- First Law of Geography valid after all.
- Multiple domestication of the horse in China.
- The Atlantic has a weird food map. What does it mean? Answers on a postcard, please.
- IITA tells farmers about its core collections, among other things.
- Bhutan and Thailand collaborate on agrobiodiversity conservation.
- Details of Tom Wagner’s European Tour. He’s the amateur breeders’ breeder.
- Tomatoes thrive on urine diet. Not a piss-take.
Malawi on the front line
Criticism of the Gates Foundation’s attempt to re-create the Green Revolution in Africa is not uncommon in some circles, and it will be interesting — if probably not particularly edifying — to see how those circles will parse Norman Borlaug’s legacy now that he’s gone. But the recent article in The Nation, although mostly predictable, is actually more balanced than most. After a description of some of the unintended consequences of the first Green Revolution, the authors admit that these are acknowledged by the Gates Foundation, and also that “[s]ome of the changes made possible by Gates’s funding are welcome.”
The architects of Africa’s new Green Revolution at the Gates Foundation are sensitive to these flaws. In an interview, Roy Steiner, deputy director of agricultural development, was well versed in the history, emphasizing that the Gates Foundation’s agricultural priorities are directed at small farmers (known as “smallholders”) and women. The past offered some salutary lessons, he said, because “if you look at the depletion of water tables and the overuse of fertilizer, a lot of that has to do with very poor policy choices. It pushed a certain mode of agriculture that we know now was an overuse.”
My main comment about all this is one I’ve already made, and that is that it does nobody any good to present the (bio)technology vs “ecological agriculture” debate as a zero-sum, winner-take-all game. Both paradigms have a role to play, they are not mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as “the African farmer,” or even “the African smallholder” for that matter. There are millions of African smallholders, all different, and what they need are options, and lots of them.
But what I specifically wanted to flag about the article in The Nation is its section on Malawi. We talked about the Malawi fertilizer subsidy before, and it has become a sort of “poster child.” Its apparent success is of course mentioned in the article, but so are various critical reactions to it. The point is that Malawi seems to be emerging as a fertile testing ground for the blending — or at least the co-existence — of different kinds of approaches to agricultural development. There was another article recently which brought this home for me. It includes an interesting quote from Amos Tizora, executive director of a Malawian NGO called Circle for Integrated Community Development (CICOD):
“As much as farmers are encouraged to grow hybrid crop varieties due to environmental challenges, they are also encouraged to complement these with indigenous varieties which have high nutrition value, long storage period and can easily be managed by low income farmers.”
Why don’t we get more such public recognition, by everyone involved, of the complementary nature of what are all too often seen as competing visions of the future of African agriculture(s)?
Nibbles: Chickens, Peppers, Treaty, Breadfruit, Preservation, Food systems, Adaptation, Yam multiplication
- Naked necked chicken in music video shock.
- Piment d’Espalette. Jeremy asks “What’s the big deal, really?”
- The ITPGRFA on CNN.
- Fiji to set up breadfruit genebank.
- Lacto-fermenting your eggplant and chrysanthemum petals.
- More on FAO’s Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems book.
- “Where farming communities have been able to maintain their traditional varieties, they are already using them to cope with the impacts of climate change.”
- Yam Minisett Technology pushed.
Nibbles: Svalbard, Consumers, Seed law, Fragrant rice, Five Farms on radio, Invasive plant used, Genetic diversity and latitude, Coffee and tea in history, Coconut disease
- “Sustainable food production may not begin in this cold Arctic environment, but it does begin by conserving crop diversity.” Words of wisdom from the frozen lips of Ban Ki Moon.
- Organic vs local. A survey.
- Civil Society opposes seed laws in Chile.
- Jeremy gets stuck into a bowl of basmati and Five Farms.
- “Pest to pesto.”
- Tropical fruit flies have less genetic diversity than temperate fruit flies, may have trouble adapting to climate change.
- “It is difficult to imagine what the first taste of sugar or coffee must have been like to those accustomed to weak beer and bread.”
- Lethal yellowing spreads in Ghana?
Chinese interdependence
A paper just out in Agricultural Science in China reminded me that I wanted to say something about one of the great meta-narratives of plant genetic resources: interdependence — the old no-country-is-self-sufficient-in-PGR mantra. Which, unlike some other meta-narratives, is generally recognized as being true — witness the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). And that despite the fact that measuring interdependence is not by any means easy, and has not often been done.
The paper which caught my eye is not really primarily about interdependence. ((ZHAO, Y., Ofori, A., & LU, C. (2009). Genetic diversity of European and Chinese oilseed Brassica rapa cultivars from different breeding periods. Agricultural Sciences in China 8(8):931-938. DOI: 10.1016/S1671-2927(08)60297-7.)) It just shows that cultivars of winter oilseed rape (canola) from China are very distinct from European ones, on the basis of molecular markers. Which presumably means that yield gains could be had from cross-breeding between the two groups. Which does say something about interdependence, but not very forcefully.
However, that paper reminded me about two others that a colleague had recently sent me, along with the thought that they should be enough, in a perfect world, for China to ratify the ITPGRFA.
The first is about soybean. ((Qin, J., Chen, W., Guan, R., Jiang, C., Li, Y., Fu, Y., Liu, Z., Zhang, M., Chang, R., & Qiu, L. (2006). Genetic contribution of foreign germplasm to elite Chinese soybean (Glycine max) cultivars revealed by SSR markers. Chinese Science Bulletin, 51(9):1078-1084. DOI: 10.1007/s11434-006-1078-4)) It shows, using molecular markers again, that a couple of elite Chinese cultivars benefited greatly, in terms of both specific traits but also their difference from previous Chinese cultivars (that is, the genetic base of the crop as a whole was broadened) from the fact that US and Japanese germplasm was involved in their development, rather than just Chinese stuff.
The second paper makes the interdependence point even more strongly by quantifying the contribution of foreign maize germplasm to production in China, rather than just genetic diversity. ((LI, H., HU, R., & ZHANG, S. (2006). The Impact of US and CGIAR Germplasm on Maize Production in China. Agricultural Sciences in China, 5(8):563-571. DOI: 10.1016/S1671-2927(06)60093-X.)) It turns out that a 1% contribution by US material (based on the coefficient of parentage) translates to an additional 0.01 t/ha (0.2%), and a 1% contribution by CIMMYT germplasm to an additional 0.025 t/ha.
The conclusion: “The extensive utilization of US and CG germplasm improved maize yield potential in China… The government should provide funds to support research on germplasm introduction…” And, we could add, it should ratify the ITPGRFA. No country is self-sufficient in PGRFA. Not even the largest.