Planetary boundaries. A presentation also in farm journals.

 A report by internationally renowned scientists give tentative figures for ecological boundaries. One of those is inflow of active nitrogen to the global ecosystems. The current figure is 121 million tons (fertilizers plus biological fixation). The tentative threshold value is 35, less than a third. The fertilizer nitrogen is currently a little below 100 million tons and the demand is projected to increase by 3 million tons every year. Increasing population  gives increasing demands.

Maybe some shake up is needed.

The figure 35 says nothing about how to manage food production, it is just an estimate of  a safe value for the global ecosystems.

However, we get another reminder of tough challenges ahead:

Efficient nitrogen use in agriculture. There are improvements, but not enough.

The animal production. The most inefficient production in ecological terms is the most fast-growing. There will be questions about this. But cheese and beef and bacon are valued.

The nitrogen in waste. The main aim of agriculture is food to man. The annual nitrogen turnover is about 10 kg per person. The 9 million Swedes release 90 million tons of N, to be compared to 160 as mineral fertilizer and in total about 120 released from farm animals, of which 40 is directly wasted as ammonia. There are efforts to reduce losses, but so far very little nitrogen except manure is recycled.

Maybe, for waste nitrogen, an alternative is to denitrify it to nitrogen gas and get fresh active nitrogen by industrial or biological fixation.  It depends on energy relations and emissions. Which is best?

 

How combine environmental development with global competitiveness?

Test of an idea. 

The main agricultural products are commodities without identity. The prices are formed in international competition. Only for small niches premium prices can be attained, but almost per definition such niches cannot grow to be dominant. Premium price cannot be the norm. But environmental development is needed for the main production.

 Environmental development may mean extra costs and loss in competitiveness. The actual development in Sweden is a practical example. Everybody may gain if a certain development occurs but those who start will loose. The situation is called The prisoners´ dilemma.

Let us take the Swedish nitrogen tax as an example to discuss a possible solution.

 The tax paid by farmers (as a charge on the nitrogen price) could be redistributed to the farmers but without connection to the fertilizer use. The  tax would serve its purpose and increase the incentives to develop efficient nitrogen use but the farmers would not loose in competitiveness.

For nitrogen this system could be almost self-financing, but the society will be required to contribute to some extent. For other issues higher public contribution might be necessary. But who is “the society”?  Environmental development is of global interest. A global fund/organisation should be given the task to help neutralizing The prisoners´dilemma.

Environmental issues and agricultural advice.

 For some days I have been preparing a presentation for advisors on agriculture and climate change. Which leads to the question: Can agriculture respond to advice on how to reduce greenhouse gases?  If so – why or why not?

The agriculture cannot accept additional environmental costs in a competive situation. This is clear enough. But if the measures may mean some  increases in yields and profit. What then?

Still – my experience is that such an offer is not competitive enough. The increases are small and not immediate. The issue is never urgent.

So – we have a problem. Or a challenge. How get respons from the farmers? Add bioenergy to the package?

In fact this is where this blog started. To get environmental development we need engagement from the farmers. A feeling that they are more than economic managers of a piece of land. They manage  part of the biosphere.  Focus Foresight.

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.