World Food Crisis

[carolaa]

There was an article in the latest National Geographic about the world food crisis. Basically, it said that the way we are feeding ourselves, as a planet, is absolutely unsustainable for more than a few more years. And there are only two solutions - change what we are doing *now* and/or reduce the population.

Even countries that are having bumper crop yields are having to import food staples. Part of the reason for this is that we are using so much food to feed animals and make fuels. Another reason is that rich countries keep giving food to poor countries instead of helping them become self sufficient. (Of course, in many cases the rich countries also had a hand in making the poor countries so destitute.)

One solution being proposed is to rip out the rain forests and use that for farmland. How insane is that? Besides the fact that that land has historically not been the best for farming, it would remove one of the last things holding back global warming. It sounds like typical political/corporate short term, expedient thinking, though.

I don't know how people can believe humans are evolving for the better when anyone who is paying attention can see that this evil, sin sick world is self destructing, and humans are the main cause (if not the only cause).

[Ted Oplinger]

Actually, we CAN grow enough food to sustain not only our current world population levels, but also quite a bit more.

First, we get the world politics out of agriculture.

The vast majority of starvation seen in the world for the last 30 years isn't because of a lack of food, but of political withholdings from unfavored people groups or any one of several political reasons for being "out of favor". Once the food supply is imported to a particular country, it is up to the authority within that country to disperse the supply to the people.

We can cry human rights all we want, but they do it knowing the rest of the world won't and can't do anything about it.

Second, continue to export successful farming practices to those area of the world in need of them. This we have done, and I expect to continue, to be done. Yet world politics does get in the way here, too - some refuse the help, some accuse the helpers, and some just don't want the "out of favor" to sustain themselves.

The third hits really close to home: get rid of ethanol production subsidies. So long as it is lucrative to divert food out of the food supply and into gas tanks (hello AGW and "alternative fuel" politics), artificial shortages and price inflation on food will be the norm.

Many who grow the crops subsidized will fight with all the political will they have to keep that gravy train going - at the expense of many around the world.

Food for thought...

[Dr. Shane]

in many cases the rich countries also had a hand in making the poor countries so destitute.

[Ted Oplinger]

There may be a grain of truth in that if it were reworded to say "in many cases the rich countries also had a hand in keeping the poor countries so destitute." I think those countries were poor when the developed world discovered them.

Quote:

One solution being proposed is to rip out the rain forests and use that for farmland.

I think Brazil has actively been doing that for years.

We can build desalination plants that produce nuclear energy and turn many of the worlds' deserts into farmland. That will produce a lot of food.

Rich countries vs. poor countries...

Again, it gets to the politics and the money trail.

Subsidized agriculture, protectionism does it every time...

But I digress...

The overwhelming amount of arable land is in the temperate zones of the earth. In the southern hemisphere, only two continents have arable land there. Of those two continents, temperate zone agricultural land is small in land area compared to the northern hemisphere.

For Africa, that would be the lower third of the continent. Likewise for South America.

Sor South America, "Ripping out" the rain forest in southern Brazil may seem like a thing to do, but unless the rain forest is culled carefully, and the ground suitably prepared, it's a pipe dream.

The soil quality in a rain forest is too poor for continuous agricultural use. Agricultural use depletes the already poor soil within a couple of years, forcing more forest to be destroyed later to make up the balance.

What to do??

High capacity fertilizer usage is one answer - but the amount Brazil needs is quite costly - even with their petroleum reserves developed.

Dredging river deposits to put on farmlands may give a few inches of better soil, but again, there's the costs and logistics involved.

A tough problem with no easy answers...

[Dr. Shane]

I think we have a lot of land here in Texas just waiting for water.

[carolaa]

Another thing I remembered the article talked about was how essential it is to rotate crops every few years in order to keep the soil rich. The yields are getting less and less because this is not done. Crop rotation and/or composting would help to increase yields much better than the chemical fertilizing we are doing.

[carolaa]

Are you saying that Australia has no arable land? You only mentioned South America and Africa as being in the southern hemisphere.

[carolaa]

Again, it gets to the politics and the money trail.

Subsidized agriculture, protectionism does it every time...

Not only that, but farming has become a corporate affair. A few corporations now control most of the food production in the U.S. and beyond. They have powerful lobbies in Congress and exercise tight control over the farmers who buy their seed.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think farming being done by corporations is decreasing the quantity of food being produced. It may be impacting the quality in a negative way but I don't see the quantity being decreased.

[carolaa]

You may be right about that. I was commenting on the political aspect. And yes, I do tend to think the corporations have a negative effect on the quality of our food and the soil, not to mention all the farmers they have put out of business.

[Bravus]

Just a couple of quick reactions:

1. Yeah, Australia probably has quite a lot of arable land that could be planted if there was water available, and that may well happen. But desert soils are often also thin and low in nutrients (no decayed plant matter), so it often takes more than water to make them fertile.

2. I have the opposite view from Ted on climate change, but the same view on ethanol: it's a horrible solution to climate change, and it exchanges reduced guilt for the rich for hunger for the poor - no kind of good trade. Get rid of ethanol and move on to some *really* sustainable energy sources.

3. I'm afraid that, like most issues, people tend to project their own politics onto it: for liberals the problem is capitalism, for conservatives it's protectionism. Be nice if we could move past that...

[phkrause]

This is what God had wanted Israel to do, when he implemented the sabbatical year system. To plant for 6 six years and leave the land alone for the 7th year. Also they were to rotate the crops. As a matter of fact a few years ago Israel started doing this again and its been working. I thought when I read about that, I thought that was very interesting.

pk

[bonnie]

This is what God had wanted Israel to do, when he implemented the sabbatical year system. To plant for 6 six years and leave the land alone for the 7th year. Also they were to rotate the crops. As a matter of fact a few years ago Israel started doing this again and its been working. I thought when I read about that, I thought that was very interesting.

pk

One very large problem family farms face is the farm subsidies.

Once again,government interference in what is grown and price has not done well for the family farms. Larger farms or corporate farms get a uneven share of the dole.

They do crazy things like helping the tobacco farmer with subsidies so that the government can turn around and dmake the product illegal to use in about 95% of incidences.

[phkrause]

But Bonnie haven't they been doing that for years here in the USA. That was one of the reasons for Farm Aid back several years ago. I also remember something about the US paying farmers to not grow anything! And also my father-in-law wanting to grow alfalfa I believe, because the government was paying farmers to grow that instead of certain foods! Not sure how accurate that is.

pk

[Bravus]

One more area where I break with my liberal rep: I agree that there are lots of government interferences in this industry and that it would operate much better without them.

[carolaa]

This is what God had wanted Israel to do, when he implemented the sabbatical year system. To plant for 6 six years and leave the land alone for the 7th year. Also they were to rotate the crops. As a matter of fact a few years ago Israel started doing this again and its been working. I thought when I read about that, I thought that was very interesting.

Yes, I thought of that too. If we would just do things the way God intended, we would be so much better off. But we try to circumvent Him, thinking we have a better way, and it nearly always ends badly. Our wisdom is God's foolishness.

[bonnie]

But Bonnie haven't they been doing that for years here in the USA. That was one of the reasons for Farm Aid back several years ago. I also remember something about the US paying farmers to not grow anything! And also my father-in-law wanting to grow alfalfa I believe, because the government was paying farmers to grow that instead of certain foods! Not sure how accurate that is.

pk

Yes,it has been going on for years. Like many things the government sticks their ignorant fingers into it takes time to realize the full damage. What kind of idiocy pays a farmer not to grow crops?

Let the market determine. Farmers as a whole are pretty savvy when it comes to crops etc.

The larger farm businesses get the lions share of the subsidy.

Many of the smaller farmers do not get any or a amount that is far less than the larger corporate farms etc.

When government tries to determine what crops a farmer grows and then subsidizes him it doesn't work as well as the free market.

Ethanol is one of their more recent idiocies. It costs to produce I think is higher,it is far less efficient than gas and harder on the vehicle. The so called pollution and waste of energy resources that is the big concern for some is actually more to produce ethanol. That doesn't take into account the higher cost of corn,

A few years ago it came out the Sam Donaldson had a large farm. His subsidies,ones he did not need totaled once again the amount of earnings of a well run family farm.

Government does not belong in private business or farming.

The farm market would seek it's own level if left alone. That isn't about to happen.

[bonnie]

Quote:

The yields are getting less and less because this is not done. Crop rotation and/or composting would help to increase yields much better than the chemical fertilizing we are doing.

I doubt this is true. The yield per acre has steadily increased.

You do have a pretty aggressive type of farmer that is actually doing what the bible has laid out,specializing in natural,no hormone,free range meat products and growing crops in a different manner than those using so much commerical products.

Quote:

Not only that, but farming has become a corporate affair. A few corporations now control most of the food production in the U.S. and beyond. They have powerful lobbies in Congress and exercise tight control over the farmers who buy their seed.

This simply is not true. It may become so in time but not yet.

Most crops and dairy are provided by the small farmer making less than a 100,000. yearly.

There are large corporate feedlots but that has no effect on the crops grown by those corporations.

Without capitalism you have no family farm ,or large corporate farms.

Farming is hard work,a lot of risk goes into it. Hail early frost,sickness in livestock etc make it far more iffy.

I don't believe any one goes into farming and works that hard for free. Every one of them will be looking as to the capitalistic success.

[Ted Oplinger]

Are you saying that Australia has no arable land? You only mentioned South America and Africa as being in the southern hemisphere.

Oops...Like I completely forgot about the Lands Down Under - Australia and New Zealand. Old age getting to me...

My apologies to the Aussies and Kiwis...

Yet...how much arable land is Down Under? This may be more a reflection on my ignorance of Australian crop farming, but...does Australia have a significant crop production (aka, comparable to the US, Canada, Ukraine) in the Eastern quarter of that country? I do know they have a significant ranching industry.

I'd appreciate some enlightenment there if I am mistaken...

[Ted Oplinger]

Bravus,

Nice set of quick replies.

Just a couple of quick reactions:

1. Yeah, Australia probably has quite a lot of arable land that could be planted if there was water available, and that may well happen. But desert soils are often also thin and low in nutrients (no decayed plant matter), so it often takes more than water to make them fertile.

[Ted Oplinger]

One more area where I break with my liberal rep: I agree that there are lots of government interferences in this industry and that it would operate much better without them.

Why, Bravus...there's something truly progressive about that point!

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted_Oplinger

Again, it gets to the politics and the money trail.

Subsidized agriculture, protectionism does it every time...

Not only that, but farming has become a corporate affair. A few corporations now control most of the food production in the U.S. and beyond. They have powerful lobbies in Congress and exercise tight control over the farmers who buy their seed.

While it is true there are large corporations engaged in the farming industry (think McDonald's, for an example), I have to agree with Bonnie that the majority of the US crop production is still by family owned farms.

Some are quite large yes, but most are small business enterprises - much like what the rest of the world farms.

[Bravus]

Just to give you one more shock, Ted, I agree that nuclear is probably our best short-term bet until fusion gets here.

[Dr. Shane]

Nuclear can be combined with desalination to produce both electricity and clean water.

[Ted Oplinger]

Such revelations never seem to cease!

Got to agree with Shane, too - go nuclear and use desalination. The world needs a good supply of potable water as well.

As for the US - we may be kings in crop production, but we're facing water shortages galore.

Water right issues already are major points in many states.