V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It’s still true – there’s plenty of food, regardless of the price. However, the oil shortage – which is the cause of rising food prices – is making distribution even more spotty.
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
“Life” is more than your life. If everyone were sterilized, what would happen to the human race?
What has happened in those nations with severe penalties for having children?
They wind up with an unbalanced population – too many old folks who need care, too few young folks to care for them.
I leave the means of departure to their imagination. I only say that those who say there are too many people on this planet are hypocrites if they do not speed their own departures.
R
ribozyme
Guest
So you really want them commit suicide. You are just afraid to say it yourself as that is the logical conclusion if someone took your puerile remarks seriously.“Life” is more than your life. If everyone were sterilized, what would happen to the human race?
What has happened in those nations with severe penalties for having children?
They wind up with an unbalanced population – too many old folks who need care, too few young folks to care for them.
I leave the means of departure to their imagination. I only say that those who say there are too many people on this planet are hypocrites if they do not speed their own departures.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No. I simply say they are hypocrites if they do not depart expeditiously as possible.
Not at all – if I meant suicide, I’d say suicide.
And I note by your personal insults you have run out of logical comments.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
But there are people who don’t have enough money to buy enough food now. And the price of food is high in part because some of us eat more than we need, and we eat foods like meat which are an inefficient source of nutrients and calories. This drives up food prices and makes it inaccessible to others.
That’s just the economics way of saying “we’re eating more than our share”.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The price of food is high because the price of oil is high. We use oil to produce fertilizer, and to transport food. Those costs are added on to the basic cost of the product.
For example, hay has doubled in price hereabouts. Yet there is plenty of hay. You can drive down the highway and see long rows of round bales rotting away in the fields. Hay is expensive because of the cost of transportation.
No – while we may well be eating too much for health, the problem is not lack of food, but the inability to get food to people who are suffering from hunger. That’s partly influenced by the rising cost of transportation, and partly by the deliberate use of starvation as a weapon in parts of the world.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Um… people can’t eat hay. The crisis right now is about the rising cost of rice and corn. Transportation costs are only one factor. The main factors are the use of cropland to grow biofuel crops (we use too much gas) and rising consumption of meat in places like China (we eat too much).
If the problem was just transportation, food prices wouldn’t be going up around the world. There would be a huge price difference between areas where the food is grown and where it is consumed. Rice and corn are grown in the same areas where people are being affected by the rising prices! It can’t be primarily due to transportation costs.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Which is irrelevant – hay is an agricultural product, and as such is subject to the same upward price pressure as all other agricultural products. It’s rising oil prices that are driving up food prices.
In fact, hay is the ideal commodity to show us why that is so – since much of it goes to waste, the driving factor in hay prices is fuel prices.
In fact, about 99% of the rise in food costs is in fertilizer and transportation. It isn’t cropland – we have so much cropland the government pays farmers to not plant it. That’s the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP.)
It’s due to both transportation and fertilizer costs. Farmers opt not to plant when production costs outstrip fair-market sale value (unless the crop is subsidized.) Crops that are produced are bid up by areas that don’t produce crops. If there were no world-wide economy, there would be even greater gluts of food in the food-producing nations and greater hunger in those with a food production deficit.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Neil:
Pardon me for quibbling, but I do not believe meat-eating necessarily reduces the human food supply. Some food animals do us the tremendous favor of converting grass (bound into indigestible cellulose) , which is utterly useless for human food, into high-quality food. Maybe sometime people are going to make fuel out of switchgrass (I’m a bit skeptical myself because switchgrass is touchier than a lot of people think, and I wonder if cellulosic methanol is economical) but switchgrass can be made into food NOW, by feeding it to ungulates like cattle and sheep.
Certainly transportation is an issue with hay. So it is with grain. It is no accident that feedlots and production facilities are located near the grain supply and also the grass supply. It’s cheaper, relative to value, to ship cattle than grain; certainly more cheaper than transporting hay. It’s cheaper still to transport meat that has been processed. High value cargo.
In my opinion (and increasingly in the opinion of feedlots as well) far more grain is fed to ungulates (cattle and sheep) that is necessary or even desirable. What ungulates do best is convert grass to meat. People do like that “finished” marbling, but you don’t have to feed grain for months and months to do it.
Everytime something changes, it takes awhile for adaptations to be made. With cattle, certain breeds enjoy popularity, then lose it, then sometimes gain it again. While grain was extremely cheap, large continental cattle were popular. Lots of pounds per set of hooves, and continentals grow very fast on grain. The classic British breeds (Hereford, real Angus, Shorthorn) are more efficient than Continentals in producing meat from grass, even very low quality grass, and take less grain to fatten, if that manner of fattening is desired. (people do like grain marbling, but it’s not the only way to do it) I have never raised longhorns, but I know people who do, and while there are objectionable things about them, one has to admit that they are very good at producing meat from the worst quality forage that can be imagined.
The U.S. (and some other countries as well) have immense stretches of grassland. Some could be converted to grain crops, but many cannot. The ONLY thing some areas can grow well is grass, and the ONLY things that can turn it into high-protein, high vollume, tasty food at low cost and with minimal energy use, are ungulates.
In some places, feeding hay in significant quantities cannot be avoided. In some places, very little is necessary, particularly if one uses the right methods. In some areas, like my own, one only needs to feed hay when the snow is more than one foot deep, refrozen, or if the grass is heavily glazed with ice; all quite rare. But even here, adaptations have to be made to do that. I agree with Vern that the cost of hay has gone up because of transportation costs. to that I would add the fuel cost of producing the hay to begin with. But I also maintain that a moderate amount of surplus is produced, and a lot more is fed than is really necessary.
Such things are a matter of making the right adaptations in light of changed circumstances. And people do make such adaptations. Oftentimes, solutions do not require radical measures. Sometimes solutions are not adopted because other ways are easier at some point in time. When grain and transportation were cheaper, people did not concern themselves too much with alternatives.
Pardon me for quibbling, but I do not believe meat-eating necessarily reduces the human food supply. Some food animals do us the tremendous favor of converting grass (bound into indigestible cellulose) , which is utterly useless for human food, into high-quality food. Maybe sometime people are going to make fuel out of switchgrass (I’m a bit skeptical myself because switchgrass is touchier than a lot of people think, and I wonder if cellulosic methanol is economical) but switchgrass can be made into food NOW, by feeding it to ungulates like cattle and sheep.
Certainly transportation is an issue with hay. So it is with grain. It is no accident that feedlots and production facilities are located near the grain supply and also the grass supply. It’s cheaper, relative to value, to ship cattle than grain; certainly more cheaper than transporting hay. It’s cheaper still to transport meat that has been processed. High value cargo.
In my opinion (and increasingly in the opinion of feedlots as well) far more grain is fed to ungulates (cattle and sheep) that is necessary or even desirable. What ungulates do best is convert grass to meat. People do like that “finished” marbling, but you don’t have to feed grain for months and months to do it.
Everytime something changes, it takes awhile for adaptations to be made. With cattle, certain breeds enjoy popularity, then lose it, then sometimes gain it again. While grain was extremely cheap, large continental cattle were popular. Lots of pounds per set of hooves, and continentals grow very fast on grain. The classic British breeds (Hereford, real Angus, Shorthorn) are more efficient than Continentals in producing meat from grass, even very low quality grass, and take less grain to fatten, if that manner of fattening is desired. (people do like grain marbling, but it’s not the only way to do it) I have never raised longhorns, but I know people who do, and while there are objectionable things about them, one has to admit that they are very good at producing meat from the worst quality forage that can be imagined.
The U.S. (and some other countries as well) have immense stretches of grassland. Some could be converted to grain crops, but many cannot. The ONLY thing some areas can grow well is grass, and the ONLY things that can turn it into high-protein, high vollume, tasty food at low cost and with minimal energy use, are ungulates.
In some places, feeding hay in significant quantities cannot be avoided. In some places, very little is necessary, particularly if one uses the right methods. In some areas, like my own, one only needs to feed hay when the snow is more than one foot deep, refrozen, or if the grass is heavily glazed with ice; all quite rare. But even here, adaptations have to be made to do that. I agree with Vern that the cost of hay has gone up because of transportation costs. to that I would add the fuel cost of producing the hay to begin with. But I also maintain that a moderate amount of surplus is produced, and a lot more is fed than is really necessary.
Such things are a matter of making the right adaptations in light of changed circumstances. And people do make such adaptations. Oftentimes, solutions do not require radical measures. Sometimes solutions are not adopted because other ways are easier at some point in time. When grain and transportation were cheaper, people did not concern themselves too much with alternatives.
D
Doug50
Guest
Neil, you can’t just divorce market economics from food supplies. I focus more on what oil supplies are doing long term and far less on the price of oil today since so many things goes into making up the price. There’s no shortages of oil…yet. But supplies have been tighter in recent years reletive to demand growth.( It could be argued there is no shortage because with prices per barrel this high poor countries are opting out of the oil market at these prices.)
Look at food this way within a free market system. If the price of food is inflating at an annual rate greater then the savings or CD rates then it makes finacial sense to pull the money out of savings and invest it in food for the pantry. What would happen if a lot of people invested this way? Somebody will go hungry. But fincancially it makes a lot of sense.
online.wsj.com/article/SB120881517227532621.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"Stocking up on food may not replace your long-term investments, but it may make a sensible home for some of your shorter-term cash. Do the math. If you keep your standby cash in a money-market fund you’ll be lucky to get a 2.5% interest rate. Even the best one-year certificate of deposit you can find is only going to pay you about 4.1%, according to Bankrate.com. And those yields are before tax.
Meanwhile the most recent government data shows food inflation for the average American household is now running at 4.5% a year.
And some prices are rising even more quickly. The latest data show cereal prices rising by more than 8% a year. Both flour and rice are up more than 13%. Milk, cheese, bananas and even peanut butter: They’re all up by more than 10%. Eggs have rocketed up 30% in a year. Ground beef prices are up 4.8% and chicken by 5.4%."
Look at food this way within a free market system. If the price of food is inflating at an annual rate greater then the savings or CD rates then it makes finacial sense to pull the money out of savings and invest it in food for the pantry. What would happen if a lot of people invested this way? Somebody will go hungry. But fincancially it makes a lot of sense.
online.wsj.com/article/SB120881517227532621.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"Stocking up on food may not replace your long-term investments, but it may make a sensible home for some of your shorter-term cash. Do the math. If you keep your standby cash in a money-market fund you’ll be lucky to get a 2.5% interest rate. Even the best one-year certificate of deposit you can find is only going to pay you about 4.1%, according to Bankrate.com. And those yields are before tax.
Meanwhile the most recent government data shows food inflation for the average American household is now running at 4.5% a year.
And some prices are rising even more quickly. The latest data show cereal prices rising by more than 8% a year. Both flour and rice are up more than 13%. Milk, cheese, bananas and even peanut butter: They’re all up by more than 10%. Eggs have rocketed up 30% in a year. Ground beef prices are up 4.8% and chicken by 5.4%."
R
ribozyme
Guest
drpmjhess, do you think peak oil awareness is a good thing?
I found these two links and in some circles, peak oil is not about peak oil - it is about obsessing with the die off.
peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/77-doomer-type-2-full-throttle.html
peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/75-doomer-type-1-social-darwinist.html
Some people who are interested in peak oil WANT the die off to happen. They do not care about conservation.
I found these two links and in some circles, peak oil is not about peak oil - it is about obsessing with the die off.
peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/77-doomer-type-2-full-throttle.html
peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/75-doomer-type-1-social-darwinist.html
Some people who are interested in peak oil WANT the die off to happen. They do not care about conservation.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I do not doubt for a minute that some people delight in the idea that some catastrophe is about to overtake humanity. That has probably always been true.
But it is also likely the world is looking at population reduction in the not too distant future anyway, for reasons unrelated to food or oil.
But it is also likely the world is looking at population reduction in the not too distant future anyway, for reasons unrelated to food or oil.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
We’ll have to see if you’re correct that we were using grain to feed cows and chickens only because there was lots of grain. Maybe now we’ll feed them hay instead. (Can chickens eat hay?)
I hope you’re right, because I like meat.
Can fish on fish farms be fed hay? I think they get fed grain now.
Anyway, some people can’t afford enough food right now. So if you don’t think reducing our consumption will help, at least please consider donating cash to a charity that helps people in poor countries.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
What you’re saying is that hay has so little value that its cost is mainly the cost of moving it to where it’s needed. So it’s not the same as corn or rice which have more value, and the cost of shipping is a smaller percentage of its total cost.
Oil hasn’t gotten THAT expensive. The cost of moving a shipload of rice from around the world is very small compared to what the rice actually costs.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Might want to consider raising beefalo … much more efficient at converting grass to meat than cattle.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Here in Ontario there is corn growing all over , but I’ve been told that its “cow corn” which people wouldn’t want to eat… it’s all for feeding the dairy cows. I guess things are different in different areas.
D
Doug50
Guest
NYT: The Food Chain
A New, Global Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories
nytimes.com/2008/01/19/business/worldbusiness/19palmoil.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world
SFGate: The oil in your oatmeal
A lot of fossil fuel goes into producing, packaging and shipping our breakfast
Chad Heeter
Sunday, March 26, 2006
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Thanks, I liked the following paragraph from that article:
“A growing middle class in the developing world is demanding more protein, from pork and hamburgers to chicken and ice cream. And all this is happening even as global climate change may be starting to make it harder to grow food in some of the places best equipped to do so, like Australia. In the last few years, world demand for crops and meat has been rising sharply.”
and
“American farmers have been planting more corn and less soy because demand for corn-based ethanol has pushed up corn prices. American soybean acreage plunged 19 percent last year, producing a drop in soybean oil output and inventories.”
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I did not include chickens in my statement at all. I was speaking of ungulates only, and thought I made that clear. I did not advocate feeding hay to chickens and actually spoke in favor of using methods that reduced its consumption even by ungulates.
Poultry are a bit outside my area of knowledge, and I do know they consume a great deal of grain. However, I am also aware that much of what they eat in “factory farms” is actually the recycled “offal” products from poultry processing, including feathers (you are what you eat) and offal from other meat processing. I cannot say whether, all things considered, that is an efficient use of “human consumable” grain or not. My suspicion is that it is.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Al:
I have eaten beefalo, and liked it. I don’t doubt they are efficient cellulose eaters. However, I do know that buffalo won’t “head”. I don’t know whether beefalo are that way or not, but I would be suspicious of it. That trait is also shared by Brahmans and cattle that are crossed with them (e.g. Santa Gertrudis, the King Ranch’s preferences notwithstanding.) As a consequence, Brahman-descended cattle are avoided by many ranchers, notwithstanding their heat tolerance (they sweat through their skins, like people) and resistance to many pests.
“Heading” is the trait which causes cattle to turn away from a driver (whether dog, man, vehicle or rider) that approaches from behind and at an angle of about 45 degrees or higher. (They can see you back there without looking directly at you.) Normally, you can, with experience, determine the angle of their turn by the angle of your approach; invaluable in getting them where you want them. Animals that won’t “head” are extremely difficult to handle and tend to be dangerous.
Buffalo are also far less predictable in their conduct than are cattle. All cattle can be deadly dangerous, so predictability and recognizability of oncoming aggressive behavior is very important as a trait. It takes a very long time to breed docility into a herd, even with highlly domesticated varieties. Introduction of an unknown element (as with beefalo) is always hazardous.
But I suspect you are correct in believing beefalo are efficient. In the right environment, I don’t doubt they can be very useful.
I have eaten beefalo, and liked it. I don’t doubt they are efficient cellulose eaters. However, I do know that buffalo won’t “head”. I don’t know whether beefalo are that way or not, but I would be suspicious of it. That trait is also shared by Brahmans and cattle that are crossed with them (e.g. Santa Gertrudis, the King Ranch’s preferences notwithstanding.) As a consequence, Brahman-descended cattle are avoided by many ranchers, notwithstanding their heat tolerance (they sweat through their skins, like people) and resistance to many pests.
“Heading” is the trait which causes cattle to turn away from a driver (whether dog, man, vehicle or rider) that approaches from behind and at an angle of about 45 degrees or higher. (They can see you back there without looking directly at you.) Normally, you can, with experience, determine the angle of their turn by the angle of your approach; invaluable in getting them where you want them. Animals that won’t “head” are extremely difficult to handle and tend to be dangerous.
Buffalo are also far less predictable in their conduct than are cattle. All cattle can be deadly dangerous, so predictability and recognizability of oncoming aggressive behavior is very important as a trait. It takes a very long time to breed docility into a herd, even with highlly domesticated varieties. Introduction of an unknown element (as with beefalo) is always hazardous.
But I suspect you are correct in believing beefalo are efficient. In the right environment, I don’t doubt they can be very useful.
- Status