Farmer-saved seeds are not fake

“Fake seeds” have been making the news in Uganda recently, on the back of a World Bank paper:

Of the many factors that keep small-scale Ugandan farmers poor, seed counterfeiting may be the least understood. Passing under the radar of the international development sector, a whole illegal industry has developed in Uganda, cheating farmers by selling them seeds that promise high yields but fail to germinate at all – with results that can be disastrous.

Counterfeiting gangs have learned to dye regular maize with the characteristic pinkish orange colour of industrially processed maize seed, duping farmers into paying good money for seed that just won’t grow. The result is a crisis of confidence in commercially available high-yield seed.

So it’s good to see one of the dozens of Youth Agripreneurs Project proposals being considered by GFAR tackling the issue.

Problem is, as Ola Westengen points out in a tweet, the project seems to be confused about what “fake” or “counterfeit” seeds are.

This from the project proposal:

…only 13% of farmers buy improved seed from formal markets in Uganda. The rest rely on seeds saved from the previous season or traded informally between neighbors, but such seeds generally produce far lower yields than genuine high yield hybrids… This problem can be addressed by empowering local seed businessmen or empowering the locals to produce their own seed through training.

So the “problem” is farmer-saved and -traded seed? That’s hardly addressing the havoc being wrought by Uganda’s seed counterfeiting gangs.

I’m all for helping farmers build their capacity in seed production, but there’s no reason why they should then produce nothing but “high yield hybrids.”

Nibbles: Craft beer, Citizen breeding, Botanical e-book, Horticultural bio-piracy, Pollinator reports, Rainforest Alliance map, Italian phytotron, YAP portfolio

Proposals wanted to host Harlan III International Symposium on Domestication, Evolution, and Uses of Biological Diversity

The International Committee is seeking proposals to host Harlan III and requests that interested groups consider the above factors in preparing a prospectus for the symposium, giving special attention to the potential financial requirements and sources of funding. For consideration for a symposium to be held in 2017, the prospectus should be received at UC Davis by April 15, 2016.

The Harlan Symposium is a very prestigious, not to say blog-worthy, event, and I’m sure people will be falling over themselves to host it.

Citrus is well-endowed

Givaudan, “a Swiss-based company that is the global leader in the creation of fragrances and flavors” has provided a $1 million endowment towards maintaining the Citrus Variety Collection at the University of California, Riverside. Both that collection and a famous tomato collection are owned and managed by the University of California, and affiliated with the USDA/ARS National Plant Germplasm System, which does not have the flexibility itself to explore unusual funding mechanisms. It’s not clear from the article in URC Today what the cool million buys exactly, but at least part of the proceeds must go on on the Givaudan Citrus Variety Collection Endowed Chair. And Tracy Kahn, curator of the collection, has just been appointed to it. But surely a $1 million endowment can’t cover all the costs of maintaining multiple trees of a thousand different citrus accessions? There must be other revenue streams. Interesting to speculate whether a similar model could cover the costs of a more global effort, such as is being proposed in a recent strategy document.

Nibbles: Canadian genebank, Indian women farmers, Coconut videos, Willow catalog, Crop models & CC, Next GR, Caviar of Cantaloupes, Wild Bactrian, Dog history, Top 100 development questions