tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post414595723866832175..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Anthony Watts denies agricultural science at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11137683547564118022014-04-10T14:16:40.530+10:002014-04-10T14:16:40.530+10:00There's quite a bit of work going on in regard...There's quite a bit of work going on in regard to selecting and breeding plants (crops and pasture species) for different localities as climates change. Some things I've read about include selecting deep-rooted pasture species for improved drought resistance. <br /><br />That article I found shows that there is a lot more to consider than plant growth response. With wheat, for example, the different varieties are grown for different purposes - bread-making and baking vs pasta for example. And it's more than just protein content too, from the look of it.<br /><br />You make a good point in regard to the changes that will happen in regard to crops vs weeds. There's also the fact that some plants (C3 ie most plants) respond to a change in CO2 and others don't so much (C4 eg maize and sugar). <br /><br />The response won't necessarily be of the type that's useful as that article showed. More CO2 does mean they need a bit less moisture - which I guess could be handy in minor / short term drought. They'll still need water - not too much and not too little - and nutrients. (Which makes me wonder if that means that fertiliser usage will need to increase, bringing its own problems.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78215706934326715662014-04-10T11:42:36.559+10:002014-04-10T11:42:36.559+10:00Yeah, that's much more specific than the exper...Yeah, that's much more specific than the experiment I remember, which was about greenery, rather than grains, and included a range of plants. The two conclusions that I remember is that weeds with little or no value to humans benefited far more from increased CO2 than more useful plants (in terms of both the rate and magnitude of growth,) and that pest damage was greatly increased due to the relatively low nutritional content of the plants.<br /><br />In any case, the "CO2 is plant food!" response is exceedingly silly.GroovyJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33706968318977754692014-04-10T11:12:23.215+10:002014-04-10T11:12:23.215+10:00Here's what's been found for different var...Here's what's been found for different varieties of wheat grown in western regions in Victoria (my home state). I'd say that plant breeders will be selecting for traits that improve or at least don't deteriorate or deteriorate least as CO2 increases.<br /><br />http://www.bcg.org.au/cb_pages/news/QuantifyingwheatqualityunderelevatedCO2.phpSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52988287268250035732014-04-10T09:10:50.535+10:002014-04-10T09:10:50.535+10:00I seem to remember seeing a documentary back in sc...I seem to remember seeing a documentary back in school where they covered the effect of increased CO2 availability on crop growth, and they determined that while it increases the bulk of biomass harvested, the nutritional value remains unchanged - you just have to harvest, ship, and eat more mass to get the same benefits. Of course, this from a hazily remembered educational video seen more than two decades ago, so take that with a grain of salt.GroovyJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1677827074936292812014-04-09T10:36:42.963+10:002014-04-09T10:36:42.963+10:00Malthus was explaining what had happened in his re...Malthus was explaining what had happened in his recorded past. The implication was that it would happen again, and that's yet to be proven wrong. Between Malthus and now the Americas and Australasia have become huge providers to a market globalised by steam-powered transport and refrigeration.<br /><br />No new continents are coming on line now, technological improvements are incremental and population is still rising.<br /><br />Where Malthus was wrong was in the assumption that population would always increase to the limit, but in Europe and Japan we've seen that populations can shrink when family-planning is the norm. That's what people choose when they can.<br /><br />The current increase is happening while family size is falling but more families are being formed by the previous generation. If humanity gets over the 9 billion hump it might actually avoid another Malthusian crisis and his "prediction" will prove to be wrong.<br /><br />Frankly, I don't see it happening.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77451091606493905412014-04-09T10:31:52.562+10:002014-04-09T10:31:52.562+10:00I should add that there a quite a few factors I di...I should add that there a quite a few factors I didn't bring up. For example, agricultural production will shift according to the market. When there's a glut of wheat and it starts getting piled up in bunkers all over the USA (which happens), then Australian wheat growers might plant something else for a couple of years till the prices go up again - and vice versa.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79635618566630703342014-04-09T10:26:08.719+10:002014-04-09T10:26:08.719+10:00I just used total world numbers, so the use will v...I just used total world numbers, so the use will vary. Some will be for seed, some for (stock) feed, some for food and some for other purposes like fuel.<br /><br />In the context of this article, that's all that's needed. If you can grow corn for biofuel or feed for stock, you can probably also grow food for humans. Although the grain quality for those products may not command food prices at present, if food gets scarce that could change.<br /><br />Like you suggest, I imagine most of the new corn is for biofuel.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29040079968685270882014-04-09T09:10:12.264+10:002014-04-09T09:10:12.264+10:00I would be interested to know how much of that cor...I would be interested to know how much of that corn yield and planting is for biofuels, oil and syrup. Do the charts show only crops planted for human consumption, or do they cover all uses? Do they include crops for animal feed?Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44240420774119579942014-04-09T04:51:22.550+10:002014-04-09T04:51:22.550+10:00"Malthus predicted..."
And the proverbi..."Malthus predicted..."<br /><br />And the proverbial little boy cried wolf, yet there was no wolf. Therefore by your logic wolves do not exist. What a comfort this must be to people with an irrational fear of wolves.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71465315209267089222014-04-09T03:49:05.743+10:002014-04-09T03:49:05.743+10:00There isn't a somehow about it. Artificial sel...There isn't a somehow about it. Artificial selection for crops and animals, artificial fertilisers, irrigation schemes. The appliance of science. Eventually, however, Malthus's prediction must come true as there is only a finite surface area on which we can grow crops and a finite volume in the waters from which we can harvest fish and other produce.<br /><br />This isn't alarmist - simple maths will demonstrate that it is inevitable. Unless, of course, some other factor that we have so far missed becomes important. That's why Malthus has been wrong so far. He couldn't foresee the advances science would make.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36378171046758573982014-04-09T03:34:21.827+10:002014-04-09T03:34:21.827+10:00Malthus predicted, in 1798, that population growth...Malthus predicted, in 1798, that population growth would outstrip food production. He made that prediction at a time when the world had less than 1 billion people. Food production has somehow managed to keep pace with population in the subsequent 200 years. I suspect that this alarmist claim of future food shortages, derived from a medium confidence in some computer model, will also be proved wrong.Skeptikalnoreply@blogger.com