Blog

Wheat Yields and Temperature Change

I'm quite sure I've never seen an article in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science written by a former teacher, a former student, and  a friend at a former employer.  Well, that changed yesterday.   Three top notch agricultural economists, Jesse Tack, Andy Barkley, and Lanier Nalley, just released a paper published in PNAS about the effect of hot and cold temperatures on wheat yields.   

The abstract:

“Climate change is expected to increase future temperatures, potentially resulting in reduced crop production in many key production regions. Research quantifying the complex relationship between weather variables and wheat yields is rapidly growing, and recent advances have used a variety of model specifications that differ in how temperature data are included in the statistical yield equation. A unique data set that combines Kansas wheat variety field trial outcomes for 1985–2013 with location-specific weather data is used to analyze the effect of weather on wheat yield using regression analysis. Our results indicate that the effect of temperature exposure varies across the September−May growing season. The largest drivers of yield loss are freezing temperatures in the Fall and extreme heat events in the Spring. We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures. Our analysis indicates that there exists a tradeoff between average (mean) yield and ability to resist extreme heat across varieties. More-recently released varieties are less able to resist heat than older lines. Our results also indicate that warming effects would be partially offset by increased rainfall in the Spring. Finally, we find that the method used to construct measures of temperature exposure matters for both the predictive performance of the regression model and the forecasted warming impacts on yields”

There's more discussion about the study in this piece in the Washington Post.

Milan Food Expo

“World’s Fairs used to be an opportunity to examine a better future for society. They were about innovation, progress and development, and brought together inventors and businesses eager to demonstrate technological advancements designed for the greater good of all.

This year’s Expo Milano 2015, with the theme “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life,” could have followed the same mold. Since the Industrial Revolution, the West has experienced what economic historian Deirdre McCloskey has called “the great enrichment.” With prosperity, nutrition has made huge leaps forward: Better preservation and refrigeration systems, agricultural advancements and antiseptic packaging have made our diet both richer and more varied. There is much to celebrate.

Instead, the Expo has fallen prey to an anti-industrial ideology dressed up as romantic nostalgia.”

That's from a piece in the Wall Street Journal by Alberto Mingardi.  He concludes:

“We didn’t become richer and wealthier by eating locally. One thing that made us richer and wealthier was the ability to trade and better preserve food. We have enjoyed much progress since our grandfathers’ time, and progress is precisely what developing countries long for. Why feed them with fairy tales of a romanticized past that never existed?”

Bailey Norwood on the Future of Teaching

My good friend Bailey Norwood gave a talk earlier this spring for a TEDx event we had on the Oklahoma State University campus.  He talked about how to improve education, and he featured his Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on agriculture: from farm to fork.

It's well worth hearing what Bailey has to say about making our classwa worthy of Netflix.

Chipotle and GMOs

Last week I mentioned Chipotle's decision to go semi-non-GMO when discussing consumer sovereignty vs. scientific integrity.  

I've been astounded at the voluminous, and nearly unanimous, backlash against Chipotle's decision in the media.   The criticism has ranged from discussions on:

  • The inconsistency of Chipotle's position.  They're getting rid of GMOs in some foods but not others (particularly soda and in all likelihood the feed used for the animals).
  • The hypocrisy of claiming to look out for customer's health while selling 1,600 calorie burritos.
  • Ignoring evidence on relative risk of herbicides.  One of Chipotle's stated reasons for moving away from soybean oil toward sunflower oil is that that most soybeans use biotech varieties that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which Chipotle implies is problematic.  However, as many commentators have pointed out the herbicides used on sunflowers are likely more toxic and are equally connected (if not more now that glyphosate is off patent) to "big agribusiness".
  • And, generally stoking fear when the scientific evidence suggest there is none.  That is, they've been roundly criticized for being anti-science. 

Amazingly, I haven't seen one story in a major media outlet that has applauded Chipotle's move. Mary Mangan, aka @mem_somerville, has compiled a list of stories that have appeared on the issue.  Negative stories or editorials have been run in the New York Magazine, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Washington Post, and many others.  

I'm not sure what these developments imply for the politics surrounding GMO labeling (an issue which appears to be gaining a bit more traction in the US House of Representatives), but I'm almost certain this wasn't the outcome Chipotle was expecting.  You might be able to pick up a bit of market share in the short run by stoking fear and paranoia, but when science isn't on your side, it's bound to catch up with you in the long run.