Posted By Cindy May 16, 2014
USDA is calling for record corn and soybean crops in the first outlook report for the 2014-2015 season. Chief economist Joe Glauber says corn production is forecast at just a little bit more than last year’s record crop with higher expected yields more than offsetting a reduction in planted area.
“What would be a record yield at 165.3 bushels per acre,” he said. Glauber says they are also expecting higher ending stocks but lower prices compared to this year. “I think we’re looking at a season average corn price of around $4.25, which I might add is higher than what we were carrying back at Outlook Conference when we were thinking prices would potentially be below $4, but still down 10% from this year.”
USDA is also forecasting a record soybean crop for the U-S at 3.635 billion bushels and record global production.
Of course it all depends on the weather, but USDA meteorologist Brad Rippy says Mother Nature helped corn planting seriously pick up the pace last week. “For just the single week ending May 11, we saw 30% of the U.S. corn planting during that seven day period,” he said. “The overall progress by May 11 reached 59%, that is now ahead of the five year average and more than twice last year’s pace.”
“All it takes is good weather, good equipment and long hours for our farmers to be able to catch up,” said NCGA President Martin Barbre. Out in front is Iowa with nearly half the state’s corn acreage was planted last week, with the state going from 23 percent to 70 percent planted. Some states however, such as North Dakota, are still lagging behind at 3 percent, with Michigan and Wisconsin following at 20 percent.
Meanwhile, corn emergence also continues to catch up, with 18 percent of the crop now emerged, compared to the five-year average of 25 percent.
Posted By Cathryn May 14, 2014
Working in agriculture, you see a lot of research detailing consumers’ biggest questions about the foods that they eat and how farmers grow them. The same concerns come up over and over. If you are a communicator, you look for ways to break through the noise with real, honest answers. I worry about what I eat like anyone else. I understand why confusion over what is or isn’t healthy is a real cause for concern.
Today, a story came to my attention that directly addressed one of the concerns which I hear echoed most frequently.
“Why don’t Europeans eat GMOs if they are safe? What do they know that we don’t?”
While I have heard many scientists address this issue in lectures by offering detailed examinations of the difference between a science-based and politically-based regulatory system, The Independent, a British paper, published an article that cut to the heart of what Europeans really know about GMOs.
Interviewing United Kingdom Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, journalist Tom Bowden found the EU scientists know GMOs are actually safe.
“These products go through the most rigorous system. It’s extraordinarily closely regulated, at a national level and at a European level,” said Paterson. “We have not come up with any evidence of human health being threatened by these products.”
Questioned after his speech on whether the safety case for GM crops over conventional one was clear cut, Paterson said: “This isn’t speculation. We have had a categoric statement from the [European Commission’s] chief scientific officer and you have the biggest field trial in human history when you think of the colossal volume of GM material that has been eaten in all those countries growing GM food.”
Paterson demonstrates how scientific understanding of the processes used to develop and regulate GMO crops does inspire trust. So much so that he hopes to “make Britain a centre for GM research and development.”
In short, the scientific experts who carefully examine GMOs day in and day out overwhelmingly embrace GMO technology. European policy shows the stains of politicians pandering to fear-based fanatics. Moving American public policy to more closely align to European on this issue would be move our country further away from the forward-facing, innovative system we know today.
In honestly answering this question despite propaganda-propelled public sentiment, Paterson’s words address not only the situation in Europe but that in America as well. EU policies are not anti-GMO because they have scientific evidence that we do not. They are anti-GMO because their public refuses to listen.
Posted By Cindy May 12, 2014
A story out today from Reuters claims that a major airline and a private equity firm with Philadelphia oil refinery connections are the main forces behind the Obama administration proposal to lower volume requirements for biofuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) this year.
According to the article, it was The Carlyle Group and Delta Air Lines, owners of two refineries in the Philadelphia area, that put the pressure on the administration to cut back on biofuels requirements by convincing policymakers that “the rising mandates would cripple their businesses and threaten thousands of jobs.”
Just one of many interesting points made in the article is that in July and August of last year, “17 refiners and their allies visited the White House’s rulemaking arm, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discuss the RFS. Only six biofuel supporters visited the OMB over the same time.” Reuters even produced a graphic to illustrate the comparison between visits by oil and ethanol lobbying interests last year.
Read the story here.
Posted By Cindy May 8, 2014
Walmart held a big event last week where the CEOs of major global companies made new commitments toward more sustainable products.
Among the food and agribusiness company CEOs taking part were Monsanto, Cargill, Dairy Farmers Incorporated, General Mills and Kellogg, many whom talked about how they will be working with farmers on sustainability goals.
Monsanto chairman and CEO Hugh Grant announced two commitments to help address challenges in the areas of water and nutrient efficiency. First, the company will work to increase water-use efficiency in irrigation across its own global seed production operations by 25 percent by 2020. Grant also pledged that the company “will continue to innovate and advance smarter seeds and precision management tools that enable farmers to use nutrients more efficiently and curb greenhouse gas emissions on one million acres in the United States by 2020.”
In making the announcement, Grant asked Illinois farmer and former National Corn Growers Association president Leon Corzine to join him and talk about what these commitments mean for the agriculture community. “As we have these discussions, farmers need to be represented so everyone has a better understanding of what farmers are actually doing on the farm,” said Leon, noting he was able to attend the event because they had just finished corn planting so his son Craig said it was okay for him to go.
“One of the things Craig and I talk about that I learned from my dad and granddad is a personal initiative to leave the farm better than we found it,” Leon said. “That’s really what sustainability is all about.”
Leon talked about the “awesome” technology farmers have today that helps farmers be more efficient and “increase productivity while lowering our environmental footprint.” He just made a great case for farmers as stewards of the land that the non-ag media on the call really need to hear.
Listen to Leon’s comments were: Illinois Farmer Leon Corzine on Sustainability
Posted By Cindy May 7, 2014
Agriculture is a big part of the new White House climate change assessment report out this week.
“Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience,” the report states.
Immediately after the report was released on Tuesday, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency discussed it with members of the National Association of Farm Broadcasting meeting in Washington DC.
“It’s a really good document in terms of focusing on the United States,” she said. “In particular, it looks at the agriculture sector. It talks about the droughts and floods that we’re seeing that have created challenges for our farmers and ranchers and to take a look at some of the ways the president’s climate action plan can work collaboratively with agriculture to try and address those challenges more effectively.”
McCarthy says when she talks with farmers and ranchers about climate change, it’s not a debate. “We’re talking about what we can do together to recognize the challenges and to provide the farmers the adaptive management techniques that will allow them to be successful… and allow them to address these challenges,” she concludes. McCarthy climate change report comments
Read the report’s section on agriculture here.
Posted By Guest Blogger May 7, 2014
In response to an article about ethanol on the popular Motley Fool website, NCGA’s director of biofuels, Pam Keck, Ph.D., provided this comment. The website has not chosen to publish it, so we are offering it here:
I applaud Mr. Funk’s approach to using a real-world example of calculating and comparing the BTU values of gasoline vs. ethanol. There are several, critical elements (no chemistry pun intended) that should also be noted. If the object were to use a real-world example in the classroom, it would be worth including more of the story as it relates to a comparison of ethanol and gasoline. Otherwise, the students will come away from the exercise with the mistaken belief that a BTU calculation provides sufficient data to make an informed decision.
First, the CO2 calculation is misleading. The calculations described only ‘count’ the CO2 emissions from the tailpipe. This is a very small portion of the entire CO2 lifecycle analysis that is done when comparing ethanol from corn and gasoline from petroleum. The EPA, when determining CO2 emissions, considers various models and calculations: production of fertilizers, application of fertilizer to the field, collection and transportation of the corn, and conversion of cornstarch to ethanol. The same system analysis is also done for gasoline production from petroleum. [By the way, corn to ethanol conversion has to account for indirect greenhouse gas impacts (for example, through land use changes), while petroleum production to gasoline doesn’t have to account for indirect impacts.] Even with this large discrepancy, corn starch ethanol is considered to have a 20% reduction in GHG emissions compared to gasoline from petroleum by the EPA. Many published peer-reviewed papers show that the reduction is closer to 50%.
Second, while the kJ/gallon values are in the ballpark range and the assumption that less mileage is obtained from flex-fuel vehicles (FFV), many FFV owners report that after using a tank or two of E85, that their mileage penalty is much less than what the BTU differences would indicate. Some think it might be due to the higher heat of vaporization for ethanol, leading to a cooling effect in the engine. Plus, as has been published in peer-reviewed articles, automobile manufacturers have shown that at higher blends of ethanol, engines can be optimized to not have a penalty loss due to ethanols’ high-octane value and its higher heat of vaporization.
Third, production of ethanol from corn is a renewable process. Gasoline production from petroleum is not renewable; there is a limited supply of petroleum and one day all of the economically extractable petroleum will be gone.
Lastly, and maybe most importantly, chemistry students who are capable of determining BTU content of various fuels will be equally capable of understanding that real-world issues are often very complicated. There are real environmental and societal costs associated with continued use of gasoline, including higher CO2 emissions and pollution, and these costs should be considered when choosing between gasoline and ethanol.
Posted By Cindy May 5, 2014
Cinco de Mayo celebrates the anniversary of Mexico’s victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. It’s also a good excuse to drink traditional lime-based margaritas.
But we’ve got a lime shortage being caused by adverse weather in Mexico, as well as citrus greening infecting trees. That has forced prices to double, triple or even quadruple in some cases this year.
The weather-related problems are short term, but the long term impacts of citrus greening, scientifically known as huanglongbing (HLB), could be much more devastating. Research is being done that would develop genetically-modified citrus that could resist the disease, since the disease is causing some major concerns for citrus growers in Florida right now who fear it could ultimately mean the end of their crop.
The research involves the use of a spinach gene that kills the bacteria that causes greening. Field trials on oranges and grapefruit have shown encouraging results, and the research has been expanded into lemons and limes as well.
Genetic modification could mean victory over citrus greening and ultimately saving limes for margaritas, not to mention keeping all varieties of healthy citrus fruits on the shelves at reasonable prices for consumers.
Posted By Cindy May 2, 2014
Is anyone really surprised to learn that Saudi oil money is helping to fund the effort by the American Petroleum Institute (API) to get rid of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)?
As if we needed proof, Americans United for Change and VoteVets.org revealed IRS documents this week showing that is the case. According to tax documents, Saudi Arabia has been a funder of API dating back to 2008 and an employee of Saudi Aramco – a company with an estimated worth of $7 trillion by Financial Times, actually held a seat on API’s board.
“API’s agenda is very simple and very greedy: they want EPA to cut the amount of renewable fuel in gasoline while raising the amount of crude oil,” said Americans United for Change president Brad Woodhouse. “This is about market share, plain and simple.” Saudi Oil Money Backing Ethanol Smear Campaign
Jon Soltz, Iraq War veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org added, “There’s nothing “American” about the way the “American” Petroleum Institute is doing business. They’re fighting to block competition from U.S. businesses, and they’re doing it with Saudi Aramco’s trillions in oil dollars.”
To further drive home the point, Americans United for Change is launching a Sunday show TV blitz aimed at both the public, legislators and key decisions makers in the Beltway in an attempt to set the record straight. “The Kingdom” will air May 4, 2014 on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week and Fox News Sunday in the Washington, D.C. market.
Whether this will make anyone take notice and question the motives of the oil industry in its quest to dismantle the RFS remains to be seen. Let’s hope so.
Posted By Cindy April 30, 2014
The purpose of GMO Answers is to – well, answer questions about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The group, which consists of all the major crop protection companies and agricultural organizations, recently came out with a top ten list for consumer questions about GMOs that experts have been answering one at a time.
The top questions are:
1. If GMOs cause cancer
2. If GMOs are causing an increase in allergies
3. If big companies are forcing farmers to grow GMOs
4. If GMOs are increasing the price of food
5. If GMOs are contaminating organic food crops
6. Why long-term health studies aren’t conducted on GMO plants
7. If GMOs are causing an increase in the use of pesticides
8. Why GMO companies seem like they are so against labeling GMO foods
9. If GMOs are contributing to the death of bees and butterflies
10. If livestock eat genetically modified grain, will there be GMOs in my meat
GMO Answers conducted a national survey to identify the top questions and reached out to scientists, farmers, doctors and other experts to provide answers. They are on question number 6 right now and you can follow them on Twitter at @GMOAnswers, where they tweet new answers as they are posted.
Here are my simple answers:
1. No GMOs do not cause cancer
2. No evidence that GMOs are increasing allergies
3. No one forces American farmers to grow anything they don’t want to grow
4. More likely GMOs have helped keep food prices from going higher
5. GMO crops are subject to regulations aimed at preventing cross pollination of organic crops
6. Extensive long term studies have been done on GMOs and discovered no adverse health effects
7. GMOs have led to a definite decrease in pesticide use
8. GMO companies are not against food labeling as long as it is fair and non-disruptive
9. No evidence that GMOs are killing pollinators
10. No GMOs in meat from animals fed GMO grain
Did I pass the test?
Posted By Cindy April 23, 2014
A new study out from the Fuels America coalition shows that the industry supports more than 850,000 American jobs and drives $184.5 billion of economic output.
It also is responsible for $46.2 billion in wages and generates $14.5 billion in tax revenue each year.
But numbers are impersonal and fail to show the real personal impact of what ethanol production has meant for rural areas. National Corn Growers Association Vice President of Public Policy Jon Doggett says farmers tell him ethanol is the reason their children have come back or decided to stay on the farm. “When I get tough farmers come up with misty eyes and say ‘that’s why this is so important because my kid came back,'” said Doggett during a press conference announcing the Fuels America report. “It gives them a way to pass that farm on to the next generation.”
Listen to Doggett’s comments here: Jon Doggett, NCGA
Listen to the full press conference here: Fuels America new economic report