Letters to the Editor
-
Corn/Ethenol - a terrible alternative
Corn as an alternative fuel is just an absolute disaster. Corn develops very shallow roots that sap the top soil of nutrients. In order to plant again the following season, tons of PETROLEUM based fertilizers must be used. Corn plants drink up loads of water for the amount of actual corn produced. The water of course will be pumped with energy from more PETROLEUM. Per acre, corn plants process far less carbon dioxide than other crops, and the product yield per acre is lower than other crops too. So that means more tractors plowing more acres using more... PETROLEUM.
Ethanol is what you get when lobbyists write our environmental policy.
-
Plowing the fields
The only consolation in this is that Americans won't have to eat the GM crap that is being passed off as "corn", which is implicated in obesity and related health problems. Mexicans and South Americans, whose cuisines require corn are going to be screwed.
-
Ditto & ditto...
to both herself and Anonymous.
A complicated story, since our two sets of fuel needs intersect: the mighty combustion engine and our food chain.
-
LOTS of CORN
I live in St. Louis, Missouri, and frequently ride a bicycle through farm country east of St. Louis in central Illinois. In years past there's been a pretty even division between corn and bean fields, but this year there is easily twice as much corn as beans, maybe more. This is not scientific - I just counted fields as I rode by.
The weather has been warm and wet and if the current weather pattern continues, there will be high yields from much of Illinois. I'm not sure how this will affect the price of corn, but no one is talking about the price of beans. There may be many fewer soybeans - an important food source for both food animals and people.
So Americans will pay more through subsidies or directly to fuel their cars AND pay more for food, while others starve. Burning the yields of our farms so we can continue to drive large cars is just plain stupid. Okay, so I'm smug because I ride a bike, but this is not the way to "energy independence".
-
Acreage? What About Yields?
This "telling statistic" drives me nuts. How come everyone, WSJ included, cites the most amount of corn planted since 1940's (in acres) as if that means we are just now producing the same amount of corn? The WSJ even goes on to say "that is the most amount of corn harvested since..." How about someone cite the yields (or expected yields) of corn? I am sure the amount of corn we produce (i.e. bushels harvested) is several times higher than the 1940's. There is the little something known as the green revolution that intervened in the meantime... you know, fertilizer, hybrid seeds, irrigation, etc.
The acreage of corn planted, standing alone, tells us absolutely nothing.
-
The most profitable crop per acre in the US is....
Duh Dah DAAAAAH!!!!!
Tobacco. That's why most/all tobacco farmers are sharecroppers. The landowner rents the land for a crop rent to the farmer who absorbs all of the costs.
If prices for corn go high enough, maybe we'll see sharecropping return to corn.
-
A brilliant idea
Hey! If Mexican farmers start getting richer and providing, you know, JOBS in their own country for their own people... maybe we'll see fewer illegal immigrants in the U.S. You think? Maybe? I wonder if I've just stumbled on a solution to our "illegal immigrant problem."
Yeah, I know. Brilliant. Nobody's thought of that before. But stay your applause, because I'm sure things are more complicated.
By the way, you who rail against "GM crap" which is "proven to increase obesity", etc. May I have a link to that startling information? And while we're at it, may I point out that what we call "corn" now is by no means a "natural" plant. It's so far removed from its ancestor that it can't even reproduce without human intervention. So is wheat. So is rye. So are legumes. And let's not even get into triticale, the wheat-rye hybrid which is, I hear, sold in them health food stores. You would lose your organic pesticide-free lunch if you knew how they were able to get a hybrid of two distinct species. (Hint: it involves nasty harsh chemicals, and yes, genetic modification.)
(Disclaimer: I am not a spokesman for Monsanto or any other Evil Corporation (tm). I am merely a molecular biologist who dislikes when people equate genetics with evil. I also do not think that genetically modified crops are perfectly safe and are a panacea to all the world hunger issues. I, however, believe that humans were genetically modifying crops since before we knew what genes were or invented the word "modify".)
-
Corn/EtOH Good for Farmers for Now--Not for Long
Prior to the ethanol craze, the price of corn had not changed significantly since the 1970's. Soy beans were more profitable. Only the best farmers survived.
It is very important for corn farmers to rotate crops to prevent depletion of nitrogen from the soil. Even with rotation, it is necessary to supplement nitrogen with fertilizer. Without rotation, planting corn on corn on corn will "wear the soil out" and it will cease to be productive.
Another problem that farmers will have in the next planting is that the price of fertilizer is skyrocketing because the bulk transport of fertilizer and corn has been disrupted.
Prior to ethanol, corn was transported by rail and barge from the midwest to ports in the South. Once the rail or barges were unloaded, they were re-loaded with fertilizer. Now, the corn is processed to ethanol in the midwest. The ethanol is transported by unit trains around the United States. There are no empty barges or rail cars for transporting fertilizer.
I'm glad that farmers are seeing some relief from low prices but fear that they will pay a terrible price for this folly.
The molecular biologist is right about plant genetics. The biggest problems that I have observed, as a midwestern farmer's daughter, is occasional susceptability to blight, and, in the case of wheat, a progressive loss of gluten in the kernal over time.
-
Confusion
I have seen numerous articles lately describing how US farm subsidies have contributed to low world commodity prices, which is harmful to the interests of third world countries. These relatively poor nations need to sell their farm products at higher prices so that food can be purchased for the poor. Now that commodity prices are higher, we are told that this is bad news for third world countries, which find it more difficult to purchase food for the poor.
So.....low farm prices are bad and high farm prices are bad, for the same reason.....I am beginning to think that much that has been writen about this subject is not worth reading. I'm convinced that the US needs to have the best farm program possible (and that means changing from the current unhinged mess) and the best trade policies possible. A lot of this inconsistent blather is not helpful in reaching these goals.