Categories
Biodiversity En Français

Le cas étrange et tragique de l’homme semence soviétique (3ème partie)

Ce billet est le troisième d’une série dans laquelle j’explore l’histoire fascinante et tragique de la première banque de semences au monde et de son créateur héroïque. Je remercie le lecteur Michel Leblanc d’avoir partagé cette histoire avec moi, ainsi que Jocelyne Lavigne pour son aide dans la traduction française.

Près de 3 millions de personnes ont été prises au piège dans Leningrad pendant le siège. Seules 800 000 ont survécu. Tiré de TASS/Getty Images.

Le siège de Leningrad

Pendant ce temps, la situation était sombre au Bureau de Vavilov. En juin 1941, l’Allemagne nazie envahissa l’Union soviétique. Leningrad était l’une des principales cibles des Allemands, en partie à cause du Bureau de Vavilov. Les scientifiques nazis appréciaient le pouvoir de la génétique  à l’excès (Ils ont essentiellement commis l’erreur inverse de celle de Lysenko en soutenant que l’éducation et l’environnement ne comptaient pas et que les gènes seuls déterminaient notre destin.) Les nazis savaient que Vavilov avait rassemblé un trésor inestimable de richesses agricoles et ils voulaient s’en emparer!

Imaginez le moral du Bureau de Vavilov. Leur patron avait disparu et leur propre gouvernement les avait diabolisés et traités de traîtres pour leurs recherches. Alors que les nazis avançaient sur Leningrad, désireux de voler le travail de toute une vie, qui ne désespérerait pas ?

Les choses ont ensuite empiré. Le siège de Leningrad a duré  872 jours. Au lieu d’obus et des canons, l’arme principale des nazis a été la famine;  ce que Vavilov avait cherché à prévenir presque toute sa vie. Les nazis  ont tenté d’affamer les Russes pour qu’ils se soumettent.

Illustration par J. S. Lawson de poires sauvages collectées en Asie centrale, l’un des six panneaux que Vavilov a remis au pomologue Richard Wellington lors du Congrès international de génétique en 1932. Tiré de Biodiversity Heritage Library.

Les réserves diminuant, les habitants de Leningrad se sont mis à chasser les chiens et les chats; ils en furent réduits à manger du rouge à lèvres, des chapeaux de cuir et des manteaux de fourrure.

La seule nourriture de toute la ville se trouvait à l’intérieur du Bureau. Mais, chose incroyable, les scientifiques n’ont jamais puisé dans leurs réserves pour apaiser leur faim. Ils mouraient de faim alors qu’ils étaient entourés de nourriture – ils travaillaient avec de la nourriture, pensaient à la nourriture, touchaient de la nourriture tous les jours. Pourtant, aucun d’entre eux n’a jamais porté une bouchée à ses lèvres. Comme l’un d’entre eux l’a dit plus tard, « il était difficile de marcher. Il était insupportablement difficile de se lever le matin, [même] de bouger les mains et les pieds […] mais il n’était pas le moins du monde difficile de s’abstenir de manger la collecte. » Il ne s’agissait pas non plus d’une simple rhétorique. Un scientifique émacié est même mort à son bureau, un paquet de cacahuètes nutritives à la main.

Comment pouvaient-ils résister à une telle tentation ? Tout d’abord, ils pensaient au monde après la guerre. Ils savaient qu’ils pourraient aider les nations à se relever et à nourrir leur population, en particulier dans les endroits où les récoltes avaient été anéanties. Ils ont également envisagé l’histoire de l’humanité dans son ensemble. Depuis que les premiers agriculteurs ont planté des graines il y a environ 10 000 ans, il y a eu une chaîne ininterrompue de cultures à travers le temps. Les scientifiques du Bureau de Vavilov se considéraient comme les gardiens de cet héritage, sans doute le plus important de l’humanité. Manger les graines aurait été l’équivalent d’une rupture de cette chaîne.

Les scientifiques ont donc attendu, et ils sont morts l’un après l’autre. Un scientifique du riz, un scientifique de la pomme de terre, le scientifique de l’arachide qui tenait ce paquet, et six autres. Au total, 700 000 personnes sont mortes de faim à Leningrad pendant les 872 jours du siège. Mais il est difficile de trouver une mort plus poignante que celle de ces neuf scientifiques de l’alimentation.

Alors que les Américains connaissent une ou deux variétés de cacahuètes, les agriculteurs d’autres régions du monde ont pu développer des centaines de variétés grâce à la capacité naturelle de la cacahuète à mélanger ses deux sous-génomes distincts pour produire de nouvelles caractéristiques. Voici quelques-unes des arachides cultivées par le peuple Caiabí, qui vit sur l’île de Ilha Grande, dans le Mato Grosso, au Brésil. L’arachide est très importante pour eux et ils en cultivent diverses sortes, chacune ayant son utilisation, son nom et son histoire. (Photos de Fábio de Oliveira Freitas). Extrait d’un article paru sur UGA Today, University of Georgia.

L’histoire se poursuit dans notre prochain billet. En attendant, vous trouverez ci-dessous une liste de références pour une lecture plus approfondie. La version anglaise de ce billet se trouve ici.

Références

  1. Nikolai Vavilov
  2. The Tragedy of the World’s First SeedBank
  3. Nikolai Ivanovic Vavilov (1887-1943)
  4. The tragic tale of Nikolai Vavilov
  5. The Seeds of Life — Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov and the Fight for the Centers of Origins of Plant Diversity and Food Security
  6. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry
  7. Institute of Plant Industry
  8. Federal Research Center, N. I. Vavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources (VIR), Ministry of science and higher education
  9. The Development of Botany in the Soviet Union by Slavomil Hejný
  10. Russian famine of 1921–1922
  11. The Law of Homologous Series in Variation by Professor N. I. Vavilov, Director of the Bureau of Applied Botany and Plant Breeding, Petrograd, Russia.
  12. Homologous Series, Law of
  13. Revisiting N.I. Vavilov’s “The Law of Homologous Series in Variation” (1922)
  14. Vavilov : Une banque de semences à Lyon pour préserver la biodiversité
  15. Beyond the Gardens: Millennium Seed Bank Partnership
  16. Impact: science et société, UNESCO Bibliothèque Numérique, pages 141 à 149
  17. Pavlovsk Experimental Station
  18. In Situ: The Priceless Plants of the Pavlovsk Experimental Station
  19. Seed banks: saving for the future
  20. Russia’s Vavilov institute, guardian of world’s lost plants
  21. CRBA L’institut Vavilov
  22. Russie : Campagne pour sauver la station expérimentale de Pavlovsk
  23. Une collection de 5000 variétés de petits fruits menacée de disparition en Russie à l’Institut Vavilov !
  24. Une oasis de la biodiversité menacée par les pelles mécaniques
  25. Russia launches inquiry into Pavlovsk seed bank after Twitter campaign
  26. Les végétaux du futur poussent à Charly
  27. In Situ: The Priceless Plants of the Pavlovsk Experimental Station
Categories
Climate Change Conservation Food & Agriculture Pollinators, Molluscs and Other Invertebrates

Ecological Agriculture

This is the second in a series of three blog posts where I explore the implications of two threats to our food supply – climate change and peak oil. Sometimes called ecological agriculture, eco-agriculture or regenerative agriculture, the idea is to grow food by working with, not against, nature. This type of agriculture typically uses more human resources and less technology while also sequestering more carbon in the soil.

Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial

Perhaps one of the most significant studies on organic farming techniques was published over a decade ago by the Rodale Institute. The Farming Systems Trial was launched in 1981 with a clear goal: Address the barriers to the adoption of organic farming by farmers. For more than 40 years, the Farming Systems Trial (FST) at Rodale Institute has applied real-world practices and rigorous scientific analysis to document the different impacts of organic and conventional grain cropping systems. The scientific data gathered from this research has established that organic management matches or outperforms conventional agriculture in ways that benefit farmers and lays a strong foundation for designing and refining agricultural systems that can improve the health of people and the planet.

A bumblebee feeding from the flower of a faba bean. Credit: Nicole Beyer

Mixed crops provide ecological benefits

A recent experiment by researchers at the University of Göttingen investigated how a mixture of crops of fava beans (broad beans) and wheat would affect the number of pollinating insects. Somewhat surprisingly, they found that areas of mixed crops compared with areas of single crops are visited equally often by foraging bees. Their results were published in the journal Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. This could be due to several reasons. However, the researchers noted, “Mixed cultivation of wheat and fava bean has also other advantages for crop production,” says Professor Catrin Westphal, Head of Functional Agrobiodiversity. For instance, yields per bean plant were higher in mixed crops than in pure cultures. “Cereal crops can be ecologically enhanced by adding legumes such as beans or lentils. This can make a valuable contribution to increasing the abundance of flowers on the arable land and thus counteracting pollinator decline,” concludes Haß.

The researchers mapped the geographical distribution of Berlin’s potential areas for urban gardening. Credit: Marion De Simone, Prajal Pradhan, Jürgen P. Kropp & Diego Rybski.

Berlin could produce more than 80% of its fresh vegetables locally

Berlin has enough space for urban gardening, and up to 82% of Berlin’s vegetable consumption could be produced locally, a new study finds. “The amount of vegetables represents a significant share of the annual consumption,” highlights Diego Rybski, an external faculty member from the Complexity Science Hub and a co-author of the paper that will appear in the April issue of Sustainable Cities and Society journal.

Image from USDA “Agriculture and Forestry: 5 Ways Agroforestry Can Work for You and Your Land” by Jocelyn Benjamin, USDA.

European farms mix things up to guard against food-supply shocks

An article by Ethan Bilby in Horizon, the EU Research and Innovation Magazine, reports that researchers are discovering the benefits of combining forestry and agricultural activities. The COVID-19 pandemic led to bare shelves in supermarkets as shipping routes were cut off. The war in Ukraine has affected the supply of essential grains. But increased climate change stands to cause even greater disruption. Researchers say part of the solution to mitigating that risk is for farms to become more mixed through some combination of crop cultivation, livestock production and forestry, a move that would also make agriculture more sustainable. For Dr Sara Burbi, assistant professor at Coventry University in the UK until December 2022 and now an independent researcher, COVID-19 was a wake-up call.

“Suddenly, we experienced first-hand what happens when value chains are not resilient to shocks and what happens when globalisation, with all its intricacies, does not work anymore,” she said. “We saw highly specialised farming systems fail when they over-relied on external inputs that they had no access to.”

Pilot farms across Europe are experimenting with combining crop and livestock production in one farm (mixed farming) and with pairing farming and forestry activities (agroforestry). Poultry grazing in orchards is an example of a mixed-farming approach. The results reveal interesting synergies and promising effects, including improvements in soil health. A combined system can increase the cycling of nutrients needed in the soil for crops to grow. It can also help to regulate air and water quality, prevent land degradation and even provide biomass and food on-site for livestock.

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Veganism may not save the planet

Vegans and vegetarians have long argued their approach to eating is the kindest—to animals and to our planet but new research from the University of Georgia suggests that might not actually be the case. The paper published in the Journal of Political Ecology (2022) found that a diet of mostly plants with local and humanely raised meat is likely the most ethical way to eat if we want to save the environment and protect human rights. “There’s nothing sustainable about this plant-based model,” said Amy Trauger, author of the study and a professor in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. For example, soybeans used in U.S. tofu and tempeh products aren’t grown in the U.S. They were largely imported from India, where soybean production contributes to widespread deforestation and habitat loss. Soybean plantations also take up valuable land space that could be used to ease food insecurity in the country instead. Then there’s the pollution and environmental impact from transporting soybeans all the way from India to the U.S. Similarly, palm oil, which is a vegan substitute for butter or lard, is mostly imported from countries where local ecosystems aren devastated by deforestation and loss of biodiversity as millions of hectares of forests are razed for palm oil production.

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash.

In contrast, animals raised in humane and natural systems can contribute to climate change mitigation. For instance, one pig can produce over 150 pounds of meat and 20 pounds of bacon. Raised on a pasture, outside in a forest with a diet of tree nuts, surplus milk and vegetable waste from nearby farms, that pig can also contribute to soil, forest and ecosystem health. When the time comes to harvest the animal, a small-scale processing plant that avoids plastics and employs well paid staff could be used to keep the supply chain short and transparent. That one pig could feed a family for months, Trauger argues.

A queen bee enjoys an agricultural pollinator habitat. Credit: Hannah Levenson.

Effort to help pollinators shows successes, limitations

Although not quite the bee’s knees, a three-year effort to conserve bee populations by introducing pollinator habitat in North Carolina agricultural areas showed some positive effects, as bee abundance and diversity increased in the studied areas. But results of a study examining the program’s effectiveness also showed that the quality of the habitat played a key role in these positive effects, and that habitat quality could be impacted by the way the areas are maintained over time. The research is published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

Researchers visited 16 sites four times each year and caught bees in nets and in cups—called bee bowls—that were painted to mimic the UV reflection of flowers. In all, the researchers collected more than 16,000 bees from 128 different bee species. Results showed bee abundance increased over time, with more bees collected in 2018 than in 2016. Meanwhile, the diversity of species increased in 2017 and then dropped slightly in 2018, although both years showed large improvement over 2016. The study also showed, though, that the quality of flowers was a key driver of bee abundance and diversity, with areas of higher flower quality attracting more bees and more bee species. Poorly maintained areas with degraded flowers, weeds and grasses lagged behind in bee collection.

Male Bombus pensylvanicus on Rough blazingstar. Ellison Creek Sand Prairie Natural Area, Illinois USA. Photo by Angella Moorehouse.

The study turned up a few surprises. Although there were no squash plants, the areas attracted squash bees – an important specialist pollinator. “We also found a particular bumble bee—Bombus pensylvanicus—that is under review for potential addition to the endangered species list,” she added. “We found a high abundance of them, so it’s possible that they’re attracted to agricultural areas more than other areas. We submitted the data to Fish and Wildlife so it can be used to help make the decision on whether it should be listed as endangered or not.”

The researchers hope that further studies like this one can be performed in different types of habitats, like forests or urban areas, to capture a wider sense of bee populations in North Carolina.

Companies are eager to improve their measurement of carbon emissions captured in soil ahead of coming mandatory climate disclosure rules as they still largely rely on imperfect estimates. Photo: Phill Magakoe/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.

Big food companies encourage regenerative agriculture

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Dieter Holger notes that soil holds the promise of capturing greenhouse-gas emissions to help slow global warming. Companies are now working to measure how soil stores carbon as they encourage farming techniques that reduce emissions across their sprawling supply chains. Improving soil health is a goal of so-called regenerative agriculture, which typically involves tilling less, growing more than one crop on the same land and using less synthetic fertilizer. Many farmers are hesitant to shift from established farming methods, but companies and governments are investing to educate them on the benefits. Regenerative practices can increase soil nutrients and yields while also absorbing carbon dioxide from the airscientific studies say. Healthier soil could offset up to 15% of global fossil-fuel emissions, according to a 2004 study published in the journal Science. 

Many of the world’s biggest food companies, including General Mills Inc. and Nestlé SA, are working with farmers to promote the practices. However, determining the emissions captured in the soil still largely relies on imperfect estimates. Companies are eager to improve the measurement ahead of coming mandatory climate disclosure rules that are expected to require them to publish reliable information about their emissions and climate plans. The entire food-and-agriculture value chain—including processing, packaging, transport, waste and household cooking and refrigeration—contributed 31% of human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions in 2020, according to the United Nations.