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/
A.Scott
People living in poverty don’t eat Kellog’s corn flakes. They don’t even buy plain wrap. They don’t buy corn meal. They don’t buy Coca Cola or even corn syrup. They buy whole corn and process it themselves including grinding it into flour. The billions in the world whose income is the equivalent of less than one USD per day doesn’t spend a week’s income on a box of corn flakes and a six-pack of Coke. I’m gobsmacked at the thought there is anyone stupid enough to uncritically accept that world hunger is all about the processing and packaging costs that grocery store predators in rich western nations willingly pay.
Antibiotics residues aren’t a problem in beef. The residence time in the bloodstream is well known and antibiotic supplements are withdrawn long enough before slaughter so it clears the system. Antibiotics aren’t given exclusively or even primarily because of corn fattening in the final few months of life. It’s mostly because the population density and stress on the animal in feedlots is conducive to immune system deterioration, infection, and rapid spread of various bacterial diseases. Wide separation between grazing animals out to pasture, which is where beef cattle spend most of their short lives, drastically lessens the chance of picking up bacterial diseases.
I don’t have a particular problem with corn being used for ethanol production. I have a problem with it being put into gasoline without consumer choice as it has detrimental effects on everything it comes into contact with due to chemical differences between it and gasoline and its high affinity for water. I also have a problem with it being subsidized with federal tax dollars for fuel use which adds insult to injury as it’s like not only do I have to have an inferior fuel forced upon me I have to pay extra for it.
If fuel ethanol were unsubsidized and consumers had a choice about it there wouldn’t be any fuel ethanol industry. Anyone who believes otherwise is either grossly misinformed or shilling for some emotionally or financially vested personal cause.
But one of the biggest fears the UN cites to justify reducing the worlds population is the inability to feed 9 billion people. If this actually works and we are able to double crop yields, with sufficient food to go around will population begin to grow faster?
Being able to feed the world, makes me very happy, but is the UN happy about this?
G. Karst says @ur momisugly October 13, 2011 at 1:58 pm
It takes a farmer, to understand…. I know of nothing, that will change this trend, until there is a catastrophic agricultural failure. The demise, of the small family farms, certainly didn’t do it! ….
_____________________________________
I agree. Until the supermarket predators have an empty belly they will ignore those trying to educate them. Very frustrating. I know how Cassandra must have felt.
The “Green Revolution” was not to benefit “Mankind” It was to free up a large labor pool and entice farmers to mortgage their land in order to buy all the shiny new carrots industry was producing. The USDA extension service and universities were the propaganda/marketing arm. As Sec. of Ag Earl Butz stated “Get big or get OUT” This is exactly what we see being repeated in third world countries today. The deliberate destruction of small family farms.
Middlemen and bankers can make very little money in a self sufficient society of farmers and small entrepreneurs. By moving the vast majority of people into cities where they are helpless the bankers, and corporations can make the most profit and politicians can tax ever single transaction. A win-win-win for everyone at the top of the economic food chain.
That is why the Rockefellers chose to underwrite the “Green Revolution.”
Nicole Johnson has done a great job of researching the recent history involved and those who facilitated it. link Everything I have been seeing in the last fifty years suddenly fell into place after I read her article.
In 100 years the USA went from a mortgage free, tax free country to a country where 97% of our money supply is in the form of bank loans. Loans where the 3% vault cash satisfies the bank reserve requirements. US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements
Not a pleasant thought is it.
agimarc says:
October 13, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Take a look at Jeff Lowenfels’ Teaming With Microbes….. Best of all is that it is sustainable. He is pretty hard core organic farming, but it also works really well for those of us who do not buy into the dogma of the organic religion.
___________________________________________________
Thanks.
My farm was part of a much larger parcel rented to tobacco farmers. It was sold because it would no longer produce a crop even with inorganic fertilizers. My soil test showed 98% inorganic (pure clay) and not an earth worm to be seen. After fifteen years of pasturing animals I now have four to six inches of black topsoil.
My philosophy is to read everything I can then go organic if the methods are proven use chemistry as the back up plan.
For instance I seeded with mixed native grasses instead of the hybrids. I was one of the few who had pasture and did not need to reseed after the drought of 2008.
The only way to work around FDA laws and big box supermarkets who cannot sell local produce, is to develop year round farmer markets and store cooperatives. Seasonal markets are all well and good, but what do local citizens do for food during the rest of the year? Furthermore, when local producers only sell seasonally, the price is set pretty high compared to big box food prices.
But I think it might work if done year round. Not everyone has a plot of soil for a garden and work schedules may interfere with time needed for garden maintenance. Cities and towns would be doing all a favor by promoting local produce cooperatives and year round farmer markets. And if the notion of value added products is done away with, profit margins will be higher. Value added products means putting it in a fancy jar. Doing away with “pretty packaging” means bringing your dill pickles to market and putting them in a big pickle barrel along with other dill pickles other folks bring.
Now if we can only ween the buying public off of “packaging”, we can get somewhere with local farmers selling local produce at a profit.
To be sure, not everyone is cut out to sell their produce. It takes a tremendous amount of daily labor to end up with marketable food. Profit margins will only allow simple living and then only if you can do the job and sell your products year round. If done seasonally, I doubt there is much of a profit at all considering the amount of labor involved.
Now that I have read this plan, I have all kinds of objections to it. Here’s some. Genetic engineering not only led to increased yeilds, it led to increased need for nitrogen and water, a vicious cycle. It also led to transportability. On purpose. Strawberries were genetically altered to travel better. Which led to cardboard strawberries that looked nice in their little basket but tasted horrible. It led to hard peaches that were all pretty on the outside but had no flavor in the inside. I can’t see very many advantages to this next push for engineered food. It is designed for large farms, food transportation over long distances, and profit margins, not to increase the quality and amount of food grown locally and arranged on a plate in the hinter lands of the world.
Curiousgeorge says:
October 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm
…. One thing I would mention in regards to livestock – out here in farm country, I and many of my neighbors bag wild game more often than we buy supermarket meat. Dove, deer, wild pig, wild turkey, etc. The same is true in other countries except it’s called “bush meat” and is frowned upon by the WWF and other similar organizations….. The best thing we could do to help Africa, and others, is to stay out of their business. Free advice (and free food) is seldom wanted.
_______________________________________________
EXACTLY!
Someone else mentioned the send a cow program. An African from Kenya explained that in order to get that cow, you had to KILL YOUR ENTIRE HERD and then the calf dies because American/European breeds are not genetically suited to Africa.
The Kenyan was here in the USA trying to educate Americans and save his native Zebu cattle from “the Good Intentions” of the United States.
Bush Meat
I am very glad you brought that up because there is an entire book behind those two words.
One of the more subtle points that escapes every one is that planting Tasmanian Blue Gum (eucalyptus globulus) in Africa and South America (thanks to carbon credits) is a form of genocide. I wrote about the trees characteristics in this comment
One of the key nasties about the tree is:
“It creates virtual monocultures and can rapidly take over surrounding compatible areas, completely changing the ecosystem. That monoculture creates a loss of habitats for many species that relied on the previous system. Due to its great capacity for taking over a wide variety of habitats, the Blue Gum eucalyptus could possibly spread to a great range of systems where there is enough water content and create huge monocultures.” http://www.hear.org/pier/wra/pacific/eucalyptus_globulus_htmlwra.htm
“…..Most dense bluegum eucalyptus stands in California and Hawaii are almost devoid of understory vegetation, except for a few hardy grasses….
The leaves of bluegum eucalyptus release a number of terpenes and phenolic acids. These chemicals may be responsible for the paucity of accompanying vegetation in plantations [4]. Natural fog drip from bluegum eucalyptus inhibits the growth of annual grass seedlings in bioassays, suggesting that such inhibition occurs naturally [10,34]. At least one leaf extract has been shown to strongly inhibit root growth of seedlings of other species…
PALATABILITY :
Bluegum eucalyptus foliage is unpalatable to cattle, sheep, and goats”
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/eucglo/all.html#7
The grass “fogged” with eucalyptus oil would also be “unpalatable”
No one comes out and says it directly but you know if a goat won’t eat it most other herbivores won’t except for adapted Australian species. That is what is meant by “creates a loss of habitats for many species”
A eucalyptus forest planted in Africa or South America creates an “ecology” devoid of other life.
Back to Africans and “Bush Meat”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Role+of+red+meat+in+the+diet+for+children+and+adolescents.%28Section+3:…-a0169311698″>Role of red meat in the diet for children and adolescents
INTRODUCTION
Over the first few years of postnatal life, an infant’s body undergoes dramatic changes not only in physical attributes, but also in developmental milestones. By three years of age, an infant’s head circumference and hence brain size will have reached 80% of what it will potentially achieve in adulthood, and its length will also have doubled in size. Therefore, it is not surprising that any adverse events occurring during these periods may have a negative impact upon psychomotor development.
In 1968, Dobbing (1) suggested that there were vulnerable periods of neurological development that coincided with times of maximal brain growth. These periods begin during foetal development at around the 25th week of gestation and continue for the first two years of postnatal life. Nutrient deficiencies occurring during these vulnerable periods may well have an impact upon brain growth and, hence, neurological and psychomotor development. (1) These nutrient deficits have subsequently been shown to result in more functional deficiencies rather than physical abnormalities….Subsequently, animal and prospective human studies have suggested that either under- or over-nutrition in utero can be associated with epigenetic epigenetic /epi·ge·net·ic/ (-je-net´ik)
1. pertaining to epigenesis.
2. altering the activity of genes without changing their structure. changes as well as intrauterine adverse programming of organ function…. (5)”
One politically incorrect study alleged IQs lower than 60 points on average in some remote African villages. A geneticist, Pierre Mailloux has been “Defrocked” for similar findings.
Those pushing a world wide vegan diet do not want people to know what the repercussions can be if you are not VERY careful. Third World people do not have the access to a wide range of plant sources and the supplements needed.
crosspatch says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Not enough food to eat yet more corn is going to ethanol in the US than is going to animal feed:
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/10/12/more-corn-now-going-to-ethanol-than-animal-feed/
______________________________
Crosspatch, generally I love your comments but you have to be very careful with that one. While corn is being diverted into ethanol the byproducts from that process, “distillers grains by-products” is used in pelleted livestock and poultry feeds.
This makes the whole subject technical and complicated. I am not sure just what the fermentation process does to “digestibility” and net nutritional value of the grain.
A. Scott says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm ….
You missed the important part. It is not the food prices in the USA (or EU) that was the problem in 2008 it was the price of grain in third world countries that double.
The cause of the food riots was POLITICS.
#1. 1995 VP of Cargill Dan Amstutz writes World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag. It got rid of tariffs and opened borders.
#2. Amstutz writes 1996 farm bill called Freedom to Farm (Freedom to Fail Act) that over produces very cheap grain. The law also change US grain reserve policy.
#3. Amstutz goes to work for Goldman Sachs.
#4. Gramm, head of the CFTC, helped firms such as Goldman Sachs gain influence over the commodity markets. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly. Wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent.
“Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof.” http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html
#5. In 2008 Monsanto and Cargill report record breaking profits. USDA reports “The cupboard is bare” we have no more grain reserves.
“…Today three companies, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Bunge control the world’s grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls three-fifths of seed production. Unsurprisingly, in the last quarter of 2007, even as the world food crisis was breaking, Archer Daniels Midland’s profits jumped 20%, Monsanto 45%, and Cargill 60%. Recent speculation with food commodities has created another dangerous “boom.” After buying up grains and grain futures, traders are hoarding, withholding stocks and further inflating prices…. “ http://www.globalissues.org/article/758/global-food-crisis-2008
In 2010 : Fmr. President Clinton Apologizes for Trade Policies that Destroyed Haitian Rice Farming – “We Made a Devil’s Bargain”
“President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient.” http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/1/clinton_rice
Sure looks like politics had a lot to do with the increase in food prices. Blaming Bio-fuel hides the real causes. The free trade agreements and repeal of laws regulating speculation with food commodities.
“TRM says:October 13, 2011 at 1:28 pm”
Crazy idea 101. If they don’t want it sold in their country in order to keep the price high for their producers then they should pay shipping to the areas where starvation are occurring.
” ferd berple says: October 13, 2011 at 6:10 pm”
That has been done before. It destroys the market for farmers in the countries where people are hungry, driving farmers out of business, ensuring that even more people starve the next year.
—————————————————————————————
Not when New Zealand removed all subsidies. Within 5 years they were employing more people in agriculture, producing and exporting more. Subsidies distort and food marketing boards restrict production to protect the producers. I’m not saying we should allow other countries to dump their excess food in ours. We have tariffs and other ways of dealing with those issues.
Take away subsidies and allow as much food production as the producers want to. If they don’t want to flood their own country’s market they can cut production or change business. Restricting production of food and allowing it to be destroyed to keep it off the market and keep prices high is just a sad example of central planning which does not work.
“The free trade agreements and repeal of laws regulating speculation with food commodities.”
Free trade isn’t to blame- the subsidies that allow nations like the US to sell food for less than they should be able to is to blame. Without the subsidies, Haiti should have no problem producing rice cheaper than the US can ship it to them for. The problem is the trade isn’t actually free. Protectionism doesn’t work.
“Which led to cardboard strawberries that looked nice in their little basket but tasted horrible. It led to hard peaches that were all pretty on the outside but had no flavor in the inside. I can’t see very many advantages to this next push for engineered food. ”
Here’s one advantage- starving people may not care if their strawberries and peaches don’t taste as good as they do at whole foods. And rotten strawberries taste a lot worse. There is a market for organic foods and you can go get them if you are willing to pay for them. But for the other 90% of the world that just wants to be able to eat, genetically modified foods save lives.
More Americans than Chinese can’t put food on the table
“Just three years ago…” Is that within the “It’s all Bush’s fault!” window?
In personal news that is of course no way whatsoever possibly related, my old lawn tractor mower died. Noting the carburetor wasn’t getting gas, I checked the lines (standard reinforced rubbery hose, not metal). The government-mandated alcohol gas (aka “up to” 10% ethanol, E10) had caused the inside of the lines to turn into black rubbery sludge. Replacing them didn’t help, even though (some) gas was entering the carb it still wouldn’t run. Well, just down the road a neighbor was selling his old lawn tractor cheap, which was in much better looking shape. As it turns out he had the same symptoms, engine didn’t want to stay running, and when he tried running it just then it wouldn’t start at all. Bought it anyway (looked nearly new), pushed it home.
Both tractors have similar Tecumseh gas engines. While looking for a carb rebuild kit for the just-acquired one, I was told Tecumseh went bankrupt. Wikipedia says Tecumseh, an American manufacturer, sold their famous engine business to a holding company in 2007, then doing business as Tecumseh Power, which closed in 2008. So original parts were hard to come by but aftermarket were more available. The “farm and country” store had an original carb listed, $180 +S&H&tax. Well, after mild internet searching, I found replacement carbs for both for less that $85 total. Easy install, both tractors now run fine.
Note A: Okay, where are those people who keep saying the alcohol gas doesn’t cause problems? I found many online reports of small engine repair shops seeing record business due to it. There are recommendations to drain off the alcohol gas before storing, from the tank and the carb, or run until empty. Newsflash, lawn tractors aren’t made for easily draining off the gas, as well as lots of other lawn equipment. STA-BIL, long-noted as an additive that allows fresh gasoline to be stored for long periods by stabilizing the more volatile elements, now makes a special ethanol version. How many consumers would voluntarily buy this equipment-wrecking alcohol gas?
Note B: The replacement carbs were from Oregon. Despite the distinctly-American company name, they were made in China.
Great article, Anthony. Thanks for posting it.
These are suggestions for government to control the land, the means of production and the distribution of the product. In other words it’s a socialist utopia. It will fail for the same reasons every socialist utopia fails, no centralized government composed of a few, however smart intellectuals has the knowledge to perform those control functions to get an optimal result. Only the interaction of all of the individuals actually involved in food production and consumption can make the decisions best for them, i.e. only a free market, can optimize those decisions. A couple of centuries of experimentation shows that to be the case.