population / food ?

[sam111]

So I am researching population growth in the US.
And food consumption in the US.


My questions I am wanting to understand is

1) I can get the population and population density of any state/town in the US.
But I am wondering about how much food we have and the rate of consumption of what foods in what regions?

For example
Take cows and chickens for example how can one determine a rough estimate on how many cows and chickens we have in a certain region and at what rate we are consuming them / replacing them?

Say for example we have 100,000 cows in Wyoming and 10,000 people that eat red meat on a daily bases. Say they eat on average 3lb of red meat a week. Say the average cow weighs 1,000 lb. yields a 650 lb of eatable red meat.

If creating a new cow to reach full adult hood takes 3 to 4 years.
Then does anybody see a problem with are consumption?

I do we simple are over populating to fast to have an equal balance?

Unless we can produce 1000 and 1000 of cows at the same time. And even that with are population exponentially growing their is going to be problems.


Thank god for people that don't eat red meat or eat chicken.

Correct me if I am wrong this is only going to get to be more of a problem.

For other natural resources like like oil , electric ,gas ,...etc in theory if we drill deep enough we have close to an unlimited supply or at least enough to support the whole world for a while. May be my math is wrong but I worked out that we would run out of oil ,electric , gas ,....etc much later then we would run out of space on earth for people.

But when it comes to food and trees this is another story!
So the government shouldn't be so focus on oil , other energy consumption stuff as much as it should be with the population , food , and enviroment/ecosystem (these factors are the most important since they are the essential necessities of all life).


Question 2)
I have research how environmentalists and wild life people get a population count /density count on different types of animals and how they flow thru the world.
But all their methods are crude and left open for a lot of mistakes in counting. (i.e it is not as easy as getting it from humans tax forms / census count which is more exact since mostly everybody has to do these.)

So I ask how can we determine a rough estimate on cow and other animal populations that we consume. Unless we know where they all are and can physically count them?
Because we could not be aware of it but we could be making cows extinct in a few years from now based on a mis-calculated count?

 

[zzzz]

Anything statistical in the US is included in the Statistical Abstract.

RED MEAT AND POULTRY (in millions of pounds)

Year Production Imports Supply Exports Consumption Ending stocks

2000 82,372 4,136 88,480 9,344 77,067 2,069

2010 91,639 3,439 89,524 13,977 81,120 2,114

The 2012 Statistical Abstract: Meat and Livestock

 

[skookerasbil]

These kind of threads are so gay............the kind of shit that intrigued me decades ago........when back then they said there would be no more food by 2001.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So I am researching population growth in the US.
And food consumption in the US.


My questions I am wanting to understand is

1) I can get the population and population density of any state/town in the US.
But I am wondering about how much food we have and the rate of consumption of what foods in what regions?

For example
Take cows and chickens for example how can one determine a rough estimate on how many cows and chickens we have in a certain region and at what rate we are consuming them / replacing them?

Say for example we have 100,000 cows in Wyoming and 10,000 people that eat red meat on a daily bases. Say they eat on average 3lb of red meat a week. Say the average cow weighs 1,000 lb. yields a 650 lb of eatable red meat.

If creating a new cow to reach full adult hood takes 3 to 4 years.
Then does anybody see a problem with are consumption?

I do we simple are over populating to fast to have an equal balance?

Unless we can produce 1000 and 1000 of cows at the same time. And even that with are population exponentially growing their is going to be problems.


Thank god for people that don't eat red meat or eat chicken.

Correct me if I am wrong this is only going to get to be more of a problem.

For other natural resources like like oil , electric ,gas ,...etc in theory if we drill deep enough we have close to an unlimited supply or at least enough to support the whole world for a while. May be my math is wrong but I worked out that we would run out of oil ,electric , gas ,....etc much later then we would run out of space on earth for people.

But when it comes to food and trees this is another story!
So the government shouldn't be so focus on oil , other energy consumption stuff as much as it should be with the population , food , and enviroment/ecosystem (these factors are the most important since they are the essential necessities of all life).


Question 2)
I have research how environmentalists and wild life people get a population count /density count on different types of animals and how they flow thru the world.
But all their methods are crude and left open for a lot of mistakes in counting. (i.e it is not as easy as getting it from humans tax forms / census count which is more exact since mostly everybody has to do these.)

So I ask how can we determine a rough estimate on cow and other animal populations that we consume. Unless we know where they all are and can physically count them?
Because we could not be aware of it but we could be making cows extinct in a few years from now based on a mis-calculated count?

Don't worry about it, December 21st, 2012 is just around the corner.

 

[KissMy]

Don't worry, they told us we ran out of oil in 1920 & we were out of food way before that. We must be ghost that don't really exist because we killed the planet many times over 100s of years ago.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Don't worry, they told us we ran out of oil in 1920 & we were out of food way before that. We must be ghost that don't really exist because we killed the planet many times over 100s of years ago.

Got a link, or is this more crap you're pulling outta your ass?

 

[KissMy]

Don't worry, they told us we ran out of oil in 1920 & we were out of food way before that. We must be ghost that don't really exist because we killed the planet many times over 100s of years ago.

Got a link, or is this more crap you're pulling outta your ass?

You must be the stinky turd I squeezed out of my ass & flushed yesterday.

Why dire overpopulation predictions keep getting it wrong

...In 1798, the father of demography, Thomas Malthus, published An Essay on the Principle of Population, suggesting overpopulation will lead to starvation and that “premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race” due to war, pestilence, plague and famine. The British prime minister at the time, William Pitt the Younger, withdrew a bill he had championed for the extension of relief for the poor after reading Malthus and thereafter conducted a census.

Ottawa investigative journalist Dan Gardner notes in his recent book, Future Babble — Why Expert Predictions Fail and Why We Believe Them Anyway, that Malthus' “conclusions were based on careful observation of past centuries, and his logic was sound.”

But his forecast never came to be.

“In fact,” Gardner writes, “what happened was pretty much the opposite of what Malthus expected, as population, food production and economies all grew rapidly — thanks to advances in science and technology Malthus did not foresee. One might reasonably have predicted a century or two after Malthus people would have learned from his example to be much more cautious about using demography to predict the future. But that prediction would have been wrong. As they usually are.”

Among those who failed to heed Malthus' example are several of today's well-known environmentalists, including Lester Brown, Joel E. Cohen and, notably, Ehrlich...

 

[syrenn]

So I am researching population growth in the US.
And food consumption in the US.


My questions I am wanting to understand is

1) I can get the population and population density of any state/town in the US.
But I am wondering about how much food we have and the rate of consumption of what foods in what regions?

For example
Take cows and chickens for example how can one determine a rough estimate on how many cows and chickens we have in a certain region and at what rate we are consuming them / replacing them?

Say for example we have 100,000 cows in Wyoming and 10,000 people that eat red meat on a daily bases. Say they eat on average 3lb of red meat a week. Say the average cow weighs 1,000 lb. yields a 650 lb of eatable red meat.

If creating a new cow to reach full adult hood takes 3 to 4 years.
Then does anybody see a problem with are consumption?

I do we simple are over populating to fast to have an equal balance?

Unless we can produce 1000 and 1000 of cows at the same time. And even that with are population exponentially growing their is going to be problems.


Thank god for people that don't eat red meat or eat chicken.

Correct me if I am wrong this is only going to get to be more of a problem.

For other natural resources like like oil , electric ,gas ,...etc in theory if we drill deep enough we have close to an unlimited supply or at least enough to support the whole world for a while. May be my math is wrong but I worked out that we would run out of oil ,electric , gas ,....etc much later then we would run out of space on earth for people.

But when it comes to food and trees this is another story!
So the government shouldn't be so focus on oil , other energy consumption stuff as much as it should be with the population , food , and enviroment/ecosystem (these factors are the most important since they are the essential necessities of all life).


Question 2)
I have research how environmentalists and wild life people get a population count /density count on different types of animals and how they flow thru the world.
But all their methods are crude and left open for a lot of mistakes in counting. (i.e it is not as easy as getting it from humans tax forms / census count which is more exact since mostly everybody has to do these.)

So I ask how can we determine a rough estimate on cow and other animal populations that we consume. Unless we know where they all are and can physically count them?
Because we could not be aware of it but we could be making cows extinct in a few years from now based on a mis-calculated count?

first off you are assuming:
1) people in your target...only eat one food and nothing else.
2) Food sources are not only local. Its a global world resources.

 

[percysunshine]

So I am researching population growth in the US.
And food consumption in the US.


My questions I am wanting to understand is

1) I can get the population and population density of any state/town in the US.
But I am wondering about how much food we have and the rate of consumption of what foods in what regions.....?

The McDonalds public relations department can help you with that question.

 

[sam111]

first off you are assuming:
1) people in your target...only eat one food and nothing else.
2) Food sources are not only local. Its a global world resources.

Great point.


But it essentially boils down to keeping track of things and counting/measuring quantities nothing to complex.

The complexity comes in determining a reasonable way to make accurate counting/measuring of things like flow/location , growth/death.

This all gets back into counting animal populations ....etc etc
Which is why people keep getting and predicting stuff wrong.

In theory we could find out that we have enough food to feed the whole entire would forever provided we knew how to get accurate data on animals , crops , flow of animals....etc

And reasonable condense it into a way to analysis the rate of consumption / growth of new produce in an easy way.

From the position I am at and from the information I have found up to this point their isn't a really good way of accurately doing this.

People tracking and measuring of alot of things associated to them is alot easier since everybody submits forms like census , tax , medical , address , drivers license,identification ...etc

But animals don't have much identification or ways to identify them.
Other then tagging the ones that are used for produces.
And I cann't see any one entity knowing the complete details of how many produce cows ,...etc

For example US may know how many cows they have in a certain area of the US based on farmers submitting accurate produce numbers. But it doesn't know how many cows are used for produces in greenland , or whole continents like Europe. They would only know the imported or exported numbers if they keep track of that.

Plus even if they could get the info from farmers how do they know they are not lieing or are accurately counted.

Not to mention illegal smuggleing of some thing which this would probably be negligible.

A more important thing to know even if we had a good accurate count of how many cows we have in produces. Is the rate of knew full mature ones , their locations , and the rate of death of the production cows.

I.E the rates and flows of the number of production cows determines the amount of red meat for people. (not to hard to comprehend )

Basically the rate of growth of new produce rests in the farmers /cattle raisers hands and how many he wants to create.

So I ask in the US is their currently away to get these rates and flows of are produce accurately. And if so is their a known way to keep the growth and death rates enough to feed the world and allow the cow population to have a reasonable amount of free living cows.

If so then I just want to know how that is being done.
And then if we can do it for any amount of US. population growth for the future... (based on are rates of growth) then we should be all set with red meat.

Similarly if we can do it for all produce we would have a way to cure human hungry for the whole united states.

Then if that is accomplished maybe in are foreign policies we can collaborate with other countries to help them cure hungry for their countries based on anaylsising their produce population/culture.

And if we can do it for all their growth rates then we have cured human hungry for the whole world.

And then we have to just work on making sure we don't over populate the world not because of the food or resources but for the sure convince of living.

I like to call it I need my space theory or the psychology or congestion which causes chaos behavior ... crime , discomfort ,...etc.

So population is a problem regardless of being able to cure the world or hungry , energy ,...etc
Ironic even if we can create a world where everybody enough or reasonable enough resources to live comfortable. We will destroy are self's with the lack of human control/figures which is why the world is so fat, people being dirty implies more viruses/bacteria being transfered/more communicable illness's (real even if we had it close to perfect humans would be stupid enough to fuck it up) .

 

[syrenn]

The USDA will have all the sat's you want. Start with them.

 

[percysunshine]

The USDA will have all the sat's you want. Start with them.

Wow! I knew the USDA was powerful, but I didn't know they had satellites.

 

[syrenn]

The USDA will have all the sat's you want. Start with them.

Wow! I knew the USDA was powerful, but I didn't know they had satellites.

Ill get you your foil hat to protect you... they got eyes on you now!!



Statistics.

 

[sam111]

But the essential problem is just simple

1)
We need a reasonable way to control the growth and consumption of produces with the growth of the human population.

2) We need a reasonable way to control the growth/death rate of the human population in an ethical reasonable manner. So we can live not to crowed and in peace with alot of nature and forests/wildlife areas. (i.e we should never cut down the rain forest to make room for people to live or break any beauty in nature)


And those 2 question can't be answered by simple analyseing / counting the produce population every year.

It essentially boils down to farmers must be told or stay in a certain bound of creating new produces every year to keep up with the human population consumption in a reasonable manner.

The government/corps have all the numbers and the mathematical formulas for the rates of consumption by humans/ the human population.

How to determine if Human Hunger can be cured in theory follows (not to hard)

The only thing suppose the whole population eat every type of produce at a certain high rate like Michael Felipe (the swimmer ). And do out the calculations on how much more produces each farm would have to do per year... weather it would be physically possible.... and then you would have a way to determine based on are growth rate if we have away to cure human hunger already.

Simply get a close over estimate of the human population growth, overestimate the most a person could eat in a given day , and current rate of growing new produce to how much you would need to make more. From this you would know if it is theoretically possible.

Leaving out shipping , costs ,...and all the other economic bullshit that can come later first you need to know if it is theoretically possible.

Can the farmers physically supply everybody with enough food in theory ?

 

[KissMy]

Apparently you can not comprehend my post.

Food is vastly scalable. We can genetically alter fish & farm the entire ocean if needed. There is no way we will ever run out of food. Rain forest get cut down for wood, not to expand farming. We can replant sustainable forest with the right incentives. Current farm land can still be scaled way up & much of the worlds arable land sits idle. Even if you focus on one element such as oil you will fail to predict production limits & be tossed into the dustbin of failed peak oilers.

Scientist said we ran out of oil 130 years ago - but China passed the USA on its rate of carbon emissions. China will pass USA per capita carbon emission rate in 5 years. There population is triple ours. Somehow the world found enough to power 3 more USA's.

You are probably still in school being indoctrinated by the politically corrupt teachers union. Wake me up when you grow up.

 

[editec]

Thomas Robert Malthus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....Malthus grabs all the college assholes who dont know shit about shit when they come across him..........

Grabbed me too at one time but you realize over time all his shit was absurd and has been pwned numerous times just like "peak oil".............another goofball concept..


http://erienewsmediawatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/08/hubberts-peak-oil-theory-debunked.html

 

[Old Rocks]

If the weather this year does what it has the last two years, the prices at the grocery store a year from now are going to be real painful.

An increasingly dicey climate in a world of 7 billion people that are dependent on agriculture is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Unkotare]

Strong in the 'stupid' this thread is.

 

[sam111]

Apparently you can not comprehend my post.

Food is vastly scalable. We can genetically alter fish & farm the entire ocean if needed. There is no way we will ever run out of food. Rain forest get cut down for wood, not to expand farming. We can replant sustainable forest with the right incentives. Current farm land can still be scaled way up & much of the worlds arable land sits idle. Even if you focus on one element such as oil you will fail to predict production limits & be tossed into the dustbin of failed peak oilers.

Scientist said we ran out of oil 130 years ago - but China passed the USA on its rate of carbon emissions. China will pass USA per capita carbon emission rate in 5 years. There population is triple ours. Somehow the world found enough to power 3 more USA's.

You are probably still in school being indoctrinated by the politically corrupt teachers union. Wake me up when you grow up.

No, I understand what your saying.

But I want conformation that mathematically/theoretically we are all set.
With away to always control those 2 statements of mine.

If so then why do we have human hungry problems still in the US.
If we can cure human hungry/food crises problems full?

Is it just because people won't work for free a little bit to make it happen?
Or is their something more to it?

Question 2
I know for the natural resources like oil , water , gas ,...etc we can always have enough no-matter what the population is. Because the math supports we would run out of these well after the earths life by then we had better find a different planet to live on.... (maybe the moon Hamilton lol

But you had mentioned trees that is one resource I am unsure about since we only have a finite amount that we should ever use from. And if the consumption rate seem to me (at a naive thought)
reproducing new ones would be alot slower to get them fully grown (not like cows which take around 3 to4 years) I would take that they depend on many factors like weather /surroundings and they would take many years 20years ,...etc (even different for different types)

So I ask can we keep trees in sync (working out the math with the statistical data I don't have fully access to
Or would we have to chew into natures beauty more and more / destroy animals homes ,...etc

If so then we basically don't have to much problems that we cann't solve.
The only main problem would then be people itself (not in what they consume)