Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog

September 30, 2009

More from IIED on landraces and climate change

Jeremy took IIED researchers to task a few days ago over their antipathy to GURTs, as articulated in a recent press release. One of the researchers quoted in that release, Krystyna Swiderska, is now the subject of an interview. GURTs don’t come up, but Dr Swiderska is clearly not completely against GMOs in principle:

If GM crops were produced with the people who need them and who will plant them, and they are specifically addressing their needs, then maybe they can be helpful.

Her main concern is to safeguard the rights of farmers.

We need to recognize farmers’ rights to maintain genetic diversity. We also need to protect land rights, cultural and spiritual values, and customary laws. Traditional knowledge is dependent on genetic diversity and vice versa and those two are dependent on farmers having rights to land and plant varieties.

Asked if traditional farmers could feed rising populations in a warming world, she points out that “there are technologies based on traditional seed varieties that can increase yields.” These technologies mainly turn out to be participatory plant breeding. I would have liked to see more discussion of this topic.

I’ll try to follow up on some work on genetic erosion I was not aware of:

Our research on rice in India’s eastern Himalayas, on potatoes in the Peruvian Andes, and on maize in southwest China, found significant reductions of traditional varieties in the last 10 to 20 years. There used to be 30 to 40 varieties of a crop being planted but now there are maybe 5 to 10 varieties.

September 30, 2009September 30, 2009

Featured: Revisiting revisiting domestication

Karl Haro von Mogel has a better way to revisit domestication:

I wanted to point out that for shattering, the mutant is likely to be recessive. If you stuck a mutant allele into a normal plant you would likely get a normal plant. So I think what would work better is to make an RNAi construct using the shattering gene as the template, that way it would silence the genes involved and be a dominant trait.

September 28, 2009September 26, 2009

How do you improve child nutrition and livelihoods of rural families?

Sometimes it is hard to tell whether what seems like good news is indeed either good or news. So it is with a recent press release from Compatible Technology International, a non-profit based in St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. CTI is sharing a grant of US$673,000 from the McKnight Foundation with ICRISAT (The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics) and Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania. But what is the grant for?

A release from CTI points out that malnutrition is widespread in Malawi and Tanzania, the target countries, and that “the need is urgent to develop and harvest improved, nutritious foods using locally available crops such as groundnuts (commonly called peanuts)”.

Sounds like they may be planning to use “locally available crops” to deliver more diverse diets and thus better nutrition and health, music to my ears.

But how? And what kind of crops? There really isn’t much more in the release. Some guff about reducing post-harvest losses, a non-specific objective to “improve the nutrition of rural households, particularly children”, selling “groundnut-based food products” in local markets to raise incomes, and other good stuff, but, as the children of Malawi and Tanzania might say, no real meat.

CTI’s expertise seems to be “designing food and water technologies that are sustainable and appropriate to local cultures” and that too is surely a good thing, especially as one of the other objectives of the project is to “reduce the intense daily labor typically endured by women”. Maybe they’re just flogging peanut-butter machines., though I doubt it.

I realize I’m being overly negative here. But the headline on the release is Compatible Technology International Project to Enhance Child Nutrition and Livelihoods of Rural Families in Malawi and Tanzania. Ignore the first four words; most other readers will. I think I’m still entitled to ask just how they plan to do that, even of a simple press release. Please CTI, ICRISAT, Sokoine — anyone — enlighten us.

September 28, 2009September 28, 2009

Featured: More on “Conservation for a New Era”

Eve Emshwiller agrees with Nigel:

Thank you, Nigel, for highlighting the critical need to integrate biodiversity and agro-biodiversity conservation and the question of how to do that. It does indeed seem that the McNeely and Mainka publication provides little more than continued lip service (although admittedly that is better than ignoring the issue altogether).

Peter Matthews makes a plea for ‘biocultural diversity’:

Wild species that are related to cultivated crops (and wild plant varieties that are taxonomically placed within cultivated species) do fall into a hole between disciplines, exactly as Nigel states. But not only are they and their habitats and ecological associations neglected, so are the past and present relationships between people and those wild species and varieties.

Matthew Cawood talks integration:

Agreed, focusing on “agrobiodiversity” without considering “biodiversity” is to make the modern mistake of putting these two topics into separate intellectual silos. They are ultimately the same thing.

Read all the comments on IUCN’s “Conservation for a New Era” book and how it dealt with agrobiodiversity.

September 28, 2009September 28, 2009

Mapping livelihoods diversity in East Africa

As the world discusses desertification and worries about the drought in East Africa, it’s as well to remember that it is livestock keepers that bear the brunt of these problems. A recent paper in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment helps to quantify the size of the challenge. ¹

It uses environmental and livelihoods data to map the geographic distribution of different livestock-keeping strategies in East Africa. The authors — a team lead by FAO — conclude that:

…nearly 40% of all livestock in the IGAD region are kept in mixed farming areas, where they contribute to rural livelihoods in diverse ways, not least by enhancing crop production through manure and draught power and by providing additional indirect inputs to livelihoods that are seldom properly accounted for. Moreover, an estimated 50 million rural people in Eastern Africa — over a third of the rural population — live in areas where livestock predominate over crops as a source of income. Investment statistics would suggest that this fact often fails to be appreciated fully by governments, donors and policy makers.

The map itself will hopefully prove useful in guiding policy in the future, ² but I want to concentrate here on some of the analysis that having all these data in a GIS allowed. In particular, look at graphs of the prevalence of different livelihoods strategies plotted against human population density, and then length of growing period. ³A pastoral production system is where total household income from livestock (L) is 4 or more times greater than total household income from crops (C). An agro-pastoral system has a L/C ratio of 1-4. And in a mixed farming production system the income from crops exceeds that from livestock (L/C<1).[/efn_note]

It looks like areas with a human population density of 20-30 people per square kilometer and a growing season of about 150 days are the most diverse in terms of production systems. It would be interesting to know whether they are also most diverse at the species and genetic levels, for either crops or livestock. I suspect the necessary data weren’t collected in the livelihoods surveys that formed the basis of this study. Will no enterprising student go in and test the hypothesis?