Brainfood: Citrus colours, Soil biodiversity portal, Bean genome, Food diversity & security, French landscape diversity, US pigs, Alien crops, Thai food retail

Documenting improved variety adoption

In my defence, I have visited the ASTI website before. Just not in a while, unfortunately. And I therefore missed a lot of developments. So thank you, Jeremy, for sending me there again earlier today. But let’s step back a bit. What is ASTI, anyway?

Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) provides trusted open-source data on agricultural research systems across the developing world. Led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), ASTI works with a large network of national collaborators to collect, compile, and disseminate information on financial, human, and institutional resources at both country and regional levels across government, higher education, nonprofit, and (where possible) private for-profit agricultural research agencies.

Very laudable. There’s a lot of useful stuff on the website, organized by country and region, but also covering the CGIAR centres. And the last is what I would like to focus on for a minute here. ASTI is hosting two projects tracking the adoption of improved varieties in South Asia and Africa. The raw data is downloadable, but there are useful summary graphics, though I would have liked them to be more easily sharable (the following examples are screenshots).

So, if we take as an example pigeonpeas in Madhya Pradesh, we get this overview:

overview

And a time line of releases:

total number of varieties

And, perhaps most interestingly, the level of adoption of the main varieties:

adoption by variety

And if you’re interested in that 37% share, and I know you are, you can find out all about the variety in question, ICPL 87119 (otherwise known as Asha) from ICRISAT.

Nibbles: Plant names, Tomato trifecta, Amaranth, Corn wars, Wild lettuce, Dying, Indian ag, Chocographic, Root symbionts, Rehabilitation, Mesquite, Extreme weather, Saviour plants, Pawpaw, Japanese rice, Coffee museum, Caribbean early ag, Amazonian livelihoods, Vislak on corn

Evaluating evaluation networks

Mike Jackson, who ran the IRRI genebank 20 years ago, has some provocative things to say on his blog about the International Network for Genetic Evaluation of Rice (INGER), which has just turned 40. Here is Mike’s main point:

In my opinion, INGER could—and should—have been more. According to the riceTODAY article, INGER is today, 40 years after it was founded, at ‘the crossroads’. But it was already at a crossroads almost 25 years ago when it became clear that UNDP support would end. Opportunities were not seized then, I contend, to bring about radical and efficient changes to the management and operations of this important rice germplasm network, but without losing any of the benefits of the previous 20 years. I also believed it should be possible to add even more scientific value.

If I understand Mike correctly, he thinks INGER has gone for quantity (of trials) rather than quality of late, and missed out on some clear opportunities to be even more successful than it has been. Counterfactual history is always tricky, but I wonder whether this is a testable proposition. Maybe there’s a natural experiment out there? For example, are there countries that have not taken much advantage of INGER in the past couple of decades. How have their rice improvement efforts fared in comparison to countries which have?

Coincidentally, there was a short article in the Times of India recently trumpeting the release of rice varieties of low glycemic index. Can INGER take some of the credit for that, I wonder? Well, let’s have a look.

One of the varieties in question is Sampada. The Indian Directorate of Rice Development’s catalogue of released varieties (1996-2012) has the following entry for this variety:

Sampada1

The immediate parents are therefore Vijaya and C 14-8. You can look these up in the International Rice Information System. Vijaya has featured in INGER’s nurseries:

Vijaya

And C 14-8 is safely in the IRRI genebank:

C

We saw it for wheat and maize, and now for rice. Partnership with the relevant CGIAR centre has been extremely important in the success of the Indian national breeding programmes for these crops.

Now, are there countries for which these partnership have not been so strong? And how successful have their breeding programmes been?

Brainfood: Brassica rethink, Camel colours, Parsing the ITPGRFA, Static buffalo, Traits not taxa, Expert tyranny, Chinese pollinators, Heritage landscapes, Mining text, Diversity & nutrition