Food, Glorious food shortages

[unc.si.]

Global population is going to be in excess of Bn9 by 2050. Even more important is that the growth in 'middle class' people, ie urban populations eating a lot of animal protein, is likely to be even higher, ie more than 100% of the increase is likely to be in people that consume a lot. Being crass, a load of extra peasants isn't an issue for food resources, but more people like us are a big problem.

We're likely to need to increase food production by 70% to 100% in the next 30 years.

Several people have alluded to this on various threads, so it's obviously registered as an issue.

My opinion is that it's one of the key issues of the modern world - Food Poverty, Water scarcity, Civil unrest, antibacterial resistance, rising sea levels.

So what to do?

Increase crop yields - no brainer, but will need people to accept GM crops, and monocropping / fertiliser is damaging to environmental diversity (lack of biodiversity is a major issue. Lower biodiversity = far higher chance that something wipes out a big chunk of our food production capability).

Reduce meat consumption (10kg of protein needed to produce 1kg of beef, and pressure on beef farmers means that a lot of that comes from food that humans could consume. Other animals slightly better. Fish actually quite good - around 1:1.8 for Salmon and herbivores like Tilapia are closer to 1:1 with the added benefit that they don't eat human food crops) - we reduce meat consumption then there's plenty of food, although some level of grazing animals on land does increase biodiversity, so there's an argument to maintain some food animal production.

Increase land capacity. Fish farming can be improved, but other than that any available land isn't in the same place as available water, unless we chop all the rainforests down.

Any thoughts?

[ps I do have a vested interest in this as I now work for a sustainable science / biotech business, although this thread is just for interest not research ]

[Latic]

Didn't think a protein shortage was an issue. I thought that the production of mycoprotein addressed this? In the future animal protein price will rise to the point where Quorn etc. becomes the norm?

[Surprised]

As the population increases we need more arable land so the larger population is fed but we lose the arable land to urbanisation so these people can be housed. So we have less land to grow food for more people which may be exacerbated by rising sea levels. Crop yields need to be significantly increased and I think we may well get to a stage where we only have GM crops and vegetables and these will grow 2-3 times a year rather than just once. Meat will be for the rich only or science will clone fast growing animals that don't need as much space or feed.

The major problem in the future is access to sufficient amounts of clean, safe water. Desalination may be a cure for this but I don't know how far away we are from doing that.
Whatever happens we are living in a time of plenty and in a 100 years or so food may not be so varied or plentiful for those like us

[barry]

eat the peasants.

[blahblah]

Insects

Proper Fat Taxes would help, some of those people are already eating enough for three.

Instead of supermarkets filling their bins with fresh food it should be given to people who will eat it....


And not quite so seriously:
Ban Royal Banquets as they must waste a fair bit as well Oh and toffs thinking food fights are fun, so they should be banned as well.

[unc.si.]

Yes, fungus is probably part of the answer, and yes, meat prices will have to rise to reflect the fact that it's a luxury and to reduce the overall meat production to increase land available for human food crops.

Not entirely sure about intensive meat farming. Would you really be happy that future meat is from animals living in worse and worse conditions? It's bad enough now in intensive rearing operations - anyone ever seen a large scale 'free range' chicken farm??

[unc.si.]

Insects are good. Very nutritious I believe, although a bit fiddly on the barbecue. Peasants don't taste great though, not as nice as pheasants anyway.

[blahblah]

I am sure they could do insect burgers and sausages for your BBQ

[Surprised]

Yes, fungus is probably part of the answer, and yes, meat prices will have to rise to reflect the fact that it's a luxury and to reduce the overall meat production to increase land available for human food crops.

Not entirely sure about intensive meat farming. Would you really be happy that future meat is from animals living in worse and worse conditions? It's bad enough now in intensive rearing operations - anyone ever seen a large scale 'free range' chicken farm??

No I would not like intensive meat framing which is why real meat will probably only be for the super rich and we make do with artificial meat.
I think science will find a solution but it will come at a great environmental and biodiversity cost. It will just extend our time on earth as the dominant species for a short while at a greatly reduced quality of life.

[Knulpuk]

Open more Nandos

[Latic]

Forgot they can actually grow meat in the lab now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529841" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[unc.si.]

A long way off economic commercial production, but should get there one day given sufficient will / investment.

Probably part of the long term solution, along with fungus based foods. Probably a first world solution though. Will it ever be economic for developing nations, or will it need those countries to stop meat rearing in order to devote 100% of their available land to arable. Even if they did do this, would they have sufficient water to grow crops in sufficient density to feed everyone in those countries?

As we rely more on R&D / Science, will this just cause a massive food poverty issue in the Developing world?

[murf]

Reduce the human population.Simple.

[unc.si.]

Back to eating Peasants with Barry then

[murf]

Back to eating Peasants with Barry then

Let the animals eat the peasants while we eat cake.... and fat people. Peasants tend to be scrawny and tasteless.

[jimmy ching]

Get people to grow their own. Does that sound ridiculous? I hear people say you have no land. Well they don't have much in the Gazza strip yet people grow their own using vertical growth pillars with recycled water and grow fish at the same time. Yes it can be done even if the rest of the world is hell bent on destroying you.

[murf]

Well they don't have much in the Gazza strip yet people grow their own using vertical growth pillars with recycled water and grow fish at the same time.

[unc.si.]

So generally, people on here aren't all that concerned then. Science will find an answer.

[golden bear]

That's right uncsi. Now stop wasting your time on Fantasy Football forums and get some bloody work done before we all starve.

[jimmy ching]

I don't think the answer will be provided by science, the answer is in nature. Self extinction!

[blahblah]

I am serious about the first three.....

Insects

Proper Fat Taxes would help, some of those people are already eating enough for three.

Instead of supermarkets filling their bins with fresh food it should be given to people who will eat it....


And not quite so seriously:
Ban Royal Banquets as they must waste a fair bit as well Oh and toffs thinking food fights are fun, so they should be banned as well.

[bluenosey]

Mass overpopulation.

We are destroying the Amazon and threatening the natural habitat of many endangered species of wildlife, all in our quest to plant more crops....to feed more mouths.....

Too many people in developing countries still see large families as the way forward, whether for cultural or religious reasons, or both.

We can't keep chopping down the rainforests (but we do )

Earth is a finite amount of space.

Unless we want an Earth like Easter Island scenario, it's just time for some countries to stop having soooooooooo many kids.

[blahblah]

Erm, but in a lot of these countries infant mortality is high.... (although having a pop at religions which prohibit birth control is justified).

The Amazon isn't just being destroyed for food, some are getting the wood, and then leaving......

The earth may have finite atoms and therefore resources, but what we can get from it is not fixed. The Rev T Malthus would have known this if he wasn't born quite so long ago

[bluenosey]

Erm, but in a lot of these countries infant mortality is high.... (although having a pop at religions which prohibit birth control is justified).

The Amazon isn't just being destroyed for food, some are getting the wood, and then leaving......

The earth may have finite atoms and therefore resources, but what we can get from it is not fixed. The Rev T Malthus would have known this if he wasn't born quite so long ago

Most of the deforestation is for livestock and crop farming, I believe, even if some of the initial attraction is the wood itself.

OK, so what we have got isn't fixed but we can't just knock up a rainforest in 30 years, can we ?

When we all struggle to breathe, someone might say, ahh, perhaps we shouldn't have cut it all down

With climate change and more mouths to feed, it's a recipe for more famines.......

[blahblah]

I totally agree about the rainforest, but not that there is such a clear link between population and its demise.

Didn't McDonalds buy a great swathe of it years ago? I would argue that their dense calories do little to assuage hunger as people are hungry again a few hours after eating there. However, they make big fat profits

[unc.si.]

I totally agree about the rainforest, but not that there is such a clear link between population and its demise.

Didn't McDonalds buy a great swathe of it years ago? I would argue that their dense calories do little to assuage hunger as people are hungry again a few hours after eating there. However, they make big fat profits

Not sure they've actually purchased any rainforest - not heard that anyway.

In recent years, the main driver behind Amazon deforestation has been to plant Soy crops, mainly grown for feed for farm animals, which is a pretty inefficient use of the crop, and completely unsustainable. Double whammy really - less rainforest and more farting cows.

McD's have improved their sustainability practices in recent years. They still sell a lot of processed meat, which needs a lot of crop (therefore land) and energy resources to produce, but they have pledged to only use rainforest friendly meat products and sustainable fish. Whether it's just lip service remains to be seen, but it's a start, and a high profile brand promoting sustainability isn't a bad thing. Ultimately though, true sustainability with a rising population means that people have to stop eating so much meat, which isn't exactly great for their business plan...

Of course, bluenosey is right that if the population doesn't increase then there's not so much of an issue, but (although population growth is I think slowing?) it seems unlikely that the global population is stabilising any time soon, and so finding ways of producing more food in a sustainable way is the only way forward IMO.

[murf]

Erm, but in a lot of these countries infant mortality is high.... (although having a pop at religions which prohibit birth control is justified).

No it isn't - at least not to the degree it was, the degree to which they reproduce to counter.

Nature didn't design these places for large human populations but modern science and morals are pushing things that way at the expense of all the species that are naturally more suited to those environments.

[bloggie]