The document discusses the Green Revolution starting in the 1940s led by Dr. Norman Borlaug which dramatically increased wheat yields through the development of high-yielding varieties that were also disease resistant. This helped increase food production around the world and saved many lives. However, critics argue that the technology benefited large farmers more and increased environmental issues like water use. There is debate around whether future yield gains can continue at the same rate given limits to plant physiology and potential challenges from climate change, disease, and pest resistance.

1. Increasing Yields
Through New Technology
Chapter 14
Dr. WJ Mueller
New Technology
It allows us to gain more output from the same inputs, or
Same output with fewer inputs
Bottom line is increased productivity
Has two effects
More profit &/or
Less expensive goods
Green Revolution
Started in the 1940’s by Dr. Norman Borlaug
Wheat breeder working in Mexico
Problem: Wheat rust limited yield
Green Revolution
Screened many varieties of wheat for resistance and found two
that were resistant
He crossed them with productive varieties
Result: productive, rust-resistant varieties
Yields increased from 11 bu/A to 20 bu/A
Was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970 for this work

2. Borlaug (cont.)
Wheat had lodging problems
Heavy heads (because of increased yield) would cause stems to
break and fall over
Made harvest difficult or nearly impossible
Borloug (cont.)
Bred for shorter varieties with stronger stems
Greatly reduced the problem
He also developed higher-yielding varieties
Borloug (cont.)
Encouraged by the results, the Ford Foundation & Rockefeller
Foundation joined to establish two international ag research
stations
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
in Mexico
Borloug (cont.)
These centers were very successful in increasing yield and
technology
The new higher-yielding seeds were used all over the world to
increase yield
It came to be called the “Green Revolution”
In a head-to-head comparison with old varieties, they did no
better with old production practices
But the new varieties did much better with fertilizer &
irrigation

3. Borlaug (cont.)
He is credited with saving 100’s of millions of lives with his
work
Green Revolution
They bred for other characteristics that made these crops higher
yielding
Disease resistance
Changed plant architecture
High flag leaf (the top leaf above the seed head), resulted in
higher yields
More vertical leaf arrangement (supported higher populations of
plants)
Critics
Because of his work we use more:
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Water for irrigation
Because of this we have lost species diversity
Biggest criticism: the poor are worse off because:
they are usually late adopters
They do not have the money to adopt new technologies
Critics (cont.)
Some of this is true!
Overall, the benefits outweigh the negatives
Is it any different than any other business?
Less productive businesses go under
Studies in the 1980’s showed that the benefits were shared
nearly evenly among big and small producers
There was a difference in age
Younger, better educated farmers benefited most

4. How could this be?
1. Seeds developed breed true
Meaning that seeds could be saved and planted the next year
and the plants would be the same
Contrary to Hybrid seed
It must be purchased every year
If you plant seed from a hybrid crop, the offspring will not be
the same
It will be less productive
Yields with hybrid seed are generally significantly higher than
from traditional bred seed
How could this be? (cont.)
2. Fertilizer is almost infinitely divisible meaning:
A farmer only has to buy as much fertilizer as is needed
This is contrary to such technologies as
Tractors
Cannot divide a tractor easily
Can purchase smaller tractors!
Irrigation systems
How could this be? (cont.)
The technology associated with the Green Revolution was not
labor saving
In fact more labor is needed to hand harvest more grain
How could this be? (cont.)
4. Because of the increased production, food became cheaper,
benefiting the poor more than the rich
Poor spend a greater portion of their income on food
Cereals have a very low elasticity of demand

5. Results
Lower food prices
Farmers produced more but income decreased
Supply exceeded demand
Probably contributed more to the demise of the small family
farm than anything else
Efficiencies of scale drove the small farmer out of business
Is that any different than any other business?
Results (cont.)
Have prices really dropped?
In 1948 my dad got $2.48/bushel for wheat
Accounting for inflation, today that is the equivalent of:
$23.61/bushel!
-Last year we did well by getting $8.50/bu
Prospects for Future Yield Growth
Do you think that the following will increase or decrease?
Irrigation?
Fertilizer use?
Labor?
Prospects (cont.)
Do you think that technological advancements will increase
yields in the future?
Do you think we will continue to see the rates of increase we
have seen in the past?
Is it possible that rates might reverse?
Climate change?
More virulent strains of disease-causing organisms?
Pests resistant to chemical controls?

6. Pessimists
Food growth is following an S-shaped curve?
Are we getting to the shoulder of the curve?
?
A 2002 IRRI project report warns: “Yield at the farm level is
approaching a plateau?
Pessimists (cont.)
Are we reaching physiological limits (how much a plant can
produce)
Remember Wheat:
Average 39 bu/A
Record 212 bu/A
In growth chamber 969 bu/A
The potential is there to increase yields, but is it practical? Is it
economical?
Pessimists (cont.)
Harvest indexes have risen
Weight of the harvestable part/total plant weight
0.25 in 1950 for corn
0.5 in 2010 for corn (this means that today, half of the above-
ground parts harvested is corn kernels)
How much higher can you go?
One has to have the plant structure to produce and support the
grain
Prospects (cont.)
Is it possible that rates might reverse?

7. Is the level of today’s farm production environmentally
sustainable?
Climate change?
More virulent strains of disease-causing organisms?
Prospects (cont.)
Pests resistant to chemical controls?
Is it possible that famines of biblical proportions might return?
Some argue that they already have in some parts of the world
Could it happen in the USA?
Optimists
Some talk of the “Second Green Revolution”
Focus not on yield but environmentally friendly production
practices
Green energy
Less environmental impact
How can this be done?
No-till, or minimum-till agriculture
More efficient water systems
Better genetics
These are pretty much agreed on, however…
Optimists (cont)
Some do not agree on the following:
GMO’s
Organic production
Utilization of waste products as fertilizer
Human waste
Yard waste and food waste used for fertilizer
Most agree that we need to:
Reduce water pollution
Use less fuel

8. Have less dust (PM10 - particulate matter 10μ or less)
Use fewer pesticides
Have less erosion