Brainfood: Nutrition sensitive ag, nLCA, Organic expansion, Cheese value, Ethiopia anemia, Women empowerment, Homegardens, Ultra-processed food industry, Cassava processing

Trees everywhere

Our friends at World Agroforestry (the centre formerly known as ICRAF) have been very busy with their data wrangling in support of policy recommendations. So much so, in fact, that it may be getting complicated for outsiders to keep all their information products straight, so here’s a quick recap.

Let’s start with the premise that we need more trees. I don’t think anyone disputes that. The problem, as has been repeated many times now, is to have the right trees in the right places. That starts with the right seeds, of course. In a recent paper, World Agroforestry scientists and partners suggest that what we need for that is more transparency (and accountability) about where those seeds will be coming from.

But which species should be sourced? That’s where GlobalUsefulNativeTrees comes in. As described in another recent paper, this has data on “14,014 tree species that can be filtered for ten major use categories, across 242 countries and territories.” So if you want to know what trees can be used as animal food in tropical montane Kenya, say, this will tell you. The answer is Prunus africana, by the way.

Ah, but you may be worried about how the trees you have selected to plant (or indeed have already been planted) will do under climate change. Fear not, World Agroforestry again has you covered with TreeGOER. That has data on the climatic preferences of 48,129 tree species, and their likely vulnerability as the climate changes. The results may well send you back to GlobalUsefulNativeTrees for a rethink.

Hope that clarifies the tree data landscape a bit. Looking forward to other use cases from readers.

LATER: Oh, and there’s also a climate change atlas.

Brainfood: Food security, Genebank risks, Climate-smartness, Improved veggies, Tree database, Potato disease, Seed system resilience treble, Community seedbanks, Varietal replacement, Kenyan maize diversity

What should the US do?

Good — and not very surprising — to see our friend Prof. Jess Fanzo recommend that “the U.S. should consider targeting additional research funding toward,” among other things, “crop diversity and nutrition.”

Low productivity, high production risks, and insufficient diversification towards producing more nutritious foods are critical drivers of the elevated cost of healthy diets, especially in low-income countries. More research should focus on developing sustainable and scalable production methods for various crops, including fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, improved forages for climate-smart animal nutrition, and where appropriate, biofortification and fortification of crops and food. In addition, more research is needed to improve the affordability of animal-source foods, such as fish, eggs, and dairy, that would enhance both nutrition and livelihoods.

Though actually probably most of the other five priority research areas she comes up with could also have had “crop diversity” added to the title. For the record, the full list is:

  1. Climate change adaptation and mitigation
  2. Soil health and nutrient management
  3. Crop diversity and nutrition
  4. Access to markets and finance, especially for women
  5. Supply chain infrastructure
  6. Local capacity building

It’s all in Jess’s report for the Farm Journal Foundation, entitled Building Stronger Food Systems in the Face of Global Shocks, which she summarizes on her must-read blog.

I learnt about it on Jeremy’s latest newsletter, which is also a must-read, natch.

Brainfood: Pre-Neolithic starch, Neolithic sheep, Maghreb Neolithic, Neolithic Europe, Neolithic transition, Macedonian Neolithic, Ancient Iranian crops, Early chickens, Pre-Columbian landscapes,