Brainfood: History edition

Nibbles: Agricultural expansion maps, Brassica diversity, Not against the grain, South African seedbanks, Safer peanuts, Diné seedbank

  1. Agriculture is bad for natural ecosystems. But great for maps, you have to admit.
  2. Greens are good for you. And this is a great roundup of the latest scholarship on brassica evolution, domestication and diversity. You’ll find most of the paper quoted in past Brainfoods.
  3. Grains are great. Especially with greens.
  4. Thank goodness for household seed banking. Especially in conjunction with the formal kind.
  5. All so we can breed a better peanut. And cut down more natural ecosystem?
  6. No, there’s community genebanks for that too…

Brainfood: Diversity of Sugarcane, Rice, Lentils, Olives, Sweetpotato, Cassava, Beans, Buckwheat, Pigeon pea, Landscapes

Nibbles: Ancient Mexican seedbank, Indian millets, Foraged foods, Soybean breeding, Apple breeding, Albanian heirlooms, Bangladesh fish genebank

  1. People in the Nejapan Sierra Sur in Oaxaca, Mexico had a seed bank 400-700 years ago so they could re-create their complex cuisine after disruptions.
  2. How MSSRF revived millets in Odisha, India. You think a seed bank was involved?
  3. Meanwhile, in Meghalaya (also India), foraged foods are helping to diversify state-provided school lunches and address chronic malnutrition. Talk about complex cuisine. Are all these species in a seed bank somewhere, though? Do they need to be?
  4. How the National Soybean Germplasm Collection at the Agricultural Research Service lab in Urbana, Illinois helped save soybeans in Iowa.
  5. University breeding programmes are keeping the apple afloat in the USA. That and genebanks.
  6. Farmers and agrotourism are bringing back some cool flavors in Albania. Well, that and the Albanian Gene Bank.
  7. Fish need genebanks too, and Bangladesh is on it. Did ancient Bangladeshis have them, I wonder?

Old knowledge, new respect

An excellent article by friend-of-the-blog Alex Chepstow-Lusty in The Conversation highlights how the Incas built resilience into their landscapes in ways that modern farmers — and policymakers for that matter — would do well to revisit. By combining dung-producing llamas, irrigated terraces and carefully placed trees, Andean communities developed agricultural systems that thrived for centuries in a very challenging, and changing, environment.

These practices weren’t stop-gaps. They were sophisticated, locally adapted strategies, tested and refined over generations, that now offer clues for how to face climate change, in the high Andes and beyond.

But here’s the challenge: how do we, in today’s world, decide which elements of Indigenous knowledge to adopt, and how to adapt them? That’s where Chad Orzel’s thoughtful essay offers a valuable perspective. He argues that subjecting traditional practices to the same rigorous scientific standards as modern innovations is not an act of dismissal: it’s an act of respect. To test Indigenous methods carefully and fairly is to take them seriously, on an equal footing with other forms of knowledge.

The Inca legacy so well documented by Alex and his collaborators shows us that ancient practices can hold real solutions for modern crises. Orzel reminds us that by evaluating them with rigour, we not only unlock their potential, but also honour the people who developed and sustained them.

Indigenous knowledge deserves both recognition and respect — and the best way to respect knowledge is to test it, and put it to work.