Food production "must rise 70%"

Can we almost double food production in less than half a century? It seems a stretch to me.

The article below mentions "climate change," but there are other serious obstacles to boosting production to this level. First of all, most land needs fertiliziers to even grow any food, and most fertilizers are petroleum-based. After some years of such treatment, even "high-quality" arable land like that in the US midwest or Ukraine becomes "addictied" to it, the natural soil minerals are leeched out, and you are left with what one farmer described as a "sandy dirt sponge" that must constantly be soaked with petro-fertilizers. How will this extra demand for petroleum impact a global oil market many say has already peaked or is dangerously stretched?

Then there is the issue of irrigation and water rights...already contentious. Lots of people are squabbling over the rights to rivers and other freshwater sources that are dwindling. A doubling of production might lead to real "water wars."

Finally there is the fact that as nations develop (China, India, etc.) their people tend to eat better. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but if you want to feed beef or pork every day to another few billion people, its going to take a lot more grain than current levels because cows and pigs eat it themselves, you know, and growing livestock means a need for more plant growth than would be necessary to feed humans directly with grains, etc.

In the 20th century, the so-called "Green Revolutuion" helped lift billions out of poverty to a better life. But like all things, it took with one hand even as it gave. It boosted petroleum use, increased populations in areas that are not able to sustain them over the long term, and increased freshwater use (to the point that many of the world's great rivers no longer reach the sea). Will we have another "green revolution" through genetically modified crops, etc? And what kinds of problems would that bring?

Nasty business, if you ask me.



More at source
news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 10/13/09 by silent thunder]

I would strongly argue that it's not the quantity of food that's the issue but the distribution.

Think of the obscene amounts of food we throw out every day in the western world. Some of it goes bad in stores or at home and some of it just rots away in huge warehouses for various reasons.

But if we had to increase food production by 70% we could. There are many promising new technologies like hydroponics that could give large yields using fairly little space.

In my opinion this is just more overpopulation nonsense.

The amount we throw away like the poster above mentioned is absolutely atrocious! supermarkets alone throw away perfectly edible food in huge volumes.Btw already a couple of threads on this silent thunder. www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a timely post, I was out in the country today, and the farmers still have most of the harvesting yet to do, I am a little worried and the seed potato crop is threatened.

Growing more food, sure we can and we must. World population growth is 3% per year, do the math! Our only long term problem is minerial. We live on a pretty much water planet so no problem there, and indoor growing sorts out any space issue. Here is a plan that puts it together and even plants our deserts.
www.youtube.com...

Hello! Everyone can start a composting pile of left over fruits, vegtables, fish, egg shells, grass clippings, leaves, pulled weeds, wilted cut flowers, cow manure, horse manure, chicken droppings, etc. When Williamsburg was first founded in the United States, Virginia was solid woods, so people planted food in their front yards and in the streets even to try and grow enough to eat. Orginally Virginia was supposed to be a winey for England, but the soil is not so good, they grew tobacco instead .You can even grow tomatoe plants in the cracks of concrete. People can be more self reliant and creative, save your seeds from the foods you eat now, so you won't
totally starve to death.