Population Growth: How Will We Feed An Expanding Population on Finite Resources?
Monoculture Practices
According to UN estimates, the world population is set to grow above nine billion by 2050. This means that we must find a way to produce greater quantities of food to meet the demand, while using the same finite amount of resources to produce the supply. Even today, hunger and malnutrition are very serious issues, and beg the question: How will we be able to maintain food security in an exponentially expanding population when our practices to produce it put the land it requires in jeopardy?
Agri-business is shaped by demand, and government policies. However, as a business, it is looking to maximize profits. One good example of how agriculture purely working to maximize its profits can lead to degradation is in beef production: It is clearly not sustainable or efficient to feed a cow 16 pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat. To create the 16 pounds of grain to produce that one pound of meat, millions of acres of land are being used, which destroy native habitats and ecosystems. This drives a serious loss in biodiversity alone. Now, if the cattle are being fed a combination of grain (which is a fat concentrate) and grazing, this means more land is needed to allow the cattle to forage. Over grazing also leads to topsoil loss and land degradation. Grains planted to feed the cattle are generally planted in monocultures, using high intensity farming practices. Monoculture crops are an issue in themselves because without plant diversity in an area, the susceptibility for pests and diseases are high. As a precaution against this, larger amounts of pesticides are used.
In the past few decades, there has been a worldwide rise in demand for meat, and corporations are doing all they can to supply it at the lowest possible cost. Here are some quick figures to demonstrate how powerful the market can be in perpetuating agricultural expansion at the expense of the environment and in turn, biodiversity:
This shows that there is a great inefficiency in the way the markets have accommodated supply and demand, and prioritizing profits over sustainability. Agri-business is maximizing profits by catering to the demands of a world population with an increasing appetite for beef, instead of looking at the larger picture of how to feed the worlds population sustainably. In doing so, it has allowed food security and biodiversity to become forgotten externalities, which have not been adequately factored into the cost-benefit analysis. The damages of meat production in this example shows how destructive agricultural practices can be on biodiversity in the Amazon, because native plant and animal species can not survive in such a simplified landscape, with an intensely cultivated monoculture crop such as grain.
If investors supported a shift to increasing small scale, localized food production that diversifies its crop and practices low intensity farming, the immediate loss in profits would be buffered by the preservation of biodiversity, and in turn the surrounding ecosystems, which create option value and guarantee the health of the land. To be able to feed the population in the future, it is not realistic or sustainable to continue pouring such large amounts of resources into such a low return in food quantity (profits aside). It is clear that in order to feed such a globalized world, it will have to be with a combination of many agricultural techniques, however if we were to expand localized farms and advanced localized networking systems to distribute these goods, we will be helping to preserve biodiversity. Food security in the future is dependent on our resource use today, and the resources lost in maximizing profits are driving biodiversity loss and jeopardizing the option value for the future.
Agri-business is shaped by demand, and government policies. However, as a business, it is looking to maximize profits. One good example of how agriculture purely working to maximize its profits can lead to degradation is in beef production: It is clearly not sustainable or efficient to feed a cow 16 pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat. To create the 16 pounds of grain to produce that one pound of meat, millions of acres of land are being used, which destroy native habitats and ecosystems. This drives a serious loss in biodiversity alone. Now, if the cattle are being fed a combination of grain (which is a fat concentrate) and grazing, this means more land is needed to allow the cattle to forage. Over grazing also leads to topsoil loss and land degradation. Grains planted to feed the cattle are generally planted in monocultures, using high intensity farming practices. Monoculture crops are an issue in themselves because without plant diversity in an area, the susceptibility for pests and diseases are high. As a precaution against this, larger amounts of pesticides are used.
In the past few decades, there has been a worldwide rise in demand for meat, and corporations are doing all they can to supply it at the lowest possible cost. Here are some quick figures to demonstrate how powerful the market can be in perpetuating agricultural expansion at the expense of the environment and in turn, biodiversity:
- A gallon of gasoline is required to produce a pound of grain fed beef
- More than a third of the world’s grain harvest is used to feed livestock
- Half of the water consumed in the U.S is used to grow grain for cattle feed
- The total cattle population worldwide is approximately 1.3 billion and occupies 24% of the planet.
- More than 90% of the Amazon rainforest cleared since 1970 is used for global meat production
- 1.5 acres are cut down in the Amazon per second; approximately 129,600 acres are cut down er day and 47,304,000 acres annually.
This shows that there is a great inefficiency in the way the markets have accommodated supply and demand, and prioritizing profits over sustainability. Agri-business is maximizing profits by catering to the demands of a world population with an increasing appetite for beef, instead of looking at the larger picture of how to feed the worlds population sustainably. In doing so, it has allowed food security and biodiversity to become forgotten externalities, which have not been adequately factored into the cost-benefit analysis. The damages of meat production in this example shows how destructive agricultural practices can be on biodiversity in the Amazon, because native plant and animal species can not survive in such a simplified landscape, with an intensely cultivated monoculture crop such as grain.
If investors supported a shift to increasing small scale, localized food production that diversifies its crop and practices low intensity farming, the immediate loss in profits would be buffered by the preservation of biodiversity, and in turn the surrounding ecosystems, which create option value and guarantee the health of the land. To be able to feed the population in the future, it is not realistic or sustainable to continue pouring such large amounts of resources into such a low return in food quantity (profits aside). It is clear that in order to feed such a globalized world, it will have to be with a combination of many agricultural techniques, however if we were to expand localized farms and advanced localized networking systems to distribute these goods, we will be helping to preserve biodiversity. Food security in the future is dependent on our resource use today, and the resources lost in maximizing profits are driving biodiversity loss and jeopardizing the option value for the future.