Author: Luigi Guarino

Posted on

Seeds are not enough

An article in the NY Times tells a frustrating tale of agrobiodiversity use: stunning use by researchers, followed by disappointing use by farmers. It’s the story of Nerica 1 — New Rice for Africa. This is a family of varieties derived in the 90s from a biotechnological breakthrough, the hybridization of African and Asian rice. 2 Combining “the toughness of O. glaberrima with the productivity of O. sativa,” Nerica varieties have:

– Higher yields (by 50% without fertilizer, and 200% with).
– Earlier maturity (by 30-50 days).
– Resistance to local stresses.
– Higher protein content (by 2%).

A great example of researchers really unleashing the potential of genetic diversity. And one that has been rightly widely recognized. So why have the resulting varieties “spread to only a tiny fraction of the land in West Africa where they could help millions of farming families escape poverty”? It hasn’t been for want of trying:

To quickly move the NERICA technology into farmers’ hands, WARDA and its partners have adopted farmer-participatory approaches, such as the Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) and community-based seed production systems (CBSS).

The NY Times piece suggests that the reason for Nerica’s disappointing use by farmers comes down to infrastructure. The seeds — even information about them — are not getting to the farmers that need them, and the harvest finds it hard to get to market. That’s because there are few seed companies, roads are bad, telecommunications poor, credit not available. The article also suggests that yield of Nerica has been known to decrease over time “because the new seed was not pure.”

It is undeniable that seed systems could be strengthened in Africa, and that doing so would improve the lot of smallholders. But I don’t know. Farmers are not stupid. They know how to select material for next year’s sowing, and they exchange seeds all the time, often over large distances. Their lives depend on it. Is there something else holding Nerica back? Or maybe it’s just too soon to be expecting miracles of adoption?

Posted on

Creating and curing obesity

Better late than never, I guess. I’ve only just realized that the September issue of Scientific American was entitled Feast and Famine, and juxtaposed the ironic twin killer trends of hunger and obesity. Most of the material is unfortunately behind a paywall, but I have borrowed a hardcopy from a colleague and will be reading through it in the near future. If you’ve already done so and have any comments on what the various high-profile authors involved say about agrobiodiversity, let us know. One commentator has said:

This issue of Scientific American tells us there’s money to be made by creating and then curing obesity. That’s what the science approach to obesity is about and what the prevention-based approach is up against. 3

Do you agree with this take?

Posted on

Culling badgers backfires

There’s been a lot of news and discussion recently in the UK on animal diseases such as mad cow, foot and mouth, and bluetongue. Here’s another one to worry about: bovine tuberculosis. A paper just out in the Journal of Applied Biology explores the interaction between agricultural and wild biodiversity in the context of the spread of this disease in the UK 4.

Bovine tuberculosis can be spread by badgers, which have therefore been routinely culled for some years in many areas. But it turns out that badgers are in fact more mobile and adventurous in areas where their numbers have been thinned out. Which means they are most effective in spreading tuberculosis to cattle in exactly those areas where measures have been taken which were supposed to control the disease. The law of unintended consequences in action, I suppose.

Meanwhile, a big cull of feral pigs is on in Australia. 5 Is this going to have some unintended consequences too?

Posted on

The Cretaceous roots of agriculture

A comment on a long but fascinating post on yeast genetics and evolution at The Loom sent me to a New Scientist article from a couple of years back which is perhaps more immediately relevant to our agricultural biodiversity focus here.

Some time in the distant past Saccharomyces cerevisiae, to give it its full name, developed a chemical trick that would transform human societies. Some anthropologists have argued that the desire for alcohol was what persuaded our ancestors to become farmers and so led to the birth of civilisation.

The article goes on to describe how brewer’s yeast evolved its somewhat surprising abilities. It turns out that its peculiar habit of carrying out anaerobic respiration even in the presence of oxygen — at a steep energetic cost, and resulting in the production of what is usually a poison, alcohol — dates back to an accidental duplication of its genome back in the Cretaceous. Eighty million years ago later, bakers and brewers are daily taking advantage of a genetic mistake that took place in a microscopic fungus when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Isn’t agrobiodiversity wonderful?