Climate
Paragraphs

The availability of climate model experiments under three alternative scenarios stabilizing at warming targets inspired by the COP21 agreements (a 1.5 ºC not exceed, a 1.5 ºC with overshoot and a 2.0ºC) makes it possible to assess future expected changes in global yields for two staple crops, wheat and maize. In this study an empirical model of the relation between crop yield anomalies and temperature and precipitation changes, with or without the inclusion of CO2 fertilization effects, is used to produce ensembles of time series of yield outcomes on a yearly basis over the course of the 21st century, for each scenario. The 21st century is divided into 10 year windows starting from 2020, within which the statistical significance and the magnitude of the differences in yield changes between pairs of scenarios are assessed, thus evaluating if, and when, benefits of mitigations appear, and how substantial they are. Additionally, a metric of extreme heat tailored to the individual crops (number of days during the growing season above a crop-specific threshold) is used to measure exposure to harmful temperatures under the different scenarios. If CO2 effects are not included, statistically significant differences in yields of both crops appear as early as the 2030s but the magnitude of the differences remains below 3% of the historical baseline in all cases until the second part of the century. In the later decades of the 21st century, differences remain small and eventually stop being statistically significant between the two scenarios stabilizing at 1.5 ºC, while differences between these two lower scenarios and the 2.0ºC scenario grow to about 4%. The inclusion of CO2 effects erases all significant benefits of mitigation for wheat, while the significance of differences is maintained for maize yields between the higher and the two lower scenarios, albeit with smaller benefits in magnitude. Changes in extremes are significant within each of the scenarios but the differences between any pair of them, even by the end of the century are only on the order of a few days per growing season, and these small changes appear limited to a few localized areas of the growing regions. These results seem to suggest that for globally averaged yields of these two grains the lower targets put forward by the Paris agreement does not change substantially the expected impacts on yields that are caused by warming temperatures under the pre-existing 2.0ºC target.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Environmental Research Letters
Authors
Claudia Tebaldi
David Lobell
Paragraphs

Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) are expected to increase C3 crop yield through the CO2 fertilization effect (CFE) by stimulating photosynthesis and by reducing stomatal conductance and transpiration. The latter effect is widely believed to lead to greater benefits in dry rather than wet conditions, although some recent experimental evidence challenges this view. Here we used a process-based crop model, the Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator (APSIM), to quantify the contemporary and future CFE on soybean in one of its primary production area of the US Midwest. APSIM accurately reproduced experimental data from the Soybean Free-Air CO2 Enrichment site showing that the CFE declined with increasing drought stress. This resulted from greater radiation use efficiency (RUE) and above-ground biomass production at elevated [CO2] that outpaced gains in transpiration efficiency (TE). Using an ensemble of eight climate model projections, we found that drought frequency in the US Midwest is projected to increase from once every 5 years currently to once every other year by 2050. In addition to directly driving yield loss, greater drought also significantly limited the benefit from rising [CO2]. This study provides a link between localized experiments and regional-scale modeling to highlight that increased drought frequency and severity pose a formidable challenge to maintaining soybean yield progress that is not offset by rising [CO2] as previously anticipated. Evaluating the relative sensitivity of RUE and TE to elevated [CO2] will be an important target for future modeling and experimental studies of climate change impacts and adaptation in C3 crops.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Global Change Biology
Authors
Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Andrew D. B. Leakey
David Lobell
-

Abstract: Effective climate risk management requires robust quantification of the probability of different kinds of hazards, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and severe storms. As a result, there has been increasing interest in the extent to which historical global warming has influenced the occurrence and severity of individual extreme climate events. However, although trends in the extremes of the seasonal- and daily-scale distributions of climate records have been analyzed for many years, quantifying the contribution of observed global warming to individual events that are unprecedented in the observed record presents a particular scientific challenge. I will describe a framework for leveraging observations and large climate model ensembles to quantify the influence of observed global warming on the probability of unprecedented extreme events. This approach is grounded on three tenets: (1) Focus on understanding the physical causes of the individual event; (2) Use formal uncertainty quantification to test the probability of those physical conditions occurring in the current climate; and (3) Use formal hypothesis testing to compare the probability of those physical conditions occurring in the current climate and a climate without human influence. My group has applied our analysis to a number of different climate variables from a number of individual events, including temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, and atmospheric circulation patterns. Together, this work has shown that global warming can influence the risk of extreme events that are unprecedented in historical experience, particularly by altering the probability of the physical conditions that are responsible for the event. In addition, given the widespread public interest in “real time” attribution, the prospects for operational attribution analysis will also be discussed.

About the Speaker: Noah Diffenbaugh is a Professor and Kimmelman Family Senior Fellow at Stanford University. He studies the climate system, including impacts on agriculture, water resources, and human health. He is currently Editor-in-Chief of Geophysical Research Letters. He has served as an IPCC Lead Author, and has provided scientific expertise to the White House, the Governor of California, and U.S. Congressional offices. Recognitions include the Holton Award from the American Geophysical Union and a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation. 

Encina Hall, 2nd floor

Noah S. Diffenbaugh Professor, School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences Stanford University
Seminars
Authors
Nicole Feldman
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

In a shack that now sits below sea level, a mother in Bangladesh struggles to grow vegetables in soil inundated by salt water. In Malawi, a toddler joins thousands of other children perishing from drought-induced malnutrition. And in China, more than one million people died from air pollution in 2012 alone.

Around the world, climate change is already having an effect on human health.

In a recent paper, Katherine Burke and Michele Barry from the Stanford Center for Innovation in Global Health, along with former Wellesley College President Diana Walsh, described climate change as “the ultimate global health crisis.” They offered recommendations to the new United States president to address the urgently arising health risks associated with climate change.

gettyimages 451722570 Bangladeshi children make their way through flood waters.

The authors, along with Stanford researchers Marshall Burke, Eran Bendavid and Amy Pickering who also study climate change, are concerned by how little has been done to mitigate its effects on health.

“I think it’s likely that health impacts could be the most important impact of climate change,” said Marshall Burke, an assistant professor of earth system science and a fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies.

There is still time to ease — though not eliminate — the worst effects on health, but as the average global temperature continues to creep upward, time appears to be running short.

“I think we are at a critical point right now in terms of mitigating the effects of climate change on health,” said Amy Pickering, a research engineer at the Woods Institute for the Environment. “And I don’t think that’s a priority of the new administration at all.”

Health effects of climate change

Even in countries like the United States that are well-equipped to adapt to climate change, health impacts will be significant.

“Extremes of temperature have a very observable direct effect,” said Eran Bendavid, an assistant professor of medicine and Stanford Health Policy core faculty member.

“We see mortality rates increase when temperatures are very low, and especially when they are very high.”

Bendavid also has seen air pollutants cause respiratory problems in people from Beijing to Los Angeles to villages in Sub-Saharan Africa.

“Hotter temperatures make it such that particulate matter and dust and pollutants stick around longer,” he said.

In addition to respiratory issues, air pollution can have long-term cognitive effects. A study in Chile found that children who are exposed to high amounts of air pollution in utero score lower on math tests by the fourth grade.

“I think we’re only starting to understand the true costs of dirty air,” said Marshall Burke. “Even short-term exposure to low levels can have life-long effects.”

Low-income countries like Bangladesh already suffer widespread, direct health effects from rising sea levels. Salt water flooding has crept through homes and crops, threatening food sources and drinking water for millions of people.

“I think that flooding is one of the most pressing issues in low-income and densely populated countries,” said Pickering. “There’s no infrastructure there to handle it.”

Standing water left over from flooding is also a breeding ground for diseases like cholera, diarrhea and mosquito-borne illnesses, all of which are likely to become more prevalent as the planet warms.

On the flip side, many regions of Sub-Saharan Africa — where clean water is already hard to access — are likely to experience severe droughts. The United Nations warned last year that more than 36 million people across southern and eastern Africa face hunger due to drought and record-high temperatures.

Residents may have to walk farther to find water, and local sources could become contaminated more easily. Pickering fears that losing access to nearby, clean water will make maintaining proper hygiene and growing nutritious foods a challenge.

Flow Chart detailing how Climate CHnage Affects Your Health Climate change will affect health in all sectors of society.

All of these effects and more can also damage mental health, said Katherine Burke and her colleagues in their paper. The aftermath of extreme weather events and the hardships of living in long-term drought or flood can cause anxiety, depression, grief and trauma.

Climate change will affect health in every sector of society, but as Katherine Burke and her colleagues said, “….climate disruption is inflicting the greatest suffering on those least responsible for causing it, least equipped to adapt, least able to resist the powerful forces of the status quo.

“If we fail to act now,” they said, “the survival of our species may hang in the balance.”

What can the new administration do to ease health effects?

If the Paris Agreement’s emissions standards are met, scientists predict that the world’s temperature will increase about 2.7 degrees Celsius – still significant but less hazardous than the 4-degree increase projected from current emissions.

The United States plays a critical role in the Paris Agreement. Apart from the significance of cutting its own emissions, failing to live up to its end of the bargain — as the Trump administration has suggested — could have a significant impact on the morale of the other countries involved.

“The reason that Paris is going to work is because we’re in this together,” said Marshall Burke. “If you don’t meet your target, you’re going to be publicly shamed.”

The Trump administration has also discussed repealing the Clean Power Plan, Obama-era legislation to decrease the use of coal, which has been shown to contribute to respiratory disease.

“Withdrawing from either of those will likely have negative short- and long-run health impacts, both in the U.S. and abroad,” said Marshall Burke.

Scott Pruitt, who was confirmed today as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is expected to carry out Trump’s promise to dismantle environment regulations.

Despite the Trump administration’s apparent doubts about climate change, a few prominent Republicans do support addressing its effects.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobile, supports a carbon tax, which would create a financial incentive to turn to renewable energy sources. He also has expressed support for the Paris Agreement. It is possible that as secretary of state, Tillerson could help maintain U.S. obligations from the Paris Agreement, though it is far from certain whether he would choose to do so or how Trump would react.

More promising is a recent proposal from the Climate Leadership Council. Authored by eight leading Republicans — including two former secretaries of state, two former secretaries of the treasury and Rob Walton, Walmart’s former chairman of the board — the plan seeks to reduce emissions considerably through a carbon dividends plan.

gettyimages 613945168 Already an issue, malnutrition will increase with droughts in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Their proposal would gradually increase taxes on carbon emissions but would return the proceeds directly to the American people. Americans would receive a regular check with their portion of the proceeds, similar to receiving a social security check. According to the authors, 70 percent of Americans would come out ahead financially, keeping the tax from being a burden on low- and middle-income Americans while still incentivizing lower emissions.

“A tax on carbon is exactly what we need to provide the right incentives and induce the sort of technological and infrastructure change needed to reduce long-term emissions,” said Marshall Burke.

Pickering added, “This policy is a ray of hope for meaningful action on climate.”

It remains to be seen whether the new administration and congress would consider such a program.

What can academics do to help?

Meanwhile, academics can promote health by researching the effects of climate change and finding ways to adapt to them.

“I think it’s fascinating that there’s just so little data right now on how climate change is going to impact health,” said Pickering.

Studying the effects of warming on the world challenges traditional methods of research.

“You can’t create any sort of experiment,” said Bendavid. “There’s only one climate and one planet.”

The scholars agree that interdisciplinary study is a critical part of adapting to climate change and that more research is needed.

“If ever there was an issue worthy of a leader’s best effort, this is the moment, this is the issue,” said Katherine Burke and her colleagues. “Time is short, but it may not be too late to make all the difference.”

All News button
1
Paragraphs

The potential impacts of climate change on crop productivity are of widespread interest to those concerned with addressing climate change and improving global food security. Two common approaches to assess these impacts are process-based simulation models, which attempt to represent key dynamic processes affecting crop yields, and statistical models, which estimate functional relationships between historical observations of weather and yields. Examples of both approaches are increasingly found in the scientific literature, although often published in different disciplinary journals. Here we compare published sensitivities to changes in temperature, precipitation, carbon dioxide (CO2), and ozone from each approach for the subset of crops, locations, and climate scenarios for which both have been applied. Despite a common perception that statistical models are more pessimistic, we find no systematic differences between the predicted sensitivities to warming from process-based and statistical models up to +2 °C, with limited evidence at higher levels of warming. For precipitation, there are many reasons why estimates could be expected to differ, but few estimates exist to develop robust comparisons, and precipitation changes are rarely the dominant factor for predicting impacts given the prominent role of temperature, CO2, and ozone changes. A common difference between process-based and statistical studies is that the former tend to include the effects of CO2 increases that accompany warming, whereas statistical models typically do not. Major needs moving forward include incorporating CO2 effects into statistical studies, improving both approaches' treatment of ozone, and increasing the use of both methods within the same study. At the same time, those who fund or use crop model projections should understand that in the short-term, both approaches when done well are likely to provide similar estimates of warming impacts, with statistical models generally requiring fewer resources to produce robust estimates, especially when applied to crops beyond the major grains.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Environmental Research Letters
Authors
David Lobell
Senthold Asseng
Paragraphs

Mitigating climate change requires countries to provide a global public good. This means that the domestic cleavages underlying mass attitudes toward international climate policy are a central determinant of its provision. We argue that the industry-specific costs of emission abatement and internalized social norms help explain support for climate policy. To evaluate our predictions we develop novel measures of industry-specific interests by cross-referencing individuals' sectors of employment and objective industry-level pollution data and employ quasi-behavioral measures of social norms in combination with both correlational and conjoint-experimental data. We find that individuals working in pollutive industries are 7 percentage points less likely to support climate cooperation than individuals employed in cleaner sectors. Our results also suggest that reciprocal and altruistic individuals are about 10 percentage points more supportive of global climate policy. These findings indicate that both interests and norms function as complementary explanations that improve our understanding of individual policy preferences.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Social Science Research Network
Authors
Michael M. Bechtel
Federica Genovese
Authors
Kat Tchebotareva
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Stanford Center at Peking University (SCPKU) held its second annual Lee Shau Kee World Leaders Forum at the center on Oct 13.  This year’s conference, titled “Climate Change and Clean Energy,” was keynoted by Dr. Steven Chu, the William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology in the Medical School at Stanford University; the 12th U.S. Secretary of Energy; and co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for laser cooling and atom trapping.  Two panel discussions with a diverse set of experts from academia, government, and industry were also part of the event.

After welcoming remarks by SCPKU Director Jean C. Oi and Xiamen University Dean of the School of Energy Research Ning Li, the conference kicked off with the first panel, “Paths to Clean Energy” which centered around two questions:  Is renewable energy feasible and how does China move away from coal as a dominant energy source?  The second panel, “Challenges and Opportunities to Clean Energy,” focused on barriers preventing China from being progressive on climate change.   China’s National Energy Advisory Committee, British Petroleum-China, and the U.S. Commission on Natural Resources Protection were among the organizations represented by panelists.

 

[[{"fid":"224612","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13.
Courtesy of Stanford University

 

Steven Chu’s keynote wrapped up the forum, which touched on new data reflecting the risks of climate change and the need to continue progress on the development of clean energy.  Regarding the pressing issue of pollution, he cited data from a British study inferring that the risk of contracting lung cancer is 29x higher in Beijing than other cities and highlighted Stanford’s research on nano-fiber filtration as a possible solution.  Chu also spoke on the topic of energy storage and how the full cost of renewable energy needs to account for backup generation capacity, transmission and distribution systems, as well as the storage itself.  Two things, he said, will likely play large roles in the future: high voltage lines (HVDC), and machine learning, which will be needed for largely autonomous management of the electrical grid.  Nuclear energy will also be important to mitigate blackouts when transitioning to clean energy.  In closing, Chu shared a poignant phrase from ancient Native Americans: “We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” 
 

The purpose of the forum is to raise public understanding of the complex issues China and other countries face in the course of development.  Funded by a generous gift from the Lee Shau Kee Foundation, the forum seeks to increase support for Asia-Pacific cooperation and turn ideas into action.  

 

[[{"fid":"224609","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote.
Courtesy of Stanford University

 

[[{"fid":"224614","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in the center's courtyard.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in the center's courtyard.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in
the center's courtyard.
Courtesy of Stanford University

Hero Image
All News button
1
Authors
Walter P. Falcon
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Walter Falcon, the Helen Farnsworth Professor of International Agricultural Policy in Economics (emeritus), writes from an unusual perspective. During the academic year he serves as a senior fellow with the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. He spends the summers on his family farm near Marion, Iowa. He returns to campus each year with reflections on the challenges and rewards of faming life in his "Almanac Report." Falcon is former deputy director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment. 

It is now the end of summer for what has been a milestone year for my wife and me. This essay, itself a mini-milestone, is the fifth annual report from our farm. As readers of prior Almanac postings will know, my day job is as professor of international agricultural policy at Stanford University; however, we also own a medium-sized farm in east central Iowa that produces corn, soybeans, alfalfa and beef from a cow-calf herd. Our friends laughingly refer to our operation as a corn-California crop rotation. 

The 2016 crop year has been nothing short of phenomenal. Planting was early, the weather was warm – sometimes downright hot – and the rains were ideal. On average, our county receives nine inches of rain during the critical growing months of June and July. This year we received more than 12 inches, quite unlike the two inches I wrote about in 2012.

Both corn and soybeans are about two weeks ahead of their maturity schedules for what promises to be record production. Corn yields of 225 bushels per acre on our farm look probable. Soybeans are more uncertain; they are loaded with pods, but all of the rain has left them susceptible to a fungal disease known as sudden-death syndrome (SDS). This fungus, present in many Iowa soils, enters the roots and emits a toxin. Plants looking healthy one day can suddenly wither a few days later. The exact amount of bean loss is mainly a function of how close the plants are to being ripe. We are almost past that maturity barrier now, so even if SDS strikes, it should not lower our yields very much. Unfortunately, record yields do not equate to record incomes, an important point that I return to later.

Image
youtube

The perfect summer and record crops were complemented by two milestone events of a more personal nature. In June, my wife and I celebrated our 60th wedding anniversary. Then in September, we both celebrated our 80th birthdays. There has never been a day when I have not known my wife. We grew up on nearby farms and are fourth-generation caretakers of land that was settled in the late 1850’s. And, we have both seen the most extraordinary changes over our eight decades. Even with a 50-year hiatus while at Harvard and Stanford universities, Iowa has always been home. 

Anniversaries are the time for reminiscing and looking at old pictures. Not surprisingly, a major topic of conversation at our gathering was the change in farming practices. As the younger son in our family, I remember a long list of chores, even when I was small – gathering eggs, filling the watering tanks for pigs and “going after” the cows in the evening. But I really took notice of agriculture when I was about 10.

It was shortly after Word War II, and at that time we used a four-year crop rotation: corn, corn, oats, clover. We were in the transition from horses to tractors, with the corn still being planted with a two-row horse-drawn planter. This was a task reserved for my father (a.k.a. Buck), for no one else could get the rows sufficiently straight to suit him. On a really long day, when the horses were in good condition, father could plant 15 acres. He used 42-inch rows, wide enough for the horses, and planted about 18,000 kernels of seed per acre. The seed was “checked”, which meant that cornfields could be cultivated for weeds both via the length of the field and across it. 

Image
johndeere

The contrast between then and now is stark. An 18-row planter, dispensing 36,000 seeds per acre in 20-inch rows, can now plant 40 acres per hour – almost three times what my father could do in an entire day. Unlike horses, the tractors do not get tired. And they have lights. Steering the tractor is no longer a problem, since the fields and tractors are now synchronized with global positioning systems. For the most part, farmers are just along for the ride, and to keep awake on mile-long rows, several have become Sudoku fanatics! The planting system is wonderful except for one large problem – a new 24-row planter costs upwards of $225,000, not including the tractor.

When I was 12 my father decided that he needed more help and that I was his newly designated “hired man.” To reinforce the point, he decided that I needed my own tractor. He purchased a new Farmall “C” for me, including a two-row cultivator for attacking weeds. The grand total cost of this equipment was $1600! (Perhaps what I remember most is driving myself around the block in my hometown on the day we took delivery.)

Image
farmall

For the next 10 years, I spent most of my summers on that damned tractor fighting morning glories (that would tangle and often require dismounting every 100 yards), thistles, button weeds and all manner of other species. Now, herbicides, Roundup-ready seeds and no-tillage farming are the norm. What took a summer for me to do is now completed easily in a day or two with a high-clearance sprayer with long booms that cover 48 rows at a time.  

What the future will bring is an interesting question. For 20 years or more, farmers have used and overused highly effective herbicides such as Roundup.  And predictably, there is increasing weed resistance to these herbicides. In our county, there has been a devastating spread of Palmer amaranth—a tall spiky plant that produces thousands of seeds. It is highly resistant to commonly used herbicides, and whether its control lies in yet another new herbicide remains to be seen. For the moment, however, it is a menace.

For years, our entire crop rotation was constrained by labor availability at harvest. The picking of ear corn by hand was time-consuming, and typically a cold, miserable task. I can still hear my father saying, “the mark of a man is whether he can pick 100 bushels of ear corn, and then shovel them into a crib before nightfall.

Several things happened almost simultaneously, however, that fundamentally changed rural Iowa life: the switch from horses to tractors; the availability of cheap commercial nitrogen fertilizer; and the large-scale introduction of soybeans.  The departure of the horses was a joyful occasion in itself – tractors neither kick nor need their sheds cleaned.

Moreover, much less land was now needed to provide hay, oats and straw for the horses. A new crop rotation evolved that took the form of corn, soybeans, corn, soybeans. Commercial nitrogen helped maintain the soil fertility; hybrid corn seeds offered new genetic potential as yields on our farm went from 70 bushels per acre in 1946 to more than 200 bushels per acre currently; herbicides more or less controlled the weeds; and perhaps most of all, the mechanical corn picker broke the critical labor bottleneck at harvest.

Image
case

To the extent that my family ever celebrated, we partied the night our first new Case corn picker was delivered in 1948. (Father may have even had one of his carefully hidden beers that evening!) It was a one-row snapper that was simple beyond belief – just rollers that stripped the corn ears from the stock and elevated them into a trailing wagon.

It was the start of a new era, however, and the one-row pull machine quickly gave way to two-row pickers that mounted directly on a tractor, which in turn gave way to self-propelled picker-combines that used multiple “heads” for harvesting either corn or soybeans.  These machines are huge – and are extraordinarily costly. A new 12-row combine fitted for corn harvest costs on the order of $600,000. Unlike picking by hand, when 100 bushels per day was the norm, the new behemoths can harvest 10 acres per hour – some 20,000 bushels per day – provided that the farmer has enough trucks and collector wagons to move the grain from the combine to market or to on-farm storage units. Many are the farm spouses who now drive massive grain trucks during the harvest season!

[[{"fid":"223842","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 400px; float: left; margin: 6px; height: 239px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]Despite the serenity of the summer, the record crops and the jaw-dropping technology that is everywhere, there is now a kind of malaise that overlays the community. The early morning gatherings for (what passes as) coffee in the old country store in Waubeek have a tone that is different from earlier years. The number of new pickups – my index of farmer prosperity – is down, and there are many more comments, sometimes said jokingly but many times not, about “what my banker thinks.”

The coffee crowd is delighted that the traffic from presidential politicians across Iowa is down substantially from last summer, but the two remaining candidates seemingly have yet to say anything meaningful to my neighbors. Farmers are feeling economically trapped and politically abandoned. “None of the above” would certainly win the election if it were held today. While Iowa shows as a dead heat in the presidential polls, it is the most unenthusiastic 50/50 that I have ever seen on both sides.

Most farmers truly enjoy their work and lifestyle, but they are now hurting. It is easy to understand how the hurt arises. In the last 36 months, corn, soybean and fed-cattle prices have dropped about 50 percent, 33 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The $600,000 machines that (perhaps!) were feasible economically with $7 per bushel corn now look like a mechanical albatross with corn at $3.50 or less per bushel.

Even with low interest rates, many farmers find themselves overcapitalized and with heavy debt burdens. During the prior period of high prices, many borrowed against the equity they had in land, only to see local land prices go from about $9,200 to roughly $7,800 per acre. Solvency has become a serious question for some. Interestingly, the younger, most modern, and most aggressive young farmers seem in the most trouble, whereas some of the older, more conservative farmers using rebuilt machinery are coping better.

The morning coffee conversations are also punctuated by several environmental topics, especially nitrogen and water runoffs.  The state of Iowa is pressing hard for voluntary conservation approaches. But farmers are truly puzzled and worried about what they should do. For 100 years they have been urged to improve their land by tiling, that is, to lay clay or perforated plastic pipe three to four feet underground such that wet portions of fields could be drained to facilitate greater yields. Often these tiles have outlets into creeks or ditches.

But now there is a dilemma. The EPA is asserting that water from tiles is running water, and therefore subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Water Act. Given uncertainty about the regulations, farmers fear the worst. Moreover, much of the nitrogen runoff from cornfields is via drainage into those same tiles. While better placement and timing of fertilizer applications can help, it is hard to envisage major curtailment of nutrient runoff without also taking up the tile issue. 

Tiles are virtually in all fields, and the implications of potential new regulations are enormous. As a consequence, groups like the Farm Bureau are pushing new voluntary conservation measures very strongly. They are also going after EPA’s attempt to regulate farm waters in an all-out war. In the meantime, farmers wait uneasily and hope for the best.

[[{"fid":"223844","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"margin: 6px; float: left; width: 365px; height: 323px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

My final comment for the summer is not a “cock and bull” story, although it borders on one. (Definition: “an absurd, improbable story presented as the truth.”) It was partly motivated by “Desperado,” the 2,972-pound Angus bull that won the “Super Bull” contest at the Iowa State Fair. (Lest I be accused of being gender insensitive, I should also report that the life-sized cow, sculpted in butter, is still doing well and now stands beside a sculpturefrom “Star Trek”, also in butter.  Do not ask me why!)

Image
bull2
I have done no formal surveys on the topic, but my conjecture is that in rural areas, the word “bull’ is most often used as the adjective in an expletive. An adjective form is also used to describe markets. For example, the July 14 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek headlined a story, “A Bull Market You Haven’t Seen.” Farmers also watch the stock market carefully, and this watching was done with mixed emotions. To see the Dow-Jones Index of Industrial Stocks rise to over 18,500 was of limited joy, since farmers were invested in land, whose price was falling, not rising. The bullish stock prices, in a curious way, simply added to the malaise mentioned earlier.  
 
During the summer I was also involved in another bull market – a market for real bulls! This part of the story perhaps needs a bit of background. When growing up, both my wife and I had great fun exhibiting steers at various fairs and expositions. (She reminds me frequently that the last time our animals were in head-to-head competition, her ribbon count was more prestigious.)
 
We particularly enjoy young calves, and in a wild moment, we decided to develop a small cowherd of our own that would be separate from the large herd kept by the neighbor who rents our land.  By the time we reconfigured the fences, fixed the barn, installed a new water system, and invested in equipment, we have a small herd of what must surely be the most expensive cows this side of Switzerland. But we are enjoying them. This year’s steer calves have meaty names, e.g. Porter(house) and Sir Loin (spelling courtesy of a dinner menu in Chile) and the heifers have grape names, e.g. Cabernet and Zin.
 
In early July, timed for spring calves next year, we began searching for a bull. Size, breed, and age were all questions, as was an artificial insemination option. To our surprise, we found that there is a bull rental market. We ended up with a 1400-pound red Angus yearling bull, which we rented and which we hope is up to his appointed task. The cost was $600 for four months (purchase would have been $3,000), including delivery and pick up. And what delivery service! He rolled up, all by himself, in a semi trailer designed to haul 36 head. Now that is first class. Unfortunately, however, there may be a problem. He seems to have little interest in his new harem, at least during the daytime. So we watch and wait, and hope that he is working the night shift. Will we have spring calves or we will we have to hire in a substitute? It is not yet clear, so stay tuned, and I will report on the final outcome in next year’s Almanac.
 
In the meantime, I am off to Stanford for another milestone—my 45th year on the faculty. It will be a rather severe test of whether age, wisdom, and guile, can keep ahead of youth, brains and energy.
 
 

Image
bull

       

 

 

 

Hero Image
All News button
1
Paragraphs

We're being warned of future grain failures—not by the dreams of a biblical Pharaoh, but by modern computer model predictions. Climate science forecasts rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and episodes of increasingly extreme weather, which will harm crop yields at a time when the world's growing population can ill afford declines, especially in its most productive areas, such as the US Midwest. In order to adequately prepare, we call for the establishment of a new field research network across the US Midwest to fully integrate all methods for improving cropping systems and leveraging big data (agronomic, economic, environmental, and genomic) to facilitate adaptation and mitigation. Such a network, placed in one of the most important grain-producing areas in the world, would provide the set of experimental facilities, linked to farm settings, needed to explore and test the adaptation and mitigation strategies that already are needed globally.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
BioScience
Authors
David Gustafson
Michael Hayes
Emily Janssen
David Lobell
Stephen Long
Gerald C. Nelson
Himadri B. Pakrasi
Peter Raven
G. Philip Robertson
Richard Robertson
Donald Wuebbles
Subscribe to Climate