IN 40 years were will you be Farming I hope

[myersfarm]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources could make for an "unrecognizable" world by 2050, researchers warned at a major US science conference Sunday.

The United Nations has predicted the global population will reach seven billion this year, and climb to nine billion by 2050, "with almost all of the growth occurring in poor countries, particularly Africa and South Asia," said John Bongaarts of the non-profit Population Council.

To feed all those mouths, "we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000," said Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

"By 2050 we will not have a planet left that is recognizable" if current trends continue, Clay said.

The swelling population will exacerbate problems, such as resource depletion, said John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University.

But incomes are also expected to rise over the next 40 years -- tripling globally and quintupling in developing nations -- and add more strain to global food supplies.

People tend to move up the food chain as their incomes rise, consuming more meat than they might have when they made less money, the experts said.

It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat, and around three to four pounds of grain to produce a pound of cheese or eggs, experts told AFP.

"More people, more money, more consumption, but the same planet," Clay told AFP, urging scientists and governments to start making changes now to how food is produced.

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

"For 20 years, there's been very little investment in family planning, but there's a return of interest now, partly because of the environmental factors like global warming and food prices," said Bongaarts.

"We want to minimize population growth, and the only viable way to do that is through more effective family planning," said Casterline.

[springvalley]

In forty years I will more than likely be pushing up daisies, it will be up to my children, and I hope that the world is worth living in. Something will happen to bring the population down in the next forty years, it may be the swine flu, plague, war, earthquake, floods, fire, who knows what it could be. But the world can`t support that much growth and it will cleanse itself somehow. > Thanks Marc

[topside1]

I'll be supplying fresh goats milk to the other fine folks in Heaven. Topside

[barelahh]

Dead!

[thequeensblessing]

I'll only be 88, so hopefully, I'll still be here on my farm. Hubby will be 82, and maybe between us, we can still do some raised beds, manage to pick a few apples from the orchard, keep a few chickens, and keep a lamb or two for our use. (Let's think positive!)

[linn]

I won't be around to worry about it. LOL

[Patt]

Originally Posted by springvalley

In forty years I will more than likely be pushing up daisies, it will be up to my children, and I hope that the world is worth living in. Something will happen to bring the population down in the next forty years, it may be the swine flu, plague, war, earthquake, floods, fire, who knows what it could be. But the world can`t support that much growth and it will cleanse itself somehow. > Thanks Marc

I tend to agree. I think it will right itself somehow.

[ramiller5675]

"...It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat...experts told AFP..."

Where in the world does it take 7 lbs. of grain to produce a pound of meat? When so-called experts throw out those kind of numbers, it makes me question everything else they are saying.

[Tad]

Well I will be 70 in 40 years so I hope to be still around but "experts" can't predict tomorrows weather, or milk prices 2 months from now so grain of salt is noted!

[francismilker]

Originally Posted by ramiller5675

"...It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat...experts told AFP..."

Where in the world does it take 7 lbs. of grain to produce a pound of meat? When so-called experts throw out those kind of numbers, it makes me question everything else they are saying.

Well, to be specific; at my house. My kids have showed beef calves for years and part of that competition is in the rate-of-gain ability of their beef steers. On average, it takes 6-8 lbs. of grain to put a pound of weight on a steer at my place.

[ramiller5675]

How much beef is produced from weaned calves put on feed?

And, feeding a steer 7 lbs. of grain for each additional pound of gain isn't the same as saying it takes 7 lbs. of grain to produce 1 lb. of meat.

If you graze a steer until he is about 800-900 lbs. before feeding any grain, the total amount of grain fed for the total amount of beef should drop.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by ramiller5675

If you graze a steer until he is about 800-900 lbs. before feeding any grain, the total amount of grain fed for the total amount of beef should drop.

It sure would, but if you used honest math like that it would be harder to scare people with the overpopulation boogeyman. Yeah, we might be overpopulated someday, but I'm long past getting worked up over it. They use it much like they use the global warming, excuse me, climate change farce. Besides, as mentioned, I believe something will happen soon that will bring the population down.

[arabian knight]

Originally Posted by barelahh

Dead!

Ditto.

[copperhead46]

My prayer is that my grandchildren will be able and willing to keep our land and will be good care takers of it. Only time will tell, I won't be here to know, I can only teach them while I'm here.
P.J.

[MO_cows]

Originally Posted by ramiller5675

"...It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat...experts told AFP..."

Where in the world does it take 7 lbs. of grain to produce a pound of meat? When so-called experts throw out those kind of numbers, it makes me question everything else they are saying.

Same here. Maybe that number is right for trying to finish out a dairy animal at an immature age, but the typical beef production of a lifetime on grass and about 90 days on grain brings that number waaay down. And chicken and pork are way lower than that, too. They are fearmongering, but I guess they just don't grab enough attention with headlines like "Progress in Agricultural Efficiency Can Feed the Masses Without Destroying the Environment."

[J2E1]

I'm trying to understand why the population in countries with no resources will grow the most.

Couple things I think I understand:
1. In those countries women have very little to no say in birth control or even if they want children due to cultural mores, power, obtaining protection and access to resources, etc.
2. I've heard the proposition that often sex is used to fill boredom.??? (Probably not much different elsewhere)

Now if the land can't support the population, typically I'd say the population falls into a balance with what the land can support. I'd feel like this should be a self correcting problem but it hasn't corrected. One factor that comes into play is the importing of food and supplies. Now if the land is providing things like diamonds, oil, etc, then importing food and supplies in trade makes sense. What about charitiable sources? The resources go in, but not in trade, making the land support more people than it's capacity, they're living off the capacity of the other land. Is this really wise? The people in those places often become dependant. Is it better to let things balance out or should we compete against nature in this area like we do in other ways?

Hopefully this doesn't go too off the mark, I just really latched on to the OP's link about how 3rd world countries will have the biggest boon. I really hope that means things are getting better there, rather than relying on assistance.

[springvalley]

J2E1, you are right on the money I think, we are no differant, importing more oil than we produce. I would love to be there when the Arab countries wells go dry and see how many countries are standing in line to buy sand. I then hope American farmers will be driving Cadillac`s and Bentley`s and have fancy homes, when they get all the money back from the arab`s that we have paid them for oil. I have always said to trade a bushel corn for a barrel of oil. > Thanks Marc

[Gregg Alexander]

Well, if I live so long , I would be 100 yr old and the grumpiest old coot. But most likely I will be dead, my body will be worm dirt and my spirit in heaven with all those that crossed over to be in God's Kingdom

[Apryl in ND]

I will be 64 and still homesteading somewhere.

I hate to be so morbid, but natural or man made disasters need to and will happen to thin the population. As horrible as this sounds, instead of working hard to produce more food to support more people so they can live to make even more people, I think we need to let them starve. I know that doesn't sound very nice but it's natures way of controlling population. The more we feed them, the more they will reproduce. I think instead of worrying about feeding people, we should offer more birth control. Just my opinion.

[linn]

What if they decide to start with letting you starve?