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.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act – better known as the climate change bill – is heading for a vote on the floor this week after all, now that leadership has struck a deal with farm state opponents led by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN).
“We have something that I think works for agriculture. We still have a couple little areas that may get resolved down the line. But we’ve come to an agreement,” Peterson said yesterday.
Part of the agreement includes allowing USDA to have oversight for agricultural carbon offset programs instead of EPA. “The climate change bill will include a strong agriculture offset program run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that will allow farmers, ranchers, and forestland owners to participate fully in a market-based carbon offset program,” said Peterson. “This agreement also addresses concerns about international indirect land use provisions that unfairly restricted U.S. biofuels producers and exempts agriculture and forestry from the definition of a capped sector.”
Peterson now says he will vote for the sweeping legislation, and other Democrats on the House Ag Committee who were opposed are likely to do so as well, meaning the bill is now more likely to pass. President Obama even thanked Peterson for his work on the bill during his press conference yesterday. “We all know why this is so important,” the president said of the legislation. “The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy. That’s what this legislation seeks to achieve — it’s a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation. And that’s why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.”
Energy Secretary Steven Chu was in Des Moines Monday to announce more than $16 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in Iowa during a news conference with Governor Chet Culver. But his announcement took a back seat to some of the comments about ethanol he made during Q and A with reporters.
First, Chu indicated that he supports approval of the waiver that would allow up to 15 percent ethanol blends for standard vehicles currently being considered by the federal government.
“I don’t want to prejudge what they’re going to find, but if the existing automobile fleet can handle 15 percent, I would say let’s make that a target and go to 15 percent,” Chu said. “This is very important for decreasing our oil independence.”
Chu also suggested that car manufacturers ought to make all new automobiles flex-fuel capable. “I’ve been told it costs about $100 in gaskets and fuel lines to turn a car so that it can go all the way to E85,” Chu said. “But a new car , it would only cost $100 out of $15,000. Wouldn’t it be nice to put in those fuel lines and gaskets so that we can use any ratio we wanted?” He said that while mandating that companies make all vehicles flex-fuel is “beginning to be discussed” by the administration, they first want to “see about whether the current fleet can take 15 percent or 13 percent ethanol.”
When it came to the issue of indirect land use change and how corn ethanol can measure up using the calculations proposed by EPA under the Renewable Fuels Standard for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, Chu had to do some dancing. “The Obama administration has made it very clear that they would rather get to where we need to get to in terms of decreasing our carbon footprint by legislation not by regulatory things,” Chu said when questioned about the matter. He then launched into a discussion about the potential cellulosic sources for biofuels hold for farmers, “which Iowa can grow as easily and use all the agricultural waste.”
“Iowa has tremendous productivity in corn, but if you look at some of the grasses that one can grow that don’t require the fertilizer, the potential is even greater,” he said. “The trouble is we don’t have the technology today to turn cellulose into biofuel.”
Asked more specifically about the EPA proposal, Chu said, “It’s out for peer review and we’ll see how it plays out.” That comment prompted Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA), a member of the House Agriculture Committee who was also at the press conference, to say to the secretary, “I hear what you’re saying, I’ve heard it loud and clear, and we’re very concerned about it and there’s a fairly large group that’s making this come to the table for discussion.”
Here is an audio file with Chu’s answers to some of the questions posed. The audio from the reporters was not audible, but you can pretty much figure out what they were asking.
Building off a campaign conducted in Washington, D.C., by the National Corn Growers Association and several state corn organizations, the Nebraska Corn Board and Nebraska Corn Growers Association have launched a campaign in Nebraska to promote some of the positive aspects of farming today.
Some of the positive messages include the fact that American farmers have slashed the fertilizer needed to grow a bushel of corn by 36 percent in the last three decades and that farmers have cut erosion 44 percent in the last two decades.
“Farmers are also growing five times more corn today than they did in the 1930s but we’re doing so on 20 percent less land,” said Jon Holzfaster, chairman of the Nebraska Corn Board. “Farmers have always and will continue to adapt and improve how they farm. We felt it was important to let the people of Nebraska know.”
Holzfaster said the campaign comes in response to some negative messages about corn production and, in part, corn-based ethanol, that have surfaced over the last year. “It got to a point that we felt some facts about farming today needed to be told,” he said.
The campaign is known as “Sustaining Innovation” because farmers are incredibly innovative and have continuously improved their productivity since humans first placed a seed in the soil. “We strive to do a better job in every row, on every acre, on every farm, every season,” Holzfaster said.
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking comments until July 6 on a proposed petition to deregulate genetically modified (GM) corn that improves ethanol production.
The petition for deregulation, submitted by Syngenta Seeds Inc., is in accordance with APHIS’ regulations concerning the introduction of genetically-engineered organisms and products and is available for the public’s review and comment. As part of the decisionmaking process, APHIS also has prepared a draft environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment for review and comment.
APHIS will make a determination of nonregulated status if it can conclude that the organism does not pose a plant pest risk. If APHIS grants the Syngenta Seeds petition for deregulation, the genetically-engineered corn and its progeny would no longer be regulated articles. The product could then be freely moved and planted without the requirement of permits or other regulatory oversight by APHIS.
Go to regulations.gov for information on how to submit comments.
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.
“We have something that I think works for agriculture. We still have a couple little areas that may get resolved down the line. But we’ve come to an agreement,” Peterson said yesterday. 
Chu also suggested that car manufacturers ought to make all new automobiles flex-fuel capable. “I’ve been told it costs about $100 in gaskets and fuel lines to turn a car so that it can go all the way to E85,” Chu said. “But a new car , it would only cost $100 out of $15,000. Wouldn’t it be nice to put in those fuel lines and gaskets so that we can use any ratio we wanted?” He said that while mandating that companies make all vehicles flex-fuel is “beginning to be discussed” by the administration, they first want to “see about whether the current fleet can take 15 percent or 13 percent ethanol.”
Some of the positive messages include the fact that American farmers have slashed the fertilizer needed to grow a bushel of corn by 36 percent in the last three decades and that farmers have cut erosion 44 percent in the last two decades.
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking comments until July 6 on a proposed petition to deregulate genetically modified (GM) corn that improves ethanol production.