Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog
Agrobiodiversity is crops, livestock, foodways, microbes, pollinators, wild relatives …
Well, not quite. But some of their DNA is. A paper just out in PLoS ONE has found two mitochondrial DNA haplogroups (the ones labelled R and P in the diagram below) which apparently got into Italian local breeds from “European aurochsen [haplogroup E] as the result of sporadic interbreeding events with domestic herds grazing in the wild.” Some of these breeds are rare and marginalized, though, so even the last remnants of the aurochs might be in danger.
What’s happening at the NY Times? Following yesterday’s op-ed on “hidden hunger” ((Which, however, banged the drum for fortification as a remedy, and didn’t mention the agrobiodiversity route at all.)) there’s one today on a plant that’s a neglected but very important source of micronutrients (among other things) in parts of semi-arid Africa — the baobab. The writer — an anthropologist — fears that the recent opening of the European market to baobab fruit pulp products ((We mentioned this here a couple of times, but alas the key links are broken. Try this.)) will lead to the clearing of “precious forests or farmland” to establish agribusiness plantations.
Although local people would probably find jobs on such farms, their ability to harvest or purchase the baobab themselves would be limited. They wouldn’t be able to pay as much as London dealers could. This means that some Africans could lose a source of household wealth, an important part of their diet and an essential pharmaceutical resource.
Even the spectre of genetic modification is raised.
These possibilities — not to mention the threat of corruption, poor wages and genetic modification leading to a loss of the tree’s biodiversity — are not random predictions. Africa is no stranger to the overexploitation of its natural resources. But the solution isn’t necessarily to cut the baobab off from international markets. Regulations could be put in place to protect the tree, its environment and the people who depend on it — and still allow for profitable production.
The coffee trade is then presented as a model.
It’s clear that many consumers are willing to pay more for fairly traded coffee — which costs enough to provide the growers a decent wage for their labor. This bottom-up pricing should be applied to the baobab market, even if it means European health nuts have to pay a lot for their smoothies.
Well, it’s all a little premature, of course. Baobab is many decades from being in even remotely comparable a situation to coffee. There will not be industrial baobab plantations for many many years, if ever. And as for “genetic modification leading to a loss of the tree’s biodiversity,” I for one will not be losing any sleep over that. If I were a baobab entrepreneur I’d concentrate on local and regional markets for now, identify superior genotypes maybe, look into sustainable harvesting practices and experiment with different value-addition strategies. I’d also look at establishing small, village-level nurseries: it’s already been done for fresh leaf production. The European market — and all those health nut hipsters with their smoothies — can wait a while.
From our friend Ola Westengen.
Thanks to the announcement on this blog I learned that the Linnean Society were having a meeting entitled “The Future of Plant Genetic Resources.” When I saw the list of speakers a couple of names triggered me to search the dark corners of my budget, were I found just enough for a cheap return ticket to London. It was definitely worth the trip. I owe you a report, and I actually intended to write one up on the flight back, but the wine reception at the end of the meeting took its toll on my concentration.
So now, three days later, instead of decoding my notes from the many excellent talks, I’ll just direct you to the “Abstract book.” I wish I also could show you some of the great pictures in Sandra Knapp’s presentation, such as the one where Professor Jack Hawkes crosses an Andean river with the water waist high — still with his hat and tie on. Jack Hawkes definitely deserves his prominent place in the PGR pantheon, and his formative role for collecting, taxonomy, conservation and policy in this field was highlighted by several speakers. Quite a few, but not the majority, of the talks centered around the Solanum genus and the potatoes. The taxonomists are still arguing about splitting and lumping in the cultivated potato’s extended family, but no one disputes the important contribution made by Jack Hawkes, which still seems to serve as the baseline. Molecular markers are elusive stuff compared to the morphological characters recognized by the trained eye of an aficionado.
Actually, traditional molecular marker studies took a beating from more than one speaker, including by the new King of Corn, Ed Buckler, on some pretty breathtaking methods and results with implications for genetics that go far beyond that even the world’s most produced cereal. Did you know that two lines of maize are in average as divergent from each other as humans are from chimpanzees? Think about that the next time you eat popcorn at the zoo.
The Scottish Crop Research Institute was represented with three good talks, two on potatoes and one on an awesome barley landrace study done with ICARDA. The results will soon be published, and if you fancy beer and other barley products you should keep an eye on their website. PGR collectors, like few other scientists, can claim that their work lives on after they are gone. While Jack Hawkes’ legacy is indisputable, his potatoes are still flowering in the fields of the world’s genbanks. The Commonwealth Potato Collection sports a great website where these flowers can be seen online. Some of you will appreciate their use of Google Earth on their accession list. Check out the abstracts for more. Thanks to the Linnean Society for organizing this inspiring meeting and thanks to the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog for making it known! At least to me.
Kris’s Archaeology Blog at About.com has a short post summarizing recent work which suggests that there may have been a gap of a millennium between domestication of, and dependence on, broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) in China — and similar gaps for a number of other crops in different centres of origin.
What this is telling us, is that hunter-gatherers took the initial steps towards farming many generations before their descendants became dependent on domestic crops. Interesting, don’t you think?
Indeed.