The End of Food. Global age of cheap and plentiful food is coming to an end.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Lumpy

The problem isn’t a lack of food but that millions of people are so poor that any increase whatsoever in the cost of food immediately drives them from hunger to starvation. .

In a way I think the underlying problem is really the value of labor. You’d think that anyone who works most days, all day, at some sort of productive endeavor would always have enough to eat. There’s even the basic concept that one’s access to food should be tied to one’s work in some way, and that, in normal circumstances, food is something that is earned through work, as St. Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 3, warning against idleness: He who would not work, neither should he eat.

The tragedy of our age is that untold millions are far from idle, but still barely earn enough to survive. Most of us in the developed countries can’t begin to conceive what that must be like. Again alluding to the Bible, I have to say that I’m certainly not one of those people who keep harping on about the “end times” and the imminent judgment of humankind, but I can’t help thinking that the the line in Revelations about “a quart of wheat for a day’s wages” seems gloomily accurate in light of recent developments.

[intention]

DSeid, I took a look at the figures listed in your citation above, viz:

As for evidence that the increased Chinese appetite for meat is a driver of grain prices:
Quote:
China’s meat consumption since 1995 has increased by 112 percent to 53 kilograms per person per year … the U.S. increased corn production by 157 million tonnes of corn since 1995. 31 million net tonnes of grain went to support U.S. ethanol production, and 27 million tonnes supported a 15 percent increase in U.S. population during the period. By contrast, the study projected that livestock grain demand to supply Chinese meat consumption increased by 199 million tonnes between 1995 and 2007.

Unfortunately, based on the figures they gave (I haven’t found a copy of the actual study yet), this is another “take the kg. of meat, multiply by 5, that’s the kg of grain needed” type of study. At least that’s what the numbers look like …

As I mentioned above, that number (5 kg of grain per kg of meat) is from cattle weight gains on feedlots. It does not represent in any way the amount of additional grain needed for chinese pigs or chickens. That number is an average growth rate for cattle fed nothing but grain.

I’ll likely comment more when I have the whole study, but so far, its numbers are way out of line. Like far too many parts of science these days, it is picking numbers based on ideology, not on the real world.

In addition, the article at the site you cited says:

The study tracks the meteoric growth in Chinese meat consumption since 1983, a trend spotted early by commentator Lester Brown in his prescient article “Who Will Feed China?” In 1995, meat consumption was 25 kilograms per person, reaching 31 kilograms by 1999, 50 kilograms by 2000, and is 53 kilograms per person today.

Perhaps Lester Brown believes those figures, but I don’t. They claim that for four years (1995-1999), the average meat consumption rose by 1.5 kg/year. Then, in a single year, it jumped by 19 kg, and over the next four years, it rose by less than half a kg per year … sorry, kids, but that don’t make sense … it also disagrees with the figures given in the final one of your excellent citations, which gives 39 kg as the sum of pork, beef, chicken, and sheep meet consumption in 1995, and 60 kg in 2005. Neither of these figures agrees in any way with the figures in the previous citation. Among other things, the final citation shows a growth of about 21 kg/person 1995-2005, where the other one shows a growth of 38 kg/person 1995-2007. One of these is quite wrong.

My best to you,

w.

PS - you say:

China at least is switching away from that somewhat nostalgic view of the small farmer growing their own pigs and chickens letting them graze in the field, eat their scraps, and feeding them the left-over grain of poor quality.

I agree with you up until the last point. Animals are always fed the lowest-quality grains available. Simple economics dictates that, the high quality grains demand premium prices. Also, the final study you cited puts the 2005 amount of pork being grown in “industrial” versus “mixed farming” or “grazing” at 9%, beef at 1%, sheep and goat at 2%, and poultry at 18% … we’re not talking about beef feedlots in any numbers yet, which makes the grain figures much more improbable.

PPS - finally found the original study. It says:

It takes an average of five kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of meat.

BZZZZT! Next contestant, please. It’s just another Lester Brown fantasy. Throw away that citation, it’s nonsense.

[intention]

DSeid, further reading in your excellent final citation reveals the following:

The competition for grains for biofuel is another challenge to feed grain supply.
The biofuel industry is a strong competitor for maize, leading to a sharp rise in price
of maize in the market. Currently the price of maize in China has surpassed that of
wheat and the land area used by maize is only second to that of rice, the most
important staple food crop. The interest in biofuel increases with the rising price of
unrenewable energies and worsening air pollution in large cities. The national
government has provided a substantial subsidy up to US$200 per tonne of ethanol for
biofuel development in several maize-producing provinces since 2003. The use of
maize for biofuel was over 3 million tonnes in 2005, and is expected to rise to 5
million tonnes in the coming years. This imposes a great pressure on the maize
supply and subsequently increases the cost of livestock production.

Hardly what Lester would have us believe, that the use of maize for biofuels is not an issue …

w.

[DSeid]

intention,

One thing that is known about getting data out of China is that there will be ability to question it. Be that as it may we do the best with what we have, and what we have is a consistent finding of significantly increased meat consumption across several data sets.

I appreciate the fact that you are dismissive of Lester Brown’s 5 to 1 figure, and certainly I can recognize that there are a variety of extant feeding practices so that a one size fits all approach to calculation may be a bit simplistic, still, do you have some other source for the amount of grain used in pig farming in China in particular? I agree that he may be way off overall since the best I can figure (admitting to the limitations of what data we have) is that since China’s 2007 50.1 million tons of pig is 65% of total meat, then total meat was about 70 million tons, and since the total processed feed production is 107 million tons then, in practical terms the current ratio in China with the variety of meat production techniques used (pasture, grain fed and mixed) is 107/70 which is 1.5 to 1. That assumes that no processed feed or meat is imported or exported, that no other grain is used other than processed feed grain, and that the data sets are apples to apples however, which are large assumptions to make.

But be that as it may, we still have that the combination of an increased appetite for meat in China, and a switch to industrialized farming and with it more processed feed grain usage has caused an increase in grain use for feed from 2 million tons back in 1980 to 107 million tons by 2005 with much of it apparently occurring fairly recently.

My point regarding the kind of grain used was poorly expressed apparently. I think that a farm plants sells their grain with a particular market segment in mind. The feed grain industry is not supplied with the left-overs that the humans didn’t want but with grain grown with their industry as the target market, which may be of different quality than grain grown for human consumption.

On your final point I think we agree. The process of subsidizing grain for biofuel coupled with some high targets for usage in short time frames has been a stupid way to promote an important and longer term goal. There is only so much elasticity supply over a short term, and to add to the demand rapidly in the short term by distorting the market with subsidies was dumb. That said 3 million tons of grain for biofuel must be put into perspective against the increase from 2 million to 107 million tons for feed grain in China. Relatively, biofuel usage is not a significant issue. A contributer without doubt however.

[intention]

DSeid, yes, we can definitely agree that Chinese “data” may be part fact and part fiction. However, the biofuels guy you cited just swallows it all without thinking about it. There’s no way that the Chinese per capita meat consumption went up 19 kg/person in one year. He should either figure out why the numbers are wrong and correct them, or throw them out, or use them but comment on them. He did none of those, just put up the figures and moved on. Bad researcher, no cookies.

That said, your figure of 1.5 to 1 for the overall ratio of feed to meat is likely in the ball park.

There are a few further issues here.

The first is chickens. There is a larger portion of chickens in industrial production in China than any other meat. Chickens, however, produce much more than meat. They also produce eggs, feathers, and chicken manure.

The second is dairy cattle. They also produce much more than meat, namely, milk, leather, horn, bone, keratin, and cow manure, again valuable substances.

Sheep produce wool, meat, and sheep manure. Goats produce goatskin, milk, meat, and manure. Oxen and horses provide power on the farm, as well as hide, horn, meat, and manure.

That’s why I object to the Lester Brown type of analysis. He blithely proposes that if humans ate the grain currently fed to those animals, that it would provide us with a huge net gain (five pound of grain for every pound of beef). Any farmer could tell him different.

Sure, they’d get a bit more calories, nowhere near what Lester says, but a few … but at the cost of high quality protein, leather, wool, feathers, bone meal and manure for fertilizer, traction for the plow, horn, milk, and eggs. Farmers around the world, in different cultures and with entirely different backgrounds, have decided that is a good deal, that they gain more by feeding grain to animals than they lose.

Between Lester and the farmers, I know which one I believe …

w.

[mazinger_z]

@BrainGlutton

Haiti, in that case, would be an example of the state’s failure to screw with the market (by erecting protective tariffs).

Where the state fails to screw with the market is either classic economic liberalism (or something to that effect) or a free market economy.

Protective Tariffs are, by its basic definition, indeed a classic example of the state actively screwing with the market, and in the long run a very bad thing.

[BrainGlutton]

@mazinger_z

Where the state fails to screw with the market is either classic economic liberalism (or something to that effect) or a free market economy.

Protective Tariffs are, by its basic definition, indeed a classic example of the state actively screwing with the market, and in the long run a very bad thing.

In Haiti, not having them was clearly a very bad thing. (As pointed out by ralph124c, “the local farmers stopped growing food, because they could not compete with cheap imported rice.”)

[Shodan]

So your contention would be that a rise in food prices is a good thing for those who want to eat in Haiti?

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

So your contention would be that a rise in food prices is a good thing for those who want to eat in Haiti?

Regards,
Shodan

If you think a free-trade approach provides the consumers with affordable food, you must have missed the recent Haitian food riots.

[XT]

Do you have anything that indicates Haiti HAS a free trade market for food BG? Because as far as I know they don’t.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

Do you have anything that indicates Haiti HAS a free trade market for food BG? Because as far as I know they don’t.

-XT

Dunno about food in general, but yes WRT rice.

[intention]

The problem in Haiti is not that they don’t have protective tariffs. It is that the developed countries subsidize their farmers, so they can grow and ship rice cheaper than the Haitians could possibly grow it.

The solution is not to erect more trade barriers. It is to tear down the farm subsidies.

I live on a tiny third world island myself. When the rice price rose recently, people planted more of the traditional crops (taro, cassava, yams) instead of planting more rice …

w.

[BrainGlutton]

@intention

The problem in Haiti is not that they don’t have protective tariffs. It is that the developed countries subsidize their farmers, so they can grow and ship rice cheaper than the Haitians could possibly grow it.

The solution is not to erect more trade barriers. It is to tear down the farm subsidies.

But the governments of Third-World countries can do nothing about other countries’ farm subsidies; they can impose protective tariffs.

[mazinger_z]

@BrainGlutton

But the governments of Third-World countries can do nothing about other countries’ farm subsidies; they can impose protective tariffs.

While I agree that farm subsidies of the Western world, in particular the shameful subsidies the US gives its farmers, the problem is not an extension of trade liberalization, but rather exposes the inherent problems in the country itself when the last dictator absconded with the treasury. Haiti, and other similar countries, should find a way to provide foreign investment opportunities and transition the workforce to work in other area, or maybe grow another crop (I don’t know if this is technically feasible), or make it easier for farmers to re-enter the rice growing business now that prices are too high. Compare the Dominican Republic with Haiti and notice the stark difference with the DR’s Free Trade Zone.

[ralph124c]

I have noticed the problems that carribean island farmer have. They cannot compete with giants like Carghill, because they have small, iefficient farms. tahe jamaic-the island has fertile land,but a jamaican farmer can never realize the efficiencies that a 10,000 acre farm can. So, the land is idle, and the people go broke buying imported food. In some cases, tariffs would help. I was always amazed to see that island nations spend so much on imports-when they could grow at home.