Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 21, 2015
Can Meat Production Keep Up with 2.4 billion more People?
The United Nations predicted earlier this year that world population, today at 7.2 billion, will increase to 9.6 billion by 2050, with the largest growth projected in developing countries including India and within Africa.
Some of those countries are challenged today to provide sufficient food supplies for their citizens. Can the planet sustain 2.4 billion more residents 35 years from now? A part of the answer to that question involves the production of protein, already facing spiking global consumption.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that the demand for meat for the earth’s population will increase substantially within 15 years, by 2030. The largest increase will be in the demand for poultry, according to the projections, but “bovine meat” – which includes cattle, yak and buffalo – is also likely to see an increased global demand.
The challenges in meeting 2050 demands are vast – and complicated.
“The estimate is that we will need to produce 100 percent more food by 2050,” said Keith Belk, a molecular biologist and professor in Colorado State University’s animal science department. “And 70 percent of that will have to be based on additional technology.”
Leading research on development of future food supplies for the global population is ongoing at CSU, among other universities and institutions.
Finding more efficient ways to raise livestock and produce protein products through technology, as described by Belk, is key to the process.
For example, Jesse French, a livestock manager at CSU, is working on a project that could help decrease costs and environmental impacts of cattle by selectively breeding bulls that require less feed. He monitors how much the bulls are eating, and then puts them on a scale to see which bulls do a better job growing the largest with the least amount of food.
“Feed efficiency is really looking at the input side of things,” French said. “So they might be able to grow to the exact same weight, but one did it with less feed.”
An increasingly large percentage of the planet’s cultivated acres are devoted to corn and soy for livestock feed, presenting myriad environmental and supply challenges. Doing more with less is the goal of French’s project.
The bulls that are deemed the most efficient are selected to pass their genes to the next generation. Ultimately, French hopes to develop cattle that are more environmentally friendly and also save money by eating less. French’s work is just one aspect of the overall goal of CSU’s animal sciences department: to develop safe, efficient and sufficient meat products for an expanding global population.
Providing enough protein is an increasingly critical and active field of research – not only for consumers in the United States, but for those worldwide.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), some 80 percent of the projected increase in meat consumption with the next seven years will come from developing nations.
“A big chunk of it (increased production) is going to have to come from the Midwest of the United States; I think that is pretty well established,” said CSU’s Belk.
He said the Midwest has the technology and infrastructure in place to provide more food for the world, and that the region’s soil and water resources are among the planet’s best.
Still, the future of protein production is a topic of debate. And not all interested parties believe that the planet can continue to be so heavily reliant on beef, poultry and pork, which have major environmental impacts.
The National Academy of Sciences says that more land is used for raising livestock than for any other purpose. Livestock production accounts for 12 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions directly caused by humans, according to academy reports.
Of all livestock that is produced in mass quantities, beef requires the greatest amounts of feed and water, and beef production produces five times more greenhouse gas that poultry or pork.
At CSU’s School of Global Environmental Sustainability, Peter Backlund is focusing his research on how climate change could impact food security. He says he’s hopeful that food security is a real possibility.
“One of the real miracles of the modern world is the fact that from 1900 to now the global population has gone from 1 billion to 7 billion, and everybody could have nutritious food right now,” Backlund said. “If we keep it to the low end of population increase, and it we keep it to the low end of climate change, and we have increased awareness about overconsumption – all of these things make me believe this is something that we can deal with.”
And some in Colorado have begun looking at alternatives, or substitutes for beef products, including different types of livestock, as well as vegetarian meat replacements.
For Ryan Holland, in Calhan, a town northeast of Colorado Springs in El Paso county, yak is a more suitable alternative.
“These animals are healthy, these animals are good,” Holland said, “there are so many benefits to having these animals, it only makes sense,” Holland said.
Adult male yak can grow up to 1,200 pounds, or about half the size of an adult male bull. Yak require about a third of the total food that cattle require, and yak thrive at high altitudes and low temperatures. Yak are known for their ability to forage for their own food, and generally produce leaner meats.
Holland grew up on a dairy farm, but decided he wanted to try something different. He’s currently raising a dozen yak and advocates for other cattle farms to give them a try.
“I think with information out there, with training and education, I think this could very easily be the very same thing (as a cattle ranch),” Holland said. He’d like to see yak production go large scale. “We have it for cattle – why couldn’t we have it for this?”
Meat substitutes from grains and vegetables are also being extensively researched.
“In the end, we worked with a lot of different ingredients, a lot of different soy products, different ingredients to add bite to it so you really had the feeling of cooked beef,” said Devon Bruntz, the lead researcher in charge of developing Harmony Valley brand’s quest for meat substitutes, including soy burger. “It really took us six months to a year to get something that we really liked.”
However, vegetarian or “meatless meats” have had a difficult time catching on in the United States. According to a Gallup survey in 2012, 5 percent of Americans identified as vegetarian. That number hardly changed from the late ‘90s.
Yak faces similar challenges. Yak are such a small segment of the wild game or exotic animal market they are not yet recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Some estimates put the total yak population in the United States between 10,000 and 15,000 animals.
CSU researchers say the market for alternatives or specialty meats will always exist, but that beef, pork and chicken will continue to power the protein industry for an expanding global population.
“My plate, and this is me, protein is going to continue to be at the center of my plate,” French said. “It’s hard to beat a really well-cooked rib-eye steak.”
What’s for dinner in 2050? For many, it will continue to involve some course of meat.
40 Comments on "Can Meat Production Keep Up with 2.4 billion more People?"
apneaman on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 6:52 pm
Be lucky just to have clean water by then.
…………………………………..
In Flint, Michigan, Overpriced Water is Causing People’s Skin to Erupt in Rashes and Hair to Fall Out.
As the nation’s infrastructure falls apart, water is becoming more expensive and less safe.
http://www.thenation.com/article/in-flint-michigan-overpriced-water-is-causing-peoples-skin-to-erupt-and-hair-to-fall-out/
BC on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 8:01 pm
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
http://wsm.wsu.edu/researcher/wsmaug11_billions.pdf
Food production and stocks peaked with real GDP and trade per capita for the cycle in 2013-14, with utilization converging with production, setting up risks of increasing food insecurity in the most vulnerable regions where the cost of food is the highest as a share of income.
The rate of change of growth of wheat and rice production peaked in the late 2000s and has decelerated to a rate that is one typhoon, drought, or war away from risk of contraction PER CAPITA in supply and utilization in the most vulnerable regions reliant upon the grains for their primary foodstuffs and nutrition.
The irony is that falling food prices will reduce production at a time of peak population, peak debt service, peak utilization, higher constant US$ energy costs of energy extraction (and food production), increasing rate of depletion of aquifers and arable land, and slower growth of real GDP per capita.
IOW, the next down cycle will likely result in particularly acute food stock shortages and utilization shortfalls in the most vulnerable regions where we are already seeing the effects, including terrorism, social unrest, civil wars, and failed states.
The increase in consumption per capita of poultry, chicken, beef, and pork by Asians, especially Chinese, is probably the WORST outcome conceivable, as a growing share of cereals, as in the US, is required to be produced for livestock feed, requiring higher concentrations per oz./gram/calorie/acre of fossil fuel inputs for petrochemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, and to supply fuel for equipment for industrial agriculture.
Not surprisingly, this is why the likes of Monsanto, Cargill, Dow, ADM, and others have been crossing the globe and paying off politicians and warlords to buy up forests, arable land, and freshwater supplies, displacing literally tens of millions of indigenous, sustainable (until recently), agrarian populations in the process in order to produce high-value-added foodstuffs from thousands of acres for export to world markets, including producing potato and corn chips, water and energy-intensive non-native, GMO soybeans, monocultural potatoes for McD’s french fries, Cheetos, Ding Dongs, corn syrup, and sugary soft drinks.
idontknowmyself on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 8:11 pm
Animal fat is particularly important in cold counties. The animal fat is what the body used to generate heat.
I have done winter camping, I was surprised how warm I stayed by constantly eating a lot of fat during the trip.
Cold countries without a good meat local production infrastructure won’t make it long.
Expect mass migration out of Canada, and northern European countries toward the south.
Harper did the right thing by refusing to participate in the TPP agreement. He bail out of this agreement because he was afraid that this would kill meat producers of Canada.
idontknowmyself on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 8:18 pm
U.S. weighs completing Pacific Rim trade deal without Canada, sources say
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/us-weighs-completing-pacific-rim-trade-deal-without-canada-sources-say/article25418140/
Makati1 on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 8:30 pm
Answer: NO!
The grain and water used to grow the approximately one billion cattle in the world today would feed another 2-3 billion humans easily. Red meat is a luxury. It’s demise is also in the future as more and more consumers will not be able to afford it and others will eat the grain instead.
Beef at $10/lb vs chicken at $3/lb. Which will become predominant in most diets as a source of protein? My bet is on chicken, and soon. Why? Drought will add to the cost of beef as fewer and fewer farms will have the water to raise cattle.
A beef steer requires about 2% of it’s body weight in grain per day. At an average lifetime weight of 300 lbs, that is 6lb of grain daily. But don’t forget that that steer had a momma that also has to be kept and fed daily, and they will weigh 600-800 lbs. So you can add another 12-16 lbs/day to the cost of raising beef for the table.
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/%24department/deptdocs.nsf/all/faq7811
Now do you see where billions more humans can exist if red meat goes off of the diet? It appears that 12 to 18lbs of grain, per day, would feed several people easily.
dohboi on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 8:35 pm
Wrong answer to the wrong question. The article stupidly equates protein with meat. The answer to increased need for food is for nearly everybody to eat a lot less meat. Then, of course, we have to get a handle on other forms of consumption, and on population itself.
As to ‘idontknowmyself’s claims–you obviously don’t know much about this either. Plenty of people live in cold climates on vegetarian and vegan diets. Your claims are idiotic on their face and directly disprovable by everyday observation.
dohboi on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 8:41 pm
The polling numbers are also bogus.
Latest polls show ~13% of Americans avoid meat:
“A 2013 Public Policy Polling survey found 13% of Americans identify as either vegetarian (6%) or vegan (7%).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
idontknowmyself on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 8:43 pm
Yes you are right.
http://www.raw-food-health.net/Eskimo-Diet.html
A staggering 35-40% of calories were derived from protein on the traditional Eskimo diet, with 50-75% of calories coming from fat (1).
The Inuit Paradox
How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox
idontknowmyself on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 8:48 pm
I also forget to include the sun activity graphics and sun spot observation.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
GOES X-RAY FLUX in Watts/m2
and daily sun spot activity:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html
Apneaman on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 9:17 pm
Traditional Eskimo/Inuit diet is not a paradox, it was the only choice available to them. If those critters were not available, the region would never have been occupied. Naked apes are omnivores, so we can live on a varied number of diets as long as the minimum amount of essential fatty acids and proteins are met. Carbohydrates are not essential to survival, although eating some will be beneficial. I have personally tried many diets. The hardest one to adapt to physically was a ketogenic diet in spite of my love of animal fat and meat. Vegetarian was the hardest psychologically because of my love of animal fat and meat. The lipid hypothesis is bullshit science and it hurt a lot of people. I have a feeling that cannibalism will be making a big comeback in the not too distant future. All you can eat Ape buffet every Saturday – $13.99 beverages not included. Don’t forget to try the deep fried Caucasian.
Apneaman on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 9:33 pm
“Expect mass migration out of Canada, and northern European countries toward the south.”
……………………………………………………
Thousands of Refugees Flee Northward from Greece
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/thousands-of-refugees-flee-northward-from-greece/
Apneaman on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 9:38 pm
Natural disasters forced 20 million from their homes in 2014: report
http://planetark.org/wen/73446
Apneaman on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 9:46 pm
Giles Slade – American Exodus
“Giles Slade discusses his book American Exodus — Climate Change and the Coming Flight for Survival. Some scientists predict the sea will rise one and a half metres before 2100, but rapidly melting polar ice caps could make the real increase much higher. In the coming century, intensifying storms will batter our coasts, and droughts and extreme heat events will be annual threats. All this will occur as population grows, and declining water resources make growing food ever more challenging. What will happen when the United States cannot provide food or fresh water for the overheated, overcrowded cities where 80 per cent of Americans currently live? The good news is that this overall decline of habitability in the mid-latitudes will be matched by increases in the carrying capacity of sparsely populated lands above the 49th parallel. This phenomenon suggests that waves of environmental refugees will travel north as southern conditions worsen. Our northern lands are our Noah’s Ark – a vital refuge in the time of mankind’s greatest need.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmb1nFdRS8Q
Unfortunately, the Northern hemisphere, due to it’s size, will heat up much faster than the Southern hemisphere. This should already be apparent to those who have noticed the Arctic is in meltdown and the great Northern forests and tundra are drying out and burning at an ever increasing rate and intensity. Most will still head North.
Davy on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 9:54 pm
There are allot of people here who don’t know shit about growing food and the reality of food economics. Then there are numb nuts like Mak that think we can put 2BIL more people on earth if we do away with meat. Mak, wants to justify 4BIL plus people in Asia and counting.
People, there are places on this earth where you can only grow meat. Grains, vegetables and fruits are not to be grown on grassland. I agree the current meat production arrangement is bad with grain fed meat in industrial settings but don’t blame that on meat itself. That is a human construction.
dohboi on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 10:39 pm
What Apneaman said.
Aire on Tue, 21st Jul 2015 10:58 pm
I’d have to agree with Dave and Mak on this one. I mean yes, we could feed more people with a less meat diet for the population. On the other hand, it would only mean much more devastation distributed else where. I highly doubt like the article states at the end about there being meat readily available on people’s plate in 2050 to many. I’m guessing it’ll be a true delicacy in the near future.
joe on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 2:02 am
Extrapolating from the base figures, its implied that the population growth will come on top on an aging African and Indian society. Given the bad social state of these nations its implied that the young people will have the burden of looking after the old people and the fallout draining their economies of productive power and forcing many to seek work in ‘better’ economies.
As ‘western’ economies become more advanced there are only so many jobs for shop workers and service industry workers. Its likely that soon technology will be driving the taxis and buses pumping the gas and serving the food as well as pushing your cart round the store.
The west may soon be having an excess workforce issue.
World population may grow. But they will only become part of the zombie society, millions of people walking around, doing nothing, and being sustained social welfare.
aidan harrison on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 2:36 am
Apneaman mentions the idea of populations moving North in response to global warming.
There are two problems here;
First is that the ‘world map’ as we know it is grossly misleading in its depiction of land area. Look at a globe and in reality the area of land in the North is relatively small.
Second is that, apart from occasional fertile pockets such as Canada’s Peace River region, most of these areas are post-glacial bare rock, swamp or permafrost. It takes around 400 years of suitable climatic conditions to produce a single inch of topsoil. For a viable minimum to develop would require over 3,000 years.
apneaman on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 3:11 am
Distribution of landmasses of the Paleo-Earth
“Our planet shows different features as it rotates along its axis, sometimes dominated by land and others by ocean. Land areas are distributed predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere (68%) relative to the Southern Hemisphere (32%) as divided by the equator.”
http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/distributionoflandmassesofthepaleo-earth
Kenz300 on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 7:07 am
The least educated people have the most children…
The poorest people have the most children………
conversely
The most educated people have the least children……..
The wealthiest people have the fewest children……………
Want to be poor….. have a lot of children you can not support….
Birth Control Permanent Methods: Learn About Effectiveness
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_permanent_methods/article_em.htm
Davy on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 7:19 am
Aidan, I think this is a topic that more thought should be done on. It will never be done by cornucopians because they do not acknowledge collapse. Cornucopians comprise most of academia. Academia acknowledges many problems but they believe in progress and technology as a solution. This is a predicament with no solutions only change. Any large movements of people for any reason is a collapse episode if not society in its entirety then localized collapse. California comes to mind initially if the drought continues. Coastal areas are another area for migration. Third world & Asia from food insecurity and overpopulation another.
I feel it will be degree and duration of the onset of climate change effects. Much will depend on food and water availability. I am a doomer so I opine doom in the abstract and for me personally. I live in central Missouri. There is evidence that this area will be heating up and drying out eventually although currently because of increased moisture and jet stream changes we have been wetter and coolers. Winters have been harsher. It appears our future here is not good. Who knows with a climate system and predictions but surely the grain belt here will have to shift north leaving this area dry savanna.
I am planning on staying put. I am going to make my last stand here. That is if this does not happens within 10 years. If this happens sooner I have my kids to think about. They are 8 and I have a responsibility to provide for them. If that means moving so be it. If they get old enough to be young men and travel like young me do then I am going to stay put. If that means starving so be it. I am getting too old to go new places. It best just to acknowledge a fantastic life and dig my grave.
How many other people are going to choose to ride the storm out or accept a finality of a future instead of migration? Like you said the land mass is not great enough for migration. The agricultural land too small for current populations to migrate. I see the Chinese moving into Russia eventually much like the early settlers began filtering into Mexican territory. It may not be a conquest just a locust effect the Russians will not be able to stop.
These are the kind of practical collapse questions we should be thinking about. This does not only include climate change food, water, and climate issues. We should be discussing what large mega population regions are going to do. When we have a decline of complexity and energy intensity from the descent. Large cities will not be sustainable. It is uncertain when and how but eventually the thermodynamics of that system does not add up.
How will these people migrate into the surrounding countryside? Then we should ask what will climate change be doing. Some areas now that have AG potential may not in the future. I feel we are looking at an unprecedented population rebalance in numbers and in habitational locations. This will be uncharted waters because of the numbers and the global nature of the event. This will truly be epic in proportions. It could spell the end of our species. I am sure it will be the end of modern man.
joe on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 8:13 am
while collapse is inevitable, I believe we have another 1 maybe 2 generations before final collapse. The reason is this.
1. Technology is driving us forward, efficiency and lower demand placed on energy will extend he oil age.
2. People are not going to be willing to accept the age of our luxurious lives. They will resist it by accepting ever increasing costs and ever increasing taxes.
This happened at the end of the Roman Empire in the west. Barbarian governments could no longer maintain the system of renting land to ‘Roman’ people because society had crumbled and the economy had collapsed. In the end they decided to give the land to the workers to live on, for life, provided they pay the owner ‘in kind’. Thus was created the system of serfdom ie the ‘dark/middle ages’. One system melts into the other. ‘Peak oil’ will pass unnoticed by most people as living standards and life-expectancy fall.
Davy on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 8:31 am
Joe, there is something called systematic collapse of complex systems. They happen abruptly not smooth and slow. Enjoy your wishful thinking. I hope you are right. You are likely wrong. What is too good to be true usually isn’t. The math and the thermodynamics do not add up for your outlook
JuanP on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 8:41 am
“Can the planet sustain 2.4 billion more residents 35 years from now?” Why not 5 billion more? The more the merrier!
JuanP on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 9:31 am
Mak “My bet is on chicken, and soon. Why? Drought will add to the cost of beef as fewer and fewer farms will have the water to raise cattle.”
Many cattle ranchers in South America are selling all their cattle as we type because of the ongoing drought down there. I have first hand knowledge that this is happening in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil. I have friends that sold all their cattle and have only goats, sheep, or no animals left. The drought there is very bad right now. I agree that this will become a global issue, if it is not already. I think that chickens, rabbits, sheep, goats, and other less water demanding animals will fare better than cattle.
Those Yaks look really cool!
Makati1 on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 9:51 am
joe, how are they to pay increasing costs and taxes on a decreasing income? Or don’t you live in the real world? At a 5% inflation (below the real numbers) prices double in ~15 years. Has your take home (spendable)income doubled in the last 15 years? Prices have actually been doubling about every 7-10 years since 2000.
This is not Rome or the dark ages. Rome didn’t have climate change or a collapsing world economy to deal with. There is no comparison of today to anything in the past. I can give you 7,000,000,000+ reasons why. Or 20,000+ if you want to look at the nuclear side of the equation.
JuanP on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 9:51 am
Apneaman “Unfortunately, the Northern hemisphere, due to it’s size, will heat up much faster than the Southern hemisphere.”
While I would argue that the Northern Hemisphere is aproximately the same size as the Southern Hemisphere, both being approximately half the Earth, considering they are divided by the Equator, which runs half way between the poles, I agree that the South will heat slower than the North, and it is my understanding that the existing data already prove that trend.
As far as the reasons for this phenomenon go, I believe it has more to do with the land surface area being larger in the North, the larger water surface and volume in the South, and the fact that the Antarctic continent will be much harder to melt than the Arctic Ocean, and it will act like an air conditioning for the South. 😉
Makati1 on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 9:57 am
JuanP, I am eating cheap steak from Australia as they are also culling their herds to much lower numbers because of drought. Eventually, prices will swing the other way when there is a beef shortage and I will give up the luxury for chicken, rabbit, etc. There is also a large (10-20 lb.)lizard here in the Ps that is edible. We have caught several on our farm over the last year or so. I ate all kinds of wild animals when I was young, so I am prepared for the future. I haven’t tried insects … yet. LOL
idontknowmyself on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 9:59 am
Some speculate that the sun is about to enter into a dormancy period. The number of sun spot is low and so is solar activity. Some even argue that we are about to enter a new Maunder minimum in the next ten year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
Don’t discount the possibility of a solar shutdown.
Makati1 on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 10:06 am
JuanP, the Western Antarctic is melting faster than expected. We better hope it is not spreading to the rest of Antarctica. IF all of the ice melts there and on Greenland, the oceans will rise over 200 feet. In the US, that is every major city along the coasts, all of Florida, Delaware, New Jersey, and everything between I95 and the Atlantic, under water. Not to mention that most of Central America will disappear and the oceans will be connected for the first time in millions of years, making North and South America separate continents again. That would make our farm beach front property ~85 feet above the new sea level … lol.
idontknowmyself on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 10:07 am
CCGS Amundsen re-routed to Hudson Bay to help with heavy ice
Worst ice conditions in 20 years force change of plans to icebreaker research program
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ccgs-amundsen-re-routed-to-hudson-bay-to-help-with-heavy-ice-1.3162900
Cassie on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 10:19 am
“Don’t forget to try the deep fried Caucasian.”
Original or crispy? Or do we get a choice?
Davy on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 11:08 am
Don’t forget sea level rise in the Philippines Makster from Wakster. The Philippines is near the top of worst exposed countries considering location, overpopulation, and consumption pressures. Climate change is going to wak you Mak.
Davy on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 11:12 am
Cassie, I try to warn Mak he will make great stew meat for the hungry natives in the hill country in the P’s when SHTF. An old worn out man can’t put up much defense for the young and hungry.
Lawfish1964 on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 12:01 pm
Chickens, eggs, rabbits and goats will be the protein of the future. Until recently, I thought there were very few people living like I am, keeping chickens for eggs and growing an organic garden, canning and preserving. Then I found a group on Facebook that started 6 months ago called “Florida Urban Homesteading.” Now up to 5,300 members and the amount of information available is amazing. There are a lot more people living back to the earth lives than I ever would have believed. Rabbit-keeping is much more common than I thought.
The problem with beef is, unless you have refrigeration or a lot of people to share with, you can’t store the meat, other than by making jerky or canning it. Small animals like chickens and rabbits are perfect, because you just kill and eat.
Davy on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 12:45 pm
It will greatly depend on where one is farming as to what is being grown in the future in a contracted world of lower complexity and low energy intensity. My area in central Missouri is a natural for goats, sheep, and cattle. What we are going to see as the descent gathers speed is a distillation of activities per their thermodynamic return realities. Areas will be used has the need to be not as someone wants them to be. IOW options will be restricted by a nature. This is as it should be. We never should have done what we have done with production agriculture.
I recommend people revisit 18th and 19th century farms and how they used animals, crops, veggies, fruit trees, and people in a nutrient cycle. Food was grown more efficient than today but not in the volumes of today. Volume will go down but efficiency goes up because you are working with nature not against her. Life must simplify and much more human and animal labor must be involved. Forget our modern life and its luxuries. We are going to have to embrace hard work and simplicity. We have no choice and this is what the problem is with greenies. They want this kind of life but with all the trappings of BAU.
joe on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 2:55 pm
Not suprisingly I realise this is not roman empire. My point being that many people envision ‘collapse’ as an event which will hit us like an asteroid. That’s where I part with them. People won’t care about peak oil, it’s going to be a fundamental characteristic of economics, most people today don’t care where their gas come from or what a fiat currency is. Politicans will tell people that they need to accept these changes and most people will accept just like Greece. It’s a historical fact that collapse has happened before and happens much more than many people think. Our fall will only be from the greatest height, but we will fall. Prepping is about as useful as late roman pleb telling everyone he thinks serfdom is the future 50 years too soon. Peak oil related issues will arise alongside climate change which will probobly drown many cities, by the time some of us are old.
Peak oil is not going to be a concern most people will worry about.
Makati1 on Wed, 22nd Jul 2015 10:12 pm
joe, I would be more concerned about a collapse of the financial system that powers BAU. That can happen in days or weeks, at the most, and then BAU is gone, forever. I don’t care about peak oil or climate change. We were warned 40 years ago and ignored the warnings. Now we, and ours, will pay the price.
Odds are, those cities will be empty when water rises into them. You seem to be assuming that humans will still be around to see it. Maybe a few, if they are able to survive that long, but not many. As for the other events coming, I can only hope that a nuclear exchange is not one of them but we are closer now than any time since Hiroshima.
Buckle up!
Kenz300 on Fri, 24th Jul 2015 9:26 am
How many fish can you put in a fish tank before they begin to eat each other……..
GregT on Fri, 24th Jul 2015 10:17 am
“Peak oil is not going to be a concern most people will worry about.”
Absolutely not. Most won’t have any clue as to why they are starving to death.