“With one in six people going hungry, one child dying every six seconds and 80% of sub-Saharan African countries facing higher food prices than a year ago, the poor and the hungry are facing one of the biggest crises in our lifetimes.  It is critical for the world to remember  that hunger will have a permanent impact  on children and we may lose a generation unless they have adequate access to nutrition during this crisis”.

That is a pretty powerful statement from Josette  Sheeran, director of the United Nations’ World Food Programme, at a meeting of G8 nations last June.    Not too often do I read an article in any magazine that I think is worth a hoot, but Wes Ishmael’s article “Running On Empty” in the Angus Journal, was pretty good stuff.  It covered the upcoming population boom and possible food shortage, and the challenges it will present to agriculture.  I will share some of the highlights.

Alex Avery, Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, says “Over the next forty years world food demand will at least double, and we have little new farmlands with which to meet that demand.  We really have only more productive farming methods to use on our existing farm ground”.

The global population is expected to peak at 9 billion people by 2050.  The current population is 6.8 billion.  Much of the explosion in food demand will come from expanding global wealth, giving more people access to food and richer diets.  The current global recession not withstanding, Chinese meat consumption has doubled in the last 15 years.  All projections show that Chinese meat consumption will double again.  And that’s just China.  Nations such as India are expected to have a larger population than China in several years and the story of consumption is much the same.

Avery points out “There are only two ways to meet this growing demand. Take more land from nature or produce more food per acre on existing farmland.”  One thing I think I should point out is that we lose farm ground every year in the U.S.  After traveling to China a couple years ago I learned they lose way more farm ground per year than we do.

I think that trend gives us the option of getting more production per acre.  In 1950 we grew 39 bushels of corn per acre, in 2000 that average was 153 bushels per acre.  Each farmer in 2000 produced 12 times as much farm output per hour worked as compared to 1950.  Development of technology is a primary factor in this progress.

So what has technology done for the cattle biz?  Without technological advancements the U.S. cattle herd required to produce the 2004 beef supply would have to nearly double.  This would clearly have implications on land use and animal waste issues.  To provide the additional pasture and feed grains for that many cattle we would need a land mass the size of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Kansas.  U.S. beef production per head has increased more than 80%, making the U.S. the most efficient beef producer in the world.  Some of that efficiency can be attributed to implants.

I really like this next bit by Avery.  “When environmental activists are demanding that we increase the fuel efficiency of our cars, why are they also advocating a reduction in land use efficiency of our farming systems (organic), especially when no other human activity has as great an impact on environment as agriculture?  That is a tough question environmental activists don’t want you to ask.”

Conventionally produced grain fed beef compared to organic grass fed beef serves as a perfect example.  Traditional grain feeding operations reduce the amount of land needed to produce a pound of beef by 67%, and the grain fed system reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 40%!  If we went all organic, we would need the additional manure from 8 billion more head of cattle to replace the synthetic  nitrogen fertilizers with organic ones.  The global population of cattle is 1.2 billion head.

The article wraps up with this from Norman Borlaug.  “With low cost food supplies and urban bias, is it any wonder that affluent customers don’t understand the complexities of reproducing the world food supply each year in its entirety, and expanding it further for the nearly 80 million additional mouths that are born each year?”

Borlaug suggests secondary schools make students take courses on biology and food and agricultural technology.  Ironically the U.S. is doing just the opposite.  The number of farmers is declining.  Funding for research is declining as well.  In the mean time, interest in environmental activism and animal rights is increasing.  Borlaug points out “The Green Revolution had won a temporary success in man’s war on hunger, which if fully implemented, could provide sufficient food for humankind through the end of the 20th century.  I now think the world has the technology, either available or well advanced in the research pipeline, to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The pertinent question is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use it.”

I read that article in the September issue of “Angus Journal” yesterday.  (I know I’m a bit behind.) I have been pondering it a bit.  I wonder which three scenarios will play out.  Will we be allowed to use new technology and continue to pursue our passion of raising cattle and doing our part to feed the planet?  Will it all end up being a total nightmare with famine and death from starvation?  Or will there be a third scenario that hasn’t been discussed?  This third scenario could be something like a war that depopulates the human race, or some type of new world order that is similar to China’s one child policy, implemented to slow population growth, which in my opinion would still be a nightmare.