Heart-stopping coincidence

An interesting blog post by Amelia Hanslow, ostensibly about fat-tailed sheep, introduced me to a novel form of butchery.

The reputation of Genghis [Khan’s] army was that they shed the blood of humans more readily than they did of sheep. Now, here’s the interesting bit: that’s true, because traditional slaughter of sheep involved (and still does in Central Asia) making a small incision in the sheep’s chest, and reaching in to stop the heart with your hand (or pinch the aorta more specifically). Ideally, no blood is shed on the ground so that it is all saved for food.

Now admittedly I was in an impressionable state, having just enjoyed the rare treat of an episode of Game of Thrones, but this struck me as further confirmation that the Dothraki are essentially a Mongol horde. Anyway, it became necessary for me to suggest this sheep-slaughtering technique to Luigi, who promptly informed me that it is called khoj özeeri. And, just as “there is no word for thank-you in Dothraki” (sic), so too there is obviously no word in English for khoj özeeri. Perhaps there should be. Here’s what Luigi’s source has to say on the subject:

If slaughtering livestock can be seen as part of humans’ closeness to animals, khoj özeeri represents an unusually intimate version. Reaching through an incision in the sheep’s hide, the slaughterer severs a vital artery with his fingers, allowing the animal to quickly slip away without alarm, so peacefully that one must check its eyes to see if it is dead. In the language of the Tuvan people, khoj özeeri means not only slaughter but also kindness, humaneness, a ceremony by which a family can kill, skin, and butcher a sheep, salting its hide and preparing its meat and making sausage with the saved blood and cleansed entrails so neatly that the whole thing can be accomplished in two hours (as the Mongushes did this morning) in one’s good clothes without spilling a drop of blood. Khoj özeeri implies a relationship to animals that is also a measure of a people’s character. As one of the students explained, “If a Tuvan killed an animal the way they do in other places”—by means of a gun or knife—“they’d be arrested for brutality.”

Two points.

Do we, in English, have any way of differentiating a “good” slaughter from a bad one? I can’t think of one.

And isn’t it amazing, how one’s mind latches onto the strangest things, allowing the internet to extend one’s memory?

All hail another all-encompassing database

NERC, which is the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council has a Knowledge Exchange Programme on Sustainable Food Production, which

aims to enhance the use of science in making UK food production systems more environmentally sustainable. Sustainable food production makes efficient use of natural resources and does not degrade the environmental systems that underpin it.

Great. NERC is summarising scientific research about how to make food production more sustainable. Naturally we went straight there and plugged “biodiversity” into the search engine. Up came the result. Yup, just the one. How to rear bumblebees in captivity. To be fair, the advice is based on 22 trials from 13 countries, and is pretty comprehensive. And bumblebees are important. It’s just that, to be honest, I expected more.

P.S.
While we’re on the subject of all-encompassing databases, SINGER is no longer. Go there, and you’ll see this message:

Bioversity is pleased to inform the users of the SINGER web site, that starting today, it will no longer exist and this page will automatically lead you to the new Plant Genetic Resource Gateway: GENESYS that currently compiles the data from SINGER, EURISCO and GRIN.

“Pleased”? Really?

We’ve been asked “to fix any links to SINGER in any web sites you are managing, preferrably replacing the SINGER logo with the GENESYS logo, and a direct link to GENESYS”. But you know what? Life’s too short. If you should find a link to SINGER that doesn’t work, let us know and we’ll try to do something about it, if there’s anything to be done.

Bread wheat genome rises

It’s a good day for cereal genomes. Nature offers both bread wheat and barley, and they’re both open access. That’s great; you can read them yourself and draw your own conclusions. Nature’s commentary on the matter, however, will set you back $18, which seems fair enough. The crucial points are:

  • The wheat genome is huge — three sets of chromosomes derived from three different ancestors — and complex. So this isn’t actually a complete sequence.
  • It is, however, a great scaffold on which to build a more detailed sequence, using additional techniques.
  • The sequence has already revealed that members of some gene families have been lost since the ancestral hybridisation, while others, notably those involved in specific areas of plant metabolism and growth, have expanded.
  • The best wheat yields can exceed 12 tonnes per hectare; the global average is more like 2 t/ha, and that is likely to be undermined by climate change. Will the genome help breeding efforts? Some people clearly hope so.

Barley was a relatively simple challenge, just one set of chromosomes, and smallish ones at that. And barley is already much more tolerant of physical stresses than many other cereals. So rather than looking to the genome for help in breeding better barley (though that is surely on the cards) researchers ask how barley’s genes help it to be so tolerant, and then use the answers to improve other cereals.

Brainfood: Pig genome, Turkey genome, Big genomes, Maize genome, Potato improvement, Mango diversity, Coconut germination