Challenges facing European agriculture and possible biotechnological solutions.

Agriculture faces many challenges to maximize yields while it is required to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner. In the present study, we analyze the major agricultural challenges identified by European farmers (primarily related to biotic stresses) in 13 countries, namely Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, UK and Turkey, for nine major crops (barley, beet, grapevine, maize, oilseed rape, olive, potato, sunflower and wheat). Most biotic stresses (BSs) are related to fungi or insects, but viral diseases, bacterial diseases and even parasitic plants have an important impact on yield and harvest quality. We examine how these challenges have been addressed by public and private research sectors, using either conventional breeding, marker-assisted selection, transgenesis, cisgenesis, RNAi technology or mutagenesis. Both national surveys and scientific literature analysis followed by text mining were employed to evaluate genetic engineering (GE) and non-GE approaches. This is the first report of text mining of the scientific literature on plant breeding and agricultural biotechnology research. For the nine major crops in Europe, 128 BS challenges were identified with 40% of these addressed neither in the scientific literature nor in recent European public research programs. We found evidence that the private sector was addressing only a few of these "neglected" challenges. Consequently, there are considerable gaps between farmer's needs and current breeding and biotechnology research. We also provide evidence that the current political situation in certain European countries is an impediment to GE research in order to address these agricultural challenges in the future. This study should also contribute to the decision-making process on future pertinent international consortia to fill the identified research gaps.

Assessment of genetic variation in Bulgarian tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes, using fluorescent SSR genotyping platform.

Genetic variability in modern crops is limited due to domestication and selection processes. Genetic variation in eight Bulgarian tomato varieties and breeding lines (variety Plovdivska karotina, variety IZK Alya, L21ß, L53ß, L1140, L1116, L975, L984) differing in their morphological and biochemical composition was assessed using a highly efficient and low-cost fluorescent simple sequence repeat (SSR) genotyping platform. Genotyping was conducted with 165 publicly available microsatellite markers developed from different research groups under a number of projects in tomato (SOL Genomics SSRs, Kazusa TGS and TES, SLM, TMS and LEMDDNa) among which only five (3.03%) failed to amplify the expected PCR fragments. Of the remaining markers, 81 (50.62%) were polymorphic in the whole collection of eight genotypes. Among the marker groups used, SLM markers were most polymorphic, followed by TMS and SOL Genomics SSR markers. The total number of amplified alleles was 299, with a mean of 1.869; and the average polymorphic information content (PIC) was 0.196. The genetic diversity within the collection was relatively low (0.2222). Nei's genetic distance varied from 0.0953 to 0.3992. Cluster analysis using the un-weighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) method indicated that the studied tomato genotypes are grouped in four main clusters, which is to some extent consistent with the morpho- and hemo-types of the studied tomatoes. Variety IZK Alya (cherry type) and two of the breeding lines (L1140, L1116) formed three separate and more distant clusters. The fourth cluster includes the other five genotypes. The observed grouping of these genotypes in two sub-clusters reflects their similar morphological and biochemical composition. The genetic distance information from this study might be useful for further implementation of breeding strategies and crosses among these inbred lines.

Bioenergy to save the world. Producing novel energy plants for growth on abandoned land.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Following to the 2006 climate summit, the European Union formally set the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. But even today, climate change is already affecting people and ecosystems. Examples are melting glaciers and polar ice, reports about thawing permafrost areas, dying coral reefs, rising sea levels, changing ecosystems and fatal heat periods. Within the last 150 years, CO2 levels rose from 280 ppm to currently over 400 ppm. If we continue on our present course, CO2 equivalent levels could approach 600 ppm by 2035. However, if CO2 levels are not stabilized at the 450-550 ppm level, the consequences could be quite severe. Hence, if we do not act now, the opportunity to stabilise at even 550 ppm is likely to slip away. Long-term stabilisation will require that CO2 emissions ultimately be reduced to more than 80% below current levels. This will require major changes in how we operate. RESULTS: Reducing greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels seems to be the most promising approach to counterbalance the dramatic climate changes we would face in the near future. It is clear since the Kyoto protocol that the availability of fossil carbon resources will not match our future requirements. Furthermore, the distribution of fossil carbon sources around the globe makes them an even less reliable source in the future. We propose to screen crop and non-crop species for high biomass production and good survival on marginal soils as well as to produce mutants from the same species by chemical mutagenesis or related methods. These plants, when grown in adequate crop rotation, will provide local farming communities with biomass for the fermentation in decentralized biogas reactors, and the resulting nitrogen rich manure can be distributed on the fields to improve the soil. DISCUSSION: Such an approach will open new economic perspectives to small farmers, and provide a clever way to self sufficient and sustainable rural development. Together with the present economic reality, where energy and raw material prices have drastically increased over the last decade, they necessitate the development and the establishment of alternative concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Biotechnology is available to apply fast breeding to promising energy plant species. It is important that our valuable arable land is preserved for agriculture. The opportunity to switch from low-income agriculture to biogas production may convince small farmers to adhere to their business and by that preserve the identity of rural communities. PERSPECTIVES: Overall, biogas is a promising alternative for the future, because its resource base is widely available, and single farms or small local cooperatives might start biogas plant operation.