High-yield agriculture slows pace of global warming, say FSE researchers
Louis Bergeron - Stanford News Service
Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere - the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide - according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.
The yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The researchers estimate that if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.
The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.
"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Jennifer Burney, lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read More
This study is pretty clear. Modern agriculture has saved billions of tons of greenhouse gasses from escaping into the atmosphere. When we invest in agriculture and implement modern practices, not only do we keep mass starvation from occurring, but it’s also beneficial for the environment. When we see people like Michael Pollan urging us to support an agricultural system that denounces modern technology, you need to realize everything they are asking for. What sounds romantic on the surface doesn’t hold water in reality.
Showing posts with label modern farming techniques. Show all posts
Showing posts with label modern farming techniques. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Food Inc. Follow-Up in KS
KLA President Defends Conventional Ag In Follow-Up To “Food, Inc.”
05/05/2010 08:58AM
CattleNetwork.com
Article Link
Public broadcasting affiliate KTWU- Topeka has produced a one-hour television program to air tonight at 9:00 as a follow-up to the controversial “Food, Inc.” KLA President Mark Smith served as a member of the diverse six-member agriculture panel discussing food issues on “Taking Stock: Perspectives on Food Production in Kansas.” The program was moderated by WIBW Radio Farm Director Kelly Lenz. Other panelists included Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Josh Svaty, Kansas Rural Center Executive Director Dan Nagengast, natural foods supplier Diana Endicott and former Kansas Gov. John Carlin.Smith, a Wallace County rancher, criticized “Food, Inc.” for presenting an inaccurate picture of American agriculture.
In response to the movie disparaging hard-working farmers and ranchers, Smith explained how today’s conventional ag producers deliver more safe, nutritious food using fewer natural resources due to advanced technology. Smith deflected the movie's criticism of confined animal feeding operations by talking about the quality care cattle receive in a feedyard. He said cattle spend most of their lives on grass, followed by a short 130- to 150-day period eating a balanced feed ration that produces flavorful beef demanded by consumers.
“Taking Stock” will air on all Kansas public television stations tonight following the system’s national airing of “Food, Inc.” at 7:00 p.m. In addition to providing industry sources to present the accurate story of modern beef production, NCBA, KLA and other affiliate groups are driving consumers to www.explorebeef.org, where many of the common misperceptions in “Food, Inc.” are corrected with accurate information. For more information visit www.kla.org.
As we travel around the country speaking to groups, we show them who is out telling their story and ask the question “Is this who want doing that?” If you don’t like who is speaking for you or what they are saying then you have to do it yourself. The Hollywood movie “Food Inc.” has opened the door to many discussions about agriculture. Unfortunately those involved with this movie were more interested in scaring people about their food than they were in sharing the truth. This means we need to. It’s great to see these Kansas producers taking back their story. Even more importantly though is the need for us to not let the truth get hijacked in the first place. It’s not easy but if all of us do something everyday to share the truth about ag we can do it.
05/05/2010 08:58AM
CattleNetwork.com
Article Link
Public broadcasting affiliate KTWU- Topeka has produced a one-hour television program to air tonight at 9:00 as a follow-up to the controversial “Food, Inc.” KLA President Mark Smith served as a member of the diverse six-member agriculture panel discussing food issues on “Taking Stock: Perspectives on Food Production in Kansas.” The program was moderated by WIBW Radio Farm Director Kelly Lenz. Other panelists included Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Josh Svaty, Kansas Rural Center Executive Director Dan Nagengast, natural foods supplier Diana Endicott and former Kansas Gov. John Carlin.Smith, a Wallace County rancher, criticized “Food, Inc.” for presenting an inaccurate picture of American agriculture.
In response to the movie disparaging hard-working farmers and ranchers, Smith explained how today’s conventional ag producers deliver more safe, nutritious food using fewer natural resources due to advanced technology. Smith deflected the movie's criticism of confined animal feeding operations by talking about the quality care cattle receive in a feedyard. He said cattle spend most of their lives on grass, followed by a short 130- to 150-day period eating a balanced feed ration that produces flavorful beef demanded by consumers.
“Taking Stock” will air on all Kansas public television stations tonight following the system’s national airing of “Food, Inc.” at 7:00 p.m. In addition to providing industry sources to present the accurate story of modern beef production, NCBA, KLA and other affiliate groups are driving consumers to www.explorebeef.org, where many of the common misperceptions in “Food, Inc.” are corrected with accurate information. For more information visit www.kla.org.
As we travel around the country speaking to groups, we show them who is out telling their story and ask the question “Is this who want doing that?” If you don’t like who is speaking for you or what they are saying then you have to do it yourself. The Hollywood movie “Food Inc.” has opened the door to many discussions about agriculture. Unfortunately those involved with this movie were more interested in scaring people about their food than they were in sharing the truth. This means we need to. It’s great to see these Kansas producers taking back their story. Even more importantly though is the need for us to not let the truth get hijacked in the first place. It’s not easy but if all of us do something everyday to share the truth about ag we can do it.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Adequate Food Production Requires Technology Use
Biotech, Nanotech and Synthetic Biology Roles in Future Food Supply Explored
ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2010) — Some say the world's population will swell to 9 billion people by 2030 and that will present significant challenges for agriculture to provide enough food to meet demand, says University of Idaho animal scientist Rod Hill.
Hill and Larry Branen, a University of Idaho food scientist, organized a symposium during the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting February 17 to explore ways biotechnology could provide healthy and plentiful animal-based foods to meet future demands.
Synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering and other applications of biotechnology -- and the public's role in determining their acceptable uses -- were all addressed by panelists during the session.
The goal for the session, which was part of the nation's largest general science meeting held annually, was to encourage a dialogue among scientists and the public, said Hill, a Moscow-based molecular physiologist who studies muscle growth in cattle.
"There will be a significant challenge for agriculture and the science that will be required to provide a healthy, nutritious and adequate food supply in coming decades for a rapidly growing population," Hill said.
A key question, he said, is whether the Earth can continue to provide enough food without technological support. The history of civilization and agriculture during the last 10,000 years suggests otherwise.
"Unaided food production is an unattainable ideal -- current society is irrevocably grounded in the technological interventions underpinning the agricultural revolution that now strives to feed the world," Hill said. Read More
I have no doubts that technology will continue providing with the answers to feeding a growing world. In contrast, obtaining the social license to use that technology could be the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, it may come down to a simple question that everyone will have to answer. Do we abandon technology and concede that millions, if not billions, of people will starve to death? Or do we utilize safe, proven technology to ensure we can feed as many people as possible? How you answer that question will probably depend on how full your stomach is at the time you are being asked.
ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2010) — Some say the world's population will swell to 9 billion people by 2030 and that will present significant challenges for agriculture to provide enough food to meet demand, says University of Idaho animal scientist Rod Hill.
Hill and Larry Branen, a University of Idaho food scientist, organized a symposium during the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting February 17 to explore ways biotechnology could provide healthy and plentiful animal-based foods to meet future demands.
Synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering and other applications of biotechnology -- and the public's role in determining their acceptable uses -- were all addressed by panelists during the session.
The goal for the session, which was part of the nation's largest general science meeting held annually, was to encourage a dialogue among scientists and the public, said Hill, a Moscow-based molecular physiologist who studies muscle growth in cattle.
"There will be a significant challenge for agriculture and the science that will be required to provide a healthy, nutritious and adequate food supply in coming decades for a rapidly growing population," Hill said.
A key question, he said, is whether the Earth can continue to provide enough food without technological support. The history of civilization and agriculture during the last 10,000 years suggests otherwise.
"Unaided food production is an unattainable ideal -- current society is irrevocably grounded in the technological interventions underpinning the agricultural revolution that now strives to feed the world," Hill said. Read More
I have no doubts that technology will continue providing with the answers to feeding a growing world. In contrast, obtaining the social license to use that technology could be the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, it may come down to a simple question that everyone will have to answer. Do we abandon technology and concede that millions, if not billions, of people will starve to death? Or do we utilize safe, proven technology to ensure we can feed as many people as possible? How you answer that question will probably depend on how full your stomach is at the time you are being asked.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Locavores Know Not What They Ask For
Study evaluates local agricultural production
Don Curlee • Agriculture • February 22, 2010
Producing food near population centers is the dream of locavores, but now it's also the subject of a serious study by a Ph.D. agricultural resources student at the University of California, Berkeley.
The study concludes that the benefits of such a massive shift in such production and distribution methods are not likely to be as substantial as has been asserted. Furthermore, it suggests that the benefits are dwarfed by the costs of less-efficient production and reduced access to nutritious food.
The perspective taken by study author Steve Sexton is global. He cites projections of a world population of 9 billion by 2050, and says feeding a hungry world is a paramount objective. He summarized his findings in the November/December issue of Update, published by the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California, Davis.
"A doubling of food production in the second half of the 20th century saved the world from mass starvation," he writes, "as population doubled to six billion." He credits the rise of modern farming propelled by the Green Revolution for that accomplishment.
While current food production and distribution systems are criticized by locavores for their consumption of energy, Sexton says such criticism ignores the economies of scale and the gains of moving from a mule-dominated farm economy to the efficiency of tractors and other motorized equipment. He believes those advantages likely will be lost in smaller diversified farm units nestled against the city limits.
The fantasy land Sexton identifies as pseudo-locavorism will require more than 214 million additional acres in farm production, an area twice the size of California. The transition means 40 million additional acres will be required in California, 34 million in Texas and 26 million in Florida.
"If mass starvation is to be avoided in the current century," Sexton reasons, "then we must either forsake natural land including tropical forests, or renew our commitment to crop science."
Read More
For some unknown reason, we have people in this country that are upset that we have the most affordable, abundant, and safest food supply in the history of the world. Instead they would rather have their food supply grown in places that would make it inefficient and more damaging to our environment. Not only that, but there are several billion people that will have to volunteer to go hungry as well. This article talks about the consequences of moving to a completely local food system.
Don Curlee • Agriculture • February 22, 2010
Producing food near population centers is the dream of locavores, but now it's also the subject of a serious study by a Ph.D. agricultural resources student at the University of California, Berkeley.
The study concludes that the benefits of such a massive shift in such production and distribution methods are not likely to be as substantial as has been asserted. Furthermore, it suggests that the benefits are dwarfed by the costs of less-efficient production and reduced access to nutritious food.
The perspective taken by study author Steve Sexton is global. He cites projections of a world population of 9 billion by 2050, and says feeding a hungry world is a paramount objective. He summarized his findings in the November/December issue of Update, published by the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California, Davis.
"A doubling of food production in the second half of the 20th century saved the world from mass starvation," he writes, "as population doubled to six billion." He credits the rise of modern farming propelled by the Green Revolution for that accomplishment.
While current food production and distribution systems are criticized by locavores for their consumption of energy, Sexton says such criticism ignores the economies of scale and the gains of moving from a mule-dominated farm economy to the efficiency of tractors and other motorized equipment. He believes those advantages likely will be lost in smaller diversified farm units nestled against the city limits.
The fantasy land Sexton identifies as pseudo-locavorism will require more than 214 million additional acres in farm production, an area twice the size of California. The transition means 40 million additional acres will be required in California, 34 million in Texas and 26 million in Florida.
"If mass starvation is to be avoided in the current century," Sexton reasons, "then we must either forsake natural land including tropical forests, or renew our commitment to crop science."
Read More
For some unknown reason, we have people in this country that are upset that we have the most affordable, abundant, and safest food supply in the history of the world. Instead they would rather have their food supply grown in places that would make it inefficient and more damaging to our environment. Not only that, but there are several billion people that will have to volunteer to go hungry as well. This article talks about the consequences of moving to a completely local food system.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Why We Use Modern Technology
China’s farms pollute as much as its factories, survey finds
The Hindu
By Ananth Krishnan
2/10/10
For every tonne of chemical effluents that factories dump into China’s rivers and lakes, a comparable amount of harmful waste finds its way into this country’s water bodies from green fields and farmhouses.
A first of its kind pollution survey has found that farms have contributed as much to a growing pollution crisis in China as its famously unclean factories and industries.
The study, released by the Ministry of Environment and Forests this week, indicated that widespread agricultural pollution caused by the overuse of fertilizers has led to a level of pollution far higher than what has been previously stated in official reports.
Agricultural sources were found to account for 43.7 per cent of all COD discharge. The pollution stems from widespread overuse of fertilizers, with farmers using 40 per cent more fertilizers than required, according to a recent Greenpeace report.
The use of fertilizers and pesticides has enabled China to increase grain production eight times in the past four decades. But the use of nitrogen fertilizers has increased by 55 times, and has begun to seriously impact water pollution, the Greenpeace study found.
Mr. Zhang said the prevention and control of pollution from agricultural sources had now become China’s “top priority for environmental protection to resolve the problem of water pollution in China at the root”. Read More
If only there was a way to ensure that farm fields don’t get over-fertilized. Oh wait, there is! It’s the modern technology that we have implemented in this country to ensure that doesn’t happen. These systems manage our fertilizer needs on a field down to the square foot or better. In addition to that, we use new varieties of crops that do a better job of utilizing the resources available to it in the soil. All of these great technologies are under attack though. We have people like Michael Pollan who actively promotes US agriculture use technology equal or even lesser to that being used in Chinese agriculture. His reckless ideas would put us right into the position China is experiencing.
The Hindu
By Ananth Krishnan
2/10/10
For every tonne of chemical effluents that factories dump into China’s rivers and lakes, a comparable amount of harmful waste finds its way into this country’s water bodies from green fields and farmhouses.
A first of its kind pollution survey has found that farms have contributed as much to a growing pollution crisis in China as its famously unclean factories and industries.
The study, released by the Ministry of Environment and Forests this week, indicated that widespread agricultural pollution caused by the overuse of fertilizers has led to a level of pollution far higher than what has been previously stated in official reports.
Agricultural sources were found to account for 43.7 per cent of all COD discharge. The pollution stems from widespread overuse of fertilizers, with farmers using 40 per cent more fertilizers than required, according to a recent Greenpeace report.
The use of fertilizers and pesticides has enabled China to increase grain production eight times in the past four decades. But the use of nitrogen fertilizers has increased by 55 times, and has begun to seriously impact water pollution, the Greenpeace study found.
Mr. Zhang said the prevention and control of pollution from agricultural sources had now become China’s “top priority for environmental protection to resolve the problem of water pollution in China at the root”. Read More
If only there was a way to ensure that farm fields don’t get over-fertilized. Oh wait, there is! It’s the modern technology that we have implemented in this country to ensure that doesn’t happen. These systems manage our fertilizer needs on a field down to the square foot or better. In addition to that, we use new varieties of crops that do a better job of utilizing the resources available to it in the soil. All of these great technologies are under attack though. We have people like Michael Pollan who actively promotes US agriculture use technology equal or even lesser to that being used in Chinese agriculture. His reckless ideas would put us right into the position China is experiencing.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Africa Needs Modern Farming
African Farmers Urged to Innovate to Offset Climate Change
February 09, 2010, 02:11 AM EST
Businessweek
By Sarah McGregor
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Africa’s failure to embrace modern farming methods is a greater impediment to food production than global warming, according to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Adopting this approach would help the continent offset possible temperature increases of as much as 3 degrees Celsius (37 degrees Fahrenheit), it said, citing conclusions made by computer modeling.
Africa emits less greenhouse gas than any other continent, though it will likely be the hardest hit by climate change because of its dependence on basic agriculture and a lack of funds to adapt to weather extremes.
“Even with a climate-change scenario, Africa could probably double food production with modern techniques,” Cooper said.
One key way the region can prepare for the future impact of climate change is by distributing government-subsidized fertilizer, said Cooper, a crop agronomist. Read More
In this country, we continue to hear from anti-agriculture groups and food elitists that modern farming practices are a horrible, evil thing. Of course they say this with a full stomach, which can’t be said for many of the residents in Africa. Without American farmers and ranchers investing in and embracing new technology for the last 100 years, we would look like Africa. This also highlights how ridiculous Michael Pollan’s theories are. He would like us to abandon our modern farming techniques in favor of farming how we did four generations ago. If you would like to see how well that would work for us, just look at Africa.
February 09, 2010, 02:11 AM EST
Businessweek
By Sarah McGregor
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Africa’s failure to embrace modern farming methods is a greater impediment to food production than global warming, according to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Adopting this approach would help the continent offset possible temperature increases of as much as 3 degrees Celsius (37 degrees Fahrenheit), it said, citing conclusions made by computer modeling.
Africa emits less greenhouse gas than any other continent, though it will likely be the hardest hit by climate change because of its dependence on basic agriculture and a lack of funds to adapt to weather extremes.
“Even with a climate-change scenario, Africa could probably double food production with modern techniques,” Cooper said.
One key way the region can prepare for the future impact of climate change is by distributing government-subsidized fertilizer, said Cooper, a crop agronomist. Read More
In this country, we continue to hear from anti-agriculture groups and food elitists that modern farming practices are a horrible, evil thing. Of course they say this with a full stomach, which can’t be said for many of the residents in Africa. Without American farmers and ranchers investing in and embracing new technology for the last 100 years, we would look like Africa. This also highlights how ridiculous Michael Pollan’s theories are. He would like us to abandon our modern farming techniques in favor of farming how we did four generations ago. If you would like to see how well that would work for us, just look at Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)