Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Resource Depletion and Agricultural Research and Development DUANE CHAPMAN RANDY BARKER Cornell University The problems that have occupied agricultural economists in the last 10 years have essentially been solved, given the framework within which these problems were articulated. In 1974, The Second Report to the Club of Rome carried this warning: In ten years food-needy man's back will be even closer to the wall, and in another ten years still closer. Is there really a chance that he will relax his pressure on the ecosystem, or will he continue all over to inflict irreparable damage on nature, which then will retaliate inexorably and mercilessly (1)? Twelve years later, world agricultural production has in aggre- gate outpaced population growth. The dominant conceptual frame- work in the 1980s is quite different, as noted by D. Gale Johnson: Intensity of cultivation increased in response to what might be called population pressure. Consequently, at least after a period of adjust- ment, instead of declining, food production per capita increased as population increased...in a world in which organized research has ef- fectively removed most of the restrictions on production that Ricardo and Malthus attributed to diminishing returns in agriculture (2). On average, the world's five billion people today are better fed than four billion people were in 1974. Agricultural production has been growing about 0.5 percent faster than world population (3). The production increase has been almost wholly in cereal yields per acre. This yield increase, in turn, follows agronomic innovations which require increasing intensity of energy use per hectare. Table 1 shows major world increases in tractor use, fertilizer application, 97
98 TABLE 1 Annual rates of increase in world agricultural production and inputs, 1975 to 1983 Agricultural production index 2.2% Cropland, sq. km 0.3% Cereal yields per ha. 2.5% Roots and tubers yields per ha. ⢠0.6% Irrigation, ha. 3.3% Pesticides, 1983$ 4.2% Tractors, per ha. 2.3% Source: World Resources Institute (WRI) 1986. pesticide inputs, and irrigation. The plunge in petroleum product prices since 1985 is certain to have accelerated this trend. Agricultural production is in aggregate sufficient for present and near-future population levels. The issues are to understand why food sufficiency remains a problem in some areas, how the finiteness of world petroleum resources will affect future agricultural develop- ment, and what the implications of long-run sustainability will be for research agendas. ECONOMIC THEORY OF RENEWABLE AND FINITE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES A conventional economic view might frame an optimization prob- lem for maximizing net social value. The value of agricultural con- sumption is a positive term, the value of resources used as inputs is a cost, and damage to human health and the environment is also a cost. It can be helpful to state this in a formal way to clarify the ba- sic logic and the philosophic problems associated with the economic perspective: fn ftPt&t.NjdQ-Ctpt.Rt.St.Lt.Kj-D^Xt) ^ max V â dt. [Ij J1987 e Let us examine the first term in the numerator, / P(Q,N)dQ. It contains several important assumptions. First, the value of produc- tion is measured monetarily. In Figure 1, the area under the demand
99 Agricultural production and consumption FIGURE 1 The economic measure of consumer value. curve at Q± gives, conceptually, the dollar value of aggregate produc- tion. Graphically, the monetary value of agricultural consumption is equal to A + B. In economic theory, this monetary measure of value is directly related to the underlying utility that individual con- sumers and households gain from their consumption. An important corollary of this first assumption is that participation in agricultural markets enhances social value. An agricultural African household that abandons self-production and consumption for market sales and purchases increases the social value of agricultural output. A second assumption in equation 1 is the irrelevance of equity or distribution of agricultural consumption: a dollar spent on food has the same value whether spent by a Zambian, Czechoslovak, or Ameri- can. A third assumption has aggregate value increasing directly with
100 population. In Figure 1, for example, the second demand curve P2 is associated with a higher future population level N2. Consequently, at the same price P*, consumption Q2 and consumer value are both higher with a higher world population JV2. While this paper is not necessarily an endorsement of these three assumptions, they should nonetheless be explicit. Obviously, at some future point population levels and agricultural production and consumption interact. A useful concept from bioeconomics is the slow approach over time to stable carrying capacity (4). World population eventually decelerates and asymptotically approaches carrying capacity N. It is assumed that this world carrying capacity N is dependent on sustainable yield for agricultural production. In Figure 1, total cost of agricultural output at population level NI could be equal to total revenue P*Qi. Graphically, total cost is area B. Economists define consumer surplus as the excess of consumer value over cost. This is area A. In summary, consumer value is A+ B, cost to consumers is B, and consumer surplus is A. Note that the higher population demand curve P2 would give a greater consumer surplus at the same price P*. In the second term in the numerator in equation 1, the cost term is C(Y,R,S,L,K). It is written to emphasize that average cost per unit production (C) is influenced by yield per hectare (Y), research expenditures (R), and the available supply of petroleum resources (5). Of course, labor (L) and capital (K) are at least as important, but the focus here is on resource and environmental dimensions. Table 1 has shown yield increases for cereals to be sizable at 2.2 percent annually. Many authors attribute this increase to research, education, and extension efforts. In the United States, for example, Braha and Tweeten argue that the domestic productivity growth of 1.8 percent annually is due to growth in farmers' education and public expenditure on research and extension in agricultural production (5). In an American context, they conclude that the economic rate of return has been about 50 percent. In a development context, Barker and Herdt summarize rice research studies and report a median rate of return of about 60 percent on research expenditures (6). As we shall see in the next section, the data imply that research has attained yield gains by developing responsiveness to energy intensive inputs. The third term in the numerator, D(X), reflects the damage attributable to the production process. The individual variables in the X vector include pesticide residues affecting agricultural workers and consumers, groundwater problems, and the possibility of climate
101 change. It must be recognized that both fossil fuel combustion and petroleum-based chemicals contribute to the two major types of cli- mate change being studied. One, known as the "greenhouse effect," leads to predictions of global warming while the other, ozone deple- tion, refers to reduced ozone screening of hazardous solar radiation which in turn increases skin cancer rates. The denominator of equation 1 also carries an important em- bodied assumption. The term ert discounts future periods from the perspective of today's decision-making. If r is an interest rate of 10 percent, for example, it means that a billion dollar damage incurred in 20 years is simply 14 percent as important today. In mathematical terms, the discount factor in the denominator of equation 1 defines the weights by which we, in 1987, reduce the significance of events affecting future generations. There are many alternative ways to define equation 1 formally, which could accommodate many of the problems just discussed. How- ever, the focus of this paper is energy use and agriculture. ENERGY INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE AND THIRD WORLD AUTOMOBILES Development economists generally have not considered resource availability or cost as major factors affecting agricultural develop- ment. Neither Hayami and Ruttan, de Janvry, Barker and Herdt, nor Mellor and Gavian consider them a problem (7). However, Table 2 shows the considerable energy intensity embodied in modern agri- cultural practices in the United States. As estimated by Pimentel, 6.9 billion calories are required per hectare for a yield of 7,000 kg per hectare(S). In U.S. measure, this is 11.2 MBtu energy per acre to produce 112 bushels per acre (9). Nitrogen fertilizer is the single largest category of energy use. The United States is not unique in fertilizer usage, however, since many countries, including China and Japan, use more fertilizer per hectare. Increasingly, synthetic fertilizers are replacing organic fer- tilizers in developing countries. There is an important resource problem in anticipating future growth in energy-intensive technologies. The future price and avail- ability of oil will depend upon growth in Third World use of automo- biles and air travel. In the United States, transportation uses more than two-thirds of petroleum consumption. For the Third World,
102 TABLE 2 Energy use in corn production in the United States per hectare INPUT FACTOR AND Energy MAJOR ENERGY TYPE QUANTITY PER HECTARE Mcal/ha Petroleum-Intensive: Gasoline 26 liters 264 Diesel 77 liters 882 L.P. Gas 80 liters 616 Seeds 18 kg 446 Insecticides 1.4 kg 120 Herbicides 7.0 kg 778 Transportation 200.0 kg 51 Total Petroleum-Intensive Inputs per Hectare: 3,157 Natural Gas-Intensive: nitrogen fertilizer 161 kg 2,220 Coal-Intensive Industrial Inputs Machinery 55 kg of machinery 990 Electricity 33 4 kWh 96 Phosphorus 72 kg 216 Potassium 84 kg 134 Lime 426 kg 134 Total Coal-Intensive Industrial Inputs per Hectare: 1,570 TOTAL ENERGY INPUT per HECTARE: 6,947 Note: Yield is 7,000 kg corn grain per hectare, equivalent to 24,500 Meal. The calorie output per calories input in energy is 3.5. Drying does not use conventional energy, but may use 7,000 kg stover. Labor input is 12 hours/ha. Sources are Pimental and Hall (p. 8), and Pimentel, 1980 (pp. 9-14, 23-26, 46-47, 55, 72) (see footnote 8). Since crude oil averages 5.8 MBtu per barrel, 3,157 Mcal/ha is equivalent to 2.2 barrels of oil per hectare, or 0.9 barrel per acre. Pimental (1980, pp. 15-16) argues that these last figures should be increased 23.5% to reflect energy needed to produce crude, refine it, and deliver the products to farm use. the same fraction probably applies: two-thirds of petroleum is used for automobiles, trucks, and airplanes. Agricultural production itself uses a modest one percent of the U.S. total annual energy consumption of 75 Q (10). With world consumption at 300 Q, global agricultural energy consumption is probably much smaller than three Q.
103 However, the supply relationships for energy use in agriculture depend upon non-agricultural consumption of energy. The question is particularly important for petroleum. In 1987, proven world re- serves are 700 billion barrels, and world consumption will be 20-25 billion barrels. In addition to proven reserves, recent geological esti- mates of undiscovered oil are about 450 billion barrels (11). Clearly, at a use level of 20-25 billion barrels annually, conventional oil at 1.2 trillion barrels would last about 50 years. However, there is a major problem. Per capita oil use in the United States is 24 barrels per year. Most of this is used in trans- portation. If the current world population of five billion attains the same consumption level, global use will be 120 billion barrels annu- ally. Alternatively, if the global population doubles while per capita use attains one-half the current U.S. level, the same 120 billion bar- rel annual figure results. The ratio now of remaining resources to annual use would be .nine years. The continued availability of oil at current prices for the high U.S. consumption rate seems to require that developing countries abstain from similar consumption or higher population, or both. The changes in world attitudes about oil availability over the last 15 years are due to fluctuations in market structure rather than changes in estimates of resource availability. In 1982, global oil prices reached $34 per barrel, and concern about exhaustion was high. At that time, remaining resources were about 1.3 trillion barrels. Five years later, 100 billion barrels have been consumed, bringing remaining resources to about 1.2 trillion barrels. However, since the price of oil is currently $15-$20 per barrel, there is no concern about availability. The rapid short-run fluctuations in market power and monopoly pricing should not be confused with the gradual depletion of con- ventional oil. Many agricultural energy inputs can use other energy forms besides oil. Table 2, for example, shows that nitrogen fertilizer is usually derived from natural gas as an ammonia feedstock. The remaining resource picture is comparable for natural gas. Table 3 illustrates that present world consumption levels permit, arithmetically speaking, 121 years of consumption. However, if world use attained the U.S. per capita level, that number would decrease to 22 years. As conventional oil and natural gas resources are consumed, we approach the point where impending exhaustion impacts on prices. It seems clear that energy intensive high technology agriculture can
104 TABLE 3 Remaining global oil and gas resources Oil Gas Quantity Remaining 1,150 billion barrels 7,575 trillion ft Energy content, remaining resources 6,700 Q 7,600 Q ft8 Current annual use 20-25 billion barrels 60-75 trillion S World use at U.S. rate 122 billion barrels 350 trillion ft Ratio, remaining resources to current use 51 years 121 years to world use at U.S. rate 9 years 22 years Note: Quantity remaining is the sum of proven reserves and geologically estimated undiscovered resources. Actual studies use probability distributions; this table is derived from modal values. We have used about one-third of our original endowment of oil. Masters (footnote 11), modified by recent consumption data in Monthly Energy Review and Oil and Gas Journal. continue to expand for several decades. However, at some point in the next century accelerating energy prices will require a new direction in production technology. Hopefully, agricultural researchers will be aware of this problem a priori rather than post hoc. Future research will need to focus on high yields with less petroleum and natural gas inputs. Several objections may be raised to this conclusion. First, can today's alternative energy technologies provide substitutes for con- ventional oil and gas? The answer is negative. Synthetic gas from coal will cost $16 to $20 per 1,000 cubic feet. Synthetic gasoline from coal is more costly, in the range of more than $2 per gallon in production costs (12). Second, can biomass energy substitute for oil and gas in agri- culture? The general answer is, of course, affirmative. Animal and plant wastes are common forms of nitrogen fertilizer and heat en- ergy. Brazil has shown that sugar can be the fuel basis for automotive transportation. The problem, however, is cost. It appears that mak- ing biomass liquid fuel is so costly that it cannot be sustained. In other words, it is technically not feasible to visualize an economy in which tractors and trucks are manufactured with biomass energy and then used on biomass farms with biomass fuel to produce liquid fuels
105 for general non-agricultural use. The most widely used processes today require one gallon of conventional petroleum to produce one gallon of conventional ethanol (13). Brazil's debt problem is in part caused by the massive subsidies necessary to support its sugar-based ethanol program. Finally, can coal or nuclear power replace oil and natural gas as energy sources for agricultural inputs? The answer is not clear. Increased global coal use may create global environmental problems with respect to climate change, upper atmosphere ozone depletion, lower atmosphere ozone pollution, and acid deposition. Nuclear power in the 1980s is much more costly than conventional electricity sources. The immediate conclusion, then, is that energy intensive agricul- ture can continue to expand for some decades. Ultimately, however, agricultural research will need to focus on high yields with less con- ventional oil and natural gas requirements. If developing countries move towards U.S. levels of oil and gas use, this point will arrive much sooner. FERTILIZER AND FOOD Ruttan notes that: We are, in the closing years of the twentieth century, completing one of the most remarkable transitions in the history of agriculture. Prior to this century, almost all increases in food production were obtained by bringing new land into production...By the end of this century almost all of the increase in world food production must come from higher yieldsâfrom increased output per hectare. (14) About one-half of the growth in yield per hectare will come from increased application of chemical fertilizers, principally nitrogeneous fertilizers. Depending on a limited resource as a major source of food production is not a new phenomenon and has been a matter of public concern since the late 18th century. As in the past, we must search for technologies based on less limiting resources that can be substituted for fossil fuel-based fertilizers as their supply becomes depleted. There are, however, two factors which distinguish the current situation from previous experience. First, there is the likelihood that the path of depletion will lead to a sudden sharp drop in oil sup- plies, with the result that the substitution must occur more rapidly. Second, the nature of the substitution differs from the so-called sub- stitution of chemical fertilizer for land. In the latter case, chemical
106 fertilizers added to the land have become the major source of in- creased output. However, when fossil fuels become depleted, or pos- sibly before that time, a different form of fertilizer technology will be substituted for existing chemical fertilizer inputs. A massive input substitution will be required simply to maintain the gains achieved through application of chemical fertilizers. Clearly, we cannot wait for the secular rise in oil prices to begin before we start planning for this eventuality. Before considering the implications for research and technology development, let us review both the achievements and problems created by the growing dependency on agricultural chemicals as a source of growth in agricultural production. The sharp rise in oil prices was accompanied by a sharp rise in fertilizer prices. Adverse weather factors were also instrumental in the rise in grain prices. However, Timmer indicates that a decrease in food supply which reduces fertilizer demand in the short run will have as its long-term effect an increase in food grain prices sufficient to restore the profitability of the original level of fertilizer use (15). In short, with a growing dependency on chemical fertilizer, the price of food is becoming inexorably linked to the price of fertilizer. However, while a change in fertilizer prices will lead to a change in food prices, the reverse is not necessarily true. This is because, as noted earlier, agriculture accounts for only a small fraction of energy consumption. The future is even more problematic. With oil revenues declin- ing, governments can no longer afford the heavy subsidies on fertil- izer. Furthermore, while one kilogram of fertilizer nutrients probably led to a yield increase of 10 kilograms of unmilled rice in 1972, this ratio has fallen to about one to five at present. The genetic yield potential of rice has not increased significantly since the release of the first of the high-yielding varieties in 1966. A number of Asian countries have experienced success in moving toward self-sufficiency with the result that rice prices have fallen, and even at today's bargain fertilizer prices farmers are feeling a cost/price squeeze. Today, policymakers are concerned about the global surplus of grain. However, there is a very fine balance between surplus and deficit in domestic and world grain markets. Even with an infinite supply of chemical fertilizers, crop yield potentials must continue to increase in order to meet future food demands (16). The eventual depletion of oil reserves raises an even stronger warning flag for the distant future. The danger is that today's surpluses will lead to complacency on the part of policymakers and a reduction in investment in agricultural research.
107 PLANT PROTECTION AND THE USE OF CHEMICALS Considerable success has been achieved in developing insect and disease resistant varieties of plants using conventional breeding meth- ods. However, private firms and government agencies have continued to promote the use of chemical control and recommend dosages that are often harmful. The case of Indonesia clearly illustrates the prob- lem. Farmers in Indonesia paid only 10 to 20 percent of the full eco- nomic cost of the most widely used pesticides, and the extremely low price led to widespread and heavy applications (17). These high application rates have caused serious ecological problems, poison- ing the breeding grounds for fish and shrimp in the coastal waters. Furthermore, the heavy application of chemicals has promoted the buildup of the brown planthopper by destroying the predators of the planthopper and by encouraging the development of new planthop- per biotypes. Overuse of chemicals caused serious damage to the 1986 rice crop. We in the developed world have become considerably more con- scious of the environmental damage caused by misuse of chemicals. Why is such misuse being encouraged in developing countries even when more effective plant protection methods exist? What will be the impact of advances in biotechnology on plant protection? IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Two issues must be considered. First, we must develop the technologies which will enable us not only to find a substitute for agricultural chemicals, but also to continue to enhance yield potential and growth in agricultural production. Second, we must insure that as many farmers as possible around the world have access to these technologies. Recent advances in the biological sciences offer the greatest hope for developing the needed technologies. In the broad generic sense, biotechnology includes such areas as tissue and anther culture, wide crossing and biocontrol, and recombinant DNA. Advances in biotechnology have been more rapid in the animal than in the plant sciences. This is because biotechnology research is conducted in developed-country laboratories. In the developed countries, emphasis is on human health issues rather than food pro- duction, and the spillover into the animal sciences has been very
108 large. For example, the research budget for biotechnology research in the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) was $1.8 billion, approximately 20 times the public sector investment in agriculture- related biotechnology. Most researchers seem to agree that technologies offering im- proved plant protection will be among the first biotechnologies re- leased for adoption. The most rapid progress is predicted for the development of herbicide-resistant crops (18). This is because re- sistance is controlled by a single gene, tissue culture can be used to identify the resistant strains, and there appears to be a large potential profit for private firms. Whether herbicide-resistant crop varieties will prove to be less costly than other weed control methods has yet to be determined, but a large market is anticipated. The technology will probably be ready for adoption in some crops in five years or less. Crop loss due to insects and diseases can be reduced through cultural, biological, chemical, or resistance breeding methods. Rel- atively little research is devoted to cultural or biological methods because the private sector cannot easily capture the profits. Chem- ical methods, the most widely used control, are favored by private industry, although an increased emphasis is being placed on the de- velopment of disease and insect resistant varieties. The hope is that such varieties, by reducing the demand for chemicals, will be more profitable and more protective of the environment. However, the cost of resistant varieties developed through biotechnology could be even higher than the costs incurred using chemical control. In some cases, biotechnology innovations could enhance the effectiveness of chemi- cal methods. Thus, whether advances in biotechnology will reduce the demand for chemicals remains to be seen. Biological nitrogen fixation appears to offer the greatest potential as a substitute for chemical fertilizers in the long-term. Historically, this has been an important source of nitrogen in crop production. Not many decades ago crop rotations involving legumes such as clover and alfalfa were commonplace hi temperate zone countries. As fertilizer became cheaper, higher yields and greater profit could be achieved by continuously growing crops such as corn. In the tropics, research continues on organic fertilizers and green manure crops such as azolla, sesbena, and lucena. However, these crops require considerable labor and management and do not fix enough nitrogen to provide a complete substitute for chemical fertilizer. In the examples of symbiotic nitrogen fixation described above,
109 bacteria in the rhizosphere of the plant convert atmospheric nitrogen to nitrate. Managing rhizobium through improved inoculum could significantly increase the yield of leguminous plants (19). The hope is that biotechnology research can extend nitrogen fixation to non-leguminous plants. There is much debate among scientists as to how long this process will take and whether it can be achieved without significant reduction in plant yield potential. Some are optimistic and believe that it is reasonable to suggest that a nitrogen self-fertilizing plant will be invented by the early 1990s with possible commercial use by the late 1990s. Other scientists feel that it will take a matter of decades to achieve these goals. Whether technical feasibility translates into economic viability is still to be determined, and this determination will depend on the costs of alternatives. CONCLUSION In summary, the shift from a natural resource-based to a science- based agriculture creates a new set of uncertainties. We must invest enough in agricultural research to ensure that we have the capacity to meet future demands for food and other agricultural products, whether or not we use all of the capacity. The uncertainty increases when we consider the need to provide developing-country farmers with access to the new technologies. Advances in agricultural production in the future will depend increasingly on scientific advances in laboratories in the developed world. Because biotechnology innovations are patentable, the private sector in the developed countries is making a major investment in biotechnology research. A new alliance is developing between the public sector engaged in basic scientific research and the private sector engaged in technology development. How will the developing world share in these advances? Is there a danger that they could increase their dependency on chemical fertilizer and then be left without an option when oil resources become depleted? The lesson that we have learned from the Green Revolution is that technology tends to be very location-specific. Problems are solved when scientists work in the location where these problems exist. Furthermore, we know that a lack of basic scientific knowledge represents a serious constraint on the development of viable and sustainable technologies in many areas of the tropics. The public-sector pipelines through which advanced scientific
110 knowledge or biotechnology can flow are very poorly developed. For export crops, access to advanced scientific knowledge can be provided by multinational corporations. For the main food crops, access can come through the International Agricultural Research Centers and through national programs in larger countries such as India or Brazil. However, present linkages between these institutions and advanced laboratories in the developed world are very weak, and funding nec- essary to strengthen these linkages must come largely from developed country donor agencies. Ruttan suggests the need for a truly global research system which would tie together the national and international research establishments in both the developed and the developing world (20). There will be a continuing need to upgrade the scientific and research capacity in the developing countries to ensure that these countries have the capability to utilize new scientific knowledge and adapt technology to local conditions. Sustainability in an economic context implies a stable and satis- factory relationship between agricultural production and consump- tion. It implies a world population level or growth rate which is sup- portable on a long-term basis. It implies that negative by-products such as hazards from pesticides and fertilizers are controlled. Sus- tainability probably requires sufficient equity in access to production capacity and distribution to insure political stability. The current period is fortunately characterized by the disap- pearance of world monopoly pricing in petroleum, and the rapid growth of energy-intensive productivity in agriculture. Our research agenda should be planned now in anticipation of the need for different agricultural technologies in the future. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors appreciate the assistance and criticism of Joseph Baldwin, Nancy Birn, Rhonda Elaine, Harry Kaiser, Beth Rose, and Kate Skelton. REFERENCES 1. Mesarovic, M. and E. Pestel. 1974. Mankind at the turning point. The second report to the Club of Rome. New York: E.P. Dutton. 2. Johnson, D. G. 1986. A new consensus on the role of population growth in economic development. Choices. Third Quarter 1986. pp. 28-29. 3. World population grew 1.75% from 1974 to 1983; a world agricultural production index grew 2.20% annually.
Ill 4. Colin Clark's Mathematical Bioeconomics (New York: Wiley. 1976) is probably the best known explication of this relationship in an economic context. 5. Braha, H. and L. Tweeten. 1986. Evaluating past and prospective future payoffs from public investments to increase agricultural productivity. Okla- homa State University Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin T-163 (September). 6. Barker, R. and R. W. Herdt with B. Rose. 1985. The rice economy of Asia. Washington,D.C.: Resources for the Future, p. 203. 7. Hayami, Y. and V. W. Ruttan. 1985. Agricultural development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins; A. de Janvry. The agrarian question and reformism in Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins; Barker and Herdt op. cit.\ J. W. Mellor and S. Gavian. 1987. Famine: causes, prevention, and relief. Science 235:(January 30):539-545. 8. Pimentel, D. and C. W. Hall. 1984. Food and energy resources. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; Pimentel. 1980. Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 9. One hectare is 2.47 acres, 252 M calories equal one MBtu, a liter is .26 gallons, and 1,000 kilograms equal 1.1 U.S. tons. 10. A Q is a quadrillion Btu, or 252 trillion kcal. The 1 percent estimate is by Heady and Christiansen, in Pimentel and Hall, 1984, p. 237. International data are published in U.S. Energy Information Administration's Interna- tional Energy Annual. Energy used to process, transport, refrigerate, and cook food is much greater than the conventional energy used in on-farm production. For corn, farm production is only one-seventh of the total energy requirement. 11. Proven reserve data are published in year-end issues of the Oil and Gas Journal. Geological estimates of yet undiscovered oil and gas are from: Masters, C. D. 1985. World petroleum resources: A perspective. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85-248. Reston, VA. 12. Chapman, D. 1983. Energy resources and energy corporations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Ch. 14. 13. Ibid., p.286. 14. Ruttan, V. W. 1986. Implications of technical change for international relations in agriculture. Paper presented at the conference on Technology and Agricultural Policy. National Acdemy of Sciences. December 13, 1986. 15. Timmer, C. P. 1986. Fertiliser and food policy in LDCs. Food Policy (February), pp.143-154. 16. This point is illustrated clearly for the case of rice in Barker and Herdt. 1985. Ch. 18, Projecting the Asian rice situation. The authors conclude from their analysis that the demand for rice in the year 2000 cannot be met without further technical advances from research, since most of the gains from further fertiliser application will have been realised by the end of the decade. 17. Timmer (forthcoming). 18. Florkowski, W. J. and L. W. Hill. 1985. Expected commercial application of biotechnology in crop production: Results of the survey. University of Illinois, Department of Agricultural Economics AE 4605. Urbana, IL. 19. Ibid. 20. Ruttan, V. W. 1986. Toward a global agricultural research system: A personal view. Research Policy 15:307-327.
