- Some heirloom tomatoes resist late blight, others not so much.
- Overweight or obese Americans at 68%, and holding steady. No epidemic, say free-thinkers.
- “No wonder kids are gaining weight.” But they aren’t, see above. (Where’s that sarc-mark when you need it?)
- Hydroelectric scheme to save Ifugao rice terraces, cut carbon emissions. W-w-w?
- Climate Change and Agrobiodiversity updates us on hot policy news. Thanks.
- IFAP updates its farmers on agricultural biodiversity. Thanks again.
- Small oats genebank evaluations make big progress with young crofters.
- Yam festivities in the Philippines.
- Psst, you want drought insurance for your camel herd? Oh, and Jeremy wants to know why this IFPRI stuff didn’t find its way into the story.
- “The ability to roam freely enables people and animals to exploit or avoid a wide range of natural and manmade habitats.” Still no cure for cancer.
- Barley helps wheat. But how, exactly? I think we should be told.
- Fiji sets up breadfruit genebank Which will hopefully help local agricultural entrepreneurs.
- Anastasia on introgression. At length.
- The biggest urban farm in Europe.
- A bite of Cheese(monger).
- Coconuts bad for birds bad for soil bad for plants bad for crabs. Ok then, let’s cut the damn things down, shall we?
- Cockney cuisine takes a turn for the worse. Well would you Adam and Eve it?
- Egyptian cat temple pix. Miaow.
- “…the first biofuel crop breeding programs for low-input systems are likely to accelerate progress by focusing on grass–legume bicultures.”
- And another from the Land Institute: “…harvested perennial
grasslands provide valuable ecological benchmarks for agricultural sustainability.”
Nibbles: Old lentil, Cassava pests, Gates the reconciler, Gardeners
- 4000 year old lentil sprouts.
- It looks bad for cassava in SE Asia.
- Bill Gates speaks out on sustainability and productivity.
- “Gardeners must unite to save Britain’s wildlife.” We say: what about Britain’s landraces?
Nibbles: Pastoralists, Millennium Village, African agriculture
- “The film showcases Bio-Cultural Protocols highlighting the Raika community of Rajasthan and the Samburu of Kenya. Developing Biocultural Protocols is an important means of implementing both paragraph 8j of the CBD and Strategic Priority 6 of the Global Plan of Action on Animal Genetic Resources.”
- How Ethiopia’s Millennium Village is doing.
- And along the same lines, what Pedro Sanchez has to say about African agriculture and that green revolution nit needs to have.
Life’s not fair — so fight
Over at Olives and Artichokes, news of dastardly doings on the internet. A large commercial seed company “has bought the rights to the name” of “an organisation pledged to maintaining plant diversity”. The entities are Baumaux seeds and Association Kokopelli, long-time sparring partners. Search for “Kokopelli,” and “the first item to appear is one of the Bamaux [sic] strains of tomato seeds”.
I pointed out that this wasn’t actually misuse or impersonation, but a legitimate use of Google advertising. Underhand, maybe, but if Baumaux is prepared to pay for the privilege of making sure that Google Ads delivers its particular tomatoes as a clearly identified paid-for link, and only on google.fr, so what? Furthermore, on the search I conducted not 10 minutes ago, every single unpaid link does relate to the Association Kokopelli, which is some pretty strong Goo-fu.
The response:
[I]t’s not fair and is typical of what big business does to small ethical organisations. The big seed companies are determined to squash Kokopelli because of its principles and its determination to produce a diverse range of seeds rather than a smaller commercially lucrative one. This is part of that campaign. Whether you agree with it or not depends on whether or not you support ruthless capitalism.
Predictable enough. But rather than whinge “‘snot fair,” like my little sister used to do, why not turn ruthless capitalism in on itself? I don’t have a very clear understanding of how Google Ads work, but I think there are two things of interest, one more so than the other. First, I believe that a company bids for the space. Someone else could outbid Baumaux, and then their ad — which for all I know might be allowed to trash Baumaux — would appear instead. Probably too expensive. Secondly, and this might be more interesting, I think it is the case that the company doing the advertising pays only when someone clicks on the ad, and does so whether the click results in business or not. So if all Association Kokopelli’s supporters were to click on any ad they see for Baumaux, it would cost Baumaux money. How much? No idea. But surely more satisfying than just whinging.
A final point. The ad that appears is actually for Baumaux’s collection of tomato varieties that they package under the name Kokopelli; they have registered the name. Now that really is underhand. I can’t fully understand this lawyer’s post on the subject. Nevertheless, I hope this aspect of the saga will be taken up and fought. Baumaux clearly can’t make a living honourably, their original claim against Kokopelli made that clear. Stealing your enemy’s name and product smacks of desperation.
It may seem like a small spat, but Baumaux’s dastardlyness really does deserve more attention that it has had so far.
Genetic Engineering discussion continues
Ewan R takes up the cudgels on genetic engineering:
If the western world would invest 1/100th of the amount it blows on new methods of killing people into transgenics developed by the public sector for specific small scale problems the world would likely be a far better place (and the requirement for the other 99/100ths of that arms budget would also probably fall off dramatically)
Not sure why he singles out the western world, but let that slide. To which James responds:
As I see it corporate research is a separate pot of money. If it doesn’t get spent on genetic engineering it’ll get spent on marker assisted breeding for similar traits in similar crops. If for some reason it couldn’t be spent on crop improvement at all, it’d probably be spent on… I don’t know… advertising. … [M]oney spent in commercial research isn’t at the expense of humanitarian projects so it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) begrudged. (And when/if nitrogen use efficiency and drought resistant traits make it to market they’ll be worth every penny of that price tag.)
Which neatly encapsulates several of the ideas swirling around. Ewan is probably right that 1% of the “death” budget would improve life for billions of people. And James is right that the many pots of money simply aren’t fungible. What strikes me is that these kinds of points are discussed at our level, but the high-ups just don’t seem interested. In my naiveté I’d have thought that world leaders, business titans and gung-ho philanthropists would be more interested in finding out whether different approaches to their concerns might in fact be worthwhile. I guess they have more important things to think about.