Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 1307–1314 | Cite as

Genetic basis of maize production in Eastern Central Europe between 1610 and 2005

Open Access


In every time, the genetic basis of maize production is represented by the varieties and hybrids grown on the greatest area. It is interesting to note that, compared with the number of races and varieties available, there has always been only a small number of varieties that dominated the given maize production era.

Chronologically, the Old Hungarian Yellow Flint group of varieties was popular from 1610–1914, American dent varieties (Iowa Goldmine, Queen of the Prairie, etc.) from 1900–1920, Bánkúti (Late) Dent from 1910–1935 and the varieties developed by Fleischmann from 1935–1960. Hybrid maize production was based on Mindszentpusztai Yellow Dent up till 1983 and on Iodent from 1983 onwards. Among the varieties previously popular for human consumption (porridge) in Eastern Central Europe, varieties related to Cinquantino and Pignoletto dominated variety use for a long period, and varieties in the Lapusnyaki group for a shorter time.

The group of popular varieties, which were originally improved varieties, and others related to them, make up the “useful” part, or “heart core” of the genetic variability of maize in Eastern Central Europe. Due to the special methods employed for variety development and variety maintenance in this region, it is not difficult to identify variants of these previously popular varieties on the basis of morphological traits. These are of potential value. In many cases variety collections also include varieties developed by breeders or farmers, which differ genetically and morphologically from the popular varieties, but only increase the number of items in the collection. Experience shows that the adapted varieties that remained popular for a long period were used in maize breeding as sources of heterosis, while these latter were used as simple gene sources.

The pure line method has been used widely and still holds the promise of success. As yet there does not appear to be any fundamentally new method that could replace it to make breeding more efficient.

In each era, creative breeders developed competitive new varieties by exploiting the useful genetic variability available, so from the evolutionary point of view, new varieties should be regarded as foundation populations. Banning or restricting the re-utilisation of these populations could block the human regulation of evolution and limit increases in food production.

The key question in maize breeding is always the active possession, practical preservation and systematic improvement of the type of biodiversity that is useful from the economic point of view in breeding.

Key words

maize breeding diversity genetic resources 


  1. Ábrányi, B., Benkó, G., Rajos, F., Süle, S., Tordai, G. (1955): A kukorica termesztésének magyar szakirodalma. (Hungarian papers on maize production.) Országos Mezőgazdasági Könyvtár, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  2. Agr, Z. (1855): Néhány kukorica fajnak aránylagos termékenysége. (Relative fertility of maize species.) Gazdasági Lapok, 7: 281–283.Google Scholar
  3. Balogh, J. (1988): A kukorica fajtaszerkezete Magyarországon 1938–1987 között. (Variety structure of maize in Hungary between 1938 and 1987.) Gabonamag Alapanyagszaporító Társaság, Kézirat. Budapest, 77p.Google Scholar
  4. Barna, B. (1904): A kukorica nemesítése. (The breeding of maize.) Erdélyi Gazda, 36: 206–207.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, W.L. (1953): Maize of the West Indies. Trop. Agric., 30: 141–170.Google Scholar
  6. Butujás, Gy. (1912): Hazánkban termő fontosabb tengeri félék magjainak alak és alkattana, gazdasági értékükre való tekintettel. (Seed morphology of the major maize varieties grown in Hungary, with special regard to their economic value. Thesis.) Stief Jenő és társa Könyvkiadó, Kolozsvár, 52p.Google Scholar
  7. Cserháti, S. (1895): Jelentés az M. Kir. Növénytermesztési Kísérleti Állomás 1894. évi működéséről. (1894 Annual Report from the Hungarian Royal Crop Production Station.) Magyaróvár, Czéh Sándor féle Könyvnyomda, 131–143.Google Scholar
  8. Csíktapolcai-Lázár, L. (1899): Egy pár szó az én „lapusnyaki” tengerimről és a vele tett kísérletekről. (A few words on my „lapusnyaki” maize and on experiments on it.) Gazdasági Lapok, 51: 108–109.Google Scholar
  9. Duvick, D.N. (1981): Genetic diversity in corn improvement. Proc. Annu. Corn and Sorghum Ind. Res. Conf., 36: 48–60.Google Scholar
  10. Duvick, D.N., Cassman, K.G. (1999): Post-green revolution trends in yield potential of temperate maize in the North-Central United States. Crop Sci., 39: 1622–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fabricius, E. (1914): I. Országos kukorica kiállítás szakkatalógusa. (Catalogue of the 1st National Maize Exhibition.) Országos Magyar Gazdasági Egyesület (Pátria) Kiadója. Budapest, 127p.Google Scholar
  12. Fabricius, E. (1921): A Magyar növénynemesítés. (Hungarian Plant Breeding.) Országos Magyar Gazdasági Egyesület (Pátria) Kiadója. Budapest, 316p.Google Scholar
  13. Grábner. E. (1908): A gazdasági növények nemesítése. (Breeding of Crop Plants.) Az Országos Magyar Gazdasági Egyesület (Pátria) Könyvkiadó Vállalata, Budapest pp. 168–180.Google Scholar
  14. Grábner, E. (1913): A sokcsövű tengeri fajta létesítése nemesítés útján. (Development of a prolific maize variety through breeding.) Gazdasági Lapok, 65: 850–851.Google Scholar
  15. Grábner, E. (1916): Az 1916. évben államilag törzskönyvelt és elismert tengeri fajták. (Maize varieties state registered in 1916.) Köztelek, 26: 1887–1889.Google Scholar
  16. Grábner, E. (1917): A bánkuti nemesített kukorica fajták 1917. évi terméseredményei. (1917 yield figures for maize varieties bred in Bánkút.) Köztelek, 27: 2134–2135.Google Scholar
  17. Grábner, E. (1922): A magyar tengeri fajták. (Hungarian varieties of maize.) Köztelek, 32: 280–281.Google Scholar
  18. Grábner, E. (1929): Az 1929. évben állami fajtaelismeréssel hitelesített magyar tengeri és burgonya fajták. (Hungarian-bred maize and potato varieties state registered in 1929.) Köztelek, 39: 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Hadi, G. (2003a): Contribution of population improvement to the development of maize lines with commercial value. Acta Agron. Hung., 51: 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadi, G. 2003b): Role of open-pollinated populations in the development of maize lines with commercial value. Acta Agron. Hung., 51: 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hadi, G. 2004a): Improvement of maize lines through the integration of genes and gene combinations from elite lines. Acta Agron. Hung., 52: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hadi, G. (2004b): Maize varieties grown in Eastern Central Europe between 1938 and 1983. Acta Agron. Hung., 52: 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hadi, G. (2004c): Effect of the length of the kernel filling period and the kernel filling rate on the grain yield of maize under different water supply conditions. Cereal Res. Comm., 32: 465–470.Google Scholar
  24. Hadi, G. (2005a): Effect of popcorn varieties from the Andes on the development of the early, hard-grained gene pool in Central Europe. Acta Agron. Hung., 53: 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hadi, G. (2005b): Contribution of the breeding methods used by Rudolf Fleischmann to the development of the Ruma maize heterosis source. Cereal Res. Comm., 33: 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hadi, G. (2006): Maize varieties in Eastern Central Europe in the first decades of the 20th century. Acta Agron. Hung., 54: 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jánossy, A., Komlóssy, Gy., Mórász, S., Taróczy, H. (1957): Magyar kukoricafajták és termesztésük. (Hungarian maize varieties and their production.) Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 143.Google Scholar
  28. Leng, E., Tavcar, R.A., Trifunovic, V. (1962): Maize of Southeastern Europe and its potential in breeding programs elsewhere. Euphytica, 11: 263–272.Google Scholar
  29. Lubinszky, E. (1901): A Putyi kukorica. (The maize variety Putyi.) Köztelek, 11: 1884–1885.Google Scholar
  30. Nagyváthy, J. (1822): Magyar practikus termesztő. (Practical Hungarian Breeder.) Petróczai Trattner János Kiadó, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  31. Pavlicic, J. (1971): Contribution to a preliminary classification of European open-pollinated maize varieties. pp. 93–107. In: Kovács, I. (ed.), Proc. of the Fifth Meeting of the Maize and Sorghum Section of Eucarpia. Akadémiai Kiadó, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  32. Pethe, F. (1805): Pallérozott mezei gazdaság. I. darab. (Refined Agriculture. I.) Sopron.Google Scholar
  33. Rodiczky, J. (1884): Tanulmányok a tengeriről. (Studies on maize.) H.e.ny.n. 23. Koll. 9. Mezőgazdasági Múzeum, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  34. Shull, G.H. (1908): The composition of a field of maize. Am. Breeders’ Assoc. Rep., 4: 296–301.Google Scholar
  35. Shull, G.H. (1909): A pure-line method of corn breeding. Am. Breeders’ Assoc. Rep., 5: 51–59.Google Scholar
  36. Szentkirályi, Á. (1877a): Korán érő tőrőkbúza. (Early maturing maize.) Erdélyi Gazda, 9: 195.Google Scholar
  37. Szentkirályi, Á. (1977b): Legkorábbi székely törökbúza. (The earliest maize from the Székely region.) Erdélyi Gazda, 9: 307–308.Google Scholar
  38. Szentkirályi, Á. (1881): A koraérő székely tengeri. (Early maturing maize from Székely region.) Gyakorlati Mezőgazda, 10: 68.Google Scholar
  39. Timár, J. (1913): Szemesen vagy csövesen vásároljunk kukorica vetőmagot? (Should we buy maize seed loose or on the ear?) Köztelek, 23: 131–132.Google Scholar
  40. Trifunovic, V. (1978): Maize production and maize breeding in Europe. pp. 41–58. In: Walden, B.D. (ed.), Maize Breeding and Genetics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  41. Troyer, A.F. (1999): Background of U.S. Hybrid Corn. Crop. Sci., 39: 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Villax, Ö., Surányi, J. (1932): Varieties of corn in Hungary. Magyaróvár, 64.Google Scholar
  43. Zathureczky, K. (1912): Temesvári tengeri kiállítás. (Maize exhibition in Temesvár.) Gazdasági Lapok, 62: 828–830.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2006

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agricultural Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesMartonvásárHungary

Personalised recommendations