A home for genebank training at last?

Long-time readers will know that I regularly try to roundup training opportunities in crop diversity conservation, basically because nobody else does it. Well, maybe I can stop doing that now.

Yes, it’s true, the Crop Trust has launched a Genebank Academy, which aggregates information on online training courses. Have they missed some? Let me know.

And completeness compels me to add that there is also a Landscape Academy. Though unfortunately none of the courses seem to feature genebanks. But then, I’m not sure that any of the genebank courses featured landscapes.

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