Source Url:
http://www.kingsburgrecorder.com/articles/2010/08/18/news/doc4c6c43257a68f008923966.txt
Those crop fields nearby might not get a second thought from local residents.
But according to a recent study by Stanford University researchers, the high-yield agriculture on display there is more than an efficient engine of food production. It's also a great way to cut down on global-warming gases.
The study found that huge crop yield increases per acre since 1961 have translated into big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- 590 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to the authors' estimate.
That's the amount of global-warming gas that would have spewed into the air if agricultural research had been frozen at 1961 levels while the world's population increased by more than 100 percent, the study concluded.
The additional carbon dioxide would have come from much more land going into agricultural production as farmers tried to keep pace with more mouths to feed. That would have meant more acres plowed up, more forests being cut down and more carbon dioxide in the air -- since dense forest growth sucks up carbon dioxide and puts it in the ground.
The study has generated a lot of discussion in environmental and farming circles that rarely see eye to eye.
The National Resources Defense Council, a prominent environmental lobbying group, acknowledged the benefit of higher-yield research, but cautioned that other environmental effects of agriculture shouldn't be ignored.
"Often times, what is good for the climate is also good for our lands, watersheds and air. But we cannot and should not focus on greenhouse gas reductions alone. Agricultural practices that are implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must go hand in hand with strong safeguards that protect against negative impacts on the environment and public health," said Sasha Lyutse, a council spokeswoman.
The study noted other issues with high-yield agriculture, including high water use and chemical runoff.
"It remains a question whether modern agriculture can balance agronomy and ethics to sustain both ecological and human needs in the future," the study stated.
Farming interests found much in the report to agree with.
"There's not many places on a broad scale that come close to what we do as far as the tons of actual material produced per acre," said John Diener, a Fresno County farmer.
Diener applauded the study's conclusion that more research should be done into getting higher yields.
"From the standpoint of just what I've seen in my own life, it doesn't matter if you're in India or China, you have to be more efficient in what you do. You have to have higher yields per acre to survive. There's more people depending on what you're doing," he said.
Some dairy groups found an analogy in the industry getting much more milk out of fewer cows through genetic research and nutrition.
"That's an example of the efficiency that reduces your environmental impact for the amount of food produced," said J.P. Cativiela, program coordinator for Dairy Cares, a Sacramento-based dairy environmental group.
Others would like to see more research done into ways farmers might get greenhouse gas-reduction credits for yield improvements and efficiency upgrades. Under AB 32, California's landmark 1996 global-warming law, all industries face mandatory reductions.
Regulators could get greater potential benefit by "Intentionally rewarding efforts in agricultural production," said Cynthia Cory, director of environmental affairs at the California Farm Bureau Federation.
"(The study) is a positive endorsement of what we're trying to do, but it's kind of where we begin," she said.
