Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Industrial agriculture post peak.

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Can industrial agriculture convert from oil to renewable electricity as energy input, and would it be sustainable?

Yes, I know it can (because I have factual knowledge about the issue).
0
0%
No , I know it can't (because I have factual knowledge about the issue).
12
No votes
I don't think it can, based on my gut fealing.
12
No votes
I think it can, based on my gut fealing.
5
No votes
I seriously don't know
4
No votes
Industrial agriculture can never be sustainable even if the energy input could be made sustainable.
22
No votes
 
Total votes : 55

Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby MrMambo » Thu 10 May 2007, 08:39:14

Its sort of an accepted truth here on the board that oil is required for industrial agriculture.

I must admit I havent read a whole ot about the issue. But since I'm from Norway where we have produced fertilizers through electricity (Hydro/Yara) and the electricity in Norway is 99% hydro-electric, its safe to say that energy input into the fertilizer bit of our agriculture is mainly from renewable sources.

Of course the farm equipment in norway runs on diesel and gasoline and therefore have an oil-input. But since automobiles can be run on electric batteries so can also farm eqipment. Therefore I see a possibility to do both farming work and food transport driven on renewable energy. For this to work for norway one would just have to add a couple of windfarms along our windy cost or even offshore in our costal waters.

I don't know if all the mineral inputs to the fertilizers can be sustained. But certainly Kalium (potassium) neccerary for the KNO3 fertilizer is richlyt available in seawater, and seawater based deposits.

So my question is: Has anybody looked into the possibility of converting industrial agriculture from oil as energy input to renewable electricity, and if so can it be done?

My hunch is that it should be possible. But I guess it would all fall down if the material inputs (such as minerals) can not be sustained.
User avatar
MrMambo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 22 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby RdSnt » Thu 10 May 2007, 09:35:11

Does Norway not import some of its food? Are you completely self-sustaining? By which I mean basic foodstuffs, not just luxury items.

Some agricultural production can be maintained with renewables. The problem is the density of energy input. You have to think of it in two ways, both the amount of energy per hectare input and the speed at which it is input.

Have you seen a battery operated 300hp tractor?

The biggest problem is that the VAST majority of people don't understand the basics of thermodynamics. Everything is connected, there is no loss or gain of energy, it just changes state.
When people think of renewables, they are really thinking of perpetual motion machines.

In order to get close to what you may think of as a sustainable agricultural system based on renewable energy, 5 billion people must die within the next 5 years or so.


Consider this, if you did a calculation of the total amount of fossil energy used, then did a calculation of the amount of energy a single person represents, you would find a direct relationship between the global population and fossil fuel used.
A person, in the simplest of ways, represents a bundle of fossil fuel energy converted to a particular state. As an example, let's says an adult exists due to the conversion of 10 barrels of oil.
The earth is a single, conherent system of energy transfer. The fossil energy was in the ground because the system didn't need it.
That it has been artificially injected into current time, doesn't negate the fact that it is still energy from the ancient past. The majority of the current human population shouldn't be here, we (and I'm including myself) are manifestations of fossil energy that the earth stored as superfluous to its needs.
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby steam_cannon » Thu 10 May 2007, 10:38:13

The problem isn't just the rising cost of fertilizers. It is also lost top soil. Ukraine might have 18 feet of rich black soil in some places. Many US farms are down to 5 inches. And I'm just not sure what Americans will be able to grow mixing fertilizer with clay, mass scale hydroponics?

I think it's great though that Norway has been more forward thinking in how to keep it's agriculture running.

Also from a Global Warming perspective, your growing season may become extended as the poles of the planet heat up Lovelock style. Of course if/when global warming does accelerate to that point, expect there to be a lot of immigrants wanting in. And most of the US would become uninhabitable, so the soil left in the US grain belt may become a moot point...

James Lovelock: We'll be lucky if 20% survive
http://peakoil.com/fortopic28941.html

James Lovelock says Global Warming is now at point of no return. Other top climate scientists are more hopeful but say we only have less than 10 years before it's irreversible and time is running out. Bush Administrations been accused of asking top climate scientists at NASA to STOP speaking out about the climate crisis and of altering scientific journals reporting on the phenomenon.
http://www.greensurfers.org/globalwarmi ... return.htm

"11-degree global warming? Try 15 degrees"
http://tinyurl.com/2ng3oo

Temperature map: You're in a good location for global warming...
http://tinyurl.com/3xabzz
Last edited by steam_cannon on Thu 10 May 2007, 10:44:01, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby bshirt » Thu 10 May 2007, 10:43:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')Have you seen a battery operated 300hp tractor?



lol!

Damn good point. :-)
User avatar
bshirt
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat 23 Dec 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby bshirt » Thu 10 May 2007, 10:49:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'T')he problem isn't just the rising cost of fertilizers. It is also lost top soil. Ukraine might have 18 feet of rich black soil in some places. Many US farms are down to 5 inches. And I'm just not sure what Americans will be able to grow mixing fertilizer with clay, mass scale hydroponics?



Great thinking!

I have an active solar greenhouse and am growing now via hydroponic methods only. The only downside to hydroponics is when TSHTF it might not be possible to get the nutrients.

If/when that happens I'll have to gear down to organic growing.
User avatar
bshirt
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat 23 Dec 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby canis_lupus » Thu 10 May 2007, 11:14:29

I guess I'd question the scale of the industrial farming. I'm in the US -- could the US feed itself? I think probably, but not well. I see a massive push to have farmers grow their own fuel with biodiesel made with ethanol instead of methanol -- something that's not pleasant to do -- and leave the natural gas and pesticides for the fields. While they can.

I think there'd be a massive push to garden, so those that could grow at least some of their own food, would.

I don't think we'll be able to feed the world with the massive exports that we have now. I just don't know how we'd do it.

All of this presupposes a gentle powerdown with no Mad Max scenario. It also presupposes an effort that starts before we see the effects of PO, and the recognition of John and Mary Sixpack of the problem before they see the cupboard's bare, food prices at the White Hen are outrageous and the cost for the gas in the SUV is more than they can afford.

What irritates me the most is I think in some way we're headed back to depression-era farming methods -- smaller farms, rougher tools. I don't think we as a concerned (scared?) people are learning enough of the old ways from our elders who were there before they pass on. We've become so acustomed to stocked grocery stores on our way home from work and water when we turn on the tap and turning up the thermostat when we're chilly that the spectres facing John and Mary Sixpack will cause them to take any disruption / change in lifestyle personally.
canis_lupus
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: West of Chicago

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby steam_cannon » Thu 10 May 2007, 11:45:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bshirt', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')Have you seen a battery operated 300hp tractor?

lol!
Damn good point. :-)
It sounds funny, but if you think about it tractors would be the easiest devices to convert to solar. They are simple and low speed vehicles for flat land. They can sit in a field for a month and charge. You can use heavy batteries. They can be run every other day to charge. You can have multiple battery chargers on the edges of your fields and you don't have to go far to swap in a new battery.

Image
(Wimpy electric) 10 hp Farmall Cub tractor
http://tinyurl.com/37qb67
http://www.flyingbeet.com/electricg/solar.html
http://www.renewables.com/Permaculture/SustAgri.htm

This may seem silly: But for a tractor, unlike a car you could even use a long electric cable to a solar array, wind or the grid. We implement much crazier devices for watering fields in the US...
Image

I can see us using solar tractors before going back to horses, at least for large farms...
Last edited by steam_cannon on Thu 10 May 2007, 12:41:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby steam_cannon » Thu 10 May 2007, 12:18:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('canis_lupus', '
')"I don't think we'll be able to feed the world with the massive exports that we have now. I just don't know how we'd do it. "

Question: Does the US feed the world?

One thing I have been wondering is if our influence feeds the world or impoverishes the world. By subsidizing grain crops and dumping them on international markets, international farmers can't make a profit making grain crops for their country, so they must export less productive export crops like melons and bananas to buy grain. To do this countries nationalize their farming kicking out local farmers. The exlocal-farmer then doesn't have a job is now more impoverished and quite often starving because he has no money to trade for grain.

Subsidizing the US Dollar - steam_cannon
http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name ... ic&t=28985

Subsidies Hurt Farmers Thousands of Miles Away
http://tinyurl.com/33egg8

U.S. Farm Subsidies Hurt Africa's Progress
http://allafrica.com/stories/200703140267.html

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm

Question: Does the US feed itself?

EDITED
Note: Some good questions are raised about this points in a few posts by MaterialExcess. We may import more food per dollar trade but with grains for example we still export about 1/3 more then we import.

"US Becomes a Net Importer of Food: One of the hidden surprises in the ballooning, out-of-control US budget and trade deficit data is that, for the first time in half a century, the US now imports more food than it exports."
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/12/18.html

U.S. is a net importer of processed foods from Canada
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/Febr ... alance.htm

2004 US To Become Net Importer Of Food
"2005 will be the first year in nearly 50 that America will not turn an agricultural trade surplus." - U.S. Department of Agriculture
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/1 ... ome_ne.htm

"an immense challenge to our food security"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/9/211544/4045

Question: Who in the world feeds themselves?

List of countries with enough land to grow food and all fuel
http://peakoil.com/fortopic28369.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bioman', 'S')o far, the list looks like this (** = can produce twice the amount of food needed + all energy from biofuels / ****= can produce twice the amount of food needed + twice the amount of energy needed from biofuels):

Asia & Pacific
Brunei **
Cambodia
Indonesia **
Laos ****
Malaysia
Myanmar **
Papua New Guinea ****
Thailand

Europe
Poland
Ukraine

North America
Canada

North Asia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Russian Federation ****
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Central & South America
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil ****
Colombia ****
Ecuador **
French Guyana ****
Guyana **
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay ****
Peru
Suriname
Uruguay ****
Venezuela ****

Africa
Angola ****
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cameroon **
Central African Republic ****
Congo D. R. ****
Congo Republic ****
Cote d'Ivoire **
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Gabon ****
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Buissau
Liberia **
Madagascar
Mozambique ****
Namibia
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone **
Sudan
Tanzania **
Uganda **
Zambia ****
Zimbabwe

So there is a serious problem here, because both East Asia and India, the United States and most of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa can never become food and energy independent because they don't have enough land.
Sorry, not sure where Norway fits in this list, but I think it does alright. I believe they have pretty good land and energy resources, in addition to being on the top of a warming earth (greater security against climate change).
Last edited by steam_cannon on Tue 22 May 2007, 23:33:20, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby MrMambo » Thu 10 May 2007, 18:21:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bshirt', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')Have you seen a battery operated 300hp tractor?



lol!

Damn good point. :-)



Not a point at all. Although they do not exist today they certainly could be buildt. The Tesla electric sportscar has 248 horse power and it runs on batteries.

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/specs.php
User avatar
MrMambo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 22 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby MrMambo » Thu 10 May 2007, 18:57:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', 'D')oes Norway not import some of its food? Are you completely self-sustaining? By which I mean basic foodstuffs, not just luxury items.


Norway both imports and exports food. We export lots of fish, both harvested fish and farmed fish. We also import significant amounts of weat, rice soybeans, fruits and some vegetables.

But then again, if times got rougher we would stop throwing away 50% of the food we buy and we would need less import, and we might export less off the fish to feed ourselves. So I'm pretty sure we'd be ok when it comes to food. Also norway has some forest lands that could be converted to more agricultural land if we get desperate (but it would be a big loss to wildlife and biodiversity).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')Have you seen a battery operated 300hp tractor?


As I mentioned to the other guy you already have the Tesla sportscar wich runs at about 250 hp. And you could even use cable connected solutions and run tractors on grid power as another post here suggested.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')When people think of renewables, they are really thinking of perpetual motion machines.


I don't know or have ever met any such "people". The people I know think of windturbines and solar panels, wich certainly are not perpetual motion machines.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')In order to get close to what you may think of as a sustainable agricultural system based on renewable energy, 5 billion people must die within the next 5 years or so.


The whole reason why I bring up this rosy startrek idea of sustainable agriculture is that I see it as some sort of way out to avoid the 5 billion person dieoff. The reasoning being that traditional organic agriculture is not expected to be productive enough to sustain anything near the current population, and thus to avoid it you would find a "technofix" wich can maintain the bulk of the industrial agricultural production even if oil production goes down to a trickle.

I don't think it would totally prevent a dieoff, but I suspect a technofix strategy could make the dieoff less severe and help sustain a higher population than a no technofix strategy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')Consider this, if you did a calculation of the total amount of fossil energy used, then did a calculation of the amount of energy a single person represents, you would find a direct relationship between the global population and fossil fuel used.


Thats a very simplified way to view it. And in my opinion it is misleading because you don't take into account the amount of oil wasted in meaningless consumption in the rich world today. True agriculture takes a lot of the oilproduction, but the rich world gass-gussler mcMansion lifestyle is not neccessary for the survival of North Americans and Europeans. US citicens wastes a hell of a lot more oil per person than does Europeans, and Europeans in turn wastes a hell of a lot more than the average person in India and China.

This means you have a lot of material consumption and luxury energy waste draining down todays oilreserves than what is strictly needed to feed the current world population.

The more correct calculation would devide total amount of fossile fules going into agricultural production one way or the other and then devide that on the world population. You would also take into account energy required for basic processing of the food to prepare it for human consumption, but you would not have to take into account allt he crazy energy wasting things that the food industry does with processed food, since those are not required for the food to consumable by humans and are more a sort of luxury energy waste.

Also you should also look at the components of the diet. Since people in the rich world eat a lot more meat and fish than poor people. In reality the rich people could get by with less meat and fish, and would then need less agricultural area and less sea or fishfarms to feed themselves.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', ' ')The majority of the current human population shouldn't be here, we (and I'm including myself) are manifestations of fossil energy that the earth stored as superfluous to its needs.

Well if you take the fossil-perspective you are right. But I try think about weather we could maintain the industrial agricultural production at fairly high levels without oil. And your post has not made clear that that would be physically impossible.

And if it is physically possible to create a renewable energy based industrial agriculture, then it would also be possible to maintain a fairly high human population. Maybe not 7 billion people, but perhaps 4 billion? Many people suggest that without industrial agriculture you eventually have a dieoff all the way to below one billion. Sure: the survivors would have a lot of space for each person, but I would still see it as a benign thing to prevent those extra billions of people from dying if it could be avoided, and a less severe dieoff situation might also mean a less chaotic transition towards a possible sustainable future.
User avatar
MrMambo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 22 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby MrMambo » Thu 10 May 2007, 19:17:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '
')http://www.renewables.com/Permaculture/SustAgri.htm

I can see us using solar tractors before going back to horses, at least for large farms...


I very much agree with you and I strongly suggest people who claim to be in touch with the physical realities of this world to check out the link you provided above!

I found it to bee very insightful starting with a reference to peak oil and a hard hitting criticism of todays industrial agriculture, while in the same line of thought continuing by explaining by real life excample example how you can run low-manual-labour-input industrial nation type farms using solar powered tractors.

At the end of the page the outhor describes his reasong about solar-electricy based farm equipment.

"If an electric tractor is combined with photovoltaic charging, either on the tractor itself in the form of a shade canopy or on the roof of a building, no other refueling infrastructure is necessary. Unbreakable photovoltaic panels and photovoltaic roofing with a 20 year warranty are now available that can turn any surface exposed to the sun into a power station. Photovoltaics provide an ideal energy source for agriculture because the growing season coincides with the availability of solar energy. "
User avatar
MrMambo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 22 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby MaterialExcess » Thu 10 May 2007, 19:36:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '[')b]Question: Does the US feed itself?

"US Becomes a Net Importer of Food: One of the hidden surprises in the ballooning, out-of-control US budget and trade deficit data is that, for the first time in half a century, the US now imports more food than it exports."
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/12/18.html


A net importer based on dollar value, but that could be from people importing luxury food items. I would be interested to see where the US stands in calories imported vs. calories exported.
User avatar
MaterialExcess
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Nowhere Fast
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby MrBill » Mon 14 May 2007, 05:53:45

Excellent, thought provoking posts and some good insights. Thanks.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby Pops » Mon 14 May 2007, 14:38:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MaterialExcess', 'I') would be interested to see where the US stands in calories imported vs. calories exported.


I think it has something to do with tomatoes in January.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby Mircea » Sat 19 May 2007, 20:56:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrMambo', 'I') don't know if all the mineral inputs to the fertilizers can be sustained. But certainly Kalium (potassium) neccerary for the KNO3 fertilizer is richlyt available in seawater, and seawater based deposits.

So my question is: Has anybody looked into the possibility of converting industrial agriculture from oil as energy input to renewable electricity, and if so can it be done?

My hunch is that it should be possible. But I guess it would all fall down if the material inputs (such as minerals) can not be sustained.


We can always look at the Agricultural Revolution.

There was a time centuries ago when people were starving to death in Europe, even though the weather and other factors, like the lack of war, were favorable to farming. The problem was that farmers kept growing the same crops in the same fields year in and year out over, and over and over and over.

That resulted in near total depletion of the mineral content in the soil, then continually reduced crop yields and ultimately famine.

The solution, growing more food by growing less food, was ingenious and revolutionary. They switched to a 4 field rotation, leaving one field fallow and planting 3 different crops in the other fields. The fallow field replenished the minerals over time, and because the different crops used different minerals and were rotated, they didn't deplete the fields so rapidly. Within a few years crop yields began to increase and the famine ended within a few decades.

What are we doing now? Growing the same crops in the same fields year in and year out over and over and over, except now we have and must use chemical fertilizers to replenish the mineral and nutrient content.

Without chemical fertilizers, we would once again have diminished crop yields and famine. The solution would seem to be to take a page from history and return to a form of the crop rotation method. Many of the organic farms here in the US use that very method.

I imagine it would take some planning and coordination at the local, regional and national level, and perhaps even between states, so that there would be a sufficient diversity of crops to meet market demands.
User avatar
Mircea
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri 04 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby Denny » Sun 20 May 2007, 20:21:52

Even in the hard times of World War II, farmers were given open access to petroleum products. And, even trucks were allocated to farmers, but not to any other non-war industry business.

As things are going right now, farming is actually one area in which America still trumps the world, so it has to go with its strength. There will always be enough domestic based petroleum to support agriculture, even if all other users have to be curtailed.

Farmers are important, more important than most anything else in the economy, which just produces discretionay stuff.
User avatar
Denny
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby RdSnt » Sun 20 May 2007, 22:43:48

You know, I am going to disagree with you. At the time of WWII there continued to be more rural people than city people. As well, even the city people had a much closer connection with farming.
Remember, the supermarket and the mall had not been invented then.

I would suggest that the average US citizen now is so disconnected from the reality of agriculture that prioritizing fuel to farmers simply won't make sense to them.
There are now many more city people than farmers and those in the cities will insist on getting their fuel first.
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby Denny » Sun 20 May 2007, 23:22:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', 'T')here are now many more city people than farmers and those in the cities will insist on getting their fuel first.


I think your arguement is based on a democratic response to the emergency. My guess is that democracy will go out the window. I think the politicians will let the cities crumble, becuase most of them will have their own emergency hideaway ready in the sticks somewhere, and they'll take themselves and their neighbors first.
User avatar
Denny
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby steam_cannon » Tue 22 May 2007, 23:21:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MaterialExcess', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '[')b]Question: Does the US feed itself?

"US Becomes a Net Importer of Food: One of the hidden surprises in the ballooning, out-of-control US budget and trade deficit data is that, for the first time in half a century, the US now imports more food than it exports."
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/12/18.html


A net importer based on dollar value, but that could be from people importing luxury food items. I would be interested to see where the US stands in calories imported vs. calories exported.
Very good point! I missed that and edited my last post accordingly! A lot of the trade difference is a value difference such as importing cheese from Italy and tomatoes in the winter... But still, looking at grain trade for example, we may be close to being a calories importer, though not yet.

"America now imports two dollars of feed grains for every three dollars of exports, and imports $2.5 billion more red meats than it exports, ERS data show."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/9/211544/4045

Also I wonder if biofuel imports may factor into this. They are not food for people, but it frees up our own farmland and therefore acts like a food import. Biofuel imports are a small slice of the pie right now, but I think we can project growth in that area.

Ethanol Production and Imports (2002 - a little out of date)
U.S. Production: 2.3 billion gal.
U.S. Imports: 141 million gal.
http://tinyurl.com/28wdhq
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Industrial agriculture post peak.

Unread postby Mircea » Mon 28 May 2007, 01:44:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', 'T')here are now many more city people than farmers and those in the cities will insist on getting their fuel first.


I think your arguement is based on a democratic response to the emergency. My guess is that democracy will go out the window. I think the politicians will let the cities crumble, becuase most of them will have their own emergency hideaway ready in the sticks somewhere, and they'll take themselves and their neighbors first.


That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

All the farmers I know use diesel, not gasoline. They have tanks right there next to the barn and a little fuel truck comes out and fills it up with diesel every so often, you know, because it's like not cool to drive a big freaking combine at a speed of 12 mph about 25 miles into town to "fill 'er up."

Where exactly is the conflict between a teeny tiny small group of diesel users and a very large huge group of gasoline users?

Besides, the people who live in cities have access to mass transit and should be able to get to the venues they want to go. As things get worse, people will flood into the cities. You can buy houses where I live for $30,000 to $65,000 (2-story townhouse or 2 or 3 family house). Of course the land speculators would swoop in like vultures and buy everything up once they see that happening, but a pro-active city council can enact ordinances to make it not worth their while.

It's the people in rural and suburban areas that will "suffer" the most.

Anyway, I don't see where oil is the issue. The issue is gasoline prices. US refineries were built to handle demand for a population of 275 Million, not 300 Million.

Consider that some idiot is going to grant amnesty to an estimated 12 Million to 22 Million illegals (who were not counted as part of the 300 Million). How many drivers will that put on the road and will demand increase or decrease? Increase, which means prices will continue to increase.

Also consider that the US population will be 350 Million by 2022 (not counting the illegals about to be granted amnesty) and 400 Million by 2037. It takes 17 years to build a refinery, so if construction starts today, that would be 2024.

That should cause one to ponder the question, "What is the game plan here?"

Please, don't anyone say oil company profits. At about $4.35/gallon it will be profitable for foreign suppliers to import gasoline, cutting into oil company revenues and profits. Imported gasoline will never meet the demand, so at best it will slow price increases, but not stop them or lower prices. Over 17 years, not only will oil companies receive less revenues with lower profits, they will lose the windfall profits they made in the short term. Sure, they'll still make a profit, but the margin will be significantly less. What kind of FUBAR business plan is that?

When gasoline gets to $4.29/gallon, you just eliminated the words "discretionary spending" from the vocabulary of 1,587,934 households in Ohio. Of course, 2/3 of those households had already lost their discretionary spending power long before that. For at least some married couples, the "big night out on the town" will be she hitch-hikes her way to Wal-Mart and he meets her there on the way home from work, they do their bi-monthly grocery shopping and then go home.

So, what's the game plan here? Ease our way into a recession? What's the sense in that? Is that some kind of Republican strategy in case they lose the 2008 election? A Democrat gets elected then booted 4 years later as the economy continues to tank? A Republican elected in 2008 would get kicked out 4 years later, too, so that can't be it.

Does this have anything to do with the North American Union or the "Amero." Is that the game plan, make everyone's life miserable so they want to do the NAU thing?

If you ignore oil prices for a second and look at what's unfolding now it really makes you wonder.
User avatar
Mircea
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri 04 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Next

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron