Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Water

How on Earth Can We Feed 8 Billion People?

By Lester R. Brown, TreeHugger. Posted August 28, 2009.


How China ended its dependence on food aid, almost overnight, and become the world's third largest food aid donor.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In April 2005, the World Food Programme and the Chinese government jointly announced that food aid shipments to China would stop at the end of the year. For a country where a generation ago hundreds of millions of people were chronically hungry, this was a landmark achievement. Not only has China ended its dependence on food aid, but almost overnight it has become the world's third largest food aid donor.

The key to China's success was the economic reforms in 1978 that dismantled its system of agricultural collectives, known as production teams, and replaced them with family farms. In each village, the land was allocated among families, giving them long-term leases on their piece of land. The move harnessed the energy and ingenuity of China's rural population, raising the grain harvest by half from 1977 to 1986. With its fast-expanding economy raising incomes, with population growth slowing, and with the grain harvest climbing, China eradicated most of its hunger in less than a decade—in fact, it eradicated more hunger in a shorter period of time than any country in history.

As we note at Earth Policy Institute, while hunger has been disappearing in China, it has been spreading throughout much of the developing world, notably sub-Saharan Africa and parts of the Indian subcontinent. As a result, the number of people in developing countries who are hungry has increased from a recent historical low of 800 million in 1996 to over 1 billion today. Part of this recent rise can be attributed to higher food prices and the global economic crisis. In the absence of strong leadership, the number of hungry people in the world will rise even further, with children suffering the most.

Dealing with this problem requires addressing the long-term trends leading to growth in demand for food outpacing growth in supply. One key to the threefold expansion in the world grain harvest since 1950 was the rapid adoption in some developing countries of high-yielding wheats and rices (originally developed in Japan) and hybrid corn (from the United States). The spread of these highly productive seeds, combined with a tripling of irrigated area and an 11-fold increase in world fertilizer use, tripled the world grain harvest. Growth in irrigation and fertilizer use essentially removed soil moisture and nutrient constraints on much of the world's cropland.

Now the outlook is changing. Farmers are faced with shrinking supplies of irrigation water, a diminishing response to additional fertilizer use, rising temperatures from global warming, the loss of cropland to non-farm uses, rising fuel costs, and a dwindling backlog of yield-raising technologies. At the same time, they also face fast-growing demand for farm products from the annual addition of 79 million people a year, the desire of some 3 billion people to consume more livestock products, and the millions of motorists turning to crop-based fuels to supplement tightening supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel. Farmers and agronomists are now being thoroughly challenged.

The shrinking backlog of unused agricultural technology and the associated loss of momentum in raising cropland productivity are found worldwide. Between 1950 and 1990, world grain yield per hectare climbed by 2.1 percent a year, ensuring rapid growth in the world grain harvest. From 1990 to 2008, however, it rose only 1.3 percent annually. This is partly because the yield response to the additional application of fertilizer is diminishing and partly because irrigation water is limited.

This calls for fresh thinking on how to raise cropland productivity. One way is to breed crops that are more tolerant of drought and cold. U.S. corn breeders have developed corn varieties that are more drought-tolerant, enabling corn production to move westward into Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Kansas, the leading U.S. wheat-producing state, has used a combination of drought-resistant varieties in some areas and irrigation in others to expand corn planting to where the state now produces more corn than wheat.

Another way of raising land productivity, where soil moisture permits, is to increase the area of multicropped land that produces more than one crop per year. Indeed, the tripling in the world grain harvest since 1950 is due in part to impressive increases in multiple cropping in Asia. Some of the more common combinations are wheat and corn in northern China, wheat and rice in northern India, and the double or triple cropping of rice in southern China and southern India.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: china, agriculture, food, farming

Lester R. Brown is the founder and President of Earth Policy Institute, has been described by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers."He is the author of numerous books, including "Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Some things missing in the article...maybe in the book?
Posted by: nmeyer on Aug 29, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Key inputs are soil, labor, water, seed, sun, nutrients. Of these, labor and nutrient limits are not really addressed in this article. Nitrogen is critical and we current make it from natural gas. Labor for volume production is predominantly supplied by fossil fuels and machinery. Phosphorous and potassium are other key nutrients -- I think these mines are not overly abundant. Maybe Brown's book addresses these topics in later sections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Try" to feed 8 billion and we'll end up with 8 billion (or more)
Posted by: SBean on Aug 30, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does Brown (or anyone, for that matter) want to feed 8 billion people? Read Daniel Quinn. If we produce only enough food for 7 billion (or 6 or 5 or 4 or…) that's how many people we'll have. We won't need to "try" to stabilize population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to figure out how to feed 4 billion people
Posted by: AdamG on Aug 31, 2009 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and what we are going to do with the other 4 billion.

According to Vaclav Smil, a University of
Manitoba researcher, he figure we could only feed 4 billion without synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. And that's with already cutting out most of the waste of our current industrial food system.

Lester also fails to mention how Chinese agriculture is going the way of American agriculture with a get big or get out mentality. If we want more environmentally tolerable agricultural systems, we need more farmers growing a higher diversity of crops, not less farmers and bigger tractors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good points, so far as they go
Posted by: picalillie on Sep 1, 2009 11:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conspicuously absent in this article is any mention of doing something about the chronic waste of food crops.

Has anyone actually counted the millions of tons of potatoes and corn which are turned into empty calories in North America? All that junkfood could be actually feeding people, but I've only seen that particular agricultural insult mentioned in one place in the last couple of years, and I don't think it was here. It was a while ago though - no, I think I saw that somewhere else.

It doesn't mention the political factors, either, though perhaps that is a different subject altogether. But food often provides a useful lever for those in power, and has it's darker political uses.

So far as population is concerned, the only effective way to slow population growth is through functional education. That is, education which imparts academic skills, as opposed to simple indoctrination. Other methods in the effort to limit population growth have been consistently ineffective.

My point here is that unless the broader issues are addressed, it is pointless to talk about how much food is needed per capita. Access to food is another aspect, waste is another, and the whole issue is not so simple as it may appear.

Beware of simplistic strategies. Ask who is fielding them, who is implementing them and how, and ask who the real beneficiaries are. Too often tinkering with agricultural issues results in more, not less hunger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Piss Off!! again!!
Posted by: VeroniqueD on Sep 4, 2009 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will you piss off, you irritating little twerp. Ignoring you may be an option, but I am sick of your abuse of these comment boards.

Piss Off!!! Now!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Piss Off!! again!! Posted by: VeroniqueD
why commercial fertilizer instead of natural?
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 4, 2009 1:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, sub-Saharan Africa lacks the infrastructure to transport fertilizer economically to the villages where it is needed. As a result of nutrient depletion, grain yields in much of sub-Saharan Africa are stagnating.

The villagers should be encouraged to raise as many chickens as possible. The little scroungers make eggs out of weeds and minute "bugs". In addition to producing eggs, there is a lot of rich "by-product" which can be used to enrich the soil.

Also there is the stuff produced by humans as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Water is surely..
Posted by: Farmertim on Sep 4, 2009 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one limiting factor, but as multicropping begins to take hold one very important thing must happen for it to be sustianable....
you have to put something back!
Each lb of excess nitrogen wether synthetic or natural will destroy 3 lbs of organic matter.
With out cover crops and returning that green brown or black organic matter to the soil one will face what man has always faced...take to much and the system shuts down no matter how much water or fertilizer one puts on.
Another key point missed is trace minerals.
Begin to deplete those without return and you get a crop of less nutrient density and more food is needed to survive all the while your tonnage per acre continues to drop.
We could feed 8 billion if needed if the shelf life was longer from nutrinet density and everything that consumed that nutrient dense crop had to eat less to thrive.
Can't cheat the system, and mother nature bats last.
Farmer Tim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There is a solution Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: There is a solution Posted by: Farmertim
The Key Ingredient
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Sep 4, 2009 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exponential growth occurs when something doubles in size every Y years, where Y can be any fixed number. Population grows exponentially, and this would not be so much of a problem if Y were some large number, perhaps 100,000 or more but in fact it is more like 30.

Population is the key ingredient that needs to be brought under control. Any solution to a variety of problems, including food production, will only be temporary so long as population continues to double every 30 years or so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have yet to stop over breeding
Posted by: VeroniqueD on Sep 4, 2009 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don’t know how many times I end up saying that our global population is way out of control and no one in power ever addresses it.

Without the number of people currently on the planet there wouldn’t be anywhere near the problem of feeding that there is. We have overpopulated this planet with increased medical solutions to disease and infertility while decreasing the infant mortality rate and increasing the longevity in western industrial nations that consume far more food than is needed for the sustaining of life.

It will only get worse. Somewhere on this Alternet edition, the article on farmed salmon has made the news with all the concomitant problems that farming intensively in the seas can have and are, in fact, having. Anyone who has ever looked at the incredible numbers of different bacteria and viruses on this planet that are on the move because of habitat destruction cannot help but marvel that we are still here at all.

All efforts to produce enough food to feed the burgeoning billions will only increase the likelihood of new health problems. The waste produced not just by the actual farming, but also by over production farming and then destroying food for economic reasons has no basis in humanitarianism. It is a criminal waste.

Someone from America tell me how much it costs to eat out and how much a single serve of anything is. I am told that how-ever-much-you-can-eat for a cheap cost is producing more obesity, heart attacks and diabetes in the US than ever before. It is amazing to me that a country is eating itself to death while other countries are starving to death.

I can only shake my head in disbelief. We are an intellectually intelligent species but we are emotional midgets who hide in the sand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no lack of food at all. There is a lack of distribution, and a bit of a lack of give...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 4, 2009 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...a damn.

It doesn't help that industrialized countries subsidize agriculture via the tax-steal, which leads to folks in agrarian nations being unable to earn a living and accumulate wealth.

This is an old problem for most of the world's children and adults in their prime, however, and we are easily distracted from hurt in the world by the prospect/privilege of spending further billions of public monies to promote folks achieving the dream of living to 100, no matter their quality of life.

If we had our priorities straight, we'd stop funding 'farmers' (massive conglomerates) out of OUR EVERY paycheck who'd do quite well, anyway, and we'd likely still pay less to import the farmed goods from agrarian nations. We get relatively cheap food, and they get to earn a living and accumulate wealth to be reinvested in their future.

Wait. Nevermind. What's the Bush-begat-Obama administration about to say now regarding 'Death Squads'? Got to focus on what's sensational!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, there is enough for all. Posted by: SayBlade
» RE: DITTO IN CAPITALS! Posted by: grammasanity
» brilliant. Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Dr. Bob
Posted by: ProfBob on Sep 4, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not long ago I saw a statement on a website that said that the state of Montana could handle all the people of the world and each would have a square kilometer for himself. The truth is that with a land area of 145,552 square miles, 376,980 square kilometers, each of the people would have 0.000057 of a square kilometer. That’s 68 square yards or 57 square meters or 6 thousandths of a hectare. And according to experts at Cornell University we need about 800 times that much arable land per person. But in Montana there isn’t really that much arable land. About 40% is water, rivers and lakes, and mountains. So the illustration given becomes even more ridiculous.
In 2050 that’s 763 people per square km of arable land compared to 473 in 1993, and that’s assuming that none of the 3 billion build their houses or roads on farmland.
0.52 acres per person (1.3 hectares er person) in 1993 0.33 of an acre (0.82 per hectare)per person in 2050
Cattlemen often use the figure of 30 acres needed to support a cow and its calf. If the and is overgrazed and top soil has been lost, it would take more acres. The pasture’s sustainability would be reduced. Of course that’s grazing land not arable farmland
The free ebook series 'In Search of Utopia' (http://andgulliverreturns.info) discusses these issues. For example, because of the 'one child ' policy has reduced China's population by 400,000,000--the population of the US and Mexico. So a whole lot less food needs to be raised!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We won't change, we are too affluent
Posted by: kettleblack on Sep 4, 2009 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading between the lines, Americans will have to make a lifestyle change to eating less and eating healthier to help the global situation.
And we all know that American attitude, "I earned mine, you earn yours" dominates the culture of greed. We have a built-in conflict of interest when it comes to sharing the world's resources. We were gifted with God's Country (forget about the native peoples), and we deserve all the wealth we can squeeze out of it.
Besides, the geopolitical game requires that each kingdom have a sufficient population in case of war. Another conflict of interest.
Then, there is the religious aspect (Thou shalt not kill, go forth and multiply) that is directly opposed to any form of population control.
In the end, practicing population control goes against all existing human cultures and darwin-believers.
The basic Supply-and-Demand equation cannot be sustained under these conditions, and it is only a matter of time before humans will again practice Crisis Management (War) for a temporary fix. Mother Nature does her part with famine, disease and pestilence.
It is human nature to do what feels good to you, not what is good for you. It's why we eat junk food.
We learn from history to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Treehugger is Discovery
Posted by: leafsong1 on Sep 4, 2009 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Discovery is Liberty. Liberty is Newscorp. Newscorp is Rupert Murdoch. This article brought to you by the producers of The Military Channel and Fox News. Is it any wonder that it is optimistic about the future of corporate-controlled technology and sanguine about the human cost of that technology's probable failure?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What success China has obtained has been through population control
Posted by: leafsong1 on Sep 4, 2009 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Increases in productivity are utterly worthless in the long run, and usually unsustainable, anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mikslim
Posted by: mikslim on Sep 4, 2009 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
aha, can you really see the great british aristocracy giving THEIR land to the commoners, somehow i dont think so

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Prison Earth Posted by: kettleblack
We produce enough food on this planet...
Posted by: Ayla87 on Sep 4, 2009 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To feed everyone 3200 calories a day at our current rate of production. And that's just on grains alone; Meat, diary, fruits, and vegtables are not factored into that calculation.

Do a little highschool math and we produce enough food to feed 10.85 billion people 2000 calories a day, with our current

3200cal x (6.78100 x (10^9)people)) / 2000cal = 10.85 x 10^9people

Take out the units of measurement and put it into google calculator. For convienience I rounded up.

There is no reason why we should have trouble feeding the 6.781 billion of us now, let alone 8 billion in the future. And there is no need to use an acre more of land to do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» see my above post Posted by: AdamG
» RE: see my above post Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: nitrogen Posted by: stellabloo
Any mention of let's not have 8 billion for starters?
Posted by: Changling on Sep 5, 2009 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feeding them for how long and that doesn't cover all the other necessities of life. Like places to live, play, wash and of course excrete. We don't need 2 billion more people anyway. How will they work and with what? How many more wild places will be lost to farming?

He is centered on 1) there will be 8 billion and 2) how do we feed them all? A very narrow perspective and that's if climate change doesn't bollix that up either. What a lovely well fed nightmare for all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overpopulation
Posted by: dkm on Sep 6, 2009 10:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Face it folks, people are still going to have kids. If your solution is to kill off a bunch of people, how do you decide who goes? It makes more sense to do in mostly Americans and others like them because our ecological footprint is many multiples that of the people in Africa or South America. How many of you are happy with that?

From the tone in most of the comments about overpopulation, I get the idea that people are mostly talking about developing countries, but killing them off just doesn't make any sense. It would be much more efficient to take out everyone in the US making more than minimum wage.

You will notice that those countries that have reached zero population growth are those where women have access to contraception and to abortions when the contraception doesn't work. These countries also tend to give women higher positions in society and greater family care and family planning services than here in the US, especially among certain social groups.

In sum, zero population growth will require better education of women, better access to family planing, and better living conditions for everyone. Killing them off is not an option because those selected to die will not go quietly into the sunset no matter how much you Repukucans tell them to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dennis baker
Posted by: dbaker on Sep 7, 2009 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(first) we stop turni9ng food into ethanol
(second)
Dennis Baker
penticton bc canada V2A6Z3

dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectance of humans.
yours sincerely
Dennis Baker

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The spread of these highly productive seeds
Posted by: teon6 on Sep 19, 2009 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dealing with this problem requires addressing the long-term trends leading to growth in demand for food outpacing growth in supply. One key to the threefold expansion in the world grain harvest since 1950 was the rapid adoption in some developing countries of high-yielding wheats and rices (originally developed in Japan) and hybrid corn (from the United States). The spread of these highly productive seeds, combined with a tripling of irrigated area and an 11-fold increase in world fertilizer use, tripled the world grain harvest. Growth how i met your mother subtitles how i met your mother subs relay interface circuit parallel port relay interface the mentalist subs the mentalist subtitles seropol5 in irrigation and fertilizer use essentially removed soil moisture and nutrient constraints on much of the world's cropland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement