Articles
Cost analysis of long-term cryopreservation vs. open field PGR collections – a case study from Finland
Article number
1421_10
Pages
67 – 76
Language
English
Abstract
Plant genetic resources (PGRs) are generally conserved as open field collections.
PGR cryopreservation is typically a safety backup for vegetatively propagated species.
Finland maintains its national PGRs for horticultural plants in the central collections of Luke and safeguards them in open field collections of backup custodians and in a cryobank at Luke.
Cryocollections are less vulnerable to risks, such as extreme weather conditions, pests and pathogens, and require less annual maintenance work than open field collections.
Cryobanking is therefore typically regarded as a more cost-efficient preservation method in the long run.
This study evaluates the cost structure of cryobanking and compares the costs of cryobanking with those of open field collections.
The cost information was initially collected for a cost-benefit analysis on the conservation of plant and animal genetic resources in Finland.
In the analysis, the examined costs included the cost of taking PGRs into preservation, maintenance costs and quality controlling costs.
The present value of the future costs of maintenance and quality controls was calculated over the period of 50 years.
Cryobanking methods examined were preservation as dormant buds and as in vitro material.
The costs of cryobanking were compared with those of central open field collection that entail the cost of taking accessions into the collection and the annual maintenance cost.
Results from this study show that the costs of cryobanking are different in dormant bud protocols and in vitro culture cryopreservation.
Our calculations indicate that the costs of in vitro cryopreservation exceed those of field preservation which, however, vary between species.
The costs of dormant bud cryopreservation approximately equal the average cost of field preservation.
The risks of cryopreservation are lower and the costs competitive compared to open field collections.
Therefore, cryopreservation proved to be valuable and relatively cost-efficient in guaranteeing long-term conservation of PGRs.
PGR cryopreservation is typically a safety backup for vegetatively propagated species.
Finland maintains its national PGRs for horticultural plants in the central collections of Luke and safeguards them in open field collections of backup custodians and in a cryobank at Luke.
Cryocollections are less vulnerable to risks, such as extreme weather conditions, pests and pathogens, and require less annual maintenance work than open field collections.
Cryobanking is therefore typically regarded as a more cost-efficient preservation method in the long run.
This study evaluates the cost structure of cryobanking and compares the costs of cryobanking with those of open field collections.
The cost information was initially collected for a cost-benefit analysis on the conservation of plant and animal genetic resources in Finland.
In the analysis, the examined costs included the cost of taking PGRs into preservation, maintenance costs and quality controlling costs.
The present value of the future costs of maintenance and quality controls was calculated over the period of 50 years.
Cryobanking methods examined were preservation as dormant buds and as in vitro material.
The costs of cryobanking were compared with those of central open field collection that entail the cost of taking accessions into the collection and the annual maintenance cost.
Results from this study show that the costs of cryobanking are different in dormant bud protocols and in vitro culture cryopreservation.
Our calculations indicate that the costs of in vitro cryopreservation exceed those of field preservation which, however, vary between species.
The costs of dormant bud cryopreservation approximately equal the average cost of field preservation.
The risks of cryopreservation are lower and the costs competitive compared to open field collections.
Therefore, cryopreservation proved to be valuable and relatively cost-efficient in guaranteeing long-term conservation of PGRs.
Authors
A. Nukari, S. Tuohimetsä, E. Kiviharju, A. Miettinen, A. Tienhaara
Keywords
conservation, cost analysis, cryotechnology, genebank, germplasm collection, plant genetic resources
Online Articles (17)