<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">The recent publication by Burkhart and
Jocobsen on the economics of cultivating medicinal plants (see abstract
1) makes important points on the practicality of cultivation versus wild
harvesting. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">The merits of wild harvesting versus
cultivation have been discussed in various venues, both domestically and
globally - see abstracts 2 and 3. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">What are your thoughts on where we stand
in North America on cultivating versus wild-harvesting native medicinal
plants?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">-Patricia</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.<br>
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority<br>
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group<br>
US Fish & Wildlife Service<br>
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 110<br>
Arlington, VA 22203<br>
703-358-1708 x1753<br>
FAX: 703-358-2276<br>
Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural resources.<br>
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - <br>
</font><font size=3 face="sans-serif">abstract 1</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#800000 face="Times New Roman"><b>Transitioning
from wild collection to forest cultivation of indigenous medicinal forest
plants in eastern North America is constrained by lack of profitability</b></font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><b>By Eric
P. Burkhart & Michael G. Jacobson</b></font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Abstract
The forest flora of eastern North America includes many herbaceous
plant species traded in domestic and international medicinal markets. Conservation
concerns surrounding wild-collection exist and transitioning to cultivation
in agroforestry systems has potential economic and ecological benefits.
Costs and revenues associated with adopting forest cultivation were modeled
for eight North American medicinal forest plants. Sensitivity analysis
examined profit potential in relation to (1) discount rates; (2) propagation
methods; (3) prices; (4) growing period; (5) production costs; and (6)
yields. Results indicate that intensive husbandry of six of eight species
would be unprofitable at recent (1990–2005) price levels. Exceptions are
American ginseng (<i>Panax quinquefolius</i> L.), and under certain circumstances
(e.g., maximum historic prices, low production costs) goldenseal (<i>Hydrastis
canadensis</i> L.). Direct marketing to consumers and retailers might improve
grower profits, but is undermined by the availability of cheaper, wild-collected
product. We suggest that the North American medicinal plant industry could
play a key role in facilitating any transition from wild to cultivated
product, perhaps through development of a certification and labeling program
that brands ‘‘forest cultivated’’ products. This could generate price
premiums, to be passed along to growers, but must be accompanied by aggressive
consumer education. A ‘‘forest cultivated’’ certification and labeling
program has potential to benefit industry and consumers if assurances regarding
product identity and quality are a central feature. Plant species that
are not viable candidates for commercial cultivation due to limited consumer
demand (i.e., species with ‘‘shallow,’’ erratic markets) are best addressed
through proactive government and industry initiatives involving targeted
harvester education programs.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Full story:
Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:437–453</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">E. P. Burkhart (<i>&</i>)</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Shaver’s Creek Environmental Center,
The Pennsylvania</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">State University, Petersburg, PA
16669, USA</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">e-mail: epb6@psu.edu</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">M. G. Jacobson</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">School of Forest Resources, The
Pennsylvania State</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">University, University Park, PA
16802, USA</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - </font>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">abstract 2</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#800000 face="Times New Roman"><b>Impact of Cultivation
and Gathering of Medicinal Plants on Biodiversity: Global Trends and Issues</b></font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><b>By Uwe Schippmann, Danna
J. Leaman and A. B. Cunningham</b></font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Published in</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">FAO. 2002. <i>Biodiversity and
the Ecosystem Approach in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.</i> Satellite
event on the occasion of the Ninth Regular Session of the Commission on
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, 12-13 October 2002. Inter-Departmental
Working Group on Biological Diversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#800000 face="Times New Roman"><b>1. Introduction</b></font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Since time immemorial, people have
gathered plant and animal resources for their needs. Examples include edible
nuts, mushrooms, fruits, herbs, spices, gums, game, fodder, fibres used
for construction of shelter and housing, clothing or utensils, and plant
or animal products for medicinal, cosmetic or cultural uses. Even today,
hundreds of millions of people, mostly in developing countries, derive
a significant part of their subsistence needs and income from gathered
plant and animal products (Iqbal 1993; Walter 2001). Gathering of high
value products such as mushrooms (morels, matsutake, truffles), medicinal
plants (ginseng, black cohosh, goldenseal) also continues in developed
countries for cultural and economic reasons (Jones<i>et al.</i>2002).</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Among these uses, medicinal plants
play a central role, not only as traditional medicines used in many cultures,
but also als trade commodities which meet the demand of often distant markets.
For the purpose of this paper the term "medicinal and aromatic plant"
(MAP) is defined to cover the whole range of plants used not only medicinally<i>sensu
strictu</i>but also in the neighbouring and often overlapping fields of
condiments, food and cosmetics.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Demand for a wide variety of wild
species is increasing with growth in human needs, numbers and commercial
trade. With the increased realization that some wild species are being
over-exploited, a number of agencies are recommending that wild species
be brought into cultivation systems (BAH 2002; Lambert<i>et al.</i>1997;
WHO, IUCN and WWF 1993). Cultivation can also have conservation impacts,
however, and these need to be better understood. Medicinal plant production
through cultivation, for example, can reduce the extent to which wild populations
are harvested, but it also may lead to environmental degradation and loss
of genetic diversity as well as loss of incentives to conserve wild populations
(Anon. 2002b).</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">The relationship between<i>in-situ</i>and<i>ex-situ</i>conservation
of species is an interesting topic with implications for local communities,
public and private land owners and managers, entire industries and, of
course, wild species. Identifying the conservation benefits and costs of
the different production systems for MAP should help guide policies as
to whether species conservation should take place in nature or the nursery,
or both (Bodeker<i>et al.</i>1997).</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">In this paper, we review global
trends in the close relationship between cultivation and wild harvest of
MAP species, then make recommendations on steps that should be taken to
achieve a balance between consumption, conservation and cultivation.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Full story:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/aa010e/AA010e00.HTM</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - </font>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">abstract 3</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#800000 face="Times New Roman"><b>Edible Products</b></font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><b>By The Center for Forest
Products Marketing and Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, and The Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service </b>(last
modified 2009)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Edible products include mushrooms,
seeds, nuts, fruits & berries, wildlife, greens and roots. (Not all
products are covered here) Wholesale or commercial wild collection
of most of these products would not provide enough volume to make market
sale possible and profitable and would deplete and likely endanger the
resource for both local human use and for wildlife. Many species are now
cultivated and more could be cultivated and marketed. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Full story:
http://www.sfp.forprod.vt.edu/prodarea/edible.htm</font>