Peach palm (Bactris gasipaes) in tropical Latin America: implications for biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and human nutrition

Peach palm was commonly cultivated and used in tropical Latin America during pre-Columbian times; chronicles have recorded more than 300 different indigenous names for the fruit since the European invasion (Patiño 2000). Mapping of georeferenced genebank and herbarium registers obtained from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF 2011) and the Brazilian Distributed Information System for Biological Collections (Species Link 2011) have shown that cultivated peach palm is extensively distributed from Honduras southwards to Central Bolivia and eastwards to Para in Brazil (Fig. 1). The widespread cultivation of peach palm in the Americas reflects its capacity to adapt to a wide range of ecological conditions in the tropics and subtropics. It is usually grown on deep, well-drained soils in areas below 800 m asl, with annual precipitation of 2,000–5,000 mm and an annual mean temperature above 24 °C (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997). Peach palm is occasionally found at higher altitudes of up to 1,800 m asl, as is the case in Colombia’s Cauca region (El Tambo).

Peach palm can be subdivided into the cultivated variety, B. gasipaes Kunth var. gasipaes, and the wild form B. gasipaes Kunth var. chichagui (H. Karsten) (Henderson 2000). Phylogenetic studies of chloroplast and nuclear DNA polymorphism in species from the Bactris clade have confirmed a close relationship between cultivated and wild peach palm accessions (Couvreur et al. 2007). Cultivated populations can be divided on the basis of phenotypic and genetic diversity into (a) two western populations (i. Central America, Colombian inter-Andean valleys and Pacific lowlands in Colombia and Ecuador; ii. inter-Andean valleys in Venezuela) and (b) two eastern populations (i. upper Amazon and ii. eastern Amazon) (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997; Rodrigues et al. 2004; Hernández-Ugalde et al. 2008). In general, landraces from the western group have harder stems, more abundant and stronger spines, larger leaves and more solid rooting in their juvenile phase (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997). The wild form can be further subdivided into three types based on taxonomical differences: type I of the southern Amazon; type II of northeast Colombia and northwest Venezuela; and type III of the Tropical Andes, southwest Amazon and Central America (Henderson 2000; Clement et al. 2009).

Though the exact origin of cultivated peach palm remains open to debate, three hypotheses have been proposed (Clement et al. 2010): (i) a single domestication event in the southwestern Amazon, as suggested by phylogenetic studies (Ferreira 1999) and RAPD marker-based studies (Rodrigues et al. 2004); (ii) a single domestication event in the Colombian inter-Andean valleys and adjacent Pacific lowlands, as suggested by archeological evidence (Morcote-Rios and Bernal 2001); and (iii) multiple independent centers of domestication (Mora-Urpí 1999; Hernández-Ugalde et al. 2011).

Peach palm is a predominantly outcrossing species, though self-fertilization has also been observed (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997). Pollination is carried out mainly by insects, particularly small curculionid beetles over distances between 100 and 500 m; wind and gravity can also function as pollen vectors (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997; Clement et al. 2009). Since peach palm is a long-lived perennial and a predominantly outcrossing species, one can expect its populations and landraces to contain high levels of genetic diversity (Hamrick and Godt 1996; Mora-Urpí et al. 1997). In addition, extensive human dispersal up to a distance of 600 km has further stimulated gene flow and low differentiation (Cole et al. 2007). A review of studies on genetic variation within and between populations, using different types of markers and considering allelic richness (A), expected heterozigosity (He) and genetic differentiation (Gst), supports those observations (Table 1). Even so, the studies reveal no clear areas of high diversity, and their use of different sampling methods, molecular marker techniques, markers and genetic parameters makes comparison difficult. The use of standardized sets of molecular markers and genetic parameters would greatly improve our understanding of patterns of genetic variation across areas of peach palm distribution and the center(s) of its domestication (Clement et al. 2010).

Diversity studies confirm the close relationship between wild and cultivated peach palm populations that were identified by Couvreur et al. (2007) in their phylogenetic study. Several studies observed even greater similarity between cultivated populations and nearby natural populations than between geographically more distant cultivated populations (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Couvreur et al. 2006; Hernández-Ugalde et al. 2008; Araújo et al. 2010). In some cases clear differences were observed between cultivated populations and wild populations that were used as outliers for reference (Silva 2004). One explanation of this close relationship is the hypothesis of peach palm’s domestication in multiple locations, where cultivated populations are still closely related to nearby natural populations (Mora-Urpí 1999; Hernández-Ugalde et al. 2011). This similarity might also be the result of introgression between natural and cultivated populations after the domesticated material was introduced into a particular area (Couvreur et al. 2006). Another explanation could be that some of these natural populations are in reality feral populations, i.e., material from cultivated populations that have gone wild. This has been reported for several fruit tree species such as olives (Gepts 2004). However, considering the level of domestication of peach palm, this last option seems unlikely.

The fact that wild and cultivated populations are so closely related suggests that many cultivated peach palm populations are at a semi-domesticated stage. At this stage introgression with natural populations is still common, and while genetic diversity is reduced, phenotypic diversity may be enhanced (Clement et al. 2010). Indeed, much phenotypic variation can be observed between and within different cultivated populations (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997; Fig. 2). Particularly in the upper Amazon many landraces have been distinguished on the basis of morphological variation validated by molecular markers (Sousa et al. 2001; Rodrigues et al. 2004; Silva 2004; Clement et al. 2010). Traditionally cultivated populations can be distinguished in landraces that have (i) fruits smaller than 20 g (microcarpas) occurring in different parts of the distribution range, (ii) intermediate fruits between 20 and 70 g occurring across the whole distribution range (mesocarpas), and (iii) large fruits between 70 and 250 g occurring in the northwestern Amazon (macrocarpas) (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997; Rodrigues et al. 2004; Silva 2004). Fruit size also indicates the extent to which a population has been modified due to human selection during domestication (Clement et al. 2010). Couvreur et al. (2006) identified fruit size as the main characteristic differentiating wild from cultivated peach palm. A study conducted in Ecuador found that the fruit volumes of cultivated individuals are 12–33 times bigger than for wild individuals (70 vs. 2.1–5.5 cm³). Although peach palm is also cultivated in the Guyanas, we could not find information about particular peach palm landraces or wild populations in this region. Wild Brazilian populations were sought close to the border with French Guiana but without success (Clement et al. 2009). There is no evidence suggesting whether this part of the distribution range belongs to an existing population or forms a distinct one.

Ex situ germplasm collections, which consist of accessions collected from different areas growing in the same field, maintain high levels of peach palm phenotypic variation (Fig. 2). Mora-Urpí et al. (1997) estimated that a total of 3,309 peach palm accessions with passport data are currently being conserved in 17 collections distributed over eight countries (i.e., Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela). A more recent overview of peach palm collections in the Amazon basin reported 2,006 accessions conserved in ten collections, including a collection in Bolivia of 200 accessions (Scheldeman et al. 2006).

Maintaining ex situ collections is costly (Clement et al. 2001; Van Leeuwen et al. 2005). Clement et al. (2004) stated that there is no justification for establishing so many collections of such large size for an underutilized tree crop like peach palm. Smaller genebanks might better address farmers’ needs and consumer preferences (Clement et al. 2004; Van Leeuwen et al. 2005). Smaller collections that capture most of the genetic variation in current germplasm collections offer a good option for reducing maintenance costs (Clement et al. 2001). To assure that these collections adequately represent the existing diversity, accessions need to be screened using molecular markers for morphological and biochemical characteristics of interest that show high rates of heritability. This is already being done for the collection of the Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA) in Brazil (Reis 2009; Araújo et al. 2010).

Most peach palm collections from the Amazon have been characterized (Table 2; Scheldeman et al. 2006). Several have been characterized explicitly to identify materials that show promise for cooking and flour production. Fruit products are destined above all for local markets and only to a lesser extent for national or international markets. Characterizing peach palm collections is a first step toward enhance the use of conserved material. Ideally, this should involve an iterative dialogue between researchers, producers and customers. Participatory domestication of agroforestry species offers a useful tool for better enabling small-scale producers to enhance their livelihoods through sustained improvement in productivity while at the same time conserving genetic resources on farm (Weber et al. 2001). In 1997, the World Agroforesty Centre (ICRAF) and Peru’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA) initiated participatory genetic improvement for peach palm heart production and fruit harvesting in the Peruvian Amazon (Weber et al. 2001; Cornelius et al. 2010).

Cultivated populations contain high levels of diversity in comparison to natural populations and also maintain many traits that people have selected locally (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Couvreur et al. 2006; Hernández-Ugalde et al. 2008, 2010; Araújo et al. 2010). At the same time low genetic differentiation and the exchange of seed material over extensive areas have been observed, at least in the Peruvian Amazon (Adin et al. 2004; Cole et al. 2007). Since peach palm, as a perennial, has a lengthy generation period, the risk of genetic erosion in cultivated populations is low, so on-farm conservation might be a good alternative for large germplasm collections (Van Leeuwen et al. 2005). This requires proper management of the genetic resources to keep the risk of genetic erosion low (Cornelius et al. 2006). These same authors compared the effects of different genetic improvement strategies on the trade-offs between genetic gain in cultivated peach palm populations and conservation of genetic resources in the Peruvian Amazon. Clonal seed orchards with associated progeny trials based initially on 450 or more trees could be effective for achieving genetic gain while minimizing genetic erosion. However, this strategy requires vegetative propagation for multiplication (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997; Cornelius et al. 2006). Botero Botero and Atehortua (1999) reported on somatic embryogenesis in peach palm, but this technology is apparently not used to multiply selected accessions. Only in one collection have clones been selected for propagation (Table 2). Nevertheless, research is underway to further improve techniques, such as somatic embryogenesis, for clonal propagation (Steinmacher et al. 2007, 2011).

In contrast to cultivated peach palm, wild populations (being important resources for genetic improvement) are threatened by deforestation, driven mainly by agricultural expansion and the transition of forest to savannah (Clement et al. 2009). How this threat affects the three taxonomically different wild types (see Henderson 2000) is not clear, because their distribution is not yet well defined (Clement et al. 2009). Wild peach palm trees are found in disturbed ecosystems, on river banks and in primary forest gaps (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997). They often occur in isolation or at low densities (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997; Da Silva and Clement 2005). Though no definitive studies have been conducted on seed dispersal of peach palm, it is probably restricted locally to dispersal by birds and seed-gathering mammals, though seed may occasionally be dispersed by water, potentially over greater distances (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997; Clement et al. 2009). Gene flow of outcrossing tree species with this type of scattered distribution may be restricted and could result in genetically distinct isolated subpopulations with small effective population sizes (Mora-Urpí et al. 1997). This has implications for conservation strategies, which require further research. It is probably too expensive to conserve ex situ a significant number of wild palm accessions; strategies that maximize in situ conservation of wild populations seem more feasible. Optimization analysis, as proposed by Weitzman (1998), could help determine which populations can best be conserved in situ, considering the genetic distinctiveness of each population compared to others and the costs of implementing conservation measures that guard effectively against human pressures and progressive climate change. On-farm conservation could be an appropriate alternative for in situ conservation of wild populations, particularly if high levels of diversity are maintained in nearby cultivated populations and these are genetically close to wild populations (Hollingsworth et al. 2005). Indeed, in many regions cultivated peach palm populations are closely related to nearby wild populations (Couvreur et al. 2006; Hérnandez-Ugalde et al. 2008, 2011) and they could complement in situ conservation of the wild populations that are genetically most distinct and most at risk of extinction.

Given its rapid juvenile growth (1.5–2 m year⁻¹) and moderate light interception when spaced appropriately, peach palm may be considered a promising tree for canopy strata in agroforestry systems (Clement 1989; Cordero et al. 2003; Clement et al. 2004). Table 3 summarizes the wide range of species associations that are encountered in peach palm production systems of Central and South America. Highly adaptable and productive, with multiple uses and strong market potential, the species also shows promise for the introduction of new agroforestry systems and restoration of deforested sites (Vélez and Germán 1991).

In Costa Rica and Colombia, peach palm is commonly cultivated with coffee and banana, and in Brazil, it is recommended as a shade tree for cacao (Clement 1986). In the Brazilian Amazon, Lieberei et al. (2000) identified peach palm grown with Pueraria phaseoloides, Bixa orellana, Bertholletia excelsa and Theobroma grandiflorum as a promising multi-strata system for optimal resource cycling. Peach palm can be also cultivated with coconut as well as with various short-cycle crops, such as pineapple, papaya, and passion fruit, which give farmers rapid returns on investment in the early years of production (Clement 1986).

In the Colombian Pacific region, farmers typically cultivate peach palm with Borojoa patinoi, Colocasia esculenta, Musa spp. and Eugenia stipitata. In those agroforestry systems peach palm occupies around 38 % of the available space in farmers’ fields (CIAT, unpublished data). In the Peruvian Amazon peach palm is cultivated within agroforestry mosaics that are characterized by several components, such as annual subsistence crops (e.g., manioc, yam and plantain), fruit crops (e.g., pineapple, cashew and guava), and late-maturing fruit trees (e.g., Pouraqueiba sericea and Theobroma bicolor). In such agroforestry systems peach palm is grown at a density of approximately 290 trees ha⁻¹ (Coomes and Burt 1997), though in most traditional Amazonian agroforestry systems densities of only 3–20 plants ha⁻¹ have been reported (Clement 1989; Clay and Clement 1993).

Peach palm is also commonly cultivated in monoculture, with an average plant density of around 400 plants ha⁻¹ (Mora-Kopper et al. 1997; Clement et al. 2004). Peach palm in monoculture tends to be smaller than in multi-strata systems, primarily because of less competition for light (Schroth et al. 2002a).

In Colombia peach palm is planted for fruit production on an estimated 9,580 ha, with 73 % on the Pacific coast, 22 % in the Amazon region, and the rest (5 %) in other regions of the country. Reported yields vary between 3.0 and 20.0 t ha⁻¹ (MADR 2009), although this figure does not take into account areas planted for subsistence. Peach palm is found scattered within highly diverse agroforestry and home garden systems, where its extent is difficult to measure (Clement et al. 2004).

Peach palm does not appear to require much care, though mulching around the base of the trees is recommended to control weeds. When peach palm is grown at low densities in mixed cropping systems, it remains relatively free of pests. Rats may cause serious damage, however, by climbing the palms and eating the fruits (Almeyda and Martin 1980). On the Colombian Pacific coast Palmelampius heinrichi, which causes unripe fruits to fall from the palms, poses a serious threat, forcing farmers to apply large amounts of insecticides. Reports indicate that this pest has completely destroyed peach palm plantations in several regions of Colombia (Lehman Danzinger 1993; O’Brien and Kovarik 2000; Constantino et al. 2003). Some farmers have adopted the recommended practice of protecting the inflorescenses from P. heinrichi with blue translucent plastic bags, which remain around the bunch until harvest (Peña et al. 2002). Other pests known to affect peach palm production are Rhinostomu barbirostris (bearded weevil) and Alurnus sp. (known locally as “gualapan”) (Pardo Locarno et al. 2005).

Commercial fruit production usually starts 3–5 years after planting and lasts for 50–75 years (Patiño 2000; Ares et al. 2003; Cordero et al. 2003). Fruit bunches may weigh up to 12 kg, but this varies greatly, depending on tree origin and management. Though bunches with 420 fruits have been reported (Clement et al. 2010), peach palm typically produces 75–300 fruits per bunch (Almeyda and Martin 1980; Arkcoll and Aguiar 1984). Fruit diameter varies from 1 to 9 cm, and mean fruit weight normally ranges from 20 to 65 g, though fruits may weigh up to 225 g (Fig. 3; Arkcoll and Aguiar 1984; Leterme et al. 2005; Rivera 2009).

One issue in peach palm fruit cultivation is the number of stems to maintain (multiple- vs. single-stemmed plantings). Monocultures are usually single stemmed (with planting distances typically 5 × 5 or 6 × 6 m), whereas in agroforestry systems palms may be either single- or multi-stemmed (Clay and Clement 1993). The palms reach their maximum stem diameter at an age of around 2.5 years; afterwards, only tree height increases (Pérez and Davey 1986). Each stem produces about seven bunches during the principal harvest and three in the secondary harvest. If several stems are permitted to grow, the yield is greater than that of a single stem, but harvest is more difficult (Clement et al. 2010). In the coffee growing region of Colombia peach palm farmers usually keep four stems per plant, using the central stem to climb the tree and harvest bunches from the surrounding stems. Germplasm that varies in height could facilitate harvesting and thus increase commercial exploitation. Harvesting is usually considered the most difficult operation in peach palm production, as the spines and height of the palms represent safety hazards (Box 1). Men usually harvest the fruit, with help from younger family members.

Due to its perennial nature and high biomass accumulation peach palm for fruit production could act as an important carbon sink in land use systems. Crop growth rates depend on the number of stems maintained, varying from 15.6 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ for single-stemmed to 54.3 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ for four-stemmed palms grown at a distance of 8 × 8 m in the Amazon region (Clement 1986). Haag (1997) reported above-ground biomass of 16.0–33.5 kg dry matter tree⁻¹ and a root:shoot ratio of 0.3 for peach palm grown in Central Amazonia. Postma and Verheij (1994) evaluated the growth of peach palm in swidden fields in the Colombia Amazon. This enabled the authors to fit growth curves of the species, revealing that the environment affects peach palm much less than other species.

Peach palm monocultures in the Brazilian Amazon accumulated biomass stocks of 80 t ha⁻¹, less than the biomass of the secondary forests replaced (127.5 t ha⁻¹). Peach palm accumulated carbon much faster (5.1 t C ha⁻¹ year⁻¹), however, than in successional vegetation (4 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹), mainly due to high plant densities in monocultures (625 trees ha⁻¹) and also fertilizer inputs. One disadvantage of accumulating carbon stocks in peach palm production systems is that tree height may severely limit fruit harvest, with the consequence that plantations have to be regenerated after approximately 10 years, which would be equivalent to a time-averaged carbon stock of about 25 t C ha⁻¹ (Schroth et al. 2002a).

Peach palm agroforests also show significant potential to serve as carbon sinks. According to Schroth et al. (2002a), carbon accumulation varied between 2.9 and 3.8 t C ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ in multi-strata systems of the Brazilian Amazon. In the long run the longer economic life cycle of the multi-strata system compensates for its lower carbon accumulation rate compared to monocultures. However, it is hard to measure the time-averaged carbons stocks of those systems, as they depend on several factors, such as species composition and economic life. Given possible trade-offs between high carbon accumulation and economic production, the challenge is to find optimal combinations of shade-tolerant understory and high-value overstory trees.

Lehmann et al. (2000b) found evidence that cover crops in peach palm agroforestry systems can accumulate amounts of aboveground biomass of similar to or exceeding those of the associated trees. In a mixed cropping system with T. grandiflorum and B. gasipaes grown for palm heart as well as P. phaseoloides as a cover crop, biomass production of the cover crop accounted for 55 % of the system’s total biomass production.

The highest share of carbon is usually found in soil organic matter (SOM). All of the plantation systems investigated by Schroth et al. (2002a) contained twice as much carbon in SOM as in the biomass and litter combined.

Since little is known about nutrient demands in peach palm production systems, fertilization requirements are usually adapted either from heart of palm cultivation (Schroth et al. 2002b) or from the production of other palm fruits, such as coconut or oil palm (Ares et al., 2003). McGrath et al. (2000) identified P as the most limiting nutrient for stand growth and fruit production in low-input Amazonian peach palm agroforests. Similarly, Schroth et al. (2002b) reported that P and Mg rather than N fertilization influenced yields in heart of palm production systems. In the Central Amazon region of Brazil annual doses of 125–225 kg N, 20–40 kg P, and 60–150 kg K ha⁻¹ were required to sustain peach palm growth in a monoculture system (Ares et al. 2003). Clay and Clement (1993) reported nutrient requirements of 200 g P, 150 g N and K, and about 50 g Mg per year for single-stemmed palms on nutrient-poor Oxisols near Manaus, Brazil. National agricultural research institutions typically recommend fertilizer applications of 2 kg 15-15-15 or 5 kg 10-10-9 NPK tree⁻¹ year⁻¹ (Almeyda and Martin 1980; Acevedo et al. 1996). Within-plant nutrient re-translocation is likely to be greater in peach palm fruit systems than in heart-of-palm systems, because the former have more fallen leaves (Ares et al. 2003). Litter in the fruit system is low in nutrients, however, and may decompose more slowly than in the heart-of-palm system (McGrath et al. 2000). Peach palm has a superficial but extensive root system, which is adapted to little-developed soils (FAO 1983). Rooting depth was reported to be less than 0.7 m, with an average root length of around 6 m (INCIVA 1982). Depending on soil conditions peach palm can also extend its roots into the subsoil. Lehmann et al. (2001) found that peach palm shows its greatest root development at soil depths of 60-150 cm in a multi-layer agroforestry system with T. grandiflorum and B. excelsa. As the associated species developed roots mainly in the topsoil, one can assume that their nutrient uptake complements that of peach palm. One peculiarity of its root system is that the root mat rises above the soil surface (Mora-Kopper et al. 1997). Fallen leaves and other debris accumulate and decompose on this superficial mat, providing a pool of nutrients that has little contact with the soil but can serve as an important source of P in the system (McGrath et al. 2000). Lehmann et al. (2000a) found that 70 % of the total N uptake occurred from the areas underneath the peach palm canopy. The N turnover of peach palm was calculated on the basis of litterfall data at 90 kg ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ in a heart-of-palm agroforest. Lehmann et al. (2000a, b) have further highlighted the role of cover crops in peach palm agroforesty systems. P. phaseoloides, which was planted as a legume cover crop in a Theobroma grandiflorum‐Bactris (palm heart) agroforestry system, proved to be very important for N cycling, as it accumulated 83 % of total N and contributed 66 % of total N turnover in this mixed cropping system. Several authors identified Centrosema macrocarpum and C. pubescens as promising leguminous species for peach palm production systems (Domínguez 1990; INIAA 1990; IIAP 1995), delivering nutrients while also suppressing weeds and improving the phytosanitary condition of plantations. Inoculating plantlets with mycorrhiza is highly recommended in peach palm nurseries to enhance seedling growth and reduce the time to field transplanting (Ydrogo 1994; Salamanca and Cano 2005).

A significant weakness in the production-to-consumption chain consists of variability in fruit quality (Clement et al. 2004). Since peach palm fruits are highly perishable, getting fruits from the farm to the consumer requires careful post-harvest management. Depending on maturity and handling, peach palm fruits have a shelf life of only 3–7 days (Clement and Santos 2002; Clement et al. 2004; Quintero 2008). Another constraint is that street vendors are usually unaware of the exact origin of the fruits they purchase; they likely purchase a mix of fruits that have differing origins and vary in texture, composition and cooking time—a practice that negatively affects the quality of the cooked fruits (Quintero 2008), thus reducing consumer satisfaction. One of the most important quality parameters for street vendors is cooking time, which averages 2–4 h but may reach 5 h. Street vendors usually cook the fruits themselves, putting in long hours and coping with high demand for energy.

Consumer demands are only now getting more attention. In general, consumers prefer red fruits to yellow ones and oily fruits to starchy ones (Clement et al. 2004). Clement and Santos (2002) confirmed those findings through an analysis of consumer preferences for peach palm in Manaus, Brazil. They found that consumers prefer red, moderately oily fruits of medium weight. Such types are difficult to breed, as size and oil are negatively correlated (Clement and Santos 2002; Cornelius et al. 2010). Moreover, the relative proportions of starch versus oil vary inversely along the domestication continuum, with fruits of wild types being rich in oils and the most domesticated types showing higher starch content (Clement et al. 2004). As a result, markets supply more of the larger, dry-textured fruits than the preferred oily types (Clement and Santos 2002). Apart from fruit texture and taste, the most important quality trait is good appearance, which requires adequate post-harvest handling to avoid damaging the fruits. The main causes of such damage are black putridity caused by the fungus Ceratocystis spp. and white rot caused by the fungus Monilia spp. as well as mechanical damage and deformation (Godoy et al. 2007).

Processing of peach palm fruits has not yet spread widely, since diverse peach palm products have not been developed and promoted, and linkages between farmers and the food industry are virtually non-existent. Nonetheless, processed peach palm products are considered to hold considerable potential for national and international markets (Leakey 1999; Godoy et al. 2007). To realize this potential the food industry needs to identify desirable traits for potential food products (Leakey 1999). Some evidence suggests that red and less oily types are preferred for canned fruits and jelly production. Deformed and damaged fruits could be processed for flour production (Godoy et al. 2007). In Cali, Colombia, peach palm has achieved a conspicuous presence in large supermarkets and shopping malls, where women sell fresh fruit and more limited quantities of processed fruit are available on the shelves. Processed fruits are either vaccum packed or canned in brine or processed into marmalede. In the southern Colombian city of Popayán, very tasty peach palm chips are sold in small packets. Though just beginning to enter mainstream markets, chips are believed to have large potential.

Delgado et al. (1988) and Mora-Kopper et al. (1997) have studied food uses of peach palm flour. Tracy (1987) determined that peach palm flour at 10 % could serve as a substitute for wheat in bread baking, yielding dough of excellent baking quality. Peach palm has also been studied for possible use in producing pasta from a mixture of 15 % peach palm flour and 85 % wheat. In cooking tests for spaghetti and twist noodles, adding peach palm flour to the pasta did not significantly alter its quality and texture (De Oliveira et al. 2006). Indigenous people of the Amazon use peach palm fruits to produce caicuma or cachiri, a fermented alcoholic beverage similar to beer (Andrade et al. 2003; Grenand 1996). Peach palm flour, which is abundant in the Brazilian Amazon, was found to be a valuable alternative source of vitamin A for people in Manaus, Brazil (Yuyama and Cozzolino 1996). Vitamin A in peach palm is highly bioavailable (Yuyama et al. 1991). Peach palm processing offers a good option for making use of fruit types that consumers do not prefer for direct consumption and for thus alleviating problems of overproduction.

An estimated 40–50 % of peach palm production never reaches the market and is either fed to farm animals or wasted (Clement et al. 2004). With low fiber and high starch content peach palm fruits are considered to hold considerable potential as an energetic ingredient of animal feed, especially as a substitute for maize (Clement 1990). Starchy fruit varieties with low oil content are usually preferred for animal nutrition (Leakey 1999). Caloric values obtained as true metabolizable energy (TME) indicate that peach palm has higher energy content than maize and also that it is unnecessary to separate the seeds from the fruits in animal feeds (Zumbado and Murillo 1984), which represent another option for adding value to second-quality fruits. Ensiling is considered the most attractive option for processing peach palm fruits into animal feed, especially as this process avoids drying and heat treatments to deactivate the trypsin inhibitor. However, since peach palm is low in protein, protein-rich additions are required when the fruit is used as silage for cattle (Clay and Clement 1993). Benavides (1994) found a mixture of 60 % peach palm and 40 % coral bean (Erythrina berteroana) to be best for ensiling. Coral bean foliage offered a protein-rich alternative, and the silage was high in digestibility. Another advantage of ensiled peach palm fruits is that the manure of livestock to which it is fed can easily be returned as fertilizer to the plants, thus closing the nutrient cycle in the production system (Clay and Clement 1993).

Peach palm fruits can be also processed into a concentrate for poultry, pigs and fish and into multi-nutritional blocks for cows, goats and sheep (Argüello 1999). In certain moist tropical regions, where cereals do not yield well without considerable amounts of inputs, evidence suggests that producing animal feed based on peach palm could be cheaper than importing maize (Clay and Clement 1993). Data from the Brazilian Cerrados suggest that peach palm fruits could meet all or part of the caloric requirements of poultry, on a par with millet or sorghum. The fruits are estimated to provide 3,500 kcal kg⁻¹ of metabolizable energy (Teixeira et al. 1996). Data from Brazil further indicate that Bactris heart-of-palm production can be combined usefully with livestock keeping, as cattle can be fed with spineless peach palm leaves, which are estimated to accumulate at a rate of 15 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ (Smith et al. 1995; Teixeira et al. 1996). Baldizan et al. (2010) has shown that peach palm oil might efficiently provide up to 25 % of the dietary energy in broiler diets. Birds fed on the peach palm oil had a significantly higher LDLC/HDLC ratio than with other dietary treatments (i.e., palm oil, maize oil and beef tallow).

There is a small niche market for peach palm wood, especially dark brown wood with yellow stripes, which is preferred for furniture, parquet, and handicrafts (Clement 2006). One important characteristic of peach palm wood is its hardness, which makes it useful for construction (Patiño 1989).