Climate Change and Farm Level Adaptation Strategies

These results are all from the Hadley model. We did do some studies with greenhouse gases and sulfates. Just looking at trends. We won´t be looking at details. Our confidence interval is pretty wide on these results so there is no need to look at the detailed items.

This project was not part of the Great Lakes Regional Assessment; this was a Star Grant from EPA. It started 5 years ago and just finished.

The "current climate" is determined from NCAR in Colorado, it´s VEMAP data that works on 30 year averages.

Will be discussing our study region, the climate change that was modeled and how this might impact farm level decisions such as planting date, variety and crop mix. We´ll look at some risk assessment and some dollar signs.

Are study region included a 5 state area. We picked the predominant soil types from each of these regions and set up a representative farm model, comparing an eastern Wisconsin site and southern Illinois site will show just how much the climate change varies even within a relatively small region. In eastern Wisconsin there would be a much wetter first half of the year, a little bit drier summer. There would be a big change in temperature. Winter minimum would increase.

Southern Illinois is fairly similar except the beginning of the year is a little drier.

What does this mean for yields? During the optimum planting period, the data showed that corn does better in the north than south. Soybeans do better in northern Michigan. This includes CO2.

One thing we were interested in at the farm level, an important factor is planting date. If we look at corn yields by planting date, this is eastern Wisconsin & southern Illinois, for varieties that are well adapted and used widely in this area, in the sulfate scenario, corn does much better. In the greenhouse scenario, not quite as well. In southern Illinois the corn doesnÕt to well. One item to note is that the very late planting dates have the highest yields, probably because the genotype is not very well adapted. Soybeans showed the same types of results, they do better no matter which scenario in eastern Wisconsin, mixed results in southern Illinois.

Chart ?In the comparison of the yield response curves, ?

Now, to talk about dollars. We used the Purdue Crop Livestock Program. With this program, the user inputs the number of people who are working on the farm, what equipment is available, how many acres are available, what crop rotations are available to use; and it will pick the crop rotation that best suits those resources. It gives you the maximum dollar return to your resources.

Q: Does it factor in the Farm Bill?

A: No.

The program it assumes you have labor, it assumes you have equipment, and it assumes you have land. We did have it rent land to reflect reality. We only looked corn, wheat, and beans, some double-cropped beans.

Under the current climate, at our various sites, according to the linear program that we ran, the returns per acre were approximately $150-200 per acre. In the sulfate scenario, there is a change in returns and crop mix. When we modeled in the future, we used expert panels, we pulled people from Pioneer and John Deere and Michigan State University to ask, “WhatÕs your best guess, what´s going to happen?” We have included improvements in equipment, we have not included changes in genotype because we wanted force what we have now to see what would happen. The results showed ? slide?

In the southern areas the heat is going to hurt. The central areas things are better. In the northern sites, the plants do best under sulfate scenario. The greenhouse scenario may be a little bit better, but not measurably. So that takes into account crop mix and the equipment that you actually have on the farm, beside the equipment to get the crop in on time. So with some adaptation, at least for the grain farmers, it might not hurt so badly here; for southern Illinois, things look worse.

One thing we are trying to study is the issue of variability. Comparing the current climate to the sulfate and greenhouse scenarios showed that as the variability increases so does the range of yields. Another way to look at it, as the variability increases so does the danger of lower yields.

Conclusions

There is a north to south gradient that is important. Adaptation strategies will be needed. We have to have equipment improvements with the latter spring to get the crop in. Later planting dates with the genotypes that we have now. Crop mix adjustment and change in operation financing may be needed.

Suggestions for further research

Where are these better-suited varieties? Yes they grow corn in India and Africa the yields have a little to be desired, but can those be combined with what we have to give us some varieties that we can use here. Will demand for better-adapted crops, if we shift to continuous soybeans etc., applicable to the world picture will the market even be there? As time passes the models are going to improve. WeÕve set up a framework where you can put better data into those models so hopefully they can be fine-tuned. Agriculture policy is also a question.

Q: Abigail Eaton, Michigan Department of Agriculturem Have you looked at acid rain?

A: No we have not. That wasnÕt part of this project

A: Jeff Andresen: There was research done on acid deposition, itÕs somewhat dated now, but the impacts were judged to be of lesser magnitude than some of those weÕre talking about now.

Q: Abigail Eaton: IÕm actually wondering about the combination.

A: Jeff Andresen: In some cases I know, this is something I did, we figured that the sulfate was actually even beneficial. There was nitrate added to the soil from the precipitation, but again under a different type of climate there would be a different result in the photochemistry.

Q: You had six different scenarios?

A: We took the Hadley center model and within that model we can look at just greenhouse gases, you can include the effect of the sulfates which moderate the effect. For each of those we looked at decrease in the variability and increase in the variability.

Q: John Oakley, Capital Area Innovative Farmers In crop production in the last two or three years weÕre seeing more response in crop production to sulfur added to fertility programs.

Q: Jim Nugent, NW Michigan Horticultural Research Station, District Horticulturist Is anyone looking at the influence this might have on carbon cycling and nitrogen cycling?

A: Rebecca Pfeifer: Yes, the carbon cycling especially. WeÕre not doing that, but there is another model ?Rutan that is considering carbon sequestration.

Q: Karl Hausler, ESD, Michigan Department of Agriculture If we start having some of the major kind of events that youÕre showing for the southern Midwest, do you see some of that being dealt with just by genotype changes or do you see moving to entirely different crops?

A: Rebecca Pfeifer: Some of it can be. WeÕve spent several days with Pioneer representatives and if they have 10 years it seems like they can do anything. They seem very confident that given the gradual change weÕre expecting and the time period, thereÕs not a problem.

A: Jeff Andresen: The caveat to that is the people who do this will say we are very confident about the future if there is a gradual change, but it there is a change in variability and we have freezing temperatures in June or we have a change in the occurrence and distribution of precipitation Ð then theyÕll admit weÕve got major problems because the technology cannot adapt. At least as it is now, they donÕt feel there is a way that they can respond to that.

Q: Romain Lalone, GroWeyes With the marginal changes, what about the marginal insects and diseases for instance Japanese beetles in the southern part of the state moving to the northern part of the state, some fungi that may be marginally adapted, not the existing problems, but problems that we donÕt normally have?

A: Rebecca Pfeifer Insects are tough. TheyÕre not well understood.

A: Jeff Andresen: What many of these systems cannot do yet, but it will happen in the future, is to look at the interactions between several independent systems. ThatÕs what ecology is about. We havenÕt gotten to the point where we can run these simulations with interactive pieces. It is coming.

Q: AliciaMarie Belchak, Groundwater Technician, Ottawa & Kent Groundwater Stewardship Program What are your thoughts about where the world market will go as these climate changes occur?

A: Rebecca Pfeifer I donÕt have a clue.

Q: AliciaMarie Belchak As I listen, IÕm envisioning areas that are very productive right now becoming less so and as we move to the extremes toward the Polar Regions Ðwe only have so much land. At what point are we going to be interested in moderating climate change? Are going to have enough food and will there be enough price to feed ourselves on our industry.

A: Roy Black I think the standard answer is yields are going up a bit and prices are coming down a little bit. I think that if anyone ever straightens out the Ukraine, there is a lot of grain to be had.

Q: Abigail Eaton ThatÕs exactly the problem, is that populations in all those areas where climate is going to be changing, weÕve still got the distribution problem. So if one lived in the Martial Islands he should move to eastern Canada to grow corn and soybeans.

A: Now would be a good time.

Q: Gary Heilig, Ingham County MSU Extension Have you seen anything on how these changes are going to affect Asia, especially where the old Soviet Union used to be and what affect itÕs going to have on China?

A: Rebecca Pfeifer: I have not.

A: Jeff Andresen: The best guess is that itÕs a function of latitude and that the higher the latitude, the further polar in both hemispheres that particular area is now, the more that it would benefit in an agricultural sense. So Russia, parts of Asia, China itÕs hard to say, some of it might lose some productivity. CanadaÑmay be a fairly significant gainer. In southern hemispheres, they just donÕt have enough land and they may lose out. Right now, the guess is the real losers are some of the tropical zones; and unfortunately those are probably the places that can least afford the loss in productivity. It just gets too warm.

Q: As you go north in China, donÕt you run into mountains?

A: Jeff Andresen: You do. There are large areas of Manchuria that have very good soils. TheyÕre like the Red River Valley of the U.S. and some of the prairie province. What they donÕt have is a growing season, a long enough one. ThatÕs potentially a very productive area. There is a lot of desert in the country, but itÕs thought that Manchuria has a huge expanse of potential arable land. There are political considerations as well.

Q: Jaye Lunsford, Chief, Hydrologic Studies Section, U.S. Geological Survey, MI District ? groundwater and surface water irrigation

A: Rebecca Pfeifer: We actually did look at irrigated and non-irrigated and we didnÕt see a big benefit from irrigation, with the exception of one region, which was not Michigan. ItÕs this whole precipitation thatÕs a huge question mark in all the models right now.

Q: Jaye Lunsford But still you could be overshadowed by ? the crop. For those who donÕt know if youÕre in Michigan, a state surrounded by fresh water. We now have legislation pending that would regulate the use of ground and some surface water. Wells of 70 gallons per minute or more, which is unthinkable in historical, but it, has huge potential implications for the agriculture industry because of irrigation. Many of our crops, even though it is a humid climate, require irrigation. Potatoes, certainly and seed corn. WeÕve gotten to the point in some parts of the state where the use and demand for the water is exceeding supply. ItÕs a natural resource and itÕs going to have to be managed.

Q: Colin Nugent, Department of Geography, Michigan State University What is the potential for increased resistance with increased pesticide application?

A: Jeff Andresen: I donÕt know if we have a pathologist or entomologist. IÕm not qualified to answer that.

back to Climate Change & Agriculture presentations page