Ban or breed?

I’m not sure I was aware of the fact that grasspea (khesari dal, or Lathyrus sativus) was actually banned in parts of India due to its toxicity. Devinder Sharma, a food and trade policy analyst, thinks the ban should not be lifted, International Year of Pulses notwithstanding. Instead, alternative crops should be promoted, such as pigeonpea (arhar, or Cajanus cajan). It’s interesting that there’s no Indian grasspea in the genebanks that Genesys knows about (red), 1 in stark comparison to pigeonpea (blue).

dal

Lathyrism is a problem in situations where grasspea is pretty much the only thing you have to eat. In former times, when famines were more frequent, the ban probably made sense. But is this still the case? And in any case there’s also lots of research going on low-neurotoxin varieties. A ban is hardly likely to provide much of an incentive for such breeding work.

Markets everywhere

ResearchBlogging.orgTwo huge data analysis papers from CGIAR centres and assorted partners came out recently. As far as I can see, the work was done independently of each other, and the teams looked at distinct, though related, aspects of smallholder agriculture in Africa. But, intriguingly, the results pointed in the same direction.

The first paper 2 was led by Mark van Wijk, a scientist at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and looked at a “unique dataset covering land use and production data by more than 13,000 smallholder farm households in 93 sites in 17 countries across sub-Saharan Africa.” What determined the food security of these households? The second bit of research was led by Louise Sperling while working with the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). 3 She’s now a Senior Technical Adviser at Catholic Relief Services (CRS). The paper “examined some 10,000 seed transactions across five African countries and Haiti.” Where did smallholders get their seeds from?

The answer to both questions was: markets. You want seeds? You need the local market.

…farmers access 90.2% of their seed from informal systems with 50.9% of that deriving from local markets.

You want food security? You need the local market.

Farm households sell produce even when they do not produce enough food to be self-sufficient: 83% of the farm household sell part of their crop produce, and only 4% of the farmers do not sell anything of their crop or livestock produce. Thus, market access is crucial to ensure or improve the livelihoods of these families.

Very interesting in its own right, of course. And much more data of this sort are needed. But one does wonder how many more household-level datasets of this type are out there in CGIAR vaults that could inform each other’s analysis. Or indeed whether there might have been value added to gathering the seed and food security (and other?) data together in the first place.