Famine.
For us Americans, the word conjures images of heart-rending scenes from distant shores: the kind of images a sad-eyed Sally Struthers busts our chops about on late-night cable TV.
Famine is an abstract concept, a specter haunting not us, but distant ancestors and exotic-looking people in faraway lands. Of course, as Richard Manning drives home in his book Against the Grain, famines have riddled human society since the rise of agriculture 10,000 years ago. Teasing sustenance out of the land is tricky work; sometimes things go wrong.
Since the rise of industrial agriculture after World War II, no industrialized nation has experienced a proper famine. That's why it was so jarring when William Doyle (CEO of the Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, the world's largest fertilizer company) raised the possibility in an interview with Bloomberg published yesterday.
Reacting to global grain stocks at their lowest levels since the USDA began keeping score in 1960, Doyle declared:
If you had any major upset where you didn't have a crop in a major growing agricultural region this year, I believe you'd see famine.
This, even as industrial ag worldwide hits on all cylinders, cranking out more food than ever.
We keep going to the cupboard without replacing and so there is enormous pressure on agriculture to have a record crop every year. We need to have a record crop in 2008 just to stay even with this very low inventory situation.
As a result of tight supplies and surging demand, prices are on the rise. Bloomberg reports that soybean, corn, and wheat -- the holy trifecta of industrial food production -- are all trading at all-time highs. Wheat prices have doubled in the past year; soy has nearly done so as well. High raw-material costs are bleeding into prices at the grocery store -- and fueling inflation in the broader economy. Reports Forbes:
Consumer inflation rose faster than expected in January, as the sharpest yearly increase in food prices in almost two decades pushed overall yearly inflation to a high not seen in more than two years.
What's going on? Doyle, the fertilizer guy, points to the boom in biofuels and the shift to more meat-heavy diets in India and China as the factors behind surging grain use.What's Doyle's plan to fix the situation? More industrial agriculture. Bloomberg paraphrases:
Planting more crop land in Brazil and boosting yields from existing fields in China and Russia, where agricultural productivity has lagged behind the U.S. and Canada, may be needed to avoid food shortages, Doyle said.
"Planting more crop land in Brazil," of course, means plowing up either virgin rainforest or savanna, destroying carbon sinks, blotting out biodiversity, and upsetting smallholder-farmer livelihoods in one swoop. As for "Boosting yields from existing fields in China and Russia," well, that just means dumping more agrichemicals onto the land.
I have a different plan. Let's stop using so damned much resource-intensive grain. Here's how.
- Pull the plug on the government-mandated biofuel boom.
- Give the world a new paradigm for meat consumption by (a) eating much less, and (b) shifting from grain-heavy to pasture-heavy livestock systems.
- And for good measure, let's reinstate a government-financed grain storage system -- you know, as an insurance policy against famine.
In the meantime, there is good news within the gloom -- if you hold shares in agribusiness companies. As investors digested news of tight grain stocks and ramped up ag production, they've been bidding up shares of the companies that sell farmers chemicals.
In trading on Tuesday, reports Bloomberg:
Potash, based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, rose C$7.90, or 5.3 percent, to a record C$157.25 ... in Toronto Stock Exchange trading. Mosaic Co., the world's largest producer of phosphate fertilizer, rose $6.18, or 6 percent, to $109.55 in New York. Agrium Inc., the largest retailer of crop nutrients in the U.S., rose C$3.22, or 4.9 percent, to C$69 in Toronto.
Awesome!
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Soda lobby gets its game on
Comments
View as Flat
wiscidea Posted 8:49 am
21 Feb 2008
We know it is not particularly brilliant to grow fuel instead of food. We know humans are consuming too much meat. We know Americans in particular are not sufficiently interested in planning for a rainy, or very very very dry, day by stashing away surplus resources... like water, ag land, food, fossil fuel, human rights, et cetera. Three very foolish choices that could lead to our deaths.
Here's my question for Tom. Setting aside the biofuel and meat issues for a moment -- just a moment, since they are quite important -- should humans start growing a different set of dietary staples? I know we have to diversify our food supply. But, assuming we will still need a few basic sources of nutrients, is there something other than corn, wheat, soy, or rice, that would provide much more, and hopefully better balanced, nutritional value per acre? I realize this probably sounds like a naive or dumb question. But I'm clearly not afraid to look like an idiot. Let me rephrase it... exactly why are we so reliant on nutritionally inferior dietary staples? It doesn't look like they are the easiest to grow. Are we Vikings and not just because of the desire for biofuel and more meat?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:18 am
21 Feb 2008
The local news media was covering the Pakistan elections. They interviewed a man who voted for one of the opposition parties. He said the cost of oil (food oil) and wheat had gone up so high he could barely feed his family, so he voted for change. Not sure what kind of relief he will get.
It is also not clear at all that people will all passively sit by and go hungry. There are two developing worlds, really, those who are on a clear upward trend, and those still struggling near the bottom.
Higher food prices will hit both, but how they react may be different. And if they decide that the US and the rest of the developed world is to blame, this may also contribute to political shifts.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:22 am
21 Feb 2008
We tend to grow stuff as monocultures rather than in a biodiverse way. We tend to mine soils rather than build them. We tend to grow plants in climates they are very badly suited for. So a lot could be accomplished with more crop rotation (rotating three to five crops). More could be done with growing corn, wheat, rice, soy and so forth in the lands they are most suited for. Most bioregions are suitable for at least one of them. More could be done by using conservation tillage. More could be done using water efficiently when irrigation is needed. And more could be done using low-input methods (organic or near organic).
However if it turned out we have changed the climate enough we really could not depend on these staple enough:
Barley and Oats both are better sources of (incomplete) protein than wheat, rice, or corn, good sources of complex carbohydrates.
Just about every bioregion has some form of legume that grows especially well there. Legumes other than soy have to be mixed with grains or seeds or animal products to be complete proteins.
3)In addition to grains, root vegetables just as potatoes, sweet potato, yams, taro are really productive source of carbonhydrates. I seem to remember that root veggies give you many more carbohydrates per acre than grains, but are not as good a source of protein. So if you depend on root veggies for your complex carbonhydrates, you will need plenty of seeds, nuts or animal products to mix with your legumes to provide a complete protein.
There are also methods than can generate many times the output per acre of conventional agriculture. But they tend to be very labor intensive - permaculture, biointensive agriculture.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:17 am
21 Feb 2008
http://www.digg.com/food_drink/Microbrews_Run_Dry_On_Hops ...
Permalink
elbarto Posted 10:37 am
21 Feb 2008
The modern colonisers (invaders) from Europe brought European crops, animals and farming methods to an environment utterly unsuitable to them.
Europe - rich soils reliable rain, temperate climate.
Australia - poor soils semi arid desert el nino / la nina flood / drought cycle.
Australia is the driest continent on earth and also has some of the poorest and oldest soils. Our agribusiness farming practices are basically soil mining. Natural bushland is cleared for sheep / cattle grazing and wheat. The land is intensively agribusiness farmed for a few seasons until the soil is mined of nutrients and ruined by salinity and the process repeated on newly cleared land.
This process is rapidly killing vast areas of what was a healthy natural ecosystem.
I don't really know what the answer is. One thing I do know is that Australia is not a great place to raise hoofed animals - sheep and cattle grind up fragile soils underfoot and create deserts. These animals are also poorly adapted to harsh conditions and are often mass culled in times of drought.
Kangaroos are superbly adapted to the local environment and have soft feet which don't destroy the soil. They can survive extreme heat and drought and eat local plant species. They could be 'harvested' sustainably and become a staple provided that their natural habitat was restored and meat consumption dropped by 80% to a realistic level.
We could also look at native species of legume / grains that can survive harsh conditions.
The overall point I'm trying to make is that a global uniform monocrop of soy, wheat, cattle, corn, cotton, sugar cane is destined to collapse. We need a return to local species and biodiverse farming.
Evolution is the greatest agricultural scientist, it created perfectly adapted crops for every region. Why do humans arrogantly think they can do better than what evolution had a few billion years to perfect?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:48 am
21 Feb 2008
Permalink
elbarto Posted 11:00 am
21 Feb 2008
In bizarro world I would be an urban goat herder.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:24 pm
21 Feb 2008
The NYT also reported record suicide rates among 45-54 year olds. (Don't get your hopes up, Grist, I'm not leaving anytime soon).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/19suicide.html?_r=1& ...
That group is probably the highest consuming segment of our population.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:31 pm
21 Feb 2008
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Matt Posted 10:24 pm
21 Feb 2008
You could herd them using local kids (stimulate the economy!) or raise a few herding puppies and you're off! Hilarious!
If I get out of teaching, I'm DEFINITELY looking into Urban Goat Lawn Care!
If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got.
- Yogi Berra
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:50 am
22 Feb 2008
Would this be a green career? Probably not. It does not require an engineering degree.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:52 am
22 Feb 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:54 am
22 Feb 2008
http://www.livestockforlandscapes.com/goathandbook.htm
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:02 am
22 Feb 2008
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:05 am
22 Feb 2008
Yes, yes, it's great publicity, but also, simply great. They are sharing the bounty, at below market cost, in times of need, all in the cause of the greater good (beer). Instead of rubbing greedy corporate palms together and anticipating the increased beer sales as independent brewers go out of business, they are helping the little guy to stay in business, because.... (wait for it)... market diversity is GOOD for business.
And, because they love good beer.
I'm proud to have Winter Lager in the fridge right now - hell, it's Friday, and 12:01pm, maybe I'll crack one!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:23 am
22 Feb 2008
See Wallace and Gromit's "A Close Shave," for what living with a flock of sheep might look like.
On eating kangaroos: Well, it seems like just a matter of time before the neo-Australians get around to it. Hopefully the cuteness factor may move some to think twice. But that raises the old animal-welfare question: Why do some animals seem to win our sympathy more easily than others? Why is it OK to kill and eat a cow or a pig, but not a horse or a kangaroo?
On the Vikings: Actually, I think there were a lot of Viking wives and sisters, and less-butch brothers, who stayed behind along the fjords and did a lot of farming.
And they loved their goats! One of their favorite gods, Thor, went around in a goat-cart, in fact. He would hammer one of his goats to death in the evening, for his dinner, then resurrect it again in the morning.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:52 am
22 Feb 2008
It seems no matter what American farmers do, they will always be somebody's whipping boy. But claiming that they're taking food out of peoples' mouths is a new low.
Which would you rather support: Middle East palaces, or a homegrown fuel industry that creates jobs and economic renewal in the U.S.?"
Farmweek, Feb. 18, 2008
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:00 am
22 Feb 2008
Also, we are seeing massive investments in African agriculture.
That continent can produce food for 2 billion people while producing 350 Exajoules of exportable bioenergy (roughly equal to 3/4 of all energy consumed on the planet today).
Let there be famine in America, so we can end famine in Africa. Common, we can do it!
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:03 am
22 Feb 2008
Let's instead claim that sugarcane is wrecking the Amazon.
Let's have fun, let's lie on every point we're trying to make.
We can do it. It's easy. All you need is a blog!!
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:06 am
22 Feb 2008
The real problem has been catastrophically low food prices for decades. These ultra-low prices have kept hundreds of millions of farmers in poverty.
For the first time in recent history, agriculture is becoming normal again.
Dirt-cheap food has led to a biological genocide, with more than 700 million people becoming obese by 2015.
The sooner we end this social and health disaster, the better.
Normal food prices (that is: current prices) only have major advantages for all people on the planet, but especially for the world's poor, who are farmers.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:13 am
22 Feb 2008
Or if it exists, it's a begging bowl with no potential. Easy. Now we can continue our green fascist scare tactics; famine and all. Let's just whipe huge chunks of land off the world map.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:31 am
22 Feb 2008
A little here, a little there, really adds up.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:56 pm
22 Feb 2008
Dear Jonas,
Thanks for the laughs!!!
Along the same lines, we could bring back to life the old idea of eating the rich. Since the rich cause most of the pollution, everyone that is eaten will not only help avoid famine, but reduce the root cause of the problem!!! Volunteers line up over there...
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Jonas Posted 10:52 pm
22 Feb 2008
Because Chinese women breed so easily, they would wreck America's food supply. Mao was a Malthusianist, but a smart one. He offed tens of millions of Chinese with his food growing experiments, which ended up creating famines.
Today's problem in Beijing is the rapid fattening of the nation. The new Mao's are offing tens of millions of Chinese by feeding them to death.
It's no joke. Obesity is the world's biggest health crisis. Not hunger.
In order to fight globesity, we need Stalinists and Maoists who plant fruit trees instead of meat and pig factories.
Please tell the communist leaders of China. Fruit trees are the key to the new Big Leap Forward.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:48 pm
22 Feb 2008
Whoa, that's going way too far. Shut your effing cake hole.
Trolling is one thing, but that is downright pignorant.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:40 pm
23 Feb 2008
Dear Jonas,
Umm, your attempts at humor have crossed the line into a disgusting place that most of us don't want to go (or hear about).
I'm assuming you're not serious because it is hard to believe anyone could really entertain such beliefs unless he was between 8 and 10 years old. Maybe you are.
Jokes should begin by being coherent. You are not. Jokes that seek to offend as their primary goal have mostly fallen out of favor (at least on serious web sites). You really need to study humor and parody some more before attempting it again. You might want to look up the definition of the word "subtle" as well.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
javaearth Posted 1:15 am
25 Feb 2008
2)Stop cutting trees to grow food for animals.
3)Stop eating animals and polluting the air and water ways
4)Stop eating animals that cause sickness and make people fat!
5)Use current livestock land to plant trees and harvest grains
6)More trees will create more oxygen
7)People with better health will live better, with less depended on medication
8)Feed the whole world with grains and fruits and good wholesome foods!
Of course the animal eating lovers will argue so much with me to keep on eating their sick animals! - Yeah good luck with that! - hope the meds bills are not too high!
Permalink
chargerplates Posted 6:46 pm
28 Feb 2008
Permalink