Thank you Craig and Irakli. I enjoyed your conversation and discussion about possible impact of vegetation cover to mitigate the potential impact of global warming.

However, in my view, climate change has two coin sides. one side will provoke more challenges in dry and semi-dry areas (more drought conditions, higher temperature resulting in more crop water requirements, unstable river flows...etc.) in addition to more possibility to more land degradation due to increasing salinity problems and inundation resulted from the rise of seawater level especially in coastal zones.

On the other side, climate change is expected to increase the precipitation in other areas and its leave area index. this accompanied with the expected increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is predicted to increase the photosynthesis process increasing the overall yield.

This means that some crops will have more potential to increase its yield under the expected climate change conditions (i.e. corn and winter wheat in North China Plan, corn and potato in the Northwest of China, and cotton in Egypt)

Thus, the challenge now is to reallocate suitable areas for each crop cultivation. find out more varieties tolerant to drought conditions and salinity, disseminate appropriate models to improve on-farm management and irrigation efficiency....etc.

Regarding Golam question about the future of poor farmers especially in food insecure areas i.e. subsaharan Africa, this problem would be solved by disseminating integrated packages for agriculture sector that provides (suitable variety for cultivation, sowing date, appropriate irrigation and fertilization practices and adequate on-farm management...etc.)

Some international organizations i.e. ICARDA and FAO are maximizing their efforts in those areas with food insecurity problems to face the potential negative impact of climate change. (you can find more in the attached file).

Based on the current status the food production will go down

.

@ Rajendra.

.

This prognosis can not find your resonance in the full report worquing group II, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. In the Summary for Policymakers doomsday predictions are presented, but to carefully read the scientific report are not the same conclusions!

.

There are basically four effects: fertilizer effect, daylight effect, pest effect, and protein effect. The four effects do not go in the same direction so its important to empirically quantify them and then discuss the implications, which will be very different among regions. Agriculture technology will change, and the regions employed to grow food will generally move north with time, but population grows and with it the need to food, so food prices will go up and with it farmers' income

This topic has many aspects to discuss, the first would be that in regions says the author, great efforts should be made to the food security of the population and this therefore leads to use methods that may go against the production rational food; on the other hand, is the intervention of the big multinationals do not consider global warming and the greenhouse effect and the constant is that these multinationals are moving towards developing countries where there are still no laws or regulations, to produce about at minimal cost, not for food security, but for commercial purposes and therefore it is exacerbating the problem instead of solving it.

So, what is the question...to produce to security food?...no production to minimize the greenhouse effect ?.....Regulate to big multinationals?...unbridled consumerism?........there are more questions !!!

One thing can't be changed: we humans like just any animal, need food. And we also need places to produce food. Also, there are many ways to produce food, some more sustainable and ecological than others, My opinion is that if there are efficient and non-expensive ways to reduce those gases then by all means we should invest in those methodologies. Everyday we hear that an iceberg moved in the Antartic and there's nothing we can do about this unless we change our ways of dealing with the greenhouse effect. We need to start acting and right now, otherwise when we come up with solutions it might just be too late and there's no turning back. Our world is changing and it will keep on changing. Men don't rule the world, nature does. What we can do is work with nature to create an environment with mutual benefits for each part.

Thank you Pedro, Juan, Gal, Rogerio, Rajendro for your inputs. I noted your comments that food production may go down and food security problem may exacerbate in food insecure regions. And there is a need to reduce GHG while growing food and food growing area may expand towards north. Some information related to this issue can be found in IPCC group II, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

This is one of the interesting question in the realm of sustainability. This question can be viewed from a number of dimensions. We have to first recognize that agriculture contributes to this problem in many ways-CO2 from use of fossil fuels, Methane gasses from livestock production and the Nitrous gasses from fertilizer uses. But why the rise in these gases? The answer is ethical in nature: To attain foods and nutrition security, any dispute? In so doing we are emitting too much and in the long run the impact is rainfall variability which will adversely affect agriculture production. We could therefore view agriculture as a double edged sword which benefit from stable climatic conditions but also contributes to unstable climatic conditions. The important question that need answers is how should we conduct agriculture so that we manage to feed the projected population rise but at the same time reduce atmospheric pollution? I would feel the entry point would be to reduce heavy use of fertilizers by integrating legumes in our farming systems either as cover crops or in rotation. On the other hand incorporation of perennials or semi perennial will help sequester carbon dioxide. Good feeding practices of livestock, I hear can reduce methane gases. All in all, this is a daunting challenge considering issues of globalization that fuel the problems. Few people are involved in production as many have moved to cities as such to much production and food demand is challenging without the use fertilizers and mechanization. The solution could may be found by controlling population growth-But how?

Hi Hastings, I do agree with you that agriculture contributes CO2, CH4 and N2O. But there are ways that we can minimize GHG emissions via agroforestry such as by integrating legume plant, nutrient management/reducing use of fertilizer (not more than what required), improving feeding practices in livestock. Nevertheless, we have to continue to produce food to feed the current and projected population but have to reduce pollution from agriculture so that industry remains a viable and sustainable!

It is necessary to establish priorities, urban or road  transport road should have individual surcharges and this surcharge should be transferred to agriculture, the use of mechanization in agriculture may have other problems such as soil compaction, but the generation of poluition gases such as oxide nitrogen in food production is somewhat concentrated in rural areas, but in urban environments where there is a lot of movement is a serious problem.

Thus, instead of reducing pollution in agricultural crops should think about reducing them in urban environments, where the generation of food is essential for everyone.

The balance between ever increasing demand of food grains and reduction in emission of GHGs cab be maintained with substitution of non-renewable inputs by more eco-friendly renewable agricultural inputs. For example, farm based manure can be applied instead of synthetic fertilizers.

Hi Suresh, Thank you for your inputs, are you referring to cow manure etc?

Of course the emission of GHGs reduction is an important goal for the future and also agriculture should contribute to global sustainability. On the other hand the increase of population ad the wellness requirement of trhe less developped countries requires more foos and increase of energy use for transportation and industrial development. What probably we should do is to forecast the future needing of the population and imagine also new strategies for food production whisc should have less impact on GHGs, like new sources of foods (algae, insects and improved plants) in order to decrease the production of foods having more impact to the climate.

Secondly we should think about to reduce transportation which another source of pollution in the atmosphere, and use more renewable energy. I do not believe that produce biofuels by wheat, rise of sunflower will be a good chance to overcame the energy problems. I believe that in future these products should be used to feed the population (more vegetablein the diet and less meat!), while we should take care about the large amount of waste and raw materials to produce biogas by small and local equipments, saving energy for transportation.

In addition will be necessary develop a strategy of saving energy and insulation for houses, using all new matherials and bioconstruction

Dear Prof Giancarlo Scalabrelli, Of course we have to produce more food for the projected rise of population; perhaps we need to produce food that will require less energy and other inputs. In this respect, one suggestion is to grow herbivorous/omnivorous aquaculture species (tilapia, carp, mussels, and oyster) and seaweeds which are energy efficient and emit small carbon footprint compared to chicken, beef, salmon, shrimp, and sea bass. Furthermore decline in agricultural land due to salinisation/sea level rise open new opportunities for aquaculture/seafood farming. regards. Golam

Three big issues are approaching in addition to the need for more bulk agricultural production:

(1.) Slash and burn agriculture. practiced in many tropical countries when preparing fields that you can see for the daily smoke image at http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/shared-bin/display_image.cgi?URL=/aerosol_web/globaer/ops_01/world/current.gif

(2.) The farming and grazing in arid areas, and when the native vegetation is stripped off, by plowing or grazing the atmospheric dust adds to climate change by causes floods or droughts over large areas, like http://www.ecoseeds.com/floods.html.

3.) The increase in biomass of cows, pigs and chickens, producing more methane with their manure, a greenhouse gas about 20X more powerful than CO2.

Hi Craig,

Livestock are a major source of CH4. Improved feeding practices and capturing CH4 and using for energy such as for farm energy use may be other options to reduce amount of CH4. regards. Golam

Farmers should be educated by academicians and government to understanding GHGs and how to reduce it. They should learn about environmental friendly - plantation. In other way, my (and my supervisors) research in paddy plantation made a good progress. We developing some kind of biofertilizer that could reduce methane and N2O emissions from paddy field, also, enhance paddy growth. This is some way to balancing food (paddy) production and emitted GHGs reduction. So, perhaps, farmers can use this biofertilizer. If you ask about food insecure regions, don't forget to mention 3 aspects of food security (production, access, and consumption). Then, my answer for your second question is it's possible (please look -many- protocols already mentioned by IPCC). Perhaps, IPCC's protocols could be applied in these regions.

Dear Mafrikhul Muttaqin

Thank you for your inputs. Awareness, education, training and extensions are vital to be successful including farmers training. It is also good to know that you and your supervisor currently carrying out some research (biofertliser) which will help to produce paddy with reduced CH4 and N2O emissions. Similarly access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food is also essential. Please see my question asked for RG ‘Will food contamination be enhanced due to climate change? I will have a look of your references

There is a non-trivial feedback loop: agriculture affects the output of GHG, which in turn affects agriculture. Higher CO2 levels increase crop yields but reduce crop quality. Unfortunately, any need-based policy recommendations such as "needs to be done" are toothless. Agriculture is fundamentally driven by yield maximization and without proper incentives it will keep doing just that - pushing yields higher at the expense of plant quality and reductions in GHG emissions.

There should be a connection between the greenhouse gasses and the IR radiation being absorbed by the planet and released to warm up the atmosphere, like you can see at http://www.ecoseeds.com/GlobalSurfTemp_0594.JPG.

My #4 concern, is when the native vegetation is stripped off the land either by grazing or agriculture, allowing the bare soil to absorb more heat and rather deep down, like what I measured in the Mojave desert at http://www.ecoseeds.com/desertstipa.JPG which was the soil temperature around a single native grass plant at http://www.ecoseeds.com/desert.stipa.5a.JPG. This also show how effective the native ground cover is to insulate the soil, so that the soil temp. underneath the plant was actually a few degrees cooler than the air temp.

I am suggesting that the rapid rise of air temp. due to global warming, that a high percentage of that increase is due to an interaction between more CO2 and methane plus more hectares of barren soils around the earth, all absorbing more heat, thereby warming the air faster.

Craig, you seem to assume that plant surface reflects more heat than soil. Is that always true? If you cover one patch of soil with dry plants and another leave barren, are you saying that that the barren will be hotter? I am not so sure. Evapotranspiration is a key mechanism by which plants cool themselves. So without accounting for soil moisture and water balance, the plant cooling effect is not immediately clear to me.

Thank you for your reply. What The satellite image and the on-the-ground measurements from the Mojave desert are showing, is that when you strip native vegetation from an area, either through grazing or tilling, the exposed barren soil can absorb more heat from the sun, and then heat up the air.

When there is native vegetation cover, like what I show for the image of the Desert Stipa plant, the non-leafy parts of the plant, like the dead leaves, (or on trees their trunks, branches, and twigs) have a measurable insulating R-factor, that keep the soil from getting any warmer than the air temp., and that was a 40 degree difference in the Mojave Stipa grass case.

The interesting issue for the barren soil in the Mojave that day, was measuring how deep the heat was being sequestered -- quite a ways down and acting similar to an electronic component called a "heat sink", which was surprising effect.

I would suggest trying this experiment elsewhere in arid lands around the world. I used US measures, sampling the degree F. temperatures 1/4 deep on a two by one two inch grid though the plant and around the plant, and measured the air temperature above the plant. I used a digital kitchen probe thermometer 14 years ago that was plus or minus 1 degree F. , and now you can get ones that measure within 1/10 degree.

Not shown in the image, was measurements of the bare soil temperatures at one inch increments to see how far down from the surface that heat was being transfered downwards. There is a land triad for the heat transfer: 1.) air, which is a pretty good insulator 2.) Bare soil, that absorbs and stores heat as a heat sink, and 3.) Native vegetation especially perennial grasses and some shrubs from arid regions, with excellent R-factors to insulate the soil, to keep the sun's heat from being absorbed when the soil is covered.

I have written more about this issue at http://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html with the hopes that we can balance off the increase of global warming from the CO2 and methane, with the cooling of barren hot desert areas, by replanting the local native grasses.

I am no expert on heat exchange but see your point: plant cover can prevent soil to act as a heat sink. Again, the actual picture is complicated by evapotranspiration as plant cover strongly affects the fate of precipitation. So I have a "simple" question for you: if the entire surface of Earth was stripped of all plants but the atmosphere was kept as is, would this scary scenario cool or heat our planet? I think your answer is yes (without accounting for evapotranspiration).

The way that food production - in general - follows is the worst way to protect soil and all the live related to it. The agroforestry systems are an excellent alternative for avoiding these problems. If we look how natural ecosystems works, we will find the keys for producing food with out the soil erosion, nutrient depletion and water scarcity that "conventional" methods does. The tropics in this way have a huge advantage because the organic matter turnover is realized in a matter of few weeks.

Thank you Craig and Irakli for an important conversation related to warming and vegetation cover

Hi Hernan,

Agroforestry, conservation agriculture (minimum or no till) will be important. To tackle the problem, in Australia carbon farming (that will reduce GHG emissions or will capture GHG or holds carbon in vegetation and soils) is being encouraged. Carbon farming may include the following: maximum groundcover-no bare earth, no till cropping, stubble retention, natural fertilisers, soil stimulants, compost, compost teas, biochar, methane reducing feed supplement, and permaculture).

Thank you Craig and Irakli. I enjoyed your conversation and discussion about possible impact of vegetation cover to mitigate the potential impact of global warming.

However, in my view, climate change has two coin sides. one side will provoke more challenges in dry and semi-dry areas (more drought conditions, higher temperature resulting in more crop water requirements, unstable river flows...etc.) in addition to more possibility to more land degradation due to increasing salinity problems and inundation resulted from the rise of seawater level especially in coastal zones.

On the other side, climate change is expected to increase the precipitation in other areas and its leave area index. this accompanied with the expected increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is predicted to increase the photosynthesis process increasing the overall yield.

This means that some crops will have more potential to increase its yield under the expected climate change conditions (i.e. corn and winter wheat in North China Plan, corn and potato in the Northwest of China, and cotton in Egypt)

Thus, the challenge now is to reallocate suitable areas for each crop cultivation. find out more varieties tolerant to drought conditions and salinity, disseminate appropriate models to improve on-farm management and irrigation efficiency....etc.

Regarding Golam question about the future of poor farmers especially in food insecure areas i.e. subsaharan Africa, this problem would be solved by disseminating integrated packages for agriculture sector that provides (suitable variety for cultivation, sowing date, appropriate irrigation and fertilization practices and adequate on-farm management...etc.)

Some international organizations i.e. ICARDA and FAO are maximizing their efforts in those areas with food insecurity problems to face the potential negative impact of climate change. (you can find more in the attached file).

Hi Maha, than you for your inputs that selection of suitable variety, shifting sowing date, drought and salt tolerant crops and appropriate irrigation may be the solution in the Sub-Saharan Africa. regards.

Thanks Maha for the link to "Strategies for Combating Climate Change" report.

It says that "Climate change brings with it higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2)... The plant uses the carbon for photosynthesis, and grows bigger and better as a result."

Bigger, yes... But better?

Better for whom? For the plant itself, probably, yes. For its consumers? Most likely no. High CO2 reduces crop quality, the aspect of global change that the latest IPCC report, unfortunately, barely touches upon.

Hi Irakli,

Yes though CO2 is beneficial in terms of photosynthesis and higher yields in C3 plants and cutting transpiration rates etc but there is likelihood that the quality of agricultural products (in terms of micronutrients) decreases under increased CO2 fertilisation and crops could be susceptible to insect pests according to some J papers. So we have both +ve and -ve impacts from CO2 fertilisation on crops. regards. Golam

Dear Irakli and Golam. this is true, in spite of the great effect of increasing CO2 concentration on overall crops yield, some studies reported decrease in protein content for some forage and cereals crops resulting in less quality. However, other studies indicated that the productivity and quality will likely not affected negatively or deteriorated if the nitrogen nutrition is optimum.

Dear Golam,

I would like to to come back to two of your original questions, that I find very interesting.

Firstly, for what concernes the future of "poor farmers in food insecure regions in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-Asia who do not understand much about GHGs", I would say that the very first objective in this countries should be much more connected to adaptation strategies to a changing climate. In fact, these countries are much more vulnerable then others, not only for climate scenarios, but also for some knoledge gaps, social conditions, lack of policy strategies to tackle climate change and financial tools to implement these strategies.

Of course, climate change adaptations strategies should not come alone, but in sinergy with mitigation options, both from supply and demand side and, in general, with policy strategies to develope the agri-food sector. This view, to come to the other question (the importance to balance between food production and reduction of GHG emissions from agriculture related activities), it also shared by FAO activities in this topic (see among others: http://www.fao.org/climatechange/climatesmart/en/) . Indeed, the main goal of climate smart agriculture is to adapt to climate change, mitigate GHG emission, while helping to develop the agricultural sector.

Glad to hear about the large scale natural carbon sequestration in the session "Biogenic Carbon Sequestration: Multifunctionality for global resilience. That is what I am proposing at http://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html.

To balance out our agriculutral-produced CO2 and methane, we start the process of revegetation on about one billion acres of arid barren lands, using their local natiuve plant materails, like the native perennial grasses.

The beauty is that once the grass roots put that carbon in the ground, that soil carbon will be locked in place for the next few thousand years. Plus the native vegetation will help cool the planet, plus the carbon will help plants grow better, plus the plants will increase the rainfall of those areas, plus the plants will cut down on the atmopheric dust that is one reason those are arid lands in the first place, like Arabia, the Sahara, the Middle East, etc.

If you look at what happens each summer in the native vegetation of the mountains above Salalah in the Sultanate of Oman, only a 5 mile x 20 mile strip of vegetation, produces rainfall from the monsoon and cooler temperatures compared to the hot, arid weather for 1,000 miles in all directions around it.

However, even that weather pattern is changing after about 5,500 years wsith global warming, with annual floods becoming common on the Arabian peninsula, when the monsoon overwhelms the Pakistan-Arabia Dust Cloud, that you can see the interaction at http://www.ecoseeds.com/GONU.html. and http://www.ecoseeds.com/newGONU.html

Hi Silvia,

I do agree with you that both climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies would be essential to tackle and balance between food production and reduction of GHGs. One of the novel example of climate smart agriculture and CC adaptation you will find in Bangladesh where floating agriculture (flood prone areas) and sand-bar cropping (drought prone areas) being promoted. In general, farmer’s in food insecure regions are poor and donot have the skills and tools and financial resources to adapt to climate change therefore external assistance is mostly needed. Regards

Golam

Hi Rüdiger,

I do agree with you that knowledge transfer, extension programme, awareness and education etc. are essential. CC impacts are –ve, +ve and mixed depending on locations and regions, i.e. some areas will be severely impacted and there will also be new opportunities as well due to climate change. Regards

Golam

Dear Craig, thank you again for your inputs. I am pleased to see your effort of re-vegetating one billion acres of arid lands using native plants to sequester carbon. Conservation agriculture (no till agriculture) also enhances carbon sequestration or carbon storage by keeping crop residues and increasing soil carbon matter. I am also happy to learn that re-vegetation in arid areas are also helping rainfall to occur. Perhaps you will know that in many countries (e.g. Asia) restoration of mangrove forests has received some priorities for similar reasons (carbon sinks). Regards. Golam

The emission of GHGs from agriculture represents inefficiency and decreases the economic returns to large and small farmers alike. Here are several examples: Nitrous Oxide emissions from agricultural land represent a loss of nitrogen inputs which otherwise could be used to stimulate plant growth. These losses mean that applied nitrogen in the form of chemical inputs of urea, or anhydrous ammonia, and manure are not being used to increase plant production. Adopting strategies to only place supplemental nitrogen on the parts of fields where it is most likely to not result in nitrous oxide emissions has the potential to decrease costs and increase plant production while also resulting in reduced GHG emissions.

There are many opportunities to reduce the GHG footprint from animal agriculture that can also economically benefit both small and large animal agriculture operators. The key is to focus on opportunities for decreasing the GHG emissions per unit of production. This focus has been historically-demonstrated to greatly reduce animal numbers while increasing economic gains. In my opinion the areas with the largest potential benefits are: improved animal nutrition, improved animal genetics, and improved animal health. All of these can be facilitated by the utilization of new technology including low-cost robust sensors that enable ”precision animal monitoring” so that each individual animal is managed in a way that optimizes its production while minimizing its GHG footprint. The “internet enabled” animal of the future will allow large numbers of animals to be managed individually to provide the proper vaccinations at the optimal time with minimal stress to the animal; to provide optimized nutrition through tailored supplements delivered to each individual based on the animal’s stage of development and health. Both individual animal production efficiency and whole-herd feed efficiency will be monitored and adjusted automatically and in near-real time. The result will be fewer animal losses through better animal health, improved selection to improve production efficiency through superior genetics, and improved feed efficiency through continuous monitoring of feed quality and individual animal intake. Each of these will result in improvements in the economic bottom line to the producer as well as decreased GHG emissions.

As an example, the emission of methane from ruminant livestock can represent a loss of from roughly 5% to more than 15% of the gross energy intake of a ruminant animal. In rough terms this is equivalent to roughly a quarter of a pound to a half-pound of potential weight gain each day. This production of methane represents a large potential economic loss to farmers and ranchers. Also the GHG losses per pound of product (meat, milk, reproduction) are highest where forages are of poor quality. Therefore improving animal nutrition can potentially provide greater returns and also lower the GHG footprint of animal agriculture. Often these improvements can be realized at relatively low cost . The key components are the availability of information through low cost sensors, centralized monitoring through automated data analysis and training through simple automated reporting to provide quick feedback to producers.

Animal diseases and poor health impose even larger economic losses to both small and large farmers alike and greatly increase the GHG footprint of animal agriculture. For example a milk cow typically requires two years of producing GHGs before any milk is produced. If she becomes ill, milk production can be dramatically decreased however GHG emissions per pound of product greatly increase. If she dies, the GHG footprint remains, with few if any salvageable products. Therefore the GHG footprint of “replacement” animals represents a potentially avoidable loss and large economic benefits if low-cost techniques to monitor animal health and treat problems at an early stage of their development can be better implemented. Conditions such as Subclinical Ruminal Acidosis have been documented to potentially affect at some point in their production cycle, as many as half of the animals in a dairy herd or feedlot. Although often undiagnosed, this condition is responsible for huge losses in productivity and the stress imposed on the animal frequently leads to serious complications and the loss of animals.

Is it really feasible to implement these plans for “smallholders” and poor rural farmers? This is a valid question and one that I have considered very carefully. The task is daunting but the potential benefits are huge. The key pitfalls that have caused many schemes to fail are lack of accountability, poor measurement metrics and fraud.

During my career I have been involved in research projects in remote parts of Africa, South America, India and in the rural US. In my experience, changing long-held beliefs in specific cultures can be difficult, however most individuals are responsive to immediate direct incentives that lead to long-term economic benefits during the initial stages of a project. To have long-term effect, during the implementation phase based on performance-based rewards, a simultaneous foundation of long-term education must also occur.

The next part of my answer is intended to provide one example of how we can employ technology that is available now to monitor and document the results of applying“precision animal agriculture” to reduce GHGs while increasing productivity. Other sensors could potentially be employed in a similar way.

When we built GreenFeed, a system to monitor methane, carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through the muzzles of ruminant animals, we worked hard to incorporate the characteristics required so that the system could effectively monitor and improve the performance of “small-holder” animal agriculture as well as large-scale animal agriculture, even in developing countries (for more information about GF see our website at: http://c-lockinc.com/introduction.php ). The system is designed to be robust, to require little maintenance, to operate on batteries and solar power, to be calibrated, monitored and controlled remotely, to store all raw data in a permanent, unalterable, secure archive, and to be standardized so that results obtained anywhere on earth are comparable. Finally, the system is designed with the capability to individually monitor and manage each animal to optimize its health, efficiency and productivity and to document the results..

An example of how GF could be used to greatly improve the efficiency of rural animal agriculture, is provided below:

A demonstration and education project could be created where GF units could be initially purchased by a third-party such as an Non Governmental Organization (for example the World Bank)with an interest in improving rural economies and their food security while decreasing the GHG footprint of rural animal agriculture. Many areas in the tropics and subtropics offer the potential for large improvements since forage quality is typically relatively poor and inexpensive supplements have the potential to provide large benefits. Each GF would be operated by solar panels and would connect to the internet (for example through a cell-phone modem or a satellite phone connection) so that it could transmit data to a central server as well as to designated computers and independent auditors, as required. The data would be analyzed using transparent and fully described procedures and algorithms and visually-understandable results would provide quick feedback to producers and operators in the field.

To implement a GHG-reduction project, GF could be placed in the field in demonstration pastures and could provide the appropriate amount of supplement to each animal to maximize the productivity of the forage. Alternatively, where animals are extensively-handled and relatively-tame, GF could be located in a central location where animals are brought to be milked or weighed. During milking or weighing GF could provide the type and amount of supplement required to improve milk or meat production and GF would document the results. Improvements could be accurately quantified and documented to result in accuratekly-measured GHG reductions. GHG reductions could potentially be sold to subsidize the cost of GF as well as the costs of supplements. Part of the income could be used to provide an immediate performance incentive to the producer.

The supplement, for example pellets containing simple inexpensive ingredients like urea, could be produced locally providing a source of jobs and revenue. In the long-run, GHG reductions created through improved animal health, genetic selection and feed efficiency could potentially also be quantified and marketed to create additional value-added incentives in addition to the economic gains realized as the result of adopting more efficient animal husbandry practices that increase production and decrease GHG production.

Although it is likely that there would be some unforeseen bureaucratic, cultural and logistical barriers to overcome, A successful demonstration project coupled with education, could result in the long-term realization of opportunities that lead to the adoption of animal husbandry practicesthat provide self-sustaining economic as well as environmental benefits.

Dear Patrick Zimmerman

Thank you for your valuable time and inputs in the session. I read your long discussion with much interest and can see the benefits, and opportunities in the cutting edge technology you referred to (GreenFeed)(as a monitoring tool).

In particular, what I can summarize that improved animal nutrition, improved animal genetics, and improved animal health can enhance farmer’s return while lowering the GHG footprint from animal agriculture. It is very encouraging to note that the emissions of GHGs form animal agriculture are not only harmful for the environment but it also cuts the economic return for farmers.

I personally see that your innovative technology (GreeFeed) would be valuable for research project (to monitor CH4, CO2 but can it be used to monitor N2O as well?. Lastly I feel that very simple, low costs monitoring tool would be required so that poor farmers in third world countries can utilize such tool in enhancing production, reducing GHG emissions and contributing in sustainable animal agriculture production. Regards. Golam

Anthropogenic GHG emissions and climate change have a number of implications on agricultural productivity, however their cumulative impact is yet unknown and many such impacts and their interactions have not yet been precisely quantified at the global scale. Agriculture is also a significant contributor to global emissions of NH3, CO, and NO. Over the last 150 yrs., cumulative emissions of CO2 associated with land clearing for agriculture are comparable to those from combustion of fossil fuel, but the latter is the major source of CO2 at present and is projected to become more dominant in the future. Ruminant animals, rice paddies, and biomass burning are principal agricultural sources of CH4, and oxidation of CH4 by aerobic soils has been reduced by perturbations to natural N cycles. Agricultural sources of N2O have probably been substantially underestimated due to incomplete analysis of increased N flows in the environment, especially via NH3 volatilization from animal manures, leaching of NO3-, and increased use of biological N fixation. Impact of in mean temperature increase on productivity may depend more on the magnitude and timing. Mean sea-level rise could eventually result in the loss of agricultural land through permanent inundation, but the impacts of temporary flooding through storm surges may be large although less predictable.

Technological approaches to mitigation of agricultural sources of GHGs have to be probably focus on CH4 and N2O because emissions of CO2 are essentially associated with the socio-political issue of tropical deforestation. Available technologies include dietary supplements to reduce CH4 production by ruminant animals and various means of improving fertilizer N management to reduce N2O emissions. The main mitigation potential lies in soil carbon sequestration and preserving the existing soil carbon in arable soils. Nitrous oxide emissions can be reduced by reduced nitrogen application, but much still remains unclear about the effect different fertilizer types and management practices have on these emissions. Methane emissions from ruminants can only be reduced significantly by a reduction in animal numbers. Sequestration, finally, can be enhanced by conservative management practices, crop rotation with legume (grass-clover) leys and application of organic fertilizers.

In order to reduce trade-offs among food security, climate change and ecosystem degradation, productive and ecologically sustainable agriculture is crucial. In that context, organic agriculture stand for a multi-targeted and multifunctional strategy. Therefore, a shift away from intense reliance on heavy chemical inputs to an intense biologically based agriculture and food system is necessary. Many components of organic agriculture can be applied to improve all farming systems, including conventional ones.The system-oriented and participative concept of organic agriculture, combined with new sustainable technologies offer greatly needed solutions in the face of climate change.

Dear Yogesh,

I do agree with you that land clearing, animal manures, rice paddies and biomass burning are some of the sources of GHGs from agriculture. Apart from land clearing (deforestation), diesel used in transportation, and irrigation pumping (most energy demanding) also causes significant GHG emissions from agriculture (note: India, China and USA are the top irrigation abstractors). Of course, sea-level rise (also consequences of global warming) will cause salinization of agricultural land in particular rice farming in coastal areas of Bangladesh, Myanmar and Vietnam. The global warming potential of CH4(x21) and N20 (x310) are much higher compared to C02 (x1) therefore their emissions reduction need to be prioritized. Innovative agricultural practices and climate smart agriculture/farming would be essential to tackle the problem. Regards

Dear Colleagues

Thank you for your valuable time and inputs in the session. I read your long discussion with much interest. The topic is really very important and has a global attention. Further, mathematical modeling is really needed to determine whether it will be global warming or global cooling and what are the positive and negative impact in each region of the earth as Prof. Grote pointed out. Such prediction is crucial to predict the long run of agriculture production and water & energy availability.

Dear Prof Ebraheem, I appreciate your comments etc. I do agree there are needs for more refinement in predictions. Even in current prediction, the number of undernourished people in sub-Saharan Africa may triple. One of the reasons that sub-Saharan Africa is more vulnerable appears to be due to high dependency on rain fed agriculture, existing acute poverty and poor infrastructure. Regards. Golam

Why do you think Africa is reluctant to adopt ag biotech and improve yield? I would think ag biotech addresses many of the problems discussed above and drought tolerance has much potential to help the region adapt to severe episodes of drought. Its true that weeds are developing resistance in South Africa but isn't the reward worth the risk?

Hi Prof Gal Hochman,

Yes, innovative biotechnology such as use of microorganisms can help crops to cope with abiotic stresses (temperature, drought, salinity). Some researchers found that Rhizobium spp., Pseudomonas spp. , Bacillus spp., Burkholderia spp. provide tolerance to host plants under different abiotic stresses (Grover et al. 2011). Use of these microorganisms may help alleviate stresses in agricultural crops plants. USA researchers (Redman et al. 2011) colonized two commercial varieties of rice with the spore of fungi (salt tolerant and heat tolerant). They found that rice plants increased tolerance to cold, salt and drought. There are much opportunities lies ahead in the application of biotechnology in climate change adaptation.

Do you have the full references (titles should be fine) of the two papers you mentioned? This is very interesting and, I agree, these technologies have much potential in helping farmers adapt to a changing climate.

Hi Gal,

two references as requested

Grover, M., Sk. Z. Ali, V. Sandhya, A. Rasul and B. Venkateswarlu 2011. Role of microorganisms in adaptation of agriculture crops to abiotic stresses. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 27: 1231–1240.

Redman, R. S., Y. Ok Kim, C. J. D. A. Woodward, C. Greer, L. Espino, S. L. Doty and R. J. Rodriguez 2011. Increased Fitness of Rice Plants to Abiotic Stress Via Habitat Adapted Symbiosis: A Strategy for Mitigating Impacts of Climate Change. PLoS ONE. 6 (7): e14823. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014823

Dear colleagues, you have embarked on a most important discussion, which may prove to be one of the defining issues of this century: sustainable food security. I would like to contribute to your valuable discussion with a longer term outlook on sustainable food security.

While for the medium term biotechnology and other methods will help to cope with higher demands for food, and with impacts of climate change on agriculture (e.g. by further developments of draught and disease resistant crops), I am less optimistic that such incremental change will be enough to arrive at sustainable food security for the longer term. By mid century, we need 60% more food to feed about 9 billion people. To attain such further growth with conventional production methods will lead to severe ecosystem damage (forest, fresh water, coastal, and oceans) and conflict (over water, land and nutrients).

Current food production systems have some inherent unsustainability dimensions, which calls for a transformation in the way we produce food. Why food production systems need to transform on the longer term becomes clear when you look at the impacts. Current global food production (agriculture, bio-industry and fisheries):

- Occupies 25% of all habitable land,

- Is responsible for about 70% of global fresh water consumption (i.e. almost 3000 Km3/y),

- for 80% of deforestation,

- for some 30% of greenhouse gas emissions,

- it is a strong contributor to biodiversity loss,

- has expanded global anthropogenic nitrogen fixation, needed to sustain agriculture, to levels that exceed those of natural N-fixation (this presents a dangerous biogeochemical experiment; ref. Gijzen HJ, Mulder A (2001) The nitrogen cycle out of balance. Water 21, August 2001,38-40)

- causes the exhaustion of phosphorous (at current consumption rate, reserves could be depleted before the end of this century),

- reduces marine fish stocks, and damages marine ecosystems, and

-represents the single largest non-point source pollution globally (pesticides, fertilizer), affecting both human and ecosystem health

This calls for a transition towards ‘New Food’.

While our food production systems have essentially remained the same since the domestication of plants and animals some 10-12,000 years ago, I predict that the 21st century will see a transformational shift towards ‘new food’ production methods that are efficient, upscalable and have low environmental and ecosystem impacts.

‘New Food’ considers a paradigm shift towards high tech cell and tissue culture techniques to produce crops and protein in modern facilities (‘factories’) which are not land based, and which apply full recycle of water and nutrients, without needing to raise full animals (only desired meat/protein) or full crops (only desired vegetable tissue). The technologies required to do this already exist (e.g. micro-algae culture, tissue culture), but substantial R&D investments will be needed to scale up efficiencies. It would also require that we address and resolve some other key challenges of this century, such as the energy question (‘new food’ needs ‘new energy’).

Science or science fiction?

Well, the idea of food that is not grown by conventional agriculture or bio-industry is actually not so far from reality as we might think. Check out: www.culturedbeef.net/ and http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16972761

But then, some might argue that the thought of food coming out of a factory does not sound very ‘romantic’. For those, I would advise to pay a visit to the nearest bio-industry or slaughterhouse to see that current production methods are even less romantic.

Dear Prof. Huub Gijzen,

Thank you for your inputs and views. It is no doubt that current food production is unsustainable and we need to do much more effort and innovation. I do agree that new food production methods need to be found that are efficient, up scalable and have low environmental and ecosystem impacts. In this regards, use of recycled water (to reduce stress on water resources), producing energy efficient food (low carbon footprint) are some of examples. Regards Golam

Yes Manjula, both nutrient inputs and out puts should be balanced to prevent pollution as well as saving farmers costs

from: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/04/allan_savory_s_ted_talk_is_wrong_and_the_benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.html

"When Allan Savory finished his TED talk ...., foodies worldwide collectively salivated. In roughly 22 minutes, Savory, a biologist and former member of the Rhodesian Parliament, challenged the conventional wisdom blaming livestock for the degradation of global grasslands into hardpan deserts. It has long been a basic tenet of environmentalism that 10,000 years of overgrazing has caused this desertification. Environmentalists insist that to restore degraded landscapes, we must reduce the presence of cattle, eat less meat, and allow ecosystems to repair themselves. Savory, who admits that he’s suggesting “the unthinkable,” wants humans to do the exact opposite: Add cattle to the deserts, manage them with obsessive precision, and eat more meat. Most of the world’s land, he says (at about 18:40), “can only feed people with animals.”

The above is written by a critique of the talk by Savory on TED: See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

I have heard, however, that the cattle, goat, and camel herders here in Oman and other developmental land workers across the globe have been encouraged by Savory's presentation and find his theories sound

Dear Kevin, many thanks for sending through the weblinks and youtube links.

Kind regards

You can't avoid impact from the food industry, we are hands on in this sector with EVE [www.energyvalueengineering.com]

We are really impressed with the way that containerized growing is becoming a real industry in the urban landscape. Our brand ContainerPonics was introduced as the next wave after a great kick start to the industry PodPonics, Growtainers, Freight Farmers and about a dozen others. We don't have green fingers in the EVE team so we decided to focus on what we do best. We fit out our containers with the expertise of the market leaders we focus on the hook up and environmental side

Air leaving a school, shopping centre of hospital is a constant temperature, speed, water content and generally a regular CO2 rich gas and by re-engineering the Container growers we were really able to push the limits.

We are looking forward to develop "Grow and Learn" "Heal and Grow" [even one day "Repent and Grow"] and many more concepts with CO2 credits for environmental impact and zero embedded CO2

We are talking to some of the big boys about their catering needs and working closely with our PowerCan 200 team we are making big inroads to some big cost and CO2 savings

For the last three years we have been developing the New Model Village Concept here in Central Europe the fact is people feel insecure in the Capital City. High prices and energy dependence in view of what is emerging and what will transpire in Ukraine is leading people back to the villages. ContainerPonics can provide a lot of produce linked with our PowerCan [more than 40 units] and all CO2 free

Thank you Steve for your inputs. I actually read ‘Helping Schools Recycle To Offset The Cost Of ContainerPonics® and ‘grow and learn concepts’ from your website and found it very interesting

Several people have raised the issue of soil conservation and renewal as essential to GHG management, but (perhaps due to inadequate attention on my part) I didn't see any reference to Freeman Dyson's suggestion that carbon sequestration in SOIL CULTIVATION could be a key strategy: addition of ~1mm of extra soil per year would compensate for most of anthropic GHG emissions and could be achieved by simple strategies like not regularly plowing fields.

Dyson was quickly labelled a "senile crank" by AGCC true believers, but I can give a quick example of the contrapositive from my own experience in Florida: the Everglades were drained about a century ago, and an area about 100km on a side has been on a "slow burn" ever since; the peat is now about 25 feet lower (to the horizon) than on the surrounding still-wet flat plain. That comes to something like a billion metric tons of CO2 per year from that one case of poor soil management. Throw in a few brazillion more square miles of "cultivated" former rain forest and it starts to add up. It's true this is Anthropogenic, but it has nothing to do with fossil fuels; nor is it new, as historical records of the onetime Fertile Crescent illustrate.

The trouble, of course, is that altering traditions of agriculture takes extra effort that desperately hungry people can't afford and that would cut into the "bottom line" for agribusiness.

It is analogous to the burgeoning crises in fish stocks: poor fishermen "whose families have always fished..." can't easily just stop fishing while the stocks recover; meanwhile huge factory ships employ ever more sophisticated technology to scoop up every remaining fish as quickly as possible in order to make their profits while they can. Between economic greed and individual desperation, bioresources are always decimated.

Dear colleague ,

The question is very interesting. The problem is very complex. This is a real problem, but greenhouse gases have several impacts on food production conditions, namely in input and output production, on climate change, that imply new varieties, etc. This is a problem with direct and indirect effects with an spiral effect.

Yes, it is possible to simultaneously sustain crop yields, improve soil quality, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Robust management practices have been developed to tackle such problems. Please see the following papers for reference:

Sainju, U.M., J. Wang, and J.L. Barsotti. 2014. Net global warming potential and greenhouse gas intensity affected by cropping sequence and nitrogen fertilization. Soil Science Society of America Journal 78:248-261.

Sainju, U.M., Stevens, W.B., Caesar-Tonthat, T. Liebig, M.A., and Wang, J. 2014. Net global warming potential and greenhouse gas intensity influenced by irrigation, tillage, crop rotation, and nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Environmental Quality. Doi: 10.2134/jeq2013.10.0405

There are dozens of questions that this question raises, and it will take small scale successful tests to get some answers. When you have some successes, and you can replicate those methods inexpensively on a larger scale in countries with limited resources, then we will gave some real tools to work with and answers to this question with some real life examples.

That is why I am involved in an agriculture project in Haiti where agriculture is still really a blank slate, without major inputs like megatons of imported chemical fertilizers, or the billions of barrels of fossil fuels used for agriculture, etc.

For example, sequestering carbon in agriculture soils, like what Jess Brewer's answer talks about, and if it was possible for the local Haitian or African farmers getting agricultural carbon credits from the industrialized nations would be a huge win-win for all including the planet. You can see the Haiti project at http://www.haitiag.org.

Dear Jess,

I do agree that altering traditions of agriculture need extra efforts, which may need educating poor farmers and people associated with it as well. Also traditionally people continue fishing until the resources have been totally depleted and then moved into new place and so on. As a consequence of this and as an alternative, in a number of countries seafood aquaculture/fish farming is rapidly expanding.

Dear Maria,

Yes new varieties of crops including climate tolerant seeds would be needed

Dear Upendra

Thank you for refereeing to two references related to this question.

Dear Craig,

Thank you for your continued inputs in this topic and agreeing that conservation agriculture like carbon sequestration in agricultural soil would be needed.

Dear Anurag,

Thank you for your view regarding no-tillage agriculture

C4 root crop plants, being rich source of carbohydrates, those can sequester more CO2 but no methane production, can't they be used widely instead of paddy while the crop is done in irrigated mode may be an answer. However, their shelf life and value addition to secondary products in easily consumable form needs to be improvised a lot. Then it will be an answer source of carbohydrates in rising temperature- CO2 scenario. Agricutural scientists needs to consider this seriously to be an alternative. As for JESS's answer how can soil cultivation done practically, if this is the real answer as it is true that tarditional cultivation habits change hard for a number of reasons.

Dear Latha

Thank you for your inputs. To address CH4 emissions, research being carried out via ‘alternate-wetting and drying’ pilot programme which (AWD) is believed to reduce CH4 emissions significantly from paddy cultivation compared to continuous flooding of paddy field. Since rice is the staple food for about 3 billion people, we have to find out some novel solutions, perhaps finding or selecting or using a rice cultivar that exudate (emit) low methane

Interesting article in nature about the impact of CO2 on nutrient content...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13179.html

Dear David, thank you for sending through the weblinks of an important paper which reveals that nutritional quality of a number of the world’s most important crop plants would be affected in response to elevated CO2.

A little off topic, but in order to get the whole greenhouse gas-agriculture-global warming picture in perspective, so we can make effective plans to start to turn around the trajectory our planet is on, we will need to do at least six things:

1.) World wide carbon tax. Set per metric ton of fossil fuel and natural gas carbon, put by governments on the producers and that money used to pay for the cost of sequestration of that carbon that is going to be burned. The tax needs to be set at least at the actual cost of putting that ton of carbon back into the ground. That way, there can start to be a no net increase in the planet's CO2 in the atmosphere so we can cap the total CO2 in the atmosphere at a certain amount. That tax cannot be mixed with the government general funds, but escrowed separately just for dealing with putting the carbon back.

2.) World wide personal carbon diet. Everyone gets a monthly carbon allowance, and this idea was written about in a science fiction book, "Carbon Diaries 2015" by Saci Lloyd. Probably the most important book written in this century, showing what a society might look like if we really made the sacrifices needed to fix the global warming problem. Should be required reading in every school on the planet.

3.) Carbon sequestration with vegetation, like revegetation of arid lands with their local native grasses like about one billion acres from western India to Morocco, and no-till farming wherever possible, and using as much of the cow dung and human dung on the planet to produce methane to burn for fuel, and converting from slash and burn in Indonesia and Africa to some other methods that do not require burning, for example.

4.) Carbon tax pays for solar panels on every rooftop worldwide. If there is a carbon tax, the governments could use part of that tax to buy rooftop solar panels for every commercial and residential rooftop in their country. That would accomplish several things, especially in the tropical and desert countries like India and the Middle East--the panels would shade the roofs, keeping the buildings cooler in summer, requiring less energy to keep cool, for example.

When I fly over Phoenix or Los Angeles, and do not see every rooftop covered with solar panels, that looks like a society that is not planning or preparing for the future, and solar panels for every rooftop would go far in helping to change the global warming trajectory

5.) Government puts an excise tax on pure gasoline or pure diesel fueled vehicles including heavy equipment, semi-truck, busses, trains, etc., to subsidize the purchase and conversion to hybrid and electric vehicles.

We could answer these tough questions for many decades, but I think some action plans are immediately necessary, and we must ignore the political and economic pressures that the status quo is going to place on converting from a fossil fuel driven societies, to one that is going to produce "zero-net atmospheric carbon" in the future.

6.) To get to a "zero-net atmospheric carbon" future, do not fly like moths to the flames towards nuclear power. The dangers of their potential malfunctions and the thousands of years to store the radioactive wastes can never be resolved, it is a chemical and elemental impossibility. It is better to work on our best friend, the carbon atom, and instead of cursing his action in heating the atmosphere, grab him and put him back into the soil, so he can help us grow better crops for xample, at the end of the day?

David, with regard to your post about food quality and CO2, you may find relevant this that came out today:

http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/05/07/eLife.02245

... and the attached "Rising atmospheric CO2 and human nutrition"

http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/05/07/eLife.02245

The importance of rising CO2 on Fe and Zn

Dear Colleagues, Why we not try to submit a call on Horizon 2020 about this problem?

In that case, other co-benefits of reduction of other air pollutants should be considered as well, both for their GH properties and possible effects on public health.

Dear Craig,Though economists and international organizations recommended carbon tax to tackle carbon pollution however, only few countries have implemented it so far, some in favour of it and some against it!

Dear Irakli, thank you for providing additional resources (weblinks) that elevated CO2 can deplete minerals and as a consequence may intensify malnutrition in human

Dear Luc,

You have mentioned an important area (human health), as far I know there has been some studies in relation to greenhouses gases and its impact on human health in reference to heat waves, airborne allergens, food poisoning, food contamination and water borne diseases etc.

Dear Maria, Are you associated with Horizon 2020 ? It appears that they provide funding for climate change adaptation and food, water, forestry, bioeconomy?

Dear Golam,

I participate on a project H2020 a few days ago (only participant not coordinator ) but on a different call involving different partners/researchers across EU, and Europe but in some calls they have a list of countries that could participate outside of the europe and across the world

Poor farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and similar latitudes are going to suffer immensely as the global temperature rises. Agriculture at higher latitudes may actually benefit from global warming to a certain extent. Thus those wealthier countries at higher latitudes will have to help farmers in the newly arid regions.

CO2 increase is in principle good for plants but the secondary effects are not, or will require adaptation that will put agriculture, i.e. the use of plants for our human needs into problems. Part of the human reaction to nature's (man made) change could be using science, to find ways to cope with the challenges. Speeding up the development of crops that can strive under the new and rapidly changing conditions can contribute. Genetic engineering is finally reaching a level where issues like water stress tolerance, salt tolerance etc. can realisically be tackled. Finding ways to make these (future, possible) advantages available to those poor, small farmers most hit by climate change is a challenge beyond natural science but needs to be addressed, too.

Dear Victor,

This is a good point that wealthier countries at higher latitudes (North America) who will be benefited in changing climate scenarios should help poor farmers in lower latitudes in sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia. Perhaps, providing education, training and research support on conservation agriculture or diversification of livelihoods of vulnerable people etc.

Dear Joachim,

I do agree that development of crops adaptable to climate change and application of genetic engineering (biotechnology) could play a major role in tackling the problem. In addition to that perhaps effort should also be made in identifying any indigenous technology that may also be suitable

Dear Golam, Farmers will be vulnerable to climate change particularly those engaged in traditional coastal fishery and small farmers are the most affected.These group of people depend heavily on local natural resources and climate condition.They are weak in many aspects. Climate change will affect their productivity which can cause food security in all levels ranging from household, community, local, regional, national and global. As a result it created impacts on their livelihoods, income and their quality of life.We can help them through fostering community-based mitigation and adaptation strategies to climate change.This may include local research support, setting up of local weather center creating new planting methods with less use of water utilizing local wisdom, developing new plant species resistant to climate change, etc.

Dear Choen,

Yes, poor farmers and fishers in developing countries are more vulnerable since they donot have either financial resources or skills to adapt to climate change. Support such as climate smart farming and ecosystems based adaptation (integrating land-water and biodiversity in overall NRM strategy) would be vital

The impact of climate change depends on technological change. If its fast enough relative to population growth, climate change impact is less severe. However, how the technology is transferred to poor regions is a challenge. Improving the ability to respond to climate change via new institutions and designing strategies that will improve transfer of technology to developing countries and facilitate with the implementation can prove very helpful. Countries should be better equipped to handle emergencies and improve water management.

Dear Gal,

I do agree that we have to innovative technology which can be simple, and be transferrable to farmers sooner. Water management would be essential since climate change/ variability would put additional pressures on water availability in Africa and Asia

A review paper relevant to this topic: ‘Agriculture and greenhouse gases, a common

tragedy. A review’ http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13593-012-0110-0#page-1

The paper recommends that management practices are crucial to reverse the environmental footprint of agriculture and lessen its impact on climate change.

For croplands, suggested practices:

• reduced tillage systems

• crop residue management

• improved management of nutrients and pests

• cover cropping

• agroforestry

• biochar application as soil

• amendment, and utilization of precision agriculture technologies.

For livestock sector, suggested management practices:

• changes in animals’ diet

• appropriate management of manure.

There is no simple answer to this. Some locations will be more affected than others. Some crops will be more affected than others. There even are encouragements that we should think about abandoning certain crops.

see: Thornton, P. Recalibrating Food Production in the Developing World: Global Warming Will Change More Than Just the Climate. CCAFS Policy Brief no. 6. (CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, 2012).

The estimates are one-third of the human activity related GHGs are associated with agricultural production suggests that even the styles of agriculture will need to change.

see Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11708

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for providing references of two important papers/reports, which highlighted the following facts

• Production of the most common crops such as wheat, maize and rice—will be impacted by new weather patterns

• One-third of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture

• China and India are most likely see yields drop significantly with the rise of temperatures, and therefore farmers may like to consider growing crops, such as bananas, that do better in warmer climates

Dear Liming,

I do agree that research towards developing high-yielding varieties of crops that will consume less water but more resistant to pests and diseases would be essential

I wanted to add a real-life example of what is going on currently. If you view http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/MapArchive.aspx you will see extreme drought conditions in two important agriculture areas of the USA, California and the 1930s Dust Bowl portion of Colorado to Texas.

On the other side of the world, floods are occurring monthly in areas that have not seen torrential rainfall for centuries, prior to the 1980s, like Oman, Yemen, KSA, Kuwait, etc. Like the floods last weekend in Mecca (Makkah), Israel, and the Sinai, or the floods in Kuwait yesterday, for example. Google Youtube footage for 2014 floods in January, February, March, April and May somewhere on the Arabian peninsula, with cars being washed down Arabian wadis that have been dry for centuries.

The complete reverse in rainfall, away from our agriculture areas to places that have been extremely arid deserts for centuries, may be the first major change that we can point to as positively brought to us via greenhouse gases and global warming. We will need to deal with these changes regarding our agriculture areas, and it is happening right now, this very minutes. It is not some abstract or theoretical major change that is happening, it is going on as we write these messages to each other.

Thank you Criag for your close observations of two current scenarios, one is drought in the USA and another is floods in the desert areas

When global warming and GHG are of concern, there is a need to look into sustainable development via good agriculture practices (GAP). A strategic resource management of the generated by-products or wastes from the crop's whole supply chain should be maximised, e.g. the use of biomass generated as organic fertiliser, or mulching materials helps in reduction of N2O emissions, coupled with extraction of valuable products from the waste, generating bioenergy from the biomass and recycling the rest of the wastes aiming for zero discharge/zero emissions. Localise the resources and maximise its usage helps a lot in reducing production cost and sustaining its value chain. E.g. the palm oil mill energy complex that is being implemented in Malaysia.

Food production and global warming are two important issues that go hand in hand and need to be addressed at the same time. Future food production relies on crops that could withstand water stress and vulnerable weather; this may be crops underutilised and unattended, thus international collaboration on biotechnological advances gearing towards crops with high productivity which could withstand water stress and vulnerable weather should be implemented, for long term sustainable development and food security.

Technology transfer and financial support for poor farmers in areas vulnerable to climate change can be put under the national agenda, via simple and practical approaches e.g. educating by showing demonstration project, assistance in replanting/new planting activities, knowledge transfer for best practices, technical support in integration activities, etc., can be looked into. It is also possible to economically certify poor farmers to increase their credibility via locally developed sustainable standards certification scheme.

Dear colleagues,

The effect of climate change causes a change habitual thinking and living organization. It is known that 95% of greenhouse gas emissions are CO2 and water vapor. We proposed the method of deposition of large quantities of carbon dioxide to the ground by rains from the modified clouds. Consequently, a large amount of carbon ions fall into the soil.  Simple initial experiments showed that such enriched sediments provide the accelerated growth of plants and increase the germination of seeds. You can see my photos of these plants in comparison with the control plants, please see Researchgate-Tulaikova, the text of book “The effective possibility for atmosphere CO2 purification” 2012 Lap Lambert. I ask you about conduction of these research and development of the theory of this effect of accelerated plants growth by  uptake of carbon ions in the roots of plants, because my profession is a mathematics and physics of the atmosphere. Best Regards

Tamara, do you have any online links or photos?

Dear Tamara,

I read with an interest about your proposal of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere via creating artificial clouds and rains and then using carbon ions for growing of root plants. Does these clouds and rains differ from the normal clouds and rains? Also are you talking about to evaluate the CO2 fertilization effects on plant?

Dear Kevin Stoda,

I have about 100 photos, please see this abstract with some photos and their procedure description. You could repeat this simple experiment, so I will be vey glad help you and another colleagues by my answers to your questions, Tamara [email protected]

Dear Golam Kibria, thank you for Your interest. We offer to use existing ordinary clouds, it will be added a small quantity of alkali (calculated in the abstract) in natural clouds. The CO2 in the water gives a weak acid, so the addition of alkali will increase the amount of dissolved CO2 more than 100 times by +1 in each pH-unit. Different technologies for impact to clouds are known in different countries for sedimentation stimulation or stopping, so airplane or helicopter flies above the cloud to put the special aerosols, it is causing the reorganization of its structure, increasing drops of rain.

Also I begin development of another theory for method of creation of artificial clouds from the earth by acoustic wave, so old Shamans did the same. You can see this paper with the diagram at Researchgate (published at IAMO). These works were not continued due to financiers.