Thanks to Christian Bunn for throwing some shade on the work underlying the map of putative changes in coffee suitability that I so blithely shared yesterday. Maps can be both pretty and also the result of suspect methodology, I guess.
Save our coffee!!!
The American Geographic Society had a very informative post about coffee prices on Facebook a few days back. I don’t really want to link to it, but I’m sure you can find it if you want. Anyway, here’s the text.
Coffee prices have hit a 50-year high due to a combination of rising costs of production, supply chain disruptions, and climate change–related declines in crop yields. Coffee plants are sensitive to changes in precipitation and temperature, and recent droughts in Brazil and Vietnam resulted in poor harvests. Coffee companies are passing on the extra costs to customers, with the average retail price of ground roast coffee increasing 15 percent in American cities in the past year and peaking at over $7 a pound. As climate change will continue to threaten coffee harvests in the years to come, projected to shrink the land available for coffee cultivation by half, prices are expected to keep rising.
They also helpfully link to three recent supporting articles in the NY Times, The Independent and on ABC News.
And they reproduce a map from a National Geographic article from a couple of years back.
Social media as it should be done.
And since we’re on the subject, there are some very cool resources on coffee diversity on the website of Christophe Montagnon, a renowned expert on the crop. For example, I really like this summary of the global history of arabica.
We’re going to need those resources — and indeed that diversity — if we want to keep drinking coffee.
Brainfood: Climate change & health, Cassava disease treble, Solanaceae disease, Parasitoid variation, Cucurbita diseases, Orange disease, Chestnut disease
- Climate change and nutrition-associated diseases. Climate change is going to be bad for human health. To help us cope with the heavier burden of disease, crops will need to be able to cope better with pests and diseases themselves…
- Genome-wide association study of cassava brown streak disease resistance in cassava germplasm conserved in South America. …and studying genebank collections will help us help them do just that…
- Candidate genes for field resistance to cassava brown streak disease revealed through the analysis of multiple data sources. …though that’s only the first step…
- Comparing fresh root yield and quality of certified and farmer-saved cassava seed. …to getting quality seeds into farmers’ fields.
- Breeding for resistance to bacterial wilt in Solanaceae crops: lessons learned and ways forward for Gboma eggplant (Solanum macrocarpon L.), a traditional African vegetable. You’ll want some disease-resistant vegetables to go with your disease-resistant cassava. And for that you need to understand genetic variation in both the crops and their pests.
- The influence of genetic variation on pre-oviposition processes for host-parasitoid co-evolution. And indeed in the enemies of the pests.
- Breeding and genetics of resistance to major diseases in Cucurbita—A review. Pumpkin and squash have plenty of pests and diseases, but also diversity.
- The Rediscovery of ‘Donaldson’ Sweet Orange, a Variety That Has Potential for Use in Orange Juice. Rummaging through that diversity can take time, but (s)he that seeketh findeth. And the game is worth the candle.
- Resumption of chestnut cultivation in Lombardy: starting from native genetic resources. Worth it indeed.
Brainfood: QMS, Seed viability, Genotyping, Taxonomy, FAIR data, Evaluation data, Lentil data, Indian cryobank, Home genebank, Dry chain, Botanical gardens, Environmental monitoring, Bending the curve
- Quality management in a genebank environment: Principles and experiences at the Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands (CGN). Do we need a certification system for genebanks? We do have the means to put one together.
- A pragmatic protocol for seed viability monitoring in ex situ plant genebanks. But will genebank certification allow much-needed flexibility?
- Genotyping Genebank Collections: Strategic Approaches and Considerations for Optimal Collection Management. Or will it make everyone genotype everything?
- Assigning Species Names to Ambiguous Populations in the US Potato Genebank. Oh, you want an example of why everyone should genotype everything?
- The FLAIR-GG federated network of FAIR germplasm data resources. For sure it should require data to be FAIR.
- The EURISCO-EVA Information System, an innovative approach to the data management of multi-site crop evaluation data. Even evaluation data, though? That usually comes from genebank partners, not the genebanks themselves. Wouldn’t that be a problem?
- A case study on lentil to demonstrate the value of using historic data stored in genebanks to guide the selection of resources for research and development projects. Oh, you want an example why evaluation data should be included in (or linked to) genebank documentation systems?
- Indian cryogenebank conserving diverse plant genetic resources for the last three decades: Achievements and way forward. Is it certified, though?
- Share a Tiny Space of Your Freezer to Preserve Seed Diversity. Meanwhile, at the other end of the technology continuum…
- Applications of dry chain technology to maintain high seed viability in tropical climates. If your freezer is in the tropics, think about handling your seeds this way. And maybe you’ll get certified :)
- Insights from a century of data reveal global trends in ex situ living plant collections. Maybe botanic gardens should be certified too, presumably. Would it have made a difference? Actually, now I think of it, does this mean the system as a whole needs to be certified? Anyway, good thing the data were FAIRish.
- A framework for long-term environmental monitoring using living plant collections in botanic gardens: A global review and case study from Trinity College Botanic Garden. Another example of the benefits of FAIR evaluation data. And of botanical gardens.
- Sustainable high-yield farming is essential for bending the curve of biodiversity loss. And genebanks (and maybe botanical gardens too, why not?) are essential for sustainable high-yield farming. Certify that.
What have improved crop varieties ever done for us?
I seem to be doing little more these days that quoting Jeremy’s latest Eat This Newsletter. I was actually going to include the paper Adoption of improved crop varieties limited biodiversity losses, terrestrial carbon emissions, and cropland expansion in the tropics in a forthcoming Brainfood — and I may still do so, if I can think of a pithy way to summarize its import in a sentence. But in the meantime, luxuriate in Jeremy’s more expansive prose.
Improved Crop Varieties: Good in Parts
A paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences makes a strong case that, quite apart from producing more food, improved crop varieties have been A Good Thing. Using a new and more detailed model of global agriculture, researchers at Purdue University and USDA asked how improved crop varieties contributed to changes in land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity loss from 1961 to 2015.
“From 1961 to 2015, global crop output was higher by 226 million metric tons.” Is that a lot? Hard to know. I looked at quantity of cereals produced, as recorded by the FAO, and between 1961 and 2015 the “developing” world average (i.e. excluding North America, Europe, and Australia and New Zealand) is only 26 million tons a year, a total of about 56 billion tons over the period. So 226 million tons is about 0.4%. I’m sure I have something wrong.
“World cropland use was lower by 16.03 million hectares.” Total world cropland is of the order of 1.8 billion hectares, so about 0.9% less cropland used globally, thanks to improved crop varieties. Again, must be a mistake. Still, reduced conversion of other land to agriculture means less habitat loss and, perhaps, fewer extinctions.
“[A]round 1,043 threatened animal and plant species … globally were saved due to slower cropland expansion.” This is very tricky because we just don’t know how many plants and animals actually went extinct between 1961 and 2015; known unknowns and all that. Certainly a couple of thousand, so this may be a tenuous win.
“In total, global [land use change] emissions under the historical baseline are lower by 5.35 … billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent.” The IPCC estimates about 150–200 tons CO2 equivalent per hectare of deforestation, and FAO estimates about 500 million ha of deforestation from 1961 to 2015, for a total of 75–100 billion tons CO2 equivalent. As much as a 7.1% decrease in emissions thanks to reduced land coming into agriculture.
As you might have guessed, I’m not actually that impressed. Of course improved varieties have been really important in actually feeding people, and famine deaths as a result of crop failure are around a tenth of what they were in 1961. Good nutrition, however, remains out of reach for many, many people even in areas that have seen productivity increase hugely thanks to improved varieties.
A thousand or so plants and animals may have escaped extinction, but how many important farmer landraces are no longer available as a result of the spread of improved varieties?
I realise it is churlish to complain about the things the study didn’t look at, and I am happy to acknowledge that they are aware of the deficits:
“[O]ur study does not take into account the full set of environmental and health consequences that may accompany crop intensification resulting from adoption of improved crop varieties.”
Indeed. My conclusion, for what it is worth, is that while improved crop varieties have made a huge difference to people’s lives, it’s a bit of a stretch to claim, as one report did, that Crop innovation has delivered more food, land, & biodiversity without at least considering some of those other consequences. Still, read that rather than the paper if you just want unalloyed good news.