But clearly, people are still going hungry today. It forces you to not get swept up in the macrotrend rhetoric and think at a bit more granular level "Ok so maybe the root of the problem here isn't pure production." Sure, that's a part of it. But food access, nutritional profiles, distribution, and waste are also huge contributing factors.
Since you picked on my tweet to highlight, it perhaps also goes it deserves context.
The comment was from a farmer and it was about opportunity. His observations is that American producers think about the opportunity to make money serving new market needs, while other farmers (China) just try to get buy or argue (Europe) why new technology is bad. It is a complex nexus where the US can lead.
It is ludicrous on its face to think famers are going to "Solve the world's problems" but as you state there are opportunities to be more productive, address new markets needs, and increase profitability. American farmers are well positioned to take advantage of this. They have access to more resources, talent and technology than just about any one else in the world.
The demands on the food system is a challenge that will solve itself in time. Along the way, savvy entrepreneurs will do well solving the problems. Those challenges include population. The growth in population has much more to do with increased life span rather than trends in birth rate. The other challenge is reduced nutrition quality increasing health care costs. Those all create real macro pressures that appear in demand.
Not sure if there is much wrong with mixing some bit of purpose in with making money or simply surviving through the season. In the case of the quote of this one farmer, he is expressing one of many things that drives him, and the qualities of the people around him.
Although she used your tweet, I don't think the intention was to pick on it. Farmers and those of us in the industry have had that mantra or some variation thereof pounded in our head for 2 plus decades now. While it's a noble tagline for farmers to use to help relate to the broader world when convenient, I find it amusing that non-ag people think that most of us on the front lines in agriculture really worry about such things. Food production has never been the problem in modern times, it's been getting it to where it belongs economically and equitably.
The comment was from a 5th generation farmer who plants more than 15k acres. I have heard similar comments from his similar sized peers. So there are people with a lifetime in Ag that think about reinvesting in ag on this principle. They think globally. Their investment fuels a lot of emerging technology either through their adoption or their investment in the ventures.
US has used agriculture policy for global power strategy. We set about post world war 2 with a strategy to improve global availability of food. We did that to remove famine as a weapon of military strategy. Not everyone realizes a large part of the markets structured over the last 70 years, and agriculture generally, are inherently driven by US policy seeking to drive global stability through food. Why do you think John McCloy went from being High Commissioner for Germany to head of the World Bank.
In the late 90s when I was working on US defense strategy, we strategized the use of US production as a inducement to intertwine China's food demand to the US supply. Making it difficult to go to war with the US.
Whether farmers realize this or not, US policy was purposeful in this regard.
I would never disagree with your points, which are well articulated and factual. I’m sure there are many operators out there that would agree that “feeding the world” is one of their goals. What I believe though, and that the author was trying to point out, was that if you polled everyone walking out of the Louisville Farm Show next week, or the Ft. Wayne farm show earlier this year, what their main objects of focus for 2023 and the future were, feeding the world wouldn’t make the top 5 in the majority. It’s a noble thought and I’m glad that people in NGO’s, Governments, and Industry above the production level have it in mind, it’s just not what producers worry about or drives their practices.
Yes, absolutely, of course. Completely agree on the defense strategy around food (and super interesting that you worked on that in the 90's!) and the investment thesis of investors around global food dynamics. I would still submit those two (very very real) macro dynamics do not translate into 'feeding the world' being a problem that operators are trying to solve - the day to day (or year to year) problems are not the same as the macro problems. That's what I was trying to distinguish in the piece but didn't articulate clearly. Good points here though, thanks for the dialogue.
I might have one: "ruminant methane isn't a problem because it's cyclical". Easy way for us to feel good about cattle farming without needing to actually do anything. But it's wrong. Emissions can be reduced, so we should.
Maybe there is a whole list of false agri-truisms?
When people say "We have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed everyone", I like to respond with this:
Today, the world currently produces enough food to supply every living human with about a 3,000 kcal diet. (https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply)
But clearly, people are still going hungry today. It forces you to not get swept up in the macrotrend rhetoric and think at a bit more granular level "Ok so maybe the root of the problem here isn't pure production." Sure, that's a part of it. But food access, nutritional profiles, distribution, and waste are also huge contributing factors.
Great post Janette, I share your disdain for the 'feed the world' mantra and you have done a great job on your argument. Thank you!
Great. We need a bit of pragmatism sometimes...
Since you picked on my tweet to highlight, it perhaps also goes it deserves context.
The comment was from a farmer and it was about opportunity. His observations is that American producers think about the opportunity to make money serving new market needs, while other farmers (China) just try to get buy or argue (Europe) why new technology is bad. It is a complex nexus where the US can lead.
It is ludicrous on its face to think famers are going to "Solve the world's problems" but as you state there are opportunities to be more productive, address new markets needs, and increase profitability. American farmers are well positioned to take advantage of this. They have access to more resources, talent and technology than just about any one else in the world.
The demands on the food system is a challenge that will solve itself in time. Along the way, savvy entrepreneurs will do well solving the problems. Those challenges include population. The growth in population has much more to do with increased life span rather than trends in birth rate. The other challenge is reduced nutrition quality increasing health care costs. Those all create real macro pressures that appear in demand.
Not sure if there is much wrong with mixing some bit of purpose in with making money or simply surviving through the season. In the case of the quote of this one farmer, he is expressing one of many things that drives him, and the qualities of the people around him.
Although she used your tweet, I don't think the intention was to pick on it. Farmers and those of us in the industry have had that mantra or some variation thereof pounded in our head for 2 plus decades now. While it's a noble tagline for farmers to use to help relate to the broader world when convenient, I find it amusing that non-ag people think that most of us on the front lines in agriculture really worry about such things. Food production has never been the problem in modern times, it's been getting it to where it belongs economically and equitably.
Incredibly well said, thanks Andy.
The comment was from a 5th generation farmer who plants more than 15k acres. I have heard similar comments from his similar sized peers. So there are people with a lifetime in Ag that think about reinvesting in ag on this principle. They think globally. Their investment fuels a lot of emerging technology either through their adoption or their investment in the ventures.
US has used agriculture policy for global power strategy. We set about post world war 2 with a strategy to improve global availability of food. We did that to remove famine as a weapon of military strategy. Not everyone realizes a large part of the markets structured over the last 70 years, and agriculture generally, are inherently driven by US policy seeking to drive global stability through food. Why do you think John McCloy went from being High Commissioner for Germany to head of the World Bank.
In the late 90s when I was working on US defense strategy, we strategized the use of US production as a inducement to intertwine China's food demand to the US supply. Making it difficult to go to war with the US.
Whether farmers realize this or not, US policy was purposeful in this regard.
I would never disagree with your points, which are well articulated and factual. I’m sure there are many operators out there that would agree that “feeding the world” is one of their goals. What I believe though, and that the author was trying to point out, was that if you polled everyone walking out of the Louisville Farm Show next week, or the Ft. Wayne farm show earlier this year, what their main objects of focus for 2023 and the future were, feeding the world wouldn’t make the top 5 in the majority. It’s a noble thought and I’m glad that people in NGO’s, Governments, and Industry above the production level have it in mind, it’s just not what producers worry about or drives their practices.
Yes, absolutely, of course. Completely agree on the defense strategy around food (and super interesting that you worked on that in the 90's!) and the investment thesis of investors around global food dynamics. I would still submit those two (very very real) macro dynamics do not translate into 'feeding the world' being a problem that operators are trying to solve - the day to day (or year to year) problems are not the same as the macro problems. That's what I was trying to distinguish in the piece but didn't articulate clearly. Good points here though, thanks for the dialogue.
What other narratives are you thinking about?
I might have one: "ruminant methane isn't a problem because it's cyclical". Easy way for us to feel good about cattle farming without needing to actually do anything. But it's wrong. Emissions can be reduced, so we should.
Maybe there is a whole list of false agri-truisms?