The next 150 bushels?

I spent last week in Chicago at the American Seed Trade Association annual corn, soybeans, and sorghum, conference. At first blush, this wouldn't seem like a very exciting event.  This isn't the Consumer Electronics Show or MacWorld Expo, where the latest gadgets are unveiled. ASTA's meeting is part research conference, part trade show, and all about networking. It's a big deal in the corn belt and I would argue MORE important to the global economy than any techno gadget event. If however, Apple can figure out how to deliver food via an iDevice, then all bets are off.

There are many opinions, some extremely strong, about biotechnology in agriculture. I believe that there is a place for both genetic modification and traditional plant breeding in the world's food supply. I know - I should read 'The Ominvore's Dilemma" - but if you accept that corn is going to be a fundamental building block for our food supply and possibly our energy needs in the future, exciting times lie ahead. 

Ted Crosby, VP of Global Plant Breeding at Monsanto gave what I thought was an eloquent and personal presentation on how important corn, more specifically hybrid corn, is to the world. Without getting into too many details, here's what's happening. 

Two fundamental truths guide the drive towards higher yields in all agriculture - 1) There is a finite supply of arable land, that is most likely shrinking every day. 2) Global population is continuing to grow at an amazing pace. This means that to keep feeding everyone, we must get more production out of every acre of land - increased yield. 

There have been many technological revolutions in agriculture over the past century. First we started with basic hybridizing (crossing) of different corn varieties to take advantage of heterosis. Along with advancing hybridization strategies and products developed by Pioneer Hi-Bred and others, the farm of the early 20th century started to be more mechanized, enabling further increases in yield. In the 1950's and 60's inputs including fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and others became available for farmers to again push yields even higher. The end of the 20th century brought on the biotech revolution in agriculture. Like it or not, the introduction of biotechnology traits (transgenics) has driven yet another significant increase in yield. Today, acres in Iowa that produced less than 30 bushels of corn 100 years ago can now yield 150 or more. In the grand scheme of things, each of these advancements has built on the last. So, the question of the day last Thursday in Chicago was - "What about the next 150 bushels?"

Mr. Crosby's argument, one which I have to say is very reasonable is this... Given the increased level of investment in genomic technology, expanding understanding of biotechnology, greater use of technology on the farm (GIS, precision planting, etc.), how can we not get to 300 bushel/acre yields? If we don't reach for that goal, we as a society are wasting our money. I agree and would add that only ambitious goals are worth working towards. 

What does that mean to the average person? First, we're not going to run out of corn anytime soon. Corn-based ethanol may turn out to be the biggest economic bubble of the decade, but there will certainly be plenty of feedstock for years to come. Second, getting more bushels of corn per acre can free up land for other biofuels crops. If a farmer can get 300 acres of output from only 150 acres, perhaps that frees him to plant a different crop for food or fuel. Maybe, that means a few more acres in Iowa could be used to grow vegetables in the summer, or possibly returned to prairies? The game is continuing to change and it will be led by the corn belt of the US. 

What might the implications be around the world? America's #1 export, many will say, is our expertise and ideas. It's clear that the major corn seed companies in the US can't keep growing without pushing new technology and products to the developing world. Smart business people will make good decisions and use the advancements made here to help the world feed itself, establish basic commerce and build stronger economies. Maybe in the short run that hurts our farmers, but in the long view, I believe that it's best to lift all boats with a rising tide. 

I will finish with this observation. Too many Americans don't think about agriculture as a high technology business. I would venture to guess that very few people on either coast truly appreciate the advancements that enable them to maintain a reliable food supply and stable costs for products. The next great frontier in the US is not about computing, communications, social networking, it about the next 150 bushels and the technology necessary to get us there. The talent, capital, and energy pursuing this goal is impressive and deserves more attention. 

All that's WIRED - agriculture as 'high tech'?

This article in WIRED presents a great analysis of the current world challenge of feeding a growing population. The graphics alone are worth a visit to the article. It's an interesting juxtaposition to read about farming in a publication that is at the cutting edge of information and entertainment technology. 

The key takeaway -  we've got a problem and science can fix it. Sequencing of genomes, finding the genetic basis of agronomically important traits in plants, and processing thousands of samples for a molecular assisted breeding program are all information heavy tasks. Bioinformatics and other applications of technology will be (and in some crops/markets already are) a major part of agriculture in the 21st century. Maybe we've reached a point where the power of innovation will turn towards this challenge, now that the problem is starting to be understood by a broader audience. We shall see, but there are exciting times ahead. 

Global priorities - Food, Fuel, Money

Wow, what a couple of weeks. The ups and downs of the global financial markets over the past 3 months since my last post have changed the world in profound ways. I heard this morning on NPR that the finance ministers of the world are getting together to change the fundamental principles on which the global financial system is based. Since WWII, the USA has dominated the world's economic reality. Now, with the challenges of maintaining that world order exposed, that may be changing. Those negotiations should be an interesting process to watch. 

What does that have to do with plant based solutions? Well, the world is small, and finances and agriculture are intertwined. No credit for farmers, they can't buy seeds; they don't buy seeds, no crops are planted; no crops, people starve. Credit and the global financial system supports global agricultural production and trade. This has been true since Europeans ventured beyond the horizon to the 'new world' and started trading with the native peoples of North America.

So, I present an interesting article from The Global Crop Diversity Trust. I recommend the article for those who may not be familiar with the idea of crop diversity. Link to the press release on SeedQuest here. Think about this - the answers to many of our most pressing problems, from biofuels, to medicines, to higher yielding food crops are out there in nature - waiting for us to find them. The efforts of agricultural R&D are a critical component of our shared global future. 

When the world seems to be falling down around us (financially at least) residents of the developed world seldom think about what would happen if there was no food to buy. To ensure that we don't have to worry about that scenario, it's important for the world to keep investing in our shared future by learning more about the plants that we use everyday.