UN: farmers must produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed population

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/28/un-farmers-produce-food-population

The United Nations has completed the first global assessment of the state of the planet's land resources, finding in a report that a quarter of all farmland is highly degraded and warning the trend must be reversed if the world's growing population is to be fed.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that farmers will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to meet the needs of the world's expected 9-billion-strong population. That amounts to 1bn tonnes more wheat, rice and other cereals and 200m more tonnes of beef and other livestock.

But as it is, most available farmland is already being farmed, and in ways that decrease its productivity through practices that lead to soil erosion and wasting of water.

This means that to meet the world's future food needs, a major "sustainable intensification" of agricultural productivity on existing farmland will be necessary, the FAO said in its report, State of the World's Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture.

[newfie11]

1. with the climate changes

(droughts, fires) that doesn't look possible.

[Ghost Dog]

2. That's one reason why the 1% (or 0.01%, whatever) is organizing a major cull

of the human population of this planet, the way 'economies' are going...

[GliderGuider]

8. There's no need for a cull. Circumstances are going to take care of our numbers.

There are three sets of factors that seem likely to team up to affect our numbers over the next 50 years.

1. Climate change itself, shifts in rainfall patterns caused by climate change, soil depletion (from both fertility declines and erosion) and the depletion of irrigation water from the over-pumping of aquifers are going to interact to put a cap on overall global food production within 10 years.

2. Increasing energy costs - especially for the natural gas used to make fertilizers and for vehicle fuels refined from oil - are going to steadily increase the cost of both food production and delivery.

3. The global financial crisis that is now threatening Europe is going to spread like a pandemic through the rest of the world. As it does, it will undermine the entire global economy, with the vulnerable developing nations being hit first and hardest. Their ability to pay for increasingly expensive food imports and to keep life-sustaining infrastructure like medical care and public sanitation systems intact will be compromised. Money for humanitarian assistance will dry up just when it is needed most.

This convergence of factors points to a near-term peak in world population, with an outright decline beginning shortly afterward. It will not be caused by culling, though there will probably be some very unpleasant triage decisions made behind closed doors.

If I had to give numbers, I'd say that a peak of 8 billion around 2025 followed by a decline to under 4 billion by the end of the century seems probable.

That's the way I see it.

[Ghost Dog]

9. Hi GG. Yes, that's exactly what I mean:

All three factors you list are being actively encouraged/promoted by the international super-elite.

[GliderGuider]

12. I actually think the Power Elite is utterly clueless about the consequences of their actions.

They see everything in terms of short-term economic and geopolitical advantage. They are reacting to the first two sets of factors as though they are political/economic when they're not, and they think they understand the third financial one when they don't.

They don't have clue one about the ecological interactions of the global system, but they are determined not to let anyone else push the levers in case they lose control. They also have no clue that it's already too late - certainly for them - control has already been lost.

They are dinosaurs watching the glaciers approach and thinking if they bellow louder everything will go back to the way it was...

[SixthSense]

3. step 1

stop paying people not to grow food - this is one of the more insane things in a world chock-full of insanity, yet so many people act as if it should be normal and expected

[bemildred]

4. Right, that will happen.

:sarcasm:

[KurtNYC]

5. Top Ramen

lots of Top Ramen.

[midnight]

6. K&R...

[MisterP]

7. there's a great plant that can help with this situation

the rubber...

[bertman]

10. Good luck with that "major sustainable intensification of agricultural productivity

thang. Our Corporate Overlords only know one way to do intensification and that's through 'profitable' methods such as more chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides used on marginal land.

You would think this might be good news for small-scale organic farmers, but my (pessimistic/realistic) guess is that there will be extreme efforts to convert those types of farming operations to our Industrial Agriculture methods of farming. Our gummint already does its damndest to regulate small farmers into extinction. Be ready for them to ramp up the efforts. Yes, I know that makes no sense, but since when did the Agriculture INDUSTRY use sense over profiteering?

[Jefferson23]

11. K&R..I wish I were more optimistic. n/t

[Bill USA]

13. this would require an increase in food production of 1.36988% per year.

1.013698833 raised to the 39th power gets you 170% ... for an increase of 70%.

[GliderGuider]

14. Gee, when you put it that way, it seems so ... doable ...

A measly 1.4% a year? Pshaw! Thank god there are never any natural limits to growth.

[saras]

15. The issue is whether food production goes local or is focused on feeding the 1%, wherever they are

[GliderGuider]

16. Compared to all the other life on the planet, we humans - no matter how rich or poor - ARE the 1%

Localizing food production looks pretty good if you're a human being. If you're a member of the non-human 99% it doesn't look like much of a "solution" at all.

[txlibdem]

19. Mass extinction is already happening thanks to climate change

Depriving a subsistence farmer of some grubs or tubers is not going to save those species. Their fate was written in stone the day Ronald Reagan took office and began systematically dismantling all of President Carter's energy saving, pollution reduction, and renewable energy policies.

If you voted for Reagan then you are partially responsible for killing millions of species. Those are the facts.

[pscot]

23. Conversely, if the subsistence farmer

devours the last grub or tuber, he dooms himself. Perpetuating the tragedy of the commons is no solution.

[txlibdem]

27. This is GLOBAL. Blaming the subsistence farmers for crimes of the Multinational Corps is wrong

Using the tragedy of the commons to absolve the 1% from the devastation their ignorant profiteering and rape of the world and its resources is a failed strategy.

[era veteran]

17. All the while hoping Monsanto's GM seed does not collapse

the food supply the way their Roundup is causing bee colony collapse. Fucking venal murdering evil bastards.

[txlibdem]

18. I've changed my mind on GM seed

I used to think the opponents were just crying little babies intent on getting their way.

But then I started thinking about the viability of 2nd generation GM vegetables (some GM plants cannot reproduce from seed, you need to purchase the seeds again from Monsanto or whomever). This maximizes profit for the corporations but if there is a local or regional collapse in an area where GM plants are predominant, there will be widespread famine and death. Compare that to an area where natural seed is viable and plants can be cultivated naturally -- no famine, no starvation.

I've completely reversed my opinion and vehemently oppose the so-called "Franken-food" produced by these corporations.

[GliderGuider]

20. Good decision. When you combine the foreseeable risks with the risk of unintended consequences

and add in the probability of insufficient testing and corporate venality...

It's our FOOD SUPPLY, for fuck sake!

[era veteran]

21. Good for you, and good for us all.

I do believe that Monsanto is doing terrible work. They sure have a history of it.

[txlibdem]

22. The agency called for new farming practices

"The agency called for new farming practices such as integrated irrigation and fish-farm systems, as well as overall investment in agricultural development.

The investment deemed necessary until 2050 is $1tn (£642bn) for irrigation water management for developing countries alone, with another $160bn for soil conservation and flood control."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/28/un-farmers-produce-food-population

Too bad they're overlooking the best and most productive way to grow crops: Greenhouse growing with Hydroponics, which increases yield from 3 to 30 times and eliminates pesticide herbicide use. And it only uses 5% of the water needed for our "state of the art" farming methods.

They could even integrate a fish farm, that's called Aquaponics which ultimately forms a closed loop system: the plants waste feed the fish and the fish waste nourishes the plants. Very little outside fertilizer needed, just enough to keep the nutrient levels in balance.

But, no, they're going to spend over a TRILLION dollars to get the developing nations right where we are: wasting 75% of our fresh water with factory farming methods. Idiots. Where do they get these "experts" from anyway???

[fasttense]

25. Every one I know who tried Hydroponics quit within 3 years.

Their main complaint was the cost of chemicals and energy (electricity etc.)to put into their systems versus the prices they could get on their produce left no profit. Energy costs and the Hydroponic solutions used instead of soil were very high. While the prices they could get for the produce they grew didn't cover those costs.

Those who tried the supposedly organic solutions for their hydroponic soils, found the costs versus returns were even worse (and they had problems with blockages and clogs because of the organic solutions they used). Several hydroponic growers had terrible problems with aphids on their crops so pests are still a problem in some cases.

[txlibdem]

26. Then they didn't have economies of scale on their side or not the right equipment

Go to any grocery store and you're likely to find hydroponic produce available. Someone is growing these and making a profit. So to say that it can't be done is illogical.

You: Energy costs and the Hydroponic solutions used instead of soil were very high. While the prices they could get for the produce they grew didn't cover those costs.

Me: I know exactly what you're talking about. I tried backyard hydroponics and found the costs to be high on such a small scale. One needs an acre of greenhouse space at minimum in my opinion, *and* one must grow in high density (which only greenhouse hydroponics lets you get away with). The truth is, just like any business where there are up front equipment costs you might not make a profit the first year, maybe not even the second. That's the same for any business startup here in the US no matter what the market niche.

Buying the pre-prepared hydroponic growing solutions is prohibitively expensive, agreed. If your friends ever want to try it again they should look up the compounds necessary and buy them in bulk, mix their own fertilizer. There are a few good books out there on the subject but the one I favor is by author Howard M Rush. Their local agro service should be able to assist, contact the nearest agricultural department in your state or University.

You: Those who tried the supposedly organic solutions for their hydroponic soils, found the costs versus returns were even worse (and they had problems with blockages and clogs because of the organic solutions they used). Several hydroponic growers had terrible problems with aphids on their crops so pests are still a problem in some cases.

Me: It's all in how you prepare, just as in dirt farming. Blockages and clogs means they may have been using fertilizer that is not water soluble: a must for hydroponics. The fertilizer tanks need to be under constant circulation and aeration as well. And you never take the solution from the bottom of the tank where sediments will always collect.

It sounds like they tried to make a DIY hydroponics system into a business and that is just asking for trouble. One needs the proper scale and the proper equipment as well as the proper methodology or you are doomed to fail. The dosers that commercial greenhouse growers use cost upwards of $1500 apiece... and you need either 3 or 4 per tank. You may also need another 2; one for PH up and one for PH down solution. If you're not controlling every aspect of the growing environment then you are not following proper hydroponic growing methods... and you will never see a profit.

In a greenhouse growing situation, if you've got aphids then it's because you have ants. That is a failure of the greenhouse construction or improper entry control. Proper construction of your greenhouse is an absolute necessity if you want to avoid using pesticides.

You basically have to forget almost everything you know about farming in dirt when you switch to hydroponics.

PS, your friends may find aquaponics to be more doable on a smaller scale. Aquaponics is a growing system where the waste from the plants feed fishes, then in turn the waste from the fishes nourishes the plants. You still have to have the PH right for both the fish and the plants and test nutrient levels daily at least. Tilapia is an excellent choice for this type of growing. Oh, and an initial (possibly ongoing) fish feeding schedule is required. There are growers out there who have managed to maintain a delicate balance after much trial and error and probably many growing seasons. Plan on mistakes because you'll make a lot of them.

[txlibdem]

24. kick