advertisement

John's World
Sunday, October 21, 2007
 
I want to see a field of this after a 60 mph wind...

In our search for plants to make biofuels from, an unlikely candidate has emerged: tropical maize.

Early research results show that tropical maize, when grown in the Midwest, requires few crop inputs such as nitrogen fertilizer, chiefly because it does not produce any ears. It also is easier for farmers to integrate into their current operations than some other dedicated energy crops because it can be easily rotated with corn or soybeans, and can be planted, cultivated and harvested with the same equipment U.S. farmers already have. Finally, tropical maize stalks are believed to require less processing than corn grain, corn stover, switchgrass, Miscanthus giganteus and the scores of other plants now being studied for biofuel production. [More]
We sometimes forget early corn had no ears. And when stalks are 25% sugar - who needs 'em?


Still all these ethanol-wannabees will have a tough time buying acreage the first few years.

Labels: ,

 
Friday, October 19, 2007
 
Meanwhile, back on the farm...

It's finally sinking in on cellulosic ethanol producers that somebody better figure out where their feedstock is going to come from and what it will cost. And there are some surprises.
When it comes to growing and harvesting switchgrass as an energy crop, recent studies have shown that farmers likely could grow switchgrass for $30 to $35 a ton in the Midwest. However, many cellulosic-ethanol technology companies have not been able to bring down their production costs far enough to allow them to pay farmers enough to grow such a crop at a profit.

Petiot said cellulosic plants will require at least 7,000 tons of feedstock per day and will need to be able to produce their own enzymes near the plants to make it economical.

Corey Radtke, a scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory, said that when it comes to storing biomass materials such as switchgrass or corn stover, the U.S. faces a unique situation.

For example, he said while the moderate-to-moist climate in the eastern half of the country is virtually ideal for growing biomass crops, it is not a good area to store crops like switchgrass. That's because such cellulosic-ethanol feedstocks can be ruined if they become wet during storage.

In the much drier and warmer western half of the country, Radtke said, farmers struggle to grow biomass crops, but the climate is perfect for storing biomass. [More]
The free-lunch theory associated with cellulosic ethanol is now facing serious scrutiny. I believe the most critical test is to convince skeptics like me to grow, harvest, handle and store the monstrous volumes of low-energy biomass needed for the feedstock.

While it could work (on paper), nobody is offering me switchgrass contracts, either.

Labels:

 
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
 
No longer a boom maybe, but certainly not a bust...

The Verasun announcement last week that they were slowing construction of a plant in Indiana is being pointed to as the harbinger of similar news across the biofuel industry.
In other words, the lion's share of inducements have gone to production—call it supply-side energy policy. But crudely stimulating this ethanol is actually the cause of the ethanol backlash. As production increases, the price of the commodity used in the process (corn) rises. So does the price of the expertise and materials needed to build capacity. During the railroad boom, the cost of steel and the salaries of engineers rose. During the dot-com boom, the cost of fiber-optic capacity and the salaries of Web programmers rose. The Wall Street Journal reported that the cost of building a new ethanol plant has risen from $1.50-per-gallon last year to $2.20 per gallon today.

The combination of rising commodity prices and production costs and a glut of product makes it more difficult for the manufacturers to turn a profit. In the second quarter, Verasun's gross margins shrunk to 19.2 percent, compared with 41 percent in the same quarter the year before. In its second quarter, Aventine gross margins shrunk from 11 percent to 6.9 percent. Verasun said earlier this week it would suspend construction of a refinery in Indiana. [More]

I'm not so sure.

I think this is more simply pushback against a construction cost squeeze, and a convenient way to reinforce the need for a larger RFS mandate in the energy bill. And given the relative ease with which the Senate seems to find money for ag, I think Congress will ponder for only a few seconds before raising the mandates.

Reform of any kind in Congress is playing about as well as the Cubs in postseason.

Labels: ,

 
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
 
Contextor reads the ag news...

Contextor - a really strange being from another planet - with the decidedly non-super power of being able to put data points in context, found this stray statistic in the news.
Yet another so-called "study" about the impact of corn-based ethanol on the nation's food supply has been issued. Like the others, its authors choose facts that support their opinion, and disregard everything else. Once again we're told ethanol has little impact on the nation's dependence on foreign oil and is driving up food prices. "Impact," we guess, is a relative term. Ethanol is replacing 200 million barrels of imported oil per year. With the price of oil above $80/barrel, ethanol's impact on oil imports alone is more than $16 billion dollars. [More]
"Hmm", muses Contextor. "Sixteen billion dollars is a lot of money. I could pay off my credits cards and buy some bling for my uniform. But for the whole US it may look different. We import 3,700,000,000 barrels of oil every year. Using the same $80/barrel price means our imported oil cost is $296 B. So ethanol's impact is a little over 5% per year."

Numbers for a whole country like the US are really big. It's good to remember this.

Labels: ,

 
 
You can hear the drum...

The New York Times got the ag community in a snit with stories pointing out problems with ethanol and subsidies. First, a story about food aid to poor countries.
Soaring food prices, driven in part by demand for ethanol made from corn, have helped slash the amount of food aid the government buys to its lowest level in a decade, possibly resulting in more hungry people around the world this year.

The United States, the world’s dominant donor, has purchased less than half the amount of food aid this year that it did in 2000, according to new data from the Department of Agriculture.

“The people who are starving and have to rely on food aid, they will suffer,” Jean Ziegler, who reports to the United Nations on hunger and food issues, said in an interview this week. [More]

Then an analysis of the ethanol market.
But companies and farm cooperatives have built so many distilleries so quickly that the ethanol market is suddenly plagued by a glut, in part because the means to distribute it have not kept pace. The average national ethanol price on the spot market has plunged 30 percent since May, with the decline escalating sharply in the last few weeks.

“The end of the ethanol boom is possibly in sight and may already be here,” said Neil E. Harl, an economics professor emeritus at Iowa State University who lectures on ethanol and is a consultant for producers. “This is a dangerous time for people who are making investments.”

While generous government support is expected to keep the output of ethanol fuel growing, the poorly planned overexpansion of the industry raises questions about its ability to fulfill the hopes of President Bush and other policy makers to serve as a serious antidote to the nation’s heavy reliance on foreign oil. [More]
While some see these opinions as contradictory, I can't find the logical error. Subsidies/mandates have distorted our markets - ask cattle feeders. In fact, forcing the market to higher prices is what we were trying to do. The NYT, like a few of us in farm country simply don't care for our current farm subsidies.

The problem here is the messenger. The NYT is a liberal media bastion, and hence most industrial producers can't find anything to love, even when they have no counter arguments - which were sparse in the complaints I read. Supposedly, New Yorkers don't care about anybody in Iowa, for example. That's fair, but then there are very few Yankee fans in Des Moines either.

Plus they are all rich, aren't they? So we don't need any more reasons to not believe anything in the NYT. Only whether you like the NYT or not, they still get the facts right on more stuff more of the time than most other newspapers. Besides, even conservative papers like WSJ are down on mandates and subsidies. And the whole paper is now free online.

Plus we secretly do believe what they print, even as we rail against hearing the words out loud. The articles - if you bother to read them - are chock full of real numbers ad expert opinions. Including that notorious New Yorker, Neil Harl.

You can measure how factual the reports are. Notice over the next few weeks the increased urgency for a huge increase in the RFS (ethanol mandate) in the energy bill. Suddenly it's clear to even casual observers that ethanol could bleed red ink. Add in the number of "consolidators" hovering like angels of death over the ethanol industry (not my guess, but a fact pointed out by an economist who watches the industry).


The sound of the drumbeat for a legislative fix to the rigged ethanol market is growing. And I think corn growers will win again. Despite all arguments against ethanol, it seems to resonate with most people, and Congress agrees. So be worried if you need more anxiety, but I have finally learned to stay out of the way of the ethanol truck.

Labels: , , ,

 
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
 
List rites for a myth...

OK, we now have enough studies frantically funded by corn growers to lay to rest the "cheap food" policy illogic foisted on credulous legislators and the public in general. Loudly proclaiming now that corn prices do not affect food prices (much), proponents of new plateaus of corn prices are notably silent on what benefit consumers therefore get from my fixed payment.
The dramatic increase in the use of crops for fuel is going to increase food prices, at least for the next several years. The magnitude of that increase however, may not be as large as some expect. Probably the three most important reasons why the impact will not be as large as in past years are: 1.) the share of the retail food dollar contributed by the farm level commodity value has been sharply reduced to just 20 percent today; 2.) the importance of food in consumer budgets has continued to drop such that the "food and beverage" category in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is now weighted at just 15 percent; and 3.) the sources of our food are more global and diverse than in the past.

Retail level food prices are expected to increase an additional 1.2 percent to 1.8 percent above their 2006 level due to higher farm-level grain and commodity prices partially attributable to the use of grains and oilseeds for biofuels. This will roughly parallel the calendar years of 2007 and 2008. This analysis is based upon the assumption that higher farm-level commodity prices are eventually passed to retail food consumers. Our assumption is that transferal is dollar for dollar. Not all of the current increased food inflation is attributable to increased use of crops for energy, as poor weather conditions have also contributed to poor world wheat crops in 2006, and to losses of some fruit and vegetable production in 2007. [More]

Giving money to farmers likely has little downward effect on food prices - it mostly goes to inputs and land costs. The study is just the latest of several efforts to counter ethanol opponents in the food vs. fuel debate. Regardless on where you are on that issue, one thing is does do is refute the "cheap food" argument.

[via Farmgate]

Labels: , ,

 
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
 
Technology finds a way around...

One of the big factors propelling ethanol production is a significant difference in the retail taxing. America has traditionally paid for roads by taxing fuel. What if GPS technology allowed us to pay by mile instead?
Americans are driving cars that get better mileage, and more are driving vehicles that use fuels taxed at lower rates than gasoline, such as ethanol, or making their own fuel and not being taxed. That means gas tax revenue isn't growing nearly as fast as the number of miles driven.

In addition, the costs of road construction materials have skyrocketed because of heavy demand from India and China. Congress and many state legislatures are reluctant to increase gas taxes, especially at a time of high prices at the pump. The federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon has not been increased since 1993; 24 states have not raised their gas taxes since 1997, according to the American Road & Transportation Builders Association.

That has made a mileage fee more attractive to some agencies. The University of Iowa study is funded by the Federal Highway Administration and 15 state departments of transportation. [More]

How do you get a special tax incentive for ethanol with that kind of tax structure?

Answer: Levy both taxes.

You heard it here first.

Labels: ,

 
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
 
It's only a trick if you find out...

Otherwise, it's magic. I have been frankly puzzled by producers who are bound and determined to find a pile of excrement overwhelming the pony of ethanol. Whether some weird "I'm not worthy" mind game is being played out I have no idea, but I do suspect this.

Still the idea that it's all a trick seems to have found traction. While it could be true, the real question is what our response should be to discovering this subterfuge. Here's mine.

The fools who rush in will make out like bandits. Seriously, my lifetime is replete with examples of conservatives being totally used by circumstance. The fear of failure, especially public failure, is an all too convenient excuse for inaction. And those who do plunge into the fire, if nothing else learn more about fire.

[Important Note: This analysis applies to producers, not small ethanol plant owners, who could be so very ummm, "discomfited" in the not-too-distant future]

But I digress. The "Trick" sector just received some "I-told-you-so" confirmation from the OECD.

C'mon, you know. The Organization for Economic Commission... no, no..

The Organization for Economic Cooperative Development...no, that's not it either. Cripes, here.

ANYHOO, as I was blithering, the ethanol miracle has of course been sponsored by your local political process, and as such it is fair game for political commentary.
The OECD will say in a report to be discussed by ministers on Tuesday that politicians are rigging the market in favour of an untried technology that will have only limited impact on climate change.

“The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits,” say the authors of the study, a copy of which has been obtained by the Financial Times.

The survey says biofuels would cut energy-related emissions by 3 per cent at most. This benefit would come at a huge cost, which would swiftly make them unpopular among taxpayers.

The study estimates the US alone spends $7bn (€5bn) a year helping make ethanol, with each tonne of carbon dioxide avoided costing more than $500. In the EU, it can be almost 10 times that.

It says biofuels could lead to some damage to the environment. “As long as environmental values are not adequately priced in the market, there will be powerful incentives to replace natural eco-systems such as forests, wetlands and pasture with dedicated bio-energy crops,” it says. [More]

Yeah, yeah, been there, heard that. But unless you have been comatose or under 30 for the last decade, you realize that actual, verifiable reality runs a distant second to powerful stories. I offer Iraq and the current belief among Republicans that WMD were found as evidence. Truth is a long-term winner, but a short term way to be mugged.

Hence my full-throttle approach to this ethanol boom, regardless of it's predicted length. While others prepare for Doomsday, I think a better strategy is to scale the highest point from which to (possibly) fall. If we have learned nothing else from recent political action, it is government feels responsible for my personal failings, especially since I am a farmer.

With others working diligently to weave a "safety net" I have not asked for, I plan to exploit (doesn't that sound like a nasty word) the passions of others for patronizing support.

Any rational person would have a hard time justifying ethanol subsidies, but here are not that many "rationalistas" around and they don't seem to have the votes. Adjusting is what democracy is all about.


[Thanks, Greg]

Labels: ,

 
Thursday, August 23, 2007
 
The web of finance...

Although Cargill has long been an advocate for their large food and feed customers (remember, grain growers - you are their supplier, not their customer) by moving slowly on ethanol expansion, their recent call to build an "escape clause" into any RFS increase places them on a collision course politically with most corn growers.
The US is reviewing its federal Renewable Fuel Standard, which calls for the production of 7.5bn gallons a year of alternative fuels by 2012. This is expected to be reached well ahead of target, and the Bush administration has called for a benchmark of 35bn gallons by 2017, about half of it from ethanol.

Bill Veazey, Cargill's chief financial officer, said there needed to be "some kind of waiver" in any state-backed mandate. "There needs to be escape mechanisms so that you don't distort the food markets," he told the Financial Times.
But it gets more complicated than that simple premise, although it is certainly a concern. Cargill is in many businesses other than grain, and one of them is "asset management" Or more crudely put, owning stuff.

That part of their business, like most similar enterprises has seen recent financial turmoil dim the prospects for the future, especially should assets suddenly be devalued by deflating the real estate bubble. Guess which other branches of Cargill would have to pick up the slack?
Cargill said three of its five divisions delivered record results, and played down the importance of its asset management business, which has been the largest contributor to earnings in recent years.

"What we have is a broader and more diversified earnings' stream than last year," said Mr Veazey, pointing to the restructuring of the financial services business into two standalone entities, which have secured third-party investors to reduce Cargill's exposure.

However, Cargill's heavy investment programme - which it will continue to fund internally - and the potential volatility of financial services income have prompted ratings agencies to shift their outlooks for the group to negative in recent months. [More]
I have no criticism of the Cargill position. Their defense of animal agriculture should certainly commend them to many farmers. But even this laudable effort can get entangled with cross purposes of other divisions. It's one reason you seen the conglomeration strategy come and go in modern business management. Diversification contributes to a loss of clear purpose even while reducing risks.

The larger question though is the fallout from mandates. Mandate supporters think they can force the market to obey, but our species is far too devious to put up with those kinds of coercion forever. Ethanol needs to reduce its reliance on this barely legalized extortion methodology as soon as possible.


And the best way IMHO, is a carbon tax.

Labels: , ,

 
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
 
The Switchgrass Flim-Flam, Part XVIII...

I'm speaking today and tomorrow in Iowa for the IA Bureau and I followed Sterling Liddell who gave a long range outlook. Super presentation. He has all the flamboyant showmanship of an economist, but still strangely likable.

Anyhoo, somewhere toward the end of his talk someone asked about switchgrass. He was far more discrete in his skepticism of this "energy solution" than I have been, but he mentioned an issue I had not heard of before:

Rats.

I can't google up anything tonight, so I will cross-examine him tomorrow but coupled with this story, it struck me as interesting.
Now comes another woe, this one as icky as a biblical plague: millions of mouse-like rodents called voles feasting on everything from beets to potatoes in an infestation that has prompted a desperate, scorched-earth policy in one of Spain's agricultural heartlands.

Farmers unions say the Castille-Leon region in north-central Spain is crawling with an estimated 7.5 million voles, and the local government is baffled: It doesn't know the cause — or the solution. The invasion began gently 10 months ago but has snowballed to stunning proportions.

Spanish television aired footage of scores of voles darting in and out of holes in what would normally be rich, healthy farmland, or quivering in the throes of death brought on by pesticide. Some of the critters have even made it into gardens of homes in the region's main city, Valladolid, according to news reports. [More]

I'll keep looking - but is it me or is getting a little "Nostradamus" around here? What's next - a plague of frogs?

Labels:

 
Sunday, August 19, 2007
 
Energy Independence: Update...

As the pushback from ethanol mandates becomes fiercer, the winning argument seems to be wrapping the biofuel industry in the Stars 'n Stripes under the guise freeing us from dependence on "furrin orl". This seemed unlikely last year, and even more so today.

While this is all fashionably xenophobic, not only is there no evidence to suggest we are decreasing our oil imports from bad people by making more ethanol, it would seem we are doing THE OPPOSITE.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country May-07 Apr-07 YTD 2007 May-06 Jan - May 2006

CANADA
SAUDI ARABIA
MEXICO
VENEZUELA
NIGERIA
ANGOLA
ALGERIA
IRAQ
RUSSIA
ECUADOR
UNITED KINGDOM
KUWAIT
BRAZIL
NORWAY
COLOMBIA
[More]

Please compare the last column with the third. If we lump Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Algeria, and Venezuela (I forget - is Russia on our side now or not?) together as "nasty oil" then we are importing 3.458 million BPD now compared to 3.400 million BPD during the same period last year.
Other interesting notes:
  • we are getting less from Iraq than in 2006
  • we are getting more from Russia
  • we are getting more from Algeria
  • Saudi Arabia has replaced Mexico as #2
  • Mexican production is slumping seriously.
And finally, all this happened while we were massively ramping up ethanol production. My take on this is simple. Ethanol will not deliver anything close to US energy independence. Domestic production increases won't either. Using much less energy may be the only way.

Other observers with more intellectual heft than this minor-leaguer are drawing similar conclusions.
This is nonsense. As my colleague Robert J. Samuelson demonstrated this week, biofuels will barely keep up with the increase in gasoline demand over time. They are a huge government bet with goals and mandates and subsidies that will not cure our oil dependence or even make a significant dent in it.

Even worse, the happy talk displaces any discussion about here-and-now measures that would have a rapid and revolutionary effect on oil consumption and dependence. No one talks about them because they have unhidden costs. Politicians hate unhidden costs.

There are three serious things we can do now: Tax gas. Drill in the Arctic. Go nuclear. [More]

The numbers may not matter in the short run. Ethanol seems like it should reduce our need for imports, so if we keep saying it long and loud enough, maybe a miracle will happen. But every year as we re-examine our oil import numbers, the illusion will be harder to support.

For producers, the key to maintaining support for mandates could be to install a large and powerful political base in as many states as possible and to keep the costs hidden.

That's pretty much a mirror of our farm program political strategy. And it is hard to argue with the success of that political effort.

Hence my cash rent bids.

Labels:

 
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
 
Food vs. fuel vs. economics...

One of my favorite economists, Bruce Babcock, again sheds some dispassionate light on the food price/ethanol debate.
In the case of farm programs, it is easy to demonstrate that feed grain and oilseed prices are largely unaffected by U.S. farm subsidies, particularly since 1996 when Congress removed USDA's authority to increase commodity prices through acreage set-asides and subsidized storage. It is also easy to demonstrate that the small share of the final consumer food dollar that goes to the farmer means that even a doubling of feed grain and oilseed prices from expanded biofuels production will lead to relatively modest increases in the prices of meat and dairy products. Food prices are largely determined by costs and profits after commodities leave the farm. [More]
The recent clamor from corn growers that high corn prices don't really affect food prices clearly undermines justification for some forms of subsidies as consumer benefits. Subsidies are too rapidly folded into fixed costs to affect output levels, especially now we have a generation trained for decades in subsidy gaming.

Coupled with the global demand surge, we may simply outgrow our farm programs.

Labels: , ,

 
 
Another reason land prices may not be out of line...

According to Mike Walsten at Landowner newsletter (subscription required) land prices show no signs of backing off.
The highest-selling tract, totaling 165.44 acres, sold for $9,500 an acre and the lowest-selling tract, 62.31 acres, brought $4,950 an acre. That 62.31-acre-tract was only 70% tillable, says Dave Klein, vice president and managing broker, Soy Capital Ag Services, Bloomington, 309-665-0961, whose firm handled the sale. [More]
The driving force, I believe is clearly ethanol. Even though its immediate impact is on corn prices, the competition for land to grow corn forces other commodities higher. Interestingly, this is occurring just when global demand is ramping up, fed by economic growth in the less developed countries of the world.
For the first time, dairy farmers could threaten to sell their products elsewhere since the global dairy market is suddenly thirsty for German milk. And there's particular interest in powered whey. Prices for the yellowy stuff, which is the foundation for many packaged food products, have more than doubled within a year. Globalization has finally reached a sector that for a long time was organized regionally. While the dairy sector in Germany is still connected with the image of the quaint Bavarian farmer and his bell-wearing cows, in reality it's become an industry of multinational corporations, stock prices and commodities markets.

Milk is in demand. The inventories of food producers have dried up. So too has Europe's proverbial sea of surplus milk. The much-maligned mountain of extra butter is also gone. Such positive developments have even encouraged the European Commission to consider reforming Europe's bloated agricultural policies further.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel wants to increase the bloc's milk quotas, which have been frozen in place for years. The intention is to push along the decision made by EU agriculture ministers to do away with the convoluted quota system that regulates Europe's milk production. But the quotas will only be completely eliminated in 2015. While that might not seem very ambitious, at least the basic laws of supply and demand have been reestablished for the first time since the regulations for the milk market were implemented in 1968. [More]
Meanwhile, one dairy subsector is challenged by rising raw milk prices: organic. It seems consumers may be more price sensitive than originally thought, or that the organic buying public is smaller that forecast.
Dean sells organic milk and soy products through its WhiteWave Foods division. The organic milk is specifically sold under its Horizon brand, a segment battling the industry-wide oversupply of raw organic milk.

Organic milk costs more than regular, making retail competition aggressive as companies use lower pricing, marketing and expanded distribution to try to sell off excess supply. [More]

My goodness - supply and demand! Are they still teaching that stuff? If the EU takes this opportunity to even mildly reform its dairy quota system, it will add significant pressure to WTO calls for US reform as well.

We are only beginning to measure the fallout from ethanol mandates. The results may surprise us.

Labels: , , ,

 
Thursday, July 12, 2007
 
Who ya gonna believe...

Me - or your own arithmetic skills? In one of the most astonishing displays of illogic I have read, a Missouri Congress member doubles back on the thread of cause and effect.
Thanks to well-thought-out Farm Bill support programs, our farmers persevere, and American consumers benefit. In developed nations around the world, most families have not earned enough money to buy food for the year until April or May, but the average American family has done so in just five weeks.

[Translation: Subsidizing corn makes the price lower, and hence food cheaper]

Our nation has chosen a wise strategic and economic course of ethanol and biofuel development. This goal increases corn prices, but it has a negligible effect on the price of food in America. It's worth remembering that the box part of a box of cornflakes costs consumers more than the corn does. [More]

[Translation: The price of corn doesn't affect food prices] [My Comments]
As I have said before those claims would be more convincing coming from the livestock industry. But wait, they have made a comment or two about ethanol and meat prices.
Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the past year — from $2 to $4 per bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn: Nationally, food prices were up 3.9 percent in April, compared to the same month a year earlier. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60 percent of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens, or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. A spokesman for one of California's largest cattle ranches and feedlots noted that since the end of 2005, the company has experienced a 36 percent increase in the cost of feed, "which translates to an additional expense of $101 per head raised." Reflecting these trends, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association has demanded an end both to government subsidies for ethanol and to the import tariff on foreign ethanol.

The poultry industry is also squawking. The National Chicken Council is demanding remedies from senators who represent the big southern poultry states, and the National Turkey Federation estimates that its feed costs have gone up nearly $600 million annually. [More]
Anyway, we may be on track to find out. Judging from the long-range forecast and our own Crop Comments, the food v. fuel debate could be about to heat up.

[Thanks, Chris]

Labels: ,

 
Sunday, July 08, 2007
 
Ethanol and organic...

Despite claims to the contrary, rising corn prices - which have been loudly ascribed to ethanol production - do raise food prices eventually. Ask the meat industry. Or dairy. [And stop trotting out the corn flakes.]
The rising food costs fueled by ethanol demand are also affecting U.S. consumers. "All things that use corn are going to have higher prices and higher cost, to some extent, that will be passed on to consumers," says Wally Tyner, professor of agriculture economics at Purdue University. The impact of this is being felt first in animal feed, particularly poultry and pork. Poultry feed is about two-thirds corn; as a result, the cost to produce poultry--both meat and eggs--has already risen about 15 percent due to corn prices, says Tyner. Also expect corn syrup--used in soft drinks--to get more expensive, he says. [More]

So, what will food inflation mean for the nascent agrarian (organic, local, free-range, etc.) food industry and the premiums they need for profitability?
One speaker in particular championed this concept, suggesting that the opportunities for premiumisation were almost limitless. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware that the likes of Whole Foods and Tesco and brands like Rachel’s Organic and Green & Black’s have successfully travelled down this road in recent years. But something about his unqualified optimism didn't sit well.

I realised it was my own shopping habits that were causing my doubts. Increased inflation and rising interest rates here in the UK have without doubt blunted my own personal spending power, causing me to think twice before I drop the premium sausages into the basket, or reach for organic salad, rather than standard products.

The question must be asked then, how does this theory of unlimited premiumisation sit if we enter a sustained period of economic recession? In the UK and US, this question has been largely academic in recent years. [More]
As Dean Best points out, the answer depends on how the economy fares, or at least the personal economies of those who are likely to favor agrarian food - i.e. the well-to-do.

So far that group is doing very well, thank you. But their numbers may have trouble growing, since the bulk of income growth in the US seems to wind up with the already wealthy. And should recession loom, that tiny group of consumers won't be swelling, I'd bet.

Agrarian producers have more at stake in the fiscal decisions of the government than the farm bill, I think. I mean, it's not like they are getting much government help now, and agrarian production is growing. What this sector has to fear is 1) continued income gain concentration and 2) slow or negative GDP growth.

Labels: , , ,

 
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
 
Bridle that enthusiasm...

Has recent corn market action got you down? Well, have I got a scholarly report for you!
"Bioenergies have become a key factor in the functioning of agriculture markets," Loek Boonekamp, a senior OECD official, told reporters after the release of the study.

"In the medium term we believe that they could lead to prices on international markets rising quite considerably, at higher levels than what we had predicted in former outlooks and above the average of the last 10 years," he added.

Boonekamp said that farm prices, mainly grains, would likely rise by 20 to 50 percent over the next decade. [More happy economic talk]
There is a reluctance to embrace the idea of a looooong run of good times here on the farm. I suspect the nature of this commodity price boom - mandated, not market-inspired - is confusing our economic instincts.

The largest risk may be loss of political support for mandates - something I think is very, very remote. Every plant that opens and FFV that's sold adds to the ethanol constituency. Hence those "fools" bidding too much for land and rent could look like geniuses a couple of decades from now.

Labels:

 
Sunday, June 24, 2007
 
The backlash continues...

The Food vs. Fuel disagreement is intensifying. Ron Bailey - a science writer I greatly admire - backs up his opinion with good data:
Another way to look at it is that it takes 450 pounds of corn to make enough ethanol to fill a 25-gallon gas tank. Four hundred and fifty pounds of corn supplies enough calories to feed a person for one year. The USDA projects that in 2010 the ethanol industry will consume 2.6 billion bushels of corn. A bushel weighs 56 pounds, so a quick calculation yields the result that 2.6 billion bushels of corn could supply enough calories to feed nearly 325 million people for a year. [More of a must-read for corn farmers]

Even the popular ag speaker Dennis Avery is objecting.
Unfortunately, U.S. corn land produces only 50 gallons worth of gasoline per acre per year—against an annual gasoline demand of 135 billion gallons. New U.S. ethanol plants coming on line could take 30 percent of next year’s U.S. corn for auto fuel—an unprecedented diversion of the world’s scarce cropland. Supplying the Bush goal of 35 billion gallons of ethanol per year would currently force farmers to clear more than 200 million acres of Midwest forest to supply even 10 percent of our gasoline demand from corn ethanol. [More]

Too little, too late. It looks like the 35B gal. mandate will sail through Congress, locking our crop plans for the foreseeable future. The apparent benefits (energy independence without scrimping!) are too powerful for the actual numbers.

Meanwhile, just in case we do get desperate enough for Brazilian ethanol, ADM is pursuing a rational strategy.
Archer Daniels Midland, the nation's largest producer of ethanol fuel from corn, is setting its sights on a move into Brazil's sugar cane-based ethanol business, according to a published report.

The Wall Street Journal says ADM (Charts, Fortune 500) is exploring a variety of strategies to enter Brazil's ethanol market, ranging from building sugar-cane mills and ethanol plants from the ground up to acquiring sugar-cane companies. [More]
Mandates mess your your mind - not just your economics. I don't think we can predict how this legislated demand will change American agriculture because it is outside the realm of market economics.

I'm getting the feeling this could be a spectacular ride for corn farmers.

Labels:

 
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
 
Take it to the bank...

I have been nattering on for some time that the ethanol business is not amenable to economic analysis because it is driven by politics, not value. A critic agrees with me:
Except - there is no ethanol "market." The ethanol business is driven by government planners, not freely acting buyers and sellers.

I didn't consider opportunities to portray ethanol distilleries as weapons in the global war on terror. I forgot about the 2008 presidential election, in which farm-state pandering will be crucial. In short, I forgot about the politicians, who show every sign of expanding the boondoggle to legendary dimensions and ensuring that investors pile into corn likker for years.

Things look bullish for ethanol projects whether or not they make economic sense. [More]
Regardless of whether you appreciate his reflections or not, it is the realization of the power of myth involved in the ethanol story. This is why, gentle readers, I am not waiting for the bubble to burst or land prices to plummet. Indeed, I consider this moment the time to double down on our corn bets.

I know, I know - I'm looking at a drought too.

But this thing is not going away.
It's true that the ethanol stocks I wrote about last summer have declined on fears of a glut. Under current law, most gas can't contain more than 10 percent ethanol, and at some point all the gas will be blended. Most cars aren't supposed to use richer blends. A fall in gas prices would also hurt ethanol producers.

But have faith in the politicians, who still haven't found a limit on how often they can play the al-Qaida card. Ethanol investments are indeed a bubble, but with government's aid there's no guessing how big it'll get.
It is not necessary to agree with every aspect of a business to profit by it.

Labels: , ,

 
Friday, June 08, 2007
 
Any minute now...

A breathless announcement of a cellulosic ethanol breakthrough.
At a Brazilian ethanol conference June 4-5, Brazilian government-funded researchers said they have perfected a method of producing cellulosic ethanol that drastically reduces the cost of processing. At this point, the assertion -- and many other similarly optimistic claims made at the conference -- is unconfirmed. But should it prove true, the world could well be peeking over the horizon at a massive geopolitical, not to mention economic, shift. [More]

As many of you know, I consider cellulosic ethanol the cold fusion of agriculture - mostly because the energy density of the feedstock is so low, and transporting that much stuff negates the energy yield.
More tricky is the problem of the ethanol production itself. Cellulosic biomass is bulky and materially complex, unfit for the same methods of ethanol extraction used with corn. In order to even get the stuff into manageable form, processors must soak it in a pre-treatment bath, followed by an acidic or enzymatic digestion that splits it into simple sugars. [More]
Perhaps cellulosic ethanol will become a major part of energy plans. But think about the ramifications if we can sell crop residue.

The ethanol boom will look like a cheap date.

[via Andrew Sullivan]

Labels: , , ,

 
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
 
Go figure...

The livestock industry asked some economists to estimate the effects of letting ethanol tax credits and tariffs expire in 2008. They seem to think it would be a good idea. So, equations were concatenated, models lovingly constructed, and serious hard-core economicking was done.

In the end, the cattle and pig folks perhaps didn't get the answer they anticipated.

An excellent summary is here at Farmgate. But lightly skipped over in the report and the study paper itself was this little gem.
Livestock producers pay lower feed costs, but their inclination to raise output in response leads to falling output prices as quantities move along an inelastic demand. [Full report]
Run that around in your mind for a while.

First lesson: it's your own fault. You silly producers and your "inclinations".

Second lesson: Lower feed costs are
actually bad for livestock producers, because when feed costs go down, producers put more cattle on feed and farrow more pigs. With demand inelasticity, livestock income then drops as more meat lowers the price.

Say what??

Reading this backwards, can we assume the new higher prices for corn are raising profits in the livestock sector? Those cowboys and hog producers should be rolling in the profits when corn hits $6!

I will be looking forward to some cattle economist reaction to this strange conclusion. My instinctive response is meat production expansion is more a function of higher sales prices rather than lower input prices. After all we had $1.80 corn and expansion livestock numbers did not explode.

[Update: As I was driving to South Bend (3 hrs 9 min best time) I had one of those "poster-regret" moments. The report shows "livestock receipts" which I believe to be gross sales - not gross profits as I had alluded to above. Hence lower feed costs should provide larger margins. However, looking at net farm income numbers lower down the table, it's hard to separate out the livestock/crop differences. It seems to show both sectors are net losers to me. My questions still stand.]

Science - it's stranger than truth.

One other assumption that caught my eye is that the mandate (RFS) stays where it is. I think it is reasonable (politically) to suggest that number is going to rise. I made this case previously. In which case, the loss of tax credits and tariffs mean much less, I would think.

Reading carefully, I also note that the world very likely will not end without biofuel subsidies. (Well, they can't be absolutely certain of course)


The rest of the conclusions are pretty predictable. Ethanol production slips, ethanol expansion slows, and farmers lose about $3B in gross receipts.

Oh yeah, taxpayers save about $6B. As if we care.

Still, it kinda makes you wonder where the other $3B goes each year, doesn't it?

[The report does not note what the income implications for economic research organizations are if the tax and tariff weren't around to study.]

Labels: , , ,

 
Monday, June 04, 2007
 
We know the answer to this one...

The ethanol boom is being studied closely to try to get some handle on what the longer term implications for farmers might be. Consider this interesting study by economists at the University of Illinois ["Call us if you can play football! Even a little bit!"].
Once Federal mandates for use of biofuels are reached, ethanol's primary use will be as a substitute for gasoline. As such, the ethanol price will have to be competitive with the gasoline price so that consumers will buy ethanol-blended fuels. Because corn is the major production cost for ethanol, the price an ethanol producer will be willing to pay for corn, hereafter referred to as the break-even corn price, will be directly related to the ethanol price. As the ethanol price increases, the break-even corn price increases. Moreover, ethanol price will be directly related to crude oil price. Therefore, break-even corn prices will be positively related to crude oil prices. As crude oil price increases, the price of gasoline will increase leading to higher ethanol and break-even corn prices. Conversely, decreases in crude oil price will lead to a lower gasoline price, a lower ethanol price, and a lower break-even corn price. [More]
There follow neat rows and columns of figures, but the punchline for me was the assumption I have highlighted above: "Once Federal mandates for the use of biofuels are reached". This year will get us to around 6B gpy (gallons per year) on our way to a mandate of 7.5 gpy.

But wait, why not just move the goal line?
Refiners would be forced to triple their use of fuel ethanol over the next decade, under legislation expected to start moving through the Senate this spring.

The legislation, outlined Tuesday by leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would require use of 18 billion gallons of biofuels by 2016 and 36 billion gallons by 2022.

All but 15 billion gallons of that biofuel each year would have to come from sources other than corn, such as crop residue, switchgrass and forestry waste. [More]

My perception is at the first sign of markets adjusting to higher corn prices and reducing farmer margins to historic levels, heavy ag lobbying will get the mandate raised. Cash rents, seed, fertilizer, machinery, etc. are already responding to producer liquidity and exercising pricing power. Keep in mind the market still isn't paying the current price for corn right now. End users are still partially feeding off doofs like me who will deliver some $2.50 corn this fall. (I don't want to talk about it!)

My suspicion is the input cost spiral will truly take off this winter as almost all of us sell crops with averages starting with threes and sevens. Producer margins will head back to more modest levels and, having tasted better, intense pressure wll arise for lawmakers to deliver.

From a politician's point of view, mandates are a beautiful thing, man. You don't need a budget for starters. You simply speak and somebody else has to figure out how to pay for it. Having experienced this magic power once, it will be hard to resist repeating. Especially if the farm bill turns out to be less than a crowd pleaser for your farmer constituents.

Getting back to the oil/corn price analysis, such studies make for interesting conversation. But it seems more likely we are in for a punctuated equilibrium model of price evolution - not a smooth curve.

[via farmgate]

Labels: , ,

 
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
 
Burning corn bridges...

As ethanol has driven corn prices higher, corn users aren't just sitting still. Heavy HFCS consumers like the beverage industry are re-thinking the ingredient. Which makes stock analysts nervous.
"Why are we worried about pricing power on the part of corn processors?" she asked rhetorically in a report issued to investors Monday. The stock market has focused on the consolidation among corn processors, which has created a small number of corn-sweetener providers, the analyst observed, but sodamakers' ability to push back hasn't received similar attention.

With corn-sweetener prices moving steadily higher, and with some health groups arguing that sugar is a superior sweetener, "we believe that alternatives are more seriously being debated" among beverage-makers, McGlone wrote.

Given the possibility of a switch to alternative sweeteners in the longer term, she said, the consolidated buyer base may flex its buying muscle more than it has in the past, "and margin-enhancing future pricing for corn processors may be harder to come by." [More]

Adding to the shaky but widely advertised link between HFCS and obesity, the jump in prices could swing food manufacturers back to sugar soon. Our dependence on ethanol to use corn jumps another notch.

Food manufacturers seem to be a nervous bunch.


Labels: ,

 
Monday, April 02, 2007
 
Big news, big news cycle...

The crop report made all the papers. And I mean all of 'em.

I wonder if that kind of publicity is all that good for us? It sure wasn't Friday.

But on the other hand, a few more ethanol plants may get built now, and livestock feeders have a purchasing window.

Labels: ,

 
Monday, March 19, 2007
 
We don't get that many Jewish jokes In Edgar County...

The blogosphere is snorting about a hoax "news story".
Yaniv Ben-Zaken, a local gas station owner, will be selling Kosher for Passover gasoline during the holiday this year. The move, Ben-Zaken says, has become necessary due to the increased ethanol content in gasoline required by the government. The ethanol is typically derived from corn, which is a forbidden food for Jews on Passover. And, according to Ben-Zaken, underJewish law, it is also forbidden to derive any benefit from corn. [More]

Like most good hoaxes, there is just enough truth to make it stand up for a while. And more than a few cerebral blogs swallowed it whole.
The “article” does get the two points of Jewish law correct. First, we are forbidden on Passover from having any hametz in our possession or ownership and it is forbidden to obtain a benefit from hametz during the eight days of the holiday. Hametz is any of the five forbidden grains (wheat, barley, oats, spelt, rye) that has been in the presence of moisture for more than eighteen minutes.

In Northern European communities around the 15th Century, the prohibition on eating hametz was extended to a category of grains called kitniyot: rice, millet, corn, and legumes. Because ground up rice flour or corn meal closely resembles wheat flour, Ashkenazi Jews exclude kitniyot from their Pesach diet as well. However, as “Rabbi Shalom Silver” is quoted as saying in the article, one may possess kitniyot and obtain a benefit from it, use it in any form or fashion, so long as one does not eat it. Baby powder that contains cornstarch, for example, is perfectly acceptable on Pesach, so long as one is not tempted to make a snack of it. [More of the debunking]
"Kosher ethanol" - ya gotta love it!

Coincidentally, as I have mentioned before, I have been listening to lectures on "The Story of the Bible". We're in the middle of the Middle Ages, so to speak, and one question that has long puzzled me was just answered. Why aren't there many Jewish farmers?

The answer seemed simple: Jews were forbidden to own land for most of the Christian era, and hence never developed a modern agrarian heritage.

Turns out there was more to it than that. Those prohibitions occurred later in the Middle Ages as the Christian Church gained almost absolute power in some areas. The full story was more about education.
So—which Jews stuck with Judaism? Presumably those with a particularly strong attachment to their religion and/or a particularly strong attachment to education for education's sake. (The burden of acquiring an education is, after all, less of a burden for those who enjoy being educated.) The result: Over time, you're left with a population of people who enjoy education, are required by their religion to be educated, and are particularly attached to their religion. Naturally, these people tend to become educated. And once they're educated, they leave the farms. [More of a really interesting article]
Bottom line: the bright ones chose more lucrative careers, the farmers likely dropped out of Judaism.


I wonder if the trend for farming to fail to appeal to our brightest - if not the best - will continue? Or will the technological intensity present a more attractive (and competitive) career?

Labels: ,