5 ms·

I wonder how much bad the drought would have been had we done something like cut back on livestock farming. If all of the water that goes towards growing livest

by pyre 14y ago

I wonder how much bad the drought would have been had we done something like cut back on livestock farming. If all of the water that goes towards growing livestock feed + keeping the animals watered instead went directly to plants grown for human consumption, would it have still been as bad?

Spooky23 14y ago
In the US, that happened. Low quality beef is cheap right now -- my supermarket is selling Select grade tenderloin for US $5.99/lb, becuase ranchers are dumping livestock on the market. In a few months, that same cut of beef will be 250-400% higher.
bryanlarsen 14y ago
Livestock farming is crucial to keeping grain prices stable. Human demand for calories is relatively constant, for obvious reasons, but only accounts for a small majority of grain demand in normal years. The remainder is consumed by animals and by industrial processes. When grain gets expensive, feeding animals becomes expensive. Raising them becomes unprofitable, so farmers dump their animals onto the market which 1) lowers the price of meat 2) makes a large number of meat calories available for human consumption when they are needed most and 3) reduces the demand for grain, dampening the price rise for grain. This effect has mostly replaced the need for the long-term grain storage that countries used to do. So why isn't working now? One word: ethanol. President Obama could single-handedly stop the current food crisis by eliminating or suspending ethanol subsidies and mandates.
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  Cutting ethanol would just delay the Malthusian crisis.
  - ars 14y ago
    A: Is that a bad thing? B: What Malthusian crisis? He's been thoroughly discredited. C: That's like saying eating will delay death. It will, just keep on delaying it every day.
    - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
      How can Malthus be discredited? He said that the population tends to grow to the limit of the food supply, and then suffer periodic famine as the weather fluctuates. This is an obvious truth. It matters because subsistence living is probably not compatible with a high-tech society.
      - bryanlarsen 14y ago
        No, it's obviously wrong. Population does not grow to the limit of food supply: food supply has increased dramatically in the first world over the last century, yet population growth has flatlined in most first world countries.
        Daniel_Newby 14y ago
        Ah, you are talking about a momentary decrease in the rate during a time of enormous change. In the long run, population grows to the limits of resources. Natural selection always selects for more descendants, and the population always hits the resource limits. The only alternative is for natural selection to cease operating. Incidentally, population growth has not flatlined uniformly in First World countries. There are identifiable subgroups that have very high fecundity, and whose descendants are capable of eating any possible green revolution within a few centuries at the most.
        bryanlarsen 14y ago
        The biggest population growth in history was accompanied by a green revolution that increased food production even faster. So example indicates that you're likely wrong. We're now in an age where energy is cheap, and energy can be converted to food relatively easily. The amount of energy required to feed the entire world is now a small fraction of total world energy production. The fact that we don't do it this way is only because food is even cheaper than energy. And yes, our oil energy supplies are relatively constrained, but our alternative supplies (aka nuclear) are not. So "any possible green revolution" is pretty darn big. If we wanted to, we could feed a trillion people using nuclear power lighting artificial greenhouses.
- lifeguard 14y ago
  Bankers drove up food prices. Do more research. Ethanol is a red herring.
- pyre 14y ago
  > The remainder is consumed by animals and by > industrial processes. Grain raised for livestock use is only for livestock use. It's not like "corn" is all the same thing. The corn that is used for livestock is not the same corn that you buy at the store (on the cob or in a can). It's tasteless, and so far as I know, not desirable for human consumption. You can't treat all of the corn produced as usable for all uses that corn is put towards. Also, if livestock is what regulates the grain market, then why do grain-producers get such large (non-ethanol-related) subsidies?
  - evgen 14y ago
    The varieties of corn produced for each use are different but they are completely fungible. If livestock is culled due to higher feed costs from diminished production this year then farmers will plant more human-edible corn next year (along with more soybeans and other alternative crops) because there is going to be less demand for dent corn to feed the livestock. The system balances itself.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    "The corn that is used for livestock is not the same corn that you buy at the store (on the cob or in a can). It's tasteless, and so far as I know, not desirable for human consumption" No, but it is suitable for turning into meal, which is how corn is consumed in the third world, or into HFCS which is how corn is consumed in the first world. For other grains, it mostly works in the other direction in normal years. For example, a farmer may try to grow wheat suitable for bread, but it rains while the crop is in windrow, making it unsuitable for bread due to its low protein content. It's graded as "feed" and fed to animals in a normal year. However, you can still make bread from it, it just doesn't rise as well. "why do grain-producers get such large (non-ethanol-related) subsidies?" Because farmer's causes are sympathetic to voters for various different reasons. (historical attachment, enjoyment of low food prices, stereotyping of farmers as close to the land, lower populations in rural districts, and many others)
Gustomaximus 14y ago
I know in Australia much of the grazing land will not support growing crops. And it is also worth considering popular crops too that use significant amounts of water like rice and cotton. So while livestock do account for much water use, it's not a simple switch to grains and the world will be rainbows.
- pyre 14y ago
  > I know in Australia much of the grazing land will > not support growing crops. I realize that some of the land used for livestock won't switch to farmland, but I'm not talking about reclaiming land, I'm talking about freshwater shortage. > And it is also worth considering popular crops too that > use significant amounts of water like rice and cotton. I don't know about cotton, but I don't know of anyone growing rice in the midwestern United States. So far as I know, the only rice grown in the United States is in California, where they pump the water out of mountains (the Sierras). I don't believe that they are experiencing issues right now. > So while livestock do account for much water use, it's not a > simple switch to grains and the world will be rainbows. It's more about freshwater usage. If farmers are having issues keeping their crops watered, would it make sense to pour more water into livestock (and the grains that go to feed them) with a lower rate of return on that water, or to pour it into the grains, where the yield is higher? Also, comments like "and the world will be rainbows" are a little condescending.

by pyre 14y ago

Spooky23 14y ago

In the US, that happened. Low quality beef is cheap right now -- my supermarket is selling Select grade tenderloin for US $5.99/lb, becuase ranchers are dumping livestock on the market. In a few months, that same cut of beef will be 250-400% higher.

bryanlarsen 14y ago

Livestock farming is crucial to keeping grain prices stable. Human demand for calories is relatively constant, for obvious reasons, but only accounts for a small majority of grain demand in normal years. The remainder is consumed by animals and by industrial processes. When grain gets expensive, feeding animals becomes expensive. Raising them becomes unprofitable, so farmers dump their animals onto the market which 1) lowers the price of meat 2) makes a large number of meat calories available for human consumption when they are needed most and 3) reduces the demand for grain, dampening the price rise for grain. This effect has mostly replaced the need for the long-term grain storage that countries used to do. So why isn't working now? One word: ethanol. President Obama could single-handedly stop the current food crisis by eliminating or suspending ethanol subsidies and mandates.

Daniel_Newby 14y ago
Cutting ethanol would just delay the Malthusian crisis.
- ars 14y ago
  A: Is that a bad thing? B: What Malthusian crisis? He's been thoroughly discredited. C: That's like saying eating will delay death. It will, just keep on delaying it every day.
  - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
    How can Malthus be discredited? He said that the population tends to grow to the limit of the food supply, and then suffer periodic famine as the weather fluctuates. This is an obvious truth. It matters because subsistence living is probably not compatible with a high-tech society.
    - bryanlarsen 14y ago
      No, it's obviously wrong. Population does not grow to the limit of food supply: food supply has increased dramatically in the first world over the last century, yet population growth has flatlined in most first world countries.
      - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
        Ah, you are talking about a momentary decrease in the rate during a time of enormous change. In the long run, population grows to the limits of resources. Natural selection always selects for more descendants, and the population always hits the resource limits. The only alternative is for natural selection to cease operating. Incidentally, population growth has not flatlined uniformly in First World countries. There are identifiable subgroups that have very high fecundity, and whose descendants are capable of eating any possible green revolution within a few centuries at the most.
        bryanlarsen 14y ago
        The biggest population growth in history was accompanied by a green revolution that increased food production even faster. So example indicates that you're likely wrong. We're now in an age where energy is cheap, and energy can be converted to food relatively easily. The amount of energy required to feed the entire world is now a small fraction of total world energy production. The fact that we don't do it this way is only because food is even cheaper than energy. And yes, our oil energy supplies are relatively constrained, but our alternative supplies (aka nuclear) are not. So "any possible green revolution" is pretty darn big. If we wanted to, we could feed a trillion people using nuclear power lighting artificial greenhouses.
lifeguard 14y ago
Bankers drove up food prices. Do more research. Ethanol is a red herring.
pyre 14y ago
> The remainder is consumed by animals and by > industrial processes. Grain raised for livestock use is only for livestock use. It's not like "corn" is all the same thing. The corn that is used for livestock is not the same corn that you buy at the store (on the cob or in a can). It's tasteless, and so far as I know, not desirable for human consumption. You can't treat all of the corn produced as usable for all uses that corn is put towards. Also, if livestock is what regulates the grain market, then why do grain-producers get such large (non-ethanol-related) subsidies?
- evgen 14y ago
  The varieties of corn produced for each use are different but they are completely fungible. If livestock is culled due to higher feed costs from diminished production this year then farmers will plant more human-edible corn next year (along with more soybeans and other alternative crops) because there is going to be less demand for dent corn to feed the livestock. The system balances itself.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  "The corn that is used for livestock is not the same corn that you buy at the store (on the cob or in a can). It's tasteless, and so far as I know, not desirable for human consumption" No, but it is suitable for turning into meal, which is how corn is consumed in the third world, or into HFCS which is how corn is consumed in the first world. For other grains, it mostly works in the other direction in normal years. For example, a farmer may try to grow wheat suitable for bread, but it rains while the crop is in windrow, making it unsuitable for bread due to its low protein content. It's graded as "feed" and fed to animals in a normal year. However, you can still make bread from it, it just doesn't rise as well. "why do grain-producers get such large (non-ethanol-related) subsidies?" Because farmer's causes are sympathetic to voters for various different reasons. (historical attachment, enjoyment of low food prices, stereotyping of farmers as close to the land, lower populations in rural districts, and many others)

Gustomaximus 14y ago

I know in Australia much of the grazing land will not support growing crops. And it is also worth considering popular crops too that use significant amounts of water like rice and cotton. So while livestock do account for much water use, it's not a simple switch to grains and the world will be rainbows.

pyre 14y ago
> I know in Australia much of the grazing land will > not support growing crops. I realize that some of the land used for livestock won't switch to farmland, but I'm not talking about reclaiming land, I'm talking about freshwater shortage. > And it is also worth considering popular crops too that > use significant amounts of water like rice and cotton. I don't know about cotton, but I don't know of anyone growing rice in the midwestern United States. So far as I know, the only rice grown in the United States is in California, where they pump the water out of mountains (the Sierras). I don't believe that they are experiencing issues right now. > So while livestock do account for much water use, it's not a > simple switch to grains and the world will be rainbows. It's more about freshwater usage. If farmers are having issues keeping their crops watered, would it make sense to pour more water into livestock (and the grains that go to feed them) with a lower rate of return on that water, or to pour it into the grains, where the yield is higher? Also, comments like "and the world will be rainbows" are a little condescending.