January 2009 Archives

One of the internal G2 projects which we can openly discuss is our acquisition of the remaining germplasm in Dr. Richard Craig's Pelargonium breeding program at Penn State.  Both of G2's principals, Mike Uchneat and Rick Grazzini, did at least part of their Ph.D. studies in Dr. Craig's labs.  We feel a strong ethical obligation to respect Dr. Craig's 40+ years of Pelargonium breeding by helping to preserve the unique genetic diversity contained therein.

Many of Dr. Craig's zonal and regal pelargoniums were licensed by the (then) Oglevee organization.  Oglevee was headquartered in Connellsville, PA, about a 3 hour drive from Penn State.  The Oglevee organization was a long time supporter of Dr. Craig's programs.  Some of the Craig Pelargoniums are still in active production by the Ecke company, which acquired Oglevee in 2006. 

Dr. Craig, as a professor of plant breeding at Penn State, had been working with Pelargoniums since HIS grad school days in the early 1960s.  As such, his germplasm represents a resource of novel genetics.  During the past decade, Dr. Craig attempted to move copies of most of his genetics into the USDA GRIN system, and more specifically, to the Ornamental Plant Germplasm Center at Ohio State.  However, most of this material was transferred as vegetative propagules, and anything vegetative is at risk for potential loss.

In 2007, we agreed to help Dr. Craig preserve and protect what remained, and made a satisfactory agreement with Penn State re intellectual property.  We maintained stock plants of everything in his program through 2008, distributing them openly.  However, at the same time, we worked hard to reduce each genotype to seed, since Pelargonium seed stores well and with a long shelf life (if cold and dry).  Most of the collection could be selfed, and we took that approach.  For those varieties which were pollen-sterile for all practical purposes, we attempted make to sib-crosses if there were a pollen-fertile sib in the collection.  If a plant could not be selfed or sibbed, we then attempted to make crosses out to two commercial varieties.  Those crosses are currently in progress, and once this round of seed production is complete, we hope to have the entire collection reduced to seed. 

We feel that preserving the past is an important part of our future, and would do this whether or not we actually breed Pelargoniums, or otherwise make use of the genetics from the Craig heritage. 

Heirloom preservation has been a part of my life since the mid-1970s.  In 1976, I read an article in The Mother Earth News about a new organization called the Seed Savers Exchange, and ... got involved.  It was clear from conversations with Kent Whealy and the SSE members (we used a thing called a "letter" to communicate before email) that the Seed Savers needed some serious coaching on keeping these heirloom vegetable lines pure, while at the same time, attempting to maintain some degree of genetic diversity.  Figuring out how to do this ultimately lead me to graduate school at Purdue to work with a tomato breeder there (the late Ed Tigchelaar). 

Regardless, I became a SSE Life Member the first year life memberships became available, and have remained involved in horticultural heirloom preservation ever since. 

We see our attempt to preserve the Craig heritage Pelargonium collection as simply one more step in a lifelong process.  Had we not done this, the material likely would have ended up in the dumpster.  Dr. Craig lost all access to on-campus greenhouse space in 2008, six years after announcing his official retirement from the Department of Horticulture. 

For the University, this undoubtedly was an appropriate decision.  But Dr. Craig's lifetime of Pelargonium breeding deserves more respect than that. 

We are frequently asked if we are developing our own products, a line of G2 proprietary genetics.  And the answer to that question is: "Yes, of course we are". 

What are we breeding?  Well, at the risk of seeming evasive, you can figure this out rather simply by considering the backgrounds of G2's two principals, Mike Uchneat and Rick Grazzini.  We are not breeding any species which is not consistent with our training, experience, and personal interests. 

That said, we have a rather aggressive business model that requires each of us to develop 50 or 60 new products during our first decade in business, and then license those to the industry.  That's a pretty large number for anyone to handle.  Our solution is to pursue quick-turn projects early, while at the same time, beginning some of the long-term projects in parallel.  For instance, each of us has quick-turn projects in vegetative annuals, since these can be brought into market in 3 to 5 years.  But each of us also has woody plant projects which may take 15 to 20 years to bring to market.  If we were to wait for the early projects to be complete, we'd be that much further behind on the longer projects.  If we only started the long projects now, we might not survive long enough to get around to the quicker ones.  So ... we start both kinds at the same time, letting the early ones get to market quickly enough to provide cash flow to keep the longer projects running. 

Each of us also has edible projects.  Vegetables.  Culinary herbs.  We conduct these projects more like vegetative annual projects, even though most of the edibles projects are likely to be seed-propagated.  This is because we see our edibles projects as being relatively quick.  At least when compared to a woody ornamental. 

The interaction between our contract research (CR) world, and that of our own breeding projects, has some obvious conflict potential.  We chose to resolve these early by avoiding the most obvious conflicts.  If someone brings us a contract breeding project in a species where we are actively breeding to the same objectives, we simply turn it down.  If someone brings us a project which is related to a project in which we are actively breeding, we disclose what we are doing --- at least in broad terms --- and let the client decide if there is conflict.  If the client chooses to proceed (and they usually do), we simply isolate the G2 breeder from the contract project. 

Confidentiality is a critical component of any CR relationship.  In the G2 model, we do not want cross-talk between projects, even when a tech or a scientist may have to work on both projects.  It is not realistic to have separate growers, for instance, tending to each project separately.  But it is possible to isolate a breeder from a project.  If you are the breeder with the potential conflict, you don't interact with the conflicting contract project.  You don't take data.  You avoid making even casual observations of the conflicting project.  You don't even help transplant the project if it goes to the field. 

This sounds a lot more complicated than it is.  Maintaining confidentiality in a CR relationship rapidly becomes second nature, and almost intuitive.  If you have to think about it, it's probably going to be a problem.

So yes, we are actively developing our own proprietary genetics. 

We also need to point out that access to G2 proprietary genetics is integrally connected to our CR model.  "First-look, first-choice" on G2 proprietary genetics will always be offered to our CR clients before we take a product out to the open market.  Only if none of our CR clients licenses a product will we release it to the open market.  Stated simply, if you expect to license a G2 product in the future, you should be finding ways in which to do contract research with us now. 

One of G2's start-up strategies is the idea that confidential contract research --- a business model with which we have deep experience --- might also work in the product development cycles of ornamental plants.  Stated as a question, is contract plant breeding a workable business? 

Plant breeding, as much as we breeders want to make it seem like an art, is really a rather simple science.  It is not rocket science, nor is it brain surgery.  And as a science, plant breeding is a methodical series of processes.  You can then break each process down into its component steps, and when you do this, there are some rather obvious opportunities to outsource some of those steps. 

For example, every breeding company has resource limitations.  There are more tasks on the to-do list than internal resources can ever hope to accomplish.  Even after trimming and prioritizing, the lists are still too long.  At this point, outsourcing some of the more routine tasks should be considered.  Let's imagine that internal greenhouse space is limiting during the winter, yet there are more lines to move forward than internal space will permit. 

So what can you do?

You can simply stall some of the projects until bench space opens up in 3 or 4 months.  That's fine, unless your product development cycles have no sense of urgency.  Otherwise, you can outsource some of the "rough breeding" to a contractor like G2, and allow us to use OUR greenhouse capacity to help you meet your development timelines.  Making breeding sized-quantities of F4 seed from F3 families is a relatively straightforward task that does not necessarily need to require your highly compensated plant breeder's hands-on attention.  Surely you could more productively use that breeder's time creating new products. 

Other contract breeding opportunities occur as well.  Every breeding program tends to be self-perpetuating.  Once a program is begun, there is a tendency to continue to use those lines already developed, rather than "going backwards" and incorporating truly novel sources of genetic variation.  Bringing in "fresh blood" slows down short-term product development, despite the reality that over the long-term, more progress is likely to be made when the gene pool is refreshed by the addition of new germplasm. 

Why not outsource that slow and repetitive "re-freshening" process, and allow G2 to incorporate that new germplasm for you?  Your breeders stay focused on new product development; our breeders do the rough work.  We return advanced lines to you ready to be crossed directly into your development programs. 

You might also think even further outside of the box.  Have you considered what it might take for your customers to be able to "bench-run" your entire Calibrachoa line?  All of the colors would need to be evenly matched in habit, bloom time, and overall performance.  To meet this goal, you would need to mix all of the colors into a common genetic background, and then re-select a set of matched colors.  This is a years-long project --- and as such, this is an ideal opportunity for outsourcing.  G2 can work in parallel with your breeders, doing the early and rough breeding under contract, then passing the advanced matched lines to your team for final selection and finish breeding. 

And you would do this with significantly less investment in facilities.  You could keep your core facilities focused and compact, while using an outsourced resource like G2 for this kind of overflow / long-term development activity. 

Contract breeding is quite simple.  You send G2 your current germplasm.  We work together with you to move it towards your breeding objectives.  We return the improved germplasm to your breeding team for final selection.  In a nutshell, that is how contract breeding works at G2.

GardenGenetics (G2) provides confidential contract research services to the horticultural industries.  What does that mean?  It means we conduct research with (and for) our clients.  Think of us as scientists-for-hire. 

Much of our contract research activity consists of confidential research trials.  In these, we grow a client's experimental varieties in an isolated field plot, or in a secure greenhouse, along with industry standard comparison varieties.  This allows the client to compare its experimentals to comparison varieties, in a secure confidential location.  We typically provide extensive data collection services along with the trials, so that a client need only make site inspections once or twice during the trial. 

Confidential trials occur both in the field and in the greenhouse.  For example, in our greenhouses last fall, we grew 23 poinsettia varieties last fall for a client.  All plants of all varieties began under "industry standard" average daily temperatures (i.e., for poinsettia production, this was 70F).  In the first week of October, and every two weeks thereafter, we moved a subset of each variety into one of two cooler growing zones.  The average daily temperatures for these two zones were 5 degrees F and 8 degrees F colder than "standard".  Perhaps as significantly, the minimum night temperatures in the three zones were 68F (standard); 63F and ... 58F.  Yes, we successfully produced a holiday poinsettia crop, at least with certain varieties, at 58F nights.  We need to note that not all poinsettia cultivars could be bloomed as a holiday crop at this night temperature.

We could maintain these differences in adjacent zones without problem.  Every few minutes, we collected data on ambient light levels, temperature, and humidity.  Charts of the temperature data were essentially flat for each zone.  Every week, we evaluated and photgraphed typical plants of each variety from each treatment. 

As the holiday season approached, we took yet another subset from each treatment; put it in a florist's sleeve; and then put the sleeved poinsettia on a bench in a cool room lit only by overhead lights.  After 72 hours, the sleeve was removed, and the plants went back on the bench.  At weekly intervals, we evaluated each plant in these subsets for post-harvest performance.   

What did we deliver to the client?  Thousands of digital images.  Mb quantities of environmental and observational data.  We calculated how many BTUs were saved per week for those varieties which performed well in cooler environments.  And we provided our evaluations as experienced breeders and growers of which poinsettia varieties and which experimentals performed best under cool conditions, as well as which should NOT be grown cool.

Here is one picture of part of the trial, in one of the cool night zones of our research greenhouse.

Contract research is conducted under the tightest conditions of confidentiality which we can maintain.  On one level, this is a contractual obligation between G2 and the client.  On another, it is a simply G2's standard business practice, regardless of contract terms.  The work we perform for a client belongs to the client.  It belongs to no one else, including G2 or its staff. 

For example, you might be wondering what we did with all of those thousands of poinsettias.  We gave most of them away --- except for the not-yet-released experimentals and breeding lines which were also part of the study.  Those, we simply had to destroy after all of the evaluations were complete. 

Why didn't we sell the poinsettias?  This was actually our decision.  Ethically, we felt that we could not flood the local market in competition with the growers who were trying to make their living by selling a crop.  We were being paid to grow this research trial, rather than trying to recover our costs by selling a crop.  Obviously, this raised some potential conflicts.  We chose to give plants away only relatively late in the season (no earlier than 10 days before Christmas).  We chose to give plants to hospitals and nursing homes, where people might not otherwise have holiday plants available.  We chose to give plants to the elderly and house-bound, at least those of which we were aware.  We attempted to give poinsettias to people who would not otherwise purchase a poinsettia. 

I have been conducting contract research (albeit in a different industry) for more than 20 years.  During this time, I have learned how to conduct extremely sensitive research under total confidentiality.  Furthermore, my training and experience during those 20 years enabled me to teach and train hundreds of professionals how to work effectively under tight confidentiality.  As a team, G2 will probably always err on the side of excessive caution when it comes to maintaining confidentiality.

Not only do we think that it's important, we consider confidentiality to be critical to our business survival and success.