The hype goes on

“More food at lower cost.”

Now there’s a headline packed with potential. Alas, that’s all it has at the moment, potential. Not to denigrate the science of Angharad R. Jones — known to his pals as Harry — and colleagues at the University of Bristol. 1 They’ve done some nifty research into what makes plant root hairs grow. It’s a complex study involving a computer model of where the plant hormone ought to be, and the bottom line seems to be that it isn’t where the researchers thought it would be.

Great. A deeper understanding of the development of root hairs is important. Root hairs, after all, are the basis of the plant’s uptake of minerals and water. But the press release goes well beyond that:

This new understanding will be crucial in helping farmers to produce food sustainably and to reduce fertiliser waste, which can cause severe damage to ecosystems.

I’ve written the odd press release myself, and I know how hard it can be to interest reporters in the small individual bricks that make up the building that is scientific understanding. But this kind of reporting is, I fear, going to lead inevitably to overinflated expectations and crushing disappointment.

If anyone notices.

Orange revolution

Sweetpotatoes come in different colors and tastes (and sizes). The “yams” eaten in the United States are sweet and have orange and moist flesh. The staple of parts of Africa and the Pacific (and pig feed in China), is typically white-fleshed and not very sweet nor moist (notwithstanding variations like this purple variety.)

Anyway, the orange fleshed sweetpotato is stacked with beta-carotene, the stuff you need to eat for your body to make vitamin A. Many poor people have vitamin A deficiencies, which leads to stunted growth and blindness. So why don’t the poor sweetpotato eaters eat orange fleshed varieties? In part because they simply do not have them, or know about their health benefits. In part because they do not grow well in Africa (decimated by pests and diseases). And also because they do not taste right: too sweet for a staple.

The International Potato Center and partners have been trying to fix all that. Now they have made a nice video about getting orange-fleshed sweetpotatoes into the food-chain in Mozambique. The orange revolution:

https://vimeo.com/2278794

I wonder if they also promote mixing more sweetpotato leaves into the diet — even of white fleshed varieties. The leaves are a very good source of micro-nutrients, including beta-carotene! More fodder for the biofortification discussion.

Nibbles: Early diet, Rice, Veggies, Barley, Research, Taiwan, Coffee trade

Nibbles: String, Lake District, Apples, Biochar, Display, Firs, Sweet potato, Rice, Bison

Induced mutations? Nein danke.

We briefly nibbled SciDev.Net’s take on a press release from the International Atomic Energy Authority, advocating “Nuclear Science for Food Security”. It’s an old story; bombard seeds with radioactivity to induce more mutations, from which breeders can select wonderful new varieties. But as a correspondent reminds us:

There’s really nothing inherently wrong with it. Because it’s a totally random, “shotgun” approach to generating new variations, it lacks the benefits of natural selection to sort out not only what’s viable, but also what’s somehow well-adapted to growing in the environment and have other desirable traits.

Radio-induced mutagenesis was a popular technique decades ago, and some improved varieties were produced as a result. But I think that a much more logical approach would be to more fully assess and exploit the vast amount of extant diversity currently languishing unstudied in genebanks and farmers’ field, material that has already passed through the filter of many centuries, if not millennia, of natural and human selection. Radio-induced mutation is really just a shot in the dark. Better to focus more attention on the existing crop diversity that has yet to be exhaustively collected, characterized or evaluated, before resorting to such an aleatory approach.

Do you agree? Is inducing extra mutations — by chemistry, radioactivity, whatever — a good way to generate more diversity for breeders (and farmers?) to select from. Or should we focus on understanding the diversity we already have? It isn’t binary, of course, but I wonder where the balance should be?