Interesting National Food Data

[kato13]

While trying to consider national death rates I was originally looking at net food importer and net food exporter statistics. That does not give a very accurate picture as that is based on economic values and meat is much more expensive per calorie than grains. That makes the "net" values suspect for making concrete analysis.

I then began to research "food self-sufficiency" at a national level.

I found this
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y5065M/Y5065M00.HTM

If you look at the second half of PDF 2 and PDF 3 and 4 (under tables) there are some very detailed breakdowns of what percentage of national calories come from which food sources and what percentages are imported.

I am going to continue to look for what the overall ratios are. So far I have only been able to find Japan (which imports about 60% of it's calories). If I cannot find a summary I will see what I can do to process this data.

Looking at Australia (page 26 of PDF 2) they seem to be sitting pretty food wise given their current huge percentages used for feed and export. If they had 50% causalities and were able to use just 10% of the pre war production levels of cereals for food it would translate to over 3000 calories per person per day from cereals alone. I know moving it is a problem, but these seem to be even better numbers that I expected.

[kalos72]

I was just looking into the possible effects on a population malnourished trying to survive a NYC winter.

50% loss seems fair...

The problem with most areas/countries is that they depend too much on other people for their basic support. Personally I would like to see a country and worries first about feeding its own population, then using the surplus land/people to increase revenues.

Wont happen in this "world" based economy the Rockefeller's have been working on though. :P

[kato13]

Originally Posted by kalos72

I was just looking into the possible effects on a population malnourished trying to survive a NYC winter.

50% loss seems fair...

The problem with most areas/countries is that they depend too much on other people for their basic support. Personally I would like to see a country and worries first about feeding its own population, then using the surplus land/people to increase revenues.

Wont happen in this "world" based economy the Rathskellers have been working on though. :P

On our old home (rpghost -dead now) I had, through very time consuming calculations, determined that if the US could produce just 10% of the 6 most productive grains, it would translate to 2800 calories per person (given the ~52% death rate). That did not include any grains held for feed or seed stock. However it also did not include expanded planting of grains, vegetables, fish, nuts, fruits, etc. Wish I still had access that post.

Well everything now will be kept

Sending a database backup offsite now as we speak.

[Targan]

Unless grain harvesting is to be conducted using just human or animal muscle power, or with harvesting machinery running on something other than alcohol, wouldn't it be safe to assume that a proportion of each harvest is going to need to be put aside for alcohol production (to be used both for the next planting, harvest and transportation of the harvest to the population centres)?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

Unless grain harvesting is to be conducted using just human or animal muscle power, or with harvesting machinery running on something other than alcohol, wouldn't it be safe to assume that a proportion of each harvest is going to need to be put aside for alcohol production (to be used both for the next planting, harvest and transportation of the harvest to the population centres)?

That is why I start with the 10% number. Pre war seed stock is only 2% of total so you might need to subtract 5% from the 3000 total. But remember this does not include calories from Fishing, fruit, vegetables, hunting, nuts, etc.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kato13

That is why I start with the 10% number.

Gotcha. You've already factored it in. I should never have doubted you

[Legbreaker]

50% for Australia seems a bit high since it wasn't involved in combat with nuclear armed countries.
Admittedly a few nukes would have found their way here, but even so, I'm thinking more along the lines of somewhere between 10-25% is a more accurate guess.
At the absolute extreme, if everyone died in and around the cities likely to be hit (Sydney, Newcastle, Woolongong, Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne) it would be around 46% - and that's if EVERYONE died.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

50% for Australia seems a bit high since it wasn't involved in combat with nuclear armed countries.
Admittedly a few nukes would have found their way here, but even so, I'm thinking more along the lines of somewhere between 10-25% is a more accurate guess.
At the absolute extreme, if everyone died in and around the cities likely to be hit (Sydney, Newcastle, Woolongong, Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne) it would be around 46% - and that's if EVERYONE died.

Yeah I agree that was high but if causalities are fewer, food production might be higher than 10-20% of pre war.

[Kemper Boyd]

Originally Posted by kato13

Yeah I agree that was high but if causalities are fewer, food production might be higher than 10-20% of pre war.

I wouldn't worry about having too high food production: on a global scale, even after a nuclear war, the problem isn't growing enough food but actually getting that food to people. The breakdown of international trade and transportation infrastructure kills more people than absolute food shortages in the long term.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

At the absolute extreme, if everyone died in and around the cities likely to be hit (Sydney, Newcastle, Woolongong, Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne) it would be around 46% - and that's if EVERYONE died.

I think that Australian cities tend to be a bit more spread out than in many other places. Living on a quarter acre block is the goal of many if not most urban Australians and the numbers of people who live in high density housing are quite low. And the viable targets tend not to be in the city centres. So for instance here in Perth you would need two nukes to directly hit the two most valuable target areas, the Kwinana fuel refinery and the Garden Island Naval Base next door to it south of Perth, and the Pearce Air Base north of Perth. Hitting either of those would barely scratch the edges of the Perth metropolitan area. Alternatively I guess a high altitude nuke could be detonated directly over Perth, destroying electrical/electronic infrastructure of the naval and air bases as well as the whole city. Either way population loss from the initial strike would be minimal. Many more deaths might result indirectly though I guess.

[Legbreaker]

Sydney for example is HUGE. Even if three or four warhead hit the major likely targets, there'd still be parts almost untouched by the blasts.

Wiki: Sydney has a metropolitan area population of approximately 4.4 million and an area of approximately 12,000 square kilometres (4,633 sq mi).

Compare that to New York City

city's 2008 estimated population exceeds 8.3 million people, and with a land area of 305 square miles (790 km2).
The New York metropolitan area's population is also the nation's largest, estimated at 18.8 million people over 6,720 square miles (17,400 km2).