21 Mar 2016: Analysis

New Green Challenge: How to
Grow More Food on Less Land

If the world is to have another Green Revolution to feed its soaring population, it must be far more sustainable than the first one. That means finding ways to boost yields with less fertilizer and rethinking the way food is distributed.

by richard conniff

USAID/Cambodia HARVEST/Fintrac Inc
A field technician teaches sustainable agricultural practices to a farmer in Cambodia.

For researchers trying to figure how to feed a world of 10 billion people later in this century, the great objective over the past decade has been to achieve what they call “sustainable intensification.” It’s an awkward term, not least because of conventional agricultural intensification’s notorious record of wasting water, overusing fertilizers and pesticides, and polluting habitats. But the ambition this time is different, proponents say: To figure out almost overnight how to grow the most food on the least land and with the minimal environmental impact. The alternative, they say, is to continue plowing under what’s left of the natural world. Or face food shortages and political unrest.

Up to now, the tendency in talking about sustainable intensification has been to focus on the supply side and on exciting technological innovations of one sort or another, from gene editing to satellite monitoring. In his new book Half-Earth, even E. O. Wilson invokes the idea, not too hopefully, that “a new Green Revolution can be engineered” to spare the half of the world he argues should be set aside for nature.

But achieving consensus about what sustainable intensification should mean — or whether it’s the right objective in the first place — has proved complicated and increasingly contentious. “Depending on how one defines it,” one researcher commented, “I’m in favor of it, or against it.”

To critics, the engineering focus has tended to put intensification ahead of sustainability, making it just a re-boot of the original Green Revolution.
Technological solutions appeal to large farms in the industrial world, which can afford to invest in them.
They say the technological fixes also distract from more challenging social reforms like slowing the rate of population growth, shifting away from crops like corn ethanol that don’t put food on the table, or ending subsidies for livestock production, which currently eats up an appalling 75 percent of the world’s agricultural land. Technological solutions also appeal most directly to large farms in the industrial world, which can afford to invest in them. But the population growth and the clearing of land for agriculture are mainly happening in the developing world.

Fertilizer is a key topic of discussion everywhere — most obviously because sustainable intensification means curbing overuse in the industrial world. The European Union began regulating fertilizer use 25 years ago, to reduce farm runoff that was polluting groundwater and turning water bodies hypoxic. The EU’s Nitrates Directive led to a 30 percent reduction in fertilizer use, even as yields were increasing substantially.

That kind of intensification — more production with fewer impacts — is certainly also possible in the United States. University of Minnesota ecologist G. David Tilman cited, by way of example, multiple studies showing that farmers could get the same yield with substantially less fertilizer, if they were willing to time applications more precisely to the needs of the crop. The pressure to cut fertilizer use is especially urgent in the Mississippi River Valley, where agricultural runoff has created the world’s second largest ocean “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

Patrick Kuhl/Flickr
Tomatoes at a farmers' market in Wisconsin.
So far, state and federal agencies have relied on voluntary efforts to reduce runoff, with little success. But the switch from old- to new-style intensification could start to become mandatory, depending on the outcome of a new lawsuit by the City of Des Moines charging upstream Iowa farm counties with polluting its drinking water and imposing huge filtration costs on city residents.

Even as fertilizer use needs to decrease in the industrial world, sustainable intensification advocates argue that it must increase dramatically in the developing world, where there is a stark choice between intensification and extensification. That is, if a farmer’s land yields only a quarter of what it takes to feed the family, one possible fix is to apply more fertilizer, or plant legumes to deliver a crop that also adds nitrogen to the soil. What often happens instead, though, is that the farmer just clears four or five times as much land.

Is it possible to increase fertilizer use without the pollution headaches it has created in the industrial world? And without the economic dependency and increased economic inequality associated with past efforts to increase fertilizer use?

Intensification turns out to be a lot more nitty-gritty and locally driven in the developing world than in industrial nations. In Zimbabwe, for instance, poor farmers were often unwilling to risk the cost of applying fertilizer to an entire field. But a 2010 study demonstrated that “micro-dosing”— that is, applying fertilizer in minute amounts when planting each seed, or as a top dressing soon after emergence – improved yields by 30-100 percent, with a 400 percent return on the investment.

In Zimbabwe, applying fertilizer in minute amounts when planting each seed improved yields by 30-100 percent.
A new study in Mali worked with farmers to develop a sort of sustainable intensification decision tree: If I am fertilizing the cotton crop, and I have this type of soil, what should I plant in that field next, to take advantage of the nutrient carry-over? In the uplands of Rwanda, “vertical intensification is a great thing,” said Kenneth Giller, of Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Climbing beans fix nitrogen out of the air and produce twice the yield of bush beans, “and it’s a cash crop farmers can sell in the cities.”

Giller, who has worked on agricultural issues in Africa for the past 30 years, says that new technologies often “sound fantastic.” But the companies promoting them “are really not thinking about the context of the farmer.” They’re often geared to a yield-per-acre mindset, when yield-per-workday might be more appropriate, given that farmers in the developing world must often piece together a living here and there from multiple sources.

Solutions from the industrial world are frequently “like developing a product and not doing any market research,” Giller said, or like having a high-speed chip, “but we don't have a computer to plug it into.” Instead of being about a technology or a product, effective intensification might involve developing a supply chain to get fertilizer to farmers in Rwanda, or connecting farmers with food processors in Ethiopia to develop a market for chickpeas, with one type for domestic consumption and another that “fetches a very good price on the international market.”

Divya Pandey/IFPRI
Farmers in Nepal are learning how to produce crops more sustainably and efficiently.

Or maybe intensification isn’t even the right term for this process. “I see no reason to start with productivity as our focus,” said M. Jahi Chappell, a senior staff scientist at the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “The amount of attention productivity gets is incredibly disproportionate to how important it is and to how effective it is” at improving peoples’ lives. It doesn’t even necessarily put more food on peoples’ tables, he said, especially when it’s geared to export markets.

“Intensification often goes hand in hand with squeezing out the small farmers and landless rural laborers most likely to be suffering from hunger,”Chappell recently wrote on the institute’s website. “In this light, simply producing more cannot be thought of as sustainable without looking at how that food is distributed, who it is distributed to, and who gets to make those decisions … it cannot simply be left to concentrated and corporate-dominated ‘free markets.’”

In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Chappell cited research by Lisa C. Smith and Lawrence Haddad using data on child stunting as an indicator of how the incidence of malnutrition has changed since 1970 in 116 developing countries. The factors likeliest to improve food security and reduce stunting, they found, were access to clean water, access to sanitation, and female secondary school enrollment, in that order. Improvements to the food supply ranked well down the list, and for Chappell, that means that “increased productivity was the outcome — not the cause — of the improvements.”


Can Data-Driven Agriculture
Help Feed a Hungry World?

Can Data-Driven Agriculture Help Feed a Hungry World? width=
Agribusinesses are increasingly using computer databases to enable farmers to grow crops more efficiently and with less environmental impact. Experts hope this data, detailing everything from water use to crop yields, can also help the developing world grow more food.

But Smith and Haddad also noted one factor that makes the focus on food supply more urgent: It “is arguably the underlying determinant most at risk of disruption from climate change,” they concluded, “and considerable effort needs to be expended to maintain production in the face of these increased uncertainties.”

Maybe all this uncertainty, disagreement, and dread are the reasons one aspect of sustainable intensification — food waste – has gotten so much enthusiastic public attention lately. British supermarkets have recently pledged to cut waste 20 percent (though they granted themselves a leisurely 10 years to do it). And environmentalists and food industry representatives alike have supported new legislation in the U.S. Congress to reform wasteful “sell by,” or expiration date, labeling on food products.

The idea that the world now wastes all the agricultural output from 5.4 million square miles of land — an area almost half as large as the United States — doesn’t just offend common sense and beg for urgent solutions. It may also be the only thing about sustainable intensification — or let’s just call it food security and sustainability — on which almost everyone agrees.

POSTED ON 21 Mar 2016 IN Business & Innovation Climate Climate Oceans Science & Technology Science & Technology Sustainability Africa Asia Australia Central & South America Europe Middle East North America 


A well-balanced, interesting piece Richard, thank you.

I would add one important caveat/note to your last
point on food waste, however.

I think food waste has gotten a lot of attention for
precisely the reason that you identify, that it is so
obvious and non-controversial to address, as agreed
upon by all actors. However, I continue to be very
concerned that the efforts may continue to "nibble
about the edges" of waste and not necessarily make
a difference, or "the" difference it ought to. That is to
say, cutting food waste produces the most benefit if
the reduced waste means *people correspondingly
purchase less food in the aggregate*. That way, we
can relieve pressure on increasing agricultural land.

But no one is talking about this element. Reducing
waste does produce some benefits even without this
(e.g., cutting down GHG emissions from decaying
waste, and from waste handling), but if we're talking
about "sustainable intensification" the full idea only
works if there is less food throughput to the already
food-secure as a result. Needless to say, few
business interests are seriously and openly
committed to *that* element.

There are two "market" approaches, however, that
are ready-made for cutting waste. One is higher food
prices (which, as I mentioned to you, may help, not
hurt, the poor after a 1-5 year period of adjustment:
poverty-reduction-long-run). Higher food prices
would discourage waste.

Another approach would be charging for food waste
(as was experimented with in parts of Brazil, where
you paid for food in a buffet by weight, and then you
actually paid for food *left on your plate after you
ate* by weight, to charge for the waste). This latter
approach, at least in some contexts, may be less
likely to have regressive effects on the poor.

In any case, like "True Costs," I am very concerned
that what looks like a consensus actually can turn
into a stalling tactic, as taking true costs and waste
seriously, at some point, entails SOMEONE in society
paying for things we've not paid for directly up to
now (e.g.
culture_final.pdf). Those who ought to pay most are
those who have benefited most up to now (the
distributive justice we talked about in my paper with
Jacqueline Loos), but that, as always, is a difficult
political question. Thus, my worry, as always, is that
the necessary focus on the political not be lost in the
excitement for the technological.


Posted by Jahi Chappell on 24 Mar 2016

More food is going to have to be grown in commercial greenhouses. 10 times more product can be produced compared to growing in the soil.
The plants grown hydroponically do not have a waste fertilizer run off problem.

Commercial greenhouses need to be constructed next to the electricity producing power plants. The heat in the combusted exhaust can be used to heat and or cool these large buildings, maintaining the perfect growing temperature. The cooled CO2 can be monitored and pumped into these growing areas enriching these plants. The water that is recovered from the cooled exhaust can be treated - nutrients added and be used to irrigate these food bearing plants.
Not only does this help solve the production of additional food, but it is good for the environment and the economy.
This has to be the way of the future.
Posted by Sid Abma on 24 Mar 2016

It is a kind of chicken and egg scenario. Does our population continue to explode because we keep finding ways to produce more food, or do we have to figure out ways to produce more food because the population continues to explode. We always look for reasons to grow more corn.

The case of the city of Des Moines versus Iowa farmers is a fascinating one.

Any agriculture solutions that maintain monoculture practices is endemic to global warming issues.
Posted by Dave Fehr on 24 Mar 2016

we often read of expectations like "For researchers trying to figure how to feed a world of 10 billion people later in this century."

excuse me, but researchers will not be growing the food and feeding these people.
people will be feeding themselves.

replacing all those acres and acres of pavement with gardens can make it happen.
Posted by Muriel Strand, P.E. on 27 Mar 2016


Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Email address 
Please type the text shown in the graphic.

richard conniffABOUT THE AUTHOR
Richard Conniff is a National Magazine Award-winning writer whose articles have appeared in The New York Times, Smithsonian, The Atlantic, National Geographic, and other publications. His latest book is House of Lost Worlds: Dinosaurs, Dynasties, and the Story of Life on Earth. In previous articles for Yale e360, he has written about the role of electric power line corridors in conservation and how food waste impacts the world’s wildlife.



As Arctic Ocean Ice Disappears,
Global Climate Impacts Intensify

The top of the world is turning from white to blue in summer as the ice that has long covered the north polar seas melts away. This monumental change is triggering a cascade of effects that will amplify global warming and could destabilize the global climate system.

What’s Killing Native Birds in
The Mountain Forests of Kauai?

Biologist Eben Paxton is sounding the alarm about the catastrophic collapse of native bird populations on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. His group's research has uncovered the culprit: disease-carrying mosquitoes that have invaded the birds' mountain habitat.

Why We Need a Carbon Tax,
And Why It Won’t Be Enough

Putting a price on carbon is an idea whose time has come, with even Big Oil signaling it may drop its long-standing opposition to a carbon tax. But the question is, has it come too late?

Clinton vs. Trump: A Sharp Divide
Over Energy and the Environment


The Dungeness Crab Faces
Uncertain Future on West Coast

The winner of the 2016 Yale Environment 360 Video Contest explores how ocean acidification may be putting at risk a prized crustacean that is vital to the fishing industry and the marine ecosystem on the U.S. Pacific Coast.


MORE IN Analysis

As Arctic Ocean Ice Disappears,
Global Climate Impacts Intensify

by peter wadhams
The top of the world is turning from white to blue in summer as the ice that has long covered the north polar seas melts away. This monumental change is triggering a cascade of effects that will amplify global warming and could destabilize the global climate system.

How Climate Change Could Jam
The World's Ocean Circulation

by nicola jones
Scientists are closely monitoring a key current in the North Atlantic to see if rising sea temperatures and increased freshwater from melting ice are altering the “ocean conveyor belt” — a vast oceanic stream that plays a major role in the global climate system.

Wildlife Farming: Does It Help
Or Hurt Threatened Species?

by richard conniff
Wildlife farming is being touted as a way to protect endangered species while providing food and boosting incomes in rural areas. But some conservation scientists argue that such practices fail to benefit beleaguered wildlife.

What Would a Global Warming
Increase of 1.5 Degrees Be Like?

by fred pearce
The Paris climate conference set the ambitious goal of finding ways to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than the previous threshold of 2 degrees. But what would be the difference between a 1.5 and 2 degree world? And how realistic is such a target?

After Paris, A Move to Rein In
Emissions by Ships and Planes

by fred pearce
As the world moves to slash CO2 emissions, the shipping and aviation sectors have managed to remain on the sidelines. But the pressure is now on these two major polluting industries to start controlling their emissions at last.

Abrupt Sea Level Rise Looms
As Increasingly Realistic Threat

by nicola jones
Ninety-nine percent of the planet's freshwater ice is locked up in the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Now, a growing number of studies are raising the possibility that as those ice sheets melt, sea levels could rise by six feet this century, and far higher in the next, flooding many of the world's populated coastal areas.

How Nations Are Chipping
Away at Their Protected Lands

by richard conniff
Winning protected status for key natural areas and habitat has long been seen as the gold standard of conservation. But these gains are increasingly being compromised as governments redraw park boundaries to accommodate mining, logging, and other development.

Can We Reduce CO2 Emissions
And Grow the Global Economy?

by fred pearce
Surprising new statistics show that the world economy is expanding while global carbon emissions remain at the same level. Is it possible that the elusive “decoupling” of emissions and economic growth could be happening?

On Fuel Economy Efforts,
U.S. Faces an Elusive Target

by marc gunther
One of President Obama’s signature achievements on climate has been strict standards aimed at improving auto fuel efficiency to nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025. But credits and loopholes, coupled with low gas prices, may mean the U.S. will fall well short of this ambitious goal.

How Forest Loss Is Leading
To a Rise in Human Disease

by jim robbins
A growing body of scientific evidence shows that the felling of tropical forests creates optimal conditions for the spread of mosquito-borne scourges, including malaria and dengue. Primates and other animals are also spreading disease from cleared forests to people.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

An indigenous tribe’s deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Choco rainforest Cacao
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.