Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
I have a new paper — Could Biofuel Policies Increase Death and Disease in Developing Countries? — which suggests that global warming policies may be helping kill more people than it saves. It was published last month in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Access to the paper is free.
Part of the PR notice put out by the journal is reproduced below:
—————————————————————
Biofuels Policy May Kill 200,000 Per Year in the Third World
TUCSON, Ariz., March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — U.S. and European policy to increase production of ethanol and other biofuels to displace fossil fuels is supposed to help human health by reducing “global warming.” Instead it has added to the global burden of death and disease.
Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and “absolute poverty” (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.
Research by the World Bank indicates that the increase in biofuels production over 2004 levels would push more than 35 million additional people into absolute poverty in 2010 in developing countries. Using statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Indur Goklany estimates that this would lead to at least 192,000 excess deaths per year, plus disease resulting in the loss of 6.7 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per year. These exceed the estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs that the World Health Organization attributes to global warming. Thus, developed world policies intended to mitigate global warming probably have increased death and disease in developing countries rather than reducing them. Goklany also notes that death and disease from poverty are a fact, whereas death and disease from global warming are hypothetical.
Thus, the biofuel remedy for global warming may be worse than the disease it purports to alleviate.
————————————————————————————-
The paper also shows that based on the World Health Organization’s latest estimates of death and disease from global warming and 23 other global health risk factors (for the year 2004), global warming should be ranked last or second last, depending on whether the criterion used is the burden of disease or death.
Policies that subsidize or mandate biofuels benefit neither Mother Earth nor humanity.
From John Q. Galt on April 23, 2011 at 7:07 pm:
Oh come on now! The heat pump allows the replacement of fuels with geothermal energy, as you’re well aware. The electricity could come from anywhere, even wind and solar. The complete replacement of traditional fuel sources is possible.
Why not? Building ethanol from water and carbon takes energy, geothermal can efficiently supply energy. An endothermic process is possible. As part of the biofuel rage, there’s the concept you’re starting with energy harvested from sunlight. But this brings up the vagaries of actually growing crops, with assorted land use issues. The Earth itself can provide a reliable continuous supply of geothermal heat. So why not use the heat to grow some sort of life form in vats from which biofuels can be extracted? Or one that will just convert the starting ingredients directly to ethanol?
To see how close the technology is, see this. BRI Energy has a pilot plant where assorted carbon-containing waste undergoes incomplete combustion to generate syngas, primarily H2 and CO. The syngas is cooled to 100°F then fed to bacteria, which make the ethanol.
Since we can already go from H2 and CO to ethanol, and the breaking down of water to hydrogen and oxygen is a long-established biological process, making ethanol from water and carbon with the energy input of (geothermal) heat should be possible. Might take two or more organisms, or just clever genetic engineering to need only one. Either way, and that’s with biological action instead of merely chemical which may also be possible, it’s worth pursuing.
From 220mph on April 24, 2011 at 3:11 am:
That gets the most energy out of it, quickly with little fuss.
Still sticking to the narrative, I see. Lignin is about as common as dirt. From Wikipedia: “It is one of the most abundant organic polymers on Earth, exceeded only by cellulose, employing 30% of non-fossil organic carbon[4] and constituting from a quarter to a third of the dry mass of wood.” Your first part is found in a 2007 NY Times article. For proper perspective, read this:
http://ciitn.missouri.edu/cgi-bin/pub_view_project_ind.cgi?g_num=6&c_id=2007008
Lignin’s worth is only one-twentieth that of biodiesel’s, and that value is dropping fast. More from you:
Assuming that’s the NYT piece, that section seems like a press release:
PureVision is a small start-up company, privately held, and still years away from something they can sell commercially and far further away from making a profit. That NYT blurb comes off as a plea for venture capital.
From you, referencing the lignin:
Once again you deal in “overstated optimism.” Note the result from a paper you earlier cited: “Switchgrass produced 540% more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed.” Note also what it says in the “NEY from Perennial Bioenergy Systems” section:
So basically that 540% is an educated guess. And in the real world, it matters little as the economic factors come into play, such as the cost of the switch grass crop, cost to make the ethanol, etc.
In the end, the market price of the resulting ethanol will determine the viability of cellulosic ethanol. That you are trying to toss in the added value of the lignin byproduct, I will charitably assume merely shows your lack of knowledge of the economics, as the lignin is being dumped on a saturated market and it’s value will decline as biofuel production increases. Indeed, it will end up increasing the production costs of cellulosic ethanol as biofuel production increases, as it’ll become a waste product of negligible value that has to be disposed.
From 220mph on April 24, 2011 at 9:37 pm:
Incorrect. You need better info about maize, specifically field corn, which you are incorrectly identifying as “feed corn.” Animals eat it as whole kernels, it may be ground (or “cracked”). For humans it’s normally processed by nixtamalization and ground. Otherwise, both humans and animals can eat the same field corn.
I realize it may be hard to understand why it’s called agricultural science, but there’s quite a bit of knowledge used in farming and farmers do go to college to do it right. Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) are not a direct substitute for corn. There are assorted calculations to do to assure the animals are getting proper nutrition, further info can be found here. To mention it generally, in this article it’s mentioned about mineral supplementation when using distillers grains.
kadaka said:
“In the end, the market price of the resulting ethanol will determine the viability of cellulosic ethanol. That you are trying to toss in the added value of the lignin byproduct, I will charitably assume merely shows your lack of knowledge of the economics, as the lignin is being dumped on a saturated market and it’s value will decline as biofuel production increases. Indeed, it will end up increasing the production costs of cellulosic ethanol as biofuel production increases, as it’ll become a waste product of negligible value that has to be disposed.”
Sorry, no – it shows you don’t understand the processes involved and have little desire to educate yourself. One of my comments directly addressed:
“Most plans for cellulosic ethanol processing call for burning the lignin to generate steam and heat to run the process. As a fuel, lignin is worth around $40 a ton.”
Other comments in the thread have indicated same … the lignin byproduct is used AT THE PLANT as a FUEL – to be burned to generate steam and heat at the plant to run the process. As such value is largely immaterial. The cost to the plant is zero – it is a byproduct of producing ethanol. And then contributes to that production by being used to reduce further the energy costs to create the ethanol.
Kadaka – I identified it exactly as I intended – the corn used for ethanol production is “feed” corn – meaning corn gown for the primary purpose of feeding to livestock and not “food” corn – (ie: sweet corn) grown as a food source.
Not gonna waste a lot of time on a response since you don’t really seem to care about the answer but our trusty pal’s at Wiki show us some of the facts about “feed” corn.
First they point out the fallacy of your claims – that corn used for ethanol is used for “food” ….
“Within the United States, the usage of maize for human consumption constitutes about 1/40th of the amount of grown in the country. In the United States and Canada maize is mostly grown to feed for livestock, as forage, silage (made by fermentation of chopped green cornstalks), or grain. Maize meal is also a significant ingredient of some commercial animal food products, such as dog food.”
They go on to show the actual numbers that show the inaccuracy of your claims:
The breakdown of usage of the 12.1 billion bushel 2008 U.S. maize crop was as follows, according to the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report by the USDA.
5.25 billion bu. – Livestock feed
3.65 billion bu. – Ethanol production
1.85 billion bu. – Exports
943 million bu. – Production of Starch, Corn Oil, Sweeteners (HFCS,etc.)
327 million bu. – Human consumption – grits, corn flower, corn meal, beverage alcohol
Just 2.7% of the corn harvest in the US is used for human food consumption – and a good share of that is for hooch.
There is a big difference between being able to eat feed stock corn and actually doing so.
And again the distillers grains and brewers grains are passed along to some final user, which displaces some corn land (DDGS is high energy) and lots of marginal soybean and wheat land.
From 220mph on April 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm:
It was you who brought up the value of the lignin. You even brought up the possible value of the one version, $300/ton. This invoked the concept of selling the lignin. When presented with the relative worthlessness of the lignin as a commodity, your “defense” is of course that you were talking about burning it at the plant.
Burning the lignin is already done in the kraft process of separating cellulose fibers out of the source wood for paper making purposes. Your charges are particularly spurious as I clearly have researched and have educated myself about lignin and its relationship in cellulosic ethanol production.
See this 2010 article, from a site that is very involved in promoting biofuels:
http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/06/28/using-synergies-to-save-cellulosic-ethanol-power-plant-co-location/
Using Synergies to Save: Cellulosic Ethanol & Power Plant Co-Location
Further down comes this important info about lignin:
There it is. The choices are paying to dispose of it or burning it on site, and it’s only marginally better to burn it, thus the low $40/ton price estimate as a fuel. Granted the article does try to make lignin as a fuel sound good:
From a biomass promoter comes this article about possibly using lignin for synthetic gas (syngas) production:
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/2928/cellulosic-ethanol-what-to-do-with-the-lignin/
Cellulosic Ethanol: What to Do with the Lignin
Lignite, aka brown coal, is considered the lowest rank of coal, known for low energy density, of such low value that it’s burned for electricity generation in plants located very close to the mines, it’s not worth transporting any significant distance.
You presented lignin as being valuable and providing economic value in cellulosic ethanol production, lowering the production costs. I showed its relative worthlessness. Your response was pointing out using it at the plant for fuel, which I had considered. Here I have provided further evidence of its relative worthlessness, even at the ethanol plant, where the choices are to burn it at relatively high cost and reap what little value it has, or throw it away.
Given the headaches and expense of utilizing such a low-value fuel, I can understand why, as you stated, only most plans for cellulosic ethanol plants call for burning it. With the economies of scale and increasing efficiency, it seems assured these plants will generate more lignin than they can burn. For a commercial-scale operation trying to run lean and uncomplicated, throwing away the lignin and using a simpler-to-utilize energy source is very attractive.
But there may be some hope, since, as I linked to, work on converting lignin to syngas is progressing. As I mentioned in a different comment, converting syngas to ethanol is advancing nicely. Bringing the technologies together will allow converting the lignin to ethanol, with co-generation of steam and possibly electricity. If the investment costs are low enough with a reasonable return on investment, perhaps the cellulosic ethanol plants will find that an attractive alternative, between burning it as efficiently as possible and just throwing it away.
From 220mph on April 25, 2011 at 7:11 pm:
That just shows you presenting an inability to examine the numbers properly. How much of the exports are used for human consumption? How much of the “Starch, Corn Oil, Sweeteners (HFCS,etc.)” are consumed by humans? By focusing on that specifically labeled as “human consumption” you have missed the larger view of how much of the harvest is actually used for human consumption.
The claim was that field corn is used for both animal and human consumption. This is verified even by your suspect “2.7%” figure. From the Wikipedia field corn entry:
With less than 2% of the corn-growing land used for non-field corn, it’s clear that field corn is consumed by humans. The use of field corn for human consumption is explicitly mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.
If you are arguing that differentiation based on type of corn grown, then the conclusion has been shown to be false. If you are arguing that the corn diverted for ethanol production is diverted from corn grown for livestock, then the basic economics show that to be false. Farmers are quite aware of the expected value of their crops and plan accordingly. They would not flood the market with that much corn while expecting it to primarily be used for livestock. They would plant according to demand, which would include demand for ethanol production. Resources that could have been used for raising crops intended for human consumption are instead being used for growing corn for ethanol fuel.
I am still puzzled by the economics involved in biofuel production. In the USA corn growers receive $7 billion in direct subsidies. And foreign ethanol imports face a massive 12.75 c per liter tariff. In addition, there are export subsidies and indirect subsidies to both farming and biofuel industries.
What effect does this have on biofuel economics? All the costing I have seen so far have not taken these subsidies into account.
I would point out that Western (Northern) agricultural subsidies cost the underdeveloped world about $50 billion in lost sales – equal to the annual development aid from the West!
Can we ever establish a viable and sustainable biofuels industry while such massive subsidies to rich farmers distort the market and damage the 3rd world??
From Orchestia on April 26, 2011 at 3:31 pm:
“Rich farmers” is quite a mis-characterization when talking about traditional family-owned farms. Here in central Pennsylvania, I’ve known several farmers who’ve had separate full-time jobs so they could afford to be farmers. With growing housing development and the demand for land causing property values to rise, as well as increased governmental demands for revenue, property taxes have dramatically increased. Some farmers have been selling housing plots on the edges of their farms to make ends meet. Basically if you haven’t inherited the farm then you have no chance of owning your own family farm, and even then due to the high property values you may get hit by the steep “estate taxes that only hit the rich.”
It is the large corporate farms, that can command large volume discounts on supplies, get very favorable loan interest rates, and have accountants and lawyers making sure they get every tax break and subsidy possible, that are actually making the big profits.
This is the basis of the distortion you have noticed. The policies are to protect the small farmer and keep them out of bankruptcy, with the “take home” income so small that they need any extra money they can get to survive. But the same policies also benefit the large corporate farms. If politicians provide subsidies or tax breaks, the farm lobby (primarily the large corporate farms and their business associates) praises the politicians for helping the small farmer. Likewise if tax breaks or subsidies are cut, the farm lobby condemns the politicians for trying to destroy the small farmers.
Yep, it’s politics, not economics.
As to “a viable and sustainable biofuels industry” as stated, the politicians feel they already have established such, in the US, by fiat. The use of ethanol in gasoline has been mandated, in increasing amounts. Likewise biodiesel mandates are expected, if not already specified, and there are already “low sulfur diesel” mandates that seem tailor-made for fulfillment by biodiesel.
The politicians made the demand in the US. The politicians provided the financial incentives to develop biofuels, which includes the politically-permanent subsides to grow feedstocks for biofuels. With everything added together, the politicians have already created a viable and sustainable biofuels industry that will only get stronger. Or at least they have in that special alternate reality that only politicians can perceive that they believe they actually live in.
Therefore don’t expect any changes coming from the US, and especially nothing that benefits “the third world,” now that the politicians believe they (finally!) have a working successful US biofuels industry.
Thanks for the considered reply Kadaka but I still don’t think any industry is sustainable if subsidized. The US now has robust competition so old solutions may not suffice. The world is changing fast. There are both moral and commercial reasons as to why subsidies are daft. Small farming does much better when subsidies are removed as New Zealand has proved. Land here is treated as an earning asset, so prices are held in check by the market and young farmers can get their own farms. To give you an idea of prices I am looking at an 800 ha mixed property on which we may be trialling the growing of biofuels (though I am not a young farmer). It has pine plantation blocks, sheep and beef on highly productive and well-farmed land – all good earners experiencing strong price gains. The property costs $3.75 m. It is fully stocked, has two excellent houses and farm assets in very good condition. It is also a very pretty property. How does that compare?
I don’t know how we can get politicians to be more rational and wise – that’s a problem we all have.
Our government had broken all the rules and has offered a subsidy for biodiesel. But the take up has been minimal since the industry isn’t judged to be economic even with the subsidy. That’s why I am keen on detailed cost analysis – if we can find how to reduce growing or production costs we might be able to develop a desperately needed biofuels industry.
Kind regards
kadaka …
Seems you left out this part of my post:
“Within the United States, the usage of maize for human consumption constitutes about 1/40th of the amount of grown in the country. In the United States and Canada maize is mostly grown to feed for livestock, as forage, silage (made by fermentation of chopped green cornstalks), or grain. Maize meal is also a significant ingredient of some commercial animal food products, such as dog food.”
1/40th equals 2.5% – corroborated by the 2.7% number when looking at the actual corn used for food purposes …
And the TOTAL exports are 15% of all corn grown – feel free to present factual data that a major portion of corn exports are used for food and not animal feed and other uses. Regardless – even if it was half the exports you’d still be talking about just 7.5% of corn crop used for food – added to US food portion of total corn crop and you have 10% of US corn crop used for food
Your comments on lignin and burning it to provide energy at ethanol plants proves and agrees with my point – that there is a real value for this byproduct – not worth further discussion with you
From 220mph on April 26, 2011 at 7:53 pm:
Here’s a hint for using Wikipedia: Look for the reference marks. That paragraph has no bracketed references. The “1/40th” sentence lacks linked words as well, and it is normal to expect such links can be followed to the presented info. Thus “1/40th” has nothing showing that it’s not the same mistake you made.
It’s amazing how you keep moving the goal posts, yet are still wrong. Note your current waffling on the “definitive evidence” you provided earlier:
See this from the USDA:
So you can get that 10% without even considering exports.
Way back here you stated:
This is wrong if considering type of corn grown, field corn is consumed by man and beast. Also, from the National Corn Growers Association on their Publications page you can find the “2010 World of Corn Metric Edition” report. From pg 8, “U.S. Corn Usage by Segment, 2009” comes that 42.5% of usage is “Feed & Residuals” while 32.1% is “Fuel Ethanol.” That would be a lot of corn to drop on the market if all that corn was “…corn grown for purpose of feeding livestock – NOT corn grown as food.” Clearly ethanol is being made from corn grown for the purpose of making ethanol, not for the purpose of feeding livestock.
That’s for the best, since you’re basically down to arguing about absolute value, of which even a jar of air or dirt would have some. Heck, by your standard for “real value” I should investigate uses of the byproduct of the cats that I scoop out of the litter box. 😉
kadaka
The Wiki info I posted included the actual 2008 corn numbers – along with their source … which as I clearly noted directly SUPPORT the 1/40th statement
1/40th is 2.5% – actual human consumption use is 2.7%
They go on to show the actual numbers that show the inaccuracy of your claims:
The breakdown of usage of the 12.1 billion bushel 2008 U.S. maize crop was as follows, according to the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report by the USDA.
5.25 billion bu. – Livestock feed
3.65 billion bu. – Ethanol production
1.85 billion bu. – Exports
943 million bu. – Production of Starch, Corn Oil, Sweeteners (HFCS,etc.)
327 million bu. – Human consumption – grits, corn flower, corn meal, beverage alcohol
Just 2.7% of the corn harvest in the US is used for human food consumption – and a good share of that is for hooch.
Again – ACTUAL USDA numbers – not a blanket statement as in your quote
And as far as your continued twisting of this comment of mine:
“…corn grown for purpose of feeding livestock – NOT corn grown as food.”
Sorry – but you simply don’t get it – if you read that comment in context of the discussion it was clearly meant to refer to the type of corn grown – feed type corn – and not food type corn. Ethanol production uses the same corn type almost exclusively used for FEED not FOOD (ie: sweet) type corn
From 220mph on April 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm:
I see you haven’t checked the Wikipedia reference yet:
It’s not there. Wasn’t there when I checked days ago either. So I went to find a “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report by the USDA.” The current one is found here, with a link to historical ones:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/
April 8, 2011 is the date of the current one. The 2008/09 info is there. See pdf pg 12. The WASDE report does not have a breakdown as shown in the Wikipedia numbers. These agricultural reports use the catch-all “food, seed, and industrial (FSI)” which does not break down what is human-consumption sufficiently.
So I followed note 2 to find a breakdown at “Feed Outlook table 5” as recommended. Feed Outlooks are found here:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1273
The current one is April 12, 2011 and has the 2008/09 info.
Table 5 is on pdf pg 17, it is the FSI breakdown. Adding together “Alcohol for beverages and manufacturing” (134.00 million bushels) with “Cereals and other products” (192.10 million bushels) yields 326.10 million bushels. That matches the “327 million bu. – Human consumption” Wikipedia number, consistent with the slight discrepancies I noted between those Wikipedia numbers and the actual WASDE report figures.
So both your “2.7%” and Wikipedia’s “1/40th” numbers must be wrong. For 2008/09, 489.06 million bushels were used for High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), which is used in food. 245.12 million bushels were used for Glucose and Dextrose, which are used in food. There is also 234.09 million bushels used for Starch, which has a plethora of uses which includes food uses. No amount from those figures is used in your and Wikipedia’s numbers, which is clearly in error.
Thus now as when you first stated it, you’re wrong.
I’ll stick with that “blanket statement,” that was provided by the USDA.
“Almost exclusively” has been shown to be quite a stretch. You have yet to provide a clarification of what this mysterious “feed corn” is exactly. Field corn is used for humans as well. As I previously linked to, the USDA says only about 1% of the corn crop is sweet corn.
Feel free to delve into your vast pool of knowledge of American agriculture, and specifically identify the particular type or types of corn that are “almost exclusively” used for animal feed and ethanol but not for humans. Please also provide the additional data showing how this subset is quantitatively identified as separate from the rest of the field corn crop which goes toward human consumption.
Kadaka:
From your own link about “field corn” :
“Field corn is not generally regarded, in industrialized societies, as desirable for human food without commercial pre-processing. An exception is “roasting ears”, similar in appearance to corn on the cob, although it is necessarily roasted (rather than boiled or steamed as is usual with sweet corn), and is neither tender nor sweet even after the roasting.”
I used the data in the Wiki article – which made perfect sense to anyone with knowledge of corn production and use numbers and was linked to a source
The numbers presented were accurate …
And about 30 seconds of search AT the link you claimed was no good found very similar numbers in same format for later years … I’m sure if you really care they would provide a copy of the 2008 data
Not going to continue this silly argument – it is a fact that the corn used for ethanol production is the same type corn used for animal feed … it is a corn product that is “not … generally desirable for human food” and is neither “tender or sweet” if used for same
Yes SOME SMALL AMOUNT of that corn DOES make it into the food chain but only after, as Wiki notes, being highly processed
A look at USDA crop production reports further proves the point that the corn used for ethanol production is NOT causing land to be shifted to corn production from other food crops as so many claim … corn acreage was actually DOWN slightly last year
The crop you should be worried about is COTTON – which IS having an effect on acres planted for food crops
From 220mph on April 28, 2011 at 1:52 pm :
Likewise wheat, oats, even rice is commercially pre-processed. Field corn, like them, is a grain, not a vegetable. Field corn is eaten by humans, like those other grains. You might as well stop this “silly” argument if you have such trouble accepting such basics about grains, especially field corn.
From the current (April 12, 2011) Feed Outlook from the USDA, pdf pg 7:
Another 4 million acres going to corn this year. What crops are they not planting to grow corn instead?
More expensive and lower-yielding soybeans and wheat.
Kadaka said: Another 4 million acres going to corn this year. What crops are they not planting to grow corn instead?
You could first read your own post for a partial clue:
kadaka: Texas farmers indicate cotton will provide a much better return, increasing plantings by 548,000 acres.
… which directly supports my exact same claim made above.
Or you could read the rest of the crop report which will tell you the same info for other crops.
Actually I take that back – you do NOT quote the Crop Production reports from the USDA – which I have specifically noted a number of times.
A news re-cap of the 2011 USDA Crop Production Report issued a month or so ago shows the answer you seek:
Thursday’s report is broken down by crop, with expectations based on “acres planted.”
Below are some highlights from the USDA survey:
Corn – About 92.178 million acres of corn will be planted this year, up about 4.5 percent from the 88.192 million acres planted during 2010 and higher than the 91.751 million crop analysts had been looking for.
Cotton – About 12.565 million acres will be planted, up 14 percent from 10.973 million acres last year. Analysts had been looking for a 20 percent rise to 13.136 million acres.
Soybean – About 76.609 million acres are expected to be planted, down about 1 percent from last year and nearly in line with the analyst estimate of 76.9 million acres.
Wheat – About 58.021 million acres to be planted, up 8.2 percent from 2010 levels and higher than the 57.239 million analysts had been looking for.
Rice – About 3.018 million acres will be planted, down 17 percent from last year.
Further in the report we can find 2010 acreage planted and harvested. Which provides more illumination:
re: CORN:
One needs to go back and look at the past several years – interesting what we find.
Contrary to the claim corn acreage has increased taking away acreage from other food crops, we find from 2010 planted to projected 2011, corn acreage did increase appx 4 million acres – sounds like a terrible number – except its only a 4.5% increase in corn acreage.
And then there is that little issue that 2011 projected corn acres it is STILL LESS than the acreage planted in 2007.
Not to mention that a detailed review shows corn, sorghum, barley, wheat, canola, and cotton acreage planted are all up – a total of 10.5 million acres … corn acreage up 4.5%, wheat acreage up 8.24%, canola acreage up 11.26%, Cotton up 14.51%
While oats, rice, peanuts, sunflower, and soybeans acreage planted is down – although minimally in most cases – a total of 3.2 million less acreage planted over all of these decliners.
The reality is across all those items total planted acreage is UP appx 7 million acres over 2010 but is still almost 4 million acres less than total acreage planted in these items in 2007.
SIMPLE FACT …. CORN is NOT taking acreage away from other food crops – other food crops are increasing acres planted as well.
2011 Projected production – 13.7 billion bushels
2010 actual production – 12.4
2009 actual production – 13.1 record high production
2008 actual production – 12.1
2007 actual production – 13.0
2011 Projected Plantings – 92.178 million acres
2010 planted – 88.192
2009 planted – 86.382
2008 planted – 85.982
2007 Planted – 93.5
2011 est yield – 162.0 bushels per acre
2010 – 152.8
2009 – 164.7
2008 – 153.9
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/ProsPlan/ProsPlan-03-31-2011.pdf
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-12-2011_new_format.pdf
Here is the source for USDA crop reports. The annual reports are more info than you ever want to know – and kadaka the facts in them don’t lie.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1047
From 220mph on April 29, 2011 at 4:39 am:
Would it have killed you to actually provide the dang link?
The numbers match with one link you did provide, the Prospective Plantings report:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/ProsPlan/ProsPlan-03-31-2011.pdf
The wording is similar. Then there’s the 2010 Crop Production Summary:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-12-2011_new_format.pdf
The “highlight” info is not available like that in the CPS, therefore I’m concluding your “news re-cap” actually concerns the Prospective Plantings report.
For something you have apparently missed, see the April 12, 2011 WASDE report. From pdf pg 12, Feed grain and corn, comes Note 1: “Marketing year beginning September 1 for corn and sorghum; June 1 for barley and oats.” Likewise on pdf pg 17, cotton, comes that Note 1: “Upland and extra-long staple; marketing year beginning August 1.” Likewise for other crops. Marketing years are used, so you have to know exactly what’s referred to when using a single year for the descriptor.
Matching up the WASDE corn figures to those “news re-cap” numbers, the “2010” referred to is the WASDE 2010/11 marketing year, which began on September 1, 2010. Thus the re-cap, and the PP report, are currently referring to crops not even fully planted yet. The 2011 figures from the highlights refer to 2011/12. Except for things like winter wheat that will be planted late in the calendar year, the 2011 figures are of crops that won’t be planted until next year.
Weather happens, the national economy can change, legislation happens, fuel prices can go dramatically higher or lower… Those “2011” figures you’re tossing around should be considered speculative. The 2010/11 WASDE numbers are more firm as they are basically committed to for this year, although recent flooding and otherwise wet conditions are delaying planting in some areas so other crops may be substituted, and some planting may be canceled altogether.
Did you know that cotton is a heavily subsidized US crop, and the US recently lost a WTO fight with Brazil over it? (Reference.) It currently looks good for those Texas farmers to add another 1/2 million acres, but it might not be that good later on.
Did you bother to wonder why corn acreage was so high in 2007?
See the graph on pdf pg 7 of the PP report. For 2007, corn peaked about as much as soybeans nosedived. See this July 13, 2007 USDA Oil Crops Outlook report:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/OCS//2000s/2007/OCS-07-13-2007.pdf
South America had abundant stocks of soybeans, as was likely predicted earlier. There were expectations of record-high US stocks as well. “An advantageous price ratio for corn encouraged producers throughout the Midwest to favor sowing that crop over soybeans.”
So for that one year, conditions looked good for planting corn instead of soybeans. As seen on the graph, by 2008 the blips were gone.
You’ve been arguing there’s been a decrease in corn acreage based on a one-time record-high blip. As seen on the graph, the overall trend towards more land used for corn continues.
Of course, when talking about “corn” what’s really meant is biofuels, as in corn used for ethanol.
That breakdown is not in the CPS. I can’t find it in the PP report either. The WASDE report does have an “Ethanol & by-products” listing. 2008/09, 3,709 million bushels. 2009/10, 4,568 million bushels. 2010/11 projection (April), 5000 million bushels.
From 2008/09 to 2009/10, 859 million bushels more. By the 2009/10 yield per harvested acre of 164.7 bushels, that’s a 5.2 million acre increase for “ethanol & by-products,” note that’s “harvested” not “planted.” 2009/10 to 2010/11, 432 million more bushels, 152.8 bushels per harvested acre, another 2.8 million acres. For a starting figure, in 2008/09 there was 24.1 million harvested acres used for “ethanol & by-products.”
So from 2008/09 to 2010/11, an increase of 8 million harvested acres for “ethanol & by-products.” Too bad neither the “re-cap” nor the PP report have that breakdown to work out that acreage from the speculative 2011/12 figures. So instead, I’ll punt.
“Ethanol & by-products” divided by “Use, total” yields 37% for 2010/11, 35% for 2009/2010, and under 31% for 2008/09. The percentage going towards “ethanol & by-products” is increasing, not just the amount.
By the speculative “2011” figure of 4 million more acres going towards corn, using the 2010/11 percentage (no increase) yields a guesstimate of another 1.5 million acres going towards “ethanol & by-products.” So for those three periods, the total rough figure is an additional 9.5 million acres for “ethanol & by-products.” That’s from the 2008/09 starting figure of 24.1 million acres (harvested).
All that additional acreage for “ethanol & by-products,” and you’re trying to argue IT IS NOT taking acreage away from food crops?
Also, currently we have the ubiquitous E10 gasoline, “up to” 10% ethanol. Looking around, I see a push for an E15 standard. And there’s still the increased use of E85 with more “flex fuel” vehicles. There are already government mandates in place for increasing ethanol use, with more mandates for even more use expected.
Even if, as you are prone to argue, the ethanol demand has yet to cause the diverting of resources that could have gone to food production, it will. Count on it.
For all that blather – you failed to provide a single shred of fact to support your claim.
On the other hand the link I provided for the US Crops reports DOES include that info, and had you read my post you would have seen that TOTAL acreage planted – of all crops – increased by over 7 million acres from last year, but is still lower that total acreage planted for all crops in 2007
Corn acreage planted is AS I CLEARLY NOTED “projected” to increase just under 4 million acres – appx 4.5% – this year over last. This increase is more than absorbed in the total new acreage planted all crops.
Many food crops are up – including wheat which is up 8.24% …
Corn, wheat and soybeans are the 3 largest (by a long margin) food crops by acres planted (hay is the 4th large crop) … corn and wheat acreage are up substantially – between the two 8.4 million acres. Soybeans are down, but only very slighty -1% – down appx 700,000 acres
ALL of the crops other than corn, wheat, soybeans and hay total appx 34 million acres – vs 320 million total acres planted
There is zero proof in any way that increased corn plantings have in any way caused any reduction of other crops – the data shows even the corn and even larger wheat crop planting increases have not materially affected other crops negatively