We are looking for stories that analyse how underutilised crops have been revalued. We seek examples of communities that continued growing and processing them contrary to dominant trends. What were the successful strategies and the challenges to reviving the knowledge and the use of the underutilised crop? How did production, processing and preparation of food change? What role did markets, policy, research or local food and farmers’ movements play? What changes did this bring to rural and urban communities? What was the role of youth?
Nibbles: Value edition
- Peru to give value to its biodiversity.
- Germany already has, 500 years ago.
- Cavendish bananas have a lot of value, but that won’t save them.
- The UK’s vegetables genebank is very valuable.
- But you can always add more value to genebank collections if you evaluate them, like IRRI’s going to do in an expensive new building.
- I’m not sure what the value of Gold Rush-era heritage trees might be, but I think it’s really cool that someone’s looking for them.
- The value of genetic engineering for drought tolerance is just around the corner.
Genebanks are valuable, even without climate change
As agriculture adapts to climate change, crop genetic resources can be used to develop new plant varieties that are more tolerant of changing environmental conditions. Crop genetic resources (or germplasm) consist of seeds, plants, or plant parts that can be used in crop breeding, research, or conservation. The public sector plays an important role in collecting, conserving, and distributing crop genetic resources because private-sector incentives for crucial parts of these activities are limited. The U.S. National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) is the primary network that manages publicly held crop germplasm in the United States. Since 2003, demand for crop genetic resources from the NPGS has increased rapidly even as the NPGS budget has declined in real dollars. By way of comparison, the NPGS budget of approximately $47 million in 2012 was well under one-half of 1 percent of the U.S. seed market (measured as the value of farmers’ purchased seed) which exceeded $20 billion for the same year.
Couldn’t have put it better myself, though admittedly I’m more likely to have done it for the CGIAR genebanks than for the NPGS. The diagram, and the sentiment, derive from a USDA publication that came out back in April: Using Crop Genetic Resources to Help Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change: Economics and Policy. We did blog about it at the time, but USDA seem to be plugging it again, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t too.
Nibbles: Youthful ideas, IK, Variety testing, GMO philosophy, Organic GMOs, Oline disease, Cacao doctors, US wheat, Cary Fowler, Bison renaissance, UCDavis, Andean grains, Alaskan ag, Lettuce latex, Collecting strategies, Pulses racing, Huitlacoche, Ecoagriculture, Bowel movement
- Australian yoofs make suggestions for a better agriculture. Not as bad as you might think.
- Emulate, don’t imitate, desert dwellers.
- Webinar on variety trialing.
- A philosopher tackles GMO labelling. Not many people hurt.
- Meanwhile, Pamela Ronald is trying to find a middle way.
- This Italian olive disease thing is getting worrying.
- Indonesians have their own problems with cacao, but at least they seem to be fixing them.
- And the US is gonna have trouble with wheat. The solution: plant maize? No, wait…
- The European bison is back!
- A decade of Plant Sciences at UCDavis.
- Call for more breeding of Andean grains. By an Andean grain breeder.
- “It might not be the Fertile Crescent when it comes to corn and potatoes, but south-central Alaska just might be the cradle of the coming Rhodiola renaissance.”
- Rubbery lettuce? Shhh, or everybody will want some.
- Can’t collect seed at random throughtout a population? Collect more!
- Yeah, yeah, it’s the International Year of Pulses, we get it.
- The Mexican truffle?
- Ecofarming pays. In Kenya. In 2014.
- Sometimes crop wild relatives are a real pain in the ass.
The rough value of genebanks
In 2012, The NPGS [the US National Plant Germplasm System] budget was approximately $47 million. Funding for the NPGS has been relatively stagnant over time. In real terms, agency funding peaked in 2003, at approximately $53 million in 2012 dollars (fig. 1). While direct comparisons between costs of a genebank and its benefits are not possible, ((Emphasis added.)) for context, we note that U.S. farmers paid $20.3 billion for seed in 2012 (USDA\National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2013). Thus, the costs of public ex situ plant conservation in the United States are a small fraction—under half of 1 percent—of the value of the eventual seed market. At the same time that budgets have decreased, demand for NPGS germplasm has reached historic highs (fig. 2).
Gotta love it when economists give up on quantitative data, and settle for qualitative comparisons.
When compared to the rather large benefits of genetic enhancement, the costs of genebank operation appear relatively small.
But do read the whole of USDA’s Using Crop Genetic Resources To Help Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change: Economics and Policy by Paul W. Heisey and Kelly Day Rubenstein. There is some data in there, and that perennial fall-back of economists, a model. The main findings, if you just want to just skip to the bottom line, were that genebanks are worth it, but that better data and some pre-breeding would help.