Letter to the Editor
Watts Up With That?
23rd July 2012
Nothing illustrates the anti-human ethos of the Greens better than their support for “biofuels”.
That trendy name cannot hide the fact that encouraging and mandating the burning of food for motor fuel creates nothing but negatives for the environment and for human welfare, but will have no effect on climate.
The biofuel scheme relies on taxpayer subsidies and legislated market-sharing. It wastes land, fuel, fertiliser, water and financial resources to produce ethanol from sterile monocultures of corn, soya beans, palm oil and sugar cane. Most of the land used was cultivation that once produced food. Some is stolen from peasant landowners or obtained by ploughing natural grasslands or clearing virgin forests. The distilling process produces good alcohol but an inferior motor spirit that can damage some engines and has only 70% of the energy of petrol and diesel.
The biofuel schemes have already inflated world food prices. Shortages and famines will increase. This food-burning policy is taking us back to the hungry years before tractors, harvesters, trucks and diesel fuel when teams of draft horses, working bullocks, stock horses and farm labourers consumed 80% of farm output. Some may like to return to those bucolic days, but then most city populations would not find food on their supermarket shelves. In trendy green jargon, big cities would be “unsustainable”.
Here is a new slogan which is kind to humans AND the environment:
“Don’t Burn Food for Fuel”.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
I am happy for my email address to be published.
Even as far back as 1996 ‘Downstream Alternatives’ compiled a list of small engine manufacturers position on ethanol use:
http://www.sentex.net/~crfa/smallengines.html
20 of 27 power equipment manufactures said YES – the remaining 7 did not reference in their manuals.
20 of 20 motorcycle, recreational and boat manufacturers said YES.
Clearly the do NOT use “3 times” the fuel – the energy content of E10 is only a small amount less than straight gas.
I quoted facts – which I have extensively documented here many times. They are easily found and confirmed even the simplest effort. You and those similar rarely provide a single shred of factual support – offering partisan puffery which when read, as I noted above, rarely say what they or you claim they do.
You made a number of claims. That there are “published studies” and “white papers” that contradict my claims re: energy budget, “other costs to the land”, distortion of markets due to mandates, subsidies sourced from public, and “the like.”
Please post these published reports and white papers you claim refute the claim. Please prove YOUR claims.
Smokey says:
July 22, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Got the U.S. farm acreage planted in turf, vs corn, or wheat, for example?
————————-
I can help partially here. Go to slide 7.
http://www.ascension-publishing.com/BIZ/Ceres-ABM.pdf
The question remaining is what is the ratio of acreage of US lawns, sportsfields, etc. to golf courses ??
This presentation, by the way, is an excellent introduction to the concept of US sugar reserves versus oil reserves in the Middle East.
Answered each of these questions before – and you didn’t come out very well in the discussion. Keep in mind the advise I tried to offer you the last time – on reading and understanding crop reports and the like.
This time its YOUR turn. You just made a raft of claims. Prove them.
If you can.
Ric Werme says:
July 22, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I haven’t checked the web, but there really ought to be some simple ways of checking or removing ethanol. The local outdoor equipment folks would love to have non-ethanol fuel…
There is a simple test for alcohol in gasoline that is based on water absorption:
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2011/04/19/testing-for-ethanol/
There is a local convenience store that sells alcohol/ethanol free gas that I use in an airplane. My understanding is that the ethanol is mixed at the distribution center so it is possible to get a truck load of real gas. As someone posted earlier, marinas and airports are good places to look for real gas and businesses that listen to customer demand.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
July 22, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Dude, but like, did you like know that a single pound of all natural hemp can feed a family of four for 1000 years, and produce enough organic hemp oil to power their 1968 VW type 2 for over a million miles? It’s true, I read it on an internet!
================================================================
And if the fan belt brakes they can use a rubber band!
(Credit to Bill Cosby.)
I couldn’t resist.
Total turf in the USA 46 million acres vs. 35 million acres for corn ethanol.
http://www.thelawninstitute.org/faqs/?c=183313
You fricking golfers, soccer players and lawn lovers. Cut it out immediately would ya. Don’t you know you’re killing children in third world countries with your vile habits ??
A. Scott says: @ur momisugly July 22, 2012 at 2:56 pm
.
….Almost every claim in the orig post is either wildly inaccurate or an outright lie. This is nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated and undocumented “drive by”….
___________________________
I disagree. This is the type of statement that needs to be examined by the “Crowd Sourcing” here at WUWT.
Unfortunately so far all I have seen is a bunch of people who really do not have an in-depth knowledge of this complicated subject.
After WWII corporations in the form of the Committee for Economic Development decided there was a “Farm Problem” They wanted a larger labor force for their factories. The larger the work force the more competition and the cheaper the wage.
(I highly recommend reading the whole article)
In 1995 the “plan” was officially exported to other countries via the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture and the 1996 farm bill both written by VP of Cargill Dan Amstutz. American farmers were encouraged to plant as much acreage as they could to “compete” on the world market. This subsidized grain was bought at well below cost by the grain cartel and exported to third world countries. This bankrupting of native farmers was intentional.
The Largest Wave of Suicides in History: The number of farmers who have committed suicide in India between 1997 and 2007 now stands at a staggering 182,936…
President Clinton knew darn well the out come of the WTO when he encouraged Congress to ratify it.
Note this is the same thinking as the CED had about “freeing up” US labor after WWII.
However it is not US farmers who reaped the benefits from the US policies but the international Ag Cartel who wrote the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the 1996 Farm Bill. The North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA), even came up with the Dan Amstutz Award.
In the mean time the American farmer called Amstuz’ farm bill “Freedom to Fail.”… The new Farm Bill was not designed to meet the needs of farmers, but instead, to meet the needs of the Agricultural Establishment.
Clinton’s NAFTA was just as devastating as WTO. According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% – from 2.3 million to 575, 000
The newest installment on this decades long tale is the snapping up of good farm land world wide. As investorplace.com noted 3 Ways Investors Can Profit From High-Flying Farmland Prices. George Soros and Jim Rogers are buying farmland. Get the hint?
US universities in Africa ‘land grab’: Institutions including Harvard and Vanderbilt reportedly use hedge funds to buy land in deals that may force farmers out…
Consolidation of farming into industrial farms is the next “bubble” for investors, may God help us all because they could care less if babies starve to death.
July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush
These are not the people I want in control of my food supply.
A. Scott says:
July 22, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Even as far back as 1996 ‘Downstream Alternatives’ compiled a list of small engine manufacturers position on ethanol use:
http://www.sentex.net/~crfa/smallengines.html
20 of 27 power equipment manufactures said YES – the remaining 7 did not reference in their manuals.
20 of 20 motorcycle, recreational and boat manufacturers said YES.
Clearly the do NOT use “3 times” the fuel – the energy content of E10 is only a small amount less than straight gas.
====================
Imagine trying to sell a product in the US where the government has mandated that gas contain ethanol without accepting it. Offer warranty and hope it lasts until the consumer is responsible.
Arm twisting will get the required answer.
John Morgensen says:
July 22, 2012 at 6:01 pm
There is a local convenience store that sells alcohol/ethanol free gas that I use in an airplane. My understanding is that the ethanol is mixed at the distribution center so it is possible to get a truck load of real gas. As someone posted earlier, marinas and airports are good places to look for real gas and businesses that listen to customer demand.
=================
The fuel sold at airports, is what it says it is by federal law, not to mention the pilots that can feel the octane contained and would surely shut down a watered down supply.
philincalifornia says:
July 22, 2012 at 6:12 pm
“Total turf in the USA 46 million acres vs. 35 million acres for corn ethanol.”
And…
A. Scott says:
July 22, 2012 at 5:18 pm
“Turfgrass is America’s biggest crop.”
Then, A. Scott says in the same comment:
“The 2005 corn crop was over 81 million acres so it clearly is not the largest crop…”
And Guy said turf was the “largest” crop”: “FACT: The largest crop grown in the United States is… wait for it… TURF! That’s right, lawn.”
Turf is either the largest U.S. crop, or it isn’t. There seems to be a lot of dispute over what should be a simple fact.
Sure you have; and I have (and have seen) facts which place your ‘facts’ into the category of ‘in dispute’ if not outright falsified.
When you cite studies which do not include critical factors, studies which minimize other factors and completely ignore additional factors it’s easy to prove any darn thing which you have set as a predetermined goal, or subscribe-to like an agenda (eco-greenie or ‘Peak Oiler’) whether you are ‘paid’ disinformationalist (or not) or simply appearing on websites as a ‘debate subject specialist’ (doubtful).
SO SORRY, we will have to agree to disagree and let the readers draw their own conclusions … I still recommend “Follow the Money”, and for me this is indicating ‘crony capitalism’ (scam) as it relates to ethanol and food use as a fuel; too many hangers-on that stand to make money given the billions of dollars ‘in play’ to take simply take anybody’s ‘word’ for it (like yours for instance) on this subject.
.
I remember years ago I heard an NPR program on ethanol, and how Brazil was more advanced than the US because they produced some vehicles which burned 100% ethanol. The program went on to mention each 100% ethanol-fuled car consumed the same amount of grain as it would take to feed 50 people. I have no idea how accurate that ratio is but it caused me to do a quick back of the envelope caluclation. At the time US population was about 280 million and I just “guessed” that we had 100 million cars on the road. If all those cars burn just 10% ethanol, that’s the same as 10 million cars burning 100%, which is the equivalant of feeding 500 million people on grain. In other words, the effect would be like almost tripling our population.
It turns out I was way off on the number of vehicles in the US; according to US Bureau of Transportation statistics in 2009 there were 254,212,610 register passenger vehicles. Even assuming a significant percentage of them are recreational vehicles not used every day, we’re still looking at probably 200 million daily use cars, each one burning enough corn at 10% ethanol to feed 5 people.
The real problem with ethanol and other biofuel programs is while the crop used to make the fuel is “renewable”, the land it requires to grow it is a fixed resource. Land used to feed cars is not available to feed people and animals, or set aside as parks or other greenspace. If the Congress passed an immediate 100% ethanol fuel mandate, it would require bringing millions of acres of new farmland into use, such as all that land which used to be farms and has been allowed to go back to forests, or turned into malls and housing developments.
The cost (capital and environmental) of developing all that extra farmland is never considered by the biofuel advocates.
40% of the American corn crop is now converted to ethanol. If one includes all of the energy inputs to grow and harvest the corn, transport the corn, triple distill the ethanol, and so there is a net loss of energy and increase in CO2 to convert corn to ethanol. The calculation is made positive by including the energy content of the stock which is fed to animals however that is irrelevant as the question is does producing corn and converting it to ethanol reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It does not.
As there is limited agricultural land on the planet and the US and other Western countries (EU) have mandated 20% of transportation fuel from biofuel, virgin forests are being cut down to grow food to convert to biofuel. There has been an increase in malnutrition as a result in the loss of food for human consumption.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/slyutse/as_i_discussed_here_last.html
EPA’s RFS accounting shows corn ethanol today is worse than gasoline
http://plevin.berkeley.edu/docs/Plevin-Comments-on-final-RFS2-v7.pdf
http://www.senseandsustainability.net/2012/01/26/scrapping-corn-ethanol-subsidies-for-a-smarter-biofuels-policy/
“From its first appearance in 1978 to this past December 31st, the policy provided over $20 billion in subsidies to American ethanol producers, costing the U.S. taxpayer almost $6 billion in 2011 alone. Enacted in the spirit of “energy independence,” ethanol subsidies became a redoubt for the agricultural lobby and a lighting rod for criticism from environmentalists and sustainability advocates”
“To add to the environmental cost of U.S. corn ethanol is the potential of its expanded production to raise global food prices, potentially increasing the likelihood of social unrest and instability worldwide. Some 40 percent of the American corn crop is now distilled into fuel, and The Economist has estimated that if that amount of corn were used as food instead, global food supplies of corn would grow by 14 percent. Both the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization have noted the positive link between U.S. corn ethanol production and rising corn prices. Because of America’s position as the leading corn producer and the status of Chicago-traded corn prices as a benchmark for global ones, the U.S. can have an outsize impact on worldwide food prices. Indeed, corn prices have more than tripled in the last ten years, in no small part due to the ethanol boom.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
“The Clean Energy Scam
The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil’s filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.”
“But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the f
Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.’s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn’t exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
A. Scott says:
July 22, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Gail … I absolutely agree that small farmers get the shaft. The middleman and manufacturers make majority of profit with a fraction of the risks….
Were I a smaller farmer I would be a proponent of the ADM’s – a rising tide raises all ships. They certainly have many negatives but at end of the day higher prices and improved yields and efficiency are good for the farmers aren’t they?
________________________
No, farmers are not better off when you are dealing with monospony, a situation where several producers compete for the business of only one buyer.
ADM has already been busted for price fixing. Purdue University: ADM was at the center of at least three international price-fixing conspiracies…
Apparently you are unaware of two important things (due possibly to the inexperience of youth, perhaps mental faculty deterioration with age, or at the very least no familiarity as it relates to living among a population in civil society or perhaps for some other unknown reason) for which ‘lawns’ provide a solution :
(A) A soil-erosion mitigation technique
(B) Code requirements (‘Code’ as in building codes and requirements for exterior ‘ground cover’)
For (A) above, there are other solutions but none so ubiquitous or universal or which serves the purpose of providing an all-purpose ground covering with the additional purpose of proving a human-being ‘friendly’ interface surface which serves not only for picnics but for safe ‘play’ with a one year old as well …
For (B) above, ground cover as mandated by ‘code’ must adhere to certain requirements, such as mowed height (this helps with rodent and pest control; as well as reducing potential fire threats in dry weather). Texture and type cover, of course, are in individual choice, as long as allowed by code.
.
81 million acres of corn is accurate. This is a scientific analysis of corn ethanol mandated demand on price and reserves. Mandating corn ethanol standards benefits agribusiness at the expense of everyone else.
“U.S. energy policy now mandates that about 15 percent of global corn production be converted into ethanol for fuel use. We use a structural VAR to estimate the dynamic effect on corn prices of the quadrupling of corn‐based ethanol production since 2005. Our model allows for ethanol production to affect corn prices not only by increasing current corn demand, but also by raising the demand for inventories. We estimate that corn prices were about 30 percent greater, on average, between 2006 and 2010 than they would have been if ethanol production had remained at 2005 levels.”
“In 2011, 38 percent of U.S. corn was used to make ethanol for blending with gasoline, up from 14 percent in 2005. The federal government mandated this rapid growth through the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires a minimum quantity of ethanol content in gasoline. The RFS was introduced in the 2005 U.S. Energy Policy Act. In 2007, under the provisions of the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, this standard almost doubled. Under the expanded RFS, corn ethanol now comprises 10 percent of finished motor gasoline in the U.S., up from 3 percent in 2005. In this article, we estimate that the 2007 expansion in the RFS caused a persistent 30 percent increase in the price of corn.”
http://agecon.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/aaron-smith/docs/Carter_Rausser_Smith_Ethanol_Paper_submit.pdf
“Corn prices are naturally surging in response; current corn prices are 21% higher than they were a year ago. Because so much of the corn crop is devoted to meeting ethanol mandates, there is a potential supply conflict being set up between food producers and ethanol producers.
This was always the risk in my mind; that a major drought could reduce the corn crop and result in surging fuel and food prices at the same time. This creates a situation that politicians who are not friendly to the ethanol industry will likely exploit. It won’t likely lead to an end to the mandates, but support for a 15% ethanol mandate (E15) — something the industry desperately wants — will likely erode in the face of the weak corn crop ”
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/07/13/poor-corn-crop-will-have-major-impact-on-ethanol-market/
“In fact, using 33 percent of all US corn for ethanol production has increased the price of meat, milk, and eggs by 80 percent for the US consumer. As many farmers switched from raising wheat and other grains to raising corn, the price of bread increased by 100 to 200 percent. The most serious concerns, however, have been the grain shortages in other nations, especially developing nations. As grain becomes scare, the rates of starvation and malnutrition soar.”
Jim,
I’ll add to your critiques:
A. Scott’s link says:
All told, according to a report to be published later this year in the journal Environmental Management, some 40 million acres of America are covered in lawns, making turf grass our largest irrigated crop.
See the conflation? “All told” does not mean that turf is our biggest crop. That total specifically includes all U.S. lawns, golf courses, parkland, etc. Those are not crops.
And philincalifornia’s link states:
Total acres of turf in the U.S. is estimated to be 46.5 million acres.
Again, that is not the total U.S. “crop”. That refers to the total acres of all turf grass in the U.S., including home lawns, parks and golf courses [of which the U.S. has 1,000,000.]
A. Scott stated: “Turfgrass is America’s biggest crop.” That is incorrect. It appears that the actual turf grass “crop” is fairly small compared with staple grain crops. Turf grass is far from being the largest crop. That is the only thing my original comment questioned.
BTW the residual protein, oil, and fiber is included in other categories of corn use and is fully accounted for in official USDA figures.
Smokey says:
July 22, 2012 at 6:52 pm
—————————
No, the total corn crop is just under 100 million acres. Corn ethanol accounts for around 40% of that, which is where my 35 million number came from. You can bet that Mr. Richard Hamilton, the CEO of Ceres has his numbers right. He’s been through some major league diligence recently.
I think that Guy was being sarcastic when he called turf a crop. OK, he should not have called it a “crop”.
Rather than getting bogged down in this drivel, why don’t you doubters read and understand the Hamilton presentation that I linked to, and see how it relates to the economy of the United States vis-a-vis who we pay the money to for the liquids we pump into our gas tanks.
http://www.ascension-publishing.com/BIZ/Ceres-ABM.pdf
5 to 7% ethanol as a fuel oxygenation additive is sustainable but the soon to be required 15% mandate will not be sustainable and will double from today the cost of meat dairy and eggs.
Jo Nova is flogging this topic, too. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/sugar-cane-ethanol-biofuel-produces-10-times-the-pollution-of-gasoline-and-diesel/
That is quite a statement she has quoted Indur Goklany as having said. I wouldn’t doubt the numbers. I know it is more than zero and that is too high.
So my rapier wit and contribution to that thread was to introduce DeathTankers!! We had Death Trains, now we have DeathTankers hauling Ethanol from the plates of children to the SUV-driving Soccer Moms of Beverly Hills (sorry – a drama queen moment).
For people that argue ethanol has no impact on food prices, how do you explain the fact food prices increased. Obviously it isn’t a supply only problem (70 million Chinese a year moving out of poverty means they switch from rice to meat), but if the market works as efficiently as people assert, it would be able to deal with this fine.
Guy
“FACT: US crops like corn, sugar, cotton et cetera, are grossly subsidised at the expense of the rest of the developing world. Go read up on how and why Cuba’s sugar industry was destroyed. Or why Mexican farmers have had to give up their livelihood – a livelihood that persisted for generations in the birthplace of corn.”
That isn’t, in itself, a bad thing. The US has .7% of its population involved in food production while Mexico and Cuba have 13.7 and 20% while the respective GDP contribution is 3.8 and 4%. Having people leave agriculture and move into more productive sectors.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
The problem is that while in a functioning market economy the economy would be able to absorb these individuals and find them more profitable employment, not all countries have the a functioning market economy or the resources (human capital, capital, etc) to adjust. However, I believe this is mostly a problem for Africa- most of Latin America is developed and wealthy enough to adjust.
Guy
“FACT: People on this planet aren’t starving because there isn’t enough food. They’re starving because the distribution system is corrupt and because capitalism only works when somebody, somewhere, is being exploited. Do yourself a favor and watch Darwin’s Nightmare. I promise, henceforth, you will never look at a starving child in the same light again. ”
That is both right and wrong. People haven’t been in danger of starving to death due to lack of food world wide since the end of world war 2. However, the distribution system isn’t corrupt- it works like every other commodity. The problem is that the distribution system can break down, usually to political crazyness or war.
Capitalism works fine without exploitation. Capitalism is private ownership of assets. You are thinking of the free market (they aren’t they same- you can have capitalism with price controls for example). However the free market doesn’t require exploitation- that only occurs when one agent has monopoly power or political sway. It is hard to exploit people purely through market mechanisms (it can be done- see company towns.).
Looked at the summary for Darwin’s Nightmare. Essentially rich people are willing to pay more for food than poor people and get first dibs. Most of the resulting horror in the film seems to be the result of having people who are dirt poor. Given that 80% of Tanzania’s labor force is in agriculture and that is where 85% of their exports come from I think it is wrong to blame the fishing industry for any famine.
Looking through this which provided many of the reviews and gave insight into its supporters mindset
http://www.darwinsnightmare.com/reviews.htm
well, it suggests many of the people who liked the film have no idea what they are talking about. For example-
“If, say, the World Bank dictated that 50% of the fish had to remain in Tanzania at a price the locals could afford, that would be fairly simple to monitor. If food security for Africa were a priority, that is.”
See the problem yet? The locals would immediately take the fish and resell it on the world market- after all, the fish are more expensive than most foods so now they can get food and cash. So either the sale price would be bid up until profit was minimal or the government would keep prices low and give the fish to connected individuals.
_Jim says:
July 22, 2012 at 7:17 pm
—————————
Actually Jim, I’m not a huge fan of lawns (I prefer vineyards), but I was being a bit sarcastic there. Please tell me you were too, and I bit the hook … !!
Ian H says July 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm
The US farmer lobby paid for this legislation to go through and it wants its money’s worth…..
_______________________________________
Jim says: @ur momisugly July 22, 2012 at 3:27 pm
….Farm Lobby Beats Back Assault On Subsidies….
_________________________________
Smoke and mirrors _Jim. I can call myself anything I want but it does not mean that is who I really am. A bunch of us farmers scrapped together money so a couple of us could join and go to the 2008 NIAA Annual Meeting. Here is the report back link I am including it to give you a feel for the difference between real farmers and the Astro-turf farmers.
Now look at what YOUR LINK from the Wall Street Journal is actually saying
So who exactly is the American Farm Bureau? A quick internet check finds this (Something I was already well aware of)
Then there is the other BIG LIE
So what does the actual data tell us because these are the facts the MSM never bothers to tell the public.
Agriculture contributes more than $950 billion — 16 percent — to the GNP each year. link
The following is from the 2007 Ag census
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/index.asp
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_063_063.pdf
There are 2.2 million farms in the USA. According to the 2007 census over half the farms, 1,167,751, reported losses, with an average loss $15,596.
Only 396,054 farms have gains of over $25,000 a year, that means 1.8 million are near or BELOW the poverty threshold.
1,070,668 farms have less than 25% of their income from farming.
Only 4,048 are full time farmers deriving 100% of the income from farming.
There are 34,726 Corporate farms of those only 5,105 are non Family farms.
The average age is 55.4 years with many farmers beyond or approaching retirement age
According to the USDA, almost 90 percent of the total income of rancher or farmer households now comes from outside earnings. More than 60 percent of US farms are resource, residential or retirement farms.There is a widening gap between retail price and farm value. a USDA market basket of food has increased 2.8 percent while the farm value of that food has fallen by 35.7 percent!
Now tell me how the heck are American farmers, already working two jobs so YOU can get cheap food, going to afford the time or money to deal with the politicians in DC. No wonder the buyers can pass themselves off as the “Farm Lobby” . The more than $80 million into lobbying last year certainly did not come from the 1.8 million are near or BELOW the poverty threshold. or the 34,726 Corporate farms.