Incredible writeup as always, Ariel! It's great to see our beloved and trusted GEM framework making the rounds yet again =)
Since you dove a bit into genotypes, I can't help myself but ask - do you have plans to discuss GMO hybrids at some point? I'm not sure which framework could be used to discuss that, but I think that's an area fraught with misinformation and fear mongering and I always appreciate a nuanced analysis of the topic. I can think of at least one article I could share that would be helpful if you find yourself seeking sources on the theme.
Thank you Fernando! Yes - GEM: the framework that keeps on giving!
Ooh GMOs, biotech, and breeding techniques over time would be an excellent topic! One of my favorite parts in doing research for this article on yield was on the plant breeding section. Will do some thinking on this and definitely would be interested in any articles you've found helpful!
Thanks Ariel! Really helpful for this novice of agriculture. One question about the "Yield for the future" section. How will quality or growing techniques play in? For example, if a grower employs regenerative approaches, will that affect how their yield is evaluated?
That is a great question, David! While I am not an expert on regenerative practices and it is a space that is rapidly evolving, my understanding is that today, there is no difference in how yield is measured, but there are opportunities to secure a price premium. If a farmer is using regenerative practices to produce a crop, they will need to contract with a buyer who is willing to pay a premium for those practices (which is a small minority of the total crop products sold today).
Otherwise, the standard practice is that the USDA has written standards to grade each crop type (like this https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/corn-standards), and payment is based on meeting those standards and the market price (you can check the Chicago Board of Trade for most up-to-date prices on many of the commodity grains).
And of course, other regen experts reading this - please feel free to chime in!
The forum, frameworks, writing style are impressive, Ariel. Thank you for sharing the substantial work required to publish. Will encourage my “ag” and “non-ag” colleagues to subscribe! 😎
As always, great summary, Ariel! I think the absolute minimization of stress is a somewhat reductionistic way of approaching biology on the farm. Stressors within an acceptable range can build fitness and help to stimulate symbiotic relationships between plants and other biology that make crops more resilient and alleviate dependence on external inputs. And as you point out, driving yield can be done at great expense, but the sustainability of agriculture relies on a grower's ability to make money. Pushing yield without a view of the marginal revenue and cost of those yield gains doesn't get us very far. Final thought is on corn productivity; I haven't checked the math on this, but have read that most of the yield gains have come from hybrid corn's ability to be grown in tighter rows. Surely that density has required greater fertilizer application, so those two innovations, plus related harvesting and planting technology, probably explain much of the gains.
Thank you Mike! Love these additional nuanced points - especially on plant stress, that makes a lot of sense (and feels similar to how it works for humans, with that happy medium of beneficial 'eustress'!). Also 100% agree that it's been overall a good thing that the conversation has evolved from "yield at all costs" to "profitability." I'd be curious to hear your thoughts if the benefits of reducing reliance on external inputs will mostly be felt on the cost side of the equation for farmers, or if you are also seeing farmers getting paid for more than just volume today (or third option - if financial benefits are being captured another way!).
Apr 19, 2023·edited Apr 19, 2023Liked by Ariel Patton
Yes, eustress! No pain, no gain :) I think the time is coming when more farmers will get paid for more than just volume. Organic is probably the clearest example of this - independent of how one may feel about organic farming and certifications, the movement has proven that consumers are willing to pay significantly more for the health benefits they believe to be associated with food grown without synthetic chemicals, etc. I would expect this trend to continue and have heard major players in the ag and food spaces echo these sentiments based on socio-economic and consumer trends across the world. On reducing inputs and profitability, it's obvious to people how this math works. I think what gets missed is how lowering your cost base by lowering input expenses also provides tremendous insulation from yield and price risk!
Thank you Stephen -- that makes my day to hear! Agriculture can offer a lot of wonderful careers and opportunities to make an impact on many important challenges
The dark side of any such exponential growth for the sake of "feeding the world" (i.e., feeding the animals that feed the world) is becoming more and more obvious. Big Ag is as much to blame for climate change and other threats to human life on this battered plant as is the energy sector. Synthetic fertilizer is made using fossil fuel, which runs the combines and the big ships too. Go global GDP! But alas the short-term gain comes at a huge long-term cost. We are witnessing the sixth extinction of species we ourselves need to survive, the polluting of our air and water (and soaring cancer rates in places like Iowa), the mass die-off of the microorganisms that regenerate topsoil, of which there is very little left. Cargill is eyeing Siberia to replace the Corn Belt when climate change makes the Midwest too hot and dry. Genetically modifying plants to tolerate huge amounts of carcinogenic glysophate only stimulates nature to create tougher ("super") weeds and pests that require MORE spray to control. Short-term overuse of antibiotics to feed animals has created antibiotic resistance in humans. Corn syrup and other artificial sweeteners has created an epidemic of diabetes and obesity and is shortening individual lifespan while adding to the cost of "wellness" because while food is cheap, the drugs needed to counteract the ill effects of cheap food is through-the-roof expensive. Factory-farming animals is unsustainable and irrational, not to mention inhumane. Fruits and vegetables should be our staples, not meat. Also, cows produce methane, a horrific climate gas. Why "grow" human population only to create a situation where humanity is now facing a mass die-off that rich corporations will use to their advantage by creating a high-value add economy based on trade among the rich who survive (luxury goods, life-extending technologies, etc.). This is already happening, as the NY Times recently reported. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!!
This was excellent. My first reaction that came to mind was 'what is humanitys' "yield gap"? And my second question was 'how much does the decline of organic material in soil (est. 20-60% globally) cause a 'handicap' for yields once fossil inputs become more costly /less abundant?
Incredible writeup as always, Ariel! It's great to see our beloved and trusted GEM framework making the rounds yet again =)
Since you dove a bit into genotypes, I can't help myself but ask - do you have plans to discuss GMO hybrids at some point? I'm not sure which framework could be used to discuss that, but I think that's an area fraught with misinformation and fear mongering and I always appreciate a nuanced analysis of the topic. I can think of at least one article I could share that would be helpful if you find yourself seeking sources on the theme.
Thank you for writeup and keep it strong 💪
Thank you Fernando! Yes - GEM: the framework that keeps on giving!
Ooh GMOs, biotech, and breeding techniques over time would be an excellent topic! One of my favorite parts in doing research for this article on yield was on the plant breeding section. Will do some thinking on this and definitely would be interested in any articles you've found helpful!
Thanks Ariel! Really helpful for this novice of agriculture. One question about the "Yield for the future" section. How will quality or growing techniques play in? For example, if a grower employs regenerative approaches, will that affect how their yield is evaluated?
That is a great question, David! While I am not an expert on regenerative practices and it is a space that is rapidly evolving, my understanding is that today, there is no difference in how yield is measured, but there are opportunities to secure a price premium. If a farmer is using regenerative practices to produce a crop, they will need to contract with a buyer who is willing to pay a premium for those practices (which is a small minority of the total crop products sold today).
Otherwise, the standard practice is that the USDA has written standards to grade each crop type (like this https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/corn-standards), and payment is based on meeting those standards and the market price (you can check the Chicago Board of Trade for most up-to-date prices on many of the commodity grains).
And of course, other regen experts reading this - please feel free to chime in!
The forum, frameworks, writing style are impressive, Ariel. Thank you for sharing the substantial work required to publish. Will encourage my “ag” and “non-ag” colleagues to subscribe! 😎
I appreciate that so much, Brian! Thanks for your support and kind words
Great job, Ariel!!
Thank you!
As always, great summary, Ariel! I think the absolute minimization of stress is a somewhat reductionistic way of approaching biology on the farm. Stressors within an acceptable range can build fitness and help to stimulate symbiotic relationships between plants and other biology that make crops more resilient and alleviate dependence on external inputs. And as you point out, driving yield can be done at great expense, but the sustainability of agriculture relies on a grower's ability to make money. Pushing yield without a view of the marginal revenue and cost of those yield gains doesn't get us very far. Final thought is on corn productivity; I haven't checked the math on this, but have read that most of the yield gains have come from hybrid corn's ability to be grown in tighter rows. Surely that density has required greater fertilizer application, so those two innovations, plus related harvesting and planting technology, probably explain much of the gains.
Thank you Mike! Love these additional nuanced points - especially on plant stress, that makes a lot of sense (and feels similar to how it works for humans, with that happy medium of beneficial 'eustress'!). Also 100% agree that it's been overall a good thing that the conversation has evolved from "yield at all costs" to "profitability." I'd be curious to hear your thoughts if the benefits of reducing reliance on external inputs will mostly be felt on the cost side of the equation for farmers, or if you are also seeing farmers getting paid for more than just volume today (or third option - if financial benefits are being captured another way!).
Yes, eustress! No pain, no gain :) I think the time is coming when more farmers will get paid for more than just volume. Organic is probably the clearest example of this - independent of how one may feel about organic farming and certifications, the movement has proven that consumers are willing to pay significantly more for the health benefits they believe to be associated with food grown without synthetic chemicals, etc. I would expect this trend to continue and have heard major players in the ag and food spaces echo these sentiments based on socio-economic and consumer trends across the world. On reducing inputs and profitability, it's obvious to people how this math works. I think what gets missed is how lowering your cost base by lowering input expenses also provides tremendous insulation from yield and price risk!
Organic is a great example, and agree that the risk management piece of a lower cost base is underrated!
Good Job. I might use some of this to encourage HS in MN to look at careers in food production.
Thank you Stephen -- that makes my day to hear! Agriculture can offer a lot of wonderful careers and opportunities to make an impact on many important challenges
The dark side of any such exponential growth for the sake of "feeding the world" (i.e., feeding the animals that feed the world) is becoming more and more obvious. Big Ag is as much to blame for climate change and other threats to human life on this battered plant as is the energy sector. Synthetic fertilizer is made using fossil fuel, which runs the combines and the big ships too. Go global GDP! But alas the short-term gain comes at a huge long-term cost. We are witnessing the sixth extinction of species we ourselves need to survive, the polluting of our air and water (and soaring cancer rates in places like Iowa), the mass die-off of the microorganisms that regenerate topsoil, of which there is very little left. Cargill is eyeing Siberia to replace the Corn Belt when climate change makes the Midwest too hot and dry. Genetically modifying plants to tolerate huge amounts of carcinogenic glysophate only stimulates nature to create tougher ("super") weeds and pests that require MORE spray to control. Short-term overuse of antibiotics to feed animals has created antibiotic resistance in humans. Corn syrup and other artificial sweeteners has created an epidemic of diabetes and obesity and is shortening individual lifespan while adding to the cost of "wellness" because while food is cheap, the drugs needed to counteract the ill effects of cheap food is through-the-roof expensive. Factory-farming animals is unsustainable and irrational, not to mention inhumane. Fruits and vegetables should be our staples, not meat. Also, cows produce methane, a horrific climate gas. Why "grow" human population only to create a situation where humanity is now facing a mass die-off that rich corporations will use to their advantage by creating a high-value add economy based on trade among the rich who survive (luxury goods, life-extending technologies, etc.). This is already happening, as the NY Times recently reported. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!!
This was excellent. My first reaction that came to mind was 'what is humanitys' "yield gap"? And my second question was 'how much does the decline of organic material in soil (est. 20-60% globally) cause a 'handicap' for yields once fossil inputs become more costly /less abundant?