How can we feed 20 billion people

[wolram]

It is reported that there will be 20 billion people by the year 2050, just how are we to feed them unless drastic changes are made to farming and food wastage.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181010132300.htm

 

[russ_watters]

It is reported that there will be 20 billion people by the year 2050, just how are we to feed them unless drastic changes are made to farming and food wastage.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181010132300.htm

Was that a typo? I see 10 billion in the linked article?

Given how little of the world uses modern farming techniques and technology, I'm not concerned about the world's ability to vastly increase food production.

 

[phyzguy]

There won't be 20 billion people by the year 2050. That would require that the population growth rate, currently under 1%/year, to jump to over 3%/year and stay there until 2050. In fact the world population growth rate is steadily slowing as more countries develop. Look at the data. Look at the estimates below from the UN. There will likely be between 7 and 10 billion people on the Earth in 2050.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A. As pointed out, the population will not hit 20 billion.

B. Soylent green.

 

[bob012345]

It is reported that there will be 20 billion people by the year 2050, just how are we to feed them unless drastic changes are made to farming and food wastage.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181010132300.htm

If it really became an issue easily manufactured artificial foods would be developed and mass produced.

 

[OCR]

If it really became an issue easily manufactured ...

Soylent green.

... should meet our needs, but...Right now, Green still seems to be on the back burner, so I believe Blue would be more... "people oriented".!

 

[cronxeh]

The solution is not to feed 10 Billion people, its to have less than 7 Billion by 2050.

 

[bob012345]

The solution is not to feed 10 Billion people, its to have less than 7 Billion by 2050.

The solar system should support a population on the order of hundreds of billions if efficiently colonized. The population of Earth could be regulated at the same time.

 

[OmCheeto]

Make it not illegal to grow your own food?

https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/front-yard-vegetable-garden-zwfz1301zrob

Orlando couple continues to battle the City over their right to grow food, with potential $500 per day fines.
01/18/2013​

Ok. A bit old.
And somewhat myopic, as I was only able to grow less than a days worth of food in my front yard this year.
But, still.

 

[Rive]

[Moderator's note: response to deleted post has been removed.]

Given how little of the world uses modern farming techniques and technology, I'm not concerned about the world's ability to vastly increase food production.

Let me back that up with some desert with investment...

 

[Astronuc]

B. Soylent green.

I had the same thought.

 

[OmCheeto]

I had the same thought.

Interesting, that we're only 11 years away from the 300th anniversary of the publication of A Modest Proposal [wiki].
Still haven't read it.

ps. Good grief! What was my excuse? It's only a couple of pages long: A Modest Proposal [text, Gutenberg Project]

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: a series of off topic posts have been deleted. Please keep discussion focused on the thread topic, which is how food production capacity can be increased if population increases.

 

[phinds]

If it really became an issue easily manufactured artificial foods would be developed and mass produced.

I think this shows a lot of promise. Reports are that "hamburger meat" that is indistinguishable from the real thing in looks, taste, and texture is already a reality. I don't know that it is currently commercially viable but if not, it likely will be in the near term. If we can do that, we can do other things, most likely. "Easily manufactured" would not be applicable to today's technology, I think, but again, it's likely to be in the future.

 

[BillTre]

1) What I have most often read is that if everyone went vegetarian, there would be more food/arable unit of land.
This would be like cutting out the cow (or whatever animal you might want to eat) as the middle-man in the energy flow from sun to stomach.
It might also produce a reduction in methane production (cow farts).

2) I doubt that in the near future there will be any manufacturing method that can realistically compete with biological processes.
Not only are they reasonably efficient nanomachines, but self replicate and self assemble. They can be stored in small packages (seeds) for distribution.
It seems more likely to me that more efficient methods of growing biological organisms would be a more realistic approach.

 

[gleem]

The first in-vitro meat produced and served as a burger was reportedly produced at a cost of $300,000. Recent improvements in the techniques are said to have reduced that cost to $1000. The researchers believe that if commercialized the cost could be reduce to $10. The process involves the growing of meat from stem cells. One problem is that like real animals it take time to increase the volume. For the muscle cells that are currently being used requires that the growing tissue be "exercised" during the process. So you do not just throw tissue into a nutrient solution an voila you get meat in a few weeks. In-vitro meat is also good for the environment since live stock consume much water and contribute significantly to green house gases.

So we need only to produce 1% more food per year to meet the demands to feed 10 B people by 2050. Seems easy enough with today's technology. But there are a few things that will make that more challenging. According to a University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures study the world has lost about one third of arable land in the last 40 years about 1% per year. OK, that can be remediated, better soil management. But you cannot talk about food production without talking about climate. Climate change will cause some areas to be less productive not only from drought or excessive moisture but even a 1 deg C increase in temperature is know to reduce grain yields by up to 6%. Increase in temperature and moisture will increase the population of insects and disease. Some arable land will become too wet, dry, hot or cold for some crops while currently non arable land even with sufficient rainfall will probably not be as productive if at all.

One solution that is being worked on is genetic modification that help make crops more tolerant to changing climate. like drought tolerant wheat.

Another possible solution to a loss of arable land is hydroculture which is currently seeing a revival. With about 19 M sq mi. of land used for growing crops even a small percentage loss of this land would require hundreds of thousands of sq mi. of hydroponic tanks and other aqua culture facilities which will be challenging.

The newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change we need to reduce CO₂ emissions by 45% of 2010 levels by 2030 and down to zero by 2050 to prevent dire consequences .The world is currently increasing emission by 1% per year.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ly_2018-10-08&et_rid=382259872&et_cid=2416592

Feeding 10B people by 2050 is definitely doable although some of the food may be a bit different from what we now eat.

 

[phyzguy]

Climate change will cause some areas to be less productive not only from drought or excessive moisture but even a 1 deg C increase in temperature is know to reduce grain yields by up to 6%. Increase in temperature and moisture will increase the population of insects and disease. Some arable land will become too wet, dry, hot or cold for some crops while currently non arable land even with sufficient rainfall will probably not be as productive if at all.

But won't climate change also cause some land that is currently not suitable for growing crops to become suitable? There are huge areas of land in Canada, Alaska, and Russia where it is currently too cold to grow crops, that may become suitable for growing crops. Won't this offset some of the lost land?

 

[PeterDonis]

Reports are that "hamburger meat" that is indistinguishable from the real thing in looks, taste, and texture is already a reality.

These foods (the ones already on the market) aren't "manufactured" in the sense of being made from scratch out of simple compounds like carbon dioxide and water in a factory. They are foods that aren't meat, processed so that they look and taste like meat. Pea protein is a common choice for "hamburger meat" that isn't really meat.

 

[PeterDonis]

the world has lost about one third of arable land in the last 40 years

I haven't looked at this specific study (if you have a link please provide it), but claims of this sort that I've seen do not look at how much of the "loss" of arable land is due to it being repurposed, mostly for housing, not due to it becoming non-arable period. Certainly where I live lots of farmland has become housing developments, but it would still be perfectly good farmland if it were converted back. But because farming has become much more efficient, that land is now not needed for farming, whereas there is a high demand for housing.

But won't climate change also cause some land that is currently not suitable for growing crops to become suitable?

Yes.

 

[BillTre]

A few years ago I tried about three different kinds of veggie hamburger.

None of them were very like hamburger IMHO.
Perhaps there are better now, if so what are some examples.

 

[PeterDonis]

what are some examples.

I have tried "Beyond Meat", which uses pea protein. It's still not exactly like hamburger, but it's closer than other brands that I've tried.

 

[BillTre]

I have tried "Beyond Meat", which uses pea protein. It's still not exactly like hamburger, but it's closer than other brands that I've tried.

Have had that one of those. (I used to live with vegetarians, but now I don't.)
However, pea protein's mix of amino acids (similar to fish) makes it is a good thing to base food for baby fish on.

It might be more realistic to not seek a hamburger replacement (taste-wise), but rather but something that shares some taste characteristics (like savory with lipids) that could be used in a similar manner. Replication of a particular food with other components is probably not that easy.

Still waiting for Star Trek replicators to make things from scratch.

 

[gleem]

But won't climate change also cause some land that is currently not suitable for growing crops to become suitable? There are huge areas of land in Canada, Alaska, and Russia where it is currently too cold to grow crops, that may become suitable for growing crops. Won't this offset some of the lost land?

That is certainly possible at least for a fraction of the land but the seasons may still be too short to match the productivity of the land that it replaces. We won't know how the land gets reallocated until it does.

I haven't looked at this specific study (if you have a link please provide it), but claims of this sort that I've seen do not look at how much of the "loss" of arable land is due to it being repurposed, mostly for housing, not due to it becoming non-arable period. Certainly where I live lots of farmland has become housing developments, but it would still be perfectly good farmland if it were converted back. But because farming has become much more efficient, that land is now not needed for farming, whereas there is a high demand for housing.

see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-land-soil-food-security-shortage for a summary.

None of them were very like hamburger IMHO.
Perhaps there are better now, if so what are some examples.

I have eaten a number of different veggie burgers and yes they are not like the real thing although the chicken one come the closest. Both soy beans and peas are complete proteins so we can do without the issues related to raising live stock. BTW beef is the real culprit in meat production, Chickens, pork, eggs, and dairy are 10 times more efficient with regards to resources required .. see .https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-resources-poultry-dairy-eggs-pork-180952103/

WRT beef it along with pork are still considered bad guys for cardiac heath so doing away with them might be the best. As I said previously we might have to adapt to new foods but I would definitely miss a good grass fed beef burger.

 

[PeterDonis]

Both soy beans and peas are complete proteins

I personally don't digest soy protein well, so I prefer pea protein for burger substitutes. Whey protein is also complete; I have whey protein bars for quick snacks.

WRT beef it along with pork are still considered bad guys for cardiac heath

As I understand it, this is mostly due to the way they are raised in mass production in the US: fed corn and other grains, lots of antibiotics, no freedom. Free range grass fed beef, antibiotic free, is much less of a risk. See, for example, here:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...se/expert-answers/grass-fed-beef/faq-20058059

 

[PeterDonis]

see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-land-soil-food-security-shortage for a summary

Ah, ok, this is basically poor and unsustainable farming practices. Yes, I agree those are an issue and need to be fixed.

 

[gleem]

As I understand it, this is mostly due to the way they are raised in mass production in the US: fed corn and other grains, lots of antibiotics, no freedom. Free range grass fed beef, antibiotic free, is much less of a risk. See, for example, here:

Actually I think it has to do with the saturated fats in the meat. Free range beef is better because the ratio of the good Omega3 to the not so good Omega 6 fatty acids is much greater. Feeding cattle with grain has made them more like the grain that they eat. I understand that too much omega 6 contributes to inflammation.

 

[OCR]

Both soy beans and peas are complete proteins so we can do without the issues related to raising live stock.

Let's see now... We plant all this stuff into soy beans and peas, correct ? .

But, oh my !

What are the cows going to eat.? .

Soy beans and peas, correct ? . .Some people seem to forget... cows are pretty good, self propelled grass harvesters...

I could go on, and on, and on... but this will do... .

Carry on.

.

 

[256bits]

Some people seem to forget... cows are pretty good, self propelled grass harvesters...

All that rolling and rocky land. Maybe it will have to be tamed into submission - cut the trees, git rid of the useless flora and fauna, level it out, bring in a mass of topsoil, and voila we have pristine agricultural land worthy for a pamphlet.

 

[256bits]

One problem I find with feeding the people is that some in some parts of world, for their reasons that they only know, will just not eat. There is food aplenty, but will they take, no they will not. Of course I speak not of the chatter class who will never substitute sparkling wine and fish eggs for champagne and caviar as the substiture is not real food. But of the ones with frail frames - they seem to have an aversion to food . Around a bit less than a billion are susceptible to follow this philosophy of food and the number is growing.
https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/

 

[OCR]

Lol... .

Maybe it will have to be tamed into submission...

 

[OCR]

Lol... .

But wait!

I'll get right on that... .

.

 

[gleem]

Live stock unfortunately contribute the majority of green house gases from agriculture about 40% in the US. Agriculture contribute 13% of green house gasses much of which is methane and nitrous oxide which are more potent than CO2 . So as we need to live we are thwarting ourselves to survive. We cut down forests which absorb CO2 and produce vegetation much of which is wasted fed to cattle and decomposed to produce green house gases. Cattle consume about 5000 lbs of grain before slaughter. There are 88 M cattle/calves in US. about 1/4 cow for every person. Mass wise cattle comprise about twice as much flesh mass compared to humans and are far more potent producers of methane. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...re-warming-the-planet-and-theyre-here-to-stay.

 

[PeterDonis]

I think it has to do with the saturated fats in the meat. Free range beef is better because the ratio of the good Omega3 to the not so good Omega 6 fatty acids is much greater.

That's an important factor, yes. I suspect it's not the only one, but there's a lot we still have to learn about nutrition and how various foods affect us, so scientifically speaking we can't give a lot of details about the relative benefits of various ways of raising meat animals. It stands to reason that an animal raised in a lifestyle for which that animal has evolved for a long time--cattle evolved to eat grass and be free range, not to eat grains and be penned all the time--will be healthier and will therefore provide healthier food. But that's not based on a detailed understanding of science in this area; it's just common sense.

 

[Stephenk53]

Here is a video that I think could add to this discussion

Personally I think we should for now focus on reducing how often we eat meat then focus on synthetic meat

 

[stefan r]

I personally don't digest soy protein well, so I prefer pea protein for burger substitutes. Whey protein is also complete; I have whey protein bars for quick snacks.
As I understand it, this is mostly due to the way they are raised in mass production in the US: fed corn and other grains, lots of antibiotics, no freedom. Free range grass fed beef, antibiotic free, is much less of a risk. See, for example, here:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...se/expert-answers/grass-fed-beef/faq-20058059

Whey is still cow based protein. Has no effect on climate or population limits. In order to get the cow to produce milk it has to give birth to 50% bulls. When they cow gets old it produces less milk. Either the veil and cow gets eaten or old cows and bulls are roaming around adding additional limitations to agriculture production.

That's an important factor, yes. I suspect it's not the only one, but there's a lot we still have to learn about nutrition and how various foods affect us, so scientifically speaking we can't give a lot of details about the relative benefits of various ways of raising meat animals. It stands to reason that an animal raised in a lifestyle for which that animal has evolved for a long time--cattle evolved to eat grass and be free range, not to eat grains and be penned all the time--will be healthier and will therefore provide healthier food. But that's not based on a detailed understanding of science in this area; it's just common sense.

It is quite clear that eating beef lowers your life expectancy. A slightly less toxic cow is still toxic.

It is highly unlikely that red meat was a primary dietary source for evolving humans. There was some of that. Insects and shell fish can be a sustained protein source. You could periodically kill a mammal or bird with a rock and supplement a stone age diet. As a staple it is dysfunctional. Hunting may have had a cultural effect: big game hunters made friends. There may have been strong reproductive advantages: After gorging on excess meat there could be sex. In terms of how to avoid starvation during most normal weeks of the year gathering is a much better strategy than hunting. If you are chasing big animals and all of them escape then your children die from starvation. Digging grubs and roots and picking berries and nuts would keep you alive for a lifetime. The people who stayed alive eating grubs were able to show up at the party thrown when someone killed a horse. Antelope have large horns which can help select against people who harass them. Hyenas and lions do kill buffalo so people chasing around a buffalo and waiting for one to be injured would frequently find that their children have been eaten.

There is a limited amount of free range. Cattle tend to destroy it. There is no way you can have 10 billion people on Earth consuming free range beef as a major component of their diets.

 

[PeterDonis]

It is quite clear that eating beef lowers your life expectancy.

Please give some specific references. My understanding is that studies in this area don't all show this result, plus they are almost all studies of eating meat from animals raised in the unhealthy ways I described earlier.

It is highly unlikely that red meat was a primary dietary source for evolving humans.

If your definition of "red meat" is beef, then yes, of course this is true, since most of human evolution took place before cattle were domesticated and raised for meat.

However, there is plenty of evidence that humans hunted big game and that the meat from that game was a significant food source for most of human evolution. See, for example, here:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273

There is no way you can have 10 billion people on Earth consuming free range beef as a major component of their diets.

This is probably true (and gets us back on the thread topic, which is good). Free range beef isn't a major component of the diet of most of Earth's people now.

 

[phyzguy]

I find this website to be an excellent source of actual data on food production. I've pulled out one of the more interesting graphs below. Since 1961, we can produce the same amount of food on one third as much land. It's hard to look at these charts and conclude that we will have difficulty feeding the world in 2050.

 

[stefan r]

I find this website to be an excellent source of actual data on food production. I've pulled out one of the more interesting graphs below. Since 1961, we can produce the same amount of food on one third as much land. It's hard to look at these charts and conclude that we will have difficulty feeding the world in 2050.

There have been substantial reductions in the percentage of grains that become seed.

The amount of petroleum used per calorie of food has the opposite slope:

 

[russ_watters]

There have been substantial reductions in the percentage of grains that become seed.

The amount of petroleum used per calorie of food has the opposite slope:
View attachment 232232

Did you attach the wrong graph? I don't see anything about petroleum use. In either case, it is tough for me to see what your point is.

 

[stefan r]

Did you attach the wrong graph? I don't see anything about petroleum use. In either case, it is tough for me to see what your point is.

Sorry, nitrates are produced by petroleum.
I'm confident there are more engines burning it too. Potasium, topsoil, and water are all concerns.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, nitrates are produced by petroleum.
I'm confident there are more engines burning it too.

The nitrates graph is not per calorie (none of the graphs are).

Do you actually have per calorie graphs? I would actually be interested in seeing them. What I would expect is that when any new technology is incorporated it would have an initial period where its intensity rises until fully incorporated, then drops as efficiency improves. In the west we've seen this with basic energy usage intensity, which peaked in the '70s and has dropped since. The tough part is that since developed countries are still developing, their usage hasn't peaked yet. I suspect the same applies to energy and resources specifically used for farming.

10 years ago I was pretty concerned about the world's long term energy prospects, but I'm not anymore. We have the ability to provide most of the world's energy cleanly and cheaply; we just have to decide to do it. But until then, we have plenty of fossil fuel to make it through this century.

 

[stefan r]

The nitrates graph is not per calorie (none of the graphs are).

Do you actually have per calorie graphs? ...

I can't find one, but I have had enough of agriculture reading for a least a few weeks.

I did find this from USDA, paragraph 2 of conclusion:

The majority of energy consumed in agriculture is in the indirect form used to manufacture fertilizer, followed by diesel, electricity, and natural gas.

A graph of primary energy consumed per unit of dietary energy consumed would be relatively flat. At least compared to either the graph of yield per acre or the graph of fertilizer consumption.
Should also include erosion of topsoil. The same acre may not continue providing the high yields.

The slope of the graph should change depending on which data you use. Do you include things like food thrown away (actually not sure if that is up or down in USA). Does composted food count as thrown away and/or does the energy get counted in the garden vegetable. Some food additives like Splenda give 0 dietary calories but clearly must consume more energy to produce than glucose. Is the energy consumed building and maintaining roads included in agriculture? You would usually count that as transportation but if trucks are transporting corn then it is part of the energy in food at the grocery store.

I'm certainly not recommending hoarding food or panicking. The food supply problems are easily solved by people becoming vegetarians. There is also little point in talking about forcing anyone to become vegetarian. We could just stop subsidizing meat/dairy production. Doing nothing as a country really does solve most of the problem in the USA. [by doing nothing I mean taking action on a bill that removes all federal and state subsidies] If people on the left cherish state food subsidies we could still solve the problem by subsidizing healthy vegetarian foods instead of poisoning people. There may be no need to tax people who consume beef the way cigarettes are taxed. A free market would cause a major shift in consumption.

Cricket protein is nearly an order of magnitude more efficient than beef. If you really do not want to go vegan there is that option. There is a lot of good vegan food so personally I have not found any reason to look for an alternative.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't find one, but I have had enough of agriculture reading for a least a few weeks.

Fair enough.

The food supply problems are easily solved by people becoming vegetarians.

Given that the consensus here seems to be that there is no food supply problem, this "solution" looks moot to me.

 

[cronxeh]

This thread is not about science or engineering problems, those solutions have been found a long time ago. This is about human stupidity and error propagation.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

A few years ago I tried about three different kinds of veggie hamburger.

None of them were very like hamburger IMHO.
Perhaps there are better now, if so what are some examples.

I have tried the "Impossible Burger," which uses heme produced recombinantly in yeast to make its plant-based patties taste more like meat, and found it to taste pretty good.

Please give some specific references. My understanding is that studies in this area don't all show this result, plus they are almost all studies of eating meat from animals raised in the unhealthy ways I described earlier.

Many regulatory bodies classify consumption of red meat as a probable contributor to cancer (colorectal cancer specifically, though there is some evidence it could affect other cancers). The effect is somewhat small, so completely eliminating red meat from one's diet is probably not necessary, but most sources recommend limiting the consumption of red meats and processed meats:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/exposures/meat-fish-dairy
https://www.cancer.org/healthy/eat-...sical-activity-cancer-prevention/summary.html

Of course, these conclusions are based off of observational studies, so nothing can be really be proven conclusively, especially considering the difficulty of performing a randomized controlled trial. Still, the recommendations reflect the preponderance of the best available scientific evidence. In light of these studies, I have certainly made an effort to reduce my consumption of red meats and processed meats.

Some hypothesize that cooking heme could potentially contribute to the carcinogenicity of red meat, so if that's true, the Impossible Burgers mentioned above may not offer as much of a health benefit (at least with regard to cancer risk) as other meat substitutes.

 

[bhobba]

This thread is not about science or engineering problems, those solutions have been found a long time ago. This is about human stupidity and error propagation.

First chill out man - we are discovering new things all the time and engineering/technology is progressing at an incredible pace. I personally am not worried about many of the things you hear in the popular media along the lines of we are all doomed because while many problems are solved those solutions are getting even better - we just need to ensure the public understands science/engineering better. That's where I think this forum is very useful in people understanding the actual science and we must stick to the scientific method.

Thanks
Bill

 

[phyzguy]

Methinks this thread has run its course. Moderators?

 

[russ_watters]

Methinks this thread has run its course. Moderators?

Wegrees.

Thread locked.