When diversity is A Bad Thing

We generally adopt the view that diversity is a good thing. But there are cases where it definitely is not. One such is being discussed over at Small Things Considered, “the microbe blog”. In part one, Elio Schaechter answers Five Questions about Oomycetes. Number one: What makes oomycetes important to people? Answer, potato blight, and many other diseases.

Lots of good stuff, but we’re particularly taken with his colleague Merry Youle’s addition on Oomycete mating types and the potato blight. The point is, late blight is now capable of sex outside its home in Mexico, and has been since the late 1970s. Two consequences follow. First, the spores of sexual reproduction are capable of surviving over winter; currently, cold winters destroy the asexual spores giving potato growers a fighting chance of avoiding the blight. Over-wintering spores could be a disaster. Secondly, and perhaps more important in the long term, sexual recombination will allow late blight to do its own gene shuffling, and could come up with new combinations of genetic diversity that could make it even more virulent. Fungicide resistance in over-wintering spores would be quite a threat. Youle concludes:

K. V. Raman, a professor of plant breeding at Cornell University and an authority on potatoes in Mexico and Eastern Europe, observes: The conditions prevalent in today’s Russia are all too reminiscent of those of Ireland in the mid-19th century. That was the time of the Great Famine in Ireland (the subject of our next post). As was the case then in Ireland, Russia today has a population dependent on the potato and an aggressive blight out of control. In this, Russia is not alone. This time, the impacts are expected to be global.

Scary, or what? I’m looking forward to two more posts promised on the subject.

“It is silly to think of one solution”

Johan Schut pulled a folding knife from his hip pocket, inserted the tip into the base of a bright, crispy head of romaine lettuce and severed it in two.

“See there, the little brown specks with black legs?” He lifted one of the busy beasts onto the tip of his blade. “It’s a family of aphids. This is a non-resistant lettuce.”

Gotta love the New York Times ledes (as we ex-reptiles call them). This one certainly got me reading, and probably would have done even if I weren’t interested in “entrepreneurs and scientists [who] are trying to use all available techniques, including genetic modification, to improve agriculture around the world.”

It’s all there; cisgenesis, AFLP and MAS, arms races, private-public partnerships, options up the wazoo. Go Wageningen!

Nibbles: Climate, Money, Wine, Rice, Photosynthesis, Diversity

Nibbles: Rice domestication, H5N1, Fisheries, Crop maps, Grafting, Livestock video, Perennial conference, Goat genetic patterns, Satellites, Large seeds, W4RA

Do farmers know how to save seeds?

There’s a strange story one hears in various quarters, that small-scale farmers, outside the industrial mainstream, don’t really know how to save their own seeds. We saw it a couple of weeks ago in a comment from Andre, who said that European legislation ensures that “varieties [are] properly maintained and registered and the seed produced according to state-of-the art standards and certified”. The clear implication is that seed produced under any other regime is likely to be defective in some way. I don’t have numbers, of course, but this kind of argument seems to be reasonably common among proponents of high-tech seed breeding. But I was rather surprised to see a somewhat similar argument in a project in the World Bank Development Marketplace, which is busy building to its giddy and exciting conclusion even as I write.

One of the finalists, Helvetas Mozambique, justifies its proposal like this:

“Without access to quality seeds, subsistence farmers practicing rain-fed agriculture continue recycling grain that has been exhausted after generations of cultivation, producing poor yields. …”

To break this cycle, Swiss-based Helvetas proposes what it calls a “zero-emission fridge” consisting of low-cost storage facilities run by community-owned seed banks that “distribute quality seeds of improved crop varieties and serve as a social safety net to benefit 10,000+ rural households”.

What is this notion that grain can become “exhausted after generations of cultivation”? It used to be said of potatoes in Europe, before anyone really understood anything about either sexual reproduction or tuber-borne diseases. And the proof was that if you saved potato fruits and planted true potato seed, the plants were much more vigorous, usually because the seeds did not contain the virus load that plagued seed tubers. Sex reinvigorated the stocks.

8FC44D73-C968-4BF2-91FB-0EBACA330815.jpg Judging from the picture accompanying the piece on the Helvetas proposal, the grain in question is maize. And maize does indeed suffer from inbreeding depression if seeds from too few individuals are saved, but I’m not aware of any evidence that experienced maize farmers don’t understand this. Does Helvetas have evidence that inbreeding depression is a real problem? Or is it, perhaps inadvertently, promoting a view that one reason subsistence farmers don’t have Swiss bank accounts is that they don’t know what they’re doing?