« Sentences to ponder | Main | Japanese gadget of the day »
Norman Borlaug on the Food Crisis
Here is Norman Borlaug, father of the green revolution, from about a decade ago but highly relevant today:
Yields can still be increased by 50-100% in much of the Indian sub-Continent, Latin America, the former USSR and Eastern Europe, and by 100-200% in much of sub-Saharan Africa, providing political stability is maintained, bureaucracies that destroys entrepreneurial initiative are reigned in, and their researchers and extension workers devote more energy to putting science and technology to work at the farm level....
I now say that the world has the technology - either available or well-advanced in the research pipeline - to feed a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology. Extremists in the environmental movement from the rich nations seem to be doing everything they can to stop scientific progress in its tracks. Small, but vociferous and highly effective and well-funded, anti-science and technology groups are slowing the application of new technology, whether it be developed from biotechnology or more conventional methods of agricultural science. I am particularly alarmed by those who seek to deny small-scale farmers of the Third World -and especially those in sub-Saharan Africa - access to the improved seeds, fertilizers, and crop protection chemicals that have allowed the affluent nations the luxury of plentiful and inexpensive foodstuffs which, in turn, has accelerated their economic development.
And here is an awesome graph showing how much land has been saved by improved agricultural productivity in the United States. 
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on June 4, 2008 at 07:30 AM in Economics, Science | Permalink
Comments
i'm suspicious of the way "area used" has decreased so little compared to the increase in "area spared". do we really believe that the "area spared" would have been converted to farming? most of it is likely marginal land that was uneconomical to farm anyway.
Posted by: DK at Jun 4, 2008 8:02:01 AM
DK, "Area Spared" is a measure of the increase productivity of land. I don't think we should think of it as an actual physical surface of land. The graph just says that we are just in a buy-1-get-1-free productivity stage in relation to the 40s.
Posted by: londenio at Jun 4, 2008 8:40:06 AM
dk...did you read the asterisked line at the bottom? He's not talking about specific acres of land (as in, section/township/range..the northern 1/4 of the western quarter of section 23), but rather the amount of land that WOULD have been needed had we stuck with 1938-1940 yields/acre.
So, it's "you're going to have to find this land SOMEWHERE if we keep doing things like this and you want to feed 1988-1990 people"
Posted by: shawn at Jun 4, 2008 8:44:40 AM
Just so. If environmentalists really want to make the argument that the novel practices (fossil-fuel based fertilizer, GMO, chemical pesticides, etc.) are incompatible with treating the planet well, their argument becomes one of population control very quickly. (These methods are the only way we have to feed such a huge population).
And rich nations aren't exploding in population anymore, but the developing world still is. Put these facts together and enviro's are beginning to place themselves in a very uncomfortable position.
Posted by: mk at Jun 4, 2008 9:31:32 AM
Just so. If environmentalists really want to make the argument that the novel practices (fossil-fuel based fertilizer, GMO, chemical pesticides, etc.) are incompatible with treating the planet well, their argument becomes one of population control very quickly. (These methods are the only way we have to feed such a huge population).
And rich nations aren't exploding in population anymore, but the developing world still is. Put these facts together and enviro's are beginning to place themselves in a very uncomfortable position.
Posted by: mk at Jun 4, 2008 9:32:01 AM
"most of it is likely marginal land that was uneconomical to farm anyway"
From the article:
In actuality, since many of these lands are of much lower productive potential than the land now under crops, it really would have been necessary to convert an even larger portion of the rangelands or forests and woodlands to crop production. Had this been done, imagine the additional havoc from wind and water erosion, the obliteration of forests, and extinction of wildlife habitats, and the enormous reduction of outdoor recreational opportunities.
Posted by: assman at Jun 4, 2008 10:02:30 AM
That is one deceptive graph in that, while speaking of "area spared," it shows colored-in areas under the curves, confusing the two "areas." Since the vertical scale is measured in hectares, there should be no deceptive coloring in of the areas under the two lines that have dimensions of area-years, somewhat meaningless.
Posted by: jimbino at Jun 4, 2008 10:16:34 AM
"Area Spared," however, makes it seem like farmland is a "bad thing" that we must be saved from.
In reality, where the laws of supply and demand are in effect, decreased yield would lead to increased grain prices, which would decrease meat consumption (since animals eat lots of grain, so the costs of meat would go up by more than the cost of grain), which would decrease the need for rangeland for the animals, and increase available land for farming.
On the other side, if you do think farmland is somehow evil, increased cotton prices might lead to more artificial fibres + more forests -- and less cotton farms.
Essentially, "Area Spared" makes a value judgment that other uses "better" than farmland, and then assumes that more land would be used for that purpose. In reality, there is nothing wrong with farmland, and there is no reason to think that more efficient and profitable farming techniques has led to LESS use of land for farming.
One might as well have a chart for "American Land Mass Spared By Increased Computer Speeds." If we assume that everyone has the exact same computing power that they have today today, but that computer sizes never shrunk from the size of ENIAC in the 1950s, then everyone would have a computer the size of Delaware, and the amount of land mass devoted to home computers would be . . .
Posted by: Rich B. at Jun 4, 2008 10:24:09 AM
Not many people realize: increases in agricultural production were the greatest achievement of the last 50 years.
Regards,
Posted by: kett82 at Jun 4, 2008 10:55:22 AM
@mk
These methods (pesticides, super large scale farms, single crop methods) are not the only ways to grow enough food to feed the world. Smaller scale farms that focus on making the land work to its fullest extent can actually yield greater numbers of crops per acre by planting mixed use fields that can grow several crops on the same plot of land (as well as consuming less resources to do so). Further, intelligent pest management schemes can be employed to mitigate the amount of pesticides needed to successfully farm a plot of land. Further, I have the impression that it is not the genetically modified seeds that people object to, but the creation of "terminator" seeds that allow for only one season of planting and then must be "renewed" by the corporation that developed the seed. The super-farm agribusiness model is NOT the only way to feed the people on the planet and discussions of alternatives are not proxy discussions of population control.
Posted by: af at Jun 4, 2008 11:03:33 AM
Rich,
You are missing the point that "spared" land is a bio-diverse natural habitat. Forests have an essential part in regulating our climate, preserving the water table, purifying the air, providing habitats for animals/birds, preventing soil erosion, preserving biodiversity, etc.
Most people do not have any idea how much the yields have increased over the course of the 20th century. Corn yields in Nebraska now top 210 bushels per acre. Even the best organic is only able to produce about 70 bushels per acre. To produce the same amount with organic farming therefore requires more land.
If you consider that only 2% of the population is engaged in ag, the yields are phenominal. It isn't called the GREEN REVOLUTION for nothing. Norman Borlaug worked for decades transforming conventional methods of cross breeding to create lower growing, disease resistant, high yield wheat. He reasoned that a shorter plant would put more energy into the grain than in leaves and stems. The same approach was applied to rice resulting in high yield rice varieties. Another innovation in corn production was to increase nutrients to improve the dietary nutrition of the world's poorest people. Few of us are aware of any of these innovations in crop breeding.
30% of the world's food supply depends on just 3 crops: wheat, rice and maize (corn). Failure in any of these crops would result in mass starvation of millions(like the potato famine in Ireland during the 19th century). Crop breeding must continually fight the evolution of diseases such as the wheat rust.
A great read is "The Man Who Fed Millions", the biography of Norman Borlaug who was awarded a Nobel prize in 1976 for his tireless efforts to feed the world. It is quite a story of one of the most remarkable men of our time. Mr. Borlaug is now in his 90s and continues to work to try to help people in sub-Saharan Africa.
Posted by: Cassandra at Jun 4, 2008 11:14:37 AM
Everyone should listen to Cassandra.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Jun 4, 2008 11:22:01 AM
You are missing the point that "spared" land is a bio-diverse natural habitat.
But you are missing the point that there really is no "spared land."
As is implicit is the book title "The Man Who Fed Millions," with Borlaug's work there were millions who were being fed who were not previously being fed (NOT the same amount being fed on less land).
Also, by growing cheap grain, we make meat more cost effective, and sacrifice our "bio-diverse natural habitat" for factory-farmed chickens and cows.
The advantage of Borlaug's work (and it is a real advantage) is that there is more food and more people can afford to eat. This is a victory for humanity. Trying to retrofit it into a victory for environmentalism, though, is just silly.
Posted by: Rich B. at Jun 4, 2008 11:22:34 AM
Wheat is an amazing organism -- four times as many genes as humans.
I think the lessons from Borlaug and the green revolution are not entirely forgotten. I've noticed that few commentators (yet!) on the food shortage have been pointing to overpopulation as the problem. Borlaug taught us the error of that thinking.
I still remember a pastor from a church in Chicago saying years ago: "Although some people can't believe it, it's true: we already have the technological means for solving the world hunger problem."
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jun 4, 2008 12:00:56 PM
The point that Rich and I are making is that the relevant marginal tradeoff is not Bio-diverse habitat vs. Farmed Land. The real tradeoff is of smaller vs. larger populations, less vs more meat eating, or possibly greater diffusion of less advanced technologies to rural developing countries rather than increased perfection of technology in the US. I for one love eating hamburgers and having a larger number of happier, better fed people in the world, so I love Borlaug as much as Cassandra, but I am not suprised that organic vegan environmentalists don't celebrate with me.
And IMHO, this is a problem for almost all technological solutions to environmental problems. Most of the "energy saved" via better MPG and "materials saved" via recycling and more efficient inventory management in the last 30 years are going to better lifestyles and higher GNP, not to lowering the planet's total use of resources.
Posted by: DK at Jun 4, 2008 12:04:33 PM
"Everyone should listen to Cassandra."
--alex tabarrok
Nobody ever listens to Cassandra! Thats the whole point!
Posted by: kevin at Jun 4, 2008 12:32:02 PM
Why so much discussion of land? Except in a very small number of countries, land is not the limiting factor for agricultural production. In most of the places that desperately need productivity improvements, the limiting factor is cheap-enough access to fresh water for irrigation. Improved seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides (plus experimental design) are great, but are not doing anything about the water problem.
Posted by: Peter at Jun 4, 2008 12:38:25 PM
Kevin, you didn't have to explain the joke. Alex clearly was being amusing.
Posted by: anon at Jun 4, 2008 12:44:40 PM
Peter beat me to it, but I'll say it anyway - there isn't enough water. Also, increasing amounts of fertilizers are required to keep lousy land as productive as it was even when it was first farmed - it loses nutrients and resilience very fast even with modern inputs. Then, of course, there are issues of runoff and other agricultural pollutants. But mostly it's water. There is maybe enough of it, but not in the right places or at the right times, and it will never be economical to get it where it's needed.
Posted by: Renee at Jun 4, 2008 1:24:23 PM
Oh, and I forgot to mention: where the hell does fertilizer come from, anyway? That's right: oil.
Posted by: Renee at Jun 4, 2008 1:25:37 PM
If everybody can suppress the environmentalist-bashing reflex for a few minutes, I think there are two important points or questions to cover:
1. There is the possibility that the agricultural techniques of the green revolution will eventually destroy the land it is used on, or at least vastly reduce its output. This, along with such questions as the wisdom of irrigation from fossil water supplies, deserves serious consideration.
2. The entrepreneurial spirit cannot possibly be suppressed more vigorously than the argi-business giants (Monsanto et al) are doing right now, with their pursuit of world-wide enforcement of such patent (forgive the pun) absurdities as the claim that they can patent genes found in pre-existing organisms, the claim that a farmer is liable for patent infringement should some of Monsanto's GM seeds "accidentally" blow off the back of a seed truck and germinate in his field, and so on. Once their patented genes have crossed over into every native variety of a crop, the farmers can no longer save their own seed without violating Monsanto's intellectual property rights; instead they are forced to pay monopoly rents to Monsanto for seed every year. Any libertarian ought to be able to appreciate the absurdity of the intellectual property regime that has taken root in the last few decades.
Posted by: Mark at Jun 4, 2008 2:09:01 PM
Alex is not the only one who appreciates the irony :)
Rich B,
Naturally, people are being fed today that weren't fed 50 years ago. Most of us weren't born 50 years ago.
If you actually look at the trends in farming, farms in Canada & the US are getting larger not smaller. A larger operation can take advantage of economies of scale. Farming is a business with high capitalization costs which are the same whether one harvests 10 acres or 100. If you look at the sector, smaller operations do not grow wheat but crops like table fruit that can be sold for a premium.
With regard to claims that organic farming offers higher yields than conventional farming, the research studies conducted at agricultural colleges across North America do not support this fanciful theory (allow me to supply the usual conspiracy theory answer that you can't trust research done at a university since they probably receive funding from a chemical company - did come across one study done by U of Michigan that did manage higher yields with one grain crop (2 other grains were lower than conventional) but agricultural experts at a university aren't exactly representative of the average farmer; all of the other studies I have seen are lower yields). Studies indicate organic farming produces 30 - 50% lower yields depending on the crop and are more labour intensive (weeding, picking off bugs by hand, etc). Organic farming represents less than 1% of farming in Canada and many organic crops do not sell for a premium over their conventional counterparts (comprehensive price data available at Statistic Canada). If we assume that people make rational choices, we must conclude that organic farming has a lower return than conventional farming otherwise farmers would be doing it.
Lower yield + higher variable costs + the same fixed costs = lower income
With regard to the increase meat in our diet, meat contains nutrients including protein and iron. Isn't it fair to say that our diet is higher in nutrition than it was in 1950?
Must agree that irrigation is a huge challenge in many parts of the world and so is infrastructure to get one's crop to market. Continuing to force subsistence farming on developing nations however does not address either problem nor does it provide sufficient food to feed populations. In developing nations, there are definitely shortages of land in certain countries where the best land has been taken. One definitely does have deforestation in many African countries making the climate more arid (take a look at Al Gore's before & after shots of Mt. Kilamanjaro).
If you look at history, mankind has been very good at making deserts. Agriculture has created and continues to create many problems:
deforestation causing erosion, loss of topsoil, and desertification of climate
slash and burn farming
introduction of non-specific feeders like sheep and goats which crop tree saplings preventing forest regeneration and making the climate more arid (ie. Italy and Greece)
deep ploughing and damaging fragile grasslands which caused the dustbowl of the 1930s
Do I want to go & live in a tent? Obviously, not. My point is that agriculture is very relevant to any discussion of the environment particularly in developing nations.
Posted by: Cassandra at Jun 4, 2008 2:15:45 PM
Does Borlaug discuss water use?
The main issue with crop expansion isn't land use, it's water. We're already using more water than the watertable replenishes in China, India, the US, Pakistan, Africa, and (of course) the Middle East. All the green revolution crops use greater amounts of water than prior versions.
Anything on this collision of irresistable forces and immovable objects?
Posted by: L2P at Jun 4, 2008 2:17:25 PM
How much of the land saved is from replacing horses with tractors so you do not have to use 20% -25% of your land to feed the horses?
Posted by: spencer at Jun 4, 2008 2:52:47 PM
Norman Borlaug is my hero. I'm sorry I don't have anything more insightful to say, but I wanted to get that out there.
Posted by: David Wright at Jun 4, 2008 3:04:15 PM
