Global Farmland Disappearing at an Alarming Rate 23 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
An investment tip from Mark Twain: "Buy land. They're not making it anymore."
Farmland is disappearing across the world at an alarming rate. Hundreds of thousands of acres across the globe are disappearing due to climate change, erosion, and urban development. The American Farmland Trust estimates that farmland is disappearing at a rate of 2 acres per minute.
The National Soil Tilth Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, highlighted, “Each human on earth lives off the farming equivalent of about a third of a football field today. Population growth and urbanization will shrink that available land base in half by 2050.”
African farmland disappearing
Africa could lose 247 million acres of farmland by 2050 due to climate change according to Environment Science and Policy. This potential loss of farmland is substantial as the U.S. has approximately 246 million acres that support the top eight producing crops.
Much of Africa’s farmland is hot and dry to begin with, and now with changing climates, a substantial amount of farmland is being lost because the crops cannot handle an increase in temperature. Small changes in temperature can cause a significant reduction in production. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that for every one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) increase, wheat, rice, and corn yields decline by 10%.
In the African regions, the 90 day grow-cycle needed for many crops is what’s at risk. The growing season is shortening. The farmland will no longer be fertile and be able to produce crops. Environment Science and Policy found that in dry farming areas, one out of six crop seasons are affected by dry climate, and that number is bound to increase.
The study claims that if proper action is taken this far in advance, small farm communities can still be saved. Philip Thornton, co-author of the paper, noted “Though unsuitable for crops, the land could still sustain livestock, which are more tolerant to heat and drought.”
Although the African farmland can still be used as pasture, the farmland will no longer be fertile and be able to produce crops. This will significantly reduce the global production of grains and throw a curveball for the supply and demand of farmland globally.
U.S. farmland disappearing
Farmland has also been disappearing in the U.S. due to urban development. Farmland has been used to create new highways, industrial parks, and housing developments. . The American Farmland Trust estimates that between 1992-1997, more than six million acres of agricultural land, an area the size of Maryland, was used for urban development.
There has been a 5% decrease in farmland in the tri-state area of Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia from 1987 to 2007. Wisconsin's farmland has decreased by 19% from 1978 to 2008. Virginia lost 521,000 acres of farmland from 2002 to 2007.
The decline in farmland has lead to the U.S.'s food supply being grown in smaller areas with a higher concentration. The high concentration of crops is dangerous because of the risk of: drought, floods, insects, disease among crops, and depleting quality of soils. The U.S. food supply could be at risk as any unexpected interruption in the food chain such as flood, disease, or drought, could wipe out a significant portion of food production.
The global land grab
Developing nations have begun to reconsider their future “food security." By 2050, the world will have to feed 3 billion more humans with significantly less farmland. To solve this dilemma, countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and United Arab Emirates have purchased farmland across the globe to ensure a consistent availability of grains. The countries have sent expatriate farmers who will harvest the crops and directly export the grain back to their home country.
Saudi Arabia has spent $100 million to lease land in Ethiopia to raise wheat, barley, and rice. In Sudan, South Korea has signed deals for 690,000 hectares, the United Arab Emirates for 400,000 hectares, and Egypt has secured a similar deal to grow wheat. Private companies are also acquiring land. Sweden's Alpcot Agro bought 128,000 hectares of Russian farmland, South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries acquired 10,000 hectares of eastern Siberia, and Morgan Stanley, an American bank, bought 40,000 hectares of farmland in Ukraine.
How is farmland going to be affected by this?
With this much farmland now at risk of being taken out of production, the demand for farmland will undoubtedly be affected. Farmland is a natural resource with no substitute and cannot be replenished. No more land is being made.
Whenever supply and demand curves become distorted, an investment opportunity can arise. The growing importance of farmland and the limited supply provides farmland the potential to become one of the best investments available over the long-term.
Disclosure: No Positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Joseph L. Sha...
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
That said, I think the whole "sky is falling" premise of global warming is crazy. It's nothing more than a ruse to empower the global tax crowd.
If anything, farmland will be affected most by global cooling over the next 50 years.
If you want the answers to the worlds warming and cooling paterns, look to sunspot activity.
Even the global warming people don't call it "global warming" anymore. Now they call it "climate change."
I don't buy it and certainly not from the people that want to tax us for it. When the glaciers return a LOT of farm land is going to disappear.
Fighting pollution of our rivers, streams, oceans and the air we breath IS commendable but lets be specific what we are doing here. We can not change the temperature of our earth.
This cycle has been going on for millions of years and we can do NOTHING about it. We are not GOD.
Farm land will come and go through the ages as our planet progresses through its natural cycles.
The initial fear-mongering came out of the Rockefeller Foundation and its offshoots in the 1950s, when there were 1/3 as many people on the planet.
None of their predictions came true then. I doubt any will this time.
I like commodities of various sorts because of a growing China, but I wouldn't invest a cent on account of such radical claims as the one in this article.
Don't think there aren't people who would love to shrink the population for their own selfish desires. Note one of many Turner statements to that effect:
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." (Ted Turner to "Audubon Magazine," 1996)
An interesing article here regarding several well-known organizations plan to shrink the population: www.globalresearch.ca/...?
context=va&aid=13944
Here is another very interesting site pointing out those wishing to shrink the population and the propaganda they use to scare people over to their side: www.albatrus.org/engli...
I forgot her name, but a high level minister in the UK suggested in the last several months that the ideal population for Great Britain was about half it's current level.
This is one to keep our eyes and ears open on.
The concept of shrinking the world's population is obviously an international one.
Thank you for pointing out the UK is on board. As always, your comments are worthwhile.
On Jun 19 09:10 AM yellowhoard wrote:
> Dodger,
>
> I forgot her name, but a high level minister in the UK suggested
> in the last several months that the ideal population for Great Britain
> was about half it's current level.
There will be substantial declines to crop yields over time, which is going to limit the world's ability to feed itself. Compare the yields in Iowa to Mexico. If yields transition to "Mexico" levels, there will not be much food to go around.
On Jun 19 08:30 AM chistletoe wrote:
> disclaimer -- I am long DBA
>
> Extrapolating global warming is extremely questionable statistical
> technique. In fact, for the past 18 months, due to an unexplainable
> weakening of the sun's output as well as unknown changes in deep
> ocean currents (we are too cheap to pay to collect the inforrmation),
> the earth has actually been cooling.
> Of course, cooling will have a much more dramatic impact
> on agriculture than warming.
>
> Extrapolating population gains and food production losses at the
> same time is more than silly and needs no comment.
>
> Massive new acreage in southern Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay
> being applied to grain production, also needs to be taken into account
> in your thinking.
>
> Forecasting the future takes some imagination and reasoning --<br/>merely
> extending current trends is extremely lazy and not likely to be worth
> the trouble.
>
> -chiz
Regarding global warming, it is cooling mainly due to the fact that there have been volcanic eruptions recently which always causes cooling. Furthermore there has been low and now record low sunspot activity for quite some time. I'd hate to see what happens when this solar slow cycle ends.
It is best to start worrying about humans overall impact to the world. Thankfully, we curbed florocarbons that were eating holes in our ozone. I would suspect that we will be prudent enought to prevent our planet from overheating. Although there are costs involved so are there opportunities. That's the wonder of the market and the miracle of human endeavor. Man tends to eventually find the answer. Then such an answer offers clear rewards in the market.
Personally a hydrogen based economy sounds wonderful, but you never know if another idea is being hatched somewhere else.
As for food prices, they might lag other commodities in price increases since they are very elastic, more so even than oil. This traditionally makes them poor inflation hedges.
termlimits.org/
In my mind, all of these issues are inter-related.
On Jun 19 09:53 AM ArtfulDodger wrote:
> Indeed, it seems once people get behind the walls of government they
> turn into these control addicts, which makes them think they must
> control every move the masses make.
>
> The concept of shrinking the world's population is obviously an international
> one.
>
> Thank you for pointing out the UK is on board. As always, your comments
> are worthwhile.
Yellowhoard is right again. The planet heated up to a terribly dangerous average level of 1/2 degree a year (ha!) over the last 100 years until ten years ago, when the average began dropping well below that.
Although the polar ice caps were never in danger of melting in the first place, they are back to their height levels of 1979.
Predictions from the Warmers from 1988 were that parts of the Eastern US coastlines would be under water and Florida would be gone before 2000. But the shorelines have not lost even as much as an inch. My home on the West Coast of Florida sits steadily well, and my shoreline has remained the same over the last 12 years I know for sure.
The last three winters have tied cold records that date back to 1913. For this reason the Warmers have had to change their slogan from "global warming" to "climate change." They are finally right: the climate does change. How brilliant they are!
There has never been one shred of evidence that C02 emissions have caused the planet’s temperature to change. In fact, the more C02 we have the healthier the planet is.
No matter what Obamsa’s Administration says, C02 is not a pollutant. It is an integral part of the photosynthesis process—which is key to keeping all life on earth healthy.
These two sites should help any objective person who's not heard the other side of Al Snore and company's phony claims to climb out of the "global warming" abyss.
www.globalwarminghoax....
climatedepot.com/
Btw, where is Al? Seems he stays hidden during these cool spells we've been having. Perhaps he's holed up trying to figure out how to spend the $200 million he's made promoting the "global warming" hoax.
Did you know that those melting ice caps in his movie were computer generated—yep, they used styrofoam.
Another thing is, If we're truly quickly running out of the evil oil and coal as the eco-maniacs claim, why worry about C02? In a few years all the C02 producing resources will be gone and we'll all finally be safe.
And no I don't work for Big Oil. And neither do the people at the above mentioned sites.
A question we should all be asking ourselves is this: how should we be shaping our investments over the next few years to benefit from a deep cooling and heavier rain trend (due to low sunspot activity) that looks to last through 2013?
What say folks?
Otherwise great job, thanks!
On Jun 19 02:36 PM SA Editor M. Hunt wrote:
> Thanks to all the users who rebuked Chistletoe for a nasty remark.
> We have removed that remark, and thus also their responses so as
> not to confuse new readers of this thread.
Thank you for your consideration.
On Jun 19 02:36 PM SA Editor M. Hunt wrote:
> Thanks to all the users who rebuked Chistletoe for a nasty remark.
> We have removed that remark, and thus also their responses so as
> not to confuse new readers of this thread.
I manufactured and installed beliefs for over 15 years, initially for major alcohol producers and later for GM (Hummer brand) and Capital One credit cards (consumer debt.) The average consumer has NO IDEA what kind of research and execution goes into even the most simple sounding messages beamed into their head, whether directly (advertising) or indirectly (sponsored editorial, internet). The targets we nail never see it coming. The results are plain, and were largely responsible for the orgiastic borrow-and-consume frenzy we just witnessed lead to an almost total system collapse. As for Wall Street -- they weren't stupid, they just believed what they were told, believed what they heard, believed what they wanted to. Believe me, this "need for belief" is WELL known among the people paid to direct it. But I've digressed.
Ultimately, overwhelming scientific consensus is powerless against "belief." In fact, just about any reasonable science is. Just ask Copernicus. It's the same darn thing, over and aver again. Fortunately for this earth, (and not to offend the fundamentalists among the crowd) dinosaurs eventually do go extinct.