16 ms·

Mostly good comments in here. My take is we have at least 1-2 years of global supply of most grains. This is a completely political problem; its not like we're

Mostly good comments in here. My take is we have at least 1-2 years of global supply of most grains. This is a completely political problem; its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). Food waste is a problem, yes. Animal protein is not a problem. There is plenty of land in the US only suitable for grazing. Much better than that synthetic soup of Impossible Meat. Food system has largely run on the JIT systems for decades that crunched the chip industry. We haven't had a serious shock I'd argue and I don't think this is one either. People recognize the JIT-ness and fragility of the system though and are (slowly) trying to backstop it. Will take a combination of distributed controlled environments for high value fruits and vegetables, _proper_ land use (high value crop land for crops; high value grazing land for grazing). This, currently, is dictated by the incentive structures in place with subsidies--which can be changed in theory.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pasabagi 4y ago
> its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). I got a shiver down my spine just reading that sentence. Please do not tempt fate. We just had the hottest year on record. I expect we'll break that record in the next few years again. Drought is depressingly likely.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Didn't China predict they'll have their lowest crops yields in modern history ? I can't find the article I remember reading but here is one: https://www.reuters.com/business/china-ensure-agricultural-product-supplies-including-grains-2022-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/china-ensure-agricultural-p... and another: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-23/climate-change-threatens-china-s-crop-yield-food-security https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-23/climate-c... Looks like everything is aligning for a pretty bad 2022 and 2023
- kickout 4y ago
  Will likely happen in our lifetime. I'm positive of it. not a damn thing we can do either. If it doesn't rain, no 'genome edited drought resistance' will matter. Crops need water period (be nice if they needed _less_ water though)
  - radford-neal 4y ago
    "be nice if they needed _less_ water though" Fortunately, they do. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels mean that plants can obtain the CO2 they need more easily, with the stomata in their leaves not having to open as much. Consequently, they loose less water through the stomata, and are more drought resistant. Of course, this only helps to a certain extent. A bad enough drought will still be very bad. And a very bad drought is bound to happen sooner or later, just from natural variability. So a robust food supply system, incorporating both a degree of local self-sufficiency in inputs, and global trade (for when crops fail in one location) is essential.
- zardo 4y ago
  The only thing worse than a drought year, is another 'Great Flood' year. When an atmospheric river turns the central valley into a lake.
PheonixPharts 4y ago
> its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). That's very likely in the current climate change scenario. Look at what's happening in the American South West right now. Lake Mead is currently at unprecedented low levels with no evidence that this will change course any time soon. It's possible within a decade there won't be enough water to run the Hoover dam. That's something no one would have taken as a serious risk 10 years ago.
- kickout 4y ago
  Correct, those long tail problems aren't so long when variance is high and time scales are long (50-60 years)
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Lake Mead is so low because the Colorado River Water Compact allocates more water than has historically been in the river, based on tree ring data. There have been a number of years of historically average flow in a row, and keeping the reservoirs full requires roughly a decade of above average flow. * Edit * For clarity the compact divides up 17 million acre/ft per year and the real average historic flow is closer to 13 million acre/ft per year. The compact also double dips in it's accounting for some return flows.
- EricE 4y ago
  It' going to be within the next year or two, not a decade.... As I currently sit less than 5 miles from Hoover Dam.
gruez 4y ago
>Animal protein is not a problem. There is plenty of land in the US only suitable for grazing Only in the sense that you can theoretically produce meat that way, but in reality most meat is produced on CAFOs that use grain.
- kickout 4y ago
  they do this because its most efficient/profitable, not because of a technical limitation. Those economic incentivizes could be changed rapidly given the proper political capital.
  - gruez 4y ago
    I don't think we're disagreeing here. I already admitted in my previous comment that it was theoretically possible. My point was that even though it's possible for animal protein to be "not a problem", that's not the case today.
  - legulere 4y ago
    It‘s done because grasslands cannot support meat consumption of the world.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      But they can supply the meat consumption of the areas with grasslands.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    They do it because it dramatically increases yield. Feeding cows grain in a CAFO setting allows them to rapidly put on weight and turnover their herds faster. Not doing so would result in dramatically lower yields per acre of grassland.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
vegetablepotpie 4y ago
> Animal protein is not a problem. There is plenty of land in the US only suitable for grazing. This statement is wrong. Livestock grazes early in its lifetime, but is moved to feed lots and feed corn and soy to prepare for slaughter. The US spends a quarter of its corn crop on feeding animals, whereas less than 10% is directly feed to people. Animal protein is a significant opportunity cost to US agriculture.
- kickout 4y ago
  Nope. Go after ethanol if you want wasted corn. We like/need meat, and there is plenty of corn production or grazing land to accommodate that production. Something like 30-50M buffalo lived and grazed in North America before they were all killed. The ecosystem can most certainly sustain 30-50M cattle grazing. They wouldn't be as _profitable_ as corn-finished cattle, but they produce meat.
  - thebooktocome 4y ago
    The ecosystem that supported buffalo herds three centuries ago no longer exists.
  - mauflows 4y ago
    We don't need meat. And there are many price and institutional barriers to completely grass fed cattle. The primary being that slaughter is centralized to FSIS inspected facilities where most non-poultry spend their final weeks packed in eating soy and corn.
    - qiskit 4y ago
      > We don't need meat. We do if we want human beings at their optimal physical and mental capacity. It isn't much of a secret that increased consumption of meat led to human beings reaching their optimal physical and mental potential. Now, excess meat consumption is a problem, but you aren't going to have optimal human beings without some meat. Japan used to be a vegetarian society for more than a millenia. Their poor diet so terribly stunted the japanese people, physically and intellectually, that the japanese elites ended vegetarianism in favor of meat in the late 1800s.
downrightmike 4y ago
Even Toyota who developed the JIT system realized that you can't JIT everything.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pasabagi 4y ago

> its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). I got a shiver down my spine just reading that sentence. Please do not tempt fate. We just had the hottest year on record. I expect we'll break that record in the next few years again. Drought is depressingly likely.

lm28469 4y ago
Didn't China predict they'll have their lowest crops yields in modern history ? I can't find the article I remember reading but here is one: https://www.reuters.com/business/china-ensure-agricultural-product-supplies-including-grains-2022-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/china-ensure-agricultural-p... and another: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-23/climate-change-threatens-china-s-crop-yield-food-security https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-23/climate-c... Looks like everything is aligning for a pretty bad 2022 and 2023
kickout 4y ago
Will likely happen in our lifetime. I'm positive of it. not a damn thing we can do either. If it doesn't rain, no 'genome edited drought resistance' will matter. Crops need water period (be nice if they needed _less_ water though)
- radford-neal 4y ago
  "be nice if they needed _less_ water though" Fortunately, they do. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels mean that plants can obtain the CO2 they need more easily, with the stomata in their leaves not having to open as much. Consequently, they loose less water through the stomata, and are more drought resistant. Of course, this only helps to a certain extent. A bad enough drought will still be very bad. And a very bad drought is bound to happen sooner or later, just from natural variability. So a robust food supply system, incorporating both a degree of local self-sufficiency in inputs, and global trade (for when crops fail in one location) is essential.
zardo 4y ago
The only thing worse than a drought year, is another 'Great Flood' year. When an atmospheric river turns the central valley into a lake.

PheonixPharts 4y ago

> its not like we're getting 2012 US Midwest levels of drought in back-to-back years (now THAT would be a crunch). That's very likely in the current climate change scenario. Look at what's happening in the American South West right now. Lake Mead is currently at unprecedented low levels with no evidence that this will change course any time soon. It's possible within a decade there won't be enough water to run the Hoover dam. That's something no one would have taken as a serious risk 10 years ago.

kickout 4y ago
Correct, those long tail problems aren't so long when variance is high and time scales are long (50-60 years)
ch4s3 4y ago
Lake Mead is so low because the Colorado River Water Compact allocates more water than has historically been in the river, based on tree ring data. There have been a number of years of historically average flow in a row, and keeping the reservoirs full requires roughly a decade of above average flow. * Edit * For clarity the compact divides up 17 million acre/ft per year and the real average historic flow is closer to 13 million acre/ft per year. The compact also double dips in it's accounting for some return flows.
EricE 4y ago
It' going to be within the next year or two, not a decade.... As I currently sit less than 5 miles from Hoover Dam.

gruez 4y ago

>Animal protein is not a problem. There is plenty of land in the US only suitable for grazing Only in the sense that you can theoretically produce meat that way, but in reality most meat is produced on CAFOs that use grain.

kickout 4y ago
they do this because its most efficient/profitable, not because of a technical limitation. Those economic incentivizes could be changed rapidly given the proper political capital.
- gruez 4y ago
  I don't think we're disagreeing here. I already admitted in my previous comment that it was theoretically possible. My point was that even though it's possible for animal protein to be "not a problem", that's not the case today.
- legulere 4y ago
  It‘s done because grasslands cannot support meat consumption of the world.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    But they can supply the meat consumption of the areas with grasslands.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  They do it because it dramatically increases yield. Feeding cows grain in a CAFO setting allows them to rapidly put on weight and turnover their herds faster. Not doing so would result in dramatically lower yields per acre of grassland.
Gordonjcp 4y ago

vegetablepotpie 4y ago

> Animal protein is not a problem. There is plenty of land in the US only suitable for grazing. This statement is wrong. Livestock grazes early in its lifetime, but is moved to feed lots and feed corn and soy to prepare for slaughter. The US spends a quarter of its corn crop on feeding animals, whereas less than 10% is directly feed to people. Animal protein is a significant opportunity cost to US agriculture.

kickout 4y ago
Nope. Go after ethanol if you want wasted corn. We like/need meat, and there is plenty of corn production or grazing land to accommodate that production. Something like 30-50M buffalo lived and grazed in North America before they were all killed. The ecosystem can most certainly sustain 30-50M cattle grazing. They wouldn't be as _profitable_ as corn-finished cattle, but they produce meat.
- thebooktocome 4y ago
  The ecosystem that supported buffalo herds three centuries ago no longer exists.
- mauflows 4y ago
  We don't need meat. And there are many price and institutional barriers to completely grass fed cattle. The primary being that slaughter is centralized to FSIS inspected facilities where most non-poultry spend their final weeks packed in eating soy and corn.
  - qiskit 4y ago
    > We don't need meat. We do if we want human beings at their optimal physical and mental capacity. It isn't much of a secret that increased consumption of meat led to human beings reaching their optimal physical and mental potential. Now, excess meat consumption is a problem, but you aren't going to have optimal human beings without some meat. Japan used to be a vegetarian society for more than a millenia. Their poor diet so terribly stunted the japanese people, physically and intellectually, that the japanese elites ended vegetarianism in favor of meat in the late 1800s.

downrightmike 4y ago

Even Toyota who developed the JIT system realized that you can't JIT everything.