Food production over time

[BadJuju]

Re: Food production over time

Even if grain is not fed to animals, but consumed by humans, Peak Oil will have a significant impact.
For grain production in modern agriculture, you need huge imputs of oil: diesel fuel for machines planting, harvesting, applying fertilizers, applying pesticides, etc. Plus the fertilizers and pesticides require petroleum in their production.

I do not have the statistics to adequately debate whether or not there will be enough food for all humans on the planet to eat, but I do believe we're going to get a lot poorer.

It does matter a lot when around 35% of the world's agricultural output is given to livestock. There is already more than enough food to supply all humans with satisfactory diets. Furthermore, livestock use far more fossil fuel energy to produce the same amount of calories. I think there is a lot of room there for preventing what you are picturing.

[BadJuju]

Re: Food production over time

That is not so much my concern as there is no issue with raw output. The problem is the trajectory of factory farming where everyone uses the same grain to feed the same breed of live stock. You can't make biological systems into a factory for long. Life took the path of biodiversity and sex for a reason. Just consider how absurd the human sex drive is if there was no reason to keep biodiversity. What an awful amount of trouble it is. The reason why we lose our minds is because we are in a biological arms race and asexual crops like bananas, and Monsanto mono-cultures will have, and have already had, a day of reckoning. Planting huge mono cultures will result in large scale blights.

What we should be doing is planting things here and there, broken up by something else. A few trees of one type in the park and another in someone's yard has resistance to this sort of thing yet it is precisely this that a factory aims to avoid for scale. I wonder if I will ever taste a Gros Michel banana?

Also keep in mind that the model you are using for grain feed to cattle is vegan propaganda. Ruminants don't eat grains. They are fattened up by them more or less as a side effect of their poor health because I believe they would soon die if we did not kill them on such a diet. In scrub lands you don't grow grain crops. The most efficient thing to do is to live off ruminants for meat and milk in dry marginal lands. That turns on its head the vegan formula of grains grown in arable land and fed to cattle. And if you did grow grain for human consumption, how are you going to move it with a favorable energy conversion? The best long term use of the high plains is buffalo who can live efficiency on dry native short grass prairie. That isn't obvious yet until we drain the aquifers.

I agree with you about the practice of monocultures and all that jazz.

Regardless of what they do with that grain once given, they are still giving more than 50% of our grain production to livestock as opposed to refining it for human consumption. I do agree that we should switch to more efficient forms of meat production. One of the reasons we are having so much trouble with our aquifers is because of livestock. The amount of water needed to make a pound of beef is astronomical compared to producing grains. Your suggestion of a species, like the buffalo, could have a lot of merit, but I am not unfamiliar with them. Either way, a more sustainable model is needed. I think that will come as we reach a tipping point.

[raja]

Re: Food production over time

It does matter a lot when around 35% of the world's agricultural output is given to livestock. There is already more than enough food to supply all humans with satisfactory diets. Furthermore, livestock use far more fossil fuel energy to produce the same amount of calories. I think there is a lot of room there for preventing what you are picturing.

Maybe we can agree on this . . . .

1) Peak Oil will significantly reduce food production IF present dietary practices are maintained.

2) If the world shifts to a more vegetarian diet, and less animals are grown and more grain is produced, then Peak Oil will have a lesser or perhaps no negative effect of global food production.

3) The richer countries may not choose to eat more vegetarian, so there may not be enough food for the poorer countries.

4) Neither you nor I know what c1ue's graphs would look like if animal foods were replaced with grains. We also don't know what the graphs would look like as Peak Oil hits. So we're both guessing . . . .

[BadJuju]

Re: Food production over time

I definitely think we could agree on that, Mr. raja.

[Southernguy]

Re: Food production over time

I didn´t see the use of agricultural production to produce bio fuels mentioned here. Is that being considered in the graphs shown.
This is probably the biggest menace to world peoples nutrition.

[BadJuju]

Re: Food production over time

I didn´t see the use of agricultural production to produce bio fuels mentioned here. Is that being considered in the graphs shown.
This is probably the biggest menace to world peoples nutrition.

It is a good question. Here is a cursory glance of what I could find:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-biofuels-food

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Food production over time

I thought you sold out. Are you back in again? How much is a hectare of good pasture land down under?

I did get out......decent capital gain too.

We bought circa $10k per hectare including new plant and sold for a good bit more than that. In other parts of the country prices are in the $50-60k range per hectare including plant.

Ours was about one hour away from a large community and the dairy plant for processing we co-owned in a co-op.

The expensive ones tend to be clustered near or closer to the larger metro areas..the prices on them are staggering. Their plant is generally more high-end as well, including pivot irrigation for higher yields.......but no where near 5X higher yields that also take into account $30-40K per month on pivot irrigation electricity bills.

We got out because we had a cluster of folks clamoring to buy our place(everything has a price), my partner was going through some personal issues, and at the time(a year ago) I seriously thought we were looking at a short-to-medium term high on dairy prices in local currency....which turned out to be true.

We will definitely be getting back in the industry again...we are currently looking at a dairy support op at the moment with a captured market but we're pretty stingy on price.

We are stuck on pasture based properties that are a little bit remote(cheaper price) but close to dairy plants(keep transport costs low), that aren't dependent on pivot irrigation(huge energy inputs), and have a good history of sun/rain and good aquifers.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Food production over time

Maybe we can agree on this . . . .

1) Peak Oil will significantly reduce food production IF present dietary practices are maintained.

2) If the world shifts to a more vegetarian diet, and less animals are grown and more grain is produced, then Peak Oil will have a lesser or perhaps no negative effect of global food production.

3) The richer countries may not choose to eat more vegetarian, so there may not be enough food for the poorer countries.

4) Neither you nor I know what c1ue's graphs would look like if animal foods were replaced with grains. We also don't know what the graphs would look like as Peak Oil hits. So we're both guessing . . . .

We live in a reasonably affluent beachside community with the usual trappings. One thing my wife and I have noticed is how few people(at least the many we socialize with) eat much beef/meat(beyond chicken) anymore.

I honestly can't recall the last time I had a steak.......it's chicken a few meals a week, some fish, and the odd turkey burger....not having much time to hunt earlier this year meant very little venison.

I think a lot of folks(at least ones we know) are becoming semi vegetarians not out of personal choice but out of slowly increasing financial pressure.

It seems to parallel the recent change away from common overseas holidays to Fiji/Thailand/etc and back to the old school Kiwi domestic holiday camps.

All part of the slow boil I suppose.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Food production over time

You SERIOUSLY need to come to Uruguay. Nice land for... 8-15k per hectare. Milk plants established already.

I can't begin to imagine spending $50-60k per hectare. How does anyone make any money?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Food production over time

You SERIOUSLY need to come to Uruguay. Nice land for... 8-15k per hectare. Milk plants established already.

I can't begin to imagine spending $50-60k per hectare. How does anyone make any money?

I've got a trip to South America on my bucket list.....for a climb up Acancagua in Argentina.

I could imagine myself in about 10-15 years time retiring somewhere like how you describe Urugauy...or at least rent/buy an apartment and stay for a couple months a year.

Some of the folks here are making REALLY good coin in dairying.....but they wouldn't have paid current or recent market values for the property.

Dairy cows in the US, as I understand it, are like drag racers...good for about 2 years pumped full of grain/pharmaceuticals and produce HUGE volume....but burn out quickly.

Cows down here are a bit more like marathon runners.....good performance over 10-12 years.....fed grass, no hormones.

I think the cost of land and the cost of pivot irrigation(to purchase as well as operate ongoing) is pushing beyond just cool and worthwhile herd management technology, and into the supplement/performance enhancement stuff I'm not a big fan of, due to the pressure to get a return based off of insanely high land/plant valuations. Palm kernel has become quite popular in the dairy industry......Indonesia/Malaysia/Solomon Islands/PNG are getting clear cut for palm plantations....causing issue with the greenies down here.

There's lots of work here on increasing capacity of milk plants as well as building out new ones....but the ownership of them has flip-flopped all over the place including competing interests from Russia, China, Germany with a few about to blow apart at the seams.

I think you'd need to be a sharp operator to make any money based on today's valuations, and we have some downside milk price risk moving forward....hence why we sold out to sit on the fence and watch patiently like a vulture....again.

South America sounds lovely.....it probably fits better into our very long term as opposed to our short-to-medium-to long term.......I'm already trying to fit 10 pounds of poop into my 5 pound bucket.....but I could see a sabbatical in South America some day....definitely.

[Ghent12]

Re: Food production over time

Unfortunately 'supply and demand', as you refer to it, is equally as realistic as the 'efficient markets' hypothesis - because supply and demand as a generic economy theory assumes efficient fulfillment of all demand by all supply. In the real world this doesn't exist and is where the affordability and distribution aspect comes into play.

You clearly are misdefining basic economic principles for political or other reasons. The principle of 'supply and demand' assumes no such efficient fulfillment, but rather dictates that prices tend to coordinate supply with demand. The really generic models may assume perfect competitors and perfect consumers, but the general concept is not exactly lacking in empirical proof. As they say, it all depends on how you define the market: the market for 20 oz Pepsi bottles in a city is a poorly defined market, because it can include stadiums that sell those for $3.00 a bottle or Sam's Club which can sell bottles for $0.35 unit price. The very localized effects of supply and demand do account for those prices, however.


As for your example, how about you stop making it illegal or unprofitable for those 8 starving people to work. Encourage everyone to ignore "fair trade" hype and buy from the ruthless capitalists who are willing to buy up the most low-cost labor (i.e. employ the poorest people).

[gwynedd1]

Re: Food production over time

You SERIOUSLY need to come to Uruguay. Nice land for... 8-15k per hectare. Milk plants established already.

I can't begin to imagine spending $50-60k per hectare. How does anyone make any money?

The land owners and the banks make lots of money at $50-60k per hectare, and they don't even need to do any work.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Food production over time

You clearly are misdefining basic economic principles for political or other reasons. The principle of 'supply and demand' assumes no such efficient fulfillment, but rather dictates that prices tend to coordinate supply with demand. The really generic models may assume perfect competitors and perfect consumers, but the general concept is not exactly lacking in empirical proof. As they say, it all depends on how you define the market: the market for 20 oz Pepsi bottles in a city is a poorly defined market, because it can include stadiums that sell those for $3.00 a bottle or Sam's Club which can sell bottles for $0.35 unit price. The very localized effects of supply and demand do account for those prices, however.


As for your example, how about you stop making it illegal or unprofitable for those 8 starving people to work. Encourage everyone to ignore "fair trade" hype and buy from the ruthless capitalists who are willing to buy up the most low-cost labor (i.e. employ the poorest people).

I suppose what he is talking about is the Malthus-Keynesian principle of effective demand vs the Say-Ricardo position that uses barter models. Finance does play a role, but then its does not change the economic principle of supply and demand of course.

[c1ue]

Re: Food production over time

1) Peak Oil will significantly reduce food production IF present dietary practices are maintained.

I don't agree at all. There are all sorts of other uses oil is presently being used for; ultimately is food more or less important than all of these others?

I think it is more important and will retain priority over many of these other uses. Basic pyramid of needs concept.

2) If the world shifts to a more vegetarian diet, and less animals are grown and more grain is produced, then Peak Oil will have a lesser or perhaps no negative effect of global food production.

Perhaps, then again perhaps not. For one thing, vegetarian shift is far from obvious.

3) The richer countries may not choose to eat more vegetarian, so there may not be enough food for the poorer countries.

How is that different now? Someone in a rich country can afford to pay many times more for food than someone from a poor country today. What exactly is changing?

4) Neither you nor I know what c1ue's graphs would look like if animal foods were replaced with grains. We also don't know what the graphs would look like as Peak Oil hits. So we're both guessing . . . .

The FAOSTAT numbers are based on all food, meat and vegetable:

The Food Balance Sheets domain covers:

• Production
• Trade
• Feed and Seed
• Waste
• Other utilisation
• Consumption

Elements covered:

• Quantities
• Calories, Proteins, Fats

...

Crops Primary Equivalent Livestock and Fish Primary Equivalent

Thus the calorie number includes the calories provided by meat; it is not a simplistic addition of all grain/vegetable calories divided by number of people.

You clearly are misdefining basic economic principles for political or other reasons. The principle of 'supply and demand' assumes no such efficient fulfillment, but rather dictates that prices tend to coordinate supply with demand. The really generic models may assume perfect competitors and perfect consumers, but the general concept is not exactly lacking in empirical proof. As they say, it all depends on how you define the market: the market for 20 oz Pepsi bottles in a city is a poorly defined market, because it can include stadiums that sell those for $3.00 a bottle or Sam's Club which can sell bottles for $0.35 unit price. The very localized effects of supply and demand do account for those prices, however.

In point of fact, supply and demand as a concept does not include the effects of affordability and distribution. It assumes a perfectly elastic demand and supply curve - neither of which are reality. Affordability for example is a step function, while distribution is a friction function.

The example you offer is flawed because every single one of those locations and prices are first world. In the first world, affordability of food is not a great issue and no one starves to death. The prices you quote are a function of convenience and monopoly. The latter is a form of supply and demand, but clearly demand exerts zero effect on monopoly supply.

In the 3rd world, however, affordability is. People can and do starve even if food is actually available. Distribution also is a real world issue: food may not get to where it is needed for political/racial as well as cost reasons.

As for your example, how about you stop making it illegal or unprofitable for those 8 starving people to work. Encourage everyone to ignore "fair trade" hype and buy from the ruthless capitalists who are willing to buy up the most low-cost labor (i.e. employ the poorest people).

The example was precisely to show how limited the concept of supply and demand is. The other 8 people working is irrelevant if all of the supply in only enough for 10 people, and 8 people's worth of grain is turned into steaks for one.

Your is perfectly applicable for a small group in the context of a world economy, but this is not the same situation as was posited.

If in fact supply is insufficient worldwide, then it doesn't matter how much the poor people work. They're going to starve.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Food production over time

your model example was way too small. Though you are starting to sound like me on why I am now a farmer...