would have to say
BingoOriginally Posted by 120mm
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Have been opining that water would take the place of petroleum in future wars.
As far as food & water are related, particularly in agri-business, fear great correctness to prior statement. Also fear GMOs/Frankenfoods which will be part of this.
Little bits and pieces floating around out there...
First Argentina. 3rd largest soybean producer in the world, Brazil is #2, US is #1. Both Argentina and Brazil are having drought issues, Argentina more so than Brazil. 11.2008 Story on Argentina It's gotten worse since then, although they might have just gotten enough rain this last week to bail them out of having a bad crop year.
USDA in 11.2008 was projecting 2-3% increase in soybeans for Brazil and Argentina. The smart money is now betting than it's more likely in the 0-1% increase range, but now the farmers are having an increasing difficult time raising capital to plant their crops. That's going to be a concern for here in the US, also - but less of a concern than in other producing markets. Link to Article
Don't be at all surprised if there isn't a couple of bil $$$$ of our next bailout set aside for the farming community, specifically farm equipment and farm suppliers. There's logic there, in that apart from keeping the manufacturers and suppliers afloat, the money will also push the farming community to produce, and hopefully start to reverse some of last year's food price increases going forward into 2009. Smarter thinking, there - IMO.
If this happens, watch the market for productive farmland. When you've got a truly crippled up RE market, got to start the recovery somewhere. Start with that tiny corner of the RE market called "productive farmland".
Watching both the rice and wheat markets. Going to be interesting.
CH, 26 Jan 09: The Feeding of the Nine Billion: Global Food Security for the 21st Century
Complete 61-page report at the link.Global food prices have eased significantly from their record highs in the first part of 2008. As a worldwide economic downturn has gathered pace, commodity markets have weakened significantly. By October 2008, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index stood at 164, the same level as in August 2007, and 25% lower than the Index’s high of 219 in June 2008.
However, this does not mean that policy-makers around the world can start to breathe a sigh of relief. For one thing, even at their somewhat diminished levels current prices remain acutely problematic for low-income import dependent countries and for poor people all over the world. The World Bank estimates that higher food prices have increased the number of undernourished people by as much as 100 million from its pre-price-spike level of 850 million.
Looking to the medium and longer term, moreover, food prices are poised to rise again. Although many policymakers have taken a degree of comfort from a recent OECD/FAO report on the world’s agricultural outlook to 2017, which argued that food prices would shortly resume their long-term decline (even if they remained on average higher than their pre-spike levels), it largely overlooked the potential impact of long-term resource scarcity trends, notably climate change, energy security and falling water availability.
This Chatham House Report, by contrast, argues that these trends – together with competition for land and higher demand resulting from increasing affluence and a growing global population – represent a major challenge for global food security......
IMO, the marketplace is starting to tell us a story. The "known" part of the story is:
Link to ArticleFarmers await USDA plantings report
Among a series of upcoming USDA reports, more attention may be focused on the Prospective Plantings report, said a University of Illinois Extension marketing specialist.
"At the annual outlook conference, the USDA used a 2009 corn planting estimate of 86 million acres to construct the projected supply and consumption balance sheet for 2009-10," said Darrel Good. "That projection is equal to 2008 plantings. The USDA used an estimate of 77 million acres for soybeans, 1.3 million more than planted in 2008.
"The combined acreage of corn and soybeans appears low given the 4.2 million acre reduction in winter wheat seedings already reported and the expected two million acre reduction in total cotton, rice, and spring wheat acreage. However, the USDA expects total crop land acreage to decline in 2009 as a result of prospects for lower returns and fewer opportunities for double-cropped soybeans."
Good's comments came as he reviewed two upcoming USDA reports to be released on March 31. The March 1 Grain Stocks and Prospective Plantings reports each could have important implications for corn and soybean prices.
The part that is just being talked about hasn't been reported yet, because there's no official numbers. Farmland isn't selling (course, that's pretty much real estate these days), but farmland cash rents are also down, and trending downward. Farmers are pulling back for this crop year, not just making shifts in the "crop bucket".
Unofficially got a very detailed understanding of crop production prices, and beans (soybeans) right now ($9.95 a Bu. for May, 2009; dated 04.03.2009) are maybe $.25 a Bu. above actual production costs (a 2.5% return). Corn is way under water ($4.05 a Bu. for May, 2009; dated 04.03.2009) - literally, prices are a substantial sum below cost to produce.
Now, grain stockpiles are back to being higher going into this year, but what's being told to me is that the farming community is really retrenching, because their "asset value" (just like in the general populace) of their primary assets are lower, so they are cutting back. And that is going to affect this year's crop production.
We'll see.
Looking back to January, 2008...
was worried about grain prices back then, with Jan. 2008 beans and January, 2008 corn at prices I thought were outrageous back then. Well, 18 months later, guess where grain prices are today, and it's starting to look kind of tense out there.
LinkThe ministry now predicts that 57.6 million metric tons of soybeans will be harvested in Brazil compared to 58.1MMT forecasted on April 7th. Last year, growers produced 60MMT of soybeans.
This dimmer outlook comes on the heels of severe drought in Argentina lowered some soybean production estimates to 32MMT, 30% less than last year. With Brazil and Argentina the second and third biggest producers of soybeans in the world respectively, decreased production may send soybean prices even higher. Over the next 7 days, heavy rain is possible in southern Brazil. However, with over two-thirds of the soybean crop already harvested, the rain is likely to late to improve crop prospects.
Btw, Argentina (#3 in the world) had a December, 2008 projection of right around 50 mil. Bu. of beans. Due to a prolonged drought, it's estimated production is now between 31 to 34 Mil Bu. for beans.
Then, there's this:
LinkIllinois Soybean Production May Suffer From Delayed Planting
Dated: Tuesday, May 19, 2009
If corn planting is seriously delayed in Illinois then what will happen to soybean planting intentions? Soybean acreage may be cut, if growers run out of time to plant in late May and June. Delayed sowing dates would translate into a shortened growing season that may reduce the yield, especially in a cool summer. Illinois is the second biggest US soybean state behind Iowa growing 17-18% of the national crop.
We found 5 years when soybeans were planted very late delaying the onset of blooming and pod setting. The years with extremely slow development were 1990, 1993, 1995, 1996 and 2008, each having a very delayed pod set, the state average being less than 32% podding on August 1. Typically in late years, the Illinois soybean yield was depressed.
When you look at the different reporting on planting and weather conditions, it's going to be a tight year. The current probability is that global corn and beans (soybeans) production will be lower than last year.
The interesting question right now is how much will the PRC import - they have already been importing US produced beans at a higher level than in prior years, which explains current pricing (July, 2009 at $11.75 a Bu. for soybeans; $4.24 a Bu. for Corn). Much of it is because the US has the highest amount of supply.
In June, 2008, we were a little over the $15.00 a Bu. price for beans. We could be going back to those levels, and maybe then some.
Good News For US Farming Community
Not so much for consumers, and certainly not for export buyers. But at least the grain/food production side of the US economy isn't suffering through a systemic depression, and that's a good thing.
A 'time bomb' for world wheat crop, by Karen Kaplan. Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2009.
Crop scientists fear the Ug99 fungus could wipe out more than 80% of worldwide wheat crops as it spreads from eastern Africa. It has already jumped the Red Sea and traveled as far as Iran. Experts say it is poised to enter the breadbasket of northern India and Pakistan, and the wind will inevitably carry it to Russia, China and even North America -- if it doesn't hitch a ride with people first.
On the original topic, using food-denial as a strategic weapon is a lot more common than most would like to admit -- just look at Ethiopia in the 80's: sure, the government eventually lost, anyway, but they stuck around far longer than they would have otherwise.
On the current situation, growing food isn't really the issue -- moving the food grown to those who need it is. Case in point, Somalia: the 'bandit of the month club' will do all it can to steal donated food supplies at gunpoint at dockside, to distribute to their own clans, or sell at (local) "starvation" prices; if they have boats, they'll try to bag it on the high seas.
Unfortunately, food isn't sexy enough for most people to wrap their brains around when they're sitting stuffed at a $3000/plate fundraiser...or stuffing their face at a McDonald's. It's too existential.
All in all, though, from a strictly operational viewpoint, the starvation gambit is pretty tricky to implement, unless you can convince your own people that forcing your enemy's children to starve to death is a good thing...worrying about world opinion comes in a distant second.
"Hey, Leif?! Where'd we leave the boat?"
Peak oil & food supply
This was posted today re peak oil and our agri-food system.
I think that the situation in Canada applies equally to USA: the first farmer is looking at biofuels, the second at local food supply.
My comments re. Canada's energy dept being in denial on PO apply equally to your DoE.
My comments re Agriculture Canada apply equally to your USDA.
Until DoE sounds the alarm, USDA is unlikely to examine how US agri-food might function in a world without cheap energy.
Here is the link... please let me know what you think:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50800
The past decade: an agri-food perspective
This was published yesterday in Winnipeg:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bus...-80129047.html
It's an assessment of major trends in the agri-food sector.
A response was submitted at the end (re agri-food and peak oil).
I think Ms. Rance did a good job of identifying the key points.
Best wishes to you all for the next decade.
rm
Simmons' latest: Oil & Water
Matt Simmons continues to do excellent work on global energy supply.
His most recent presentation is entitled Twin Threats to Resource Scarcity: Oil & Water and was presented three weeks ago in Dubai.
Clearly, both water and fuel are vital to food supply chains (both local and global).
This slide deck is shorter than most (32 slides) and of course I don’t know the oral content which accompanied it.
But one underlying theme is this: nothing could unravel global security of energy supplies faster than disorder and conflict, and Simmons points to water supply as a growing threat to both civil order and oil supply.
Simmons begins by pointing out our inability to substitute for water or oil (slides 1-7), long-term concerns over oil supply (8-11), and the looming threat of water scarcity (12-16).
He then focuses on the Middle East for several reasons: its growing population, its precarious water supply, and its surging internal demand for energy… all of which point in one direction: diminishing export capacity (17-21).
If we factor in the underlying potential for disorder (eg. conflict with Iran, terrorist damage to major oil infrastructure), there is little justification for complacency, especially in import-dependent regions such as ours.
As for solutions, Simmons mentions two: proper pricing (slides 7 & 22) and ocean energy (24-29).
This presentation is available here:
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Marsh.pdf
Simmons’ focus on the nexus between energy and water provides an effective complement to the ongoing work of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which has undertaken a multi-stage (and quite detailed) analysis of this nexus.
Part one on biofuels was reviewed here (Dec. 09):
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50988
The GAO’s study of water and oil shale should be released soon.
Nat’l Intelligence Council report on Caribbean Region & CC
The National Intelligence Council has released a report on the expected effects of climate change to the Caribbean region.
This 21 page report is entitled Mexico, The Caribbean and Central America: The Impact of Climate Change to 2030: Geopolitical Implications (NIC Conference Report., Jan. 2010).
The report is authored by a team of private research contractors under the Global Climate Change Research Program contract with the CIA’s Office of the Chief Scientist.
The prognosis of these analysts is bleak.
They see considerable potential for “civil unrest and internal conflicts leading to increased migration” (p. 3).
The source of these tensions is both predictable and (apparently) intractable: increasing population, energy consumption, rising sea levels, fresh-water scarcity and land degradation, coupled with declining food production and an overwhelming dependence on oil imports.
The plight of Mexico City is particularly concerning: it is already “experiencing severe water scarcity and aquifer depletion…. With a population of more than 20 million, the city must pump water from great distances and has had to ration water at least three times in 2009” (p. 12).
Almost all countries in the region have inadequate health services and limited emergency response capability.
The authors are to be commended for their honest and direct assessment.
At the top and bottom of every page is the disclaimer, “This paper does not represent US Government views,” which is entirely understandable.
The full report is available here:
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_other...ate_change.pdf
Gen Wesley Clark on energy security (video)
One of Canada’s finest journalists is Steve Paikin at TV-Ontario.
In October 2009 he interviewed Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret) on the topic of energy security (28 mins).
This interview is currently posted at the Journal of Energy Security.
Gen. Clark has an excellent grasp of these complex issues and some very clear ideas about what we can and should do about them.
He is particularly optimistic about corn ethanol (at a time when many analysts of food & fuel issues see it as the wrong way to go).
The topics discussed (with start-times) are:
1m – history of US oil supply
5m – resource nationalism
10m – role of Canada (tar sands, etc)
13m – nuclear
16m – ethanol, transport fleet
19m – corn production
20m – US total energy consumption, alt energy, transportation vs stationary
24m – Clark’s investments & interests
25m – opposing interests & political change
27m – climate change threat
Here is the link:
http://www.ensec.org/
That's an understatement.
Everyone who wants to check the advantages and disadvantages of corn ethanol AND has basic math skills can CALCULATE that it's a dumb approach.
The solar energy efficiency of photosynthesis is less than a per cent, the solar energy efficiency of technical solar power harvesting (such as photovoltaics of solarthermal power) is two orders of magnitude better.
The area efficiency of dedicated bio energy is thus perfectly suitable to kill mankind through food deprivation. We couldn't produce enough bio energy products to supply our industry, homes and cars with energy even farmers stopped food production altogether.
Bio energy is a clever strategy of the pro-farmer lobby in developed countries. They want their nations to subsidy bio energy in order to artificially increase demand for agricultural products, thus creating a supply shortage that benefits exclusively the landowners. This strategy is being used in parallel in many developed countries and it's despicable.
Even the use of agricultural by-products (corn straw) is highly questionable because we deprive the soil of organic components if we carry away too much organic material from the field per year. It makes only sense economically if the economy is screwed up with subsidies (such as indirect bio energy subsidies).
The situation regarding bio energy in Germany looks like this:
research ministry: It's crappy idea!
economy ministry: It's a crappy idea!
fiscal ministry: It's a waste of taxpayer money!
environment ministry: It's a dangerous idea!
agriculture ministry: Yippiiee! Next big thing!
Corn ethanol
I agree.
I can see why proponents wanted to try corn ethanol, especially farmers who struggle to get a decent return for their crops.
If gov't would subsidize things, so much the better from their point of view.
I farm, as do my two brothers-in-law, but we do not sell corn for ethanol.
But the evidence seems very clear: the net energy return is marginal (and minimal compared to fossil fuels), the risk to human food is considerable, and the increased cost to livestock producers is hurtful.
In short, a bad idea.
Your point about the cellulosic component needing to go back to the soil is also correct... cellulosic ethanol may be more commercially viable, but topsoil does need to be fed... we cannot remove its primary source of nutrients & humus, which is crop residue.
But I'm glad you took the time to watch the video.
I disagree with Clark on ethanol, but I do agree with most of his other observations, and I did think that his perspective & expertise might be of interest to this audience.
Although I have my own set of concerns, I think it's useful to offer alternative perspectives from time to time, just to see what people think of them.
Thanks for contributing your observations, Fuchs.
Drought in SE Asia
In addition to the ongoing drought in southwestern China, now this (yesterday's NYT) about water woes in SE Asia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/wo...02drought.html
Bluefin tuna and Gulf crop damage
First, this morning's very concerning report on the bleak future for bluefin tuna:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/ma...html?th&emc=th
Second, the dispersant being used in the Gulf is a possible explanation for the mysterious leaf damage in one area of Mississippi:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=65552
This article argues that 'dispersant rain' would be unlikely:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...ana-Not-likely.
On the other hand, this guy is pretty convinced by what is landing in his rain-barrel:
http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/sea...l%20Experiment
Time will tell....
Fish processing plants are being hit hard in Alabama. Dosen't matter if the catch is good or not, fish buyers from acorss the country want take the risk of buying it.
Australian video of Gulf blow-out
Slapout, speaking of the mess in the Gulf...
This powerful documentary by 60 Minutes in Australia was aired, then the video link was suddenly dropped from the archive, although the transcript remains.
There is much speculation as why the video portion has been removed....
The video is available in two parts on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rphEV...eature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC-tYZ7tbYM
An earlier version (very small screen, but it gives the the complete documentary in one piece) is here:
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/m...6x9_Mobile.3gp
Peak Oil & food supply
This article was published today in Hamilton, Ontario:
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/803793
The author is right-on in warning of the danger of oil price shocks (which quickly turn into affordability issues for food), the perils of our just-in-time food supply chain, and the decades-long time-frame which is required to change energy infrastructure.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks