Agriculture Archives

Douglas Southgate and Douglas Graham, a professor and professor emeritus (respectively) in the agricultural economics department at Ohio State University, have co-written a new study for the Sustainable Development Network.

The report identifies various factors which have contributed to low agricultural yields in sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, governments and donor agencies have impeded farmers' access to conventional technologies such as fertilizer and pesticides, but at the same time have engaged in punitive taxation and policy measures against farmers. Similarly, most African governments have failed to invest in rural infrastructure (roads, bridges). All of this means that millions of African farmers continue to practice subsistence agriculture -- which takes a devastating environmental and human toll.

Southgate comments:

Sub-Saharan Africa is not doomed to misery. To move from subsistence to sustainable farming, African farmers should not be discouraged from employing modern agricultural methods. Indeed, such methods are necessary to improve environmental conditions, nutrition, and to enhance economic growth.�

In The Times, Tim Worstall takes to task a British environmentalist-turned-aspiring-Tory-politician (Zac Goldsmith) whose whose opinions about agriculture and farming were published prominently in The Times yesterday. Goldsmith and other European pundits seem to be some of the few who dare to lament that food prices for consumers are decreasing.

The direct benefits of modern agricultural technologies to humanity and the environment in the 20th century have been elucidated in numerous scholarly articles on agriculture by by Indur Goklany. For instance:

If agricultural-technology development had been frozen in 1961, we estimate, using data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (see FAOSTAT 2003: apps.fao.org), that cropland would have had to increase from its present 11% to some 25% of the planetary surface to produce the same amount of food now.(Nature, vol 423, p.115)

A new paper by Harvey S. James, Jr. of the University of Missouri argues that sustainable agriculture advocates should pay more attention to Adam Smith. At the same time, he seems to argue for a less laissez-faire interpretation of Smith than some might expect. It's a somewhat different take than that put forward by J. Bishop Grewell and Clay Landry in their book The Ecological Agrarian. The paper is here; the abstract is below.

Environmental organizations have begun to express their concern over the Kelo decision's impact on urban growth. In a policy update from the American Farmland Trust (AFT), the President of AFT explains, "With so much farmland on the urban edge and near cities still in steep decline, ex-urban towns could be tempted by this ruling to make farmland available for subdivisions." For earlier posts on Kelo, see here, here, and here.

It's nice to see the more traditional environmental groups showing concern for property rights.

Last week, the 9th Circuit joined a 1989 ruling from the 8th Circuit in holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not bar a suit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The decision upheld an injunction of the EPA's approval of 54 pesticide ingredients pending consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service as per section 7 of the ESA to determine possible impacts on endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead populations in the Pacific Northwest.

I must say that I get a kick out of Amazon.com and others who attempt to sell stuff online that can be had for free with a google search. For instance, an article that I wrote on farm subsidies harming the environment two years ago costs you $5.95 at Amazon, but you can get it at the American Enterprise website where originally published as well as here and here for free.

I also found out in a shameless binge of ego-surfing today that A Better Earth is running a book review of mine where I argue that while "wealthier is healthier" is an important concept, it is perhaps more important to remember that stable property rights are what create wealth. Maybe the most important part of the review is its effort to debunk the idea that development assistance can have the same success as property rights in creating wealth for the developing world. If you have a little time to kill, I'm rather proud of that review and happy to see it getting a little press, so consider checking it out.

Finally, ego-surfing led me to a just-released Reason Institute study advocating recreation fees for federal lands, which relies on my paper from last June dealing with some of the hurdles facing such fees.

British scientists have developed a new strain of Golden Rice which produces up to 23 times as much beta-carotene (compared to the first variety, announced in 2000), according to an article published in this week's Nature Biotechnology*.

Rice is one of the staple foods of the world's poorest countries, especially in Asia, and up to 500,000 children become blind every year because they lack Vitamin A. At least one-half of these children die within one year. Moreover, children who are Vitamin A deficient (VAD) suffer from compromised immune systems. Golden Rice is one potential way to complement traditional interventions: Beta-carotene is converted by the human body into Vitamin A. The new strain of rice offers even greater potential to alleviate VAD.

However, the rice has not yet been grown in field trials (whether in Asia or elsewhere) - despite being made available for free to the Humanitarian Rice Board by its developers (Syngenta).

Some environmental activists who are ideologically opposed to biotechnology have made the perfect the enemy of the good - saying that even the new strain of Golden Rice "only addresses a very small part of a very big problem".

Yet never have its developers claimed that this technology would solve the entire problem. Such criticisms reveal the true stripes of campaigners; let us hope that they will not be heeded by governments in poor countries.

* Paine et al. (2005) Nature Biotechnology - Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice (PDF link - for subscribers only)

An interesting article in the Sierra Times from last Friday (21 January) discusses a defamation suit by Jim Chilton, a fifth-generation Arizona rancher, against teh Center for Biological Diversity. Chilton was awarded a total of $600,000 for “false, unfair, libelous and defamatory statements” made against him by the Center in July 2002.

Montana Governor-elect Brian Schweitzer plans on passing an ethanol bill in Montana ---what sort of bill remains unclear. Given that the few areas in Montana that can claim to have air quality problems cannot blame those problems on the automobile, any mandates for ethanol in the state would clearly be nothing more than subsidies to the agricultural interests in the state --- at the expense of the Montana taxpayers. Moreover, it remains unclear whether ethanol really is cleaner burning overall and whether it actually provides net energy gains.

The American Farmland Trust reports that two-thirds of the state and local open space initiatives that included funding for farmers and ranchers passed in last month's elections. The Trust notes that this is down from 89 percent in the 2000 elections.

The decline is probably the result of two factors. A decline in exuberance about the economy made voters more stingy with their pocket books. And two, as David Goldberg of Smart Growth America, commented, "My sense is the low-hanging fruit has been picked." In other words, the marginal value of extra farmland protection declined as more voters began to feel that they have already protected sufficient areas for open space.

While these initiatives are basically subsidies to agricultural landowners, at least the local initiatives are passed primarily by the people who pay the taxes to support them. Thus, the link between the cost of the "open space" and those receiving the benefit is fairer and more direct. This removes some of the cognitive disconnect in that people who vote for the initiatives understand that what they are voting for will come directly out of their pocketbook. They aren't spending other people's money to the same extent that state and national spending does, which is why I think we will continue to see increased frugality in these initiatives over time.

As a side note, in states with high property taxes like Montana, the initiatives may be seen as an inefficient way of shifting some of the tax burden from owners of land to those earning income from labor and those holding their capital in non-land assets.

Juan Non-Volokh on the excellent Volokh Conspiracy blog posted a good link to an LA Times story on organic labels and some skepticism about the health claims for organic foods. The story is here. Juan's post is here (scroll down to the 9/9 section) From there he has excellent links to good prior posts on the topic.