Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseThere are more people to feed every year, so countries and farmers look for ways to raise food supply, the amount of food available to eat. A strategy is an action plan, such as a government policy. A technique is the method used, such as a new type of seed. Some of these ideas you met in the lesson Changing Food Production and Consumption. Here we judge them: what is good, what is bad, and who gains.
Key terms:
High-yield varieties (HYVs) with fertiliser and irrigation raised wheat and rice yields, for example in the Punjab in India, so countries could feed more people and some stopped needing to import grain. But seeds and fertiliser are costly, so poorer farmers fell into debt. Fertiliser and pesticide run-off pollutes rivers, heavy irrigation lowers groundwater, and growing one variety reduces crop diversity.
Genes are changed so crops resist pests, tolerate drought or add vitamins. Bt cotton and Bt maize resist insects, and Golden Rice has extra vitamin A. They can raise yields and cut pesticide use. But seeds can cost more, companies control the supply, and some people worry about effects on wildlife and health, so some countries restrict them.
Large schemes, such as the Indira Gandhi Canal in India, bring river water to dry land and allow harvests all year. But they are expensive and evaporation wastes water. Evaporating water leaves salts behind, so salts build up in the soil (salinisation), and taking too much water shrank the Aral Sea, as cotton fields in Central Asia were irrigated.
Land is drained from the sea or wetland. The Netherlands drained polders, such as Flevoland, for farms and towns. This adds fertile land where little was available. But it is very costly, it destroys wetland habitats, and low land is at risk of flooding.
Tractors and harvesters speed up work, cut labour costs and let farmers farm more land. But machines, fuel and repairs are costly, they create fewer jobs, and burning fuel adds to climate change. Small farmers often cannot afford them.
Examples are treadle pumps, drip irrigation from simple pipes, ox-drawn ploughs and stone terraces. They are cheap, use local skills and need little fuel, so small farmers can use them. But they raise output less than big machines, so they alone may not feed a growing country.
Fish and shrimp are raised in ponds, tanks and sea cages, for example salmon in Norway and shrimp in Vietnam. It gives protein and eases pressure on wild fish stocks. But waste and chemicals pollute water, disease can spread to wild fish, and mangroves are sometimes cleared for ponds.
About one third of the food grown in the world is lost or wasted. In LICs most is lost after harvest, in poor storage and transport. In HICs most is wasted in shops and homes. Cutting waste feeds more people without any extra land, water or fertiliser. But it needs changed habits, planning and investment.
Grain silos keep out pests and damp, cold stores keep fruit and milk fresh, and all-weather roads get food to markets before it rots. This cuts losses and raises farmers' incomes. But it needs money and a reliable power supply, which many remote areas lack.
Governments can pay part of the cost of seed and fertiliser (a subsidy), guarantee prices, give cheap loans, fund training, or share out land more fairly. This helps farmers invest. But it costs taxpayers a lot, can lead to over-use of fertiliser, and often helps larger farms more than small ones.
You should know that hydroponics (growing plants in water with nutrients and no soil, see the lesson Types of Farming) and vertical farming (growing crops in stacked layers indoors) are new ways to grow food in small spaces, including in cities. You do not need to evaluate them in detail.
A good evaluation looks at cost, who benefits and how sustainable it is. In this topic, sustainable means increasing food supply without damaging the soil, water and wildlife that farmers will need in future.
| Strategy | Who benefits most | How sustainable |
|---|---|---|
| Green Revolution | Farmers who can afford inputs | Low to medium: pollution, water use |
| GM crops | Farmers and seed companies | Medium: less pesticide, but debated |
| Irrigation schemes | Farmers near the scheme | Low if water is over-used |
| Mechanisation | Large farmers who can afford machines | Low to medium: uses fuel |
| Land reclamation | Farmers and towns on the new land | Low: destroys wetland, flood risk |
| Aquaculture | Fish farmers and people short of protein | Medium: less pressure on wild fish, but pollution |
| Better storage and transport | Farmers and food buyers | High: cuts losses with little harm |
| Government policies and subsidies | Often larger farms, then consumers | Medium: depends on how money is used |
| Appropriate technology | Small farmers | High: cheap and low impact |
| Reducing food waste | Everyone, including consumers | High: needs no extra land |
Do not say a strategy is "good" or "bad" with no reason. Give a gain and a problem, then judge. Do not mix up GM crops (genes changed) with HYVs (bred over time by selecting seeds). And do not say the Green Revolution failed. It raised food supply a lot, but it had costs and did not help everyone equally.
Fig. 1.1 shows made-up data for a farm area in an MIC that used high-yield seeds and fertiliser.
| Year | Rice yield (tonnes per hectare) | Cost of seed and fertiliser per hectare (US$) |
|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 2.0 | 30 |
| 1985 | 3.2 | 80 |
| 2000 | 4.5 | 150 |
(a) Identify the rice yield in 1985. [1 mark]
(b) Calculate the increase in yield from 1970 to 2000. [1 mark]
(c) Describe two problems that can result from the Green Revolution. [2 marks]
(d) Explain how appropriate technology can help small farmers increase food supply. [3 marks]
(e) Assess the view that reducing food waste is the best way to increase food supply. [6 marks]
(a) 3.2 tonnes per hectare (1).
(b) 4.5 − 2.0 = 2.5 tonnes per hectare (1).
(c) Fertilisers and pesticides run off into rivers and cause pollution (1). Seeds and fertiliser are expensive, so poorer farmers can fall into debt (1).
(d) It is cheap, so small farmers can afford it (1). It is simple to use and repair with local skills (1). For example, a treadle pump brings water to crops in the dry season, so they can grow more food (1).
(e) Levels-style answer, made up for practice: Level 1 (1 to 2 marks) states a few points about waste. Level 2 (3 to 4 marks) explains some advantages and disadvantages. Level 3 (5 to 6 marks) weighs waste against other strategies and reaches a supported judgement.
Level 3 answer: About one third of food is lost or wasted, so saving it feeds more people without extra land, water or fertiliser (1). In LICs, better storage and transport would cut losses after harvest (1), and in HICs shops and households can waste less (1). It is also sustainable, because it needs no extra resources (1). However, it cannot raise production by itself, and a growing population also needs more food grown, through HYVs, irrigation or GM crops (1). Those methods raise yields but can cause pollution and cost a lot. Overall, reducing waste is one of the most sustainable options, but it works best alongside other strategies (1).
For "assess", give a point for and a point against, then finish with a judgement that uses the word "because".