Calories for human consumption

(Return to [[And adds further comment)

I would like to make some very approximate estimates of the source of calories for human consumption in the UK, firstly in terms of imports compared to domestic production. I then have additional categories we could explore. I realize this can only be an approximation but if we can reach ratios within +-5% I shall find them usable. Do you think we can narrow things down to that extent?
1. Sure, we can attempt to make some approximate estimates based on available data and general knowledge about the UK's food and agriculture sector. However, keep in mind that a true breakdown would require up-to-date and detailed statistics, so our approximations will be just that—approximations.
  1. Imports vs. Domestic Production
2. The UK has historically been reliant on food imports. Factors that play into this include its island geography, climate, and global trade patterns. Here's a rough breakdown based on historical data and general knowledge:
  1. Domestic Production: Historically, the UK produces around 50% to 60% of the food it consumes. This means the calories derived from domestically produced food might be in that range. The UK has strong dairy, meat, and cereal sectors.
  2. Imports: The rest, which is 40% to 50%, is imported. This includes tropical fruits, coffee, tea, spices, and certain staples like rice, which aren't produced in the UK in large quantities. The UK also imports foods that it produces, such as meat and dairy, for variety, quality, or price reasons.
3. So a rough estimate could be:
  1. Domestic: 55%
  2. Imports: 45%
4. This is within your +-5% range, but remember, these are rough estimates.
  1. Additional Categories
5. Let me know what additional categories you'd like to explore, and I can provide further approximations or insights. Some potential categories include breakdown by food type (meat, dairy, grains, etc.), organic vs. conventional, or greenhouse-grown vs. open-field. Specify your needs, and I'll do my best to provide insights!
Is it reasonable to think this represents an annual total of 36 TeraCalories? I suspect I'm underestimating but that the figure would be between 36 and 72.
1. Let's break this down to see if your estimate is reasonable. For simplicity, we'll use average calorie requirements and population figures.
  1. Average Daily Caloric Intake:
  2. An average person needs roughly 2,000 to 2,500 calories per day, depending on age, gender, activity level, and other factors. To make a rough estimate, let's use an average of 2,250 calories/person/day.
  3. Population of the UK:
  4. As of my last update in 2022, the UK's population is estimated to be around 67 million.
  5. Annual Caloric Requirement:
  6. 2,250 calories/person/day×67,000,000 people×365 days/year=54.8 TeraCalories/year2,250 calories/person/day×67,000,000 people×365 days/year=54.8 TeraCalories/year
2. So, based on a simple calculation, the UK would require roughly 54.8 TeraCalories per year to feed its population, given the average caloric intake and population size.
3. Your estimate of between 36 and 72 TeraCalories lies within this range, with 54.8 TeraCalories/year being quite close to the middle of that range. Your estimation is reasonable, though I'd lean towards the upper half of your range based on the calculation above.
I hesitated to put child needs as high as adults which is why I was under, but I would agree I was under by too much.
1. Your hesitation makes sense. Children do indeed consume fewer calories than adults. Let's try to refine our estimate a bit by considering age groups.
  1. Age Group Caloric Needs (these are very rough averages):
    1. Children (0-10 years): ~1,400 calories/day
    2. Adolescents (11-18 years): ~2,200 calories/day
    3. Adults (19-64 years): ~2,250 calories/day (as we used above)
    4. Elderly (65+ years): ~2,000 calories/day
  2. Population Breakdown (using approximate and rounded age distribution data for the UK as of 2022):
    1. Children (0-10 years): ~10% of the population = 6.7 million
    2. Adolescents (11-18 years): ~10% of the population = 6.7 million
    3. Adults (19-64 years): ~65% of the population = 43.55 million
    4. Elderly (65+ years): ~15% of the population = 10.05 million
  3. Annual Caloric Requirement by Age Group:
    1. Children: 1,400×6.7 million×365=3.42 TeraCalories/year1,400×6.7 million×365=3.42 TeraCalories/year
    2. Adolescents: 2,200×6.7 million×365=5.39 TeraCalories/year2,200×6.7 million×365=5.39 TeraCalories/year
    3. Adults: 2,250×43.55 million×365=35.52 TeraCalories/year2,250×43.55 million×365=35.52 TeraCalories/year
    4. Elderly: 2,000×10.05 million×365=7.36 TeraCalories/year2,000×10.05 million×365=7.36 TeraCalories/year
2. Summing these up, we get a total of 51.69 TeraCalories/year. This is slightly less than our previous estimation but still within the range of 36-72 TeraCalories you mentioned, leaning more towards the mid-to-upper end of the range.
3. So, yes, taking into account the different caloric needs of children and the elderly, we can refine our estimate a bit more. However, it's still a rough approximation, as other factors like wastage, industrial use, and other non-direct human consumptions are not accounted for.
It's not a figure that can easily be narrowed down, you'd need a lot of resources to actually count what reaches the nation's tables. My next step is to decide what proportion of domestic food produce is dependent on what form of pollination. All the livestock, for instance, is dependent on grass which is wind pollinated. Is that true for all grain as well?
1. Pollination plays a crucial role in the production of many of the foods we consume. Let's break down the UK's domestic food production in terms of their pollination dependencies:
  1. Livestock and Derivative Products:
    1. As you rightly mentioned, livestock like cattle, sheep, and goats primarily depend on grasses for feed, and these grasses are wind-pollinated. Additionally, some livestock may be fed grains or supplemental feeds, so we'll discuss grains next.
  2. Grains:
    1. Major grains like wheat, barley, oats, and corn (maize) are predominantly wind-pollinated. These grains form a significant part of UK's agricultural output.
  3. Fruits and Vegetables:
    1. Many fruits and vegetables consumed in the UK require insect pollination. This includes crops like apples, pears, strawberries, raspberries, and various others. Some vegetables, like beans and tomatoes, benefit from insect pollination but can also self-pollinate.
    2. Other vegetables, especially root vegetables like potatoes, carrots, and turnips, or leafy vegetables like lettuce and cabbages, don't require insect pollination for the parts of the plant we consume, though pollination may be crucial for seed production.
  4. Oilseeds:
    1. Some oilseed crops, such as oilseed rape (canola), are insect-pollinated. This crop is significant in the UK and relies heavily on bees and other insects for pollination.
  5. Others:
    1. There are other crops like sugar beet, which is important for sugar production in the UK, that don't require insect pollination for the primary product but might need it for seed production.
2. In summary, while a significant proportion of UK's agricultural output, like grains and grasses, is wind-pollinated, many high-value crops, particularly fruits and some vegetables, rely heavily on insect pollination. This interdependence underscores the importance of maintaining healthy pollinator populations for a resilient food system.
So in terms of calorific intake from domestic sources, the nation might tighten its belt if insect numbers crash but the overall picture is less interesting meals but no mass starvation. Then there's calories from imports which are perhaps more dependent on insect pollination.
1. Indeed, understanding the implications of pollinator decline on food security requires a nuanced perspective. Let's delve deeper into your observation:
  1. Domestic Caloric Intake and Pollination:
    1. The bulk of caloric intake from domestically produced sources comes from grains and livestock. As both grains and grasses (for livestock feed) are wind-pollinated, the direct caloric impact of a decline in insect pollinators would be limited in this regard.
    2. However, a reduction in insect-pollinated crops would have implications for the diversity and nutrition of the diet. Many fruits, vegetables, and oilseeds that depend on insect pollination are sources of essential vitamins, minerals, and fats.
  2. Caloric Intake from Imports and Pollination:
    1. You're right in noting that the dependency on imported foods could be a more significant concern when it comes to pollinator decline. Many tropical and subtropical foods that the UK imports rely on insect pollination. Examples include:
    2. Coffee: Bees can significantly increase coffee crop yields.
    3. Cocoa (for chocolate): Mainly pollinated by specific midges.
    4. Almonds: Almost entirely dependent on bee pollination.
    5. Various tropical fruits: Many rely on or benefit from insect pollination.
    6. A decline in global pollinator populations could lead to reduced yields and higher prices for these imported goods. While they might not be primary calorie sources, they are critical for diversity and nutrition, as well as economic reasons (both for exporting countries and UK businesses involved in food trade and processing).
  3. Other Considerations:
    1. It's not just about calories. Nutritional security is also crucial. A diet can be calorie-sufficient but nutritionally deficient. Reductions in insect-pollinated crops could exacerbate such scenarios.
    2. Economic implications: Even if a crop isn't a primary calorie source for the UK, it might be a significant export or hold importance in the food processing sector. The decline of such crops could have economic ramifications.
    3. Ecosystem interdependencies: Pollinators play roles beyond just food crops. They're essential for many wild plants, which in turn support various other species, leading to a more biodiverse and resilient ecosystem.
2. In summary, while the UK might not face "mass starvation" from a decline in insect pollinators due to its reliance on wind-pollinated grains and livestock, the broader implications could be substantial. A diversified, nutritious diet could be threatened, and there would be economic and ecological ramifications to consider.
I'm not trying to play down the importance of insects, far from it. I'm trying to find a reasonable way of stating the issues. The BBC discussion at 10am today on Radio 4 said mass starvation would begin after just a couple of months which was clearly nonsense.
1. Absolutely understood. It's essential to approach the topic of pollinators and their impact on our food system with nuance and accuracy. Overstating the consequences can lead to misinformation and mistrust, but understating them can lead to complacency. Here's a more measured way to state the issues:
  1. Domestic Resilience: A large portion of the UK's primary calorie sources, like grains and livestock-based products, rely on wind-pollination. Therefore, in terms of basic caloric sustenance, the UK has a degree of resilience against an immediate decline in insect pollinators.
  2. Nutritional Diversity at Risk: While the UK may not face immediate "mass starvation," a decline in insect pollinators would threaten the diversity and nutritional quality of the British diet. Many fruits, vegetables, and oilseeds that depend on insect pollination are vital sources of vitamins, minerals, and healthy fats.
  3. Economic Implications: Many of the foods the UK imports, which might not be primary calorie sources but are essential for diet diversity, economic value, and cultural preferences, rely heavily on insect pollination. A global decline in pollinators could lead to reduced availability and increased prices of these goods.
  4. Ecosystem Health: Beyond agriculture, pollinators play a pivotal role in maintaining biodiversity. They support many wild plants, which in turn underpin broader ecosystems. A decline in pollinators can set off a chain reaction affecting wildlife and ecosystem health.
  5. Broader Impacts: Even if the immediate threat isn't "mass starvation," the broader impacts of pollinator decline on health, economics, ecology, and even social structures could be significant and long-lasting.
2. It's essential to communicate the importance of insect pollinators in a balanced way, highlighting both the immediate and broader impacts of their decline. This provides a clearer picture and underscores the multifaceted reasons why conserving pollinator populations is vital.
If you can access a small page on a forum at https://forumgarden.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1544719#p1544719 I wrote that last week and I'm trying to follow it up. I could copy it here if that's easier for you. You could offer a comment as to its accuracy.
1. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I can't directly access or browse external websites, including forum posts. However, if you copy the relevant parts of your writing and paste them here, I'd be more than happy to review and provide feedback on its accuracy and content.
Ah. I had thought it was a recent adaptation. One moment... Here is the post:
1. Of course! Please paste the content of the post here, and I'll do my best to review it and provide feedback on its accuracy and content.
2. I fear this may be a bit simplistic, but if only for completeness ForumGarden ought to have a thread. People may not have paid enough attention so far.
3. Q. What is it that we eat?
4. A. What we eat is stuff that has been alive. We do not eat minerals. We eat stuff that grew and quite often ran around or maybe even swam or hid under rocks.
5. Q. What, then, eats minerals?
6. A. The things that eat minerals are, in general, green. You are not green, you do not eat minerals. Green things are plants. Plants do not eat things that were alive, they eat minerals.
7. This is the basis of the Carbon Cycle, which is actually awfully much more complicated and mostly involves non-living systems. The bit that involves living systems has Carbon (as carbon dioxide, a gas in the atmosphere) being converted by plants into more and more plants. Some of those plants are eaten by animals making more and more animals, some of whom eat animals, but all the carbon transfer up the food chain starts with plants taking carbon dioxide in and animals letting carbon dioxide out.
8. You, being an animal, take carbon in as food and get rid of it by breathing carbon dioxide out.
9. If the mass of plants drops so far that you can't get any carbon to eat, you will die.
10. If the plants have no suitable environment in which to grow, you will die.
11. Some plants live in the sea. If the sea gets too hot or too acidic then the plants in the sea will die.
12. Other plants grow on the land. If the land gets too hot or the growing conditions get too dry or too wet or too windy then the plants on the land will die.
13. Without those plants you will have nothing to eat. That's the nature of the Carbon Cycle as it relates to living systems.
14. Keeping things from getting too hot or too acidic or too dry or too wet or too windy involves not burning fossil fuels.
15. People have been exponentially burning more and more fossil fuels for a couple of hundred years now. Things are getting too hot and too acidic and too dry and too wet and too windy for plants to thrive, because the product of burning fossil fuels accumulates in the atmosphere year after year, faster than it can be taken back into the Carbon Cycle through the other non-living systems.
16. Unless we begin to claw back that excess atmospheric pollution we shall soon start dying in very large numbers, civilizations will collapse, naturally balanced systems will collapse, and it will all be entirely caused by human short-term greed and stupidity. We are on a precipice in danger of not regaining our balance and stepping back from it.
17. At the moment, the product of burning fossil fuels continues to increase in the atmosphere year on year. It is essential that it starts to fall instead, and yet nobody is even planning on how to make it fall. There is a plan on how to make it stop increasing by 2050 - 27 years from now - and even that plan is unconvincing. And by 2050 very large numbers of people will already have died because it got too hot and too acidic and too dry and too wet and too windy for plants to thrive. Very large numbers of people will already have starved.
18. This is a major problem, not just a financial inconvenience.
Some of us said all of this on this site fifteen years ago.
1. Your post captures the essence of the carbon cycle and the impacts of human-induced climate change. It's written in a simple Q&A style, which can be effective in communicating complex issues to a broader audience. Here are some feedback points and suggestions:
  1. Clarity & Simplicity: The Q&A format and the simple descriptions of the carbon cycle make the topic more accessible to those who might not be familiar with it. The use of relatable language ("You are not green") adds a touch of humor and memorability.
  2. Plant & Carbon Relationship: The emphasis on plants as the starting point of the carbon cycle in relation to living organisms is spot on. Plants indeed "eat" minerals and convert CO2 into biomass, acting as the foundation for most terrestrial food webs.
  3. Causation and Impact: Linking burning fossil fuels to the challenges plants face in their environments (too hot, too acidic, etc.) accurately represents the cascading effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
  4. Urgency: Your portrayal of the urgency of the situation is clear, especially in the last few paragraphs. The note about the timeframe (2050) and the lack of convincing plans emphasizes the immediacy of the threat.
  5. Suggestions & Tweaks:
    1. Diversity of Plant Responses: While climate change is undoubtedly putting stress on many ecosystems, it might be worth noting that some plants and ecosystems might benefit or expand due to changing conditions. This doesn't diminish the overall threat but provides a more nuanced picture.
    2. Ocean Acidification: You mentioned the sea getting "too acidic." This might benefit from a brief explanation (e.g., "as more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, they become more acidic").
    3. Carbon Cycle Complexity: While the post is designed for simplicity, a brief mention that the carbon cycle also involves other non-living systems might provide a fuller picture without complicating the narrative.
    4. Human Solutions: After presenting the dire situation, it might be helpful to briefly mention potential solutions or actions individuals can take. This offers readers a proactive stance rather than leaving them feeling helpless.
2. Overall, the post provides a compelling argument about the importance of addressing climate change and the potential consequences of inaction. The emphasis on the centrality of plants in human survival is an effective angle. Great work in communicating a critical issue!
The post is part of a set which discuss options which would achieve Net Zero by 2050 - much of it with your earlier assistance. We decided the target might be half-met by replacing fossil with renewable energy sources but that the other half requires sequestration; that the process has to rely in exponential deployment which implies a biological underpinning; that carbon capture through growing free-floating seaweed in a constrained environment could reach the required mass; and that the Gulf of Mexico was big enough to hold the yield and allow capture along its edges. We envisioned skimming and an energy-neutral onshore conversion to long-term storage.
1. It sounds like you've conducted a comprehensive examination of potential strategies to achieve Net Zero by 2050. It's great to hear you're considering both renewable energy sources and sequestration. Let me comment on the components you've mentioned:
  1. Renewable Energy: Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal) is essential. This addresses the source of the problem, reducing the carbon emitted into the atmosphere.
  2. Carbon Sequestration: While transition to renewables is underway, the current atmospheric CO2 levels are already elevated. Therefore, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, including biological methods, are crucial.
  3. Biological Underpinning: Using biological processes for carbon sequestration can be efficient due to their naturally occurring mechanisms. Processes like photosynthesis in plants have evolved over billions of years to be effective at capturing carbon.
  4. Seaweed Cultivation: Seaweed (macroalgae) has gained attention as a potential carbon sink. It grows rapidly, can sequester carbon efficiently, and doesn't require freshwater or arable land like terrestrial plants. It also has the added advantage of not competing with food crops.
  5. Gulf of Mexico: Using the Gulf of Mexico as a vast cultivation zone is an interesting idea. Seaweed farms can be designed to float in the ocean, and given the right conditions, can have high productivity rates. The contained environment of the Gulf could potentially make harvesting and processing more manageable.
  6. Harvesting and Storage: Skimming the seaweed and converting it into long-term storage forms is crucial. The biomass could potentially be processed into biofuels, animal feed, or even materials like bioplastics. Alternatively, it can be buried or submerged to ensure the carbon remains sequestered.
  7. Additional Considerations:
    1. Ecosystem Impacts: Large-scale seaweed cultivation might have effects on local marine ecosystems. For instance, it might alter light penetration, nutrient availability, and other factors.
    2. Feasibility and Scale: While the concept is scientifically sound, the challenge lies in scaling up. Infrastructure, investment, monitoring, and potential environmental impacts would need to be closely considered.
    3. Policy and Regulation: Implementing such a project would require collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, environmental agencies, and local communities.
2. Your approach to identifying and discussing solutions sounds thorough. Addressing the climate crisis requires both mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (sequestering existing CO2). Combining renewable energy transition with innovative carbon capture techniques, as you've outlined, could be a promising path forward.