The current problems are caused by a speculative free for all. Until the Government steps in to jail a few birds and re-establish a Republic for the “General Welfare”, the Earth will continue downward on all fronts.

It is interesting that Russia, not the USA, is the leader in these areas among the largest nations. USA jail more people than anyone but seldom some of the right birds (and how the money boys in Britain & America hate V. Putin for doing that).

Once one has a clue of the following AND can demonstrate it, one can make suggestions for resiliency. That will take a while but will lift us all out of the mess we are in:

http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach.html
and
http://www.timberpress.com/books/isbn.cfm/9780881927771

Do not blow off the work of soil scientists over the last 30 years!
or think that some -ism or -ology will cure this arrogance. Hitting bottom might.

It does not matter who and in what system this is learned. It changes all consciousness toward resiliency.

There have been instances (e.g. India) this decade of official, i.e. govt, stocks falling as result of large trading companies cornering supplies with consequent lack of availability promoting greater futures market speculation and prices above what would have been market clearing.

Overall stocks can fall in an effective if not actual sense. I’ve a tendency to believe that widespread small scale hoarding can have same effect and would like to know whether his data sources take either/both into account.

Which is not to say ‘no shortages’ but question the degrees.

I believe that much (although not all) of the current conundrums we face in agriculture are due to the counterproductive incentives and policies we have in place. The fact that it’s cheaper to fatten cattle with corn rather than grass in the U.S. suggests that corn is still plentiful. With a change in policies that make such appalling practices economically viable, we might get back to a more rational and efficient food chain.

Furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly with you, Yves, that eating habits can be changed with the right incentives. In almost the entire world, except the U.S., meat costs more per pound than vegetables. In the U.S., the opposite is true. It’s even worse in poor areas of the country (e.g. inner city areas), where there is a paucity of grocery stores at all, and many people must therefore decide between eating fast food at the local McDonald’s, junk food from the 7-Eleven down the street, or pay for a bus ride to a different neighborhood, and maybe a taxi ride home, to shop at a real grocery store and buy real food. Is it any wonder that poor people in the U.S. have poor diets (and the resulting staggering rates of diabetes and heart disease)?

At any rate, I do see some hope in this matter. Agriculture policy used to be considered a backwater only relevant to farm-state senators and Congresspeople. But health policy-types and urban planning-types are finally realizing that you can’t talk about the nation’s health without involving yourself in the nation’s food supply, and you can’t talk about land utilization in America without talking about farm policy.

While health and urban planning advocates are neophytes to the byzantine game of agriculture policy, they did get heavily involved in last year’s omnibus bill (much to the chagrin of the traditional players), and I hope they continue to get experience and finally do battle with the ranchers and industrial farmers that misdirect our agricultural policy to fatten their profits rather than provide the nation with nutritious, healthy, and tasty food.

We aren’t there yet.

Regarding which, one of the main problems with falling calorie supplies is that we are overinvested, culturally and industry-wise, in not the most efficient grains. Wheat and rice take a lot of effort. Much of the discussion revolves around doing what we already do ‘better,’ i.e. with higher yields. Food is too important to innovate wildly, so an inherent conservatism in approach is understandable. We need broader approaches, not more of the same. Why is it, pray tell, that we don’t grow more peanuts if the goal is to keep folks alive and eating adequate protien? They grow in poor soils, and are a great source. . . . We eat what we know, but maybe we should learn some new tricks at the dinner table.

Oh and I couldn’t agree more that corn + $ = fuel is one of the stupider ways to lose money in an era abounding in such pursuits. All this was _ever_ about was getting fat off public subsidies—so cut ‘em off the public teat.

Regarding which, one of the main problems with falling calorie supplies is that we are overinvested, culturally and industry-wise, in not the most efficient grains. Wheat and rice take a lot of effort. Much of the discussion revolves around doing what we already do ‘better,’ i.e. with higher yields. Food is too important to innovate wildly, so an inherent conservatism in approach is understandable. We need broader approaches, not more of the same. Why is it, pray tell, that we don’t grow more peanuts if the goal is to keep folks alive and eating adequate protien? They grow in poor soils, and are a great source. . . . We eat what we know, but maybe we should learn some new tricks at the dinner table.

Regarding your question in a previous post, Yves, about the sustainability of fertilizer resources, there is plenty of mineral, but bottlenecks in extraction.

Nitrogen (fixed as urea or ammonium nitrate) is the easiest: it’s made from natural gas, water, and thin air. Since gas has increased from $2/Mcf (thousand cubic foot) in the 90s to $12/Mcf today, it means that fertilizer plant economics were hideous over the past decade. Now, restarting or rebuilding this capacity will take time and effort.

Potash, the source of potassium, is mined in Canada. Potash Corp of Saskatchewan is now the most valuable company in Canada, with a market cap exceeding $60 billion. They have plenty of reserves, but, again, bottlenecks in production. Just 4 years ago, they were shutting down mines. The good news is that Canada is the Saudi Arabia of potash; therefore, the free market will provide. Eventually.

The ethanol lobby and the politicos who supported it have a lot to answer for. Middle school algebra can show that turning natural gas into corn to turn into fuel is batshit crazy when the alternative is to use natural gas as fuel.