Download PDF (6215 kb) - Bioversity International

Duplication in forages collections
(see also full papers in Part II)
EUROPEAN CENTRAL FORAGES DATABASES 11
On the identification of duplicate accessions
At the Fifth meeting of the ECP/GR Working Group on Forages in Bulgaria (1995), a
subgroup was formed to develop a protocol for identifying duplicates. The subgroup
presented a protocol covering only the first step in the expensive, painstaking procedure of
identifying duplicates with sufficient precision to permit their elimination.
The report defines historical duplicates (originated from the same original collected or
bred material without undergoing deliberate selection by breeders) and biological duplicates
(accessions which have been demonstrated to have the same genetic composition).
Distinction is also made between Possible Historical Duplicates (PHDs) (with identical or
'matching' passport data) and Confirmed Historical Duplicates (CHDs).
Owing to time and costs constraints in the confirmation of historical duplicates and
identification of biological duplicates, emphasis is set on preliminary identification of PHDs,
and on the identification of accessions that are demonstrably unique, particularly those that
are no longer stored in their country of origin.
The report introduces a simple protocol for partial identification of PHDs using only
limited fields from the passport data, which achieves the same objective of assigning
accessions to primary holders but with relative little investment of time and resources. A
suggested protocol is presented in Appendix II.
Safety-duplication of genebank accessions in Europe
L. Maggioni introduced a discussion about the concept of safety-duplication – that is, the
duplication of an accession for safety reasons. He mentioned how safety-duplication is
essential for ensuring a sound conservation, with a minimized risk of losses and that this is
also beneficial for the rationalization of collections, since accessions that are safely duplicated
once do not need to be conserved as multiple duplicates in many places. As important
criteria for safety, he quoted the adoption of international standards for long-term
conservation as well as the need to establish formal agreements for safety-duplication. Such
agreements, preferably undertaken between different countries, would strengthen the
mutual trust and the sharing of responsibilities. The formality of the agreements would
ensure official recognition to the safety-duplication and also that any emergency situation
could be dealt with according to procedures planned in advance. L. Maggioni mentioned the
example of the recommendation of the External Review of the CGIAR genebank operations
to establish international agreements for safety-duplication. He showed the information
available on the safety-duplication status within the Forages Working Group and asked the
Group to forward information in order to fill the gaps. The Memorandum of Understanding
between the Nordic Gene Bank and the Institute of Biology, Latvia, was presented as an
example of a safety-duplication agreement with a 'black box' type of arrangement. He also
mentioned the recent decisions of the Brassica Working Group, which acknowledged the
cost-effectiveness of the 'black box' arrangement and recommended that genebank managers
inform the Bras-EDB and the ECP/GR Coordinator about safety-duplication. The decisions
of the Secale Group, where a more elaborate commitment was taken to safety-duplicate all
the accessions defined as belonging to a Secale European Collection, were illustrated as a
possible reference for a similar choice to be considered by the Forages Working Group.