Vegetable landraces of England and Wales

While lawyers and some scientists jump through hoops in their efforts to define — or at least describe — what they mean by “landrace” the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in Britain has quietly published the results of a project entitled “Vegetable landrace inventory of England and Wales”. ((Heads should roll for the typo in the first sentence on the UK Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture portal. But they won’t.)) We haven’t had time to even skim the full report, but judging by the Information Bulletin that accompanied it, this is a very important piece of work. The Bulletin, which is extremely readable, explains clearly the importance of landraces and why they are under threat. It outlines the sources of information, from commercial seed companies that still maintain varieties on the UK Vegetable ‘B’ List (which is also explained) through to NGOs, smaller seed companies, and individual farmers. It offers a snapshot of the landraces that have been preserved, and even valiantly attempts to answer the question “What is a landrace?”. As for another question — How many English and Welsh vegetable landraces are there? — I can do no better than to quote from the Bulletin:

The answer to this question is we currently dont know and may never be able to give a precise estimate, partly because some varieties are marketed or grown under different common names, but also because gaining access to information about who is growing landraces is hampered by a number of challenges as highlighted earlier. However, if we are to retain this national resource we need to continue to build the inventory and gradually increase our knowledge of the diversity that exists before it is lost forever.

If ever there was a universally applicable set of ideas, this is it, and it deserves to be taken up widely around the world. The Defra project has shown that it is possible to gain an accurate understanding without spurious precision, and should be a model for any organization interested in gathering information and materials. You insist you want numbers?

Four UK seedbanks are primarily responsible for the maintenance of English and Welsh vegetable landrace diversity — the Heritage Seed Library (HSL), the John Innes Centre (JIC — notable for pea and bean collections), Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) and Warwick HRI’s Vegetable Genebank (WHRI). Collectively, they are responsible for the maintenance of seed samples of at least 327 vegetable landraces; however, we know that the actual number is higher because at present not all landrace samples are distinguished as landraces in their database maagement systems. Work is currently in progress to ensure that all landace material is identified.

Again, that should be resonating loudly around the world.

The project examined the identity of varieties on the B list (essentially traditional varieties that were in place before the EU Common Catalogue and its registered varieties came along) and discovered that the greatest number of varieties is among the brassicas, which account for 91 of the 345 landraces listed on the B list. No great surprise there, given that outbreeding Brassica oleracea makes it possibly the easiest species in which to find some slightly different characteristics (although that also makes it one of the hardest in which to maintain all the characteristics of a variety).

One of the interesting trends that the project identified is that government genebanks are increasingly taking on the work of maintaining traditional varieties landraces when, for one reason or another, their maintainers lose interest. SASA is currently responsible for 42% of the landraces. That represents a sea-change from when I was personally directly involved with this kind of thing. Are they making the seeds available, though, to gardeners and others less interested in breeding than in simply growing the varieties? They do offer a back-up scheme, which will replace a landrace should a grower lose it for some reason, an effort that the study says should be extended to England and Wales. The report also mentions Seedy Sunday and Seedling Saturday as community-organised events to promote the exchange of diversity and the knowledge to use it, and praises grower and breeder days organized by the four main genebanks.

One thing I’d suggest to expand the range of landraces of England and Wales would be to go looking in other government and NGO genebanks, especially in ex-colonies. Emigrants invariably took their seeds with them. Some that may no longer be available in the old country have surely survived in the new and could be repatriated to the delight of all.

A final quote:

[W]hile the loss of old varieties and the irreplaceable diversity that has gone with them is of concern, we may now be in a new period of expansion of locally-based vegetable crop diversity as a result of a strong resurgence of interest in growing traditional varieties and in grower-based breeding amongst both amateur and professional growers — the formal sector needs to work with the maintainers to put in place strategies to capture this diversity, as well as nurturing the culture that is responsible for creating and maintaining it.

All in all, this is very heartening news about the state of vegetable landraces in England and Wales. But is it a bit too heartening? We’d love to hear from people there who have on-the-ground experience.

Adapting in the Pacific

The New Agriculturist is out, and, among many other things, it features an interview with my old boss at the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Aleki Sisifa. Aleki has some very sensible things to say about adapting to climate change. Here’s an example, but read the whole thing.

We need to help farmers stay ahead of climate change, and genetic resources are going to be crucial for that. At SPC we hold the genetic resources for the Pacific region, and as part of our climate change work we are collecting varieties that can withstand conditions such as drought, salinity and water-logging.

We are working to ensure fair use and ready access of these resources and, in June 2009, our collection was placed in the Multilateral System of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Around the same time, agreement was made with the Global Crop Diversity Trust to safeguard our collection of taro and yam, two of our most important food crops in this region.

Nibbles: Goat, Wine, Heirlooms, Soil microbes, Climate change, Sorghum

Goats gnaw on geographic given

This post was chosen as an Editor's Selection for ResearchBlogging.orgWe’re used to thinking — or at least assuming — in agrobiodiversity conservation that genetic distance is a monotonically increasing function of geographic distance. It is, after all, a reflection of the great Waldo Tobler’s First Law of Geography: “Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things.” And yet. Why should that necessarily be so for crops and livestock, so willfully and incessantly moved to and fro by people in all kinds of unpredictable ways?

A paper just out in Molecular Ecology in effect tests the First Law of Geography with goat genetic diversity data, microsatellites in fact. ((BERTHOULY, C., DO NGOC, D., THÉVENON, S., BOUCHEL, D., NHU VAN, T., DANES, C., GROSBOIS, V., HOANG THANH, H., VU CHI, C., & MAILLARD, J. (2009). How does farmer connectivity influence livestock genetic structure? A case-study in a Vietnamese goat population Molecular Ecology DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04342.x)). Goat populations were sampled in 3-8 villages in each of 2-5 communes in each of 10 districts in the remote, mountainous, ethnically mixed Vietnamese province of Hang Giang, for a total of 492 animals. The genetic relationships among the animals were then analyzed.

To the surprise of the authors, the spatial structure of the overall population was poorly explained by simple geographic distance. The ethnicity of their keepers and the husbandry practices to which they were subjected did a much better job of predicting the genetic distance between goats. The most dissimilar goats were not necessarily the ones which lived furthest apart, but rather the ones which were kept in different ways by people of different ethnic groups.

So, if you wanted to maximise the diversity in a Vietnamese goat conservation programme, or your chances of hybrid vigour, you’d pick animals from different ethnic groups or production systems, and not necessarily from different ends of the country. Which is something that I remember sort of almost subconsciously doing when I was collecting crops, but it is nice to see it validated like this. I can’t remember offhand similar work on crops, but no doubt Jacob will set me straight soon enough. In the meantime, I revel in a rule proven.

Chinese interdependence

ResearchBlogging.orgA paper just out in Agricultural Science in China reminded me that I wanted to say something about one of the great meta-narratives of plant genetic resources: interdependence — the old no-country-is-self-sufficient-in-PGR mantra. Which, unlike some other meta-narratives, is generally recognized as being true — witness the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). And that despite the fact that measuring interdependence is not by any means easy, and has not often been done.

The paper which caught my eye is not really primarily about interdependence. ((ZHAO, Y., Ofori, A., & LU, C. (2009). Genetic diversity of European and Chinese oilseed Brassica rapa cultivars from different breeding periods. Agricultural Sciences in China 8(8):931-938. DOI: 10.1016/S1671-2927(08)60297-7.)) It just shows that cultivars of winter oilseed rape (canola) from China are very distinct from European ones, on the basis of molecular markers. Which presumably means that yield gains could be had from cross-breeding between the two groups. Which does say something about interdependence, but not very forcefully.

However, that paper reminded me about two others that a colleague had recently sent me, along with the thought that they should be enough, in a perfect world, for China to ratify the ITPGRFA.

The first is about soybean. ((Qin, J., Chen, W., Guan, R., Jiang, C., Li, Y., Fu, Y., Liu, Z., Zhang, M., Chang, R., & Qiu, L. (2006). Genetic contribution of foreign germplasm to elite Chinese soybean (Glycine max) cultivars revealed by SSR markers. Chinese Science Bulletin, 51(9):1078-1084. DOI: 10.1007/s11434-006-1078-4)) It shows, using molecular markers again, that a couple of elite Chinese cultivars benefited greatly, in terms of both specific traits but also their difference from previous Chinese cultivars (that is, the genetic base of the crop as a whole was broadened) from the fact that US and Japanese germplasm was involved in their development, rather than just Chinese stuff.

The second paper makes the interdependence point even more strongly by quantifying the contribution of foreign maize germplasm to production in China, rather than just genetic diversity. ((LI, H., HU, R., & ZHANG, S. (2006). The Impact of US and CGIAR Germplasm on Maize Production in China. Agricultural Sciences in China, 5(8):563-571. DOI: 10.1016/S1671-2927(06)60093-X.)) It turns out that a 1% contribution by US material (based on the coefficient of parentage) translates to an additional 0.01 t/ha (0.2%), and a 1% contribution by CIMMYT germplasm to an additional 0.025 t/ha.

The conclusion: “The extensive utilization of US and CG germplasm improved maize yield potential in China… The government should provide funds to support research on germplasm introduction…” And, we could add, it should ratify the ITPGRFA. No country is self-sufficient in PGRFA. Not even the largest.