CIMMYT 1997/98 WORLD MAIZE FACTS AND TRENDS; MAIZE PRODUCTION IN DROUGHT-STRESSED ENVIRONMENTS: TECHNICAL OPTIONS AND RESEARCH RESOURCE ALLOCATION

This publication, through its focus on maize production in drought stressed areas of developing countries, explores economic, research, and policy issues related to maize agriculture in marginal areas of the developing world generally. Key questions in the debate over agriculture in marginal vs. favorable production areas are reviewed with a focus on maize. Questions include whether maize production is expanding into marginal areas, if production from such areas is necessary to meet future demand, and what is the relationship between marginal production environments and poverty. Different research resource allocations (leading to technological change) are modeled to compare gains and losses to producers and consumers in marginal, favorable, and urban areas of a country. A thorough overview of technical constraints and responses for maize production in drought-stressed environments is also presented. The authors conclude that agricultural research for marginal and, particularly, for drought-stressed areas will continue to be justified on the basis of meeting future demand requirements. Evidence that the marginality of agricultural land is related to poverty is decidedly mixed because of a range of factors outside the realm of agroclimatic conditions. To better determine efficient research allocations, considerably more study in this neglected area will be required. Such research should incorporate data from case studies, and more accurate definition of marginal areas provided by data from geographic information systems, crop modeling, and refined economic measures. The publication concludes with a brief overview of the world maize situation in 1997/98, followed by selected statistics on production, consumption, and trade for all regions of the world

Phenotyping maize for adaptation to drought

The need of a better adaptation of crops to drought is an issue of increasing urgency. However, enhancing the tolerance of maize has, therefore, proved to be somewhat elusive in terms of plant breeding. In that context, proper phenotyping remains as one of the main factors limiting breeding advance. Topics covered by this review include the conceptual framework for identifying secondary traits associated with yield response to drought and how to measure these secondary traits in practice

CIMMYT 1997/98 WORLD MAIZE FACTS AND TRENDS; MAIZE PRODUCTION IN DROUGHT-STRESSED ENVIRONMENTS: TECHNICAL OPTIONS AND RESEARCH RESOURCE ALLOCATION

This publication, through its focus on maize production in drought stressed areas of developing countries, explores economic, research, and policy issues related to maize agriculture in marginal areas of the developing world generally. Key questions in the debate over agriculture in marginal vs. favorable production areas are reviewed with a focus on maize. Questions include whether maize production is expanding into marginal areas, if production from such areas is necessary to meet future demand, and what is the relationship between marginal production environments and poverty. Different research resource allocations (leading to technological change) are modeled to compare gains and losses to producers and consumers in marginal, favorable, and urban areas of a country. A thorough overview of technical constraints and responses for maize production in drought-stressed environments is also presented. The authors conclude that agricultural research for marginal and, particularly, for drought-stressed areas will continue to be justified on the basis of meeting future demand requirements. Evidence that the marginality of agricultural land is related to poverty is decidedly mixed because of a range of factors outside the realm of agroclimatic conditions. To better determine efficient research allocations, considerably more study in this neglected area will be required. Such research should incorporate data from case studies, and more accurate definition of marginal areas provided by data from geographic information systems, crop modeling, and refined economic measures. The publication concludes with a brief overview of the world maize situation in 1997/98, followed by selected statistics on production, consumption, and trade for all regions of the world.Crop Production/Industries,

Can Technology Deliver on the Yield Challenge to 2050?

This paper focuses on the yield prospects of wheat, rice and maize since these cereals dominate human diet, and since continued yield growth is considered the major route to meeting future global demand for food, feed and fuel. We define for a region farm yield (FY), attainable yield (AY, as reached with the best technology and prudent economics), and potential yield (PY, yield with the best varieties and agronomy and no manageable biotic or abiotic stresses). FY progress is a function of progress in PY and in closing the gap between PY and FY (we express this gap as a % of FY). Globally wheat and rice annual yield increases (as a % of current yield) are falling and are now just below 1%, while that for maize is 1.6%. For rice and wheat, the growth of yields in absolute terms (kg/ha/year) are also falling in developing countries. Global demand modelling to 2050 predicts large real price sensitivity to yield growth rates, with significant price increases if current rates cannot be increased. FY, PY and yield gaps are examined in more than 20 important “breadbasket” regions around the world. For wheat annual PY progress currently averages about 0.5%, and the yield gap 40% (range 25 to 50%), while for rice PY growth is also about 0.5% while the yield gap averages 75% (range 15 to 110%). Maize is distinctive with a current average PY growth of around 1% and a yield gap which ranges from around 30% (Iowa, some uncertainty with PY) to over 200% (sub Saharan Africa). A yield gap of 25% or less probably implies that FY is approaching attainable yields, AY. Yield gaps tend to be larger in developing countries, and seem to be closing only slowly except in the case of maize in Iowa and major cereals in Egypt. Prospects for yield gap closing are discussed. A multitude of constraints can reduce FY, ranging from infrastructural and institutional ones bearing upon farm gate costs and prices and farmer skills and attitudes, to diverse technical constraints. The resolution of the latter in turn depends largely on agronomic and breeding interventions (e.g., better resistance to biotic stresses), though these must be resolved in concert with the other constraints if they are to have significant impact in resource-poor farmers’ fields. Yield gap closing must be a priority for maize in sub Saharan Africa. Prospects for PY increase are discussed. PY gain is increasingly related to greater biomass production, implying greater efficiency of utilization of solar radiation. Recent progress appears to have raised this efficiency, while the theoretical limit still appears to leave scope for further increase. In addition PY in water-limited situations (PYw) will depend on further harvest index increase. In rice and wheat heterosis offers prospects for yield gain. We remain sceptical of the medium term prospects of genetic modification (GM) for yield per se, especially PY, but recognize that existing GM crops often deliver higher yields because of gap closing benefits (such as reduced pest losses). New molecular tools for selection show promise for increasing breeding efficiency, but the marginal cost of yield gains is likely to rise. Strong private investment in breeding, as seen with maize, could play a bigger global role, accompanied by facilitating policies. . We recognize in addition the importance of input efficiency and total factor productivity (TFP) for determining real prices, while prices of non-renewables (energy for traction and N fertilizer; phosphorus) are a relevant concern. TFP in agriculture continues to grow, and many examples confirm the general synergy amongst modern input technologies that achieve not only greater yield but also greater resource use efficiency (e.g., N, P, water, fuel, labour). There are also large gaps in input use efficiency that offer much scope for improved crop and resource management to deliver more with less. Investments in R&D, farmers’ information and skills, and good policy drive this process, and will determine future success or failure

Can Technology Deliver on the Yield Challenge to 2050?

This paper was produced for the FAO Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050 (Rome, 24-26 June 2009).Technology, productivity, yield gaps, investment in R&D, biotechnology, input efficiency, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Phenotyping maize for adaptation to drought

The need of a better adaptation of crops to drought is an issue of increasing urgency. However, enhancing the tolerance of maize has, therefore, proved to be somewhat elusive in terms of plant breeding. In that context, proper phenotyping remains as one of the main factors limiting breeding advance. Topics covered by this review include the conceptual framework for identifying secondary traits associated with yield response to drought and how to measure these secondary traits in practice

Report of the final external review of the Generation Challenge Programme

The Generation Challenge Review aims to determine to what extent the GCP has provided support to genomics research and molecular plant breeding for developing country partners. In addition, as the GCP represented a new business model for international agricultural research in the CGIAR, the review should determine whether the model has been useful and to what extent particular aspects of it might be replicated in the current CRPs. This external review of GCP, commissioned by the Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) of the CGIAR at the request of GCP’s Management and Executive Board, with the consent of the GCP Consortium Committee, was undertaken about a year before Programme closure in December 2014. Although not an EC review, the EC entrusted the IEA to design and manage this independent review to obviate the need for an additional review. The review looks back on the evolution of the Programme and its component activities to determine whether or not it has met its objectives, and seeks to learn from one of the first multi-centre, multi-partner CGIAR programmes that were the predecessors of the current CRPs

Report of the Final External Review of the Generation Challenge Programme

Responding to a request by the Generation Challenge Program (GCP), the IEA accepted to commission and manage an independent external review of the Challenge Program (CP) one year prior the CP’s expected termination date. This review is entirely funded by the GCP. It was planned (including development of terms of reference and selection of the review team) in consultation with one of the GCP’s major donors, the European Union (EU), so as to satisfy the donor’s evaluation needs without having to conduct two separate reviews. The review team is co-led by Pammi Sachdeva with Greg Edmeades and supported by a small support team. The review of GCP started in August 2013, and the report was completed in early 2014