Scientists Seek New Ways To Feed The World Amid Global Warming

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Scientists_seek_new_ways_to_feed_the_world_amid_global_warming_999.html

CLIMATE SCIENCE
Scientists seek new ways to feed the world amid global warming
by Staff Writers
Los Banos, Philippines (AFP) Aug 17, 2007

On an agricultural research station south of Manila a group of scientists are battling against time to breed new varieties of rice as global warming threatens one of the world's major sources of food.
According to the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) more than half the world's 6.6 billion people depend on rice for nourishment.

"Parts of the world will become drier and apparently that's already happening, and some parts will become even wetter," said Moroccan crop physiologist Rachid Serraj.

"But most importantly it's going to shift the rainfall distribution. It's going to become more unpredictable, and that is the problem for rice cultivation," he said.

snip

IRRI, based in this university town south of the Philippine capital and a vital part of the "Green Revolution" that dramatically raised cereal yields in the 1970s, has gathered top experts to work on "new frontier projects" to meet the threat.

This is apart from more conventional research to further boost yields, make the plants more resistant to pests and disease, and make the grain more palatable.

Rice yields would fall by 10 percent for each one-degree rise in the minimum temperature at night, time spent by the plant for growth processes, said crop physiologist Peng, a pioneer researcher in this field.

snip

Drought and salinity are already a major problems. Twenty-three million hectares (57 million acres), or 18 percent of the world's rice farms are considered "drought-prone", Serraj said.

A dry spell in hot spots such as eastern India can push up to 15 million rain-fed rice farmers into poverty in a single year, he said. Even in China, demand for water from industry and elsewhere is putting pressure on high-yield irrigated rice grown there, he added.

The two countries account for nearly half the world's rice growing areas.

snip

It now takes between 3,000 and 5,000 litres (780 and 1300 US gallons) of water to produce one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of rice, but IRRI is trying to breed maize qualities into rice so farmers could also grow them on a dry field.

So which side is winning the race so far, climate change or the scientists? The research is being hampered by a funding crunch that has hit IRRI.

"At this stage, I think it is equal, but if we're not going to increase our support, we're going to lose the battle," Peng said.

that seems to be the trend these days. Breed/genetically modify one strain into a superproducing, ultracool cultivar. Invariably it will fail. They should be trying to identify the various strains that are good producers in ONE set of conditions (hot & dry, cool & dry, hot & wet, cool & wet) etc. Like any ecosystem, agriculture cannot survive in monoculture without huge imputs from man. We need a diverse range of hardy, self-sufficient breeds, not a magic cureall strain.

Corporate domination of these countries with GM foods that only bring more poverty to these areas when it is found to spread diseases or to cause the disappearance of species (like bees.) Yes, and I agree about producing one strain that can adapt to various changes in climate, especially regarding drought.

If, say, the Gates foundation steps in, there may be a chance of some sanity. If Monsanto suddenly get all philanthropic, it'll go straight down the toilet.

Wait and see, I guess.

the Gates Foundation was involved in getting the strain of "Golden Rice" introduced into India, leading to an incredible loss of biodiversity. I have to check up on that one.

While I have huge respect for Bill & Melinda Gates sharing their fortune, I think the inner geek can cloud his judgement sometimes. There is no "silver bullet" for feeding the worlds hungry, no matter how promising a certain cultivar appears.

It was created in the 90's and phase 2 was supported by the Gates Foundation. Vitamin A defficiency is a big deal in India and this rice, loaded as it is with beta carotene, goes a long way in addressing that need.

Oh well. Guess it was worth a go...

My inner Geek hates him with a passion, BTW - I work in IT. :evilfrown:

its hard to argue with genetic modification. Increased yields, increased vitamin & mineral content, pest resistance, etc. But when we see the costs (and they will come) we'll shake our heads and wonder why we ever got suckered for this. GM crops are already showing thier failings and further investment is showing our lack of understanding.

IMO, we should forget the hocus-pocus of genetic modification and focus on PROVEN, time-tested policies: crop rotation, sustainible agriculture, biodiversity, local production, intensive rotational grazing, polyculture, the list is endless. These have PROVEN themselves to be worthwhile through countless generations. If we we redouble our efforts, we CAN feed the hungry people of this world for years to come, without GM crops.

Soil fertility has declined by up to 30% in the last 70 years, world-wide. The only way we are feeding 6.6 billion right now is thanks to artificial fertilizers made from cheap natural gas. Re-building depleted soils to produce adequate crops without them could take up to a century of intensive effort. I'm not convinced that we can bridge to low-input organic agriculture without a major multi-decade reduction in global output between now and then. Traditional techniques depend on an undamaged environment, and there are over twice as many mouths to feed as there were when they were last used on a global scale.

GM crops (and even the industrial monoculture of non-GM crops) are already presenting us with unintended consequences, and that will only get worse. As climate chaos threatens the world's crops with droughts and floods, and the supply of cheap natural gas for fertilizer dwindles, we are going to be faced with some very hard philosophical and demographic decisions in the coming few decades.

"Re-building depleted soils to produce adequate crops without them could take up to a century of intensive effort."

Ive links galore if you're interested. There are people today who are taking degraded and/or eroded land and making it productive again without using fertilizers. Soil fertility can be increased relatively quickly with 1) good management 2) small scales and 3) persistence. It is a labor intensive commitment however and takes quite a bit of planning. (edit - more planning than your typical "apply X amount of chemical Y on plot #1 once every 2 weeks")

Typically, a transition from traditional agriculture(high input, manmade fertilizers, etc) to sustainible/organic practices looks like this: a one to two year drop in yields as the soil adjusts (though profit can stay even as costs drop) followed by ever-increasing yields above and beyond previous levels. Its like a junkie kicking the habit - we've been hooked so long and the withdrawl hurts but in the long run its well worth it.

Specifically, any having to do with soil remediation to restore carbon content and humus that has been damaged by normal agricultural practices. My understanding is that humus takes about 500 years to regenerate, but that may be in forests without any human intervention.

I also know about, and am a big fan of, terra preta. That could conceivably repair damaged soil over the course of two or three years, but it requires a lot of charcoal to do that - potentially 10 tonnes or more per hectare. That means the world could use over 50 gigatonnes of carbon as charcoal to replace lost fertility. To put it in perspective, that is 8% of all the carbon in all the vegetation on Earth, or about 8 years' worth of the carbon released by our fossil fuel combustion. The logistics make it look problematic when you consider doing it globally on 5 billion hectares.

What sorts of organic inputs are used to remediate soil in the transitions you know of?

Terra preta is a promising "new" technique (created by Amerindians 1000's of years ago) to restore soil fertility. Its very exciting but so far there hasnt been a whole lot of research. Im actually considering getting my masters back in China and studying charcoal incorporation. But I digress. Research into ADE is neat and offers a lot of hope but its still unproven in the modern world. Below are some PROVEN methods of restoring soil fertility. Bear in mind these are links to get you started, not the actual published studies.

http://www.permaculture.org - Developed as a coherent theory in the 70's, this is one of the cornerstones of sustainible agriculture. Increasing soil health by crop rotation, soil amendments, addition of organic matter, etc. Buy the book - its worth it.

www.newfarm.org - An experimental farm in PA funded by the Rodale Institute (http://www.rodaleinstitute.org). I believe they are 100% organic by this point and they have turned the farm around in a short period. It went from a badly degraded piece of land farmed conventionally to a healthy, productive farm with few man-made inputs. Again, lots of cover cropping, crop rotation, intensive management, etc.

http://polyfacefarms.com - Right next to my home in the Shenandoah Valley in VA. They've done things the "right way" for generations and show others how it can be done. Intensive grazing, crop rotation, you get the picture. They have built up their soil through the years and have GREAT chicken and beef!

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/SERG - SDSU soil restoration group

http://www.clu-in.org/conf/tio/ecorestoration2_100506/ - An EPA online seminar. Neat pictures illustrate soil restoration.

The list goes on and on. The point? Soil can be quickly and safely rehabilitated with 1) discontinued use of man-made chemicals and fertilizers 2) additions of organic matter and 3) proper management.

:thumbsup:

Clearly not the trend of the last few thousand years though(especially since the green revolution).

Let's issue lots of panaceas about how wonderful biofuels are and tell everyone that they can keep meeting their "renewable portfolio standards" by running their Mercedes on Palm oil imported from Malyasian palm plantations.

Then let's issue lots of platitudes about the subject of renewable energy and how great it is, even if we have never bothered to count exajoules.

We won't do doodly squat about climate change or any other issues connected with the car culture, but we'll all feel really, really, really, really, really proud of ourselves and our level of concern for the environment.

And that's what counts, is it not? Feel good stuff...

"And that's what counts, is it not? Feel good stuff..."

Our government and many of our fellow citizens are happy to embrace the false hope of corn-based ethanol because 1) it makes them feel good and 2) there is money to be made.

Whatever happened to the notion resource efficiency? Increased fuel economy? Proper urban planning & development? :shrug: