Thursday, January 27, 2022

The Complexities of Corn Production

Interesting National Geographic article: The story becomes more and more complicated as you read further on.

U.S. corn production is booming—but not for the reasons scientists hoped

The Corn Belt, which spreads across the middle of the United States from Indiana to Nebraska, is in many ways a marvel of modern agricultural science: It grows more than a third of the world’s corn and produces 20 times more than it did in the 1880s on just about double the land area.

Historically, most of those gains in yield have been achieved through improved farming methods and selective breeding of corn. In recent decades, genetic engineering—which allows more precise tinkering with genes than conventional plant breeding—has been thought to have increased yields a lot. Most of the American crop is now genetically modified in one way or another. 

But according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, over the past 15 years, the primary driver of growing corn yields has been another factor entirely: the longer growing seasons and mild weather promoted by climate change.

Since the 1930s, corn production has risen steadily, as vast scientific resources have been poured into improving yields and crop productivity has been pushed closer to theoretical limits. Growers learned to pack more plants into smaller areas, fine-tuned fertilizer timing, and rotated crops to make soils healthier. Crop breeders developed plants that could grow more closely together, or turn their leaves to the sun, or mature earlier in the season.

But so far, its impacts on the middle and northern end of the Corn Belt seem to have favored corn growth. Slightly longer seasons, particularly in the spring, a crucial time when plants flower, and longer stretches of temperate weather during the “grain filling” period—the time after kernels form—have helped farmers bump up their yields over the years, the new study concluded.

But when researchers focused on the highly productive corn fields of Nebraska from 2005 to 2018, the results surprised them. Genetic tweaking contributed only about 13 percent of the total rise. 

“All these promises about quantum-leap gains have fallen short of reality,” Grassini says.

Better farm-management practices, like fertilizing effectively or packing more plants into a field, made a much bigger difference, accounting for about 39 percent of the overall bump. Together, genetic and agricultural improvements added about 85 pounds of corn per acre every year to farmers’ hauls.

The biggest effect came from the gentle, favorable climate conditions of the past few decades, which were responsible for just about half of the overall gains—about 80 pounds extra per acre per year.

Why have weather conditions been so mild in the region, while climate change wreaks havoc elsewhere? Some of it may be luck, Mueller says. But some of it is due to the huge blanket of largely irrigated agriculture itself: The region is so vast, and so uniform in its planting practices, that it has in fact created its own climate. Mueller and his colleagues found that the hottest summer temperatures across the region have actually cooled slightly over the last century, the opposite pattern of almost anywhere else in the world.

That’s primarily because all the corn plants growing in synchrony act as a giant air conditioner. They suck up water through their roots as a liquid, then transpire it through their leaves as a vapor. That transformation from liquid to vapor requires heat, which is extracted from the surrounding air. With so many plants transpiring at once, summer temperatures over the region end up cooler than they would otherwise be

When it comes to the challenge of feeding a growing population, increasing crop yields isn’t always the most important strategy, says Claire Kremen, an ecologist at the University of British Columbia—especially in the Corn Belt, where 90 percent of the crop goes to make ethanol for fuel and to feed animals rather than people. The heavy use of fertilizers, ancient groundwater, and pesticides required to maximize short-term production may endanger agriculture’s potential in the long term, she says. 

24 comments:

  1. While it may sound like increased corn production is good, if most of that is going into ethanol and feeding animals rather than people maybe we don't really need that much corn.

    Much of the increased appears to be due to packing more plants into a given area and creating a micro-climate. That coincides with the results of a lot of small-scale farming that has produced high yield.

    I may have seen that in my own corn farming. I pack a lot of corn plants into a small area, and surround that area with a cucumber fence to keep out the raccoons (they have very sensitive paws that don't like the leaves of the cucumber plant). Good yields on the corn, and especially great yields on the cucumbers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The GMO controversy adds even more complexity.

    https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2021/03/02/europe-oppose-gmos

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even if we stopped CO2 emissions now, the earth would warm another 0.5 degrees Celsius. It still hasn't reached radiative equilibrium with the rest of the universe. I don't know what thresholds might be crossed in the meantime. But I'm glad they're doing well so far.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And now, a short break from worries about ...well, everything.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2022/01/scenes-from-/621368/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard they were having a frozen turkey bowling tournament for Heikki Lunta up in Negaunee this week. I don't see it on the sked, but they are doing the Freeze Your Fanny Fatbike Race. Always a good time! Watch for pictures in Atlantic next year? https://www.cityofnegaunee.com/downtown-development-authority/pages/heikki-lunta-winter-festival

      Delete
    2. Thanks Anne! Cool pictures, in both senses of the word.

      Delete
    3. Jean, I hope you will take your camera (or phone!) and record those events. Then we can see your pix next year!

      Delete
    4. Yikes! It's three hours away, and they've had higher than average snow falls and subzero weather. Not something I want to subject Raber to on top of high covid rates. But winter festivals in the UP always used to be a well lubricated good time when I was 40 years younger ...

      Delete
  5. Yeah, that's interesting. I guess it doesn't surprise me that there will be both winners and losers as a result of climate change. It's kind of cruel that the biggest historical contributor, i.e. us, may turn out to be a net winner, while parts of the globe that are invisible to us will be rendered non-arable, lacking in water, no longer able to sustain human life, etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's interesting, Jack. If the "corn effect" is responsible for milder temperatures in Nebraska, I'll take it. Though it hasn't protected us from some violent storms in the past several years. I think corn can act somewhat as a carbon sink, too. Probably not enough to make much difference, though. A lot of the farmers here plant both corn and soybeans, to hedge their bets. The prices fluctuate from year to year. When one of them is up, it seems like the other is down.
    Corn has an interesting history. It descended from a lowly grass-type plant. People have done genetic engineering long before they knew what it was. Here is an interesting article about a variety of Native American corn which was thought to be extinct, but has made a comeback: https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/long-thought-extinct-a-native-corn-re-emerges-in-the-heartland/

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tilling, as I understand it, releases a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Corn's carbon-capture properties do not offset carbon release by tilling. There are also added greenhouse emissions in harvesting, hauling, storing, and processing corn into feed, syrup, or ethanol.

    You have pesticides, fertilizers, and soil depletion to add to the mix on top of all that.

    Add the fact that corn-fed livestock also carry a higher fat-to-muscle ratio and corn syrup hikes up sugar that contributes to American morbidity.

    Lots of things are being studied at ag universities that might ameliorate things, but they're not going to translate to changes in farming practices in the conservative Midwest fast enough to prevent disaster.

    The fact is that corn is killing us, but I'd be strung up down at the town hall for saying it around these parts.

    So enjoy your milder winters until a super cell demolishes your town, or the farm fields turn into desert, or your climate gets mild enough to sustain tropical pests and diseases.

    Nothing's going to stop the corn juggernaut.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing I can do right now is to shift to veganism. The whole food system, like everything else, is geared to capitalist extremism. The system is not concerned with proper nourishment of humans or the humane treatment of animals. I just watched a Chris Hedges' "On Contact" about megaslaughterhouses that kill one pig per three seconds. Even worse than I imagined. And government inspectors can't keep up with that rate. I'll just leave it there.

      Delete
    2. Stanley, it's pretty horrible. I would be vegetarian except for my husband, but maybe not vegan. So, instead we use meat as a "condiment" rather than main dish (and only a couple of times/week) in casseroles or pasta sauces etc, and buy "certified humane", free-range poultry, eggs and dairy products, and free-range, grass-finished beef. We seldom have eaten pork except, very occasionally, bacon. We gave up ham and sausages many years ago. I guess that is tougher in some areas of the country than others, depending on the heritage of the citizens.  We also buy organic produce as much as we can, and if it's not the right season, frozen organic fruits and veggies. This means that our food bill is at least double that of friends who shop in the cheapest stores possible (even though they could afford to spend more to support humane farming methods. I try not to judge those who can afford it but don't choose to support a healthier agricultural model - I try but often fail) But the costs of eating this way are much too high for many people. I couldn't have done it when our sons were growing up - all three 6' plus inches, athletic, with non-stop hunger pangs! Although once organic became available, and healthier chicken started appearing, I did start buying it, but fortunately they left home for college and horrible food so our food bill didn't get any worse. I hoped I had given them a decent, healthy base during their fastest growth years. As freshmen, they often complained about the "funny" taste of chicken and beef in the cafeteria. But they got used to it. Unfortunately.

      Even with crops, the overuse of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers is harmful - to those of us who ingest it with our food, to the land on which its grown, to the water-tables, and to the farm workers who are exposed to it all day, every day. Then there are the emissions to the air. We eat fish at least a couple of times/week but that doesn't let us off the hook (sorry!) either - we have to pay a lot for wild-caught fish from sustainable sources as well!  Mostly "previously frozen".

      But, I must confess that in the summer time, we can't resist the occasional hamburger from the grill - we usually buy free-range, grass-finished imported Australian beef, although in the summer we can occasionally buy this quality from local small, family farm sources at a grocery that specializes in organic foods, and farmers markets - along with picked that day .....corn. 

      Delete
    3. You do what you can, Anne. That's a lot. I've had vegan periods before and had no problem with my weightlifting. Also felt good. I have a recipe book based on a whole fire company going vegan.
      The use of meat as a garnish is a great idea. It actually provides so much nourishment, you don't need a lot of it.

      Delete
    4. Individuals aren't going to make much of a dent in these problems, I fear, especially as incomes stagnate and shrink.

      People have to eat what they can afford from what's available. As long as we are collectively willing to let poor people eat crap from convenience stores, food pantries, and soup kitchens, corn biz will keep on rolling.

      Pressure from consumer groups persuaded Kroger not to use BPA liners in its canned food. Some urban food pantries are wising up about the need for whole foods.

      Small victories like these only come from public pressure and education.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, not sorry, going to vent a bit. In spite of what people who are not involved in agriculture might think, farmers and ranchers do actually care about their land. Think about it, if they turn it into a desert, they're not going to be in business any longer. We're not in the 1930s any more. Agriculture has changed a great deal in my lifetime. We do know about minimum tillage. Farmers use the services of agricultural labs to right-size fertilizer and pesticide applications. Not only is excess use bad for the environment, it's a waste of money. Irrigation equipment has been modernized to minimize waste. Farmers and ranchers do keep up with what ag universities are doing. Some of them even attended those universities.
      I don't know a lot about pigs and chickens, but I do know a few things about cattle. Beef is much leaner than it used to be, because that's what consumers want. That means they aren't fed grain for as long, and some beef is grass fed. And yes, ranchers do care about their animals.
      I am not entirely convinced that corn doesn't sequester carbon. And it does indirectly go into the human food chain. It does grow very well in the corn belt, as Jack's post pointed out. I don't know what farmers should be planting instead which would also make them a living and be a more approved food source. Sometimes I think people picture a buccolic agriculture which is aesthetically pleasing but not real world.

      Delete
    6. I trust farmers and ranchers a lot more than megacompanies which specialize in CAFO's and cutting every corner they can to squeeze out that last penny.

      Delete
    7. I have no personal experience with farming or ranching. I’m sure the individual farmers, especially those with smaller properties, are conscientious. What I know of beef and lamb quality ranching practices to ensure high quality, healthy meat, is through my son’s 8 years of experience working with ranchers in Australia. I haven’t been able to pick his brain about the American cattle ranching industry yet. But he has told us to avoid huge operations, with the animals raised in crowded pens and feedlots for most of their lives.

      The grandfather of a college friend grew grapes for raisins in California. She told me that he set aside a parcel of land to grow food for the family, including fruit trees, nut trees, vegetables etc for the family, and to keep chickens. He used only organic methods for that parcel, even though he used chemicals on the raisin crop. She has always shopped organic, which was available in California earlier than in some other parts of the country. I don’t know what her grandfather did about meat. She is also a vegetarian. I always buy organic raisins for sure. But after she told me this, I began to wonder how many farmers and ranchers use different practices for the crops and animals they and their families consume than those they use for the products going to market. Most of the small farmers and ranchers sell to the mega corporations and may be required to use certain seeds, chemicals, food for the livestock, etc. I really don’t know how that works.

      Delete
    8. I am not trying to hammer on individual family farmers. And I have no bucolic idylls in my head. Gramma ran a farm, slaughtered her own chickens, and worked at the livestock sale.

      But collectively, agribusiness is a very mixed bag. If everyone were following best practices, we would not have algae blooms in the Great Lakes, intensive livestock operations compromising local water and air quality, soil depletion from monoculture, or such a big carbon footprint from irresponsible farming ops.

      Delete
  9. Jean, the Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the US. It is a major source of fish, crabs and oysters. Polluted runoff was destroying the oyster beds and killing fish and crabs. The largest source of the polluted runoff is agriculture- about 45%. A strict set of regulations have resulted in reduced pollution and the water is becoming cleaner. Crab and oyster harvests are beginning to return to more normal levels, but there is still a long way to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My cousin was an oceanographer with NOAA, worked primarily in Alaska before he retired, but frequently lamented the way agricultural and petroleum industries have messed up fisheries, particularly around Louisiana and Chesapeake. He believes we have gone far past the point of no return.

      The way Americans have responded to the pandemic and science pretty much clinched it for him before he retired last year. He believes we're already living in a second Dark Age and it's only a matter of time before the scientists get hauled out and strung up like witches. He's always pointing to the slow lynching of Anthony Fauci by Rand Paul.

      Not sure I agree entirely, but Americans sure don't deal well when asked to make small changes or sacrifices to protect anything. Unless it involves shooting something up.

      Delete
    2. Yeah. Manchkin didn't balk one second when signing off on the bloated military budget. But collapsing bridges are ok.

      Delete
  10. I guess my doctoral training as a social psychologist in both sociology and psychology leads me to see institutional and personal change as two sides to the same coin.

    Pressure does need to be placed on the large corporations that only respond to their bottom lines; however personal changes in diet are also necessary and desirable.

    I have found Betty's vegetarian cooking, largely because it is good cooking, is slowly but surely changing my diet. I used to eat a lot of pastries and drink a lot of soda pop largely because they were instant sources of energy in my busy life. Now that my refrigerator is always filled with vegetarian food which I can combine in various ways with each other and with meat, I don't buy soda pop or pastries. In other words, I have eliminated a whole lot of sugar from my diet. That would not have been easy if I had to take time to learn how to cook vegetarian.

    I don't think Betty's vegetarian cooking is more expensive than cooking with animal protein. In fact, I suspect it is probably less expensive.

    A number of years ago when I was still drinking soda, I eliminated caffeine from my diet. I was surprised to learn I did not miss caffeine. My highs were mainly sugar highs.

    Betty and I both have the same cooking styles; we like to cook in big batches. I freeze most of my meat portions; Betty puts most of her vegetarian dishes in the refrigerator. Fortunately, I am very creative at using leftovers.

    Our food situation is helped by our summer gardening and canning. Betty likes to can whole tomatoes. So, the other day I bought some chicken for the crock pot and simply topped it with our canned whole tomatoes. A very delicious meal in itself without any other spices or other additions but also delicious when combined with various vegetarian entries where I am using the chicken and tomatoes as a condiment.

    ReplyDelete