This is a complex question, so I will break it down to specific points. I have been working in this area for several years:

1) Agriculture produces food, fiber and other products (flowers, ornamentals, etc.) for consumption by consumers worldwide. Therefore, impact of agriculture should be based on environmental impact of each unit of food, fiber or product that reaches a consumer (or at least leaves the farm to be distributed to a consumer). For example, one can do life cycle analyses on a product like milk and express the impact in terms of grams of CO2-equivalent produced at the farm per gram of protein produced for the consumer. In this case, CO2-equivalents measures all of the inputs and impacts on soil and land use, using a single value (CO2-equivalents). This is a standard way of measuring impact of agriculture.

2) It is quite clear that countries with the GREATEST productivity per hectare or per animal unit produce the LOWEST environmental impact (CO2-equivalents) at the consumer level. For example, the amount of CO2-equivalents for each gram of milk protein is 7-fold greater in Sub-Saharan Africa than for North America. So productivity per hectare or animal unit is critical for reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment.

3) Some parts of the globe may benefit from climate change. If projections are correct, then the annual growing season will be longer in Canada, Russia and Northern China. This will allow areas that have low-density populations to actually produce more food to meet needs of other areas that are impacted more severely. Today, 81% of our food is produced north of the equator and 82% of our people live north of the equator, so it is the Northern Hemisphere that will be impacted most by climate change.

4) Our ability to produce more exceeds our current need. Our main challenges for the future are improving productivity and agricultural practices in areas that are under-performing in terms of yields and productivity per hectare, and it making it profitable for farmers in those areas to adopt more advanced technologies. For example, if we look at the 10 countries with the most dairy cows globally, average yield per cow per year ranges from 250 kg to 11,000 kg per cow annually. How can we increase output per cow per year in the low-output countries to address climate change issues.

5) We need to create carbon-sequestration systems thru planting more trees, planting more long-term perennials and crops that absorb a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere. Managing and increasing productivity on cleared, arable land is vital.

6) Dietary change is important, but even more important is helping our livestock producers to be more efficient and productive so we can reduce the number of poorly-productive cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, buffalos and pigs in the world. We can do this with good support and educational programs on the ground worldwide.

7) The greatest CO2-equivalent outputs of agriculture are associated with clearing land (land-use in the equations), tilling when tilling is not necessary, using excessive fertilization rather than more costly efficient systems, and not taking good care of the microbial health of our soils.

These are my thoughts.

This is a complex question, so I will break it down to specific points. I have been working in this area for several years:

1) Agriculture produces food, fiber and other products (flowers, ornamentals, etc.) for consumption by consumers worldwide. Therefore, impact of agriculture should be based on environmental impact of each unit of food, fiber or product that reaches a consumer (or at least leaves the farm to be distributed to a consumer). For example, one can do life cycle analyses on a product like milk and express the impact in terms of grams of CO2-equivalent produced at the farm per gram of protein produced for the consumer. In this case, CO2-equivalents measures all of the inputs and impacts on soil and land use, using a single value (CO2-equivalents). This is a standard way of measuring impact of agriculture.

2) It is quite clear that countries with the GREATEST productivity per hectare or per animal unit produce the LOWEST environmental impact (CO2-equivalents) at the consumer level. For example, the amount of CO2-equivalents for each gram of milk protein is 7-fold greater in Sub-Saharan Africa than for North America. So productivity per hectare or animal unit is critical for reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment.

3) Some parts of the globe may benefit from climate change. If projections are correct, then the annual growing season will be longer in Canada, Russia and Northern China. This will allow areas that have low-density populations to actually produce more food to meet needs of other areas that are impacted more severely. Today, 81% of our food is produced north of the equator and 82% of our people live north of the equator, so it is the Northern Hemisphere that will be impacted most by climate change.

4) Our ability to produce more exceeds our current need. Our main challenges for the future are improving productivity and agricultural practices in areas that are under-performing in terms of yields and productivity per hectare, and it making it profitable for farmers in those areas to adopt more advanced technologies. For example, if we look at the 10 countries with the most dairy cows globally, average yield per cow per year ranges from 250 kg to 11,000 kg per cow annually. How can we increase output per cow per year in the low-output countries to address climate change issues.

5) We need to create carbon-sequestration systems thru planting more trees, planting more long-term perennials and crops that absorb a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere. Managing and increasing productivity on cleared, arable land is vital.

6) Dietary change is important, but even more important is helping our livestock producers to be more efficient and productive so we can reduce the number of poorly-productive cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, buffalos and pigs in the world. We can do this with good support and educational programs on the ground worldwide.

7) The greatest CO2-equivalent outputs of agriculture are associated with clearing land (land-use in the equations), tilling when tilling is not necessary, using excessive fertilization rather than more costly efficient systems, and not taking good care of the microbial health of our soils.

These are my thoughts.

Hi Haseeb,

It is a good question. I want to add my opinion about this issue. Maybe you regret or accept some points that I will point out. In my opinion, climate change is a chance for some production of agriculture in new areas if we can manage carefully it, although it has some risk for people and living creature on earth.

As you know it is determined that the earth temperature has been increasing every century. It may be good or bad. In total it may be catastrofic effect on living creatures on earth. If it can not be managed well by human kind. It is clear that human industrial activity is the main cause of this, but it may be a rutin increase of temperature in some periods of time (or era), although data determines vice versa. For example, it is well known that some period of ice age and "warm age" on earth. And dinosours disappered during an ice age period in a hypothesis and also Neanthertals which is our ancestors of 5% or more of our modern human genetic disappears in an other ice age period which they faced on earth.

Any way, in my opinion agriculture may find a new areas for new products in climate change time... It may be crazy opion but it maybe... For example, some areas and microclimate can be change and suitable for new agricultures. For instead, very cold areas and other parts of earth (Grönland, Sibiria moreover Antartica) may be suitbale for agriculture in a time. An other example is that Turkey (normally subtropical zone) slowy enters tropical zone and some fruits which normally grow in tropical zone can be produce in Turkey. However, it is important that this climate change can trigger a new ice age with melting of glaciers and preventing Atlantic Ocean warm curiencies. Moreover, it will cause to increase ocean and sea level. So some cities, and also countiries will be disapear on earth. For example, Venedic and Maldievs or Neterland may not be known by new generation in a few decades. We have to visit these areas before this ;)

Moreover, climate change may trigger huge storms and can cause huge storms some part of earth where storms have not been seen before (like Turkey)...

Briefly, climate change may cause a new catastrophobic era... So we have to be carefull about every step not only usage of electricity, car or production of meat or milk to decrease CO2 or other sera gases.

We can go on discussion about this issue in time.

My best wishes,

Umut

Thanks Jack Haiden Britt . Sir, your thoughts are good enough. You give me detailed and good answer. I learned a lot from it about climate change and it's impact. Once again thanks.

Umut Cagin Ari Thanks for your so nice opinions and I accept your points up to some extent. Hopefully, climate change have favorable impacts on agriculture production and may bring positive changes on organisms living on planet earth. Because, I heared from my respected teachers that some of the deserts will become able for agricultural activities due to precipitation (rainfall). Whereas some parts of the world (as you mentioned) will face serious problems as they will be drown due to heavy floods and melting of glaciers. Yes, we should visit there before all these:)

Haseeb Ahmad Maybe plantation can be used against climate changes. Because, as you know every plant uses CO2 to produce celulos, glycose, fiber etc. with aid of sun light in this way plants binds free CO2 on the air which cause sera effect on earth (it is well known but Amazon forests have been destroyed by human hand). I think we have to chose plants which can bind alot of CO2 from air… Meanwhile we have to reduce CO2 production.

An other sera gas is metan produced and realeased by ruminants… As you know they are called as biogas and can be stored and used without released to air for general use in home and industry. However, usage of metan can cause CO2 production and then we need alot of plantation … Oh my god it is a circle…

I mean if we can provide and or at least dont touch this good ecosystem and be carefull about CO2 and other sera gas production, we can stop climate change. We have to reduce our consumptions and needs…

we have to direct animal farming from large to small one to reduce heat gain and more CO2 production.also taring to choose suitable plant for land ,depend on natural not artificial fertilization...may be

we have to direct animal farming from large to small one to reduce heat gain and more CO2 production.also taring to choose suitable plant for land ,depend on natural not artificial fertilization...may be

with planning in new technique in livestock husbandry and use novel methods, we can play important role to diminish negative effects of farming on nature and climate.

Here is some more information:

1. 82% of the world's population live north of the equator and 81% of the world's food is produced north of the equator. Therefore, the northern hemisphere will be impacted much more than the southern hemisphere.

2. In the northern hemisphere, growing season will extend north so that countries like Canada, Russia and northern China will have more productive agriculture because of longer growing seasons. Among these, Canada and Russia have the lowest population density and can increase food production.

3. In nearly all studies of crops and livestock, GHG per unit of output DECLINES as yield increases. So higher yielding crops and livestock produce lower GHG per unit of protein in foods from crops or livestock. This is true even when commercial commercial fertilizers are used.

4. Precision agriculture, which requires sophisticated monitoring and applications of inputs, will be the most efficient in terms of GHG per unit of food protein. This will lead to larger farms in all regions of the world. There is no evidence that smaller farms are more efficient or produces less GHG per unit of food protein.

5. The greatest challenge to climate change in agriculture and other sectors is changing cultures of societies. This includes many factors and is probably the most difficult to change. Religious, political, ethnic and economic groups or classes must change their beliefs and practices to have an impact, regardless of the country or hemisphere. Food is part of our religious, political, ethnic and economic heritage, so it will not be easy to change.

Dear Jack,

You gave good data about agriculture and efficient agriculture. In my opinion and may be according to data agriculture is not directly responsible for climate change. An other words, its effect is limited compared with other industry branches. Moreover, it is obivous that all plants including that humankinds produced bind the CO2 as selulose, carbonhidrate, oil and protein and also produce O2 until they have been consumed by animals. So plants including "human production" prevent climate change via binding CO2 on air. As you know millions or billions years ago, CO2 concentration was very high and this caused sera effect on earth surface and plantation on earth and in oceans has reduced CO2 levels, decreasing earth temperature via preventing sera effect and the earth surface became a good place to live for animals.

In agriculture, maybe I said before, livestock is an important factor producing sera gas especially methane… So we have to find a way to reduce methane production in livestock , we have to develop a way which binds methane on air, and an other way maybe we can use selection for animals which produce less methane. For example, cattles may be selected as methane production and efficiency. Moreover, SNP or other genetic methods can be used for this aim. There may be some genes determining methane emiting during digestive process. Already, we select farm animals according to efficiency. In this way, we may reduce methane production and reduce feedding of livestock. In this way, CO2 or other sera gases bond as large molecules in plant body could not be relased again by animals which are consuming plants…

An other important issue is oceans. We have to protect ocean's plants. It is well known that 90% of O2 on earth are being produced by algs and plants in oceans or seas. We have to be carefull about protection of oceans and sea. Especially, these days fishes have been producing in sea or ocean farms. These farms and other polutants from heavy industries detrimentally affect ocean's plantation. If we destroy ocean's plants then we will start catastrophy of climate change… Oceans prevent climate change with their plants…

As for North and South hemispheres, I think it is not suitable to compare hemisphers. We have to compare countries which produce sera gases. As you determined 82% population of World live in North hemisphere but everyone is not equally responsible for sera gase production. It is obvious and clear that USA, Japan, Germany, France and China are responsible 95-99% production of sera gases on earth… I mean only 20-30% (with China) of World population (and countries) responsible for sera gases and climate changes… Others are victimes… Because they are only suffer…

I think we have to continue to analyse data on this issue with knowledge…

Thanks a lot Jack Haiden Britt and Umut Cagin Ari for sharing such a good and informative answers.

It is estimated that 83% of the growth in population over the next 50 years will be in Africa and 92% will be in Africa plus Asia. That will put a burden on decreasing GHG output, because we will need to feed more people. One way to do this is to use technologies and practices that generate less GHG per unit of food protein.

If one looks at growth of GHG expressed on a CO2-equivalent basis, the rate of growth of CO2 is about 3-fold greater than methane, so our real challenge in the future in the future is decreasing CO2 while keeping methane growing at a low rate through better efficiency.

Thanks Jack Haiden Britt for your so beautiful views but sir I have contradictory opinion with your views that if population increases, agricultural land will decreases due to urbanization and nowadays this trend is happening rapidly. So, my point is please describe that how the GHGs will be decreased by increased population in that particular regions. I mean what technologies, practices, methods etc. people should follow to cope with such situation without affecting the yield and quality. Kindly explain it through examples.

Haseeb Ahmad If one looks at life cycle analyses for foods or products, the GHG generated covers a lot of territory, even several continents. So it is not easy to document exactly where the GHG originates -- for example a ship crossing the Pacific ocean from China to Chile will generate GHG every meter along the way. Therefore, the GHG for a food or product is often defined as the total of all GHG generated up to the consumer's level. If one looks at a gram of protein consumed in food by a consumer, then the GHG load per gram of protein begins with the land used to grow the food, and then the inputs like energy, fertilizer and water and then harvesting and processing and then delivering it to the consumer. If we look historically over the last 50 years, we have increased cereal production in the world 3-fold, but we have only increased land use for cereal production by 15%. The increased yield per hectare uses more GHG per hectare, but it has spared increasing land use for food and therefore GHG output per unit of food cereal protein has decreased. Cultivation and land use is the greatest source of GHG in agriculture, and using less land through more intensive production actually is beneficial. Since GHGs move in the atmosphere, their levels are equalized around the globe to a great extent over time. There are other factors. For example the state of California in the USA is a large state, but it has relatively lower GHG output because the weather is generally not too hot or too cold for extended periods, so this decreases GHG output for heating and cooling buildings and homes. I agree with you that land use is increasing in some regions, driven largely by international trade. Yet as yield goes up, land use can decline. For example, in the USA, the greatest number of hectares of maize (corn) were planted by farmers in 1918, 100 years ago! Today, we grow 30% fewer acres of maize than we did 100 years ago and our population has doubled. I hope this is helpful. Please continue to debate these issues so we can all learn.

Jack Haiden Britt thanks sir for your so nice comments/answers. It has cleared my mind about this issue and I learned a lot from your kind experience. It was nice debate we have.....! thanks once again.

I wish I should conduct my PhD degree under your kind supervision to take advantages from your skills and experience if possible....