Growing Food when the Oil Runs Out

[Vortex]

I hope you're wrong. If our food supply goes we are truly ****ed.

[Andy Hunt]

I thought 'cannibalised' had 12 letters, not 6?

[Adam1]

I'd have used the word "stuffed" there, rather than "***ed", due to its clever double meaning.

[MisterE]

I gave up at the post Peak Oil wheelbarrow that doesn't have pneumatic tyres (aka tires). I'm mean, its not as if rubber grows on trees, is it?

Muwhahaahahahahahaa - I gave up too, at the name of the poster Read those two words an no more

[jonny2mad]

adam 1 makes some fine points .
I see a big economic collapse and much of the food we import is from countrys that dont have the slack in the system, so they cant say we stop buying patio heater and keep the tractors going.

And the thing is we dont know how fast depletion rates will be and they continue so if you tighten your belt you have to do the same next year and next year and next year .

Also in a big economic collapse and with little energy what do we produce that we can use to buy food with.

what if depletion rates are 15-20% a year

and you have to remember its not just the depletion rate its how much oil people keep back and doesnt end up on the market

[Totally_Baffled]

Hi Jonny.

You maybe right - but ....

I see a big economic collapse and much of the food we import is from countrys that dont have the slack in the system

60% of our food is grown in the UK (with potential upto 85% as it was in the late nineties) , with majority of the remainder from the EU.

Plenty of "slack" and waste in both the UK and EU!

Remember one third of food is thrown away. Producing meat is incredibly calorie inefficient. 100 calories of plant to produce 10 calories of animal! (and the figure could be higher!).

Then there is the set aside - the curretnly uneconomic marginal land , the land used for non food crops etc etc.

And the thing is we dont know how fast depletion rates will be and they continue so if you tighten your belt you have to do the same next year and next year and next year .

Yeah but food production consumes 1% of our current total energy consumption. We should be able to give it that for decades upon decades yet!

Also in a big economic collapse and with little energy what do we produce that we can use to buy food with.

I think this is the main issue. PO is economic problem - how do we keep everyone employed? Mind you there is plenty of work to do without the machines!!

What if depletion rates are 15-20% a year

They wont be - Of the 60 odd countries in decline how many are in this range? Below is a sample of 31 and their average declines...

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... c&start=30

and you have to remember its not just the depletion rate its how much oil people keep back and doesnt end up on the market

Maybe - but if OPEC doesnt export oil - how do they feed themselves with their rapidly growing population and nothing else but sand?

Ditto Russia, and also they are losing one third of their citizens by 2050! (144 million to 100 million according to the UN)

Just playing DA

[creeping elm]

With a largely vegetarian diet, of course, there can be a danger of deficiencies in vitamins A and B12, iron, calcium, and fat,

So all the vegans are going to suffer post-FF, eh?

Goodchild is making a nonsensical statement in an otherwise well-informed article. From that list, only B12 is a concern and such a tiny amount is needed that there shouldn't be a supply problem.

IIRC B12 is found in alfalfa, comfrey and seaweed eg kelp tablets

[Marquis de Carabas]

IIRC B12 is found in alfalfa, comfrey and seaweed eg kelp tablets

There has been much debate about this, but The Vegan Society states:

"Very low B12 intakes can cause anaemia and nervous system damage.

The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms.

Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid anaemia and nervous system damage, but many do not get enough to minimise potential risk of heart disease or pregnancy complications.

To get the full benefit of a vegan diet, vegans should do one of the following:

* eat fortified foods two or three times a day to get at least three micrograms (?g or mcg) of B12 a day or


* take one B12 supplement daily providing at least 10 micrograms or


* take a weekly B12 supplement providing at least 2000 micrograms.

If relying on fortified foods check the labels carefully to make sure you are getting enough B12. For example, if a fortified plant milk contains 1 microgram of B12 per serving then consuming three servings a day will provide adequate vitamin B12. Others may find the use of B12 supplements more convenient and economical.

The less frequently you obtain B12 the more B12 you need to take, as B12 is best absorbed in small amounts. The recommendations above take full account of this. There is no harm in exceeding the recommended amounts or combining more than one option."
(http://www.vegansociety.com/html/food/nutrition/b12/)

[emordnilap]

Yes, the above is my understanding. You need a massive dose once a week but a very small dose once a day. The easiest way, for a vegan, is to have a B12-fortified hot drink once a day, Vecon for instance. Bits and pieces like margarine make it up if you don't deliberately go for a fortified cereal for a snack.

Early humans (before fire & cooking of animal flesh was discovered) got their B12 from dirty food, grubs/insects and grooming.

[stumuz]

How about eating another vegan?

There would be secondary and tertiary benefits, the consumed vegan would be a carbon sink and if the consumer operated a peddle powered generator, the consumer could apply for a ROC.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Just discovered an interesting resource on this issue. Apparently, if you choose the right source, even drinking water can provide enough B12

I like the idea of eating vegans though. I bagsie Alicia Silverstone!

[emordnilap]

Just discovered an interesting resource on this issue. Apparently, if you choose the right source, even drinking water can provide enough B12

Fascinating; thanks.

Our deep well isn't the purest water around - there's bits of grit and stuff in it. I have a cotton filter for it but still if I store water for any length of time, an amount of sediment settles out. And I think ours is better tasting water than any bought or piped stuff.

It has led me to think about the notion of 'immune system challenge' - or lack of it, really, the notion that living in a typical modern sterile environment, mainly consuming bought, prepared food, could be the cause of illness through the body not being 'attacked' enough. For instance, since leaving home as a teenager, I've never peeled most vegetables - just a light scrubbing is all - so there's always been a peck of dirt and we've always eaten as much of the plant as possible, wasting very little.

Thanks to your information, MdeC, the B12 'problem' (if it is a problem) takes on a new light, lending more weight (as if any more was needed) to the fact that eating animal flesh was not and is not necessary for survival and evolution of the human species.

[jonny2mad]

"60% of our food is grown in the UK (with potential upto 85% as it was in the late nineties) , with majority of the remainder from the EU.

Plenty of "slack" and waste in both the UK and EU!

Remember one third of food is thrown away. Producing meat is incredibly calorie inefficient. 100 calories of plant to produce 10 calories of animal! (and the figure could be higher!).

Then there is the set aside - the curretnly uneconomic marginal land , the land used for non food crops etc etc."

Even a small short term drop in the oil supply caused a depression, 97% of all our consumer products are made with oil , peak oil will at the least cause a 30s style depression and that depression didnt end till the end of world war two .
And it wasnt based on a actual lack of anything so this depression will be worse and last longer .

yes we waste some food but just because we waste a 3rd now doesnt mean we will be able to use that third in the future , if you dont have cheap oil for packaging and fast transportation I would think you would waste more food .
as for meat production some land works better for producing meat like highland sheep production , you would have a hell of a job turning that sort of land into arable land .
also unless you use organic manures you would need more chemical fertilisers which will be hard to produce with less energy .

"Yeah but food production consumes 1% of our current total energy consumption. We should be able to give it that for decades upon decades yet!"

our present system is highly unstable and is unlikely to hold together so I dont think its a matter of giving it 1%

I think this is the main issue. PO is economic problem - how do we keep everyone employed? Mind you there is plenty of work to do without the machines!!

There was plenty of work to do in the great depression but no money to pay the people , we in the uk are part of a very unstable system if you take away oil and debt , our currencys are based on debt ,that can work if you think you will have continued growth when people figure out that wont continue you will have a massive crash thats likely to bring the entire system down .

and when I say that I mean much worse than the 30s if you have that you will have anarchy , in the 1930s you had a different attitude in the majority of people and I think they could cope with that sort of depression much better .

if your currency is worthless how will your hi tech farming system work , and you wont be able to command control the economy to give that 1% to food production , during the depression farmers burned crops because they couldnt sell them while there were thousands of hungry people sitting by those crops with no money (read the grapes of wrath and that was a mild depression to what I see coming )

What if depletion rates are 15-20% a year

They wont be - Of the 60 odd countries in decline how many are in this range? Below is a sample of 31 and their average declines...

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... c&start=30

and you have to remember its not just the depletion rate its how much oil people keep back and doesnt end up on the market

"Maybe - but if OPEC doesnt export oil - how do they feed themselves with their rapidly growing population and nothing else but sand?

Ditto Russia, and also they are losing one third of their citizens by 2050! (144 million to 100 million according to the UN)"

looking at that graph depletion rates seem to be getting steeper ,matt simmons thinks 8- 10 % per year but Ive seen higher numbers .
and yes opec may export but they dont need to export that much as it will be a sellers market , and if you were them what would you do export at a fast rate and starve faster or at a slow rate and try to come up with ideas to save yourself .
I can see them pushing ahead with eurabia and using the oil as a lever to get what they want politically .

as for russia they dont need to export that much what will we have they need especially if their populations falling .
I can see war and anarchy caused by a world wide depression also increasing the decrease in oil being exported

[emordnilap]

From the latest ASPO Ireland newsletter:

All animals throughout time have lived on no more than the energy supplied by the muscles, and early man was no different as he lived by hunting and gathering wild fruit. Then, only 10,000 years ago, came agricultural man, who started to rely on external energy from draught animals and slaves, supplemented by firewood, plus a little wind and water power. He numbered about 300 million at the time of Christ, 2,000 years ago, and his numbers no more than doubled over the next seventeen centuries as he lived on whatever his region could support. Then came coal, followed by oil and gas, coinciding with the end of slavery, and his numbers increased six-fold, the increase being made possible by these new sources of energy. It can be said with assurance that hydrocarbon man will be virtually extinct this century, posing the question of how many notional slaves will be needed to replace the energy now supplied by oil.

?The slave, the whip and economic value?
We consume 80 million barrels of crude oil per day, from each of which (159 litres) about 125 litres of fuel are distilled. A human being (the slave) works eight hours per day (may be longer if whipped, but not for much longer as he too needs food and sleep) with a performance of 0.08 KW x 8 hours = 0.64 KWh per day.

One litre of fuel contains ca. 10 KWh. This corresponds to the performance of 15?26 slaves working for 8 hours a day to provide the energy provided by one litre of fuel.

The daily worldwide fuel consumption thus corresponds to a labour equivalent of 15?25 x 10 billion = 152?5 billion slaves. If all slaves could work for 24 hours a day, this value reduces to about 50 billion slaves but remember the limits of the whip.

Now for the value of one litre of fuel expressed in terms of human labour:
With a minimum wage (so much discussed in Germany these days) of ?5 the human labour value of one litre of fuel transforms to 15?26 x ?5 x 8 hours = ?610. Remember, the actual price for 1 litre of (heavily taxed) fuel is about ?1?40 in Germany. So an adequate salary for an ordinary energy slave should be around ?0?00229 per hour or 2? (1?6 cents per day, because, with higher energy costs, the economy would burst).

Is this a purely theoretical calculation? Certainly not: because we will have to replace diminishing fossil fuel consumption by human labour. Why? Because a shrinking economy is unthinkable. So the next task for our democratically elected representatives will be to either gradually increase world population to at least the above figure, or to increase the energy output of human beings. As an aside, these decision makers will also have to invent a magic wand for how to survive with the above salary but this will be only a minor complication, I am sure.

"Because a shrinking economy is unthinkable" !!!!

[Totally_Baffled]

yes we waste some food but just because we waste a 3rd now doesnt mean we will be able to use that third in the future , if you dont have cheap oil for packaging and fast transportation I would think you would waste more food

I think this is a fair point - however I still think there will be a "net" gain.

33% of our current food consumption, is probably 50% of what we actually need! That is enormous.

Of this the vast majority is wasted due to overly fussy supermarket specifications, the demand for out of season foods, overeating, over preparing(cooking more than you can eat in the first place) and very conservative use/sell by dates (due to our litigation culture).

With relocalisation and a shift in what food is produced I think we can get around the need for "fast transportation" and packaging. Commit more production to crops that dont need it!

as for meat production some land works better for producing meat like highland sheep production , you would have a hell of a job turning that sort of land into arable land .

Again a fair point and you are right, and this will continue. But again it dwarfed by the amount of arable land used to feed animals for meat.

One example , 70 % of the US corn crop is used to feed cattle. That means of the 70% of calories produced from the US corn crop, 90% is wasted to turn it into meat!! That far outweighs the loss of a few sheep in the highlands!

also unless you use organic manures you would need more chemical fertilisers which will be hard to produce with less energy .

Harder yes - but not unavailable for decades IMO. I just cannot see the market failing so badly it doesnt allocate 1% of a resource to a key product like this. Especially when gas hasnt peaked yet , nor has coal and both can be used to make fertiliser.

Nitrogen makes up 75% of the earths atmosphere - while there is any energy , there will be fertilizer!

our present system is highly unstable and is unlikely to hold together so I dont think its a matter of giving it 1%

Yes its broken , and will be replaced by another no doubt. Whatever does replace it will make us worse off, but I cannot see it failing so bad it doesnt send 1% where it needs to be?

There was plenty of work to do in the great depression but no money to pay the people , we in the uk are part of a very unstable system if you take away oil and debt , our currencys are based on debt ,that can work if you think you will have continued growth when people figure out that wont continue you will have a massive crash thats likely to bring the entire system down

.

Yes - imagine if they had heard of "helicopter" money in the 1930's!

The deflationary contraction in the MS was cured by WWII and the subsequent rebuilding. Obviously we were still learning economics back then - if only someone had realised they only had to start spending shit loads of debt money to reverse the depression , could of prevented a whole lot of trouble!

if your currency is worthless how will your hi tech farming system work , and you wont be able to command control the economy to give that 1% to food production , during the depression farmers burned crops because they couldnt sell them while there were thousands of hungry people sitting by those crops with no money

Currency worthless? Ok - our debt based currency system allows us to live beyond our means in that we can run a perpetual deficit, but it isnt worthless.

Although the UK is 80% services, the UK is still the 5th largest economy by industrial/manafacturing output. The UK is so , because it is competitive in buying stuff (resources) and turning it into stuff other countries want at prices that beat its competitors.

The correction that is needed is we need to reduce imports in line with our exports, and for the government to spend in line with its tax revenues! Painful yes, mad max no?

The other thing is that , the UK is more efficient at manafacturing goods in energy terms than China for example. We produce far more $ value in goods per BTU of energy than China does, so who hurts from higher oil more?

One think worth bearing in mind with the monetary system is that its the interest thats the issue , not the debt. Indeed one of the potential solutions was at the end of that you tube money is debt video. Something along the lines of controlled lending at 0% interest in line with sustainable production? (to control inflation)

So in your scenario of hungary people sitting next to burning crops because they have no money - well obviously you would need to avoid that by lending more into the system so that the money supply is in line with the amount of goods in the economy!

As for oil depletion rates - lets wait and see!

One thing is for sure - I bet you are hoping I am right!