Global Food Prices Jump To Record Level Because of Higher Corn Prices – or the alternate title: Cornholing the future
There’s lot of gloom and doom being pushed, trying to link food prices to climate change by the usual howlers. As shown above, food prices surged to record levels in February despite February wheat and rice prices being essentially flat. Yet, February corn prices are up significantly even with 2010 being the 3rd largest U.S. corn crop ever. Why? Well part of the reason is that our cars now have a mandated, growing and voracious appetite for corn based ethanol.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writes:
When certain information proves challenging to entrenched political or ideological commitments it can be easy for policy makers to ignore, downplay or even dismiss that information. It is a common dynamic and knows no political boundaries. Global Dashboard catches the Obama Administration selectively explaining the causes for increasing world food prices:
“The increase in February mostly reflected further gains in international maize prices, driven by strong demand amid tightening supplies, while prices rose marginally in the case of wheat and fell slightly in the case of rice.”
“In other words, this is mainly about corn. And who’s the biggest corn exporter in the world? The United States…And where is 40% of US corn production going this year? Ethanol, for use in US car engines.”
So here we having wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects over global food prices, and they are using this as an example of the supposed “climate change drive food prices” link. Of course there isn’t any link in this case. It’s the corn stupid.
The simple solution: stop burning food for fuel, drill for more oil, work on alternate energy system that actually might work, like thorium based nuclear power.
h/t to C3 headlines
Anyone know how much energy is consumed in the refining of crude oil?
rbateman;
Global Traders seek to sell commodities as far afield as possible from point of origin to command the hightest prices.>>>
Odd. You can increase the price of something just by shipping it a long way? The customers pay more for commodities shipped long distances than locally produced commodities of the same quality?
Must be some pretty stupid customers. I bet they could be talked into fending off mass crop failure from global warming by burning their own food too.
Next they’ll be pointing at rising food prices caused by burning the food plus massive crop failures caused by frost, snow, record low temperatures and saying “see? its happening already! Global warming! We TOLD you! NOW will you listen to us? And about burning the food? We’re not burning enough! We have to double our efforts! Burn more! Burn More! We have to save the world from starvation! Burn it ALL!”
Nobody could be that stupid.
Larry,
“By outlawing beverage alcohol they destroyed the industry that would create an adequate supply of fuel ethanol.”
Your arguements are nonsensical.
You first claim that ethanol was the dominant auto fuel prior to prohibition, then claim that a beverage alcohol industry was necessary to have an adequate supply of fuel ethanol, then claim that prohibition outlawed the thriving ethanol fuel industry over night, while admitting that prohibition did not outlaw fuel alcohol. Pick a lane.
“As prohibition was seen to be a soon to be imposed fact, the capital investment and plants of the large scale ethanol producers became nearly worthless, …”
For beverage alcohol. That equipment would still have been quite valuable to the “thriving ethanol fuel industry” which you alternately claim existed, and did not. And that equipment would have been dirt cheap. And no longer in competition for the corn crop with beverage alcohol, which would have made the feedstock for “the dominant auto fuel” that much cheaper. You are looking at what would have been huge boons to the ethanol fuel industry, and describing them as the means by which the “thriving ethanol fuel industry” was killed. The term for this is “cognative dissonance”.
It is very similar to the way that you claim that ethanol is a better, cheaper fuel, but that it cannot compete without massive subsidy, protectionist tarrifs, and government mandated use.
These are the symptoms of someone who has a conclusion that they are pushing, and applying whatever justification they can wave hands around.
Cropdoc says:
March 6, 2011 at 10:20 am
“This talk about how ethanol somehow is bad for engines is baloney.”
_____________________________________________________
I wish that was a fact. Unfortunately it is not correct.
Last year many folks found they had a generator that turned out to be a paper weight as a direct result of Corn Gas. The same thing has happened to many small engines. I speak from direct and first hand experience.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/may/30/hurricane-season-ethanol-gas-left-generators-may-d/
Aside from the food implications, you cannot :
You cannot pipe it. It must be trucked
It is 30% less efficient than regular gas. .
It has a net negative value when all of the necessary things to produce it are considered (planting, fertilizing, harvesting, manufacturing, trucking etc)
All things considered, if it was a viable fuel, it would not need to be subsidized. The market would have carried it on its own. Now switch grass versions may be different.
The studies are out there if you care tore search them.
Al Gore and the Democrats should be indicted and tried in Nuremberg. Along with all the other asshat AGW proponents. They are going to cause or have caused evil and starvation that will make Mao and Stalin look like girl scouts.
The reason they use corn to make ethanol is its high Sugar content… wouldn’t it be much wiser to use sugar cane?… In cane growing countries they could mix 50% new Cane to 50% processed Cane ( Cane that has had the molasses removed which is still very High in sugar per Kilo ) we don’t use Sugar to feed cattle, pigs, ( people in North america eat far too much sugar anyway ) sugar cane can yield 3 crops a year and would grow like mad in The southern U.S, Central america, The islands, and south america, But the Big corporate Farming conglomerates saw a chance to Jack the price of corn toextortionate rates and thats why the lobbied the govts for funding to setup “alternative green fuel manufacturing centres based on ethenol “…. these with half a brain argfued against this as they knew what would happen…but the Green Nazi’s and Corporate farmers, both wanted it so the govt’s Caved in…. and look where its got us now!
Lets start the push to use sugar cane, and other High glucose/fructose sources rather than corn in the production of ethanol…ethanol is a great Idea…using Corn to make it IS NOT!
Sure, millions of acres used to grow corn to be burned has no affect on food prices if that same land was used to grow food to eat.
But it is not burned. As has been explained many times, the process produces almost as much feedstock as would have been provided anyway. Your dishonest replies give you away. Just like alarmists, you ignore the facts when presented to reach the conclusion you want. Very sad.
220mph says:
March 5, 2011 at 6:43 pm
“So it is TRUE you get lower MPG with ethanol. But the rest of the facts are that ethanol is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE as well. ”
===============
Is not, the reason it is less expensive, due to taxpayer subsidies??
Don’t bitch about the “price” of corn if:
you’ve never worked on a farm
you’re overweight-quit eating so much
you drive a gashog
you’ve never sucked down milo dust that festers every joint and makes your eyes swell shut
you’ve determined that inflation adjusted corn price is too high, which it isn’t.
We have enough grain to feed the world; See FAO-ending feed stocks.
At some point, things will change, right now, you sound like selfish whiners.
“As has been explained many times, the process produces almost as much feedstock as would have been provided anyway.”
Ooohh! Magic!
No it doesnt.
In livestock feed, corn is used for energy. You can not suck any substantial amount of energy out of the feed, and claim that what remains is ‘almost as much’. In reality, distilling corn reduces the quantity (dry weight) by 2/3, and the starch (carbohydrate energy) content of what remains is reduced by 95%.
Further, distillers grain cannot make up more than about 20% of a cows diet before production suffers.
DaveS (March 6, 2011 at 9:07 am) you said MTBE is a nightmare for groundwater treatment. That is looking at it narrowly. MTBE is rarely going to leak into groundwater unless gasoline goes along with it. The MTBE mixes with the water much more easily. However, ethanol mixed with gasoline will allow the components of the gasoline to permeate the ground and mix into the groundwater.
Here’s the link: http://ascelibrary.org/eeo/resource/1/joeedu/v128/i9/p862_s1?isAuthorized=no which says “Overall, the preferential degradation of ethanol and the accompanying depletion of oxygen and other electron acceptors hindered BTEX biodegradation, which suggests that ethanol could increase the length of BTEX plumes.” IOW, because ethanol mixed 50/50 with gasoline hindered the natural biodegradation of the nasty stuff (BTEX) in gasoline, the nasty stuff has the potential of getting further into the water supply.
The bottom line is that natural dirt biodegrades all the bad things in gas, oil and diesel. But add enough ethanol to the mix and the good guys in the dirt get killed off.
With all the comments, I don’t know if this has been addressed. Cotton prices the last six months are through the roof (thank you QE2). A lot of farmers in my corner of the country (Southern Plains) are converting from corn to cotton this year. With food supply already being diverted to fuel, and corn prices are already high, what will happen to corn prices when less acres are planted? Just wonderin’….
Mike M says:
March 6, 2011 at 10:35 am
Curiousgeorge has left the building…
No I haven’t. Just been watching from the sidelines.
To those who felt it necessary to castigate me for opining that the headliner of this thread was simplistic, I will also opine that the subsequent conversations tend to vindicate my original post.
Thanks for the fun. 😀
OssQss,
Your article about generators: Did you actually read it, because the mechanic says ethanol may be the problem, but that improper maintenance is the main cause.
Do you know what gas stabilizers are made from? They are alcohol primarily, so if you use E10, you have stabilized gas, no need to add any.
Ethanol can be transported in pipelines period. It just needs to be a dedicated pipeline not the type that most are today carrying different products different seasons of the year.
Ethanol is a viable industry. The blenders’ credit goes to the blenders-oil companies, it was the trade off the oil industry demanded for the replacement of MTBE by ethanol. And since an acre of land producing 200 bushel of corn yields 580 gallons of ethanol at 2.40/gallon today the gross dollars is $1,380/acre. Since cost/acre to put an acre of corn in today is around $800/acre in Iowa, land costs included that leaves $580/acre above and beyond the cost of growing the corn ethanol. Ethanol companies have recently reported quarter earnings of $0.23/gallon of production profit, and remember they are not the ones getting the blenders credit of $0.45/gallon, the retail gas distributer gets that.
The reduction in mpg is not 30% for E85 compared to gasoline. My experience is about 20% at the most, less if I am pulling a trailer, then maybe 10% if that as it sucks with both around 9 mpg. Otherwise I get about 14 with E85 and 17 with E10. E10 and ethanol free gas gives me the same mileage in both my cars and truck, I’ve tried them all.
I suggest you take your own advice and check your facts.
Cropdoc
Interesting comments with a big focus on corn. The plants I worked on in the 80’s and 90’s were all WHEAT based. Same wheat we use in food and feed, along with Barley.
Mix wet wheat byproducts with Barley for cattle feed.
Ethanol in those days was only viable with subsidies related to ethanol and the cattle feed industry.
Energy ratios for ethanol just above 1 for corn and wheat, up to 8 for sugar cane, 5 for gasoline on most sources.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/north-americas-largest-wheat-ethanol-plant-opens-in-canada.php
Cropdoc,
Suggest you read the study below about the corrosive nature of ethanol.
You are right, if one tries to ship in a pipeline, it cannot be shipped in a pipe line that is used for other fuel shipments. The liquid fuel and natural gase suppliers have established a huge network of pipeline paid for by the private sector and don’t want to destroy it with ethanol. They do an excellent job using pigs to ship a variety of products through an individual pipeline without problems. They are smart enough not to ship ethanol since it would cause huge problems.
One of the significant issues we face is that major marine engine mfg. will not warrenty engines with over 10% ethanol. For those of us who lay up our boats in the winter, E 10 causes problems since the fuel will adsorb moisture over a short period. The shel life of E 10 fuel is several months, not 7 months.
Numerous boat owners have already spent a fortune repairing fuel systems in equipment that is not run frequently. Thats a fact that you cannot deny!!
I need carburator work every spring after lay up.
Re shipping in a dedicated pipeline, there is still signifiicant risk that the ethanol will pick up water being hydroscopic and cause problems. The product is exposed to the atmosphere in various storage tanks on the way, thus shipment is normally via tank car or truck using fossil fuels.
A clarification, the blenders are forced to introduce the ethanol in the fuel by the government. To suggest that the farmers and ethanol producers do not benefit from this boggles my mind. This is the point where the feds collect the road taxes and if you are going to subdize ethanol this is the place since it reduces the road tax that is paid. The $$$ still flow to the feds. No one is foolish to mix the ethanol earlier since the entire batch could be ruined by the short shelf life of ethanol. It is disingenuous to suggest that this is a subsidy to the fossil industry rather than the ethanol industry. Of course it makes good press to mislead the public and count it as a subsidy for fossil fuels.
http://www.saeindia.org/Control/download_file/12~22~2008~12~34~40~PM/129.pdf
Cropdoc,
You are confused, the stabilizer I put in my boat gas tanks in the fall is not ethanol.
We used to put dry gas in our autos in the winter to remove water. That’s not what we stabilize our gas with anymore.
‘High food prices were among the triggers of street protests that recently swept North Africa, where wheat dominates the region’s diet. Egypt is the world’s biggest importer of the grain. Governments across Asia are using subsidies and price controls to shield their consumers from inflation.”
http://tinyurl.com/4cbcskt
Lerry (hotrod) and 220 mph.
I noticed that you 2 hopped on board when the discussion regarding corn to ethanol began on this board. I think that you are both promoting an agenda.
Larry, the first shift began with you at 4:07 pm on 3/5/11 with 13 long comments over a 6-hour period. I assume that you had a break between 7:00 and 8:00 pm or were you updating 220 mph as he/she came on shift. You apparently had about a 1 hour overlap as 220 mph began posting at 8:42 pm on 3/5/11 220 mph, posting long comments only 2 minutes apart and totaled 11 ea over the next 7 ½ hours ……..WOW!!!
You 2 must be really fast thinkers and writers and researchers to compose such posts with such efficiency. Or could it be that you are part of a team (think boiler room) to crash any discussion involving ethanol. I don’t remember the tags/handles used, but I saw a very similar approach on theoildrum.com several months back. It seems that the arguments were the same also. It was fairly obvious then too. I guess that when the $$$ dollars at stake are as high as it is with keeping the corn to ethanol myth alive, a boiler room with pre-composed, cut and past, arguments to post on the internet blogs would be a good investment from a business standpoint. Just another consensus, I guess.
If I have the time, I’ll check back with theoildrum.com and leave references on this site. Who knows, maybe someone has been plagiarizing your work.
The arguments that were presented there were just flat wrong re: ‘the great value in using E10 and E15’. That was a dead giveaway then and is the same here. Using E10 when it became mandated dropped my hwy mileage from 20+ to less than 14 mpg. I spent a lot of time and money trying to fix a problem that didn’t exist, and when I found an independent gasoline retailer with pure gasoline, mileage went back up to 20. If I had the time now, I could pick your posts on this board apart. I am a “lurker” and seldom post, but if that were you and your crew posting on the oil drum, had I had the time I would have torn those posts up big time.
So I feel fairly confident that you may be a shill for the ethanol lobby. That is my personal consensus.
b Barker says:
March 6, 2011 at 6:57 am
Here is a link to USDA Grains: World Markets and Trade Archives. It is a good thing that CO2 is at 390ppm now contributing to world wheat and coarse grain yields which are half again as high as they were 30 years ago. Then again, increased CO2 may not have contributed anything to yield. Anyone know the answer?
The answer is…
570 results from experimental and Real World tests of a 300 ppm increase from ambient in hundreds of studies of rice, wheat, corn and soy…
Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 235
Arithmetic Mean 32.1% increase in dry bio mass
Standard Error 1.8%
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 179
Arithmetic Mean 46.5%
Standard Error 2.8%
Zea mays L. [Corn]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 20
Arithmetic Mean 21.3%
Standard Error 4.9%
Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 235
Arithmetic Mean 32.1%
Standard Error 1.8%
Corn, soy wheat and rice all grow significantly quicker, produce greater bio-mass. endure heat cold and drought better, when exposed to 300 ppm increase in CO2.
Water and land are a resource. It is not rationally disputable that the more land and water that is devoted to corn for fuel, raises the cost of both land and water. The reasons for food prices rising are multiple, Corn fuel is one of those reasons.
Blaming global warming scare for biofuels production and biofuels for world hunger is an easy takeaway in public discussions, because most people are so poorly informed but still have strong opinions.
When one of the prominent sceptics uses this easy shot, it will probably be the moment, when the camera shows the CNN host nodding emphatically. But I still think sceptics should leave this out and stick to facts and not emotions. Eventually only this will pay off.
AGW alarmists like Gore and his ilk have no problem to give up biofuels. This would actually make them look self critical and balanced in the eyes of the uninformed, even though they sacrificed a good thing to continue to persue their bad agenda.
Poptech says:
March 6, 2011 at 7:50 am
220mph, “Higher fuel prices? …. nope
Ethanol, even E85, costs LESS – not more – than gasoline – per e85prices.com the national avg is $2.90 for e85 and $3.48 for gasoline (E10) – a 16.6% savings
In my area I pay $2.59 for e85 and $3.38 for gas (e10) – or 23% LESS for e85 … this trend largely holds for areas where e85 is prevalent”
Sorry but the national average is 16% without adjusting for BTU or subsidies.
$3.503 – Regular Gasoline (AAA)
$2.929 – E85 (AAA)
Now lets get the actual price of E85,
$3.854 – E85 BTU Adjusted Price (AAA)
+0.450 – VEETC Subsidy (U.S. Department of Energy)
$4.304 – E85 BTU and Subsidy Adjusted Price
So much for that!
meaningless pablum …
I and others presented real world cost per mile numbers based on real prices of e85 and gas (e10) and real world MPG comparisons … I showed in my personal case I pay appx 23% less for e85 than gas (e10) – and that when using ethanol I get appx 19% lower MPG … for a net positive balance when I use e85 – others (or if you use sticker numbers) experience a slight net loss in mileage
You choose to ignore real world data – presenting meaningless
eyesonu says:
March 7, 2011 at 12:11 am
Lerry (hotrod) and 220 mph.
I noticed that you 2 hopped on board when the discussion regarding corn to ethanol began on this board. I think that you are both promoting an agenda.
Larry, the first shift began with you at 4:07 pm on 3/5/11 with 13 long comments over a 6-hour period. I assume that you had a break between 7:00 and 8:00 pm or were you updating 220 mph as he/she came on shift. You apparently had about a 1 hour overlap as 220 mph began posting at 8:42 pm on 3/5/11 220 mph, posting long comments only 2 minutes apart and totaled 11 ea over the next 7 ½ hours ……..WOW!!!
You 2 must be really fast thinkers and writers and researchers to compose such posts with such efficiency. Or could it be that you are part of a team (think boiler room) to crash any discussion involving ethanol
what a ridiculous, if not expected, statement … I have no clue who Larry is …. I have zero ties to the ethanol industry, and I was an ethanol skeptic before I became a proponennt
The classi mark of one who cannot debate facts and issues is when they attack individuals rather than ideas …
congratulations – you would make a perfect warming alarmist
eyesonu says:
Lerry (hotrod) and 220 mph.
I noticed that you 2 hopped on board when the discussion regarding corn to ethanol began on this board. I think that you are both promoting an agenda.
The arguments that were presented there were just flat wrong re: ‘the great value in using E10 and E15’. That was a dead giveaway then and is the same here. Using E10 when it became mandated dropped my hwy mileage from 20+ to less than 14 mpg. I spent a lot of time and money trying to fix a problem that didn’t exist, and when I found an independent gasoline retailer with pure gasoline, mileage went back up to 20. If I had the time now, I could pick your posts on this board apart. I am a “lurker” and seldom post, but if that were you and your crew posting on the oil drum, had I had the time I would have torn those posts up big time.
So I feel fairly confident that you may be a shill for the ethanol lobby. That is my personal consensus.,/i>
And therein is the proof … the ‘your positions and claims suck and I could make you look like idiots if I wanted, but I can’t be bothered’ approach … the normal tool of one who cannot intelligently rebut
If you disagree then get off your lazy duff and make your case – including factual support for your claims and position
David says:
b Barker says:
March 6, 2011 at 6:57 am
Here is a link to USDA Grains: World Markets and Trade Archives. It is a good thing that CO2 is at 390ppm now contributing to world wheat and coarse grain yields which are half again as high as they were 30 years ago. Then again, increased CO2 may not have contributed anything to yield. Anyone know the answer?
The answer is…
570 results from experimental and Real World tests of a 300 ppm increase from ambient in hundreds of studies of rice, wheat, corn and soy…
Corn, soy wheat and rice all grow significantly quicker, produce greater bio-mass. endure heat cold and drought better, when exposed to 300 ppm increase in CO2.
Water and land are a resource. It is not rationally disputable that the more land and water that is devoted to corn for fuel, raises the cost of both land and water. The reasons for food prices rising are multiple, Corn fuel is one of those reasons.
Your claim correctly noted that increased CO2 DOES increase growth – it correctly notes that it increases biomass … what you failed to include from the tudies looking at increased CO2 effet on corn growth is that they found that while biomass increased it was at the expense of the ‘energy’ content (my term) of the corn ….in simple terms there was more plant quanity but less corn quality – and in effect a lower yield …. increased CO2 would be excellent for cellulosic ethanol which uses biomass, but worse for corn based ethanol as the energy in the plant was lower