Nibbles: Kinky crops, Hot pepper, Cary Fowler, Gin history, Open data, Quaker food, QPM in Ethiopia, Botany app, Old seeds, New tomato

  • Why aren’t there more crops among the orchids?
  • This pepper is not so much a crop as a weapon of mass destruction.
  • Now here’s a crop. New tomato has taste, storability, looks. But I think it’s dating.
  • Maize with cool amino acids reaches Ethiopia. Must have walked there.
  • Really old squash seeds.
  • Cary Fowler on the Weather Channel. You heard me.
  • Quakers have an opinion on the right to food and climate change. Well, why shouldn’t they? They also have a UN office, but that’s another story. No word on whether they made the Weather Channel.
  • Ok, so apparently the answer is data. Says a data company. And open data at that. Quakers nonplussed.
  • Botanizing in N or S America? There’s an app for that.
  • The rise and rise of gin. And I certainly need one.

Nibbles: Summer holidays, Tajik bread, Farm to pizza, Västerbottensost, Diverse bananas, Banana wine, Chinese agroforestry, Peak coffee, Responsible oil palm, Model chickens, Damn you NS

Nibbles: Sustainable database, Strawberry breeding, Breeding rice, Nutrition champion, Camel milk, Mike Jackson, Feed the Future, Quinoa prices, Small is beautiful

Nutritional yield in the spotlight

Dr Jess Fanzo had a paper in the works on the topic when he asked a few days ago “How would you measure agricultural production?” But his pleas for measuring nutrition per hectare, rather than just calories or yield, certainly gets a boost from the article, and in Science, no less.

Here is what Prof. Ruth DeFries of Columbia University, who is the lead author, and others 1 think:

We propose a metric of “nutritional yield,” the number of adults who would be able to obtain 100% of their recommended DRI [daily dietary reference intake] of different nutrients for 1 year from a food item produced annually on one hectare.

Why? Because…

…nutritional needs for a wide range of essential nutrients in the human diet have generally not been included in considerations of sustainable intensification. Access to food with high nutritional quality is a primary concern, particularly for 2 to 3 billion people who are undernourished, overweight, or obese or deficient in micronutrients.

They even provide a worked example, highlighting the fact that many neglected staples are more nutrient-dense than boring old rice, wheat and maize.

In 2013, for example, on average one hectare of rice produced 4.5 metric tons/year, which is the equivalent of providing the annual energy requirement for 19.9 adults. Millet produced only 0.9 metric tons/ha per year, the annual energy requirement for 4.0 adults. However, a hectare of rice fulfills the annual iron requirement for only 7.6 adults, compared with 15.3 for millet.

Leave aside for a minute that, depending on what particular millet is meant, rice vs millet is an unusual comparison to be making. This does sound like a promising idea; but here’s the problem I see. You have to do the calculation for each damn nutritional factor: protein, iron, zinc, whatever. How do you know which to pick for any given comparison you want to make? Is there no way to come up with a more synoptic nutritional yield score? One that takes into account multiple nutrients at once, rather than one at the time. How about this, for example:

the number of adults who would be able to obtain at least 50% of their recommended DRI of all of X nutrients for 1 year from a food item produced annually on one hectare

Where X is whatever nutritionists think is a sensible basket of nutrients. After all, people rarely need just iron.

Nibbles: High science, Methane-friendly rice, Gender, Indian priestesses, Banana extinction, Inka legacy, Diversity in ag, Yerba genome, Cucumber chains, Tomato relative, Agrobiodiversity in art