• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Here we go again...

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Here we go again...

    found this in the Winnipeg Free Press.

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/agriculture/eat-less-meat-to-help-double-worlds-food-supply-says-study-to-be-featured-in-nature-131604843.html

    The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION
    Eat less meat to help double world's food supply, says study to be featured in Nature

    MONTREAL - A newly published blueprint for doubling the global food supply includes a key suggestion about how everyone can contribute to this increasingly pressing ambition: eat less meat.

    An international team of researchers has developed solutions to respond to what it calls one the greatest challenges of the 21st century — boosting food production while slashing the environmental impact of agriculture.

    The research, which will be featured on the cover page of the Oct. 20 edition of the journal Nature, comes as international concern grows over how the planet will feed the rapidly expanding human population.

    With the world's population expected to climb from 6.9 billion to 9 billion by 2050, the issue of food was put at the top of this year's G-20 agenda. The study, published online Wednesday, says there are already a billion people who don't have enough to eat.

    McGill University's Navin Ramankutty, one of the team leaders on the paper, said the research is the first of its kind to quantify both food production and ecological consequences in the same analysis.

    He added that it's also the first study to examine these factors while considering the specific environmental characteristics of different regions of the planet.

    Ramankutty said limiting meat consumption is one of several ways to increase food production.

    He estimates that simply dedicating prime cropland to growing food for humans — rather than growing biofuels or feed for animals — could spike the global output by nearly 50 per cent.

    The study says that three-quarters of the world's agricultural land is devoted to raising livestock, either for grazing or for growing feed.

    Ramankutty added that beef is the most resource-intensive animal product of them all.

    "That doesn't mean we all have to become vegetarians and vegans, but even if you ... eat meat one or two days less a week, you can hugely contribute to the amount of food that's needed," Ramankutty, himself a meat-eater, said from Montreal.

    "It would have a huge impact, but this also happens to be one of those things where people are much more personally attached to it."

    He said that scientists in his field rarely raised diet as an issue in the past because they didn't want to infringe on a person's right to choose.

    But Ramankutty said fewer researchers are staying quiet on this subject, particularly when the consequences have global environmental impacts.

    Changes to the human diet are only one component of the study's strategy to double the global food supply.

    The research also calls for improved crop management to increase yields; an end to deforestation to make way for farmland; and a cutback on food waste, which amounts for as much as half of the planetary food production.

    The catch? Ensuring these strategies are adopted on a global scale.

    Ramankutty was coy when asked about the likelihood of these tactics being implemented in his lifetime — though he did laugh at the question.

    "To be honest, I'm probably pessimistic about it, but I always think that optimism is the only choice we have," the geographer said.

    "It's not going to happen in a big, single step. Obviously, it's going to happen slowly."

    Ramankutty continued by noting that some aspects included in the study are already being discussed politically and at the international level, such as plans to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation.

    He hopes the study will influence both policy makers and even personal dietary choices.

    "Hopefully, people who had been thinking about these issues before (will) read this paper and say: 'Hey, this can make big changes; it's not just a small drop in the bucket,' " Ramankutty said.


    Anybody care to wade in and post a comment on the story, feel free. Just follow the link. The vegans are already on it.

    #2
    I wouldn't really argue that we shouldn't keep cattle rearing to grazing lands that can't grow crops. Makes sense to me and we would then have a very efficient use of these huge grazing acres around the world. Wipe out all the intensive chicken and pork production of course because they are all living on a purely grain diet. I thing grass reared cattle would do quite well in this futuristic scenario.

    There was quite a statement in there
    "The research also calls for....a cutback on food waste, which amounts for as much as half of the planetary food production."
    I know this is getting some attention in the UK where the food companies are being forced to revise all the "best before" dates they use to prevent lots of perfectly good food being thrown out for no reason.

    Comment


      #3
      Quote "Ramankutty added that beef is the most resource-intensive animal product of them all. "

      I would beg to differ with that.

      Comment


        #4
        This is interesting...Devil's Advocate
        feed efficiency in a ruminant is around
        6 or 7 to 1. feed efficiency in a pig
        is under 2:1 and in a chicken is around
        1.2:1. In a fish it is nearly 1:1 as
        the water means the fish doesn't have
        spend as much energy fighting gravity.
        By that measure beef is an energy hog.
        The flip side is that beef can be
        produced using brittle/waste resources,
        and used to preserve grazing lands that
        contribute to watershed health,
        biodiversity, wildlife habitat, scenic
        value and cultural identity (think
        tourist $), etc. In a straight energy
        ratio comparison this is inefficient as
        compared to feedlot growth, but in a
        land use ethic it is highly efficient.
        The challenge as I see in this approach
        is that people will gladly pay for the
        non-beef resources associated with that
        land (eg: scenic trail ride), thus
        inflating the land value beyond it's
        productive capacity in a beef only
        approach. Beef producers will have to
        position themselves to garner a piece of
        that extra $ either through branding
        beef and demanding more $, or by
        diversifying their operations to include
        the sale of these other goods and
        services.
        I don't expect feedlots to disappear,
        but we will likely see see more cattle
        move to the extreme ends of the
        mainstream feeding program. Either very
        rapidly gaining, high growth or short
        keep aged feeders. I expect we will
        also see some further development of
        programs that are focused on these other
        values that will do very well.
        I am not too worried for our own
        operation as I think we can stand on our
        record of environmentalism and landscape
        enhancement, but I think as an industry
        this is a larger concern that we can't
        discuss from defensive positions.

        Comment


          #5
          Even though "real" cattleman laugh, this is the basis for starting our Low line herd.....less impact, less feed, greater feed efficiency and smaller portion sizes....but I am not ready to give up the Gelbvieh herd just yet!

          Comment


            #6
            It's not unusual for cows, especially, to spend their whole lives, other than that first winter from weaning to breeding, on forage, and forage alone. And not necessarily good forage either. There is also grass fed beef, which we all know. That takes a significant number of cattle fed high grain diets already out of the total beef supply. I don't think it would be out of line to take this into account in the calculations of how much grain it takes to produce all the beef on the market.

            In our backgrounding enterprise, we use a complete ration that is mainly screening pellets, which are already not destined for human consumption. These calves make use of feed that aren't suitable for anything else. If there's fusarium around, not even pigs could use it.

            And then there's ddg. A byproduct of ethanol production that doesn't have a whole lot of use anywhere else. To say nothing of low quality grain, corn stovers, and whatever else is around.

            I think cattle are just an easy target. We really need to stick up for ourselves more.

            Comment


              #7
              A million cattle eating 25lbs of grain a day in a feedlot are consuming 12,500 tons a day of grain! That's a serious amount of grain any way you cut it. 25lbs of grain goes a long way feeding humans.

              Comment


                #8
                I came across some interesting information.

                http://lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

                A brief description can be found here...

                http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/28/why-vegetarianism-will-not-save-the-world.aspx

                Too many people are ignorant and misinformed so we should get this information out to the public as much as possible, not just on aggie sites like this one.

                Comment


                  #9
                  However, barley prices do not make many farmers rich either. Should it be on grain for a few months or grass for an extra year is not the point. We don't value food! We throw out 30% of what we buy, we spend 10% of income on groceries and if memory serves me right, we spend more of that on pets!
                  But as a society we have put great values on petroleum, on vacations and how much does the average family spend on cell phones/internet?
                  But those in power are not going to try and change things......the economy does very well when we have cheap food, cheap food on the backs of cheap producers. Then there is lots of money to spend on other things. Just think if we had to spend 25% of our income on food like it was in the 60’s………we would have a 1960’s economy.
                  There is no way we can feed people in the third world and live in an economic boom world. Something else has to give.....grain/grass will sort itself out, there are other issues first.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Awesome points perfecho

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Based on the Winnipeg Free Press news piece, the research was unique not in that it recommended people eat less beef but it was the first to combine food research with ecological consequences.

                      I am not a scientist but it is my view that acres in grass is actually good for the planet and to the extent that raising cattle encourages having acres remain in grass or even switched into grass from a monoculture use that is a good thing. If that view is correct then there appears to be a lot of work that needs to be done to get that message out to the world. Eating beef is good for the planet.

                      There is no doubt in my mind that agriculture is able to feed the worlds growing population to 2050 and beyond. The world production of food is presently suppressed by the still low profitability of agriculture. Make growing food profitable (yes it is more profitable than it was but still not as profitable as it has been) and global food production could easily double much less meet a 25% increase in population.

                      Corn for ethanol would be expected to be soon replaced with cellulosic ethanol which will largely come from grass.

                      This is a bit off topic but I think the real challenge of 2.1 billion more people within the next two generations is not how to feed them but what are they going to do? Feeding them is not the problem.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        "What are they going to do?"

                        Laze around, watch TV, play with their smart phones and eat crap made from high fructose corn syrup same as the rest of the population lol.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          If this were an actual coffee shop the topic would be a moving target.

                          Technology has a way of interfering with peoples jobs. I suggested to my brother in law who has roots in the DR that we should ship a bunch of Bobcats and such down there to make construction a little more efficient. His reply was that for each Bobcat 10 guys with spades would become unemployed.

                          I am more worried about how they are going to pay for the food than whether we can grow it.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re how they are paying for food...

                            Check out the FAO world food price index at:

                            http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/

                            and this link on beef prices

                            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Meat/Documents/TABLE_pricesandindices.pdf

                            It is interesting to note the price of beef has risen 240% in Brazil since 2002, 150% in the U.S.

                            To tie this in with the original post... people do not need to eat less meat in order to ensure there is enough food for everyone in the future. They just need to pay farmers/ranchers to produce it and we will.

                            That said, I am aware that even today millions of children are hungry. That is another topic and a big topic and I wish I had the answer.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              People seem to not realize that grains given to relieve hunger have not been paid for by the individual but by the donation of such product from the donor country.

                              No money = no food (other than what is given as charity)

                              Pretty simple. We have to pay (for inputs) as producers to feed our animals, so why is it so hard to understand that people should pay to eat.

                              This is just another push against capitalism by the young generation. Have the beef producer in one corner and the hungry person in the other corner and let them bid for the product. Highest bid always wins.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...