The age of plenty?

[Quarky]

Food is not a subject I know a great deal about, still less agriculture, but I was tempted with this dire winter, where I gather wheat harvests may be down by one third, to start a vegetable patch and grow my own potatoes. That is until I discovered the amount of care and attention required for the plants.

I was fascinated therefore to read this special report on agriculture, where I gather astounding advances have been made over the past few years, which would allow a world population of up to 10 billion to be fed!
"Special Report: The Age of Plenty
There’s a surging current of alarm that we’re headed for a food doomsday by 2050—that the world’s food-producing capacity will crash before population peaks at 10 billion. Don’t you believe it! Smart technology and better management policies will let us feed the hungry hordes to midcentury and beyond."

http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/the-age-of-plenty

[umslopogaas]

Oddball, spuds shouldnt be that demanding to grow. It is not economic to grow maincrop, they are cheaper to buy because commercial growers benefit from economics of scale. However its worth while growing unusual ones that cant be bought easily. This year I have 'Pink Fir Apple', as usual, and a new one the local nurseryman persuaded me to try called 'Anya'. They are delicious, and not difficult. A bit of weeding in the early stages, a couple of sprays of copper to control blight, and plenty of watering in dry weather. I dont bother about earthing them up.

Global food security is a very complicated subject and I should know, I used to work in tropical crop protection. The problem is not so much growing enough basic food, but the ever increasing demand for meat, which is expensive to produce and consumes ever more resources. I'm no vegetarian and intend to go on enjoying steaks, but if we all renounced meat there'd be a lot more food to go round, because we wouldnt be feeding so much of it to the cows and pigs. The problems with food shortages are not that there literally isnt enough food, but local politics, poverty, conflict and distribution problems mean that sometimes the food cant get to the people who need it.

To be cynical, the rich (that's us) will never be short of food, but in the future we may have to pay more for it. For the poor, who are struggling to afford food now, the future doesnt look so rosy. However, technology has continually raised output year after year and we can expect it to go on doing so. Genetic modification is one string to the bow, and it is only Europe that continues to resist: the rest of the world has adopted it with some enthusiasm. For an upbeat assessment of world GM trends, type ISAAA into Google.

[vinteuil]

... many thanks, umslopogaaaas, for your informed comments here.

Like you, I intend to go on eating meat from time to time, but I suspect an increasingly veggie diet is the way forward for the greater good of the world at large. As you say, "we" , viz 'the rich' will be OK : the challenge is to find solutions for the others. And, as you indicate, it's not just a question of agronomy - it's often more a question of "local politics, poverty, conflict and distribution problems". And indeed not only "local" politics, but also the larger issues of inequitable global trading arrangements....

[Thropplenoggin]

Oddball, spuds shouldnt be that demanding to grow. It is not economic to grow maincrop, they are cheaper to buy because commercial growers benefit from economics of scale. However its worth while growing unusual ones that cant be bought easily. This year I have 'Pink Fir Apple', as usual, and a new one the local nurseryman persuaded me to try called 'Anya'. They are delicious, and not difficult. A bit of weeding in the early stages, a couple of sprays of copper to control blight, and plenty of watering in dry weather. I dont bother about earthing them up.

Global food security is a very complicated subject and I should know, I used to work in tropical crop protection. The problem is not so much growing enough basic food, but the ever increasing demand for meat, which is expensive to produce and consumes ever more resources. I'm no vegetarian and intend to go on enjoying steaks, but if we all renounced meat there'd be a lot more food to go round, because we wouldnt be feeding so much of it to the cows and pigs. The problems with food shortages are not that there literally isnt enough food, but local politics, poverty, conflict and distribution problems mean that sometimes the food cant get to the people who need it.

To be cynical, the rich (that's us) will never be short of food, but in the future we may have to pay more for it. For the poor, who are struggling to afford food now, the future doesnt look so rosy. However, technology has continually raised output year after year and we can expect it to go on doing so. Genetic modification is one string to the bow, and it is only Europe that continues to resist: the rest of the world has adopted it with some enthusiasm. For an upbeat assessment of world GM trends, type ISAAA into Google.

How do you feel about Monsanto patenting genes and how this affects small farmers?

...an Associated Press investigation into how Monsanto basically cornered the market in seeds by using gene patents and coercive licensing agreements that basically make it impossible to grow certain products without having to first reach a restrictive agreement with Monsanto. And they did this all in about a dozen years. Gene patents are already troubling enough, and reading this report on how Monsanto used its gene patents to basically wipe out all competition is quite telling in exactly how patents can be used to significantly harm a market. Of course, beyond the ridiculousness of gene patents, this situation has been made worse by the recent Supreme Court decision that said that Monsanto could put an end user license agreement on seeds, such that even if you collected seeds from your own harvest to replant them, you could be found guilty of infringing on Monsanto's patents. The investigation here details how Monsanto basically has completely cornered the market, even limiting publicly funded research into certain seeds. And, of course, now the company is raising prices on various seeds when many farmers have little in the way of other options.

[source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...6327337.shtml]

[Boilk]

...I gather wheat harvests may be down by one third...

No bad thing in developed countries, as refined (and whole) wheat is a major culprit in the Obesity Crisis because it breaks down to sugar - and most people don't exercise enough to burn those surplus calories. Also, the jury is out on whether we even need wheat ... agriculture is a very late arrival in mankind's history, so little surprise that wheat/gluten is the most widespread food intolerance in nearly every population studied.

...Don’t you believe it! Smart technology and better management policies will let us feed the hungry hordes to midcentury and beyond."

I don't believe it. I notice your link, Oddball, talks of "new genetic tricks" with GM foods. I don't think there is anything particularly "smart" about using humans as GM guinea pigs when we still don't know what the long-term biological and neurological effects of consumption are. We will find out much more by the 2020s, by which time a whole generation of Americans will have been wheened on 'Frankenfoods'. In America, Big Agri's lobbying to government and back-handers to the right movers and shakers resulted successfully in GM methods of growth not having to be mentioned on food labelling - so Americans are mostly in the dark.

[umslopogaas]

Thropplenoggin, re. patenting of genes by commercial companies, I'm uneasy about it. Monsanto is a commercial operation, they dont get involved in this work out of altruism. I certainly do not think anyone should be allowed to patent the wild genes that occur naturally, but it gets a bit murkier in the case of modified genes, which only exist because of commercial input. Monsanto should be allowed a fair return on their investment, but how you ensure that, I do not know. The patent may be ignored in countries over which Monsanto has little or no influence, but they ought to be able to make money somewhere. My feeling is that their modified crops should be given patent protection, rather than the genes themselves, but I admit I just made that up and I havent thought this stuff through. You have to admire their commercial flair in producing crops that are resistant to their own herbicide, thus ensuring that anyone who buys their seed also buys their herbicide.

Boilk, I cant agree with your last paragraph. How long to you want to wait? GM crops have been tested exhaustively on rats and rabbits over around two decades. We readily accept pharmaceuticals which are tested under similar regimes. I'm also concerned to know what horrors you think might be lurking in GM crops to give us unexpected shocks in years to come. We know what is in them and what has been changed, if there are any unknown horrors in them its news to me. Also note that the New World and much of Asia have been consuming genetically modified maize, soybean and rice for many years and we are not hearing of unfavourable side effects. OK, Monsanto et al. might well seek to suppress or play down such effects, but you can bet Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth wouldnt. It is impossible to state categorically that there will not be "long-term biological and neurological effects", but an awful lot of people, not just in Monsanto but also in government and environmental agencies, have thought about it, applied their expertise, and decided we should proceed. Some of those people are no friends of Monsanto and would have loved to find a reason to raise the alarm.

It is of course quite right to be suspicious of commercial hype, especially when it comes from the manufacturers themselves, but the positive views on GM come from a much wider spectrum. Also, remember that it is in Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth's own interest to keep up a high level of alarm, because it keeps the money flowing into their collecting tins. Can you imagine those organisations stating, however powerful the evidence, that its all OK and we can go home and forget about our concerns? I cant.

[Serial_Apologist]

Is not one of the main concerns of conservationists the danger of cross fertilisation between GM-modified and unmodified plant species and the unpredictable irreversible knock-on consequences of control in the environment? It is mine!

[umslopogaas]

S-A, I believe this is a concern and there may be, or one day be, cases where it is justified. However, at the moment, I think the concern is overblown. If a GM crop plant modified for resistance to herbicide crosses with a wild relative or an unmodified crop, the engineered genes will end up where they were not intended to be. However, in a wild relative, there will be no selective advantage because no-one sprays herbicide in the wild environment (by and large - I guess a bit may be used on road verges). That being so, the plant with the accidentally acquired genes will most likely be at a disadvantage, because it has acquired a new genotype that hasnt adapted to its environment. I think it is most likely to rapidly die out. And if the gene arrives in an unmodified crop plant, there too it will have no advantage because the herbicide wont be used on that crop. Again, not being evolutionarily "bedded in", so to speak, it will probably be at a disadvantage and die out. Also, most farmers do not save seed from their own crops in developed country agriculture, though admittedly they do in subsistence systems ... but they dont use herbicides, by and large, they are too expensive.

The other main modification is maize modified to express the gene for the toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt is a soil bacterium which produces a toxin specific to Lepidoptera (there are other strains specific to Diptera and Coleoptera). It is specific, very environmentally safe and production is big business. The Bt toxin gene has been engineered into maize, so that the crop is toxic to caterpillar pests. The problem here is not that the genes will "leak" into the wider environment: correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont think maize can outcross with native plants, except for wild maize in the New World. However, there is a problem with enhanced resistance. Caterpillars can become resistant to the toxin, as they can to all pesticides. Normally, one would only apply the pesticide when the problem was judged to be serious enough, so light infestations wouldnt be sprayed. Now, if the toxin is in every plant, every caterpillar will be exposed whether it is a potential pest or not. This greatly enhances the risk of resistance developing.

[Quarky]

Oddball, spuds shouldnt be that demanding to grow. It is not economic to grow maincrop, they are cheaper to buy because commercial growers benefit from economics of scale. However its worth while growing unusual ones that cant be bought easily. This year I have 'Pink Fir Apple', as usual, and a new one the local nurseryman persuaded me to try called 'Anya'. They are delicious, and not difficult. A bit of weeding in the early stages, a couple of sprays of copper to control blight, and plenty of watering in dry weather. I dont bother about earthing them up.
.

Well maybe next year umslpogaas - but I'm not up for much more than a "bit of weeding".

The collection of articles in the link I posted I found interesting - particularly the potted history of agriculture. Like:
The Chinese invented goldfish.
The can opener was invented 50 years after the tin can - unfortunate for the first purchasers of tinned food products.
The two most significant developments in Agriculture and food appear to be the 19th century Pasteurisation process, and the development of nitrogen based fertilisers.

But one of the most significant conclusions seems to be that we should turn to bugs and insects for our supply of protein, and give up on cows, sheep and livestock - which are hugely inefficient. I'm glad I'm largely vegetarian!

[umslopogaas]

Hmm - I appreciate the arguments for eating insects, but you'd have to do a lot of crunching to get your protein. As long as I can afford bits of cow and sheep, I will!

[Beef Oven]

Well maybe next year umslpogaas - but I'm not up for much more than a "bit of weeding".

The collection of articles in the link I posted I found interesting - particularly the potted history of agriculture. Like:
The Chinese invented goldfish.
The can opener was invented 50 years after the tin can - unfortunate for the first purchasers of tinned food products.
The two most significant developments in Agriculture and food appear to be the 19th century Pasteurisation process, and the development of nitrogen based fertilisers.

But one of the most significant conclusions seems to be that we should turn to bugs and insects for our supply of protein, and give up on cows, sheep and livestock - which are hugely inefficient. I'm glad I'm largely vegetarian!

Lobster is a sort of sea-insect, isn't it? Sounds ok to me.

[umslopogaas]

Sort of, sort of, in so far as both have exoskeletons ... you find me an insect as big as a lobster and I'll get the saucepan out!