How often do you ask people “who keeps you alive?” and how few reply “agriculture”? It seems that nobody eats food any more nor depends upon the fibres, fuels and medicines that farming provides. The gaps in knowledge can be huge, especially when it is claimed that having faith or a personal trainer is all that is needed. The reasons for this are not too hard to find. Agriculture has been amazingly successful over the past centuries at producing what people need, almost anonymously, such that in developed countries surpluses abound and the expectation is that “milk comes from the fridge”. A relatively few provide what the many want and the many, particularly in the developed world, do not have much of an idea of the process of food production. Will these conditions remain? Maybe!

The principles of food production are universal. You typically need a soil to grow plants in, water and sufficient nutrients for the plants to produce within the limits of the environment and then an ability to harvest products from those plants directly, or indirectly via animals (you cannot grow crops everywhere) before you then process the plant products into the food, fibre, fuel or medicines (especially in the developing world) that are then consumed by people. The last ten or so millennia have seen tremendous gains in the efficiency of this process. Can it continue? Maybe!

The world has finite resources that can be used for agriculture. The amount of fresh water that comes down as rain and is directly used for plant growth or used for irrigation is limited. For years there have been warnings about the scarcity of water and “water wars” are going to increase. In thirty years of so China expects to have committed all its readily available water. That is without considering the likely declining rainfall and snow cover for their “water tower”, the Tibetan plateau, which covers 40 per cent of that country. Climate changes appear to be resulting in less rain, in mid-latitudes, and increased variability in that rainfall. Droughts are going to be more likely. Can these more problematic water resources be used to feed the world? Maybe!

As human settlement has increased the area of unused arable land has dramatically decreased. Most of the best land is already used for agriculture or for urban expansion. Any expansion of crop production could be dependent upon drier and less fertile soils and the destruction of remnant forests and grasslands. You may be able to cultivate a soil, but that doesn’t mean it is automatically cropable. Goyder’s line in South Australia is a reality check on the limits of agriculture. Part of the limits for cropping includes the increasing cost of fertiliser. The world has plenty of phosphorus, but little is recycled, and the more easily extracted forms are declining. Nitrogen fertiliser costs are directly linked to energy costs. Is there a real limit as to how far productive agriculture can expand across the landscape? Maybe!

The world has become dependent upon fossil fuels and modern agriculture depends heavily on oil to drive machinery and to produce the fertilisers and other inputs required for plant and animal production. As oil prices go from $100 to $200 a barrel, the input costs to agriculture will escalate. Developed countries can afford that for a while, but not those in the developing world. The UN Food Program officials have been confronted with a 30 per cent (for corn) and 130 per cent (for wheat) rise in food costs in the past year. This is doubling the number of people (to 25+ per cent of 6b) who can no longer afford to feed themselves adequately. The energy inputs for food production often exceed the energy harvested in grain or other foods. Biofuels redress that balance but may only be a stopgap as they don’t always result in a positive energy balance when all inputs are considered. The more biofuels produced the less land there is to feed the world. Can we develop alternative energy sources that do not increase the rate of climate change and are available soon enough to cover for declining oil supplies? Maybe!

Human populations dominate the globe and their impact is obvious everywhere. Today’s 6b people will become 9b in 30-40 years, but they will want to consume as much as 13b would today. As societies have become more affluent, rural communities often decline and fewer and fewer people are involved in agriculture. Can we double the quantity and quality of food produced across the globe in 30-40 years? Maybe!

Can we turn “maybe” into “yes”? This is one of the greatest challenges humankind has faced. The combination of rising populations and rising energy and input costs, relative to prices for agricultural products, overlaid with considerable uncertainty about climate change is creating a set of challenges that need to be addressed.  The scale of the likely changes during the 21st century means that gentle, incremental change may not solve it. Solutions need to be found that not only satisfy the developed world but also enable the developing world to attain the levels of lifestyle and security they aspire to. The risk of war over resources is more likely to increase than decrease, unless people feel their basic needs are being satisfied. More imaginative solutions will be needed throughout the 21st century to deliver agricultural products to the world. Farmers will make improvements in the basics of what they already do, but they are not readily able to investigate alternative systems of food, fibre, fuel and medicine production that require different sets of skills.

Unfortunately across the globe, growth in expenditure on agricultural R&D has been declining for some time and not keeping pace with the growing demand for agricultural products. In high-income countries growth in expenditure has become negative. Australia has a proud record in agricultural R&D, but that is being lost. Current estimates are that there is a demand for 2000 agricultural graduates p.a., but at present there are only 800 graduating each year. If we wanted to double the output of R&D to find the imaginative solutions required then that means Australia is only producing 20 per cent of the likely needs. Developing a strong skill base in how to feed the world, particularly under variable and drier climates, should be an Australian speciality. That speciality would serve Australia well internationally. We would be able to earn considerably more goodwill and export income, from that knowledge than is done today.

Australian farmers, research & development organisations and Governments need to increase the work being done to understand the impact of current and future changes on agriculture and to find suitable solutions to these global and local problems. Incremental change may not be adequate. Innovative solutions that improve the efficiency of sustainable production under variable and drier climates need to be a particular focus. This research will be long-term, will need to be done in a systems context with farmers and have some risk, but the benefits will be considerable. To ensure the success of this program it is essential that the community at large is committed and in partnership with the respective agencies, farmers and rural communities. This challenge will require a directed Tertiary education program that encourages students to take on and find solutions for these major problems.

An exciting challenge now exists for young Australians to join together and develop the solutions that will not only solve the problems confronting the climate change world, but to also ensure that that all communities across the globe are adequately fed and do prosper. It is hard to imagine a bigger challenge confronting humankind. 

David Kemp is Professor of Farming Systems at Charles Sturt University