Guest essay by David Archibald
A correspondent in the Corn Belt emailed on 10th August:
“Here in north central Illinois at exit 56 on I-80, most of the corn was planted by May 15.
The GDD totals since May 15 at Moline, Illinois.
- May 15-31 + 1.7 GDD >normal.
- June 1-30 – 32.7 GDD < normal.
- July 1-31 – 94.5 GDD < normal.
- August 1-9 – 33.9 GDD < normal.
Total since May 15 = 1695.0 GDD = -159.4 < normal, or about 8 normal days in early September. Corn that has a 2,500 GDD rating needs about 40 days yet. Most of the corn planted in NC Illinois is in the 2,450 GDD to 2,700 GDD maturity area.
The area of greatest risk is in IA north of Route 30, MN, WI and the Dakotas.”
The corn market doesn’t see a problem with corn prices off 30%-odd from where they started the year, as shown in Figure 1 at right.
To illustrate the problem in parts of the Corn Belt, Figure 2 shows the average Growing Degree Days (GDD) experienced in Northwest Indiana, fairly close to the center of the Corn Belt:
From where we are at the time of the incoming correspondence, marked on the graph at 10th August, the heat received by the corn crop starts falling away.
Staying in Northwest Indiana, if we assume that the crop there was also 159 GDD below a normal season, Figure 3 illustrates the effect of on achieving the necessary 2500 GDD for crop maturity:
The upper red line shows the cumulative GDD for a crop planted on 15th May if the season had been normal from that date. Under that case, 2,500 GDD would be achieved by 26th September well before the first frost date for the area. The season has been colder than average with GDD for July 15 per cent below normal. The green line shows the fate of the crop if the season reverts to normality from 10th August. Under that case, 2,500 GDD is reached by 17th October, very close to the first Fall frost date. The lower dark blue line shows the effect of the season being 10% cooler from here.
While we cheer on the Arctic sea ice extent, there are farmers in the northern half of the Corn Belt who are now concerned about how their crop will finish.
Related articles
- Corn in U.S. Seen by Cordonnier at Risk of Damage From Frost (bloomberg.com)
- Indiana Farmers Look for the Heat to Return (hoosieragtoday.com)
UPDATE: Lows this morning from Dr. Ryan Maue – Anthony
A GMO is short corn that does not waste energy on un-needed height greenery.
It was in the upper 40s F this morning in southern Minnesota. However, it is supposed to warm up this weekend with slightly above normal temperatures. Farming corn was strong in this area back in the 1950s and 1960s as well. Personally, I don’t see a big problem at the moment. The biggest fear is an early hard freeze which would halt the growth.
Doug Huffman says:
> A GMO is short corn that does not waste energy on un-needed height greenery.
Coz it gets enough from the soil, so can afford to have smaller leaf area. Which gives an even better punch to one of my friends’ maxim that the modern agriculture can be thought of as the convertion of petroleum products into food using sunlight and soil as catalysts. The author of this maxim is himself from central Illinois, where they have good intution about energy conversion in general.
In an historical context, corn prices today are lower than they have been in the past. The recent ethanol mandates have bumped up prices lately. Wheat is not much that much different than it was in terms of inflation-adjusted prices. Corn and Wheat adjusted for CPI back to 1784 here.
http://s22.postimg.org/ixdf5un7l/Real_Corn_Wheat_Prices_Jul2013.png
In nominal prices, hard to tell what’s going on.
http://s23.postimg.org/54qoxvq6z/Nominal_Corn_Wheat_Prices_Jul2013.png
Drought and/or rain and/or climate does not appear to be the big driver of these prices. It is shocks like Wars especially, or a Soviet collective farm failure in 1973 or an ethanol mandate in 2004.
I have to confess I don’t know much about corn farming.
However, it seems to me that a certain amount of fuel ethanol still has to be produced each year by law, and much of that come from corn. Thus, the amount of corn going into ethanol production won’t budge, regardless of how much corn is actually grown.
So, if the corn harvest is smaller and the ethanol guys still buy up the required amount, that just leaves less corn for food and feed.
Rhoda R said @ur momisugly August 14, 2013 at 5:10 am
Fruitset in your cukes is by insect pollination, but tomatoes are self-fertile and the pollen falls from the male part of the flower onto the ovaries. I shake the stalks of my tomato plants mid-morning; commercially growers spray tom-set onto their plants.
Most likely cause of your poor fruit set is depressed temperatures and excess humidity. If the plants are growing luxuriantly, they will be reluctant to set fruit. Try slicing through a few roots on a couple of plants and see how they respond to a threat to their survival.
‘Free money’ (zero or very low interest cost) to traders (incl commodities traders) who find this an easy area to ‘work’; pls send my thanks (/sarc) to Ben Bernanke for that (the ‘QE’ policy of the Fed) …
.
Gene Selkov says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:54 am
It is said that half the world’s protein comes from the conversion of fossil fuels to nitrogenous fertiliser and thence to plant protein. A Yara fertilisers presentation I read recently showed the results of European wheat yield trial which went from 2 tonnes/hectare without any nitrogenous fertiliser to 8 tonnes/hectare fully fertilised. So locally three quarters of protein consumed comes from fossil fuels. But one day the fossil fuels will run out and certainly become very expensive in the lifetimes of most of the readers of this blog. The University of Minnesota had been experimenting with conversion of wind to ammonia. That work seems to have gone quiet. The good news is that might be viable at $200/bbl on my figuring. Cheap nuclear power will food costs down. Without it, a lot of the world’s population won’t be able to afford food.
So, if the corn harvest is smaller and the ethanol guys still buy up the required amount, that just leaves less corn for food and feed.
==============
I’m told by a mid-west agi research scientist, who also believes agw is a crock, that corn ethanol is good for the farmers. while ethanol production does remove the sugars from the corn, the left-over by-product still makes good hog feed. in effect the price to the farmer is improved because the corn can be sold twice. he wasn’t very concerned about shortages. the better return to the farmer means they will plant more. so maybe corn ethanol production is not quite as simple a problem as it might first appear.
David Archibald:
In your post at August 14, 2013 at 6:50 am you say
OK, but I have a question.
How long after pigs grow wings and fly will that be?
Richard
But one day the fossil fuels will run out and certainly become very expensive in the lifetimes of most of the readers of this blog.
==========
that is largely an illusion of inflation. 60 years ago gasoline was $0.25 a gallon. Today it is $4 a gallon. However, history shows that every 70 years or so the purchasing power of $1 shrinks to $0.01. So in terms of purchasing power, the cost of gasoline has remain relatively constant for the past 100 years. Which means that oil cannot be “running out”, otherwise it would be reflected in the market price.
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
Which “CPI”? There appear to be several CPI indices including CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), CPI for the Elderly (CPI-E) and Core CPI. Src – wiki
Additionally, the CPI excludes taxes, such as income and Social Security taxes, and energy and food price changes which are excluded from the Federal Reserve’s calculation of core inflation.
Core inflation – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_inflation – “ The preferred measure by the Federal Reserve of core inflation in the United States is the change in the core Personal consumption expenditures price index (PCE). This index is based on a dynamic consumption basket. Economic variables adjusted by this price deflator are expressed in chained dollars, rather than the alternative constant-dollar measure based on a fixed goods’ basket.”
Back to the graphics:
Perhaps this last chart *is* the better indicator?
And, an alternate, more open-loop take on inflation from a world-wide perspective and the impact seen by other countries vis-a-vis food-price inflation:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tale-two-inflations-why-us-cpi-flawed-and-why-bernanke-will-maintain-zirp-revolutions-rage
.
Oops, mods – must be a link thingy that gets some comments flagged for moderation!
***
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:22 am
Last year by this date, Central Indiana had close to 40 days with temperatures > 90F for the high, with about 10 over 100F. This year, we have had FOUR (that’s right 4) days with temperatures > 90F for the high, with none over 100F.
***
Similar here in the mid-Appalachians. A mere three days reaching 90F or more — 90,90, and 91F. 50F (cold!) this morning w/breezy winds — alot cooler if it had been calm. Evaporation from well-watered forests & afternoon clouds kept temps down during the so-called heat-wave.
Richard S Courtney says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:59 am
The UK is going to run out sooner than most. It has had two Hubbert peaks – coal in 1913 and oil in 1999. You have converted your largest power station to burning woodchips at 7.5 mtpa from the US. You are a worshipper of the Gods of the Market who promise winged pigs and abundance for all. Ok, there could be abundance for all but we are not going to get there on our current trajectory. The UK is importing woodchips to make electric power. What would happen to the price of UK-grown food if you used woodchips to make your nitrogenous fertiliser?
The UK is sitting on vast resources of shale gas.Peak oil is not an issue there.
David Archibald said @ur momisugly August 14, 2013 at 6:50 am
David, that might apply to a specially selected field, but doesn’t make any sense in what might laughingly be called The Real World. I can recall two papers regarding fertiliser response of cereals in Europe published during the 1980s. Both papers concluded that over a 30 year period the yield increase from artificial fertilisers was ~15% and insufficient to cover the cost of the fertiliser.
The response of wheat to artificial N is complex. Here’s a link to a WA Dept of Ag page:
http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/PC_92452.html
In Australia at least, most bag N is applied to control protein content rather than influence yield. Yield has rather more to do with soil moisture than applied fertilisers.
It was interesting to hear organic and conventional farmers comparing experiences at a conference I attended in Adelaide in the early 1980s. Cereal growers relying heavily on bag fertiliser had more serious disease problems than those relying on rotation between pasture and sheep with cereals.
GDD is one of several important factors. Another is when the crop was planted. On my southwest Wisconsin dairy farm, everything this year was about two weeks later than normal due to wet and cold–even the wild morel harvest was two weeks late. We had to push until well after midnight for over a week end of May to get the fields finally planted. Another is heat stress (over 95F in dry conditions). Another is moisture during anthesis, which by July means rain. We have been OK on those two. Current outlook is for better than 170 bu/acre, about normal for our area, unless we get an early frost.. Last year because of dryness we barely managed 110. It’s called farming, and even if you have irrigation (we don’t) is always weather dependent.
@ur momisugly Richard S Courtney
Superior, sarcastic and ignorant as always – opinion unencumbered by any real information.
@ur momisugly David Archibald
Start watching for those flying pigs . . .
Worldwide discovery of oil peaked in 1964 and has followed a steady decline since. The world’s leading petroleum geologists agree that more than 95 percent of all recoverable oil has now been found. About 2.5 trillion barrels of conventional oil was in the ground when we started drilling the first well. Continental US oil production peaked in the 1970’s; Alaska’s peaked around 1988, and by 2005, 90% of its oil had been extracted.
At our current rate of over 30 billion barrels a year, approximately half of the world’s total reserve has been consumed, which means the world is nearing its peak production plateau – estimated to occur between 2014 and 2025. More generous estimates place world peak oil production at around 2050 or later.
90% of US transportation relies on oil. Our abundant food supply is also oil-based. Since the 1940s, agriculture has dramatically increased its productivity, due largely to the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and increased mechanization. This oil-driven boom in food productivity is called the Green Revolution. The increase in food production has allowed world population to grow dramatically over the last 50 years. Pesticides rely upon oil as a critical ingredient, and fertilizers require natural gas. Farm machinery also requires oil.
From Wiki leaks it has emerged that Senior Saudi energy officials have privately warned US and European counterparts that OPEC would have an “extremely difficult time” meeting demand and that the reserves of Saudi have been overstated by as much as 40%. A Saudi Aramaco official has been quoted, “Even an attempt to get up to 12 million barrels per day would wreak havoc within a decade by causing damage to the oil fields.”
Exxon Mobil Corporation, one of the world’s largest publicly owned petroleum companies, is the most forthright of the major oil companies having had the courage and honesty to quietly publish the declining discovery trend, based on sound industry data with reserve revisions properly backdated. Furthermore, the company is running page-size advertisements in European papers stressing the immense challenges to be faced in meeting future energy demand, hinting that the challenges might not be met despite its considerable expertise. Chevron recently joined their campaign publishing an advertisement in national newspapers stating that the ‘Era of Easy Oil is Over.’
See the full ad at: http://www.oildecline.com/chevron.pdf
James B
Comments above excerpted, with edits, from these sites:
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion
http://www.oildecline.com/
WASHINGTON, August 12, 2013 –U.S. corn growers are expected to produce a record-high 13.8 billion bushels of corn in 2013, according to the Crop Production report issued today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The forecast production is up 28 percent from drought-hit 2012.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2013/08_12_2013.asp
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:22 am
Here in New Hampshire we sometimes escape 90s altogether, but this year we’ve had 13, with the last on July 19th. OTOH, we had 7 days in June with a high below 70, it was a wet month.
Personally, I prefer cool summers, but I do like local corn….
“Rud Istvan says:
August 14, 2013 at 8:23 am
Current outlook is for better than 170 bu/acre, about normal for our area, unless we get an early frost.. Last year because of dryness we barely managed 110.”
I think, with the weather experienced so far, “early frost” is on a lot of farmers’ minds. Every night we get down into the 40’s or close to it lately. Usually early August runs much warmer.
One thing about the 2500 GDD requirement: a lot of farmers got their corn in very late due to wet fields and turned in their usual seed corn for shorter-maturity varieties. That will help unless there’s an early frost to go along with the late planting.
As for the WSJ article showing the huge drop in corn prices, I wonder if talk isn’t circulating about removing the ethanol mandate, should the corn crop end up severely reduced. After all, given his recent track record, our President can now apparently just do it unilaterally without any input from Congress.
James B:
Your post at August 14, 2013 at 8:30 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/13/the-us-corn-belt-and-the-summer-chill/#comment-1389769
says in total to me
You really, really cannot resist the temptation to make a fool of yourself at every opportunity.
Had you bothered to use the WUWT search facility you would have found numerous examples which show that – as always – your ignorant, inferior and offensive comment is plain wrong.
I have repeatedly explained why David Archibald’s assertion is wrong.
He knows it, regular WUWT readers know it, and you could have known it prior to you again making a fool of yourself.
For example, here is a comment from me during a thread which discussed one of the articles about Peak Oil by David Archibald on WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/27/peak-oil-now-for-the-downslope/#comment-780303
Richard
@ur momisugly richard –
Charming as always. It’s clear I’m getting under your skin. I’m having fun.
I cited authoritative oil industry sources, easily located with a google search, contradicting your assertion. Once again, you sidestepped the actual information presented, masking it with a high-dudgeon snit. Poor Richard.
In Econ 101, one can assume an unlimited supply of any commodity in the market.
But in the real world, the finite supply of any non-renewable commodity has an effect on its market value. As supplies dwindle and commodity prices increase, the market shifts to other commodities in response. The oil companies know this – and are addressing it.
Crops renew annually. Coal and oil do not. The oil companies and the companies that serve them know that too. US peak oil has happened, and world peak oil is projected by authoritative sources, cited – suggesting investment in Pig Airlines.
I do agree with your description of how markets for commodities operate.
However, you again assert authoritative information without citing your sources, Any Cambridge schoolboy knows better. For example:
“There is sufficient coal to provide synthetic crude oil for at least the next 300 years.” Source?
BTW, you worked for the British coal industry, right?
(http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney)
You may disagree, but it is clear the use of coal for fuel is contraindicated by two other considerations. First, the global warming contribution from the emissions from the process of converting coal or other materials to fuels, followed by the emissions from fuel combustion itself. In the US for example, transportation generates more than one-third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and 30 percent of America’s total global warming emissions, per the US-EPA.
Second are the public health costs and deaths from pollution created burning coal and other hydrocarbon fuels. I refer you to the 12 June 2013 Guardian article:online – Excerpt: “Air pollution from Europe’s 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year and costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days, says a major study of the health impacts of burning coal to generate electricity.” (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths)
Best –
James B
@David Archibald –
The UK is importing wood chips to run power plants because the greenie-weenies in the UK won’t allow the power plants to use Coal. It has nothing to do with a lack of supply of hydrocarbon fuels, and everything to do with completely stupid governmental policy.
If the majority of countries of the world allowed more coal mining and more fracking, the world would have enough coal, oil, and natural gas to run for at least another 250 – 350 years even including growing consumption rates. I don’t know about you, but that goes WELL beyond my lifetime!
One of the links on the right side of the page here at WUWT is a link to masterresource. You should do some reading there perhaps. We aren’t anywhere near peak-anything when it comes to hydrocarbon supplies.
Will believe it ONLY when reflected in pricing that respects the reality of decreasing supply to consuming markets (and not just quote: ‘discovery trends’ which may be a potential term of art with specific inherent meaning) rather than monetary supply policy (e.g. QE) from the ‘central planners’ AKA the Federal Reserve et al allowing commodities traders (read that as: investment banks) with QE bucks to bid-up said commodities.
.