Category: Genetic erosion

Posted on

Thai rice on the genebank menu

158826661 3Cb29Defdd M There was a slightly odd article at Seed Magazine a little while back on Thailand’s efforts to conserve almost extinct varieties of rice in its genebank. Odd because while the story is familiar enough in this kind of piece, the details are slightly confused (or confusing). But no matter, that’s probably only of concern to a pedant like me. The rest of you won’t worry about statements like “farmers across Asia once grew more than 100 varieties of rice, but now that number is down to only 20 or 30 of the most productive types”. Instead, you’ll be thrilled to know that the Thai national collection houses nearly 24,000 varieties, 17,000 of which “are in danger of dying out because they are no longer grown by Thai farmers”. That’s great because SINGER, a window on the world of genebank accessions, lists only 5982 samples from Thailand. Maybe one of those is “the fragrant Pin Kaew variety that was named the best rice in the world at a competition in 1966 but which has since disappeared, having lost out to more productive varieties”.

flickr photo by Stef Noble used under a Creative Commons license. Purple Sticky Rice is rare, but not that rare.

Posted on

Future prospects for European crop varieties

Last time I looked at the state of seed availability in Europe and how it got that way: a one-size-fits-all approach that suits industrial growers and their breeders well enough but that leaves gardeners and specialist growers out in the cold. This time, what are they doing about it.

This whole discussion began with the prosecution of the Kokopelli Association in France for selling seeds of unregistered varieties. That provoked disbelief and a note that change was being discussed. So it is. The version I saw of the “Draft Commission Directive establishing the specific conditions under which seed and propagating material of agricultural and vegetable species may be marketed in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing” is due to come into force on 1 April 2007

I shall refrain from the obvious joke.

The provisions of the draft are somewhat complex, and in boiling them down I will almost certainly get something wrong. But in essence, a “conservation variety” or “amateur variety … with no intrinsic value for commercial production” can be sold within a “bio-geographic region” without having to be registered under the previous seed marketing directives. There are many other conditions hedged about, like the colour of the labels and the minimum size of the packages. Two stick out. The total seed sold for each conservation variety shall not exceed 0.1% of the seed of that species used each year in the country concerned. And marketing is limited to the bio-geographic region of origin or adaptation of the variety.
Continue reading “Future prospects for European crop varieties”

Posted on

Rapid agrobiodiversity surveys

This SciDevNet piece led me to this Nature article on the theory and practice of the Rapid Biological Inventory, “a quick, intensive taxonomic expedition designed to identify areas of particular biological, geological and cultural significance before development and exploitation take hold.”

Using satellite images, maps and other data, biologists target promising areas and then work with local scientists and students to walk existing and newly cut trails, recording the species they encounter. (…) In parallel with these are social inventories — surveys of the organisational structure of local communities and how they use the forest. The teams work with indigenous groups, government and local conservation organisations to deepen their understanding of the value of the surveyed areas.

I think the concept was pioneered by Conservation International, under the name Rapid Assessment Program, or RAP, but as far as I can see it hasn’t been applied to agricultural biodiversity, at least not explicitly. Seems to me one could come up with a pretty good “rapid agrodiversity assessment” methodology based on standard crop descriptors combined with traditional knowledge, wrapped up in a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) approach. Maybe someone already has?

Posted on

How the European Common Catalogue destroys biodiversity

Charities know that it is a good idea to forge a bond between those who have and those who have not — the better to make those who have, give. So winsome children and kindly old people show us that we are all part of one big happy family, and families help one another, don’t they? But what if those who are normally the position of having, and giving, become those who need?

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that as far as agricultural biodiversity is concerned, Europe is probably more in need of help than anywhere else. Elsewhere, as in Europe, intensive agriculture and monocropping are destroying existing biodiversity. But elsewhere, unlike Europe, farmers, gardeners and ordinary folk who just want to grow themselves a bit of food have a bit of choice. If they can find the variety they want, they can buy it (or obtain it by barter, whatever) and grow it. In Europe that is not legal.
Continue reading “How the European Common Catalogue destroys biodiversity”