Since the 1970s, there has been a drop in rainfall in the wheat growing region of Western Australia, but this has not translated into a decline in wheat production. Indeed wheat production in Western Australia peaked in 2003 at 11 million tonnes.
The 2003 season was a good one for winter crop production across Australia with record production of just over 43 million tonnes.
Data on crop production from ABARE.
A new paper* in the journal Climate Change indicates that wheat production in Western Australia has not been greatly affected by the drop in rainfall because most of the reduction in rainfall has occurred in June and July, a period when rainfall often exceeds crop demand.
Indeed farming systems, like natural systems, are complex.
___________________________
*Impacts of recent climate change on wheat production systems in Western Australia, by Fulco Ludwig, Stephen Milroy and Senthold Asseng, Climate Change, 2008.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m10h53183l763734/fulltext.pdf
Hat tip to Paul Biggs for the reference.
Paul’s new blog is now up and running, have a look http://climateresearchnews.com/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Using my well trained blog powers of perception, I see a steep decline in wheat production since 2002, and if we follow the current trend, there will be absolutely no wheat grown in Australia in just two years.
This year will be good. They had good rains earlier in the year (though we had a very dry August, which was sad).
The main problem with drought in WA is for the Perth water supply. Most of Perth’s drinking water now comes from local aquifers (which is actually a far better way of storing water than a dam). Problem is, is that demand is greater than the recharge of the aquifer – hence the desal plant.
The steep decline in 2006 must be where Bernhards “delayed reversal of the CO2-fertilisation effect” has kicked in now and forevermore………(not).
Lets set aside “climate change” and Perth’s water supplies as distractions, and concentrate what this paper is about. The impact of reduced June /July rainfall on wheat production.
First, any wheat farmer in this rainfall belt knows that the opening rains from mid April to May determine sowing time. Excellent opeining rains can provide enough soil moisture to carry a crop through the colder months of June and July. Rainfall shortfall in June/July makes spring rains critical, regardless of opening rain amount.
I do nor argue that rainfall statistics show an average slight decline in June/July rainfall. But I do argue with the assumption that technological improvements over that period have been sufficiently taken into account in this research.
Crop variety research has moved towards selecting for drought resistat and salt tolerant wheat varieties, and this has resulted in a steady increase in wheat yields, as farmers are quick to test variety breeder’s claims re new varieties.
A steady incremental wheat yield of 1-2% per year is enough to account for historic increase in yield during a period of slightly decreased June/July rainfall.
While linking this report to climate change (funding?), extrapolating to justifying the models as a tool to help farmers combat climate change is dangerous for farmers. As a farmer, I would consider the historic BoM rainfall data, combined with my own knowledge of my area, as more reliable than such simulated computer models for making costly decisions.
Helen
Yes.
There is no substitute for empirical data combined with hard experience.
Helen has highlighted an important omission in the various IPCC climate projections. Here we have evidence of a 1-2% improvement in productivity despite an adverse climatic impact.
Yet, the clowns at the IPCC have not even factored in technology based improvements in emission efficiency, let alone technology improvements in our capacity to adjust to changing circumstances.
This, as Luke once demonstrated on this blog, has been dismissed with an ignorant throw away line about “technofix”. As if some glib inflexion is all it takes to eliminate one of the most consistent trends in the life of man, our rate of productivity improvement.
The facts are that we are now approaching the point where a partial moisture profile can be maintained in stasis, through weed control, for more than a complete seasonal cycle. And this can allow soil microbial activity to continue building soil fertility while the the above ground paddock remains fallow. And it will then only require a partial addition to that profile in the following year to produce ideal conditions for the delayed crop.
It throws out the text book on what constitutes marginal or unsuitable crop land by altering the frequency and or spacing of the crop.
And there is no doubting that farming will see an increased proportion of “closed water systems”. That is, closed greenhouse type cultivation where the same small volume of water is transpired and recaptured each day for the life of the crop.
It will only take a relatively minor increase in the price of water, and the resulting price of food, and these membrane based closed water systems will become profitable.
Ian Mott
They can’t factor in technical improvements because these are intrinsically impossible to predict.
Based on AGW logic it should be possible to predict the morphology and nature of the next new species – aftere all we have all the data.
Ian Mott,
Those “closed water systems” really work!
I’m surprised that Australia doesn’t have a desal plant based on this principle rather than the expensive R/O systems.
Cost nothing to run.
SD” “I’m surprised that Australia doesn’t have a desal plant based on this principle rather than the expensive R/O systems.”
I’m sure the government can find some excise excuse to tax and make it more expensive to run.
SJT says…..”Using my well trained blog powers of perception, I see a steep decline in wheat production since 2002, and if we follow the current trend, there will be absolutely no wheat grown in Australia in just two years.”
Ahh…. But your superior powers of perception would also note then, that this could in no way be attributed to Climate, as far as rainfall would be concerned though?…
So then, your percieved decline would be entirely of Bureaucratic and Greeny design… ‘eh?
Or the socialists crashing the economy by giving away free money on inflated housing markets perhaps…?
———————————————
“Or the socialists crashing the economy by giving away free money on inflated housing markets perhaps…?”
They don’t give away free money they give away someone else’s money.
…… LOL , Jan …. I stand corrected… You are indeed right.
In fact, they use other people’s money to erode the value of the money they borrow from other people. And then manipulate the CPI to delude those other people that they were repaid in full.
“Or the socialists crashing the economy by giving away free money on inflated housing markets perhaps…?”
Are you being Critical of George W and his bail out of Fannie and Freddie?
Capitalists are always rescuing the socialists from their economic disasters – its out lot in life.
After all in order to have stupid socialists one needs capitalists. No capitalists no socialists.
I think most of the crop efficiency improvements have come from technological intreoductions including crop protection and nutrition, rather than from plant breeding.
In fact, in a trial conducted some years ago comparing cultivars from 1900-1970 and the current suite of varieties, there was precious little between them. The only significant change being with the introduction of short strawed varieties from CIMMYT in the 1960’s.
There has also been some great implementation of zero-till sowing systems in the last 10 years, along with recognition of serious deficencies (K) in WA cropping soils, and this has allowed productivity to take a big jump.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Climate Change as per the conclusions of the posted paper.
Charles, the big yield improvements did come with the introduction of the dwarf wheats (short stalks, bigger heads), but since then variety breeding has incrementally improved yield, over time making quite a difference.
The zero till and minimum till systems have mostly increased profitability by reducing fuel and machinery costs. For my area, yield improvements are there, but, like improved varieties, incremental.
Regardless of these small differences of opinion, you are quite correct in pointing out that improvements in wheat yield (per ha) have nothing to do with Climate Change, as per the conclusions of the posted paper. Those conclusions were a creative bit of a stretch.
Well there is no mystery to it is there?
The yield increases with CO2. You have technology and CO2 rising. So the good years get increasingly better. Forgetting the bad years we see a steady top-line increase.
Thats CO2 with the other things just helping the CO2 along.
The wheat, probably always somewhat water-stressed, will be coping better with that water-stress because of CO2. And the CO2 will also fertilise it directly. So there is a two-way helping-hand right there.
So imagine what a disaster it will be when CO2 flattens and then turns down.
I can’t find how to sub to this thread without talking bull.
It has so much to do with, when it falls! Here in the Mallee of SA we are hoping the forcast just out, is rain for us, very timely. The hope of a good crop this year is important to the communities of the area and SA.
fluff4
“The yield increases with CO2. You have technology and CO2 rising. ”
So we all agree CO2 is increasing. I just get confused with all the people saying CO2 isnt’ increasing.
No-one says that. You are just lying again.
Is there anything you WON’T lie about?
SJT
You really have a problem – no one has ever denied that CO2 is increasing sop how about justifying your post with some evidence.
You people that are in the science business. You serious scientists on the climate rationalist side of the argument…
… How could you have let them get away with this?
Just let them get the jump on you, and of to (in the medium term) and insurmountable lead…. based almost alone on relentless lying by idiots like SJT?
How could you have done it? And let the rest of the community down so horribly?
I suppose really the climate rationalists on this site are the exception. But then how could your colleagues have allowed this?
When as we have seen its all based around relentless lying, unscience, and 24 hour tendentiousness?
Frank Luff
Have a look at this article published in IEEE Spectrum magaine about electric rain in Mexico.
Well worth a try I think.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj&keywords=rain#dest
The IEEE is the largest professional scientific society on earth.
Graeme,
It’s a bit more complex than you think.
1. AGW has it’s political genesis with Thatcher in her battle with the coal unions, and hence the setting up of the Hadley centre.
2. Climate study is basically geography which is a social science with a technical slant.
3. Apart from atmosphere physics, the only science which is concerned with geoclimate is geology – sedimentary rocks are the product of weathering, and thus geologists need to understand climate. Continental drift theory was proposed to explain the ancient glacial deposits in areas which are now not Arctic.
3. No geologists were involved with the IPCC process since it is supposed not to be in our area of expertise.
4. Those geoscientists who do support AGW seem to be politically sympathetic to the political left philosophies – in all its hues.
5. Adherents of AGW seem to be philosophically Platonists/Socratists while the sceptics are Aristotelians.
6. The political left are naturally attracted to the public service and government funding of anything.
7. AGW is the product of institutionalised science – and thus politically directed. To think otherwise is to admit to a worriesome naivity. Those of us who can’t cut the mustard in the real world tend to seel solace in a public service career, which is not to denigrate the small group of exceptions.
THey get away with it because they are in charge. You know as well as I that most governments are enamoured with Kenyesian economics and the the same philosophical mindset behind that is behind AGW.
We haven’t been able to enlilghten the Keynesians so how on earth are we enlighten the AGW crowd?
If we cannot enlighten them we will have to kill them. Its them or us.
Just joking.
Mass-Sackings will do just fine. Its them or us still. But the cure is mass-sackings and not violence.
Graeme and Louis
Cohenite keeps posting that Beck travesty that claims that CO2 has fluctuated wildly in the near past. Ranging well over current levels in the 19th Century. I think this is what SJT is on about.
Graeme, do you talk about the “Anglo-Celtic tradition” as well?
Don’t make excuses for his flat out lying.
And particularly don’t do it by implied-lying yourself. You know damn well that you didn’t lay a glove on Beck and we have to take his work seriously.
Which changes everything. It means we might not get to go through the coming little-ice-age with the consolation of high CO2 levels which is truly a disaster.
The very shape of the rising CO2-curve implies the rightness of Becks thesis at least to the extent that it tells us that CO2 can free-fall very quickly. The strongest paleo-signal might be 800 years but just the yearly fluctuation shows that Beck could well be right:
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/co2-levels-can-drop-precipitously-and-will-drop-soon/
NT,
Beck has quoted published data of chemically determined CO2 analyses of air prior to the introduction of modern measurement techniques.
You have no idea what you are writing about. The science behind the historical CO2 measurements which Beck has pointed is the same that forms the basis of modern biology and organic chemistry.
You have to one of the more gullible of the useful idiots polluting this blog.
Fernand Braudell had some really good analysis on how the average ear of wheat in medieval europe had only 5 grains on it. So that meant the King got 1 of them, the local Baron and church shared another while a third was kept as seed for next year’s crop. This left the poor farmer to fight it out with the thieves, rats and mildew for the other two grains.
This meant that they were effectively taxed 50% of their gross margin which maintained them in a continual state of abject poverty.
The addition of just one extra grain to each ear of wheat had a remarkable impact. The King got his fifth (1.2grns), the Baron and church shared their fifth (1.2grns), and after the seed for next year was taken out the farmer was left with 2.6 grains or a massive 30% increase in after tax income.
Helen might be able to advise us how many grains are found on the average ear of wheat these days.
“Beck has quoted published data of chemically determined CO2 analyses of air prior to the introduction of modern measurement techniques.”
So let him do some measurements now. I’d like to see his results.
What do you mean by that SJT?
NT had a theory that you aren’t bullshitting all the time. Instead his theory goes that you are incapable of saying what you mean.
“What do you mean by that SJT?”
I’f like to see some chemical analysis of CO2 done now, in the same way the CO2 was analysed by the scientists in Beck’s paper, and see those results.
Hi Ian
About 28 -30 grains of wheat per head is average, in a low rainfall wheat growing area. But grains per head is not the same as yield. Depends on how good the season is, how many tillers each plant sends up, and how good the spring rains, whether each head fills 2 or three grains across.
In higher rainfall areas more tillers. I would expect that English medieval crops had lots of tillers. A better comparison of yield would be by area, ie bushels/bags per acre or tonnes per ha.
An easy conversion between imperial and metric measurents for wheat yield (barley and oats different formula):
3 bushells = 1 bag. 1 bag/acre = approx 0.2 t/ha. that’s English Imperial measurements. I beleive the USA may have a different bushell measurement. Where we used to say 5 bags/acre that translates to 1 t/ha. Formula holds good up to 18 bags/acre.
If you can get hold of medieval yields in bushels per acre, you can easily translate to modern t/ha for comparison.
Right so SJT. You are wanting him to carry on his proxy methodology to the present day and see if it squares up with the known data right?
What we want to see with this wheat production is if its a general increase around the world.
If Western Australia is a growing area limited by water availability than the CO2 is helping it two ways. But there may be other areas where the CO2 is only helping via direct fertilisation since these other areas may have more than adequate water nearly all the time.
Helen Mahar
Just from curiosity, where are you?
I know people from the Broomehill area – Marshalls, Paganonis.
Helen, I seem to recall that Braudell was suggesting, one seed = 1 head of 5 grains. This was fundamental to the comparative backwardness of european agriculture compared to asia where one rice seed = multiple heads of many grains each. Hence the proportion of the total harvest needed for the following year’s sowing was much lower in the East.
Selective breeding of wheat varieties to increase the number of heads per seed and grains per head has largely removed this disparity. And it must be said that this completely refutes the green notion, that yield improvements have come at the expense of the environment. This kind of efficiency improvement comes at minimal additional cost to the environment.
Graeme, it is wrong to assign all the improvement to CO2 because the entire “minimal till” and stubble retention revolutions took place at the same time. CO2 is, and will remain, a bit player.
IMO the data on crop production from ABARE shows us that this coming wheat crop is only about half of what it should be.
Consider this observation.
While I was away last week the western red soils blew into Canberra and covered all cars left out in the open from the ACT to the NSW east coast. Flying south to Tasmania and returning I can say our country through much of rural NSW is still the driest place this side of the black stump.
Hi Ian
First, I am stunned by the apparent low yields of medieval wheat crops. That would roughly equate to modern yields (sown at 60 kg/ha) of 0.3 t/ha or 1.5 bsh /acre. Wheat yields have come a long way.
One reason so much seed would have been needed in medieval times is that they used to broadcast sow. A lot of seed would have been lost to bird heaven.
Louis, I live in SA.
Oops. 1.5 bags/acre.
Fernand Braudel “The Structures of Every day Life” p.120. “Wheat’s unpardonable fault was its low yield…….Where ever one looks from the 15th to18th century, the results are disappointing. For every grain sown, the harvest was usually no more than five and sometimes less…….. four grains were therefore produced for consumption.”
So essentially staying in Europe. p.112.
“All the bread crops added together never created abundance ….. p.114….Wheat cannot be grown on the same land for two years running…..It has to be rotated…..”
“Jethro Tull (1674-1741), one of the apostles of the English agricultural revolution, recommended repeated tilling as strongly as manuring and rotation of crops.”
And in the words of a Savoy landowner (1771) “In certain places we wear ourselves out with incessant tilling and we till four or five times in order to have a single harvest of wheat – which is often of very mediocre quality.”
Braudel can’t help himself but to always go for the clincher quote p.104…..”Jenkinson, the leading merchant of the Muscovy Company, arrived in Moscow in 1558 from distant Archangel and proceeded down the Volga. Before reaching Astrakan, he saw on the river bank “a great herd of Nagay Tartars”. These nomadic sheperds (“towne or house they had none”) who robbed and murdered and knew none but the skills of war, who neither ploughed or sowed, and who had nothing but scorn for the Russians they fought. How could such Christians , they said, be men, since they only ate wheat, “the top of the weede”, but drank it too (since beer and vodka are made from grain).
There you go Helen! These are great books.