I started on this yesterday, had to put it aside for work, and I’m hugely busy today. Then I thought, you know, I have a whole army of people that can crowdsource an article, so why not ask them to help?
OK the premise starts with this press release:
Higher temperatures to slow Asian rice production
Production of rice will be thwarted as temperatures increase in rice-growing areas with continued climate change
Production of rice—the world’s most important crop for ensuring food security and addressing poverty—will be thwarted as temperatures increase in rice-growing areas with continued climate change, according to a new study by an international team of scientists.
The research team found evidence that the net impact of projected temperature increases will be to slow the growth of rice production in Asia. Rising temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations.
Published in the online early edition the week of Aug. 9, 2010 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences —a peer-reviewed, scientific journal from the United States—the report analyzed six years of data from 227 irrigated rice farms in six major rice-growing countries in Asia, which produces more than 90 percent of the world’s rice.
“We found that as the daily minimum temperature increases, or as nights get hotter, rice yields drop,” said Jarrod Welch, lead author of the report and graduate student of economics at the University of California, San Diego.
…
more here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uoc–htt080610.php
Problem is, I don’t quite believe this study, especially since the INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE shows this graph:
Average rice yield in the Philippines and a selection of
other rice-growing countries (tons per hectare) (Source: FAOstats)
Source: http://beta.irri.org/test/j15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393&Itemid=100104
I don’t know a thing about rice growing, but I figure some readers do. How can we have a temperature rise and CO2 rise in the past century and have 50 year increasing rice yields in the same Asian countries as the study?
Some other data:
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/09/10/more-on-thailands-low-agricultural-productivity/
http://beta.irri.org/test/j15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=710&Itemid=100111
I can compile what readers find and post in comments and present it as a new article. Thanks for your consideration – Anthony
I’ve noticed over the past few years that the introduction of totalitarian/authoritarian-style regimes has resulted in a large decrease in the growth and yield of rice and other grains. I will use the example of Zimbabwe, as it was at one time the breadbasket of Africa, but is now a net food and grain importer.
And my prediction is this:
If the people who are behind this climate change scam gain control, we will see a massive decrease in the production of grain and other foodstuffs as the policies of these clowns will destroy our energy economy, leaving food production as a casualty of their insanity. Many millions will starve, as many millions have needlessly died of malaria due to the same insane policies of the same insane people. Will we ever learn?
There are several articles and studies under USDA ARS News Service at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/main.htm
The Rice studies are located at:
http://pubsearch.arsnet.usda.gov/search?q=co2%2C+rice&entqr=0&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&lr=&as_sitesearch=ars.usda.gov&btnG.y=5&client=ars_frontend&filter=0&btnG.x=24&ud=1&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=ars_frontend&btnG.x=9&btnG.y=12
Isearched Rice, CO2, Temperature:
Here is a clip from one.
Title: Yield Responses of Southern U.S. Rice Cultivars to Co2 and Temperature
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=151347
“Experiments were conducted in outdoor growth chambers to study the effects of high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on rice growth and yield. We also conducted these experiments across wide ranges of air temperatures to understand the effects of carbon dioxide on rice grain yield at different temperatures. We conducted these experiments using four rice varieties grown in the United States. We found that high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased rice grain yields by 12 to 71 percent among the rice varieties. Temperature extremes of 66 F and 95 F resulted in no rice grain yield. We found that a moderate air temperature of 80 F produced the highest rice grain yield. These results can be used by plant breeders to develop new rice varieties that will grow and yield better in our future higher carbon dioxide world. “
It seems likely that their trend in minimum temperatures parallels a trend in drought for the years of that study and leads to a false positive and a false claim. This year’s El Nino has had negative effects on rice productin. See “Drought Threatens global rice supply” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LG02Ae01.html
Because any changes in water depth can adversely affect production, this article may be really observing the effects of drought but falsely attributing it to AGW minimum temperatures. Maintaining enough heat capacity via water depth is one of the goals rice managers. Increased minimums would thus be a positive factor.
WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE IRRIGATED RICE PRODUCTION IN CHINA http://www.icid.org/wat_mao.pdf
adequate water depth should be maintained through irrigation for increasing the heat capacity to avoid the harm to rice by low temperature when the air temperature is lower than 12 in growing season of rice, or lower than 20 in the period of differentiation of young ear of rice, or when a cold wind blows over. On the other hand, the adequate water depth should be maintained for increasing the heat capacity to avoid the harm to rice by high temperature when the air temperature is higher than 35 C.
“Rising temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations.”
—————-
Are there locations where there have been an increase in the yield growth rate? :o)
A number of years ago I had a potash producer as a client. Most Canadian potash is exported. Potash is a very important fertilizer for rice. Most Asian soils are deficient in potash. They must import it. I was able to make a firm correlation between rice yield, potash exports or imports as you will, and my clients profits. Weather, unless extreme, did not appear to be a strong factor. The economic health of the importing nation, i.e. its ability to pay for fertilizer, did have a very strong influence on both production and my clients bottom line.
Change to grow tomatoes. Tomatoes require night time lows to be above 55 degrees fahrenheit. So instead of fried rice, we switch to salsa!
Tucker:
“The yield is higher due to the ocean levels increasing with time due to temps and CO2. That has vastly increased the areal coverage of rice paddies at a pace much greater than the ability of temperatures and CO2 to decrease the yields through growing season changes.”
Care to cite your evidence for that? Last I saw, Ocean levels were rising at a rate of a few millimeters per year. Also, Ocean water is saline, and would not be conducive to growing rice, rice need FRESH water.
Go ahead and show us your sources for that speculation though, I am interested in where you got that material.
A comment was made above that rice farming (flooding a field) uses more water. This is incorrect. It actually uses less water than row crops because the land used in rice farming is alot like clay and does not absorb the water like the soil involved in row crops. The water in California rice fields actually is used several times before returning to a river. The greatest use is thru evaporation. But all in all, less water is used growing rice than say beans or something like that.
Kent
Anthony’s never heard of the green revolution? Who’d have guessed?
REPLY: Wow, now how did you come up with that wrong-headed idea? – Anthony
Eureka! They have solved Briffa’s divergence problem. Most of the increase in the global average temperature is due to increases in the night-time temperatures. Photosyntesis occurs during the daytime so there is little increase in tree growth as there is little change to incoming sunlight. If warmer nighttime temperatures retard tree growth, then the tree rings would decrease in thickness even while the average global temperature is increasing.
When Anthony wrote “you write the article” but knowing nothing about growing rice apart from the fact that it grows in countries designated as very warm and humid that also have a good supply of water to create paddies of some kind, the first item I researched was the temperatures in which rice will grow in commercial quantities, which is from 20 degrees Celsius to almost 38 degress Celsius (68F to 100F). Considering the world has warmed over the last century, we are told, by less than 1 degree celsius, a plant that will grow under such a wide range of temperatures makes the conclusions reached in the article obviously misleading to say the least.
After generations of selectively breeding rice, the application of fertiliser and the mechanisation of rice farming, one would expect the yeild to eventually asymptote. To blame this on AGW is a parody of scientific enquiry.
The big shock for me, however, when I google-searched ‘Growing Rice’, was being presented with page after page after of doom-laden articles about how the world’s rice crop is doomed due to AGW.
John W. hit the nail spot on the noggin. Yields are maxed-out and so now the “yield growth” is in decline. This isn’t science. This is “dramatic headline writing” for middle school.
Is that dip in Cambodian rice production of 1972-1981 due to that monster of a communist who went by the name of Pol Pot? Prior to that, the Cambodian rice production is showing a graph with a steep positive gradient. Then came Pol Pot who killed 2 million Cambodians while his agrarian revolution produced the deepest fall in rice production. Hence, it can safely be said that we better beware the political left, including those leftist doomsayers who continuously preach AGW and end-of-the-world predictions, rather than a few fractions of a degree in temperature rise.
Furthermore, wasn’t it William Herschel who predicted the price of wheat by counting the sunspots? The more sunspots he counted, the warmer the weather, the better the crop and the cheaperthe wheat. Hence, warm weather=more food. I bet its the same for rice.
The more I look at the drought connection the more it jumps out as the cause during their chose period of study. Whey was drought not considered? Hiding the effect of droughts, is like Enron hiding the debt from the balance sheet. They are both criminal with negative effects on the economy
From: Impacts of Drought in the Philippines
http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/etdret09/WOS2-de%20Guzman.pdf
From 1997-1998 ( the main period for the minimum temperature study) About 70 % of the Philippines experienced severe drought; about 292,000 hectares of rice and corn area completely damaged. 622,106 mt of rice production loss and 565,240 mt of corn ; water shortages; forest fires and human health impacts
Wouldn’t an increase in temperature mean that some farmers in South East Asia can now farm higher up certain hills / mountains? Terraced hills are not a natural phenomenon.
Have people also considered that large importers of rice could switch to growing their own rice should prices prove too much. There a quite a few coutries in Africa who have suitable climate and soil for growing rice. Kenya could grow less flowers and tea for the European market and more rice for their own people. They would just make the switch as farmers have done for thousands of years.
I don’t fear mass starvation as some of these reports allude to.
The largest rice producing state (of the 50 United States) is – Minnesota! Seems water is more important than temperature.
“Published in the online early edition the week of Aug. 9, 2010 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences —a peer-reviewed, scientific journal from the United States—the report analyzed….”
PNAS is not exactly peer reviewed in the generally accepted sence. If your buddy is a member of the national academy he or she can communicate it to PNAS and it will be published with nothing more than a spelling check.
R Taylor says:
August 10, 2010 at 10:50 am
I have filled out the BBC’s complaint form. If enough people do, perhaps some of the lies will stop.
I’m not in the UK at the moment but I urge everyone who is, do as you have done. The BBC needs pulling into line.
Productivity at rice farms is still rising, just not rising as fast.
This is sort of like the government saying it reduced the deficit by increasing it 5% when they ordinarily would have increased it 10%.
Or me telling my wife I saved $100,000 on my new car because I bought a Corvette instead of a Ferrari.
Yes, there is more (R)ice, but it is rotten (R)ice.
“Borepatch says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:52 am
Just looking at the graph of rice production by country, you could change the headline to “Socialism will reduce Asian Rice Production”. Vietnam took a 5+ year hit in the 1970s, as the North took over the South. Cambodia took a 25 year hit after Pol Pot.
Given that the measure here is yield per hectare (IOW, efficiency), this is entirely expected.
Somehow, though, I doubt that out Intellectual Superiors in the media will rush to highlight this.”
Excellent comment, Borepatch, that was my first thought too – time and again, we see the socio-political effects completely disregarded. Just as important to note, this effect – as well as the effect of technological advances – is typically disregarded when projecting forward too.
Isn’t the study just a case of there is only so much juice you can squeeze out of an orange?
Any gains in rice production due to Global Warming, says my good pal Paddy, are actually “rotten rice” and hence chimerical.
This is the first study to assess the impact of both daily maximum and minimum temperatures on irrigated rice production in farmer-managed rice fields in tropical and subtropical regions of Asia.”
First study? I’ll try to do a search if I have time, but I’m finding it hard to believe that the Chinese don’t have some 2-3,000 year old records/observations of the effects of temperature on rice yields. I’m sure they were peer reviewed in their time. All plants have their favored temperature temperature range. (Not much banana ranching in the Yukon, you know.)
At either of the extreme ends of a given plant’s viable temperature range, yields are poor. There ya’ have it.
I won’t ask for a million dollar grant for pointing out what any gardener knows, but maybe “Big Rice” or someone could spring for a cup of coffe for me.
AH, found it. In an earlier time / article some details on what can be done with rice yields. And it has little to do with heat. From:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/11/cooler-weather-bringing-the-luck-of-the-irish-to-the-usa/
down in comments, there was a discussion of organic vs chemical farming ( I’m in favor of both, but that gets rocks thrown at me from both sides). In this case I was taking rocks over the idea that organic farming can be as productive as chemical. (It can produce more per acre, but less per unit of labor). Along the way some coverage of rice culture was done. The material would be useful in an article about rice farming. BTW, there used to be a major Rice Research Station about 10 miles south of you near the turn off for Colusa or Willows. Might want to just stop by and ask them about rice and heat. It’s there as that’s some of the best rice country in the world. But don’t do it in August, the heat will kill you 😉
Especially fun would be to contract the organic version of Rice Intensification with the projected yield losses from heat. The “warmers” would then have to toss rocks at organic farming. It would be fun to watch…
Old Comment Text:
E.M.Smith says:
July 14, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Geoff Sherrington (17:32:20) :
So where is your contribution to science on this science blog?
Well, short of a replay of the last year or two worth of postings, it would be a bit hard to list it all. Please see the archives. A nice example to start with, that started as a posting here, would be:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
A series of rambling anecdotes, some debatable, is a PROBLEM for scientists, not a help. That’s the type of ignorance that we are trying to fight.
Oh, I get it. Personal experience and field observations are Not Allowed. How convenient. And personal expertise is now “ignorance”. OK… And I guess you missed this link in the earlier post:
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
Let me help you with it. The “berkeley.edu” means it is from a University. In fact, a Big Name University. University of California at Berkeley. I graduated from the U.C. Berkeley Agricultural Extension (after it got renamed and expanded into more than just being an Ag School). They do Science at University…
If you had followed the link, you would have found it opens with the heading:
Can Organic Farming “Feed the World”?
Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D.
University of California, Berkeley
ESPM-Division of Insect Biology
201 Wellman-3112
Berkeley, CA 94720-3112
Notice that it is written by a Ph.D. That’s a doctorate. Notice that his field is the “ESPM-Division of Insect Biology”. That is, the “Environmental Science and Policy Management – Division of Insect Biology”. Notice the title: Can Organic Farming “Feed the World”?
So we have an article, written by a Ph.D. specifically aimed at the question you raised, from a Very Name University, in the college directed at specifically those issues, with a specialty in insect biology.
Somehow I think this qualifies as a “contribution to science on this blog”. But I guess it was too much effort for you to read the link yourself.
Show me a valid reference that “An ‘organic’ farmer must know a great deal more about botany of all the different crops and weeds.”
It isn’t patently obvious? That it’s easier to just dump a load of roundup on a weed than it is to find a crop that out competes it or a strategy for controlling the persistent roots of dock or dandelion that are not destroyed by cultivation or burning the tops off? I have to explain that? Ok …
From the article:
Counter to the widely held belief that industrial agriculture is more efficient and productive, small farms produce far more per acre than large farms. Industrial agriculture relies heavily on monocultures, the planting of a single crop throughout the farm, because they simplify management and allow the use of heavy machinery. Larger farms in the third world also tend to grow export luxury crops instead of providing staple foods to their growing population. Small farmers, especially in the Third World have integrated farming systems where they plant a variety of crops maximizing the use of their land.
While it doesn’t specifically use the word “botany” I would hope you can make the “leap” from “simplify management” and “variety of crops” to see that it’s more complex and you must cover more intellectual turf when you have a large number of plants instead of just one.. If you can’t, I can’t help you. And if it isn’t patently obvious that adding animals to a farm increases the complexity geometrically, I suggest trying to raise a dozen animals and see what happens. Oh, also notice the “maximizing the use of their land”. The small guy optimizes for yield per acre, the large guy for dollars per year.
Show me an estimate of how the present world population could be sustanied with “organic farming” and I’ll show you how belief in “alternative” science can kill millions of people.
I have no idea what “alternative science” is. I do know that folks at Ag Colleges with degrees in the subject have published plenty on how to get the same or larger yields from organic farms as from conventional. All based on “normal” science. Another quote from the same article (there are plenty of other articles available, and the existence proof of organic farms, if you care to look…):
They are also more likely to have livestock on their farm, which provides a variety of animal products to the local economy and manure for improving soil fertility. In such farms, though the yield per acre of a single crop might be lower than a large farm, total production per acre of all the crops and various animal products is much higher than large conventional farms (Rosset, 1999). Figure 1 shows the relationship between total production per unit area to farm size in 15 countries. In all cases, the smaller farms are much more productive per unit area— 200 to 1000 percent higher — than larger ones (Rosset, 1999).
Even in the United States, the smallest farms, those 27 acres or less, have more than ten times greater dollar output per acre than larger farms (US Agricultural Census, 1992). Conversion to small organic farms therefore, would lead to sizeable increases of food production worldwide. Only organic methods can help small family farms survive, increase farm productivity, repair decades of environmental damage and knit communities into smaller, more sustainable distribution networks — all leading to improved food security around the world.
The bottom line is that there is no shortage of food, and we have an agricultural system aimed at making the most money, not the most food. Land is in surplus, so we don’t optimize for it, we optimize for simpler management and lower labor.
From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
(which is my article) we have:
From: The C.I.A. Factbook, We have for “world”
arable land: 10.57%
permanent crops: 1.04%
other: 88.38% (2005)
Arable land is the present use, not a limit on what can be used. So we have roughly 11.61% of the land used for crops. There is a lot still available… There are several agronomy systems for upgrading marginal land into productive arable land.
I would add here that the “organic” compost and manure method is one of the best ways to turn bare sand into soil in a hurry. I have a bit of “hard pan clay” I’ve turned into a very nice square foot garden that way. It’s all about the tilth…
The “problem” is not a shortage of farm land, it’s a shortage of labor and money. We have hit the point where, in a competitive economy, you “waste” some land on lower production to get lower costs. Folks starving has a whole lot more to do with stupid political decisions, wars, and religion than any limit on productivity (but that’s a topic for another thread).
I also gave you a link to the SRI page:
http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/
I’ll help you with that one too. Notice the “cornell.edu”. That’s a big name college. Cornell. Here is the link to the articles supporting it (that you could get from the top page by clicking on “articles”…):
http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/sripapers.html
In it, you will find things like:
http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/countries/nepal/nepalrptuprety04.pdf
System of Rice Intensification in the context of Nepalese rice production
Mr. Rajendra Uprety, Agriculture Extension Officer
District Agriculture Development Office, Biratnagar, Morang, Nepal.
One would hope that an “Agricultural Extension Officer” can make personal observations that you will consider “valid”, even if not Ph.D. peer reviewed… his style is a bit “rambling” though, so maybe not…
In the lead in, you will note that he disparages the traditional methods still in use in Nepal with low application of chemicals. The guy is not an “organic shill”… I’ve added bold to some bits.
Nepal is an agricultural country. Still more than 65% of its population is engaged in agriculture for their livelihood. Agriculture contributes 39% of GDP. Among agricultural crops, rice is main crop, cultivated on nearly 1.54 Million hectares of land. Total production of rice in 2002/2003 was 4.13 million tons, with average productivity of 2675 kg/ha. These data show that
the productivity of rice in Nepal is not high (the world average is about 4000 kg/ha), and there is lot of possibility for making increments in productivity and total production.
OK, that’s a local production of 2.6 tons / ha and a global rate of 4 tons / ha as our benchmark. We need to beat that with a more intensive approach but without added chemicals (since they don’t have the money to buy them; a common problem with 3rd world agriculture…) So something like a 3 ton / ha rate for Nepal or (dream of dreams) a 4.5 ton / ha rate would be a stunning increase.
Behind the low production of rice there are various factors such as older-generation seeds (most farmers have used their own seed for decades), low doses of chemical fertilizer, little use of improved cultivation practices, less care for plant protection, etc. Still, most rice growers are depending on compost and FYM as fertilizer use is still very low.
[NTU: but this may not be all bad; SRI experience indicates that compost and FYM are better sources of nutrients than is chemical fertilizer — why reinforce the stereotype that using compost and FYM is ‘backward’ while ‘fertilizer use’ is progressive? I think this is a wrong perception] Generally farmers use more then 60 kg of seeds/ha, transplant very old seedlings (30-45 days old), and plant many seedlings, 8-10/hill. These all factors are responsible for low productivity of rice in Nepal.
I read an article of Dr. Norman Uphoff on SRI published by LEISA, a Dutch NGO. In this I found many things which might be useful in Nepalese context. So I contacted Norman for more information about SRI.
Notice that is Dr. Norman Uphoff. I’m sure you can find a bio on him. This is not some anti-science hippy thing. It is hard core crop science.
After collecting some good information, last year I started SRI in Morang district of Eastern Nepal. Last year there were two small plots less then 100 square meters with some practice of SRI (young seedlings, spaced planting, less water, and some weeding but no compost). We got more then 7 metric tons/ha yield with healthy plants (less diseases and pests).
Can you way “WOW!”… I knew you could… So these folks more than doubled their productivity and got a 50% increase over global averages. Without added chemicals. And with less diseases and pests.
Are you starting to see how this works now? Better understanding of the botany and needs of the rice plant, leading to changed and more active management of the crop, leading to higher crop yields.
That result encouraged us and we disseminated knowledge to farmers about SRI through training, a monthly newsletter, and personal and group contact.
This information created a sensation among the farmers, and we found many farmers wanted to try this technology. But still farmers didn’t fully believe in this technology. Most farmers wanted to visualize these results on another’s field to gain confidence. But some innovative farmers tried the methods on their early rice. Three farmers planted early rice using SRI methodology. Two among them got nearly 6 metric tons/ha productivity with some practice. One farmer, Mr. Udaya Narayan Nepal, planted 3 plots, with three different ages of seedling (8 days, 9 days, and 18 days). His land is upland with no irrigation facility, very low content of organic matter, and without compost. Despite these conditions, vegetative growth of his crop was very good. Tiller number reach up to 130/hill. All his neighbor who were teasing him initially become astonished to see his crop.
I generally don’t like quoting this much stuff in an article. They end up painfully long. That is why I put the links in, and then only add my personal views. That does not mean my posting lacks any science, it means it is in the links. I’d wager few comments here would qualify as peer reviewed science… it’s all about the links.
I think it is a complete waste of time to copy it all here so that folks who are too lazy to follow links burden everyone else, including the moderators, with the added volume. So please, lose the invective and read the links. Then if you still think “organic” is “ignorance” that you need to fight, take it up with Cornell, U.C. Berkeley, and the Agricultural Extension Officers of the world…
There are literally thousands of articles like the ones I’ve excerpted here, written by professionals in agriculture and agronomy, that all have the same message. Organic works. If you chose to ignore that, is is bigotry, nothing more. Chemical based agriculture also works ( I have nothing against it, in fact, I love hydroponics, the ultimate in chemical farming 😉 but they are different.
And the difference is that chemical based farming is simpler and uses less labor but at the cost of lower yields than can be had with “intensification”. Organic produces more production per unit of land, but at the cost of a lot more complexity and a lot more labor. Done at large scale, organic ends up costing about the same as chemical, but most is done at small scale and sold in niche markets so the costs and prices are higher.
Better? Neither one is “better” IMHO. If you have excess land and a labor shortage, go for the chemicals. If you have limited land and lots of labor, go for the organic with intensification. My personal preference is to aim at organic / intensification and be ready to add some chemical fertilizer or spray some pesticides if you gain by it. Unfortunately, BOTH political sides throw rocks at me for doing that … 8-}