California’s Grape Bounty May Lead To Lower Wine Prices
Wine lovers in California have something to toast. The state’s grape growers and wineries saw a bigger-than-expected harvest in 2009, according to a report released last week, amounting to the second-biggest crop in California history.
For consumers, the year’s bounty is expected to spell more availability and cheaper costs for all types of California wine, particularly premium and ultra-premium wines.
Wineries in the state crushed 3.7 million tons of grapes last year, up about 20 percent compared to a relatively light 2008, and nearing the record 2005 harvest.
All varietals showed growth, with chardonnay leading the pack in volume at about 726,000 tons, up 28 percent from the 2008 harvest. Pinot grigio, at 145,330 tons, boasted the largest percentage increase — up 61 percent compared to the year before.
The preliminary numbers are part of an annual report released by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The increase is expected to slow competition from out-of-state wineries, which benefited from a slow 2008, said John Ciatti, partner in the Ciatti Co. grape and wine brokerage.
“This crop will put additional pressure on the already struggling premium segment of the wine business,” Ciatti said.
The cost of wine grapes was down last year, a decrease attributed to factors including the large crop and a slumping economy. By Robert Faturechi, The Miami Herald
Global Warming May Hurt Some Poor Populations
The impact of global warming on food prices and hunger could be large over the next 20 years, according to a new Stanford University study. Researchers say that higher temperatures could significantly reduce yields of wheat, rice and maize – dietary staples for tens of millions of poor people who subsist on less than $1 a day. The resulting crop shortages would likely cause food prices to rise and drive many into poverty.
But even as some people are hurt, others would be helped out of poverty, says Stanford agricultural scientist David Lobell.
“Poverty impacts depend not only on food prices but also on the earnings of the poor,” said Lobell, a center fellow at Stanford’s Program on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). “Most projections assume that if prices go up, the amount of poverty in the world also will go up, because poor people spend a lot of their money on food. But poor people are pretty diverse. There are those who farm their own land and would actually benefit from higher crop prices, and there are rural wage laborers and people that live in cities who definitely will be hurt.”
Lobell and his colleagues recently conducted the first in-depth study showing how different climate change scenarios could affect incomes of farmers and laborers in developing countries. He presented the results on Feb. 20 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego.
Household incomes
In the study, Lobell, former FSE researcher Marshall Burke and Purdue University agricultural economist Thomas Hertel focused on 15 developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Hertel has developed a global trade model that closely tracks the consumption and production of rice, wheat and maize on a country-by-country basis. The model was used to project the effects of climate change on agriculture within 20 years and the resulting impact on prices and poverty.
Using a range of global warming forecasts, the researchers were able to project three different crop-yield scenarios by 2030:
* “Low-yield” – crop production is toward the low end of expectations.
* “Most likely” – projected yields are consistent with expectations.
* “High-yield” – production is higher than expected.
“One of the limitations of previous forecasts is that they don’t consider the full range of uncertainties – that is, the chance that things could be better or worse than we expect,” Lobell said. “We provided Tom those three scenarios of what climate change could mean for agricultural productivity. Then he used the trade model to project how each scenario would affect prices and poverty over the next 20 years.
“The impacts we’re talking about are mainly driven by warmer temperatures, which dry up the soil, speed up crop development and shut down biological processes, like photosynthesis, that plants rely on,” he added. “Plants in general don’t like it hotter, and in many climate forecasts, the temperatures projected for 2030 would be outside the range that crops prefer.”
Results
The study revealed a surprising mix of winners and losers depending on the projected global temperature. The “most likely” scenario projected by the International Panel on Climate Change is that global temperatures will rise 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) by 2030. In that scenario, the trade model projected relatively little change in crop yields, food prices and poverty rates.
But under the “low-yield” scenario, in which temperatures increase by 2.7 F (1.5 C), the model projects a 10 to 20 percent drop in agricultural productivity, which results in a 10 to 60 percent rise in the price of rice, wheat and maize. Because of these higher prices, the overall poverty rate in the 15 countries surveyed was expected to rise by 3 percent.
However, an analysis of individual countries revealed a far more complicated picture. In 11 of the 15 countries, poor people who owned their own land and raised their own crops actually benefitted from higher food prices, according to the model. In Thailand, for example, the poverty rate for people in the non-agricultural sector was projected to rise 5 percent, while the rate for self-employed farmers dropped more than 30 percent – in part because, as food supplies dwindled, the global demand for higher-priced crops increased.
“If prices go up and you’re tied to international markets, you could be lifted out of poverty quite considerably,” Lobell explained. “But there are a lot of countries, like Bangladesh, where poor people are either in urban areas or in rural areas but don’t own their own land. Countries like that could be hurt quite a lot. Then there are semi-arid countries – like Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi – where even if prices go up and people own land, productivity will go down so much that it can’t make up for those price increases. In the ‘low-yield’ scenario, those countries would see higher poverty rates across all sectors.”
Under the “high-yield” scenario, in which global temperatures rise just 0.9 F (0.5 C), crop productivity increased. The resulting food surplus led to a 16 percent drop in prices, which could be detrimental to farm owners. In Thailand, the poverty rate among self-employed farmers was projected to rise 60 percent, while those in the non-agriculture sector saw a slight drop in poverty. In Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi and Uganda, poverty in the non-farming sector was projected to decline as much as 5 percent.
Risk management
Lobell said that, although the likelihood of the “low-yield” or “high-yield” scenario occurring is only 5 percent, it is important for policymakers to consider the full range of possibilities if they want to help countries adapt to climate change and ultimately prevent an increase in poverty and hunger.
“It’s like any sort of risk management or insurance program,” he said. “You have to have some idea of the probability of events that have a big consequence. It’s also important to keep in mind that any change, no matter how extreme, will benefit some households and hurt others.”
The Program on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford is an interdisciplinary research and teaching program that generates policy solutions to the persistent problems of global hunger and environmental damage from agricultural practices worldwide. The program is jointly run by Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. redOrbit
Per-Cow Fee Would Hurt Cattlemen, Says Utah Farm Bureau Boss
The part of Utah’s economy that depends on agriculture would be hobbled if the government increases pressure on greenhouse-gas emissions, a panel warned Utah’s farmers and bankers.
Randy Parker, Utah Farm Bureau president, said a “cow tax” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing would cost Utah livestock managers $104 million a year. The government would assess a $175-per-cow fee to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
If the rule were in place, Utah ranchers and hog farmers would only have made $92 million in 2007.
“And that was a good year,” Parker said during the 2010 Ag Outlook conference sponsored by the Utah Bankers Association and Utah State University Extension Service.
“If you look at 2008-2009, it is a lot worse.”
Parker was joined by Department of Agriculture Commissioner Leonard Blackham; David Conine , U.S. Department of Agriculture Regional Rural Development Director; and Roberta Wheeler, an officer with the Farm Loan Service.
Parker said climate-change regulations, including the cap-and-trade bill that would limit carbon emissions, hits agriculture particularly hard since farmers work in an energy-intensive industry.
The regulation would drive up costs to produce and buy food, as well as affect the national food supply, Parker warned.
“Do we really want to rely on China, Mexico, India, Brazil and other nations
Advertisement
to supply our basic needs?” Parker asked.
Conine said there is reason to be skeptical of global-warming claims, but farms cannot dismiss it either.
“If we don’t address [climate change], it will affect agriculture,” Conine said.
Blackham said that farming, and livestock in particular, already help Utah’s environment. Grazing cattle control sagebrush and spur grass growth where they feed, which in turn helps other wildlife.
“If you want to find the best wildlife, look for the livestock,” Blackham said.
Plus, farming is a major part of the Utah economy.
While farming alone only represents 3 percent of the state’s economy, Blackham said the number increases almost five times when related industries By Donald W. Meyers, The Salt Lake Tribune
Asia Can Meet Water, Energy Challenges
Asian countries were geared up to face the global challenges of drinking water, energy and healthcare sectors, said Seeram Ramakrishna, Vice-President (Research Strategy), National University of Singapore, here recently.
Inaugurating the Asian conference on Recent Advances in Polymer Science (RAPS 2010) at Shanmugha Arts Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA) University, Prof. Ramakrishna pointed out that Asia invested US $ 400 billion in research and development which was on par with that in the United States.
Growing population, continued exploitation of natural resources and increased life expectancy have brought to the fore three key challenges, namely water, energy and healthcare.
Prof. Ramakrishna said that Asia currently had 400 million people above 60 years which was expected to increase to a whopping 1,231 million by 2030. Nanotechnology had the potential answers to face these challenges. The number of nanotechnologists in Asia outnumbered those in the United States and, therefore, Asia was all set to be show the way to the rest of the world.
He described various advanced technologies that had been developed in Asian laboratories using polymeric and metal oxide nano fibres made by a versatile technique called electro-spinning which was pioneered by Prof. Ramakrishna.
Examples of polymeric nanofibrous scaffolds for regenerating nerves, heart tissue, skin and bone, metal oxide nanofibres for photovoltaic applications, polymeric membranes for ultrafiltration applications were highlighted during his talk.
The two-day conference organised by the Department of Chemistry of SASTRA University, had eminent speakers from Indian Institute of Science, National Chemical Laboratory, Indian Association for Cultivation of Science, Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Science & Research, Anna University and Central Electrochemical Research Institute addressing the participants on advances made in high temperature polymers, polymeric nano-composites, medical polymers, industrial and conducting polymers. The Hindu
Create The Right Environment
Deemed universities are important in a country like ours which is looking forward to becoming a superpower by 2020. Also, when foreign universities are getting ready to bring world class facilities, technology and academic concepts to India, the government should be creating a conducive environment for our institutions too to excel in all spheres of education.
But unfortunately it is not doing this. The problem is not with the concept of deemed universities or autonomous institutes but in the process of granting colleges such status. The 2007 notification by the HRD ministry laid down that an institute must be assessed for innovation, excellence in all aspects of education, world class infrastructure, qualified faculty, accreditation and so on, before it is granted deemed university status. But unfortunately we messed up everything, creating chaos in higher education.
I believe that deemed university status should be granted to any institute which is excellent in education, research and development, infrastructure, innovation and faculty and is committed to the betterment of society. We should make accreditation by any national or international agency mandatory for granting an institute such a status. Peer review at regular intervals should be done to make sure it retains its high standards of education. Autonomous institutions should be agents of change in this fast changing world where life is influenced by globalisation and technological innovations in a big way.
But unfortunately some are setting a bad example. It may also be true that some deemed universities have failed to perform. But that doesn’t mean the concept is itself bad. Ideally, the government should be encouraging institutes to follow the norms and attain autonomy to excel further. A few bad eggs in the basket should not kill the objective of developing excellent and innovative institutions, which can help the country’s progress. By K. Balaveera Reddy, Deccan Chronicle