[Pops]

Why Malthus Got His Forecast Wrong

A good big picture article as usual from Gail, read the whole thing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost of us have heard that Thomas Malthus made a forecast in 1798 that the world would run short of food. He expected that this would happen because in a world with limited agricultural land, food supply would fail to rise as rapidly as population. In fact, at the time of his writing, he believed that population was already in danger of outstripping food supply. As a result, he expected that a great famine would ensue.

Most of us don’t understand why he was wrong. A common misbelief is that the reason he was wrong is that he failed to anticipate improved technology. My analysis suggests that there were really two underlying factors which enabled the development and widespread use of technology. These were (1) the beginning of fossil fuel use, which ramped up immediately after his writing, and (2) a ramp up in non-governmental debt after World War II, which enabled the rapid uptake of new technology such the sale of cars and trucks. Without fossil fuels, availability of materials such as metal and glass (needed for most types of technology) would have been severely restricted. Without increased debt, common people would not have been able to afford the new types of high-tech products that businesses were able to produce.

[vision-master]

Then again, look @ this ancient irrigation system in Iran?

[dissident]

That irrigation system isn't going to feed 9 billion people. Mechanized agriculture using chemical fertilizers is what has been feeding the world since the before the "green" revolution. The soils in most agricultural zones are not able to sustain viable crops anymore so fertilizers are essential. Natural gas is the primary input for ammonia production. We are also entering a state of phosphorus shortages. Things are getting better every day....

[vision-master]

There weren't 9 billion people then. Blaming the whole current mess on fossil fuels is nonsense.

Illegal in this Country....... WHY? -> hemp seeds and hemp food nutrition.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'T')here weren't 9 billion people then. Blaming the whole current mess on fossil fuels is nonsense.

Illegal in this Country....... WHY? -> hemp seeds and hemp food nutrition.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'T')here weren't 9 billion people then. Blaming the whole current mess on fossil fuels is nonsense.

Illegal in this Country....... WHY? -> hemp seeds and hemp food nutrition.

[dissident]

The inescapable conclusion is that the post WWII debt ramp was facilitated by cheap energy from oil. The current attempts to stimulate the global economy through debt (QE, bailouts, low interest rates) are not having the desired effect because the days of cheap oil are over. This is something for all the economists to ponder. The basis of the economy is the real world and not money. Economists fixate on money and think that an economy can exist in a vacuum.

[AgentR11]

The core of the reason I think this agricultural experiment can go on for quite some time:

value disparity.

We perceive the price and value of something as incredible as oil, simply as energy for short range transportation; basically using oil to buy time by skipping the slow process of traveling by muscle power. So, its cheap at $1-$2; its a bit pricey at $3-$5, and we think of fantasy and horror beyond $5. (/gal) Now turn the puzzle around; and think of oil (and other depleting inputs) in terms of food value in an environment where you are spending half your take home income on basic foodstuffs. Well, $1 is cheap, $10 is cheap, $100 might raise an eyebrow, and $500 (/gal) is where the land of fantasy/horror/zombies starts. Modern grain agriculture is very efficient right now, all the way from field to grocer; so even when price of fuel prevents driving to the grocer to get food, the tractors, and the trains, and the trucks will still be doing their thing, because per food calorie, the process is just so incredibly efficient.

The only way nay-sayers can throw mud at this is to include non-essential food stuffs; packaged pitted dates from Tansaniastan or grass fed beef flown air express or some other outrageous luxury. Stick to flour, sugar, local feed lot meat, regional eggs and chicken; and your talking about the side of the system that is near invulnerable to any oil price we could rationally predict.

Thus, Malthus was right and wrong. Food production does have a hard cap, the cap is just much higher than anticipated because the FF based production and distribution system turns millions of years of sunlight into food calories eaten over a decade or two. As old as the Earth is, there are only so many applicable millions to go around. SO when it DOES finally hit the hard wall of depletion and/or climate change the suffering will truly be unimaginable.

All figures, US$2013, indexed to shadowstats.

[autonomous]

Expectations of Higher Return-on-investment Boosts Biofertilizer Adoption in North America, Finds Frost & Sullivan

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')OUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Dec. 20, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- An increasing number of farmers in North America are replacing chemical fertilizers with biofertilizers, which are less expensive and more environmentally-friendly. In addition, the region's focus on mass production, high crop productivity, large farms and cooperatives, and advanced farming technologies have further spurred demand for biofertilizers, broadening the scope of the market in North America.
New analysis from Frost & Sullivan (http://www.chemicals.frost.com), Strategic Analysis of the Biofertilizers Market in North America, finds that the market earned revenues of over $132.9 million in 2011 which is projected to equal $205.6 million by 2018.
"Biofertilizers are available in nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-solubilizing forms, and can be combined into multi-functional formulations that increase yields per acre of legume and non-legume crops," said Frost & Sullivan Senior Industry Analyst Raghu Tantry . "Their prescribed usage also improves the quality of crops."

On the downside, biofertilizers need major investments and long timelines to meet stringent research and testing requirements. The barriers to market entry are high, as regulatory processes are expensive, involving expert teams, sophisticated research and field trials. Since not many companies are capable of developing reliable products, there are few tested brands in the market.

[autonomous]

Also, a major factor of the population explosion has been due to the drastic decline in infant and child mortality. Oil has certainly made things easier, but show me the data that says oil is the single most important factor of the population explosion.

Other causes of the recent increase in the world population are:
* The increase in birth rates due to medical improvements
* The decrease in death rates due to better medical facilities and advancements in the field of medicine.
* Immigration to better developed countries due to several reasons like better job opportunities, war, and natural causes like hurricanes, earthquakes, and so forth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it stood at around 370 million.

[SeaGypsy]

Only countries with a reasonable social security system safety net and very low infant mortality have falling reproductive rates. The primitive drive to procreate more to hopefully overtake infant mortality overpowers conceptual motives such as 'population growth restriction'. We all want successful progeny (almost all). In an environment very likely to sustain one or two offspring, there is little reason to have more. In a system where large percentages die off every few decades (eg. horn of Africa), the incentive is to have very large numbers of babies. Then along come the 'white angels' to stave off death for a famine or two, rather than a reproductive decrease, we see the opposite again- as the majority of grandparent aged folk can easily remember the last die-off. Thus we have the likely cycle of the 'end times'. We in the long 'civilized' places have mostly lost the living memory of desperation; which is what we will see much more of before long.

[dissident]

So oil has little to do with population growth. That's only if you ignore some key facts. People in third world countries consume food grown in countries with mechanized agriculture. There is such a thing as a global food market. This is why US efforts to divert corn into ethanol production led to steep corn prices increases in Mexico and elsewhere. (This is regardless of the fact that ethanol corn is typically not human food corn).

Here is an interesting report on why Africa is net food importer:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2497e/i2497e00.pdf

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat Africa has become a net importer of food and of agricultural
products, despite its vast agricultural potential, is puzzling. Using
data mainly for the period 1960-2007, this report seeks to explain Africa’s
food-trade deficit since the mid-1970s. The core finding is that population
growth, low and stagnating agricultural productivity, policy distortions,
weak institutions and poor infrastructure are the main reasons. A typology
of African countries based on data between 2000 and 2005 reveals that the
state of food import dependency is different across the continent and varies
according to countries’ levels of income. Although the few and relatively rich
countries in Africa had the highest net food imports per capita (USD 185 per
year in real terms), they had ample means to pay for their food import bills
using revenue from non-agricultural sources. Conversely, the majority of the
Africa’s low-income countries (mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa), where twothird
of its population lives, had been net food importers; they imported far
less food per capita (USD 17 per year) but had difficulty covering their food
imports bills, as their export revenues were limited. Overall, between 1980
and 2007, Africa’s total net food imports in real term grew at 3.4 percent per
year, but this growth was mostly fuelled by population growth (2.6 percent
per year)

[SeaGypsy]

The primary reason Africa is not self sufficient is the side effect of powershift from the old European elite towards local tribal groups and the shift from agriculture to mining as the key export. Zimbabwe alone could feed all of Sub-Sahara then some, but the soldier settlers can't do much with burned out equipment and no financiers.
I agree with Agent that the mass agrisystem can continue far beyond the affordability of 'driving to the store for a bottle of milk'. We are only at the beginning stage of peak oil.

[ralfy]

It probably worked both ways. Malthus didn't anticipate the use of oil and other technologies to increase production significantly. But increased production also led to a population boom and increased resource consumption per capita.

[ennui2]

If you want to look at the big picture, you have to include global warming into future predictions. Will it be possible to feed 9 billion in a world that has warmed by 4' by century's end? Consider that in such a future, crop failures due to floods, droughts, heat-waves, and freakish global-wierding cold-snaps will be a matter of routine. Such events start to nullify the ability to grow food on dead soils. So completely remove peak oil from the mix, and we still have a very rough future indeed. Perhaps not the insta-doom of zombie bikers that peakers (including myself) once imagined, but it's a mass-extinction event in the blink of an eye compared to geologic time.

[vision-master]

Then again, imagine the possible growing season in Canada?

[autonomous]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', 'S')o oil has little to do with population growth. That's only if you ignore some key facts. People in third world countries consume food grown in countries with mechanized agriculture. There is such a thing as a global food market. This is why US efforts to divert corn into ethanol production led to steep corn prices increases in Mexico and elsewhere. (This is regardless of the fact that ethanol corn is typically not human food corn).

Here is an interesting report on why Africa is net food importer:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2497e/i2497e00.pdf

[dorlomin]

Petroleum did not allow more food to be grown, it merely meant the food required less human\ animal labour to be consumed in its production.
Natural gas (and coal) did allow an increase in yields due to fertiliser though.

Also credit did not begin the consumerist boom. Josiah Wedgewood was making trinkets for the middle classes before the personal credit exploded. The availability of new goods that people wanted or were labour saving devices drove a desire for credit. This in all likelihood accelerated the velocity of money, increasing wealth.

Also key to the increases in food was new strains of crops and new land that could both have happened without petroleum.

The UK began the fossil fuel rampup in the mid 1700s. But it was new lands in the Americas and Australia sending wheat, corn and eventually mutton back to Europe that freed Britain from the constraint of its agricultural limits. So much so that as the factory cities of Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester boomed fertile land was taken out of productive use for recreation. Land in the highlands and the Yorkshire moors was turned over to hunting for the aristocracy as those farmers would be amoung the first peoples to head to the new cities (there was a politically motivated ethnic cleansing in Scotland form 1746 to the early 1800s so much of the land was pushed from crops to sheep by landowners creating surplus labour for the factories and then from sheep to grouse and deer hunting.)

Ground zero of the move to industrialisation via fossil fuels, the UK we find no real benefits to farming from fossil fuels till the early 20th century. Even foods from the new world only really shifted from wind to steam in the latter half of the 19th when the population boom was well underway. Only meat, which needed to be frozen, was really influenced by the arrival of fossil fuels.

[SeaGypsy]

Hong Kong is not a country.

The labor done by petroleum in agriculture would require what % of the population & how many draft animals? I haven't done the maths, but would be surprised if less than 100% of the population would have to be engaged 100% of their working lives to produce as much as we do now with petroleum. Given not just transport but irrigation equipment (plastic water distribution systems are one of the biggest boons to agricultural efficiency ever), it is a very difficult position to suggest there is no enabling feature at work here.

(Quick check: 2-4 billion hectares (agrable) / 6-10 billion people= worst case 5 per hectare in the median term. Not impossible, but requiring some major shifts in production, culture and without oil, population.)

[autonomous]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'T')he labor done by petroleum in agriculture would require what % of the population & how many draft animals? I haven't done the maths, but would be surprised if less than 100% of the population would have to be engaged 100% of their working lives to produce as much as we do now with petroleum.