I sincerely hope Grocery Manufacturers Association is getting interest on their money they have invested with large PR firms to create the Food vs. Fuel red herring that continues to blame ethanol for higher food prices.
Truth is nationwide, food prices continue to trend downward. Retail food prices at the supermarket decreased slightly for the third consecutive quarter, according to the latest American Farm Bureau Federation Market-Basket Survey. The informal survey shows the total cost of 16 food items that can be used to prepare a meal was $46.29, down about 2 percent or $1.12 from the first quarter of 2009. Of the 16 items surveyed, 10 decreased, five increased and one remained the same in average price compared to the prior quarter.
Overall, the average price for the market-basket of foods declined $3.10 or about 6 percent over a year’s time. Retail egg prices dropped 26 percent, milk decreased 22 percent, chicken declined 19 percent and bacon was 11 percent lower compared to a year ago.
Funny, but oil prices are down too. Maybe sun spots are causing these imaginary higher food prices? I guess that asking for a public apology from GMA would be too much? How about a compromise and put a sock in it!
Missouri corn grower Rob Korff recently had the opportunity to tell United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon about the important strides American farmers have made to produce more abundant, affordable food.
Korff, who is vice chairman of the Missouri Corn Growers and chairman of the National Corn Growers Association Biotechnology Working Group, took part in a United Nations food security meeting and discussion on June 12 in St. Louis.
“Beginning with a description of my family’s farming operation, I explained how technology has made corn production more efficient and stabilized yields,” said Korff. “Technology has reduced the amount of herbicides and pesticides needed, requiring less energy per bushel produced, thus reducing our carbon footprint.”
Korff shared facts and figures about how advances in precision farming and biotechnology have helped U.S. farmers produce more food on less acreage and stressed that it can help other countries do the same. “I believe biotech has been fully tested and is safe for consumption. It is allowing farmers to produce a more secure, abundant and affordable food supply,” he said. “As education and awareness spread, technology, and more specifically, biotechnology will be the answer to feeding our rapidly expanding world population.”
President Obama announced his National Rural Tour yesterday during an interview with National Association of Farm Broadcasting past president Michelle Rook with WNAX Radio in Yankton, SD. “Over the next few weeks and months, top officials from my administration will fan out across the country to hold a series of discussions on how we can strengthen rural America,” Obama said.
Vice President Joe Biden, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, and Federal Communications Commission Chair Julius Genakowski kicked off the “rural road trip” today in Pennsylvania, announcing $4 billion in loans and grants to bring broadband internet service to rural communities. Other stops are planned in Alaska, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.
During her interview, Michelle asked the president about renewable fuels. “Obviously, I come from a farm state - Illinois - and ethanol has been a big boon for a lot of rural communities,” he said. “But we also are recognizing the key for us is to move into the next generation of biofuels, how can we use wood chips and refuse and switchgrass and how can we improve the efficiency of first generation biofuels. Farmers are going to be critical to that entire process.”
Michelle also asked President Obama about a number of other issues, including the climate change bill, whether farmers should be concerned about increasing regulations, and how the government might be able to help the livestock industry.
Listen to Michelle’s entire interview with the president here:
In ancient times messengers were treated with great respect because they were a vital lifeline regarding world events that could make or break your business or even your nation. Apparently times have changed.
Recently, DTN interviewed the increasingly infamous Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” who is also featured in the new documentary Food Inc., and the resulting article drew a considerable amount of attention and criticism from the Ag community.
So much so that Urban Lehner, Editor and Chief of DTN, felt compelled to write a column explaining why the Ag-Centered media outlet would provide a forum for such a food heretic.
In his own words, “When DTN writes about such people as Michael Pollan whose views are contrary to those of the majority of our readers, it isn’t because we think all their views are correct. It’s because we think such people have the power to shape the political environment in which agriculture will operate in the future.” Lehner said. “Pollan’s views certainly aren’t those of most Midwestern commercial farmers. Among other things, he sees corn as an agent of evil, responsible for much of what’s wrong with the modern American diet. But when those farmers call him an idiot they make the classic mistake of underestimating a formidable opponent.”
Lehner likened the running of Pollan’s comments to the same reason DTN weathermen predict stormy weather…forewarned is fore-armed. Having been exposed to Mr. Pollan’s message as well as its’ effect on consumers and more importantly on decision leaders in Washington, D.C., I can guarantee you the threat of his growing influence is real.
“The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” the New York Times best seller written by Pollan, is swallowed by many well-reasoned consumers as foodie gospel. DTN and Urban Lehner deserve the industry’s gratitude for alerting us to the hurricane on the horizon. His advice that farmers all should read his book is solid. If you don’t want to contribute to Mr. Pollan’s personal wealth buy a copy and share it with friends…lots of friends.
Just another 12 billion bushel crop? It seems to be getting to be a familiar story. Poor planting conditions result in late planting for a significant part of the corn belt, followed by plenty of corn to do business as usual. For the folks that make their money second guessing the crop and hoping for wild gyrations in price and supply this is shaping up to be another example of modern corn productivity.
The June 30 Acreage Report from USDA NASS estimated corn area planted at 87.0 million acres and soybeans at 77.5, for a combined total of 164.5 million acres.The corn area was above market expectations by 2 to 3 million acres. Few anticipated this because of another rocky, wet planting season in a few critical areas.
After the last few years people should be catching on to several things:
1. Farmers are a patient lot, capable of herculean bouts of sustained work…and yes, they have large and modern equipment.
2. Modern seed technology has changed the rules of crop production making it capable of withstanding later planting and the vagaries of weather and insect onslaughts like never before.
3. Farmers love to plant corn. They like the planting and harvesting process itself, the multiple marketing possibilities offered by food, feed, fuel, and other industrial uses.
Granted, many farmers will have a tough year and the crop is not in the bin but with a prospect of a 1.45 billion carryoverthe picture looks a whole lot brighter.
USDA’s planted acreage report out this morning estimates the second largest corn crop since 1946 at 87.0 million acres, up 1 percent from last year but 7 percent below 2007.
Analysts are calling the report bearish for corn futures, according to Dow Jones, which quotes Country Hedging analyst Sterling Smith saying, “We do have a monster crop out there.”
Analysts said the report showed that the USDA underestimated acreage in its March planting intentions report. The trade has for weeks been expecting a loss of corn acreage of 1 million acres or more, although in recent days there has been increased talk about a more modest reduction or even an increase.
For soybeans, USDA says farmers have planted a record-high 77.5 million acres, up 1.8 million acres from last year and up 1.5 million acres - almost two percent - from the March estimate. Despite the increases in both crops, total U.S. crop area is down 1.2 percent from last year.
The corn crop is also doing better than last year in some of the major states. The Iowa Corn Growers Association reports that crop conditions are far better than last year. “According to the Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, nearly all corn planted in Iowa has emerged with 81% of the crop rated excellent and an average height of 37 inches- well above “knee high by the 4th of July.” The extended weather outlook seems favorable for near-perfect corn growing weather.”
Progress in the states where corn planting was delayed by wet weather is behind normal, but the crop is still in good shape. Illinois and Indiana are reporting the crop running a little slow but the condition is rated around 60 percent good to excellent.
It’s bad enough that EPA official Margo Oge has never been on a farm, but a YouTube video of her testimony before a House panel last month reveals something much worse - she apparently doesn’t know how much corn it takes to make a gallon of ethanol, or how many soybeans it takes to make a gallon of biodiesel.
The blunder occurred when Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) asked Ms. Oge, who is responsible for regulating all emissions within the United States, about the indirect land use issue. “It’s my understanding that the EPA’s Renewable Fuels Standard 2 methodology assumes that for every acre of soybean crop that is used to produce biofuel, an equal acre of ground is used in the Brazilian rainforest to replace that acreage, is that correct?” asked Schock.
“Obviously we know that it takes about 64 acres for a gallon of soy biodiesel,” she begins, and then corrects herself, even more incorrectly. “It’s actually the opposite. It takes 64 acres for corn ethanol and over 400 acres for a gallon of biodiesel.”
It’s hard to believe this was just a simple mistake. She has the numbers right, but they are transposed and for the wrong crops! One acre of soybeans actually makes 64 gallons of biodiesel and one acre of corn makes over 400 gallons of ethanol. The big problem here is that she said this during testimony before the United States House of Representatives’ Small Business Committee, which does include a fair number of corn state representatives like Schock, but a good number of folks from places like New York, Pennsylvania and Arizona who could very well now believe that it takes 64 acres of corn to produce a gallon of ethanol. That’s well over 10,000 bushels of corn - which will actually produce about 25,000 gallons of ethanol!
This is seriously scary stuff. This lady is responsible for regulating all emissions within the United States! Regardless of whether the international indirect land use change methodology as proposed by EPA is adopted, everyone in the agriculture and biofuels industry should be concerned about the bureaucrats who could potentially regulate them out of business some day. We should be very afraid.
Watch this YouTube video, with commentary, put together by someone in the ethanol industry. It has already been viewed over 1200 times. Send it to everyone you know.
I went to go see Food Inc. last Friday, even though I do not believe that one must see a film in order to criticize it. Often, the film’s producers give one enough information to make a prudent decision. And there was plenty of evidence going into Food Inc. to know that it played a little fast and loose with the truth.
For instance, one corn grower who is quoted throughout the film on issues related to corn says that 30 percent of the U.S. land mass is planted in corn acreage. Well, there are 2.3 billion acres of land in the United States, of which approximately 442 million acres is cropland of one sort or another, according to the USDA. In 2008, corn growers planted 86 million acres in corn.
The film’s producers loved the sound bite, and had some beautiful footage to show how big a corn field can be. They even put this false factoid into their press kit. But it would have been so easy to check first.
Writing in The New York Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof raved about the film, but found one stat hard to swallow. Were there really 50,000 food inspections in 1972 and 9,164 in 2008? Apparently, not.
Problems such as these reflect a willingness on the part of the producers to accept without questioning any stat thrown out by their obviously biased sources without questioning them. The two biggest entities attacked in the film, Monsanto at one side and the livestock industry at the other, have done a terrific job refuting many of the claims made in the film that pertain to them. I will let them answer for themselves.
What gives Food Inc. emotional power is the quality of its anecdotes. What will give it real power to effect change, however, is its truthfulness. And there, it’s more than a little lacking. Sometimes, the facts do get in the way of telling a good story.
Is it just me or have the folks at the Humane Society of the United States launched a full blown assault for the hearts, minds and bank accounts of gullible Americans? Like a bad case of fleas, the animal rights crackers seem to be showing up at every turn.
So it appears to be time to point out a significant distinction: there is a difference between animal rights and animal welfare…a big difference. HSUS spends in excess of $100 million a year trying to discredit people who actually raise and care for animals from domestic livestock , to pets to exotic animals.
Animal welfare is the title that should be reserved for those who actually care for animals and break a sweat tending to the daily needs and comfort of critters from abandoned companion animals (your local animal shelter), to those that provide us with eggs, milk and protein, to those who work to sustain exotic species for educational purposes or to protect them from extinction.
So what is really behind the ever-present puppy eyes and cute kitties used as a front for HSUS? A group that is kindred to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in its’ goals…No meat. No dairy. No animal agriculture, and apparently no conscience. Period.
The massive donations given each year with the intent of easing the suffering or improving the lot of these creatures, instead goes toward lobbying to pass laws that most Americans would run away from screaming if their intent wasn’t disguised so well. Instead of helping shelters and animals directly, they works hard on eventually removing pets from our homes, meat from our tables, leather goods from our closets and animals from zoos.
Their latest affront is a very public move to expand beyond straight contributions from uninformed consumers to try to get into your wallet on a daily basis. It seems HSUS has partnered with Bank of America on a new World Points Platinum visa/check card and for every $100 you charge, 25 cents goes to perpetuate the HSUS fraud. HSUS is not affiliated with your local shelter so if you want to contribute, do so directly to your local shelter. If you want to let Bank of America know they have been suckered by a slimy corporate con, you can reach them at:
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
Heard enough? - Well there is more. The world of Higher Education may never be the same. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) now has plans to educate the next generation of professional animal rights activists. HSUS has received a license as a higher education degree-granting institution by the District of Columbia Education Licensure Commission to offer a Bachelor’s Degree in Humane Leadership and a Master’s in “Community Leadership.” (Yes, tax dollars will likely be providing them funding soon, just like a real institution of learning).
The curriculum includes advocacy management courses which will help assure the next generation of “minority animal activists” will be even more professional in manipulating and misleading the public. Upon the announcement of the new college animal rights course work one observer asked: “If someone takes the HSUS advocacy management class and advocates against them do they flunk?”
If you are aching to find out more about ACRE - there is a wealth of information available, but time is running out so you have to act quickly to learn about this new and rather complex program.
USDA launched a major educational campaign this week to get the word out to producers about this 2008 Farm Bill that gives producers an additional option to help manage the risks associated with farming.
Farm Service Agency Administrator Doug Caruso says farmers are interested in learning more about the program. “I think there is a lot of curiosity because it is a new twist and because there is a very clear option or choice here,” he says. “It is true that it is somewhat more confusing or complicated.”
Caruso held five public meetings in two states this week and more are being planned. “Every opportunity that we get, we will be talking about this and we are also looking at other mechanisms to communicate with our producers about the ACRE program.”
The National Corn Growers Association is doing its part to educate producers as well by co-sponsoring a DTN webinar scheduled for July 1. The online discussion will feature Ohio State University economist Carl Zulauf as well as Farm Service Agency’s top ACRE experts Brad Karmen and Brent Orr. This learning session is free and open to the public.
NCGA has also prepared an analysis of the ACRE program compared to the traditional Counter Cyclical Payment Program. The document analysis compares landowner ACRE and CCP program returns for both share and cash rent agreements under a base 2009 Expected Payout per Planted ACRE, and three other alternatives.
Korff, who is vice chairman of the 
President Obama announced his 
Analysts are calling the report bearish for corn futures, 
The blunder occurred when Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) asked Ms. Oge, who is responsible for regulating all emissions within the United States, about the indirect land use issue. “It’s my understanding that the EPA’s Renewable Fuels Standard 2 methodology assumes that for every acre of soybean crop that is used to produce biofuel, an equal acre of ground is used in the Brazilian rainforest to replace that acreage, is that correct?” asked Schock.
USDA launched a major educational campaign this week to get the word out to producers about this 2008 Farm Bill that gives producers an additional option to help manage the risks associated with farming.