Editorial

Many of the papers published in Outlook on Agriculture during the past year have focused not only on current problems in agricultural research and development and possible approaches to address them but also on future developments and how to plan activities to tackle predicted problems, that is, both outlook and foresight. I would like to thank all contributors to the journal and the efforts of reviewers who have helped to improve the published papers.

During the past year, important themes have included addressing the threat of climate change to agricultural production locally and globally; understanding household/farmer aspirations for suitable technologies; and the need to improve our understanding of the linkages between markets, institutions, and policies as well as linkages between farmers and researchers to achieve uptake and impact of even the best farmer-suited technologies.

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5°C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat, and poverty for hundreds of millions of people (IPCC, 2018). Thornton et al. (2018) argue that the scale of the task will require transformation of both local and global food systems and highlight four technological, policy, and governance pathways by which transformation can occur. Similarly, Williams et al. (2018) emphasize the importance of systemic governance for implementing the sustainable development goals in the context of climate-friendly farming. At the local level, Colombo and Rocamora-Montiel (2018) focus on an innovative agri-environment scheme for enhanced carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation in olive farming in Spain, while Lopez-Blanco et al. (2018) use a modelling approach to predict future changes in areas suitable for growing rainfed maize in Mexico to inform both state and national governments. Furthermore, Beacham et al. (2018) conclude that by combining our understanding of the underlying genetic and biochemical processes associated with environmental stress with whole-plant physiological and morphological studies, more resilient crops can be produced, adapted to climate change threats to agriculture.

Enhanced understanding of farming households’ technology choices remains one of the most critical aspects of agricultural research in rural areas (Mausch et al., 2018). They postulate that predicting farmers’ decisions on uptake of agricultural technologies using conventional economic theories is flawed and suggest that human aspirations have a much greater influence on whether a technology is adopted. Improved understanding could lead to better research priority setting and more effective rural development strategies. A good example of this theme is provided by Almekinders et al. (this issue) with regard to farmers’ demands for quality seed. They reason that research methods for studying farmers’ seed demand are weak and lack information that reflects the real-life decisions and behaviors of farmers in the choice and acquisition of their seeds. They call for more integrated understanding of seed systems as a whole and a more holistic methodological research approach that better captures farmers’ aspirations while providing the metrics that are needed by seed actors and policy makers to enable informed decisions.

The need to improve our understanding of the linkages between farmers and researchers as well as markets, institutions, and policies to achieve uptake and impact of the best farmer-suited technologies is featured in a number of papers. Diaz et al. (2018) analyzed the effects of interactions between cattle producers, researchers, and institutions in drought vulnerable areas of Uruguay. They developed a framework which highlights the barriers and potential solutions to improve knowledge transfer to increase adaptation and reduce vulnerability. Furthermore, Orr (2018) contends that successful adoption of agricultural technologies not only involves improved understanding of farmers’ choices but also robust linkages between markets, institutions, and policies. Through an analysis of four case studies, successful adoption was characterized by correct identification of farmer demand and innovative institutions for product delivery while low adoption reflected uncertain market conditions, misunderstood demand, and poorly functioning institutions.

My editorial in the June 2018 issue of Outlook on Agriculture demonstrated that the progress of agricultural research in increasing productivity and feeding increasing populations was founded on building on past research progress which embodies learning from past successes (Evans, 1998). In a comprehensive review of the impact of plant breeding on sub-Saharan African staple food crops, Eriksson et al. (2018) showed that significant gains in productivity and food security for maize, cassava, rice, and banana/plantain were based on many years of research effort. Wightman (2018) further explored this theme arguing that management of the recent rapid spread of fall army worm, a devastating pest of food crops, in Africa and India could benefit from the lessons learned from a successful program to manage a similar pest in India 30 years ago.

The editorial also warned of increasing attempts to challenge this tried and tested approach to agricultural research based on assertions lacking scientific foundation (e.g. IAASTD, 2009). One of these is the claim that organic agriculture can sustainably feed the world (Mueller et al., 2017). Connor (2018) convincingly reasons that the land required for legumes as a source of organic nitrogen restricts the contribution of organic agriculture to global food security. To replace the needed 100 Mt N fertilizer with legumes would reduce the land for non-legume food crops by 30%. Kirchmann (this issue) demonstrates that flawed analyses have been used to promote the potential productivity of organic agriculture and further notes that conversion to organic agriculture would impose huge land use changes. Any relevant comparison between organic and conventional cropping systems must take into account the environmental consequences such as lost products and ecosystem services. Connor (2018) concludes that organic systems cannot feed our populous world while Kirchmann (this issue) notes that the scientific evidence for the abandonment of synthetic mineral fertilizers as nutrients for crops is lacking.

A recent international workshop Making science useful to agriculture sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, South Australian Grains Industry Trust, and Grains Research and Development Corporation, Australia (see: https://msua.aweb.net.au/) highlighted that significant increases in agricultural research and development are required to meet the growing demand for healthy, nutritious, affordable food while providing for farmers’ income and welfare and protecting the environment in a context of scarcer land and water and climate change. Scarce resources should not be wasted on supporting research involving over-simplification, reductionism, and lack of rigor. It is unfortunate that too often flawed research leads to unsubstantiated claims of agronomic relevance which misinforms the allocation of these scarce funds. Outlook on Agriculture welcomes reviews and perspectives that challenge these unfounded approaches to agricultural research to better inform investment decisions on the sound science that underpins global food production.