Climate change is being experienced at three different levels. The first level is in debates - studies - reports - discussions - negotiations etc, Here it is felt almost like the worst has already occurred. There is second level where policy makers are devising strategies and allocating resource to combat the climate change at this level it is like OK let us be prepared so that we are not caught unaware. The third level is farmers and general public - at this level it is still not considered significant enough to warrant any attention at all. All the present day changes are being considered as normal weather aberrations. Therefore not many are taking it as seriously as the people in first category want them.

It’s awful. They have to decide if they want to plant a week earlier than they used to. If they used to use row covers to protect their plants from frost, they might not need to do that anymore.

They have to decide if they’d like to grow things that they previously couldn’t grow because the growing season was too short. Virtually all plants prefer a longer growing season and warmth over cold.

Farmers in shithole countries rely on the whims of nature for water. If snowmelt and rainfall patterns shift due to Climate Change ™️, they may be screwed - or maybe… just maybe they could be better off. I know. I know… Climate Change ™️ is always bad, but shithole countries have had droughts and floods, like forever. Maybe Climate Change ™️ will make a flood-prone place more drought-prone. Or a drought-prone place more flood-prone. At some point in the shift it will be just right.

Probably the most important adaptation for farmers is that they will need to perfect their acting skills and overcome being camera-shy.

If they screw up somehow and they have a crop failure they will need to be able to cry on cue, blame the problem on Climate Change ™️, and ask for relief from the government with a straight face.

All that we hear from the global warming alarmists is the negatives about global warming. So you’ll be happy to hear that there are some large positives and they may outweigh all the negative media. The biggest positive is the major positive effect of the higher CO2 on our planet’s plant life.

We humans have received material benefits from the much greater agricultural output in recent years, the result of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the slight amount of warming to date. According to the IPCC in their AR6, global temperatures have risen about 1ᵒ C in the past 150 years. At the same time, the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere have risen about 50% from 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 420 ppm. These changes have done wonders for all the world’s plant life. The whole planet is much greener. Satellite measurements using a criteria called Leaf Area Index (LAI) are showing that the entire planet is about 35% greener that it was 50 years ago. And much of the greening has been in some of the drier areas like the Sahel region (sub-Sahara Africa).

It should be noted that the great explosion of life on this earth occurred about 540 million years ago when CO2 was about 2,500 ppm CO2. We need to keep the flora well fed. It is the start of the planet’s food chain.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, there was great concern about the world’s population explosion and the ability of the agricultural system to keep humanity fed. In 1968, a book entitled “The Population Bomb” by Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University professor, more or less brought this discussion to its culmination. Early editions of the book began with the statement “The battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970’s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…” This is very strong rhetoric and a very dire prediction. We can be very thankful that reality has been much different.

The world population in 1968 was 3.552 billion and by 2020 the population had grown about 120% to 7.795 billion. Ehrlich’s prediction could easily have been correct except for human technology and fossil fuels which have made agriculture much more efficient and productive.

But along with all our human ingenuity, there have been a couple other benefits which were unseen and unpredictable 50 years ago. Those are the benefits derived from the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the approximate 1.0ᵒ C increase from global warming. There have been 100’s of studies done on the effects of increased CO2 on the productivity of food plants – fruits, vegetables, and grains – and all of them have convincingly demonstrated that more CO2 means more plant growth.

But the agricultural production data are what really provide the answer to your question.

The following chart shows the growth in metric tonnes per hectare for the 60 years from 1960 to 2021. The production, for the same amount of land, has increased about 3-fold for all of our major cereal crops which provide the basis for our food supply in almost all of our countries.

The farmers are doing their best to have their crops take the CO2 and methane out of the air. Methane from large dairys is taken out of the air within one-quarter mile by alfalfa and corn.

Large dairy herds in the San Joaquin Valley in California, USA, (9,000 head) are capturing wet manure in “pools” and covering them to capture the methane and use it to generate electricity.

Processed manure is used to fertilize fodder crops. Chemical fertilizers are still used, of course.

They are still using petrol tractors, harvesters, and so forth. Electric pumps, and natural gas for heat and cooking. They are good caretakers of the land.

Your question deserves multiple books of discussion and answers. Different parts of the world are affected differently and it is pointless to generalize even though most humans think in terms of what they can see and don’t like to deal with answers that vary from place to place.

I’m not really the person to ask about adaptation strategies. I’m still trying to convince people that it is stupid to try to adapt to something when you keep on changing it.

Remember that the operative word in the phrase “climate change” is “change”. Or as we say in Cincinnati, if you don’t like the weather stick around fifteen minutes.

That said we can make a few general points:

Modern agriculture relies heavily on fossil fuels and fertilizers made from fossil fuels. One of the three major greenhouse gases altered by human activity is nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is a breakdown product of ammonia fertilizer. Farming can move beyond modern ammonia fertilizer practices which are so wasteful that 98% of the fertilizer never touches the plants it is intended for.

Most of the fossil fuel use in agriculture can be replaced with renewable energy. I would advise farmers here in the U.S. to move toward electrification because the grid will become renewable even if individual farms cannot manage to do so.

Another thing that is relevant to the U.S. farmer is that the Ethanol Mandate is going to fail and has to be replaced with something better. I suggest that the 1960’s and 70’s price support program is cheaper and better at protecting farmers, but I’m not a farmer and this is not my area of expertise or interest. Eliminating the U.S. ethanol mandate will probably reduce global grain prices. It caused them to triple in 2007 when it was implemented.

Farmers understand soil health better than I do so farmers should be developing and teaching eachother about practice that restore and increase agricultural soil carbon content. This is often discussed as a solution to climate change. It is not, because it is too slow and not enough. But it is enough to help, if we are also doing some other things right at the same time.

I also try to teach people that the droughts are due to soot and smog, not greenhouse gases. This is important because soot and smog will subside before we end fossil fuels, while most of the greenhouse gases we are emitting will remain elevated for a thousand years no matter what we do. Restoring global rainfall patterns to something more like those prior to 1940 will do an incredible amount of good. Global deserts expanded 10% from 1940 to 1970. This was before any warming due to human greenhouse gases was detected. That 10% sounds interesting but not important unless you know that 280 million people lost their ancestral farmlands as a result of those droughts.

Now that Asia is using fossil fuels the way North America and Europe did in the last century we are seeing droughts in the Americas from Chile to Alaska. It is too soon to define a long term area of impact or change.

There are in fact books about agriculture and climate. Some of them are pretty good. There are also some bogus ideas promoted as grand solutions. Livestock is not responsible for half of manmade greenhouse gases. Biochar is not a solution to the loss of agricultural soil carbon.

And wind and solar are both benign partners with agriculture, in many but not all places. The typical impact is that a wind farm doubles the revenue per acre while utilizing only about 2% of the land impacted. The other 98% remains for whatever use it was serving before. Solar is similar on a community-wide basis, although it uses most of the land it occupies.

If you have any experience with agriculture at all you know that running out of agricultural land is not an immediate problem. Wind and solar farms can be restored to their original condition if something better comes along. That cannot be said of a strip mine, a fossil or nuclear power plant or land impacted by acid rain.

The challenge you ask about is that in many cases the impact will change a lot from year to year. What agriculture needs is flexibility. That’s a reason to look for generic solutions like price supports that can help ensure consistence for food production over the long run.

According to the UNDP, Cambodia is consistently ranked among the top 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change, and among the three most vulnerable in Asia. More than two million families, or 80 percent of the population, relies on agriculture.

Urban development is propelled by unsustainable levels of debt taken out by farmers to cope with the adverse impacts of climate change when their crop fails.

Resembling a giant construction site, a quick glance at Phnom Penh's skyline reveals a now-familiar scene – yellow construction cranes scattered across this growing metropolis. During the day, the cranes sway around, groaning under the weight of construction material, while cement trucks block one lane streets as imported cars jam the intersection.

It's a city on the rise, but the ever-present construction clamor echoing across the city coupled with unyielding demand for building materials tell a different story. For each brick fueling the nation's growth symbolizes the blood, sweat and pain of the country's poorest inhabitants.

It's the type of job nobody chooses. The air is thick with soot, catching in the throat. The heat is so intense, it stings every part of your body. The hours are long, and the work, grueling, and often dangerous. Children are running everywhere. There is no safety equipment, and stories of illness and debt bondage are common place.

Many of those drawn into the industry usually accrue debt in their local village to neighbors or money lenders, often because of health emergencies or crop failures. /CGTN Photo

Meach Chanrong came to this brick kiln with his parents years ago. He shares a tiny shack with five family members. His wife recently suffered a miscarriage. He makes just 2.5 U.S. dollars a day, if he's lucky. He is 1,900 U.S. dollars in debt.

"I don't have any way to pay back my debt to the owner," he explains. "We get exploited. I owe money so that is why I have to work. Some days, we don't make enough to eat."

Like other brick kiln workers, he's paid by the brick. He says that much of his meager wages must go toward paying off the debt; there's barely any money left to survive on. When there's not enough for necessities, he has to borrow more. When a family member is sick, he has to borrow more. The result is a rootless, desperate and indebted workforce, highly vulnerable to exploitation.

The decades-old kiln makes it especially dangerous for workers due to the lethally high temperatures when unblocking it after firing. /CGTN Photo

It's an all too familiar story that he shares with the tens of thousands of people working in over 400 brick kilns across Cambodia.

But why? Debts that push people to the kilns are today driven by new realities.

Urban development is being propelled by unsustainable levels of debt taken out by farmers to cope with the adverse impacts of climate change when their crops fail. "Ten years ago, harvest was better. Fishermen can sell more fish, farmers can sell more rice," Keut Theng, executive director of NAS Cambodia, says. "Now, everything has changed and more people are in debt."

In spite of fast development and economic growth, almost 80 percent of Cambodians live in rural areas, about 45 percent of the labor force are directly employed in agriculture. But the agricultural sector has been battered by weather extremes in recent years.

This year drought has affected thousands of hectares of rice paddy across the country. /CGTN Photo

Climate change has caused increased temperature, prolonged drought, reduced watershed; less rainfall and pest insects are also increasingly posing a threat to farmers. For many farmers, it is now a story of coping rather than doing; of managing in whatever way possible the task of farming in an environment no longer suited to age-old methods.

Khon Sokea has been a rice farmer in Kampong Cham her whole life. It's all she knows and it is what has supported her, her husband and five children. But these days, times are tough.

"Last year I got three harvests, this year I got one harvest," she frowns. "There is no water. I rely on rain but there's no rain. My rice plants are too dry."

Larger farms can use machinery and technology to keep their farms going, but for the smaller farms of poorer families, this is not an option. /CGTN Photo

Khon Sokea knows that all it takes is one failed harvest to lead her family into unsustainable levels of debt. For farmers that has meant the end to a lifetime of work. Having gone into debt for small loans to buy more water for their crops, or new fertilizers or chemicals that might see them through, the low harvest means those microloans cannot be repaid.

And for the indebted farmers, one of the only remaining choices is to sell the family debt to the owner of a brick kiln and set out on what they know in advance will be a journey in one direction – to the kilns.

Source: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-11/Climate-change-forces-farmers-to-abandon-farms-Mkt5XutGpO/index.html

Normally, I answer with my phone Because I can dictate from it better. But this is working OK now.

There is someone in my state Who raises minnows for sale. He has adjusted the times for breeding them and hatching them because there’s an optimum spring season for this.

people in my state raise cattle, they always gamble on how much hay they need to purchase to feed the cattle over winter There is also, a very droughty period During late summer the cattle might need to be fed. Other farmers have fields used to grow hay. During these drought. There is no hay production. The profit margin of both of these sets of farmers has already been affected. If less hay can be produced, then there will be less money made from growing hay. Owners of livestock will have to buy more hay for the number of cattle they have, and their profit Will also disappear. The reason is that there will be less be available to purchase and the price will be much higher.

Climate change will affect the amount of rainfall over regions, and When the rain will fall. That will affect the profitability for farmers. There has been some speculation that there will be a global caloric deficit in the decades ahead. That means that farmers will not be able to raise enough food to feed everybody on the planet

Most of the food that you purchase is probably highly processed and the cost of the raw materials is a small part of the price you pay. But the cost of food will rise. There is Already a trade off between crops, raised for fuel production versus crops for feeding.

UK has been incredibly warm and wet over recent winters but then dry summers. My local river was the lowest by far I have seen last summer and the highest by far I have seen this winter. 2023 I was sun bathing in mid October (over many days) & enjoying rum cocktails outside in the evening apres surf. Never done that before, normally its throw the dry robe on and get out the hot cocoa!

If this becomes the modern pattern then farmers will suffer.

The cost of olive oil might be the ‘canary’. Olive oil cost is more about raw material costs than processing costs.

Some plants want cold. An increased average temperature (+2C) reduces the yield of apples. Apple trees need a cold period and recent UK years have been warm and wet. Things which damage Cider production are to be dealt with seriously.

Minimum chill requirement for apple trees.

Adaptation will involve changing what is planted. There is not much that you can do to adapt a two thousand year old olive grove or an orchard and not much that you can do to replace these quickly. Neither would you be inclined to invest in new groves if you do not know what temperature we will end up with (how much CO2 is added). So the farmer must change his crops. What to is a gamble especially as climate change keeps surprising us.

Over to the ‘CO2 is plant food’ brigade who forget that plants also want water, not too much and not too little and many also have strict temperature requirements.

Farmers in developing countries have always had to deal with disastrous fluctuations in climate that devastate their crops from year to year. However, Climate Change will impose long term changes on growing seasons that these farmers have been relying on for hundreds, or even thousands of years.

As crop failures and famine become more common, farming communities will disintegrate. More of their populations will abandon their history and culture to find somewhere else they can scratch out a living. They will form huge refugee camps as they wait to cross national borders. They will crowd into cities that don’t have the infrastructure to accomodate them. They will be crushed into cramped, filthy conditions where crime, disease and malnutrition are rife.

They will have to compete for space and opportunities with the refugees from cities that suffered economic collapse or have become uninhabitable for months of the year due to heatwaves. They will be treated as invaders by the residents of their new homes and forced to keep moving to become someone else’s problem. They will become desperate, miserable, disillusioned and angry at the indifferent world that destroyed the humble, but survivable lives they used to have.

Into this environment of despair and resentment will come radicals who can provide them with a culprit for their plight. They will be armed with a violent agenda and all those old IPCC reports that, years before, predicted this very scenario. They will have videos of politicians and industry spokes people, arrogantly denying science, rationalising the developed world’s insatiable greed and procrastinating in the face of a global existential threat to humanity.

So how do you think the starving, displaced farmers of the developing world will respond to this information?

The good news is that, by the time Climate Change inspired terrorism really takes off, we’ll hardly notice. By then, we’ll have our own climate disasters to keep us distracted.

That is a very topical question and I believe (as a Republican, just to get my bias out of the way) you deserve a coherent answer.

There are commercial drone they use to deal with their issue. There are USA companies that created drones, like a small model plane, that farmers launch that MAP their fields, looking for heat / water and dead areas, so they they can attend to the issues that affect crops.

These drones are not like the Best Buy Chinese toy drones.

These are rugged drones like Aerovironment makes. Check them out Precision Agriculture

There are many others and all of them add to the database, all of them help crops.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the USA stared to sell off retired Predator drones to do the same, flying at 12,000 feet, to enhance the details of the areas affected by weather (OK I got it, climate change) to maximize crops / water usage etc.

That depends on how the climate changes. If your locality cools too much, the growing season might shorten to become incapable of sustaining the crop to its finish. If it warms greatly, some crop producing areas may evolve into desserts. These changing conditions are less of a threat than our attitudes to them. Humans have discovered we can’t change climate to make it better or worse. Here, where I live at Manitou Beach in Saskatchewan, Canada, the current temperature is minus 1.2 degrees C at midnight, September the 27th. We had some hot days last summer (short lived), but we could sure use more warmth. Wildfires in western Canada and California, together with volcanic activity around the globe, contribute to warmth. That, however, is not the way we prefer to be warmed. We must learn to adapt to change.

The biggest change that i believe a farmer is going to face is the readjustment of cropping according to changing climatic conditions. The crop models based on which the present system has been deviced will undergo a sudden change which a farmer may not be able to adopt easily to. Thus the practices will have to be changed frequently. This will not be easy and frequent crop failure will be the result. Most affected will be the weather based crop insurance scheme. The company will have to make regular payments to farmers since the weather will be unpredictable throughout. The farming will be more gamble. Absolute crop failure and high unexpected yield may rule. Average and consistency may be lost making farming more risky.

If the continued extra radiative forcing (global warming) caused by the conversion of hundreds of cubic miles of hydrocarbons into excess CO2 melts enough ice, we might see a shut down of the ocean currents which would cause an ice age for Europe and an extreme hot house for equatorial regions. Therefore, farmers would not adapt and there would be global famine.

The only things farmers (and everybody else) can do is promote science awareness about how John Tyndall's experiments proved in the nineteenth century the radiative forcing caused by GHGs is as real as any other science that we agree with, and that it is NOT a political issue.

Farmers can, however, use soil science to naturally sequester some of the extra CO2.

Everybody has to promote the industrialization of clean energy automation!

They do now, at least in the Midwest. This is an unprecedented season of climate disaster there, and for the first few months of the growing season this year, a lot of farmers became believers.

Shared by meteorologist Nick Humphrey: “This is just America (historic flooding)...don't forget about the Canadian Prairies (extreme drought), Central and Western Europe (drought and flood), East Africa (drought with flooding in Mozambique from two historic amd catastrophic tropical cyclones), Australia (drought...except for that titanic Queensland flood in February), China (historic drought in the north, historic floods to the South), India (blazing heat and drought), Central and South America (drought or flood, depending on the country). I'm sure I'm missing spots. All those areas are facing or have faced crop devastation in just the past 6-12 months”

Most of them (and yes, I do help with the family farm) have more to worry about. They already engage in more conservation practices than the average person can imagine. When there is talk of taxing carbon emissions, the farmer has to worry about how he’ll pay for it and still produce a crop. He can’t just switch to an electric tractor. Farming is far more efficient now than it was in 1970 and will continue to become even more so. It is in the farmers best interests. They try to control what they can and not get caught up in what they cannot. Most of them are good stewards of the land because it is an investment that will continue to pay off for years if properly maintained. Does climate change affect them? Sure, but unlike most folks, they take a long view. It’s funny to listen to a bunch of farmers sitting around the grain elevator waiting to get unloaded. They are pretty amused by notions like electric tractors to save using fossil fuels, since you would still have to burn fuels to produce electricity to run the tractors. They are less amused by trade wars. Farmers are also aware that the climate has changed since the 1960’s and 70’s and they do support efforts to clean up the environment, but they are also leery of anyone who can’t accurately predict the weather next week telling them what the weather is going to be doing in twenty years. (Yes, I know, climate and weather are two different subjects).

Many farmers — at least, the good ones — keep detailed records. They can easily see the changes. We can easily see the changes: in first frost, last frost, first harvest, last harvest, etc.

Although trends clearly indicate a longer growing season, it isn’t just a rosy picture. We have more irrigation stress, and more failed harvests.

For example, the 38°C (100°F) "heat dome" we had here caused most of our plants to drop their blossoms in late June. The indeterminate tomatoes immediately set new flowers, but the determinate tomatoes will give us nothing this year. We should be picking blackberries into September, for example, but right now, they’re little, dried-up, hard things that are hardly worth picking.

So I’d wager that most farmers are well aware climate change. But whether they attribute that to human causes has more to do with their political persuasion than anything else. Just look at a couple of the other comments here.

Q: How can agriculture adapt to climate change?

So far as the current trends suggest… Sit back and enjoy reaping the increasingly larger and higher yield harvests, while the entire Earth itself enjoys a period of significant increased greening.

The current natural global trend is “more green”, as measured by spectroscopic analysis of satellite observations.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Let's look at the other data. Global production.

Corn, wheat, rice, barley rye, millet, etc…

Tubers, yams, sweet potatoes…

Legumes. Peas, nuts, beans.

Fruits. Bananas, oranges, apples, grapes, avocados, tomatoes.

Sugar

Oil crops, sunflower, olives, palm, rapeseed.

And all the time yields are also increasing.

Distribution efficiency increases, more people are getting adequate nutrition each year.

Agriculture is doing quite well.

All images above source: Agricultural Production

A thought for consideration. There are an estimated 3 trillion trees on Earth.

An extremely small percentage are fruit trees.

Another thought.

The vast bulk of our global agriculture is done using the “land and sun and naturally supplied water are cheep” method when choosing how technical and cost intensively land is going to be used.

Most of our land is irrigated using local water, using local soil, and in the open air using sunlight as the source of energy.

Like this area in Nebraska. Mostly naturally watered fields of wheat and corn and other field crops.

Some areas we spend more money, add technology. To grow higher yields or more expensive crops. (or overcome local challenges).

BUT. Where land becomes less available, and the amount of food grown per acre needed increases as the population grows…

… we always have the know-how and the ability to do this:

Land covered in greenhouses. (glass is made of very plentiful silicon).

It costs more up front. It takes more up front effort. Construction etc.

But you have climate control. Humidity, temperature to a degree and CO2 concentration levels. Easier pest control. Can stack plants on shelves. And grow high density crops. Increasing the yield per acre by multiples versus open air farming.

We open air farm on large scales because of the cheapness and ease of setup.

We don’t have to “stick to the old ways”.

So. Looking at DATA.

The DATA says… Looking good.

If you look at CLAIMS, you may get different claims. Like Obama a few years ago.

Oh. And then there is this. A picture of a seaweed farm as seen from space.

So. We do have several viable options.

It all comes down to the balance between ease, cost, and necessity.

We fill the blanks in the equation as we go.

And as doing spectacular so far.

AND when you consider the value of CLAIMS, versus DATA. Look at any predictions from 40 years ago about impending greenness and impending claims of agricultural issues that did not occur.

DATA. vs. CLAIMS.

What should agricultural industry do??

Keep up the good work.

The world should be very grateful to the people that keep us well fed.

Climate change is one of the most important reasons for Farmer suicides in India. In India, about 60% of total net sown area comes under rainfed lands. Rainfed crops account for 48 percent area under food crops and 68 percent under non-food crops. India ranks first among the rainfed agricultural countries of the world in terms of both extent and value of produce. Due to population pressure on agricultural lands, the poverty is concentrated in rainfed regions. The climate in India’s rainfed regions is characterized by complex climatic deficiencies, manifested as water scarcity for rainfed crop production. The climate is largely semi-arid and dry sub-humid with a short (occasionally intense) wet season followed by long dry season. Rainfall is highly unreliable, both in time and space, with strong risks of dry spells at critical growth stages even during good rainfall years.

Because of the Climatic change the already unreliable rains have dried away causing huge droughts. South India is parched — Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are already reeling under severe drought, and Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are on the brink — now the blistering heat waves will probably put more pressure on the existing water resources.

While Kerala and Tamil Nadu are facing an unprecedented drought – the worst ever in over a century, according to experts; Karnataka’s northern districts are without water for the third consecutive year.

In October 2016, Andhra Pradesh announced that 245 of its mandals were drought-hit due to a deficiency of 4 percent rainfall. Telangana, a perennially water-starved state, is engaged in water wars with its Telugu-speaking neighbour over allocations of Krishna and Godavari river water.

Farmers have no option but to kill themselves in many cases. Because they take loans to buy seeds, fertilizers and other agricultural inputs. When rains play games with them they are left with nothing in their hand and get into the vicious cycle of debt. Getting two square meal for the family is far fetched, paying off those loans become such burdensome they fail to gather courage to live the next day.

It’s time Govt/ communities did something about the Climatic changes, more trees is the only solution. If forests are not preserved now, not only India but the world will doom into never ending darkness of hunger and thirst.

Indian farmers are adopting various strategies and practices to cope with the challenges posed by climate change. Some of the key methods include:

1. Diversification of Crops Farmers are growing a variety of crops to reduce the risk of complete crop failure due to extreme weather conditions. This includes planting drought-resistant, flood-tolerant, and salt-tolerant varieties.

2. Improved Irrigation Techniques The use of efficient irrigation methods such as drip and sprinkler systems helps conserve water and ensure crops receive adequate moisture even during dry periods.

3. Adoption of Sustainable Practices Organic farming, conservation agriculture, and integrated pest management are being increasingly adopted. These practices enhance soil health, reduce dependency on chemical inputs, and improve resilience against climatic variations.

4. Climate-Resilient Varieties Research institutions and agricultural universities are developing and promoting climate-resilient crop varieties that can withstand extreme weather conditions like drought, heat, and salinity.

5.Agroforestry and Mixed Farming Integrating trees, crops, and livestock helps in maintaining soil fertility, providing shade, and reducing the vulnerability of crops to climate impacts.

6. Government Support and Policies Various government initiatives such as Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) for irrigation, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) for crop insurance, and subsidies for adopting modern agricultural techniques provide financial and infrastructural support to farmers.

7. Use of Technology Farmers are leveraging mobile apps, weather forecasting services, and advisory platforms to receive timely information about weather conditions, pest outbreaks, and best farming practices.

8. Community-Based Adaptation Farmers are participating in community-based programs and forming cooperatives to share resources, knowledge, and support each other in implementing climate-adaptive practices.

9. Renewable Energy The use of solar pumps and other renewable energy sources for irrigation and other farm activities reduces reliance on fossil fuels and ensures a sustainable power supply.

10.Soil and Water Conservation Techniques such as rainwater harvesting, constructing check dams, and contour bunding help in conserving water and improving groundwater recharge, ensuring a more reliable water supply for agricultural

Farmers have been fighting climate change since ancient times, but particularly since the Dust Bowl Era in the US, soil and water conservation techniques have been under constant development — contour plowing, field cover crops, crop rotation, irrigation, etc. Nonetheless, most climate models suggest that a little global warming would be advantageous to a growing portion of farmers world-wide — longer growing seasons, additional rainfall, etc. Grants, new techniques, and education programs have advanced agricultural innovation that promotes profitability, stewardship of the land, air and water, and quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities.

Climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, that occur over several decades or longer. Agriculture, livestock, and fisheries depend on specific climate conditions. Temperature changes can cause habitat ranges and crop planting dates to shift which may hinder or help farming practices. We are not talking weather here!

Farming is a difficult job, choosing exactly the right sort of crop to grow, the right moment to sow, to harvest, etc. Even with a lot of technological advances this remains somewhat of a lottery. If conditions become less predictable even than they are now, it becomes much harder.

Additionally any farm, no matter how well it is managed, can see its crops wiped out for a whole year by one storm, one unusual cold spell or drought. As these are becoming more frequent, more extreme, occurring in more places that didn’t see them previously, and less predictable so even when there is some possible protection it may be too late to implement the time a problem emerges, all farmers are seeing greater risks of losing crops.

And also pest species are spreading, reaching areas that did not have them before, attacking crops that have no established protection. These include many insects, some larger animals, and some weeds, and many infections, fungi, etc.

And finally the crops themselves are being less productive. Some climate change deniers say it isn’t important because plants grow larger with more CO2 and warmer conditions. What they ignore is that a bigger plant doesn’t mean more food produced, in fact research has shown that in those conditions often the seed head or other food part of the plant is smaller. All our food crops have developed over many generations to be the best at producing food in current conditions - and as such conditions change they become less efficient.

Well if you believe the Climate Alarmists - farming is going to get a whole lot better very soon…

Increases in atmospheric CO2 makes plants grow bigger and faster.

Global warming will create more rain - giving the farmers more water.

Global warming will mean that crops will have longer productive cycles and produce more fruit and output.

Regrettably however - in my 61 years on this planet - I have not seen a single thing that would make me believe that anything about the climate was changing one bit…

The climate IS changing - it is cycling - just as it has for the last 4.5 billions years of the history of this planet. But climate change is a very slow process and I defy anybody to be able to notice it in a normal lifetime.

Individually I will say climate change do not affect farmers agriculture only but all sector of humanity either white-collar worker or not.

Now, let's go strictly to your question, Climate change is likely to contribute substantially to food insecurity either currently or in the future, increasing food prices, and reducing food production. Food may become more expensive as climate change mitigation efforts increase energy prices. Water required for food production may become more scarce due to increased crop water use and drought. Competition for land may increase as certain areas become climatically unsuitable for production. In addition, extreme weather events, associated with climate change may cause sudden reductions in agricultural productivity, leading to rapid price increases. Global food security relies on both sufficient food production and food access, and is defined as a state when:

‘all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’