- Agriculture is bad for natural ecosystems. But great for maps, you have to admit.
- Greens are good for you. And this is a great roundup of the latest scholarship on brassica evolution, domestication and diversity. You’ll find most of the paper quoted in past Brainfoods.
- Grains are great. Especially with greens.
- Thank goodness for household seed banking. Especially in conjunction with the formal kind.
- All so we can breed a better peanut. And cut down more natural ecosystem?
- No, there’s community genebanks for that too…
These seeds are from the government, and they’re here to help you
In his recent paper in Plant Genetic Resources, Reimagining the Role of National Genebanks: Purposes, Priorities, and Programs, Cary Fowler offers a refreshingly blunt intervention for the world’s national genebanks.
The paper suggests a radical pivot: stop acting like dusty museums and start acting like high-energy dating agencies for seeds. Fowler argues that for many small, underfunded facilities, the traditional “Fort Knox” model of long-term conservation is a trap. If you can’t store seeds properly and you aren’t sharing your stash, you aren’t a guardian: you’re a threat. His solution?
Instead of waiting for breeders to call, who don’t exist anyway for a lot of “minor” crops, genebanks should be putting diversity directly into the hands of farmers. Fowler invokes the “inventive art” of 19th-century American agriculture, where the government functioned like a giant postal seed-swapping club. He envisions modern genebanks acquiring diversity, screening it, and sending out cleverly selected landraces and cultivars for farmers to try out in their own fields.
It’s a bold call to move from the passive “save it for a rainy day” mentality to an active “let’s see what grows in the rain” strategy. The future of diversity isn’t just in the freezer; it’s in the mail, at least for many underfunded national genebanks and so-called “opportunity crops.” Brave new world. But it does all assume the rest of the system is functioning — and is funded — properly…
Nibbles: Online seeds, Yam breeding, Rice genebanks, Indian commmunity seed banks, Sikkim banana, Cassava disease, ICARDA genebank, Tajikistan women
- The perils of dematerialization play out in India.
- Is YamHub dematerialization?
- Rice genebanks in Bangladesh and at IRRI are pretty solid.
- There’s a pretty solid platform for India’s community seed banks.
- I hope Nagaland’s wild bananas end up in genebanks.
- Cassava’s diversity is in multiple genebanks, and that’s a good thing, CBSD and all.
- ICARDA’s genebank back in the Syrian news, though in a good way for once.
- Tajikistan’s women farmers are bringing back crops with not a worry about dematerialization. Or genebanks, it seems.
Brainfood: Restoration edition
- Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Better mapping shows there is less land available for reforestation than we thought, and there are limited opportunities for providing multiple benefits. Still, that’s an area the size of Mexico, and worth trying to get it right.
- Genomic approaches to accelerate American chestnut restoration. The American chestnut people seem to be getting it right.
- A native seed bank is restoring land in Canada’s north. Native people — and their genebanks — can help you get it right.
- Controlled Pollination and Reproductive Strategies in Coconut: A Framework for Farmer-Led Breeding, Seednut Production, and In Situ Conservation. Farmers can be helped to get it right.
- Dehulling the secret of the germination of crop wild relatives of Cenchrus, Digitaria, Echinochloa, Setaria and Urochloa. You need information on germination breaking to get it right. In the US Midwest, for example.
- How can Brazilian legislation on native seeds advance based on good practices of restoration in other countries? Not to mention the right policies.
Crowdsourcing crop diversity, and information
A couple of crowd-sourcing initiatives caught my eye.
First, the good people at the COUSIN project want to expand genebank collections of wild relatives of wheat, barley, lettuce, brassica, and peas in Europe. And they have a pretty good idea where the collecting needs to be done. Think you can help? Check out the call for proposals.
And from a bit further south comes a plea on LinkedIn from Chris Jones of the ILRI genebank. He needs help getting stuff out of the genebank rather than into it.
As part of the ‘low-methane forages’ project, funded by the Gates Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund, we have been screening the methane emission intensity of a range of forage accessions, in vitro, from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) genebank. The aim is to screen approximately 10% of the accessions held in our genebank and, to date, we have assessed 155 herbaceous legumes towards this goal, including several of our lablab accessions. From these, we have identified two accessions of interest. The methane emission intensity of accession #14447 was 27.7 ml/g total digestible dry matter (TDDM), 43% lower than the highest ten legumes measured so far, and methane emission intensity of accession #14458 was 33.8 ml/g TDDM, 30% lower. So, assuming that similar differences in methane emission intensity are realised in vivo (and that is no guarantee), the preferred candidate seems obvious. However, in our field plots #14458 produced 60% more biomass than #14447, which was an ‘average’ yielder. This higher level of production should be attractive to farmers who currently struggle to incorporate much in the way of legumes in their feed rations. So, which one would you prioritise?
I’ve added the links to the Genesys entries for the accessions in questions for people who want a bit more data to base their decision on. You can provide your input on Chris’ post, or right here and I promise to pass it on.