Crowdsourcing crop diversity, and information

A couple of crowd-sourcing initiatives caught my eye.

First, the good people at the COUSIN project want to expand genebank collections of wild relatives of wheat, barley, lettuce, brassica, and peas in Europe. And they have a pretty good idea where the collecting needs to be done. Think you can help? Check out the call for proposals.

And from a bit further south comes a plea on LinkedIn from Chris Jones of the ILRI genebank. He needs help getting stuff out of the genebank rather than into it.

As part of the ‘low-methane forages’ project, funded by the Gates Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund, we have been screening the methane emission intensity of a range of forage accessions, in vitro, from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) genebank. The aim is to screen approximately 10% of the accessions held in our genebank and, to date, we have assessed 155 herbaceous legumes towards this goal, including several of our lablab accessions. From these, we have identified two accessions of interest. The methane emission intensity of accession #14447 was 27.7 ml/g total digestible dry matter (TDDM), 43% lower than the highest ten legumes measured so far, and methane emission intensity of accession #14458 was 33.8 ml/g TDDM, 30% lower. So, assuming that similar differences in methane emission intensity are realised in vivo (and that is no guarantee), the preferred candidate seems obvious. However, in our field plots #14458 produced 60% more biomass than #14447, which was an ‘average’ yielder. This higher level of production should be attractive to farmers who currently struggle to incorporate much in the way of legumes in their feed rations. So, which one would you prioritise?

I’ve added the links to the Genesys entries for the accessions in questions for people who want a bit more data to base their decision on. You can provide your input on Chris’ post, or right here and I promise to pass it on.

Brainfood: Genetic erosion edition

Another chance for Bambara groundnut

Yesterday’s Nibble on the annoyingly always-on-the-verge-of-breaking-through Bambara groundnut had me rummaging through the blog’s archives. Among dozens of references, I came across a post from almost 15 years ago that included some maps — of genebank accession localities and the distribution of the crop. On a whim, I downloaded the Genesys data and fed it into the maw of ChatGPT, asking it to identify gaps in the world’s ex situ holdings. For each of the top 10 priority collecting regions, I then asked for a best-bet locality for exploration. ChatGPT obliged with a KML file, which I then looked at in Google Earth, together with the accession localities.

This is the result.

And here’s close-up on West Africa, because that’s where accessions are densest, and the suggested “gaps” a little more difficult to understand.

Asked for a justification, this is what the LLM came up with.

Does it make any sense? Well, it’s not exactly where I would have plumped for, just eyeballing the data. But it is not complete nonsense. Maybe it was the prompt? Any ideas what that should look like to get the best results?

Not that any of this is going to help Bambara groundnut much, I suspect.

Brainfood: Genebanks edition

Agro-tour de force

I’ve been very interested in the intersection between tourism and agrobiodiversity conservation ever since I was (admittedly tangentially) involved in the late, great Marleni Ramirez‘s Adventures in Agrobiodiversity — Ecotourism for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: A Feasibility Study almost a quarter of a century ago (sic). So it was great to come across the FAO technical brief Sustainable agritourism: an opportunity for agrifood systems transformation in the Mediterranean a few days ago.

Its premise is that the synergy between agrobiodiversity and sustainable agritourism creates a powerful feedback loop that safeguards both biological heritage and rural livelihoods. In this relationship, biodiversity acts as the primary “pull factor” for the traveller; the presence of cool indigenous crops, rare animal breeds, and attractive wild flora provides the authentic, immersive, site-specific experiences that many modern tourists crave. By integrating these unique biological assets into the tourism value chain — such as through the promotion of ancient grape varieties or the use of wild herbs in culinary workshops — farmers find a compelling economic justification for maintaining diverse ecosystems, and holding at bay the charms of modern monoculture.

At the same time, agritourism serves as a vital tool for the in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity. By creating niche markets for non-standardized products, it incentivizes the cultivation of traditional crops and heirloom varieties and reduces the pressure on local farming practices and habitats. For example, in Mediterranean pescatourism (a new term to me) fishers pivot from high-impact commercial harvesting to low-impact tourism, drastically reducing net usage while increasing the perceived value of marine biodiversity. Ultimately, agritourism transforms the farm — and indeed the fishery — into a living laboratory for food systems literacy, educating society on the importance of “zero food-miles” and seasonal diversity, ensuring that the genetic wealth of the past remains a functional part of the agricultural future.

While the technical brief focuses primarily on dynamic, on farm conservation fuelled by tourism, with no mention of ex situ, it kinda implicitly points, if you squint, towards a complementary approach where agritourism acts as the visible, economic front-end for the genetic security provided by genebanks. For agritourism to thrive on the unique grape lineages in Crete or the traditional crops at Jordan’s Carob House, there must be a secure backup of these resources if things go wrong. Genebanks allow farmers to reintroduce forgotten varieties into their fields, which then become the star attractions for visitors seeking authentic Mediterranean flavours.

By weaving together these two strategies, a resilient conservation loop is formed: genebanks preserve raw diversity, while sustainable agritourism provides the “real-world” laboratory where it can evolve, adapt to changing climates, and generate income for rural communities. If agritourism is a lever for “agrifood systems transformation,” this transformation is most secure when the living heritage found on farm is backed by the scientific safety net of a genebank, ensuring that the biological assets underpinning the tourism experience are never truly lost to time.

A message that could also have been usefully trumpeted by the initiative called Tourism Food for Good, introduced late last year by UN Tourism, the TUI Care Foundation, and the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Resilience and Sustainable Development. The focus there seems to be mainly on reducing food loss and waste. Which is worthy enough, but seems to miss an obvious trick. Hopefully UN Tourism will talk to FAO soon. Or read Marleni’s still very relevant thoughts.