I had no idea one crop could mean so much!

Farmers consider how much corn to plant - Decision could force poultry, beef and pork companies to raise prices.

DES MOINES, Iowa - As spring planting nears, farmers are making a choice that could affect what Americans pay for everything from car fuel to chicken wings.

If they choose to plant as much corn as possible, prices that have soared to record highs above $5 a bushel could stabilize. But if many farmers rotate their plantings to other crops such as soybeans, or the season is disrupted by bad weather or drought, the price of this key ingredient could soar even further.

That would leave other food producers — especially poultry, beef and pork companies, where corn feed comprises up to three-quarters of their operating costs — with little choice but to raise their prices as well.

Livestock producers typically blame higher corn prices on demand for the crop from ethanol plants, saying the alternative fuel drives up costs for everyone. But ethanol makers say the rising corn prices hurt them as well.

Against all those factors is one fixed point: Farmers are running out of new land to plant crops.

Record corn production
How farmers choose to use the land this year is the focus of the planting report due March 31 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which will offer the first detailed look at farmer's planting intentions for 2008 and give the first indication of this year's corn crop. "Everybody is looking to see what that report is going to look like," said Bob Dinneen, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association. "Everybody is anxious, us included."

Last year, American farmers produced more corn than ever before, 13.1 billion bushels, as they put more land into corn production and most of the Corn Belt saw ideal weather.

"It's kind of hard to believe we'll even be able to hit that mark again," said Richard Lobb, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council. "The amount of land in this country is not infinite. ... Some people think it's entirely possible a bad drought is coming. It's all guesswork, but there are some ominous signs."

The surge in corn prices — which began in early 2007, when corn was trading for a little more than $3 per bushel — came despite the higher-than-ever production. If the values hold, the average yearly price per bushel in 2008 will be higher than ever before, according to statistics kept by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Dave Moody, president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association, said the end result is obvious: "If corn prices stay high or increase, in the long term prices are definitely going to come up."

Even at current prices, meat producers are hurting.

Last month Pilgrim's Pride, the nation's largest poultry company, closed a processing plant in North Carolina and distribution centers in five other states, putting 1,100 people out of work. The company blamed its move on high corn prices caused by the heavily subsidized ethanol industry.

Corn prices are also affecting more boutique products. Maple Leaf Farms, a leading U.S. producer of duck meat, recently announced it would close a meat processing plant in Wisconsin that employs about 200 people because of increase feed costs.

"This is the single biggest issue we face," said Lobb. "The costs are very high historically speaking, but what really bothers people is not so much that they're high but they're sort of locked in at a high level.

"We've had price spikes for corn because of drought or other short-term types of things, but in this case the high costs are locked," because of ethanol demand.

Ethanol plants fuel demand
Ethanol plant owners acknowledge they've increased demand for corn. The number of plants has increased dramatically, from 50 in 1999 to 134 now with more being built, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. Most rely completely on corn.

An average, 100 million gallon-per-year ethanol plant consumes about 33 million bushels of corn — about the amount grown in some entire Iowa counties.

While ethanol is highly subsidized by the federal government, wiping out some of the industry's overhead, ethanol proponents say they too will have to pay more for corn, which could push the price of ethanol fuel higher.

There's a roundabout effect as well — strong demand for the corn to make ethanol has boosted those prices, enticing farmers to plant corn rather than soybeans.

So some farmers could be swayed by soybean prices that have edged even higher due to the dwindling supplies and demand from foreign markets, particularly in Asia.

Among the arguments some farmers see for soybeans are that corn requires more tending and fertilizer costs are generally higher, said Mark Schultz, chief analyst at Minneapolis-based commodity trading firm Northstar Commodity.

"It takes a lot of time to put in and harvest corn," Schultz said. "There's a lot to it physically and cost wise."

The Corn Belt farmers — who find themselves with strong incomes and plenty of options — are the clear winners. That income is a primary reason Corn Belt states, such as Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota, have largely avoided a national economic downturn, said Ernest Goss, an economics professor at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb.

Mindy Williamson, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Corn Growers Association, said the ethanol-fueled demand for corn has changed the dynamics.

"Before we weren't in a demand-driven market," she said. "Now, it's all about demand and you have a choice about where we want to sell (corn) and who you want to sell it to. There are still other things beyond farmers' control, like weather, but it's a good time."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23847301/

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 03-28-2008).]

Watch out for Strawberry prices to rise too. California's Democratic lead Senate, in it's infinite wisdom, has passed laws that will restrict strawberry production in southern California by 50%. The only problem besides the obvious communism aspect is that southern California is responsible for about 25% of the TOTAL strawberry crop in the US.

So let me see if I got this straight, $323 Million dollars worht of strawberries and the jobs associated therewith have gone up in smoke all in the name of Global Warming. I'm sure the planet will cool down might fast as a result of this essential cut back.

I hope you all like noberry shortcake.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 03-28-2008).]

nm, global warming.

Its pretty stupid if you ask me. Corn is worse as far as global warming is concerned. (dont tell that to corn Congressmen, agriculture lobbyists might crucify you)

[This message has been edited by AP2k (edited 03-28-2008).]

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-05-2008).]

Assosiated Press

Pollution Rules Squeeze Strawberry Crop
By JACOB ADELMAN – Feb 29, 2008

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Edgar Terry says the biggest threat to his hundreds of acres of strawberries isn't bugs or bad weather.

Instead, he says, it's a new regulation aimed at reducing pollution from the pesticides he uses to boost production and quality on his Ventura County farm.

Beginning this spring, Terry and other growers must cut smog-causing fumigant use by as much as half to help the Southern California county that produces a quarter of the nation's strawberries comply with the federal Clean Air Act.

Growers have few options for replacement crops. Only strawberries, one of the state's most lucrative crops, make economic sense in the coastal area where land prices are relatively high.

"If you do have to let ground go fallow, there's no other crops to grow here," Terry said. "It could be the death blow in some respects."

Last year, Ventura County farmers harvested nearly 12,000 acres of strawberries valued at more than $323 million.

As many as 7,500 acres could be stripped of production as a result of the pesticide cuts, according to figures cited by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

The decreased supply could push strawberry prices higher at grocery stores, said Steve Blank, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis.

The growers are facing some of the toughest pesticide restrictions ever imposed in California, said Glenn Brank, a spokesman for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.

In the past, they have been forced to suspend use of some fumigants but could substitute with others.

In Ventura County, however, growers must limit use of all major farm fumigants during the ozone-heavy months of May through October, when growers prepare soil for strawberries that hit the market in late winter and early spring.

"Neither the federal government nor any other state has ever attempted to do anything like this before," Brank said.

The regulations stem from a 1994 state agreement with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to adhere to the Clean Air Act, which called for the reduction of pesticides containing volatile organic compounds such as methyl bromide, among other measures.

Public health and environmental groups later claimed the state was not abiding by the rules. They filed a lawsuit and won, leading the state to act on the measures.

Other major strawberry-growing areas, such as the Salinas Valley in central California, have not been ordered to cut fumigation because their pollution targets have been met.

Ventura County growers are being hit particularly hard because the agreement with the federal EPA requires pollution cuts from 1991 levels, when strawberry production in the county was only about a third of what it was last year.

"We don't feel like that's right," said Hector Gutierrez, who farms about 120 acres. "If we continue to be able to farm and continue to seek new alternatives, as time goes on we're only going to get better at reducing emissions."

The rules also apply to other fumigated crops such as bell peppers and tomatoes, but those crops account for only about 2,000 acres in the county.

Grower groups are appealing the lawsuit that forced the state Department of Pesticide Regulation to order the cuts. They also sued the department, claiming it neglected to adequately consider alternatives.

In addition, the California EPA has asked its federal counterpart to let the county phase in the caps over four years to allow time for the development of lower-emission methods.

Still, growers are required to comply with the rules in the meantime. They have until Friday to file requests for pesticide permits and will find out by early April exactly how much fumigant they will be allowed to use.

Farmers say the forced reductions could actually increase pollution, since fallowed fields would invite development.

Local ordinances prohibit the development of farmland in much of Ventura County, but as much as a third of the fumigated fields are in urban spots where building could be permitted, according to the state EPA.

"There's a typical saying: First you grow vegetables, then you grow strawberries, then you grow houses," grower Bill Reiman said.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-28-2008).]

Well, goodness, it isn't as though we NEED strawberries! Now, for those of us trying to eat less fat meat, skinless chicken is a good idea.

Ah the welfare farmers. Nothing new. All they do is go down to their local extension office and ask them what should I plant this year, and they will tell them.

There is talks in greatly reducing the farm subsidy program because of the high price of grains. I hope they just eliminate it all together.

Don't forget about the farm land lost because of urban sprawl with houses that don't sell...

quote Originally posted by Gokart Mozart: Don't forget about the farm land lost because of urban sprawl with houses that don't sell...

Don't forget the farm land that is out of production because of CRP. 34,500,000 acres of land are enrolled in the CRP. Roughly the size of the entire State of New York.

The good thing about Suburban Sprawl. It's has brought up a great greenhouse and hydroponics growers industry that easily offset the minimal farmland loss that suburban sprawl ever did.

I don't want to go off on a rant here buut...

This right here is one of the big reasons I've been so against E85 from the start. Nevermid the fact that it pollutes a ton while making it. Nevermind the fact that it gets less milage or makes less power. Forget the fact that it attracts water more than gas. Because to our government, none of that matters. It's "renewable". dn that's all that matters.

Ok, so back to the matter at hand. Farmers plant more corn, because everone wants it. This is negative for multiple reasons, but for two big ones. Causes the price of corn and therefore feed for cattle to go up, and they are planting less of everything else, which means the price of everything else is up. Price of feed up means the price of meat is up, also the price of dairy, Price of dairy and meat up amonst many other things all comes down to less money in our pockets.

I'm not very good at putting this into words, but obviously it's agrivating to me. You will never see me owning or supporting anything E85. It's negatives waaaay outweigh it's only positive. But again, it's only the positive that our Goverment looks at that's all it cares about. Renewable, and home grown. E85 is not the right path.

What is? Diesel and Hydrogen. My parents have a 2008 Mercedes Benz ML 320cdi, and it pulls mid to high 20's on the highway, and low 20's in town. And it'll get better as the ECM continues to learn. [It's only got 900 miles on it] All of this while having 225 HP and 398 ft/lb of Tourque. Works for me.

Eric

quote Originally posted by Racingman24: I don't want to go off on a rant here buut... This right here is one of the big reasons I've been so against E85 from the start. Nevermid the fact that it pollutes a ton while making it. Nevermind the fact that it gets less milage or makes less power. Forget the fact that it attracts water more than gas. Because to our government, none of that matters. It's "renewable". Dan that's all that matters. Ok, so back to the matter at hand. Farmers plant more corn, because everyone wants it. This is negative for multiple reasons, but for two big ones. Causes the price of corn and therefore feed for cattle to go up, and they are planting less of everything else, which means the price of everything else is up. Price of feed up means the price of meat is up, also the price of dairy, Price of dairy and meat up amonst many other things all comes down to less money in our pockets. Eric

Good luck trying to get this through a liberals thick skull. Take Al Gore jet setting around the globe and David Suzuki driving a big diesel bus across the country. To liberals, these individuals enormous emissions are forgivable because they are "SPREADING AWARENESS". These same mental midgets choose to ignore the huge energy expenditures, as well as other factors such as the herbicides and other chemicals that go into the ground while farmers are producing their corn crops for use in ethanol. This would ruin their feel good vision of ethanol being the perfect clean burning fuel. At the same time, families are becoming more and more stretched as food prices continue to climb, and ironically enough, these same twits who advocated production of ethanol in the first place are also the same ones protesting on the new working poor class's behalf, who inevitably end up paying for these Kum-by-ya singing hippies misinformed deeds.

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 03-28-2008).]