Many lower-income countries do, but high and middle-income countries have reduced fertilisers, pesticides, labour, and land without reducing food production.
Thanks Dr. Ritchie for such an interesting article. Is it possible that the huge difference between China and the rest of the countries in fertilizer use could be because it's counted per hectare, and rice has two and even three crops per year? The non-rice countries have only one per year. Second question: Why is infamous the Cui et al study?
You mention in passing the land dedicated to production of animal feeds. Also, you do not consider the effects of modern large- scale monocultures on biodiversity, the most striking finding being the 70% decline in insect populations in Germany, also found elsewhere. I'll never forget a beekeeping course I went on when a participant said he was concerned about exposure to the cold in the Peak District. The tutor said it was not that, but that he lived in a desert: there were hardly any flowering plants. In England, where there are 20 million sheep, cities are safer for bee populations.
Fertiliser use- and consequent eutrophication and GHG emissions could be brought down considerably by the phasing out of meat production. This would be a huge cultural change, but it would benefit humanity immensely. Fir both these reasons governments have no interest in such action.
Most people don’t live in those countries, and the others aren’t loosing their appetite for meat, global meat production increased from 317 million metric tons in 2016 to 351 million metric tons last year, increasing by 10.6%.
You are right, although as they develop they may follow the trend of developed countries. This is a UK source, but surveying the prospects for world markets - https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/what-s-the-long-term-outlook-for-beef-and-sheep-meat-consumption As ever it is development in China that is driving it. Don't know about India. Modi should be promoting vegetarianism but his followers may no agree.
Awesome data as always! I think TFP is a great way to explain how all things work - but it's a great way to better understand agriculture. Precision application, as you note, is just as much know-how as technology. Lots of things to learn from governments changing subsidies to encourage better practices.
Would love to see how some of this would interact with expected crop yield decreases from higher global temperatures. Assuming there will be similar TFP winners/losers like drought-resistant seeds etc?
One factor that you don't really touch on is energy input. Much of the gains have been due to increased mechanisation driving productivity. It has ben a massive benefit, but we may be nearing a peak there. Oil prices are high, and still rising, and at the same time there is a realisation that deep ploughing damages the soil. So far we aren't seeing much penetration of battery power in agriculture, but I can see that it can happen. No-plough techniques open up an opportunity for lighter machines, whilst autonomous tractors can be shrunk that bit more as the cab is removed and the gearboxes and steering rationalised. Already hand-held equipment is switching fast to battery power, as it reduces the weight and the maintenance cost and this change should move up the rest of the farm machinery chain.
The next stage, which is heralded but not yet really here, is using drones to monitor crops and apply targeted treatment. That will be especially applicable to small plots allowing farmers to exploit land that is unsuitable for heavy machines, and being able to manage fields that are simple rectangles. This might be the area where China and developing countries will really have an opportunity to leapfrog the high and middle income economies.
There are many improvements in farm equipment, from the common already use of GPS semi autonomous tractors, satellites and drones for tracking growth, water and fertilizer use, and new robotic pest control which uses AI cameras to identify newly sprouting weeds and powerful lasers to kill them to eliminate needs for herbicides. Robot pickers will be needed to reduce labor inputs. One instance of this is Dyson’s automated strawberry farm, which is not yet practical, but may soon be.
Global Population is spluttering and stagnating at around 8 billion with regular downgrades by agencies including UNPD.
Those opposed to 'population growth' a la old Rockefeller fosssil fuel ZPG Zero Population Growth and MAGA Tanton Network claimed the 'green revolution' was responsible for feeding larger numbers.
However no evidence, it's more education and empowerment of women which has had much to do with falling fertility and longevity slowing down population growth, markedly.
Also helped along by birth control, urbanization, labor saving devices that allow women to work outside the home and reduce the need for children to help run small farms.
What do you think about slowing population growth and food consumption? I know you did a piece recently about how falling population won't impact climate much, but I think the arguments apply better to food production.
Also, what do you think of Jesús Fernández-Villaverde's presentation that the UN low population projections is a better projection of future growth? If the UN low fertility scenario is to be believed, population will only grow by ~8% at peak before falling.
And as the developed world expands, and calorie consumption from low levels increases, maybe the widespread use of GLP1 agonists will further reduce per capita calorie consumption, helping to keep down both demand for food and obesity rates.
We must interfere with nature to survive, just as we must eat to interfere with starvation. Any pollution on the way is a harm to property matter. But there is very little respect for property in collectivist societies since a "public" standing is morally superior to a "private" standing. In fact, there's very little respect for one's self, since one's value depends on the value of someone else. This is the cause of "pollution" and negligence, not chemicals, pesticides, or power plant emissions.
Wow, awesome piece! Your point about total aggregate inputs still increasing I think is interesting and worthy of deeper exploration. So assuming we still keep trying to ratchet up food production (through increasing current farmland yields, not land clearing), albeit more and more efficiently, the amount of total inputs will grow. Pairing this with the fact that we are past peak farmland, and acknowledging peak population will be hit (short of some drastic cultural shift) in this century/the next, could we arrive at a point of total TFP efficiency?
"And yet you fail to mention the huge and uncontestable benefits the increase in Co² has had on crop yield and the greening of the earth!"
I submitted that to chat ChatGPTs "Post Comment Reply Generator", i.e. the auto-fisker. Here's the result (https://chatgpt.com/share/68880b44-de44-8013-a6ca-5826796cd852). It's pretty much the reply I'd make based on my own knowledge. Generative AI takes the tedium out of whack-a-troll!
"Yes, higher CO₂ has contributed to ~12% global greening over the past 40 years (NASA), mainly through longer growing seasons and fertilization. But here's the rest of the picture:
" - Heat extremes linked to rising CO₂ have already cut wheat and maize yields by 4–6% globally (IPCC, 2021).
" - CO₂ boosts growth, but lowers nutrient content in staple crops like rice and wheat (Harvard/PNAS, 2018).
" - By 2050, climate-related disruptions could reduce global crop yields by up to 25% without strong mitigation (FAO).
" - And greening ≠ food security. Most greening is in boreal forests and marginal lands, not core crop zones."
"So yes, CO₂ has benefits — but pretending it's all upside is like praising rain during a flood."
The hugeness of the possible (and partly realised, now) improvements in agriculture is the untold story of the industrial revolution.
An impartial observer would probably label it the agricultural revolution, because TFP has improved in agriculture vastly more than in any other sector. Even much-vaunted manufacturing.
The food industry is just like other industries that are driven by price points to meet demand and the need to innovate with technology to improve on both of those parameters.
So … the improvements in output and reductions of inputs are mostly from improved technology across all aspects of the supply chain.
And this is why the emerging markets that don’t yet have technology access are less capable.
Some of the other factors that have helped is economies of scale as well as improvement due to climate change such as more CO2 and milder colder temperatures that has enhanced the growing cycles across the planet.
The land production outlook remains good …but experts do worry about seafood production and sea farming rather than traditional fishing practices may help, but pollution due to globalization is a major threat warning.
More at..
Save the Planet…Stop Global trade!!! - by Nigel Southway
Great piece, thank you. I’m thinking that the irrigation piece in established ag lands will become more limiting w climate change. Much of the prime ag land is irrigated either thru surface water distribution (reservoirs), which rely on seasonal refilling from rain/snowmelt, or thru groundwater withdrawals that either mine old water or rely on rechargeable aquifers.
With atmospheric warming (warm air holds/retains more moisture) we’re seeing a lot of increased variability in snow packs and reservoir refills. Snowmelts are occurring earlier and faster such that they’re not able to be captured, so water supplies may not be available for late season calls.
Groundwater is seeing increased competition between ag and domestic use, as rapid urbanization (population shifts from small rural towns to urban centers) in many cases is leading to increased non-ag withdrawals. This is pressure on what may already be threatened supplies.
What no one really knows is how the pressures from climate change will result in shifting ag production to newly viable farmland, while current land slowly leaves production.
Love seeing some positive news. In relation to your comments on China, however, I can't see that you've taken into account China's outsourcing of food production to countries like Laos who then bear the human and environmental burdens of high fertilizer and pesticide use.
I don't see any explicit mention of energy in total factor productivity. We know that a loaf of bread contains a surprising amount of embedded energy (see Vaclav Smil's "How the World Really Works" - Chapter 2). A declining lower fertiliser input probably means less energy, but to what extent does increased farm mechanisation, food distribution etc involve higher (and surely potentially costly and environmentally unfriendly) fossil fuel input?
Mechanized farms emit much fewer greenhouse emissions per calorie than those using basic traditional farming techniques. The average US wheat farm emits 59 grams of carbon per 1000 calories of grown wheat, vs 103 grams per 1000 calorie average in the developing world. This includes the fertilizers and emission from the equipment for sowing, tending and harvesting. Transportation isn’t included, but transporting wheat flour is not a major use of energy.
This isn't really my area, but I find what you say very surprising (if you're comparing modern mechanised wheat farms with those replying largely on human and animal labour). The energy input into the former has got to be several orders of magnitude greater! And cereals production is relatively efficient in energy input terms compared with fruit and vegetables. If diets in the developing world move beyond carbohydrates, there have to be substantial energy input consequences.
I like Hannah's article and her conclusions, but feel that there is a substantial energy story lying uncovered beneath. Yet this is usually the case in stories of economic progress and development. One can study economics for several years at university with energy hardly popping up into the story....
Thanks Dr. Ritchie for such an interesting article. Is it possible that the huge difference between China and the rest of the countries in fertilizer use could be because it's counted per hectare, and rice has two and even three crops per year? The non-rice countries have only one per year. Second question: Why is infamous the Cui et al study?
You mention in passing the land dedicated to production of animal feeds. Also, you do not consider the effects of modern large- scale monocultures on biodiversity, the most striking finding being the 70% decline in insect populations in Germany, also found elsewhere. I'll never forget a beekeeping course I went on when a participant said he was concerned about exposure to the cold in the Peak District. The tutor said it was not that, but that he lived in a desert: there were hardly any flowering plants. In England, where there are 20 million sheep, cities are safer for bee populations.
Fertiliser use- and consequent eutrophication and GHG emissions could be brought down considerably by the phasing out of meat production. This would be a huge cultural change, but it would benefit humanity immensely. Fir both these reasons governments have no interest in such action.
It is happening.
Meat consumption in most developed countries is plateaued. Probably not true for the USA. In the UK meat consumption per head is at the lowest since records began. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/24/uk-meat-consumption-lowest-level-since-record-began-data-reveal Culture change like this take time, but its per decade rather than per generation.
Most people don’t live in those countries, and the others aren’t loosing their appetite for meat, global meat production increased from 317 million metric tons in 2016 to 351 million metric tons last year, increasing by 10.6%.
You are right, although as they develop they may follow the trend of developed countries. This is a UK source, but surveying the prospects for world markets - https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/what-s-the-long-term-outlook-for-beef-and-sheep-meat-consumption As ever it is development in China that is driving it. Don't know about India. Modi should be promoting vegetarianism but his followers may no agree.
Awesome data as always! I think TFP is a great way to explain how all things work - but it's a great way to better understand agriculture. Precision application, as you note, is just as much know-how as technology. Lots of things to learn from governments changing subsidies to encourage better practices.
Would love to see how some of this would interact with expected crop yield decreases from higher global temperatures. Assuming there will be similar TFP winners/losers like drought-resistant seeds etc?
Another amazing and important collection of inconvenient truths.
As always, thanks for pushing back against the Doomer Cult, Hannah.
One factor that you don't really touch on is energy input. Much of the gains have been due to increased mechanisation driving productivity. It has ben a massive benefit, but we may be nearing a peak there. Oil prices are high, and still rising, and at the same time there is a realisation that deep ploughing damages the soil. So far we aren't seeing much penetration of battery power in agriculture, but I can see that it can happen. No-plough techniques open up an opportunity for lighter machines, whilst autonomous tractors can be shrunk that bit more as the cab is removed and the gearboxes and steering rationalised. Already hand-held equipment is switching fast to battery power, as it reduces the weight and the maintenance cost and this change should move up the rest of the farm machinery chain.
The next stage, which is heralded but not yet really here, is using drones to monitor crops and apply targeted treatment. That will be especially applicable to small plots allowing farmers to exploit land that is unsuitable for heavy machines, and being able to manage fields that are simple rectangles. This might be the area where China and developing countries will really have an opportunity to leapfrog the high and middle income economies.
There are many improvements in farm equipment, from the common already use of GPS semi autonomous tractors, satellites and drones for tracking growth, water and fertilizer use, and new robotic pest control which uses AI cameras to identify newly sprouting weeds and powerful lasers to kill them to eliminate needs for herbicides. Robot pickers will be needed to reduce labor inputs. One instance of this is Dyson’s automated strawberry farm, which is not yet practical, but may soon be.
https://youtu.be/FA6BCIWPJ30?si=xQzOjqg_FkfFxNcp
Global Population is spluttering and stagnating at around 8 billion with regular downgrades by agencies including UNPD.
Those opposed to 'population growth' a la old Rockefeller fosssil fuel ZPG Zero Population Growth and MAGA Tanton Network claimed the 'green revolution' was responsible for feeding larger numbers.
However no evidence, it's more education and empowerment of women which has had much to do with falling fertility and longevity slowing down population growth, markedly.
Also helped along by birth control, urbanization, labor saving devices that allow women to work outside the home and reduce the need for children to help run small farms.
Good and important point!
What do you think about slowing population growth and food consumption? I know you did a piece recently about how falling population won't impact climate much, but I think the arguments apply better to food production.
Also, what do you think of Jesús Fernández-Villaverde's presentation that the UN low population projections is a better projection of future growth? If the UN low fertility scenario is to be believed, population will only grow by ~8% at peak before falling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7_e_A_vFnk
And as the developed world expands, and calorie consumption from low levels increases, maybe the widespread use of GLP1 agonists will further reduce per capita calorie consumption, helping to keep down both demand for food and obesity rates.
We must interfere with nature to survive, just as we must eat to interfere with starvation. Any pollution on the way is a harm to property matter. But there is very little respect for property in collectivist societies since a "public" standing is morally superior to a "private" standing. In fact, there's very little respect for one's self, since one's value depends on the value of someone else. This is the cause of "pollution" and negligence, not chemicals, pesticides, or power plant emissions.
Wow, awesome piece! Your point about total aggregate inputs still increasing I think is interesting and worthy of deeper exploration. So assuming we still keep trying to ratchet up food production (through increasing current farmland yields, not land clearing), albeit more and more efficiently, the amount of total inputs will grow. Pairing this with the fact that we are past peak farmland, and acknowledging peak population will be hit (short of some drastic cultural shift) in this century/the next, could we arrive at a point of total TFP efficiency?
And yet you fail to mention the huge and uncontestable benefits the increase in Co² has had on crop yield and the greening of the earth!
Why would that be?
"And yet you fail to mention the huge and uncontestable benefits the increase in Co² has had on crop yield and the greening of the earth!"
I submitted that to chat ChatGPTs "Post Comment Reply Generator", i.e. the auto-fisker. Here's the result (https://chatgpt.com/share/68880b44-de44-8013-a6ca-5826796cd852). It's pretty much the reply I'd make based on my own knowledge. Generative AI takes the tedium out of whack-a-troll!
"Yes, higher CO₂ has contributed to ~12% global greening over the past 40 years (NASA), mainly through longer growing seasons and fertilization. But here's the rest of the picture:
" - Heat extremes linked to rising CO₂ have already cut wheat and maize yields by 4–6% globally (IPCC, 2021).
" - CO₂ boosts growth, but lowers nutrient content in staple crops like rice and wheat (Harvard/PNAS, 2018).
" - By 2050, climate-related disruptions could reduce global crop yields by up to 25% without strong mitigation (FAO).
" - And greening ≠ food security. Most greening is in boreal forests and marginal lands, not core crop zones."
"So yes, CO₂ has benefits — but pretending it's all upside is like praising rain during a flood."
The hugeness of the possible (and partly realised, now) improvements in agriculture is the untold story of the industrial revolution.
An impartial observer would probably label it the agricultural revolution, because TFP has improved in agriculture vastly more than in any other sector. Even much-vaunted manufacturing.
The food industry is just like other industries that are driven by price points to meet demand and the need to innovate with technology to improve on both of those parameters.
So … the improvements in output and reductions of inputs are mostly from improved technology across all aspects of the supply chain.
And this is why the emerging markets that don’t yet have technology access are less capable.
Some of the other factors that have helped is economies of scale as well as improvement due to climate change such as more CO2 and milder colder temperatures that has enhanced the growing cycles across the planet.
The land production outlook remains good …but experts do worry about seafood production and sea farming rather than traditional fishing practices may help, but pollution due to globalization is a major threat warning.
More at..
Save the Planet…Stop Global trade!!! - by Nigel Southway
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/save-the-planetstop-global-trade
Great piece, thank you. I’m thinking that the irrigation piece in established ag lands will become more limiting w climate change. Much of the prime ag land is irrigated either thru surface water distribution (reservoirs), which rely on seasonal refilling from rain/snowmelt, or thru groundwater withdrawals that either mine old water or rely on rechargeable aquifers.
With atmospheric warming (warm air holds/retains more moisture) we’re seeing a lot of increased variability in snow packs and reservoir refills. Snowmelts are occurring earlier and faster such that they’re not able to be captured, so water supplies may not be available for late season calls.
Groundwater is seeing increased competition between ag and domestic use, as rapid urbanization (population shifts from small rural towns to urban centers) in many cases is leading to increased non-ag withdrawals. This is pressure on what may already be threatened supplies.
What no one really knows is how the pressures from climate change will result in shifting ag production to newly viable farmland, while current land slowly leaves production.
Love seeing some positive news. In relation to your comments on China, however, I can't see that you've taken into account China's outsourcing of food production to countries like Laos who then bear the human and environmental burdens of high fertilizer and pesticide use.
I don't see any explicit mention of energy in total factor productivity. We know that a loaf of bread contains a surprising amount of embedded energy (see Vaclav Smil's "How the World Really Works" - Chapter 2). A declining lower fertiliser input probably means less energy, but to what extent does increased farm mechanisation, food distribution etc involve higher (and surely potentially costly and environmentally unfriendly) fossil fuel input?
Mechanized farms emit much fewer greenhouse emissions per calorie than those using basic traditional farming techniques. The average US wheat farm emits 59 grams of carbon per 1000 calories of grown wheat, vs 103 grams per 1000 calorie average in the developing world. This includes the fertilizers and emission from the equipment for sowing, tending and harvesting. Transportation isn’t included, but transporting wheat flour is not a major use of energy.
This isn't really my area, but I find what you say very surprising (if you're comparing modern mechanised wheat farms with those replying largely on human and animal labour). The energy input into the former has got to be several orders of magnitude greater! And cereals production is relatively efficient in energy input terms compared with fruit and vegetables. If diets in the developing world move beyond carbohydrates, there have to be substantial energy input consequences.
I like Hannah's article and her conclusions, but feel that there is a substantial energy story lying uncovered beneath. Yet this is usually the case in stories of economic progress and development. One can study economics for several years at university with energy hardly popping up into the story....