- Conventional agriculture increases global warming while decreasing system sustainability. The global warming potential of conventional grain agriculture has increased x8 from 1961-2020, whereas sustainability index has decreased x3. Whatever are we to do?
- Adoption of improved crop varieties limited biodiversity losses, terrestrial carbon emissions, and cropland expansion in the tropics. Crop improvements from 1961–2015 resulted in less cropland expansion, lower greenhouse gas emissions and fewer extinctions. Right, so what we need is more of the same?
- Yield growth patterns of food commodities: Insights and challenges. “The same” has meant that yield growth for dozens of crops is not slowing down. At least in the global aggregate. At least for now. At least for calories. So no resting on laurels out there!
- Governance and resilience as entry points for transforming food systems in the countdown to 2030. Especially as regards governance and resilience.
- Poverty and yield effects of CGIAR maize varieties in smallholder farming systems of Zambia. CGIAR breeders are definitely not resting on their laurels, but it looks like that won’t be enough.
- Global meta-analysis shows action is needed to halt genetic diversity loss. CGIAR and other breeders are going to need that genetic diversity that is being lost. Whatever are we to do?
- How can biodiversity strategy and action plans incorporate genetic diversity and align with global commitments? We could make better, more inclusive biodiversity conservation plans, for one thing. Which include agricultural biodiversity.
- Exploring the role of technology in the trade-off between biodiversity and poverty alleviation across countries. It would be good if those better plans included technology adoption.
- Liberalization of animal genetic resources trade and local animal productivity outcomes: A natural experiment. And yes, genetic diversity is a technology. Sort of.
Brainfood: QMS, Seed viability, Genotyping, Taxonomy, FAIR data, Evaluation data, Lentil data, Indian cryobank, Home genebank, Dry chain, Botanical gardens, Environmental monitoring, Bending the curve
- Quality management in a genebank environment: Principles and experiences at the Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands (CGN). Do we need a certification system for genebanks? We do have the means to put one together.
- A pragmatic protocol for seed viability monitoring in ex situ plant genebanks. But will genebank certification allow much-needed flexibility?
- Genotyping Genebank Collections: Strategic Approaches and Considerations for Optimal Collection Management. Or will it make everyone genotype everything?
- Assigning Species Names to Ambiguous Populations in the US Potato Genebank. Oh, you want an example of why everyone should genotype everything?
- The FLAIR-GG federated network of FAIR germplasm data resources. For sure it should require data to be FAIR.
- The EURISCO-EVA Information System, an innovative approach to the data management of multi-site crop evaluation data. Even evaluation data, though? That usually comes from genebank partners, not the genebanks themselves. Wouldn’t that be a problem?
- A case study on lentil to demonstrate the value of using historic data stored in genebanks to guide the selection of resources for research and development projects. Oh, you want an example why evaluation data should be included in (or linked to) genebank documentation systems?
- Indian cryogenebank conserving diverse plant genetic resources for the last three decades: Achievements and way forward. Is it certified, though?
- Share a Tiny Space of Your Freezer to Preserve Seed Diversity. Meanwhile, at the other end of the technology continuum…
- Applications of dry chain technology to maintain high seed viability in tropical climates. If your freezer is in the tropics, think about handling your seeds this way. And maybe you’ll get certified :)
- Insights from a century of data reveal global trends in ex situ living plant collections. Maybe botanic gardens should be certified too, presumably. Would it have made a difference? Actually, now I think of it, does this mean the system as a whole needs to be certified? Anyway, good thing the data were FAIRish.
- A framework for long-term environmental monitoring using living plant collections in botanic gardens: A global review and case study from Trinity College Botanic Garden. Another example of the benefits of FAIR evaluation data. And of botanical gardens.
- Sustainable high-yield farming is essential for bending the curve of biodiversity loss. And genebanks (and maybe botanical gardens too, why not?) are essential for sustainable high-yield farming. Certify that.
What have improved crop varieties ever done for us?
I seem to be doing little more these days that quoting Jeremy’s latest Eat This Newsletter. I was actually going to include the paper Adoption of improved crop varieties limited biodiversity losses, terrestrial carbon emissions, and cropland expansion in the tropics in a forthcoming Brainfood — and I may still do so, if I can think of a pithy way to summarize its import in a sentence. But in the meantime, luxuriate in Jeremy’s more expansive prose.
Improved Crop Varieties: Good in Parts
A paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences makes a strong case that, quite apart from producing more food, improved crop varieties have been A Good Thing. Using a new and more detailed model of global agriculture, researchers at Purdue University and USDA asked how improved crop varieties contributed to changes in land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity loss from 1961 to 2015.
“From 1961 to 2015, global crop output was higher by 226 million metric tons.” Is that a lot? Hard to know. I looked at quantity of cereals produced, as recorded by the FAO, and between 1961 and 2015 the “developing” world average (i.e. excluding North America, Europe, and Australia and New Zealand) is only 26 million tons a year, a total of about 56 billion tons over the period. So 226 million tons is about 0.4%. I’m sure I have something wrong.
“World cropland use was lower by 16.03 million hectares.” Total world cropland is of the order of 1.8 billion hectares, so about 0.9% less cropland used globally, thanks to improved crop varieties. Again, must be a mistake. Still, reduced conversion of other land to agriculture means less habitat loss and, perhaps, fewer extinctions.
“[A]round 1,043 threatened animal and plant species … globally were saved due to slower cropland expansion.” This is very tricky because we just don’t know how many plants and animals actually went extinct between 1961 and 2015; known unknowns and all that. Certainly a couple of thousand, so this may be a tenuous win.
“In total, global [land use change] emissions under the historical baseline are lower by 5.35 … billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent.” The IPCC estimates about 150–200 tons CO2 equivalent per hectare of deforestation, and FAO estimates about 500 million ha of deforestation from 1961 to 2015, for a total of 75–100 billion tons CO2 equivalent. As much as a 7.1% decrease in emissions thanks to reduced land coming into agriculture.
As you might have guessed, I’m not actually that impressed. Of course improved varieties have been really important in actually feeding people, and famine deaths as a result of crop failure are around a tenth of what they were in 1961. Good nutrition, however, remains out of reach for many, many people even in areas that have seen productivity increase hugely thanks to improved varieties.
A thousand or so plants and animals may have escaped extinction, but how many important farmer landraces are no longer available as a result of the spread of improved varieties?
I realise it is churlish to complain about the things the study didn’t look at, and I am happy to acknowledge that they are aware of the deficits:
“[O]ur study does not take into account the full set of environmental and health consequences that may accompany crop intensification resulting from adoption of improved crop varieties.”
Indeed. My conclusion, for what it is worth, is that while improved crop varieties have made a huge difference to people’s lives, it’s a bit of a stretch to claim, as one report did, that Crop innovation has delivered more food, land, & biodiversity without at least considering some of those other consequences. Still, read that rather than the paper if you just want unalloyed good news.
Brainfood: Micronutrients, Healthy Diet Basket, Meat alternatives, Chickpea polyphenols, African yam bean breeding, CC and nutrition, Biofortification, Mali diet diversity, Myanmar & Malawi agroforestry, African indigenous vegetables, Indian fruits
- Global estimation of dietary micronutrient inadequacies: a modelling analysis. Maybe 5 billion people don’t get enough micronutrients from their diets, absent fortification and supplementation.
- Global analysis reveals persistent shortfalls and regional differences in availability of foods needed for health. There’s enough food in the world, but not enough healthy foods. Those 5 billion people would probably agree.
- A multicriteria analysis of meat and milk alternatives from nutritional, health, environmental, and cost perspectives. Pulses would seem to be a good bet as healthy foods.
- Spanish chickpea gene-bank seeds (Cicer arietinum L.) offer an enhanced nutritional quality and polyphenol profile compared with commercial cultivars. Yeah, but some pulses are better than others.
- Selection criteria and yield stability in a large collection of African yam bean [Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst ex. A. Rich) Harms] accessions. Wait, abut about the nutritional content?
- Climate change and nutrition-associated diseases. We’re going to need a lot more healthy foods. I vote for African yam bean.
- Biofortification: Future Challenges for a Newly Emerging Technology to Improve Nutrition Security Sustainably. Biofortification is still not delivering enough more healthy foods. Will it ever? Jeremy available for comment.
- Do diverse crops or diverse market purchases matter more for women’s diet quality in farm households of Mali? Do both, of course. Jeremy nods sagely.
- The nexus between agroforestry landscapes and dietary diversity: insights from Myanmar’s Central Dry Zone. Do agroforestry too, while you’re at it.
- Trees on farms improve dietary quality in rural Malawi. No, really, agroforestry works.
- The effects of market-oriented farming on living standards, nutrition, and informal sharing arrangements of smallholder farmers: the case of African indigenous vegetables in Kenya. Well, at least incomes went up.
- Unveiling the bountiful treasures of India’s fruit genetic resources. Plenty of scope for putting more healthy foods on tables. Or more income in pockets. Who knows, with any luck, maybe both? But don’t forget the pulses and vegetables too.
Nibbles: Genebanks in South Africa, Ethiopia, Cherokee Nation, China, India, The Netherlands…
- South Africa ratifies the Plant Treaty. Hope its genebank goes from strength to strength.
- Ethiopia ratified a long time ago, and its genebank is going strong.
- Wouldn’t it be nice if the Cherokee Nation could ratify the Plant Treaty?
- Want to build a community genebank like the Cherokee Nation’s? Here’s a resource.
- China hasn’t ratified, but that hasn’t stopped it building genebanks.
- And using their contents, presumably.
- India has ratified, and is also building genebanks.
- The Netherlands ratified long ago, but I’m not sure if it has a water lentil (duckweed) collection, or if it does whether it’s in the Plant Treaty’s Multilateral System. But maybe it will, and it will be, soon. I hope so.
- The Dutch also have an animal genebank, BTW.
- Watermelons are not in the Plant Treaty’s Multilateral System, but maybe they should be.
- Neither is Trigonella, though many other temperate legume forages are, so who knows.