Food Security

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 447–459 | Cite as

How reliable are crop production data? Case studies in USA and Argentina

  • V. O. Sadras
  • P. Grassini
  • R. Costa
  • L. Cohan
  • A. J. Hall
Original Paper

Abstract

Reliability of crop production data has implications for yield gap analysis, production time trends, trading and policy decisions. In this paper, we compared databases of major grain crops estimated by a pair of independent organisations in Nebraska, USA (USDA-NASS, National Agricultural Statistics Service of USDA vs NRD, Natural Resources Districts of Nebraska) and a pair of independent organisations in Argentina (MA, Ministerio de Agricultura vs. BC, Bolsa de Cereales de Buenos Aires). The comparisons involved the yield of irrigated and rainfed maize and soybean reported by USDA-NASS and NRD, and the yield, acreage and production of maize, soybean and wheat reported by MA and BC.

The comparison between NASS-USDA and NRD yield data included 127 paired observations for maize and 87 for soybean. For the pooled data involving irrigated and rainfed crops, the average difference in yield between the two sources was small (<5 %). In both crops, however, the yield difference between sources increased with increasing yield suggesting that NRD reported higher yields than NASS-USDA in high-yielding, irrigated crops and lower yields in rainfed crops. For maize, NRD returned lower yield than NASS-USDA for average yield below 10 t ha−1, and higher yield above this threshold. For soybean, NRD returned lower yield than NASS-USDA for average yield below 3 t ha−1, and higher yield above this threshold.

For the pooled data comprising 13 regions and 9–10 cropping seasons per region in Argentina, differences between yield reported by MA and BC were larger and more scattered for maize than for soybean and wheat. The differences in acreage between the two sources increased with increasing acreage for soybean and wheat, and the same pattern was found for total production. Differences in production were more closely related to differences in acreage than to differences in yield, thus highlighting the need to improve the accuracy of crop acreage estimates. Disaggregation of data showed compensation between regions where positive differences (BC > MA) compensated negative differences (BC < MA). For both Nebraska and Argentina, relative differences between sources generally declined with larger regional cropping area and/or number of reporting fields.

All four organisations providing cropping statistics involved experienced professionals using rigorous methods; hence comparisons did not seek to establish the “right” estimate. The conclusions from these comparisons are thus asymmetric: where the two sources show statistical agreement, we can have some confidence on the reliability of the data, but where the sources disagree, we cannot tell which one is more reliable; we can, however, highlight the mismatch and recommend caution in the use and interpretation of crop yield and production data, particularly at regional level.

Keywords

Wheat Maize Soybean Statistics Production Yield Acreage 

Notes

Acknowledgments

VOS research is partially funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation of Australia and PG research was partially funded by the Nebraska Soybean Board. We thank the Nebraska Natural Resources Districts that have collaborated on this project, Dean Groskurth and Nicholas Streff (USDA-NASS), Alejandro García and Carlos Dellavalle (Ministerio de Agricultura Ganadería y Pesca), Esteban Copati, Juan Ignacio Dreiling, Maximiliano Zavala, Damian Sammarro and Juan Martín Brihet (Bolsa de Cereales de Buenos Aires) for useful input to compile and interpret the data sets used in this study.

References

  1. Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1983). Measurement in medicine - the analysis of method comparison studies. Stat, 32, 307–317. doi: 10.2307/2987937.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, M. A., & Fischer, R. A. (1994). Using yield prediction models to assess yield gains: a case study for wheat. Field Crops Research, 36, 161–166. doi: 10.1016/0378–4290(94)90064–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brisson, N., Gate, P., Gouache, D., Charmet, G., Oury, F. X., & Huard, F. (2010). Why are wheat yields stagnating in Europe? a comprehensive data analysis for France. Field Crops Research, 119, 201–212. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.07.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, R. (2013). Lies, damned lies… Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker, 590, 6Google Scholar
  6. Cassman, K. G. (2012). What do we need to know about global food security? Global Food Security, 1, 81–82, doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gfs.2012.12.001.
  7. Fischer, R. A. (1985). Number of kernels in wheat crops and the influence of solar radiation and temperature. J Agric Sci, 105, 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, R. A., & Edmeades, G. O. (2010). Breeding and cereal yield progress. Crop Science, 50, S85–S98. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2009.10.0564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaidashova, S. V., van Asten, P. J. A., Delvaux, B., & De Waele, D. (2010). The influence of the topographic position within highlands of western Rwanda on the interactions between banana (Musa spp. AAA-EA), parasitic nematodes and soil factors. Scientia Horticulturae, 125, 316–322. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gasparri, N. I., Grau, H. R., & Manghi, E. (2008). Carbon pools and emissions from deforestation in extra-tropical forests of northern Argentina between 1900 and 2005. Ecosystems, 11, 1247–1261. doi: 10.1007/s10021–008–9190–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grassini, P., Eskridge, K. M., & Cassman, K. G. (2013). Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop production trends. [Article]. Nat Commun, 4, doi: 10.1038/ncomms3918.
  12. Hauser, S., & van Asten, P. J. A. (2008). Methodological considerations on banana and plantain yield determinations. Banana 2008: Banana and plantain in Africa: Harnessing international partnerships to increase research impact. Available at: http://www.banana2008.com/cms/details/Production.pdf. Accessed on 14th June, 2010.
  13. Hawkesford, M. J., Araus, J.-L., Park, R., Calderini, D., Miralles, D., Shen, T., et al. (2013). Prospects of doubling global wheat yields. Food and Energy Security, n/a-n/a, doi:10.1002/fes3.15Google Scholar
  14. Kim, S., & Dale, B. E. (2004). Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26, 361–375. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laborte, A. G., de Bie, K., Smaling, E. M. A., Moya, P. F., Boling, A. A., & Van Ittersum, M. K. (2012). Rice yields and yield gaps in southeast asia: past trends and future outlook. European Journal of Agronomy, 36, 9–20. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2011.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ludbrook, J. (2012). A primer for biomedical scientists on how to execute model II linear regression analysis. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 39, 329–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1440–1681.2011.05643.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2008). Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22, doi:10.1029/2007gb002947Google Scholar
  18. Niklas, K. J. (1994). Plant allometry: the scaling of form and process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Okumu, M. O., van Asten, P. J. A., Kahangi, E., Okech, S. H., Jefwa, J., & Vanlauwe, B. (2011). Production gradients in smallholder banana (cv. Giant Cavendish) farms in central kenya. Scientia Horticulturae, 127, 475–481. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Piñeiro, G., Perelman, S., Guerschman, J. P., & Paruelo, J. M. (2008). How to evaluate models: observed vs. predicted or predicted vs. observed? Ecological Modelling, 216, 316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: definition and measurement. Food Secur, 1, 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, R. J. (2009). Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 140, 476–486. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21090.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sumberg, J. (2012). Mind the (yield) gap (s). Food Secur, 4, 509–518. doi: 10.1007/s12571–012–0213–0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tittonell, P., & Giller, K. E. (2013). When yield gaps are poverty traps: the paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Research, 143, 76–90. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wairegi, L. W. I., van Asten, P. J. A., Tenywa, M. M., & Bekunda, M. A. (2010). Abiotic constraints override biotic constraints in east African highland banana systems. Field Crops Research, 117, 146–153. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.02.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and International Society for Plant Pathology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. O. Sadras
    • 1
  • P. Grassini
    • 2
  • R. Costa
    • 4
  • L. Cohan
    • 3
  • A. J. Hall
    • 5
  1. 1.South Australian Research and Development InstituteUrrbraeAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Agronomy and HorticultureUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  3. 3.Programa de Política Fiscal - CIPPECBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Bolsa de Cereales de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.IFEVA, CONICET/FAUBAde Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations