Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Wrapping up with AVRDC: A recap of the last week

June 26, 2013

I spent three more days at AVRDC: one with the post-harvest team, another with the breeder, and the last with the manager of the gene bank.  On Monday, I spent the day with the post-harvest specialist at AVRDC.  He explained that they are currently working on a collaborative project with Dr. Lisa Kitinoja, from UC Davis, which promotes postharvest technologies for small holder farmers.  Apparently, many postharvest coursework and academic disciplines have been shut down because of budget cuts, so she has developed an online training course for regional trainers and extension departments.  The goal is to train small holder farmers who don’t have access to new information and for regional trainers to become qualified and then train small holder farmers locally.  He informed me that upwards of 90% of farmers are likely small-scale and have issues sourcing equipment.  However, a few larger-scale commercial farms in plantation settings (e.g. flower exporters) do exist, which are high end operations and have a high level of investment and technology available to them. 

I also got a chance to meet with two of the research assistant in the post-harvest department.  We talked about food safety and its relationship to vegetables, including physical, chemical, and biological hazards.  Apparently, as of recently, the FAO & WHO are considering nutrition as an aspect of food safety...interesting!  Moreover, chemical technologies have been used to increase food safety and maintain nutrition (chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, electrolyzed water, sand filtration etc.).  We talked about the organic movement and he said that generally, exporting operations are the ones who may uphold organic practices to increase sales, through product differentiation.  In contrast, small holder farmers have been using agrochemicals for some time now and aren’t as incentivized to farm organically.  However, more often than not, there isn’t the sufficient money to purchase pesticides, which are relatively expensive, though widely available in many places, especially around Arusha.  And because farmers want to increase their yield in order to generate more income, organic may not be a priority in the same way it is valued in the U.S.  I was also informed that relatively few Tanzanians are aware of food safety and nutrition, so there is little consumer demand for organic, chemical-free food.  Eager to help out and contribute to anything at all, I was able to provide feedback/comments on 5 studies/trials that the post-harvest research team is currently devising – these studies were: 1) evaluating packing crates for tomato transportation 2) evaluating the use of icepacks to reduce the deterioration of leafy vegetables during transport 3) testing ZECC efficiency 4) Cool bot efficacy and 5) solar dryer efficiency. 

I spent the following day with AVRDC’s vegetable breeder, whose son will be enrolling in Stanford undergrad for engineering in the fall.  Naturally, we were able to bond over this, as my boyfriend Jack will be starting his master’s in Environmental Engineering at Stanford this fall as well.  I was able to testify as to how brilliantly gorgeous the campus is and how his son is going to love California.  As I may have said in an earlier post, AVRDC heavily values indigenous African vegetables, which include: spider plant, African eggplant, vegetable cowpea, Ethiopian mustard, amaranth, African nightshade, okra, and bitter gourd.  Whereas exotic vegetables include: tomatoes, peppers, and onions.  The breeder explained how breeding involves genetic enhancement and varietal development, and the vegetable value chain is as follows:

Germplasm conservation --> germplasm development  --> germplasm utilization  --> seed  --> vegetable production (including tech. support)  --> postharvest handling  --> markets  --> consumption and nutrition

Among many things I’ve learned at AVRDC, it’s that the vegetable industry can be complex, more complex than I had originally conceived.  Moreover, he delineated between the two types of plant breeding processes: conventional (in which the breeder develops the germplasm, selects, evaluates, and releases it with farmers coming after the release stage, during the demonstration) and Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) (a process of development, screening, evaluation, and release in which you invite the farmers to make the decision).  They will decide based on plant maturation within a given time period, productivity, composition, resistance to pests and diseases, quality (taste, color, size etc.).  Furthermore, there are two types of PPB: centralized, which is conducted onsite at the research facility, and decentralized, where selection occurs in the target environment with the ongoing involvement of the target users.  DPPB seems ideal as farmers can participate in land preparation, weeding, etc., and it is generally believed to be more accurate with higher rates of successful adaptation.  However, DPPB can become expensive because of frequent travel to the site and compensation for the land usage, which may not be sustainable over the long term.  He explained some of AVRDC’s achievements in breeding and compared the two types of varieties (open pollinated and hybrid).  He explicated the various linkages in the value chain and how AVRDC values connections among actors, as this is the only way to ensure that technology is disseminated and adopted by users, justifying initial investment.  These partners include: national agricultural research and extension systems, private seed companies, public seed enterprises, processing industries, regional and international research and development institutions, NGO development organizations, farmers and community groups, donor/aid organizations, advanced research institutions, and students.

The breeder also raised the question of: “With the number of mouth to feed increasing and the number of people working in agriculture decreasing, how are we going to feed the world?”  EXACTLY MY POINT!!!  He hit the nail on the head, as this gets at the heart of my Watson.  He believes we need investments in agriculture and more importantly, we need to figure out how we are going to increase production.  In his eyes, the options are: #1 - increase the area or #2 – increase productivity per unit of existing area.  The former is not easy/near impossible because of competition over land between farming, population growth, urbanization, desertification, etc. with arable land shrinking.  #2, however, may be achievable with improved genetic material and varieties and improved agricultural practices (such as the use of fertilizers, pesticides, better soil and water management).  Although biased, he claimed that breeders are important because we need better varieties to increase production and because increased inputs are not enough.  He also made the interesting observation that the trend of moving people from the field to conferences/workshops is a negative trend, since every project nowadays gives more values to meetings, workshops, publishing than developing improved technologies.  He claims that the government needs to emphasize and incentivize young people to go into farming, breeding etc. and that social scientists and the use of media are also important in convincing people about the importance of investing in agriculture.  Lastly, he noted how biotechnology labs and molecular marking will be very important in the future of conventional plant breeding, and although biotechnology may not always be widely accepted, it is necessary to convince the population that it is okay.  However, thus far, science has been unable to justify and prove the safety of various biotechnologies (i.e. GMOs).  Hmm…some food for thought.    

I spent Wednesday with a genetic resources scientist, who manages the gene/seed bank.  The gene bank on site is for short-term storage (15 degrees C temperature, 30-40% relative humidity) and currently has about 2,360 accessions or varieties (most are traditional African vegetables).  To maintain the conditions, it uses two ACs and 3 dehumidifiers.  After harvesting the seeds, they are brought to the dryer room to prepare them for storage.  I saw the various equipment that is used to measure seed moisture content and took a tour of the facilities, including the seed preparation room, drying room, and the seed storage room.


Gene/seed bank storage



Gene bank cooling



Varieties are decorative



Seeds drying



Seed dryer





I was also able to meet with a research assistant who does work on social economics.  She explained how poverty, economic stagnation, malnutrition, hunger, disease and education are all social issues related to community development and very much associated factors.  AVRDC believes that training can help improve nutrition and vegetable knowledge and that education helps people understand their impoverished situation, what the causes are, and how to overcome it; AVRDC can help facilitate development (and trickle-down effect).  We also talked about the differing roles of men and women.  Culturally, women have been in charge of vegetable production because it has been historically subsistence/home consumption-related (not income generating) – women head households and are in charge of survival and caring for the family.  In contrast, men are responsible for cash crop production (e.g. coffee) and income generation.  This has led to much of the focus in agriculture being geared toward empowering women.  

No comments:

Post a Comment