Biodiversity and DNA technologies in farming revolution | Paolo Ajmone Marsan | TEDxLakeComo

Paolo Ajmone Marsan, genetist and Director of the Nutrigenomics and Proteomics Research Centre at the Institute of Animal Science at the Università Cattolica of Milan, explains how biodiversity constitutes a priceless heritage to be safeguarded against any standardization, because only in the multiplicity of life forms are the most suitable solutions to the future problems of world's food production.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.

Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

Some 10.000 years ago,
humans invented agriculture.

Plant and animal species were domesticated
in specific areas of the world.

The Fertile Crescent was

one of the most important
domestication centres

of plants - we heard about wheat -
and livestock species.

Domestic animal and plants
have thereafter colonised the planet,

along with the expansion of agriculture,

human migrations and conquests.

And they have settled
in agro-climatic areas

much unlike the domestication centre.

Several millennia of natural selection
have adapted domestic species

to a range of diversified conditions:

extreme climate,

different pathogens, different soils,
different feed sources.

This process has fostered
animal and plant adaptation

to produce under diversified conditions.

For example this Moroccan goat,

a goat domesticated
in Taurus mountains, in Anatolia,

has adapted to live
in the much hotter Morocco

and feed, when there's no vegetation,

on the Argan tree fruits.

By the way, it also helps spreading
the seeds of this tree.

These “genetic solutions”

discovered throughout millennia
by natural selection,

are a heritage of local breeds.

Unfortunately, local breeds

are at risk of extinction,
we are loosing them.

In 2015 FAO estimated

one third of all the planet's
genetic and animal resources,

of all livestock breeds,

is under threat of extinction.

And we know nothing for another third.

And these resources
are a valuable source of adaptation

for agriculture in general.

Natural selection

has been integrated,
from domestication on,

with the man-made one,

At first in order to tame behaviour,

and later for the sake of efficiency.

After the Industrial Revolution,

human ability to select superior genotypes

increased significantly,

thanks to the adoption
of sophisticated scientific approaches.

This has progressively led

to the development of what we define
intensive agriculture:

intensive livestocks,
and industrial cultivation of plants.

On one hand, we all know, these systems
have a serious environmental impact.

They use energy, deep ploughing,
pesticides, fertilizers,

drugs in the livestock,

and a high livestock density

that, when not properly managed,
may negatively impact animals' health.

On the other hand,
they increased yield a lot:

milk production quadrupled,

and corn yield increased
a staggering ten-fold,

in just one century.

They responded to some social dynamics:

after the Industrial Revolution,

human population increased exponentially,

moved from the countryside to cities

and people started asking
for more abundant, safer and cheaper food.

The result, the industry's response,
was industrial agriculture.

A second step forward,
on productivity is very recent,

fostered by the DNA revolution.

In the last 10-12 years, 20 years,

our ability in reading the DNA,

that is the genetic code
of plants, animals and humans,

has speed up exponentially:

consider that if the speed in 1980

could be compared to a snail
moving at one meter per hour -

so a rather slow speed
even for a snail -

today we move as fast as a supersonic jet

flying at several thousand
kilometres per hour.

Likewise, DNA analysis
has gotten a lot cheaper:

from one billion dollars in 2001,
to sequence the first human genome,

to less than 1.000 dollars today.

This allowed us to greatly increase

the level of resolution of DNA analysis

and consequently,
the understanding of its biology.

As comparison, we may say

that we have switched
from low resolution, a few pixels,

as you see in this portrait
that seemingly hides Mona Lisa,

to a much higher resolution.

This also made us realize
when we were making mistakes, of course.

(Laughter).

[Level of resolution in DNA analysis]

Indeed, DNA analysis

has allowed to increase
the selection efficiency.

Increasing the selection efficiency -

dairy bulls are a good example for that:

dairy bulls do not produce milk,

so their genetic assessment,
up until five years ago,

was related to the production
of their daughters.

But their daughters only make milk
when a calf is born.

So, long story short,

a bull was evaluated only
when grand-sire [grand-father],

Then and only then, it could be chosen
as an improved bull,

worth to spread gametes
across the population, or discarded.

Genomics, that is DNA analysis,

allows now to evaluate a calf at birth.

We no longer need to wait
for daughters' production:

we immediately know, looking at his DNA,

if the bull's genetic value
will be high enough

or it is to be discarded.

This has accelerated by three times

the selection speed
in the dairy cattle field.

The same technologies are fostering
the same process in plants.

As a result, the selection speed
has increased.

Why speed is now more and more important?

It is important because
some ongoing processes

are progressing very rapidly.

First process:

human population's exponential growth,
there will be 10 billions of us in 2050.

FAO estimated a need

of 70% more food in 2050,
to feed the world.

This is a problem,

as agriculture can count

on 1,5 billion hectares on the planet.

And this number can’t
significantly increased.

We could exploit some areas
now considered suboptimal,

but certainly we can’t cut forests.

What should we do?

Firstly, we certainly
have to reduce waste,

from field to fork.

However, that is not enough.

We must increase the production efficiency

on these available hectares.

Second problem: global warming.

Carbon dioxide is steadily increasing,

it has been exponentially growing
since the Industrial Revolution,

as a result of human activities.

Agriculture contributes to this trend,

and while estimates
of this contribution vary a lot -

they're marginal according to farmers,
or very relevant according to industries,

it's anyway somewhere
between nine and 25 percent,

with at least half the impact

due to animal farming alone.

And in particular,

to the methane emitted by ruminants.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Anyway,

whatever the contribution of agriculture
to carbon dioxide production is,

this is to be surely reduced.

We need to reduce this impact

while increase productivity.

That's a challenge!

Why should we reduce CO2 emissions?

Because the planet's
average temperature is increasing.

It is increasing:

NASA scientists estimate

it increased about one degree Celsius
in the last century.

A very rapid increase,

and this is why I previously stressed
the need to act quickly.

For those who do not trust NASA data,

here is clear, spot-on evidence
of global warming.

We're all waiting for the next step.

(Laughter).

So, will there be a food crisis?

Will we be quick enough
to increase yield and decrease pollution?

Both issues are urgent.

Well, research is exploring
new technologies.

One of these

is called genome editing.

It is a new technology that,
much like in a word processor,

can cut a DNA letter
and paste a different one.

Sometimes, replacing
or erasing a single letter

can profoundly alter

a plant or animal trait.

In this case, for example,

erasing a single letter in rice

makes it resistant to a disease
known as rice-blast,

which is usually treated with pesticides
with a high environmental impact.

This mutation is naturally present
in some varieties.

What editing does, essentially,

is copying those genetic solutions

that were found by natural selection

and conserved in local breeds, varieties.

It simply copy-paste them
into more productive varieties.

The same goes for bovine polledness.

Some breeds are polled [hornless].

Polledness is a favourable trait

for both humans, farmers
who work in close contact with cattle,

and the cattle themself,
as they can hurt one another

while trying to establish
a hierarchy in the herd.

Also in this case, the mutation

has been copied from local breeds
and pasted in highly productive ones.

Another piece of news is that last year

mouse stem cells have been differentiated
into in-vitro sperm cells.

For us males,

it's a punch in the gut,

Why?

Because if we take a female embryo,

and differentiate its sperm cells

it will only generate females,

and males will no longer be needed.

So I put myself in the shoes
of poor male mice.

In any case, let’s say

that if we connect these technologies -

genomics,

reproductive biotechnologies

and editing, that is
copying from local breeds -

while genomics alone
can speed up selection by three-folds,

with all these systems together
we can take the whole process in the lab,

moving the selection
from the field into the lab,

and we could speed up selection

from 3X to 30X.

This means we could make in five years

as much progress as in the last 150 years.

This, I’d like to say,

on the one side could also allow

to select very difficult traits:

those related to environmental adaptation;

Those decreasing environmental impact.

Think about it:

plants that resist diseases;

that can grow on very salty soils;

that tolerate water scarcity.

They might even have a higher efficiency,
especially in photosynthesis.

Therefore they would capture
more CO2 from the atmosphere

mitigating the environmental impacts.

Likewise, animals could also get
more resistant to diseases

and therefore would reduce
drug consumption;

that have a lower impact,

meaning cattle producing less methane,

which is useless for them
and harmful for the environment.

As a scientist, I must say

that before integrating and applying
all these technologies together

we still have to break
a number of technical barriers.

However, looking back,

many such barriers
have been quickly broken,

over the last five - ten years.

We may therefore be fast enough

to reach this difficult goal

of increasing food production,

while lowering its footprint
on the environment.

However, as these technologies
are hi-tech and very powerful,

a debate is needed
between science and society.

Our duty, as scientists,

is to inform, look for solutions

and provide information to open a debate

as thoughtful as possible,
without polarization.

In order to understand how and when to use
and regulate these technologies.

In the meantime,

we must preserve livestock
and crop biodiversity,

because those solutions we might be able
to copy in the near future

will be critical for us
and even more so for future generations.

Thank you.

(Applause)