From McGill University A plan to improve crop yields instead of shutting down industrial society as some potential eco terrorists want to do. Norman Borlaug made huge advances in agriculture. He was an American agronomist, humanitarian, and Nobel laureate who has been called “the father of the Green Revolution”. Borlaug was one of only six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. He was also a recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian honor. If this plan can do anything close to what Borlaug was able to accomplish, I’m all for it. FYI according to Wikipedia, “Green Revolution” refers to a series of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1970s, that increased agriculture production around the world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s, not to be confused with the counterproductive “deep green resistance”.
Feeding the world while protecting the planet
International team of researchers designs global plan for sustainable agriculture
The problem is stark: One billion people on earth don’t have enough food right now. It’s estimated that by 2050 there will be more than nine billion people living on the planet.
Meanwhile, current agricultural practices are amongst the biggest threats to the global environment. This means that if we don’t develop more sustainable practices, the planet will become even less able to feed its growing population than it is today
But now a team of researchers from Canada, the U.S., Sweden and Germany has come up with a plan to double the world’s food production while reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture. Their findings were recently published in the journal Nature.
By combining information gathered from crop records and satellite images from around the world, they have been able to create new models of agricultural systems and their environmental impacts that are truly global in scope.
McGill geography professor Navin Ramankutty, one of the team leaders on the study, credits the collaboration between researchers for achieving such important results. “Lots of other scholars and thinkers have proposed solutions to global food and environmental problems. But they were often fragmented, only looking at one aspect of the problem at one time. And they often lacked the specifics and numbers to back them up. This is the first time that such a wide range of data has been brought together under one common framework, and it has allowed us to see some clear patterns. This makes it easier to develop some concrete solutions for the problems facing us.”
A five-point plan for feeding the world while protecting the planet
The researchers recommend:
- Halting farmland expansion and land clearing for agricultural purposes, particularly in the tropical rainforest. This can be achieved using incentives such as payment for ecosystem services, certification and ecotourism. This change will yield huge environmental benefits without dramatically cutting into agricultural production or economic well-being.
- Improving agricultural yields. Many farming regions in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are not living up to their potential for producing crops – something known as “yield gaps”. Improved use of existing crop varieties, better management and improved genetics could increase current food production nearly by 60 per cent.
- Supplementing the land more strategically. Current use of water, nutrients and agricultural chemicals suffers from what the research team calls “Goldilocks’ Problem”: too much in some places, too little in others, rarely just right. Strategic reallocation could substantially boost the benefit we get from precious inputs.
- Shifting diets. Growing animal feed or biofuels on prime croplands, no matter how efficiently, is a drain on human food supply. Dedicating croplands to direct human food production could boost calories produced per person by nearly 50 per cent. Even shifting nonfood uses such as animal feed or biofuel production away from prime cropland could make a big difference.
- Reducing waste. One-third of the food produced by farms ends up discarded, spoiled or eaten by pests. Eliminating waste in the path that food takes from farm to mouth could boost food available for consumption another 50 per cent.
The study also outlines approaches to the problem that would help policy-makers reach informed decisions about the agricultural choices facing them. “For the first time, we have shown that it is possible to both feed a hungry world and protect a threatened planet,” said lead author Jonathan Foley, head of the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment. “It will take serious work. But we can do it.”
The research was funded by NSERC, NASA, NSF
The study Solutions for a Cultivated Planet was published in Nature. To read an abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“This makes it easier to develop some concrete solutions for the problems facing us.” Says one of the team leaders.
Throughout this exercise is an unstated need of political and social change, especially in the “farming regions in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe.” One only need visit a modern high intensity orchard – not a new concept . . . :
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repositoryfiles/ca3309p4-62675.pdf
[From 1979: The commercial potential of dwarf fruit trees]
or a modern “hot house” grower:
http://www.bcgreenhouse.ca/
[Greenhouse growers produce fresh, safe and healthy vegetables locally in British Columbia.]
. . . to see that many solutions are known.
These ideas can’t get traction if a country isn’t one of laws. Various places come to mind – none mentioned so as to not start arguments.
“Feeding the world while protecting the planet” is a very important effort which deserves strong support.
Note particularly their caution:
Because of US “green” fuel mandates and subsidies, half of US corn is now diverted to ethanol. The Energy Return On Energy Investment (EROEI) of grain ethanol is marginal. David J. Murphy, Charles A. S. Hall and Bobby Powers (2011) find:
New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI) of corn ethanol Environment, Development and Sustainability Volume 13, Number 1, 179-202, DOI: 10.1007/s10668-010-9255-7
With $5,000,000,000/year subsidies , grain ethanol is a politically popular but expensive way to buy farm votes, convert fossil energy to liquid transport fuel, while diverting agricultural land from food production.
Developing alternative liquid fuels is critically important to address “peak oil”, but not at the expense of starving the poor. Pyrolyzing or gasifying corn stover and converting it to fuel would likely make more economic and energy sense. In the long run, solar thermochemical fuels hold the greatest promise while not competing with agricultural land by installation in deserts.
Linc Energy is developing underground coal gasification with conversion of syngas to gasoline or diesel for $30/barrel. Such coal gasification to liquid fuels will provide far more cost effective interim fuels while funding solar R&D to bring the costs down to directly compete with fossil transport fuels.
Well I read the whole thing over my lunch. An easy read, because it contains little new information.
Some strange observations:
1. “Of particular concern is that some 70% of global freshwater withdrawals (80–90% of consumptive uses) are devoted to irrigation. Furthermore, rain-fed agriculture is the world’s largest user of water.”
Why are these percentages “cause for concern”? I would be more concerned if greater percentages of water were wasted on less compelling uses.
2. “In addition, fertilizer use, manure application, and leguminous crops (which fix nitrogen in the soil) have dramatically disrupted global nitrogen and phosphorus cycles …”
These global cycles have been “disrupted”? Sounds like hyperbole to me.
Excessively vague prescriptions: “Closing yield gaps without environmental degradation will require new approaches, including reforming conventional agriculture and adopting lessons from organic systems and precision agriculture. In addition, closing yield gaps will require overcoming considerable economic and social challenges, including the distribution of agricultural inputs and seed varieties and improving market infrastructure.”
I can’t see much of a “plan” in all of this – the comparison to Borlaug seems overly generous to me.
Another problem the recommendations do not address is when government policies encourage the use of the wrong kinds of fertilizers. Some areas in India have lost soil fertility and crop yields because farmers are applying urea (which is subsidized) rather than more balanced fertilizers or manuring. And then there are those places where “governments” use starvation as a policy tool (Somalia for one).
I do agree that certain biofuel practices should be eliminated, notable the US subsidies for maize ethanol.
At least the study points out the harm caused by “organic” farming. Between the 40% lower crop yield, and the increased crop destruction due to insects and disease, famished areas don’t have the luxury of being able to grow organic crops.
The study also points out the harm caused by being a “locavore”. This requires that everything that you want to eat be grown locally, no matter if the climate and soil in your area could be put to better use for something that you wouldn’t eat but could trade with other regions for things that you would.
First, a re-hash of #5:
5.Reducing waste. One-third of the food produced by farms ends up discarded, spoiled or eaten by pests. Eliminating waste in the path that food takes from farm to mouth could boost food available for consumption another 50 per cent.
No mention that one of the reasons that food doesn’t get to some people is the corrupt leaders in the world. Food shipments come in, which feed the armies and supporters, and never make it to the starving.
To some leaders the phrase “…or eaten by pests…” refers to certain tribes or sections of their country. To them, if the “pests” were eliminated, their food supplies would be enough. If necessary, they’d rather destroy the food than feed the masses.
I like their math, though: one could increase current food production nearly by 60 per cent, boost calories produced per person by nearly 50 per cent, and could boost food available for consumption another 50 per cent.
It sounds like they’re saying “if it weren’t for problems caused by man, we could feed mankind…”.
“Shifting diets. Growing animal feed or biofuels on prime croplands, no matter how efficiently, is a drain on human food supply. Dedicating croplands to direct human food production could boost calories produced per person by nearly 50 per cent. Even shifting nonfood uses such as animal feed or biofuel production away from prime cropland could make a big difference. “
Being a smoker myself I really hate to say it, BUT, surely a lot of otherwise crop producing and indeed prime agricultural land is used to produce tobacco. If things really got tight (food wise), I think that would change rather quickly. Tobacco is a luxury even to a smoker, food is a necessity.
Eugenicists would have it the other way around… reduce the population and then you can feed everybody and produce all the fuel you can burn.
They haven’t mentioned biodiversity and the negative aspect of Monsanto’s killer seeds that has the potential of actually wiping out all plants on earth.
The study sounds like its focused on legumes, maize, etc. (staple foods).
Staples vary widely and are culturally influenced so dictating genetic strains of certain crops isn’t an appropriate solution. But, increasing their production is a good idea.
Protean, fresh fruit, vegetables, salt, etc. are also required. Its odd that they neglected to account for ocean aquaculture (sea weed, fish farms, etc.).
It would be pretty amazing to see a floating or submerged farm of gyre barges timed to deliver 4 or more seasons of crops and deployed on behalf of the UN?
Brave old words:
“reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture.”
Next step will be: “reducing the environmental impacts” of volcanoes.
…-
“Neo-AGW Progress Report.
Of Gaia’s “burps and rumbles”.
…-
“Icelandic ash cloud part two? Scientists monitor rumblings of larger volcano”
“Experts believe overdue eruption of Katla would wreak even more havoc on European flights than Eyjafjallajokul did last year”
“If you thought last year’s flight-paralysing volcanic eruption from Iceland was bad, just wait for the sequel – that’s the message from experts nervously watching the burps and rumbles of an even more powerful volcano.
Brooding over rugged moss-covered hills on Iceland’s southern edge, Katla is bigger than the nearby Eyjafjallajokul volcano, which spewed ash all over Europe for several weeks and cost airlines $2bn (£1.2bn).
Named after an evil troll, Katla has a larger magma chamber than Eyjafjallajokul’s, according to local scientist Páll Einarsson. Its last major eruption, in 1918, continued for more than a month, turning day into night, starving crops of sunlight and killing off some livestock. The eruption melted some of the ice sheet covering Katla, flooding surrounding farmlands with a torrent of water.
Now, clusters of small earthquakes are being detected around Katla, which means an eruption could be imminent, seismologists say. The earthquakes have been growing in strength, too. After a long period of magnitude-3 tremors, a magnitude-4 quake was detected last week.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/13/icelands-katla-volcano-eruption-imminent
Africa is starving because of Marxists and other brands of socalists. Its hard to be a farmer when you are the target of ethnic cleansing. Elliminate socialism and Africa will start to bloom. Most of these propolsals are just cover for enacting aspects of a progressive agenda. Any artical that talks about “engaging/influencing/informing” policy-makers is Marxist. Any proposal that involves changing peoples habits, is socialist. I dont think more socialism is the solutin to problems mostly caused by socialism.
Son of a …… !!!! Why do people insist on seeing monster around every corner, and why do people insist on bureaucracies and taxes to fix problems? THESE LOONS HAVE LEARNED NOTHING!!!
No sh*t. This isn’t a matter of if, its a matter of when. And when would be when we decide to encourage their development of energy and fuel resources. Given recent increases in farm yields due to technological advances, there’s no reason to believe we’ll have any food shortage anytime soon. In my lifetime, wheat and corn yields have increased to phenomenal production.
Do these people not understand why Moore’s law remains generally true?
#1 Should be stop using cropland to grow biofuels.
Regarding #4 – There is a lot of marginal land that is suitable for cattle and other grazing animals and unsuitable to grow anything else except scrub (unless you have irrigation).
We can also end agricultural policies that pay farmers to not grow crops.
here’s a plan…
don’t be greedy,
don’t waste,
don’t buy, so as not to support, useless, non-nutritious products,
share,
& care for your neighbor as you would your own.
my Master taught me this, but He’s not very well liked now.
maranâ’ thâ’
I understand the same thing happens to people who go on the restricted calorie longevity diet. As I recall, men on those diets also lose their sex drives.
However, don’t give them any ideas! First it will start with a volunteer corps (btw -that’s pronounce “core,” Mr., President) and then it will become mandatory through rationing, tax penalties, work camps, etc.
An insult to Borlaug quite frankly, and a mix of stating the obvious, unfounded assumptions and assertions without proof, and rent seeking. As noted abpve and elsewhere, we already grow plenty of food to feed everyone and more besides.
People in the world are starving, not because there is no food for them, but because their governments, NGOs and the like, don’t particularly care whether they starve or not. Perhaps they could spend their time more profitably addressing that?
Those who are saying “ban ethanol” or biofuels:
Take away government mandates. Biofuels themselves have a place, and I personally like ethanol since I do custom engine controller tuning. Ethanol contains oxygen, which gasoline doesn’t, and it’s easier to tune for power and economy when there is oxygen in the fuel.
As with most things, I see ethanol and other biofuels as a market-driven product. Before mandates we had at least one brand of gasoline in Canada that blended with ethanol, and there were times in the past when they stopped, then restarted. I liked it. I’m sure there are people and/or companies that would be happy to burn vegetable oil in their vehicles, and wouldn’t it be cool if McDonalds were to fuel their delivery trucks with used oil from their deep fryers? Every time you were behind a McDonalds truck the smell of their fries would tempt you in for lunch.
Government mandates are where the problems start. Right now we really are dedicating an unsustainable amount of crop-growing potential to something that would probably otherwise be economically unviable. That is, in a word, stupid.
As always: food first, then luxuries like gasoline, jet fuel, etc.
Unattorney says:
October 13, 2011 at 8:47 am
7. Ban ethanol.
Don’t you mean Ban ethanol for fuel? I would assume that ethanol for human consumption should not be banned.
There was a fear 30 years ago that the world population growth rate would create worldwide starvation before now. It has not happened because the population growth slowed and worldwide food production kept on increasing. Cereal crop Yields have more than doubled since the early sixties. I thought a lot of that increase in yield was due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere worldwide. Sure plots well.
There is a lot of barren land arould the world that would probably produce good crops if there was water available. Getting water to some of those lands is a problem that an industrial society could solve if economically feasible and “allowed” to proceed.
Building transportation infrastructure roads, bridges, train and truck transport fleets for the distribution of the harvested crops is the key to the massive productivity in the USA. The on farm production and management of back up supplies of hay and grains prevented the massive losses of people and cattle seen in Mongolia in heavy snow conditions. Subsistence farming on marginal soils with out storage of surplus yields locally available, is subject to much political and environmental turmoil which result in loss of life due to lack of resilience, most of these problems are the result of the lack of real governmental protection of the rights of the basic people to own and work their land as they see fit, with out being robbed, killed, or over taxed (even in developed countries) by their local government, and their regulations.
Before the productivity of an area can be improved they need to provide for the security of the local farmers, and infrastructure for roads, and make available energy both electrical and liquid fuels widely distributed equitably with out political power plays hampering the process. In rural Africa provisions for bottled propane cooking support systems would eliminate need to burn wood, organic matter crop residue, and dung that need to be recycled back into the soil to increase the fertility, water retention, and resultant productivity of crops.
Long range weather forecasting that has meaning past two weeks into the seasonal variations, that works! would be a great help to prevent losses from weather unknowns, this is the part I am working on, some progress has been made.
A free market in agriculture is what made the green revolution work. It never worked in the USSR. Their production declined while free nations increased. They have done very well in the last 20 years. Ukraine is an important exporter of wheat, to the extent that much of the wheat ground in North Dakota and Canada was switched to more profitable crops. Africa is such a dismal place. In the Congo, if you are entrepreneurial and you grow an bigger garden and raise a few extra goats, your neighbors come and say to you, “brother you have so much and I have nothing, you have seven goats and I have none, share with me.” If you don’t share, they burn your house down, or say you are a witch and kill you. Free markets depend on free men. Millions starved in China during the Cultural Revolution (right in the middle of the green revolution time-line). Where men are free to buy and sell, free to own land and free to sell it. They have every incentive to adopt newer, more profitable technologies.
A free market drives improved practice, genetics, conservation. Bio-fuels are government mandated and they contradict the free market in both energy and food. Nobody is going to convert corn into motor fuel without the artificial demands created by the blending mandates. It is too expensive, it can’t compete with gasoline. What a huge waste of our money. Forced to buy ethanol as motor fuel. Corn prices are at historic highs – not so good if you are living on a dollar a day and the only thing you spend money on is food.
Plans are great until people get in the way…..On visits to Africa I’ve watched what was obviously aid foodstuffs being sold out of their original boxes on market stalls……
maz2 says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:57 am
Brave old words:
“reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture.”
Next step will be: “reducing the environmental impacts” of volcanoes.
==========
Icelandic Met Ofice
There are presently no measurable signs that an eruption of Katla is imminent; however, given the heightened levels of seismicity, the situation might change abruptly.
http://en.vedur.is/about-imo/news/2011/nr/2360
Apart of the foolish ethanol production: the lack of food in the world is a function of bad politics in the affected areas/countries. China is a perfect example, always part of the hunger problem when being torn apart
by internal differences and maoist ideology. Today certainly no democracy, but a country that has arrived on a global level and doesnt know large food crisis.
Liberals may think of world politics and global planning may help. Pressure by democracies and empowerment of peolpe will help. Even potential (food) rich countries like Zimbabwe or Malawi can be ruined. Is it good to invent theses “5 big” initiatives?? Maybe they are all good, but the key is better government.
DrDavid says:
October 13, 2011 at 10:41 am
Unattorney says:
October 13, 2011 at 8:47 am
7. Ban ethanol.
Don’t you mean Ban ethanol for fuel? I would assume that ethanol for human consumption should not be banned.
=========================================================
My goodness!!!! Perish the thought!!!! Exactly….. in grave discussions such as this, we must be precise and clear!!! No blanket bans on ethanol!!!!