Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Time to up corn acreage

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby Heineken » Wed 08 Nov 2006, 10:29:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'W')e'd better start getting used to the idea of paying $10 for a box of cornflakes.


Don't get me excited. A weekend with a tractor and I can plant 15 acres of corn on a whim. Thats probably around 1200 bushels of production. At $3 a Bushel it ain't worth it. $10 for a box of cornflakes on the other hand....


The laws of economics will apply less and less to an increasingly damaged and depleted natural world, and we're already seeing that with a number of commodities.

There's a lot more to going from corn seed to corn flakes than tooling around on your tractor for a weekend, AgentR.

And your cornfield won't be such a gold mine if it costs more for fertilizers, pesticides, fuel, etc., or if GW-spawned drought sizzles your field.

With only 15 acres you won't be able to take advantage of the economics of scale. Your crop will cost far more to raise per acre than someone with 150 acres or 1500 acres.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby AgentR » Wed 08 Nov 2006, 19:09:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'W')ith only 15 acres you won't be able to take advantage of the economics of scale. Your crop will cost far more to raise per acre than someone with 150 acres or 1500 acres.


Yeah, I know. I've done the math. Still one could wish. $10 per box of corn flakes makes you wonder though, currently the box is about $3; so that would be $10 a bushel, gross $~12,000... I'm pretty sure you're past break-even at that point; that is unless ferilizer goes nuts. We get more than enough water in most years, and GW models show increased precipitation not drought. Could be problematic if late spring storms come along and really hammer a field; the corn plant is tall enough to be a target, but not strong enough to withstand the pounding at that time of year.

Still, I know its just idle thought, it'll continue to just grow grass along with the fruit trees I'll order next week.....

The reason it gets my attention is that most of my ancestors grew corn in the area when small farmers could still farm, I'm probably channelling them or something.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby AgentR » Wed 08 Nov 2006, 19:58:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', ' '). . . $10 a bushel, gross $~12,000... I'm pretty sure you're past break-even at that point; that is unless ferilizer goes nuts.. . . .etc.
there is no 'break-even point' when it comes to fossil fuels. The entire society (including its infrastructure, pricing, economic and social metrics, etc.) will change to reflect the increasing effort required to do work.


I'm very sleepy from staying up way too late watching the game,and I was hoping to avoid trying to explain this. Mostly because I ain't doing it regardless. Fruit trees are what is mostly on my mind at the moment.

That said.

The break-even score I used above is an indicator. Reality is a different trick. There are two ways to grow food on this scale One is the commercial method as it is now, you get 120+ bushels an acre for the trouble, and as long as fertilizer/roundup/pesticide is cheap and diesel is cheap (under $50/gal) it works well. The other way is not currently practiced. Yes, still use the tractor to set the field up, but go without purchased inputs after that. Yield is much lower, but so are costs. There is a balance point where the net is higher even though the gross is lower.

As a risk-averse mathematician / programmer / accountant I find that balance point very intriguing.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 08 Nov 2006, 21:43:22

Food will always be valuable, R, even moreso in the future. Figure out a way to grow food on that acreage without fossil fuels (or very little) and you'll be able to make a living.
Ludi
 

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby joewp » Thu 09 Nov 2006, 02:17:00

I just watched a program on National Geographic Channel that showed some new packaging is being made out of...

Corn.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby fletch961 » Thu 09 Nov 2006, 03:17:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')eah, I know. I've done the math. Still one could wish. $10 per box of corn flakes makes you wonder though, currently the box is about $3; so that would be $10 a bushel, gross $~12,000...


Actually corn has almost nothing to do with price of a box of corn flakes. Corn makes up 3% of the price of a box of corn flakes. The other 97% is marketing, packaging, processing, profit, etc.

A two pound box of corn flakes ($3-$4 dollars in the store) contains 12 cents worth of corn. That with corn at the ridiculously high price of $3 a bushel (you know the same price it was 30 years ago). In order to get corn flakes up to $10 a box you would need corn to go up to about $150+ a bushel. Hmm, $150 a bushel * 1200 bushels = $180,000. Sorry, but corn won't get the high--and corn flakes won't hit $10 a box due to high corn prices. I realize ad agency have to increase their profits over time, so eventually yes corn flakes will cost $10 a box, but what does have to do with corn prices?

As for the original poster--$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o where do you find the extra acreage? Take some land out of CRP/plant less beans??? I know of a lot of great lawn space that could be converted to corn!


You answered the question yourself. Last time I checked there was 30 million acres in the CRP. Many of those acres are up for renewal this year. Plus there was a bumper crop of soybeans. Fewer acres of soybean next year.
User avatar
fletch961
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun 05 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby Heineken » Thu 09 Nov 2006, 10:47:00

Good post, fletch.

The basic point is that as energy prices rise and the resource base crumbles in the face of infinite demand, the economic laws we've assumed are universal and permanent gradually fall apart.

And with them the dreams of El Dorado in a cornfield.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby fletch961 » Thu 09 Nov 2006, 18:51:16

Actually Heineken I was agreeing with AgentR and I don't see any breakdown in economic theory. At some price point AgentR will be motivated to plant his 15 acres ($10 a bushel?), same I will be motivated to plant corn on the land I have up north ($6 a bushel?), same as thousand of farmers will be motivated to remove acres from the CPR($3-5 a bushel). None of these price points come anywhere near what it would required to get a box of cornflakes up to $10 a box ($150+ a bushel).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he basic point is that as energy prices rise and the resource base crumbles in the face of infinite demand


No such thing as infinite demand. Demand is always limited by supply--and no supply is infinite.

Last time corn hit $5 a bushel ethanol plant shut down or at least reduced output-more profitable to sell the corn they had rather turn it into ethanol. No breakdown in economics there. Supply was constrained the market provided 100s of millions of bushels by destroying demand.

All those ethanol plants under construction will be delayed/never built if corn goes much higher - no demand there. Laws will be changed if corn prices go much higher (7.5 million gallons of ethanol a year will go away). No $10 corn flakes to see here.

The only reason ethanol exists is because the US (and other wealthy nations) has a cheap food policy. Subsidize farmers just enough so they don't go out business. The laws of economic aren't allowed to work - too much corn is produced and the government has to figure out how to get rid of the surplus. The CRP, free food to poor nations, and ethanol plant use up this surplus, but at the first sign of increased prices the government releases acres from the CRP. Same with ethanol plants- they are part of a cheap food policy not the other way around. If a country wants food security it needs to produce to much food every year in case something goes wrong (drought, etc.). What do you think will go first in a bad year ethanol or food? I've already showed that high corn prices have little affect on food prices, so demand destruction is going to come else where.

Grain is so cheap right now that most of it is fed to animals. When grain get too expensive to feed to animals I'll start to worry. If diesel gets too expensive to plant corn I'll worry. But right now the box costs more than food inside the box-and I can always buy the cornflakes without the shiny box and the brand name.
User avatar
fletch961
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun 05 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby Heineken » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 09:37:13

Demand for a commodity becomes "infinite" when the population's inelastic level of need for it can no longer be met. This will happen when we reach post-PO collapse, both economic and environmental.

I agree that most of the cost of a box of cornflakes is accounted for by things other than corn, but most of those other things are also commodities or commodity-based. It's a vicious circle.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby grabby » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 11:00:59

I have heard many times hear that demand can only equal supply.
I am not an economist, and it must be a definition problem.

two scenarios:

Ascenario A:
A chicken farmer raises 100 eggs a week. The store comes and buys 100 eggs a week. Supply and demand is 100 eggs a week.

Scenario B:

A chicken farmer raises 100 eggs a week. at the fence on his property sit 43 housewives with whit hadkerchiefs going "YOHOO!" I want a dozen eggs.

the demand is for 516 eggs a week but he only produces 100 eggs a week

you going to tell me the deman in scenario B is only 100?

Sounds like the arabs and their oil, they say THEY ONLY WANTED TO BUY SO MUCH when there was no more to sell.

technically the supply and demand is the same in both situations but in the real world it is not the same at all at all.
not the same at all.


so how in economic terms can you differentiate these two situations?


just wondering.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby frankthetank » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 11:06:45

Pretty soon farmers will start growing corn on top of corn (vs beans) and then yields should? probably drop from year to year.

I read this last night
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he U.S. corn crop is forecast at 10.7 bln bu, down 1% from October and 3% lower than last year.
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby AgentR » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 11:29:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'I') have heard many times hear that demand can only equal supply.
I am not an economist, and it must be a definition problem.

two scenarios:

Ascenario A:
A chicken farmer raises 100 eggs a week. The store comes and buys 100 eggs a week. Supply and demand is 100 eggs a week.

Scenario B:

A chicken farmer raises 100 eggs a week. at the fence on his property sit 43 housewives with whit hadkerchiefs going "YOHOO!" I want a dozen eggs.

the demand is for 516 eggs a week but he only produces 100 eggs a week

you going to tell me the demand in scenario B is only 100?


Frankly, yes. Its 100 eggs.

In both cases, and in fact all cases, at a given price the market would be willing to purchase more product than is produced. The only thing that implies is that the price is too low. The elegance of our current high speed trading markets is that this optimal equilibrium price can be achieved transparently. This allows demand to be very nearly equal to supply, regardless of what that supply is. If a short term interuption or miscalculation occurs, you get the little spike that we had earlier in 2006. Short lived, annoying, but it corrects out pretty quick.

To oil, I'll put it bluntly enough. Our current demand/consumption is at about 85 mbpd if I remember right, which is very near to our current production. This is not because the world needs 85mbpd or 70mbpd or 120mbpd, it means that at $60/bbl, right now, the world will buy 85mbpd; which also happens to be very near production. Now, if someone came along and mandated the price at $40/bbl; some people would end up without any oil because other, more aggressive parties (china&US) would buy the available supply coercively. If the price were mandated to be $120/bbl, demand would collapse, my guess it could be as low as 60mbpd.

Now, back to your eggs.

Housewifes yell for eggs, farmer says, "Hiya there, I'm selling for $3/dozen today who's first." The faces on most of those housewives are going to turn very grumpy; most will walk away, no longer interested, and a few that need eggs now, will pay the $3. If the farmer had the sort of perfect highspeed back and forth knowledge as above, he'd manage to sell 8 dozen eggs at $3 a dozen, and keep four to boil for lunch.

You always have to keep all three in the picture. Supply, demand, price. They are completely interdependent.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby Heineken » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 11:56:01

But what if the supply of eggs, and the ability of the world to supply eggs, falls permanently below the number of eggs people want to buy? And what if they can't find enough substitutes to meet their nutritional demands?

Then demand exceeds supply---forever, irrespective of price. At least until the population crashes sufficiently.

The conventional laws of economics break down before such scenarios. You need a new economics that factors in ecological principles---principles that today's economics textbooks totally ignore.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby AgentR » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 13:39:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'B')ut what if the supply of eggs, and the ability of the world to supply eggs, falls permanently below the number of eggs people want to buy?


It already is below the number that people want to buy if the price is 2 cents an egg. Demand is directly dependent upon price; the higher the price, the lower the quantity that people are willing to buy; the lower the price, the higher the quantity that people are willing to buy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd what if they can't find enough substitutes to meet their nutritional demands?


Easy nuff. Die-off. Happens all the time. No reason to expect anything different in the future.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he conventional laws of economics break down before such scenarios..


Then they would have broken down a long time ago. Folks around here are, however, not quite ready to accept that die-off is part of those econmic laws.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby joewp » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 13:44:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '
')Then they would have broken down a long time ago. Folks around here are, however, not quite ready to accept that die-off is part of those econmic laws.


You don't often get many economists that are willing to state that part of the laws. That's part of the problem with economists, they never state the entire story.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby AgentR » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 13:46:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', 'Y')ou don't often get many economists that are willing to state that part of the laws. That's part of the problem with economists, they never state the entire story.


Not my problem to compensate for the foolishness of the reality deniers.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby fletch961 » Fri 10 Nov 2006, 23:49:24

Link

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')retty soon farmers will start growing corn on top of corn (vs beans) and then yields should? probably drop from year to year.


Some farmers already practice a corn-corn-bean rotation instead of the corn-bean rotation. According to an Iowa State University study (see above link) corn yields drop 12% in the second year of a corn-corn-bean rotation. Since corn yields almost 4 times as many bushels as soybean that 12% loss is more than made up.

6 years c-c-b

150 bushels + 132 + 40 + 150 + 132 + 40 = 644 bushel

6 year c-b

150 +40+150+40+150 +40 = 570 bushels

There is much more than total bushel output that goes into the decision to go to a c-c-b rotations than just total bushel output-otherwise everyone would already be doing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') read this last night
Quote:
The U.S. corn crop is forecast at 10.7 bln bu, down 1% from October and 3% lower than last year.



Did you read the whole USDA report?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')orn production is forecast at 10.7 billion bushels, down 1 percent
from October and 3 percent lower than 2005. Based on conditions as
of November 1, yields are expected to average 151.2 bushels per
acre, down 2.3 bushels from October but 3.3 bushels higher than
last year.
If realized, the yield would be the second largest on
record, behind 2004. Yield forecasts are lower than last month
across much of the western and central Corn Belt and Atlantic Coast
States as producers reported that actual harvest yields were not as
good as expected earlier due to lower grain weight per ear. Stalk
quality and lodging problems were also reported in some areas.
Producers in the northern Great Plains, Delta States, and parts of
the Southeast reported better than expected yields. Compared with
last year, yields are higher in all Corn Belt States, except Iowa
and Minnesota.



Soybean production is forecast at 3.20 billion bushels, up
slightly from October and 5 percent above 2005. If realized, this
would be the largest U.S. soybean crop on record. Based on
November 1 conditions, yields are expected to average 43.0 bushels
per acre, up 0.2 bushel from October and equal to last year's
record high yield
. Producers in the northern Great Lakes States,
Delaware, New York, North Carolina, and the Dakotas are realizing
higher yields than expected last month, while yield prospects
decreased slightly as harvest progressed in Illinois, Kentucky,
Missouri, and Pennsylvania. Area for harvest in the U.S. is
forecast at 74.5 million acres, unchanged from last month but up
5 percent from 2005.



Yields were great this year-second highest on record for corn. Just wasn't enough planted.
User avatar
fletch961
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun 05 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby Heineken » Sat 11 Nov 2006, 09:34:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'B')ut what if the supply of eggs, and the ability of the world to supply eggs, falls permanently below the number of eggs people want to buy?


It already is below the number that people want to buy if the price is 2 cents an egg. Demand is directly dependent upon price;


I understand these elementary textbook economics, AgentR, but I don't accept them.

In my "ecological economics" I see supply and demand as the real drivers; price is a relative triviality; a temporary human overlay; part of man's attempt to overmaster natural laws. The proof is that we're the only animal species that uses money.

Demand for commodities is "infinite" because it is always there, always growing, and, on a global basis, never fully satisfied. It's one reason (among others) why people are starving or lack other basic necessities.

Demand exceeds supply and the gap will only grow with time.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia
Top

Re: Time to up corn acreage

Unread postby coyote » Sun 12 Nov 2006, 12:24:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fletch961', 'Y')ou answered the question yourself. Last time I checked there was 30 million acres in the CRP. Many of those acres are up for renewal this year.

I have some big questions about the wisdom of going in this direction. From the Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Conservation Reserve Program reduces soil erosion, protects the Nation's ability to produce food and fiber, reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife habitat, and enhances forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filterstrips, or riparian buffers. [Emphasis mine.]

linkyness

I'm no farmer and no expert. But I'd be willing to bet that if paid to protect some of their land, farmers will choose the most marginal, least productive land they've got, as well as buffer areas most likely to help with erosion. Will 'unconverted' CRP land really boost production that much? Or am I misunderstanding?

Also, what about the erosion factor mentioned above? I understand that topsoil erosion, already a problem, is likely to be compounded post-peak, when hydrocarbon inputs diminish. Won't the CRP acres increase in ecological importance at that time? Yes, I understand that farmers, just like anyone else, will do whatever makes them the most money. But if we increase the rate of erosion of the farmland, compounding the problem of aquifer drawdown, they and we may pay dearly in the long run. The Middle East used to be great farmland from what I understand.
Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive...
User avatar
coyote
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun 23 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: East of Eden
Top

Previous

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron