Industrial agriculture could be hitting fundamental limits in its capacity to produce sufficient crops to feed an expanding global population, according to new research published in Nature Communications.
The study by scientists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the US argues that there have been abrupt declines or plateaus in the rate of production of major crops, undermining optimistic projections of constantly increasing crop yields.
As much as “31 percent of total global rice, wheat and maize production” has experienced “yield plateaus or abrupt decreases in yield gain, including rice in eastern Asia and wheat in northwest Europe,” the study said.
Illustration: Mountain people
The declines and plateaus in production have become prevalent despite increasing investment in agriculture, which could mean that maximum potential yields under the industrial model of agribusiness have already occurred.
Crop yields in “major cereal-producing regions have not increased for long periods of time following an earlier period of steady linear increase,” it added.
The paper makes for ominous reading. Production levels have already flattened out with “no case of a return to the previous rising yield trend” for key regions amounting to “33 percent of global rice and 27 percent of global wheat production,” the study said.
The US researchers concluded that these yield plateaus could be explained by the inference that “average farm yields approach a biophysical yield ceiling for the crop in question, which is determined by its yield potential in the regions where the crop is produced.”
They wrote: “We found widespread deceleration in the relative rate of increase of average yields of the major cereal crops during the 1990-2010 period in countries with greatest production of these crops, and strong evidence of yield plateaus or an abrupt drop in rate of yield gain in 44 percent of the cases, which, together, account for 31 percent of total global rice, wheat and maize production.”
Past trends over the last five decades of perpetually increasing crop yields were “driven by rapid adoption of green revolution technologies that were largely one-time innovations” that cannot be repeated.
These include major industrial innovations such as “the development of semi-dwarf wheat and rice varieties, first widespread use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides, and large investments to expand irrigation infrastructure,” it said.
Although agricultural investment in China increased threefold from 1981 to 2000, rates of increase for wheat yields have remained constant, decreased by 64 percent for maize and are negligible in rice.
Similarly, the rate of maize yield has remained largely flat despite a 58 percent investment increased over the same period.
The study warned: “A concern is that despite the increase in investment in agricultural R&D [research and development] and education during this period, the relative rate of yield gain for the major food crops has decreased over time together with evidence of upper yield plateaus in some of the most productive domains.”
The study criticizes most other yield projection models which predict compound or exponential production increases over coming years and decades, even though these “do not occur in the real world.”
It said that “such growth rates are not feasible over the long term because average farm yields eventually approach a yield potential ceiling determined by biophysical limits on crop growth rates and yield.”
Factors contributing to the declines or plateaus in food production rates include land and soil degradation, climate change and cyclical weather patterns, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and inadequate or inappropriate investment.
The new research raises critical questions about the capacity of traditional industrial agricultural methods to sustain global food production for a growing world population.
Food production will need to increase by about 60 percent by 2050 to meet demand.
A report published this month by Rabobank recommends cutting food waste by 10 percent, as more than 1 billion tonnes — half of which is related to agriculture — ends up being wasted.
More efficient use of water is necessary, the report said, such as micro-irrigation, to address a potential water supply deficit of 40 percent by 2030.
Currently, agriculture accounts for 70 percent of global water demand.
The report also called for a reduction in dependence on fertilizers using “input optimization” methods designed to reduce the amount of energy and water required.
As 53 percent of fertilizer nutrients remain in the ground post-harvest, fertilizers contribute to soil degradation over time due to groundwater contamination, leaching, erosion and global warming.
The Rabobank obsession with focusing on the percentage improvement of existing industrial methods without quite grasping the scale of the problems facing industrial agriculture is a serious deficiency.
Two years ago, a landmark report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food demonstrated that agroecology based on sustainable, small-scale, organic methods could potentially double food production in entire regions facing persistent hunger over five to 10 years.
Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development and author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS