Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog
Agrobiodiversity is crops, livestock, foodways, microbes, pollinators, wild relatives …
Yesterday was Apple Day in the UK. Started ages ago ((We don’t need no stinkin’ research.)) by Common Ground to draw attention to the diversity of apples and the threats to their existence, it has grown in a great bowlful of treats around this time. Of course, it’s a bit late now, but here’s a Top Ten of orchards to visit. And a week ago, the Daily Telegraph was visiting Brogdale, waxing lyrical but making very little fuss about the impending sale of the collection.
I miss my apple trees.
A recent paper in Animal Feed Science and Technology ((C.B. Katongolea et al. (2007) Nutritional characterization of some tropical urban market crop wastes. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.09.002)) did a number on three different kinds of waste from the markets of Kampala, Uganda. Waste from banana, sweet potatoes and Solanum aethiopicum (African eggplant) were chemically analyzed and fed to sheep and goats. That way, the scientists could measure what the wastes contain and how much of that the animals could make use of. Turns out — surprise — that there are differences among the wastes and differences between wet and dry season wastes. Banana leaves and pseudostems were not all that nutritious, and African eggplant leaves were very watery. But sweet potato leaves were just right: “sufficient to provide the CP (crude protein) and ME (metabolizable energy) required by growing goats under tropical conditions”.
Which is nice to know, but not all that surprising, given that about half the sweet potato crop in China is fed to livestock. Of course, pigs are monogastric, while sheep and goats are ruminants, so it was worth checking.
Will this see the market people of Kampala bundling sweet potato waste for sale? Or maybe the farmers will grow the leafy varieties specifically for animal fodder.
Update: with the score tied at 1 all, I put in a poll, right.
I was getting a little worried that we were posting so many items a day that some might have been slipping under your radar. So I tweaked the home page to show excerpts of each story. You have to click to continue reading. And you can use your browser’s Back button to go back, or work your way through the Latest Posts links over on the right.
We have stumbled into a world of which I was barely aware. Sure, I knew a bit about falabella horses, and chihuahuas and other tiny dogs. But Luigi’s nine-word entry on mini-pigs has attracted more interest than anything else we have ever posted here before, at least in terms of the sheer number and persistence of the comments.
But there’s a whole farmyard of miniature breeds out there. Cows (and full grown bulls) that stand no higher than a man’s hip. Tiny Nigerian Dwarf dairy goats, to say nothing of the Australian Miniature Goat Association Inc. There are sheep that go through life struggling under the weight of being known as Olde English Babydoll Miniature Southdowns.
All of which — and there is lots, lots more — is testament both to the diversity within each livestock species and the overweaning desire of people to shape animals to meet their human needs. But really, what is the point?
When I was Googling away and whooping with amazement, my companion asked that very question. And, to answer herself, “I suppose if you had a very small farm …â€; and her voice trailed off.
Back to the pocket pigs, obviously they are cute as can be, and lots of people want one. But what are they for? Fun, I suppose. Or very small hams. The people who are clamouring to own one probably don’t want to know this, but there’s a specific breed of minipig that has a registered tradename — Ellegaard Göttingen Minipigs ®; –and that was developed for the pharmaceutical testing industry; Dr Evil would definitely approve. As for the others, I confess to being slightly at a loss.
I’m reminded of a scene from an old Hollywood movie, possibly The Front Page, in which the grizzled baggy-pants old reporter quizzes the young cub, thusly:
GB-POR: Go downtown and get the details on that sex maniac.
YC: <looks very puzzled>
GB-POR: You know what a sex maniac is, don’t you boy?
YC: <looks somewhat sheepish> Er, no sir.
GB-POR: A sex maniac is someone who sells newspapers
A pocket pig is something that attracts blog comments.
Almost a year ago I blogged about a trial of perennial wheat being planted at Texas A&M University by Dr Charlie Rush. Well, the results are in now, and they’re encouraging. According to a press release, the grazing (they do that with wheat in Texas) was as good as annual wheat, and the seed yield about half. Another part of the study is getting under way, crossing the perennial wheats with regionally adapted varieties to try and produce perennial wheats that are better suited to specific conditions. And more detailed investigation of the perennial wheats will continue.
The really good news, as far as I am concerned, is that Dr Rush is now collaborating with Dr Stan Cox at The Land Institute. The scientists there have been such pioneers in perennial polyculture, I was kind of peeved that the first news from Texas A&M ignored them. It is very heartening to see mainstream scientists recognizing The Land Institute’s contributions and expertise. There’s also apparently been interest in the perennial wheats from what Texas A&M calls the Jon Innes Centre in Norwich, England. ((It is actually the John Innes Centre, with 1.3 million Google hits, versus the five for Jon Innes Centre.)) It is hard to tell what the JIC wants with perennial wheats; the release says something about habitat for wild birds. No doubt all part of the UK’s marvellous biodiversity conservation plan.
And in other wheat news, two rather heavy-duty papers about molecular biology. The first is a review of molecular markers in wheat breeding. ((Landjeva, Svetlana et al. (2007) Molecular markers: actual and potential contributions to wheat genome characterization and breeding. Euphytica, 156: 271-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9371-0.)) If you’re into this sort of stuff, you don’t need this review. If you aren’t, it gives a reasonable history and summary and might help you to scythe your way through the thickets of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. My main objection is the claim that “large-scale genome characterization by DNA-fingerprinting has revealed no declining trends in the molecular genetic diversity in wheat as a consequence of modern intensive breeding thus opposing the genetic ‘erosion’ hypothesis”, which takes a very narrow view of the genetic erosion hypothesis indeed.
And coming right along to bolster my belief, a paper showing that synthetic wheats are a valuable source of traits to improve varieties for baking and milling. ((Kunert, Antje et al. (2007) AB-QTL analysis in winter wheat: I. Synthetic hexaploid wheat (T. turgidum ssp. dicoccoides — T. tauschii) as a source of favourable alleles for milling and baking quality traits. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 115: 683-695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-007-0600-7.)) It is much easier to cross modern wheats with synthetic wheats (because they contain the same number of chromosome sets, six) than it is to cross modern wheats with either wild relatives or ancient wheats (which contain four or two sets). Kunert and colleagues crossed two wild species, revealing interesting genetic traits to improve qualities such as the amount of protein and the resistance to sprouting in storage, which can now be bred into modern wheats.
My feeling is that if all the genetic diversity breeders need were present in modern wheats, as Landjeva seems to think, then other scientists would not be spending considerable time and effort to create synthetic wheats from wild relatives in order to use them in breeding programmes.