Nibbles: Heirloom Auction, Flatulence, Trade, Swaziland, Turkey genome, Sorghum

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It’s Super Rice.

Cutting through the hype, there may be some substance in the announcement by the University of Arizona that it is leading a team funded to the tune of USD 9.9 million “to develop ‘super rice’“. ((Come to think of super-rice would be cheap at that price.)) The plan is to understand the genomes of all 24 rice species, the better to breed the two species — Oryza sativa and O. glaberrima — that yield the rice crop.

The announcement contains a lot of information about how this effort will help researchers to understand the evolutionary history and current functioning of rice. But there’s also a food security angle, natch.

“During the domestication process, people end up selecting a couple of plants and crossing them,” [said University of Arizona plant scientist Rod] Wing. “This way, one of them became the founder of all the domesticated plants. That variety was then improved over thousands of years, but it contains only a very small variety of genes that could be used for crop improvement.” … This so-called domestication bottleneck leads to crop plants with highly desirable traits such as high yield but deficiencies in other areas such as compromised ability to fight off diseases or cope with droughts.

I expect the researchers might be wondering whether they can duplicate the domestication events that resulted in modern rice, as wheat researchers did in constructing synthetic bread wheats, injecting a whole lot more agricultural biodiversity into the crop.

And here’s a cool idea; spend some of the loot on public awareness:

As an outreach component, the project will include a biannual Plant Science Family Night program at Ventana Vista Elementary School in Tucson, targeting K-5 students and families, with the goal of getting children and their families in the greater Tucson area excited about plants and the role plant science plays in ensuring a safe, sustainable and secure food supply for our planet.

Shouldn’t every big grant do something similar?

Where should funding for agriculture go?

Nourishing the Planet continues to disseminate answers. Today, Pascal Pulvery, of the National Association of Livestock & Artificial Insemination Cooperatives, France says:

“I think that the majority of funds should be used to develop the production of food for local utilization instead of developing the agricultural production for exportation.”

In other news, there’s a National Association of Livestock & Artificial Insemination Cooperatives in France.

Fund something different

Every day Nourishing the Planet, a blog at the Worldwatch Institute, will publish three answers to the question Where Would You Like to See More Agricultural Funding Directed? You can email a response, or tweet it, but I’ll just say something here.

For me, the biggest single problem about current mainstream agricultural funding for development is that it is all chasing the same unimaginative goals. Adding another USD$300 million a year to the pot is a wonderful thing, but it is like more water pouring down a gully. It deepens the channel but makes it even more difficult to jump out of that channel and find another path. Given how little is currently spent on the more effective use of agricultural biodiversity, I reckon just a tenth of that, say USD30 million, would make a huge difference to the ability of people to enjoy a food secure future. Throw in another USD30 million for extension services, and I reckon you could really see some impact. Don’t get me wrong; things like infrastructure are important too. But in the end, lots of people are doing that. Let’s see a little money devoted to trying something different.

What do you think? If you send a suggestion to Nourishing the Planet, why not copy it here too?