Science in Christian Perspective
Limiting Factors in
World Food Supply
and Distribution
M. N. WESTWOOD
Department of Horticulture
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
From: JASA 26 (September 1974): 115-118.
Improper distribution of food is the cause of hunger in the world.
Food production
can be increased to meet world needs but is controlled more by cash demand than
human need. Poor people are hungry because they have no money to buy
food rather
than because there is not enough food. Lack of a minimal education is the usual
cause of poverty, so removing that limitation would shift purchasing
power, which
in turn would cause shifts in food production and distribution. Food production
potential far exceeds the need in the foreseeable future, even
assuming a continued
increase in population. Man's increasing dominion over the earth makes him more
responsible for the proper use and conservation of its resources, if he is to
pass on to his children a livable planet.
Introduction
Hayes' recent review of Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb, and
earlier discussions
in the Journal ASA concerning Ehrlich's predictions and those of other prophets
of doom, leaves me as an agricultural scientist a bit uneasy. Many of
the "authoritative"
statements being made on population and food supply these days are by
non-agriculturists
or instant ecologists. Christians are getting the blame for
domination and exploitation
of the earth by their implied interpretation of scripture, This is
not my interpretation
of scripture, but rather the opposite. We have indeed dominated the earth and
subdued a portion of it, but as Christians we must conserve and protect as well
as use its resources and try to pass along a better world to our children. The
assumption that population per se causes an irrevocable reduction in
environmental
quality is utter nonsense. For example, London with its 12 million people has
possibly the cleanest environment of any big city, yet only a dozen years ago
it was one of the dirtiest. The environment was improved not by
reducing the population
but by a commitment to changing the specific human activities which
were causing
the problems. The further assumption that hundreds of millions of people will
die of starvation during the next decade is based on unwarranted extrapolations
of current increases in population and world food production. The
fact that food
production never
greatly exceeds the cash demand does not mean that production could
not be increased
dramatically. And since food increases are required for increases in
population,
only those countries which can increase food supply will increase
their populations.
Those which cannot increase food supplies will have starvation during
this rather
than the next decade, but at a level far below the predictions.
The fact that there is hunger in the world is ample evidence that either food
supply or distribution is inadequate. To get at the causes and
suggest solutions
requires a careful and orderly study. We must first know the facts
about the situation;
then, on the basis of these facts, we must identify as clearly as possible the
major problems. Finally we must examine the alternatives for possible solutions
and decide which alternatives are most satisfactory.
Borrowing from Blackman's restricted concept of limiting factors for
plant growth,
a more generalized view of the concept can be made to apply to any
system or process,
either physical or biological. My generalized restatement of this principle of
limiting factors is as follows: The operation of a process, reaction, system or
organization proceeds at the rate imposed by the most limiting factor essential
to the overall process. When the principal limitation is eliminated,
the process
proceeds at nearer optimum but may in turn be limited by some new factor which
now
becomes critical. Methodical elimination of all limiting factors which
can he altered
results in an optimized system. If two factors are nearly equally
limiting, then
both must be altered to obtain a rate change in the process.
Food Distribution
To apply this principle to food supply and distribution, the basic facts of the
situation should be stated:
1. Most of the hunger in the world exists where the people also are the poorest
(Asia, Africa and South America).
2. Population density per se is not related to hunger. High density countries
such as Japan, Netherlands and U.K. are not hungry, while some low
density countries
of Africa and South America are hungry. Seventy percent of the world's people
live in urban areas on about 3% of the land.
3. Large food surpluses exist in North America, Europe, and Oceania
and some surpluses
exist in other areas of the world.
From these gross facts we must now identify the problem, i.e., decide
what ought
to be as contrasted to what now exists. Obviously, the problem is
unequal distribution
of food as related to people. Let us assume that it is easier to transport food
than people to achieve an optimum balance. The facts listed above also tell us
that poverty and hunger are related, as was pointed out by Simpson12
in an article
"The dimensions of world poverty." He states that
distribution of food
both within a country or between countries is limited by the purchasing power
of the people. This last is important because it identifies one of the causes
of the problem.
If poverty rather than food supply or land resources is the cause of
hunger, these
are the alternative solutions:
1. Get money from the rich and give to the poor (e.g.,
"free" food programs).
2. Teach poor people how to produce more food locally.
3. Find and eliminate the cause of poverty.
The last alternative seems best because it gets to the primary cause
of improper
food distribution. We are still seeking specific limiting factors,
the elimination
of which would optimize the balance between food supply and people.
Of the factors
related to poverty, those political, sociocultural, religious, or educational
origin are most evident. All of these may have a bearing upon poverty, but the
lack of education appears to me to be the most important. In the countries of
Asia, Africa and South America where hunger is greatest, illiteracy rates are
also very high and are the probable cause of much of the poverty. The long run
solution through education, however, awaits some changes in political, cultural
and religious areas, because these institutions in many cases are responsible
for illiteracy and poverty in the first place. But given the proper climate for
self-determination, these people still must be fed until they can
gain the education
needed to obtain earning power. In this regard the Food and
Agricultural Organization
of the United Nations recently made the excellent suggestion that surplus food
from affluent countries be used in place
of money to help pay for development projects in countries which are not able
to import food. The use of food as currency to build roads, schools, irrigation
dams, etc. would be a lasting monument to the food eaten. The effect of such a
program would be increased self-sufficiency both in food production
and technology
in the poor nations.
The assumption that population increase per se causes an irrevocable reduction in environmental quality is utter nonsense.
Thus the -imbalance between food and people is largely one of
economics governed
by the law of supply and demand. Human need, however, must be
distinguished from
cash demand, the latter of which regulates world food supply. Most or
all of the
hungry nations of the world use part of their agricultural land to
produce non-food
crops for cash export. Ceylon exports rubber and tea, grown on land that could
feed some of its hungry people. In talking recently with a graduate student in
Economies from India, I learned that he had written a master's thesis
on the economies
of san hemp, an important export crop of India. When I asked him why
Indian farmers
were not using all of their land to produce food, he replied that
they could not
sell that much food. He candidly admitted that many of his Asian brothers were
hungry, but since they had no money for food, their farmers could not afford to
grow crops to give away. They therefore raised crops for which there was a cash
market.
Several factors should be mentioned as they relate to education and
the food problem.
It is widely known that in India cattle and other animals eat plants
which could
be used for human food, yet these animals are not used as food. This
is a problem
stemming from religious beliefs, but there is evidence that education
is changing
this view. Another indirect effect of education is that it will
dramatically increase
the effectiveness of voluntary population control measures. It has
been erroneously
assumed that population control in rich affluent nations would release food for
the hungry nations. Only population control in a hungry nation will
help the food
supply there. Reduced population growth in a rich nation simply
results in a reduction
in the food produced there. Education of the hungry and poor can
bring about important
changes in the economic concept of family size, which in turn can
facilitate population
control. For centuries farmers in Asia considered a large family an
asset because
of the hand labor required to plant and care for the crops. Recent
research, however,
showed that direct mechanical seeding of rice was as good as
transplanting individual
seedlings by hand. This single innovation plus some education to put it to use
could be a significant incentive to reduce family size throughout Asia.
Recent articles in the Journal ASA and elsewhere indicate needed limitations on
human population growth in the generations ahead. The main thrust of
these pronouncements
hinges on these assumptions:
1. Food supplies are running short and will he critical before AD 2000.
2. Water will be critically short, both for agriculture and domestic use.
3. Environmental pollution on a world-wide scale is threatening many
species including
man.
4. The combined effects of the above listed items will mean
starvation and misery
for hundreds of millions of people beginning early in the next decade.
Implicit in many of these writings edged in black is that man is
multiplying faster
than is the knowledge with which to solve his problems. Yet with each
population
doubling we have a 16fold increase in technology. The tacit admission
that Malthus
was right is to admit that man has no better equipment to solve his
problems than
have the animals of the forest.
Regarding world food potential, Journal ASA
readers deserve at least one opinion from the field of agricultural
science. After
all we in agriculture who are solving current problems should be in a
good position
to anticipate and thus avoid future problems.
Consider these facts. U.S. production of foods could increase by 60
million tons
merely by putting to work land already developed but not in use.
India now wastes
40% of its food through preventable losses between harvest and final
consumption.
Elimination of this loss would add nearly 40 million tons of food
grains annually.
China appears no longer to have widespread hunger. Developing countries such as
Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico and Indonesia have made dramatic gains in production
in recent years to the extent that some crops are available for export for the
first time. Historically, the Philippines have had to import 600,000
tons of rice
to feed its people, yet today they are exporting rice to other nations.
The gloom and doom statements of non-agriculturists such as Borgstrom, Ehrlich,
and the Paddock brothers are part fact and part fiction and they fail
to distinguish
between the two. Their estimations of agriculture's capacity to produce food is
grossly in error. The following statement on potential production was prepared
in 1969 for a talk given before the O.S.U. Chapter of the Human
Ecology Society.
The imbalance between food and people is largely one of economics governed by the law of supply and demand.
World Food Potential
Poverty and food distribution. The relationship between poverty and food supply
was pointed out by Simpson12, who arbitrarily set the poverty level
at below $300/cap/yr.
On this basis, 64% of the world's people are in poverty, S of whom
live in India,
Pakistan, Indonesia and China. He asserted that distribution of food within a
country or between countries depends upon transport facilities and
also is limited
by the purchasing power of the people. World food production stands
at about 102%
of minimum caloric need12.
Thus, distribution rather than production is the main problem. It is unlikely
that production will greatly exceed cash demand because of the severe
depressing
effect which surpluses have on prices.
Food increase in hungry nations. As stated by Brady, the primary elements are
technology plus social, political, economic, cultural and religious
factors. While
technology won't work without a balance of the above factors, the world cannot
feed itself without a balanced agricultural technology. Our western technology
can't be directly transferred to other nations, but our techniques for getting
facts and solving problems can be exported4. Putting together a
balanced "package
of practices" has worked well, in which varieties, fertilizers,
weed control,
machinery, etc., plus a good agricultural extension service have
resulted in dramatic
increases in yield. For example, Turkey bought 20,000 tons of a new
hybrid wheat
from Mexico and asked AID. for help in growing it. Twelve extension specialists
from Oregon State University were sent over to work on the project. The yields
were so remarkable that it is cited as one of the most successful
production increases
ever obtained through Extension demonstrations in so short a time.
New varieties of short-straw, high-yielding wheat and rice, together
with better
practices and more fertilizer, resulted in record yields in Pakistan, India and
Ceylon in 1969, In a recent news release, India's Prime Minister,
Indira Gandhi,
said, "I feel confident that India will be able to stop importing wheat in
about three years." In fact, food shortages could be eliminated
in most countries
today if losses in handling, transport and storage could he saved. Carter5 cites
the case in which India presses the oil from soy, cotton, and peanuts, leaving
a residue containing 50% protein. The 2.5 million tons of this residue is not,
however, used as human food. This potential should be used.
Between 1960 and 1967 world food production rose about 20% and per
capita production
rose slightly overall. Yet per capita production in underdeveloped
countries dropped
between 1964 and 1966 causing concern that the food battle was lost. However,
during the last few years, dramatic increases were achieved in many
of the hungry
nations, increases which were directly attributed to better varieties
along with
good farming practices.
Present production capacity. Production in developed countries can be
easily doubled
by multiple cropping and by optimizing other inputs"1,9,13.
Underdeveloped nations
can achieve 5- to 10-fold increases by using presently available technology.
The tropical crop, coffee, was recently found3 to produce more than 10 times
the usual yield by using superior varieties, high density spacing, fertilizers
and other good practices. In Oregon, high density plantings of vegetable crops
and fruit trees have resulted in 5- to 8-fold yield increases.
Much protein fond can be produced by feeding ruminant livestock on straw, using
urea as a source of nitrogen11". The use of 127,000 metric tons of urea in
this way was equal to 813,000 tons of soybean meal as stock feed. This type of
protein production is of great value because primary human food is not used as
animal feed.
The gloom and doom statements of non-agriculturists are part fact and part fiction, and they fail to distinguish between the two. Their estimates of agriculture's capacity to produce food is grossly in error.
Underveloped potential. The breeding of highyield, high-protein grains and seed
crops has great potential for providing people with more and higher
quality food.
For example, a wild oat species has been found2 that contains 10 to
12% more protein
than standard varieties. Corn with a high lysine endosperm is being
bred in Mexico
for tropical climates and is being tested in South America, India,
Thailand, and
Africa. Another potential source of high quality food is from leaf
proteins. Hodgson10
points out that the yield of leaf protein per acre greatly exceeds that of seed
protein and that leaf protein also is of higher quality. Research
shows that leaves
of some species already have the desired quality without an extensive breeding
program.
The oceans still remain to be tapped for food. At present, only 1.1% of their
potential is being used8. World value of sea foods is only $4.65
billion, compared
to $236.00 billion for land foods. Whether a significant increase
from the oceans
is economically feasible is being debated.
Much research remains to be done to bring the billions of acres of
humid tropics
into production. This will come slowly but recent work indicates promise. One
big advantage of the tropics is that 5 to 7 crops can be grown
annually as compared
to 1 or 2 in temperate zones.
Despite many problems, the world's people can be fed. A recent report
(December,
1968) by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicates that
by 1985 the
developed nations will have massive surpluses which they cannot use and which
the developing nations will not absorb. Some obvious adjustments are needed. In
1971 our own U.S. wheat acreage was cut by another 8 million acres to prevent
piling up more surpluses. Unequal distribution of food will be corrected
ultimately by educating the poor. Both hunger and poverty appear to be related
to lack of education. Education would accomplish two major things: a) It would
provide better earning and purchasing power so that these hungry people could
buy more food, and h) it would provide them with the knowledge needed
to implement
birth control and other community selfhelp programs. Such a program
is not inconsistent
with the biblical admonition to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.
Scripture
also tells us to he good husbandmen and conservationists.
REFERENCES
lAbelson, P. H. 1967. Meeting world food needs. Science 158: 865.
2Anon. 1067. Oats: most protein per acre. Agric. Res. Nov.:
8-9.
3Anon. 1969 Taming the humid tropics. Agri. Res. 17(7): 8-9.
4Brady,
N. C. 1968.
Technological developments and world food needs. (in Land Grant Univ. and world
food needs).
5Carter, L. J. 1967. World food supply: Problems and prospects.
Science 155: 56-58.
6Cole, L. C. 1958. The ecosphere. Sci. Amer. April: 83-92.
7Deevey, F. S., Jr. 1960. The human population. Scientific
American. September: 195-204.
8Emery, K. 0. and C. 0. D. Iselin. 1967. Human food from ocean and
land. Science
157: 12791281.
9Ford Foundation, 1967. A richer harvest, 38 pages.
10Hodgson. H. J. 1968. Forages, their present importance and future
potentials.
Agric. Sci. Rev. 2nd quart.: 23-30.
11Moore, L. A.. P. A. Putnam and N. D. Bayley. 1967. Ruminant livestock.
Agric. Sci. Rev. 5(2): 1-7.
l2Simpson David. 1968. The dimensions of world poverty. Sci. Amer.
219(5): 27-35.
l3Wittwer, S. H. 1968. Extending the limits of productivity. Agrichemical
West.
July: 5-14.