The Rich World and the Food Crisis

Roxanne Appleby

Masterpiece
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
11,231
By Adam Lerrick, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Article based on a speech he delivered at the 2008 AEI world forum.

Leaders of the G-8 nations are gathered this week in Toyako, Japan, to root out the culprits in a food crisis that has moved hundreds of millions from subsistence to starvation. They need look no further than an old group photo.

The G-8 countries' interventions have distorted global agricultural markets to the paralysis point. Politicians legislate price supports to enrich farm voters. Lobbies extort tariffs to block cheap food imports and subsidies to underwrite food exports at prices that destroy competitors in poor countries. Conservationists have agitated to set aside productive land and pay farmers not to grow. And now green energy advocates push ethanol quotas and tax credits that divert food into fuel.

Don't blame speculators for the food crisis: It was already here when they arrived. Rather thank them for a wake-up call. Financial markets are driving today's prices to match expectations of tomorrow's values – the consensus of countless investors and producers is that the era of surpluses and cheap food is over. Yet even a credible promise that G-8 protectionist policies will be reversed would raise output down the road and drop prices at the corner grocery counter overnight.

The new famine is not about a crisis in global supply. Markets are full of food that developing-nation consumers cannot afford to buy. Prices for rice, corn, wheat and soy beans, the staple crops for world sustenance, have doubled in a single year.

This pinches families in developed countries who allocate 15% of their income to food. In poor countries, where many spend 75% of their earnings to eat, real wages have been cut by a life-changing one-third. A decade of progress in reducing poverty is being erased.

In response, countries whose people are being hit hard are adopting policies that mortgage their economic future. From Mexico and Indonesia to Egypt and Côte d'Ivoire, governments have responded to protest and riots with backward measures that keep domestic prices down but choke off incentives to plant and harvest more. One-third of the world's population now lives under food price controls. Subsidies to keep rice and bread on the table are eating up scarce funds.

Schools will not open, roads and ports will not be built, electricity will not power expansion. Central banks are giving up growth to contain an inflation imported from abroad.

National food security is the new overriding concern. India and Vietnam, the world's second and third biggest exporters of rice, have banned foreign sales. Wheat suppliers from Australia to Argentina are restricting shipments. In China, massive new export tariffs keep fertilizer at home to lessen farming costs.

For a decade, the world's demand for food has grown faster than the supply. Throughout the developing world, hundreds of millions of people have migrated from the country where they fed themselves to the city where they must buy their food. A new middle class is eating more and eating better.

Seven pounds of grain are required to produce a single pound of meat; China, India and Brazil are eating 40% more beef than in 2000. Global food stocks have collapsed to a 50-day reserve, their lowest level in half a century. Even as the mountains of grain in government warehouses have eroded, G-8 members have been holding back supply.

Poor farmers have been deprived of a livelihood. Who will plant when rich world producers – protected from imports and guaranteed a subsidized gain on exports – dump crops on world markets, pushing global prices below the real cost of production?

In the name of conservation, U.S. farmers have been bribed to keep fields fallow – 36 million acres of cropland, the size of Iowa, at a taxpayer cost of $2 billion a year. In Europe, large farmers have been compelled to leave 10% of their holdings idle.

Food and fuel have been placed in competition for crops and land. A 10% content mandate for every gallon of gas, and $7 billion of subsidies, now divert one-third of the U.S. corn crop to ethanol, and have driven soybean acreage to its lowest level in more than a decade.

Even aid is tainted. The U.S. provides one-half of world food relief, but is the only major donor that gives in kind and not in cash. Thousands of tons of cereals are transported by barge along the Mississippi, navigated across two oceans on high-cost American ships and delivered by truck in Africa – where stockpiles of local grain are rotting for want of buyers. The same $2 billion worth of aid spent buying local foodstuffs would increase benefits for poor consumers dramatically and build a market for the crops of farmers.

While a myopic U.S. Congress indulges in the biggest farm bill ever, and France proposes to pay old-style farmers more to overproduce, high prices are breaking the G-8 grip on food. In Ethiopia's Rift valley, farmers are pooling funds to buy $75,000 John Deere harvesters. Swedish and English entrepreneurs are assembling small land holdings in Ukraine and Russia to build world-class cereal producers. In Sudan, Abu Dhabi's sovereign fund is planting 70,000 acres with corn and wheat. Monsanto has promised new modified seeds that will double crop yields and, this time, finicky European bans will not prevail.

When the dust settles, there will be a time of plenty in developing lands – and far fewer Porsche dealerships in the U.S. farm belt.
 
Not at all surprising that the 'usual suspects' disdain to respond or comment on a very interesting article, thank you for posting it.

I refer to 'usual suspects' on purpose and with malice aforethought as, after nearly forty years, they have finally realized their goal, one of them, actually several, but reducing the population of the world by starvation is the primary intent of the left.

The left ignores the fact mentioned that the US donates fully half of all food to destitute nations and prefer to publicize that Americans consume twenty five percent of the worlds energy.

They further ignore that the US 'grain belt' produces twenty five percent of all food grain in the WORLD, thanks to giant agri-biz.

How much of the starvation at hand can be attributed to the global warming freaks and the Kyoto Accords, and the outright ignorance of the general public?

It can, however, be easily and openly attributed to the eco freaks that have halted exploration and exploitation of natural resources for a variety of really silly reasons.

Does that phase the left in any way? Hell, no, they rejoice that their dreams are finally being realized.

Economies worldwide waning, hunger rampant, energy prices soaring, population falling, the liberal dream being fulfilled.

They still will not admit it and are too frightened to even gloat over their success.

There is a simple answer.

Get the fuck out of our way!

Remove all restrictions and regulations and subsidies and red tape and voila, almost over night, prices will fall and the entrepreneurial expertise of millions will create a cornucopia of wealth and luxury.

All the things you hate.

Hope you enjoy your mud hut, 'brown veggies' (tnx JBJ) and fetid water.

Sorry Roxanne, the devil made me do it in an uncivil manner.

But then, I'm a guy, remember?

Nasty male chauvinist at that.

ahem...

Ami...
 
Even aid is tainted. The U.S. provides one-half of world food relief, but is the only major donor that gives in kind and not in cash. Thousands of tons of cereals are transported by barge along the Mississippi, navigated across two oceans on high-cost American ships and delivered by truck in Africa – where stockpiles of local grain are rotting for want of buyers. The same $2 billion worth of aid spent buying local foodstuffs would increase benefits for poor consumers dramatically and build a market for the crops of farmers.
Roxanne, it's not possible for the US to spend $2 billion worth of aid buying local food. The $2 billion would wind up in the hands of the politicians. The reason that the US gives in kind is to try to get around the theft of the aid by politicians. If course, the attempt is doomed to failure.
 
Ahhh Roxane,

How much of that food rotting in depots is being held there by the rulers of that area? Held there until their people can cough up enough money to pay them for food stuffs they have received free? Held there until their people pledge allgiance and pledge to be slaves or soldiers for that leader? All in order to receive the food being sent to them?

Oh wait a minute. This doesn't matter does it. (I know that someone here, not neccasarily you, will tell me to prove this. I challenge them to disprove it.)

Now here's a scary thought. Take all of the money we send overseas to help all of these people, all of the food we send overseas to help these people and use it to help the homeless and needy here in the United States. Take all of the money we send out every year to help impoverished nations and use it instead to help our own nation. What kind of change do you think we would see here?

Cat
 
..reducing the population of the world by starvation is the primary intent of the left.

Darn it! I've been busted. Ami, Roxanne, the Enterprise Institute, thank you for pointing out the nefarious goals of the left, goals I have been supporting without even knowing about it. I will be calling Cox tomorrow and signing up for cable so that FOX News can brainwash the evil liberal-ness out of my head and replace it with right wing talking points and conservative dogma that is laughable at the moment, but will become profound and important and undeniably true before I even realize it.

Thank you so much for setting me straight.

D
 
Darn it! I've been busted. Ami, Roxanne, the Enterprise Institute, thank you for pointing out the nefarious goals of the left, goals I have been supporting without even knowing about it. I will be calling Cox tomorrow and signing up for cable so that FOX News can brainwash the evil liberal-ness out of my head and replace it with right wing talking points and conservative dogma that is laughable at the moment, but will become profound and important and undeniably true before I even realize it.

Thank you so much for setting me straight.

D

The article I posted said nothing about "the left." It was primarily about the penicious effects of rent-seeking ag and protectionist special interests, and their incestuous relationships with governments and politicians from nearly all points on the political spectrum. The article does have an anti-statist slant, and I suppose I can understand why many here fear to engage the substance on that basis. Your post, for example, is totally unrelated to anything in the article, but is merely string of sneers and slurs targeted in part at me.
 
Ahhh Roxane,

How much of that food rotting in depots is being held there by the rulers of that area? Held there until their people can cough up enough money to pay them for food stuffs they have received free? Held there until their people pledge allgiance and pledge to be slaves or soldiers for that leader? All in order to receive the food being sent to them?

Oh wait a minute. This doesn't matter does it. (I know that someone here, not neccasarily you, will tell me to prove this. I challenge them to disprove it.)

Now here's a scary thought. Take all of the money we send overseas to help all of these people, all of the food we send overseas to help these people and use it to help the homeless and needy here in the United States. Take all of the money we send out every year to help impoverished nations and use it instead to help our own nation. What kind of change do you think we would see here?

Cat
Cat the article said that local food stuffs lay rotting, not the stuff we send them and hand out at no cost to them. It's the grains and stuff they produce which lays in storage because there are no buyers.
 
Ahhh Roxane,

How much of that food rotting in depots is being held there by the rulers of that area? Held there until their people can cough up enough money to pay them for food stuffs they have received free? Held there until their people pledge allgiance and pledge to be slaves or soldiers for that leader? All in order to receive the food being sent to them?

Oh wait a minute. This doesn't matter does it. (I know that someone here, not neccasarily you, will tell me to prove this. I challenge them to disprove it.)

Now here's a scary thought. Take all of the money we send overseas to help all of these people, all of the food we send overseas to help these people and use it to help the homeless and needy here in the United States. Take all of the money we send out every year to help impoverished nations and use it instead to help our own nation. What kind of change do you think we would see here?

Cat

I sympathize with your sentiment. I probably don't agree with all the prescriptions of the article, but found nothing wanting in its descriptions and diagnosis.

In the light of your comment, a couple days ago in another thread one of Ami's "usual suspects" was dissing American governments for their lack of generosity in world relief efforts over the years. Needless to say I found that rather laughable.

We're a rich nation, and to the extent there are constructive (not destructive) things we can do to genuinely relieve hunger in the world, I'm in favor, and I suspect you would be too. I think the main lesson of the article in this regard is, "first do no harm," which the policies of the US and the rest of the developed world clearly are doing.
 
I don't know a thing about farm policy or what G-8 is supposedly doing to the world's food supplies. I recently heard that the largest contributor to the hike in those prices is the diversion of food crops to biofuels, which I can believe. I always thought that was a bad idea.

Other than that, I don't see what you expect us to say about this article. If you think the answer to the problem of world food prices is to give everyone in the world a hoe and a bag of seed, I think you're mistaken.
 
I don't know a thing about farm policy or what G-8 is supposedly doing to the world's food supplies. I recently heard that the largest contributor to the hike in those prices is the diversion of food crops to biofuels, which I can believe. I always thought that was a bad idea.

Other than that, I don't see what you expect us to say about this article. If you think the answer to the problem of world food prices is to give everyone in the world a hoe and a bag of seed, I think you're mistaken.

Conceptually, there are two realistic first steps that need to be taken NOW! The first step is to stop the diversion of food crops to biofuels. That will free up a lot of food and the price of food will fall all over the world. The second is to start drilling for oil in the USA. As soon as the Congress allows drilling for oil in places where there is oil but the oil companies are not allowed to drill, the world price of oil will plummet. Yes, it will take a few years for the oil to enter the system, but the knowledge that the new oil will become available will alter the perception of future supply/demand. The new perception of future supply/demand will immediately impact the world oil market.
 
I don't know a thing about farm policy or what G-8 is supposedly doing to the world's food supplies. I recently heard that the largest contributor to the hike in those prices is the diversion of food crops to biofuels, which I can believe. I always thought that was a bad idea.

Other than that, I don't see what you expect us to say about this article. If you think the answer to the problem of world food prices is to give everyone in the world a hoe and a bag of seed, I think you're mistaken.

I don't know what the solution is, other than "first do no harm." That's what I thought useful about the article - it describes the harm that current policies are doing, including biofuels.
 
Nehru, the prime minister of India in th 50's and sixties said Aid is a Cancer (which will kill the economies of the third world). Despite its 1 billion people India refused food aid and ended up self sufficient.

Material aid is popular with donors because it gets rid of surpluses generated by subsidies. The US aid programme is the most generous but so long as 5 times as much aid goes to American farmers it is worthless because the potential for self reliance and trade is destroyed.

The EU subsidies are just as bad and those in Japan even worse.

What is the possibility of the Doha round of trade talks freeing up farm produce markets? - somewhat less than a substantial investment in porcine aviation futures.:)
 
Oh, my, so you are saying that the western industrial nations are responsible for starvation in the third world because they give food?

Well, okay, if you say so, but...

Not a fan of subsidies of any kind, or tariffs, preferring a free and open market place, I have found a bit of a contradiction of both principle and purpose since even pre dust-bowl days and that quasi socialist, FDR.

Protectionism, limiting trade, subsidizing various industries, has been a practice of almost every economy I have ever studied.

The results of such governmental manipulations are wide and varied, depending upon which economic soothsayer one reads.

There is some inherent logic in a nation maintaining a strategic reserve of certain commodities, food among them, along with petroleum and such, not unlike a prudent family that keeps a supply of food on hand to see them through an emergency.

Does that also mean you are opposed to such charitable organizations as the Red Cross and such?

Curious to read your reasoning on these issues.

Amicus...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_United_States

History
Over the first 200 years of U.S. agricultural history, until the 1920s, agricultural policy in the United States was dominated by developmental policy- policy directed at developing and supporting family farms and the inputs of the total agricultural sector, such as land, research, and human labor. Developmental policy included such legislation as the Land Act of 1820, the Homestead Act, which granted 160-acre (0.65 km²) townships, and the Morrill Act of 1862, which initiated the land-grant college system, one in a long series of acts that provided public support for agricultural research and education.

Beginning of price supports

At the end of World War I, the destructive effects of the war and the surrender burdens enforced on the Central Powers of Europe bankrupted much of Europe, closing major export markets in the United States and beginning a series of events that would lead to the development of agricultural price and income support policies. United States price and income support, known otherwise as agricultural subsidy, grew out of acute farm income and financial crises, which led to widespread political beliefs that the marketing system was not adequately rewarding farm people for their agricultural commodities.

Beginning with the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act and 1922 Capper-Volstead Act, which regulated livestock and protected farmer cooperatives against anti-trust suits, United States agricultural policy began to become more and more comprehensive. In reaction to falling grain prices and the widespread economic turmoil of the Dust Bowl and Great Depression, three bills led the United States into permanent price subsidies for farmers: the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act, and finally the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act- the first comprehensive food policy legislation. (as I stated, the Roosevelt era)Out of these bills grew a system of government-controller agricultural commodity prices and government supply control (farmers being paid to leave land unused). Supply control would continue to be used to decrease overproduction, leading to over 50,000,000 acres (2.0×105 km²) to be set aside during times of low commodity prices (1955-1973, 1984-1995), until the practice was eventually ended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States

The U.S. Agricultural Department is required by law (various U.S. farm bills which are passed every few years) to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by various U.S. farm bills dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation (created in 1933), among others.[citation needed]

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms.

~~~~

Curious as to the DOHA conference and such and the reasoning, OXFAM, is an environmental group and has an agenda although I am not familiar enough with it to know precisely what that agenda might be.

http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadn...story+histories&d=C0MDKy72RDnL&icp=1&.intl=us

Agricultural dumping has a devastating effect on poor countries.
The Uruguay Round at the WTO was supposed to cut the
subsidies that lead to dumping, but it failed to do so — as did
reforms of Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy and US
agricultural policy. Now history is set to repeat itself: the Doha
Round of negotiations is again giving rich countries a free ride
to continue dumping subsidised produce on poor countries.
Oxfam believes that the WTO meeting in Hong Kong must put an
end to this hugely damaging practice.

~~~

Again, curious to see your reasoning, background and motive....

regards...

Amicus...
 
Last edited:
Just one quick addition of fact before the political response. (Am I on the left now? I forget...) The biggest driver of increasing food prices is not crop diversion (biofuels, hand-tended organic cloudberries, etc), it's input prices. That means oil prices. Outside Europe/US/parts of South America, most mechanised agricultural equipment runs on a two-stroke engine (for the non-technical, that's the most voracious form of oil consumption going). All food transportation requires gasoline/diesel. 99%+ of the world's fertiliser comes from the middle and bottom of an oil barrel.

Political: biofuels are deeply stupid and will be until somebody finds a way to make their energy output exceed their energy input. We should definitely work on that - I am a Green, after all - but there's no point to diverting crops now, in size, until we get over that hump. Solve the cellulose problem, then you can have as many crops for biofuels as you like: what you lose to diversion, you'll more than gain back by cheaper input prices.

Agricultural subsidies are, for lack of a better word, somewhere between idiotic and cruel in developed nations. They raise prices, they create barriers to imports for less developed countries, and, in most countries, more than 75% of them wind up in the bank accounts of agribusinesses who account for less than 5% of the farming population. (They also accelerate the responsiveness of producers to really stupid subsidies like bio-ethanol additives.)

Why do they persist? I can't speak for the US but in the EU and Japan, the electoral map means more legislators answer to food-producing communities than any other kind. That's more or less that for reform. I have heard a drunkenly entertaining theory (I"m not promoting it, it's just cynically funny) that the best way to dismantle the subsidy system in the US would be to move the Iowa caucuses to the middle of the primary schedule...

In Europe (and to a lesser but noticeable extent in Japan) agricultural subsides stopped being a left/right issue more than 20 years ago. The very hard left (a pretty tiny minority in most countries) still support subsidies on ideological grounds. The rest, from reasonably left to middle to right, all agree that the system is pointless, counterproductive and well past its sell-by date. Nobody (and I mean nobody) has yet found a way to get past the overwhelming problem of rural MPs dominating every parliament, for whom a vote against subsidies is career- (if not life-) ending. We're open to ideas...

Start stripping "aid is a cancer" of its context and it starts to look like a less viable comment. Untie "we'll give you food and agricultural know-how" from "and you'll give us preferential trading rights and accept these development loans" and cancer becomes a migraine. Stop defining total agricultural self-sufficiency as the only reasonable alternative to aid and the migraine becomes a headache. Take a quick tour of what actually worked and what didn't the past 50 years of developmental economics - essentially, go for multi-local, multi-crop production; build a whole bunch of cheap, local infrastructure and worry about the President for Life Superhighway later; make sure your farming mix includes tobacco, cattle and all the other stuff that's killing our beloved Mother Gaia and her devoted children (I'm Green. I'm not a moron.); trade every seed of surplus with your local neighbours - and your headache transforms into the pleasant task of telling ambassadors from the right or left where to cram their advice. If you're going down that road, take the aid: even in extreme Live Aid-type forms, it's not going to constitute more than 1% of your nation's caloric intake - not enough to distort anything - and you might get to meet Brangelina.

Hope that's of interest,
H
 
When the dust settles, there will be a time of plenty in developing lands – and far fewer Porsche dealerships in the U.S. farm belt.

Maybe the US isn't trying hard enough? It's yield per hectare for wheat is barely above the world average, below the renowned wheat production countries of Norway and Finland. Why is the USA's wheat yield only 40% of Western Europe's? And why did American wheat farmers cut land under wheat production by 40% between 1998 and 2002, wasn't because someone asked them to produce Ethanol by any chance?

http://nue.okstate.edu/crop_information/world_wheat_production.htm

Wheat prices declined to a ten year low between 1998 and 2000 despite a massive reduction in acreage... this might have been about the time politicians started playing with farmers incomes (in the US - we've been doing it in Europe for years) and subsidising Ethanol acreage... anyone know?

http://www.smallgrains.org/WHFACTS/allwht99.htm

Between 1996 and 1998 US wheat reserves increased from 12.1m metric tons to 25.7m metric tons. In 2007, following poor worldwide grain harvests for the preceding two seasons, wheat reserves declined to approx 6m metric tons - below the threshold level required by DoA. Replenishing the reserves took 10% out of US wheat production at a time when world demand was escalating.

The simplest remedy: cut the subsidies and incentivize yield per acre/hectare. It is not thee fallow acreage that is the problem but complacent yields that strip away Porsche franchises.
 
Oh, my, so you are saying that the western industrial nations are responsible for starvation in the third world because they give food?

Well, okay, if you say so, but...

Not a fan of subsidies of any kind, or tariffs, preferring a free and open market place, I have found a bit of a contradiction of both principle and purpose since even pre dust-bowl days and that quasi socialist, FDR.

Protectionism, limiting trade, subsidizing various industries, has been a practice of almost every economy I have ever studied.

The results of such governmental manipulations are wide and varied, depending upon which economic soothsayer one reads.

There is some inherent logic in a nation maintaining a strategic reserve of certain commodities, food among them, along with petroleum and such, not unlike a prudent family that keeps a supply of food on hand to see them through an emergency.

Does that also mean you are opposed to such charitable organizations as the Red Cross and such?

Curious to read your reasoning on these issues.

Amicus...

I think Handprints has already addressed a number of questions you raised which is just as well as I am the worlds slowest typist.

I think that food aid to the third world is generally counter productive because it effectively destroys the recipients food market, it undermines the development of a work ethic and it only addresses the immediate problem of starvation. From the Donors point of view there is a huge 'feel good' factor and an easing of consciences. It also gets rid of unwanted surpluses in Donor countries. Food aid is also almost invariably stolen by the bandits which run many of the recipient countries.

However, I also agree with Dr Mabeuse that giving people a hoe and a bag of seed is not enough. The third world farmer needs 'the seed and the hoe but he (or in Africa she) needs a few other things. The farmer needs some basic technology, simple ploughs tractors etc as well as the hoe and the seed.


Above all they need education in how to produce efficiently and finally they must have a fair market which doesn't have large quantities of 'aid food' dumped into it. If that happens the local product is unsalable and incentive is destroyed. My view is that ultimately the third world has to dig itself out of its own holes and if we help it should be considered as a fairly long term investment and subject to normal investment disciplines.

The chances of that happening are to use an Australianism 'Buckleys.(none) Handprints has already pointed out that the political clout of the farmer in the first world is enormous due to rural over representation especially in Japan almost as much in The USA and EU.

In the Doha round of world trade talks the first world's position is that the third world should open up their markets to western products before USA EU and Japan will begin to lessen their subsidies. The third world responds that they cannot afford anything if the markets for their only products (agriculture) are constantly undermined. The reality ensuring this standoff will continue is that the rural vote in the first world carries far more clout than a few million starving Africans.

I think that the Red Cross, Oxfam, charities like that do a good job when they stick to their knitting. In the case of the Red Cross they did magnificent work in the emergency following the Indonesian tsunami. many of the other charities, instead of distributing food aid concentrated on getting the local food production economy going again. For that work they should be applauded . When they become agents for hand outs their work has no permanent value.

A number of the charities have now recognised the fallacy of direct food aid and try to avoid it concentrating on longer term projects.

I know that this argument seems tough but ultimately Nehru was right "Aid is a cancer" and I cannot see any prescription which will work except this tough medicine.
 
Maybe the US isn't trying hard enough? It's yield per hectare for wheat is barely above the world average, below the renowned wheat production countries of Norway and Finland. Why is the USA's wheat yield only 40% of Western Europe's?

Neo. As yield increases it is subject to the law of diminishing returns ie input costs go up, in terms of increased fertilizer costs mainly. The USA may not be as productive per hectare but they are much more cost productive.
 
Neo. As yield increases it is subject to the law of diminishing returns ie input costs go up, in terms of increased fertilizer costs mainly. The USA may not be as productive per hectare but they are much more cost productive.

Don't know about them being more cost productive, I would have imagined other wheat growing areas have significantly labour costs.

On fertilizer, Nitrogen prices rose 127% in 2007 equating to 22cents per Ilb. At median 69Ilbs per acre (University of Nebraska) the additional cost is roughly $9 per acre. An acre yields an average (US wide) 42.5 bushels/acre and wheat prices have risen $3 per bushel in 2007-08. Additional income from rising sale price is $127/acre. Fertilizer costs are not the reason prices have risen.

Forecasts indicate 50bn metric tons surplus world wheat supply this year (DoA - 07/Jul/2008) - it beats me why wheat prices are holding steady.
 
Last edited:
Don't know about them being more cost productive, I would have imagined other wheat growing areas have significantly labour costs.

On fertilizer, Nitrogen prices rose 127% in 2007 equating to 22cents per Ilb. At median 69Ilbs per acre (University of Nebraska) the additional cost is roughly $9 per acre. An acre yields an average (US wide) 42.5 bushels/acre and wheat prices have risen $3 per bushel in 2007-08. Additional income from rising sale price is $127/acre. Fertilizer costs are not the reason prices have risen.

Forecasts indicate 50bn metric tons surplus world wheat supply this year (DoA - 8/Jul/07) - it beats me why wheat prices are holding steady.

I don't think the cost of labour is all that important in broadacre arable farming. It obviously varies but machinery/oil/ pesticides/land costs might be more important.

I don't think one can do a straight comparasion of fertilizer costs without considering variations in the amount used. I am aware from my own family who farm in the Netherlands and UK that they apply considerably more fertilizer than American Farmers do. This can be as much as 80% more because the natural nitrogen in the soil is lower and it is important with wheat to get the protein component to the right level (protein % being very heavily dependant on available soil nitrogen) as well as total yield. I have been looking for stats to support this but cannot pin anything down that is convincing at the moment.

Twenty years ago Northern European farmers fed their stock barley based products in winter to supply them with protein. They have switched to winter wheat partly because the yield /hectare is higher and partly because wheat is so responsive as a protein producer to higher applications of nitrogenous fertilizers.

That forecast is July 07. There are a couple of highly variable suppliers who have reduced their forecast for 2008. One of the most problematic producers is Australia. They can produce about 25 million tonnes in a good year but they have fallen short by as much as 15 million tonnes in a drought. About 90% of their production goes to the international market because of a small population and the fact that Australia uses very little for stock feed. It only takes a couple of suppliers like that to stuff up the forecasts.

I can't believe I just wrote this on a porn site.:D
 
I don't think the cost of labour is all that important in broadacre arable farming. It obviously varies but machinery/oil/ pesticides/land costs might be more important.

I don't think one can do a straight comparasion of fertilizer costs without considering variations in the amount used. I am aware from my own family who farm in the Netherlands and UK that they apply considerably more fertilizer than American Farmers do. This can be as much as 80% more because the natural nitrogen in the soil is lower and it is important with wheat to get the protein component to the right level (protein % being very heavily dependant on available soil nitrogen) as well as total yield. I have been looking for stats to support this but cannot pin anything down that is convincing at the moment.

Twenty years ago Northern European farmers fed their stock barley based products in winter to supply them with protein. They have switched to winter wheat partly because the yield /hectare is higher and partly because wheat is so responsive as a protein producer to higher applications of nitrogenous fertilizers.

That forecast is July 07. There are a couple of highly variable suppliers who have reduced their forecast for 2008. One of the most problematic producers is Australia. They can produce about 25 million tonnes in a good year but they have fallen short by as much as 15 million tonnes in a drought. About 90% of their production goes to the international market because of a small population and the fact that Australia uses very little for stock feed. It only takes a couple of suppliers like that to stuff up the forecasts.

I can't believe I just wrote this on a porn site.:D

I dunno - it kinda turned me on. :D
 
Ah, Handprints, the self avowed heavyweight, weighs in, trying to remember which role-playing mode is operational today. Such a deal.

Now one has to follow this closely; it is not the fact that turning corn and soybean crops into bio-fuel, a 'green dream', gone terribly wrong, which had the collateral effect of increasing prices for food products in the US. (who cares about the US, they are filthy rich anyway).

No, not at all, it is the scarcity and demand and high prices of petroleum products, ah, but oh, wait, isn't that also a 'green dream' of eliminating combustible petroleum products, aka 'Kyoto Accords', and other such nonsense intended to encourage alternative energy sources like oxen power?

Ah, "input prices", says the omniscient Handprints, the cost of fuel for those hungry two stroke tractors and combines, but wait, order today and your friendly dictator is selling gasoline and diesel to his thirsty constituents at 30 cents the gallon! Go figure, but the US has to shoulder the blame somehow, don't they, nasty, greedy, shortsighted capitalists anyway!

Ah, but Handprints is a self confessed, 'green', who now decries the idiocy of corn ethanol and suggests cellulose fibre, harvested by those self-same oxen, no doubt, as the 'input' costs of production and transportation would overwhelm the efficiency otherwise! Amazing, the convoluted slick silver tongued rhetoric here.

We have all seen the dreadful media generated television shorts of starving Africans huddled together on dusty plains, fleeing the Warlords of a tribal socialist regime, with what ever dirt poor economy once existed, reaching out for bags of grain that usually has USA Food Aid in big letters on the gunny-sack.

Ah, but that is all wrong, Aid is Cancer, said the great guru, Nehru, yeah, sure, save a cow, use raw cow manure as mascara, maybe that gives Indians their skin color? (No, that is not racist, just sarcastic humor as a billion Indians worship bovines and kissing a cows vaginal orifice at a wedding ceremony is not my idea of sophistication)

Cheap food in developed countries stifles growth in the ag biz, says the all knowing Handprints, all the while knowing that governmental corruption, farming methods circa 1920's style, heavily labor intensive, to keep the masses busy, also entails forbidding those nasty two strokes and the John Deere's and the International Harvesters, (really nasty big, global corporations, the bane of the greenies), that and utter corruption and confiscatory tax rates that destroy enterprise of any size.

Scanning the rest of Handprints rant, and recalling past posts, our distant participant on the forum favors a controlled and managed economy and society and if one form of oppression doesn't work well, hell, let's try another!

While not an advocate of subsidies, in fact, government intervention and tinkering in any aspect of the economy, I do find it mildly amusing the inherent contradictions in the 'green' world as they switch horses in the middle of the stream and hope like hell not to get their asses wet.

I didn't foresee just how the left would justify decades of curtailing energy production and finally realizing the total effect. Now I do...they simply move the direction of their oppressive advocacy to another level. We can now let the Africans starve in plain sight and all the pinko greenies will no longer goad the US and other western nations for more 'Aid', as it has now been determined to be a 'non green' issue. (never mind, let them eat cake) What the 'greenies' won't admit is that the US is the engine that drives the world market, we fart, the world suffers.

Underneath it all, I surmise that the ilk of Handprints and Ishtat, continue the same tactic as before, keep the nasty capitalists and their efficient production out of the rest of the world until it is starved into submission and true socialism can bloom.

Now...I did not untangle the web of convoluted logic practiced by the greens and presented on this thread, but in essence nothing has changed. The left still pantingly panders to a managed manipulated society they can easily divert and milk for their own benefit, regardless of how many starve.

The next layer down is an anti industrial mentality and the layer under that is a generic hatred for the freedom and efficacy of the human mind.

As I said, nothing has changed in the monotonous drumbeat of the left, the beat goes on.(tnx Cher)

Amicus...
 
Ishat - date was a typo - 07/Jul/2008 :D worrying about American date formats :rolleyes:

I agree inputs vary. Yields vary. What doesn't vary is the claim wheat rises have risen because of input prices, the rise is entirely out of proportion with input price rises and has more to do - imho - with politics and financial speculation.
 
Ishat - date was a typo - 07/Jul/2008 :D worrying about American date formats :rolleyes:

I agree inputs vary. Yields vary. What doesn't vary is the claim wheat rises have risen because of input prices, the rise is entirely out of proportion with input price rises and has more to do - imho - with politics and financial speculation.

Oh puh-lease. :rolleyes: "Speculators," the whipping-boy du jour. My friends, that's a purely political "round up the usual suspects" "explanation" that has absolutely no economic validity; one doesn't need to be a PhD economist to understand that - a brief investigation of the relevent factors will demonstrate it to the satisfaction of any capable, fair-minded layperson.

~~~~~~~~~~

From the Carpe Diem blog of economist Mark Perry:
Fortune Magazine -- Before the government starts scrutinizing the role that speculators may have played in driving up fuel and food prices, investigators may want to take a look at price swings in a commodity not in today's news: onions.

The bulbous root is the only commodity for which futures trading is banned. Back in 1958, onion growers convinced themselves that futures traders were responsible for falling onion prices, so they lobbied an up-and-coming Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford to push through a law banning all futures trading in onions. The law still stands.

And yet even with no traders to blame, the volatility in onion prices makes the swings in oil and corn look tame, reinforcing academics' belief that futures trading diminishes extreme price swings. Since 2006, oil prices have risen 100%, and corn is up 300%. But onion prices soared 400% between October 2006 and April 2007, when weather reduced crops, only to crash 96% by March 2008 on overproduction and then rebound 300% by this past April (see chart above, click to enlarge).


Update: The chart below shows monthly percent changes in the spot prices of onions and oil, from January 2000 to May 2008. The volatility of monthly onion price changes (measured by the standard deviation of price changes, 66%) was 7.5 times higher than the volatility of oil price changes (standard deviation of 8.8%) during this period. (at http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-onions-teach-us-about-oil-prices.html )
 
I am busily peeling all those onions in hopes of bringing tears to the eyes of.....ahm, well, you know who...grins... (nice one!)

:rose:

ami
 
Back
Top