Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 23, 2014
Finding optimism in the challenge to double food production
Since humans have dominated the landscape we have cleared vegetation and created cropping areas, and concomitant with clearing these has been a growth in population.
In industrial times the growth in population may have been greater than the soil’s capacity to deal with this in a sustainable way.
This statement is not unequivocal and is still a matter of much research and debate.
Human transformation of soil has led in some areas to what is termed degradation where the soil’s condition has deteriorated.
However there are also examples of where human management has led to improvements in the soil’s condition for human purposes relative to their natural state.
Currently there are large areas of the world with poor soil condition relative to their natural state and smaller areas where the condition is better than the natural state.
The soil cover is capable of feeding and clothing the world’s population although distribution of the products remains a challenge.
There is a need to increase production, by about 50 per cent over the next four decades on an equivalent or slightly smaller area of soil.
We need to also do this while reducing inputs and minimising the effect on the environment.
We are optimists and we believe we can meet this challenge.
We believe that science and technology properly invested and implemented will produce knowledge and systems that can address these challenges.
Education, connection of communities and sound public policy are also equally required. So in short our answer is ‘yes’. Secure soil will help feed the world.
We believe the emerging concept of soil security will address these challenges.
Soil security is concerned with the maintenance and improving of the world’s soil resource to produce food, fibre and freshwater, contribute to energy and climate sustainability, and maintain the biodiversity and the overall protection of the ecosystem.
There are five dimensions that frame soil security, addressing the biophysical challenges, and equally, the socio-economic concerns.
The dimensions of ‘capability’ and ‘condition’ are concerned with what the soil can do and recognise that soil change occurs over geological, as well as the human timescales and is affected by the soil’s use and management.
This concept also explores how a ‘value’ needs to be placed on the soil so the soils capital can be estimated, as well as the need to support the development of good soil policy based on relevant knowledge and understand how people are connected to the soil.
These five dimensions framing the assessment of the soil’s capability, condition, capital, connectivity and codification are broad and speak to a wide and varied audience and in doing so, will address the concerns of the growing population, ongoing land degradation, climate change and other global challenges being faced by us.
15 Comments on "Finding optimism in the challenge to double food production"
Boat on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 5:52 pm
Bugs, grind them, flavor them, print them, eat them. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 6:25 pm
Finding optimism in the challenge to double food production has become a long running joke. We read studies monthly from UN sponsored organizations, environmental organizations, social organizations, and government think tanks addressing the food, water, poverty issue. It seems these folks simply cannot fathom the reality of limits of growth and population overshoot. Maybe since they are being paid to find solutions and not paid to admit to reality we get these regular warning with some kind of prescription for solving the problem. The prescriptions are always way off the make when reality tested. They in effect show the dangers that are lurking and how utterly unprepared we are as a global society to admit to population overshoot and limits of growth and mitigate these predicaments. I am starting to feel like this is a government conspiracy to show concern and efforts to solve these problems yet, the governments no there is no hope. If anyone has any education they will immediately see right through these efforts.
GregT on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 7:09 pm
“We are optimists and we believe we can meet this challenge.”
Well then, you guys obviously have a lot of work to do. Meanwhile, the rest of the people on the planet Earth will continue to pursue BAU, and continue to destroy the soils that you are so optimistic about saving. When you find a way to get the other 7 billion people that inhabit the planet with you, to get on board with your plans, only then will you begin to come up with a solution.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 8:58 pm
“We believe that science and technology properly invested and implemented will produce knowledge and systems that can address these challenges.”
Does anyone else here get the impression that faith in science and technology saving us from the mess we’re in is taking on religious proportions?
These “believers” tend to deny or misinterpret facts which disagree with their faith-based technological solutions. When they talk about their faith-based technological solutions, we get stuff like “fusion energy”, “advances in unconventional oil extraction” and an endless list of “some how we’ll figure it all out” hope-based “solutions”.
I’m guessing that as we progress through the next year or two or three, we’re going to see a lot more people seeking solace in the faith that technology will somehow save us.
After all, each of us only has two real choices. To deal with the facts and the logical conclusions those facts lead us to by taking decisive action. Or don’t deal with the facts, find refuge in deniability and faith in fairy tales.
DC on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 8:59 pm
Q/Human transformation of soil has led in some areas to what is termed degradation where the soil’s condition has deteriorated.
-Wrong, it is not ‘termed’ degradation-it IS degradation. Soil erosion undermined the Roman Empire, Easter Island, The Mayan Civilizations, Mesopotamia and many others besides. When will it be our turn? Well its happening now, not system wide(yet), but in bits and pieces.
I would like to see an actual example of how ‘human management’ has actually improved soil quality.
meld on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 9:08 pm
“We believe that science and technology properly invested and implemented will produce knowledge and systems that can address these challenges.”
Yeah, no shit it’s called permaculture and it’s been going since the 70s if not before. The only problem is it doesn’t fit with the retarded narrative we currently abide by.
Boat on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 9:35 pm
DC It’s called composting.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 10:11 pm
“I would like to see an actual example of how ‘human management’ has actually improved soil quality.”
DC, you should have added “… quality *on a commercial scale.*”
Joe Clarkson on Sun, 23rd Mar 2014 10:46 pm
The need for increased food supply is far worse than the “doubling” indicated by this article. In most of the world, the vast majority of the non-photosynthetic energy needed to supply the food we eat comes from oil and natural gas. Some studies indicate that for every calorie of food we eat, about ten calories of oil and natural gas are consumed producing, processing, storing and transporting it. This article assumes that those fossil calories will still be available.
Now consider substituting those fossil fuel calories with human and animal muscle power, both of which require food. Although a good part of the energy required for processing could be eliminated with a transition to whole food consumption and the elimination of processed food, there would still be an enormous energy deficit. In order to phase out fossil fuels from our food supply system and still supply food to our urban centers would require growing many times as much food as we do now, just to power the oxen pulling the plows and horses pulling the wagons carrying human food to the cities. I believe that such scenario is impossible.
So, in order to even have a chance at supplying enough food for the present world population without fossil fuels, that population would need to be living right next to their food supply, eating it as it is produced and processing it minimally if at all. Without fossil fuels, everyone will get to eat only food that they grow themselves with their own hands or trade with neighbors that do the same. And we will need to do all that without outside inputs of fertilizer, requiring careful management of the nutrient cycle (carefully moving pee and poo to plants). That time is coming soon; are you ready?
DC on Mon, 24th Mar 2014 12:24 am
Composting restores and maintains soil quality, it cant’improve’ it in any meaningful way beyond what it was when you got there. Only natural processes over time, can be said to be capable of ‘improving’ the soil. We used to understand that concept in the past and let fields lie fallow, today, its chem bomb away.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Mon, 24th Mar 2014 12:57 am
Yea Joe, definitely a deal breaker with a global population above lets say 1900 US population (stats bellow)
1900
Total population: 75,994,266; farm population: 29,414,000 (est.); farmers 38% of labor force; Number of farms: 5,740,000; average acres: 147
Not only would many more acres need to produce fodder for the animal power but also fields will need to be left fallow in a rotational system for fertility. A significant problem today is these 18th & 19th century skills are no longer part of our population. Even among farms these skills are quickly vanishing. In the 3rd world there is still many preindustrial skills but again industrial man has been destroying those subsistence traditions with corporate AG policies. How many people anymore know how to make animals productive besides the Amish and some hobby farms? You don’t just build out farm animals like tractors. It will take years to get a population of work animals raised. Most people can barely plant a garden let alone make a farm work. I feel our survival depends on a 20 year plan to reeducate the population into a pre fossil fuel farming lifestyle. A crash program of post fossil fuel agricultural practices. Ha, I guess I was dreaming because there will be no effort to mitigate the agricultural system from the top down and the bottom up will be insignificant to what is needed to feed a huge urban population.
Makati1 on Mon, 24th Mar 2014 1:08 am
@NWR, the church of technology is the current ‘spiritual’ crutch of the weak. Some have faith that it can save them from the hell of reality. George Jetson is alive and well in their future.
The easiest step to take would be to give up beef in our diet. The grains and water, used to grow the 1 billion plus beef cattle in the world at any one time, could easily feed 3-4 Billion people. Starvation would be gone. The Us wastes enough food to feed the entire Filipino nation.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Mon, 24th Mar 2014 1:36 am
Makati said – The easiest step to take would be to give up beef in our diet. The grains and water, used to grow the 1 billion plus beef cattle in the world at any one time, could easily feed 3-4 Billion people. Starvation would be gone. The Us wastes enough food to feed the entire Filipino nation.
Sorry, Makati, beef production is needed on land only suited for grazing. Grazing land makes up 27% of total AG land in the US. Many more acres should be grazing land but instead are in row crop production thanks to fossil fuels. You just can’t plant crops anywhere. I know I had a row crop farm and I have a cattle farm now raising grass fed beef. I agree with you we need to do away with this whole rich man’s custom of fattening beef in feed lots. Not only is it unhealthy it is very energy intensive, water intensive, and polluting. It is crazy to raise cattle in a place like Missouri then ship them several hundred miles to a feedlot in Kansas. Cattle did not evolve to eat grain. Cattle’s systems are not designed for grains hence antibiotics and other foreign substances that must be given to cattle. Grain production needs to focus on direct human food consumption. Naturally some grains are needed for chickens, pork, and other farm animals but even in this case far less is needed if the animals are not raised in huge confinement animal factories. Pigs traditionally eat scraps and chickens free ranged for bugs and greens. Grains are a useful supplement with these animals but it should not be their primary feed.
andya on Mon, 24th Mar 2014 2:23 am
Well I am optimistic because I sell food, and the price is going up. If every lawn and park was converted to horticulture then there would be a lot more food available. HAH big IF.
“Cattle did not evolve to eat grain.”
No and guess what, neither did Humans LOL WTF? We feed grain to pigs cows and chickens to fatten them up….. We feed grains to humans and we get fatter too, go figure.
We COULD give up meat, and just grow grains and see how many humans we can fit on the planet. Instead of CAFO we can have Confined Human Feeding Operations. I bet we could have hundreds of billions of people on the planet if the only consideration was ‘how many calories can we produce.’
GregT on Mon, 24th Mar 2014 3:24 am
andya,
You mean like the Matrix? Ahhh, technology.
Joe Clarkson,
Great post. It really shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out, should it?