My orientations are as follows: A) Org.Agric. is an ecologically-oriented, eco-sound agriculture and thus is based on biodiversity as important natural principal. This bio-diversity-principal is hindered by a strong commercial (e.g.Monsanto Ltd.) strategy of selling seeds, which are "narrowly" breed on inbreed-lines, combined with specific demands of insecticides, herbicides, mineral fertilizers and "one-year-only" use only, forcing farmers to buy seeds every season anew. Development-workers for tropical regions see a big disadvantage and risk for simple and small-holder-farmers, although e.g. hybrid-maize-seeds can sometimes produce breathtaking yields....after being fed by all sorts of agro-chemical inputs from the seed-company in package. B) The introduction of "Tuxpenjo" ? maize, an open pollinating CIMNYT-variety from Mexico into the African tropics during the 70ies was a succesful milestone for maize-production, without creating a dependancy of farming communities. Thus: Agronomical Progress is also possible without strict commercial / profit-guided action. C) Various widespread disease- & pest outbreaks in USA-maize belts on specific hybrid-varieties are still well in memory......and happen anywhere again, where seed-companies cause narrowness in regional biodiversity. D) The pure commercialization of plant-breeding companies and monopolization (in package with agro-chemical-dependancies) is probably a pre-apocalyptic trend......let us be very prudent, also in view of GMO-features. E) With average cereal-yields of 1.5 t/ha in many tropical regions we have probably other agronomical priorities to address than just introducing expensive, sophisticated and dependancy-creating commercial hybrid-seeds.

ya hybrid are problematic to an extent but in modren era as thr z alot of requirment to full fill the human ,that i think is not possible with hybrid seed production

I do not believe so. Hybrid varieties of crops utilize the phenomenon of hybrid vigor, i.e., heterosis. As such, they often produce higher yields than open pollinated populations or self-pollinated inbred cultivars. Higher yields tend to require higher inputs but keeping everything equal, even in organic agriculture, the higher genetic potential of a a particular genotype or a variety, is generally advantageous for the crop. Having said that, hybrids are rarely used in self-pollinated crops as their seed production requires male sterility and pollination system, but are relatively common in most open pollinated crop species where possible.

well I just want to point out the phenomenon of evolutionary/adaptive trade offs:

Meaning that species cannot increase fitness simultaneously for mutual exclusive environments. According to this increasing adaptation to an high input agricultural environment goes along with decreased fitness in low input environments/agriculture.

See e.g.: http://oikosjournal.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/why-expect-trade-offs-in-ecology-and-evolution/

Yes, I do not dispute that but it is my understanding that some of the commercial hybrids of maize for example are successfully used and grown in low input environments in Africa and other regions of the world. The acceptance is sometimes slow but those farmers that tried it, actually benefitted from them, regardless of the presumed fitness cost.

It is true that use of hybrids threatening agro-biodiversdity but hybrids because of their higher yield potential can not be ignored in countries like India where the food grains requirement is surging every decade due to increasing population. Further, there are identified areas where the Indian government is promoting only organic agriculture. I think this strategy could work well. Hybrid seeds will also perform well in organic agriculture if the nutrients required by the crop are supplied from the organic sources 

No. We cant say that hybrids are problematic to organic agriculture. Natural selection also creates several hybrids. For example excess heat/radiation may generate new plant types or natural hybrids and so hybrids do not really problematic for organic agriculture. However the genetically modified may pose problem. However needs long bterm investigations to derive soild conclusions

My orientations are as follows: A) Org.Agric. is an ecologically-oriented, eco-sound agriculture and thus is based on biodiversity as important natural principal. This bio-diversity-principal is hindered by a strong commercial (e.g.Monsanto Ltd.) strategy of selling seeds, which are "narrowly" breed on inbreed-lines, combined with specific demands of insecticides, herbicides, mineral fertilizers and "one-year-only" use only, forcing farmers to buy seeds every season anew. Development-workers for tropical regions see a big disadvantage and risk for simple and small-holder-farmers, although e.g. hybrid-maize-seeds can sometimes produce breathtaking yields....after being fed by all sorts of agro-chemical inputs from the seed-company in package. B) The introduction of "Tuxpenjo" ? maize, an open pollinating CIMNYT-variety from Mexico into the African tropics during the 70ies was a succesful milestone for maize-production, without creating a dependancy of farming communities. Thus: Agronomical Progress is also possible without strict commercial / profit-guided action. C) Various widespread disease- & pest outbreaks in USA-maize belts on specific hybrid-varieties are still well in memory......and happen anywhere again, where seed-companies cause narrowness in regional biodiversity. D) The pure commercialization of plant-breeding companies and monopolization (in package with agro-chemical-dependancies) is probably a pre-apocalyptic trend......let us be very prudent, also in view of GMO-features. E) With average cereal-yields of 1.5 t/ha in many tropical regions we have probably other agronomical priorities to address than just introducing expensive, sophisticated and dependancy-creating commercial hybrid-seeds.

Are there any empirical studies comparing high yield hybrids with varieties bred/optimized for low input conditions in organic/lowinput conditions? Probably such studies don't exist because breeding for low/input conditions is only recently emerging?

1. I assume, there are such studies, because the global movements against seed-monopols and GMO ----often ideologically distorted and not really professionally strategizing ---- are quite strong, esp. in view of India / South-Asia, and such  movements cannot work without solid knowledge-base. 2. There are always scientists and observers and media-actors who soberly do their duties independantly, but I cannot presently give names as I did not focus on the issues recently. Search-machines will quickly give details. 3.See the Bantam-mais web-pages, there is a hint or two. 4. From the African perspective I assume, that the many small local breeders and breeding-companies / institutions continue with crop-improvement by traditional breeding-techniques, but are often too weak to have large-scale impacts and are +/- systematically discontinued by state and/or funding-actors. 5. We must probably perceive, that Monsanto & Co has to be interpreted als the examples of the quite offensive / agressive anglo-american  world-capitalism in the breeding- & agro-chemical sector, whereas the non-anglo European breeder-companies & "capitalists" are still practicing a more moderate social-market system approach, tolerating "open pollinating and non-GMO" actors and products. Guess who knows more about agro-bio-diversity.... 6. The non-hidden and well established fact that globally the rich become richer and the poor poorer has also its plant-breeding dimensions, which go mostly against biodiversity and organic agriculture. 7.The dust-storms in the 1930 in USA, which killed mio. of ha of productive land and the recent storms in north-east-Germany are related to breeder-induced monoculture-cropping with little attention to biodiversity and the complex ecological system of fine land-use.

No, there is no problem with hybrids in organic agriculture, but concerning GMO's YES it's a big deal. Hybrids are used in organic agriculture if ther're reared according to organic regulation, but in case of absence, non treated hybrids (mostly with Thiram) can be used.

This question of low-input Vs High input organic agricutlure was discussed during workshops of the scientific day (IFOAM) at BioFach 2014 in Nurnberg (Germany) last february. You can find more information about Organic 3.0 (see link below). I could catch the following conclusion: whether high or low and other systems between them, all constitute the biodiversity of organic understanding by growers and researchers. There are many kind of adaptation to local conditions and finally, the sustainability parameters will decide if low or high input system is more sustainable or not (profitability and productivity is more discussed here versus the environmental impacts of such agroecosystem).

http://www.organic-research.net/2634.html

Ahh thanks for the link Khalid

I would suggest that many crops are hybrids (biologically), including more traditional heirloom crops. Thatʻs how they became the crops that they are.  Traditional Polynesian sugarcanes are a hybrid of two wild species. Often what is hybridized within commercial breeding programs are not different species, but only different varieties of the same species. Iʻm perhaps not understanding exactly what you mean by hybrids?  It sounds more like you are referring to industrial seeds that are often produced through self-setting or GMO, in which case while the variety might represent previously hybridized varieties, the seeds are typically non-hybridized sets of the parent. This is what can make for the low phenotype variation. Hybridization itself does not necessarily produce plants of homogenous phenotype.  In fact, hybridization is increasing the gene diversity and so should increase potential variation among seeds.

Regarding this, I do not think that hybridization itself is of any issue (unless, like others have pointed out, it is GMO hybridization, and then I think there are some real problems associated with that), but the issue to me is what hybridization has focused on for the last 100 years, which is typically high input (fertilizers) agriculture, typically called commercial hybrids, so perhaps this is what you were referring to in your question. Then it is not the hybridization, but the goal with which we are conducting hybridization that is the problem. Hybrids can be made to maximize yields in organic situations, or in industrial situations.  They can be aimed at maximizing variability or minimizing it.  We have been aiming our hybridization programs at one type of agriculture, which we are finally recognizing has many negative effects associated with it.  If we change the focus of our hybridization programs I donʻt see any problem with hybrid varieties.

Thanks for your input: yes what I am referring to in my question is commercial hybrid breeding of two inbred varieties (not species which cannot be crossed so easily) to exploit the heterosis effect to maximize quantitative traits like yield, uniformity in the F1 generation and often requires complex techniques like cytoplasmatic male sterility (CMS). Of course hybridization is also a natural phenomenon and can create new variety and even new species e.g. through chromosome duplication. So its important to distinguish these different meanings.

I study mainly indigenous (pre-industrial) cropping systems, and just want to give one additional thought here.  The Hawaiian systems (which I focus on) and most of Polynesia grew almost all of their crops as clones.  There was some hybridization and seeding of crops, used mainly  to develop new varieties, but once a variety was developed it was grown exclusively from clones.  This is true of all the staples...taro, sweet potato, sugar cane, breadfruit, yams, plantain...and so they had phenotypically identical hybrids that they utilized in their agricultural systems (and they were large and complex systems, particularly the dryland systems).  But within any planting of the system they consciously chose to use a variety of the hybrids for each crop together.  So heterogeneous by design using several homogenous varieties. I find this fascinating, and there are many reasons why they chose to do this.  But the point I take from this story is that we often tend to focus on the crops (and they are very important), but possibly more important than the crops is our conscious application of the crops into our cropping systems. 

In my view, hybrid varieties are not problematic in relation to organic agriculture. As we all know that hybrids are more productive than inbreds. But, the question is , cultivation of hybrids under organic agriculture will be profitable or not?

Hybridization without gene transfer or without chemical is  a natural process in that we are facilitating two best parents for producing best progeny. As many participants said it gives good yield even in organic  may be correct   BUT from the philosophy of organic agriculture point of  view the parents must be well adopted to the local environment so that  pest load will be minimum , secondly present hybrids are made according to the  mineralisation pattern of the chemical fertilisers and we need hybrids that follow the pattern of mineralisation of organic manure in soil. The third is decentralised production of inputs in that hybrids if produce at village/local level then it will fulfil the objective of  self sufficiency. Lastly popularising one best hybrid in large area, somewhere narrow down the diversity. The answer is complex that involve social, commercial and ecological factors.

PS : One more aspect that disturbed the whole recycling system of  agriculture .The sink part  diverted to grain in most of the hybrids and in that case the fodder generation in agriculture reduced drastically due to hybrids or fodder quality deteriorated and this gradually excluded animals form the agriculture , the major recycler and  regular income source of the majority of the farmers in tropical countries.  In another word the risk to natural extreams e.g. drought,  high or low temp. increased  and this is being practically realised in many parts of rainfed areas where farmers are promoted to use hybrids and if there is disruption in rainfall a pattern the farmer not only loose the grain but also not get fodder. Therefore the technology is good but how it is to be used considering the social  and ecological environment for sustainability that is the major concern.

Dear Dr Johannes Timaeus,

Thank you for your question. Plant breeding is not a problem for organic and human health in comparison with GMO crops as it is the same done in nature before. But the differences is selection. For nature the selection is for plant survival under stress condition. For breeder the selection for the plant breeding objectives and this difference from crop to crop. For example cereal crops grain yield. But their is no side effects using classical methods. 

with bets regards

Khaled

We do have hybrids in nature. Many of the natural variations of plants are :\"nature made hybrids". As such i don't think there is any problem of hybrids for organic agriculture. 

@Kulasekaran,

The concept of 'hybrids' (such as interspecific hybrids) you mentioned is a little bit different from that of the 'hybrids' bred for hybrid seed production. For hybrid seed production, two inbred lines (high homozygosity) are developed and used for crossing to create F1 hybrids. This also triggers 'hybrid vigor or heterosis' in the F1 hybrid.