News Will Aquaculture Save Us from Worldwide Famine?

[MaxS]

One of the benefits of improving technology is our ability to grow more crops per acre than before, resulting in an exponential growth of the availability of food.

However, the Earth's human population is also growing exponentially. In fact it is growing faster than the rate of available consumables.

1978 was the year the two rates crossed. Before that point, we had the ability (but did not do so) to distribute equally among all of Earth's population enough food so that no one would have to die of starvation. Since that date however, Earth's population has eclipsed our ability to grow crops (including farm animals). What this means is that even if we tried to distribute enough food for everyone to eat, many people would still have to starve to death because there just isn't enough to go around.

This presents one hell of a future shock scenario. Remember the days of gas rationing during the 1970's? Well imagine calory rationing. 1000 Calories a day and pray you stay alive.

In the coming century this will become evident in third world countries first, where the famine will become very wide spread. Eventually though (very possibly even during our life times) the famine will spread to urban areas, developed countries, even the wealthy will become affected.

So far the only real solution is aquaculture - the idea of growing fish away from the ocean. Currently our ocean-based food is still derived by a hunter-gatherer method where large fishing fleets go out and hunt for fish to bring back home and eat. Many hope that Aquaculture will do for our society what Agriculture did thousands of years ago. However aquaculture presents its own problems - mainly that you need to sustain an entire food chain.

For example: A mature female codfish lays on average 5 million eggs twice a year. Those eggs take about a full year to reach maturity, and by the laws of probability about half will be male and, the other half, female, will then be able to lay eggs as well. This is all well and good and sounds like a helluva lot of food.

Except that the codfish need to eat shrimp. Lots of them. So for every swimming pool of codfish one would need about 5 swimming pools of shrimp. And for every swimming pool of shrimp you need about 5 swimming pools of plankton. And on and on.

Idea's and thoughts are welcome - this seems like a far more pertinent problem even than the looming natural gas crises.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think its much of a danger. The difference is that we are capable of stepping up food production if need-be. I live in the central Valley of California (I think the largest producer of food on Earth) and its fairly obvious around here that if we do indeed need to start making more food, we certainly can make accomodations to do just that. We actually had an odd problem over here a few years ago. The demand for milk was so low and the prices were so low that farmers had to dump out a lot of their milk!

Also, we must remember that some nations unfortunately (the government of course) are willing to let their people starve simply to save face with the international community (this is general when really bad leaders are in power). I think even recently some country refused international aid saying that they will prosper by themselves and be able to feed their own country from now on (hopefully they will be right but there's always the possibility that they wont).

Combine this with global warming and the possibility of tree-shortages... you have a rather ironic situation. A lot of the solutions to the problems involve making at least another oen of the problems worse.

 

[Informal Logic]

This has been discussed, but under the topic of over population. In other words, according to survival of the fittest, the more resources available the more a species will reproduce. So pushing the Earth's resources to meet population growth would be never ending. Countries that have addressed over population (e.g., China) have stabilized and even improved standard of living. We need to make family planning education and birth control more available. This is impeded by many factors including religious restrictions.

 

[The Smoking Man]

This has been discussed, but under the topic of over population. In other words, according to survival of the fittest, the more resources available the more a species will reproduce. So pushing the Earth's resources to meet population growth would be never ending. Countries that have addressed over population (e.g., China) have stabilized and even improved standard of living. We need to make family planning education and birth control more available. This is impeded by many factors including religious restrictions.

LOL ... But the way in which they do it is in constant criticism of the west. They mandated the 'one Child law' and even provided for the ability of Ethnic populations and rural food producers to have MORE than one Child as an incentive to maintain those populations and ensure food production.

The rich however can afford ultrasounds to 'sex' their children ensuring a son. So what happens? (The government has even come out and attempted to legislate the USE of ultrasound now) The 'Right' in the west turns around to make this a problem of the 'government' of China.

Is it any wonder that China doesn't even bother to address/argue the 'problems' within their society to 'the concerned' in the free world?

There has been a lot of criticism in the USA of Chinese addressing problems as of late but no solutions offered as an alternative.

So ... Tiananmen ... Sure the problem was mishandled but if the students had been successful and the thing we now know as China had gone the way of the Soviet states ... Where would China be right now? Would they have returned to the practice of 8 children to a household? Would the age old 'human' problem of blaming your neigbour while offending yourself become prevalent again?

Let's see The USA who launches attacks at the drop of a hat explore some of the solutions rather than just the problems for a change. In a democracy with 1.2 billion people, how are any of the problems associated with China to be addressed? (Remember that the USA has a higher birth rate than China and you ARE steaming on your way to imitating them)

Concerned citizens worry about how the Chinese people will feed themselves and then opposing governments apply tarriffs that will limit the employment of people in the steel and textile industries.

If China were to throw up their hands and accept democracy as was done in the soviet bloc, would there ever be a book written know as The Black Book of Democracy over the ensuing starvation?

Come on folks. Let's see some viable solutions to the problems of China and less criticisms.

 

[Hurkyl]

How did this turn into a thread about China?

 

[MaxS]

I don't know but I'm completely lost now lol

 

[Informal Logic]

LOL ... But the way in which they do it is in constant criticism of the west. They mandated the 'one Child law' and even provided for the ability of Ethnic populations and rural food producers to have MORE than one Child as an incentive to maintain those populations and ensure food production.

The rich however can afford ultrasounds to 'sex' their children ensuring a son. So what happens? (The government has even come out and attempted to legislate the USE of ultrasound now) The 'Right' in the west turns around to make this a problem of the 'government' of China.

Is it any wonder that China doesn't even bother to address/argue the 'problems' within their society to 'the concerned' in the free world?

There has been a lot of criticism in the USA of Chinese addressing problems as of late but no solutions offered as an alternative.

So ... Tiananmen ... Sure the problem was mishandled but if the students had been successful and the thing we now know as China had gone the way of the Soviet states ... Where would China be right now? Would they have returned to the practice of 8 children to a household? Would the age old 'human' problem of blaming your neigbour while offending yourself become prevalent again?

Let's see The USA who launches attacks at the drop of a hat explore some of the solutions rather than just the problems for a change. In a democracy with 1.2 billion people, how are any of the problems associated with China to be addressed? (Remember that the USA has a higher birth rate than China and you ARE steaming on your way to imitating them)

Concerned citizens worry about how the Chinese people will feed themselves and then opposing governments apply tarriffs that will limit the employment of people in the steel and textile industries.

If China were to throw up their hands and accept democracy as was done in the soviet bloc, would there ever be a book written know as The Black Book of Democracy over the ensuing starvation?

Come on folks. Let's see some viable solutions to the problems of China and less criticisms.

I was not criticizing China--just using it as an example. IMO Africa is far more at risk, and you are right that populations are increasing everywhere including the US. And in the US this growth is more often among those who can afford it the least, including illegals. Once again, the problem is due in part to religion and anti birth control movements. My point is that increasing food production is not the only or ultimate solution to the problem.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't think its much of a danger. The difference is that we are capable of stepping up food production if need-be. I live in the central Valley of California (I think the largest producer of food on Earth) and its fairly obvious around here that if we do indeed need to start making more food, we certainly can make accomodations to do just that. We actually had an odd problem over here a few years ago. The demand for milk was so low and the prices were so low that farmers had to dump out a lot of their milk!

Later in this post you advocate government intervention into agriculture. (At least in other countries --- face issue). Should the government intervene in Milk and dairy cattle production in your opinion?

Also, we must remember that some nations unfortunately (the government of course) are willing to let their people starve simply to save face with the international community (this is general when really bad leaders are in power). I think even recently some country refused international aid saying that they will prosper by themselves and be able to feed their own country from now on (hopefully they will be right but there's always the possibility that they wont).

If this is a known problem that you recognize, should the other governments of the world advocate blockades on countries they disagree with on a political level? For instance, should Cuba still experience a blockade of automobiles and parts or the sale of Cigars when it is not Castro who benefits from these products but the men and women who drive the taxis and trucks and roll the cigars?

Combine this with global warming and the possibility of tree-shortages... you have a rather ironic situation. A lot of the solutions to the problems involve making at least another oen of the problems worse.

I think if we get back to the observation of the 'food chain' and swimming pools of plankton to support the production of fish ... We are losing forests in Argentina to facilitate the production of grazing land for Argentinian beef.

I miss the old signs in front of McDonalds where they used to advertise how many 'served'. I used to try to take the number of customers and divide by the poundage of meat on the average cow (Minust the bones) to imagine the cattle population that went into the production of that number.

Then compute the number of hectares of land required to feed those cows.

Work it a bit further and observe how many people could have been fed by this same area being planted with soy beans and what do you get?

Fat people in Austin.

Okay, there was a bit of a leap in my logic there but ... well, you get the drift.

The USA's major export ... McDonalds, KFC and Pizza Hut Franchises... and in many countries in the world, they are not considered 'fast food' but luxury food.

 

[Pengwuino]

How did this turn into a thread about China?

Someone must have mistakenly mentioned China and TSM's ideolog radar must have gone off

 

[Pengwuino]

Later in this post you advocate government intervention into agriculture. (At least in other countries). Should the government intervene in Milk and dairy cattle production in your opinion?

If we do start running into food problems, then yes.

If this is a known problem that you recognize, should the other governments of the world advocate blockades on countries they disagree with on a political level? For instance, should Cuba still experience a blockade of automobiles and parts or the sale of Cigars when it is not Castro who benefits from these products but the men and women who drive the taxis and trucks and roll the cigars?

Sanctions have rarely been designed to target civilian populations alone. This argument is rediculous. Look at any UN sanction currently in place. Its target is the leadership, not the people, this is a very elementary fact.

Work it a bit further and observe how many people could have been fed by this same area being planted with soy beans and what do you get?

Search the forum. People have already shown how that logic is inconsistent with reality. Grains and soy cannot feed a population as well as meat can and has been fully discussed.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sanctions have rarely been designed to target civilian populations alone. This argument is rediculous. Look at any UN sanction currently in place. Its target is the leadership, not the people, this is a very elementary fact.

The example presented was not a UN sanction. It was a US sanction and does deliberately target the poor.

Even tourism is banned for Americans and money remittances to families of the escapees has been limited.

There was a statistic posted in the last year or so that there are more US government accountants tracking the funds flowing into Cuba than there are flowing around the world relative to Al Qaeda.

Search the forum. People have already shown how that logic is inconsistent with reality. Grains and soy cannot feed a population as well as meat can and has been fully discussed.

There are extremes that are being addressed here and while, yes, grains don't completely feed a population, how does the production of grains vs. meat in the USA follow the FDA food and nutrition chart for instance? (Remembering of course that much of th grain is used to fatten cattle)

 

[Pengwuino]

The example presented was not a UN sanction. It was a US sanction and does deliberately target the poor.

Even tourism is banned for Americans and money remittances to families of the escapees has been limited.

Incorrect. They do not deliberately target the poor, they target the government. Just like I said, everyones sanctions, US, UN, UK, French, Chinese, Rome, Greece, every nation in all of history, uses sanctions to mainly punish the ruling party. If you want to punish the people... war is a better option for countries. But then again who knows, this is an entirely subjective opinion debate. Unless anyone has any documents that specifically say "We shall impose these sanctions to hurt the poor people in Cuba", its pretty useless.

There are extremes that are being addressed here and while, yes, grains don't completely feed a population, how does the production of grains vs. meat in the USA follow the FDA food and nutrition chart for instance? (Remembering of course that much of th grain is used to fatten cattle)

What information do you have? Also, of course, since we do not face a food shortage at the moment, why does it matter? You only normally set up efficiency procedures when you see a crisis near. When you simply have to go based on what people desire to eat, you go with what they want and people obviously want meat. Supply and Demand in a normal economy.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Incorrect. They do not deliberately target the poor, they target the government. Just like I said, everyones sanctions, US, UN, UK, French, Chinese, Rome, Greece, every nation in all of history, uses sanctions to mainly punish the ruling party. If you want to punish the people... war is a better option for countries. But then again who knows, this is an entirely subjective opinion debate. Unless anyone has any documents that specifically say "We shall impose these sanctions to hurt the poor people in Cuba", its pretty useless.

Then why the outcry from the Cuban population in the USA regarding the limitation of remittances to their relatives back home?

And are you saying the dropping of sanctions in favour of invading Iraq was an attack on the people?

What information do you have? Also, of course, since we do not face a food shortage at the moment, why does it matter? You only normally set up efficiency procedures when you see a crisis near. When you simply have to go based on what people desire to eat, you go with what they want and people obviously want meat. Supply and Demand in a normal economy.

But weren't we discussing environmental effects of excess meat production to satisfy 'wants' in favour of cutting down forests for grazing land?

The desire for beef ... producing methane and consuming forests (The wood isn't even being used but BURNED) is something the governments of the world have to address since the average punter in the gorcery store looks at a slab of beef and gets hungry. He doesn't look at it and say 'am I finding it hard to breathe' or 'this is what cause Uncle George's melanoma'.

Excess is causing health issues far beyond what is healthy for the population and what you seem to be advocating is a hedonistic atitude associated with 'free markets' that must be allowed no matter what the reprocussions in the future.

It's an attitude that sounds like watching a homeless person in an ally covered in his own faesces, urine and vomit and saying 'well he wanted it that way so we must respect his wishes.'

Also, the 'us and them' attitude is a tad offensive. The artificial construct of a border does nothing to redress the issue that if execess crops are produced by error or poor planning, should these food mountains be allowed to rot or be poured down drains when Bob Geldoff is leading campaigns to truck food to the starving of the world?

To me, that just sounds plain criminal and for lack of a better word, mean spirited.

 

[Hurkyl]

But weren't we discussing environmental effects of excess meat production to satisfy 'wants' in favour of cutting down forests for grazing land?

No, I don't think so. It looks more like this particular aspect of your hijacking has been ignored.


And it's rather insulting to our intelligence that you would act as if all you need to do to feed the starving of the world is to have surplus food, and a method of transporting it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

How did this turn into a thread about China?

You have low readin comprehension!?

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm sorry, what I meant to say is that it's terribly rude to ignore the discussion going on in a thread, and start posting your own agenda.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No, I don't think so. It looks more like this particular aspect of your hijacking has been ignored.


And it's rather insulting to our intelligence that you would act as if all you need to do to feed the starving of the world is to have surplus food, and a method of transporting it.

Funny, that's exactly what got Geldof a Knighthood.

I'll even insult your intelligence even further (If that's possible) and state that the UN has come out and said it can do away with world huinger with $49 billion.

Care to call the bluff or would that much satisfaction ruin your oil and arms industries?

After all, that is about the bill for the Afghan invasion.

 

[TRCSF]

Funny, that's exactly what got Geldof a Knighthood.

I'll even insult your intelligence even further (If that's possible) and state that the UN has come out and said it can do away with world huinger with $49 billion.

Care to call the bluff or would that much satisfaction ruin your oil and arms industries?

After all, that is about the bill for the Afghan invasion.

OK, OK, everybody calm down.

Yes, we can solve all of the current hunger problems with a fraction of what the U.S. is wasting in Iraq.

However, in the long term that still won't solve the problem, as per the Dismal Theorem and Utterly Dismal Theorem. Providing food for a famine likely just delays an inevitable crash.

 

[Skyhunter]

Search the forum. People have already shown how that logic is inconsistent with reality. Grains and soy cannot feed a population as well as meat can and has been fully discussed.

Just because it was discussed does not mean that your conclusion is correct.

Could you explain to me how, when it takes a minimum of three times the rescources to produce the same amount of animal calories as it does plant calories?

You are so deluded it is laughable, but it makes me want to cry.

We can end world hunger as soon as we have the will to do so. Unfortunately the world has far to many small minded, full bellied, selfish idiots who think that because they are born into the first world that they are entitled to all the luxuries and excess that come with it!

They will latch onto any half witted argument to support their position so that they don't have to concern themselves with the plight of others less fortunate. People like that are disgusting.

And you wonder why there are those who are willing to blow themselves up to lash out at the injustice that is all to REAL!

 

[The Smoking Man]

No, I don't think so. It looks more like this particular aspect of your hijacking has been ignored.


And it's rather insulting to our intelligence that you would act as if all you need to do to feed the starving of the world is to have surplus food, and a method of transporting it.

You're trying too hard Hurkyl.

You missed is when the Penguin wrote this, I assume?: Combine this with global warming and the possibility of tree-shortages... you have a rather ironic situation. A lot of the solutions to the problems involve making at least another oen of the problems worse.

So far Hurkyl you have not shown disrespect to me but to the other posters on this board who wrote the compositions that I responded to.

So when are you going to actually post something about ANY topic other than me?

 

[The Smoking Man]

OK, OK, everybody calm down.

Yes, we can solve all of the current hunger problems with a fraction of what the U.S. is wasting in Iraq.

However, in the long term that still won't solve the problem, as per the Dismal Theorem and Utterly Dismal Theorem. Providing food for a famine likely just delays an inevitable crash.

And ... most of the funds requested would go to the education of impoverished areas in the area of 'Give the man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life.'

US Marines and other rednecks say, 'Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.'

 

[vanesch]

Let's see The USA who launches attacks at the drop of a hat explore some of the solutions rather than just the problems for a change. In a democracy with 1.2 billion people, how are any of the problems associated with China to be addressed? (Remember that the USA has a higher birth rate than China and you ARE steaming on your way to imitating them)

There is a very natural solution to the problem of reduced living standards (let alone famin) reaching highly develloped democracies: they go to war ! Democracies cannot stand lowering living standards, it makes them elect fascist rulers, who blame the "others" for all the misery.
Now, war is the "market response" to famine, and would regulate the problem ; the problem now is that with all the sophisticated armament around, the problem might be regulated once and for all!

I'm really very very worried, with the serious problems ahead, which are going to hit us about simultaneously (oil peak, climate change, famine...) that the West will go beserk and blew the entire Earth apart in a frantic desperate attempt of holding to its current way and standard of life.

 

[Pengwuino]

ooo I didn't know the prime minister/president/leader of Canada/UK/France/Germany/Italy/Switzerland was fascist!

 

[Pengwuino]

US Marines and other rednecks say, 'Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.'

more bigotry I suppose

 

[vanesch]

ooo I didn't know the prime minister/president/leader of Canada/UK/France/Germany/Italy/Switzerland was fascist!

? Don't get you ? I didn't say that.

 

[Pengwuino]

Funny, that's exactly what got Geldof a Knighthood.

I'll even insult your intelligence even further (If that's possible) and state that the UN has come out and said it can do away with world huinger with $49 billion.

Are you insane? Wasnt that the same guy who said he was "bored with Africa"? That joke of a concert?

The UN's projection is stupid. Every expert, everyone whose ever worked with the poor in Africa, says that no amount of money can just do away with world hunger. Its like saying that $20 will eradicate AIDS. You obviously have a very low comprehension of how the world works. You're naive, please think about what they are actually trying to say. Why not say it'll cost $80 billion to transform Egypt into a superpower. Yah, just doesn't work like that.

 

[Pengwuino]

? Don't get you ? I didn't say that.

There is a very natural solution to the problem of reduced living standards (let alone famin) reaching highly develloped democracies: they go to war ! Democracies cannot stand lowering living standards, it makes them elect fascist rulers, who blame the "others" for all the misery.

hmm...

 

[vanesch]

hmm...

There's not yet a serious lowering of living standards in Europe, and many countries are already struggeling with a rising fascism in election results: the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Italy...
Go figure what happens if those standards decrease by, say, 80% in a lapse 2 or 3 years time. When gasoil will cost something like $20,- a litre and there's food shortage.

 

[alexandra]

I'm really very very worried, with the serious problems ahead, which are going to hit us about simultaneously (oil peak, climate change, famine...) that the West will go beserk and blew the entire Earth apart in a frantic desperate attempt of holding to its current way and standard of life.

Ditto, vanesch - and that's precisely why I've turned to red wine It seems I'm powerless to convince anyone of the truth of the things that are so obvious to you and me. I really thought that on a Physics Discussion Board, people would look at the facts. But it has turned out to be not the case - when it comes to politics, no matter how well trained in the scientific method people are they will not acknowledge truths that are proved by the most rudimentary examination of the most basic facts. This makes me lose hope. The most educated portion of all humanity cannot use its powers of critical reflection to understand the underlying reality. Hoo boy, are we in trouble... Perhaps I had too much faith in so-called 'scientists'!

 

[Pengwuino]

There's not yet a serious lowering of living standards in Europe, and many countries are already struggeling with a rising fascism in election results: the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Italy...
Go figure what happens if those standards decrease by, say, 80% in a lapse 2 or 3 years time. When gasoil will cost something like $20,- a litre and there's food shortage.

Yah i just realized I was doing roughly a "past-only" argument. That does make a lot of sense when you make a "what-if" argument however.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ditto, vanesch - and that's precisely why I've turned to red wine It seems I'm powerless to convince anyone of the truth of the things that are so obvious to you and me. I really thought that on a Physics Discussion Board, people would look at the facts. But it has turned out to be not the case - when it comes to politics, no matter how well trained in the scientific method people are they will not acknowledge truths that are proved by the most rudimentary examination of the most basic facts. This makes me lose hope. The most educated portion of all humanity cannot use its powers of critical reflection to understand the underlying reality. Hoo boy, are we in trouble... Perhaps I had too much faith in so-called 'scientists'!

Politics is subjective

Any issue worth the public eye has good arguments for every view. Thinking your own view is the only good one is called bias and probably means your not being objective yourself.

 

[vanesch]

Yah i just realized I was doing roughly a "past-only" argument. That does make a lot of sense when you make a "what-if" argument however.

Imagine we've all elected our little "Bushes" who will "protect" us pre-emptively, feel threatened on all sides and declare a "gobal war on lowering living standards, lack of oil and famine" ? Or better: "global war on global climate change ?

 

[Pengwuino]

Imagine we've all elected our little "Bushes" who will "protect" us pre-emptively, feel threatened on all sides and declare a "gobal war on lowering living standards, lack of oil and famine" ? Or better: "global war on global climate change ?

Well, since we'd win, I am not worried

jk.

 

[Smurf]

No no, the new one is "Global struggle against fundamentalist extreme climates"

 

[vanesch]

Well, since we'd win, I am not worried

That's EXACTLY the point ! That's what they all think !

What if the US is changed in something like the Sahara, and all the rest of the world contaminated with nuclear fallout ?

 

[Pengwuino]

What if the US is changed in something like the Sahara, and all the rest of the world contaminated with nuclear fallout ?

Probably would be an upgrade in weather conditions then it currently is right now. Damn australians would survive though. I think they are masterminding this whole thing. They want to nuke the world so they can have the world to themselves.

Lets just nuke Canada, nothing intelligent has ever come out of there

 

[vanesch]

What if the US is changed in something like the Sahara, and all the rest of the world contaminated with nuclear fallout ?

To answer my own question...

THE ANTS WILL TAKE OVER

 

[loseyourname]

Could you explain to me how, when it takes a minimum of three times the rescources to produce the same amount of animal calories as it does plant calories?

This is exactly one of the claims he was talking about that was debunked. It may take three times the amount of energy to create the same of amount of animal calories as plant calories, but when people only eat one-third of the plant, and animals eat the entire plant, that argument goes down the drain. There's also an issue of land quality. There is a lot of land out there that just isn't fit for the growing of food-quality grain, but it's perfectly fine for animal grazing or even for growing lower quality grains that is unfit for human consumption, but can be eaten by livestock.

The simple fact is, there are so many variable that go into determining the amount of resources used to produce a certain amount of food of any kind, along with issues regarding whether the land even could have been used for anything else, that no one really knows the exact ratio of meat/plants that represents ideal land usage. It certainly is not as simple as many vegetarians would have us believe.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is exactly one of the claims he was talking about that was debunked. It may take three times the amount of energy to create the same of amount of animal calories as plant calories, but when people only eat one-third of the plant, and animals eat the entire plant, that argument goes down the drain. There's also an issue of land quality. There is a lot of land out there that just isn't fit for the growing of food-quality grain, but it's perfectly fine for animal grazing or even for growing lower quality grains that is unfit for human consumption, but can be eaten by livestock.

The simple fact is, there are so many variable that go into determining the amount of resources used to produce a certain amount of food of any kind, along with issues regarding whether the land even could have been used for anything else, that no one really knows the exact ratio of meat/plants that represents ideal land usage. It certainly is not as simple as many vegetarians would have us believe.

Well it has not been debunked just because you say so. That is not how debunking works.

http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-30610-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Land use

At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person!

Many countries in the world use as little as 0.2 ha (half an acre) of farm land per person (see Table 1). This is equivalent to having 5.5 m2 of land available to produce each day’s food. In 1994, the average yield worldwide for cereal crops was 2 814 kg/ha, equivalent to 1.5 kg (14 cups of cooked grain) per day from 0.2 ha. For root crops, the average global yield in 1994 would have provided 6.8 kg of food per day from 0.2 ha (FAO 1997). As grains and roots are easily stored, it seems reasonable to conclude that even in cold climates, people should be able to live on food grown on 0.2 ha or less.

With exports taken into account, North America still uses seven times more land on a per capita basis than many countries in Asia. This is because large areas of land are used for grazing and significant amounts of domestic grain supplies are fed to farm animals (Figure 1; see also Table 1).

Farm animals are extremely inefficient converters of plants to edible flesh. To produce 31.2 million t of carcass meat in 1993, US farm animals were fed 192.7 million t of feed concentrates, mostly corn. Additional feed took the form of roughage and pasture (FAO 1997; USDA 1997). Broiler chickens are the most efficient, requiring only 3.4 kg of feed (expressed in equivalent feeding value of corn) to produce 1 kg of ready-to-cook chicken. Pigs are the least efficient. For pig meat, the feed–produce ratio is 8.4 : 1; for eggs, by weight, 3.8 : 1; and for cheese, 7.9 : 1 (USDA 1997).

In animals much of the food is converted into manure, energy for movement, and the growth of body parts not eaten by people. Very little can appear as direct edible weight gain. For example, cattle excrete 40 kg of manure for every kilogram of edible beef (Environment Canada 1995).

The meat industry makes an effort to use some of the by-products, but because of the huge numbers of animals slaughtered, this can be a challenge. Only about one-sixth of the manure from hog-raising operations in the United States is used (USDA 1986, cited in Durning and Brough 1991). Excess animal waste often ends up in rivers and in groundwater, where it contributes to nitrogen, phosphorus, and nitrate pollution (Durning and Brough 1991).
Livestock grazing

Roughly one-fifth of the world’s land area is used for grazing, twice that for growing crops (FAO 1997). In a natural state, grasslands are healthy ecosystems supporting a diverse range of plants, birds, rodents, and wild grazing animals. Grasslands are often unsuited for cultivation, but with care they can generally be used sustainably for livestock grazing. Cattle, sheep, and goats are ruminants. They fare best on a diet of grass. In the West, cattle still spend most of their lives grazing and are only fattened on an unnatural diet of grain and soy before being slaughtered.

With most of the world’s rangelands grazed at or beyond capacity, the prospects for increasing the production of grass-fed beef and mutton are unfavourable (Brown and Kane 1994). Gains are made in grazing land increasingly at the expense of wilderness areas. More than one-third of the forests of Central America have been cut since the early 1960s, but pasture land has increased by 50% (FAO 1990, cited in Durning and Brough 1991). In India, tiger reserves, national parks, and tree planting efforts are increasingly threatened by cattle and goats invading and eating young plant shoots (Gandhi 1996).

In dryland regions, cattle can overgraze perennial grasses, allowing annual weeds and scrubs to proliferate. The new weeds lack extensive root systems to guard soil against erosion. As the former diversity of plant species is lost, wildlife also declines (Durning and Brough 1991). According to a United Nations study, “The Global Assessment of Human Induced Soil Degradation” (ISRIC 1990), about 10.5% of the world’s fertile land suffers from moderate to extreme degradation. Overgrazing by livestock and current farming practices are the principal causes of this degradation (ISRIC 1990).
Fish

Like meat, levels of fish consumption have also risen dramatically worldwide. The average fish harvest increased from less than 9 kg/person in 1950 to more than 19 kg by 1989, while the total global harvest more than quadrupled from 22 million t to 100 million t (Brown and Kane 1994). Since 1989 the increases in fish-harvest levels have slowed to where they are just able to keep pace with the growth in the human population (FAO 1996). Current levels are putting a strain on marine ecosystems in many areas. Of the 200 top marine fish resources in the world in 1994, about 35% were declining and 25% had been fully exploited (FAO 1996). Aquaculture, which accounted for 17% of the world’s seafood harvest in 1994 (FAO 1996), has so far been making up for the decline in wild fish stocks, but a tightening world grain supply may curtail growth, as fish production requires large inputs of feed. Farmed fish yield about 1 kg of meat for every 3 kg of feed (Brown and Kane 1994).
Conclusions

Many indicators show that the world is entering an era of declining food security. Available land for agriculture has peaked and is currently declining as a result of industrial and urban expansion and losses to degradation. Freshwater supplies for irrigation are getting scarcer, and fertilizer use has just about reached its full potential (Brown and Kane 1994). Fish production per capita has reached a plateau and may start to fall, and meat production from rangelands is in decline.

Between 1950 and 1984, world cereal-crop yields increased by an average of 3% per year. Since 1984 yield increases have slowed to around 1% per year — less than the amount needed to keep pace with population growth (Brown and Kane 1994; FAO 1997). The result has been a 7% decline in world cereal production per capita — from a peak of 375 kg in 1984 to 349 kg in 1994 (FAO 1997). As the human population expands to close to 9 billion hungry people in the coming decades, it is not hard to imagine every last forest, wetland, and grassland being levelled for agriculture.

Methods to increase yields are also causing environmental problems, such as dammed rivers for irrigation; use of toxic pesticides and herbicides; erosion and sali-nation of soil; pollution of adjacent waterways; and extensive energy use for ploughing, harvesting, pumping water, transportation, refrigeration, and fertilizer production.

A shift in society toward plant-based diets would reduce these problems simply by reducing livestock populations and their demand for land and other resources. On a per capita basis, the land requirements of plant-based agricultural economies are only a fraction of those with high rates of meat production. With fewer animals to feed, it might be possible to rebuild world grain reserves, ensuring dependable supplies for direct human consumption in countries facing food scarcity. Reducing land use by cutting meat production would also be a very effective way to ensure that wilderness areas are maintained and even expanded. Wilderness is crucial to providing biological diversity, climate control, and a store of carbon dioxide.

Getting people to change cherished eating habits will not be easy. Although it is unnecessary to reduce meat consumption to zero, significant reductions may be required. Two tools are available to reach this aim: education and price control. Education is needed to promote traditional and new plant-based cuisines as healthy alternatives to those based on meat. Numerous studies have pointed out the advantages of

vegetarian foods in prevention of heart disease, cancer, and many other diet-related diseases. In addition, people need to know about how meat-centred eating habits can threaten food security and wilderness areas.

One very effective way to reduce meat consumption would be to set higher prices. Agricultural subsidies are partly responsible for the low cost of food, especially meat. Wheat and rice prices expressed in 1985 dollars have actually fallen by half since mid-century (Brown and Kane 1994). Without subsidies, even small increases in the cost of grain would make fattening animals with feed crops very expensive. People would purchase less meat, leaving more grain available for direct human consumption. Gradually increasing grain prices now may be preferable to enduring sudden price jumps resulting from climate-induced crop shortfalls or shifts in world demand. Surplus stocks of grain are now at their lowest level since the early 1970s, leaving the world particularly vulnerable (USDA 1996).

As the Earth’s human population continues to expand, two things will be critical for our survival: adequate food resources and intact wilderness areas. One sure way to achieve both would be to dramatically change food choices from animal products to plant-based foods.
References

Brown, L.; Kane, H. 1994. Full house: reassessing the Earth’s population carrying capacity. Norton, New York, NY, USA.

Durning, A.; Brough, H. 1991. Taking stock: animal farming and the environment. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Environment Canada. 1995. Connections: Canadian lifestyle choices and the environment. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. State of the Environment Fact Sheet No. 95-1.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1990. Production yearbook 1989. FAO, Rome, Italy.

———1996. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture, 1996 summary. FAO, Rome, Italy. Internet: http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/fishery/publ/sofia/sofflye.htm

———1997. FAOSTAT statistical database. FAO, Rome, Italy. Internet: http://apps.fao.org/

Gandhi, M. 1996. Animal welfare is human welfare. Resurgence, 175 (Mar–Apr), 16–20.

Gardner, N. 1996. Asia is losing ground. World Watch, 9(6), 19–27.

ISRIC (International Soil Reference and Information Centre). 1990. The global assessment of human induced soil degradation. Commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1986. Economies of size in hog production. USDA, Washington, DC, USA.

———1996. Global grain markets in 1996: shades of 1972–74? Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC, USA. Agricultural Outlook, Sep.

———1997. Agricultural statistics 1997. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.

Are you saying that all that rich farmland in the midwest, devoted to growing feed crops for livestock could not be put to better use?

Wake up and smell the manure!

At some point last week -- nobody's quite sure when -- one wall of an earthen reservoir on one of New York state's biggest dairy farms collapsed, releasing some 3 million gallons of liquid cow manure into the Black River. "That stinks," noted observant 15-year-old New Yorker Dustan Wisner. But the stink is the least of the problems: The river is now clogged with bloated, dead fish. "It's the biggest fish kill I've ever seen," said regional fisheries manager Frank Flack. "Before it's all done, it could end up to be millions of fish." That's bad news for a region dependent on tourism and a river beloved by recreational anglers. The Adirondack community of Watertown hasn't canceled its upcoming national kayak championship (uh, dudes?), but they have cut off intake of drinking water from the river. The manager of poopy polluter Marks Farm had only this to say: "I'm too busy cleaning up the mess to talk now."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/n...serland&emc=rss

Not that your point is not valid. There is merit in using land suitable for livestock to produce livestock. The problem is that people use that argument to justify the continuation of unsustainable agricultural practices to feed a glutunous, overfed, and diseased first world population at the expense of the environment and the starving third world.

 

[Smurf]

Are you saying that all that rich farmland in the midwest, devoted to growing feed crops for livestock could not be put to better use?

Wake up and smell the manure!

What he's saying is a scientific fact. Energy can not be destroyed, it can only change. Using feed crops to feed livestock can't be said to be less efficient unless the way we're utilizing it is less efficient, it doesn't make energy disappear on it's own. However it could be said that not raising livestock is easier to use efficiently.

 

[The Smoking Man]

What he's saying is a scientific fact. Energy can not be destroyed, it can only change. Using feed crops to feed livestock can't be said to be less efficient unless the way we're utilizing it is less efficient, it doesn't make energy disappear on it's own. However it could be said that not raising livestock is easier to use efficiently.

So you're saying that all the energy the cow exerts on its environment including being mobile, breathing, mooing ... Then there's the cow farts ... methane production which actually harms the atmosphere: the production of horn, hoofs and hide; none of this is waste energy?

All these things go into the waste of energy.

Then there is the comparison of the amount of calories used in the digestion process. Tofu or beans vs. beef. The toxicity of putrid beef in the digestive system. Steroid and anti-biotic contamination. Variant CJD, botulism, salmonella and other food poisonings.

Storage of grain vs storage of cattle and cattle products. Grain for the most part is dried and storable in silos. Transport is effected by moving it in large containers. Cattle continues to consume until slaughtered even after optimal weight is achieved. After slaughter, it must be kept under refrigeration. Transport is highly complex using stock yards that are free of cruelty and allow the arrival of product at an abotoire LIVE otherwise the product must be used for utility purposes (Pet food). Grain is stacked in sacks. Carcasses are hung in refrigerators or freezers. Post slaughter transportation must be done in freezing conditions especially during international transport and using cryovac packaging.

All-in-all ... A peanut butter sandwich supplies you with all the usable protein as a steak without the health risks which include the above list of diseases and does not have the problem of colesterol.

Beyond that, the current use of meat in the American diet is an abberation and is not the same as what was consumed prior to the early 1960's. It is merely a reflection of Hedonism and conspicuous consumption that flies in the face of proper nutrition to the point that obesity in the USA kills more people in the USA than cigarettes and car accidents.

No, I do not advocate giving up meat completely.

But try looking at the amount of beef included with a Chinese meal combined with vegetables. Then look at an average street filled with Chinese and compare it to the average street filled with Americans. One thing becomes strikingly apparent ... and it's not how fat they are or how tall they are ... It's that most of the Americans are in cars while the Chinese are on bikes.

 

[edward]

As with everything else we must conform to an efficient model to feed the world. I agree with TSM. Beef is not that efficient to raise compared to the amount of food consumed by the animal. And I believe that methane is a greenhouse gas.

As someone posted above, farm raised grain fed fish are a good source of animal protien and the waste product is easy to handle as it is already liquid fertilizer.

The variation in growth rates is explained largely by the efficiency with which various animals convert grain into protein. With cattle in feedlots, it takes roughly 7 kilograms of grain to produce a 1-kilogram gain in live weight. Growth of feedlots is now minimal. For pork, the figure is close to 4 kilograms per kilogram of weight gain, for poultry it is just over 2, and for herbivorous species of farmed fish, such as carp, tilapia, and catfish, it is less than 2. The market is shifting production to the animals that convert grain most efficiently, thus lightning the pressure on soil and water resources. Health concerns are also helping to shift consumption from beef and pork to poultry and fish.

 

[loseyourname]

Are you saying that all that rich farmland in the midwest, devoted to growing feed crops for livestock could not be put to better use?

Nope. I can repeat myself if you'd like:

The simple fact is, there are so many variable that go into determining the amount of resources used to produce a certain amount of food of any kind, along with issues regarding whether the land even could have been used for anything else, that no one really knows the exact ratio of meat/plants that represents ideal land usage. It certainly is not as simple as many vegetarians would have us believe.

In a nutshell, my claim is this: If everyone switched to a vegetarian diet overnight, we would not end world hunger. Granted, I may be arguing somewhat of a strawman here, as no one but a blind idealogue would believe the counterclaim anyway. Still, the bulk of my message was that animal calories requiring X times the amount of energy to produce as plant calories does not mean that the raising of animals uses X times the amount of land or any other available resource.

Not that your point is not valid. There is merit in using land suitable for livestock to produce livestock. The problem is that people use that argument to justify the continuation of unsustainable agricultural practices to feed a glutunous, overfed, and diseased first world population at the expense of the environment and the starving third world.

Then again, you're probably arguing a strawman here as well. No one in this thread has made the claim that we should continue with exactly the same agricultural practices we currently engage in. I certainly never have and I never will.

By the way, you should really run a search for the old threads we're talking about. Moonbear in particular, and I to a lesser extent, have posted some pretty good resources in the past.

 

[Kakarot]

ok no more than 2 kids from now on guys lol

 

[The Smoking Man]

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/gen/ap/CO_Beef_Recall_Colorado.html

You just don't see them recalling tofu like this do you.

Well, no problems ... those of you with a real jones for beef can avail yourself of a Fudruckers Dermal Beef http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=99703.

 

[Skyhunter]

In a nutshell, my claim is this: If everyone switched to a vegetarian diet overnight, we would not end world hunger. Granted, I may be arguing somewhat of a strawman here, as no one but a blind idealogue would believe the counterclaim anyway. Still, the bulk of my message was that animal calories requiring X times the amount of energy to produce as plant calories does not mean that the raising of animals uses X times the amount of land or any other available resource.

I guess I was resorting to hyperbole. I just get a little agitated sometimes.
Sorry

You are correct, it is not that cut and dry, however the animal does not consume the entire plant either, and on the whole a plant based diet is far and away more efficient than an meat based diet. So it would be a good first step to start promoting a plant based diet as part of a strategy for a more sustainable food supply for the world.

My original point was that if we had the will we would find the way, and that arguments against an evolution to a vegetarian diet is counter-productive to solving the crisis of world hunger.

I would highly recommend reading T. Colin Cambell. It is probably the most comprehensive study ever done on the link between diet disease.

Then again, you're probably arguing a strawman here as well. No one in this thread has made the claim that we should continue with exactly the same agricultural practices we currently engage in. I certainly never have and I never will.

Good

By the way, you should really run a search for the old threads we're talking about. Moonbear in particular, and I to a lesser extent, have posted some pretty good resources in the past.

I have read them, probably not all so I will look further.

Here is a good site on efficient land use.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu03pe/uu03pe05.htm#farmer participation is essential

 

[vanesch]

Isn't antropophagy the solution then ? The more we are, the more food (beef!) there is

 

[loseyourname]

We could always eat our own dead. They're dead anyway, right? Then again, in the places where hunger is a major problem, the dead are malnourished, without any good meat on them. There goes that plan.

 

[The Smoking Man]

We could always eat our own dead. They're dead anyway, right? Then again, in the places where hunger is a major problem, the dead are malnourished, without any good meat on them. There goes that plan.

Asside from the Soylent Green scenario.

This is part of the 'survival of the fittest' scenario though.

Don't predators cull the weak, sick, dying or young from the herd?

But then, when you reduce the morality of man to the basic level of animal instinct, things get a tad tense. People start screaming stuff about human rights n'all.

 

[Entropy]

It isn't that we need to grow more, it's the allocation of crops. We could currently feed the entire world and have food to spare, but the people who need it most usually don't get it. Example, you give food to third world countries and they sell it to someone else because they're greedy instead of distrubting it to the starving.

Also lots of farmland is reserved for unnecessary crops such as tobacco. Most of the farmland in North Korea is used to grow drugs because in the short-run it's more profitable than growing food.