Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Australian CSIRO, “The lines will cross” in 20 years, heralding the end of biotechnology’s ability to improve wheat yields.
Climate change to blame for flatlining wheat yield gains: CSIRO
By Anna Vidot
Updated Thu at 11:59am
Australia’s wheat productivity has flatlined as a direct result of climate change, according to CSIRO research.
While 2016 set a new national wheat harvest record, the national science organisation’s findings indicate that result masks a more troubling long-term trend.
While Australian wheat yields tripled between 1900 and 1990, growth stagnated over the following 25 years.
…
Zvi Hochman, a senior research scientist with CSIRO Agriculture and Food said the team considered whether other factors could have shared the blame, such as investment in research and development (R&D), changing patterns of land use, and soil fertility.
But those could all be ruled out: investment in grains R&D was stable, changing land-use patterns should have favoured wheat production, and soil management improved as farmers adopted new techniques such as zero-till.
“Climate variability can make it look as if there is no trend, just one year’s good and one year’s bad, but we’ve statistically analysed the trend that we observed,” Dr Hochman said.
“The chance of that just being variable climate without the underlying factor [of climate change] is less than one in 100 billion.”
…
“If we assume the same trend continues, then there’s a point at which the two lines cross each other – in about 20 years’ time – and by then we will start to see declining yields.
…
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-09/csiro-climate-change-warning-for-wheat/8337110
The biggest problem with the climate argument is Australia is not currently taking best advantage of available technology. While much of the rest of the world has embraced genetic modification to improve yields and resistance to pests, and reduce pesticide use, scare campaigns have kept Australia largely GM free, with the exception of small scale GM cotton and canola crops.
Investment in crop technology might be holding steady, but rejecting GM as an option effectively sabotages much of the value of that investment.
Consider the following study in PLOS One, about the benefits of GM;
…
Results
On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.
…
Read more: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
It is conceivable that Australia might maintain its politically motivated opposition to modern biotech for the next 20 years, in which yield gains might stagnate. But blaming any stagnation on climate is ridiculous. Embracing GM would provide an immediate realisable yield improvement of up to 22%, followed by whatever gains the next 20 years of GM research delivers.
I can think of 2 major reasons why agricultural output is flatlining: irrigation buybacks; and native vegetation laws.
With irrigation, Canberra has decided that it’s better to let river water flow into the sea than to let it be used by irrigation farmers. So taxpayers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to buy back irrigation entitlements. Land that once produced crops is now almost worthless.
Native vegetation laws are even worse. Farmers were once paid to remove scrub from their land to make it productive. Now they’re not allowed to remove scrub or even to remove regrowth from previously cleared land, because it’s “native vegetation”. There was no compensation paid to people who bought land with the aim of improving it. Instead, this increase in scrubby growth was included as a way of hitting Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. In some cases, taxpayers bought previously productive farms and closed them down, in a practice known as “carbon farming”.
+++rubberduck
Enlightening comment.
Progressives who make predictions with the right hand always fulfill them with the left hand.
The main problem is the irrigators up stream were drawing too much to allow river flow downstream.
rubberduck
“There was no compensation paid to people who bought land with the aim of improving it.”
Nor for the people who already owned their land.
And what is deemed “remnant” on our ranch is about as pristine as a recycled virginity.
yeah and made a fast buck on selling it to greentard interests
meanwhile their kids cant use the land for 99yrs
and buyers are tied to the same crap deal of nonuse allowed
cant graze scrub so fires increase n cause far greater losses to wildlife n habitat
but the greenies dont seem to twig they are the cause of the worst undergrowth n woody weed issues we face since settlement!
not enough of the pweshus snowflakes LIVE in the areas that fires kill in.
In California “protecting the Delta Smelt minnow” was the excuse they used for flushing out to sea the water their farmers need for irrigation.
http://www.thecoolconservative.com/sitebuilder/images/Bami_the_Smelt_Poaster-495×345.jpg
I don’t guess they have Delta Smelt minnows in Australia, so I guess they found some other excuse.
Here are three articles about California’s permanent water shortage (snicker!) which argue persuasively that a big part of it is due to environmental politics.
This article is from Feb. 2013 (when there was no drought, or at least not much of one):
http://westernfarmpress.com/blog/californians-lose-800000-acre-feet-water-305-minnows
This article is from early 2014 (a drought year):
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/califorinia-drought-is-not-about-climate-change-its-about-failed-liberal-policy/
This article is from April, 2015 (also a drought year):
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417685/why-californias-drought-was-completely-preventable-victor-davis-hanson
Here’s an excerpt from the 2013 Western Farm Press article:
I don’t think the pumping halts were really about protecting minnows. Protecting the minnows is a simple engineering problem. You just need larger screened water intakes. The larger the intake, the lower the water velocity at the intake. Most Delta Smelt minnows can swim at more than 20 cm/sec.
http://online.sfsu.edu/modelds/Files/References/Swanson1998JEB.pdf
It should be straightforward to design large screened water intakes, which take in water slowly enough that they don’t suck in fish. I think the real reason for wasting all that water is simply “green” ideological opposition to human use of natural resources (water, in this case). The minnows are an excuse.
It’s worse then you illustrate. The State does not want to little water in the delta either. Supposedly to protect the snelt, yet the smelt is a brackish fish and has no problem with salt fresh mix. So Calif releases contiually from some resivoirs to feed the delta. ( perhaps to protect low lying vineyards from salt incursion)
The smelt was endangered not from drought, but due to Calif bringing in game fish. Their solution, bringing in Asian smelt, made it worse, as the more aggresive Asian smelt killed off the already endangered Calif smelt.
Yet all is not lost, as State Universities receive millions ( 400 so far) to study the smelt.
Am I the only one to see a massive disconnect between the AGW narrative and this wheat statement:-
How do the AGWers get to ignore the stagnation of temperature while trumpeting the “warmest year ever”, yet the wheaters trumpet the stagnation of wheat production while ignoring the new harvest record.
They predicted the end of snow, rain, glaciers, polar caps, polar bears, penguins and normal weather. All failed. Fortunately CO2 is still there, increasing and aiding the farmers to grow vegetable stuff.
“Embracing GM would provide an immediate realisable yield improvement of up to 22%, followed by whatever gains the next 20 years of GM research delivers.”
The promises of GM technology is not sufficient reason to submit to European Union demands for eliminating chemical controls on the blights and pathogens that have wiped out crops in the recent past. So I agree with ntsdorf about predictions. This conclusion about the guaranteed capabilities of genetically modified crops are just advertisements, promises, and wild predictions. Not unlike the promises of renewables and storage.
Also, GMO varieties will be billed as “sustainable,” and will eventually become the means by which politicians will actually outlaw all of the American cultivars developed over the last 4 centuries. By claiming that chemical and water inputs can be reduced, politicians will rush madly into mandating the use of environmentally friendly, sustainable GMOs.
Only the loony anti-gmo activists have stood in their way, so I feel they are owed some thanks.
i will accept that thanks:-)
monsanto and others but them especially have bought up every small seed producer they can.
total control IS their aim
already heritage varietys are bing sought by the smarter growers and saved and shared to fight back.
I have a few precious seeds of a 50yr old strain of dryland adapted wheat to grow out n breed up.
not this year
looking like mouseplague is coming 🙁
Sorry to hear about the mice ozspeaksup.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Yet again, “Climate Change” fingered as the great demon that causes unending planetary horror.
However, it appears its evil byproducts – modelled heat and CO2 – are in fact increasing, not decreasing wheat crop yields in Australia…
“Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences tips record national crop” (Sep 2016)
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/australian-bureau-of-agricultural-and-resource-economics-and-sciences-tips-record-national-crop/news-story/ba6d21901a8db0369abcca5b37dd20f2
And their prediction was spot on:
“Australia’s winter grain crop officially a record at 59 million tonnes.” (Feb 2017)
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/nrn-record-winter-crop/8268564?pfmredir=sm
What planet do the CSIRO climate-obsessed, doomsday scenario “scientists” live on?
Sounds to me that they live on the ever-forgiving and lucrative planet of horror-scenario computer models providing endless government (taxpayer funded) “climate” research grants…
Wheat and barley are C3 plants.
When CO2 doubles, wheat productivity will increase by 50%.
It will also be more drought tolerant and/or require less rainfall.
Throw in new varieties and better management of fertilization and soil protection, wheat yield is going nowhere but up.
The issue with this study is that it is done by CSIRO. I just think you don’t believe anything put out by this organization. 70% of what you read today is just not true and you should start understanding that right now.
The key is the 20-year prediction horizon, not wheat yields, snow, ice, CO2, drought, storms, or anything else. It’s the 20 factor.
“and soil management improved as farmers adopted new techniques such as zero-till”?
Never heard of that one,I thought ‘Tilling the Soil’ was beneficial. .
It depends on the crop and the soil. Tilling increases wind and water erosion. There is also the issue of natural occurring bacteria that ‘glue’ the soil together.
There is a lot of science of growing food.
Id rather wind n water risks than rust n fungals and pests breeding in the stubble n trash,
and turning after burning, allows sun n oxygen n water in and microbes to get water and grow .
One explanation of the benefits of No-Till:
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/nvswcd/newsletter/notill.htm
John,
Is that the free republic of Fairfax?
For those outside the US, eastern Washington State and Washington DC are about as far apart as you can get politically and climate wise. Fairfax county is part of the Washington DC metropolitan area. There is no farming there just a lot of goverment types telling farmers how to protect the environment. Our youngest son recently graduated from George Mason university and commutes to DC via the metro. We have agreed to not discuss where he works or politics in general. He has the standard views coming from a university that boasts diversity.
He was explaining the problems of intercity schools to me. I got out and did not go back for my children could have diversity. Excellence and achievement should be a goal. Having lived in California, education also comes without diversity or excellence. Is the local education system pulling kids up or down?
Another way to say this is, you have to play the cards you are dealt.
“microbes to get water”
What water! Much of the corn belt is hot and humid. Eastern Washington and other places that grow wheat are semi-arid with less 10″ per year with none in the summer. Eastern Washington is a natural dust bowl. Soil have very little microbes to hold the soil from wind erosion. Farming has greatly reduced blowing dust.
Every farmer I have talked to understand protecting the environment, all city ‘progressives’ are clueless.
@Retired Kit P 7:23
I’ll respond to this, in a moment: “Eastern Washington is a natural dust bowl.”
But, you can go here to learn about your local conservation district: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/nvswcd/aboutus.htm
We just attended the annual dinner & awards of our local conservation district. I’ve volunteered with some of their activities. Last year we got something back, as they sent a Fire-Wise brushing and chipping crew to begin the work of creating a fuel-free zone around our buildings.
This was the District’s 75 anniversary, from 1942. [Fairfax’s was officialy started in 1945]
The director gave a 20 minute history of these agencies.
Now about that “dust bowl”:
We live east of the Cascades where the Ponderosa pines meet the sage brush – steppe. To the east the land was torn apart by great floods during past periods of glacial advances. That area gets the name “Scablands” because layers of basalt have been uncovered. The fine particles, silt, were mostly deposited in south central Washington (State) northeast of the Wallula Gap (Columbia River at Oregon).
That silt was carried by the wind into eastern Washington, the Palouse Region, where it (the deposit) is called loess.
Early farming practices caused significant erosion, but the conservation districts working with the farmers, and WSU, have changed that for the better.
There are a few places in the central part of the State where climate, weather, and geography conspire to create dunes. Locals consider these small areas to be “treasures” and if, while in the State, you call these dust bowls — smile when you do that.
Australian Leftist government hacks are destroying Austalia’s economy with Leftist Lysenkoism and Luddism.
These feckless political hacks make Australian food exports uncompetitive, and lower Australians’ living standards through higher food and energy costs…
How much longer will Leftist ideologies be taken seriously?
Main reason for decreasing wheat output is very low prices. Not much incentive to spend massive amounts of money for no return.
Much grain and low prices in the USA. Also, recent reports of huge South American crops are causing prices of Corn and Soybeans to fall. Apparently USA mid-west farmers are watching closely and the low Corn price forecast is pushing them more toward Soybeans. That will force the price down more. Sunflowers and Grain Sorghum (Milo) seem better alternatives in the Wheat regions.
These folks now have good international data, and adjust acres before planting. Well, for 2017, “winter wheat” is in the ground.
+1
But you left out Russian wheat surplus.
So there are factors besides ethanol?
Eastern Washington has rivers with dams. If the salmon count is decreasing, tear out the dams. If the salmon count is increasing, it is favorable ocean conditions.
There is a constant, if you produce something; there are those who will find reason why you should do it differently.
With any business, the key to profitability are: increases in productivity, efficiency, lower costs and technological advances.
Last year was the largest wheat harvest in human history, which was accomplished by crop yields almost TRIPLING since 1960 from: GMO advancements, cheap fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide proudcuton from cheap fossil fuels, increases in CO2 fertilization, vastly improved irragation systems, incredible technological advances in farming equipment technology, improved storage fascilities and distribution.
Governments must end: all farm subsidies, all food for fuel fiascos and all Agricultural Depatments. Just let the free market and insurance companies regulate agriculture, thereby assuring only the most effient, safest and cheapest producers survive.
Governments just screw up everything they get involved in.
For the record, if we are talking specifically about Australia, my research shows that the only GM crops they grow are
canola and cotton.
The US does not grow any GM wheat either.
The wheat is just good old fashioned cultivars developed through selective plant breeding. Maybe a little mutation by radiation, I don’t know.
The biggest problem with the climate argument is Australia is not currently taking best advantage of available technology. While much of the rest of the world has embraced genetic modification to improve yields and resistance to pests, and reduce pesticide use, scare campaigns have kept Australia largely GM free,
SAMURAI March 11, 2017 at 10:09 pm
Last year was the largest wheat harvest in human history, which was accomplished by crop yields almost TRIPLING since 1960 from: GMO advancements,
There is no licensed GMO wheat grown commercially anywhere on the planet. Monsanto’s experiments has cost them a lot in fines because it hasn’t been possible to confine it to the fields it has been grown in and it spreads to neighboring fields.
See for example:
http://time.com/3582953/monsanto-wheat-farming-genetically-modified-settlement/
Samurai….
With all due respect, I DON’T want to be mistaken for another Phil who posts here and obviously has completely different opinions than I do. So, I am re-posting my earlier comment under my full name. Others have also drawn attention to the fiasco of Greenpeace et al. opposing Golden Rice but I just want to make it clear that Phil. (with a full stop) is not the same Phil as me! Sorry if this is a redundant post!
My earlier post was:
“The UK government gave the go ahead for trials of GM wheat to begin in 2017 just a few weeks ago. Supposedly, the GM version has 40% improvement in yield (under glass) and even the Biased Broadcasting Corporation carried the story….with the usual spin from their environmental desk. So, the technology is there…..and I guess the same can be done for barley. GM rice (e.g. Golden Rice with extra Vitamin A) has already been around for a while and other modifications are now being planted commercially – we just need people to stop ranting on about “Frankenfoods” and to realise that more efficient photosynthesis is a good thing, as is reduced amounts of pesticides, fertilizer, etc. In the case of Golden Rice, the extra Vitamin A was intended to address a problem that kills ~ 500,000 children a year but its introduction was fought vociferously by environmental groups. So much for helping people in the developing world – rather reminiscent of Rachel Carson’s endeavours, I’d say!
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38814837
Trend is up. Take a look
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=au&commodity=wheat&graph=production-growth-rate
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=au&commodity=wheat&graph=production
As usual, if you look further, the article falls apart.
In the original wording, note the caveat.
“While wheat yields have been largely the same over the 26 years from 1990 to 2015, potential yields have declined by 27% since 1990, from 4.4 tonnes per hectare to 3.2 tonnes per hectare.
Potential yields are the limit on what a wheat field can produce.”
In other words, they make up an arbitrary ‘potential yield’ for the period 1990-2015, fine tuned to show a decline in both potential production and potential growth that isn’t actually a decline at all.
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=au&commodity=wheat&graph=production-growth-rate
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=au&commodity=wheat&graph=production
They then say it is ‘1 in 100 billion’ (red flag) that this isn’t caused by climate change. Actually it’s quite simple, it’s caused by making up ‘potential’ figures to show a decline. So much for the 1 in 100 billion.
What is surprising is how often this statistical nonsense gets air time. It should be laughed off stage.
Having learnt about CSIRO doctoring the temperature record to promote the CAGW narrative, I can’t believe anything they say.
(See that’s what happens when you tell lies.)
The term ‘climate change’ is a loaded term that means different things to different people. It is a euphemism for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The term has no place in a scientific article. This article is essentially meaningless as it pertains to a non-existent entity.
Always true. C.C. is meaningless. IN CAGW theory the C is completely MIA.
The G and the W are pretty much MIA as well.
Uh oh. Only one letter left, if the A goes missing as well, we’re all going to be in a lot of trouble.
Long story short the market value for wheat has been dropping around the world because there is an oversupply of the crop due to huge crops everywhere including the wheat crop in Australia. Farmers around the world have been aware of this reality for several months now.
It appears that there are some Australians that need to read a few market reports.
Mods, my mild mannered, reasonable post to Samurai went into the sin bin. All I said was that neither Australia nor the US actually grow GM wheat. So increased yields are not due to GM crops in those two countries.
To clarify an earlier comment that may have been s*^tcanned…
Underlying any successful theory must be a reasonable premise or premises’. This article states:
“Australia’s wheat productivity has flatlined as a direct result of climate change, according to CSIRO research.”
‘Climate change’ is a loaded term which means different things to different people. It is a euphemism for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. CAGW is an hypothesis. You can’t justify a scientific theory upon a euphemism. Would you argue that you’re psychic because you win a game of two-up? In what way could you argue or justify causation?
This is like saying, ‘X floods occurred because too many people sinned in that city and god decided to punish them’.
#First you would need to explain gods existence, then explain why god would do that…
#Similarly, you would need to explain how man’s CO2 signature has an effect on temperature, then you’d need to explain how it would be catastrophic.
Anyone that states ‘climate change’ is responsible for anything other than waste, malfeasance, and as a virtue signalling tool for leftists or ignoramus’ is plain and simply, incorrect.
So on the farm next but one to mine, the neighbour pumps his tomatoes, cucumber, greenhouses full of CO2, he uses 1200ppm but says he could use up to 1600ppm. On the other side my wheat grower neighbour envies him, because the 400ppm his wheat has at sun-up has dropped to 200ppm in the paddock by noon. Its still 400 ppm at 400meters in the air. The wheat has sucked in the ground CO2 to make more wheat. What does the CSIRO know about essential plant nutrient CO2 that makes it think 400ppm is an apex. This idiocrasy is paid for out of my pocket. These goons will get handsome superannuated pensions for being politically correct and scientifically stupid.
As far as I know, most Govn’t paid agencies in Aus can get up to 17% superannuation, paid!
My first job as a science graduate was with Australia’s CSIRO doing plant nutrition research. Spent about 7 years on the topic at 3 different labs. I rather much respect the work of CSIRO to the present, except for some poor science on the global warming front. My work with plants was a while back, but a lot of scientific fundamentals do not change with refinement and understanding over time.
To appreciate this WUWT article, one needs to separate the science of plant nutrition, breeding, modification etc from the politics of it all. Politics and GMOs go hand in hand by pressure from activists, not because there is any basic danger if politics is kept out.
On the topic of whether more value can be squeezed out of wheat from more research, I have a view that yes, more can be done. It is usual to evaluate a new strain or modification by factorial trials where a number of growth or nutrition-affecting variables are controlled at several levels, so that analysis of variance type methods can be used to find the main drivers of better wheat and how they interact with each other. These variables include the 20 or so fertilizers from major to trace, plus surrounding conditions like rainfall, temperature and hopefully now, some estimate of ambient CO2 in the nourishing air. If this is done a few times, one can optimise the growing conditions that lead to the best gains in yield or nutritional value or pest resistance, whatever the main aim is.
The problem at the coal face is that when you have optimised, you might well say, let us try for optimum at another location, another country, another soil type, another set of crop competitors. Straight away, you will probably find that your optimum set for your first soil is not optimum for another soil elsewhere. There is a lkot of sensitivity to soil properties, but you are stuck with the soil Nature put there. You can manage it in certain ways, but at the end of the day you still have a chance to do significantly better if you optimise in detail for your given soil. The gains from doing this can be of the same order of magnitude as from breeding better strains, GMOs or not.
While the science of GMOs is at the glamour end, the hard yards of normal farm improvement should not be neglected. When CSIRO claims the end of wheat improvement is near, i wonder if they have included this simple move.
That move will commonly involve tailoring applications of fertilizer such as potash, phosphate, trace and minor elements. There are about 20 of these and finding the best combination for a given soil can be a long task, but a fruitful one. I suspect that in future decades, there will be more relative attention paid to sourcing and tailoring these fertilizers, but it is not easy science because there are so many combinations. Then, there are the less controllable variables.
Prominent among the rogue variables are farming trends. The most pestilent of the current trends is no doubt so-called ‘organic farming’. At its worst, this involves ritual mixtures of dung and other matter stuffed into old cattle horns and buried on a phase of the Moon, to be dug up, dissolved with incantations and spread so dilute over a field that it has the zero chance of scientific success that homeopathy by dilution has. At its best, organic farming is a curse that causes farmers to think twice about doing odd things because they are trendy, but I can discern no redeeming feature of organic farming as commonly known that would make you even read about it. It is simply so anti-science and anti common sense that it has to be ignored.
To the extent that public science bodies like CSIRO might have to mention organic farming, or let it influence their research, or that they have to kowtow to it to ensure future funding, then it is a hazard. I do hope that the CSIRO conclusion of a maximum to be reached by wheat in a few years has not been influenced by any trendy anti-science, especially organic farming.
Geoff.
funny that your dissed organic farming was what kept the entire bloody planet fed till they needed to find a way to dump waste from war production chemical after ww2?
synthetic fertiliser instead of using crop waste to feed onfarm and allow the minerals back into the farm ONfarm. the bare minimum should be sold off farm
abbatoir waste and veg/crop trims should be incorporated back to the soil it came from
I fully agree with methods that keep required nutrients in places where they do most good, economically as well as nutritionally. It is inevitable that nutrients like K and P will be dispersed wider and wider as normal farming and consumption proceeds. Not all can be replaced by low grade supplements like animal waste alone. You reach a point where a high grade injection is needed. So potash from a mine, phosphate from a mine are best option.
Dissing organic farming is a separate issue. Organic farming should have been killed at conception. It is not the same beast as its predecessor, being the way farming was done from the beginning of agriculture.
“tailoring applications of fertilizer such as ”
I can see an application for small, pseudo random changes to the fertilizer mix in strips or fields and at harvest time a drone photo could let the farmer know what the best mix was for best production.
Over the years, the best fertilizer mix per field could determined…
I am talking fine tuning of application levels of up to 20 nutrients, so we are in different ball parks.
Geoff
Fine tuning is already here with improved soil sampling methods. Survey results are combined with airial drone or plane soil surveys and satellite-driven computer aided nutrient application from the tractor cab or keyed into circle irrigation applications from a central fertilizer storage base that feeds irrigation circles.
http://www.cropnutrition.com/efu-soil-sampling
I wish it were as precise as you describe in our area, Pam. We send in soil samples and amendment is applied to the entire plot based on an average of the samples. The Agri-Cat or Spray-buggy just applies the pre-mixed chemicals at a set per-square-foot rate. We use the GPS for planting (tractors) and harvesting (combines), but we contract soil amendment and herbicide application to folks who are invested in that agricultural service (FS).
Still, thanks for the Mosaic link, I’ll pass it around. We’ll see what the bottom line is.
I find it hard to believe farmers are not managing their fertilizer use, rather deferring to a government body for instructions.
My point is that more detailed nutrient management by farmers still has remaining potential for higher yields.
Fake news. The ABC story links back to no published research I can find.
There’s an audio interview with Zvi Hockman who said: in the growing season, over the last 26 years in the Land of Oz:
* maximum temperatures increased by 1ºC
* rainfall decreased by 72mm (per year)
They used a model to find that there was a consistent fall in wheat yields of 47kg / hectare / year.
1: Hockman does not talk about GMOs
2: temperature increases are associated with faster plant growth.
3: there’s no glass ceiling on GM. Long-term GM aims are nitrogen fixation and improved photosynthesis. Both these will lead to revolutions in farming.
4: He seems to have entirely discounted the beneficial effects of more CO2. CO2 leads to (1) faster plant growth, (2) larger plants, (2) improved growth in arid (low water) conditions.
I predict us conniving humanoids will make a mockery of the prediction.
The sooner people learn about the deadly effects of living off grain rather than meat the better. Use the land for pasture-raised cattle instead of feeding them corn in feedlots. Live off meat and fat and avoid the obesity, diabetes, and cancer endemic with living off wheat.
I eat a fair amount of bread and Weetabix but don’t have obesity, diabetes, or cancer.
You forgot to post your evidence.
Here’s a fly in the ointment, GMO alfalfa in the pasture (rare as that may be, right now)…
I was reading a study recently that examined ancient skelotons and they determined that the so called paleo diet was dominated by grains and berry’s. Not meat.
90 miles across the shallow Torres Strait lies enough water to supply 300 hundred million people in Oz. I wrote about this in the 90s. I may have been the first person to think of it. In effect, this would be like creating the Nile of the Southern Hemisphere, which never quite happened because it was cut off by the sea. Oz is amazing low and flat so moving the water would be relatively cheap.
The idea that climate change will reduce wheat production obviously is made by people who don’t know how to grow wheat. Which makes the entire premis of the article laughable!
I see from reading here that folks in OZ have been getting dosed with the anti-chemical/anti-GMO kool-aid quite often. Here’ a “natural herbicide” you can mix up yourself compared to glyphosate.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/
Be careful handling it in concentrate, it’s just as toxic.
Most of the scare-mongering is coming out of one initial source: the Seralini Team http://www.gmoseralini.org/en/
Similar in sensationalism and tactics to the central figures in the climate change socio-political movement. Both wish to unseat the status-quos of current society without offering sufficient proof of need, or alternatives other than rolling back what progress has been already made.
(Dammit- just one comma and I still put it in the wrong spot!)
I’ve been thinking of putting together a lobbying group that will demand the banning of commas. Especially military grade commas.
How long before Seralini and his disciples launch a #Monsanto Knew campaign?
‘the two lines cross each other – in about 20 years’ time – and by then we will start to see declining yields.’
How’s that for a bold prediction? It is of no use to anyone.