AVRDC’s treasure trove of diversity

I was recently at AVRDC headquarters in Taiwan and was quite taken with their demonstration garden. (Among other things. The genebank operation is also impressive, and recovering from a recent unfortunate setback.) It’s a wonderful display of both vegetable diversity and cultivation systems. I was going to blog about it, but then life intervened, or at least work did. Anyway, the latest issue of AVRDC’s newsletter has a piece on the garden, and they have kindly agreed for us to reprint it here, as the newsletter itself is not available online. Which kinda gets me off the hook. The photographs are mine. The following text (and this post’s title) are courtesy of AVRDC.

Although there are thousands of plants people can consume, humanity relies on only a relative handful for food. Indigenous vegetables — whether semi-wild or domesticated — can greatly expand the menu. Grown primarily in their centers of origin or introduced in a given area, indigenous or traditional vegetables provide food in times of scarcity for the world’s poorest people, yet these hardy, nutritious species often are underutilized.

A welcoming sign
AVRDC — The World Vegetable Center — aims to promote production and consumption of indigenous vegetables, and the Center’s Demonstration Garden showcases different species to create awareness and encourage adoption. In the first of a two-part article, Jenny Huang, a public relations and partnership consultant with AVRDC, visits the garden to see what’s growing.

What began in 2001 as an experimental field on the grounds of the AVRDC headquarters campus in Shanhua, Taiwan has blossomed into a 0.63-hectare living example of the mission and work of AVRDC — The World Vegetable Center.

“The Demonstration Garden was designed as an observation plot for indigenous vegetables when we got the project from the Taiwan Council of Agriculture in the beginning,” said Mandy Lin, an assistant specialist in AVRDC Global Technology Dissemination. After 10 years of development, more than 60 different species of indigenous vegetables are cultivated in 200 plots of various sizes and shapes to showcase the special qualities of each species and promote their wider use. The range of species grown also maintains visual interest as the seasons change.

The indigenous vegetables in the garden were selected for three significant characteristics—ease of cultivation (low input), nutritional quality, and resistance to pests and diseases. Visitors touring the Demonstration Garden often are surprised by the number and variety of indigenous vegetables, and the different edible parts, from shoots and leaves to pods and seeds. “We want to convey a simple but principal message to every visitor—that a diverse diet including many different vegetables is beneficial to health,” Mandy said.

In July 2008 the Center’s Global Technology Dissemination group expanded the function of the Demonstration Garden to highlight four major mature technologies: low-cost drip irrigation, starter solution, grafting chambers, and protective shelters. Farmers in developing countries can adopt these technologies to increase yields, improve produce quality, and reduce production costs.

Sweet potato varieties

Visitors and AVRDC staff members alike gain new ideas and inspiration as they walk through the garden, enjoy the rich diversity of plants, and see farming technologies in use. As Mandy observed: “You think you are taking care of crops, but in fact they educate you with their beauty and variety.”

Nibbles: Sugarcane breeding, Caterpillar mushroom, Saharan honeybees, Vodka taste, Cotton genetic resources, African savannah ag, Organic videos

Organic farming and climate change: still seeking silver bullets?

There’s a long piece over at the Freakonomics blog examining recent claims about organic agriculture and climate change. Two approaches are contrasted. First, the Rodale Institute’s 2008 report which claimed that organic agriculture could sequester 40% of global carbon emissions. Ah but, carbon dioxide is not the primary greenhouse gas associated with agriculture. Methane and nitrous oxide contribute far more. And organic ag releases far more of those, according to Steve Savage, a plant scientist and blogger, who concludes that “organic farming is not the best option from a climate change point of view”.

At which point everything could descend into the entrenched mud-slinging we’re used to, except that in the Freakonomics piece, it doesn’t. James McWilliams outlines the different ways in which “conventional” and “organic” make their different contributions to climate change, and even goes so far as to suggest that there could be ways in which organic practices could be modified to reduce their contributions (the reverse, not so much).

To me, though, there are a couple of things wrong with the whole approach. One is that the attempt to come up with global estimates of the “productivity” and “carbon footprint” ((And yes, I’m well aware that I’m not even getting into the discussion of those terms.)) of any single system is bound to run into problems regarding specific elements of the estimate. And then the debate gets bogged down in those elements rather than in trying to move forward. A clear example is that as far as I can tell neither McMillan nor Savage includes the carbon footprint of food transportation. And the model of organic agriculture seems to be one of intensive monoculture, but using manure and organic fertilizers rather than energy-intensive synthetic fertilizers. I’m not saying we need to become geophagous strict locavores, but maybe we do need to look more closely at integrated food and farming systems, on a smaller scale. Climate change may be a global problem, but local efforts can contribute to solutions. I like the idea of just cutting out a couple of meals of factory-farmed red-meat a week myself. Except that I already do. So what’s the next small change I could make?