Rice cultivation originated in China over
4,000 years and spread all over Asia. Rice today is not only a major cereal
crop in the region but also a way of life.
It contributes about 40 to 70
percent of the population's total calorie intake. Therefore, sustained
production and increased productivity of rice is critical for food and
nutritional security in Asia.
Now a
“peer reviewed“ study says production of rice:
"the world's most important crop for ensuring food security and
addressing poverty—will be thwarted as temperatures increase in
rice-growing areas with continued 'climate change'.
The net impact of projected temperature
increases will be to slow the growth of rice production in Asia. Rising
temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by
10-20 percent in several locations. Applying typical global warmist tactics,
they refuse to shed light whether there are other locations in the world where
the reverse trend applies!
Published in the online early edition the week of Aug. 9, 2010 in Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences — a peer-reviewed, scientific journal from
the United States — the report analyzed six years of data from 227 irrigated
rice farms in six major rice-growing countries in Asia, which produces more
than 90 percent of the world's rice.
World demand for rice by the year 2025 is
projected to be about 765 million tonnes as compared with the present
production of around 556 million tonnes. This leaves an estimated supply-gap of
109 million tonnes to be filled in 15 years. It is argued that due to low land
availability and high rate of land degradation in Asia, crop land expansion is
no more an option to fix such a gap. According to the International Rice Research Institute(IRRI):
“….the possibility of increasing the rice area is almost exhausted in
most Asian countries. With little expansion in area and slowing yield
increases, growth in rice production has fallen below growth in demand as
population has continued to increase."
What is lost sight is that there are several
agronomic methods for upgrading marginal land into productive arable land. For
example, countries like India have practically demonstrated that it is possible
and cost-effective to restore productivity to marginal soils through
micro-watershed development techniques.
Nevertheless, it is further argued that if the continent has to meet this huge
demand-supply gap, it must do so mostly by taking quantum leaps in productivity
in rice cultivation. Now this “peer reviewed” study claims that this strategic
route too is also limited due to ‘Climate Change'.
"We found that as the daily minimum
temperature increases, or as nights get hotter, rice yields drop,"
Jarrod Welch, lead author of the report and
graduate student of economics at the University of California, San Diego.
The catastrophic message implicitly projects Asia to face stark hunger by 2025,
a practical throwback to the time when environmentalist Paul Ehrlich scared the
world by saying the world faced prospects of mass starvation by 1970!
The full report could be downloaded here and the supplementary
information here.
Why temperatures
thwarting rice production is complete nonsense
FAOSTATS - Global vs. Asian Rice Productivity
Even a cursory glance of the FAO graph should
make it evident that all individual country trends are up. This is so, even in
the case of lowly Cambodia occupying the bottom rung. Simply put, in all Asian
countries the predominant trend is that rice yields are all increasing in an
environment where in both temperature and CO2 have been rising in the period
the graph depicts. Such a perfect correlation is An Inconvenient Truth, as they
really need to ask why rice productivity is rising at all when it is supposed
to decline according to the AGW theory. Proved wrong, they now have the cheek
to ask why it is not rising fast enough.
The incline of the slopes in the graph does confirm however that the percentage
of annual increase is tending to slow down or plateauing which is however
very different to saying productivity is turning negative.
“..Cut the yield growth rate
by 10-20 percent in several locations”
is a clear acknowledgment of this fact by
this study. Simply put, yields are still rising, just not fast enough, though
more and more rice is produced every year. Despite the entire hullabaloo
created by the media on the top-line finding of this study, the conclusion of
the study is not new - it is well known in many countries yields are
plateauing. Now there could be many reasons why this could be happening.
According to the IRRI:
“An important factor accounting for the slowdown in yield growth is the
reduced public investment in agricultural research and development (R&D).”
In fact, agriculture lends itself to
multivariate statistical analysis, as yields are a result of several factors
interacting together. Yet the study adopts a uni-variate analysis approach by
treating all other variables as a constant. This is an excellent method by
which you can establish yield correlation with practically anything under the
sun, even the number of times the farmer goes to the temple in a day!
Correlation as we all know does not establish causation. However, this is what
this study exactly does with this approach.
Now a desired or targeted maximum yield is a very different ball game from potential
maximum yield of a particular genetic species combined with a particular set of
management practices. The study mixes up between these two concepts.
In context to potential maximum yield, plateauing is not anything surprising.
Eventually, we will reach the upper circuit, as there would be limits to the
amount we can tweak or modify as what we are primarily dealing with are finite
biological systems. A good analogy is the speed of human beings. The
world record for 100mts stands at 9.6 secs. Whatever techniques adopted it
would be perhaps inconceivable that this record can go below 8 secs, as there
are limits to human beings prowess. This is why athletes are tempted to taking
performance-enhancing drugs.
Similarly further increases from traditional genetics are becoming more
difficult as there are intrinsic limits to the biological system or set of
management practice. Unless plant genetics are changed or a super
fertilizer or plant growth hormone, natural or chemical, discovered, it will be
very difficult to bring about quantum leaps in productivity. As they say, it is
foolish to expect different results while doing the same thing. We need to
change something to get a different result. This is nothing but common sense.
So the central narrative of the study simply states the obvious.
Notwithstanding this, what made the conclusion of this study particularly
controversial is its link with climate change. It admits yields are increasing,
but productivity growth is slowing down and speciously linked this to global
warming viz. high temperatures to be blamed.
Vietnam and Cambodia illustrates how silly this proposition is. Vietnam has the
fastest growth in rice yields, just behind China while Cambodia occupies the
bottom rung. Agro-climatically, both are very similar being neighbouring
countries, in fact lying within the same latitudes. This clearly illustrates
that the climatic factors are not the main drivers of yields but other factors
like technology, management practices or political situation such as war are
more significant. Take Cambodia for instance - The period 1972-81 was where the
Pol Pot’s agrarian reform and killing fields, wrecked agriculture in the
country almost irreversible. However, look at Cambodia’s productivity curve
again. It has once again picked up momentum again.
We can even ask if high temperatures per se
are detriment to agriculture, what explains the significant shrinking of Sahara
desert. This is what National Geography commented:
“Villagers herd goats near windblown sand dunes in the Sahel region of
Niger, North Africa. Vast swaths of North Africa are getting noticeably lusher
due to warming temperatures, new satellite images show, suggesting a possible
boon for people living in the driest part of the continent.”
In fact, warming is beneficial to agriculture
is accepted in the extract of the study itself:
"...Higher minimum temperature reduced yield,
whereas higher maximum temperature raised it."
It has to be, as any agriculture textbook
will tell us that the optimum climatic conditions for rice are hot and humid
climate; best suited for the regions having high humidity, prolonged sunshine.
The study however takes to stating the obvious again:
“Up to a point, higher day-time temperatures can increase rice yield,
but future yield losses caused by higher night-time temperatures will likely
outweigh any such gains because temperatures are rising faster at night. And if
day-time temperatures get too high, they too start to restrict rice yields,
causing an additional loss in production.”
Of course, high temperatures (Tmax) do thwart
rice production except that the triggering point has not been reached yet.
Otherwise they would be growing rice in Siberia by now!l. The study itself
states:
“Most of the sites are in areas where monthly average Tmax is
considered to be high (>33°C) during the reproductive or ripening phase of
one of the annual crops.”
However, the range of rice's temperature
tolerance is between 20-40°C during its growing season showing there is much more buffer to
go before any tipping point is reached to justify such alarmism. As far as Tmin
is concerned, present understanding of its impact is too rudimentary and the
study itself admits the impact of temperature is the combined impact of Tmax
and Tmin collectively, which the study methods did not reflect.
Rice productivity in most Asian countries actually
parallels the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) natural cycle. During its
positive phase, called El Niño it creates droughts. Philippines and Indonesia
are hardest hit by El Niño caused droughts. The 1998 El Niño drought caused
major declines in Indonesia and the Philippines. In the Philippines, drought
affected 70% of the country in 1998 and caused extensive damage to agriculture.
Read here.
The following sets of slides (above) are
taken from UNFCC website.
Notice no mention of temperature rise as a farming constraint- this from
UNFCC. Filipinos attribute major constraints to rice productivity to water
availability and weather extremes caused by El Niño! In India, ask any farmer
the primary determinant of rice productivity. He will point upwards and say
rains!
It is important to appreciate that ENSO is
related to another natural phenomenon called Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
Whenever the PDO is positive, the world warms for 20-30 years as it happened
from 1977-1998 and cools as it happened from 1945-77. El Niños tend to increase
in frequency during the positive phase of a PDO and vice versa. The PDO has
turned negative again from 2005 and accordingly we are likely to see La Niña
increase in both frequency and intensity. This means more precipitation in rice
growing countries in Asia that should boost rice productivity rates for the
next 20-30 years
Coming back to the global rice productivity
graph again, we find both India and Vietnam have steady increases from
1985-2000 in both yield and production, contradicting the minimum temperature
causes decline theory. The only negative trend is seen in the combined
Philippines, Indonesia and China data of 1998 where the decline are all
accounted for by the El Nino drought.
Given this steady productivity increase, how
do the researchers conjure up a negative trend? They carefully cherry picked
six years, not only ending with the El Niño year of 1998 but also coinciding
with a period where the globe was especially warming. Why pick 1992-1998 in
2010 is the logical question? The study as their pdf document shows; was
submitted for 'peer review' only on January 2010 and accepted by July 2010.
Smell a rat somewhere? Read on. The rat gets bigger. Willis Eschenbach explains:
“The longest farm yield datasets used are only six years long
(1994-99). Almost a fifth of the datasets are three years or less, and the
Chinese data (6% of the total data) only cover two years (1998-1999). Now, if
they were comparing the datasets to temperature records for the area where the
farms are located, we could get useful information from even a two-year
dataset. But they are not doing that. Instead, they say: Data series from the
weather stations at the sites were too short to determine trends. Instead,
trends in Tmin and Tmax were based on a global analysis of ground-station data
for 1979–2004 …
Unfortunately, they have neglected to
say which global analysis of ground-station data they are using. However,
whichever dataset they used, they are comparing a two-year series of yields
against a twenty-six year trend. I’m sorry, but I don’t care what the results
of that comparison might be. There is no way to compare a two-year dataset with
anything but the temperature records from that area for those two years. This
is especially true given the known problems with the ground-station data. And
it is doubly true when one of the two years (1998) is a year with a large El
Niño.”
Statistical jugglery has been the basis of
this fraudulent claim; such practices would be a crime elsewhere!
Unfortunately, this has become the norm in the climate change industry. Instead
of being arrested and put in jail, these fraudsters are rewarded by system by
liberal grants and funds to write more reports that are more fraudulent that
justify AGW.
At the Sample Level,
Statistical Jugglery Gets Even More Interesting: The case of India
The above graph is from one of the documents
Potash & Phosphate Institute- Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada
(PPI-PPIC), providing the rice productivity in India. From the time of
Independence, from a negative value the country has steadily increased its rice
productivity though still just half those of South Korea who has the highest
rice productivity in the world.
The sample in India is taken from just one
area in India called Aduthurai from Thanjavar District Tamil Nadu. This
district is often described as the rice bowl of the state. In terms of rice
productivity, the state also tops the country, which indicates that management
practice skills for cultivation of rice are high. Aduthurai met the following
criteria for sample selection:
"Farms at each site were selected to represent a range of the most
common soil types, cropping systems, farm-management practices, and farm sizes.
They were early adopters of Green Revolution technologies (modern high-yielding
varieties adapted to local conditions, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, and
mechanization) and had been under intensive management for decades.”
The Green Revolution started in India in the
70’s and together with increased productivity; it brought with it water
logging, salinization as well as to micronutrient deficiencies and organic
matter depletion. These are the farms, not only in India but also in the rest
of the sample countries that this rogue study bases its analysis. Farms already
highly deteriorated in their productive value. Therefore, it is not much a
surprise to find their productivity flagging. In fact, the real surprise is
that their productivity is found still rising!
"The
farms were not selected randomly, which is one reason we preferred
fixed-effects estimates to random-effects estimates. A consequence of the use
of fixed effects is that our results do not necessarily generalize to farms
outside the sample”
More importantly, sample selection was not
random but deliberately selected on criteria not disclosed.
“A consequence of
the use of fixed effects is that our results do not necessarily generalize to
farms outside the sample”
is further simply an euphemism that the study
findings do not reflect reality due to their non-randomness of their
sample! Moreover, only a parcel of the land and not the whole farm came
under the study. No details are provided on the sampling procedures adopted
that cast doubts on the representative character of these parcels, as in India,
parcels even with lying with a contiguous area can vary markedly.
Besides, irrigated land cannot be theoretically representative since more than
60% of Indian rice production is accounted by rainfed-farming units.
In Tamil Nadu, organic agriculture has besides made huge strides and the World
Bank estimated that as much as 20% of the state’s rice cultivation has now come
under System Rice Intensification (SRI) - primarily adopted by small and
marginal farmers. SRI is a combination of five important management techniques.
SRI encompasses transplanting of 14-day young seedlings at wider spacing with
only one seedling per hill, water management that keeps the soil moist but not
continuously flooded — alternate wetting and drying, mechanical weeding through
a rotary weeder, and higher use of organic compost as fertilizer. It works with
both hybrid and traditional seeds though some variants use chemical fertilizers
along with green manure or compost.
If Indian farmers use SRI on just 25 percent of the conventionally farmed area,
estimates are they could grow additional 5 million tons of rice—enough to feed
about four million families a year. SRI produces higher yields (40-80 per cent)
with less seed (85 per cent) and water use (32 per cent saving). The cost of
SRI produced rice however almost matches those of conventional cultivation. The
latter use flooding to snuff out weed formation. In SRI, weeds have to be
manually or mechanically removed, that involves high labour cost. Consequently,
SRI works when labour availability is high and labour costs low. However, in
states like Kerala, this system may be difficult to replicate.
Besides, Thanjavar District where Aduthurai falls is one of the locations where
the 2004 Tsunami hit. NGOs like Oxfam gave a big boost to SRI. If
irrigated/flooded rice with less than 40% of area net sown contributes nearly
70 percent of the total country’s rice production with an average yield 3.4 t
ha, SRI projects of NGOs like Oxfam, focusing on small and marginal farmers,
claimed yields much more than this average.
Therefore, it is not so much the
irrigated/flooded rice fields that India will target for quantum leaps of rice
productivity but our rainfed rice farmers. SRI has been included in the
National Food Security Mission, which aims to increase rice production by 10
million tonnes by 2012. As reported, “About 100,000 hectares is under SRI, which can be
scaled up to 500,000 hectares in the next five years.” SRI is said to
have a presence in 130 of the 500 rice-growing districts. However, that is only
1.1% of the total rice area under cultivation.
Secondly, India hopes to take a leaf out of China’s rice revolution, which was
in fact propelled primarily by hybrid rice, which was developed there in the
early 1970s. The country had extended the cultivation of hybrid rice to more
than half of its total paddy land by 1990 to emerge as the world’s largest paddy
producer.
India, by contrast, was slow in encouraging hybrid rice cultivation. The
National Food Security Mission (NFSM) has set a target of expanding the hybrid
rice cultivation to 3 million hectares by 2011-12 from around 2 million
hectares at present. Mainly targeted at irrigated rice cultivators, some of the
spin-offs of hybrids can rub off on SRI expansion.
Thirdly, within India there are significant variations in the productivity
rates of rice cultivation between growing regions in the country. The
government has announced a second green revolution, which targets the Eastern
states like West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa etc whose productivity rate lags behind
the national average.
Fourthly, as could be observed from the graph
that there is a slight declining trend in net area sown for rice cultivation.
This was primarily because the price of rice was remaining very steady for an
extended period so much so that farmers began switching to alternative crops
that were more lucrative.
Due to the El Niño induced drought last year,
cultivable area dropped to less than 40 million ha. The consequence was that
total production of rice in the country was 99.18 million tonnes in 2008-09,
dropped to 89.31 million tonnes in 2009-10 against the target of 101 million tonnes.
The country lost 10 million tonnes, mainly during the kharif season, because of
severe drought conditions and this lead to price inflation, which was
additionally accentuated by the government’s decision last year to increase the
minimum support price (MSP) of rice to Rs1,000 per quintal for the common
variety, and Rs1,030 per quintal for the Grade A variety.
As a result of all
these developments, rice cultivation has become profitable again. Further, the
developing La Niño this season has brought more than average rainfall. The
result is net area sown has increased to a record of over 50 million ha this
year on the basis of which economists are predicting a huge 20% growth rate in
rice production that should see the country record a record bumper harvest of
near 110 million tons.
This alone would be an adequate to thwart
catastrophic predictions of rice productivity decline due to 'climate change'!
Here in Thailand they have 5.4 million tons of rice in storage/reserve. They only need 1.5million tons in reserve for emergencies, ie crop failures to feed the whole country. Now they are now trying to `slowly` offload the excess rice. The new harvest is coming in. Hunger. No.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, nobody has told the locals that the plolished rice, maybe 98% of all rice consumed in SE Asia, is purely energy, and that the health giving nutrients have been removed. Guess they dont need an older generation to look after.