Tef Breeding: Challenges and Opportunities

CONFERENCE: Improved Evidence Towards Better Policies for the Tef

Value Chain

10 October 2013Hilton Hotel

Addis AbabaEthiopia

By Kebebew Assefa

Outline Introduction

Significance of tef cropRelative merits of tef

Tef Breeding: Historical Perspectives Objectives & Major Achievements Challenges Opportunities Conclusions Acknowledgements

IntroductionTef is the most important cereal of EthiopiaAbout 29% of the total acreage and 19% of the gross grain production of all cereals (CSA, 2012) (Table 1)

It is grown by over 6 million farmers’ households

It is the major staple food grain for most Ethiopians (> 50 million people) (Important in the national food security)

Table 1. Area, production and yield of cereals for private holdings for 2011/12 (2004 E.C.) main (meher) season in Ethiopia (CSA, 2012)

Crop Area Production Av. yield(t/ha)

No. ofFarmers (million)

Million ha

% of cerea

ls

Million t

% of cerea

ls

Tef 2.73 28.47 3.50 18.61 1.281 6.30Maize 2.06 21.48 6.07 32.27 2.954 9.16Sorghum 1.92 20.02 3.95 21.00 2.054 5.17Wheat 1.44 15.02 2.92 15.52 2.029 4.33Barley 0.95 9.91 1.59 8.45 1.672 4.09Finger millet 0.43 4.48 0.66 3.51 1.507 1.57Oats/Emmer 0.03 0.31 0.50 2.66 1.618 0.25Rice 0.03 0.31 0.89 4.73 2.891 0.09CEREALS 9.59 18.81 1.962 13.09

Introduction (Cont’d)Relative merits in husbandry1)Versatile agro-ecological

adaptation (0- 3000 m a.s.l.) Center of both origin and diversity Wide genetic variability

2) Resilience to both drought and waterlogging

6

Fig. 1. Tef production areas

Introduction (Cont’d)Relative merits in husbandry

3) Fitness for various cropping systems

4) Use as a catch and low-risk reliable crop (at times of failures of long-season crops)

5) Little or no serious threats of disease and pest epidemics

Introduction (Cont’d)Relative merits in utilization

1) Best quality, consumer-preferred “injera”: Good water holding capacity, long shelf-life, unique flavor (slightly sour but pleasant), pliability, smooth and glossy texture

2) High returns in flour : 99% compared to 60-80% from wheat (Ebba, 1969)

3) High returns in “injera”

Introduction (Cont’d)Relative merits in utilization (Cont’d)4) Minimal post-harvest losses and high storage longevity (storability)

Introduction (Cont’d)Relative merits in utilization (Cont’d)5) Importance of the straw mainly as fodder for cattle and as a binder of mud used for plastering walls of local houses

Introduction (Cont’d)Relative merits in utilization (Cont’d)

6) Cash crop value owing to the high market prices of both the grains and the straw

Introduction (Cont’d)7) Nutritive valueVery nutritious cereal grainHigh mineral contents (Fe, Ca, Cu,

Zn, Mg)Health and performance food

Gluten-free (Celiac disease) Slow release carbohydrates (diabetics) Anaemia

Nutritional content of tef grain

Table 2. Comparison of nutrition status of tef with some of the major cereals

Item Tef Wheat Rice Maize Sorghum Barley

Protein 11.0 11.0 9.7 9.4 8.6 8.5

Fat 2.6 1.9 1.6 4.4 3.8 1.5

Fiber 3.5 1.9 5.8 2.2 1.9 4.5

Carbohydrate 73.0 69.3 64.7 69.2 71.3 67.4

Mineral ash 3.0 1.7 5.0 1.3 2.4 2.6

13

Some consumer products of tef

14

Inception: Late 1950s (Jima) Five inter-related phases

1) Phase I: 1956-1974 Germplasm enhancement Mass and/or pure-line selection from germplasm Initiation of induced mutagenesis

2) Phase II: 1975-1995 Discovery of artificial hybridization technique by

Tareke Berhe in 1974 Incorporation of intra-specific hybridization

Tef Breeding: Historical Perspectives

15

3) Phase III: 1995-1998 Initiation of molecular approaches (molecular

markers and genetic linkage maps, analyses of molecular genetic diversity)

4) Phase IV: 1998-2003 Incorporation of in vitro culture techniques & Inter-

specific hybridization Reappraisal of induced mutation techniques

5) Phase V: 2003- present Introduction of participatory approaches (PVS

and PPB) Continued genomics

Tef Breeding: Historical …(Cont’d)

16

Tef Breeding: ObjectivesIncreased productivity (Grain + Straw)

Lodging Resistance Improved quality

- Tef (Grain color)- Injera making quality

Resistance/tolerance to biotic stresses

Resistance /tolerance to abiotic stresses

Generation of basic information Promotion of improved varieties

18

Tef Breeding: Methodology

33 varieties released (MoA, 2012) 19 DZARC (10 from crosses)2 Holetta (Holetta Key & Ambo Toke)1 Melkassa (Gemechis)5 Sirinka (Gola, Genete, Zobel, Mechare & Laketch – RIL273 from DZARC)

1 Areka (Ajora)3 Adet (Yilmana, Dima & Etsub)2 Bako (Guduru & Kena)Only 11 were from crosses (incl. Lakecth)

Major Achievements

Table 3. Varieties mid and high altitude areas with adequate moisture (optimum environment) (11)

Variety Year released

Seed color Grain yield (t/ha)

Research field Farmers' field

DZ-01-354DZ-01-99DZ-01-787DZ-01-196DZ-Cr-44DZ-Cr-82DZ-Cr-255DZ-01-974DZ-Cr-358DZ-01-1285 (Koye)DZ-Cr-387 RIL 355 (Quncho)

1970197019781970198219821993199519952002

2006

Pale WhiteBrownPale WhiteVery whiteWhiteWhiteWhiteWhiteWhiteWhite

Very White

2.4-3.22.4-3.02.4-3.01.8-2.22.4-3.02.4-2.82.0-3.02.4-3.42.1-3.62.4-3.6

2.5-2.7

1.7-2.21.7-2.21.7-2.21.4-1.61.7-2.21.7-2.21.4-1.82.0-2.52.0-2.51.8-2.5

2.0-2.8

20

Table 4. Varieties for terminal drought prone lowland areas (7)

Variety Year released

Seed color

Grain yield (t/ha)

Research field

Farmers' field

DZ-Cr-37 (Tsedey)DZ-01-1281 (Gerado)DZ-01-1681 (Key Tena)Ho-Cr-136 (Amarach)GemechisSimada (Cr-285 RIL295)Boset

198420022002200620072009

2012

WhiteWhiteWhiteWhiteWhiteWhite

Very white

1.8-2.22.0-2.22.0-2.21.7-2.31.5-1.81.8-2.2

1.9-2.8

1.7-2.01.6-2.01.6-2.01.4-1.81.4-1.81.7-2.0

1.6-2.0

21

Boset: DZ-01-196 X DZ- Cr-37) HT'01-409 (sel 50d)

Table 5. Varieties released for cool waterlogged highlands (3)

Variety Year released

Seed color

Grain yield (t/ha)

Research field

Farmers' field

DZ-01-899 (Gimbichu)DZ-01-2675 (Dega tef)

2005

2005

White

White

1.8-2.0

1.8-2.8

1.6-1.8

1.6-2.0

22

Two candidate varieties: under verification in 2013/14 main season

DZARC/EIAR National coordinatorDevelopment and execution of country-wide tef research projects

Federal Research CentersRARIs HLIsOn-farm trials

Institutional Set-up

Local Various institutions NGOs Private sector

InternationalMcKnight Foundation (MF-CCRP)ODAIAEATTU and Cornell UniversityUniversity of Bern

Collaborations

Challenges1) Lack of attention (both

local and international) Orphan/under-researched crop Little or no international focus

(CGs, regional or other national institutions, donors, etc.)

Limited national focus: Recognition as a national

priority

Challenges2) Institutional Problems

DZARC as a center of excellence

No adequate enhancement of capacity both at the CoE and national level at large

Lack of coordination

Challenges3) Resource limitationsAcute shortage of human

resourcesLack of adequate

infrastructure and facilities

Challenges4) Technical problemsLimitations in basic knowledge

on tef Lodging has persisted as major

challenge in tef Seed size Shattering Resistance to diseases such as leaf

rust Weak seed systems and technology

dissemination systems

Opportunities 1) Improved attention

Government attention against the previous belief that tef is not amenable to improvement

Improved international attention especially by donors

2) Huge wealth of genetic resources/diversity

Opportunities (Cont’d)

Table 6. Tef germplasm collections [udated from Seyfu, (1997)]

Source /Institution No. of samples/accessionss

Ethiopia, IIBC 5169Germany, Inst. of Crop Science, Braunschwelg 30Germany, Insti. for Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, (IPK) - Genebank, Gatersleben

5

Japan, Dept. of Genetic Resources, I Nat. Inst. of Agrobio. Resources 30Yemen, Agricultural Research and Extension Authority 2Russia, N.I. Vavilov All-Russian Res. Insti. of Plant Industry, St. Petersburg,

14

Slovak Republic, Botanical Garden of the University of Agriculture 1South Africa, Division of Plant and Seed Control. Dept. of Agric. Tech. Service, Private Bag X179, Pretoria

3

UK, Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Inst. of Grassland and Environ. Res. 3USA, National Seed Storage Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

341

USA, Western Region Plant Introduction Station, USDA-ARS, Washington State University, Pullman

368

Total 596631

Table 7 . Ranges for some traits of tef (Kebebew et al., 2001)

Trait Minimum Maximum

Days to panicle emergence 25 81

Days to mature 60 140

Grain filling period (days) 29 75

Plant height (cm) 20 156

Culm length (cm) 11 82

First culm internode length (cm) 2.68 8.05

Second culm internode length (cm) 4.15 11.45

First and second culm internode diameter (mm)

1.2 4.5

Table 7. Cont’d

Trait Minimum Maximum

Panicle length (cm) 10 65Peduncle length (cm) 5.85 42.3

No. primary panicle branches 10 40

No. spikelet/panicle 30 1070

No. florets/spikelet 3 17

Grain yield/panicle (g) 0.11 2.5

No. tillers/plant (total) 4 22

No. tillers/plant (fertile) 1 17

Table 7. Cont’d

Trait Minimum Maximum

Grain yield/plant (g) 0.54 21.9

Total phytomass/plant (g) 4 105

Hundred kernel mass (mg) 18.97 33.88

Grain yield (kg/ha) 1058 4599

Shoot phytomass yield (kg/ha)

6355 19630

Diameter of grains (mm) 0.50 1.0

Harvest index (%) 5 39

Lodging index 20 100

Opportunities (Cont’d) 3) New insights in breeding

approaches Participatory approaches Germplasm Collection/acquisition Hybridization

Increasing number of crosses Intra-specific and inter-specific crossingHarnessing potentials of wide crosses

(Divergent Crossing)Targeted Crossing

Opportunities (Cont’d) 3) New breeding approaches

(Cont’d)Ideo-type crossing for lodging resistanceSemi-dwarf compact panicle ideotypes

with reduced peduncle lengthSemi-dwarf semi-compact (Gomadie-like)

panicle types with short peduncles (i.e. inflorescence ideo-type more or less similar to that of rice)

Semi-dwarf loose panicle types with reduced length between panicle branches and short peduncles)

Opportunities (Cont’d) 3) New insights in breeding approaches (Cont’d)

Biotechnological approachesIn vitro culture techniques (especially DH production)

Molecular markers and linkage mapQTL analysisComparative genomics (association mapping)

Opportunities (Cont’d) 3) New insights in breeding approaches (Cont’d)

Biotechnological approaches (cont’d)

TILLING and Eco-TILLINGGenome sequence and annotation (functional genomics)

MASGenetic transformationHarnessing important tef genes

Opportunities (Cont’d)

3) Brighter prospects (cont’d) Development and release of a

value chain strategy Initiation of focus on

enhancement of national tef research capability

Improvements in seed multiplication and technology dissemination

Summary: Less problem with good stuff

Commendable progress but yet not sufficient

For Ethiopia, improvement of tef is not an option but a dire need

Strengthened efforts in all aspects

Refinement & strict implementation of the strategy

Conclusions

Ethiopian Government

IFPRI/ATAEIARMF-CCRP and other donors

Acknowledgements

Tef in Europe

43

Quncho tef scaling-up

THANK YOU!!!