3 ms·

Hm, to clarify, I'm coming at it from a systems point of view. Available energy limits populations. Suppose the green revolution didn't happen, where would wor

Hm, to clarify, I'm coming at it from a systems point of view. Available energy limits populations. Suppose the green revolution didn't happen, where would world population be? It's not possible to A/B test these things, of course. Also I did not say anything about the type of economic system. I'm just doing scenarios here. If you have credible research to back up your claims, I'll be more than happy to alter my opinion. (edit: typos)

Retric 5y ago
From a systems point of view the changes where dramatic. "Farmers today grow five times as much corn as they did in the 1930s – on 20 percent less land. That is 13 million acres or 20,000 square miles, twice the size of Massachusetts. The yield per acre has skyrocketed from 24 bushels in 1931 to 154 now, or a six-fold gain. And the Agriculture Department expects the average yield per acre to double in the next 25 years." https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increased-6x-since.html https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increa... “From 1866, the first year USDA began to publish corn yield estimates, through about 1936, yields of open-pollinated corn varieties in the U.S. remained fairly stagnant and averaged about 26 bu/ac (1.6 MT/ha) throughout that 70-year period. Amazingly, the historical data indicate there was no appreciable change in productivity during that entire time period (Fig. 1), even though farmers’ seed-saving practices represented a form of plant breeding.” https://agfax.com/2017/05/25/corn-historical-grain-yields-for-the-u-s/ https://agfax.com/2017/05/25/corn-historical-grain-yields-fo... PS: Of of note in 1927 there where 2 billion people worldwide and starvation was still common. Growing from 1 billion in 1804 or doubling in 123 years the difference largely came down to an increase in the amount of farmland and a slow increase in productivity.
- guerby 5y ago
  https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/8651-long-term-no-till-soil-health-focus-boosts-yields?v=preview https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/8651-long-term-no-til... "No-till practices weren’t doing enough to improve his soil resource. So Montel shifted his priorities to building soil health and it’s paying off: Montel harvested an average of 197 bushels of corn per acre across the farm last fall," https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429015300228 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901... "No-till yields matched conventional tillage yields for oilseed, cotton, and legume crop categories. Among cereals, the negative impacts of no-till were smallest for wheat (−2.6%) and largest for rice (−7.5%) and maize (−7.6%). No-till performed best under rainfed conditions in dry climates, with yields often being equal to or higher than conventional tillage practices. Yields in the first 1–2 years following no-till implementation declined for all crops except oilseeds and cotton, but matched conventional tillage yields after 3–10 years except for maize and wheat in humid climates. Overall, no-till yields were reduced by 12% without N fertilizer addition and 4% with inorganic N addition." Changing farming practices does not seem to lower the yield per acre in a significant way, so it does not mean going back to 1936 level yields.
  - Retric 5y ago
    No-till is a fairly mainstream practices and it’s upsides and downsides have been known for years. My point was this kind of research has real and very dramatic impacts making it fairly easy to verify stuff. As to yields on an individual farm or even state they very quite a bit from the national average. For example the state of Oregon averaged twice as much (241) as Montana per acre in 2020. https://www.cropprophet.com/historical-average-state-corn-yield-per-acre/ https://www.cropprophet.com/historical-average-state-corn-yi... The cost benefit needs to consider local conditions rather than simply pointing at a national average.

Retric 5y ago

From a systems point of view the changes where dramatic. "Farmers today grow five times as much corn as they did in the 1930s – on 20 percent less land. That is 13 million acres or 20,000 square miles, twice the size of Massachusetts. The yield per acre has skyrocketed from 24 bushels in 1931 to 154 now, or a six-fold gain. And the Agriculture Department expects the average yield per acre to double in the next 25 years." https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increased-6x-since.html https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increa... “From 1866, the first year USDA began to publish corn yield estimates, through about 1936, yields of open-pollinated corn varieties in the U.S. remained fairly stagnant and averaged about 26 bu/ac (1.6 MT/ha) throughout that 70-year period. Amazingly, the historical data indicate there was no appreciable change in productivity during that entire time period (Fig. 1), even though farmers’ seed-saving practices represented a form of plant breeding.” https://agfax.com/2017/05/25/corn-historical-grain-yields-for-the-u-s/ https://agfax.com/2017/05/25/corn-historical-grain-yields-fo... PS: Of of note in 1927 there where 2 billion people worldwide and starvation was still common. Growing from 1 billion in 1804 or doubling in 123 years the difference largely came down to an increase in the amount of farmland and a slow increase in productivity.

guerby 5y ago
https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/8651-long-term-no-till-soil-health-focus-boosts-yields?v=preview https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/8651-long-term-no-til... "No-till practices weren’t doing enough to improve his soil resource. So Montel shifted his priorities to building soil health and it’s paying off: Montel harvested an average of 197 bushels of corn per acre across the farm last fall," https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429015300228 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901... "No-till yields matched conventional tillage yields for oilseed, cotton, and legume crop categories. Among cereals, the negative impacts of no-till were smallest for wheat (−2.6%) and largest for rice (−7.5%) and maize (−7.6%). No-till performed best under rainfed conditions in dry climates, with yields often being equal to or higher than conventional tillage practices. Yields in the first 1–2 years following no-till implementation declined for all crops except oilseeds and cotton, but matched conventional tillage yields after 3–10 years except for maize and wheat in humid climates. Overall, no-till yields were reduced by 12% without N fertilizer addition and 4% with inorganic N addition." Changing farming practices does not seem to lower the yield per acre in a significant way, so it does not mean going back to 1936 level yields.
- Retric 5y ago
  No-till is a fairly mainstream practices and it’s upsides and downsides have been known for years. My point was this kind of research has real and very dramatic impacts making it fairly easy to verify stuff. As to yields on an individual farm or even state they very quite a bit from the national average. For example the state of Oregon averaged twice as much (241) as Montana per acre in 2020. https://www.cropprophet.com/historical-average-state-corn-yield-per-acre/ https://www.cropprophet.com/historical-average-state-corn-yi... The cost benefit needs to consider local conditions rather than simply pointing at a national average.