文章 Articles

The new Green Revolution

Many in China have heralded genetic engineering as a force for good in agriculture. In a new column for chinadialogue, Jiang Gaoming investigates, and finds that organic farming can prove a more efficient solution for the country.

Article image

The 1950s saw the birth of the first “Green Revolution”, with world agriculture’s move from tall- to short-stalk crop varieties and the use of pesticides, fertilisers and agricultural machinery. These changes allowed 19 developing countries to achieve food self-sufficiency. But since then, the global population has grown and pollution has worsened. The coming decades will see the world’s population increase from six to nine billion, and the achievements of the Green Revolution will be hard pressed to meet new food and environmental demands. As a result, the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization has called for a new, second Green Revolution.

But what will the weapons of this new revolution be? How can it meet the challenges of increasing food production against a background of shrinking arable land and freshwater resources; the need to protect the environment and public health from the effects of fertilisers and pesticides; and the effects of climate change on agriculture? Scientists have turned to genetic engineering, aiming to transfer advantageous genes to crops and increase harvests. And the media has called it the greatest hope of the new Green Revolution.

Scientists are now able to transplant genes from other species into crops, creating entirely new species and even halving plant growth cycles. US firms Dupont and Monsanto, along with Europe’s Novartis and others, have made massive investments in gene technology research. Pioneer, a US company, has decoded three-quarters of the 80,000 genes in maize, and expects to complete the remaining quarter within five years. Monsanto is attempting to identify and patent 15% of the maize genome.

Support for genetic engineering in China is steadily increasing, and the use of genetically-modified crops to increase harvests has been welcomed by the country’s agricultural industry. China has given priority to the development of pest-resistant cotton, yellow dwarf disease resistant winter wheat, bacterial blight-resistant rice and pesticide-resistant rice; as well as developing brown-rot resistant potatoes and new strains of maize. The country is also committed to developing technology such as genetically-modified “super” pigs, cows and sheep, animal embryo transfers, animal gender-selection technology, genetically-engineered immunisations and bioreactors.

The long list of new technologies shows that for Chinese scientists, the new Green Revolution is about increasing productivity based on the contributions of molecular biology. But they ignore an equally - if not more important – contribution: that from ecology.

China produces 480 million tonnes of grain every year. Of this, 180 million tonnes are used for human consumption, and 120 million tonnes (25% of the total) becomes livestock fodder. Of this fodder, 100 million tonnes is used to feed pigs, China’s second largest consumer of grain after people. Grain production is not the issue therefore; the question is about our sources of meat and milk. A Green Revolution based on ecology should not focus on the production of grain, but of straw. It should use ecological principles to solve food and environmental problems, not polluting methods such as fertilisers and pesticides. The Green Revolution must use existing species to increase humanity’s food supply, rather than manipulating genes.

The ecological solution is not to raise grain production directly, but to utilise the 50% of China's crop weight that is currently discarded, which is mostly straw, and use it to produce more food, animal fodder and fertiliser. This will greatly increase the productivity of China’s land. The large quantities of organic fertiliser that can be produced as a by-product will increase the harvests from large quantities of low-quality and medium-quality land, indirectly increasing grain production.

China has 1.831 billion mu (around 1,221,000 square kilometres) of cultivatable land, of which 155 million mu (around 133, 000 square kilometres) are salt-affected and 1 billion mu (around 667, 000 square kilometres) is arid. Genetic engineering will not be enough to grow grain in these regions. At the same time, China produces 600 to 700 million tonnes of straw every year, which represents a fresh weight of 1.8 to 2.1 billion tonnes. This could feed 180 to 210 million tonnes of livestock, which would provide, at a conservative estimate, 72 to 84 million tonnes of meat. Assuming five portions of grain are equivalent to one portion of meat, China’s annual straw production generates the equivalent of a further 360 to 420 million tonnes of grain, a figure twice current production levels. Animals and microorganisms can convert the currently-unused straw to food and grain, something that no technology can currently do. Of course, we cannot use all of this straw, but with technological advances, using half of it would be entirely plausible. Currently, 73% of China’s straw is burnt, discarded or used in other low-efficiency ways, so there is certainly a lot of scope for its increased use.  

We must also turn to China’s mobile fertiliser factories: the country’s cows and sheep. The average cow produces 25 kilograms of dung per day, and 50% of China’s straw production could feed from 360 to 420 million head of cattle: a total of 3.28 to 3.83 billion tonnes of dung per year. This entirely organic fertiliser would contain between 5.67 and 6.62 million tonnes of nitrogen, equivalent to between 28.35 and 33.10 million tonnes of ammonium sulphate. This approaches China’s total annual fertiliser production of 33.90 million tonnes, but unlike chemical fertilisers, the use of this organic fertiliser will not harm the soil or cause pollution. Tests I carried out at Shandong Agricultural University show that if the amount of organic matter in the soil is raised from 1% to 5%, the amount of fertiliser used can be cut in half and still increase productivity.

Processed straw will feed cattle and the dung will produce biogas. The sludge from biogas production can then be returned to the fields as organic fertiliser. China already has this technology, but its use is seasonal and decentralised. Straw production is difficult to centralise, and should be collected and used locally on a local level. There is already the technology to convert straw into fodder for cows and sheep.

Malnutrition is a major issue in developing countries, and meat is much more nutritious than grain. Using straw to produce meat, milk and fertilisers provides countries with necessary nutrition and organic fertiliser for their soil. All nations, particularly developing ones, should launch a new Green Revolution in which ecology plays a leading role, both solve food security issues and improve the environment.

 

Jiang Gaoming is a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Botany. He is also vice secretary-general of the UNESCO China-MAB (Man and the Biosphere) Committee and a member of the UNESCO MAB Urban Group.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

支持转基因食品

蒋高明阐明了为什么人类对基因改造不适当的兴趣, 和有机耕作如何提供对中国的食品安全。然而,我相信他理解到大众所关切的是中国市场充满了转基因食物。根据SciDev.net所报告:在2002年,“600名分别在北京、上海和广州接受访问的市民,有87%赞成对贴标签于转基因食品这一建议。超出2/3的市民说,他们对含有转基因成分的食品失去了信心。”这篇文章上却没有提到这一点:转基因食品没有经过临床实验、性质危险、超出了危害传统性的耕作惯例、可能对人类和动物的健康造成威胁。SL

Support for GM

Gaoming Jiang makes a clear case for why an interest in genetic modification (GM) is misplaced, and how organic farming can provide for China's food security. But I think he's underestimating the public concern that surrounds GM foods in China.
According to a report on SciDev.net : In 2002, "Eighty seven per cent of 600 people interviewed in the cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou agreed with the suggestion that GM products should be labelled. More than two-thirds said that they would lose confidence in a brand if its products were found to contain GM ingredients."
This is an aspect the article doesn't mention: GM food's untested, dangerous nature, which beyond endangering traditional farming practices, could pose a threat to human and animal health. -SL

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

有机食品的价格太高了!

在中国,有机食品的价格比普通食品高得多。对很多中国人来说,这样的价格是可望而不可及的。

但是,是不是因为有机农业还不成规模,所以市场价格还很高?如果,成规模了,是不是价格也就降下来了?

否则,怎样来推广有机农业呢?

Organic food is too expensive!

In China, organic food is much more expensive than ordinary ones. Most Chinese could not afford to buy always organic food.

But I want to know if the expansion of organic farming in the future will help bring down the prices.

Otherwise, how to promote the organic agriculture?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

绿色革命的意义

革命首先是为了吃饱饭。人口激增,张嘴要饭,基因技术提高粮食产量,解决生存问题,无可厚非;并且创造新品种,还让人吃好。进化中的人类需要摄入新食物,以改良人种,羽化成仙。
革命还要保护“就餐环境”,反对浪费。将一切物质纳入资源综合利用的生态循环中,与自然和谐相处。-YL

The meaning of “Green Revolution”

In the first place, revolution is to reduce famine. Sharp rise of population with parallel increase of food demand, application of genetically engineering to enhance food production for the existence of all living are beyond reproach; invention of new species, and also to provide people to have better food. Human, in the progress of evolution require ingesting quality food for the improvement of group ethnic, which will lead to longevity. However, revolution must also save the “dining environment”which oppose wasting. Integrate of all matters into the ecological cycle, to utilize as combination of resources, to interact well with the natural environment. - YL

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

转基因食品尚未被全世界接受,甚至在有的国家被明令禁止进入市场,中国也并没完全证实它就百分之百的安全。

是啊民以食为天,但如果我们的食物并不安全,重者危及声明,你还有胃口吗?

Who will protect us?

The GM food has not been recognized by the whole world, some are even banned or off the market because of the security problem. China also has not completely tested and made sure it's 100% safe. Yes, we do need to eat, but if what we eat is not secure, we may be even die from it. Will you eat?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

看好有机农业

投资有机农业,在现在看来个不错的选择。面对现在诸多的食品,环境安全隐患,越来越多的人把注意力放在了饮食健康和生态的可持续发展上。加之生物科技的快速发展和国家政策的支持,需求必定带来新的供给,关键是如何将有机农业安全化,产业化。

Organic farming is good

Investing in organic farming now seems a good choice. More and more people today pay more attention to a healthy diet and eco-sustainable development, as they face food and environmental safety hazards. With the rapid development of biotechnology and the support of national policies, demand will surely bring new supply. The industrialization and safety of organic farming will be crucial.