Seeds are not enough

An article in the NY Times tells a frustrating tale of agrobiodiversity use: stunning use by researchers, followed by disappointing use by farmers. It’s the story of Nerica ((The piece has been picked up elsewhere. The Economist’s Free Exchange blog also comments on it.)) — New Rice for Africa. This is a family of varieties derived in the 90s from a biotechnological breakthrough, the hybridization of African and Asian rice. ((Don’t get me wrong, these are not transgenics, though molecular methods were used to overcome the huge challenge of interspecific hybridization.)) Combining “the toughness of O. glaberrima with the productivity of O. sativa,” Nerica varieties have:

– Higher yields (by 50% without fertilizer, and 200% with).
– Earlier maturity (by 30-50 days).
– Resistance to local stresses.
– Higher protein content (by 2%).

A great example of researchers really unleashing the potential of genetic diversity. And one that has been rightly widely recognized. So why have the resulting varieties “spread to only a tiny fraction of the land in West Africa where they could help millions of farming families escape poverty”? It hasn’t been for want of trying:

To quickly move the NERICA technology into farmers’ hands, WARDA and its partners have adopted farmer-participatory approaches, such as the Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) and community-based seed production systems (CBSS).

The NY Times piece suggests that the reason for Nerica’s disappointing use by farmers comes down to infrastructure. The seeds — even information about them — are not getting to the farmers that need them, and the harvest finds it hard to get to market. That’s because there are few seed companies, roads are bad, telecommunications poor, credit not available. The article also suggests that yield of Nerica has been known to decrease over time “because the new seed was not pure.”

It is undeniable that seed systems could be strengthened in Africa, and that doing so would improve the lot of smallholders. But I don’t know. Farmers are not stupid. They know how to select material for next year’s sowing, and they exchange seeds all the time, often over large distances. Their lives depend on it. Is there something else holding Nerica back? Or maybe it’s just too soon to be expecting miracles of adoption?

Creating and curing obesity

Better late than never, I guess. I’ve only just realized that the September issue of Scientific American was entitled Feast and Famine, and juxtaposed the ironic twin killer trends of hunger and obesity. Most of the material is unfortunately behind a paywall, but I have borrowed a hardcopy from a colleague and will be reading through it in the near future. If you’ve already done so and have any comments on what the various high-profile authors involved say about agrobiodiversity, let us know. One commentator has said:

This issue of Scientific American tells us there’s money to be made by creating and then curing obesity. That’s what the science approach to obesity is about and what the prevention-based approach is up against. ((I’ve borrowed my title from this article.))

Do you agree with this take?