- Sweet potato cuttings to the rescue in Fiji. Hope there’s a nice mix of varieties.
- Quinoa: and so it begins.
- Filipinos not eating their fruits. Bad for Filipino health, no doubt bad for Filipino agrobiodiversity too.
- Maybe they should look to Cape Verde?
- ICARDA waxes poetic about lentils.
- Ecosystem services mapping projects go online. Or they will do, eventually. Just a survey for now. Should that include in situ CWR conservation projects? Now’s your chance to have your say.
Zeolite vs Silica Gel: Deathmatch
The Horticulture Collaborative Research Support Program at UCDavis has a nice factsheet out about Zeolite Desiccant Beads. Why?
Zeolite beads, used with airtight containers, are a simple, inexpensive and widely adaptable method for drying horticultural seeds and maintaining high seed‐quality during storage. The beads can be reused by baking between use.
And of course we know that’s important:
In tropical climates, high humidity causes rapid seed deterioration, resulting in poor stand establishment, lower productivity, less value and disincentive to invest in improved seeds.
Although farmers seem to be the clients here, I thought perhaps this might be a good, relatively low-cost solution for genebanks too, so I ran the factsheet past some seed experts at Kew and IRRI. Thanks to both of them for allowing me to quote them.
It turned out that Fiona Hay, formerly at the Millennium Seed Bank at Kew and now at IRRI, has had quite a lot of experience with zeolite.
Indeed, we have done some work on these zeolite (=molecular sieve) drying beads on rice … in collaboration with the company, Rhino Research, in Thailand that is marketing them (and holds the patent — I’m not sure in which countries). See attachment..
Yes, they are a good desiccator, my concerns are that they could be too good and that they don’t appear to work as described — they don’t take up the same amount of water from the seeds as they do when they are placed over water. This means that is isn’t obvious how to calculate the right quantity of beads to use to dry seeds to a required moisture content. This is based on our work on rice (three different fresh seed lots), but seems to be at odds with what Kent Bradford (UC-Davis) has found for horticultural crops.
In terms of their use by farmers — I don’t think this technology is what they need. If the HORTCRSP project helps them to understand the need to dry seeds, OK; but there may be cheaper, simpler options.
They could be of more use in a genebank situation — once we know how to use them optimally. We are doing more work on this. One of Rhino’s latest products using the beads are bins containing a core of beads which is in contact with some indicating silica gel. Seeds are put in the bin and the silica is used to know when to regenerate the beads. This could be useful for genebanks without proper drying and/or storage facilities. I’d like to get hold of a couple of these to try them out.
Robin Probert at the Millennium Seed Bank then added:
What annoys me most about the USAID fact sheet promotion of Zeolite beads is that it brags the value of Zeolite beads over silica gel for small farmers drying seeds for sowing. We have known for decades that the problem facing local farmers is the rapid loss in viability that can occur if seeds remain at high ambient relative humidity combined with warm temperatures. We also know that if farmers were able to dry seeds from say 80% equilibrium relative humidity (eRH) to below 50% eRH, seed longevity would be improved by several fold. This could mean the difference between seeds surviving for only a few months to a few years.
The fact sheet boldly states (with a nice graph to make the point) that ‘Zeolite beads are more effective than silica gel in absorbing water at low relative humidity’. But this could be written another way: ‘silica gel is more effective than Zeolite beads in absorbing water at high humidities’. Fiona’s work published in Seed Science and Technology last year [Fig 5 in Hay et al (2012) SS&T 40, 374-395] elegantly confirms this.
What this means is that a farmer would need less silica gel than Zeolite beads to dry seeds from ambient humidity to a safe moisture content for short-medium term storage (≤ 50% eRH). But what about cost? The USAID leaflet states that Zeolite beads can be bought for 10-20 US $ per Kg. We buy silica gel beads that we use in our drying drums designed for small-scale seed drying for less than 10 US $ a Kg.
Using Zeolite beads to dry seeds down to very low moisture contents for long-term storage is a different matter and as Fiona’s paper demonstrates, Zeolite beads may have it over silica gel for this purpose. However, as the paper also points out, calculating the weight of Zeolite beads needed is not straightforward and compared to silica gel there is a much greater risk of over drying.
All in all, I know where my money is.
So it turns out that, on balance, according to these experts at any rate, the Zeolite beads may actually be more promising as a solution for resource-strapped genebanks around the world than for seed-saving farmers in the humid tropics. Which was, however, presumably not the aim of the USAID-supported project that came up with that factsheet. But let me tweet this to HortCRSP and see what they say. Stay tuned…
Banter about cucurbits
Mary Beard, classics professor at Cambridge and effective general-purpose public intellectual, knows how to get your attention:
Sikyonians … were a sort of Greek footwear, but also a famous variety of cucumber and so a comic term for a phallus, and the ‘scarlets’ are a suspicious match for the scarlet dildo…
That’s from a review, enticingly entitled Banter about Dildoes, 1 of a book on Roman shopping with a much more boring title. 2 Well, I defer to Prof. Beard on Greek footwear and Roman sex toys, but I’m not so sure about that cucumber.
To see why, let’s turn to a 2007 Annals of Botany paper The Cucurbits of Mediterranean Antiquity: Identification of Taxa from Ancient Images and Descriptions, by Jules Janick et al.:
Many of the Renaissance botanists identified the cultivated sikyos of the Greeks as cucumber. Observers of more recent times, including de Candolle (1886), Sturtevant (Hedrick, 1919) and Hyams (1971), have concurred. However, as de Candolle (1886) admitted, the origin of cucumbers is the foothills of the Himalayas. Although Roberts (2001) identified two ancient mosaic images as depicting cucumber (see Figs 3E and and 4B) the former is clearly Cucumis melo, as evidenced by the longitudinal split in the fruit, and the latter is Lagenaria siceraria, as evidenced by the obviously swollen peduncular ends of the fruits. Archaeobotanical records include findings of several seeds purportedly of cucumber, but it is extremely difficult, even for experts, to differentiate between the seeds of C. sativus and C. melo (Bates and Robinson, 1995). Possibly, an identification of the species of these seeds could be accomplished by analysis of ancient DNA (Gyulai et al., 2006). In this survey of Mediterranean iconography and verbal sources of Roman times, we have found no hard evidence of the presence of cucumbers. There is some linguistic evidence that they became known in the region during the early Middle Ages (Amar, 2000) but the earliest European image known to us of what can be unquestionably identified as cucumber is from approx. 1335, post-dating the Mongol invasions. Renaissance depictions of cucumbers, although very common, show much less variation than do those of melons, which is suggestive of their being more recently introduced or of their lesser culinary appreciation or economic importance.
I think it is worth reproducing those mosaic images. Hopefully Annals of Botany won’t mind. Here’s 3E, the slitty Cucumis melo.
And here’s 4B, the knobby Lagenaria.
So, one can understand the mistake, but, pace Prof. Beard, that “famous variety of cucumber” was probably a famous variety of something else, either a muskmelon 3 or a bottle gourd. Though, as you can see from the illustrations, 4 that wouldn’t affect its comic potential. On the contrary…
PS Incidentally, since we’re talking funny-shaped cucurbits in history…
Nibbles: Mashua info, Veggies programme, Rice research, Genomes!, Indian malnutrition, Forest map, British agrobiodiversity hero, GMO “debate”, Lactose tolerance, Beer
- New Year Resolution No. 1: Take the mashua survey.
- New Year Resolution No. 2: Give the Food Programme a break, it can be not bad. As in the case of the recent episode featuring Irish Seed Savers and the only uniquely British veg.
- New Year Resolution No. 3: Learn to appreciate hour-plus talks by CG Centre DGs. And other publicity stunts…
- New Year Resolution No. 4: Give a damn about the next genome. Well, actually…
- New Year Resolution No. 5: Try to understand what people think may be going on with malnutrition in India. If anything.
- New Year Resolution No. 6: Marvel at new maps without fretting about how difficult to use they may be.
- New Year Resolution No. 7: Do not snigger at the British honours system.
- New Year Resolution No. 8: Disengage from the whole are-GMOs-good-or-bad? thing. It’s the wrong question, and nobody is listening anyhow.
- New Year Resolution No. 9: Ignore the next lactose tolerance evolution story. They’re all the same.
- New Year Resolution No. 10: Stop obsessing about beer. But not yet. No, not yet.
- Happy 2013!
Implementation of AnGR plan of action initiated
FAO has just announced that 13 projects, involving 30 countries, have been selected for funding as contributions to the implementation of 2007’s Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources. That’s thanks to the Governments of Germany, Norway and Switzerland, who put more than US$1 million in voluntary contributions into the appropriate FAO Trust Account, as per the Funding Strategy of the GPA. What are these projects? Well, it’s not all that easy to say. These are the directions FAO gives us:
Details of the projects are available here (scroll down to the map).
The map in question is nice enough, and clicking on the country gives you lots of information on each project, but what I really wanted was just a list, giving titles and countries. And I couldn’t find that anywhere, though maybe I just didn’t look hard enough. With just that map, interactive and all, you get a good overall idea of geographic coverage, but it’s very difficult to figure out the range of livestock species involved in the projects, or how many are single-country as opposed to multi-country initiatives, for example. A pity.
Ah, but fear not, we’ve got you covered. Here’s the list you know you wanted but FAO wouldn’t let you have, going roughly from east to west, painstakingly extracted from that ever-so-pretty map.
- Regional Project: Cook Islands, Fiji and Niue
Title: South West Pacific Animal Genetic Resources Project — Conservation of indigenous pig and chicken breeds in Fiji, Niue and Cook Islands - Country: India
Title: Documenting and supporting community-based conservation of four local breeds - Regional Project: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Title: BushaLive (cattle) - Regional Project: Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda
Title: Promotion of indigenous chicken for improved livelihood and income generation - Country: Mozambique
Title: Conservation of native cattle breeds of Mozambique, for their present and future use - Country: Nigeria
Title: Conserving the Muturu Breed of Cattle in South Rain Forest Zone of Nigeria - Country: Togo
Title: Phenotypic and molecular characterization of local chicken in Togo - Regional Project: Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Senegal
Title: Assessment of the impact of transhumance on the sustainable management of animal genetic resources - Regional Project: Algeria, Morocco
Title: Preservation of Beni Guil sheep breed by semen exchanges between countries - Regional Project: Argentina, Brasil, Costa Rica
Title: Enhancement of Farmers Communities through Goats Utilization and Genetic Improvement - Regional Project: Bolivia, Peru
Title: Capacity strengthening for the implementing breeding strategies for llamas in Bolivia and Peru - Country: Uruguay
Title: Caracterizacion productiva y conservacion en ovinos criollos de Uruguay - Country: Chile
Title: Estrategias de conservacion in situ para bovinos y caprinos
Funny this coming hot on the heels of the launch of FAO’s monumental new data portal.

