what is the value of alternative crops to the world food supply?
148423
What do you mean by value?  Economic, societal, etc...\n\nWhat do you mean by alternative?  \n\nI don't believe that you can get a useful answer unless you are more specific.  Please add more detail, and I'm sure you'll receive educational replies.
235597
It is very technically feasible for humans to be able to live on another world. If we went ahead today we could have a pretty selfsustaining base on the moon in 20-30 years. \n\nMany aspects needs to be resolved and they are more biological than technical. Can we grow all the food we need on a body with a different gravitational field than Earths? Everything on Earth has evolved constantly exposed to earths gravity. We can grow simple plants on the ISS but the humans aboard will suffer dangerous health issues when exposed to longterm microgravity. What would these effects be on the moon? Less, probably, but will they still be there? And how will more complex plants fare on the moon? What about food that isn´t from plants at all? Can chickens and fish be produced on the moon? Will it be necessary for humans in space to be vegetarians since a Big Mac will be worth its weight in gold?\n\nHow long for a colony on another planet to be completely independent of Earth? I would say centuries if ever. Because how many nations are completely self reliant here on earth? Every nation imports and exports something. We are dependent of trade. Will there be such a thing between planets?\nEconomy is the most important factor in manned space exploration. If it hadn´t been for the Vietnam war we would have built the first permanently manned bases on the moon in the eighties. The war ended up costing 6 times as much as the Apollo programme. No wonder it got cancelled...
836493
It is the fuel, I guess you could say, the plants need for the production of their food.
168885
It is NOT the right answer. There are so many other ways to combat hunger and end famine. (if only they were financially beneficial to those with the power to implement them) Western countries are looking for ways to financially benefit from trade agreements and biotech contracts instead of altruistically wishing to end hunger and poverty. And all of it at the cost of the environment and human health and lives.\n\n"Resistance to GMOs in Africa made the headlines in 2002 when Zambia rejected GM food aid at a time of critical food shortages in parts of the country. \n\n"Despite pressure from around the world, the Zambian government maintains that it has made a responsible decision by not accepting GMO food aid. We argue that the long-term impacts of GMOs and products derived from them are not fully understood and, therefore, safety and caution should take precedence over other interests including international trade agreements," says Dr. Mwananyanda Mbikusita Lewanika, Executive Director of the National Institute for Scientific & Industrial Research in Zambia."\n\nGMOs are BAD for people and the environment.\nhttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/feeding-the-world-facts-vers\nhttp://www.alternet.org/story/11224/tp://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_print.asp?ID=2080\nhttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering\nhttp://www.truefoodnow.org/\nhttp://ipcb.org/
950472
water - which leads to ability to grow things - which leads to crops - which leads to financial stability.
236694
.THIS PLANET IS NOW DRYING OUT.In northern china the 2 major deserts are merging to create a super desert.\n\nthousands of farmers that once were food producers are now running for their lives before the advancing dust storms.The Sahara is growing by 7 kilometros a day\n\n.The world population has doubled in the last fifty years ,faster than  humanity has ever done since we became homosapians. we are loosing species every minute.We are in fact witness to a mass extinction for the first time again since the day of the dinasaurs.\n\nAGRICULTURAL LAND IS LOST ALL OVER THE GLOBE.TO DESERTIFICATION ,OVERPUMPING OF CARBON AQUIFIERS.\nForest fires and deforestacion (to create more farmlands )are detroying that which make the water.\n\nEACH YEAR THERE ARE LESS AND LESS FARMERS,their sons becoming something else , in Africa there are many dying of aids  In china many lost their lands, \n\nAnd each year these less and less farmers have to feed an increase of (,at the moment) 70 million people.(But this is speeding up.)\n\nTo produce a ton of maize takes 1000 tons of water.If you havent got water but you have money,such as China,you will buy water in the form of maize,and at high prices.\n\nCanada and Australia have limited their sales already and only to their regular good customers.Other countries WILL sell causing inflation and rising food prices at home and so produce unstable governments.\n\nwe find ourselves in a bubble econemy about to burst.\n\nthe bottom line is that with less land,less farmers and less water.the global farming comunity will not be able to feed everybody in the world.\n\nThe disapearing biomass is threatening our very atmosphere.\neach rise of temperature by one degree means 10% of croploss.And the planet is getting hotter.\n\nThe sea is rising ,which means more loss of agricultural land.\n\nThe world desperately needs alternative ways to produce food.\n\nso to save Mankind,to save the world ,to change the tide, to tip the balance and to answer the question ,\n\nthe solution is that \nif the billions of people on this planet who have any ground at all ;grow something.\n\nTo combat rising food prices by bringing an enormous amount of food unto the local markets ,\n\ncombat the threat to the global environment ,by creating an enormous amount of biomass which will produce humidity,\nAnd all of it outside and beyond the concept of agriculture.\n\nThe many billions of pieces of land are there,and so are the people.Just buy a spade and get some seeds.the books exist,\n\nI recommend Permaculture since that is my area ,but their are many other concepts.\n\nAnd you will get healthy and cheap food,not to speak of making the place beautifull.\n\nIn this way we can get to Paradise without having to die first
230986
Seems to me that a farmer has three potential options with a piece of land:\nHe can grow a food crop.\nGrow a non-food crop that he can sell for cash e.g. tobacco or cotton (I think that's probably the distinction that the question is trying to make)\nUse his land for some other non-agricultural use e.g leave it fallow, build a theme park.\n\nSo the question is asking what the impact of growing too many of these non-food cash crops might be.\n\nI won't do your whole project for you, but these are the areas I think you should be visiting.\n\nEconomic impact\nWhat will happen when a lot of perhaps one particular cash crop is grown.\nSupply and demand suggests prices will fall\nMaybe balance of payments will improve if you can export\nMaybe foreign investment will come in to exploit the local availability.\nMaybe other industries will grow up to exploit the cash crop (think textiles or cigarettes).\nWhat will happen to the price of food though? Increase?\nWill you need to import more?\nIs famine a possibility?\nIf you are relying principally on one or two cash crops to generate income to spend on food imports what happens if the crop fails?\nThere are positive and negative impacts.\n\nEnvironmentally\nSo what happens if large areas of forest are removed to provide new fields for cash crops?\nWhat about the impact of large tracts of land given over to one crop.  We may be talking dust bowl here.\nWhat if the crop requires intensive farming methods - high use of fertiliser and pesticide.\n\nPolitically and socially\nWhat are the impacts of being a net importer of food?  Particularly if this means the difference between the nation starving or not.\nWhat about the extra cash coming in?  It could be spent on education, infrastructure.\nWhat happens to the Government the next election after a famine?\n\n5. Traditionally governments have used various methods:\nSubsidy: Give the farmer extra cash for producing certain crops.  Look up EEC common agricultural policy.\nTaxation: Tax the farmer for producing the crops you don't want.\nTrade barriers: Put import tariffs on the crops they want grown in the country.  Prices rise and more farmers are encouraged to grow the crops.\nQuota: Not so much in the western world, but certainly the case in the old Eastern Bloc - simply dictate to the farmer what he can grow.\n\nHope this helps
795045
Some advantages are reduced need for pesticides because the crops are grown to resist infestation (e.g. BT corn- resistant to corn borers). Crops can also be modified to have higher nutritional value. There are endless possibilities. There is also research being done on edible vaccines (which would be easier to administer to large populations in a short period of time, especially children), as well as other medical applications and treatments including cancer prevention and treatment. \n\nAs a point of interest, you might want to note that all banana's sold in north america are genetically modified and have been for decades (not sure of exact date).\n\nIf you want to know more about the Canadian governments' views on GM food and products here is the web site I used for a school project last month. It may also give you other ideas on where to find more information.\n\nhttp://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/gen/queste.shtml#env
98675
Agricultural policy decision making in economies undergoing transition to market is in need of empirical tools for assessing the impact of alternative policy options. The econometric means available for such exercise, however, are limited for lack of data and structural breaks in economic behaviour. Synthetic, partial equilibrium, multi-market models offer a potential alternative. Such models have been used extensively, even in advanced economies, to offer valuable insights on the impact of alternative policy options. This paper shows the use of such a partial equilibrium, multi-market, synthetic-type model as a tool for agricultural policy analysis in a country in transition. The model is applied for Albania, a predominantly agricultural country that, after a period of centralism and autarky, aims to re-join the international economic system. The model, albeit its many limitations, offers some useful insights on the impact of alternative options available for agricultural price and trade policy.\n\nalso u might wanna check out this site for further info:\nhttp://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/ecopln/v32y1999i2p103-27.html
152461
All Trillions of Human Beings on Earth have to do is recycle, replant trees after cutting down trees, order from "The Goods" Catalog (solar, wind, water energy housing/self-sufficent equipments, clothings, devices, homes),  stop buying plastics, study geography - astronomy -, trade their automobles for solar powered cars and covered wagons / covered carriages pulled by horses, trade tractors for clydesdales, grow their own gardens, buy organic vegs, meats and diary products directly from farmers and tell their children's schools to teach self-agriculture ( ask their or your teacher to name 10 edible plants in their own backyard. I guarantee you they don't know !)...do all this instead of playing the roles of modern-day doomsayers.
632705
I think of utmost importance would be the production of grasses, which includes corn, wheat, barley, oats, etc.  Of secondmost importance would then be the ruminants such as cows which live off grass and provide the human world with most of its meat.  Thirdly would be the myriad species which are not cows which eat the grasses and seeds derived therefrom, which are in turn eaten by other animals...\n\nAdditionally, the presence of the grasses provides an anchor for water in the soil, which (as was learned in the dust-bowl of the 1930's American midwest) prevents soil erosion and drought.
1111451
No, I did not know that.\n\nAs a matter of fact, I believe your thesis is incorrect.  "There is enough / for everyone" as Midnight Oil's song goes.  Of course enough food is produced to end world hunger.  Yet hunger exists -- mostly because of corrupt governmental interference.\n\nMillions of Chinese starved in the so-called Great Leap Forward when Mao screwed his country's agricultural practices.  Hundreds of thousands (or millions) dead in Ethiopia, then Somalia, then North Korea.  Most availed themselves of corrupt governments that allowed their people to simply starve.  The western world has often made humanitarian attempts to help alleviate the suffering of people in those places.  Either the government refuses to acknowledge a problem (China, N Korea) or local militant forces / warlords (Somalia) take the resources for their own.\n\nThat's the way that goes.
373496
Whole Foods Market (WFMI)  Had a big pullback recently\nWild Oats (OATS)\nUnited Natural Foods (UNFI) Distributor to places like WFMI and OATS.  Hard to go wrong with that as long as people eat more "natural" and organic food.\nHain Celestial (HAIN) The only organic food mfg. I know to trade.  Would love to hear about others.\n\nYou are smart to get on this megatrend, and there's plenty of time and easy money left for it if you stick around (have you ever heard anybody say there's still easy money in any stock market or sector????).  Anxiety about our poisoned environment will only increase, and Americans with money can only do one thing about it--insulate themselves as best they can with water purifiers and safer food and such.  With the Bush administration attacking environmental protections every day, "natural" and organic foods are getting free advertising worth billions.  The only down side is these stocks are not recession resistant like agribusiness food stocks.  If things get bad, people will go back to ingesting dangerous chemicals to save money.\n\nAnother related megatrend that head-in-the-sand Republicans are missing out on is the earth's population is systematically destroying its supply of usable fresh water.  The companies that can purify, move, desalinate, or control potable water are going to profit massively from endless demand for shrinking supply.
145571
The have.  It is called ethanol, and you can get it from corn, hay, or other nearly-infinitely renewable sources.\n\nIt is just not as popular, yet.
1081096
With the increase in the human population agriculture is going to become more important than ever.\n\nMost crops are being grown on large estates to get the benefit of economies of scale. \n\nThe chemical boosting of agriculture seems to be coming to an end. Farmers are putting fertilisers, weedkillers and plant killers on their crops with diminishing returns.\n\nThere is a move back to sustainable agriculture which means that farmers tend the soil with compost and let fields lie fallow and use less chemicals on the land.\n\nOrganic farming is also making inroads into the mass commercial production of crops - that is farmers who grow crops without using any chemicals.\n\nGenetically modified crops should improve yields and profitability  once the issues over the release of the plants are resolved.
419754
well I think that genetically modified foods are not bad as people say since they can growth in terminal or poor soils and is a way to feed many world third countries where the population is always increasing and though they are not 100% safe to eat there is not many other cheaper and faster way to feed the population ....and also I think that some genetic modified foods may have higher nutritional values than organic foods since proteins, minerals are added in the process of making the genetic modified food.................................
1169078
the market price for such products are higher  \nthe way in which they are produced involves less intensive use of land, \nthe attainment of a better balance between supply of, and demand for, agriculture products, \nbetter protection of the environment.