Catch up: Agriculture and environment. Economy and nitrogen tax.

 I have neglected this blog for a while. Time to catch up.

 The theme is still important. The actual progress probably negative.

Agriculture stands for 3% of the economy (GNPs) of the world but governs at least 20 % of the global biosphere (the land component). Which role is the most important?

Competitiveness on the market is favoured by specialization and adaptability (could we say shortsightedness). The ecological function is favoured by diversity and longterm consiseration, Exactly the opposite.

The market economy promotes shortsightedness. This should be a strong warning signal for the global agriculture. 

We in Sweden have as almost the only country a nitrogen tax, about 0.2 US$ per kg N. This is not very much, but sufficient to help in formulating agronomically and ecologically sound nitrogen recommendations. Of course it is a burden for agriculture in a global competitive situation, so now it will be abolished. We have an example of “the prisoners´ dilemma”. An action which should be advantageous in general does not take place if those who start are punished.

The increasing demands of humanity leads to increasing nitrogen flows. Problems: eutrophication both of waters and natural lands, the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide and this gas also eroding the stratospheric ozone layer. And there is a resource issue: energy.

 Agriculture is a major player in this field. And we need to increase production. What we could do is to increase nitrogen efficiency. Or maybe we should put it the other way: to  fight inefficiency.

 What we could do now is to forcefully promote agronomic methods for guiding the nitrogen use. Precision farming in all aspects, from GPS guidance to annual adaptation. There is still a gain for the farmer, although not very exciting.

Looking a little bit wider, in my part of the world we should care more about the longterm development of soils. Rotations, organic matter. And it is not only a maintenance cost, there are gains in both yields and management, within a few years. Win Win situations.  But our research and advisory systems are inefficient in putting forward these aspects.

Market forces today do not consider environment.

Agricultural development, globally.

An article in Science 19 June 2009 (Vitousek et al) presents three examples of maize producing systems with the following characteristics (nitrogen kg/hectare):

Western Kenya: addition  7, removal grain+straw 23+36, balance –52.

Northern China: addition 588, removal grain+straw 361+0, balance +227.

USA Midwest: addition 155, removal grain+straw 145+0, balance +10.

 

Kenya will not improve without nutrient additions, it may be called fertilizers or something else. Without this the system will be ever more impoverished. The authors, ecolocical scientists, recommend programs and support for fertilizer use. Dogmatic organic programs cannot handle largescale nutrient depletion.

Northern China has so far given priority to production, which has resulted in a wasteful and environmentally inefficient system.

USA has been more wasteful before 1995, but programs and information have improved the situation. But it should be recognized that the system described here includes soybeans every other year. Since soybean is nitrogenfixing this very much improves the situation.

 

The authors conclude that sometimes fertilizer use needs encouragement (Kenya), sometimes it needs moderation and control.

(The market does not manage this. The peasant in Kenya has no market, in China production has priority).

 

Conclusion: “..most national agricultural agencies lack the means to assess the impact of changing farm practices at appropriate scales and the incentives to promote the adoption of nutrient conserving practices and processes. Without these tools, it will be difficult to develop and sustain modern agricultural systems without incurring continuing human and environmental costs.”

 

One could wish that politicians and policymakers could be influenced by these viewpoints. Market alone is not enough. Or, rather, presently the market has no chance to include issues of environment and sustainability. But it could be arranged.

Dogmatic organic philosophy is not enough.

Borgeby Fältdagar – an agricultural exhibition i S Sweden.

Some impressions;

Machines. Big, impressing, expensive. Sigh from an 80 hectare farmer: Hardly anything for my farm.

Biogas. Several firms and organizations. I only hope there is a firm base also without stimulation packages.

Interest for “ecological efficiency”, environment and sustainability. What happens in the soil? How can nutrient losses be reduced? How to use fertilizers most efficiently? Very encouraging.

But there are also burning questions about profitability and competitiveness. How will the future be if low cost production in the short term is the main issue? Is this really the proper guideline for the ecological base of our entire global society?

But let us look at positive alternatives:

Work with improved rotations  and soil carbon can both reduce costs and give increased yields. Win-win opportunities. Good for environment, soil fertility in the long run and competiveness. (Tag Future Foresight).

Some adjustment of market forces to reduce strife for the highest possible yield. If we get 7100 kg/hectare or 7000 means little for production and food security but can be important for the environment. The Swedish nitrogen tax is such an adjustment. Others are possible. It should also be possible to neutralize the effect of such measures on the competitiveness.

Energy, rubber and agriculture.

From Science Magazine, 22 May 2009.

Bioenergy needs land. Rubber production needs land. That is the connection. And in addition food production needs land.

Two connected articles in this issue of Science are about efficient use of land for biofuels. What is the most efficient way to use one hectare of land, corn ethanol for flexifuel cars or bioenergy for electricity production and use of electric cars? The calculations show advantage for the electric way, although there is a lot of development to do. It is also stressed that only energy is considered, not for instance environmental effects of  batteries etc. But I have a question, despite the “high level research”: can switchgrass sustainably produce 13 tons dry matter per hectare each year?

The term “land use efficiency” is considered important.

 The rubber issue is another matter. Here low-efficient but maybe sustainable land use (shifting cultivation) in southern China is converted to more effcient plantation rubber monoculture. There are questions about the large-scale ecological consequences.

And the food production needs to increase, or at least change in a direction opposite of the trends of today.

The land issue will gain in importance.

What is important?

Let me begin by quoting a quote in Advances in Agronomy 2009, vol 101, where Johnny Johnston quotes these lines by Holmberg:

“..When an agricultural resource base is eroded behind a certain point, the civilization it has supported collapses. . There is no such thing as a post-agricultural society. “.

Agriculture is the foundation.That is one side of it. The other is the importance of agriculture for GNP,  3-5% in most developed countries. Negligible. 

And it is neglected. In most economical works agriculture is mentioned and criticised for the agricultural support distorting trade. This is a very complicated issue which should merit better analysis.

 My background for these thoughts: two recent books (Swedish, see Swedish blog version for details).

“Commodity markets” gives background for the following picture for agricultural commodities. Only a small fraction, 10% or so, is actually traded. The prices are determined, at least in principle, by the production area where the costs that particular season are most advantageous. It could be Australia on one occasion, Argentina another. The market does not take responsibility for the production as a whole. This is an important difference compared to for instance ores, where international trade is normal.

 Another issue is the problem of diffuse environmental effects, for instance nitrate leaching, which predominate in agriculture. How combine environmental measures with competitiveness for such cases? 

The other is a comprehensive textbook with the title “Market and politics” (translated) and does not even touch these issues.

 And still – agriculture is the base for our civilization and controls a large part of our biosphere.

Better economy and improved environment

. Many crop producers have this win-win situation. Check it and catch it. It is about soil organic matter. Or rather, measures promoting soil organic matter and biological activity: harvest residues, green manure, cover crops, organic fertilizers. With cover crops no production year is lost and they can be fitted into most rotations.

Well, this turned out to be some advisory speech, sorry.

But use the soil, use the sun. Let plants pump in carbon, energy and nutrients. Whenever there is an opportunity.

A bare soil means an unused resource (but admittedly sometimes there are reasons).

Use new technology and knowledge. Calculate, see and control. Think ahead.

This is an investment, without cost.

Some days have passed. My posts have been less frequent. But it is not summer lazyness, on the contrary. I am summarizing all knowledge I can get hold of concerning agriculture, soil organic matter, what happens to it and what does it mean. It is almost as a detective investigation. Facts add up, evidence is gathered, relations are explored. But there is a difference: the detective works with what has happened, I work with what is happening. And the result? The case of “taking care of soil organic matter” keeps being strengthened.

Natural systems – the most important resource of the globe?

Not for clearing to agricultal land but for keeping. This was mentioned in my previous post. And  now a study presented in Science Magazine arrives att this result in a global simulation (23 May, page 1183. Implications for limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy).

Clearing natural land means release of stored carbon and nitrogen which is negative for the climate. And in addition there is the biodiversity issue.

This means that it is important to efficiently use the the land which is under cultivation. The study sees a continuous increase in agricultural productivity as a necessary prerequisite.

This is a challenge – a challenge not to go too far. Not to hunt for the last possible kilo of yield or the last dollar in shortsighted profit. That is not what the globe needs. A more longterm view is necessary.

LET US RAISE THIS ISSUE IN THE POLITICAL-ECONOMICAL DISCUSSION.

This is much more important than the quibbling about organic – conventional. Unrestricted market driven conventional compromises environment and sustainability. Dogmatic organic would be a disaster if implemented in total in the world we have. What we need is either reformed organic (ecological) or modified (integrated) conventional. And that is possible if the dogmatics in both sides (organic fans and free market dogmatics respectively) widen their views,

A high-producing crop production i south Sweden can be carbon neutral with full food production, provided straw is used as bioenergy and cover crops are used to keep the balance of soil organic matter.

Words or adequate action?

It is World Environmental Day. In one way you could be optimistic about the enBvironmental future, knowledge and technology is available and continue to be developed. On the other hand too many officials, representatives and policy makers have poor knowledge or have or choose to have too narrow focus. “Better convince the public with poor arguments than not convince at all”. 

It is EU election. All main candidates will abolish the agricultural support. That means that the market forces alone will guide the development (towards cheap and shortsighted production). But the same persons maintain that environment and sustainability has priority. That means that the market forces need adjustment. There is a middle way: use common resources to compensate agriculture for environmental measures reducing competitiveness. But support and especially “agricultural support” is an ugly word.

“Fossil free” is used by several. It sounds good what do they mean? If the consequence is that more land is cultivated the total result will be negative for the climate. But the word sounds nice.

Unused land is a great treasure to protect globally. They mean a lot for climate, diversity and environment in general. To maintain them or increase them is more important than both “fossil free” and “organic”. But it could be so that they are sacrificed for these words.

The government proposes to increase the diesel tax for environmental reasons. Agriculture may be compensated by a removal of the nitrogen tax. However, the diesel tax might reduce greenhouse gases by 50 (carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare) while an abolished nitrogen tax will increase them by 70-120. More homework to do?

A project combining production and environment.

“Odling i Balans” (www.odlingibalans.com ) aims at seeking solutions for improvement of agriculture as concerns environment and sustainability. 17 pilot farms are the core of the project, each of them working on this goal.

Some glimpses from a 2 day meeting:

A new seeding and weeding technique. Precise sowing, later during Spring followed by precise mechanical weeding with the same machine. The weeding knives are guided by photosensors, avoid the crop rows and weed in between. An impressing machine, Cameleon.

 Biogas and recycling. Nothing new in principle but important practical improvements. Norup “Small scale high tech” small company is developing technology for farm level use. In this scale most of the nutrients can be recycled locally. There are plans to separate the sludge into a liquid and a solid phase. The solid material can be transported some distance and be used as fertilizer in a larger area, thus distributing the nutrients and diminishing local surpluses. 

System for energy balance studies are ready for use. In practice the energy output of plant production farms is 9 times the input. But still some people, also those who should know better, preach that modern crop production consumes energy.

There is progress in most fields, weed control, farm waste treatment, energy efficiency, nutrient efficiency. The technical-biological development can deliver the combination of production and environment our society needs. But there is a big challenge: to adjust the economical-political environment so it can be realized.

Nightingales and cuckoos.

 It is lovely springtime. Two nightingales in the garden is almost too much, in addition to all other songbirds. Not much seems wrong with the environment. But still – we need to more efficient because of future development.

More efficient? More cost-efficient and cheaper? Or focus on efficient resource use? Of course I mean the latter. And there are improvements to consider which also are profitable. Just fully use available knowledge and at farm level apply what seems workable.

 Competition as driving force for development is needed, but for production of type agriculture there should be distinction between two types of measures.

 One type is favourable for both production and environment. Examples: much of plant breeding, techniques for adaptation of fertilizers and plant protection etc, more efficient machine use.

The other type favours production at the expense of environment. Examples: increased use of nitrogen and plant protection “at the top”, zealous fight for big fields without landscape considerations etc. When critically scrutinized some of these measures are not as efficient as believed.

The was an alarm in the news:  the growth in the trade sector is expected to be zero for 2009. Terrible.