentSkovmand, head of CIMMYT’s Wheat Germplasm Bank. “Itry to show them that this seed is their future. It couldliterally save their country’s wheat crop.”

In 2001, CIMMYT’s genebank provided insurance forfarmers and consumers yet again, after two new rust racesemerged. The first, identified in April, was a leaf rust thatattacked the most widely grown durum wheat variety inSonora, northwestern Mexico. Sonoran farmers haveplanted this variety, called Altar-84, on a wide area since itsrelease in 1984. When farmers grow a single variety acrossa large area for a long time, the variety is more likely tobecome vulnerable to disease. The second new race, a stripe rust,attacked triticale varieties being tested for release in Ecuador andMexico in the summer of 2001. Triticale, a grain developed from wheatand rye, is often untouched by diseases that attack wheat, but the newstripe rust preyed exclusively on triticale.

How could CIMMYT’s breeders limit the effects of these new rust races?Researchers immediately evaluated advanced lines of durum wheat (theexperimental durums that are closest to being finished and tested forrelease). Fortunately a number of lines proved resistant, but breederswanted to fortify that resistance. About 4,500 accessions of older durumbreeding lines and landraces from the genebank were planted forevaluation in the summer of 2001. (Landraces, selected by farmers fromprimitive wheats over centuries, often contain unique genetic traits.)Almost 1,500 accessions displayed minor gene or major gene resistanceto the new leaf rust race. These accessions, especially those with minorgene (long-lasting) resistance, are a valuable breeding resource.

Earlier in 2001, before anyone knew about the new stripe rust race,triticale researchers approached Skovmand about increasing triticale’sgenetic variability. In other words, they wanted to identify genebankaccessions with valuable characteristics, including disease resistance, tobreed into advanced triticale lines. Genebank and triticale staff plantedabout 1,300 primary triticales to evaluate. (Primary triticales are theoriginal triticales derived directly from crosses between durum or breadwheat and rye. These triticales are an underutilized resource in breedingprograms because, like wheat landraces, they are time-consuming touse.) The 1,300 accessions were inoculated with the newly identifiedstripe rust race. More than 300 proved resistant. A number of advancedtriticale lines were also resistant, but the 300 genebank accessionsprovide additional, more genetically diverse sources of resistance.

These experiences underscore the importance of collecting andconserving diverse wheats and triticales as insurance againstunforeseen disaster. They also show how rapidly CIMMYT mobilizesthese resources to help its partners prevent epidemics. In a matter ofmonths, the genebank provided breeders with novel information onbank accessions to respond to these crisis situations. “When people askwhy we need funding to maintain this collection,” says Skovmand, “themessage I try to convey is this: If this seed disappears, so could yourfood. So could you.”

For more information:Bent Skovmand ([email protected])

The GRMN researchers will report new rustraces as soon as they appear and, throughCIMMYT, will help alert unaffectedcountries to the potential danger ofepidemics traveling on the wind. CIMMYTshares this important information withscientists and decision makers in eachcountry, who will use it to decide whethersusceptible wheats should be replaced withnew resistant varieties.

Working for the ResistanceThere are two types of genetic resistance torust: one is based on a single major gene (ora combination of major genes) protectingwheat against a specific rust race; the otheris the result of the combined effects ofseveral minor genes. Because the rusts areunlikely to develop new races that canovercome the effects of many minor genes atthe same time, minor gene resistance is moredurable. Durable, minor gene resistance ispresent in newer CIMMYT wheats, whichare available to all countries that need them.

“Many wheats in developing countries areold varieties that lack durable rustresistance,” says Julio Huerta-Espino,CIMMYT research affiliate in Mexico. “Untilthey have durable resistance, we have tomonitor the rust fungi to avoid yield losses.”Early detection of new virulent strains givescountries at risk enough time to replacesusceptible wheats with resistant ones andavoid large-scale epidemics. Persuadingfarmers to switch to resistant wheats is theultimate goal of the GRMN.

Eventually, research networks in each regionof the developing world will take overoperation of the GRMN. Though CIMMYT’sparticipation will gradually diminish, theCenter will continue to encourage thecooperation that allows this highly effectiveearly-warning system to exist.

For more information:Ravi Singh ([email protected])


Users of the ACT, or Almanac CharacterizationTool, include agricultural researchers from thepublic sector, international research centers activein eastern and southern Africa, private seedcompanies, and even a religious organizationhelping Malawian villagers access preciouswater. Initially supported by Texas A&MUniversity and CIMMYT, the softwaredevelopers have moved to the private sector, andcollaboration with CIMMYT continues.

Out of the Lab, into Users’LaptopsThe ACT was created in the late 1990s by theBlackland Research and Extension Center of theTexas A&M University System, with help from theGIS and modeling lab of CIMMYT’s NaturalResources Group (NRG) and funding from the USAgency for International Development (USAID).“The idea was to take GIS out of specialized labsand put it into the hands of the researchers,extension workers, and other people servingfarmers directly in developing countries,” saysDavid Hodson, a GIS specialist at CIMMYT whohas helped test, evaluate, and promote the ACT.

Since the creation of the ACT, Hodson andcolleagues from CIMMYT and Texas A&M havetraveled the globe, distributing CD-ROMscontaining the application and offering training.

At a workshop in Malawi, the ACT’s potential foraddressing serious water shortages innorthwestern Malawi quickly dawned onparticipant Jim McGill. McGill coordinates theProtected Water Programmes in the DevelopmentDepartment, Synod of Livingstonia, Church ofCentral Africa (part of the Presbyterian Church’sWorldwide Ministries Division). McGill and hisgroup are now using the ACT for their protectedwater programs—which mainly cover water fordrinking and domestic use—in Malawi.

“We are looking at an area where the geographyand geology are not conducive to hand-dugwells, and boreholes sometimes produce saltywater,” he explains. “We’ll use the ACT to mapthe areas where hand-dug wells dry up beforethe rains come and where water from deeperboreholes is salty. Suggestions have also beenmade to provide piped water. The ACT helps usto locate promising water sources, to comparethe topography between source and demand,and to estimate costs. Where piped water isfeasible, we’ll use the ACT to help produce aproposal for donors.”

The AlmanacCharacterization Tool:Click on“Accessible GISfor Africa”

A geographic information system (GIS) for agriculture is

being used in myriad ways throughout the developing

world—especially Africa—to benefit the rural poor.


GIS’ Power Opens EyesA GIS can pull together information of ahundred types—topography, weather,land use, soil type, research sites, andactual data from experiments conductedat those sites, to name a few examples.Prior to the ACT, running a GIS requiredhigh-powered software and hardware,often beyond the reach of users indeveloping countries.

For researchers who have neverworked with a GIS, the ACT is an eye-opener, according to Hodson: “Inaddition to working with the installedmaps and data, users can upload theirown data, manipulate and combinedatasets, and create customized,exportable maps, tables, and figures, tomention a few features.”

Early in 2001, the ACT team surveyedusers to document the product’s variedapplications, as well as identify possibleshortcomings of tools or data. Though notexhaustive, the compilation revealed anextremely wide range of users, includingresearchers from CGIAR centers,* privateseed companies, and non-governmentalorganizations. “Applications are varied,but they address two broad questions allagricultural researchers must answer,”Hodson says. “First, how do you knowyou’re working in the right place for theright farmers? Second, how can you sharea useful practice or product developed atone site with farmers at many other,similar locations?”

For Geoff Hildebrand at the RattrayArnold Research Station, Seed Co Ltd.,Zimbabwe, the answers are central todeveloping and marketing newgroundnut varieties. “Groundnut is animportant food crop in southern Africa.Much is grown under marginal climaticconditions,” he says. “A major constraintis the short rainy season. Until recently,the only cultivars available matured in105–130 days. But the average rainy

Looking AheadThe ACT software is fast approachingthe full set of geographic toolsenvisaged by its designers, accordingto Jeff White, head of CIMMYT’s GISand modeling lab. “While we continueto extend the geographic coverage ofthe ACTs—more countries and moreregions within countries—our currentgoal is to increase usage. We need tolook hard at post-workshop adoptionand make sure people get the mostout of the ACTs.”

Concurrently, the collaboration withthe ACT developers has entered a newphase with the “spin-off” of the ACTfrom Texas A&M to Mud SpringsGeographers, Inc. John Corbett, thecompany’s president (and theagricultural geographer who firstbrought GIS to CIMMYT), emphasizesthat Mud Springs is committed toassisting CIMMYT and its partners inthe developing world. Experienceshows that such collaborationstrengthens Mud Springs’ data,software, and service products fordeveloped country markets, as well asproviding a motivating andenlightening experience for itsemployees.

For more information:Jeff White ([email protected])

ACT results: Bright blue areas indicate locations in southern Africa where the groundnutcultivar Nyanda is recommended to help farmers cope with the short rainy season.

season in some parts seldom exceeds80–90 days, resulting in reduced yields,difficult harvesting, and increased riskof aflatoxin contamination.Development of shorter-durationcultivars is critical.” Hildebrand andhis colleagues used the ACT to defineshort rainy season areas, conductclimate similarity studies for a keytesting site, and producerecommendation maps for the use ofNyanda, a new Seed Co short-seasongroundnut cultivar (see figure).

Other uses of the ACT have included:

• development, dissemination, andimpact assessment of agroforestrytechnologies in five Africancountries;

• detailed characterization of wheatproduction areas in Ethiopia;

• designing sampling strategies foragricultural surveys in Mexico;

• grouping mid-hill maizeproduction regions in Nepal intoresearch domains based on climate;

• increasing the cost-effectiveness offarmer participatory verificationtrials in several countries ofsouthern Africa; and

• choosing locations for testing maizehybrids and targeting them toproduction environments inZimbabwe.


Angola

Zambia

Malawi

MozambiqueZimbabwe

Botswana

Namibia

South Africa

Swaziland

* CIMMYT, as well as the International Centre for Research inAgroforestry (ICRAF), the International Center for Researchin the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and the InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI).


Functional plant genomics will provide acomplete picture of the roles and functions ofplant genes of interest and how they interact withone another and the environment to produce anindividual plant type. Comparative genomics willmake it possible to apply knowledge about thegenome of one species to another species. Theseareas of study hold the key to creating crops withbuilt-in resistance to major diseases and insectpests, as well as tolerance for the scourges ofdrought, high soil acidity, and low nitrogen. Inthis fast-changing research arena, CIMMYT’sApplied Biotechnology Center (ABC) has beenquick to lay the groundwork for applyinggenomic approaches to improve farmproductivity in developing countries.

Most recently, in April 2001, the ABC hosted astrategic planning workshop on the CerealGenomics Initiative, a major collaborationproposed by CGIAR centers and US Land Grantuniversities aimed at harnessing crop genomicsfor the betterment of developing worldagriculture. Underwritten by the RockefellerFoundation, the workshop brought togetherabout 50 experts in cereal genomics andresearchers with first-hand experience indeveloping world agriculture.

“CIMMYT was selected to host the planningworkshop because it is a recognized center ofexcellence for cereal improvement for developingcountries,” says Robert Zeigler, one of the

The complete sequencing of the human genome caught the imagination of

the scientific community as well as the public at large. The implications are

enormous: a world in which many of our most dreaded diseases can be

detected and perhaps ameliorated in life’s earliest stages; greater

knowledge of how our genes interact with one another and the environment

to shape our beings; and a fresh appreciation for how closely we are related

to other organisms that inhabit the earth. Recent developments in plant

genomics are equally revolutionary.

Bringing Genomicsto Bear on World CropProblems

workshop organizers and director of the PlantBiotechnology Center at Kansas State University(in addition to his role as head of the Departmentof Plant Pathology). “To embark on a boldventure like this requires credibility, and there isno one with greater credibility than CIMMYT,with its years of adapting biotechnology to cerealimprovement and long track record of partneringwith advanced research institutions.”

From Common Origins,Uncommon OpportunitiesCereals, Zeigler explains, offer a uniqueopportunity among plants to produce rapidbenefits from molecular research, because they allbelong to the family of grasses and share acommon origin. An understanding of how genesfor a desirable trait, such as drought tolerance,work in one species can help breeders improvetheir function in other species. Similarity amongcereal species also implies that when genes aremoved from one cereal species into another, theywill tend to work well and in the same way, withminimal genetic engineering. For instance,knowledge about the genetics of rice (which isalmost completely sequenced) can be applied tomaize and wheat, thereby accelerating researchand genetic engineering.

Four principal areas of work and associatedtechnologies were identified by workshopparticipants: alleviating abiotic stresses,


alleviating biotic stresses, adding value tocereals, and improving yield potential,specifically by modifying photosynthesis. Thegroup also identified approaches to reachthese goals, including a comprehensivegenomics-based evaluation andcharacterization of the genetic resourcesavailable for improving cereals; coordinateddevelopment of molecular tools based onthese resources; mechanisms to assure freeand cost-effective access to tools; freelyavailable data storage, manipulation, andanalysis tools; and databases specificallydesigned for this program.

The scientists’ diverse backgroundscontributed to a productive research planningenvironment, says ABC director DavidHoisington. A ten-year initiative wasproposed to capture the technologicalstrengths of the US scientific community,where nearly US$ 80 million have beeninvested in this area over the past decade, andwed them to the genetic resources,knowledge, and international scope of theCGIAR centers to solve high-priorityproblems affecting basic food crops.

The first five years of the proposed researchwould lay the foundation for large-scalemanipulation of the cereal genome. Scientistswould generate a knowledge base to betterunderstand the cereal genome and createtools to make the most of existing diversity.Relatively straightforward traits would bemanipulated, and novel resistance to formerlyinvulnerable diseases and pests and toleranceto salinity would be moved into speciesrequiring these traits. Towards the end of thisfirst phase, commercial cultivars would benearly ready for release. In the second phase,research partners would apply knowledgegained in the first phase to particularlycomplex traits such as tolerance to droughtand extreme temperatures, cereal chemistryand nutritional quality, and photosynthesis.Both phases of the research would includemajor training programs, as scientists fromnational agricultural research systemsparticipate as students and postdoctoralfellows at CGIAR centers and US universities.

“Who can argue with applying the

most powerful tools in plant biology

to some of the most intractable

problems facing humanity today?”



Hoisington, Zeigler, and workshop co-organizerJeff Bennetzen, the H. Edwin Umbarger Professorof Genetics, Department of Biological Sciences atPurdue University, met with US officials andlegislators in July to pursue funding for theinitiative, which has received strong support fromthe National Corn Growers Association (NCGA),the American Farm Bureau Association, and theAmerican Society of Plant Physiologists.Although it might seem unusual that thesegroups would support research aimed primarilyat developing world farmers, NCGArepresentative Gary Davis, speaking on behalf ofthe initiative to a US House of Representativessubcommittee, declared, “When scientists solvethese problems in poor countries, they not onlyhelp people feed themselves and move up frompoverty, they help ensure safe harvests across ourown country.”

Zeigler meanwhile believes that the initiative willbe picked up in some form by an interested party.“I am an incurable optimist,” he says, “especiallywhen it comes to such an obviously good idea.Who can argue with applying the most powerfultools in plant biology to some of the mostintractable problems facing humanity today?”

Partnerships to Build onKnowledgeWhile Hoisington would welcome theopportunity to move ahead with the Cereal CropGenome Initiative, he is pleased with progressCIMMYT has made on other genomics activitiesand partnerships. Much of this work focuses onthe development of drought tolerance for maizeand other cereals. The Rockefeller Foundation hasfunded an initial two-year project aimed at betterunderstanding the response of maize to drought

and the development of molecular approachesthat complement conventional breeding fordrought tolerance in cereals. The ABC also workswith the International Rice Research Institute(IRRI) to discover key drought tolerance genesand mechanisms. CIMMYT has made progress onoptimizing RNA extraction protocols andquantifying gene expression in segregatinggermplasm—two technical building blocks forfunctional genomics.

Most recently, CIMMYT and Pioneer Hi-Bredinitiated a two-year collaboration aimed atutilizing functional genomics, specificallygenomics tools called microarrays, to identifygenes and pathways associated with droughttolerance, and to learn more about theirinteractions. This is a straightforward exchange,says CIMMYT molecular geneticist Jean-MarcelRibaut. “They provide what they’ve learnedabout genes involved in stress tolerance, as wellas the microarray technology, and we providewell-characterized germplasm and considerablefield and lab work. Both sides benefit, and we arefree to use and distribute the information weobtain to our clients. Productive arrangementslike this one clearly show that we can work withthe private sector without compromising ourfreedom to operate. It’s exciting.”

Finally, an agreement has been established withthe project team developing the InternationalMaize Database (MaizeDB) at the University ofMissouri, for CIMMYT to serve as its first mirrorsite, with the intention of exploring avenues formaking the information available to developingcountry partners.

For more information:David Hoisington ([email protected])

l a t i n a m e r i c a

l a t i n a m e r i c a

E lvira Murguía Zambrano (right) drinks

from a nearly dry river after a hot

morning’s work planting maize with her father

(described in the following story). She is a

27-year-old widow who lives in Ayuquililla,

southern Mexico. With her four children,

Elvira shares a modest homestead with her

parents, several younger siblings, and their

children. The entire family has only two

hectares of land on which they grow maize

and+beans. Yields are poor, so they must

purchase additional food. Murguía herself

helps+with farm work, makes tortillas to+sell

in+the community, hand-stitches soccer

balls+(Ayuquililla's only "industry"), and

participates in an association of women

farmers. Earnings from family members are

communal and generally spent the same day on

immediate needs like children's school lunches

(one piece of fruit each). A brother in the USA

and sister in Mexico City sometimes send

money. Like countless women in remote, rural

areas of Mexico and+Central America, Murguía

struggles to help run and resource a household

dominated by children and the elderly.


Murguía and his family live in the village ofAyuquililla, part of the mountainous, semi-aridMixteca region of southeastern Mexico. Cactus,low shrubs, goats, and rocks share the sun-bakedlandscape with some 1.5 million humans, nearly halfof whom have indigenous ancestry and a quarterofwhom cannot read or write. Goat herdingis a majorpursuit, supplemented by marginal, rainfedproduction of maize and beans, some garden crops,and even wheat. The thin, unfertile soils receive 300–700 millimeters of poorly distributed rain each year.The less dependable rains, together with poor soilmanagement and unfavorable policies, have nearlyshut down the area’s low-input farming systems.

Harvesting NothingFully half the region’s residents have fled to jobs inlarger cities or the United States. They leave behindghost towns peopled largely by the very young orvery old, with a huge demographic hole where theeconomically productive adult population ought tobe. Families are separated, and many stay-behindsdepend on support from the outside. Those wholack external support must seek what seasonalworkthey can of f-farm, though the depressed localeconomy offers little. Nearly everyone weaves hatstobuy maize (one hat fetches 1.7 kilograms ofmaize) when grain stores run out. This yearreserves vanished quickly. The rains failed, sofarmers in manyvillages harvested nothing.

“The ones who choose to stay have a varietyof reasons,” says Julio César Velásquez, aCIMMYT research affiliate who knows theregion’s inhabitants well. “There are strongties—to the land and traditions; to family,especially their parents; and to country living.Some people have tried the cities but hadproblems. The point is, these people shouldhave the right to choose. Right now, they’rebeing forced off their land.”

Under the Mixteca Farmer ExperimentationProject, funded by the Conrad N. HiltonFoundation and the Ford Foundation over1998–2001, Velásquez has tried to providemore choices to Mixteca inhabitants. Workingdirectly with farmers in one of the Mixteca’sdrier zones, he and an associate helped themto identify, test, and share new practices suchas composting, drought tolerant maizevarieties, grain legumes, alternative crops,drip irrigation, and live barriers that keep soilin place on the steep hillsides but also producefood. Farmers have learned to conductexperiments, analyze findings, and presentresults at annual gatherings of participatingvillages. “There’s a critical mass ofenthusiastic farmer-experimenters,” saysVelásquez. “Most importantly, isolated groupsare communicating, sharing results, andplanning concerted action to better their lot.”

The Mexican Mixteca:

Trapped in Agriculture’s

Tailspin “Take this message to people: We’re barely living. There’s no work here.

Round-trip bus fare to Huajuapan [a medium-size city some 30

kilometers away] is 34 pesos, and if we make 50 pesos for a day’s

labor, that hardly leaves money to buy a glass of water. We’re

trapped!” Farmer José Murguía Ríos smiles and speaks softly, but keeps

his grip on his listener’s arm as if to impress the urgency of his plea.


Experiments in SurvivalFarmer Luciano Soriano Castro, of LunatitlánVillage, spoke of his own enthusiasm over theproject’s activities: “Julio César came to our town,explained his intentions to the local authorities,and then called an assembly. Several of us metwith him afterwards. I was most interested incomposting.” After a year’s experimentation,some farmers devised their own liquid compostthat measurably improved yields.

When Velásquez brought a group of Mixtecafarmers to CIMMYT headquarters, one visitor—Zacarías Muñoz Martínez of Zapoquila Village, ahigh-altitude location—noted a plot of triticaleand later requested seed of “that odd wheat.”When he tested it, the results were good andimpressed his peers. “What interested us was thattriticale yielded more than our wheat,” he says.“We’ll use it to make tortillas.” Muñoz and someother farmers had tested the grain for thispurpose and found it excellent.

A relatively young farmer, Muñoz is an oddity ina village peopled by women and old men. Hisfarm is among the few in the village with accessto a natural spring, which gives him a rareadvantage. To make the most of their limitedwater resources, several other farmers inZapoquila have installed simple drip irrigationsystems for growing garden vegetables—a plusfor household nutrition—with help fromVelásquez.

In Ayuquililla, Productoras de Amaranto, anassociation of women farmers, is experimentingwith growing morel mushrooms, an occupationthey learned from a specialist invited by a localNGO.* Velásquez provided technical supportandencouragement. “Right now we’re in theinvestment and learning stage, but we’lleventually share any profit we make,”says Marisol Peña Huerta, the association’spresident. The group also grows amaranth, anutritious pre-Colombian crop, and prickly pearcactus, whose leaves are used in savory Mexicandishes and whose fruit can be sold locally. “We’vealso seen promising results with a couple of grainlegumes,” says Velásquez.

Achieving material gains is only part of whatVelásquez aims to accomplish. He is almost asconcerned with bolstering farmers’ self-esteemand community spirit. “If I can get peoplecommunicating with each other, get themmotivated and organized, then I’ve achievedsomething valuable,” he says.

* Centro de Apoyo Comunitario, Trabajos Unidos (CACTUS, A.C.).

For more information:Larry Harrington ([email protected])

“I’d like to commend Julio César and the Hiltonand Ford Foundations for supporting farmerswho are largely forgotten by the rest of theworld,” comments Larry Harrington, director ofCIMMYT’s Natural Resources Group and projectsupervisor. “We’re actively seeking funds tocontinue this work.”

Farmer José Murguía Ríos: "We’re barely living."


During the 1980s, faced with an increasinglycompetitive environment as a result ofglobalization and trade liberalization, CentralAmerican governments began transformingtheir agricultural sectors to increase exportearnings and improve food security.They implemented a policy to move fromproducing basic grains to cash or commercialexport crops such as palm oil, coffee, andmelons. Basic grains would be purchasedfrominternational markets.

“This policy hinged on arguments that theproduction of basic grains like white maizewasnot competitive and that incr easingproductivity in this area would not easepoverty,” says Gustavo Sain, CIMMYT regionaleconomist for Central America. “While thispolicy has made some sectors competitive, itbenefited only a few people. As a result, ruralpoverty has remained unchanged or, in somecountries, has increased.”

Sain coordinates a regional project that isevaluating whether white maize productioninCentral America can be more competitivethan policy makers assumed. He works with anetwork of scientists from national agriculturalresearch systems in Costa Rica, El Salvador,Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama,who identify and characterize competitivemaize areas in each country. Current andfuturetechnologies that can str engthencompetitiveness are also documented. Theproject is funded by CIMMYT, the RegionalFund for Agricultural Technologies(FONTAGRO), and the Swiss Agency forDevelopment and Cooperation (SDC).

Where Have All the Farmers Gone?

When TradingMelons for MaizeDoesn’t Work Some Central American farmers thrived on policies that

encouraged them to switch from growing food crops to raising

export crops. Many more were driven deeper into poverty. Is it

too late to help the poorest farmers who remain on the land?

In many countries in Central America,agricultural policy has had a particularly adverseimpact on grain production and smallholderfarmers. Talk of the “disappearance” of maizeproduction areas and smallholder farmers iscommon. In Costa Rica, for example, maizeproduction has decreased from 64,000 hectaresto18,000 hectar es. “Maize is grown in areaswithpoor soil. The rich soil ar eas belong tomorecompetitive pr oducts like coffee and palmoil,” explains Rocio Oviedo Navas, nationalmaize coordinator for Costa Rica’s Ministry ofAgriculture. “Many farmers prefer to grow maize,but they lost their subsidies and had to switchtothe new cr ops. We are slowly seeing thedisappearance of the smallholder maize farmer.”

A recent study conducted by Hermel López,director of Planning and Socioeconomics at theInstituto de Investigación Agropecuaria dePanamá (IDIAP), indicated that production ofbasic grains—rice, maize, and beans—fell by 30–40% among smallholder farmers, who make upthe majority of agricultural producers in Panama.

“In rice we had around 15,000 farmers, now wehave 1,000. Only the big farms have survived.Thescenario is very much the same for maize—alot of farmers have disappeared in a very shortperiod,” he says. “Agriculture is one of thesectors hardest hit by this adjustment policy. Ifyou look at the figures, agriculture used to be11%of GNP; now it is only 5.8%. This has had asocial impact that has not been looked into in itsfull dimension. We are still dealing with it interms ofmigration of the r ural population andextremepoverty .”


Increasing poverty and high rates ofmalnutrition in rural areas are some of theconsequences. A recent census indicated that60% of farmers are poor, 40% cannot meettheirbasic needs, and malnutrition rates r each40%inr ural areas. Toaddr ess the problem ofmalnutrition, IDIAP recently began a povertyreliefpr ogram for poor farmers.

Agriculture in TransitionIn Panama, farmers receive an incentive ofUS$ 150 for each hectare they convert toexport crops. The government also subsidizes60%of the cost of irrigation to pr oduce the crop.Despite these incentives, problems remain, evenfor larger commercial maize producers like HugoAgurto, president of the Maize and SorghumAssociation in Los Santos, Panama. Maizeproduction is the primary activity in Los Santos,where farm sizes range from 20 to 200 hectares.

“In 1996, we had 17,000 hectares of maize and95pr oducers, and 3,500 hectares of sorghum with80 producers. Now sorghum has disappeared andwe have 10,000 hectares under maize with 53producers,” Agurto says. He explains that farmerswere edged out by the lack of investment capitaland were hesitant to face the risks associated withthe new crops. “We need irrigation to grow thesecrops, and even though the government subsidizesthe cost of irrigation, they pay the 60% only afterthe farmer has invested. In March I sent a five-toncontainer of melons to the US and Europe, and westill haven’t received payment. We farmers don’thave cash, we buy many things on credit, and nothaving this payment makes life difficult for us.”

Agurto converted a portion of his land to the newcrops, but he prefers to keep growing maize.“Iknow the technology , I have a credit obligationon my land, all the equipment I have bought overthe years is for maize, and I have greater foodsecurity during the dry season—I have the maizeand the cattle. Also, with these new products, thefarmers in Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, andPanama are all growing the same thing andcompeting for the same market.”

Although the government in Nicaraguaencourages farmers to diversify into commercialexport crops, the production of white maize, astaple, remains a national priority. Maize isproduced mainly by small- and medium-scale

farmers using local varieties and traditionaltechnology. “The farmers here still grow maize,but they also grow a greater variety of products,“sais Lesbia Rizzo, a socioeconomist at theInstituto Nicaragüense de TecnologíaAgropecuaria (INTA). “What we’ve done is toidentify maize areas and look at factors that canmake production more competitive. We’llanalyze the information we collect and bring ittothe policy level so they can take the rightdecision to help these farmers.”

What’s the RightDecision for Farmers?The information gathered by Sain and hiscolleagues will be used to investigatewhetherwhite maize pr oduction can be sociallybeneficial and competitive, both nationally andinternationally, and to promote policies thatsupport maize competitiveness. Sain believesthat white maize production can be competitive.He cites the example of DEMASA, one of themain producers of corn flour and tortilla inCentral America, which opened its offices inCosta Rica several years ago. “When DEMASAcame into Costa Rica, they started buying maizeand giving seed and technology tofarmers, andthe maize area started growing again. If there isdemand for the product—even in CostaRica,which is not traditionally a maize-producingcountry—then white maize production willgoup,” he says.

Among the ideas that Sain hopes to promote isthe production of maize-derived products forconsumers. “We want to show the need to becompetitive not only in producing maize but inconsumer products. We also want to promotepolicies that support maize competitiveness andallow farmers to capture a share of the value ofthe final product,” Sain says. “This could be awin-win situation. Youar e building up yourcompetitive advantage with a crop produced bythe poorest groupin the r ural sector, you areincreasing your competitiveness, and you areavoiding poverty. This modernization programhas not reduced poverty. Our hope is based onthe importance that governments are givingnowto helping the poor .”

For more information:Gustavo Sain ([email protected])


“These results and several studies elsewhere inthe developing world seem to refute the concernthat the superior yield potential of modernhybrids is expressed only when they receiveadequate fertilization and other inputs,” saysJerome Fournier, a CIMMYT research associatewho conducted the work in fulfillment of hisPhD requirements. “In fact, at the site wheremaize yields tend to be lowest, hybrid HB-83yielded 65% more than the local varieties.”

The higher grain yields of the hybrid resultedfrom several traits, including a greater number ofgrains per plant, less lodging, and a higher ratioof grain to above-ground vegetation. “HB-83yielded better than the local varieties at high-yielding sites and seemed better adapted in low-

New evidence from the remote Polochic watershed of

Guatemala—a low-input farming area similar to many

marginal maize production zones in Central America

and southeastern Mexico—contradicts the notion that

farmers’ local maize varieties perform better than

scientifically improved hybrids in such circumstances.

In experiments at 75 sites during 1997–98 and under

three levels of fertilization, from none (farmers’

normal practice) to high, the white-grained hybrid HB-

83 outyielded local, non-hybrid varieties by an

average of more than 20%.

yielding environments,” says Fournier. “Onboth hillsides and moist flatland, HB-83 alsoseemed to respond better to fertilizers than thelocal varieties. On dry flatland its yieldsuperiority was greater under no fertilization.Thus investing in seed would represent only asmall risk for most farmers, if they could useeven a minimal amount of fertilizer.”

Modern MaizeHybrids Respondin ToughEnvironments

27Global Research for Local Livelihoods

An Isolated, Subsistence WorldFournier did his study in a 1,800-square-kilometer zone of the Polochic River basin inthree types of environments: dry flatbeds, moistflatbeds, and the hillsides typical of manyremote maize cropping zones in CentralAmerica. Nine-tenths of the people in the regionbelong to Mayan Indian ethnic groups, andmany do not even speak Spanish. Most privateseed companies have little interest in markets inremote locations like Polochic, and manyfarmers continue to grow lower yieldingvarieties of maize, using their own seed.

Hybrid HB-83 is based on CIMMYT materialsand was released in Guatemala in 1983.According to CIMMYT agronomist JorgeBolaños, who worked for many years in CentralAmerica, it is among the most productivehybrids across a range of environments in theregion. “HB-83 has been a difficult hybrid tosurpass,” he says.

Demand for Seed, but FewSuppliersAccording to Bolaños, most “farmer” seed inPolochic is actually descended from improved,open-pollinated varieties. “Improved materialshave somehow reached the place and come tostay,” he explains. Bolaños says the lack ofadequate seed production and distributionservices has stopped the adoption of newvarieties. “Promotion packages such as ‘kilo-for-kilo’ would probably go very far in promoting

“Promotion packages such as ‘kilo-for-kilo’ (whereby farmers

receive improved seed for planting and repay with an equal weight

of grain at harvest) would probably go very far in promoting

adoption of new cultivars.”

adoption of new cultivars.” In kilo-for-kiloprograms, farmers receive improved seed forplanting and repay with an equal weight ofgrain at harvest.

According to Fournier, in addition to sowinghybrids, farmers in Polochic and similar areasshould be encouraged to adopt soil-conservingpractices. “Among other things, they shouldavoid burning crop residues and increase the useof mulches to protect soils from erosion andconserve organic matter.”

For more information:Shivaji Pandey ([email protected])

Maize grain yield of local varieties and HB-83 without fertilizer(F0) and at recommended (F1) and high levels of fertilizer (F2),Polochic, Guatemala.

Grain yield(t/ha)

4

3

2

1

Local varieties

HB-83

F0 F1 F2Fertilizer levels


Bellon explains that better storagepractices, for example, keep seed in goodcondition and less vulnerable to loss.“Seed loss was a problem in thecommunities where we worked, especiallyfor rare types of maize like the black- andred-grained landraces.” He adds thatimproved storage practices also make thefamily grain supply—and family income—more secure.

Saving Seed and GrainTraining in storage constituted simple,useful tips, ranging from cleaning thestorage area to the proper use of storagepesticides and a silo. “We tried to find outhow farmers coped with the storageproblem and learned about the silos thatpeople were using in Amatengo, anotherarea of Mexico,” says Irma Rosas, researchassistant. “The silo was a good way tostore grain and seed. During the farmertraining, we explained its advantages. Wealso learned that many farmers were usingfostoxin, a storage pesticide, for their grainbut were not using it properly. They eitherused too much or stored it in poorly sealedcontainers.”

Empowering Farmersto Save Seed andDiversity When Ricarda Meza Reyes’ husband was disabled, the

couple knew that they would be unable to farm for a long

time. Would their maize harvest last? Would there be

enough to eat and to sell? Because Meza learned how to

keep her maize safe from insects and diseases, the couple

made it through the two years in which her husband

recovered. A less visible benefit of her new knowledge is

that she preserved important maize landraces for sowing

once again in her fields.

Since 1997, researchers from CIMMYT andMexico’s Instituto Nacional deInvestigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas yPecuarias (INIFAP) have worked withfarmers in the Central Valleys of Oaxaca,Mexico, to conserve the diverse maizelandraces in the area. Their efforts arefunded by Canada’s InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC).

“The challenge was taking what welearned in the diagnostic phase of ourresearch—which characteristics farmersvalued in their maize, the range ofvarieties they wanted, and the specifictraits that were important to them—andmoving to the intervention phase,” saysMauricio Bellon, CIMMYT humanecologist and Oaxaca Project leader.

Researchers thought carefully about thebest ways to wed scientific concepts forgenetic resource conservation to practicesthat would make a difference in farmers’lives. “We concluded that training in maizestorage and seed selection could play animportant role in conserving geneticdiversity in these communities,” saysBellon, “and we developed a trainingprogram based on farmers’ knowledge ofthese practices.”

Seed loss was a

problem in the

Central Valleys of

Oaxaca, especially

for rare types of

maize.


Manuel Martínez García, from San LorenzoAlbarradas in Oaxaca, was one of the firstfarmers to benefit from the training. He is proudto show the clean, cool area in his compoundwhere he keeps his maize seed. “Now I keep myseed in good condition for a very long time,” hesays. “Before we were losing so much eachharvest because of rodents, fungus, and disease.”Martínez stores his maize grain in his silo andtreats his maize seed with fostoxin, using whathe learned from the training. He will plant theseed next year.

The training also gave farmers like Ricarda Mezagreater flexibility to keep seed for severalseasons. After an accident incapacitated Meza’shusband, the couple could not work the farm.Because of the information she obtained in thetraining course, Meza could support herself andher husband on maize that she kept in storage fortwo years. “Two years ago, I had a good crop,and that’s what we eat now. Before then, I had alot of infestation, and it was so fast and so bad! Iused to keep my maize in bags and didn’t useanything [to protect it]. Then I went for thetraining. I came home and told my husband, andwe started applying the treatment to our maize.”Meza adds that previously they often had to selltheir maize before it got infested, at a low price.“But now I can keep my maize, I don’t have tosell it quickly. When I need money, I take maizeto the city. As soon as the merchants there seehow nice my maize is, they all want to buy it!”Now that her husband is well, Ricarda says theywill be planting the seed they have been keepingfor two seasons.

Selecting Seed to MaintainDiversityTraining was also provided on seed selection inthe home and in the field. Farmers learned aboutthe characteristics to look for in plants in the fieldand about the need for a broader base forselecting seed at home. “Farmers selected seedfrom a very small number of ears, which mayaccumulate mutations that weaken the plant,”Bellon explains. “By teaching farmers to have abroader base in seed selection, we help themmaintain diversity, reduce the problem ofmutations, and perhaps improve yield stability.”

Pedro López Imazo from Santa Ana Zegacheattended the seed selection training at home andin the field. In the varieties he grows, Lópezwanted uniformity in the size of the maize grainand wanted the maize stalks to be the same color.At home, he carefully selected grains with thetraits he valued, and in the field he spray-paintedthe husks of plants that he wanted. ”Now I havealmost no plants with colored stalks,” he says.Encouraged by his success with the maize stalks,López is now experimenting with his pinto(multicolored) maize variety.

Ricarda Meza saved her seed.

Training Works for Farmersand PosterityA total of 742 farmers in theOaxaca area, 504 men and 238women, have benefited fromthe training since it began in1999. The training, Bellonsays, was the result of a longprocess that brought togetherfarmers, geneticists, breeders,and social scientists. “Theproject has a veryinterdisciplinary approach.We used what we learnedfrom the system and adaptedit to the intervention,” he said.“We focused not only on thehardware—in other words,the tools farmers used—butalso on the software, farmers’knowledge. Basically, weidentified what was available,why it was not working, and then weprovided ways to make it work.”

For more information: Mauricio Bellon([email protected])


Another reason that gene flow may be requiredto maintain diversity, Berthaud explains, is theaccumulation of deleterious mutations. Small-scale farmers select their own seed. Often theychoose the best ears at harvest and save seedfrom only a few cobs—a logical approach butone that increases deleterious mutations. Asdefects accumulate, the variety loses its geneticvalue.

“We know farmers are putting new diversityinto the system and in the process losing someof the old alleles and traits,” Berthaudobserves, “which raises several other questions.Is this dynamic process in balance? And will thecurrent flow maintain the valued geneticdiversity?”

Tracking Gene Flowsand DiversityBerthaud and graduate students Gael Pressoirand Fabiola Ramírez Corona (all supported byFrance’s Institut de Recherche pour leDéveloppement) are using two strategies totrack gene flows and determine geneticdiversity in the study area. In the first strategy,they collected “seed lots”—a “lot” is a set ofseeds that a farmer regards as belonging to thesame variety—from randomly selected farmersin six communities. The lots have undergonemolecular analysis to measure their diversity.

“One possibility is that if everybody keepsseed only from his or her own fields, the seedlots will be quite different from farm to farm.The other possibility is that there are manyseed exchanges, so everything is basicallyabout the same. We’re trying to figure out, atthe genetic level, where we are in this broadrange of possibilities.”

Another strategy for tracking gene flows takesthe team back to the farmers who purchasedlocal improved varieties at projectdemonstrations in 2000 and 2001. Whathappened to that seed? Did farmers storesome for future use? Mix it with their ownvarieties? Lose it? Exchange it with otherfarmers? “As we trace the history of the seedlots,” Berthaud says, “we hope to develop animage of the evolution of diversity.”

Knowledge of what is coming into and goingout of Oaxacan farmers’ maize fields willallow Berthaud to develop a model todetermine whether the genetic diversity in thesystem is shrinking or expanding, andwhether it is stable and sustainable. It wouldalso help guide future efforts to enhance insitu conservation. “If you want to maintainsome traits or diversity in general,” saysBerthaud, “you need to understand the bigpicture. If you play with only a part of thesystem, you are almost certain not to achievethe results you are seeking.”

“Julien Berthaud’s work has established thata static maize seed system leads to a deadsystem and that, in a dynamic system, newmaterials need to be brought in,” says projectleader Maurcio Bellon. “Perhaps farmersknow this, too, as some of them will bring inseed from other regions when they observethat their ‘plants are getting tired.’ We hadsome appreciation of these dynamics, but wedidn’t understand all the implications. Julien’swork brings us an added scientificperspective.”

For more information: JulienBerthaud ([email protected])

The basic question underlying the OaxacaProject (see p. 32) is simple, says JulienBerthaud, a CIMMYT population geneticist:“Can the genetic diversity of maize bemaintained or increased in smallholders’ fieldswhile enhancing the welfare of the farmers?”

As scientists searched for answers to thisquestion, from farmers’ silos to ultra high-powered statistical computer packages, itbecame clear that they would not find a single,straightforward answer. In fact, says Berthaud,“Our inquiry has led to more questions whoseanswers turn out to be enormously complex.”

What Are WeConserving?For starters: What is a landrace? Although alandrace is generally assumed to be a local“variety” produced over time through selectionby farmers, Berthaud contends that in theOaxaca study area, the landraces do not meetthe basic criteria of a variety: that they bedistinct, uniform, and stable.

So what are we trying to conserve, if notlandraces? “The active flow of genes,” answersBerthaud, “which carries traits that are ofvalue now or may be found to have value inthe future.” Sustaining gene flow in farmers’fields may not require maintaining landraces.By trying to retain landraces in their currentform, we may doom conservation to failure.

“A decade ago,” says Berthaud, “most people’svision of in situ conservation was to put up afence, keep the farmers and the variety in astate of suspended animation, and figure thateverything would stay as it was. But this willnot work. People have needs that may changewith the market—say, an emerging preferencefor floury rather than flinty kernels—or withthe environment. For example, a series of dryyears will affect the supply of maize seed andwhat is preferred for planting. The study area isa dynamic environment, with new genes andtraits flowing in and out of it, even under themost traditional systems.”

Maize Diversity in Oaxaca, Mexico:

Simple Questions but No Easy Answers

Berthaud: A static maize seed systemleads to a dead system.

CIMMYT Annual Report 2000-200130


Thirty Percent More Wheat under DroughtNew, hardy bread wheats in the pipeline at CIMMYT have beendesigned to fit new, tougher circumstances. They are descendedfrom crosses between different types of wheat andgoat grass, one of wheat’s wild relatives (see figure).The new wheats have produced up to 30% moregrain for two years running in tests comparing themto one of their parents under tough drylandconditions. “I’ve worked in Australia, in a very dryenvironment, for much of my life, and this is thebiggest breakthrough in drought tolerance I’ve everseen,” says Timothy Reeves, director general ofCIMMYT. Drought tolerance genes inherited fromtheir wild ancestor have made all the difference.

The parent they beat is no loser—on the contrary, it isa very high-yielding wheat that grows well in manysemiarid environments around the world. It hasendowed the new wheats with valuable traits:resistance to several diseases, good grain quality,and, more importantly, the innate capacity toproduce high yields with different amounts ofmoisture. The new wheats switch on their droughttolerance and express this high yielding capacityunder conditions that would shrivel most wheats.

How Do the New Wheats Work?The new wheats are meant for dry locations whereproducers are changing the way they farm to makebetter use of water, control soil erosion, and maintainsoil fertility. Some farmers have started doing verylittle or no plowing and leaving the straw of theprevious crop on the soil surface (see p. 44).Depending on climate, other farmers may plant their wheat deeperthan usual to take advantage of rainwater stored in the soil.

Each year, drought strikes more than half of the area sown to

wheat in the developing world. If predictions are right, an even

larger expanse of land will become parched every year owing to

global warming, urbanization, and deforestation. As conditions

worsen, farmers will need varieties that tolerate drought and

farming practices that promote more efficient water use.

No More ParchedWheat Fields

Crosses that went into breeding the new, high-yielding, drought-tolerant wheats.

Goat grass

Durum wheat

Bread wheat(droughttolerant, but pooragronomically)

Bread wheat(improved, highyielding, disease

resistant)

New, improved breadwheats (drought

tolerant, high yielding,disease resistant)

×

×


The plant type of normal wheat (left)compared to the new, high-yielding,drought-tolerant wheats (right).

Normal breadwheat plant

New, drought-tolerant wheat plant

Usualplantingdepth

Horizontalleaf

growth

Long coleoptile(developing stem)

Good rootdepth

Deepplanting

Visitors to drought experiments are impressed by the obviousdifference between the new bread wheats (in the background),vigorously expressing drought tolerance genes inherited from awild ancestor, and their parents (in the foreground).

Seedlings of the new wheats are so vigorous theycan force their way up through crop residues andfrom lower soil depths. This vitality comes fromdeep roots that anchor them firmly in the groundand from long, strong coleoptiles (developingstems) that push right through the soil and anystubble on the surface (see figure). After the

plants emerge, they produce numerous leavesthat extend outward horizontally. The leavesquickly cover the ground, shading the soil andconserving moisture.

The new wheats also do well when rain issufficient to produce a good harvest, as happensoccasionally in some dry environments. Theytake advantage of the added moisture toproduce more grain.

The key to getting the new wheats to yield asmuch as possible is to grow them using theright farming practices. This is facilitated by thenew wheats’ versatility, for they can be sownunder different planting systems—for example,on flat ground or on raised beds, with andwithout crop residues on the soil surface, andwith little or no plowing. These useful traits willgive farmers in marginal environments theflexibility they need to deal creatively with theproblem of water scarcity and the growingdemand for wheat.

For more information: Richard Trethowan([email protected])


In the last two decades, wheat yield potential hasrisen more rapidly in marginal than in morefavorable environments. Data from CIMMYT’sInternational Spring Wheat Yield Nursery(ISWYN) and the Elite Spring Wheat Yield Trial(ESWYT) indicate that wheat yield potential indrought-prone environments rose by about 3.1%per year from 1979 to 1995, or approximately 80kilograms per year. In contrast, wheat yieldpotential in irrigated environments rose at about1% (62 kilograms) per year (see figure).

What does this mean for farmers in marginalareas in any given year? It means considerableyield gains. In marginal areas in 1997, forexample, the wheat production increase resultingfrom replacing older improved varieties withnewer ones was about 1.85 million tons.

What caused wheat yield potential to grow so fastin marginal areas? In some cases, newer, higheryielding wheat varieties developed for favoredareas finally became available (or “spilled over”)to farmers in more marginal areas. CIMMYT’sVeery wheats, for example, were originallydeveloped for favorable environments about twodecades ago, but they have adapted well to mostmarginal environments. The Veery wheats andtheir descendents have yielded better than othercultivars in both high-yielding environments andunder reduced irrigation.

In other cases, breeders working in innovativeprograms for marginal environments crossedvarieties with high yield potential to cultivars thatcould resist drought. For example, Nesser, awheat bred from the high-yielding CIMMYTvariety Jupateco 75 and the drought-tolerantAustralian variety W3918A, has performed wellin the dryland environments of West Asia andNorth Africa.

Average yield gain (%/yr)3.0

2.0

1.0

0Irrigated Drought prone High temperature

Wheat yield gains in favorable and marginalenvironments, 1964-95.

1964-78

1979-95

These environments have also benefitedsubstantially from research spillovers. Usingdata from ISWYN, researchers documentedthat varieties bred locally for specificenvironments had significant yield advantagesonly for those environments, whereasCIMMYT-related wheats demonstratedsignificant yield advantages across severalenvironments.*

Projected growth in wheat productivity inhigh-potential environments is not likely tomeet the growing demand for wheat over thenext 20 years. Given increasing populationpressure in the developing world, declininginvestments in irrigation, and many otherfactors, improved productivity in marginalareas could be the key to food security in thecoming years.

For more information: Prabhu Pingali([email protected])

* See M.K. Maredia and D. Byerlee (eds.), The Global WheatImprovement System: Prospects for Enhancing Efficiency in thePresence of Spillovers (Mexico City, CIMMYT, 1999).

Wheat Yield PotentialIncreasing in MarginalAreas


Is every wheat called “Bobwhite” the same asothers that share the name? Not really, asscientists in CIMMYT’s Applied BiotechnologyCenter (ABC) determined this past year. In fact,the differences between the Bobwhite sister linescan be considerable.

Does it matter? It does to Bent Skovmand, head ofCIMMYT’s Wheat Germplasm Bank. “I got tiredof going to conferences and hearing people say,‘Bobwhite is a Swiss wheat,’ ‘Bobwhite is anIsraeli wheat,’ ‘Bobwhite came from here orthere,’” he says. “They simply didn’t know whereit came from.”

This was too much for Skovmand, whoparticipated in groundbreaking work by SanjayaRajaram, now director of CIMMYT’s WheatProgram, on the Bobwhite wheat cross in theearly 1970s. Skovmand’s interest went beyondgetting the credits right. It engenderedcollaboration with ABC molecular geneticistMarilyn Warburton and cell biologist AlessandroPellegrineschi that identified several“supertransformable” wheat lines and newpossibilities for molecular fingerprinting inmaintaining genetic diversity.

Genetic Testing for 129 Sisters“Bobwhite is the generic name for a wheat cross,”explains Skovmand. “We use such names becauseit’s difficult to recite long pedigrees, and the

What’s In a Name?Great Diversity!

About 130 wheats share the name “Bobwhite,”

but new research shows just how different they

are—and why that diversity matters.

Molecular geneticist Warburton: Her work preventedvaluable genetic resources from being lost.

names serve as a type of shorthand.”CIMMYT produced 129 Bobwhite sister linesthat merited preservation in its genebank andwere used by breeding programs worldwide.Lines that were not named by a nationalbreeding program reverted to being calledBobwhite. It is easy to see how this could leadto confusion.

Molecular fingerprinting, Skovmandsurmised, could clearly document the identityof the 129 Bobwhite sister lines and address akey question for his genebank: Havefingerprinting techniques advanced to thepoint where they can be efficiently applied togenetic resource conservation?


CIMMYT’s wheat genebankstores more than 155,000accessions. Skovmand’s dilemmais to determine how many andwhich related accessions must beconserved to retain geneticdiversity. When a number of linesappear to be representative of alandrace or cross, they can be puttogether, or “bulked,” in the bank.While this strategy is economicaland efficient, Skovmand hasresisted it because valuablegenetic traits can be lost whenbulking is too broad. Iffingerprinting could accuratelydistinguish the 129 Bobwhitesister lines and their geneticrelationships, it would helpdetermine when and how tobulk selections.

An Identity Problemfor Biotech ResearchBobwhite’s identity problem alsosurfaced among researchers usingthe lines for transformation(genetic modification)experiments. “We startedreceiving reports from some labsabout low rates of transformationwith Bobwhite and encouragingreports from other labs also usinga Bobwhite,” observesPellegrineschi. “Did thesedifferent results come from thegenetic diversity of the lines, orfrom the techniques andprotocols used by the labs?”

Skovmand, Warburton, andPellegrineschi went to work.Skovmand provided a full rangeof Bobwhite lines to the twoscientists. Pellegrineschi set abouttransforming the lines with asimple selectable marker (whichsignals whether a transformationhas been successful), whileWarburton assessed the potentialfor a large-scale fingerprintingservice at the ABC.

Research Collaboration to BenefitWheat Farmers WorldwideCIMMYT is a core member of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre forMolecular Plant Breeding (CRC-MPB), launched in 1997. Other members include theUniversity of Adelaide, Southern Cross University, the South Australian Research andDevelopment Institute, and the Victorian Department of Natural Resources andthe Environment.

This partnering, says David Hoisington, director ofCIMMYT’s Applied Biotechnology Center (ABC), “brings theknowledge of leading experts in molecular genetic analysisfor wheat right to CIMMYT’s door. Clearly this knowledgeand the resources they provide will help us developproducts that directly benefit our clients in the developingworld.” At the same time, CIMMYT provides the CRC-MPBwith access to its extensive germplasm collection as well asits own widely respected expertise in wheat research, whileserving as a conduit to a range of internationalorganizations and resources.

Alessandro Pellegrineschi, ABC cell biologist, appreciatesthe relationship. “The genes they’ve provided forexperiments on enhanced quality traits, male sterility inwheat (which would promote the development of highlyproductive hybrid wheats), and disease resistance mayprove extremely valuable as research progresses,” hedeclares. “And the CRC-MPB support for our Bobwhite workwas critical to identifying the supertransformable lines.”

The CRC-MPB also supports research by CIMMYT moleculargeneticist Manilal William, who works on identifyingmolecular markers linked to durable leaf rust resistancegenes, and that of Juan José Olivares and MagdalenaSalgado, doctoral candidates at the University of Adelaidewho are undertaking their dissertation research at CIMMYT.Olivares focuses on the molecular genetics of drought inwheat, and Salgado investigates the engineering ofthaumatin-like protein genes into wheat to providedisease resistance.

Equally valuable, Pellegrineschi and William concur, hasbeen their interaction with Australian scientists. “It’s been afantastic experience,” says Pellegrineschi, “as they comeout with stimulating ideas and provide a great deal ofvaluable information. I believe synergies have beendeveloped that help us all in our research, and I hope wecan continue building on this base.”

For more information on CRC-MPB, seewww.molecularplantbreeding.com



Not All Bobwhites Created EqualPellegrineschi’s team inserted a marker gene into 200embryos from each of the 129 sister lines. Theyscreened all embryos to determine the rate ofsuccessful transformation. This process was repeatedthree times for each variety, and an average ratewas derived.

“A lot of the lines had a transformation rate of zero,”reports Pellegrineschi, “but we did come up withfive lines with transformation rates around 60%, andone line—possibly our premier line fortransformation—with a rate of about 70%.” Heconfirmed the efficacy of those lines by transformingand screening 2,000 embryos from each line andgrowing them into plants.

This investigative effort was funded and supportedby Australia’s Cooperative Research Centre forMolecular Plant Breeding (see p. 35). Prior to thisresearch, Pellegrineschi relates, in its transformationwork the ABC had used a Bobwhite line that couldnow be categorized as “quite mediocre.” The newlyidentified line increased the transformation rateabout sevenfold. Higher transformation ratestranslate into more efficient transfer of genes andtraits and lower costs. Given that just a year or twoago wheat transformation rates of 5% wereconsidered good and 10% exceptional, these“supertransformable” lines, called MPB-Bobwhite26and MPB-Bobwhite29, have elicited great interest inCIMMYT and major laboratories worldwide.

Diversity RescuedWarburton, meanwhile, fingerprinted 101 Bobwhitesister lines using amplified fragment lengthpolymorphism (AFLP) technology. “It was the firstopportunity to maximize the efficiency of theprocedures for large-scale fingerprinting,” she says,“and the experience gained through the work madeit worthwhile.”

The first thing Warburton’s team determined wasthat although the sister lines came from the samecross and even fourth- and fifth-generationpopulations, there was enough diversity amongthem to warrant maintaining them separately inthe genebank.

“This result shows how unwise it would have beento bulk these lines in the bank,” Skovmand observes.“If we had done that, we never would have foundthe highly transformable wheat lines. Obviously thelessons learned here go beyond Bobwhite.”

For more information: Bent Skovmand ([email protected]);Alessandro Pellegrineschi ([email protected]);Marilyn Warburton ([email protected])

An important serendipitous finding, according toWarburton, was that translocations can greatlyskew an analysis of diversity. Translocations arefragments of a chromosome that replace a similarfragment in another species, which is often theresult or goal of a wide crossing experiment. “OurAFLP fingerprinting and analysis showed twodistinct clusters among the Bobwhite lines, a totallyunexpected outcome,” she says. “We discoveredthat the clustering stemmed from a translocationfrom rye. Using AFLPs that did not fall in thetranslocated region, we found that the sister linesdid not divide into those clusters and were actuallya lot closer to one another.”

By identifying diagnostic markers for these andother translocations, Warburton can look for factorsthat might distort analyses of genetic relationshipsbetween lines, as well as tell breeders whetheruseful genes from the translocation are present intheir latest selections, thereby accelerating breeding.Cytology already allows such diagnostics, but at ahigher cost.

The Cost of DiscoveringGenetic RelationshipsCost, Warburton has confirmed, is a critical factor inDNA fingerprinting. To reduce costs, Warburton isexploring the use of diversity arrays. “A singlediversity array reaction provides the same amountof information we’d get from running 38 gels,” sheexplains. “We’ll be running experiments and costanalyses on this technology to see if diversity arraysare an economical alternative.”

“The Bobwhite research has shown how usefulfingerprinting at CIMMYT can be,” concludesWarburton. “If we continue bringing down costs,we hope to help the genebank with its work andextend the benefits of this technology to many moreclients, both within and outside of CIMMYT.”

With Bobwhite’s identity crisis resolved and manylessons learned along the way, the three scientistsconclude that a hidden benefit of the work was thecommunication it promoted among them. “Beforethis study, I don’t think that Marilyn or Alessandrowere well versed in selection histories,” saysSkovmand, “and I certainly learned a lot aboutfingerprinting and genetic transformation fromthem. These interactions can help us recognizeother opportunities for collaboration.”

a s i a

a s i a

It is wheat harvest time in Sheikupura District,

Punjab Province, Pakistan, about 40 kilometers

northwest of Lahore. Out on his land, farmer

Khushi Muhammed (left) frowns and pulls the top

off one%plant and then another, rubbing the spikes

between rough-hewn hands, blowing away the

chaff%and counting the grains. Unschooled eyes

would not notice, but the kernels are not completely

filled. “The crop looks good, but we expect lower

yields than last year,” Khushi says. “The water

shortage made the plants tiller more, and they’re

shorter and the grain slightly shriveled.”

The “shortage” is a severe drought—the

worst on record—that began more than

two%years ago in Pakistan. In 2000

Muhammed’s village received only%50

millimeters of rain, one-tenth the normal

amount. Sheikupura is considered a

“moderately” affected district; farmers

there%were able to pump water from

tubewells to supplement dying flows out

of%irrigation canals. But the problem with

constant pumping is that water tables

drop%and water quality worsens.

Fewer Drops in SouthAsia’s BucketAccording to information from the InternationalWater Management Institute (IWMI), by 2025Pakistan and large parts of India will suffer"absolute water scarcity." This means they willlack the fresh water needed to maintain currentlevels of irrigated agriculture and will even haveto shift water out of agriculture to meet domestic,industrial, and environmental demands. RajGupta, CIMMYT scientist and regional facilitatorof the Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains (RWC),* a researcher withconsiderable experience in water issues, talks ofthe region’s "double jeopardy" concerning watersupplies and quality: “Excessive pumping isdepleting subsoil water in many regions, while inothers poor drainage is raising water tables nearlyto the surface, creating sodic or saline conditions.”

Is Hunger Mining Soils?The latter point touches on another, moreimmediate concern for rice-wheat farmers:declining soil quality. The rising demand for foodand the subdivision of agricultural land oversuccessive generations have intensified land useto the point where fallowing is practicallyunthinkable. The average per capita holding inAsia is now only 0.3 hectares, compared with 2.8hectares for sub-Saharan Africa. Khushi

Muhammed and his sons, for example, support a15-member household in Sheikupura District,Pakistan, by growing rice and wheat on about 20hectares—but he shares this land with threebrothers. In Bayana Village, Uttar Pradesh, India,farmer Pramod Tyagi and his family work 12hectares, producing potatoes, green vegetables,rice, wheat, lentils, and peas to support ahousehold of 21 persons.

What are the practical effects of these problems?Start with organic matter. Many farmers remove asmuch as 10 tons of straw per hectare over an entireyear’s cropping. Some is used for fodder, but muchis burned, filling the region’s air with unhealthysoot for a month or more and robbing the soil oforganic material. Declining soil fertility—amongother things from the unbalanced or insufficientuse of fertilizer—is also affecting crop yields.Finally, yearly puddling of soils for rice, followedby intensive tillage for wheat—an average 6–7tractor passes—obliterates soil structure and, inmany areas, creates a nearly impenetrable “plowpan” immediately beneath the topsoil.

Zero-Tillage: AvertingDry Wells and DepletedSoils in South Asia

* Led by South Asian agricultural research systems, the RWC is analliance of those systems, international research centers, andadvanced research institutes. CIMMYT contributes technical andmanagement support. The RWC fosters sustainable improvements inagroecosystem productivity, together with the preservation ofnatural resources, in areas of the Indo-Gangetic Plains dominatedby rice-wheat cropping patterns.

Like the persistent drip-drip of a leaky faucet, the concern for dwindling water resources is

preoccupying researchers, policy makers, and farmers across South Asia. Either from climate changes

that bring more frequent and severe droughts, intense agricultural draw-down on aquifers, or water-

guzzling urban growth, few disagree that a serious water crisis looms for South Asia.

Farmer-Driven ResearchBy and large, farmers testing zero-tillagesay they intend to continue using thepractice, and they are vociferouslyapprising researchers of the improvementsneeded. “Rather than spend long years‘cooking’ technologies on experimentstations, the RWC and its partners havegiven farmers promising technologies totest under their conditions,” says Gupta.“Now farmers are coming back andasking for focused assistance.” Accordingto Mushtaq Ahmad Gill, who leads theOn-farm Water Management Directorate(OFWM) of Punjab Province, Pakistan,this approach has been crucial: "If the lastfive years of our efforts to promoteresource-conserving technologies likezero-tillage have taught us anything, it’sthat we must work with the farmers.”

Water at Issue?Gill is convinced that resource-conservingpractices are essential if South Asia’sfarmers are to deal with water shortages,energy constraints, the demands ofexploding populations, and globaleconomic and marketing challenges."Water is the lifeblood of Pakistan’s cropsand economy. Persistent drought hasreduced canal water supplies and causedthe mining of aquifers, the deterioration ofwater quality, higher production costs,and lower wheat yields," he says. "Wemust learn to grow more rice and wheatwith less water, less energy, and less land.The simple answer is conservation tillage.In about 200 villages of Punjab, more than4,000 farmers who used locally developedequipment to grow wheat on 30,000hectares with zero-tillage last year got 17%more yield than conventional tillage,besides saving about 3,000 rupees perhectare on tillage, diesel, herbicides, andwater. These farmers are the salesmen ofthis innovative technology for the region."

For more information:Peter Hobbs ([email protected])

Joint Efforts by CGIAR Centersand Funding Partners on Rice-Wheat SystemsWith newly approved funding from the Asian Development Bank (ADB),several CGIAR centers and partners are launching a series ofcollaborative projects through the Rice Wheat Consortium (RWC) onissues central to rice-wheat cropping systems and agriculture in SouthAsia. Topics include the following: salt and water balances; thecultivation of rice on raised beds; nutrient, weed, and soil management inrice-wheat systems; crop diversification, including potatoes; and theintroduction of legume crops in rice-wheat systems. “The focus will be onfarmer participatory research, although some of the work involves morebasic research as well,” says J.K. Ladha, IRRI rice-wheat coordinator anda soil scientist who has worked for years in the region. “All the key issueswill be covered—crops, soil, water, and diversification.”

The collaboration features participation at each research site by mostinternational centers that work through the RWC. The ADB project isjust one of many conducted by the Consortium, and it relies oncomplementary support from other approved projects, nationalprograms, and international centers. Over the years a number ofgenerous partners including ADB have supported the RWC. Among themare the following:

• The Directorate General, International Cooperation of the Governmentof the Netherlands (DGIS)

• The CGIAR Finance Committee

• The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

• The Department for International Development, UK (DFID)

• The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

• The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

According to RWC facilitator, Raj Gupta, ADB supported the Consortiumin its early efforts to set up an ecoregional program focused on naturalresource management. “Their new funding is allowing us to improvecooperation between international centers and national programs,” hesays. “Contributions from the CGIAR Finance Committee, obtained withhelp from the World Bank, were crucial when other support had waned.In recent years, DGIS has provided generous, unfettered contributions fortesting and promoting technologies such as zero-tillage. ACIAR, USAID,DFID, and IFAD have also assisted with money for key research, and weare just beginning another project with funding from New Zealand.”

Finally, national research systems of the participating countries have alsoprovided funding and significant in-kind support for RWC activities, andinternational centers like CIMMYT have drawn on their own unrestrictedfunds to ensure that work goes forward.

Time for Less TillageArguably, the same agricultural policies thatbrought food self-sufficiency to South Asia havehelped bring on these dilemmas (see p. 53), andcentral governments are slowly reformingpolicies to encourage innovation, productivity,and resource conservation.

However, certain researchers, among themCIMMYT agronomist Peter Hobbs, beganproposing more sustainable farming options forSouth Asia more than a decade ago. Their ideasbegan with the soil—the indispensable resourcebase for all agriculture. “We’ve been hammeringon tillage as a platform for a suite of options tolower costs, increase productivity, and improvesoils,” says Hobbs. “In recent years we’verealized that reduced tillage also saves water andcuts greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.”

Working through the RWC, Hobbs and associatesin national research programs have helpedfarmers test and share a wheat seeding practicethat reduces costly and time-consumingcultivation to a single tractor pass. This simpleamendment of sowing wheat directly into ricestubble, known as zero-tillage, has an astonishingrange of benefits.

First, farmers’ costs (fuel, tractor rental ormaintenance, water pumping) are slashed. Theearly-established wheat crop also shades weeds

R.K. Naresh (right), agronomist at the AgriculturalUniversity of Uttar Pradesh extension agency, hasworked with farmers throughout that northern Indiastate to promote zero-tillage and other resource-conserving options. Farmers require science’s help todeal with the huge amounts of residue produced inrice-wheat cropping and to diversify to other crops.

more effectively, reducing their growth and theneed for herbicides. In many cases, yieldsimprove because the grain matures before thepre-monsoon heat can wilt it. Moreover, since itenables wheat to take advantage of residualmoisture from rice, zero-tillage saves farmersaround 1 million liters of water per hectare,compared with conventional practices. Thiswater may represent an actual savings(important if farmers are eventually chargedmore for water and related expenses), or it maybe used elsewhere for productive agriculture.Finally, by burning an average 60–70 liters lessdiesel fuel per hectare sown, tractors emit muchless carbon dioxide under zero-tillage—nearly800,000 tons less, if the practice were adoptedeven on 5 million of the rice-wheat region’s 12million hectares.

Adoption at Full ThrottleIn the 2000–01 crop season, use of zero-tillage inthe western Indo-Gangetic Plains (India andPakistan’s breadbaskets) increased to around100,000 hectares, expanding from 12,000 theprevious year and only 1,200 the year before that(see figure, next page). “The pace of adoptionnow depends mainly on the speed at whichprivate manufacturers can make zero-tillageplanters,” says Larry Harrington, director ofCIMMYT’s Natural Resources Group. The four-wheel tractor version of the planter costs aboutUS$ 400—well within reach of tractor operators’budgets, since a single planter can sow anaverage of 80 hectares per season. More farmerswithout tractors can hire sowing services,because zero-tillage reduces the cost of sowing.This saves the farmers money and frees up theirtime for other profitable activities. A variant ofthe zero-tillage planter is available for the two-wheel tractors used in the eastern rice-wheatregions, and another reduced tillage option that

Above: Wheat area sown using zero-tillage in

India and Pakistan. These figures are based on

a recent, region-wide survey on the number of

privately owned zero-tillage planters available

to farmers and the fact that each planter can

sow at least 80 hectares of wheat per cropping

season. The area for 2001–02 represents a

conservative estimate.

requires no machinery at all is being tested andpromoted by the RWC for the farmers withfewest resources.

Finally, building on trust gained throughsuccessful promotion of zero-tillage, the RWC istesting another innovation—growing crops onraised soil beds. Water savings under bedplanting are even more dramatic than those forzero-tillage alone, and average between 30% and50%. “Farmers are testing beds mainly withwheat right now, but we look forward to a timewhen rice and many other crops will be grownon permanent beds, with no tillage necessarythroughout the year,” says CIMMYT wheatagronomist Ken Sayre, who with manycolleagues in South Asia and the RWC ispromoting beds and other resource-conservingland management practices.

Across South Asia, less water will beavailable for people and crops.

Fewer Drops in SouthAsia’s BucketAccording to information from the InternationalWater Management Institute (IWMI), by 2025Pakistan and large parts of India will suffer"absolute water scarcity." This means they willlack the fresh water needed to maintain currentlevels of irrigated agriculture and will even haveto shift water out of agriculture to meet domestic,industrial, and environmental demands. RajGupta, CIMMYT scientist and regional facilitatorof the Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains (RWC),* a researcher withconsiderable experience in water issues, talks ofthe region’s "double jeopardy" concerning watersupplies and quality: “Excessive pumping isdepleting subsoil water in many regions, while inothers poor drainage is raising water tables nearlyto the surface, creating sodic or saline conditions.”

Is Hunger Mining Soils?The latter point touches on another, moreimmediate concern for rice-wheat farmers:declining soil quality. The rising demand for foodand the subdivision of agricultural land oversuccessive generations have intensified land useto the point where fallowing is practicallyunthinkable. The average per capita holding inAsia is now only 0.3 hectares, compared with 2.8hectares for sub-Saharan Africa. Khushi

Muhammed and his sons, for example, support a15-member household in Sheikupura District,Pakistan, by growing rice and wheat on about 20hectares—but he shares this land with threebrothers. In Bayana Village, Uttar Pradesh, India,farmer Pramod Tyagi and his family work 12hectares, producing potatoes, green vegetables,rice, wheat, lentils, and peas to support ahousehold of 21 persons.

What are the practical effects of these problems?Start with organic matter. Many farmers remove asmuch as 10 tons of straw per hectare over an entireyear’s cropping. Some is used for fodder, but muchis burned, filling the region’s air with unhealthysoot for a month or more and robbing the soil oforganic material. Declining soil fertility—amongother things from the unbalanced or insufficientuse of fertilizer—is also affecting crop yields.Finally, yearly puddling of soils for rice, followedby intensive tillage for wheat—an average 6–7tractor passes—obliterates soil structure and, inmany areas, creates a nearly impenetrable “plowpan” immediately beneath the topsoil.

Zero-Tillage: AvertingDry Wells and DepletedSoils in South Asia

* Led by South Asian agricultural research systems, the RWC is analliance of those systems, international research centers, andadvanced research institutes. CIMMYT contributes technical andmanagement support. The RWC fosters sustainable improvements inagroecosystem productivity, together with the preservation ofnatural resources, in areas of the Indo-Gangetic Plains dominatedby rice-wheat cropping patterns.

Like the persistent drip-drip of a leaky faucet, the concern for dwindling water resources is

preoccupying researchers, policy makers, and farmers across South Asia. Either from climate changes

that bring more frequent and severe droughts, intense agricultural draw-down on aquifers, or water-

guzzling urban growth, few disagree that a serious water crisis looms for South Asia.

Farmer-Driven ResearchBy and large, farmers testing zero-tillagesay they intend to continue using thepractice, and they are vociferouslyapprising researchers of the improvementsneeded. “Rather than spend long years‘cooking’ technologies on experimentstations, the RWC and its partners havegiven farmers promising technologies totest under their conditions,” says Gupta.“Now farmers are coming back andasking for focused assistance.” Accordingto Mushtaq Ahmad Gill, who leads theOn-farm Water Management Directorate(OFWM) of Punjab Province, Pakistan,this approach has been crucial: "If the lastfive years of our efforts to promoteresource-conserving technologies likezero-tillage have taught us anything, it’sthat we must work with the farmers.”

Water at Issue?Gill is convinced that resource-conservingpractices are essential if South Asia’sfarmers are to deal with water shortages,energy constraints, the demands ofexploding populations, and globaleconomic and marketing challenges."Water is the lifeblood of Pakistan’s cropsand economy. Persistent drought hasreduced canal water supplies and causedthe mining of aquifers, the deterioration ofwater quality, higher production costs,and lower wheat yields," he says. "Wemust learn to grow more rice and wheatwith less water, less energy, and less land.The simple answer is conservation tillage.In about 200 villages of Punjab, more than4,000 farmers who used locally developedequipment to grow wheat on 30,000hectares with zero-tillage last year got 17%more yield than conventional tillage,besides saving about 3,000 rupees perhectare on tillage, diesel, herbicides, andwater. These farmers are the salesmen ofthis innovative technology for the region."

For more information:Peter Hobbs ([email protected])

Joint Efforts by CGIAR Centersand Funding Partners on Rice-Wheat SystemsWith newly approved funding from the Asian Development Bank (ADB),several CGIAR centers and partners are launching a series ofcollaborative projects through the Rice Wheat Consortium (RWC) onissues central to rice-wheat cropping systems and agriculture in SouthAsia. Topics include the following: salt and water balances; thecultivation of rice on raised beds; nutrient, weed, and soil management inrice-wheat systems; crop diversification, including potatoes; and theintroduction of legume crops in rice-wheat systems. “The focus will be onfarmer participatory research, although some of the work involves morebasic research as well,” says J.K. Ladha, IRRI rice-wheat coordinator anda soil scientist who has worked for years in the region. “All the key issueswill be covered—crops, soil, water, and diversification.”

The collaboration features participation at each research site by mostinternational centers that work through the RWC. The ADB project isjust one of many conducted by the Consortium, and it relies oncomplementary support from other approved projects, nationalprograms, and international centers. Over the years a number ofgenerous partners including ADB have supported the RWC. Among themare the following:

• The Directorate General, International Cooperation of the Governmentof the Netherlands (DGIS)

• The CGIAR Finance Committee

• The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

• The Department for International Development, UK (DFID)

• The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

• The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

According to RWC facilitator, Raj Gupta, ADB supported the Consortiumin its early efforts to set up an ecoregional program focused on naturalresource management. “Their new funding is allowing us to improvecooperation between international centers and national programs,” hesays. “Contributions from the CGIAR Finance Committee, obtained withhelp from the World Bank, were crucial when other support had waned.In recent years, DGIS has provided generous, unfettered contributions fortesting and promoting technologies such as zero-tillage. ACIAR, USAID,DFID, and IFAD have also assisted with money for key research, and weare just beginning another project with funding from New Zealand.”

Finally, national research systems of the participating countries have alsoprovided funding and significant in-kind support for RWC activities, andinternational centers like CIMMYT have drawn on their own unrestrictedfunds to ensure that work goes forward.


Farmers KeepBreeders on Targetin South Asia

When it comes to wheat, women farmers around Bankatti in the southern lowlands of Nepal know what

they like: a variety that withstands disease and insect attack, makes good chapatis (flatbread), and

produces lots of grain. In contrast, Bankatti men prefer wheats that tolerate heat and produce large,

white grain that does not shatter when harvested.

Ten men and ten women farmers voiced thoseopinions during a participatory variety selectionexercise in their village. Outcomes of similar eventsorganized by researchers from CIMMYT andnational programs (in this case, the NepalAgricultural Research Council) in other villages ofnorthern Pakistan, northeastern India, and Nepal arenow guiding breeding research—specifically, theselection of materials to use and crosses to make.

“The preferences of the two groups in Bankattireflect their roles in the household,” saysCIMMYT wheat breeder Guillermo Ortiz-Ferrara, who is leading this effort. “Womenfarmers store the grain and make the bread,while the men, who sell the surplus grain, aremore concerned with ‘filling the sacks.’ “

One choice of both males and females in severalvillages of Nepal was the recently released


variety BL-1473. They liked its ability to stand upunder a full head of grain, the large, white grainsit produces, its abundant straw yield, and itsrapid growth. As a result, Nepal’s public seedenterprise will hasten production of BL-1473, inhopes of farmers being able to sow it next cropcycle. Researchers have provided foundation seedof BL-1473 for 80 farmers in Nepal’s hill area whowill increase the seed and sell it to peers.

Farmers in Sultanabad, Gilgit District, in thenorthern hill region of Pakistan, consistentlypreferred three varieties that possess goodresistance to the fungal diseases known as rustand yielded 30–40% more grain than Suneen, thepopular but disease-prone local variety. Two ofthe three new varieties also produced more strawthan Suneen. Seed of these varieties will bemultiplied for distribution to as many farmers aspossible. Next season scientists from the NationalAgricultural Research Centre (NARC), the AghaKhan Rural Support Program, and CIMMYT willuse participatory selection to hasten adoption ofnew cultivars there.

Working Where Help isMost NeededWheat production is an economic mainstay in theeastern Indo-Gangetic Plains but lags far behindits potential: average yields are only half those ofwheat in the Punjab of India, for example. Thelow productivity will simply not meet thedemand of the region’s populace, which isgrowing by 2.2% each year. For the last three cropseasons, Ortiz-Ferrara and Etienne Duveiller,CIMMYT wheat pathologist in South Asia, havebeen working with farmers in the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains to test and select more productivewheat varieties and agronomic practices thatconserve resources.

“When we started doing

participatory selection in the hills of

Nepal, we found that 90% of the

wheat was of an obsolete variety that

was very susceptible to diseases.”

“When we started doing participatory selection in thehills of Nepal, we found that 90% of the wheat was ofan obsolete variety that was very susceptible todiseases,” says Duveiller. “Newer, disease resistantvarieties were available but accounted for only 10%of the wheat. Farmers hadn’t accepted them, either,because they didn’t meet their needs, they hadn’theard of them or, if they had, there wasn’t enoughseed. This is typical of the obstacles keepingnew varieties from reaching farmers in thisregion.” Participatory selection has provenan effective way to clear such hurdles.Varieties and practices developed intandem with farmers are more likely tomeet their needs and quickly becomefamiliar to them. Follow-up researchand seed production are keyed tofarmers’ demands.

In addition to increasing productivity eachseason, switching to new varieties reduces theoverall risk of disease epidemics, inasmuch as itexpands the range of varieties sown. A diversepatchwork of varieties confounds a disease’s chancesof ruining an entire region’s crop. Use of singlevarieties over large areas has been a problem in SouthAsia, causing multi-million dollar losses in Pakistanin the early 1990s, when a stripe rust epidemicdestroyed the wheat crop (see related story, p. 15).

Zero-Tillage on the RiseAs is occurring elsewhere in the Indo-GangeticPlains, participatory research has helped farmers inthe east overcome initial reservations about sowingwheat directly into rice stubble with no tillage (see p.44), and they are now buying the requisite zero-tillage planters. With support from the IndianCouncil for Agricultural Research, Banaras HinduUniversity, CIMMYT, and other organizations, manyrice-wheat farmers in eastern Uttar Pradesh are usingthe improved wheat variety HUW-468 and resource-conserving practices like zero-tillage to sow earlier,save on diesel fuel, and increase yields. Ramjiv, atypical rice-wheat farmer in the region, has thusboosted his wheat harvests from a mere half ton tofour tons per hectare. A large-scale effort involvingextension agencies and local NGOs is helpingfarmers to test and adopt these technologies.

For more information:Guillermo Ortiz-Ferrara ([email protected])Etienne Duveiller ([email protected])


In early 2001, a network of researchers gatheredinformation from maize farmers in upland areas inChina, India, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines,Thailand, and Vietnam. The information will helpbring the problems and constraints of thesefarmers to the attention of policy makers andscientists, with the goal of developing a maizeintensification program that considers ruralpeople’s needs and is environmentally friendly.

The participatory rural surveys represent theinitial phase of a three-year project supported bythe International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (IFAD). The project promotesequitable distribution of income and improvedfood security for poor and marginalized maizefarmers in Asia. Asia alone will account for 60% ofthe global increase in maize demand in the nexttwo decades. Maize demand in the region isexpected to grow from 138 million tons (in 1993) to243 million tons in 2020. The increased demandwill have serious implications for poor andmarginalized farmers in upland areas, where mostmaize production in Asia has been concentrated.

Thailand: Concerns of the PoorBrought to LightThe village of Baphai Deng, in the province ofNakorn Ratchaseesima, Thailand, is one of 24communities visited by Benchaphun Ekasingh,project collaborator from Chiang Mai University,and her team of researchers. Dividing the farmers

Researchers have used quick and inexpensive

participatory rural appraisal techniques to ensure

that the problems of maize farmers in Asia’s

marginal areas are brought to the attention of

people who can solve them.

Farmers’ KnowledgeKey to Greater AsianMaize Production

into two separate groups, Ekasingh and her teamelicited information about the crops they grew,land preparation practices, crop varieties used,and the constraints they faced. The poorest of the12 districts in the area, almost a two-hour driveover a hilly and bumpy dirt road from the nearestcommercial center—good weather permitting—Baphai Deng is typical of villages surveyed acrossthe seven countries.

“Most of these are marginalized communitieswhere maize is the main income earner. In manyplaces we visited there were not manyalternatives. Even if these farmers are growingother crops, they don’t bring in much income.Some farmers have attempted to move frommaize but were not successful. Low income frommaize and rising costs of production are the mainproblems,” Ekasingh says.

The information gathered, she adds, will bring tolight issues that are not so evident to researchersand policy makers.

“Researchers and policy makers don’t haveenough information about problems affectingmaize production, especially small-scale farmers,and this survey will reveal those problems. It willalso bring out other information that is not sovisible to policy makers or researchers, like theenvironmental risks that are associated withintensifying maize cropping, and equity issues,”she explains.

Nepal: Pressure on IsolatedFarm CommunitiesThroughout much of Asia, rapid economic growthand accelerating urbanization is changing foodconsumption patterns from traditional rice diets togreater consumption of meat, which in turn leadsto increased demand for maize for animal feed.This pattern is evident in Nepal, where maize isthe primary food crop for most of the hill areas.


According to Dularchan Sahu Pathik, Director forCrops and Horticulture at the Nepal AgriculturalResearch Council (NARC), demand for maize,both for food and fodder, is increasing and isestimated to grow from 6% to 8% over the next 20years. “Presently we are importing. This is a veryimportant crop and we are looking into ways toincrease production.” He adds that the biggestconstraints for maize farmers are the lack ofimproved seed and losses after harvest, wheninsects and disease can eat away the stored maizegrain. “In some districts, storage losses werereported to be as high as 50%.”

Using seven teams of researchers, CIMMYT post-doctoral fellow Kamal Raj Paudyal surveyedfarmers in 17 hill districts in Nepal. Some of theareas they visited were remote, and researcherswere faced with a number of challenges.

“We wanted to finish the survey immediatelyafter the summer harvest, but despite the latemonsoon, the rains continued and most of theroads were closed,” said Paudyal. “Some hillareas were very difficult. One of our teams spentabout eight or nine days walking to the site andtwo days interviewing. In some areas, peoplewere reluctant to respond. Some were afraid.They hardly see outsiders and are reluctant to sayexactly how things are.”

On one of the visits, farmers from BhandariVillage in Dolakha, who transplant millet intostanding maize or grow it after the maize harvest,talked about the lack of irrigation technology. “Ifwe have pre-monsoon rain, it helps with themaize germination. But when we have to wait forthe monsoon, the situation gets difficult for us,”

said a farmer in the village. “We can’t harvest ontime, we can’t go for millet, and that means onlyone crop. If we have irrigation, we can harvest themaize on time and go for millet. We can plantmillet in standing maize, but it means more laborand the production is not so good. If we plantafter maize, the production is better.”

Younger members of the community have otherconcerns. For 20-year-old Madhuram Karki, theproblem was poor access to information and newtechnology. “There are no sources of information.Most often we learn by tradition or see howothers do things when we travel to differentplaces. If we see people cultivating in a differentway and if the crops are good, we ask them to tellus how they do it.”

“In some areas, people

hardly see outsiders and are

reluctant to say exactly how

things are.”


While there are extension workers and servicesin Nepal, Paudyal explains that the areas theyhave to cover are too large and the hills prohibitquick access.

The Philippines: Farm AssistanceGoes Only So FarTo characterize maize production systems in Asia’supland areas, researchers are identifying andmapping key maize-growing areas as well asgathering preliminary data on farmers. In thePhilippines, this second activity brought CIMMYTeconomist Roberta Gerpacio to northern Luzon,where she met with local researchers, agronomists,extension workers, and farmers. Earlier, she hadcompleted collecting data from nine areas inMindanao, the major maize-growing area in thePhilippines. In northern Luzon, Gerpacio learnednot only about the farmers, but also about theassistance that was being provided to them.

“In Cagayan, the agricultural district office helpsfarmers with new technologies like hybrid seed ororganic fertilizer, under a government program.They also try to assist with productionintensification by providing mechanical dryers andtractors to farmers’ groups or collectives in thecommunity,” she says. Despite this assistance,problems remain.

For some of the farmers in the area, like TeodoraKuntapay from Isabela, the high price of inputsand shortage of labor are constraints. Kuntapayworks five hectares with her husband and hiredlabor. “What I get from my farm is not enough. Ihave to support myself with other activities likeraising poultry and pigs. My children are grownand have their own families, and they give a littleto help. But the cost of inputs, especially labor, ishigh, and the price of maize is low, especially afterharvest,” she says.

Limited credit is another problem. “Many of thesefarmers need credit support from the government,but now the government does not buy back themaize and farmers are forced to sell maize at lowerprices,” she says.

Some farmers are assisted by farmer cooperativeslike the Villaluna Multipurpose Cooperative, whichrecently acquired two tractors. “Labor is getting tobe a problem with younger people going to live incities, and we are looking into mechanized farmingto cope with the problem,” one of the officersexplains. “We got a loan from a bank which wehave to pay in seven to ten years, and with thatmoney we bought a mechanical planter, harvester,dryer, silo, and other small farm equipment.”

From Personal Stories toPractical PoliciesThese and many other personal stories, heard inrural areas in all of the countries involved in theproject, are yielding data and information that willbe brought to the scientific community throughresearch and development planning meetings andto policy makers through policy dialogues. “TheIFAD Project hopes to give these marginalizedfarmers the chance to be heard. It is crucial thatmaize producers be given more attention andsupport,” Gerpacio says.

For more information:Roberta Gerpacio ([email protected])

“Labor is getting to be

a problem with

younger people going

to live in cities.”

In northwestern India and the Punjab of Pakistan, modern agriculture–spearheaded by

improved varieties–produced a flush of prosperity over the past several decades.

Knowledgeable observers comment on India’s emerging middle class: agriculture

contributed to its growth and to infrastructure development in rural zones. Even so,

many people still lack access to adequate food supplies, and policy and other

innovations are needed to usher South Asia’s agriculture and hard-working, enterprising

farmers into the global marketplace.

In India and Pakistan,Grain Farmers Mean Business

Sudesh Pal Singh: He has a degree inmathematics but chose the fields ofnorthwestern India over a faculty job.

Farmers Speak of ProgressLike farmers everywhere, those in SouthAsia complain about rising production costs andsqueezed profits, but eventually they admit thattheir livelihoods are better than before. In thewords of Chasan Veer Singh, a 53-year-oldfarmer from Sultanpur, Ghaziabad District, UttarPradesh, India: “Working conditions were muchharder when I was young, before tractors. Thingshave changed since the 1960s, when the Mexicanwheat varieties arrived. Back then there were nocarts, roads, electricity—we did everything byhand. We never went hungry, but work washarder. Ladies used to grind grain and menchopped fodder by hand; now everything ismechanized. Previously people used to walk toother villages; now at least most families have amotor scooter.”

Agriculture: Subsistenceor Profitable Sideline?Many forces lie behind this progress, not the leastbeing the productivity of rice-wheat rotations.New circumstances are putting hardenvironmental and economic choices to rice-wheat farmers. While some stand pat ontradition, many others, like Chasan, are risktakers. Says Chasan: “We must experiment toincrease production.”

Positive experiences with new technologies such aszero-tillage have recently gained converts to the“farmer-experimenter” fold. According to KhushiMuhammed, Sheikupura District, Punjab, Pakistan:“We depend totally on the grace of God, becauseotherwise we have nothing. But last year we savedsome money and bought a zero-tillage planter. Nowwe’ll sow all our land under zero-tillage and onbeds. We’ve left our traditional system behind.”

Conversation with farmer Pardeep Singh, of MatialaVillage in Ghaziabad, India, is all business. “Wehave learned that, wherever you go, you cansucceed with hard work,” he says. But Pardeepobviously combines work with clear vision. A Sikhwho left Pakistan at partition and settled in India’sPunjab, Pardeep’s father moved to Ghaziabad in1970 in search of land. He and his family restoredand occupied a tract of saline soil that local farmershad spurned. Pardeep has since expanded hisfather’s holdings to 20 hectares and is looking formore land. “In this way, I can make farm operationsmore efficient,” he explains. His medium- to long-term projects include diversifying away fromintensive rice-wheat production. For the time being,Pardeep is experimenting successfully with zero-tillage and bed planting. He hopes that one dayfarming will be a sideline, rather than the solelivelihood, for his two school-age children.

Some farmers are taking advantage right now ofopportunities to diversify, based on zero-tillage andbed planting. Sudesh Pal Singh, of SultanpurVillage, Uttar Pradesh, India, has about 3.5 hectareson which he grows a sugarcane-wheat rotation anda gram-sugarcane rotation, in addition to oats forfodder, to support the four members of hisimmediate household. Dairy production is a chiefsource of household revenue. The family has fivemilk buffalo, ten cows, seven calves, and one bull.Every day Sudesh’s oldest son goes out on a scooterto sell milk by the liter to villagers.

According to Mangala Rai, deputy directorgeneral (Crop Science) for the Indian Council ofAgricultural Research (ICAR) and member ofCIMMYT’s Board of Trustees, Green Revolutiontechnologies have remained the cornerstone ofthe nation’s strategy for food security, health forall, rural development, natural resourceconservation, and poverty alleviation. “Duringthe Green Revolution era, technological changein agriculture arose from the introduction ofone or more inputs, the costs for which werelargely borne by the public purse,” he says.“In adapting to new resource-conservingtechnologies, the challenges are about changingmindsets and having farmers bear the capitalcosts of change. We have tilled soils too muchfor too long.”

* See P.L. Pingali and M. Shah, “Policy re-directions for sustainable resource use: The rice-wheat cropping system of the Indo-Gangetic Plains,” in P.K. Kataki(ed.), The Rice-Wheat Cropping System of South Asia–Trends, Constraints, Productivity and Policy (Binghamton, New York, Food Products Press, 2001).

Sudesh and his family began experimentingwith zero-tillage and bed planting for the firsttime in 2000, thanks to the extension work ofR.K. Naresh, agronomist in the Uttar PradeshAgricultural University extension agency, KrishiVigyan Kendra. Sudesh is considering growinga crop of mungbean while the rattoon (thesecond growth of sugarcane) emerges. His maingoal, however, is eventually to expand dairyproduction on his homestead.

Needed: Policies thatSupport EnterpreneursNot all farmers in India and Pakistan are sowell off. According to a May 2001 article in TheEconomist, for example, around 25% of all farmersin India produce 60% of the country’s agriculturaloutput. The remainder are either subsistencefarmers or landless laborers. But agriculture in bothcountries has performed admirably in the past andis poised to serve once more as an engine of growth,if given the chance.

It is becoming apparent that policies to ensurenational food security, once a force for progress, maynow have exactly the opposite effect. Worse, thesepolicies appear to exacerbate soil and watermanagement problems, according to a recent article*

by Prabhu Pingali, a native of Hyderabad, India, anddirector of the CIMMYT Economics Program, andManishah Shah, former CIMMYT research associate.Among other things, Pingali and Shah argue thatsubsidies—such as “cheap” water, fertilizer,pesticides, and credit—have reduced farmers’incentives for improving input-use efficiency:“Techniques for improving fertilizer–use efficiencyare available, for example, but will only be viable atthe farm level when fertilizer subsidies are removed.The same is the case with the adoption of zero-tillage, integrated pest management techniques,or more judicious water management.”

Reforms suggested by other experts includenew policies that allow farmers to consolidatefragmented land holdings, thereby makingmechanization and other agricultural investmentsprofitable. Finally, farmers need quality transportand storage infrastructure to diversify crops andaccess markets opportunely.

For more information:Prabhu Pingali ([email protected])

Rai also cites weakened extension systems as havingimpaired, rather than encouraged, the adoption ofknowledge-intensive agriculture. “Fortunately, theRice Wheat Consortium’s farmer participatoryapproach has surmounted this obstacle,” he says.

Farmers in South Asia have already demonstratedtheir capacity for hard work and their willingness tochange. Like managers of intensive croppingsystems in other parts of the world, rice-wheatfarmers possess a keen entrepreneurial spirit thatperhaps has yet to be fully tapped. Asked what helikes about farming, Pramod Tyagi, of Bayana inUttar Pradesh, India, answers: “Every crop thatgives a good cash return!”

Farmer Khushi Muhammed: “We depend totally

on the grace of God, because otherwise we have

nothing. But last year we saved some money and

bought a zero-tillage planter. We’ve left our

traditional system behind.”

The Seeds of Life project was launched and fundedby the Australian Centre for InternationalAgricultural Research (ACIAR) in 2000. Aside fromthe CGIAR centers, participants include WorldVision International and Catholic Relief Services.Work on the ground is coordinated by theDepartment of Agricultural Affairs (DAA) of theEast Timor Transitional Administration (ETTA),United Nations Transitional Administration in EastTimor (UNTAET), and extends over 2000–03.

A Portuguese colony for 400 years and anIndonesian province as of 1974, East Timor votedfor independence in 1999. Civil conflicts disruptedfarming and markets, among other things, leavinga shortage of quality seed of basic crops.Emergency relief seed came, but it was often poorlyadapted to local conditions.

ACIAR thus designed a project to re-establish foodproduction through systematic restocking with topquality, locally adapted seed. CIMMYT iscontributing with maize, a crop produced onnearly 60,000 hectares and a staple in East Timor.Per capita annual income in East Timor is just overUS$ 200—equivalent to 55 cents a day.

“This project is helping the East Timorese rebuildtheir future,” says Fernando González, CIMMYTmaize breeder in Asia who monitors maize trialsand provides other support to local researchers.“Based on data and guidance from experienced

maize researchers, we selected varieties fromCIMMYT, Indonesia, and Thailand. Trials wereconducted at six locations representing differentagroecologies in the country. Results so far havegenerated a lot of excitement. If you look at thedata from Maliana, several varieties in each trialare outyielding the checks by 50% or more.”

According to González, seed of the best varietieswill be multiplied for distribution to farmers. Thenext step is to validate the results and increase seedof the best varieties, so that farmers can test them.

Staff of World Vision International, the CatholicRelief Services, and the DAA are advisingresearchers and will work with farmers toestablish trials and then help them manage andevaluate the crops. “Farmers themselves willparticipate in the final selection, using their owncriteria,” says González.

For more information:Fernando González ([email protected])

Five CGIAR centers–CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICRISAT, and IRRI–have joined with

international agencies to offer improved seed to the conflict-ravaged people of

East Timor for growing major food crops.

Seeds of LifeforEast Timor


Maize farmers in East Timor stand to

gain a lot from improved varieties, as the

results from a recent trial in East Timor

show. The best CIMMYT variety

outyielded the local check by nearly 50%.


The Yaqui Valley, site of CIMMYT’s primarywheat experiment station, is one of just a fewregions around the world being observed by twonew NASA satellites. The Valley’s uniquelocation, bounded on one side by the ocean andby a mountain range on the other, givesresearchers the opportunity to investigate thelong-term effects of intensive farming on naturalmarine and terrestrial ecosystems, which haveimplications for global warming and, ultimately,climate change.

A Long-Distance View toPrevent Local EcologicalFailures“The Valley is a wonderful lab for studying whathappens to neighboring ecosystems whenfarming is intensified,” says David Lobell of theUniversity of Colorado’s Departament ofGeological Science and Environmental Studies.

Remote sensing, which started in the Yaqui Valleyin 1999 with Landsat 7, is a new way of watchingthe highly productive area, which has been theobject of global attention for decades. It is thebirthplace of modern semidwarf wheats. Fortypercent of the wheat produced in the developingworld comes from irrigated environments like theYaqui Valley, so results of these investigations arelikely to be relevant far beyond Mexico—forexample, in the most important wheat-growingareas of South Asia. This is significant, given thatin the next 25 years, 90% or more of the additionalwheat grain needed to feed the rising populationin developing countries will have to come fromintensive farming systems. As agricultureintensifies, measures need to be taken tominimize environmental damage and curtail theemission of greenhouse gases.

In 2000, scientists working with the Landsat dataenlisted the help of CIMMYT researchers, whowere in an ideal position to provide on-the-ground data to construct models for interpretingthe Landsat data. So far, the satellites’ perceptionshave generally jibed well with CIMMYT’s fieldinformation.

The satellite technology is already helping farmersin the Yaqui Valley. For three years, satelliteimages predicted with a very small margin oferror (5% or less) how much wheat grain wouldbe produced in the Yaqui Valley. Made early in thecrop season, these predictions can help farmers toavoid over-marketing their crop.

New Ways to PreserveEcosystems, BiodiversityThe new satellites are so sensitive they can pickup detailed information on individual farmer’sfields. They can do more than tellwhich crops farmers are growingtoday—they can tell which onesthey grew several months ago.Based on the images, CIMMYTscientists may soon be able to tellproducers, for example, why theirfields do not yield as much asothers, enabling them to find theright solution to their problems.

“Everything we learn from thisproject* will help develop croppingpractices that are highly productivebut minimize the impact of farmingon adjacent ecosystems,” commentsIvan Ortiz-Monasterio, CIMMYTagronomist collaborating on thisstudy. “Satellite images, combinedwith models, could help estimate

Satellite images help researchers understand

the ecology of intensive farming systems in

Mexico. Their findings could have

implications for similar systems in South Asia.

A satellite image of northwestern Mexicoreveals algae forming off of the coast,perhaps as a result of fertilizer runoff.

Saving Ecosystems,Long–Distance

* A CIMMYT/Stanford University/University of Coloradocollaborative study.


how much of the nitrogen applied tofields goes into the groundwater, theatmosphere, or the ocean via thedrainage system. For example,nitrogen that ends up in the oceangenerates patches of algae that canbe seen from high above. Thoseimages would confirm the need formore efficient fertilizer practices.”

In a terrestial ecosystem, the escapeof large quantities of nitrogen intothe atmosphere is apparent whenareas of lush vegetation developdownwind from fields wherenitrogen fertilizer has been applied.Excess nitrogen takes the form ofnitric oxide and ammonia and mixeswith clouds. When it rains, the areasbelow are fertilized by theprecipitating nitrogen and becomeperceptibly greener. Far frombenefiting the ecosystem,fertilization upsets the balance ofplant species: some species respondwell to it, crowding out others thatmay disappear altogether. Thisimbalance has serious implicationsfor plant biodiversity.

High-Tech Help forPoor FarmersAn efficient means of avoidingexcessive fertilizer applications isprecision agriculture, which requiresaccurate maps of crop yields to helpfarmers understand soil variationand how much their fields can yield.By significantly increasingproduction efficiency, precisionagriculture could improve farmers’incomes and reduce the harmfuleffects of farming on theenvironment. The cost of producingcrop yield maps is too high fordeveloping world farmers, but alow-cost alternative is to makeaccurate estimates of crop yieldsbased on satellite images (seefigure).

The amount of organic matter in thesoil affects crop production and alsohas implications for carbonsequestration. When excessiveamounts of carbon dioxide arereleased into the atmosphere, theycontribute to global warming. Incarbon sequestration, the amount ofcarbon dioxide in the atmospherediminishes because it is taken out ofthe air and stored, for example, insoil organic matter. Images takenduring the summer cycle, when notmuch is planted in the Yaqui Valley,may reveal how much organicmatter is left in the soil after decadesof intensive farming. Soil organicmatter can be built up throughconservation practices, and satellitedata could show which practiceswork best in the region.

Farming for—Notagainst—theEnvironmentSatellite images can also tell howmuch carbon dioxide is taken up bycrops in the Yaqui Valley. SaysGregory Asner, also of theUniversity of Colorado, “Expertsbelieve that information on carbon

Satellite imaging can show variation in wheat yields among and within farmers’ fields. Ultimately, it can helpresearchers design environmentally responsible farming practices for intensive agroecosystems.

Wheat yield, 2000-01

Low High

dynamics in the region couldprovide the basis for establishingpolicies to regulate the emission ofgreenhouse gases in the Yaqui Valleyand become the model forregulations in other regions.”

If practices to improve theenvironmental effects of farming canbe developed in the Yaqui Valley, itis very likely they will work insimilar agricultural environments inthe developing world. Theapplication of techniques likesatellite imaging combined withground data to study a farmingcommunity and its environs ispossible in the Yaqui Valley partlybecause of the trust that hasdeveloped over many years betweenCIMMYT researchers and wheatproducers. If similar collaborativeresearch could be initiated in otherimportant wheat-producing areas ofthe developing world, the prospectsfor better production wouldimprove, and global warmingwould be reduced.

For more information: IvanOrtiz-Monasterio ([email protected])

Global Resources for Local Livelihoods 55

Funding Sources at a GlanceThe governments and agencies that provided the largestshare of our funding in 2000 are shown in Figure 1. Thecontributions to CIMMYT’s budget by CGIAR membernations, North and South, as well as foundations andadvanced research institutes (in the public and privatesectors), are presented in Figure 2. To achieve the fiveresearch outputs of the CGIAR, CIMMYT allocated itsbudget as shown in Figure 3.

Sources of income from grants are presented in the table(p. 57). Targeted funding continues to provide the bulk ofCIMMYT’s research resources (Figure 4). The trend incore unrestricted funding in relation to targetedcontributions continues to provide challenges to theCenter, as flexibility is reduced and core research on themanagement and use of genetic resources becomes harderto support. Full costing of projects is more important thanever, including accurate costing of indirect costs. Indirectcosts are currently running at about 25%, whereas netoverhead recovery is around 15%.

Funding Levels and TrendsFunding for 2000 was US$ 39.801 million (includingCenter earned income), of which 83% came from CGIARinvestors and 17% from other sources. Expenditure wasUS$ 39.261 million.

The budget in 2000 was higher than initially projected forthree reasons. First, our research portfolio is highlyrelevant to the current goals of investors who havetraditionally supported international agriculturalresearch. CIMMYT’s research and development activitiescontinue to help reduce poverty and improve livelihoodsacross the developing world (see p. 58).

CIMMYT Funding Trendsand Topics, 2000–2001

Figure 1. Top twelve investors in CIMMYT, 2000.

Figure 2. Investors in CIMMYT, 2000.

USA14%

World Bank11%

Others26%

Switzerland9%

EC8%

Japan7%

Australia 5%Canada 5%UK 4%

France 3%

RockefellerFoundation 3%

UNDP 3%Mexico 2%

CGIARmembers

(North) 75%

CGIAR members(South) 5%

Non-CGIAR members(South) 2%

Foundations (CGIARmembers) 3%

Foundations (non-CGIAR members)

7%

Advanced researchinstitute agreements

(public) 6%

Advanced research instituteagreements (private) 3%

Figure 3. Allocation by CGIAR output, 2000.

Germplasmimprovement

31%

EnhancingNARSs25%

Germplasmcollection 14%

Sustainableproduction

26%

Policy 4%

Figure 4. Trends in funding (US$ 000), 1995–2001.

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

01995 96 97 98 99 2000 2001

Total funding

Unrestricted

Targeted

Center earned income


Second, CIMMYT has enhanced efforts tosupport its research with nontraditional sourcesof funding. The trend towards diversified sourcesof income that was significant in 1999 has becomestronger in 2000-01. CIMMYT’s partnerships withnontraditional organizations such as foundationsand advanced research institutes in the publicand private sectors are expanding.

CIMMYT’s alliances with advanced researchinstitutes take the form of partnerships, generallywith the public sector in the North and the South.In the case of the former, CIMMYT is interestedin alliances that help us to more quickly developnew, appropriate technologies and deliver themto farmers’ fields in developing countries. For thelatter, we are very cognizant of our role inhelping to create an enabling environment forour partners in developing countries. Asignificant component of CIMMYT’s budget in2000 (almost US$ 5 million) was flow-throughfunding to our partners in the South; thisrepresents trust in CIMMYT by our partners andtrust with our investors.

Similarly, our interactions with the advancedresearch institutes of the private sector havebecome stronger. These interactions continue totake the form of “win-win” alliances directed atachieving the following outcomes:

• access to proprietary technologies that enableCIMMYT to deliver research outcomes todeveloping countries more quickly;

• the facilitated transfer of technology, researchproducts, and other benefits to the resourcepoor; and

• the leverage of additional resources brought tobear on challenges in developing countries.

A third reason that the Center’s budget washigher in 2000 than initially projected is thatCIMMYT has vigorously pursued partnershipsthat enable scientists from developed countries towork at CIMMYT sites worldwide and to make asignificant contribution to CIMMYT’s researchagenda. This approach, known as “in-kind”contributions, is perhaps best exemplified by thecurrent contribution from France (CIRAD, IRD,INRA),* but there are a number of otherexamples. Total income in this category for 2000amounted to US$ 1.869 million.

Prospects for 2001An important factor in the Center’s budget andcash flow scenario in 2000 was that the US dollargained in strength against almost all othercurrencies in the world. CIMMYT managedexchange rate losses of some US$ 2.2 million onall sources of funds (unrestricted, restricted, andspecial project). Against this trend, however, theMexican peso appreciated in value. With 50% ofCIMMYT’s budget expended in pesos, theCenter was forced to produce an effective“efficiency gain” of 5-7%.

The operation of a Center that has two majorplant breeding programs continues to posechallenges for financial management,particularly in regard to cash flow andmaintaining adequate working capital reserves.CIMMYT is steadily increasing the level ofworking capital through prudent budgetarymeasures, but an additional injection is needed.Currently we are exploring options to increaseaccess to working capital by an additional 30days beyond the current level of 55 days. It isimportant to note that CIMMYT is increasingworking capital reserves in a climate of uncertainscheduling of disbursements by investors andwith no disruption to our research agenda.

We have also taken measures internally tooptimize the use of capital funds. For example,we have implemented an internally administeredcost recovery system for the vehicle fleet toensure that capital funds are used responsiblyand equitably.

Our most pressing capital investment need is tofurther develop Agua Fria, the new research sitethat replaces the Poza Rica Research Station, animportant breeding site for lowland tropicalmaize, which was destroyed by floods in October1999. Research conducted at Agua Fria will helpCIMMYT to meet the needs of resource-poorfarmers cultivating 55 million hectares of maizein Africa, Asia, and Latin America (about 70% ofthe maize area in developing countries,excluding Argentina, China, and South Africa).Special assistance for purchasing and developingthe new site has been received from the CGIARFinance Committee (US$ 250,000) and Australia(A$ 50,000), but an additional amount of up toUS$ 1 million is required for the station tobecome fully operational.* CIRAD (Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique

pour le Développement), IRD (Institut de Recherche pour leDéveloppement), INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique).

Global Resources for Local Livelihoods 57

Investor Grant

Kenya, Government of 20 2

Korea, Republic of 117Rural Development Administration 117 2

Mexico 918SAGAR 601 2

Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relación con la Agricultura 47 3

Fundación Guanajuato Produce A.C. 27 5

Fundación Hidalgo 18 5

Fundación Sonora 136 5

Grupo Industrial Bimbo (Industrial quality in wheat) 48 7

ICAMEX (Maize and wheat improvement) 41 7

Miscellaneous Research Grants 192 6

Netherlands 435Ministry of Foreign Affairs 435 1

Norway 186Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 186 1

OPEC Fund for International Development 34 1

Other 691 7

Other Foundations 564 5

Peru 65National Institute of Natural Resources 65 2

Philippines 12Bureau of Agriculture Research, Department of Agriculture 12 2

Portugal 200Institute for International Scientific and Technological Cooperation 200 1

Rockefeller Foundation 1,112 4

South Africa 185Agricultural Research Council 83 6

National Department of Agriculture 102 2

Spain 256Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación 133 2

AGROVEGETAL, S.A. (Durum and bread wheat breeding) 123 7

Sweden 406Swedish International Development Agency 406 1

Switzerland 3,568Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation 2,050 1

Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development 1,518 5

Tajikistan, Republic of 181Farm Privatisation Support Project 181 3

Thailand 60Department of Agriculture 60 2

United Kingdom 1,353Department for International Development 1,353 1

United Nations Development Programme 984Africa Bureau 832 1

SEED 152 1

Uruguay 171National Institue of Agricultural Research 171 3

USA 5,492Cornell University 120 6

Hilton Foundation 76 5

Monsanto Company (Hybrid wheat) 153 7

Stanford University 82 6

United States Agency for International Development 4,638 1

United States Department of Agriculture 423 6

World Bank 4,376 1

Total grants 38,539 **

1) CGIAR members (North). 5) Foundations (non-CGIAR members).2) CGIAR members (South). 6) Advanced research institute agreements (public).3) Non-CGIAR members (South). 7) Advanced research institute agreements (private).4) Foundations (CGIAR members).

Investor Grant

ADB (Asian Development Bank) 393 1

Argentina 38INTA 38 6

Australia 1,990AusAID 201 1

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research 965 1

CRC Molecular Plant Breeding 286 6

Grains Research and Development Corporation 538 6

Austria 150Federal Ministry of Finance 150 1

Bangladesh 160Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council 160 2

Belgium 400Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade andInternational Cooperation 400 1

Bolivia 324Protrigo 324 3

Brazil 72EMBRAPA 72 2

Canada 1,791Agriculture and Agri-Food 83 6

Agriculture, Food and Rural Development 30 6

Canadian International Development Agency 1,555 1

International Development Research Centre 123 1

CGIAR 1,119Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical 10 1

International Centre for Research in Agroforestry 17 1

International Food Policy Research Institute 76 1

International Livestock Research Institute 75 1

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute 68 1

CGIAR Finance Committee* 873 1

China 413Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture 120 2

CAAS 293 6

Colombia 167Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 167 2

Denmark 610Danish International Development Agency 610 1

European Commission 2,964Rural Development and Food Security 2,964 1

Ford Foundation 81 4

France 1,128Club Cinq (Wheat Breeding) 50 7

Ministère de l’Education Nationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie—DRIC 1,078 1

Germany 734Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development 734 1

India 112Department of Agriculture, Research and Education 112 2

IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) 609 1

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) 788 1

Iran, Islamic Republic of 214Ministry of Agriculture 214 2

Japan 2,704Economic Cooperation Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2,297 1

JIRCAS 114 1

Nippon Foundation 273 5

Sasakawa-Global 2000 20 5

* Activities related to this grant: Rice-Wheat Consortium (249), Intellectual propertyaudits (7), Maize-rice genomics (164), CAC System-wide Initiative (wheat) (184),CAC System-wide Initiative (maize) (19), and Poza Rica Rehabilitation (250).

** Does not include center income of US$ 1.262 million.

CIMMYT sources of income from grants bycountry/entity (US$ 000s), 2000


Around one billion people in the developing worldlive on less than one dollar per day (Table 1). Theseare the poorest of the poor, populations living inabject poverty and under extremely high levels offood insecurity. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of thosestruggling to survive on less than one dollar per daylive in South Asia, and another one-fifth (20%) live insub-Saharan Africa. Latin America accounts for 5% ofthe world’s absolute poor, with the vast majorityliving in southern Mexico and Central America.

Across the developing world, the numbers ofabsolute poor living in rural areas aredisproportionately concentrated in the lowerpotential tropical production environments relativeto the more favorable subtropical and temperateenvironments. Meeting the needs of the rural poorcontinues to be of predominant importance toCIMMYT, and we are also facing up to the challengeof providing for the rapidly rising numbers of urbanpoor. Rural poverty continues to be the overridingconcern in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, andSouth Asia, but urban poverty and urban foodinsecurity are also escalating in South Asia.

Overall economic growth and price levels(particularly food prices) influence urban poverty,whereas several additional factors influence ruralpoverty. Some are well known, such as rapidpopulation growth, dwindling access to resources,and limited technological options. The effects onrural poverty of new and emerging factors, such asglobal climate change and the deterioration of

natural resources, are less well understood, althoughit is clear that sustainable management of the ruralresource base can significantly enhance food securityand improve the livelihoods of the rural poor.

Given these circumstances, how can wheat andmaize research make a difference to the world’spoor? Together, CIMMYT’s research and technologydevelopment help to:

• ensure sufficient and stable food supplies forsubsistence farmers and poor rural households;

• improve the nutritional security of the poorest ofthe poor;

• ensure adequate food supplies at affordable pricesfor the urban poor; and

• promote sustainable management of naturalresources, especially in marginal productionenvironments.

Research that contributes specifically to theseobjectives is described in this report; for additionaldetails see People and Partnerships (our medium-term plan and project portfolio).

The geographic allocation of CIMMYT’s researchresources (Table 2) is consistent with the regionaldistribution of the world’s poor. More than one-thirdof our resources are spent in sub-Saharan Africa, theregion with the highest share of poor people in itspopulation (Table 1) and lowest share of trainedscientists and research infrastructure. South Asiaaccounts for 22% of CIMMYT’s resources, andCentral America, with the third highest share of theglobal poor, accounts for 15%.

Meeting the Needs of theWorld’s Poor through Wheatand Maize Research

Table 1. Distribution of global population living below onedollar per day, late 1990s

Population living onTotal less than US$ 1/day

population As percentage ofRegion (millions) Millions total population

Latin America and Caribbean 423 49 12West Asia and North Africa 204 5 3Sub-Saharan Africa 388 169 44South Asia 1,266 515 41East and Southeast Asia 1,726 320 19

Source: World Bank (2000), World Development Indicators.

Table 2. Allocation of CIMMYT research resourcesby region of the developing world

Percentage ofRegion research resources

Central and Western Africa 4Eastern and Southern Africa 33Central and West Asia and North Africa 10East and Southeast Asia 6South Asia 22Central America and Caribbean 15South America 10Total 100



Principal Staff

Office of the DirectorGeneralTimothy G. Reeves (Australia), Director GeneralClaudio Cafati (Chile), Deputy Director General,Administration and FinancePatricia López–M. (Mexico), Executive Assistant tothe Director GeneralMonica Mezzalama (Italy), Scientist, PlantPathologistAgustín Muñoz-G. (Mexico), Senior AuditorPeter J. Ninnes (Australia), Senior Executive Officer,Research ManagementHeinrich Wyes (Germany), Senior Specialist inResource Mobilization

ConsultantsGregorio Martínez V. (Mexico), Government andPublic Affairs OfficerNorman E. Borlaug (USA)

Maize ProgramShivaji Pandey (India), DirectorGanesan Srinivasan (India), Associate Director,Senior Scientist, Leader, Subtropical Maize/Head,International Testing UnitMarianne Bänziger (Switzerland), Senior Scientist,Physiologist (based in Zimbabwe)David Beck (USA), Senior Scientist, Leader, HighlandMaizeDavid Bergvinson (Canada), Senior Scientist,EntomologistJorge Bolaños (Nicaragua), Principal Scientist,Agronomist/PhysiologistHugo Córdova (El Salvador), Principal Scientist,Breeder/Leader of Tropical MaizeCarlos de León G. (Mexico), Principal Scientist,Pathologist/Breeder/Liaison Officer (based in Colombia)Alpha O. Diallo (Guinea), Principal Scientist, Breeder/Liaison Officer (based in Kenya)Dennis Friesen (Canada), Senior Scientist, Agronomist(based in Kenya)Fernando González (Mexico), Senior Scientist,Breeder (based in India)Daniel Jeffers (USA), Senior Scientist, PathologistFred Kanampiu (Kenya), Associate Scientist,Agronomist (based in Kenya)Duncan Kirubi (Kenya), Associate Scientist, BreederStephen Mugo (Kenya), Associate Scientist, Breeder(based in Kenya)Luis Narro (Peru), Scientist, Breeder (based inColombia)Marcelo E. Pérez (Mexico), Program AdministratorKevin V. Pixley (USA), Senior Scientist, Breeder/Liaison Officer (based in Zimbabwe)Joel K. Ransom (USA), Senior Scientist, Agronomist(based in Nepal)Efren Rodríguez (Mexico), Head, Program-based UserSupportSuketoshi Taba (Japan), Principal Scientist, Head,Maize Germplasm BankSurinder K. Vasal (India), Distinguished Scientist,Breeder/Liaison Officer (based in Thailand)Bindiganavile Vivek (India), Scientist, Breeder (basedin Zimbabwe)Stephen Waddington (UK), Principal Scientist,Agronomist/NRG Associate (based in Zimbabwe)

Adjunct ScientistsMiguel Barandiarán (Peru), Breeder (based in Peru)Salvador Castellanos (Guatemala), Breeder (basedin Guatemala)

Neeranjan Rajbhandari (Nepal), Agronomist(based in Nepal)Strafford Twumasi-Afriyie (Ghana), Breeder(based in Ethiopia)

Pre- and Postdoctoral FellowsJulien de Meyer (Switzerland), Crop Scientist (basedin Zimbabwe)Carlos Urrea (Colombia), BreederNarciso Vergara (Mexico), Breeder

Consultants/Research AffiliatesGonzalo Granados R. (Mexico), Training ConsultantMick S. Mwala (Zambia), Breeder, based in ZambiaMthakati A.R. Phiri (Malawi), Socioeconomist,based in Malawi

Wheat ProgramSanjaya Rajaram (India), DirectorThomas S. Payne (USA), Assistant Director andHead, International Wheat Improvement NetworkOsman S. Abdalla (Sudan), Senior Scientist,Regional Bread Wheat Breeder, West Asia and NorthAfrica (based in Syria)Arnoldo Amaya (Mexico), Administrative ManagerHans-Joachim Braun (Germany), Principal Scientist,Head, Winter Wheat Breeder/Liaison Officer (based inTurkey)Efren del Toro (Mexico), Administrative ManagerEtienne Duveiller (Belgium), Senior Scientist,Regional Pathologist, South Asia (based in Nepal)Guillermo Fuentes D. (Mexico), Senior Scientist,Pathologist (Bunts/Smuts)Lucy Gilchrist S. (Chile), Senior Scientist, Pathologist(Fusarium/Septoria)Zhong-Hu He (China), Regional Wheat Coordinator,East-Asia (based in China)Arne Hede (Denmark), Associate Scientist, Head,Triticale BreedingMonique Henry (France), Scientist, VirologistMan Mohan Kohli (India), Principal Scientist,Regional Breeder, Southern Cone/Liaison Officer(based in Uruguay)Jacob Lage (Denmark), Associate Scientist, BreederMohamed Mergoum (Morocco), Senior Scientist,Winter Wheat Breeder (based in Turkey)A. Mujeeb-Kazi (USA), Principal Scientist, Head,Wide CrossesAlexei Morgounov (Russia), Senior Scientist,Regional Representative Breeder/Agronomist, CentralAsia and Caucasus (based in Kazakhstan)M. Miloudi Nachit (Germany), Senior Scientist,Regional Durum Wheat Breeder, West Asia and NorthAfrica/Liaison Officer (based in Syria)Guillermo Ortiz-Ferrara (Mexico), PrincipalScientist, Regional Coordinator—Wheat Germplasm,South Asia (based in Nepal)Iván Ortiz-Monasterio (Mexico), Senior Scientist,AgronomistJulie Nicol (Australia), Associate Scientist, Pathologist(based in Turkey)Roberto J. Peña (Mexico), Senior Scientist, Head,Industrial QualityWolfgang H. Pfeiffer (Germany), PrincipalScientist, Head, Durum Wheat BreedingMatthew P. Reynolds (UK), Senior Scientist, Head,PhysiologyKenneth D. Sayre (USA), Principal Scientist, Head,Crop ManagementRavi P. Singh (India), Principal Scientist, Geneticist/Pathologist (Rust)Bent Skovmand (Denmark), Principal Scientist,Head, Wheat Germplasm Bank and Genetic Resources

Trustees

Alexander McCalla (Canada), Chair, Board of Trustees and Chair of ExecutiveCommittee; Emeritus Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,University of California, Davis, USA

Johan Holmberg (Sweden), Vice-Chair, Board of Trustees and Chair of Finance andAdministration Committee; Ambassador of Sweden to Ethiopia

Rodrigo Aveldaño (Mexico),* Director General, Agricultural Research, NationalInstitute of Forestry, Agriculture, and Livestock Research

Tini (C.M.) Colijn-Hooymans (Netherlands), General Director, Institute for AppliedPlant Research (PPO)

Niu Dun (China), Director General, Department of Science, Technology, Education, andRural Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, China

Cary Fowler (USA), Chair of Program Committee, Board of Trustees, and AssociateProfessor, Center for International Environment and Development Studies, NORAGRIC,Agricultural University of Norway

Robert M. Goodman (USA), Professor, Russell Laboratories, University ofWisconsin-Madison

Anthony K. Gregson (Australia), Chair of Audit Committee, Board of Trustees,and Wheat Farmer

Atsushi Hirai (Japan), Professor, Laboratory of Plant Molecular Genetics, GraduateSchool of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo

Carlos Felipe Jaramillo (Colombia), Director of the Colombian Trade Bureau, MinisterCounselor, Embassy of Colombia to the USA

Klaus M. Leisinger (Germany), Executive Director, Novartis Foundation forSustainable Development

Jesús Moncada de la Fuente (Mexico), Vice-Chairman, Board of Trustees, andDirector in Chief, National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture, and Livestock Research

Norah K. Olembo (Kenya), Director, Kenya Industrial Property Office

Mangala Rai (India), Deputy Director General (Crop Science), Indian Council ofAgricultural Research

Timothy Reeves (Australia),* Director General, CIMMYT

Uraivan Tan-Kim-Yong (Thailand), Director, SAMUTE Program, Social Sciences,Chiang Mai University

John R. Witcombe (UK), Manager, DFID Plant Sciences Research Programme, Centrefor Arid Zone Studies, University of Wales

Javier Usabiaga (Mexico),* Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development,Fisheries, and Food

* Ex officio position.

Trustees and PrincipalStaff As of August 2001


Douglas G. Tanner (Canada), Senior Scientist,Agronomist/East Africa, Liaison Officer (based inEthiopia)Richard Trethowan (Australia), Senior Scientist,Spring Bread Wheat Breeder (MarginalEnvironments)Janny van Beem (Netherlands), Scientist,Geneticist/Pre-BreederMaarten van Ginkel (Netherlands), PrincipalScientist, Head, Spring Bread Wheat Breeding(Optimum Environments)Reynaldo L. Villareal (Philippines), PrincipalScientist, Head, Germplasm Improvement TrainingPatrick C. Wall (Ireland), Principal Scientist,Agronomist/NRG Associate (based in Bolivia)

Adjunct ScientistsFlavio Capettini (Uruguay), ICARDA/CIMMYT,Postdoctoral Fellow, Head, Barley ProgramJulio Huerta (Mexico), Senior Scientist, PathologistJong Jin Hwang (Korea), Senior Scientist, PlantBreederMuratbek Karabayev (Kazakhstan) SeniorScientist, Liaison Officer (based in Kazakhstan)Morten Lillemo (Norway), Postdoctoral Fellow,BreederPhilippe Monneveux (France), Principal Scientist,Breeder/Physiologist

Postdoctoral FellowsKarim Ammar (Tunisia), BreederPatricia Dupre (France), Breeder/PathologistJiankang Wang (China), Breeder

Pre-doctoral FellowIsmahane Elouoafi (Morocco), Breeder (based inSyria)

Consultants/Research AffiliatesAnne Acosta (USA)David Bedoshvili (Georgia)Robert Blake (USA)Charles Boyer (USA)Jesse Dubin (USA)Silvia Maquieira (Uruguay)Ernesto Samayoa (Mexico)George Varughese (India)Hugo Vivar (Ecuador)Maria Zaharieva (Bulgaria)

Economics ProgramPrabhu Pingali (India), DirectorMichael Morris (USA), Assistant Director,EconomistLone Badstue (Denmark), Associate Scientist,Social AnthropologistMauricio Bellon (Mexico), Senior Scientist, HumanEcologistHugo De Groote (Belgium), Scientist, Economist(based in Kenya)Javier Ekboir (Argentina), Scientist, EconomistMulugetta Mekuria (Ethiopia), Scientist,Economist (based in Zimbabwe)Erika Meng (USA), Scientist, EconomistWilfred M. Mwangi (Kenya), Principal Scientist,Economist (on leave of absence)María Luisa Rodríguez (Mexico), ProgramAdministratorGustavo E. Sain (Argentina), Senior Scientist,Economist (based in Costa Rica)

Adjunct ScientistsDamien Jourdain (France), Associate Scientist,EconomistCarissa Marasas (South Africa), AssociateScientist, Economist

Research Associates/ResearchAssistantsPedro Aquino (Mexico), Principal ResearchAssistant, EconomistDagoberto Flores (Mexico), Senior ResearchAssistant

Roberta Gerpacio (Philippines), ResearchAssociate, Economist (based in the Philippines)Maximina Lantican (Philippines), ResearchAssociate, Economist

Consultants/ResearchAffiliatesJohn Brennan (Australia)Colin Carter (USA)Cheryl Doss (USA)Kate Dreher (USA)Cesar Duarte (Paraguay)Matthew Feldmann (USA)Jikun Huang (China)Janet Lauderdale (USA)Gabriel Parellada (Argentina)Mitch Renkow (USA)Scott Rozelle (USA)Ruifa Hu (China)Ernesto Samayoa (Mexico)Joginda Singh (India)Melinda Smale (USA)Gregory Traxler (USA)

Predoctoral FellowMonika Zurek (Germany)

Natural ResourcesGroupLarry Harrington (USA), DirectorRaj Gupta (India), Senior Scientist, RegionalFacilitator, Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains (based in India)Peter R. Hobbs (UK), Principal Scientist,Agronomist/Liaison Officer (based in Nepal)Jaime López C. (Mexico), Head, Soils and PlantNutrition LaboratoryEduardo Martínez (Mexico), GIS AnalystCraig A. Meisner (USA), Senior Scientist,Agronomist (based in Bangladesh)María Luisa Rodríguez (Mexico), ProgramAdministratorJeff White (USA), Senior Scientist, Head, GIS/Modeling Laboratory

Adjunct ScientistsJesus Manuel Arreola (Mexico) Scientist,Agronomist, National Institute of Forestry,Agriculture, and Livestock Research (INIFAP)Eric Machugu (Kenya), Scientist, GIS Specialist,Texas A&M UniversityBernard Triomphe (France), CIRAD Scientist,Agronomist

Pre-doctoral FellowScott Justice (USA), Research Affiliate (based inNepal)

Consultants/ResearchAffiliatesEster Capio (Philippines)David Hodson (UK), GIS Specialist/ConsultantBernard Kamanga (Malawi), Research Affiliate(based in Malawi)Joost Lieshout (the Netherlands), DatabaseManager/ConsultantZondai Shamudzarira (Zimbabwe), ResearchAffiliate (based in Zimbabwe)Julio César Velásquez (Mexico), ResearchAffiliate

Graduate Students/InternsFlor Nochebuena (Mexico)Teresa Balderrama (Mexico)

Applied BiotechnologyCenterDavid Hoisington (USA), DirectorJean-Marcel Ribaut (Switzerland), AssistantDirector and Senior Molecular GenetisistMaria Luz George (Philippines), AMBIONETCoordinator (based in Philippines)Scott McLean (USA), Scientist, Geneticist/Breeder

Esther Olvera (Mexico), Program AdministratorAlessandro Pellegrineschi (Italy), Scientist, CellBiologistEnrico Perotti (Italy), Scientist, Molecular BiologistMarilyn Warburton (USA), Scientist, MolecularGeneticistManilal William (Sri Lanka), Scientist, MolecularGeneticist

Adjunct ScientistsJulien Berthaud (France), IRD/France, SeniorScientist, Molecular CytogeneticistDaniel Grimanelli (France), IRD/France, Scientist,Molecular GeneticistOlivier Leblanc (France), IRD/France, Scientist,Molecular CytogeneticistAntonio Serratos (Mexico), INIFAP/Mexico,Molecular BiologistKazuhiro Suenaga (Japan), JIRCAS/Japan, SeniorScientist, Geneticist

Postdoctoral FellowsMaria de la Luz Gutierrez (Mexico), MolecularGeneticistSarah Hearne (UK), Molecular Geneticist/PhysiologistMark Sawkins (UK), Molecular GeneticistXianchun Xia (China), Geneticist

Graduate StudentsLigia Ayala (Ecuador), ETH/SwitzerlandIsabel Almanza (Colombia), Colegio dePostgraduados/MexicoGael Pressoir (France), IRD/FranceFabiola Ramírez (Mexico), UNAM/MexicoSusanne Dreisigacker (Germany), University ofHohenheim/GermanyJuan José Olivares (Mexico), University ofAdelaide/AustraliaCeline Pointe (France), IRD/FranceMagdalena Salgado (Mexico), University ofAdelaide/AustraliaPingzhi Zhang (China), University of Hohenheim/Germany

ConsultantDiego González de Leon (Mexico)

Biometrics and StatisticsJosé Crossa (Uruguay), Principal Scientist, Head

Consultants/Research AffiliatesJuan Burgueño (Mexico)Mateo Vargas (Mexico)Jorge Franco (Uruguay)

Information TechnologyEd Brandon (Canada), HeadCarlos López (Mexico), Software DevelopmentManager, Software Development DepartmentEnrique Martínez (Mexico), Head, Developmentand Implementation of New Projects, Systems andComputer ServicesMarcos Paez (Mexico), Network Administrator,Systems and Computer ServicesJesús Vargas G. (Mexico), Systems andOperations Manager, Systems and Computer Services

AdministrationHugo Alvarez V. (Mexico), AdministrativeManagerLuis Baños (Mexico), Supervisor, DriversEnrique Cosilion (Mexico), Supervisor, HousingEduardo de la Rosa (Mexico), Head, BuildingMaintenanceJoaquin Diaz (Mexico), Head, PurchasingMaría Garay A. (Mexico), Head, Food and HousingGilberto Hernández V. (Mexico), Head, TrainingService OfficeFernando Sanchez (Mexico), AccountantGermán Tapia (Mexico), Warehouse Supervisor

Finance OfficeMartha Duarte (Mexico), Senior Finance ManagerZoila Córdova (Mexico), Manager, Projects andBudgetsSalvador Fragoso (Mexico), Head, Payroll andTaxesHéctor Maciel (Mexico), Manager, AccountingOperationsSaul Navarro (Mexico) Head, Program-based UserSupportGuillermo Quesada O. (Mexico), Head, TreasurySupervisorCristino Torres (Mexico), Head, Accounts Payable

Human Resources OfficeMarisa de la O (Mexico), Interim ManagerGeorgina Becerra (Mexico) Human ResourcesSpecialistCarmen Espinosa (Mexico), Head, LegalTransactionsEduardo Mejía (Mexico), Head, Security

Visitors and Conference ServicesLinda Ainsworth (USA), Head, Visitors andConference Services

Information andMultimedia ServicesKelly A. Cassaday (USA), HeadSatwant Kaur (Singapore), Writer/EditorG. Michael Listman (USA), Senior Writer/EditorAlma L. McNab (Honduras), Senior Writer/Editorand Translations CoordinatorMiguel Mellado E. (Mexico), Head, PublicationsProductionDavid Poland (USA), Writer/Editor

ConsultantsEdith Hesse (Austria)Rita Kapadia (Philippines)Jane Reeves (Australia)

LibraryFernando García P. (Mexico), Interim Head andElectronic Information SpecialistJohn Woolston (Canada), Visiting Scientist

Experiment StationsAlejandro López (Mexico), Field Superintendent,TlaltizapánFrancisco Magallanes (Mexico), FieldSuperintendent, El BatánJosé A. Miranda (Mexico), Field Superintendent,TolucaRodrigo Rascón (Mexico), Field Superintendent, Cd.ObregónAbelardo Salazar (Mexico), Field Superintendent,Poza Rica/Tumbadero

Visiting Scientists(for terms of at least 2 months, January to December2000)Alma Canama (Philippines), University of thePhilippines Los Baños (Applied Biotechology Center)Chen Tianyuan (China), Guanxi Maize ResearchInstitute (Maize Program)Pierre Dubreuil (France), INRA UPS INA P-G(Applied Biotechnology Center)German Gutierrez (Mexico), Instituto PolitécnicoNacional (Applied Biotechnology Center)Rebecca Hedland-Thomas (Australia), Intern(Information Services)Anthony Hunt (Canada), University of Guelph(Natural Resources Group)Francis Macharia Kirigwi (Kenya), KenyaAgricultural Research Institute (Wheat Program)Andreanne Leger (Canada), Wageningen University(Economics Program)Li Shichu (China), Guanxi Maize Research Institute(Maize Program)Jim Longmire (Australia), University of SouthernQueensland (Economics Program)


Philippe Lucas (France), l’Universitéd’Orsay, (Applied Biotechnology Center)Tichaona Mangwende (Zimbabwe),Scientific and Industrial Research andDevelopment Centre (Applied BiotechnologyCenter)Anne Medhurst (Australia), VictorianInstitute for Dry-land AgricultureLuis Coronel Mendoza (Ecuador), InstitutoNacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias(Economics Program)Muhammad Yaqub Mujahid (Pakistan),Pakistan Agricultural Research Council(Wheat Program)Songhak Pak (North Korea), Crop GeneticInstitute of Agriculture, Pyongyang (MaizeProgram)Pablo Polci (Argentina), UniversidadNacional del Sur (Applied BiotechnologyCenter)Quintin Rascon (Mexico), CINVESTAV(Applied Biotechnology Center)Jochem Reif (Germany), University ofHohenheim (Applied Biotechnology Center)

Research Coordinating CommitteeClaudio Cafati, Deputy Director General, Administration and FinanceLarry W. Harrington, Director, Natural Resources GroupDavid Hoisington, Director, Applied Biotechnology and BioinformaticsPeter J. Ninnes, Senior Executive Officer, Research ManagementShivaji Pandey, Director, Maize ProgramPrabhu L. Pingali, Director, Economics ProgramSanjaya Rajaram, Director, Wheat ProgramTimothy G. Reeves, Director General

Management Advisory CommitteeClaudio Cafati, Deputy Director General, Administration and FinanceMartha Duarte (Mexico), Senior Finance ManagerLarry W. Harrington, Director, Natural Resources GroupDavid Hoisington, Director, Applied Biotechnology and BioinformaticsPeter J. Ninnes, Senior Executive Officer, Research ManagementShivaji Pandey, Director, Maize ProgramPrabhu L. Pingali, Director, Economics ProgramSanjaya Rajaram, Director, Wheat ProgramTimothy G. Reeves, Director General

Project Coordinators(Note that “G” indicates global projects; “R”, regional projects; and “F”, frontier projects.)

Marianne Bänziger: Project 4 (G4), Maize for sustainable production instressed environmentsDavid Bergvinson: Project 20 (F5), Reducing grain losses after harvestHans-Joachim Braun: Project 12 (R4), Food security for West Asia and North AfricaHugo Córdova: Project 2 (G2), Improved maize for the world’s poorJavier Ekboir: Project 21 (F6), Technology assessment for poverty reduction andsustainable resource usePeter R. Hobbs: Project 13 (R3), Sustaining wheat production in South Asia, includingrice-wheat systemsDavid Hoisington: Project 18 (F3), Biotechnology for food securityOlivier Leblanc: Project 17 (F2), Apomixis: seed security for poor farmersPatrick C. Wall: Project 9 (G9), Conservation tillage and agricultural systems tomitigate poverty and climate changeAlexei Morgounov: Project 15 (R6), Restoring food security and economic growth inCentral Asia and the CaucasusMichael Morris: Project 7 (G7), Impacts of maize and wheat researchIván Ortiz-Monasterio: Project 19 (F4), Biofortified grain for human healthWolfgang H. Pfeiffer: Project 5 (G5), Wheat for sustainable production inmarginal environmentsMatthew P. Reynolds: Project 16 (F1), New wheat science to meet global challengesGustavo E. Sain: Project 14 (R5), Agriculture to sustain livelihoods in Latin Americaand the CaribbeanRavi P. Singh: Project 6 (G6), Wheat resistant to diseases and pestsBent Skovmand: Project 1 (G1), Maize and wheat genetic resources: use for humanityMaarten van Ginkel: Project 3 (G3), Improved wheat for the world’s poorJoel Ransom: Project 11 (R2), Maize for poverty alleviation and economicgrowth in AsiaReynaldo L. Villareal: Project 8 (G8), Building human capitalStephen Waddington: Project 10 (R1), Food and sustainable livelihoods for Sub-Saharan Africa

Mexico (Headquarters) • CIMMYT, Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 Mexico, D.F., Mexico • As of 10November: Tel. +52 (55) 5804 2004 • Fax: +52 (55) 5804 7558/59 • Email: Kmailto:[email protected] [email protected] • Primary contacts: Timothy Reeves, DirectorGeneral

Bangladesh • CIMMYT, PO Box 6057, Gulshan, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh • Fax: +880 (2) 8823516 (send c/o CIMMYT Bangladesh) • Email: [email protected] • Home page: www.cimmyt.org/bangladesh • Primary contact: Craig Meisner

Bolivia • CIMMYT, c/o ANAPO, Casilla 2305, Santa Cruz, Bolivia • Fax: +591 (3) 427 194 • Email:[email protected] • Primary contact: Patrick Wall

China • CIMMYT, c/o Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 30 Baishiqiao Road, Beijing100081, P.R. China • Fax: +86 (10) 689 18547 • Email: [email protected] • Primarycontact: Zhonghu He

Colombia • CIMMYT, c/o CIAT, Apdo. Aéreo 67-13, Cali, Colombia • Fax: +57 (2) 4450 025 •Email: [email protected] • Primary contact: Carlos De Leon

Costa Rica • CIMMYT, Apdo. Postal 55, 2200 Coronado, San José, Costa Rica • Fax: +506 2160281 • Email: [email protected] • Primary contact: Gustavo Sain

Ethiopia • CIMMYT, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia • Fax: +251 (1) 464645 • Email: [email protected] • Primary contact: Douglas Tanner

Georgia• CIMMYT, 12 Kipshidze Str., Apt. 54, Tbilisi 380062, Georgia • Email:[email protected] • Primary contact: David Bedoshvili

Guatemala • CIMMYT, Apdo. Postal 231-A, Guatemala, Guatemala • Fax: +502 335 3407 • Email:[email protected] • Primary contact: Salvador Castellanos

India • CIMMYT-India, CG Centre Block, National Agricultural Science Centre Complex, DP ShastriMarg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012, India • Fax: +91 (11) 582 2938 • Email:[email protected] • Primary contact: Raj K. Gupta

Kazakhstan • CIMMYT, PO Box 374, Almaty 480000, Kazakhstan • Fax: +7 (3272) 282551 •Email: [email protected] • Primary contact: Alexei Morgounov

Kenya • CIMMYT, PO Box 25171, Nairobi, Kenya • Fax: +254 (2) 522 879 • Email: [email protected] • Primary contact: Alpha Diallo

Nepal • CIMMYT, PO Box 5186, Lazimpat, Kathmandu, Nepal • Fax: +977 (1) 419 352 • Email:[email protected] • Primary contact: Peter Hobbs

Philippines • CIMMYT c/o IRRI, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines • Fax: +63 (2) 7612404 • Email: [email protected] • Primary contact: Maria Luz George

Syria • CIMMYT, Wheat Program, ICARDA, PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria • Fax: +963 (21) 2213 490• Email: [email protected] • Primary contact: Miloudi Nachit

Turkey • CIMMYT, PK 39 Emek, 06511 Ankara, Turkey • Fax: +90 (312) 287 8955 • Email:[email protected] • Primary contact: Hans-Joachim Braun

Uruguay • CIMMYT, CC 1217 Montevideo, Uruguay • Fax: +598 (2) 902 8522 • Email:[email protected] • Primary contact: Man Mohan Kohli

Zimbabwe • CIMMYT, PO Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe • Fax: +263 (4) 301327 • Email: [email protected] • Primary contact: Kevin Pixley

CIMMYT ContactInformation

Teresa Esperanza Rosales (Peru),Universidad Nacional de Trujillo (AppliedBiotechnology Center)Ahmed Mohamed Bashir Sabry(Egypt), Texas A&M University (MaizeProgram)Leah Shultz (USA), The World Food PrizeFoundation (Applied Biotechnology Center)Satish Chander Sharma (India),Agricultural University, Palampur (WheatProgram)Kyol Ju Song (North Korea), Crop GeneticResources Institute, Pyongyang (MaizeProgram)Victor Felix Vásquez (Peru),Universidad Nacional de Trujillo (AppliedBiotechnology Center)Dheya Petros Yousif (Iraq), Agriculturaland Biological Research Center (MaizeProgram)Yuan Lixing (China), Chinese Academy ofAgricultural Sciences (Applied BiotechnologyCenter)

“Our Visit

P.B. Ramkrishnan: The trip to CIMMYTwas a visionary investment in the futurefor young, aspiring professionals like me.This eye-opening experience will help meto choose or bend the direction of myresearch. The challenges for the thirdworld countries are still large, and thistrip further emphasized the need to takethis mounting challenge through workingclosely with CGIAR scientists.

Andres Ferreyra: Our recent visit toCIMMYT and the course…changed myvision of agriculture, affected my perceptionof the most pressing world problems, andaffected my research and thus possibly myfuture. I am an electronic engineer, and myperception of agriculture is biasedaccordingly. My entrance into agriculturehas been through the attempt to understandand model causal relationships. This is anengineer-friendly process, but gaps remainin my understanding of the agricultural“big picture.” I found that my perception ofthe complexity of the most pressing worldproblems—and underlying issues, such asthe AIDS crisis in Africa—has beenenhanced. My own research has benefited: Ihave been able to incorporate results ofdiscussions in CIMMYT directly into myon-farm research and have been exposed toconcepts, such as adaptability analysis, thatwill enrich my dissertation research.

Suat Irmak: CIMMYT’s effort to orient itsresearch based on local farmers’ needsshould be practiced in other research centersglobally. About 40% of the wheat grown indeveloping countries is produced underirrigated conditions, yet there is not asustainable and efficient crop productionsystem developed for irrigated wheat.CIMMYT has been working on a new wheatplanting system called raised bed planting. Idiscussed the possibility with Ken Sayre ofCIMMYT for collaboration betweenCIMMYT, University of Florida, andÇukurova University in Turkey to work onirrigated wheat production systems.

Our MissionCIMMYT is an international, non-profit, agricultural research and trainingcenter dedicated to helping the poor in low-income countries. We helpalleviate poverty by increasing the profitability, productivity, andsustainability of maize and wheat farming systems.

FocusWork concentrates on maize and wheat, two crops vitally important tofood security. These crops provide about one-fourth of the total foodcalories consumed in low-income countries, are critical staples for poorpeople, and are an important source of income for poor farmers.

PartnersOur researchers work with colleagues in national agricultural researchprograms, universities, and other centers of excellence around the world;in the donor community; and in non-governmental organizations.

Activities• Development and worldwide distribution of higher yielding maize

and wheat with built-in genetic resistance to important diseases,insects, and other yield-reducing stresses.

• Conservation and distribution of maize and wheat genetic resources.• Strategic research on natural resource management in maize- and

wheat-based cropping systems.• Development of new knowledge about maize and wheat.• Development of more effective research methods.• Training of many kinds.• Consulting on technical issues.

Impact• CIMMYT-related wheat varieties are planted on more than 64 million

hectares in low-income countries, representing more than three-fourthsof the area planted to modern wheat varieties in those countries.

• Nearly half of the area planted to modern maize varieties in non-temperate environments of developing countries is planted toCIMMYT-related varieties.

• Between 1987 and 1998, CIMMYT delivered nearly 40,000 shipments ofwheat seed and more than 20,000 shipments of maize seed toresearchers in developing and developed countries. These shipments,which included improved materials developed by CIMMYT breedersand accessions from our germplasm banks, represented a valuablesource of genetic resources for public and private researchorganizations.

• More than 9,000 researchers from around the world have benefitedfrom CIMMYT’s training efforts. CIMMYT alumni now lead majorbreeding programs, public and private, throughout the world.

• Our information products and research networks improve theefficiency of researchers in more than 100 countries.

FundingCIMMYT wishes to thank the many governments and organizations thathelp us fulfill our mission. We owe a special debt of gratitude to those whosupport our core activities. The impacts described in this publicationwould have been impossible to achieve without that support.

LocationActivities and impact extend throughout the world via 17 regional offices.Headquarters are in Mexico. See contact information, p. 61.

Visit CIMMYT at www.cimmyt.org.

CIMMYT Worldwide

Ayse Irmak: I was intrigued by thequality protein maize program (QPM).My primary interest about QPM wasthe positive effects that might occur onpregnant woman. In developedcountries, pregnant women can getadditional nutrients from pharmacies,but what about a lady in Africa whocan’t even buy enough food? At leastshe can grow quality protein maize inher little yard.

Changed My Vision of Agriculture”Graduate students from the University of Florida visited CIMMYT-Mexico in

July 2001 as part of a new class designed to heighten awareness of work at

an international research center. James Jones, a distinguished professor in

the University’s Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department,

collaborated with Jeff White of CIMMYT’s Natural Resources Group to bring

the students to Mexico. The students, who are getting their degrees in a

range of disciplines, interacted with CIMMYT researchers in the field and lab.

On returning to Florida, they wrote to CIMMYT about their visit.

David Carter: Participating students saw how aresearch agenda can be constructed in aculturally diverse environment among scientistsfrom many disciplines. CIMMYT is located in anarea characteristic of the developing world.Consequently, the research has an immediatefocus and scientists are keenly aware of theproblems they aim to alleviate. CIMMYTactivities are more client-driven than researchconducted in a university setting, so results tendto be well defined in terms of useful productsrather than conceptual or theoretical advances.The tours and seminar series provided anopportunity to learn about the broad range ofwheat and maize research being conducted atthe Center. The student presentations allowedthe class members to share their work withCIMMYT scientists and gave them anopportunity to practice their skills in aprofessional setting.

Jawoo Koo: The trip to CIMMYT has changed my life. Afterlearning that CIMMYT is working with studentsand scientists from North Korea, I realize that there is alot of potential for someone like myself, from South Korea,to contribute to agricultural development. Personally, thistrip gave me a big motivation to study and pursue researchrelated to North Korea’s agricultural problems. Since manypolitical issues were involved, information about NorthKorea was very restricted to most South Korean people,including me so far. Thanks to information I got from thetrip, now I’m thinking that helping North Korea’sagricultural problems through international researchcenters, like CIMMYT, will be meaningful, not only formyself but also for our country, or countries. I’m nowthinking of potential possibilities to work on North Korea’sagriculture with GIS and our crop growth models.

Soonhoo Kim: Before going to CIMMYT, I was very nervousbecause I have no background of wheat and maize production;my specific area is Information Technology. I learned a lotabout what CIMMYT is doing in GIS and databasemanagement, as well as about wheat and maize. First, I learnedwhat a great thing it is to help other people. Before taking thiscourse, I studied only for myself. Now, I can see what poorpeople need and how I might help. Second, I learned how Imight help to unify my country (North Korea and SouthKorea). North Koreans suffer from hunger. If they have newtechnology for production of maize and wheat, they willincrease yield. If I cooperate with the CGIAR, it is possible tohelp them indirectly. Third, it is important to develop a gooddatabase management system in the CGIAR. I would beinterested in helping the CGIAR develop database systems formaking their research results available for generations to come.

John Bellow: I found the opportunityto discuss my approach andobjectives with other researchers suchas Mauricio Bellon and Jorge Bolañosto be invaluable. They providedinsight into the farming system of theregion from first-hand experience.I was pleased that CIMMYTrecognizes the importance ofexposing young researchers toongoing efforts in the CGIAR toaddress the problems of small-scale,resource limited-farmers in thedeveloping world. Several of thediscussions motivated me to modifymy research to more effectivelyaddress current issues. I encouragethe effort to promote broadercollaboration between CIMMYT anduniversity students.

Carlos Messina: The visit to CIMMYTwas an enlightening experience, fromthe words of wisdom and hope fromNobel Laureate Norman Borlaug tothe cutting-edge presentation inmolecular biology from Jean-MarcelRibaut. The experience exposed me totechnical issues as well as made mequestion the relevance of my researchin the context of global problems inagricultural research. I have beenexposed to a diverse array of methodsused in international agriculturalresearch, which all have the objectiveof addressing global problems. I hadthe chance to discuss approaches inmolecular biology, learn abouttechniques for the study of germplasm-by-environment (GxE) interactions,and initiate collaborative research.

international maize and wheat improvement...

Documents