China, a “developing country” in the 21th century, has been one of the superpowers of science and technology for the last 30 years. China’s scintific and technological advancement will lead to its rapid economic development. According to Scopus records, China has increased the number of publications in science, mathematics and computer science to from 200,000 to 1.650.000 between 1986 and 2016 (Chart1). The citation rate of Chinies scientists have reached 23% in all countries. If Chinese publications were included, this figure would have reached 37%.

Starting in 1995, China’s central government carried out a series of programs aimed at spending billions of dollars to raise China’s top universities to world standards. First, a package application was launched to raise 100 universities to the level of the western universities of the 21st century. In 2015, a second program focused on designated departments within these institutions.

In 1900, resistance against foreigners, especially Christians, began in Beijing. This movement, known as the “Boxer Rebellion” has resulted in China’s payment to the United States as compensation. Tsinghua University was founded in 1911 with these funds. Today, this university is a source of pride for China through science, technology and engineering research. According to Scopus records, this university is number one, among the most cited 15 universities in the world; also SEVEN of them are Chinese, which is an evidence of the rapid rise of the country in science and technology.

Money as a lever provides universities with the opportunity to plan for top class research intriguing academicians to sophisticated research which can yield to more powerful findings. Universities can open up new horizons for their academicians within the framework of their monetary powers. About 30 years ago in China, universities have started to give scholarships to their academicians in return for their published papers in certain global science magazines-journals. Today, these awards have reached very high amounts. A recent example is US $ 165,000 scholarship awarded for a publication in the “Nature” journal which is 20 times as the annual salary of an academic in China. These monetary awards have had a direct impact on the rise of the rate of Chinese-cited papers from 4% in 2000 to 19% in 2016.

Generally, PhD studies are prominent in research. Tsinghua University believes in the importance of the number in academic achievement and gives the opportunity to many PhD students. In 2017, 1,385 candidate have completed their thesis at this university. In the same year, only 645 PhD students have graduated from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

With the support of the state in recent years, Chinese universities have benefited from reverse brain drain. Universities like Tsinghua may not provide the facilities and opportunities of a western university. But the idealist scientists, who want to raise their children in their homeland, with national pride will always emerge. As yearly salaries were raised to the six-digits, China has benefited the most from this trend. For ample, Tsinghua University transferred Qian Yingyi, a scientist who has worked at universities such as Columbia, Yale, Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley, who has focused to the new horizons of innovation. Qian put into practice an American-style personnel system with no personal relations or political impositions, focusing on “a six-year research period, followed by a performance evaluation, based on publications, followed by a continuous job offer or put an end to the task”. The results were astonishing. The step up of Tsinghua University in the ranking of Chinese mathematics-computer-research league table was unexpected. In 2006-09, the university was ranked 66th and it was number one in the last year!

In 2012, the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen has invited He Jiankui, one of their former physic students back, after his completion of a PhD in Physics at Rice University in Texas. And postdoctoral research at Stanford University focused on gene-genome sequences. His father described Jiankui’s return to his country with a short sentence: “He found the Chinese scientific research is weak and he wants to improve it!”. And he has indeed! Jianku has enabled the birth of twin babies with genome editing (not GMO)—the first gene editing result in human medicine in the world. CRISPR/Cas method has been used to regulate the genes of twin babies to be resistant to HIV , . This method is used in the plant world recent years. In the number of researches, conducted in this field, China is also the leading one (541). It is followed by USA (387), Japan (819) and Germany .

All nations should look to China as an example when it comes to attracting talented, enthusiastic and new research teams and replacing their mediocre performers who are a drain to the system with this new blood. Such a system that is divorced from personal agendas and political impositions is the only way to move our universes up in world rankings.

Nazimi Açıkgöz

Note: This paper has been summarized from a Turkish blog: https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com/2018/11/26/cin-universitelerinin-beklenmeyen-yukselisi/

The first objective in seed business is to improve new varieties. To target farmers, seed companies have to provide the most desired cultivars and they must be best quality and perform maximum yield, resist to diseases-pests, heat-cold, drought etc. This can be achieved with plant breeding. Until recent years selection, hybridization, mutation, tissue culture, foreign gene transfer (GMO) and other molecular biologic developments have been used as plant breeding methods. Mutation, used to apply purposefully, to change genes of any living organism with X ray radiation or colchicine. In recent years, this process has begun to be carried out in laboratories at the molecular level, by intra-genome arrangements. These genome arrangements (gene editing), which are also defined as new breeding techniques (NBT), include a series of new gene engineering methods, like “Tilling, Protoplast Fusion, Cogenesis, Oligonucleotide Techniques, CRISPR-Cas9 etc.” These methods do not involve any external gene transfer as in GMOs. Conversely, new genotypes are created by silencing the targeted gene with the help of transient DNA-cutting enzymes, applied in the process step, increasing or decreasing the effect, i.e. micro-mutation.

What noteworthy is that, with these methods, development costs do not reach hundreds of millions of dollars, as it does not require a series of risk analyses like in the GMO technique! In other words, some kind of development with these methods can be realized by small and medium-sized or low-budget plant breeding startups, universities and public institutions. But in EU gen editing has been accepted as GMO and therefor cost of any gen edited new variety could be as high as GMO. Contrarily in the USA, registration formalities of NBT are different than the GMO registration systems and cost of any genome editing variety almost only 1/10 of a GMO.

In the last variety registration application in the USA, 23 candidates were on the list, all improved with NBT. Interestingly only three of them were belonging to the big – global multinational seed companies. The other 20 were owned by new 5-6 years old small – medium enterprises or universities. This means, such development coming with NBT, seems to shake the world seed market. This is an advantage for small companies, to develop new cultivars in short time with the minimum cost. The question here is how long they can keep such a position against global multinational companies.

As an example of the changes in the global seed market, let us have a look at the changes in the market share of the companies in upland cotton seeds application between the years 1976-2017 (Chart, OECD (2018) ). First we witness that only 10% of the farmers were sowing the seeds saved by themselves from their field by the 1990s. It means that 90% farmers were getting their seeds from seed companies. At the same time public institution’s seed share has been transferred to the private sector and public seed have almost lost the market share. Structural changes have started with mergers and acquisitions of the private sector and Delta & Pine have acquired Paymaster and Landkart. As we reached the 2000s biotechnology and GMO began to dominate the market. And now 90% of market share belongs to three cottonseed companies.

Although world seed market is quite small compared to other sectors, food security is very important in terms of agricultural economy, environment and nutrition. Contribution of seed (variety – genotype) to increase the yield is almost 88% . It proves the importance of seed and seed business seems to be a quite attractive one. We cannot oversee the fact that the Dutch vegetable breeders did have the highest profit margin (15%) in the agricultural sector. The CEO of United Phosphorus Limited, which acquired ADVANTA (a medium-sized, global seed firm) in 2006, is striking about the sector: “The future of seed business is bright and seed business is a great sector with lots of potential. ADVANTA has grown three times since we bought it. I see the company’s growth potential ten times more”.

This attractiveness, market values and many others are reasons for acquisitions and mergers in world seed companies, which cannot be observed very often in other sectors . Although mentioned merger complies with international laws, for many reasons, react not only consumers, but also civil society organizations. The main reason is that we have not yet found any answer to following important questions: a) Will seed prices increase? b) Will genetic studies be reduced? c) Is there a decrease in the number of varieties offered to the farmer?

According to 2017 data, the world commercial seed market is around $ 62 billion. 42% of this amount is transgenic i.e. GMO. By 2022, the market is expected to reach $ 78 billion, with a cagr of 7%. According to 2015 data, the organic seed market is estimated at $ 1.6 billion, with a cagr of 12.5%. The seed coating market reached 10 billion dollars according to 2017 data. In this sub-sector, which is expected to increase yearly by 11%, lion’s share (51%) is in insecticide chemicals.

How can be evaluated the developing countries seed business, in this context? Surely numbers of successful seed companies with export capability are exist almost in every country. NBT provide such a facility to small – medium seed firms for genetic improvement of new varieties, so they can compete almost with international firms. Arranging legal regulations like tax and providing credit, scientific consultant, expert, infrastructure and hardware support, will make them more competitive. But we should not miss the support of genitor. For this Universities should be oriented with planned projects, focused on the target.

Nazimi Açıkgöz

Note: This article is compiled from a Turkish article “World Seed Market” in https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com.

Agricultural production must continue by protecting the environment and ensuring sustainability. In this context, it is imperative to develop new genotypes continuously in plants, animals and microorganisms to increase quality and yield. Until recently, mutations and classical breeding techniques were sufficient to breed new varieties. At the end of the 20th century, tissue culture, gene transfer and other molecular biologic developments have entered the picture. We now see thousands of new plant varieties that have been bread using artificial mutation through the use of X-rays or gamma irradiation and colchicine application. Mutation is a spontaneous or purposeful change in one of the genes of a living organism.

Lately a new application of the mutation emerged for genome or gene editing, (also called New Plant Breeding Techniques (NBT)). The technique is exactly as a mutation run in molecular laboratory. Gene editing cover a range of new gene engineering methods. Those are Tilling, Protoplast Fusion, Cogenesis, Oligonucleotide Techniques, CRISPR-Cas9, Zen, Talen, Epigenetics etc. with “CRISPR-Cas9” being prominent than the rest. In these methods, there is no transfer of any gene from outside like there is in GMOs. On the contrary, new genotypes are created by changing the target gene with the help of transient DNA-cutting enzymes. This application can increase or decrease the effect of gene. We can call this process artificial micro-mutation.

In Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), i.e., transgenic organisms, a gene has been transferred from another species and they are registered after passing through many risk tests such as environment and health before they are put on the market. Therefore, the cost of a genotype to the company exceeds 100 million. For this reason, GMO method is almost synonymous with that used by global multinational companies. On the contrary, the cost of developing genotypes with NBT is at a level of almost 1/10th that can be met even by low-budget new entrepreneurial firms, universities and public institutions.

Tilapia is the fourth most consumed sea product after shrimp, salmon and canned tuna. The transgenic salmon producer AquaBounty and its main shareholder Intrexon have jointly developed a tilapia line (FLT01) using genome editing method. They have announced by a press release , as the first living being, commercialized genome editing method. This project was conducted and finalized in Argentina, because elegislation of genome editing not has been accepted as GMO regulation in that country.

According to the product developers, commercial advantage was achieved by providing 70% of significant improvement in fillet yield, 16% growth rate improvement and 14% feed conversion rate improvement. With the shortening of the feeding time, it will be possible to reduce the disease risk and decrease the input costs. This will facilitate a sustainable solution for world’s protein gap.

AquaBounty, a USA company is the first company to commercialize transgenic salmon in the world. Transgenic salmon is marketed in Canada, whilst registration process continues in the USA.

In fact, in the summer of 2018 in Brazil, an ANGUS (cattle breed) calf (Gazelle) was developed by gene editing method . The aim was to adapt ANGUS breed to tropical hot conditions. Actually ZEBU race is regions animal, but due to quality, Angus meat is imported. The developer, Recombinetics, expects that, these genotypes will contribute significantly to the Brazilian agricultural economy.
These two events in Argentina and Brazil provide the opportunity to compare GMO and gene regulation methods in genetic engineering applications that have been recently developed for plant and animal breeding. In the last list of variety registration application in USA there were 23 candidates, all improved with NBT methods. And only three of them belong to the big – global multinational seed companies. The other 20 were owned by new 5-6 years old small – medium enterprises or universities. This means, that NBT system seems to be a development that will shake the world seed market. Small and medium size companies through using NBT methods, in a short time and with the minimum cost, developed new varieties firms soon likely to overtake global multinational companies in the seed market.
With the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on July 2018, the NBT will be considered within the scope of the EU’s GMO guidelines. It is interesting that new breeding techniques are put into operation in Europe and the ban is imposed on NBT by court decision. On the eve of a phenomenon such as global warming, the use of NBT for food security, heat, drought, diseases, etc. will be unavoidable. In a short period of time, the decision of the ECJ on NBT does not seem to have much sense in our time. In other words, the cost of developing a variety by the NBT method will cost to hundreds of millions of dollars by a series of tests. It is really hard to hear from some of the experts on subject saying:
-”Europe is breaking away from the largest biology revolution of the last 30 years”,
-”Europe will be far behind in the next decade about innovations in food and agriculture”.

Genome editing methods had been successfully implemented in China first time in order to provide children with resilience to HIV .

Nazimi Açıkgöz
Note: This article is compiled from a Turkish article “https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com/2019/01/19/dunyada-yeni-islah-tekniklerinin-gen-duzenleme-ilk-ticari-urunu-tatli-su-cuprasi/”

At the beginning of 2019, soybean oil with improved quality did took its place on the market shelves. The mentioned soybean oil contains several times less saturated fatty acids and healthier oleic acid than ordinary soybeans. Their most striking feature is that they form less trans fatty acids in frying conditions. This new variety is the first bread commercial plant by new breeding techniques (NBT – gene editing). In fact, an article on the first agricultural product tilapia and also promising products in the pipeline bread by this method, were published in this portal .
It is useful to give a brief description of this new gene regulation: mutation, selection, hybridization and similar classical breeding techniques have been used for breeding new genotypes. Recently, tissue culture, gene transfer and other molecular biologic technique have been introduced. But in the last decades, artificial mutation has served to plant breeders, who bread thousands of varieties developed by X, gamma and similar radioactive rays. Mutation is a spontaneous occurring or with purposeful planned changes in living genes. From 2010, genomic arrangements have started to apply in laboratories by molecular basis. In this method, genotypes can be registered in a short time and reach the producers. Gene regulation includes a number of new gene engineering methods such as CRISPR. In these methods, there is no transfer of any gene from outside like there is in GMOs. On the contrary, new genotypes are created by changing the target gene with the help of transient DNA-cutting enzymes. This application can increase or decrease the effect of gene. We can call this process artificial micro-mutation.

GMOs are going registered after passing through many risk tests such as environment and health before they are placed on the market shelves. Therefore, the cost of a genotype to the company usually is over USD 100 million. For this reason, GMO method is almost synonymous with global multinational companies. On the contrary, the cost of developing genotypes with NBT is almost 1/10th of GMO’s. Such a level is so suitable for local companies, because it can be met even by low-budget new entrepreneurial firms, universities and public institutions.

An entrepreneur biology company Calyxt, located in Minnesota (USA), succeeded a micro mutation application in soybean by gene editing method. They were able to bread a new soy variety, which is registered and has been commercialized within five years and has been sown in 2018 on an area of 6700 hectares. The company focuses mainly on quality of wheat, potatoes, rapeseed and alfalfa. They did not interest too much with yield increment or resistance to disease or pests. So to say they prefer to serve mainly to a group of consumers, oriented towards healthy nutrition! Company do have almost a dozen crops, improved by gene editing in the pipeline: high-fiber wheat, potatoes that stay fresh longer, better-tasting tomatoes, low-gluten wheat, apples that don’t turn brown, drought-resistant soybeans and potatoes better suited for cold storage.

Some countries’ approach on NBT are astonishing. China is leading with 541 projects in gene editing research, followed by USA 387 and Japan with 81 projects. Some example of their gene editing products in pipeline: seedless tomatoes in Japan; low fatty acid soy in the US (in 2019 in market); easier digestible alfalfa in the US; herbicide resistant rice and herbicide resistant flax in Canada; low gluten wheat in Spain; the shelf life extended tomato in Japan etc.

Those will be pioneers for further crop development for plant breeders, who especially want to improve new cultivars for food security under the aspect of global warming.

Generally plant breeders aimed mostly high yield and quality and concentrated on commonly cultivated plants, such as RICE, CORN, WHEAT, SOYBEAN and POTATO. The main reason of this attitude is to reach to the maximum income. Let’s remember! Plant breeding right or royalty is working perfectly in the world. Just a question: In this case how will benefit from the advantage of these techniques EU and developing countries, because they are accepting this method like GMO and banning in their country. It is understandable; developing countries have not established their infrastructure yet. What about EU? EU accepts gene editing as genetically modified organism while it is a biotechnological process and applies the same regulation like GMO. What about a foreign gene transfer? So, import processes also will continue in the same manner for products developed with the gene editing.

Nazimi Açıkgöz
Note This article is compiled from a Turkish article “https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/gen-duzenleme-ile-ilk-bitki-soya/”

CRISPR-Cas9, GEN EDITING, GENOM EDITING, New Breeding Techniques, plant breeding, seed, world seed market, GMO, soybean

It is expected that the technological developments such as robotics and artificial intelligence, will reduce the human contribution in agriculture. Even if some farms with hundreds of animals have started to operate with only one person, the manpower in agriculture is the most important element. In farms, the owners and their families constitute the farmer’s population of the whole country.

Recently the unforeseen developments in world geography and expected demographic realities, are causing the people to ask each other: “will we be experiencing any food crises in future?” Lately the problems related to climate changes come up to the point: S. Arabia has decided to stop to cultivate one of the main crops (wheat) due to drought. On the other hand while the amount of cultivated land is not changing significantly the number of people to be fed per one hectare will be almost tripled from the year 1960 to 2020.

Global warming is not the only threat for tomorrow’s food crisis. The increase in population and the rising in living standards will cause changes in consumption patterns and increase the demand for food. Crops for biofuel and other products will also need additional land. It is obvious that the numbers of family farms are considerably shrinking. How will the growing demands of food, animal feed and biofuel industry be met?

In countries such as Nepal, Nigeria, and Abyssinia, around 80% of the population is still engaged in agriculture, but in the USA and in many EU countries this rate is less than 2%. Farming populations are declining in almost every country. But on the causes of this decline there are two opposing views.
• Developed countries are able to feed their whole people more cheaply with less than 2% of its population so developing countries have to reduce the number of farmers to decrease the cost of agricultural products,
• In developing countries young farmers leave their villages. How can agricultural production be guaranteed with older farmers and abandoned agricultural lands?

This issue is the subject of agricultural strategists and related academics. In practice, it appears that family farm incentives or young farmer support programs do not seem to provide a permanent solution. Unfortunately, the farming sector brings the least revenue compared to others. Under changing climatic conditions food systems should focus on solving the problems of farming systems by bringing needed structural change, such as optimum farming land and professional management.

Now, let us try to examine the agricultural production from the perspective of the farmer: First, consider the economic side of the event. Unfortunately, in the free world market, it is not easy to balance product prices with increasing and unpredictable input costs. And so the farmer has no income guarantee. Those are the main reasons for escaping from agriculture-farm bankruptcies and even farmers’ suicides. In addition, from a social point of view, who would choose a career where he / she cannot enjoy any holiday or even a weekend vacation?

In many countries, the rates of suicide observed in the agricultural sector are not found in any other sector. Farmers’ suicides in developed countries, as well as in developing countries like India, are quite significant, even if some of them are not appearing in the media. In one of the socio-economic analyses on farmers’ suicides in India, the situation has been analyzed deeper. The study started with the argument that the main reason of 250,000 farmer’s suicides between 1995 and 2011 in India were due to growing GMO cotton. However the transgenic cotton farming started first in 2002 (Graph) and It has also been found that cotton was not the main product in the 5 states where the most of the suicides happened. The main reasons for the suicides in the said analysis must therefore have been instabilities in production costs, droughts, excessive precipitations, etc. Additionally credit systems such as market instability, inadequate business loan, repayment issues, loan sharks and many other reasons might be listed.

Situation in the USA: Depending on the year, it is not uncommon for farmers to have temporary troubles in all countries. The reason for the financial difficulties of some of the producers in some states in the USA today is completely political. US farmers are the leading victims of the World Trade War. With China’s 50% extra tax on soybeans as a counteroffensive the bankruptcy of the Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin farmers in 2008 has doubled according to the Wall Street Journal .Then increasing bankruptcies of soybean farmers of competing with Brazil and similar countries should not be underestimated. In the USA the suicide rates in rural areas are higher than those in metropolitan areas. The number of suicides in rural areas in 2013 was 17 per 100000, whereas those in big cities were only 11 .

Why do European farmers commit suicide? In the year of 2015 the National Institute of Health in France published a research report according which the number of farmer’ suicide was one of every day. The European Union, the US and other countries begun to impose economic sanctions to Russia, after annexation of Crimea on March 18, 2014. This has been followed by Russia’s embargo to agricultural products of these countries. Some media had estimated that Russia was going to paralyze the European agricultural sector. Thus French farmers did a show of protest in Paris with tractors demanding changes in the agricultural policies. Meanwhile, in the French pork and apple market some problems occurred. The cost of losing the Russian agricultural market could have reached $ 80 billion. This led to some urgent measures to be taken. But there were problems in their timing. According to EUROACTIV , on 16 Oct 2018, French farmers committed suicides one every other day. These suicides were usually found among small farmers of 45-54 years old. According to the same publication the situation was almost the same as in Germany and Belgium.

In general, the decline in the income of farmers is due to price instability, rising costs and extreme climatic events. Therefore, in the future, except for greenhouses and some other special cases, the chances of small enterprises to survive can only remain at the level of hobby enterprises. The fact that the producer is alone in agricultural activities is the main reason for the young people to go out of agriculture. The number of young farmers goes down every year. For example in Romania only 19 % farmers are under 44 years . Almost all of the Romanian qualified agricultural labor force in the last 10 years moved to Western countries to work for more money in other fields. Remedies should be sought for re-cultivation of abandoned fields. The transformation of small enterprises into “medium” and “large” ones is considered to be inevitable in order to restore the lands to be medium and large scale cultivation. A striking example on this issue is the “Yozgat (Turkey) Kabalı Village Fruit Growing Project carried out with the cooperation of public-private sectors- citizens which will be the subject of the next blog.

Nazimi Acikgoz
Note: This article has been summarized from a Turkish blog: http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/ne-olacak-bu-ciftcinin-hali/Blog/?BlogNo=604117

During conversations in some countries on agricultural production, the expression of “the people have being deserting the villages” is used. In fact, this is a signal that we will in future be experiencing some problems in food production. The decreases in the rural populations in the countries, where the smallholder farmers are predominant mean the decreases in the numbers of agricultural entrepreneurs and agricultural workers, lead to decreases in agricultural production. However, the world expects 70% more production in the 2050s. In order to sustain the agricultural production due to the increasing population and the rising quality of life , we must ensure that the non-agricultural lands be transformed into medium and large enterprises, or a series of socioeconomic models developed to keep the farmers to live in the countryside.

If we set off from the second option, we can start by revitalizing the countryside and exploring all aspects for making it a good place to live for the present and future generations. The main reasons for escaping from the countryside, we cannot be solely economic. Increasing input prices have really intimidated the peasants owing to the changes in social life due to the disappearance of the old customs and traditions, difficulties in marriage, the shrinking land due to inheritance, the inability to possess any modern agricultural equipment and the marketing difficulties due to not being cooperative members.

So, how can we make the countryside more attractive?

At the beginning of 2019, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) published a report on rural population movements. According to the report, 43% of the world’s population is in the countryside and 17% of them are below the hunger limit. This limit is 7% in the cities.

The report says that the crisis in rural areas threatens to achieve food security and the following issues are addressed:
• There is a crisis in the world rural areas and this crisis can be solved by the revitalization of the rural;
• It can be found a little utopic to revitalize rural areas and make them good places for the present and future generations. However, taking appropriate steps to address all aspects of the event will be successful.
• One of the most serious challenges facing rural areas is the lack of adequate employment opportunities;
• Revitalizing the world’s rural areas through a rur¬banomics approach holds the key to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring that every¬one can contribute to and benefit from the economic growth and development
• Adopting rurbanomics as an approach for strengthening the rural–urban linkages to promote rural transformation. Strengthening rural–urban linkages, from farms to small towns to megacities, can benefit rural labor, production, distribution, markets, services, consumption, and envi¬ronmental sustainability.
• Rural areas can still create options for strengthening rural economies, such as the introduction of small food systems (pickle mills, etc.), post-harvest activities (tomato drying, etc.) and new dietary products;
• Diversifying and improving vocational training will create a potential for a productive rural workforce.

In 1990’s a Rurban Project (KöykenteProjesi; village-township) has been started in Turkey’s Mesudiye District of Ordu. Within the context of Köykent Project, 9 villages were interconnected. Within the scope of the project, a lumber factory was established within the framework of the Build-Operate-Transfer model. Electricity, water and telephone services were brought to the villages. Health and Cultural Centers were established. Football – basketball courts, children’s playgrounds and schools were built. Many of the peasants who had left their villages to find work have returned. However in the 2004s, new governments stopped the project in the way in which the Village Institutes (KöyEnstitüleri) ended.

Farmers in many countries as well as those in Turkey are quite aged. Despite the government’s policy of support the young farmers continue to move away from the agricultural sector. In some regions you cannot find any farmers younger than 40 years of age. The most important reason for this is the lack of social life in the villages. Today, the decline in farmers’ income is due to price instability, rising costs and extreme climatic events.

Therefore, in the future, with the exception of greenhouse cultivation and some special cases, the chances for small holder farmers to survive can only continue at the level of hobby gardens. The fact that the producer is alone in agricultural activities is the main factor in the orientation of the young people towards other ways of life. Could any attempt be made to help to revitalize such hopeless villages? A striking example of revitalization: Yozgat Kabalı Village Project carried out with the cooperation of public-private sector-citizens .

In 2009, an extraordinary Public Private Community Partnership (PPCP) was formed in Yozgat, Turkey.
The partnership aimed at keeping the young farmers in production and integrating small (due to heritage) and abandoned agricultural lands.

The project was financed by a public coalition including the Village Service Association, the Chamber of Agriculture and the Irrigation Cooperative. In phase 1 of the project, 1680 parcels that belonged to 468 farmers, have been combined into a single piece and cherries, apples, pears, and peaches have been planted in 564 Ha land.

Since then, the project has been rented to a private company where 70 farmers are employed full-time. The number of workers during the harvest season goes up to 900; and the number of tractors in the village has decreased from 200 to 15. As of 2018, the Ministry of Agriculture has decided to expand the scope of the project to 250 additional villages.

According to the above-mentioned IFPRI report, the EU is quite active in the revitalization of the countryside. While the annual per capita income in cities was 121% of the general average and this value remained at 72% in the countryside. Due to the fact that only 21% of the farmer population was under the age of 44, the EU allocated € 100 billion to be used in this field for the period of 2014-2020.

Nazimi Açıkgöz

Note: This blog has been summarized from a Turkish paper published in https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/kirsali-nasil-yasanir-kilabiliriz/

In an unexpected period, Russia announced that it has allocated a large amount of new breeding technologies (Literature). According to information from the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), the targets of this US $ 1.7 billion investment of have been set to develop 10 new varieties of gene-edited crops and animals by 2020 and another set of 20 gene-edited varieties by 2027. The main aim of the project is to develop new varieties resistant to diseases in culture plants such as barley, sugar beet, wheat and potato.

Mutation, selection, hybridization and similar classical breeding techniques have been used for breeding new genotypes that are adaptable to varying environmental conditions. Recently tissue culture, gene transfer and other molecular biologic developments have been also used. But in the last decades artificial mutations by using -X, gamma and similar radioactive rays- have served to plant breeders to breed thousands of new varieties. Mutation is a spontaneous or intentional change in living organism. Since 2010, this process has begun to be carried out in laboratories by molecular basis, with genomic arrangements. In this method, genotypes can be improved in a short time and reach the farmers. Gene regulation includes a number of new gene engineering methods such as CRISPR. In these methods, there is no transfer of any gene from outside like there is in GMOs. On the contrary, new genotypes are created by changing the target gene with the help of transient DNA-cutting enzymes. This application can increase or decrease the effect of gene. We can also call this process artificial micro-mutation.

GMOs are registered after passing through many risk tests such as environment and health before they are introduced to the consumers. Therefore, the cost of a genotype to the company exceeds US$ 100 million which is the main reason GMO and global multinational corporations have become synonymous. On the other hand the cost of developing genotypes with gene editing is almost 1/10th of GMO’s, therefore they can be utilized even by low-budget new startups, universities and even public institutions (Literature).
In 2018, the first commercial product of genome editing animal, tilapia developed with this new method was commercialized in Argentina (Literature). It is the fourth most consumed sea product after shrimp, salmon and canned tuna. At the beginning of 2019, the oil of the new soybean variety (Literature), which was developed by the same method in the USA, took its place on the market shelves. The oil of this improved variety contains several times less “saturated fatty acids” and healthier oleic acid than ordinary soybeans.
However, the gene editing method was accepted by EU as GMO and in the year 2018 cultivation of the varieties improved with this technique have banned.

Russia, in 2016, had prohibited the cultivation of GMO crops, except research activities. And it has not been prepare yet any legal regulations on agricultural biotechnology.
Alexey Kochetov, director of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk, lauded this new effort stressing that the country has been “chronically underfinanced” for decades. The research program also suggests that gene-edited products will be exempted from a law passed in 2016 that bans planting of genetically modified crops in Russia, except for research use.
Molecular geneticist Konstantin Severinov, who helped to develop the research program, is emphasizing the importance of CRISPR technology in making Russia less dependent on imported crops and is claiming: “Despite considering itself a bread basket, Russia is highly dependent on imports when it comes to elite crop varieties, so [the government decided] something needs to be done. Luckily, a few RAS members managed to make the case that CRISPRCas9 is a good thing”.
But whether Russian scientists can meet the program’s ambitious goals is unclear. Despite helping to develop the program, Severinov — who once famously described working in Russia as like “swimming in a pool without water” — says that it does not address the “inhumanely bad” conditions for doing life-sciences research in Russia, including red tape and poor access to supplies.
According to 2017 data, Russia devotes only 1.1% of GNP to scientific research, and it lags behind both China (2.1%) and the USA (2.8%).

This breakthrough of Russia is a striking example for seed industries of many countries. Let us first accept that gene editing technologies are inevitable for plant breeding. These techniques will cover greatly to plant breeder’s need for new gen material. Let’s take a look at how Germany has solved the issue of developing new genes – genotypes – varieties, material, which is the most important bottleneck for seed sector of almost every nation. Federal Ministry of Education and Research is responsible such issues. Ministry, within the framework of the GABI – Plant Genome Research Program -, support a macro project “PLANT 2030”, oriented to Germany’s plant research, on demands of private sector. GABI is a public-private joint project, with financial support coming mainly from the Ministry of Education and Research. WPG (Business Platform Promoting GABI Plant Genome Research e.V.) represents the private sector in Plant 2030.

This proves that improving gen material in molecular laboratories needs number of processes like communications with public and private plant breeders, making the necessary legal arrangements and preparing the research infrastructure. Actually it does not seem to be solved in a short time. In that case, is Konstantin Severinov right about his concerns mentioned above?
Nazimi Acikgoz
This article has been summarized from the blog:
Russia’s Great Investment in Genetics and Breeding

India is preparing for the announcement of two chickpea varieties developed in record time in four years by genome-supported plant breeding. In this first study of its kind, the genotypes in question are both drought tolerant and disease resistant. The varieties were developed in collaboration with the Agricultural Research Institute of India (IARI) and Raichur (Karnataka) University of Agricultural Sciences. Molecular methods and genomic innovations applied in breeding of these varieties seem to be an example for the development of environment and disease-resistant varieties with high yield and quality in legumes such as chickpeas and other self-pollinated plants.
The striking aspect of the study is that it is important to obtain drought tolerant varieties, which are very important for today, beyond cultivation development in a short time. In the reality of global warming that threatens the world, it is a very useful development that drought-resistant genotypes can be developed in such a short time. In fact, both classical and molecular breeding techniques are carried out in terms of drought resistance in plants. However, in the genetic mapping studies of chickpea, no gene has been identified. This time, researchers have turned to gene maps of other characters associated with drought resistance. First, gene maps of drought-related characters such as root depth and root volume were obtained in all chickpea genetic material available. ICC 4958 genes related to drought resistance determined by these studies were transferred to Pusa 372 local and most cultivated cultivars under molecular conditions and Pusa 10216 drought resistant varieties were developed. In many location and year trials, this new variety has yielded 12% more yield than the original.
Annigeri-1 variety, which is highly preferred in Karnataka province, was very sensitive to fusarium spp. disease. Gene transfer from a disease-resistant line (WR315) with above mentioned method has been obtained “Super Annigeri-1” which provides 7% higher yield than the original.
Traditionally, self-fertilized plants such as chickpeas can take 10-11 years to improve new varieties. In the face of the world’s population growth, increasing demand for food and the effects of global warming, the development of new varieties suitable for the purpose in a short time is a great success for world science. The importance of national and international cooperation of scientists in this success cannot be denied. Especially in our century, the global temperature is expected to increase by 2.5 – 4.3 ° C!
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), grown on low input marginal land, is an important legume planted on an area of 13.2 million hectares in the world and produces 11.62 million tons annually. Global chickpea demand is estimated to be 17 million tons in 2020.
Among the various abiotic (salinity, heat) stresses that affect chickpea production, drought stress, especially observed during blooming and grain filling period, is a major limiting factor for chickpea production and yield stability in arid and semi-arid regions of the world. Drought causes significant yield losses of up to 50% per year in chickpeas. There is therefore a great need to develop drought tolerant-resistant high yielding chickpea varieties.
Chickpea, which is one of the indispensable foodstuffs for developing world consumer, is waiting just a scientific touch. By making use of the abovementioned molecular breeding, can be made major contributions to the nation’s economy with the new varieties to be obtained. The world consumer under the threat of global climate change expects it and deserves it.
Nazimi Açıkgöz
Note: This article has been summarized and translated from a Turkish link: https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/bitki-islahinda-bir-rekor-dorduncu-yilda-yeni-cesit/”

A Swiss investment firm UBS estimates that the 4.6 billion dollars plant-based protein and meat market in 2018 will reach 85 billion dollars by 2030 . The same source adds that the plant-based milk market could reach 37.5 billion dollars for the 2025’s, while the improving health and welfare of society is the main driver of these increases (one billion consumers in the next decade will move to the middle class!).
On the other hand, in a report published by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), it discussed the expectation of the increase in agricultural production towards the 2050’s. The report mentioned the need to increase the amount of food we currently consume by 70 percent, while the increase is estimated to be around 80 percent for meat and 52 percent for grain. This means that today, 260 million tons of world meat production will have to be increased to 455 million tons in the 2050’s.
In the UBS report, while focusing on environment and animal health, more and more consumers prefer plant-based protein sources. Indeed, while the negative contribution of agriculture to the environment is expressed, animal husbandry comes to the fore. For example, 322 litres of water for one kilo of vegetables, 962 litres of water for one kilo of fruit, 4325 litres for one kilo of chicken meat, 8763 litres for one kilo of mutton and 8763 litres of water for one kilo of beef. In addition, one third of the grain produced in the world is for eating, that is, for animal feeding. In addition to water consumption, animal husbandry cannot be said to be innocent. It is not new information that substances such as pathogen, metal, drug – hormone residues mix into water. Another fact is that 80 percent of the antibiotics used in the USA are used in animal husbandry.
80 percent of the world’s agricultural land, meadow-pasture and vegetative production areas for eating are devoted to animal husbandry. According to various estimates, 6-32 percent of the greenhouse gas incidents are responsible for animal husbandry.
By 2013, scientists began to show that meat could now be obtained in laboratories. Not only that, the event was commercialized (University of Maastricht, Netherlands, Prof. Mark Post, (Mosa Meat)). In the US, companies established in this direction are supported commercially by food giants such as Memphis Meats, Cargill, Tyson Food, as well as well-known investors such as Bill Gates and Richard Bronson. It is a fact that EU companies like Nestle and Unilever will not miss this opportunity. The German PHW group has already started the acquisition of the new entrepreneur Israeli “Supermeat”. This business seems to tend to move beyond chicken and beef. FinlessFoods utilizes cell culture to artificially produce red tuna meat on land, which has reached its extinction point.
In fact, meat is mainly composed of muscle, fat and connective tissue cells. From the stem cell, meat formation begins when appropriate nutrients are provided for their development. This system, which is also monitored in the animal body, can be performed not only in the laboratory but also in larger environments. Thus, our meat will be healthier and safer without antibiotics, medicines. These artificial products seem to be able to find a place because of the above mentioned environmental disadvantages, their cheapness, their benefits to human health and their potential to protect the welfare of animals. Although the soybean is mainly provided by the plant nutrient medium, the yellow pea was found to be most suitable.
It may take time to fully launch. Although Memphis Meats calls “We are on the market in 2021”, it is a fact that many scientific problems are waiting for a solution.
Meanwhile, another US firm, Justforall, announced that it would be chicken-free chicken meat on the shelves by the end of 2018 .
The vegetarian menu offered by Impossible Burger is also interesting in nearly 1500 restaurants in the USA. As meat substitutes here, vegetable protein (soy) tissues provide flavour equivalent to meat, while color provides with leghemoglobin from soy roots. However, said plant hemoglobin is low in soy and will now be derived from a yeast species (Pichia pastoris) . Although these yeasts are genetically modified organisms, they are not subject to biotechnology regulations either in the United States or in the EU.
A chick could only be marketed in 112 days in the 1900’s, but this time was reduced to 45 days. I wonder what bioeconomics will offer us. Or will he? It seems that the economic dimension of the event is so important that the US Cattlemen’s Association has taken action to ban plant-based clean meat .
Nazimi Acıkgoz
Note: This blog has been translated from a Turkish paper http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/bitkisel-et-pazari-85-milyar-dolar/Blog/?BlogNo=610162.

According to the latest estimates, the average temperature is expected to increase by 1.3 C0 by 2050 and 1.2 – 3.7 C0 by 2100. In addition to the increase in temperature, drought also negatively affects agriculture. For example, in the drought, the plant cannot fully develop and ripens early, as a result the yield drops. Of course, the event does not end with this. Changing climate causes vital changes of diseases and harmful factors. It is known that pests have migrated 2,7 kilometers north each year since 1960. Disease factors and pests can extend their lifespan, even increase their reproductive rate, and create new genotypes. This will be a disaster for world agriculture. Because the new diseases and pest-resistant varieties in question have not been improved yet, and drugs to combat them have not yet been formulated!

On the other hand, by 2050, the amount of food we consume now, will have to be increased by 70%.
This increase is estimated to be around 80% for meat and 52% for grain. This means that today’s annual world meat production of 260 million tons will have to be increased to 455 million tons annually in the 2050s.

The negative impact of agriculture, especially livestock, on the environment is not to be underestimated. For example, 322 liters of water is consumed for one kilogram of vegetables, 962 liters of water for one kilogram of fruit, while 4325 liters for one kilo of chicken, 8763 liters for one kilo of mutton and 8763 liters for one kilo of beef. It should not be forgotten that one third of the grain produced in the world is used as animal feed. Another fact is that 80% of antibiotics used in the USA are used in animal husbandry.

We have to protect our land and water resources for sustainable agricultural production in the future. If we do not pay attention to the use of agricultural resources, we will face problems in terms of sustainable food production in the future. Due to antropogen environmental pollution, the scorecard of agriculture does not look very good. For example, 70% of world clean water consumption is used in food production.

With our todays agricultural production, we have to focus a little more on the “environment-food-health” triangle in the reality of millions of hungry, underfed, insufficient micronutrients and obese populations. Here we come across three objectives:
1) developing in agricultural production technology;
2) reduction in food losses and waste throughout the supply chain;
3) changing individuals’ food options and dietary patterns.

The issue of agricultural production providing maximum efficiency by minimizing the environment is encountered in many current publications .

Let’s try to examine the possible effects of individuals’ food options and dietary patterns on the protection of our land and water resources. It is a fact that eating habits play a major role in food consumption. The behavior of consumer groups such as vegan and vegetarian, especially in meat consumption, is known very well. Although meat stands out especially as a protein source, it is known that legume proteins from plant sources is almost equal to meat protein in terms of nutrition. In this case, let’s compare the resources required to produce one kilo of meat and one kilo of beans in the table below. It is immediately noticeable that the required production area, amount of water, fertilizer and chemical to be used, is almost ten times differing.

Land (m2) Water(m3) Fertilizer (gr) Chemical (gr)
Bean 3,8 2,5 39 2,2
Meat 52 20,2 360 17,2

When we convert the figures into protein, we see that 18 times more land, 10 times more water, 12 times more fertilizer and 10 times more chemicals are used to obtain one kg of meat protein.

The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere for a kg production of some foods can be viewed on the chart. As can be seen from the graphic, when a kilo of beans is produced, one kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This figure rises to two kg of CO2 for one kg of milk, to 5 kg of CO2 for one kg of chicken, to 10 kg of CO2 for one kg of cheese and to 27 kg of CO2 for one kg of beef

In general, it is known that those who follow a plant-based diet, namely vegetarians, are healthier. Their risk of getting many diseases is very low. Vegetarians are very unlikely to develop type 2 diabetes, obesity, coronary heart disease and other non-communicable diseases. A well-planned vegetarian diet is sufficient for body development and growth. Meatless diets are suitable not only for prevention, but also for the therapy of many diseases.

It is estimated that, the vegetarian lifestyle can reduce the greenhouse gas level by an average of 35%, food production areas by an average of 42% and agricultural water use by an average of 28%. This fact has already initiated some practices to shift to a meat-free diet in societies that are environmentally conscious. The meatless menu application launched in the canteens and restaurants of UK universities already has reached to 44 universities .

On the other hand, it is observed with pleasure that a plant-based meat market has been opened and it is estimated that an amount of 85 billion dollars will be reached by 2030s .

It seems that the human being can be very successful in reducing the negative effects of climate change with only changing his eating habits.

Nazimi Acıkgöz
Note: This paper is a summary of a Turkish blog: http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/et-tuketimi-ve-kuresel-isinma/Blog/?BlogNo=617186

At the current monitoring stage of the corona virus, some may not grasp immediately its relationship with agriculture. When we ask “what will we eat tomorrow”, that food resources and farming come to our mind. We know that the rings in the food chain are always human focused: farming practices are carried out by human being. In case of any hitch of one of ring means, that the food chain breaks.

Now, let’s give a few examples of these ring deficiencies. In California, where fruit and vegetable farming are intense in the USA, sowing, planting, fertilizing, irrigation, pruning, spraying and harvesting are always carried on with temporary workers coming from Mexico. After the US consulate in Monterrey, Mexico, stopped the H2-A temporary worker visa process, the Agriculture Workforce Coalition wrote in its letter to Pompeo (US foreign minister): “The American people need a stable food supply to maintain healthy diets and strong immune systems, especially now during this national health crisis. The failure to take necessary action to protect our food supply will result in bare shelves in grocery store produce aisles, not from panic buying, but as the result of the federal government directly causing a shortage of critical labor.”

German strawberry and asparagus producers employing temporary migrant workers, despite their closed borders, are currently waiting the temporary workers coming from new EU member states. Germany has closed its border to temporarily agricultural workers from some countries including Bulgaria and Romania. In this case especially asparagus, strawberries and cucumbers harvest will be impacted. But more interesting: “you harvest what you have planted”. What will be the short and medium seasonal plantings in the future? Situations in Italy and Spain seem not to be very promising. State Aid, requested as grants and tax reduction to primary agricultural producers seems not to compensate farmers loses. And therefor they should also be supported for “due to not being able to reach to seasonal workers”.

In EU number of cross-border workers is 1,5 million. Let’s think alternatively, how will the jobs done without worker and how will the not jobless workers feed their families? “Many of them have jobs that are important for us all to get through the crisis,” European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said . And the EU released a list of “critical workers”. It says it must be allowed continued freedom of movement across its internal borders, despite emergency coronavirus measures including health workers, truck drivers carrying food and seasonal workers.

Turkey-Georgia border was closed after the outbreak of Corona. Thereupon, the tea producers on the Black Sea coasts immediately began to look for a solution to the workers’ problem. Because maintenance was about to start in tea plantations. Let’s have a look inside the country. Soon there will be plum and cherry harvests in the Mediterranean and Aegean regions. Will workers expected to come from outside the province for harvest come? How will they have transferred? In vegetable farming, seedling plantation is carried out in different locations. Seedlings should be planted on time. The grower cannot plant their field without these seedlings. Each step depends on the human being who is the target of the coronavirus. The planting of summer plants like corn and sunflower is about to begin.

Delivering food to consumers is another important problem. Actually, every stage in agriculture is a difficult situation during the virus crisis. It is not particularly easy for wholesalers and exporters. Many agricultural products have to be consumed fresh and you cannot keep them for a long time. Therefore, wholesalers and exporters must dispose of their goods within a specified time. What can you do when border has been closed before you shipped your goods. Trading such quick consumable goods during corona outbreak is a risky job.

When the virus first appeared in China, Russia closed the border and stopped importing agricultural products. At that time, there was an increase in Turkey’s exports to Russia of fresh fruits and vegetables, especially lemon, but this led to price increases in the domestic market.
Currently, all elements of the sector, from fields to greenhouses, from gardens to wholesalers and markets, are experiencing uncertainty. Although the Ministries of Agriculture are making decisions about the effects of the epidemic on agriculture, there may be a series of problems that fall under the responsibility of other bodies. For example, local organizations or NGO’s may be involved in the creation of local harvest teams, consisting of volunteers. And his could be a temporally solution in case of worker shortage. So, it would be appropriate to create a “VIRUS AND AGRICULTURE WORKING GROUP” included related NGO’s immediately. This board, where related bodies-disciplines are gathered together, can use the chance putting into action on time, without skipping any problems. Again, agricultural and coronavirus-oriented scientific advisory boards to be established within the Ministry will have a great benefit in overcoming this crisis.
Nazimi Acikgoz
Note: This paper is summarized from a Turkish blog: https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com/2020/03/24/corona-virusunun-tarimsal-ekonomilere-etkileri-2/

The EU has rolled up its sleeves for new restrictions on pesticide use. It is aimed to reduce the use of pesticide by half as of 2030. Since Germen wheat producers apply fungicides more than twice a year to winter wheat (average treatment frequency 2019: 2.19), it can be easily predicted how pesticide use restrictions may cause a damage to wheat productions. Additionally, some of the fungicides commonly used today will probably lose their approvals in the next few years and there are no better new active ingredients in sight.

In European agriculture, fungicides used generally to prevent fungal diseases, like yellow rust, brown rust, septoria and fusarium. Genotypes that are tolerant or resistant to the mentioned diseases can also be developed by conventional plant breeding technique with 10-15 years of work. However, New Breeding Techniques (NBT) – genome editing methods can save considerable time for plant breeders . Since 2010, this process has begun to be carried out in laboratories by molecular basis, with genomic arrangements. In this method, genotypes can be registered in a short time and reach the producers. Genome editing includes a number of new gene engineering methods such as CRISPR/Cas9. In these procedures, there is no transfer of any gene from outside like there is in GMOs. On the contrary, new genotypes are created by silencing the targeted gene with the applied temporary DNA cutting enzymes, increasing and decreasing its effect. It is simply an artificial micro-mutation run in laboratories.

In Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), ie transgenic varieties, a gene has been transferred from another species or varieties. For registration of new genotypes as commercial variety, they have to pass many risk tests such as environment and health. Tests expenses cost to the company not less than 100 million dollars. Therefore, the GMO method has almost become synonymous with global multinational seed companies. On the contrary, the costs of developing genotype with NBT are at a level that can be covered even by low-budget new entrepreneurs, universities and public institutions.

The GMO method is not gaining admission in many countries such as the EU. NBT is also accepted in the same category despite its basic differences. While the gene in question here comes from a different species in the GMO’s, the modification in new breeding procedures takes place within the plant’s own genes. The advantages of the method enabled many new plant variety candidates developed in a short time to reach the registration stages.

The subject attracted the attention of the scientific world and number of projects on NBT were determined by scanning around 6000 publications to make an inventory of studies on this subject: China (599), ABD (487), Germany (88), Japan (25), France (25), Israel (24), U.Kingdom (21), S.Arabia (18), Holland (18). According to this research, China and the USA seem to be ahead of this issues with hundreds of studies. Although gene regulations are legally subject to the same legislation as GMOs, dozens of studies in EU countries are continuing.

The rapid spread in gene editing applications naturally comes to the fore in field crops planted in large areas with high economy. As a matter of fact, while paddy 29, corn 10, potato 6, wheat 6, soy 4 and rapeseed 4 take the first place. Research projects continue in many fruits and vegetables, including orange to fig, tomato to lettuce and even ornamental plants. Some of them have reached to final stage like seedless tomato in Japan; low fatty soy in the USA; herbicides resistant flax in Canada; low-gluten wheat in Spain; different color petunia in South Korea etc.

Recently Germany’s 60 plant breeder companies, both small and large, have come together to develop fungal disease tolerant-resistant wheat genotypes by using new breeding techniques and started the PILTON project in 2020. It can be easily understood that such a sophisticated breakthrough emerged from need. However, the coming together of these companies was due to their being gathered under the umbrella “Bundesverband Deutscher Pflanzenzüchter e. V. ” (German Plant Breeders Association).

However, there is a big problem that occupies the minds of the project executives. The same treatment of new breeding techniques with genetically modified crops (GMOs) in the testing and registration processes at certain stages of breeding in the EU. In this case, millions of Euros will be required for testing candidate genotypes, such as GMOs. In this case, it is a fact that small-scale companies cannot afford these costs. As it is known, the varieties developed with NBT were tested and registered in many countries, especially in the USA, not within the scope of GMO, but according to the regulations applied in the variety candidates developed with classical breeding. So, what does PILTON project management say about this situation?
“We believe that we can achieve a clear and practical project with an interesting plant, with an interesting property and with real added value for the farmer, but also for society show that rethinking makes sense. So, we also want to work politically”.
Nazimi Acikgoz

Let’s consider blockchain technology as an application at the first stage. The technology in question makes use of artificial intelligence, image processing possibilities of a large number of data and a unique serial database technique. Readers may have heard of “bitcoin” system, which does not require a centralized management and where data is stored in many different networks. Blockchain, which does not allow editing in old data, is a digital registry that provides sequencing of transactions and provides encrypted transaction tracking, although it is unlike a known database. Therefore, it is a transparent and reliable system. The use of practices ranging from banking to insurance, from logistics to land transactions. Its agricultural use has not yet become widespread.
The satisfaction level of consumers with the product purchased has always been different. This difference becomes more prominent in the agricultural products that make up our food. Let’s try to make a default process chain sequence for the chicken bought from the market: the feed it eats without mentioning its genetics, vaccine, antibiotic application, slaughter age, some operations performed at the slaughter stage, details about the packaging, warehouse-related time, temperature, etc. Wouldn’t we want details of dozens of processes such as shelf life to be written on a label? Or how about reaching the said information with a QR scan? Many of us remember that in the years following the incidents of mixing horse meat with beef in the EU in 2015, dozens of products were taken off the shelves due to salmonella and echeriha coli. The knowledge of whether the weedkiller roundup (glyphosate-based) is used during the growing period of any plant has gained more importance after this herbicide was accepted as a carcinogen in the EU and its use was banned.
In short, consumers no longer rely on the origin of their food or its supply chain. Certificates are often suspect, supply chain members are unknown, frauds cannot be exposed, labels are not satisfactory and transparent. Therefore, many consumers prefer to choose locally grown products.
So how can we save the consumer from this chaos? By providing transparency in the procurement process of the products from the field to the market shelves! It is realized with BLOCKCHAIN technology.
We witness that a blockchain application launched in Turkey can be traced in the retail sector with agricultural products and all records, genealogy-registers. With this blockchain application, the company aimed to reduce costs and prevent food waste, which is very important for our society, while optimizing the supply chain. It can be expected that it will increase its competitive power with the product transparency it offers to its customers. With a last version of mobile application can be traced, all the processes of 750 fruits and vegetables passing from the field to the market shelves
It can be said that agriculture will also be the answer to the question in which sector will blockchain applications be used more. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry needed a labeling and consumer information regulation “… to determine the rules for the high level of protection of consumers in terms of information about food”. The feasibility of this with a physical label is questionable. However, with the blockchain application, the consumer will get the following advantages:
• How a food crop is grown, what kind of soil and fertilizer application is made for crops; information on which feed the animals are fed in which breeding environment can be accessed;
• It is easy to learn what changes the products have made in the processing phase and the storage conditions at all stopping points in the supply chain;
• Movement information on the State Register System and quality control records, if available, can be learned with absolute accuracy;
• The possibility of deactivating some intermediaries may cause a decrease in food costs,
• It will provide more confidence to food producers and suppliers, as malicious certification and labeling can be eliminated.
In summary, blockchain application can reduce food waste and food fraud, prevent mislabeling, disable fraudulent intermediaries and enable producers to get the money they deserve, only in the food chain.
Nazimi Açıkgöz
Note: This article is an extended version of a summary published at http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/tarimda-blockchain-kullanimi/Blog/?BlogNo=626740.

In agricultural production, the tractor is the farmer’s right hand. Starting from the field plowing, it has taken on the towing of the trailer and water tanker as well as enabling the operation of many tools such as cultivator, disc harrow, sprayer, bucket, fertilizer spreader, bale, mowing, mobile milking and silage machine. In addition to fertilizer, water, pesticide and seeds, diesel oil makes up 20% of the inputs and cost for agricultural production. Therefore, transition from diesel to electricity would provide a great economic benefit by reducing this high cost.
That is when Derindere Motorlu Araclar (DMA) , one of the world’s leading companies in the production of electric vehicles, entered the picture. The Istanbul-based firm develops and produces ‘model specific’ electric drive systems and exports its technology to China. Through their partnership CADMA with China, they started providing their services to Chinese firms, easing access to rare minerals required for battery construction.
The negotiations that started with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 2017 led to the manufacturing of a prototype. Although the press releases made at the time were interpreted as political propaganda by many groups, the progress made has yielded positive results. Ziraat Venture Capital of Ziraat Bank assumed the financing of the operations; as a result first “ZY Teknoloji A.Ş.” then “ZY Elektrik Traktör Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.” and finally an electric tractor factory were established in Dilovası (Izmit). Of the three classes of tractors planned for production (65 hp, 105 hp and 320 hp), two of them (65 hp and 320 hp) are already prototyped. The release of the 320 hp class is expected to be June 2021 with 9 tractors already pre-sold to the General Directorate of Agricultural Enterprises. By the end of 2021, around 200 large field tractors will be manufactured.
The mass manufacturing of 65 hp garden tractors and medium-sized field tractors, which can operate for 4-5 hours with 20 minutes of charging, will start early 2022.
The electric motor converts electrical energy into motion energy. In addition to its noise-free operation, it is stronger, more efficient and more economical. ZY electric tractors are expected to obtain a very high torque with the battery pack and drive system managed by software developed resulting in smooth operation under every circumastance. Maintenance and repair costs of electric motors are very low, saving up to 90% in energy costs. It can be charged wherever there is electrical energy.
The tractor is currently designed to be produced modularly. In other words, the farmer will be able to choose the power, the battery capacity and the size of the tractor he wants and have it assembled very quickly.
The firm, Derindere, has proven itself in this sector through its electric buses, trucks and motorcycles, and has solved the problem of storing wind and solar energy with the inverter it has developed. The firm can store energy in 1 megawatt hour containers in the watch-houses of the Ministry of National Defense.
In an interview , CEO of DMA Önder Yol stated that they obtained the engine parts they needed from select partners largest of which is the Hattat Hema Group that produces parts all over the world. Software, on the other hand, is 100% developed by 80-85 engineers in-house. Derindere is not reliant on any foreign country or institution.
It is critical to address technical issues in electric vehicles such as the supply of batteries, charging possibilities, duration and interval. Electric tractors will easily be recharged at charging stations across Turkey. The batteries of ZY electric tractors are designed for 4,000 uses when used every day which equates to ten years. Tractors will not need any chargers, and will be charged from anywhere within 8-10 hours at 220 volts and in 90 minutes at 380 volts. The firm claims that the charging duration can be reduced to 15 minutes with 1-2 megawatt-hour containers that can be deployed in village centers. This type of investment would make free charging of all tractors in the village very convenient for the producer. Under normal conditions, the garden tractor is expected to work 4-5 hours with 20 minutes charging, and the electricity cost is estimated to be between 1-1,5 €. If solar panels are installed and stored in batteries, even that fuel cost can be avoided.
The large field tractor is designed to operate for about 7-8 hours on one charge. In these tractors, which are planned to start mass production in June 2021, the toolbox and hydraulics will be operated directly with 800-volt dc pumps and the losses will be eliminated. The wheels and the PTO shaft would have 130 hand 160 horsepower respectively making the entire tractor 290 hp. At the same time, this tractor would be used for energy storage. Each tractor would have two 380 three-phase (22 kW) and 220-volt monophase (3.5 kW) outlets enabling many outside tasks with a single tractor.
According to company officials, smart-technology will enable the post-sales network. Through an established partnership with a GSM operator, each tractor will come with a chip ready to transmit data around the parts, the modular brain, the battery and power management systems to the main computer via GSM. The incoming data and signals will allow for rapid resolution of potential problems even before they occur.
The price of a high-power electric tractor is lower than that of an existing diesel-equivalent. However, when you consider the promise of incentives as well as the credit advantages (a partner Ziraat Bank – Bank of agriculture), the electric tractor stands out as a true blessing for the farmer.
Many global tractor companies around the world have R&D and innovation departments that have been working on electric tractors for many years. Although the manufacturer of Massey Ferguson and Fendt tractors has launched the electric and battery tractors, these have not been made available for sale. One reason might be commercial concerns; as companies seek a threshold value above hundreds of thousands for mass production in the automotive sector. Another might be the unresolved issues in battery technology.
The environmental impact of electric tractor use is another striking issue. This will be discussed as a separate topic in a later article.
The fact that Turkish farmers will be among the first to use the electric tractor, which is 95% less fuel-dependent and noise-less, is surely a source for pride for the Turkish automotive industry.
Nazimi Açıkgöz

According to the ”14. five-year plan” China plans to increase its research and development (R&D) spending by more than 7% per year. In fact, the increase in R&D expenditures from 0.7% of the annual gross national product (GNP) in 1995 to 2.2% in 2020 reveals China’s determination for development. Agriculture has always been one of the priority areas in all development plans. While the announcement of this last five-year plan, revitalization of the rural areas and modernization of agriculture were highlighted:

According to the mentioned plan:
• The quality of agricultural products and food security will be further improved and the increase in farmers’ incomes will exceed those of urban residents;
• Agricultural modernization will be provided where conditions permit;
• In order to reduce poverty, rural revitalization will be encouraged in these regions and the income gap in rural and urban areas will be tried to be zero by 2025, regular assistance will be continued for low-income rural residents;
• The protection, development and use of gene resources will be encouraged, the implementation of scientific and technological projects involving agricultural biotechnology in plant breeding will be accelerated;
• By 2025, efforts will be made to establish 500 demonstration zones where modern agriculture is practiced and for the sustainability of agricultural development;
• The mobile internet will be promoted and the use of remote sensing satellites in agriculture will be accelerated, smart agriculture will be developed, big data systems for agriculture and rural areas will be set up, the integration of new information technology with agricultural production will be encouraged and a comprehensive agricultural meteorological monitoring network will be created to improve climate disaster prevention;
• Agricultural products storage and cold chain logistics facilities will be built to accelerate the improvement of the country’s rural logistics system, encourage e-commerce, and help direct sales of agricultural products from original production locations.

The most prominent issue here is the decision to use agricultural biotechnology in plant breeding in the country. As it is known, in recent years, genetic modification (GMO) and new breeding techniques (NBT) (CRISPR, Talen) have been involved in the development of new varieties. Under the pressure of climate change and population growth, it is inevitable to develop new varieties as soon as possible. Reducing this process, which lasted between 10-20 years, to four years with new breeding techniques, is an unmissable opportunity for China. The EU places these NBT operations in the same category as GMOs and prohibits them. Of course, there may be problems in the foreign trade of products developed by this method. Here, China has demonstrated its commitment to this issue with the relevant development plan.

While the country-oriented state policies are constantly being implemented, China supports a world-renowned e-commerce company like Ali Baba, which most of us have heard of. Parallel to it, Pinduoduo, a large company engaged in agricultural product e-commerce, bought goods from 12 million farmers in 2020 and served 788 million consumers. Let’s try to summarize the garlic example of an application of such a company that can be a solution for the price gap from field to table, which is a big problem in our country, with the table below. At the top is the practice in normal trading. A kilo of garlic sold by the producer for 1 ₺ costs the consumer 8 ₺. In the bottom line of the table, according to the e-commerce data, the producer earns 30% more money than the product he sells for 1.3 ₺, while the consumer can reach food much cheaper.

TODAY /// the purchase price from the manufacturer: 1₺/kg /// Garlic Producer-Wholesaler, 1-3 intermediaries + greengrocer, /// Product to the consumer 8₺/kg;

e-COMMERCE///Purchase price from the manufacturer in e-commerce 1.3₺/kg /// e-commerce firm warehouses + Transfer to the consumer/// Product to the consumer 1.5₺/kg

It cannot be argued how beneficial such an application is for both the producer and the consumer. In some countries agricultural products are also served by e-commerce companies. Some supermarkets are working in this parallel and even that a company has started the blockchain application.

China, which has the world’s largest agricultural economy, undertakes one fourth of global food production alone. On the other hand, in terms of money, it is the second country in the world that imports the most agricultural products. After the commercial war with the USA, China has attempted to be self-sufficient in many products. With a surface area of 9.5 million square kilometers and a population of 1.3 billion, it has become the second largest economy in the world by increasing its GNP by 10% each year in the last 50 years. However, the agricultural sector, where 33% of the working population is employed, contributes only 10% to GNP. Therefore, China aims to increase agricultural productivity and consequently food production through structural reforms, institutional innovations, intensive R&D and agricultural investments.
Nazimi Acikgoz

No epidemic in the world has been as impactful in health, economic and social terms as Corona-19. Following the emergence of the virus, its isolation and gene mapping were achieved within a few weeks, thanks to genetic engineering and new molecular biological techniques. Developed with these unimaginable advances in science, the PCR test method has enabled Covid patients to be identified quickly. The need to develop a vaccine against the rapidly spreading disease has put great pressure on the society. Again, new molecular biological techniques stood out as the most promising method in this regard. But there was a timing problem here. Environmental impact assessments, which were part of this type of research would have taken a long time, posing a major problem. To address this problem, EU officials decided to remove environmental impact assessment tests as a requirement for drug development in July 2020 and to continue research by decommissioning environmental impact assessment tests.
As a result, four Covid 19 vaccines were developed with genetic modification towards the end of 2020 and put to worldwide application . In fact, in the last 20 years, 297 new drugs were registered with gene engineering method in Germany . Since its first registration in 1998 with the genetically modification, 22 insulin drugs have been registered. Due to the low cost of the system, the pharmaceutical industry has started to develop medicine for a variety of diseases from leukemia to meningitis, hepatitis B to ebola in addition to vitamins B2, B12, C with this method. In fact, the genetic modification was applied to animals to obtain some drugs, and their products were used as medicinal drugs: (1) the active ingredient of the thrombosis drug, the transgenic (genetically modified goat) to obtain “arthrin” and (2) the transgenic rabbit for the rare hereditary angioedema disease. Food preservatives and colorants such as ascorbic acid and riboflavin obtained from genetically modified microorganisms in many other categories have also been put on the market.
Gene transfer can be carried out not only in microorganisms but also in plants and animals. In 2003, the United Nations put into effect the Convention on Biological Diversity and Cartagena Biosafety Protocol to solve the problems caused by these new GMO products and transgenic animals in terms of human, animal and environmental health.
The implementation of this protocol differs by country. A number of countries are growing transgenic crops like corn, cotton, soybean and rapeseed etc. the production area of which reached 190 million hectares in 2019 which makes up 13% of the world’s cultivated area. On the other hand, EU and countries with strong trade relationships, such as Turkey, prohibit transgenic crops production. It is notable that the EU imports close to US$40 billion of corn and soybean a year from GMO-growing countries. Turkey’s soybean import is around US $ 4 billion annually. It is also very interesting that corn farmers of the two EU countries, Spain and Portugal, can benefit from the blessings of transgenics.
Growing transgenic varieties has agro-economic gains of approximately 30%. But developing new transgenic varieties costs hundreds of millions of US$. Therefore, such varieties are only developed and marketed by giant international seed companies. Most of the said amount is comprised of the cost of tests to assess health and environmental risks.
In recent years, a revolutionary biotechnological system has been developed that earned its inventors the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Gene editing made with the revolutionary CRISPR / Cas9 method can increase and decrease the effect of the gene by adjusting the bases in the gene with enzymes, and even silence the gene. This is actually a manmade micro mutation. It is critical to reduce the classical breeding period of 10-15 years required for the breeding of new plant variety to 4-5 years. The significance of shortening the production cycle for new varieties that are resistant to diseases-pests, climatic conditions and high performance cannot be overstated for the agricultural world.
Interestingly, many varieties have been developed outside the EU in a short time by gene editing, especially by small and medium-sized seed companies. And in this process, the registration procedures were carried out according to standard plant breeding principles, not transgenic legislation. However, the EU requires that gene regulations should be evaluated according to GMO product legislation involving health and environmental risk tests. This practice that seed companies oppose due to increased cost, would lead to EU farmers not being able to maintain their competitive advantage because they would not be able to benefit from the mentioned advantages of biotechnology.
Our hope is that the changes made in the biotechnology legislation used in the rapid development of the Covid vaccine would be applied to EU seed cultivation, which would in turn maximize our agriculture and food production potential.
Nazimi Acikgöz
Note: A summary of this article has been published under the title “Biotechnology and Covid Vaccine” at http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/biyoteknoloji-ve-kovid-asisi/Blog/?BlogNo=630411.

Searches such as the “NextGenerationEU” and the “Future of Europe Conference” led EU to develop new strategies for the 2050s, mainly on environment and economy.
In the first stage, titles such as “European green consensus”, “An economy in the service of the people”, “Europe for the digital age”, “Supporting the European way of life”, “A stronger Europe in the world”, “The new driving force for democracy in Europe” output fore.
The first of these, the “European green consensus” will be the focus of this article. The EU, which embraces sustainability in environmental and social issues the most, took this sensitivity one step further in October 2019 by formalizing the European Green Deal package.
For years, the EU GREEN Deal has been a set of policy initiatives, committing to take firm and ambitious steps in environmental and social sustainability issues, especially in the fight against climate change, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, use of renewable energy. The targets legalized in 2019 consist of the following 7 policy areas: 1. clean energy, 2: sustainable industry, 3. construction, 4. from farm to fork, 5. pollution elimination, 6. sustainable mobility and 7. biodiversity.

The European Commission announced the details of “from field to fork” and “healthy and environmentally friendly food” subjects within the framework of “sustainable food systems” on 20 May 2020. With the transition to the new food system it will be possible to provide environmental, health and social benefits which will be effective and useful to recover from the COvid-19 crisis.
Here are the various aspects of food production and supply: 1. a neutral or positive environmental impact; 2. Access to adequate, nutritious and sustainable food and 3. the preservation of the affordability of food in a fair economic environment.
The following actions have been determined to make the agricultural sector more sustainable:
• Elimination of CO2 emissions;
• Improving energy efficiency;
• 50% reduction in the use of chemical pesticides by 2030;
• At least 20% reduction in fertilizer use by 2030;
• Measures for a more sustainable animal sector, animal welfare and phytosanitary
• 50% reduction in EU antimicrobial sales in farming and aquaculture by 2030;
• 25% in organic farming and a certain increase in organic aquaculture by 2030;
• Measures to increase the sustainability of fish and seafood production;
• Clarifying competition rules and monitoring unfair trade practices, etc.

Organic farming area in the EU increased from 8.3 million hectares in 2009 to 13.8 million hectares in 2019. This constitutes 8.5% of the total agricultural area used. Of course, the same increases were observed in the turnover and in the last ten years, it has reached €41 billion from €18 billion.
The emergence of organic agriculture is based on a logic that no one can deny. Organic agriculture, which was initiated due to the health and environmental problems caused by chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticide used in classical agriculture, unfortunately falls behind classical agriculture in terms of yield. As seen in the graph [1], organic wheat yield remains only 40% of the yield obtained in classical agriculture in some countries. The main reason for the low yield per unit area in organic agriculture compared to conventional agriculture is that genotypes and varieties that will provide maximum yield in a limited nutrient environment have not yet been developed.

It is certain that the organic products sector, which finds higher prices than conventional products, will have many problems. For this reason, certification bodies have to constantly prepare new standards. Many issues such as bio-labeling, pesticide-fertilizer residue monitoring and setting threshold values force the authorities to be vigilant. If import-export is also included in all of these, it becomes clear that the job will not be easy. As a matter of fact, the organic certified wheat imported by Italy from Romania, but not complying with the rules, and Germany’s organic certified 40 tons of strawberries are just a few examples that are reflected in the newspapers . Although organic farming offers some sustainability benefits, “fear-focused marketing campaigns” exaggerate the benefits and demonize acceptable alternatives .
In today’s world where EU countries are in 5 different economic groups in the fight against the pandemic and some of them have problems especially in accessing sufficient food, to what extent is the right move by supporting organic agriculture? It cannot be denied that organic products will only be consumed by high-income masses due to their high prices. In other words, the poor are “absent” in the organic product market. However, organic agriculture is supported by many countries, including Turkey. However, no difference is observed in terms of nutritional values in organic-classical products , and therefore organic supports has started to be questioned recently. As a matter of fact, the UK has stopped spending the funds in this category . I wonder, while supporting the organic market, which is not benefited by that poor population and only 4% of the population benefit from the organic market, “Does the EU support the rich instead of the poor?” Especially, according to 2019 data, 21.1% of the population is experiencing poverty and social exclusion in EU .
Nazimi Acikgoz
Note: This paper has been summarized from a blog: https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com/2021/04/27/ab-organik-tarim-hedefini-genisletiyor/
Tags: Organic farming profits, organic farming support, covid-19 and organic farming, organic farming in the EU, EU pesticide directive, EU fertilizer directive