marker-assisted selection in wheat - ictsd

Chapter 19 – Technical, economic and policy considerations on marker-assisted selection in crops 395Figure 3Annual net benefits, conventional vs. marker-assisted line conversion scheme400 000350 000300 000ConventionalselectionschemeAnnual net benefits (US$)250 000200 000150 000100 000MAS scheme50 0000-50 0001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Time (years)VR = varietal release expenses (cost ofevaluation trials, registration procedures,seed multiplication,advertising and promotion, etc.)RC = research investment costst = year (1…n)NPVs were calculated by adding the discountedstream of net benefits associatedwith each breeding scheme over the life ofthe variety (n years):where:nNPV = Σ ( GB t - VR t - RC t ) / (1 + r) tt = 1NPV = net present valuer = discount rateIRRs were calculated conventionally bysolving the discount rate that drives theNPV to 0.The profitability rankings of the twobreeding schemes, MAS and conventional,were found to differ dependingon the measure of project worth that wasused. The MAS scheme generated thehighest NPV, whereas the conventionalbreeding scheme generated the highestIRR on investment. These results, generatedusing a stylized model of a plantbreeding programme and plausible valuesfor varietal release and adoption parameters,provide an important insight into therelative cost-effectiveness of conventionalselection methods and MAS in applicationsinvolving trade-offs between timeand money. From an economic perspective,the relative attractiveness of conventionalversus MAS methods will depend on theavailability of research investment capital.If investment capital is abundant (meaningthat the breeding programme can afford toabsorb the higher up-front costs associatedwith MAS without curtailing other ongoingbreeding projects), MAS may become adesirable option, because it generates thelargest NPV. On the other hand, if investmentcapital is constrained (i.e. the breeding