World Agriculture
World Agriculture
World Agriculture Vol.4 No.1 (Summer 2013)
1- Climate change, population and food security
It is widely recognised that climate change will impact negatively on
food security and poverty, particularly in some countries in the
developing world. This paper, however, points out that population growth
will likely have a bigger negative
impact on food security and poverty in some countries in Asia and
sub-Saharan Africa. The impact of climate change and population growth
on food security and poverty in Timor-Leste (East Timor), a
newly-independent country in South-East Asia, is discussed as an
example. Simulation modelling of the effects of warming temperatures in
East Africa indicates that sorghum yields of small-holder farmers using
little or no fertiliser will increase at least in the short term due to
faster breakdown of organic matter and uptake of higher amounts of
nitrogen from the soil. The warming temperatures reduce yields only when
higher levels of fertiliser are applied. It is recognised that crop
production is only one of the factors that affect food security and an
example from South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, is used to show
that social factors affect food supply in the market, not climate change
or lack of available land or water. The paper argues that research on
climate change should continue, but that research to improve crop
productivity with the present climate should not be disadvantaged if
poverty reduction and food security targets are to be met.
2- A review of changes in the use of raw materials in the manufacture of animal feedsin Great Britain from 1976 to 2011
The use of raw materials for the manufacture of compounded and blended
animal feeds reflects their supply and relative cost to meet nutritional
specifications. Trends in the use of raw materials in the production of
animal feeds in
Great Britain between 1976 and 2011 were studied using national
statistics obtained through monthly surveys of animal feed mills and
integrated poultry units to test the hypothesis that animal feed
industries are capable potentially of
adapting to future needs such as reducing their carbon footprints (CFP)
or the use of potentially human edible raw materials. Although total
usage of raw materials showed relatively little change, averaging 11.3
million tonnes (Mt) per
annum over the 35-year period, there were substantial changes in the use
of individual raw materials. There was a decrease in total cereal grain
use from 5.7 Mt in 1976 to 3.5 Mt in 1989, with a subsequent increase
to 5.4 Mt in 2011.
The use of barley grain declined from 1.9 Mt in 1976 to 0.8 Mt in 2011,
whilst the use of maize grain also decreased from 1.5 Mt in 1976 to 0.11
Mt in 2011. There were substantial increases in the use of wheat grain,
from 2.1 Mt in
1976 to 4.4 Mt in 2011, and oilseed products, from 1.2 Mt in 1976 to 3.0
Mt in 2011. The use of animal and fish byproducts decreased from 0.45
Mt in 1976 to 0.11 Mt in 2011 with most of the decrease following the
prohibition of their use for ruminant feeds in 1988. There was relatively little change
in the proportion of potentially human-edible (mainly cereal grains and
soyabean meal) raw material use in animal feeds, which averaged 0.53
over the period. The trend in the total annual CFP of raw material use was similar to the
trend in the total quantities of raw materials used over the period.
Mean CFP t-1 was 0.57t CO2e t-1 over the period (range 0.53 to 0.60).
CFP t-1 remained relatively stable
between 1995 and 2011, reflecting little change in the balance of raw
material use. The decreased use of cereal grains from 1976 to 1989
suggests that animal feed industries can adapt to changes in crop
production and also can respond
to changes in the availability of co-product feeds. With a rising world
human population, demand for human-edible feeds such as cereal grains
will increase and will most likely make their use less attractive in
diets for livestock. In the
short-term specific economic incentives may be required to achieve
significant reductions in human-edible feed use by livestock or in the
CFP t-1 of animal feeds.
3- GM Technology – Risky Method or Valuable Tool?
Genetic modification is one
of many current tools that can be used in
the development of new, improved crops. It is widely recognised that in
order to meet future requirements for food, without having serious
impacts on the environment, and while responding to climate change, we
will need to draw on all available technologies. However, a key question
is whether the GM technology itself has inherent risks associated with
it, or whether it is essentially benign. Like any other technology,
genetic modification could be used wisely or unwisely. Here, specific
applications are not considered, but the actual technology is examined,
identifying the similarities and differences between genetic
modification and other breeding techniques. By breaking down the
technology into its component parts, it is possible to find relevant
comparisons from within the range of conventional breeding technologies
or from natural processes which inform the assessment of risks linked to
GM methods. The key components of the GM process including the tissue
culture steps, the introduction of DNA, the selection of GM
material and features of the introduced DNA are considered. By making
the relevant comparisons to existing conventional techniques and to
natural processes, drawing on increasing knowledge of the
characteristics of plant genomes, and from the vast literature looking
at GM safety, it is possible to assess some of the main concerns linked
to GM technology. The conclusion reached is that the technology itself
poses no greater risks than those posed using conventional breeding
techniques. In addition, many past concerns can now be effectively
eliminated by developments in GM technology that allow precise changes
to be made to plantgenomes without the necessity of including additional
genes or sequences.
4- New Technologies, NewProblems but Essential
Few new technologies have generated the level of anxiety that has
greeted genetic modification. So great has been the concern that, in
Europe, legislation limiting the use of the seeds produced by genetic
modification has become so stringent as to frustrate its widespread use.
The articles in this edition of World
Agriculture provide an opportunity to explore some of the causes of
alarm. Anxiety about the social consequences of using genetically
modified seed has taken three main forms.
First, the commercial production of genetically modified seeds is
dominated by large multi-national companies. This is an inescapable
feature of a technology that involves very largescale investment in
specialist skills and equipment. Institutions need to be capable of
covering such costs by sales of patented products in global markets if
the risk involved in research and development are to be recouped.
Regulatory control of such organisations is beyond the control of
individual nation states and the price at which seed is sold is likely
to be substantially higher than the variable costs of its production.
Second, genetically modified crops that penetrate traditional markets
that have used self-saved or locally produced seed are likely to create a
dependency of on the continued supply of commercially produced seed.
Full benefit from using GM seed requires the purchase of appropriate
pesticides and fertilisers. For small
farmers, in particular, this involves a substantial cash outlay. Given
the uncertainties of weather, disease and markets this may leave
families in an
exposed situation. This situation arises not because traditional sources
of seed
are no longer possible but because they are, by comparison with the new
technology, unprofitable. In the move from purely subsistence farming to
market oriented production the level of risk from adverse price
movements for inputs and for outputs increases. This is not just a
feature of genetically modified seed. The justification is that overall
the family benefits from the more intensive use of its limited land and
labour.
A third concern is that research and development will not be directed
towards plant and animal species of main concern to developing country
farmers. For companies higher profits emerge by concentrating on the
major crops grown in rich countries and traded internationally. The
issue here is not about technology but about the functioning of the
economic system as a whole. Production for profit can result in many
differing types of market failure, for example by ignoring the
external costs of development that fall on third parties or the social
consequences of change.
This is the basis for government intervention in a variety of areas where
public benefits are not being reflected in private practice. The development of
crops that are not commercially attractive by using genetic technology must depend on public investment.
The issue here is less the behaviour of the commercial sector than the failure
of governments and international agencies to fund the research related to
non-commercial products. Concern isnot only about the social consequences
of applying genetic modification. It is feared that the gains will prove short
run as resistant species of pest and weed develop. Such concerns cannot
only apply to new varieties produced by genetic modification. They apply to
all new varieties and methods of crop protection. They emphasise the
continued need to explore ways in which crops that are of particular
importance to humanity can be protected. The logical response is not
to abandon genetic technology but to develop it in ways that open up new
opportunities.
Agricultural activity exists to give advantage to plants and animals
that are important to human beings as sources of food, clothing and raw
materials. They necessarily change the prevailing ecology by
disadvantaging competitive species whether plants, insects or animals.
This is not a feature of GM alone but of all advances that focus on the
production of useful farm output. However, it is important to recognise
that interventions in an ecological system that is broadly
selfsustaining may initiate unforeseen changes that disadvantage
humanity.
These may affect farming directly, for example by removing established predators on disease carrying insects.
They may also have widespread impacts beyond farming for example from
water supplies to the appearance of the landscape. These concerns
rightly suggest the need for increased vigilance as the rate of
technical change accelerates. They apply to all forms of development,
not just GM.
There is a concern about unintended impacts. This is understandable and
the level of anxiety may well be proportionate to the power of the
technology itself. However, it applies to every technical advance as we
see, for example, the unhindered spread of IT transforming wide areas of
social life and the economy. The response is not to ban innovation but
to monitor all new systems that have a multitude of possible impacts. In
fact GM has been subject to more rigorous (not to say hostile)
monitoring than any other of the innovations currently reshaping the
world in which we live. We need to keep vigilant but the evidence so far
does not seem to justify prophesies of catastrophe. The application of
new and powerful technologies should always be undertaken with caution
and the potential benefits and hazards carefully examined. However, this
approach has often been used not to extract maximum benefit from
innovation but to frustrate it. Inevitably
change threatens some established interest groups. Equally it may conflict
with belief systems that deny the right of man to interfere with nature.
In such situations it is important that debate should explore the
underlying assumptions, not just a particular application of science.
Such discussion looks at other ways of helping obsolescent business
structures to adapt and means by which people can
honour their own beliefs in ways that do not deprive humanity as a whole of
the gains to be secured by change. This discussion needs to take place and the
contributions to this edition of World Agriculture play a part in that process.
5- What role for GM crops in world agriculture?
A critical analysis of claims that genetically modified (GM) crops will
play a central role in world agriculture is provided, in the context of
current attempts to expand the market for GM seeds in developing
countries. It is argued that smallholder farmers and consumers in
developing countries should have more say about R&D investments in
order to avoid the opportunity costs associated with misallocation of
resources.
6- Which way farm animal welfare in Tanzania?
Tanzania is one of the world’s poorest and least developed countries but
has huge numbers of cattle, goats, sheep and poultry, fewer pigs and
very few water buffalo and camels. Most animals are kept under low
input-low output conditions
in mixed crop-livestock, pastoral or urban and suburban farming systems.
Producers are usually poor, have limited access to resources and
struggle to ensure their own livelihoods. An Animal Welfare Act was
brought on to the
Statute Book in 2008: its provisions are based on similar legislation in
developed countries and, together with ancillary legal instruments,
lays the foundation for farm (and companion) animal welfare. Welfare is
poor at all stages of the
value chain from producer, through transport and marketing to slaughter.
Most producers are unaware of good welfare practices. During transport
and at slaughter welfare is ignored by those responsible for it
including government
personnel charged with ensuring welfare and food safety. Government is
less than strict in overseeing application of the law and there is very
little pressure from consumers or others to ensure even minimum
compliance with appropriate
standards. Two voluntary associations attempt to improve the welfare of
dogs, cats and donkeys but none is concerned with farm animals. Under
these scenarios the prognosis for improved farm animal welfare in
Tanzania in the foreseeable future is bleak.
7- World Food Production – will it be adequate in 2050?
A system was devised to help understand some of the problems likely to
be encountered in feeding the world in 2050. The system assumed that by
2050 the world population would be approximately 9.4 billion, as
predicted by FAO, that
all women on average had two offspring and that life expectancy at birth
would be constant. A simple set of fifty-four vegetarian diets was
formulated to meet the FAO dietary requirements for energy, protein and
dietary limiting amino acids, for nine age groups in six ethnically,
geographically and culturally different Domains based on the FAO
Regions. Moreover, an attempt was made for each Domain to be
self-sufficient in raw materials and that overall agricultural
productivity in 2050 would be similar to that in 2011. The requirement
for minor nutrients was ignored in this model. It was found that
globally, the energy needs could be met; but there would be a deficiency
of all raw materials in the Sub-Saharan Africa Domain. The Northern
Africa, West & Central Asia and India & South Asia Domains would
be
deficient in one or two raw materials, whereas the other three Domains
should be self-sufficient; but making no allowance for waste. The
results showed that globally, the area of agricultural land required to
feed the current world
population could be reduced by 30% if production was restricted to the
constructed diets and that nitrogen fertilizer use could be reduced by
24%. Globally, an average of 0.8 kWh/capita is used daily in the
manufacture of the nitrogen fertilizer deployed on arable crops, ranging
from 1.52 in the West to 0.09 in Sub-Saharan Africa (compared with 2.68
kWh/d human adult maintenance requirement). It was noted that the
protein,N:energy ratio and the lysine:protein,N
ratio were both more consistent with their equivalent FAO requirement
ratios for rice and to a lesser extent for maize than for bread wheat.
Wheat cultivation therefore has the potential to contribute more to
greenhouse gas production
than these other cereals. It is hoped to investigate the effects of
variations of this model, including the consumption of animal products,
in later Issues
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق