Corn Commentary

Cheers to the Truth

A recent item in Britain’s The Economist magazine, picked up by bloggers on this side of the pond, blames ethanol for higher beer prices. Readers are left to believe farmers are plowing over hops and barley acreage in favor of planting field corn. While there may be one or two minor anecdotes along this line, writers never seem to consider all the facts they should. Anecdotes help illustrate a story, but they never take the place of good research.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released its National Hop Report, the headline of which reads, “2007 Hop Production Up 4 Percent.” The three hops states of Idaho, Washington and Oregon all saw increases in acreage harvested, and growers produced 2.7 million pounds of hops over 2006 totals. And 2006 hop production was higher than 2005. And when it comes to barley the facts are similar. In its December crop report, the USDA projected barley production to be 18 percent above 2006, with the total acreage harvested 17 percent higher than last year.

Fact is, the Northwest is really not the New Corn Belt. In Idaho, Washington and Oregon last year, a total of 461,000 acres were planted for corn—that’s less than one-half of 1 percent of total corn acres. Of those acres, only 169,000 were harvested for grain.

The real story, if there is one, lies elsewhere … and it is only the hard-working reporter (or blogger) who will find it. Here’s another perspective from The Denver Post that offers a pint of truth about another culprit for higher beer prices. And it shows how the cost of “inputs” such as barley is a microscopic part of the price of a six-pack.