Analysis of an economist newspaper article

¶ … reporters from the Economist discuss the possible effects of climate change on corn crops. A researcher from Stanford University, David Lobell, entered into an accidental collaboration with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico. The latter organization had been researching the potential for expanding corn production into parts of southern and eastern Africa. In particular, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre "had been running an ambitious set of field trials designed to look at what sorts of maize (corn, to Americans) grow best in various parts of southern and eastern Africa, paying special attention to drought resistance," (The Economist). Lobell and the Stanford University team provided the financial and human resources to help the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre compile data by amassing and aggregating results culled from over one hundred different research stations in the field. The project morphed into one larger than either party had initially imagined, and included meteorological data that went beyond measuring drought and correlating that with types of corn. Moreover, the results of the collaborative research project also revealed that corn is actually more sensitive to peak or extreme temperatures than to average temperatures. Corn prefers temperate climates in which actual numbers do not climb above30 degrees Celsius. In regions that regularly see peak temperatures above that number, the corn crops are unlikely to do well.

Drought would exacerbate any problems with the peak temperatures, which is why growing corn in drought- and heat-prone southern and eastern Africa could be problematic. Furthermore, global warming might have a particularly severe impact on corn crops in these areas. If temperatures were to rise by just one degree on average per year, that effect would cause a jump in peak temperatures. As The Economist points out, "The research predicts that a 1°C rise in average temperature will reduce yields across two-thirds of the maize-growing region of Africa, even in the absence of drought. Add drought and that effect spreads over the entire area." Each day the temperature goes above 30 degrees reduces corn crop yields by 1.7%. These numbers would prove staggering to farmers.

Ironically, the corn crops grown in southern and eastern Africa might fare better than expected because of the under-use of commercial fertilizers. The Economist states, under-fertilized crops may yield less overall and throughout any given season but also "tend not to be as badly hit by heat and drought as well-fertilized ones." The data gleaned from the collective aggregation trial in conjunction with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre shows that well-fertilized crops and under-fertilized ones alike are likely to yield less "by the middle of the century" due to climate change (The Economist).

However, the latter statement is not grounded in any scientific or empirical data but only on speculation. The author of the article is discussing several things at once and confounding the facts accordingly. On the one hand, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre is looking for unique corn crop strains to introduce to Africa in order to help African farmers increase their yields and minimize the effects of natural climate issues such as drought and high heat. When David Lobell entered the equation, the focus of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre seemed to change dramatically. No longer was the emphasis on the research of different corn crop strains and which were more suitable for Africa but instead on the net effects of increased overall temperatures on general corn crop yields. When the author throws in issues related to fertilization too, the subject of the article and its political undertones become conflated.

Both David Lobell of Stanford University and the journalists writing for The Economist might be reading too much into the original research being conducted by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, and also placing an unnecessary political spin on the issue. Even if crop yields are predicted to decline within a few decades, it still remains important to search for the proper strains of corn that can withstand heat and drought.

The study being conducted by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre was not investigating whether climate change was impacting Africa; climate change may or may not be impacting Africa but that is besides the point of the original study. The original study stresses the preexisting difficulties with growing corn in Africa, regardless of climate change. Nowhere in the article is the issue of whether corn is an appropriate crop for African soil ever raised to begin with, and corn can be considered a political issue given that it is often used as a cash crop rather than as a food product that sustains local communities. Then there is the issue of which organizations are primary stakeholders in growing corn in Africa. If Monsanto and Dow chemicals have a stake in African corn, then such organizations might fund research that promotes ideal strains of corn in the area. Such financially driven research would also point out projected yields and frame the issue solely from an agro-business perspective. Indigenous African crops may be more feasible to be grown in the region, and doing so would save a lot of unnecessary trouble and expenditure. However, growing manioc, cassava, and sorghum might not be as profitable to the current stakeholders than maize. Maize, after all, yields such lucrative by-products as high fructose corn syrup. To conscript African farmers to grow maize instead of indigenous crops would be disastrous in the long run for the continent and its people. Yet rather focus on this and other relevant issues, The Economist panders to the agro-business mentality.

Global warming is a main focal point for the author and yet was not relevant to the original International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre study. Of course, global warming is bound to impact crop yields in Africa. Yet there might be better ways of addressing global warming than to simply monger fear by claiming that "yield losses of 20% or more" are likely in Africa (The Economist).