‘Cambridge Svalöf’

Bateson refers to the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge which had been established in 1912 as part of Cambridge University’s School of Agriculture. Under its first Director Rowland Biffen the Institute was seeking to demonstrate that Mendelian laws of inheritance could be applied to characters of economic importance. The early work of the PBI was entirely devoted to the breeding of improved varieties of wheat and was chiefly concerned with improvements in grain quality.

Svalöf was a plant breeding station founded by a Seed Association in 1886 at the village of Svalöf on the southern tip of Sweden. The primary purpose of the Swedish station was to breed improved crop plants. Between 1900 and 1915 Herman Nilsson-Ehle, who joined the station to work on oats and wheat, carried out Mendelian hybridisation experiments. This approach was in conflict with the ‘Svalöf method’ and with the approach of the station’s Director. Nilsson-Ehle visited Bateson at Cambridge in 1909. Their meeting led to collaboration between Svalöf and the JIHI in 1911 on the effect of climate on pure lines. Five oat varieties were sown at Merton from Nilsson-Ehle’s cultures. In 1924 Bateson accepted Nilsson-Ehle’s invitation to speak to the Swedish Mendelian Society and tour the Scandinavian research stations, including Svalöf, where Nilsson-Ehle was shortly to return as Director (1925-1939).

On the history of the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge see:

The Plant Breeding Institute: 75 years, 1912-1987 (Cambridge: PBI, 1987)

Paolo Palladino, ‘Between craft and science: plant breeding, Mendelian Genetics, and British Universities, 1900-1920, Technology and Culture, 34, 2 (1993): 300-323

On Svalöf see:

Nils Roll-Hansen, ‘Theory and practice: the impact of mendelism on agriculture’, Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences- Series III- Sciences de la Vie, 323, 12 (2000): 1107-1116

Staffan Müller-Wille, ‘Early Mendelism and the subversion of taxonomy: epistemological obstacles as institutions’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 3 (2005): 465-487