User:Surya Prakash Tyagi

Green Revolution:- Green Revolution refers to a series of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1970s, that increased agriculture production around the world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s.[1] The initiatives involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers. The term "Green Revolution" was first used in 1968 by former USAID director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies and said, "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution. Agricultural production and food secure. Technologies:- New varieties of wheat and other grains were instrumental to the green revolution. The Green Revolution spread technologies that had already existed before, but had not been widely used outside industrialized nations. These technologies included pesticides, irrigation projects, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and improved crop varieties developed through the conventional, science-based methods available at the time. The novel technological development of the Green Revolution was the production of novel wheat cultivars. Agronomists bred cultivars of maize, wheat, and rice that are generally referred to as HYVs or “high-yielding varieties”. HYVs have higher nitrogen-absorbing potential than other varieties. Since cereals that absorbed extra nitrogen would typically lodge, or fall over before harvest, semi-dwarfing genes were bred into their genomes. A Japanese dwarf wheat cultivar (Norin 10 wheat), which was sent to Washington, D.C. by Cecil Salmon, was instrumental in developing Green Revolution wheat cultivars. IR8, the first widely implemented HYV rice to be developed by IRRI, was created through a cross between an Indonesian variety named “Peta” and a Chinese variety named “Dee-geo-woo-gen.” With advances in molecular genetics, the mutant genes responsible for Arabidopsis thaliana genes (GA 20-oxidase,[16] ga1,[17] ga1-3[18]), wheat reduced-height genes (Rht)[19] and a rice semidwarf gene (sd1)[20] were cloned. These were identified as gibberellin biosynthesis genes or cellular signaling component genes. Stem growth in the mutant background is significantly reduced leading to the dwarf phenotype. Photosynthetic investment in the stem is reduced dramatically as the shorter plants are inherently more stable mechanically. Assimilates become redirected to grain production, amplifying in particular the effect of chemical fertilizers on commercial yield. HYVs significantly outperform traditional varieties in the presence of adequate irrigation, pesticides, and fertilizers. In the absence of these inputs, traditional varieties may outperform HYVs. Therefore, several authors have challenged the apparent superiority of HYVs not only compared to the traditional varieties alone, but by contrasting the monocultural system associated with HYVs with the polycultural system associated with traditional ones.[21] Production increases:- Cereal production more than doubled in developing nations between the years 1961–1985.[22] Yields of rice, maize, and wheat increased steadily during that period.[22] The production increases can be attributed roughly equally to irrigation, fertilizer, and seed development, at least in the case of Asian rice.[22] While agricultural output increased as a result of the Green Revolution, the energy input to produce a crop has increased faster,[23] so that the ratio of crops produced to energy input has decreased over time. Green Revolution techniques also heavily rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, some of which must be developed from fossil fuels, making agriculture increasingly reliant on petroleum products.[24] Proponents of the Peak Oil theory fear that a future decline in oil and gas production would lead to a decline in food production or even a Malthusian catastrophe.[25] Effects on food security:- Main article: Food security The effects of the Green Revolution on global food security are difficult to assess because of the complexities involved in food systems. The world population has grown by about four billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and many believe that, without the Revolution, there would have been greater famine and malnutrition. India saw annual wheat production rise from 10 million tons in the 1960s to 73 million in 2006.[26] The average person in the developing world consumes roughly 25% more calories per day now than before the Green Revolution.[22] Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by over 250%[27] The production increases fostered by the Green Revolution are often credited with having helped to avoid widespread famine, and for feeding billions of people.[citation needed] There are also claims that the Green Revolution has decreased food security for a large number of people. One claim involves the shift of subsistence-oriented cropland to cropland oriented towards production of grain for export or animal feed. For example, the Green Revolution replaced much of the land used for pulses that fed Indian peasants for wheat, which did not make up a large portion of the peasant diet.[28] Malthusian criticism:- Some criticisms generally involve some variation of the Malthusian principle of population. Such concerns often revolve around the idea that the Green Revolution is unsustainable,[29] and argue that humanity is now in a state of overpopulation with regards to the sustainable carrying capacity and ecological demands on the Earth. Although 36 million people die each year as a direct or indirect result of hunger and poor nutrition,[30] Malthus' more extreme predictions have frequently failed to materialize. In 1798 Thomas Malthus made his prediction of impending famine.[31] The world's population had doubled by 1923 and doubled again by 1973 without fulfilling Malthus' prediction. Malthusian Paul R. Ehrlich, in his 1968 book The Population Bomb, said that "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980" and "Hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs."[31] Ehrlich's warnings failed to materialize when India became self-sustaining in cereal production in 1974 (six years later) as a result of the introduction of Norman Borlaug's dwarf wheat varieties.[31] Famine:- To some modern Western sociologists and writers, increasing food production is not synonymous with increasing food security, and is only part of a larger equation. For example, Harvard professor Amartya Sen claimed large historic famines were not caused by decreases in food supply, but by socioeconomic dynamics and a failure of public action.[32] However, economist Peter Bowbrick refutes that Sen's theory is incorrect as Sen relies on inconsistent arguments, and contradicting available information, including sources that Sen himself cited.[33] Bowbrick further argues that Sen's views coincide with that of the Bengal government at the time of the Bengal famine of 1943 and the policies Sen advocates failed to relieve the famine.[33] Quality of diet:- Some have challenged the value of the increased food production of Green Revolution agriculture. Miguel A. Altieri, (a pioneer of agroecology and peasant-advocate), writes that the comparison between traditional systems of agriculture and Green Revolution agriculture has been unfair, because Green Revolution agriculture produces monocultures of cereal grains, while traditional agriculture usually incorporates polycultures.[citation needed] These monoculture crops are often used for export, feed for animals, or conversion into biofuel. According to Emile Frison of Bioversity International, the Green Revolution has also led to a change in dietary habits, as less people are affected by hunger and die from starvation, but many are affected by malnutrition such as iron or vitamin-A deficiencies.[13] Frison further asserts that almost 60% of yearly deaths of children under age five in developing countries are related to malnutrition.[13] High-yield rice (HYR), introduced since 1964 to poverty-ridden Asian countries, (such as the Philippines), was found to have inferior flavor and be more glutinous and less savory than their native varieties.[citation needed] This caused its price to be lower than the average market value.[34] In the Philippines the introduction of heavy pesticides to rice production, in the early part of the green revolution, poisoned and killed off fish and weedy green vegetables that traditionally coexisted in rice paddies. These were nutritious food sources for many poor Filipino farmers prior to the introduction of pesticides, further impacting the diets of locals.[35] Political impact:- A major critic[citation needed] of the Green Revolution, U.S. investigative journalist Mark Dowie, writes:[citation needed] The primary objective of the program was geopolitical: to provide food for the populace in undeveloped countries and so bring social stability and weaken the fomenting of communist insurgency. Citing internal Foundation documents, Dowie states that the Ford Foundation had a greater concern than Rockefeller in this area.[36] There is significant evidence that the Green Revolution weakened socialist movements in many nations. In countries such as India, Mexico, and the Philippines, technological solutions were sought as an alternative to expanding agrarian reform initiatives, the latter of which were often linked to socialist politics.[37] Socioeconomic impacts:- The transition from traditional agriculture, in which inputs were generated on-farm, to Green Revolution agriculture, which required the purchase of inputs, led to the widespread establishment of rural credit institutions. Smaller farmers often went into debt, which in many cases results in a loss of their farmland.[11][38] The increased level of mechanization on larger farms made possible by the Green Revolution removed a large source of employment from the rural economy.[11] Because wealthier farmers had better access to credit and land, the Green Revolution increased class disparities. The rich – poor gap widened due to that. Because some regions were able to adopt Green Revolution agriculture more readily than others (for political or geographical reasons), interregional economic disparities increased as well. Many small farmers are hurt by the dropping prices resulting from increased production overall.[citation needed] However, large-scale farming companies only account for less than 10% of the total farming capacity. The new economic difficulties of small holder farmers and landless farm workers led to increased rural-urban migration. The increase in food production led to a cheaper food for urban dwellers, and the increase in urban population increased the potential for industrialization.[citation needed] Globalization:- In the most basic sense, the Green Revolution was a product of globalization as evidenced in the creation of international agricultural research centers that shared information, and with transnational funding from groups like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Additionally, the inputs required in Green Revolution agriculture created new markets for seed and chemical corporations, many of which were based in the United States. For example, Standard Oil of New Jersey established hundreds of distributors in the Philippines to sell agricultural packages composed of HYV seed, fertilizer, and pesticides.Bold text