Humanity has enjoyed an unusual streak of food surplus since the green revolution began in the mid-1960s. These trends sustained economic development and a significant reduction in global hunger and poverty. A sharp reversal is now possible, however, given strong economic growth in the world’s most populous countries and loss of suitable cropland.
People with rising incomes consume more meat and livestock products, which in turn requires more grain per unit of food produced. The rapid expansion of biofuel production only complicates the competition between food and fuel.
Moreover, yields of rice and wheat are running up against the genetic ceiling allowed by current varieties, and rates of yield increase are not sufficient to meet the demand for livestock feed, food and biofuels for the world’s 6.5 billion people. Without significant improvements, massive deforestation and environmental degradation will be inevitable in trying to feed the nine billion individuals who will be alive in 2050.
Debate is now raging over whether climate change will further reduce the world’s ability to feed itself. Estimating the long-term effects is critical to setting effective policies that ensure food security. Unfortunately, the answers differ. Much of this inconsistency arises because yield research conducted in greenhouses and on small plots, the current experimental methods, does not predict performance on commercial-scale fields; the conditions are just not comparable to production-scale farming. Without direct measurements under realistic growth conditions, we must resort to computer models or evaluations of historical data—and they show disparate results, too.
There is an urgent need to better quantify the impact of projected climate change on major crop yields. Funding for real-world experiments has been crashing, however. And linkages between models for climate change and crop production are relatively crude.
Policymakers depend on that work, but the models are only as good as the science behind them. The models’ predictions must be validated with real-world measures of how climate affects crops grown in actual agricultural ecosystems, over time and across regions. Without rigorous validation, models can mislead, as small errors expand into large ones.
Carbon sequestration in soil is a case in point. Models predict that soils will hold on to more carbon under so-called no-till farming practices, in which plant stalks and roots remaining after harvest are left to decompose. Yet recent studies based on direct measurement of soil have not confirmed any net improvement.
We cannot wait for perfect simulations; policy decisions must be made with imperfect knowledge. The danger, of course, is that poor policies built on erroneous models can waste billions of dollars. We must spend more on real-world research to improve the models so we can predict the impact of climate change. Only then can we decide whether the world can tolerate more crops for biofuels.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Biofuels or Food?"
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentNitrogen fixing crops like Faba beans that can be cropped for hay in the first year and then harvested the second year, could provide a viable solution. The plant fibre in the hay season is valuable for silage or fuel conversion, and the following year brings a food crop. The nitrogen fixing stage plus the no-till component in a hay collection year is a good equivalent to leaving a field lay fallow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fear that fuel crops will replace food crops is not an inevitability. People are forgetting the vast tracts of land that lay fallow from year to year. Those fields can grow any variety of nitrogen fixing plants that yield suitable material for ethanol production while at the same time replenishing the soil for a food crop.
Also, there are always food crop yields that for one reason or another are not suitable for human consumption but could instead be diverted to fuel production.
More deliberate planning where land use and crop choice is concerned would alleviate much of the potential for concern. Poor planning/farming practices are the real problem. Education and opportunities to sell multiple use crop products would provide the cash incentive to encourage better farming practice and responsible land use.
Food corn and corn used for bio-fuels are different. Most companies contract with farmers to grow what they need and this also applies to popcorn. The problem is they won't contract enough acres and also they don't pay the farmer enough to bother raising lower yielding crops like popcorn. If we run out of corn flakes it isn't the farmers fault!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have written several blogs on the issue and your readers should take a minute to comment on them, I'm happy to respond to any intelligent question or comment. www.acresofgreen.com/blogpage
The idea with manufacturer support is of importance,the natural fuels,otherwise gas conversions qaulity standard are manipulative.Special modgules and electronics of vehicles are vast and complicated,manufacturer support even if not reconized as proprieter is a manufacturer engineering importance ! Defeats the purpose otherwise,fuel economy,comsumption and reliability are targeted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe natural bio fuels are of the simplest implementation and most vehicles were originally designed to operate from ! They did'nt invent gas/diesel combustion fuel till much later. These same manufacturer engineers are again much needed and or wanted ! There designes are successful to say the least , The application of an unusual solution to a normal problem is irrational, There the experts,Why change a successful action.
The original question, or concern, is can we "grow" our fuel and food without totally depleted the environment? Isn't the use of bio-fuel encouraging more destruction of rain forests? I have never been comfortable with "growing" our fuel. We have the technology for solar, wind, and electric motors using magnets. Why not explore these technologies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this