Agricultural diversity improves health

Here’s a turn-up for the books. A newspaper article headlined New farming practices grow healthier children actually delivers some specifics.

The article reports on a project called Soils, Food and Healthy Communities, a joint effort by Canada and Malawi, and I’m ashamed to say (or can I blame the project’s communications?) that I knew nothing about it.

The evidence of healthier children?

Ten years ago Joyce Mhoni, head of the Nutrition Rehabilitation Unit at Ekwendeni Hospital in the Mzimba district of northern Malawi, would have been caring for to up to 30 severely malnourished children at a time. Today, at the peak of the usually lean months between December and April, when farmers are waiting to harvest, the unit is empty, and in the whole of 2010 only 15 children were admitted, mostly from outside the hospital’s catchment area.

I know, it’s only anecdotal, but be patient. There’s lots more in the article, which explains that the changes stem from the SFHC project’s decision, around 2000, to open an Agricultural Office at the hospital.

[T]he project’s staff taught farmers how to grow different varieties of legumes such as soy beans, peanuts, and peas. They were encouraged to grow a deep-rooted variety of legume, such as pigeon pea, in the same field as a shallow-rooted variety like soy bean, a method known as inter-cropping.

Soy bean is high-yielding and a nutritious food source, while pigeon pea produces a large amount of leaves that can be dug into the soil to make an effective natural fertilizer.

Pigeon pea is also rather good to eat, but leave that aside. There’s lots more lovely human interest stuff in the article, and another one at the BBC, about the project’s profound impact on families: new houses, school fees, better health, a life without hunger. At which point, of course, the hard-to-please scientist asks for solid evidence in a peer-reviewed journal. Will this do?

There was an improvement over initial conditions of up to 0.6 in weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ; from -0.4 (SD 0.5) to 0.3 (SD 0.4[/efn_note] for children in the longest involved villages, and an improvement over initial conditions of 0.8 in WAZ for children in the most intensely involved villages (from -0.6 (SD 0.4) to 0.2 (SD 0.4[/efn_note].

And there’s more where that come from, which is here: Effects of a participatory agriculture and nutrition education project on child growth in northern Malawi. 1

I wonder whether SFHC has considered going large and promoting other forms of agricultural and dietary diversity?

Brainfood: Brazil nut, Cassava relatives, Botanic gardens, Pollinators, OECD, IPM, Community genetics, Insect resistance, Marco Polo sheep, Abiotic stresses, Better climate change modelling

Different genebanks, different roles

I feel a little more needs to be said about the video I nibbled earlier about the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) genebank, in particular in light of the questions that were asked at the recent To Serve and Conserve conference about the relative roles of national and international genebanks. Here’s the video again:

I don’t speak Tagalog, but some things are pretty obvious. If you go to 1:57, for example, you get the following shot:

Fortunately, Genesys knows about this IRGC 44503. 2 It’s an IRRI accession, as the IRGC prefix implies:

Now, I understand the need for safety duplication. But for proper safety you’d want it to happen in another country, another continent preferably, and the IRRI and PhilRice are both in the Philippines, although on different islands. 3 I can also understand that PhilRice might want a sample of IRGC 44503 to hand for research or whatever. But that looks like a seed sample going into long-term storage, and IRRI is not that far. And I understand there’s a measure of historical contingency involved. But things are different now. There’s Svalbard. And there’s the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. So is it really necessary for PhilRice to do long-term storage of an IRRI accession? Couldn’t they leave that to, well, IRRI? It’s not as if they don’t collaborate all the time.

Does it matter? Does it really matter if some rice accessions are kept in long-term stores in several place? Well, for a start it’s not some rice accessions, but many. And not just rice, but many crops. Maybe only about 20% of the world’s 7.2 million accessions are unique, some of those are not duplicated at all, others many times. If you’re trying to work out how much it would cost to conserve, safety duplicate and make available forever that 20%, rather than the full 7.2 million, it most certainly does matter.