Posts

Posted on

Searching for Rose Honey

We have on occasion blogged about “European” crops (and indeed livestock) being grown far from home, and how that sometimes serves to save varieties that have, for whatever reason, been lost back in the old country. Here’s another example, courtesy of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and its newsletter.

Ci Zhong, a Tibetan-Naxi village nestled in the Upper Mekong Valley, is renowned for its Catholic Church, which was built by French missionaries in 1914 AD. The French brought the first grape vine to the valley at about the same time. Ci Zhong locals inherited the techniques of vineyard cultivation and wine making from the French and do not use synthetic fertilizers or pesticides in their fields. Today, they are still growing the grape variety, Rose Honey, brought by the French a century ago. This grape variety has already died out in the rest of the world, due to a disease that wiped out almost all grape plantations in Europe at the time. About 160 kilometres north along the valley, the Naxi people of Bamei village have also starting cultivating a variety of grapes — Cabernet Sauvignon.

I can’t be sure about the statement that Rose Honey is extinct (except for its foothold in the Upper Mekong, that is) but that’s certainly what the internet seems to think. And I could’t find it in the European Vitis Database or the Vitis International Variety Catalogue or the US collection. But who knows, maybe it survives in some Baja mission oasis or Cape homegarden? In the meantime, I wonder if the French are going to ask for repatriation.

Posted on

Featured: Diversity

Matthew parses “diversity,” as used by Secretary Vilsack:

I wasn’t there, but I have heard him speak about “diversity” several times before and he usually brings diversity up in the context of types (organic, conventional, biotech) and scales of farming systems. I’ve also heard him bring it up in terms of racial and gender diversity in farming.

So, probably NOT crop diversity? Seems a pity.

Posted on

How would you measure agricultural production?

Measuring agricultural productivity is easy, right? Kilogrammes per hectare and you’re done. But that’s almost the least interesting thing the land is producing, or so I thought. Then a tweet passed my way yesterday.

I saw that because someone I follow was, unsurprisingly, enthusiastic.

And despite myself, and despite the fact that I know that actual discussion is all but impossible over there, I tried to make a case for nutrition per hectare. Predictably, I guess, that ended up with a smug pat-on-the-head putdown that sent me whizzing to the channels under my control, ready to think a little more deeply about how to measure agricultural productivity.

If you’re an industrial farmer, growing grain to sell, then I guess kg per ha is a reasonable measure. You might even think kcal per ha a bit too fancy pants. And the less waste straw you have to deal with, the better. For a small-scale farmer, however, perhaps with a few animals to bed and feed, that straw is decidedly not waste. It is part of production. The weight of seed is important, but it isn’t the only thing.

Now go further, and imagine that you’re eating what the land produces. Maybe now kcal per ha makes a bit more sense, but only a bit more, and not only because it takes more than energy to sustain life. By that measure, half a hectare of beans and half a hectare of maize or wheat is probably less productive than a hectare of pure wheat. Cereals and pulses, however, make up for one another’s amino acid deficiencies, so the total nutrition that a person could derive from that half and half hectare is greater than from a pure hectare of either. Carve out some space in that hectare for a few rows of leafy greens and what have you, and the productivity of the land, measured as “nutrition” is even higher. Allow a few animals to process the “waste” and it is higher still.

Which is why I think nutrition per hectare is the best measure of agricultural production.

Calories are, of course, part of nutrition, but by no means the most important part over the long run. We have tables of recommended daily allowances for macronutrients like Calories (or their proxies) and for micronutrients. We could calculate nutrients per Calorie for different kinds of produce. We could even try to express productivity as the percentage of the RDA for all nutrients that would be provided by some area of land. We could do lots of things more sensible — and more difficult — than Calories per hectare.

p.s. I want to put a marker down here for a couple of things I know are important and that I am choosing to ignore for now. One is the inputs necessary to achieve the agricultural outputs. The other is the sustainability and variance of the production over time.