Embedded Files
revolution in AG Science
revolution in AG Science
This could be Charlie's dissertation for this degree...
Charlie's track record
Charlie's track record
With a first Degree in Agricultural Zoology and Masters in Applied Plant Science, he became president of Middle Common Room. Wye College London University, early 1970s, while completing PhD in Soil Zoology. While working for British Society for Social Responsibility in Science in late 1970s, he set up Hazards magazine, still published to this day, and the Agricapital group which produced an issue of Science for People (SfP 34). Since then he campaigned for better health & safety and helped write the first ILO's education materials on Workers & environment. He has written several books on food and farming including More than we can chew and Bittersweet Brexit. He was a ministerial appointment to the government's Advisory Commitee on Pesticides (2004-8) and helped develop WHO education materials on Food & Nutrition Plans and Policies for African and Asian governments. He appeared on BBCs Gardeners' World and in 2020 he wrote the Master's degree for Schumacher College approved by Plymouth University 2020 'Regenerative Food, Farming and Enterprise.
The present paradigm for farming in the world must change if we want to save the planet and feed people properly. (Food Crisis Alan Simpson). When nearly a third of the population is malnourished (ie badly fed or obese..WHO call 'Double Burden), when a third of all food grown is wasted and most farm & food producers are impoverished, something is wrong. There is a mixed response across the world, creating terms like 'regenerative' 'agroecology', 'conservation agriculture' and 'organic' movements. Let's bundle these into 'collective' while the present methods can be called 'conventional' or 'corporate'.
In the last 50 years, there has been a dramatic move worldwide from state agriculture research to corporate research. The questions being asked are quite different. Conventional originally focused on production and productivity, and this has been followed up by corporate research hidden behind the masquerade of markets.
There is no such thing as 'the' science, however popular the term became during the pandemic. The essence of science is that it challenges itself. And these times are challenging for agric scientists, who mainly want to do better for the world.
Paradigm is the structure of thinking. While at Wye College I persuaded the management to put on a course 'The Philosophy of science', so that fellow students could see that there were different ways of thinking about science. The tutor was a 'Popperian'. Popper is the most popular scientific thinker and set up criteria to distinguish between sceintific and non-scientific theories. He proposed science, could apply falsiification - not verificaibility.
Most scientists work within a given structure are often not challenging it, believing science to be true', rather than a seeker of truth. Proabbaly the most famous exponent of paradigm thinking is Thimas Kuhn who clamed that 'noraml science consists of the articulation of the paradigm tp which the scientiifc community is committed. he could also have added 'funded', as science always now needs funds. Scientific revolutions are non-cumulative episodes in which the olde paradigm is replaced by an incompatible new one.
The late Brian Easlea in 'Liberations and Aims of Science 1973 explores how scientists do jump in scientific revolutions, as the existing paradigm doesnt cope with what it is supposed to and jump to the new one, based on a belief that the new paradigm answers mors questions - not that it has actually done so. Tis recognises that the old paradigm has lots mor research behind it as that is what has been going on for years. The same is with this scientific revolution.
State Research
State Research
As state research has declined - in the UK we have only 1/4 of the land-based research station we had when I was a student. There used to be 32 stations including 'Terrestrial Ecology', 'Weed Research' and Plant Breeding Insistute (PBI) all now long gone. The PBI was the first Thatcthcer sold going to unilvere then in 1990 to Monsanto who made massive loss. Thatcher also stopped any funding to 'applied' science, so following the Barnes report (never published) much agric science was ruled out in favour of 'pure' science. Her view - based on her support ofr Rothschild report earluier in her career, was that 'applied' reseaccrh should be paid for by the consumer who wants it - ie let th emarket decide. Since then the Potato Board is noticaeable as just about the only customer to continue funding research.
One of the big consequences of the reduction in land based research is that most funind is now short-term, with little long term direction. In 'my day' I was told that we needed 15 years to research any pest properly; that would incude several years in the lab followed by 10 years at least to test in natural conditions over different conditions. That research woul dhave been overseen by the ARC, who had the long term view. Where is that now? Now most funds last 3 years, and another change of government changes direction.
All over the world most ag research is now funded through corporates with their own interests - mainly their own products. My research, comparing the impact on soil animals of 10 weedkillers of different companies would not be carried out now as there would be no funding.
A consequence of this reduction in state research is that an 'indepnedent' position is harder to find. Clearly corporates promote thier own interests, but the vacuum left by the state has been occupied by NGOs. While they may like to portray themselvs as independent v corprates, they too have vested interests - particularly getting funds for themsleves.
The Royal Society, in Reaping the Benefits, said ‘Universities should work with funding bodies to reverse the decline in subjects relevant to sustainable intensification of food crop production, such as agronomy, plant physiology, pathology and general botany, soil science, environmental microbiology, weed science and entomology'.
Science is a lot more interesting than the right v wrong argumenbts between NGOs and the rest.
Pesticides
Pesticides
This leads to all sorts of claims..eg 'bee-killing' pesticides, neonicotinoids. Neonics are not v toxic but they alter behaviour. You may well think that 'glyphosate' is the deadliest killer ever let on to the market, despite being much safer than paraquat and organophosphates, both still on the market but not attracting much publiicity
Neonics
Neonics
One study from 2015 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B found why bees in the field might react differently to bees in the lab. Bees in the field counteract the immediate impact of neonicotinoid pesticides by producing more female forager workers at the expense of male drones, whose job is to breed. We know we cannot be ‘anthropomorphic’ (i.e. impose human ideas on insects), but the idea of losing lazy drones to produce more female workers may appeal to many. There are concerns down the line about queen fertilisation. The same paper concluded that occasional aerial spraying did not affect bee communities. The problem is that neonics are usually applied as seed dressing - a 'prophylactic' measure - ie 'just in case'. The parallel here is with anti-biotics - they are good when we need them, but should not be used regularly - as in US beef production. We believe this can lead to resistance to anti-biotics building up.
Glyphosate
Glyphosate
Campaigners against Glyphosate got a big boost when the WHO's IARC reclassified it.
"The IARC decision to reclassify glyphosate from 'possible ' (2B) as a Category 2A (probable carcinogen) was largely based on four studies showing elevated frequencies of NHL in occupationally exposed workers"
(I believe that the chair of the committee who decided this (Blair) quoted his own work as part evidence. This is not allowed by the EU's EFSA committee.)
Other chemicals classified by IARC as 2A include hairdressing salons, frying, biomass fuel burnt indoors, night shift work, and red meat.
I hear of few campaigns to ban them.
ACP
ACP
While I was on the government's Advisory Commitee on Pesticides, we determined controls for pesticides, already cleared for use by the EU.
We had 2 important debates that I remember.
Should toxic assessment be based on 'hazards' (inherent dangers) or 'risk' (assessment of actual damage). I voted for 'hazards' - and lost 19-1.
We were asked to compare the approval process for pesticides and GM products and offer advice. What was noticeable was that pesticides approval is largely determined by examining dirct toxic effects compared with GM approval which takes into account 'indirect' effects - which can include just about anything. During the debate I realised my soil animals which were killed by weedkilers werent bothered whether they were killed by direct (toxic) effects or indirect (plants died off).
Thatcher & Rothschild Report
Thatcher & Rothschild Report
In 1970 Edward Heath appointed Margaret Thatcher as his Secretary of State for Education and Science. She was therefore the minister responsible for matters of school and university education and relevant aspects of civil science policy. Perhaps the most consequential decision on science policy during her ministerial career was on the research and development funded by government departments. Heath had established a Central Policy Review Staff, a ‘think-tank’ charged with providing original and radical examinations and recommendations. Staffed by a mixture of Whitehall hotshots and talented outsiders, the CPRS was led by Lord Rothschild. Victor Rothschild had been trained in biophysics at Cambridge in the mid-1930s before embarking on a postwar career that encompassed both government work (he was chair of the Agricultural Research Council in the 1950s) and industry (as director of Shell UK’s research programmes in the 1960s). In 1971 Rothschild proposed a new way of framing, understanding and managing the research and development of civil government departments. This framing was the ‘customer-contractor’ principle: the department (the customer) says what it wants, science (in the form of research institutes, research council-funded scientists or others) contracts to provide it, and the customer pays.10 The proposals, published in the ‘Rothschild’ report in November 1971,11 were immediately controversial and opposed by the established institutions of UK science, including the Royal Society.12
The crucial meeting to consider the Rothschild reforms took place on 20 April 1971 at 10 Downing Street. Present were Edward Heath, Rothschild, the two most senior civil servants (Sir William Armstrong, head of the home civil service, and Robert Armstrong, Heath’s Principal Private Secretary) and the minister responsible, Margaret Thatcher. What is most intriguing about the meeting is that the minutes show Thatcher opening with a strong defence of the status quo, as she had been briefed by her department and a line supported by the Royal Society. Then, after presumably intense argument, recorded by Robert Armstrong in his artfully abbreviated summary as ‘discussion [in which it was] recognised that this would be fundamentally different from the present system’, Thatcher emerged convinced that the ‘fundamental change’, the marketised framing of government research, should be adopted. Episodes such as this one, crunch situations of political choice where market ideas were embraced, are more likely stages in the extraordinary journey of Thatcher, previously quite an ordinary Conservative minister, to Thatcherism than the standard historiography which sees her being persuaded by weakly institutionalised Hayekian supply-side economics ideas.13
Corporate
Most presentations (Refs - from Bill Gates on..) start with something like 'we have 7 billion mouths to feed' and that will soon be 9billion.
The answer to this is of course 'produce more'. There will be graphs and maps outlining how production increased dramtically in late 20th century but is flattening. So the answer?' Produce more'.
And the more produced, the flateer the profits of indiividual farmers. It is the iron law of markets - more means less - and less means more!
Witness the financial times any day talkin of increased coffee price because of bad harvest or poor prices because of XS grain in the world. Billions are made gambling these 'futures'.
Response
This is very appealing. I should know as fromt eh age of 12-13 years, I was on a mission to 'feed the world'. I directed myself through good grammar school away from latin towards sceince, biologically sciences at A level, agricultural dgree at Newcastele Uni, Plant Science at Wye, all to help feed the world better.
But realised that that, while I thought that the main the problem, the opposite was the case for corprate capiatlism - masquerading as 'free markets'.
Their problem is how to guarantee profits when there is OVER production.
The histry of US agriculture since the war is how to deal with over production. The EU has been dealing with over production since late 1970s. How else do you explain $/£50 billion paid to US and EU farmers in subsidies?
Explain the farm riots in France, Germany, Madrid and India? It s all about over production leading to poorer farmgate prices, then being screwed by corproate food markets.
Overproduction is the longterm problem fro capiatl. If you are going to invest lots of money like a new ferttiliser plant, you want guaranteed returns - when farmers have got used to unpredictability.
this is the world sceince goeos on in. And any good scientist should know the factors which may be affecting the search for truth.
'Production and productiivity are then set as the criteria by which ll else is measured. Say land use. Buut that is another political hotbed. Land use is not decided by any scienitifc truth, but by the owners of the land. Most land in the world is owned by somebody, not at the behest of citizen sciewnce.
This is truly remarkable. But is it sustainable? Is it the answer to the future? (peak agricultural land) But lest ook in more detail at other impacts of the green revolution, not always mentioned..
Lets look at N fertiliser use.
1980 60TgN yr now near 120 - again the doubling in 40 years. Extra 60 TgN
'Greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizer use totaled an estimated 720 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year in 2019; these are primarily nitrous oxide'. Internation Fertiliser Association Feb 22 Is that right? Does the nitrous oxide emtitted exceed the energy to make the fertilser via Haber process?
If use the doubling, lets say an extra 36mt C since 1980. Can that translate into temperature? Look how close N fertiliser use graph is to global warming. We cannot say N- fert causes global warming, as this is a casual realtionship, but it is something that needs to be explored a lot more than it is.
Global Warming
Global Warming
Why are we not talking about the doubling in world temp in just the last 40 years. We go on about 'pre-industial' but look at post 1980! 2023 first year to hit 1.5C Why has it gone so fast??
It took 100 yrs to double from 1880 -1980, but 40 yrs later doubled again, twice the amount?
What could account for this?
Some mathematical loop that went from accumulation to multiplication
Computers/phones have certainly increased dramtically, but prob casual cf causal relation.
Transport. Must be a contender
Green Revolution must be analysed for its impacts
I was first really aware of global warming in the early 1990s (along with 'the ozone layer') when writing the ILO education material on 'Workers and Environment'. While we emphasised global warming, we had no sense that it would increase so fast as it has since then, over last 30 years.
Here's a general overview of the impacts of green revolution in decade milestones since 1970:
Here's a general overview of the impacts of green revolution in decade milestones since 1970:
The Green Revolution, which began in the 1960s and continued into the 1970s, brought significant changes to agriculture worldwide.
1970s:
Land Use: The Green Revolution led to increased agricultural productivity, primarily through the adoption of high-yielding varieties of crops. This often resulted in the intensification of agriculture on existing farmland rather than expansion into new areas.
Water Access: One of the hallmarks of the Green Revolution was the widespread adoption of irrigation systems to support high-yielding crop varieties. This led to increased access to water for agricultural purposes, but it also put pressure on water resources, leading to concerns about sustainability and water management.
Soil Condition: The introduction of intensive farming practices associated with the Green Revolution, such as increased fertilizer and pesticide use, had mixed effects on soil health. While productivity initially increased, there were also concerns about soil degradation and loss of fertility over the long term.
Energy Consumption: The Green Revolution brought about a significant increase in energy inputs into agriculture, primarily through the use of mechanized equipment, irrigation pumps, and chemical inputs like fertilizers and pesticides.
1980s:
Land Use: The focus on intensification continued in the 1980s, with efforts to maximize yields on existing agricultural land rather than expanding into new areas. However, there were also growing concerns about deforestation and land degradation in some regions, particularly in the tropics.
Water Access: Irrigation technologies continued to improve, leading to more efficient use of water in agriculture. However, concerns about water scarcity and competition for water resources also began to emerge in some regions.
Soil Condition: Soil degradation became an increasing concern in many areas as intensive farming practices continued. Soil erosion, loss of organic matter, and salinization were among the issues faced by farmers in various parts of the world.
Energy Consumption: Energy inputs into agriculture continued to rise, driven by the expansion of mechanization, irrigation, and chemical inputs.
1990s:
Land Use: Efforts to intensify agriculture continued, but there was also growing recognition of the importance of sustainable land management practices. Conservation agriculture and agroforestry gained attention as ways to improve productivity while reducing environmental impacts.
Water Access: Concerns about water scarcity intensified in many regions, leading to greater emphasis on water conservation and efficient irrigation techniques. Drip irrigation and other precision irrigation methods became more widespread.
Soil Condition: Soil conservation and rehabilitation efforts gained momentum in the 1990s, with increased adoption of practices like conservation tillage, cover cropping, and agroforestry to improve soil health and reduce erosion.
Energy Consumption: Efforts to improve energy efficiency in agriculture gained attention in response to concerns about rising energy costs and environmental impacts. There was growing interest in renewable energy sources like solar power for irrigation and other agricultural operations.
2000s:
Land Use: Sustainable land management practices continued to gain importance, with increased emphasis on practices that promote biodiversity, soil health, and resilience to climate change. Agroecology and organic farming gained popularity as alternatives to conventional agriculture.
Water Access: Water scarcity became an increasingly urgent issue in many regions, leading to greater emphasis on water-saving technologies and policies. Rainwater harvesting, wastewater reuse, and water rights management became important strategies for addressing water scarcity in agriculture.
Soil Condition: Sustainable soil management practices became more widespread, with increased adoption of practices like no-till farming, organic amendments, and integrated soil fertility management to improve soil health and fertility.
Energy Consumption: Growing concerns about climate change and energy security led to greater emphasis on renewable energy sources in agriculture. Bioenergy production, wind power, and solar energy became increasingly important in powering agricultural operations and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
2010s:
Land Use: Sustainable land management practices continued to gain momentum, with increased adoption of agroecological approaches and sustainable intensification strategies. Land use planning and conservation efforts became increasingly important for balancing agricultural production with environmental conservation.
Water Access: Water scarcity remained a significant challenge in many regions, with growing emphasis on water-saving technologies, policies, and governance mechanisms. Integrated water resources management and watershed approaches gained importance for addressing water scarcity and improving water security in agriculture.
Soil Condition: Soil health and fertility remained a priority, with continued adoption of sustainable soil management practices and increased attention to soil carbon sequestration and climate-smart agriculture. Soil conservation and restoration efforts continued to be important for maintaining soil productivity and resilience.
Energy Consumption: Efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture intensified, with increased adoption of energy-efficient technologies, renewable energy sources, and sustainable practices. Precision agriculture, smart irrigation systems, and on-farm energy production became more widespread.
2020s (up to 2022):
Land Use: The focus on sustainable land management and conservation agriculture continued to grow, with increased recognition of the importance of protecting natural habitats, promoting agroecological practices, and restoring degraded lands. Land use planning and landscape approaches gained importance for balancing competing land uses and conservation priorities.
Water Access: Water scarcity and competition for water resources remained significant challenges, particularly in regions facing climate change impacts and increasing water demand. Water-saving technologies, water reuse, and improved water governance continued to be important for addressing water scarcity and ensuring water security in agriculture.
Soil Condition: Sustainable soil management remained a priority, with continued adoption of practices to improve soil health, fertility, and resilience. Soil conservation, organic farming, and regenerative agriculture gained momentum as strategies for restoring degraded soils, enhancing carbon sequestration, and promoting climate resilience.
Energy Consumption: Efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture continued to be important, with increased emphasis on renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and sustainable practices. Digital technologies, automation, and precision agriculture continued to play a growing role in optimizing energy use and reducing environmental impacts in agriculture.
Overall, the impacts of the Green Revolution on land use, water access, soil condition, and energy consumption have evolved over time, with increasing recognition of the need for sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural practices to address current and future challenges. While the Green Revolution brought significant increases in agricultural productivity and food security, it also led to environmental degradation and resource depletion in some regions. Efforts to promote sustainable agriculture aim to address these challenges while ensuring food security, environmental conservation, and resilience to climate change.
We need to examine and understand the environmental degradation, in terms of land air an water, resource depletion, but also now the direct effects on global warming. Let's not beat aboutt the bush, via complex carbon exchanges butu go to decrease the global temperatures NOW.
But when I try find levels of nitrogen fertiliser worldwide, and associated GHGs, the data is hard to find. It is dead easy to find fertilisers, yields and population numbers. That is because the questions asked by convential/corporate ag science is focused on yield/area. Nobody is funding big data to collect:
GHGs emissions from world fertilikser use
Temparature of arable lands cultivating monocrops v extensive pastures
Erosion (& related compaction) of soil under 'intensive' production
State of soil health
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse