Posted By Cathryn July 8, 2011
As high school English teachers hand out research paper assignments to eye rolls and sighs, they must know that their students feel nearly certain that the knowledge gained in carefully sourcing their final assignment will never serve them later in life. This attitude remains pervasive into adulthood it seems as many legislators, food elitists and a broad array of anti-ag activists have forgotten one of the keys to a successful assignment: Always base your thesis on information from academically credible sources.
Right now, arguments against corn-based ethanol, corn sugar and production agriculture have gained a significant amount of public attention. What we must do is question the information the nay-sayers build their arguments upon because, as high school also taught, popularity does not equal substance.
But it seems legislators forgot these valuable lessons as the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment decided to invite chicken lobbyists, environmentalists and Big Oil to testify during a hearing examining the science behind E15. While each of these groups most certainly has an opinion, albeit a self-serving one, on ethanol, none can claim to have conducted the unbiased, scientific research that would lend their arguments credibility.
If the subcommittee had truly intended to take a hard look at the scientific knowledge on E15, there were many groups who could have offered more pertinent, reliable data. Institutions that publish actual research that holds weight in scientific circles, including the Rochester Institute of Technology and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, have conducted extensive research on the matter. Yet, somehow, our elected officials chose to listen to groups with obvious agendas and little expertise in the matter.
Food elitists have taken the same route as the armchair activists who perpetuate the idea that corn sugar, also known as high fructose corn syrup, somehow adds to the obesity epidemic, predisposes persons toward diabetes or is just generally bad. A majority of the HFCS-bashing public cannot accurately explain why they believe it to be worse beyond knowing that they heard something about some study.
Performing a routine Facebook search for the term yields telling results immediately. The very first result offered is a page advocating a complete ban of HFCS. Put together by a high school graduate with no discernible other credentials, the page explains that corn sugar differs from other sweeteners as the body metabolizes fructose and glucose differently. He even cites scientific evidence.
While this appears credible on the surface, it isn’t. What this vocal activist, who has been written about in publications as lofty as the New York Times, fails to understand is that corn sugar, cane sugar and beet sugar are nearly identical in their ratio of glucose to fructose, approximately 50 percent of each. Dieticians, physicians and reputable voices throughout the industry already know that corn sugar does not differ from other sweeteners. So why are more than 20,000 people fans of this inaccurate, bitter propaganda? The only logical conclusion is that they too decided to lazily accept whatever information they were handfed rather than critically evaluate the source.
It is time that we ask as much of ourselves as was required in high school – that we act as critical thinkers. The assignments today include developing sensible policies that serve the public good and are based in science and not propaganda-driven hysteria. Much more is at stake than an A this time so follow your English teacher’s instructions and make sure that the information you share comes from a source deserving of your trust.
Posted By Cindy July 6, 2011
Every time I go grocery shopping lately, I hear at least one person complain about high food prices, and everyone seems to want to know why.
USDA’s Economic Research Service recently released a new report that attempts to answer the question “Why Have Food Commodity Prices Risen Again?” The report provides a comparison between the 2008 price spike and the one we have been experiencing here lately, noting that while “many of the factors that contributed to price increases in 2002-08 and 2010-11 are the same, the timing, sequence, and relative importance of these factors varied.”
It is clear that food prices have risen since last summer, along with prices for everything else. According to the report, by January 2011, all of the major food price indices had set a new record high, surpassing their June 2008 records.
A couple of quick take-aways from the report, which is easy to read and includes several illustrative graphics:
- Prices for EVERYTHING are higher, not just food.
- Higher livestock products, particularly beef, are playing a bigger role this time.
- Recovery from global recession is increasing demand and prices for meat.
- Weather and declining S/U ratio are main immediate causes of current increase.
Regarding biofuels, the report notes that the huge increase in global production of both ethanol and biodiesel did play a role in higher crop prices between 2002-2008, “attributing most of the rise in food commodity prices to biofuel production, however, seems unrealistic. Crop prices dropped more than 30 percent during the last half of 2008 even though biofuel production continued to increase. Further, nonagricultural prices rose more than agricultural prices, and the price of corn (an ethanol feedstock) rose less than for rice and wheat (not biofuel feedstocks). Clearly, there were other factors at play.”
Weather appears to be the biggest contributing factor to higher prices this time around, according to the report. A series of adverse weather events were compressed into 10 months, beginning in June 2010. Weather around the world was either too dry, too wet, too hot, or too cold, sharply reducing expectations for 2010 global crop production and stock levels and resulting in higher prices. Similar production-reducing weather events occurred prior to the 2008 price peak, but they were spread over a 3-year period (2005-07).
The long-term contributing factors to higher food prices cited in the report include: global growth in population and per capita incomes, related increases in world per capita consumption of animal products, depreciation of the U.S. dollar, and rising energy prices. Maybe commodity market speculation as well, although the report concludes that while there is a “correlation” between market activity and higher prices, that does not necessarily indicate any “causal effects.”
The bottom line conclusion is that lots of factors contributed to food price spikes in 2008 and 2011, as well as five other similar spikes since 1970, and like the others before it, this too shall pass. Farmers and ranchers will make production decisions based on market signals and a new equilibrium will be reached. “With average weather over the next year or so, world agricultural production would be expected to increase and prices would retreat.”
In other words, what goes up must eventually come down. But when food prices come down again, will anyone ask why?
Posted By Cindy July 1, 2011
The surprisingly high planted acreage report from USDA shows just how fast farmers can overcome Mother Nature with the latest technology.
According to USDA, corn planted area for this year is now estimated at 92.3 million acres, up 5 percent from last year. That’s more than growers expected to plant back in March and the second highest planted acreage in the United States since 1944.
“These numbers show that a spring delay in the northern hemisphere, even when severe, if producers get an opening they have the horsepower and technology to make up for it in a big way and on a very large scale,” said James Bower from Bower Trading during a market commentary conference call this morning from the Minneapolis Grain Exchange. “Particularly in Ohio and Indiana, we were really getting close to prevent plant, one or two more rains and that was it. But we had about a four day window in late May and with the horsepower and technology, those farmers worked day and night.”
Farmers in Ohio planted 40% of their acreage in one week between June 5-12 so that essentially all of the corn nationwide was planted by June 12. Ohio had only 11% planted by May 23 compared to 87% the same time last year.
Between flooding and lots of rain, Lance Honig with USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service says most people were expected to see a decrease in corn acreage. “In reality, what we saw was especially in some of those areas not impacted by weather, they really planted a lot more corn than they thought they might.” That included significant increases in actual planted acres over intentions for Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.
Of course, it is still early in the season, and American Farm Bureau Federation crops economist Todd Davis says a lot can happen to the corn crop from now until harvest. “We have a lot of hurdles to jump to reach a harvest of 13.47 billion bushels of corn this year,” Davis said. “The weather throughout the Corn Belt will have to cooperate in July and August for farmers to get strong yields and we would have to harvest the 84.8 million acres projected in the June 30 acreage survey.”
USDA also released the June 1 corn stocks estimate today, which was also higher than expectations but still down 15% from last year at 3.67 billion bushels. Based on USDA’s latest projections of average corn yield (158.7 bushels/acre) and anticipated harvested acres (84.9 million), it would mean a 2011 harvest of 13.47 billion bushels – nearly 300 million more bushels of corn than USDA was projecting in its most recent supply/demand estimates. That would certainly help to re-build stocks and continue to meet the food and fuel demands of the world.
Posted By Cindy July 1, 2011
In an American corn ethanol-fueled race at Iowa Speedway, Marco Andretti won the 2011 Iowa Corn Indy 250, posing in Victory Lane with Iowa Corn Grower leaders who attended the event.
This year was the 5th year for the race, sponsored by Pioneer, with support from the Iowa Corn Promotion Board (ICPB) and the Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA). ICPB chairman Dick Gallagher says this year the race was all about going green. “We’re very proud to be able to show that (ethanol) is a renewable fuel, a green fuel and that’s what we need to be promoting more because our dependence on foreign oil is too much,” he said in an interview with Chuck Zimmerman.
Dick Gallagher Interview
Chuck also talked with incoming ICGA president Kevin Ross who says the Iowa Corn Indy 250 had been “a huge event” for corn growers. “It’s a great showcase that we can use not just in our state, but nationwide and even worldwide,” he said. “It’s a great venue to get our message out about the great things that Iowa corn growers are doing.”
Kevin Ross Interview
Indy has been using 100% ethanol for over five years now and during the post-race press conference, Chuck asked Mario his thoughts on racing in front of 2,500 corn growers and using fuel they grew. “I think it’s great we can be green and still have performance,” Mario said. “We’re thankful to have their support. I love this place. Iowa’s great.”
Marco Andretti Ethanol Comments
Even Indy and NASCAR driver Danica Patrick had nice things to say about ethanol. “I think that we’re in definitely in an age where everybody is doing what they can to take care of this wonderful world we live in,” Danica said during a pre-race press conference. “Ethanol is definitely something that has been a real presence in IndyCar years ago to NASCAR now. It’s really great.”
Danica Patrick Ethanol Comments
2011 Iowa Corn Indy 250 Photo Album
