[edpeak]

I'm wondering if someone can help me with this. I'd like to
suggest that the common statistic we hear about
world grain stocks isn't the best number to look at,
suggest another, and I'm hoping some help is out
there to compute the other (or several alterantive)
statistics for measuring how small world grain
stockpiles are..

I'm not a food expert but it seems to me that counting how
many days' worth of food we have in stockpile (the
common statistic one years, e.g. "57 days' worth
is all we have left") is not the most useful and
relevant statistic to look at, because it's
telling us how many days before we starve if
the entire world stopped producing any grain what-so-ever,
starting tomorrow, and that's not exactly
likely to take place, that the harvest is zero over the entire
planet, etc..

If we want to know how far we are from hunger/starvation
as a planet, it would be nice to know how many bad years it would
take (the answer need not be a whole number) to the wipe out the
entire supply (stockpile) we have in the global pantry as it were..

A bad year would need to be quantized, of course,
and there's not single number, but there are reasonable
candidates...for example,
if there's a 10% or higher probability of having a given
years total production be at or below level X, and
we consume Y, then if we take 10% to be sufficient
a risk, then X-Y is a "Bad year's deficit" and we divide
that number into the total grain stockpiles to see how
many years we have..

Does anyone have that number, or similar
number, something along the lines suggested above,
s, that is, something that will
actually tell us how many bad years (suitably defined,
with said definition included) before
the stockpiles could run out, rather than "if we had
ZERO harvests, then we would last for 58 days"
which (while not an irrelevant statistic) is not the most
enlightening? I'd love to see such definitions used, such
calculations, and the final number(s)...

..only then would I feel have a better handle on how many 'bad years'
it would take to take us how close to emptying the
stockpiles..Thanks,

EDpeak

[Ludi]

It's always a "bad year" for somebody, that's the nature of farming.

Here's a link with some data that might help your calculations:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Grain/2006.htm

[coyote]

World carryover stocks of grain, the amount in the bin when the next harvest begins, are the most basic measure of food security.

I'm no expert either, but I personally think this is a great way of measuring food security, because it avoids absolute stock numbers. If you just said 'world grains stocks stand at 319 million metric tons,' well, that sounds like a lot. But '57 days' makes it clear there's an edge to that number. It's similar to putting some 'giant' oil find into perspective by figuring it would take only 'X' number of days for world consumption to go through it -- even though that's not really the way it works.

However, in terms of the absolute numbers, I find it's enlightening to look at exports, North American exports in particular. North America exports about 100 million metric tons of grains per year. Very abstractly, we deposit it straight into the world's grain bin, and world consumption withdraws the same amount (or, lately, a bit more). Say for some reason North America stops exporting grain. For instance, peak oil hits hard, and we foolishly divert all 'excess' corn for ethanol production, and substitute other grains for our own food uses. (Not that outlandish a thought: according to this graph from Ludi's link, we already convert as much corn to ethanol as we export.) In the absence of North American exports, world consumption depletes the entire grain stock in only three years and change, assuming everything else remains equal. If we merely halve our exports -- six years. In other words: we can't move.

Of course, long before the stock runs out, grain prices go through the roof -- meaning folks in the poorest countries begin to undergo misery and starvation well before we get to zero days. In fact, that's already begun, hasn't it? So unfortunately I think the price of grain, and how we use and distribute it, is going to be much more relevant than good/bad years of harvest, etc.

Is that about right, Ludi?

[edpeak]

Thanks Ludi..my link being purple rather than blue
reminds me I glanced at that one recently but
skimmed to fast to realize it does seem to have
most of the numbers I need..So how's this?

2006 World Grain Harvest: ~2000 megatons

2006 World Grain consumption: ~2060 megatons

Grain Stocks: ~57 days worth.

(57/365)* 2060 is roughly 320 megatons of grain
left in the world's "pantry" -- can someone
confirm this? ...ok... the link in the article to the
graph here

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/ ... a.htm#fig4

seems to say just a bit over 300 megatons is about
right. Alright...

What does this mean? Dividing the 2006 shortfall
of 60 megatons into 320 we get 320/60 or 5 and
1/3...just a little over 5 straight years of food
deficits this size and we're fresh out.

..But it's hard to believe panic won't set in long
before we are 100% empty...say when we're down to
say 2 years: imagine knowing that, "it would only
take the next two years to have the same shortfall
as back in 2006, and we're completely out of grain
stocks"

It gives no pleasure to estimate this (down to 120
megatons or so) could very easily happen by 2015
if not much sooner..

They also note "Roughly 60 percent of the world
grain harvest is consumed as food, 36 percent as
feed, and 3 percent as fuel" so last ditch
reclaiming of that 36% could save some people from
starvation..but there's also the increasing
population, the increase has been moderating but
as Earth Policy admits, "Although the rate of
world population growth is projected to slow
further, the number of people to be added is
expected to remain above 70 million a year until
2020. Each year the world's farmers must try to
feed an additional 70 million people, good weather
or bad"

I've known that a more plant-based human diet
could alleviate things (more calories per acre,
even more protein per acre, can be grown that way)
though I realized it wouldn't be enough by itself,
but every bit helps..However, I didn't realize how
close we are to having to grapple with that..again
2015 doesn't seem unimaginable as the time by
which the world is forced to face the idea that
lowering meat consumption may be one of several
tools i the toolbox when facing possible human
starvation in the face..I'd hoped our policy
leaders would think about this tool, but staring
mass starvation in the face so soon isn't the way
I wanted it to happen! :-(

It's also interesting to note from

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/ ... a.htm#fig2

that world grain production per capita peaked
around 1981...very close to...the 1979 peak in
world oil production per capita,
http://dieoff.org/page224.htm ...hmmm..It's not a
simple cut-and-dry relationship as some write ups
suggest, but closely interrelated? sure..

Anyway do my numbers look reasonably accurate?
That it would take just a hair over 5 more
shortfalls the size of 2006's shortfall before
we're literally on empty as far as grains?

And if so, the trillion dollar (but trickier)
question is: what kind of probability distribution
can we ascribe to such a size shortfall?
Considering droughts, various aspects of global
climate disruptions, erosion of topsoil, erratic
rainfall/deluge patterns, heat waves
hurting-crops, increasing populations...has a
group of scientists done a careful modeling of
these and be able to say at lest somewhat
convincingly, "The probability is X% of having
back to back grain shortfalls of [say] 200
megatons" within ___ years from today" ??


EDpeak

[edpeak]

coyote, I agree that saying "57 days" is preferrable
to saying "we have @#%#$^ gazillion tons"..I agree
the former is much better...but it's not ideal for the reasons
I suggested: it's NOT going to happen that every single
farm on earth will produce exactly zero, for 57 days (or even 5.7 days)
so we'll never get close to 57 days or zero production,
thus giving us (eventually...dramaticl low as "57 days" sounds
now) a false sense security
because "See, we never get close to that"...see above
calculation for roughly what I was looking for..now that
tells me just how close we are to being screwed: we've
all seen back-to-back years of record mild winders,
back-to-back years of drought, etc,...so it's very easy to imagine
back-to-back years of world grain deficits...just how many,
of the size of 2006 would it take? about a hair over 5 before
we're 100% out, and less than 5 before things get extremely
dangerous...I think this statistic is never going to completely
replace "N days" but usefully supplements it with a more
realistic model of what could very well happen..and gives
us a good idea of how close to the cliff we are.. Best

EDpeak

[edpeak]

unfortunately I think the price of grain, and how we use and distribute it, is going to be much more relevant than good/bad years of harvest, etc.

Sure..and the price of grains will in part in the futures market
be based on the bets that buyers make of how likely
it is that stockpiles fall to certain levels... a10% chance versus a 60% chance of our current 5 1/3 years away, becoming "only 2 more years of shortfalls the size of 2006's shortfall, away from the cliff" would
affect futures prices...(you can have climate and other scientific
models tell you how likely it is we'll have another 60 megaton
shortfall in 2007, say..)

[nero]

Farmers could if they had the incentive produce more grain. All it takes is a higher price. With higher price they could afford more fertilizer, more irrigation, more labour etc. Yes you can say that all those things are in short supply but if the farmer had the money to outbid the cities for these resources then they could indeed increase food production. Then there is all the inefficiencies in the system. If the western world lost our collective spare tire that in itself would reduce the amount of food required to sustain us.

Famines occur when transportation and security breaksdown. And if there are famines in the future I would expect them to occur for the same reason. A poor harvest even on a global scale will just be a stress on the system, how we respond to it will determine if their is a famine.

[frankthetank]

Ed~I know some guys who plant a large field (8 acres) in crops for the DEER to eat. Thats a field that could be food for humans. Just shows you that the price isn't nearly high enough to force people to change habits. If push came to shove, i wonder how much food we could actually produce (considering the extensive lawns that could be converted throughout the land.)

[Madpaddy]

Funny,

I read this news article just before I read this thread.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2007/0103/bread.html

The Irish Bread Bakers Association (IBBA) has said it will be passing on increased production costs to retailers early in 2007.

In a statement, the organisation - which represents companies such as Johnston, Mooney & O'Brien and Brennans - said that continuing dramatic increases in the international price of wheat had driven the production costs for bread 'significantly higher'.

It blamed poor harvests in Australia, the Ukraine, Argentina and North America, which had pushed the price of wheat to ten-year highs as world stockpiles had fallen to their lowest levels in 25 years.

Paul Kelly, director of Food and Drink Industry Ireland, said bread bakers were experiencing increases of up to 25% in the cost of flour, the main ingredient in bread. 'This is on top of increases of over 30% in the cost of gas, the main energy source in baking bread,' he added. Mr Kelly said there was no sign of any improvement, and if anything the situation was worsening.

He said that while IBBA members were committed to keeping prices low, they could not absorb the cost increases indefinitely and had no option but to pass on the rises.

So we can afford the extra 25% on a loaf of bread but the poor punter in Bangladesh cant.

[frankthetank]

pstarr~thats probably healthier then the shit people eat today. 3 close friends (all males, 20's) eat out every day of the week (not sure about the weekends). So basically they eat a little wheat and mostly corn (considerig a cow is just a big pile of corn and water). I forgot the potatoes (french fries) and everything smothered in transfats. Yummy!

[edpeak]

No one in the 1st world will notice a few more dying Africans.

Somewhat true...but not entirely true..The story "Review of the year: Global warming
Our worst fears are exceeded by reality" is frightening, eye-opening
reading in its own right (see http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 110651.ece and discussion in the thread on global warming stories in this Env. forum) but also includes,

The single most momentous environmental image of 2006 was a holiday snap. Of sorts. It showed typical European package tourists on a nice sandy beach in Tenerife. Until a few minutes before the picture was taken, on August 3 on Tejita beach in Granadilla, it had been a day of utter normality for these tourists. Then something very different erupted on to the scene.

From the sea came a boat. Out of it fell pitiful figures - exhausted, terrified, dehydrated, starving. They were African migrants who, out of desperation, had risked the long voyage from the African coast to the Canaries; for the Canaries are part of Europe, a place of hope and opportunity. What did the tourists do? They did the decent thing. They rushed to the aid of fellow men and women.

But will they offer such a welcome when the boat people are not just a boatload, but a whole country- or region-load? For that is coming. As climate change takes hold this century, agriculture may fail in some of the poorest and most densely populated parts of the world.

Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain's former Ambassador to the UN, who is one of the most far-sighted of environmental commentators, pointed out as long ago as 1990 that global warming is likely to create environmental refugees in the hundreds of millions. We have paid little attention to his warning.

But if you look at the picture taken on Tejita beach, you can see something even more dramatic than the fact that the ordinary European holidaymaker has a lifestyle most Africans can only dream of. You can see the future, starting to happen.

[Ludi]

edpeak, sadly, NOBODY CARES. At least, to be more accurate, not enough people care enough to change our way of life. Simply switching to a plant-based diet would be a good choice for many reasons, but simply that, with no other lifestyle changes, is not enough to deal with the magnitude of the problems we face. More farming of annual crops isn't the answer either, as annual crop agriculture is decimating large areas of necessary habitat and watershed worldwide (see Amazon discussion). We're facing the confluence of events which will lay bare the fact that our way of life is no longer viable, that its basic premises are faulty, and we must find a different way to live or perish. But, in spite of this, even in spite of people pointing out these dangers for decades, no significant changes are being made, nor will they be, in my unhappy opinion.

[joewp]

But, in spite of this, even in spite of people pointing out these dangers for decades, no significant changes are being made, nor will they be, in my unhappy opinion.

No they won't, Ludi. I'm re-reading "Overshoot" and as Catton continually points out, W. I. Thomas found that change is resisted until the very last minute, even if it's too late. I see this in my daily life. No one wants to know about peak oil, peak natural gas or climate change affecting crop growth.

It's pretty sad, isn't it?

[edpeak]

Simply switching to a plant-based diet would be a good choice for many reasons, but simply that, with no other lifestyle changes, is not enough to deal with the magnitude of the problems we face.... We're facing the confluence of events which will lay bare the fact that our way of life is no longer viable, that its basic premises are faulty,

We're in complete agreement on the above, Ludi..I did
feel compelled however to respond to the
"it won't affect us" comment that was made -- which I
admit is partially true -- but it is also partially false,
as the story I quoted shows...back to your point,
I think one of the most constructive questions
we can ask is WHY weren't/aren't people doing,
or likely to do, what they need to do, which is to make
larger changes in the directions outlined?

Now, one could analyze this on the level of psychology,
but that is not constructive unless we can go door
to door and help "treat" 6.5 billion people ;-)

So it makes sense to treat that as a parameter whose
value we can only indirectly influence but is otherwise
not directly changeabe.

How could analyze the "Why don't people
act more" question in another way, instead
of treating it as a "human psychology" issue
(or "moral failure" issue or...) those dimensions
are not false...but they are not the only dimensions,
and others are more amenable to constructive
action. A constructive dimension is that of existing
politico-economic (econo-political?) institutions.
This has many angles but one big one is our
perpetual-growth-economy.

WE can complain how people aren't "Getting it"
and "Don't want to /can't be bothered to do enough"
and we can curse at how little people seem to act/change
but the fact is that the above mentioned institutional
framework, prevents a LOT of action from being possible...

What I, personally take from this, is the need to try
to change those instittuions. Will that guarantee success? No, but NOT changing the institutions WILL guarantee failure, so
the least one can do is to try to change them...to at least
allow for a greater possibility of institutions that
are different enough that, it is at least more
possible (even though not guranteed) for people to act in the ways we want them to.

It seems to me that looking for these kinds of constructive
take-home lessons are one of the few things we can
do outside of our personal/community level. As so how
to do that, it's a huge task, but far from impossible
to take constructive steps to move us away from it,
by starting to build an alternative economic model one
piece at a time (but that's another story...)

EDpeak
who has another statistic for which finding an alternative
may come up in a future post of his..

[Ludi]

I don't personally think there's much point in trying to change institutions, ed. I think it would be more effective to build NEW "institutions" to openly demonstrate different ways of life and promote these to one's community. Not saying you shouldn't e pounding on the doors of institutions, if you can do that, but, as I say, I don't think there is much value in doing so, personally.

Agriculture, in particular, is an institution which changes extremely slowly.

Approaching the issue from a moral or psychological point of view is, I think, absolutely and completely useless. But that''s just me, I'm a practical person, interested more in doing than talking. I'm sick of talking about these problems; the time for talking is over and we MUST act.

[edpeak]

We're again in agreement Ludi: I meant "Change" the
institutions in the same sense of the word as "change
the clothes you are wearing"

As in, replace them.

And that means building alternatives.

This will include replacing Wall Street, which is no small
task, if we want to change (replace) the existing
perpetual growth economy, but also CSAs and
new healthcare paradigms (e.g. www.ithacahealth.org)
and local currencies etc have roles to play. Individual
lower impact living and independence can help
but we really need cooperative interdependence and
joining of forces to create a new economy (along
w/new culture etc) from the bottom up, including
jobs, investment, food, housing, and healthcare for
starters..

Is there a forum for "building new institutions" either
way please share some links if you have them, as I have above,
or incipient alternative insittutions :-)

[edpeak]

Let's try that link again without it putting a ) inside the link:

http://www.ithacahealth.org

Ok, let's take off this shirt we're currently wearing and put on another one instead :-)

[Ayame]

The global cupboard will be raided again this year.


World Grain: Despite Record Crop Forecast, Stocks Expected To Shrink

The global grain market is expected to remain tight in 2007/08, as rapidly expanding consumption once again outstrips production. Consequently, world stocks are expected to be drawn down for the third straight year, falling to the lowest level in more than 25 years.

article

[malcomatic_51]

The global cupboard will be raided again this year.


World Grain: Despite Record Crop Forecast, Stocks Expected To Shrink

The global grain market is expected to remain tight in 2007/08, as rapidly expanding consumption once again outstrips production. Consequently, world stocks are expected to be drawn down for the third straight year, falling to the lowest level in more than 25 years.

article

I first read about the pressure on carry-over stocks about 5 years ago in the WorldWatch Institute annual report. Since then I have watched the situation slide to worse and worse. As with Peak Oil, it surprises me that the masses remain oblivious to this issue. We are drifting towards global famine quite inexorably, yet you see nothing of this in the papers. It gets less attention than PO. Unlike PO, you can actually put some fairly good data on the table.

The secure monotony of daily life in the West has destroyed natural instincts for incipient danger. Oil and food shortages, combined with financial crises due to collapsing debt structures, will assail these placid expectations with potent reactions in the political arena. Consider people who one year feel secure and see not a cloud on the horizon, have a nice car and house and are planning to have kids, then the next year WHAM! They've got a lifetime of negative equity to pay off, the car is gone and the job is going, the news is full of oceans of starvation all over the world, desperate refugees pour in from abroad, fuel protesters are out in the street demanding their "right" to cheap fuel......

It could get that bad very suddenly.