IF life on Earth like planets develops like here

[far-trader]

In 2009, food exports accounted for about 20% of production. We export a bit more than we import.

Ah, but you need to compare apples to apples here

You list exports as a percentage of production, while Hans/Rancke2 listed imports as a percentage of consumption. The two are not the same. And even more to the point just what foodstuffs are imported compared to exported? And are the percentages in gross tonnage or (more likely I expect) market value? That can throw a huge wrench in the calculations as imports of low tonnage delicacies that don't feed many might be a much bigger dollar value than exports of high tonnage staples that feed the masses. And I've only touched the surface of the beast, it's all a bit more complicated than a quick google and look at the CIA factbook

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Ever read "Unpleasant World" about Dasku? :devil:

No, I have... but I bet's it real fun place not to be caught...

 

[Dragoner]

No, I have... but I bet's it real fun place not to be caught...

Have or haven't? I found it as a gif, people selling bones and such.

 

[Carlobrand]

Ah, but you need to compare apples to apples here

You list exports as a percentage of production, while Hans/Rancke2 listed imports as a percentage of consumption. The two are not the same. And even more to the point just what foodstuffs are imported compared to exported? And are the percentages in gross tonnage or (more likely I expect) market value? That can throw a huge wrench in the calculations as imports of low tonnage delicacies that don't feed many might be a much bigger dollar value than exports of high tonnage staples that feed the masses. And I've only touched the surface of the beast, it's all a bit more complicated than a quick google and look at the CIA factbook

The same or not, the U.S. is considered a net food exporter by any measure. And, our primary food exports are grains and meat, so if you're counting dollars and arguing that we're importing higher-cost delicacies while exporting lower-cost staples, then we're still exporting more calories than we import.

 

[G. Kashkanun Anderson]

Then you have food imports. In 2009 the US imported 17% of the food consumed, so we're down to around 40 per worker.

But I guarantee you that's not out of necessity -- unless you count Chilean sea bass, Bordeaux wine, various coffees, teas, bananas et al. as vital staples. And those are all unavailable domestically for trademark and/or local climate issues, something which doesn't necessarily apply to a planet-wide economy. Also, a very large percentage of those food imports (particularly any extra grain and the like) are going to come from Canada -- which, at least from a plain economic perspective, might as well count as domestic production.

And also keep in mind that American consumers punch way above their weight, food-wise. The average American devours 2700 calories per day, and wastes an additional 1100 on top of that. That's anywhere from 35% to 90% above and beyond what a typical human needs to get by, depending on how much spoilage you want to include in that assessment.

In short, the 1-3% of the US population directly involved in agricultural production can easily supply the caloric needs of the domestic US population, and then some. In fact, most of the recent history of US agricultural policy (at least until the late-90s or so) was about setting limits on the amount of food they produced, both for economic and environmental reasons. Even today this is still somewhat the case; in terms of arable land alone, the US is still operating at less than half its capacity.

And then there's the other half of the question, how big a part of a population would be agricultural workers, even for a world totally dedicated to food production
[*]? Start with children and retired parents of the workers. Then add the people who build the machinery that enables the agricultural worker to be so productive and their families. Then add tertiary professions catering to those workers (and their families). Even if an agricultural worker could produce food for 100 people (instead of less than half that), a population of 10 million wouldn't come anywhere near producing food for a billion people.

Well, the number to start with is 155; that's what's currently bandied about for how many people the average American farmer feeds. You can work your way down from there. It was 26 in 1961, by the way.

So 26 at TL-6 and 155 at TL-8, although I think there should be a difference between an operating TL as a just-arrived concept and one that consists of generationally tried-and-true practices. It's also worth noting that our current TL-8 agriculture is on the cusp of another wave of massive automation, so a mature TL-8 farm may be able to provide exponentially more food per (human) worker than even our current 155 number suggests.

And a note regarding gender: agricultural employment is, in fact, overwhelmingly male -- as is any job which is regarded to be as filthy and dangerous as farmwork is. About 78% percent of all migrant ag workers in the US are men, for example. Even on family farms in the US, you're not generally going to see women out in the fields doing the heavy, dangerous, 'productive' parts of farm production. Their roles tend to be on the subsistence side: home upkeep, food preparation, etc. At least that's the way it was with all the family farms that I've ever been on.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Have or haven't? I found it as a gif, people selling bones and such.

haven't, sorry I was just getting ready to fall a sleep when I posted and forgot the 'n't'.

 

[rancke]

The same or not, the U.S. is considered a net food exporter by any measure. And, our primary food exports are grains and meat, so if you're counting dollars and arguing that we're importing higher-cost delicacies while exporting lower-cost staples, then we're still exporting more calories than we import.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about checking exports. How much of a net exporter?


Hans

 

[rancke]

But I guarantee you that's not out of necessity -- unless you count Chilean sea bass, Bordeaux wine, various coffees, teas, bananas et al. as vital staples. And those are all unavailable domestically for trademark and/or local climate issues, something which doesn't necessarily apply to a planet-wide economy. Also, a very large percentage of those food imports (particularly any extra grain and the like) are going to come from Canada -- which, at least from a plain economic perspective, might as well count as domestic production.

But what we're talking about is how much a population dedicated to growing food can load onto starships and send off to another world.

And also keep in mind that American consumers punch way above their weight, food-wise. The average American devours 2700 calories per day, and wastes an additional 1100 on top of that. That's anywhere from 35% to 90% above and beyond what a typical human needs to get by, depending on how much spoilage you want to include in that assessment.

Yes, that does factor into it.

In short, the 1-3% of the US population directly involved in agricultural production can easily supply the caloric needs of the domestic US population, and then some. In fact, most of the recent history of US agricultural policy (at least until the late-90s or so) was about setting limits on the amount of food they produced, both for economic and environmental reasons. Even today this is still somewhat the case; in terms of arable land alone, the US is still operating at less than half its capacity.

That 'directly involved' is one slippery concept. What about those indirectly involved? Like the factory workers that make agricultural machinery and the miners that dig out ore to melt into metal to make the machinery out of? Yoiu need to count them too.

Well, the number to start with is 155; that's what's currently bandied about for how many people the average American farmer feeds.

Does 'the average American farmer' include his family as well?

So 26 at TL-6 and 155 at TL-8, although I think there should be a difference between an operating TL as a just-arrived concept and one that consists of generationally tried-and-true practices.

Oh, I think we can assume that the tech levels of our three Ag Combine worlds are tried-and-true.

It's also worth noting that our current TL-8 agriculture is on the cusp of another wave of massive automation, so a mature TL-8 farm may be able to provide exponentially more food per (human) worker than even our current 155 number suggests.

But you still need people to build the machines.

And a note regarding gender: agricultural employment is, in fact, overwhelmingly male -- as is any job which is regarded to be as filthy and dangerous as farmwork is.

That's not the point I was trying to make. Rather, that the numbers quoted did not include spouses, children, and parents. Whereas a planetary population figure does include them.

About 78% percent of all migrant ag workers in the US are men, for example.

Men without families? Men who would be part of the census figure?

Even on family farms in the US, you're not generally going to see women out in the fields doing the heavy, dangerous, 'productive' parts of farm production. Their roles tend to be on the subsistence side: home upkeep, food preparation, etc. At least that's the way it was with all the family farms that I've ever been on.

I don't doubt it. I just think that they should be counted. If one agricultural worker can produce food for 155 people (and I have to back down on that part, I find), one agricultural worker and his family can produce food for, what, one quarter of that per family member?

And how many more are involved in transportation and processing for export? And how many are involved in tertiary occupations catering to the agricultural laborers and food processing workers?

Even if an agricultural worker can produce food enough for 155 people, a population of 10 million people do not contain anywhere near 10 million agricultural workers.


Hans

 

[aramis]

With automation, that 10 million could be as much as 50%, perhaps more, agricultural workers. And that's before accounting for advanced hydroponic, hydroponic, and vat-meat tech upping therapies of production... at TL10 it's reasonable for a 10 million pop agricultural world to support 1billion or more off-world... as the shipping world gets automated.

 

[BytePro]

... a population of 10 million people do not contain anywhere near 10 million agricultural workers.

Yeah, that would sound over simplified.

As to production yields per worker... consider that I have hobby farmed by myself...

Even with 30-40+ year old tractor, discer, sprayer, planter, and combine I was getting about 30 short tons for ~ 15 hectares (modern yields would be more like 45 tons) for about 2 man-weeks of effort (well, add another 1/2 man-week of maintenance). Last two years I leased out to a professional farmer with modern equipment - his yields were around 45 tons and he only spent 5, less than 8 hour days tilling, spraying, planting and harvesting with his modern equipment.

Americans consume less than 200 lbs of wheat annually, but an internet search indicates 500 lbs for Tunisians.

So 1/20 of a man-year, inefficiently, I was providing for about 300 Americans or 120 Tunisians... if I had the acreage and was able to farm year round, even at these inefficiencies, that's 1:2400 for a major dietary staple. Well over double that for the pro...

On a planet with significant year round planting and the largest industry being food production ... I can definitely see a 100:1 production extrapolated for an entire population (i.e. much greater than 100:1 per actual 'farmer') with even today's TL.

 

[rancke]

With automation, that 10 million could be as much as 50%, perhaps more, agricultural workers.

Nonsens. The other 50% wouldn't even cover the children and retired family members, much less the supporting occupations.

And that's before accounting for advanced hydroponic, hydroponic, and vat-meat tech upping therapies of production...

Said advanced technologies requiring people to manufacture them.

...at TL10 it's reasonable for a 10 million pop agricultural world to support 1 billion or more off-world... as the shipping world gets automated.

The three worlds we're talking about are TL 5 Motmos, TL 7 Tarkine, and TL 10 Tarsus, the latter having been described in the Tarsus module as considerably more diversified than that. Also, where do you get the automated shipping from? This is Traveller.

And, no, even if it is possible, it wouldn't be reasonable. Motmos is three parsecs from Collace and nine parsecs from Forine and Tarkine is two parsecs from Collace and three from Forine. Tarsus is only one parsec from Collace but seven parsecs from Forine. Transportation costs would add to the cost and require a huge fleet of transports.

TL 10 Tarsus feeding Collace one parsec away is the closest to being plausible, but then, that's not the way Tarsus is described.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about checking exports. How much of a net exporter?


Hans

Not by much, to be honest. This last drought could turn things around for 2011/2012.

2009 agri exports:
•Soybeans $16.9 billion, about 41,000,000 tons
•Meat and poultry $12.1 billion: ~880,000t beef, 1,860,000t pork, 3,300,000t poultry
•Corn $9.7 billion & Animal feed (a variety of items including corn byproduct from ethanol production) $6.3 billion: ~50,000,000t corn, uncertain re rest
•Other foods $8.1 billion - no idea
•Fruits and frozen juices $6.9 billion
•Wheat $5.5 billion, ~24,000,000t
•Vegetables $4.9 billion - no idea
•Nuts $4.1 billion,
•Rice $2.2 billion, ~3,900,000t

http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/2010/10/us-agricultural-exports-versus-us-trade.html
http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf
http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/grain.pdf
http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf
http://www.thegrainsfoundation.org/corn
http://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/2011_woc_metric.pdf

Note some conflict in sources as some seem to be running by fiscal year while others run to the standard Jan-Dec. Also there's some overlap - some sites cite corn as a class, others deal with corn and corn byproducts separately. However, this is a decent ballpark.

As for imports - some of that gets strange. For example, the U.S. exports quite a lot of pork, but it also imports quite a lot of pork. Some of it's processed meats like German sausages, some of it's live pigs, some of it's the same things we're exporting. Free country, you buy and sell from whoever gives you the best deal, so we're shipping pork to Europe while shipping it in from Mexico - some of which gets processed and shipped out as value-added exports (Jimmy Dean Sausages!). Oddities of international trade. Same happens in quite a few other areas.

As you pointed out, about 17% of what we actually eat is imports, much of that stuff we can't do or can't do enough of in the States (tropical fruit, certain alcoholic beverages, and seafood for example). Total US agricultural exports in 2009 was around $108 billion, much of that meats and grains as noted above, but that figure also includes cotton, tobacco and other nonconsumable products. Total US agricultural imports in 2009 was just under $80 billion, with fruits, nuts, vegetables and liquor being the leading imports, although coffee also ranks high - that figure includes things like cut flowers and essential oils. So, we're a net exporter, trading a lot of meat and grains for higher-value products that help round out our diets and make life more enjoyable.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/inte...ltural-trade/import-share-of-consumption.aspx

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/AG_Import.pdf

 

[HG_B]

at TL10 it's reasonable for a 10 million pop agricultural world to support 1billion or more off-world... as the shipping world gets automated.

Yes, with a couple more TL's under our belt, US productivity could reach those levels.

 

[rancke]

Yes, with a couple more TL's under our belt, US productivity could reach those levels.

The US will be producing enough food for 3.5 billion people?


Hans

 

[HG_B]

The US will be producing enough food for 3.5 billion people?


Hans

Are you having problems with math? Where did I say that the US would have 350 million working in the Ag industry? "Levels" = productivity per worker.

 

[rancke]

Are you having problems with math? Where did I say that the US would have 350 million working in the Ag industry? "Levels" = productivity per worker.

But that wasn't how Wil was using "levels". He was using it as "productivity per population". So if 10 million can support 1 billion, 350 million at the same level of productivity should be producing enough to support 3.5 billion.

Oops... make that 35 billion. You know, it appears we were both having problems with math.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

But that wasn't how Wil was using "levels". He was using it as "productivity per population". So if 10 million can support 1 billion, 350 million at the same level of productivity should be producing enough to support 3.5 billion.

Oops... make that 35 billion. You know, it appears we were both having problems with math.


Hans

When using for an Ag coded world, I assumed that the majority were Ag or, Ag supporting people. The US, if a world would not have as it's primary descriptor, Ag. But, multiple codes. A shortcoming of the codes. I think that is why we ended up talking past each other when we are probably on the same page.

 

[Carlobrand]

When using for an Ag coded world, I assumed that the majority were Ag or, Ag supporting people. The US, if a world would not have as it's primary descriptor, Ag. But, multiple codes. A shortcoming of the codes. I think that is why we ended up talking past each other when we are probably on the same page.

I woulda called the US rich. A lotta open land for the population.

 

[far-trader]

I woulda called the US rich. A lotta open land for the population.

Well it's definitely not Ag Too many people. Pop code 5 - 7 being one of the limits, so hundreds of millions and larger are never Ag. Presumably they have too little resources to do more than be largely self sufficient if not Non-Ag in which case they are dependent on outside support.

That actually sounds like an interesting and educational thought experiment. Figure out the trade codes for various countries as if they were Traveller worlds. Might be some odd results there

 

[HG_B]

Well it's definitely not Ag Too many people. Pop code 5 - 7 being one of the limits, so hundreds of millions and larger are never Ag. Presumably they have too little resources to do more than be largely self sufficient.

Another non Sequitur of the codes. A TL-10, 300,000,000 pop U.S., as a planet could EASILY be a major food exporter. As well as an industrial giant. As well as being "Rich".