Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 22, 2013
Global Food Production Won’t Keep Up With The World’s Growing Population, Research Warns
Global food production isn’t increasing fast enough to support the world’s rapidly growing population, according to new research from the Institute on the Environment (IonE) at the University of Minnesota.
Image Credit: Deepak K Ray, Nathaniel D Mueller, Paul C West, Jonathan A Foley
Crop yields are actually falling rather notably in many of the warmer/poorer regions of the world as a result of rising temperatures and increasing natural disasters. Such agricultural declines are predicted to continue into the foreseeable future as a result of climate change. And something else to note — this new research (along with most) doesn’t take into account the rapidly approaching problem of running out of inorganic fertilizers… A very significant problem…
With regards to the new research — previous work has estimated that global agricultural production would need to increase by around 60-110% by 2050 in order to keep up with mid-range population growth estimates. But according to the new research, as of right now yields of the world’s four most important crops — maize, rice, wheat and soybean — are only increasing about 0.9-1.6% a year. “At these rates, production of these crops would likely increase 38-67% by 2050, rather than the estimated requirement of 60-110%. The top three countries that produce rice and wheat were found to have very low rates of increase in crop yields.”
“Particularly troubling are places where population and food production trajectories are at substantial odds,” Ray says, “for example, in Guatemala, where the corn-dependent population is growing at the same time corn productivity is declining.”
“The analysis maps global regions where yield improvements are on track to double production by 2050 and areas where investments must be targeted to increase yields. The authors explain that boosting crop yields is considered a preferred solution to meet demands, rather than clearing more land for agriculture. They note that additional strategies, such as reducing food waste and changing to plant-based diets, can also help reduce the large estimates for increased global demand for food.”
“Clearly, the world faces a looming agricultural crisis, with yield increases insufficient to keep up with projected demands,” says IonE director Jon Foley, a co-author on the study. “The good news is, opportunities exist to increase production through more efficient use of current arable lands and increased yield growth rates by spreading best management practices. If we are to boost production in these key crops to meet projected needs, we have no time to waste.”
The new research was just published in the open access journal PLOS ONE.
18 Comments on "Global Food Production Won’t Keep Up With The World’s Growing Population, Research Warns"
Kenz300 on Sat, 22nd Jun 2013 8:23 pm
Maybe the rapidly growing population is the problem.
IanC on Sat, 22nd Jun 2013 8:43 pm
Permaculture… or cannibalism. Or maybe permaculture with occasional cannibalism at first.
You decide!
rollin on Sat, 22nd Jun 2013 9:26 pm
People need to eat a wider variety of foods.
dsula on Sat, 22nd Jun 2013 10:01 pm
That’s crazy talk. Our own super cornucopian OilFinder2 says there’s no limit to growth and applauds every green field that’s plastered over and every new Asian immigrants that arrives on the shores of California. And I believe in OilFinder2. He’s my hero.
socrates1fan on Sat, 22nd Jun 2013 10:13 pm
We MIGHT be able to fee 7 billion if we enforce sustainable permaculture and change diets. Is that probably going to happen? No.
The current form of agriculture is highly destructive and will not (and isn’t) feed everyone.
People say we will reach 11 billion, I say that’s about as likely as a unicorn flying through Ohio!
socrates1fan on Sat, 22nd Jun 2013 10:14 pm
feed*
GregT on Sat, 22nd Jun 2013 11:40 pm
Maybe excess energy is the problem that is causing overpopulation. The population needs to be returned to sustainable levels, food shortages will accomplish that goal for us. Too bad we didn’t have the intelligence to think about it, before the problem got so out of hand.
BillT on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 3:15 am
I now live in the Philippines where crop production is still growing. However, here everyone with a spot of soil grows something to eat. No big lawns, no large patches of landscaping outside of the parks. I walk through the city and see coconut palms everywhere bearing fruit. Date palms also. I see patches of long beans and squash vines in unlikely spots. There is still a lot of area left that is basically wild, that will be permaculture farmed eventually. No big fields. But, that will not happen until the cities begin to die. Maybe next year?
BillT on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 4:46 am
“…My final conclusion is that this problem has no solution beyond the collapse of the industrial economy in the United States and Europe. China and India will stop growing without consumers from the United States and Europe. The internal growth of these two countries will take a long time to reach a size problematic to the rest of the world in the absence of the United States and Europe….”
This is from an article by Godofredo Aravena:
http://guymcpherson.com/2013/06/what-can-small-countries-do-about-climate-change-and-peak-oil/
socrates1fan on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 5:07 am
BillT-
Though I do not believe urban farming can stop or reverse the decline of industrial civilization, I do believe it can make the decline easier and more tolerable.
Production of our non-staple (and perhaps some staples) in our backyards, on rooftops, in unconventional spaces, etc. will reduce the stress on the farmland around cities (which will likely become extremely valuable).
Plantagenet on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 6:59 am
Overshoot occurs when a population grows beyond the carrying capacity of the environment
DC on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 8:10 am
Urban food production in Carmerica will be very problematic. While the actual fields we grow our foods are laced with chemicals, cities themselves are nothing to write home about either. Suburban lawns, parks, golf-courses, industrial parks and so on, are heavily contaminated. Urban runoff-mostly from gas-burning cars, will make a mockery of any attempt to grow food(safety). All other areas in N.A. are covered in equally contaminated asphalt, which, even if stripped away and reclaimed-would also be as toxic as anything China has produced.
Anything grown in a post-peak oil urban space in N.A. will come in 2 basic flavors, regular or premium unleaded.
rollin on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 2:16 pm
Stop throwing away so much food and eat your vegetables.
BillT on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 2:29 pm
DC, I wonder how much of that lead from the pre-unleaded days still exists in the soils along highways? I’m sure the soil is saturated with oils and smoke residue that was washed there after every rain.
And, in response to those who advocate using areas in the city or the suburbs to grow anything but grass, you may be surprised when you are fined for not following the local laws and regulations. It takes at least 1/2 and acre of good soil to grow the food for ONE person. Most suburban lots don’t even have 1/10 acre free.
Here there is not the network of roads to nowhere that the US has. Once you leave the towns, there may only be one road to where you want to go, and no side roads other than to private property and they will not be paved. I think the soil on our farm is about as pollutant free as is possible in today’s world.
Feemer on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 2:54 pm
Good point on contaminated soils, I don’t believe all neighborhoods have contaminated soils, especially newer ones that were built on cropland. But a possible solution (small scale)and would ease food stress in aquaponics. You know, on a roof you have plants growing in a big container of water with fish. The plants clean the water and use the nutrients from the fish poop, all you have to do is feed the fish and you can have meat and veges! And how does one feed fish in a collapse? there happens to be an abundance of worms, grass hoppers, flies, misquiteos and other insects everywhere. And since you aren’t worrying about tilling soil, or composting, you should have plenty of time to find those bugs
socrates1fan on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 6:38 pm
On contaminated soils-
When I started gardening in my neighborhood (the neighborhood has been here since the 1840’s or so) lead contamination (amongst many contaminants) was a big concern of mine.
The thing about lead is that no matter the amount of lead in the soil, the importance is the bio-availability of the lead to the plants (basically, can the plants take up the lead?).
Lead often forms bonds in the soil that makes it unavailable to plants. The composting process creates more of these bonds which only reduces the availability of lead (and other toxins) to the vegetables. It also depends on the vegetables that you are growing. For example, fruiting crops grown in lead contaminated soil generally don’t have lead in the fruits, but leafy low level crops can. Reducing the acidity (which good composting usually does) also reduces the availability of lead in the soil.
Composting breaks down a lot of toxins or locks them up in bonds. Now, does this mean that vegetables grown in an old city lot are as safe as vegetables grown out in the country (assuming pesticides and fertilizers were not used in their production)? Probably not, but the land in towns is far from unusable.
A bigger concern of mine is the INFERTILITY of urban soils. My garden only recently started producing decent yields after a few years of intense composting, mulch, and manure. Much of the urban soil has been heavily abused and much of the beneficial bacteria and organisms have been killed. Composting and “healing” the soil is essential to our future and unfortunately not everyone is on board with this. While I’m burying kitchen scraps and restoring my soil, my neighbors spray herbicides on their grass and pesticides on their gardens.
Solarity on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 7:08 pm
This study is a bit disingenuous. South Carolina formerly grew one-half of the world’s total rice production (80 million pounds in 1800). It grows none today and shows zero growth in the study’s findings.
DC on Sun, 23rd Jun 2013 8:10 pm
The problem with urban contamination from cars, plastics and so on it so sticky because, no matter where your plot happens to be, contamination is pervasive throughout our environment. So, even if you manage remediate your plot to some extent, your neighbors are constantly dosing *there* yards with roundup, weedex, working on there gas-powered hedge trimmers and what not. Which in turn, migrates back to you no matter how careful you might be. Even after these industrials toxins are no longer widely available, they will persist for decades, if not centuries. This is why all those post-apoc books and films showing people living and growing stuff in the ruins of (current) cities are somewhat unrealistic to say the least. In reality, after a few decades, those ruins would be uninhabitable heaps, toxic dead zones for a long long time. No one would want eat food grown anywhere near one of our old(future) ruined cities if they can help it.
I do not mean to imply things wont grow, and that food they grow wouldn’t be(technically) edible, just that its important to keep in mind just because our cities look superficially clean, they are just as toxic as the industrial farms. Anyone in a built up area with any soil planning to grow anything, would be well advised to first get your soil tested first, even if it costs a few dollars. Think about for example, all those suburban ‘developments’ that were built atop old landfills from decades ago. When I young, I actually lived near one myself. Not on, but near. They looked perfectly nice on the surface…but dammed if anyone tried to eat anything grown in those yards…