| Literature DB >> 22022517 |
David C Cook1, Rob W Fraser, Dean R Paini, Andrew C Warden, W Mark Lonsdale, Paul J De Barro.
Abstract
The delivery of food security via continued crop yield improvement alone is not an effective food security strategy, and must be supported by pre- and post-border biosecurity policies to guard against perverse outcomes. In the wake of the green revolution, yield gains have been in steady decline, while post-harvest crop losses have increased as a result of insufficiently resourced and uncoordinated efforts to control spoilage throughout global transport and storage networks. This paper focuses on the role that biosecurity is set to play in future food security by preventing both pre- and post-harvest losses, thereby protecting crop yield. We model biosecurity as a food security technology that may complement conventional yield improvement policies if the gains in global farm profits are sufficient to offset the costs of implementation and maintenance. Using phytosanitary measures that slow global spread of the Ug99 strain of wheat stem rust as an example of pre-border biosecurity risk mitigation and combining it with post-border surveillance and invasive alien species control efforts, we estimate global farm profitability may be improved by over US$4.5 billion per annum.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22022517 PMCID: PMC3192155 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026084
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
International wheat production statistics, labour costs and Ug99 establishment indexes by country.
| Producer | Area planted to wheat (ha) | Mass of grain produced (MT) | Average yield (T/ha) | Value produced (US$'000,000) | Labour rate (US$/hr) | Ug99 establishment index |
| China | 24,210,075 | 114,950,296 | 4.75 | 17,395 | 5.00 | 0.134360 |
| India | 28,400,000 | 78,570,200 | 2.77 | 11,614 | 4.00 | 0.134360 |
| United States of America | 20,181,081 | 68,016,100 | 3.37 | 8,775 | 26.35 | 0.024677 |
| Russian Federation | 26,632,900 | 63,765,140 | 2.39 | 5,738 | 4.91 | 0.019464 |
| Canada | 9,539,000 | 28,611,100 | 3.00 | 3,529 | 29.20 | 0.024677 |
| France | 5,146,600 | 39,001,700 | 7.58 | 4,141 | 30.93 | 0.024677 |
| Pakistan | 9,046,000 | 20,958,800 | 2.32 | 3,040 | 4.34 | 0.181200 |
| Australia | 13,507,000 | 21,420,177 | 1.59 | 2,308 | 35.00 | 0.134360 |
| Ukraine | 6,752,900 | 25,885,400 | 3.83 | 1,795 | 4.01 | 0.002024 |
| Turkey | 8,026,898 | 17,782,000 | 2.22 | 2,660 | 12.35 | 0.113270 |
| Germany | 3,226,036 | 25,988,565 | 8.06 | 2,067 | 35.00 | 0.024677 |
| United Kingdom | 1,814,000 | 17,227,000 | 9.50 | 1,273 | 39.49 | 0.024677 |
| Kazakhstan | 14,329,400 | 12,538,200 | 0.87 | 1,358 | 2.52 | 0.000267 |
| Argentina | 4,334,780 | 8,508,156 | 1.96 | 2,034 | 16.03 | 0.134360 |
| Egypt | 1,321,751 | 7,977,051 | 6.04 | 992 | 5.00 | 0.120550 |
FAO [46];
Based on hourly wages (US$) for rural workers from U.S. Department of State [47];
Derived from Paini et al. [37].
Parameter estimates.
| Parameters | With Biosecurity Measures | Without Biosecurity Measures |
| Probability of entry, | Uniform(1.0×10−6, 1.0×10−3) | Uniform(0.3,0.7) |
| Probability of establishment, | 2.6×10−4 to 1.3×10−1 | 2.6×10−4 to 1.3×10−1 |
| Detection probability. | Binomial(1.0, 0.5) | Binomial(1.0,0.3) |
| Probability of successful eradication in a single time step given an infected area, |
|
|
| Population diffusion coefficient, | Pert(0,2.5×103, 5.0×103) | Pert(0,2.5×103,5.0×103) |
| Minimum area infected immediately upon entry, | 1.0×103 | 1.0×103 |
| Maximum area infected, | 1.8×1012 | 1.8×1012 |
| Intrinsic rate of infection and density increase, | Pert(1.0,1.25,1.5) | Pert(1.0,1.25,1.5) |
| Minimum infection density, | 1.0×10−4 | 1.0×10−4 |
| Maximum infection density, | Pert(100,550,1000) | Pert(100,550,1000) |
| Minimum number of satellite sites generated in a single time step, | 1 | 1 |
| Maximum number of satellite sites generated in a single time step, | Pert(70,85,100) | Pert(70,85,100) |
| Intrinsic rate of new foci generation per unit area of infection, | Pert(1.0×10−6,3.0×10−6,5.0×10−6) | Pert(1.0×10−6,3.0×10−6,5.0×10−6) |
| Discount rate (%). |
|
|
| Supply elasticity. | Pert(0.2,0.3,0.4) | Pert(0.2,0.3,0.4) |
| Demand elasticity. | Pert(-0.2,-0.3,-0.4) | Pert(-0.2,-0.3,-0.4) |
| World wheat price in the first time step (US$/T). | Uniform(155,275) | Uniform(155,275) |
| Average yield, | 0.87 to 9.50 | 0.87 to 9.50 |
| Maximum area considered for eradication (ha). | 10 000 | 10 000 |
| Increased chemical cost (US$/ha). | 40 | 40 |
| Increased application costs (US$/ha). | 2.50 to 39.50 | 2.50 to 39.50 |
| Cost of eradication, | Pert(5.0×103,1.0×104,1.5×104) | Pert(5.0×103,1.0×104,1.5×104) |
| Yield reduction from adoption of resistant varieties, | Pert(5,10,15) | Pert(5,10,15) |
| Post-harvest loss (%). | Pert(21,30,39) | Pert(30,35,40) |
Specified with reference to Cook [48] and Waage et al. [49] using distributions defined in Biosecurity Australia [50];
See country-specific Ug99 establishment indexes in Table 1 derived from Paini et al. [37] and interpreted here as establishment probabilities;
Derived from Sapoukhina et al. [51];
FAO [46]. Note 1ha = 10 000 m2 ;
Specified with reference to FAPRI [52];
International Monetary Fund [53];
Based on time taken for crop removal (see , below) and hourly wages (US$) for rural workers from U.S. Department of State [47] provided in Table 1;
Assumes zero compensation following crop destruction, and transport, disposal and chemical costs amounting to US$10,800 per hectare. This is inclusive of labour (see Table 1), machinery ($100/hr at approximately 20 minutes per hectare depending on yield, soil, terrain, etc.), truck hire ($75/hr), incendiaries ($6/ha for green waste) and creation of a circular chemical buffer zone approximately 10 hectares in diameter around previously infected sites. Chemical used is assumed to be Folicur 430 (or equivalent, e.g. Impact 250, Tilt 250 or Triad 125) applied at a rate of 145–290 mL/ha, costing $20–40/ha and taking 6 minutes per hectare to apply);
Estimate without biosecurity measures derived from Oerke and Dehne [6] and Oerke [8], while the with biosecurity measures estimate implies an arbitrary reduction in post-harvest losses of Pert(1%, 5%, 9%).
Figure 1Cumulative benefit of biosecurity measures to mitigate the spread of Ug99 throughout prominent wheat production areas of the world over time.
Annual pre-border, post-border and combined biosecurity benefits.
| Pre-Border (US$ billion) | Post-Border (US$ billion) | Combined (US$ billion) | |
| Mean | 0.7 | 4.2 | 4.5 |
| St. Dev. | 0.7 | 2.2 | 2.9 |
Figure 2Sensitivity of results to changes in key model parameters showing Spearman rank correlation coefficients.