Food Production must rise 50%

[TOM4CWB]

UN Chief: Food Production Must Rise 50%
Tue Jun 3, 2008 11:33 AM CDT

ROME (AP) _ World food production must rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet increasing demand, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon told world leaders Tuesday at a summit grappling with hunger and civil unrest caused by food price hikes.

The secretary-general told the Rome summit that nations must minimize export restrictions and import tariffs during the food price crisis and quickly resolve world trade talks.

''The world needs to produce more food,'' Ban said.

The Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization is hosting the three-day summit to try to solve the short-term emergency of increased hunger caused by soaring prices and to help poor countries grow enough food to feed their own.

[charliep]

Interesting news out of the conference.

Short term solutions are to allow markets to work with minimal government interference and increased dollars for food aid to assist societies most vulnerable. The rest of the world can react by changing behavior.

Long term solutions are to up investments in research around productivity and using current technology - particularly in the most vulnerable areas of the world with large population growth and low incomes.

[Fransisco]

Charlie are you saying there is some common sense left at the UN?

[agstar77]

There is a crisis alright, it is the rising cost of inputs. Quote for P2O5 1800 per tonne next spring. How can you increase production if prices of commodities don't rise?

[wilagro]

The best investment would be in birth control pills, or other contraceptives and for governments to make them available FREE. Huge populations in these needy countries is a direct result of human copulation and not of underdevelopment of food production. All the money spent on more production is wasted in the end, if no attempt is made to suppress population growth.

Why aren't these so-called world food crisis conferences discussing population growth to a greater extent?

[charliep]

Agstar77

You answered your own. Food prices have to rise to meet the needs of the new world.

A question back at you is western Canada becoming more or less competitive in world food production? What is our cost structure relative to other competitors? How do we measure up in terms of productivity gains (i.e. yield increases)? Distance from markets and cost of shipping? Ability to satisfy the needs of lower income regions of the world with a competive prices/afford food product?

Canada share of world grain production and trade has been steadily declining. This would be a solid indication that we are in fact loosing our competitive advantage (if we ever had it). So if this is the case, what do we do different?

[charliep]

The topic of phosphorous fertilizer is bound to come up again and again so thought I might post a web site.

Canada doesn't have phosphorous so we import virtually 100 % of what we use. Expensive because of tight world supplies and expensive to get here because of $125/barrel crude oil.

http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/mcs-2008-phosp.pdf

[boarderbloke]

competitive to where? some country in Africa that can't pay enough to cover the costs of production now, in 2007? I don't care to work as cheap as one would need to, to produce food to supply the needs of the lowest income regions of the world! there i said it, and i have No Guilt! charliep, we've gone from 50/50 to stubble crop, to continuous crop all in the hopes of raising more income and being more efficient and productive, but mostly what it did was raise our risk levels. we've cannibalized our neighbors to expand our farms, out bidding them for land and/or machinery, just to be more efficient but mostly what has happened is that we've emptied the country side of families and now have the government telling us that we don't have enough kids to keep the schools open, or the hospital open, or we don't have enough people to worry about repaving that highway, so we'll turn it to gravel. maybe we've become more efficient on the farm but we drive further for everything! whether it's banking, groceries or the school play! we've built inland terminals to be more efficient, we even volunteered to buy semis to haul there as that was going to save us money! ya right, we were going to see big freight deductions for 100 car spots. do you think trucking premiums will stay pace with the cost of fuel?
whats been weighing most on my mind since the winter is the real possibility of paying four digits for fertilizer, I'll tell your straight up now, i won't be doing it. my crop this year as any other year is getting "all the groceries", but if i have to pay 3 times or more for fert in the '09 crop, it won't happen. (paid $350 for 46-0-0 this winter) i don't know whether i'm the only one that feels this way, but i have a feeling there just might be even more hungry people in the years to come. there were hungry people when my great grandfather farmed, my grandfather, my father, and there'll be hungry people when my grandson farms, i feel no guilt because i choose not to increase my risk for the sake of the hungry.

[parsley]

Good for you.

The farm community has gotten the message played to them at breakfast dinner, supper...."You need to feed the poor".

Huh?

We have 40 below zero wather, 90 day-growing seasons and we're land-locked.
And WE"RE supposed to feed the world?

Take your map out of Africa and ask why some regions aren't growing two crops a year.

Zimbabwe was a major exporter at one time until they were relieved of their farming urges at gunpoint, and instead the people made a conscious decision to spend their time killing each other.

Live with it.

We all make choices and we all get to live with them.

Look after your own communities FIRST, because NO ONE ELSE WILL.

boarderbloke, I'm getting a bit mellow in my viewpoint, though.

Parsley

[charliep]

My measure of competitiveness isn't about feeding the poor of the world - that is and will continue to be their responsibility. If society (and individual farmers through things like Canada Food Grains Bank) choose to share wealth and support those who can't feed themselves, then they can pay (i.e. not farmers). FAO would suggest that the way to solve the world food problem goes with the expression "Give a person a fish and they are full for a day. Teach a person to fish and they will be full for a lifetime".

My question related to our cost structure relative to other countries that produce crops and from there our use of technology. Yes farmers/farming has to have adapted (size/economies of scale) but what modern industry hasn't? If we are to meet the challenge/opportunity given us to increase food production by 50 %, what do we do? Do we assume our competitors in world markets will be sitting still/not changing to meet this challenge?

[parsley]

Wasting resources makes a country poor.

[charliep]

Parsley

Yes to your point.

I should note that increasing production may not be the way to go for Canada. Maybe our share of world markets/trade will continue to decline. Maybe we add more value/market more into North America. Maybe we target higher valued markets/customers. The future will be interesting and challenging.

[charliep]

Had interesting meeting with the Chinese State Adminstration of Grain (basically the ones who control Chinese internal supplies and prices). The commented that their population of 1.3 bln people (20 % of the world population) put a lot of responibility on China to manage resources/food both for internal stability and for world food security. If China mismanaged and entered the market for significant quantities of grain, this would have a major impact on demand, availability and price. Their philosophy is that China has to be more or less self sufficient in food production and carry reserves for years when mother nature doesn't cooperative.

[parsley]

Increase in call to raise production... is it in our best interest?

It isn't that other countries don't have land or can't grow crops.

They'll catch on if their plate gets empty long enough.

This is about increasing production for what? Higher prices? Or simply bragging rights?

Ed: "I grew 139 bushels per acre"

Ted: Jezuz, You're rich"

Ed: "No, I need a Government program to pay my bills."

Ted: "Get the country buyin your grain to pay em. Who's buyin?"

Ed: "Somalia. They can't pay. They never have money to pay."

Ted: "Well, eat the gd stuff."

Ed: "I would if I could but I can't. I grew too much."

[charliep]

Parsley

Western Canada is currently executing the strategy you suggest perfectly. We have a shrinking percentage of world production and trade - less relevant to world markets. Trade by the way goes to countries who can afford to pay. There are countries around the world who can put acceptable quality grain in importers hands for lower cost than we can (and still provide farmers there a good living). Relevant if grow/sell commodities - less relevant if you market value based crops/products.