Peak oil has become a familiar term over the past decade, but the world will soon have to get used to peak rice, peak wheat and peak maize, according to new research from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research.
‘Peak oil seemed believable because oil is a limited resource, but surprisingly our methodology in this study could not prove it,’ says Ralf Seppelt, a landscape ecologist working on the project. Money and innovation from the oil industry has seen peak oil recede as a risk, according to the research.
The Helmholtz study found that while peak oil is not a cause for concern, renewable resources have reached the limit for annual growth. Among the 20 renewables studied, 18 – including meat production and the global fish catch – peaked between 1988 and 2008.
‘People think these renewable resources are infinitely available because all plants needs are water and sunshine,’ says Seppelt. The study team looked at crops harvested from agriculture and used by humans for nutrition and feeding animals. Using figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the researchers found that renewable resources were already at production limits. Soya beans reached maximum production in 2009, milk in 2003, eggs in 1993 and fish in 1988.
Peak years for renewable resources (Image: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research )
‘We can’t hypothesis as to why so many resources reached a peak at the same time,’ says Seppelt. He suggests that changes in population and diet in India and China may have increased pressure on renewable resources.
‘In successful agricultural regions, like Europe and the US, we only see increases in renewable resource production of between 1–5 per cent per year,’ he says, adding that these are due to breeding or further increases in intensity. ‘Other regions in the world might be able to increase production, but there is no agreement as to whether this will be possible worldwide,’ he says.
‘It is highly debated as to whether Africa could reach American agricultural output levels. It might be the case that there are more increases possible, but you have to consider what is needed to achieve those levels,’ says Seppelt. Replicating the massive changes in irrigation and pesticide use outside intensively farmed regions could prove a challenge.
Fish obtained from aquaculture are one resource yet to peak, although there is a problem with fish caught in the ocean for aquaculture. ‘There is no substitute because different species are farmed than are caught in the ocean,’ says Seppelt.
‘Fish are one of the most efficient species for producing animal protein, while cattle or beef are the least efficient,’ he says. ‘This isn’t only about the yield gap; it’s also about closing the diet gap.’
shortonoil on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 1:10 pm
‘Peak oil seemed believable because oil is a limited resource, but surprisingly our methodology in this study could not prove it,’ says Ralf Seppelt, a landscape ecologist working on the project.
Perhaps Ralf should change his methodology? Last time I looked we were not living on an infinite planet. Perhaps an infinite universe, but hauling oil back from the Dog Star somehow just doesn’t seem practical. If this guy is not a completely totally assine academic dim whit there never was one. A landscape ecologist? Must be a branch of underwater basket weaving?
Perhaps he had something to say later in the article. I read the first part, my brain jumped out of gear, and I quit right there!
Plantagenet on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 2:17 pm
These folks don’t seem to realize that the limits to food production that they see are partly due to limits in oil production, as oil plays a big role running agricultural equipment and the production of fertilizers.
ANy reduction in oil production is going to hit food production hard.
sunweb on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 2:35 pm
‘Peak oil seemed believable because oil is a limited resource, but surprisingly our methodology in this study could not prove it,’ says Ralf Seppelt, a landscape ecologist working on the project.
Perhaps, it didn’t work because it is not a renewable resource. ?????????
marmico on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 2:48 pm
ANy reduction in oil production is going to hit food production hard.
Highly unlikely. The U.S. agriculture sector uses less than 2% (2 quads out of a 100 quads) of total energy.
http://peakoil.com/consumption/us-agricultural-sector-in-the-us-uses-less-than-2-of-total-energy-usage
energyskeptic on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 3:06 pm
I’ve posted the complete article at http://energyskeptic.com/2015/20-peak-resources-limits-to-growth/
My latest issue of Nature magazine had this to say about it: “The rates at which humans consume multiple resources such as food and wood peaked at roughly the same time, around 2006. This means that resources could be simultaneously depleted, so achieving sustainability might be more challenging than was thought.”
Ralf Seppelt … and his colleagues estimated the peak rate of extraction for 27 resources. For 20 of them, mostly renewables such as meat and rice, the peak-rate years occurred between 1960 and 2010, with many clustering around 2006. Only coal, gas, oil, phosphate, farmed fish and renewable energy have yet to peak.
Humans use multiple resources to generate new ones and to meet basic needs, which could explain the synchronicity of peak usage, the authors suggest.
Seppelt, R., et al. 2014. Synchronized peak-rate years of global resources use. Ecology and Society 19(4): 50.
GregT on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 3:22 pm
“ANy reduction in oil production is going to hit food production hard.”
Every once in a while Plant, you actually write something that makes sense. Even if it should be obvious.
But then the economist in training comes along and explains why the world’s leading scientists and policy makers are all so very wrong.
Meanwhile, back at the grocery stores……………
Makati1 on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 7:18 pm
If the West had an Eastern diet, there would be more than enough for everyone of us. All 7+ Billion. But the trend, for now, is more meat and less veggies and fish. The fat Asians can thank the US trash food chains for that.
Here in the PS, it is obvious who is in the upper income brackets by weight. I have noticed an increase in ‘wideloads’* in the malls and on the streets. In the higher priced malls of Makati, fat people are about 3% to 5% of the shoppers. As you move from the wealthy areas to the less wealthy fringes, the percentage goes down to maybe 1%, or less. Most of the over-weights are females in their 30s to 40s but the men are catching up.
Interestingly enough, most of the white tourists or foreign workers are visibly overweight. Often very ‘wideload’ but they are also mostly in middle age or older. Few young whites here except as family members of the older.
*Wideload: Someone who is obviously way over the BMI normal limits as seen from the back. Often between 60cm and 100 cm in width/spread. (24-39 inches)
Davy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 7:37 pm
Mak, check out how your poster girl the P’s and your other Asian girlfriends stand out and get back to me on diet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/02/map-if-the-size-of-countries-reflected-their-populations/?wpisrc=nl_wv&wpmm=1
adamx on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 7:58 pm
Makati, there are not enough fish in the sea for CURRENT demand, much less if everyone ate like “Asians”. The Japanese are literally eating all the large fish in the world, so unless you mean a different sort of Asian diet, it’s not gonna work.
There are lots of better diets, and no question most people don’t get enough vegetables and fruit. But suggesting more fish is unrealistic. Even small fish are in trouble.
Davy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 8:39 pm
Add, Mak fails to hear the big sucking noise coming out of Asia with its food resource appetite of all kinds spiraling into a vortex of a mass of people. What is more surreal about Asia is that excessive population is growing and consuming more. This is precisely what we don’t need now globally. Asia is the locust that are ready to swarm and devour all that is near them.
Asia’s day of reckoning will come shortly when FF’s are depleted enough to cause a decline in food production. We have currently been in a stagnation of food productivity. When the supply actually declines in conjunction with disrupted distribution systems and financial network issues that is when the real Asian food insecurity will begin. The entire global world is at risk but Asia is particularly at risk with an excessively large population in a relatively small area per what would be proper carrying capacity minus fossil fuels. We are heading into a world of less FF so we are heading into an Asia bottleneck.
Makati1 on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 8:02 am
AdamX, as for fish, it depends on how much you eat per meal. I can make a meal of rice and 3oz of tuna or mackerel. Also, many of the fish I eat here are farm raised. That has not peaked and will likely not peak for a long time here in Asia. Add in the local grown veggies and fruits and I never need touch four legged meat again. I eat eggs and chicken more than any other meat.
There IS enough food for more than 7 billion people, but not on a Western diet. The US wastes more food than the P’s consumes per day. When obesity is the fastest growing health problem in a country, something is very wrong. The US is Number One and far in the lead in that category.
Davy on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 9:14 am
Mak, your point is easily countered by acknowledging fairness and balance. Mak, your Asian friends tendency of overpopulation in fairness means they deserve to eat less.
If you are going to be a righteous ass about per capita consumption then take your medicine and accept that bringing too many people to the party is just as unfair and rude as a few eating too much.
Mak, You are they type that lives a self-righteous life of gloating and bragging but you cannot live up to the values you preach. Mak, there are no free lunches in a finite world. You can’t have your cake and eat it. That is what you want Mak a free lunch to criticize others and glorify your group.
To criticize is to accept and live up to those values you are preaching. Overshoot is a simple concept of reality in a finite world. Bringing too many people to the table to eat is bad manners just as eating too much if the large family was begotten with the awareness of scarcity. Too many people is as bad as too much consumption. Have you ever thought about the concept of trade-offs?
Cheers
Dredd on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 9:26 am
Things that are shaped like pyramids have peaks, things that constitute a circle do not.
A cycle is circular, using fundamental elements again and again.
Human population fits into the pyramid zone when overdone, but not so when in accord with with cyclical use of cyclical resources.
The author wrote: “Peak oil seemed believable because oil is a limited resource, but surprisingly our methodology in this study could not prove it,’ says Ralf Seppelt, a landscape ecologist working on the project.”
Thus, their methodology was defective.
James Tipper on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 1:38 pm
As nations get wealthier its citizens want more meat, this is a proven fact around the globe. Eating a high carb diet is baloney, high protein/high fat and low carb and low sugar is infinitely better for a man. But what about Asians with their carbs in their diet? What about them? They’re often like 5’6″ and rail skinny, although I’ll admit living in America it would be nice if we weren’t so fat.
Of course as peak oil hits that will mean a peak in the production of almost all foods. Unless everyone started growing victory gardens(which would also be nice) I doubt we’ll ever have more food. As the great Gerald Celente put it(he was talking about inflation and not peak oil), “There will probably be enough food, but not enough money to buy it.” The world will need to cut back on calories whether they like it or not.
But overall agricultural subsidies and other assorted crap have made that food so much more cheap cost per calorie wise than normal, healthy food. Couple this with the fact advertisements are shoved in our face constantly to eat more and single moms who would never suffer the audacity of making a good wholesome meal and you get the current American equation. Americans diets are high sugar and high carb and we’re the most obese 1st world nation on the planet. One benefit of peak oil I hope is that Americans start eating better and the BMI moves from like 30 to 25, but we can only hope.
Davy on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 7:03 pm
Tip, Here are some food waste numbers:
http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/
Global quantitative food losses and waste per year are roughly 30% for cereals, 40-50% for root crops, fruits and vegetables, 20% for oil seeds, meat and dairy plus 30% for fish.
We then need to look at excess calories. I am showing our calorie intake is up 20% from the 1960’s. I think we would all consider the 1960’s as a healthy period at least in relation to calories consumed. This was a time of less overconsumption. Here are the numbers:
The average U.S. adult male was eating 2,700 calories a day, up from 2,200 in the 1960shttp://www.livestrong.com/article/384722-how-much-have-obesity-rates-risen-since-1950/
Then we need to consider the excess meat consumption especially in the developed world. We have seen meat consumption climb 41% since 1950.
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
So as we can see when the bumpy descent leads to food insecurity we have the potential to reduce food energy from waste, overconsumption, and food type. We can also subtract highly processed and energy intensive foods I call industrial foods. From the quick searches I did the amounts are close to 50% of our food consumption is from processed foods.
Here is a recap 20%-50% food waste depending on type
Calorie increase since the 1960’s 20%
Meat consumption climbed 40%
Processed foods make up 50% of our diet
This is a very rough look at potential food reductions that could be adapted to. The fact that we have this buffer is an important plus since I am expecting a third world food intake level within 10 years or sooner. This would be a halving of our food calorie intake from all sources (consumption and waste). I am looking at going from a US level to a Haitian level. I do not think a level much below the Haitian level is safe for a society. Haiti is on the borderline. We will soon be on the borderline but thankfully we have a buffer to help adapt to this calorie descent.
energyskeptic on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 7:08 pm
the problem isn’t growing enough food, it’s distributing it before it rots or eaten by pests in storage and delivered to customers with DIESEL fuel. How is America going to get 80% of food calories grown in the corn and wheat belts to the 80% living within 100 miles of the coast when diesel runs low?
Davy on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 8:15 pm
EI, distribution is the issue and growing food is the issue with declining FF. My comment was regarding transition. We have room for less for a time per my figures as oil depletion marches on.
Eventually the industrial production and complex distribution will cause significant drops for many below the figures I mentioned after POD & ETP oil issues worsen.
Many locations unsupported by local food production or good water or possibly rail will suffer greatly. We are not even sure how trade will be facilitated in a collapse. That is an issues as great as the production and distribution.
GregT on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 8:29 pm
“How is America going to get 80% of food calories grown in the corn and wheat belts to the 80% living within 100 miles of the coast when diesel runs low?”
Not just America EI. Urbanization is a global problem.
The answer? We’re not. People will need to return to where the food is grown, or they will go hungry.
GregT on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 8:35 pm
Sorry, I meant ES.