Redefining ROI for True Sustainability

It's been a long time since I posted anything on Muddy Monday, but a couple of things have been running, or I should say growing (rooting), in my mind. This post will touch on what we are doing to the potential future and to the fourth revolution of agriculture. I will write on some philosophical, some mathematical, and some random things, but for sure, I will make it like an old-age drama episode and slowly share my thoughts. I hardly get time to write things now.

But this thought starts with one question:

Is yield enough to define things, that everything is running perfectly on the ground, or are we missing something?

To start with, okay, let's say we spent X dollar and we want Y yield (and everything run around the yield goal from fertilizer recommendation to farm equipment), but what about the increased soil organic matter, consequently better water holding capacity, what about nutritional quality, and bioactive compound in food, and maybe we are reducing inputs and energy cost (we still have to pay for energy and subscriptions of technology service), may be free nuclear energy in future, but thats long way, are we accounting all these in our equations? I am not forgetting the importance of yield, I will come back to it.

Even our current models are more defining how the row spacing, seeding rate, or use of drone spray vs. big 120 ft back-on tractor sprayer will define the yield, not any other ecosystem services (carbon models are there; I will come back again on this too) . Yield is important to feed the growing population, and the second and third revolution was centered on that, but can we define yield differently, having the same or increased yield but at the same time concerned about stewardship? What about when all the studies say an increase of 1% of SOM on average increases 1% water holding capacity? What is the cost of that, may you be reducing irrigation costs or getting more yield in drought years, but are we accounting for that. I guess I will end the first part of the conversation on this question and also with the potential of how new technology can be an answer to a lot of questions (to reflect, the image on this post is created with Midjourney).

Let me add one thing that is important: Sometimes, we blame the past or even the current agricultural systems to justify the importance of conservation, but people have done what was necessary at that moment of time to save and improve life, and it is our responsibility to take it from there and improve it, not to blame the people who have saved famines.

Let's see a breakdown of yield and what is happening.

Over the past 60 years, yields of all major staple crops have dramatically increased (see Figure 1). We can now produce the same amount of food on the same land used in 1960 but with over 250% higher yields (Figure 2). Yes, the population has also grown (though it may decline soon, given current trends), but our ability to produce food has kept pace. We’re getting better every year, with improved crop varieties that are pest-resistant, high-yielding, nutrient-use efficient, and tolerant to abiotic stress. Alongside these advances, we’ve seen the development of better farm machinery and more efficient fertilizers.

Now, the question is, if we are so good at producing more and more food for everyone, why are we still thinking or predicting a shortage in food? Do we need to keep producing more and more, or look for ways better use our production and resources.

Food Waste

Food waste is the biggest challenge we have right now. In a recent documentary, it is mentioned that if food waste was a country in terms of greenhouse gas emission (especially methane CH4), it would be the third largest country after China and the USA.