Earth May Already Be Running Out of Grain

[NickB79]

http://news.yahoo.com/earth-may-already-running-grain-121500999.html

BOSTON (TheStreet) -- We have all heard of peak oil, but peak grains? A study released by the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln suggests we may be heading in that direction -- if we're not already there.

The UNL study indicates that about 30% of major global cereal crops -- including rice, wheat and corn -- may have already reached their maximum yields. In fact, yields of these crops seem to have already hit a plateau and some are already decreasing, especially in eastern Asia, Europe and the United States.

"We found widespread deceleration in the relative rate of increase of average yields of the major cereal crops during the 1990-2010 period in countries with greatest production of these crops," says an article based on the study in Nature Communications. The article notes that there was a noticeable plateau or drop in crop yields in 44% of examined cases, which together accounted for 31% of total global rice, wheat and corn production.

snip

Considering that the global population gets 75% of its dietary nourishment from four crops that include corn, wheat and rice, the study could have serious implications for food security. This is not even considering climate change, which might further compromise yields.

"On a global scale, we can see pretty clearly significant changes in the weather for most places where we grow crops," agricultural scientist David Lobell of Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment told Scientific American in June 2011. "Those changes are big enough to sum up to pretty big losses for wheat and corn."

COULD have serious implications for food security?

"Hey guys, we've got about 5 grains of rice left in the pantry, but no one freak out just yet. There might be a kernel or two of corn kicking around, so we should be OK for a while longer."

[yeoman6987]

1. Not surprising

We keep building and building on farmland. How are we going to be able to grow food (I am sure that we are in more trouble then just losing grain)? Our entire thought process on life needs to change and that should have been yesterday.

[lapfog_1]

2. last time the planer faced this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

but then there is the next limit... which is where we are at now.

[stuntcat]

3. it would go further if we stopped feeding so much of it to animals

cut back just a little, really. We grow/water/harvest/ship so much to factory farmed animals, while 40,000 humans are already starving to death every day. Madness.

[GliderGuider]

4. I don't think stretching the supply a little further will help.

Not in a world with a constantly rising population, who have constantly rising expectations. The only long-term answer to food supply limits is fewer eaters.

[stuntcat]

5. well that's true

It was the farming that got the population rising. And we will never live within our means. Even if we started doing right it would only get us a little more time, and I'm honestly hoping for a burnout soon. The longer we take fizzing out, the more species we'll wipe out forever.

[quadrature]

6. I seem to notice many overfed people.

overfed animals.
not so much.

[happyslug]

7. A couple of Observations

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:26 AM - Edit history (2)

World Wide Population is looking more and more to heading for a peak around 2050, and then a slow but steady decline:

First the Article mentions the decline in Chinese Corn Production but corn is a Human Food Source primarily in the New World (North AND South America) and Africa. In the rest of the world it is used as animal feed. Thus a decline in Chinese Corn Production is NOT that big a deal (compared to any decline in Wheat or Rice, China two primarily food corps, North China the primary crop is Wheat, South China Rice).

Secondary, one report indicates world population will peak around 2050 and then go into decline. The primary reason for this is people in urban areas do NOT have as many children as people in rural areas, and 70% of the population will live in urban Areas by 2050 (2000 was the first time, world wide, that 50% of the world population lived in urban areas). This drop in birth rate is seen in Europe, the US, Japan (and the rest of the first world). Russia has seen a birth drop since the fall of the Soviet Union, and China is about to entered into a population drop as people born prior to the adoption of the one child policy starts to die out.

Even India is approaching replacement levels when it comes to birth, only some countries in Africa (around the Congo) is population is far above replacement levels.

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/04/could-earths-population-peak-2050/5208/

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066428#references

In fact, if we use 21 births per 1000 people (which is a close approximation of the 2.1 births per woman which is considered replacement rate) the following countries are the only countries ADDING to the World wide population outside of Central Africa (Defined as between Morocco/Algeria/Libya/Egypt and South Africa/Botswana/Namibia/Zimbabwe)

Belize at 28.34
Honduras at 24.12
Guatemala at 29.09
Panama (at 2.145)
Ecuador (at 21.91)
Venezuela (at 21.22)
Bolivia (at 21.82)
Paraguay (at 28.77)

Morocco (at 21.61
Libya (at 26.09)
Egypt (at 22.53)
Algeria is 17.11 This is to show that the above line has an overall small population growth).

Iraq 31.44
Syria 27.19
Saudi Arabia 29.10
Yemen 42.67
Oman 35.76
Kuwait 21.95

Mongolia 21.07
Uzbekistan 26.46
Turkmenistan 25.36
Kyrgyzstan 23.08
Tajikistan 23.33
Afghanistan 46.21
Pakistan 27.52
India 22.69
Bangladesh 29.36

Cambodia 25.43
Laos 34.98

Papua New Guinea at 28.76

Nambria 23.52
Botswana 23.17
Zimbabwe 27.72

http://www.maps.igemoe.com/fact_birth.htm

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

Interactive Map of Population Growth AT THE PRESENT TIME:
http://www.maps.igemoe.com/fact_birth.htm

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?t=0&v=24&r=xx&l=en

More of fertility rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

2.1 children per woman is considered the ideal rate to maintain a Zero (0) population growth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

In simple terms, Europe and the US has been at or below replacement rate in the number of births since the 1970s (Population growth has been due to immigration. through is this is less true of the US then Europe). Russia has not even been close to replacement rates since Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As of 2010, about 48% of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility. Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy. This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, and many others. The countries or areas that have the lowest fertility are Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Taiwan, Ukraine and Lithuania. Only a few countries have low enough or sustained sub-replacement fertility (sometimes combined with other population factors like emigration) to have population decline, such as Japan, Germany, Lithuania, and Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility#Forecast

Many reasons are given, but it looks more and more like simple economcis:

Another explanation for falling fertility could be a reduction in the frequency of sex in populations with low birth rates. For example, according to a survey published by the Japanese Family Planning Association in March 2007, a record 39.7 per cent of Japanese citizens aged 16–49 had not had sex for more than a month. A study came to the result that instability of modern partnerships is a major cause of European sub-replacement fertility.

Also, a number of sociologists and demographers have pointed out that among those who co-habit, without marrying, are now usually likely to have fewer children than those who are married, due to the lack of commitment in the male/female relationship. This uncertainty induces a 'wait and see' approach in many cases, especially on the part of the female.

i.e. given that more and more people do NOT believe they will hold onto their jobs for 20 or more years, they do not take on the extra cost and risk of having children (and the first step in that direction is to commit to someone of the other sex for 20 or more years, which is hard to do when both of them may have to look elsewhere for employment to get the money to raise the child).

Back to the topic:

If you assume present birth rates will continue, then the report is accurate, but it is NOT expected to continue, in fact birth rates are expected to continue to follow the DROP in birth rates that has occurred in most of the world since the 1960s (Women tend to have many less children where child mortality is near zero, as child mortality nears Zero, birth rates drop to just below replacement rates).

The reason for the birth rate to drop BELOW replacement rates, is that women tend to want two children, a boy and a girl (Most will accept two boys or two girls). This "replaces" the parents of those two children BUT NOT THOSE woman and men who do NOT have children. Thus you need a birth rate of around 2.1 not 2.0 to reach replacement levels.

Just a comment that this is based on data that is suspect at best.

Side note: The above quite mentioned 48% of the population of the world is below replacement levels, but that is BEFORE THE PRESENT RECESSION. Major Recessions have a severe impact on birth rates (For example the Great Depression saw a massive drop in birth, thus the Baby Boom of 1947-1964 is only a boom when compared to the baby bust of 1927-1946. Similar booms occurred in 1912-1920 (WWI lead to an economic boom in the US, which included increase wages due to a massive drop in immigration due to Europe refusing people to leave, for they wanted them in their Army to fight WWI). They was a bust starting in 1919 and lasting till about 1922 (Tied in with the Economic Crisis of 1919-1921 including massive strikes and suppression of those strikes AND the Spanish Flu). Then you had a brief boom 1822-1927 (The Great Depression started in 1927 in Rural America, spread to urban America by 1928, but only hit Wall Street in late 1929).

I bring this up, for in the booms you saw an increase in births, in the bust you saw a massive drop in births. The above in concentrated on the US, but the Great Depression was world wide as is this recession and both times you saw a massive drop in births. For example births of white babies is less then the deaths of whites as a whole. Why? It is a recession and births are DOWN from already marginal levels. but people keep on dying on a steady basis.

Please note, many of the countries with the highest population are below replacement level already, it is Africa that has the high birth rate AND its total population is less then the population of Europe:



http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=1660


There are ways to increase food production, but it requires more manual labor and thus will cost more

I went in details on another thread, so I will not re-post what I wrote on that thread, just post where that thread is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014644548#post4

[CRH]

8. Interesting observations with good links,

on population and the global deceleration in growth. Thanks.