Editorial

By 2050, the world’s population is projected to grow to almost 10 billion. Furthermore, it has been estimated that 25–70% more food will be needed in 2050 than we are currently producing—a daunting prospect for agricultural research. In reality, this increase equates to an annual rate of growth which is in line with the historical average. However, unlike the past, annual yield increases should be achieved from the same land base and must be accompanied by reduced impacts on the environment—reduced use of water, energy, and fertilizer—and under the uncertainties of climate change. This is often referred to as “sustainable intensification.”

Twenty years ago, I read Feeding the Ten Billion by the distinguished plant physiologist, Lloyd Evans (Evans, 1998). It is a fascinating analysis of the progressive role of agricultural innovation throughout human history in increasing food production to meet the growing population. It takes the reader on a journey from foraging wild plants, domestication of the first cereals, early agricultural civilizations, post-Columbus crop introduction, the beginnings of agricultural research as we know it today, the Green Revolution and on to present-day food production. Unlike the common unremittingly pessimistic or unrealistically positive accounts, it is refreshingly thoughtful and balanced about the prospects of agricultural research to further develop technologies and systems to feed 10 billion by 2050—“one of humanities greatest challenges.” Most importantly, it emphasizes that the progress in feeding increasing populations has been steady, building on past advances, which has enabled further advances to be made. The progress is based on solid and evolving science and not quick fixes. It stresses that the foundation of sustainable increases in food production will be further advances in agricultural research that produce higher yielding and higher quality crop varieties and improved agronomic practices with reduced environmental impacts.

Twenty years onward, further progress is clearly evident. Advances in biotechnology through genomics have enabled identification of specific genes linked to key improvement traits; high-throughput phenotyping is increasing the efficiency and rapidity of producing improved crop varieties; nutrient-use efficient, water-use efficient, heat-tolerant and biofortified (Fe and Zn) staple crop varieties have been developed; dual-purpose sorghum, pearl millet, maize, rice, wheat, cowpea and groundnut varieties are being grown in crop–livestock systems; improved management methods such as microdosing fertilizer and conservation agriculture are being widely adopted; greater efforts are being made to improve market functioning and to facilitate the development of enlightened and conducive policies in food systems; and the importance of the markets–institutions–policy rubric in technology adoption in developing countries is better understood (see Orr, this issue). One example of the impact of such advances is the 11% increase in global cereal production from 2009 to 2015.

In recent years, there have been increasing attempts to question and critically challenge this tried and tested approach to agricultural research. One of these is Agriculture at the crossroads—an attempt to develop a road map to ensure future global food security (IAASTD, 2009). It describes a series of highly challengeable assertions based on largely unfounded criticisms of many existing agricultural knowledge, science and technology approaches, assumptions of questionable technical merit, and much incorrect or flawed evidence (Lenné and Wood, 2011). These include criticisms of the Green Revolution and genetically modified crops; promotion of unproven “agroecological approaches;” and reliance on organic and small-scale agriculture. There are serious deficiencies and dangers in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) approach, mostly based on the lack of scientific foundation to many of the proposed solutions to future food security. Furthermore, the inherent complexities of “agroecological approaches” are in stark contrast to the very long ecological heritage of simple cereal monocultures (Wood and Lenné, 2018). Such assertions are distractions from mainstream and proven agricultural research and are diverting valuable funding away from the agricultural science approaches to address the challenge of meeting the global food needs. Approaches based on Northern cultural and normative views must not be allowed to obscure the goal of affordable food for all (Fischer and Connor, 2018).

During the past 6 years, Professor Jerry Knox has provided the guidance and oversight to ensure that Outlook on Agriculture remains a key journal for expressing sound science-based perspectives on current agricultural research for development. In taking over as Editor, I am looking forward to enhancing the role of the journal as an important forum for debate on strategic developments in food production for future food security. Above all, contributors to Outlook on Agriculture should seize the opportunity to publish perspectives papers and reviews to better inform investment decisions on the sound science that underpins food production.

By hesitating to enter the debate, we can only accede the field to the biologically naive and find ourselves able to serve only as peripherally significant technicians in the pursuit of the objectives of the uninformed. (Namkoong, 1991)