Increasing Yields Through New Technology Chapter 14 Dr. WJ Mueller

New Technology It allows us to gain more output from the same inputs, or Same output with fewer inputs Bottom line is increased productivity Has two effects –More profit &/or –Less expensive goods

Green Revolution Started in the 1940’s by Dr. Norman Borlaug Wheat breeder working in Mexico Problem: Wheat rust limited yield

Green Revolution Screened many varieties of wheat for resistance and found two that were resistant He crossed them with productive varieties Result: productive, rust-resistant varieties Yields increased from 11 bu/A to 20 bu/A Was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970 for this work

Borlaug (cont.) Wheat had lodging problems –Heavy heads (because of increased yield) would cause stems to break and fall over –Made harvest difficult or nearly impossible

Borloug (cont.) Bred for shorter varieties with stronger stems Greatly reduced the problem He also developed higher-yielding varieties

Borloug (cont.) Encouraged by the results, the Ford Foundation & Rockefeller Foundation joined to establish two international ag research stations –International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines –International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico

Borloug (cont.) These centers were very successful in increasing yield and technology The new higher-yielding seeds were used all over the world to increase yield It came to be called the “Green Revolution” In a head-to-head comparison with old varieties, they did no better with old production practices But the new varieties did much better with fertilizer & irrigation

Borlaug (cont.) He is credited with saving 100’s of millions of lives with his work

Green Revolution They bred for other characteristics that made these crops higher yielding –Disease resistance –Changed plant architecture High flag leaf (the top leaf above the seed head), resulted in higher yields More vertical leaf arrangement (supported higher populations of plants)

Critics Because of his work we use more: –Fertilizer –Pesticides –Water for irrigation Because of this we have lost species diversity Biggest criticism: the poor are worse off because: –they are usually late adopters –They do not have the money to adopt new technologies

Critics (cont.) Some of this is true! Overall, the benefits outweigh the negatives Is it any different than any other business? –Less productive businesses go under Studies in the 1980’s showed that the benefits were shared nearly evenly among big and small producers There was a difference in age –Younger, better educated farmers benefited most

How could this be? 1.Seeds developed breed true –Meaning that seeds could be saved and planted the next year and the plants would be the same Contrary to Hybrid seed –It must be purchased every year –If you plant seed from a hybrid crop, the offspring will not be the same –It will be less productive –Yields with hybrid seed are generally significantly higher than from traditional bred seed

How could this be? (cont.) 2. Fertilizer is almost infinitely divisible meaning: –A farmer only has to buy as much fertilizer as is needed This is contrary to such technologies as –Tractors Cannot divide a tractor easily Can purchase smaller tractors! –Irrigation systems

How could this be? (cont.) 3.The technology associated with the Green Revolution was not labor saving In fact more labor is needed to hand harvest more grain

How could this be? (cont.) 4.Because of the increased production, food became cheaper, benefiting the poor more than the rich –Poor spend a greater portion of their income on food –Cereals have a very low elasticity of demand

Results Lower food prices Farmers produced more but income decreased –Supply exceeded demand Probably contributed more to the demise of the small family farm than anything else –Efficiencies of scale drove the small farmer out of business –Is that any different than any other business?

Results (cont.) Have prices really dropped? –In 1948 my dad got $2.48/bushel for wheat –Accounting for inflation, today that is the equivalent of: –$23.61/bushel! -Last year we did well by getting $8.50/bu

Prospects for Future Yield Growth Do you think that the following will increase or decrease? –Irrigation? –Fertilizer use? –Labor?

Prospects (cont.) Do you think that technological advancements will increase yields in the future? Do you think we will continue to see the rates of increase we have seen in the past? Is it possible that rates might reverse? –Climate change? –More virulent strains of disease-causing organisms? –Pests resistant to chemical controls?

Pessimists Food growth is following an S- shaped curve? Are we getting to the shoulder of the curve? ? A 2002 IRRI project report warns: “Yield at the farm level is approaching a plateau?

Pessimists (cont.) Are we reaching physiological limits (how much a plant can produce) Remember Wheat: –Average 39 bu/A –Record 212 bu/A –In growth chamber 969 bu/A The potential is there to increase yields, but is it practical? Is it economical?

Pessimists (cont.) Harvest indexes have risen –Weight of the harvestable part/total plant weight –0.25 in 1950 for corn –0.5 in 2010 for corn (this means that today, half of the above-ground parts harvested is corn kernels) –How much higher can you go? –One has to have the plant structure to produce and support the grain

Prospects (cont.) Is it possible that rates might reverse? –Is the level of today’s farm production environmentally sustainable? –Climate change? –More virulent strains of disease-causing organisms?

Prospects (cont.) –Pests resistant to chemical controls? –Is it possible that famines of biblical proportions might return? Some argue that they already have in some parts of the world Could it happen in the USA?

Optimists Some talk of the “Second Green Revolution” Focus not on yield but environmentally friendly production practices –Green energy –Less environmental impact How can this be done? –No-till, or minimum-till agriculture –More efficient water systems –Better genetics –These are pretty much agreed on, however…

Optimists (cont) Some do not agree on the following: –GMO’s –Organic production –Utilization of waste products as fertilizer Human waste Yard waste and food waste used for fertilizer Most agree that we need to: Reduce water pollution Use less fuel Have less dust (PM10 - particulate matter 10μ or less) Use fewer pesticides Have less erosion