- New NWFP Digest is out. Bamboo, bamboo and more bamboo. You all have subscribed, right?
- Your indigenous seeds will set you free. Not if you don’t have a breeding programme and decent seed companies they wont. Or not only.
- College students to evaluate hop varieties. What could possibly go wrong?
- “The IRRI is not involved in any projects on land acquisition for rice production, nor do we provide advice on land acquisition.”
- Agroforestry professor interviewed by Mongabay.
- Edwin Price vs Vandana Shiva on Borlaug on Oz radio. Let the games begin.
- Cool chimeric apple.
Indications of failure
A group of over 20 biodiversity experts from a slew of international conservation agencies have a paper out in Science bemoaning the state of the biodiversity indicators agreed in 2006. ((Walpole, M., Almond, R., Besancon, C., Butchart, S., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Carr, G., Collen, B., Collette, L., Davidson, N., Dulloo, E., Fazel, A., Galloway, J., Gill, M., Goverse, T., Hockings, M., Leaman, D., Morgan, D., Revenga, C., Rickwood, C., Schutyser, F., Simons, S., Stattersfield, A., Tyrrell, T., Vie, J., & Zimsky, M. (2009). Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond Science, 325 (5947), 1503-1504 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175466)) These indicators are important because they are supposed to be used to track progress towards fulfillment of the promise made by Parties under the Convention on Biological Diversity to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. They have also been incorporated into the Millennium Development Goals.
The authors point to problems with the “availability, consistency, and relevance” of data on even the indicators that are reasonably well-developed at the global scale. Some indicators — 5 of the 22 — “are not being developed at a global scale” at all, such as the one on access and benefit sharing. ((It occurs to me that, with the International Treaty in place, at least the agricultural biodiversity community has a pretty solid, ready-made indicator for ABS. But consider that “are not being developed” for a minute. Aren’t the authors’ organizations supposed to be leading the development of these indicators? What am I missing here? Is the paper a coded plea for less political interference?)) The next Conference of the Parties of the CBD (which meets in Japan in October 2010) “will review progress and agree on a new set of targets and a revised indicator framework.”
I hope one of the things it will consider in the new set of targets is crop genetic erosion. There are currently two indicators under the “Trends in genetic erosion” rubric, covering ex situ crop collections and livestock diversity respectively. Here’s what the indicators website has to say about the ex situ collections indicator:
Currently, studies are being undertaken to measure the dynamics of genetic diversity of collections from selected genebanks (EURISCO, USDA, SINGER, ICRISAT and CIAT), in order to develop a model to be applied more systematically worldwide. Based on data from these sources, the evolution over time in quantitative and qualitative terms (number of species; number of accessions/species; geographic origin and distribution of newly added accession versus existing ones) of collected samples was investigated.
I’m ashamed to say I know no more about it than that, but will try to find out the latest. Or maybe someone out there can bring us up to date. Anyway, there is no indicator that I can see on trend of genetic diversity in farmers’ fields, although there is one on sustainable management of agroecosystems.
We all know this is a fraught subject, not least politically, and we should perhaps be grateful that there is anything at all on agrobiodiversity among the indicators ((A tribute to our friends at Bioversity International and FAO, no doubt.)), but we cannot go on quoting at best anecdotal, at worst dubious, figures on loss of crop diversity and expect to be taken seriously. To say, as the authors of the Science paper do, that
…indicators of genetic biodiversity are slowly being compiled for domesticated and cultivated varieties but not yet for wild relatives.
is frankly not hugely reassuring.
Nibbles: Légumes oubliés, Mazes, Poultry, Business, Roquefort, Herb, Evolution, Benin, Egyptian pigs, New York food, Cabbage pest control, Cider making
- Francophones! Watch this. Report back.
- Geographers! Play with this. Global collection of crop mazes.
- Chicken fanciers and development officers! Read this (pdf). Increase assets, income and nutrition.
- Agro-business! Respond to this. Please.
- Cheese lovers! Watch this. Salivate.
- Chemists! Find out why Teucrium tastes like apple. Or is it that apple tastes like Teucrium?
- Females! Why are you horny?
- Farmers! Get information to adapt to climate change.
- Egyptian pig cull! Bad. No, good. No, bad…
- Brooklynites! Wallow in ethnic cuisine.
- Africans! Why bother with cabbage when you have so many much more interesting leafy greens?
- Scrumpers! Get thee to Eden!
Istanbul on the Rhine
Good news for sun-loving Germans. By 2071-2080 parts of their country are going to have the climate that parts of Greece have now. That’s according to a paper in Plant Ecology which ran a bunch of climate change models for Europe. ((Bergmann, J., Pompe, S., Ohlemüller, R., Freiberg, M., Klotz, S., & Kühn, I. (2009). The Iberian Peninsula as a potential source for the plant species pool in Germany under projected climate change. Plant Ecology. DOI: 10.1007/s11258-009-9664-6.)) Have a look at the money map.
On the left are today’s Germany-like climates in Europe. On the right is where Germany’s future climates can be found right now. Germany will basically have the climate that France has now, but with significant bits of Spain, Italy, Greece and even Turkey thrown in.
Not surprisingly, the authors go on to suggest that this will have consequences for the country’s flora. They calculate that up to 1300 Spanish and Portuguese plant species not currently growing in Germany could find climatic conditions there to their liking by 2071 (edaphic conditions and the biotic environment are another thing, of course). That would be quite a significant northeasterly migration. It would be interesting to know how many crop wild relatives that might include. It would be even more interesting to know what will happen to individual crops, the olive and grape, for instance.
Today’s young Germans might be able to enjoy Mediterranean holidays at home by the time they retire, with the diet to match, zero-food-miles olive oil included. Who said climate change was going to be all bad?
Unintended consequences of cacao breeding
I’ll be in Ecuador later this week, but alas nowhere near “the upriver area of the Guayas River Basin in the lowlands of southwestern Ecuador”. If I were, you know that I would be investigating arriba chocolate and beans with all the assets at my disposal. Instead I’m relying on a post at a very interesting artisanal chocolate blog, Destination Ecuador. ((Incidentally, one of the most visually challenging blogs I’ve seen in a long time; to see the text of links I have to ensure that the mouse is hovering inside the post, which turns the background grey, which makes the yellow text of the links almost visible, if I squint. Whatever their designer is using, I’ll have some.))
The problem seems to be that the Nacional bean — source of arriba chocolate — is susceptible to witches broom, and is being replaced by a variety called CCN-51, and “while a very good quality chocolate can be made from CCN-51, it requires different fermentation and post-harvest treatment from Nacional beans”. It also tastes different. Currently, however, there’s absolutely no incentive for growers or buyers to separate CCN-51 from Nacional. Arriba carries a price premium as chocolate, but the beans don’t, and as a result one could pay the premium for non-arriba chocolate. In other words, a rip-off.
The post is very informative about the forces that act on cacao biodiversity and marketing — and will make me look more carefully at any chocolate I do chance upon.