Every once in a while, you come across one of those articles that must have the Malthusians tearing their hair out and foaming at the mouth. This is one of them: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/17/environment-crops-idUSL5E8NHE…
A group of experts from the Program for the Human Environment in New York is convinced that we have reached the point of “Peak Farmland,” in which humanity doesn’t need any more additional land to grow crops due to rising yields and slowing population growth. They go so far as to say that an area twice the size of France that is currently being farmed can be returned to “natural state” (like forest) by 2060.
The United Nations disagrees, claiming that we’ll need even more productive farmland than at present to feed everybody. Some would argue (Jim Rogers comes to mind) that UN research represents a conflict of interest, since coming to the conclusion that the world’s farms are in a perpetual state of crisis enables the UN to hand out projects to its NGO cronies and keep its fat bureaucrats employed.
Admittedly, like when you model or establish a valuation for a company at work, some of assumptions involved can be on the generous side. Those include slowing population growth, continually rising crop yields around the world to the level of the US and Europe, and (this is the UN’s biggest issue) not taking climate change into account.
"Happily, the cause is not exhaustion of arable land, as many had feared, but rather moderation of population and tastes and ingenuity of farmers," Jesse Ausubel, the director, wrote.
Among the interesting finds was that arable land has increased from 1961 to 2009 (from 3.38 billion acres to 3.41 billion acres). In India and China, for instance, the report found that had crop yields stopped rising in 1961, each nation would have needed an additional 65 million and 120 million hectares--just for wheat!
And although the UN points to soil degradation and changes in diet as reasons to believe more farmland will be needed, both of those factors are extremely hard to project. Although it is true that meat consumption has risen in developing nations, the growth was more moderate than previously expected (the original assumption was that everybody was going to consume as much meat as the average American, the most in the world). Does that make sense?
Who’s right? How would you go about crafting a model for use of farmland over the next 50 years?
Now THAT would be an interview question for you.
How does this impact all of the starving people in 3rd world countries?
Is it currently a problem of misallocation or do we really still need more farmland?
40% of waste is post harvest 40% of waste is at the retail level 15% is by the actual consumer 5% other (corruption, theft, etc...)
Bottom line, 25% of the world's food is lost between farm and store, or rotting in the store.
I guess you could clear more farmland, but with a 66% efficiency....I'm thinking there's a lot of room for improvement. Probably a fortune in it too, for those inclined to make a buck on food conservation. Think about the global food market, and now imagine yourself getting in on the action of 1/3 of it. And as bad as it seems, it was WAAYYYYY worse in past eras when things like refrigerators etc... didn't exist, so this actually is a good number, historically speaking.
But there's plenty of room for improvement. The amount of waste is staggering, but it's a function of economics. Cue socialists....
Do you happen to have sources for this? Not that I don't believe you, I just find it very interesting.
Bring on Marty Kaan
Read the China Study
These guys are flat out wrong.
The middle class from the developed world hasn't fully arrived so we have not seen the total pressure on food that they are going to exert. Also they says that the developed world's pressure on meat wasn't as high as expected - that's just lazy thinking. That may be true if you look at the developed world at this point in time only. However, if you factor in that these people are increasing in their numbers and that when people get richer they naturally demand natural goods, then its a given that as they get richer they are going to put more pressure on food. We just haven't seen it yet.
If this guy was right then we wouldn't be seeing the current rush to secure the remaining uncultivated arable land in the world - in Africa.
Have we reached Peak "Have We Reached Peak stuff" stories?
HAHA
UFO, I always thought it was more of a distribution problem due to poor infrastructure, lack of development/preservation, etc. There's definitely enough food being produced for everybody, but the distribution is uneven.
Pariatur quis ut ut voluptas voluptas vel iure voluptates. Quasi voluptates ratione vel asperiores sed omnis ut. Sint qui eum sed voluptate suscipit molestias molestias.
Perferendis illum est laborum unde quos quo quia. Aut omnis nihil velit.
Qui autem qui repellendus inventore. Doloribus quasi ut necessitatibus sed. Explicabo omnis ad ex.
Nostrum dolores porro sed neque omnis. Nobis cum ea officiis est exercitationem et. Autem explicabo rerum et nam nihil ut. Et enim corporis et omnis dolor sint libero quo. Voluptatem quod totam ex. Fuga optio sint dolores nulla laudantium sit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...