PDA

View Full Version : 2.4 billion extra people, no more land: how will we feed the world in 2050?



mick silver
23rd January 2011, 05:14 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/24-billion-extra-people-no-more-land-how-will-we-feed-the-world-in-2050-2191260.html ... Steve Connor reveals how scientists propose a major policy shift to tackle one of the great challenges of the 21st centu



The finite resources of the Earth will be be stretched as never before in the coming 40 years because of the unprecedented challenge of feeding the world in 2050, leading scientists have concluded in a report to be published next week.


Food production will have to increase by between 70 and 100 per cent, while the area of land given over to agriculture will remain static, or even decrease as a result of land degradation and climate change. Meanwhile the global population is expected to rise from 6.8 billion at present to about 9.2 billion by mid-century.

The Government-appointed advisers are expected to warn that "business as usual" in terms of food production is not an option if mass famine is to be avoided, and to refer to the need for a second "green revolution", following the one that helped to feed the extra 3 billion people who have been added to the global population over the past 50 years.

In the hard-hitting report, commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the scientists will warn that the era of cheap food is over, and that governments around the world must prepare to follow the leads of China and Brazil by investing heavily in research and the development of new agricultural techniques and practices.

The authors of the Foresight report, Global Food and Farming Futures, will argue that to boost crop yields to the level needed to provide enough food for all by 2050 every scientific tool must be considered, including the controversial use of genetically modified (GM) crops – which have been largely rejected by British consumers.

They will suggest that the public needs to be better convinced of the benefits of GM food, and will advocate an educational campaign to improve acceptance of what they see as one of a set of innovative technologies that can contribute to and improve food security in the coming century. "We say very clearly that we should not tie our hands behind our backs by dismissing GM," said one of the report's authors.

The scientists are expected to recommend that GM technology should be shifted away from the private sector to one that is mostly funded and deployed by publicly funded bodies, in order to avoid what is seen as the stranglehold of large agribusiness companies such as Monsanto.

To combat the huge amounts of food waste – up to 40 per cent of food bought in developed countries ends up being thrown away – the scientists are also expected to recommend changes to legislation covering "sell by" dates. Relaxing these restrictions, the scientists will argue, could help to reduce the enormous amount of edible food discarded by British consumers.

They also want to see a massive injection of funds into agricultural research, to reverse the decline of public funding in recent decades as a result of successive governments viewing agriculture as low priority in times when food was cheap and plentiful.

The report's conclusions and recommendations mirror closely those of a French study published last week on how to feed the world in 2050. The report by two leading research institutes, in a project entitled Agrimonde, found that nothing short of a food revolution is needed to avoid mass famine. "A few years ago the world and Europe was producing too much food, and food was getting cheaper and cheaper. Now world agriculture lies at the heart of major worldwide challenges, and [this report] tells us why business as usual is not an option," said Patrick Caron, one of the Agrimonde authors.

Like the UK's Foresight report, the French study found there is no overwhelming obstacle to feeding a global population of 9.2 billion people, provided food yields are boosted, waste is cut both after harvesting and in the kitchen, and food distribution is improved.

However, the French study also suggested there are two possible routes to feeding the world. One involves unsustainable improvements in crop yields which do not take into account the detrimental impact on the environment, while the other is a sustainable route which will involve people in the developed world consuming less and decreasing their average food intake.

"The world can properly feed 9 billion people by 2050, but it will depend on what's on our plates and what is wasted from our plates," said Sandrine Paillard, who contributed to the Agrimonde study.

People in the developed world could decrease their food consumption – as measured by daily energy intake – by an average of 25 per cent and still have a healthy diet, she said.

Case Study: Chinese family who exemplify the problem

The Chinese exemplify the trend in the developing world for people to move from the country, and a largely vegetarian diet, to the city, where they eat more meat and fish.

Han Xiaotao, 29, and his wife Cui Xiaona, 28, are migrant workers from the small town of Xingtai in Hebei province. They have moved to run a butcher stall at a market in Haidian in western Beijing.

"Life in the countryside is much simpler," said Mr Han. "There we ate simple food like noodles, mantou [steamed bread] and corn, and supplied vegetables for the family from our courtyard, things like cucumber, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage and green onions. When I was young we had only cabbage every day."

They now regularly enjoy pork, beef and chicken. "My wife likes fish!" said Mr Han. "In the countryside, it is too difficult to buy fish. But here it is so easy."

New 'green revolution' must boost yields yet preserve the environment

The principle problem of feeding the world in 2050, when the global population is expected to peak at about 9.2 billion people, is to increase food production without extending the area of land set aside for agriculture.

Scientists believe the only way this can be done is by bridging the "yield gap" between what a plot of land should be able to produce, with the best techniques and practices, and the actual amount of food produced.

This is seen as one of the main goals of agricultural research over coming decades. The problem will be exacerbated by the need to increase yields sustainably without damaging the environment either through soil degradation or water pollution.

During the "green revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s crop yields were increased significantly through modern crop-breeding techniques and the use of agro-chemicals, such as fertilisers and pesticides. Over the past 50 years only about 9 per cent of extra land globally has been brought into agricultural production, yet some cereal crop yields have almost doubled.

However this past increase is unlikely to continue into the future without radical changes to the way food is produced, stored and transported. For a start, some agricultural land that was productive in the past has been lost to urban development. Other land has suffered desertification, soil degradation or salinisation caused by over-irrigation.

Scientists estimate, for instance, that in parts of southeast Asia where irrigation is available, the average maximum rice yields that should be possible are about 8.5 tonnes per hectare. But actual average yields are only 60 per cent of this figure.

Maintaining a high yield requires continual innovation in order to control weeds, diseases, insects and other pests that can develop resistance to different control measures, and to counter crop diseases that emerge in areas previously free of them.

Scientists believe that crop yields should be increased by "sustainable intensification". This means improving the efficiency of food production without incurring the negative side effects on the environment seen in the first green revolution, when intensive farming led to higher yields but at the cost of environmental degradation.

Prosperity brings fresh challenges

A growing human population and a transformation in the diet of billions of people in the coming 40 years will place unprecedented pressure on food production, which will need a second "green revolution" to match the one that has helped to feed the world over the past half century.

The current population of around 6.8 billion people is expected to grow to just over 9 billion by 2050, and there will be a continuing mass migration of people from the countryside into cities. This urbanisation in developing nations will be coupled with an increase in wealth and a shift towards diets rich in meat and dairy produce, which require more farmland to produce compared to more vegetarian diets.

Although without immigration Europe's population is expected to decline by 2050, Africa's will double, China's will peak in about 2030, and India will overtake China as the world's most populous country by around 2020. The increased wealth and urbanisation of India and China in particular will place additional burdens on global food production.

Scientists have documented three phases of food consumption countries pass through as they develop. The first is known as the expansion phase, when undernourished people begin to eat more poor-quality food, mainly grain, roots, tubers and pulses. The second phase is substitution, when these staples are replaced by more energy-rich foods such as meat, dairy and vegetable oils.

The end result is the nutrition phase, when the increased production of high-energy foods requires more resources, for instance when grain is fed to livestock – this requires more land and agricultural inputs such as the use of pesticides and fertilisers.

Some developing countries experience all three phases at once, resulting in the double burden of undernutrition among the poorer classes, even as overnutrition and obesity emerge as problems in other sectors of their societies.

EE_
23rd January 2011, 05:25 AM
I believe by 2050 there will be 1 billion people or less on the planet...most likely way before that.
Man is programed to self-destruct and will do so...coupled with an earth cycle that will periodically clean itself, this will not be a non-issue.

kregener
23rd January 2011, 05:27 AM
How old are you? I will not even be alive in 2050.

Overpopulation is a self-correcting problem.

Relax.

EE_
23rd January 2011, 05:34 AM
Overpopulation is a self-correcting problem.

Relax.


I agree, leave it alone and it will correct itself!
The energy would be better spent on how to quickly process 6 billion + bodies in the coming body boom.

kregener
23rd January 2011, 06:00 AM
I see a business opportunity for someone who is currently 9 years old.

chad
23rd January 2011, 06:54 AM
clear cut alaska. start farming. too short of season you say? bah, grow bere, 90 day barley.

Neuro
23rd January 2011, 07:35 AM
Overpopulation is a self-correcting problem.

Relax.


I agree, leave it alone and it will correct itself!
The energy would be better spent on how to quickly process 6 billion + bodies in the coming body boom.
Didn't the US bring over the German Scientists, in operation Paperclip that managed to vaporize 6 million Jews in the concentration camps without fuel...

Silver Shield
23rd January 2011, 08:11 AM
With the mathematically inevitable collapse of the world's fiat debt based currencies, peak everything and the eventual wars.

I think it is much more feasible that we could see 2.4 billion less people by 2050 than 2.4 billion more.

ShortJohnSilver
23rd January 2011, 01:29 PM
Anotehr "scare the sheeple" article.

Go look up how many million acres the USDA is paying people to keep their land fallow.

gunDriller
23rd January 2011, 02:37 PM
Overpopulation is a self-correcting problem.

Relax.


I agree, leave it alone and it will correct itself!
The energy would be better spent on how to quickly process 6 billion + bodies in the coming body boom.


Composting ?

Twisted Titan
24th January 2011, 12:02 PM
The finite resources of the Earth will be be stretched as never before in the coming 40 years because of the unprecedented challenge of feeding the world in 2050


I remember when they were talking about when global population hit 4 billion it will be unsutainable.

We are at 6 billion plus now.

This is nothing but science paid to fear monger and scare the population into being chipped.


T

Awoke
24th January 2011, 12:05 PM
Here we go again... (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/world-faces-overpopulation-'disaster'/msg167995/#msg167995)

::)

Serpo
24th January 2011, 12:52 PM
Plenty of land for more people,just change our eating habits.ie back to cabbage.

Theres room for heaps more people ...lets party

nunaem
24th January 2011, 01:10 PM
Anotehr "scare the sheeple" article.

Go look up how many million acres the USDA is paying people to keep their land fallow.


Unfortunately the USA isn't what is responsible for the 2.4 billion extra people. It's the colored world that has already stretched its resources to the limit. I don't want more US farmland plundered to support them while our own people dwindle, do you?

nunaem
24th January 2011, 01:19 PM
Plenty of land for more people,just change our eating habits.ie back to cabbage.

Theres room for heaps more people ...lets party


There is plenty of room here. Hear that, Africa, India, South America, China? We're ripe for plunder. There's room in Europe too, colored peoples. We're not using it, so why should we be the dog in the manger?

:sarc:

chad
24th January 2011, 01:21 PM
there's plenty of room in all of those countries to grow enough food as well. problem is, shitty government don't do that and use food as weapon. prior to corrupt government s taking over africa is was bursting with food.

Serpo
24th January 2011, 01:22 PM
Plenty of land for more people,just change our eating habits.ie back to cabbage.

Theres room for heaps more people ...lets party


There is plenty of room here. Hear that, Africa, India, South America, China? We're ripe for plunder.


Where is here......im talkin about the whole planet including all of the above....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuipXzxPFY

Serpo
24th January 2011, 01:24 PM
there's plenty of room in all of those countries to grow enough food as well. problem is, shitty government don't do that and use food as weapon. prior to corrupt government s taking over africa is was bursting with food.


This is it.................I dont fall for this running out of food /too many people thing.....

A meat-based diet requires 7 times more land than a plant-based diet.

The average agricultural land area in North America is 1.6 hectares per person (1.4 hectares after adjusting for the export of grain). Yet there are many countries in the world that use as little as 0.2 hectares (half acre) of farmland per person. These are the countries with plant-based diets.

An area equal to 0.2 hectares is the equivalent of having 5.5 square metres of land available to produce each day's worth of food. The average yield worldwide, for cereal crops in 1994 was 2,814 kilograms per hectare, an amount equivalent to getting 1.5 kilograms (14 cups of cooked grain) per day from 0.2 hectares. For root crops the average global yield in that year would have provided 6.8 kilograms of food per day from 0.2 hectares.2

apple treesAnother example is the small footprint of land that fruit trees take up. A mature apple tree will produce about 20 bushels a year – enough for 400 pies. A fifth of a hectare (half acre) would yield enough fruit to provide about 115 apples per day.17 Tree crops also have the nice advantage of not being prone to soil erosion. In September 2008, I joined up with a Toronto group called Not Far From The Tree and went on a couple of pear picks. Just one tree yielded almost 1200 pears after a two hour pick. See photos and write-up at Delicious Earth.

Any country with reasonable growing conditions should be able to feed their population a plant-based diet using 0.2 hectares of land or less per person. Areas with harsh winter climates also have summers with long days of sunlight, ideal for producing high yields. Grains, legumes and roots can be easily stored for use during off seasons. Areas with regular dry seasons are often balanced with wet seasons.http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/

nunaem
24th January 2011, 01:29 PM
there's plenty of room in all of those countries to grow enough food as well. problem is, shitty government don't do that and use food as weapon. prior to corrupt government s taking over africa is was bursting with food.


I'm sure Africa does have far greater carrying capacity, but with black governments they will never realize it, so they have a practical population problem if not a theoretical population problem.

Serpo
24th January 2011, 01:43 PM
there's plenty of room in all of those countries to grow enough food as well. problem is, shitty government don't do that and use food as weapon. prior to corrupt government s taking over africa is was bursting with food.


I'm sure Africa does have far greater carrying capacity, but with black governments they will never realize it, so they have a practical population problem if not a theoretical population problem.


how will we feed the world........start by getting rid of governments

ShortJohnSilver
24th January 2011, 02:44 PM
Anotehr "scare the sheeple" article.

Go look up how many million acres the USDA is paying people to keep their land fallow.


Unfortunately the USA isn't what is responsible for the 2.4 billion extra people. It's the colored world that has already stretched its resources to the limit. I don't want more US farmland plundered to support them while our own people dwindle, do you?


I wouldn't want it plundered, but why not have them buy it from us? How many bushels of wheat can be bought with 1 gram of gold? An ounce of silver?

lapis
24th January 2011, 05:11 PM
A meat-based diet requires 7 times more land than a plant-based diet.

Yes, grain-fed cows require a lot of land because they're (improperly) fed grains. But grass-fed animals can graze on lands that can't be used otherwise, and their doing so actually improves soil quality.

Recently, George Monbiot, the long-time vegan advocate for environmental reasons admitted (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation) he was wrong about his views, because new research reveals that the environmental impact of raising livestock is less than what was claimed. He also said that properly-raised cows and pigs (i.e. grass-fed) can be good for the environment.


The average agricultural land area in North America is 1.6 hectares per person (1.4 hectares after adjusting for the export of grain). Yet there are many countries in the world that use as little as 0.2 hectares (half acre) of farmland per person. These are the countries with plant-based diets.

Keep in mind these people are mainly on a plant-based diet because they can't afford meat, not because they want to have a meatless diet.


Any country with reasonable growing conditions should be able to feed their population a plant-based diet using 0.2 hectares of land or less per person. Areas with harsh winter climates also have summers with long days of sunlight, ideal for producing high yields. Grains, legumes and roots can be easily stored for use during off seasons.

Areas with harsh winter climates typically rely on animal foods for the very reason that plants can't grow there for months at a time.

I'm sure they wouldn't want to only eat legumes and grains for all of winter, when a perfectly good nutrient-dense food is available.

FreeEnergy
24th January 2011, 07:39 PM
Steve Connor? More like Stephan Shalom Connoretzky.

Only clueless people who have never farmed, or writers out of deserts like Iseael would say that world has ran out of space to grow crops.

How to feed the world:
1) round up government so they don't interfere with "laws" and don't tax farmer to death
2) round up monopolies like monsanto so they won't interfere with their trademarked foods and won't play dirty tricks on farmers.
3) round up whatever monopolies are left that price control the food.
4) let farmers grow food for profit, finally.

mick silver
24th January 2011, 07:54 PM
the fuels to farm one day will be what make it harder to grow for everone . it not the land

gunDriller
25th January 2011, 06:03 AM
how will we feed the world........start by getting rid of governments


start by getting rid of governments ... or start by getting rid of Zionist-infiltrated governments ?

chad
25th January 2011, 06:09 AM
Steve Connor? More like Stephan Shalom Connoretzky.

Only clueless people who have never farmed, or writers out of deserts like Iseael would say that world has ran out of space to grow crops.

How to feed the world:
1) round up government so they don't interfere with "laws" and don't tax farmer to death
2) round up monopolies like monsanto so they won't interfere with their trademarked foods and won't play dirty tricks on farmers.
3) round up whatever monopolies are left that price control the food.
4) let farmers grow food for profit, finally.


this really is true. i grew up farming, you don't need a lot of land to grow enough food for a family of four. people would be surprised how little land it actually takes.

Awoke
25th January 2011, 07:39 AM
how will we feed the world........start by getting rid of governments


start by getting rid of governments ... or start by getting rid of Zionist-infiltrated governments ?


All governments become zionist-infiltrated sooner or later.