Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 15, 2014
The Energy Cost of Food
In my earlier essay The Energy Basis of Food Security, I linked the high energy intensity of food production to the reality that food and energy prices trend together; when energy prices increase, food prices follow suit. With this as a backdrop, it’s worth exploring energy use in the US food system a little more thoroughly, partly because I find it an interesting subject but also because there are plenty of misconceptions out there about the energy intensity of different sub-sectors within the food system and how they stack up relative to one another.
The US Department of Agriculture, which offers the most authoritative analysis of energy use in the US food system, divides this sector of the US economy into seven sub-sectors: agriculture, processing, packaging, freight, wholesale and retail, food services and household use [1]. Based on USDA’s data, in 2002 the US food system invested just over 12 calories of energy into each calorie of food consumed once waste and spoilage were accounted for. Of these, 1.6 calories were used within the agricultural sector, although this also includes fisheries and some other production ventures, and another 2.7 calories were used to process and package food. Distribution, which includes long distance freight, wholesale and retail sales and food service enterprises such as restaurants and caterers, used another 4.4 calories. The energy use associated with long distance transport of food only makes up 0.4 calories of this figure, with the bulk of food distribution energy used in the wholesale, retail and food service segments. Household energy use, which includes that associated with driving to and from grocery stores and restaurants as well as energy used within the home to refrigerate, freeze, process and cook food, added the final 3.4 calories to the tab. According to USDA data, the energy intensity of the US food system has been increasing; it took just under 11 calories to deliver one calorie of loss-adjusted food in 1997, 12 in 2002 and just over 14 in 2007, and if we extrapolate this trend forwards the US food system requires about 15 calories of energy to yield one of consumed food in 2014.
As high as this 15 calorie figure might seem, it’s surely an underestimate. The USDA report from which these data were drawn left out a number of areas within the US food system that use energy in their operations, including research and development within food enterprises, waste disposal, water provision, food-related wastewater treatment, food waste disposal, the energy invested in food imports, food system governance, and the energy costs of providing healthcare to those who suffer from food and diet-related ailments, among others. A more expansive assessment of energy use in the US food system, one that attempted to account for food’s entire life cycle from soil to consumers and back to soil, would likely estimate total energy demand in the range of 15-20 input calories per consumed food calorie, possibly more.
All living organisms face a constant energetic arms race against their environments, always scheming to derive more food calories from their surroundings than they need to burn metabolically to acquire them. Organisms who are successful, whose life ways yield a positive energy return on investment with respect to consumed calories versus those burned for energy, live to reproduce and raise successful offspring. They enjoy a certain ecological staying power, if you will. Those that fail to eat more calories than they burn eventually starve, and their genetic lineage ends.
The US food system, along with those of most countries in the world today, operates at a steep energy deficit. As a species, Homo industrialis remains successful because we subsidize our food system with nonrenewable energy sources, including coal, oil, natural gas and, to a lesser degree, fissionable uranium. As long as these resources remain readily available and inexpensive – and the environmental and social consequences of relying on them are bearable – we’re fine. If any of the above changes however, the energy deficit our food system runs will become a serious thorn in our sides, or more aptly a thorn in our bellies. It behooves us, I think, to ponder the implications of relying on such an energy intensive food system, and to reflect on how we might steer its development down a more resilient and adaptive path.
7 Comments on "The Energy Cost of Food"
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 15th Jun 2014 7:27 am
We really must go beyond the energy intensity of food issue and start looking at the systematic implications of negative food growth. Food is the weak link in the stability of the global economic system that all of our local support systems depend on. If you want to see some great analysis’s articles on food energy intensity go to the Drum archives. If I remember correctly Murphy had some good ones. The real issues is we have a very short time to manage a period of food insecurity, hunger, and outright famine. Places like the Philippines will experience out right famine and social collapse when this situation occurs. India and China will experience hunger and food insecurity that will destroy their social fabric. The richer west that has better food economies and carrying capacity from lower populations and will fare better. The developed west must make a quick move back to the land to ensure we prevent social collapse once a crisis is in motion. This is possible but by no means assured. In any case even the west that has good food production capabilities will not be able to support the populations we currently have at the levels of complexity we experience today. Food along with energy will drive our lives down to levels of the early 20 century. We still have the lingering infrastructure of the globalized 21st century to salvage and we do have knowledge of what was done in the past. It is possible for a reboot at a level of sufficient sustainability for many for a time. Yet, this will be short lived because of all the other social, economic, and environmental time bombs in the pike most notably AGW. Food will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and this food induced collapse will begin in the third world. This food collapse is very near along with the energy decent for all.
J-Gav on Sun, 15th Jun 2014 8:00 am
A pretty clear, common-sense sort of article.
As many have noted, you can’t eat fossil fuels. In our system though, you can’t eat without them either … Something’s gotta give.
Juan Pueblo on Sun, 15th Jun 2014 9:56 am
I am on my way to procure myself some low cost high quality protein. My wife and I are going fishing on our rafts in an hour. It’s our weekly ritual, just like religious people attend their ceremonies, we religiously raft, camp, and fish at least once a week and commune with nature. Nature is my religion.
Davey on Sun, 15th Jun 2014 11:07 am
Juan, I follow a similiar path in the Native American tradition.
J-Gav on Sun, 15th Jun 2014 11:14 am
Damn it, Juan, where do you live? How’s about inviting me over for a little fishing?
Just joking, I’m too far away and don’t much care for flying anymore.
Your post brings back fond memories of our fishing trips in the trout streams of northern Michigan – so tender and tasty you can eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner (at least for a few days).
Not to mention the perch and bass fishing on Gull Lake, where we lived in southern Michigan … almost never came home without a catch, including in the winter after digging through a foot of ice.
alokin on Sun, 15th Jun 2014 10:11 pm
There is more and more retail space per person which is cooled, heated and light. None of these new developments have windows to light the space or open to let fresh air in. And no customer was asked if we want ginormous supermarkets anyway.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Mon, 16th Jun 2014 7:02 am
Alokin, I often wonder when I am venturing around the city I visit from time to time the situation you mention. I make supply runs from the farm to the city 2 times a month. When I make these runs I have surreal visions. You see, I am living in a doomer, prepper, PO, and systematic collapse mentality so I often will make observations on salvage ability of BAU development. One of the significant features of modern development post 60’s here in the US is the lack of effort at ventilation due to air-conditioning. It stuns me at the lack of resilience this presents as if cheap energy will run the A/C units far into the future. There are so many other things that strike me like the vast road system and its practical use post BAU. I often imagine these huge road cut overgrowing as they will in 5 years from lack of maintenance. In 20 years they will be covered in vegetation. I wonder about the high rise buildings and see the glass hanging and falling to the ground. Think of the massive car litter everywhere when these 4 wheeled beast stop running. Anyway, you get my point.