How will the world be "fed" in the future?

[pointrider]

Not long ago the Texas Farm Bureau newspaper contained an article by the editor entitled "Agriculture Is A Business If Nothing Else." In the article he defended agriculture as a business and made statements like, "sustainability of profits is necessary for agriculture. People must understand that economic sustainability is first and foremost for ag producers and processors." He went on to say more along those lines and urged people to understand.

I do not disagree with him as far as today's commercial agriculture goes. There are things going on that I never see discussed on this forum that are a part of the free enterprise, capitalist ag business model such as why concentration at all levels occurs. There are inherent reasons why the commercial ag system as we know it today is not getting the job done in terms of feeding the hungry people of the world. But, as I said, as far as the business model of today's agriculture goes, I do not disagree with him.

On the other side of the coin, the U.N. says that there are still a billion children in the world who go to bed hungry at night, and I believe that. In some countries children are dying from diseases that are brought on by severe malnutrition. In the U.S. more and more people are now on food stamps (although they are not called that anymore), and I heard the other day that 50% of young children in the U.S. are now in the WIC program. The global economy that we live in today is forcing more and more typical third-world problems into our own country, and I don't believe this will change anytime soon.

So, what is the answer? As more and more governments look at the "liability and responsibility" of feeding more and more people, are they going to settle for business as usual? I don't believe that either.

I certainly don't mean for the rest of this post to represent the answer to the challenges of the future, but I just happened to see this article and thought I would use it to help get this thread started. What are some of your thoughts on this subject?

------------------

Artificial Meat? Food for Thought by 2050

Summary posted by Meridian on 8/16/2010
Source: The Guardian
Author: John Vidal

A major academic assessment of future global food supplies suggests that even with new technologies, such as genetic modification and nanotechnology, hundreds of millions of people may still go hungry due to a combination of climate change, water shortages and increasing food consumption. The Royal Society of the United Kingdom, which produced a set of 21 papers on the subject, adds that the challenge of increasing global food supplies to feed nine billion people by 2050 is not insurmountable. While there are many low-tech ways to effectively increase yields, such as reducing the food waste that occurs in both rich and poor countries, novel ways to increase food production will also be needed, according to scientists. Dr. Philip Thornton, a scientist with the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, says two "wild cards" could transform global meat and milk production: "One is artificial meat, which is made in a giant vat, and the other is nanotechnology, which is expected to become more important as a vehicle for delivering medication to livestock." One of the papers, by the population biologist Charles Godfray of Oxford University, UK, says "[M]ajor advances can be achieved with the concerted application of current technologies and the importance of investing in research sooner rather than later to enable the food system to cope with challenges in the coming decades." The article, and a link to the papers, which will be formally released later this year in advance of the United Nations climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, can be viewed online at the link below.

The original article may still be available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/16/artificial-meat-food-royal-s...

 

[Kato]

One is artificial meat, which is made in a giant vat

MMM.. sounds tasty doesn't it?

Soylent Green anyone?

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[leanin' H]

What will they make the "Artificial meat out of? Air? Won't they have to make it out of something Produced? Ya'll can keep your future BS. I'll grow a garden! :roll:

 

[pointrider]

Hey, leanin' H! Did you see the post in my other thread about "lab pork?" The story tells how it is being produced.

On the other end of the diet/health spectrum is the obesity epidemic. Too much food for the amount of exercise, etc. More and more health care people are talking about the costs to society due to obesity, and I've even heard recently that some schools are talking about weighing kids on a routine basis to determine which ones are becoming obese (the ones that aren't already). Also, I'm hearing about "fat taxes" on various products "that contribute to obesity."

Obesity is not just a U.S. problem. It's a problem in many countries just like hunger and malnutrition. Who is responsible? Should anyone be responsible for working on these problems? What is the problem when you have hunger/malnutrition and obesity at the same time?

There is an old saying: Rank has its privileges, but rank also has its responsibilities. I hear all the time, "the U.S. is a world leader." Should we do more? If so, how do we do it? If not, then who? Our foreign aid budget is obviously not getting the job done, and the U.S. doesn't have any more money anyway. We have humongous debt.

What is going to happen in the world if we don't find some answers to hunger, malnutrition and obesity? If we don't find some answers in a worsening economy which makes it tougher to do? There is much talk right now about the U.S. getting out of Iraq, and some of that talk is about the stats from history about situations like Iraq. Half of the nations have fallen back into civil war when someone like the U.S. pulls out.

Some might say that half is not a bad percentage, and perhaps it is not. I believe the same thing will occur if food aid is removed from hungry countries. There will be riots, civil war and much death and suffering. So, what is the answer if, indeed, there is an answer? Who is responsible for finding answers, if anyone?

Individuals and communities do a good job of providing aid if there is one person or family who needs something, but when it comes to starving nations, most people believe it is the responsibility of government to solve the problem. If that is true, then the governments of the world are not getting the job done. Is there a way to make them do their job if, indeed, it is their job? Where are our priorities as a nation, a world and a global agricultural system? How can we change things?

 

[leanin' H]

Our priorities should be to feed our own hungry folks! Last time I checked we are a sovern country. Lets put our heads together to feed America first. Actually, lets feed our own families first and then branch out to towns and states. I have never understood why folks dwell in places they cannot grow their own food. I guess that makes us pretty blessed to live where we do. While I feel for hungry folks, I also firmly believe in doing things for myself and my family and believe others should do the same. In 200 years things will be significantly different and I will have been dead for 150 years or more. All the sci-fi stuff seems like step 300 while we are on step 25 now. To me it's wasted effort and simply dreaming until we get to step 26. Throughout the history of our planet folks have fed on meat and vegetables grown from the resources of our planet. Seems to me we've done alright for a couple a billion years if you listen to science or a couple thousand if you believe in a Higher Being. While I applaude you and others "thinking outside the box", I will stick to what history has proven to work in my world. I am not trying to discredit what you think, but I simply disagree. Enjoy the evening!

 

[cure]

H I couldn't agree this you more I feel the same way and the only thing I have to add is. If we as parents will get off our @ss and send time with our kids and throw all of that play station and video games out the door and have them do something construtive they might not be so dependant on the government to tell them how to breath and how eat. :!: :!:

 

[Clarencen]

Something to think about Pointrider, sometimes we have to get out of the box and look at all that is around us.

Back in, lets say the 1950's about the time I started farming and ranching, there was a lot of talk of the starving people in the world. It seems today most of us have forgotten that. We have more developed countries now, and people there are mostly well fed and comfortable, so have forgotten, or have learned to ignore the unfortunate.

The world has lots of resources that can be tapped. It is just a matter of properly using them and getting them to the right places. WE can, and do bring fertilizer and water to deserts and make them produce, We bring coal and oil from other places to run our factories and fuel our cars. I don't know if that is the right way or not.

I believe we could make an inventory of the world's resources, put them all in a big pie, then find a way to give everyone a fair piece. I don't mean to do this on a government level, or force people to divide their wealth, for that would not work. I think it could be done with an ecconomic system.

Maybe the place to start is right on your own ranch. Why not start an inventory of what you have that some one else would want or need.

 

[Anonymous]

While I agree with you on much of this on cloned/manufactured food- I have to play devils advocate in some ways...

While the old ways were good- just look at what development has occurred in this last century- in your fathers lifetime- in my lifetime...

I'm sure my Dad when he was born never thought he'd see men on the moon- let alone anyone being able to jump on a plane and fly half way around the world in a plane....When he went to Australia it took days by ship...

I watched a History Channel show the other day about the Star Trek gizmos...When Star Trek came out in 1966 people ooohed and aaahed and thought it was unthinkable to have some of the items they had on that show-- a flip open communicator that can talk around the world and to outer space (hell we didn't even have a telephone on the one place) :???: a taser that you could set the power on to kill or stun :???: a portable scanner that Doc could carry around to see inside a body :???: robots that could talk and do all the work :???: space stations :???: hydrophonically producing food while in space :???:

And now we have them all.....And I have a feeling that my kids will see progress at a faster rate than even I did...I read the other day where many scientists now think this next generation may actually see people able to travel thru time- and to parallel universes....

We never want to quit thinking outside the box or looking forward....

 

[andybob]

The real solution lies not in producing more food (hydroponics, aquaponics etc) but in controlling the world population (not going to happen any time soon!). One of the first actions taken by the new Mugabe government in 1980, was to close the free birth contoll clinics, the population increased from 8 000 000 to 12 000 000 in 20 years!!

 

[leanin' H]

While I agree with you on much of this on cloned/manufactured food- I have to play devils advocate in some ways...

While the old ways were good- just look at what development has occurred in this last century- in your fathers lifetime- in my lifetime...

I'm sure my Dad when he was born never thought he'd see men on the moon- let alone anyone being able to jump on a plane and fly half way around the world in a plane....When he went to Australia it took days by ship...

I watched a History Channel show the other day about the Star Trek gizmos...When Star Trek came out in 1966 people ooohed and aaahed and thought it was unthinkable to have some of the items they had on that show-- a flip open communicator that can talk around the world and to outer space (hell we didn't even have a telephone on the one place) :???: a taser that you could set the power on to kill or stun :???: a portable scanner that Doc could carry around to see inside a body :???: robots that could talk and do all the work :???: space stations :???: hydrophonically producing food while in space :???:

And now we have them all.....And I have a feeling that my kids will see progress at a faster rate than even I did...I read the other day where many scientists now think this next generation may actually see people able to travel thru time- and to parallel universes....

We never want to quit thinking outside the box or looking forward....

You are the best devil's advocate EVER! :lol: :lol: :wink:
While looking to the future is a great idea, I suggest we never lose track of our past. To abandon what works for the hope of something better is foolishness to me. Farmers and Ranchers have become more efficient and productive with technological advances and good old sweat. Instead of folks looking for somebody else to feed them and thier families, why not do for themselves? That does not mean I am against charity and helping. But pure handouts is another thing! As we look ahead with grand dreams and designs, we still must eat and drink with what we produce now. As far as the Sci-fi plan...... Rounding up scientific, labratory, artificial meat a horseback wouldnt be very fun or fullfilling. I'll leave that to the folks in lab coats. The good Lord blessed our world with abundant grasses and forbs and browse in many multitudes of habitats. Cows are a well tested method of turning unpalatable grass for you and I, into perfect protein. I reckon I'll stick with the old fashioned way and trust that the Lord will provide for his kids.

 

[pointrider]

"---the obesity epidemic - the single greatest threat to public health in this century," ---- stated Robert Post, Ph.D., Deputy Director of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, at a press conference hosted by USDA at the IFT Annual Meeting & Food Expo® on July 19, 2010.

This comment is included in an article I will include at the end of this post. The article is about the new U.S. dietary guidelines for 2010. New official guidelines are done every 5 years. I believe the comment period is open right now on these proposed guidelines.

A lot of kids in the U.S. get their best meals at school now, and more of them are eating both breakfast and lunch at school. Also, more and more cities are doing summer feeding programs for low income kids. All of these programs are pretty much forced to provide meals that fall within the dietary guidelines. Then you throw in the military, the food stamp program, the WIC program and other groups, and suddenly we are talking about a lot of people in this country eating food that follows the guidelines through the work of the dietitians in the system who deal with what is available locally and on a national basis.

The question is, "How is all of this going to affect agriculture, and how much?"

Now, here is the article about the guidelines.

Dietary guidelines for Americans 2010 focus on obesity
Published July 26th, 2010 in General Interest, Health, Health News, Health and Wellness, Life, Nutrition, Popular, Weight Loss
IFT.org - The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) - scheduled for release in December - will focus on recommendations for reducing obesity and improving health, stated Robert Post, Ph.D., Deputy Director of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, at a press conference hosted by USDA at the IFT Annual Meeting & Food Expo® on July 19, 2010.

In June 2010, the USDA released the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. The upcoming 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans will draw heavily from this report, which is unprecedented in addressing the obesity epidemic - the single greatest threat to public health in this century, said Post. Every section of the report was developed to address the challenges of obesity. For the first time, the report addresses children, whose prevalence of obesity has tripled in the past 30 years. The report discusses the relationship between dietary intake and childhood obesity and the effects of sodium intake on blood pressure.

Also for the first time, the report addresses eating behaviors, such as breakfast consumption, snacking, and fast foods, particularly in relation to weight control. It recommends that Americans shift food intake patterns to a more plant-based diet that emphasizes vegetables, cooked dry beans and peas, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds.

The DGAC report identifies four nutrients of public concern for Americans: fiber, potassium, vitamin D, and calcium. They are singled out from a longer list of nutrients because of evidence that their low intake is directly related to health issues of public health importance. It also recommends that consumers reduce their sodium intake to 1,500 mg per day from the current goal of 2,300 mg, and it advises Americans to consume less than 7 percent of their calories from saturated fat. Seafood consumption is recommended; the report encourages consumption of 8 oz or two servings of seafood per week.

"One of the roles of the Dietary Guidelines serve is to stimulate product innovation," explained Post. "Given what we have learned from the 2010 Advisory Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the formulation for the future means using food science to make more healthier food choices … choices with fewer calories but are flavorful and appealing, less added sugar but are sweet and flavorful and appealing, less salt but are flavorful and appealing and safe, less fat but are savory and appealing, and more fiber but are flavorful and appealing.

"It also means incorporating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, seeds, beans, and peas into foods, along with seafood and fat-free and low-fat milk and milk products," he added.

The food industry has contributed greatly to meeting public health through ingenuity in processing and formulating new foods, noted Post. He mentioned how canning and freezing alleviated vitamin C deficiencies, how fortification of grains with folic acid offset the problem of neural tube defects, and how processing and preservation increase the availability of products like seasonal fruits and vegetables year-round. "Once again, a public in need is calling on that ingenuity to contribute to a public health solution," Post concluded.

 

[pointrider]

Nope, I was wrong. Looks like the comment period has ended, and we get to hold our breath while they decide what to publish.

Public Comment Period Opens on Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report

Public Meeting Slated for July 8, 2010

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2010 -- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced that public comments are now being accepted on the Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 (Advisory Report). Individuals and organizations are encouraged to view the Advisory Report now posted along with public comments at www.dietaryguidelines.gov. Written comments will be accepted from June 15, 2010 to July 15, 2010. Oral testimony may be provided at a public meeting to be held in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2010.

www.dietaryguidelines.gov

Here is the first written comment in a list (39 pages long) that I found in a different website.

Summary Comment " So far the dietary guideline have made no meaningful impact on the health of Americans. Please spend time looking over the benefits of a diet based on the starchy foods that have caused billions of people to be trim, active, young and healthy. For example the Asians on rice, people from rural Mexico on beans and corn, the Peruvians on potatoes, the people from New Guinea on sweet potatoes. Americans are sick because the focus of their diet is not on starch, but instead on meat and dairy products and refined foods. Only a serious change in our diet will cause serious change in people's health. I would be happy to share more thoughts on this if you would like. "

John McDougall, MD

 

[mrj]

Isn't it troubling to anyone that the anti-meat bias is apparently stronger than ever when the fact is that red meat is one of very few foods in the USA consumed at or less than the recommended daily 5 to 7 ounces?

I read recently that red meat consumption is currently 4 ounces. If true (which I doubt) it has doubled in maybe the past 5 to 10 years as it used to be listed at slightly less than 2 ounces daily.

Re. the entire premise of 'starving millions', has anyone read anything recently about leaders who deliberately keep some of their population starving for political reasons? Whether misguided attempts at population control, or for their personal greed, it has the counter effect. It seems when people are better off financially and with enough food, population actually decreases.

Re. the high numbers of US citizens getting food stamps, WIC and other federal and state assistance, there seems to have been a tremendous push to get more and more people into these programs in the past 20 years. Why? People control? Make those who truly need it feel less 'needy' when so many are getting help?

And, isn't a hand up always better than a handout??? Teach a man to fish versus giving him a fish.......

Just how many people are our US farmers, and other citizens feeding in this country and around the world, via government aid, personal donations, churches, etc.?

There have been significant increases in diets and health in many countries due to research making rice and other grains and 'starches' as mentioned in a previous post carry more nutrients than they did naturally. Some denigrate that process as 'tinkering' with genetics, but it has enhanced the diets of many people around the world, and the research continues.

mrj

 

[Anonymous]

Teach a man to fish versus giving him a fish.......

"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day."—Oldfox :wink:

 

[pointrider]

"Was it inevitable that a species would evolve that is capable of creating its own evolutionary process in the form of intelligent technology? I will argue that it was.

According to my models we are only two decades from fully modeling and simulating the human brain. By the time we finish this reverse-engineering project, we will have computers that are millions of times more powerful than the human brain. These computers will be further amplified by being networked into a vast world wide cloud of computing. The algorithms of intelligence will begin to self-iterate towards ever smarter algorithms.

This is how we will address the grand challenges of humanity such as maintaining a healthy environment, providing for the resources for a growing population including energy, food, and water, overcoming disease, vastly extending human longevity, and overcoming poverty. It is only by extending our intelligence with our intelligent technology that we can handle the scale of complexity to address these challenges."

Ray Kurzweil

 

[cure]

Don't get me wrong I think technology is great but I just got done pulling a dairy calf I would give anything to see a computer do that. In my opinion technology is what is going to distroy this nation. Computers can only take you so far and that is when we as the human race need to step up to the plate and take over.

 

[Triangle Bar]

There are inherent reasons why the commercial ag system as we know it today is not getting the job done in terms of feeding the hungry people of the world.

.... the U.N. says that there are still a billion children in the world who go to bed hungry at night, and I believe that.

As more and more governments look at the "liability and responsibility" of feeding more and more people, are they going to settle for business as usual?

I think we've seen in recent history that consumers have a fear of integrated food technology. Whether their fears are right or wrong doesn't matter, it is these perceived dangers that will dictate what food products they will purchase. I don't think mystery lab meat will be a very strong seller at the grocery store. I think scientists efforts would be put to better use helping farmers increase yields and lower inputs through conventional farming methods. I have read recently of scientists developing a wheat plant that would be a bi-annual that will fix it's own nitrogen from the atmosphere, like alfalfa plants do, thus eliminating the need for nitrogen fertilizer and a great deal of field work. This is the kind of advancement through technology farmers need to feed a growing population.

We have a finite amount of arable acres. Government policies should not be standing in the way of farmers growing food. If you need food, put in a crop. If you need oil, drill a well.

 

[RobertMac]

Pointrider, aren't you old enough to remember the fear mongering in the 50s, 60s (that Clarencen mentioned) that predicted the collapse of civilization by this time? Sounds like more of the same!

The main reason for starving people is dollars. Remember PL-480? Corrupt dictators couldn't get rich with USA foreign aid being food.

Americans are sick because the focus of their diet is not on starch, but instead on meat and dairy products and refined foods. Only a serious change in our diet will cause serious change in people's health.

The good doctor contradicts himself here..."refined foods" are starches. Obesity and chronic health problems parallel the increase in refined starches in the western diet. The effects of refined starches on the human body are well documented. Refined starches break down quickly causing a blood sugar spike...the body regulates the spike by making triglycerides and storing them in fat cells. Eating refined starches is a pump that fills our bodies with fat!

 

[pointrider]

Triangle Bar said, "I have read recently of scientists developing a wheat plant that would be a bi-annual that will fix it's own nitrogen from the atmosphere, like alfalfa plants do, thus eliminating the need for nitrogen fertilizer and a great deal of field work. This is the kind of advancement through technology farmers need to feed a growing population."

I would agree that this would help a lot if it were available today. Any idea when it will be ready to go?

Meanwhile, here is an article that appeared in some newspapers yesterday, and after this first article I have included another article about wheat. So, be sure and look for that one, too. Then tell me what you think. Sounds to me like there is going to be constant pressure in the world to keep food prices down.

Riots Spotlight Spike In Food Prices

THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE FRIDAY, September 3, 2010

REPEAT?: Mozambique is one of many places where rising costs can have frightening consequences.

By Donna Bryson, The Associated Press

JOHANNESBURG - A few pennies' increase in the price of a loaf of bread can mean the difference between getting by and going hungry -- in the world's poorest countries.

A spike in food prices has triggered deadly riots in Mozambique this week, and experts worry other countries that saw such unrest during the last global food crisis in 2008 could be hit again. Over the last two months alone, food prices worldwide have risen 5 percent.

"I think everyone is wondering if we are going to have a repeat of 2008 when there were food riots around the world," said Johanna Nesseth Tuttle, director of the Global Food Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

In Egypt, where half the population depends on subsidized bread, recent protests over rising food prices left at least one person dead. The crisis could impact upcoming parliamentary elections because the regime's increasingly tenuous legitimacy rests on its ability to provide the masses with cheap bread.

In Pakistan, the prices of many food items have risen by 15 percent or more following devastating floods that destroyed a fifth of the country's crops and agricultural infrastructure. Flooding has also hit distribution networks, leading to shortages.

In China, officials are threatening to punish price gougers, while in Serbia, a 30 percent hike in the price of cooking oil reported for next week has led to warnings of demonstrations by trade unions.

International food prices have risen to their highest levels in two years, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said Wednesday, reporting a 5 percent increase between July and August alone. The Rome-based agency also forecast this year's wheat crop at 648 million tons, down 5 percent from 2009, reflecting a cut in drought-hit Russia's harvest.

However, there are few parallels between today and the 2008 food crisis, which was blamed on high oil prices and growing demand for biofuels that pushed world food stocks to their lowest levels since 1982, according to Maximo Torero, an expert on markets and trade with the International Food Policy Research Institute.

The United States, Canada and other countries have had good harvests and supplies are sufficient, Torero said, adding that what must be avoided are panicky policy decisions, like banning exports.

In Mozambique's case, he said, higher prices set by the government were based on monetary exchange issues, not concerns about world supplies.



Genetics Not Enough to Increase Wheat Production
Have wheat breeders reached the maximum potential for grain yield?

MADISON WI, August 16th, 2010 – The deep gene pool that has allowed wheat to achieve ever increasing gains in yield may be draining. Crop scientists estimate that 50% of the gain in wheat production over the past century has been due to breeding. According to a new study, however, that improvement has been slowing since the late 1980s, with little chance that future increases in yield can be met by breeding efforts alone.

The researchers, Robert A. Graybosch of USDA-ARS and C. James Peterson of Oregon State University, estimated that the average rate of genetic improvement in winter wheat yield potential since 1959 was 1.1% per year. However, most of this gain was realized from 1959-1989.

The study, reported in the September-October 2010 edition of Crop Science, published by the Crop Science Society of America, evaluated data collected from long-term USDA-ARS regional nursery trials in the Great Plains. The varieties entered into these trials from public and private entities represent the highest current genetic potential for grain yield production.

Since the late 1980s, the rate of grain yield improvement has slowed, and now appears to have reached a plateau. There are several reasons for this, including the perpetual evolutionary arms race against new pathogens, the resurgence of old pathogens, or perhaps merely the exhaustion of available genetic resources for yield improvement.

"We truly are in need of a second 'Green Revolution' in wheat," says Graybosch, a wheat geneticist

Fifty years ago, it was estimated that world population growth would out-strip world food supplies. These dire forecasts never reached fruition, as advances in genetic improvement via plant breeding and improved plant production practices have been able to keep pace with food demands.

Since inception of modern breeding efforts, improvements in wheat grain yield were driven by major breakthroughs, from adapting the plants to their climate, introducing disease resistance, and the introduction of dwarfing genes that caused plants to put more energy into growing seeds rather than stems. However, since these developments, no other major breeding advances have produced the "great leap forward" necessary to continue improving yields.

Unless some significant advance shortly impacts wheat genetic potential for grain yield, any increased demand for wheat can only be met by changes in current production practices or expansion of cultural environments.

The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract at https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/50/5/1882.

Crop Science is the flagship journal of the Crop Science Society of America. Original research is peer-reviewed and published in this highly cited journal. It also contains invited review and interpretation articles and perspectives that offer insight and commentary on recent advances in crop science. For more information, visit www.crops.org/publications/cs

The Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), founded in 1955, is an international scientific society comprised of 6,000+ members with its headquarters in Madison, WI. Members advance the discipline of crop science by acquiring and disseminating information about crop breeding and genetics; crop physiology; crop ecology, management, and quality; seed physiology, production, and technology; turfgrass science; forage and grazinglands; genomics, molecular genetics, and biotechnology; and biomedical and enhanced plants.

CSSA fosters the transfer of knowledge through an array of programs and services, including publications, meetings, career services, and science policy initiatives. For more information, visit www.crops.org

 

[andybob]

The tradgedy is that there is enough good land available, and potential for irrigation in the territories south of the equator, to rpoduce enough food not only for the Southern African States, but to export, lack of agricultural training and research are the stumbling blocks.
Consider Rhodesia/Zimbabwe the former "breadbasket of Africa" has a smaller arable area and lower rainfall than Zambia or Mocambique, past research funding by past governments resulting in new efficient breeds of cattle, hybrid strains of maize, soya, sunflower and wheat, resulted in the second largest economy in Africa, based mostly on agriculture, our mineral resources were carefully managed so that finished products were exported not raw materials.