The Facts Are Piling Up
Posted: June 15, 2010
Looks like some of the so-called environmental groups may be having crow for dinner yet again. A new peer-reviewed study from Stanford University demonstrates how modern agriculture has slowed the pace of global warming. Given the incessant string of baseless criticism lobbed at agriculture over the past few years, it is refreshing to see a major university recognize the incredible role modern agriculture plays in feeding and sustaining our planet.
The study determined that high-yield agriculture has prevented the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. The same high-yield production that many criticize while advocating for a return to more primitive methods has actually helped save the planet. So when some environmentalist wannabe comes down on farmers, let him know the truth. Well- respected scientists and informed citizens know that the U.S. farmer is a great environmentalist. Arguing against the best technology, advanced practices and most carefully thought out agricultural model available in pursuit of a romanticized notion of a bygone era does not makes sense.
DonEWG Said,
June 15, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Funny how indirect land use change is a perfectly acceptable, logical concept to the corn ethanol lobby when a research team says increased crop yields reduce the need for the world to convert acres of wild land into cropland and thus the carbon sequestered by vegetation on that land remained sequestered, but when someone suggests that increasing grain demand through ethanol production also has an impact on land use, then somehow that perfectly acceptable, logical concept becomes irresponsible, unscientific hooey.
Ken Said,
June 15, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
There is no inconsistency there, Don. Increased yields mean we can produce more on the same or even fewer acres. Because of this the world does not need more acres converted to cropland for use as food and fuel. What the Stanford study discusses is that if we did not have increased yield we would have needed to convert more acres to farmland.
mus302 Said,
June 16, 2010 @ 1:15 am
I agree with Ken. The Stanford study is pretty straightforward math based on the crop yield increases resulting from modern farming practices. The fact that more corn is produced on fewer acres now than in the past proves this to be correct.
DonEWG Said,
June 16, 2010 @ 8:44 am
Fewer acres? NCGA’s own data shows that the amount of land planted to corn has increased by over 9 million acres since 2000. How much of that land was previously wild or held carbon sequestering vegetation that was plowed under?
Further, the study you cite appears to not account GHGs from N production, shipping inputs/outputs great distances, carbon release/sequestration of plowed land vs pasture, etc. Perfectly legit items to focus in. They looked at one piece of the puzzle – a piece the corn ethanol lobby and many Senators and Congressmen know with absolute certainty doesn’t exist - ILUC.
mus302 Said,
June 16, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
Statistics are a funny thing aren’t they Don? You are correct that since 2000 the number of acres devoted to corn has gone up by 9 million acres. It would also be correct to say that since 2007 the number of acres devoted to corn has gone down by about 5 million acres. It all depends on the time frame that you want to focus on to make your point.
Of course when I made my comment I was thinking a little further back since we are talking about a study that compares modern farming techniques to less advanced farming techniques. In 1944 more acres were planted in corn than in 2007 but the 2007 harvest was about 4 times greater.
How much of that land was previously wild? Well, according to the USDA in 2009 320.9 million acres were devoted to principal crops versus 328.3 million in 2000. So it would appear that the new corn acreage came from land that was previously devoted to other crops since over than time 8 million acres of farmland were lost.
You keep mentioning ILUC but all the things that you have talked about sound like direct land use changes to me. I don’t think anyone would dispute that land use changes take place. The dispute comes from whether or not you believe that converting an acre of soy to an acre of corn in America will cause someone in Brazil to cut down an acre of forest to harvest the wood which then gets used to raise cattle until the pasture becomes degraded and is then turned into an acre of soy.
Daryl R. Pring Said,
June 18, 2010 @ 10:45 am
Don, the statistics you refer to as “NCGA’s own data” are undoubtedly from the USDA. Avoid sophistry.
It is difficult to understand how the scientists crunched the numbers in this incredibly important report, but perhaps it can be put in simpler terms. The data start point for this research was 1961. I was a college student in 1961 when my brother and I grew 60 bu/A corn. I am not a farmer but in 2009 that same farm probably yielded 165 bu/A. Assuming 50% harvest index, in 1961 we returned about 0.8 tons/acre organic matter to the soil, whereas in 2009 the same crop returned about 2.3 tons/A. Increased organic matter, increased carbon sequestration, increased nitrogen carryover, and associated decreases in methane and nitrous oxide releases. This land was first farmed in about 1900. The native habitat prior to that did not annually sequester that much carbon, nor would pasture, today.
In regard to the EWG attached to your ID, in 1961 I received about $1.05/bushel for my corn. The consumer price index calculator says that should be $7.66/bu in 2010. Today’s cash price for corn is about $3.60. Go figure. This fact does not seem to be recognized by the EWG.