Posted on 06/29/2009 12:28:06 PM PDT by MetaThought
I heard about King Corn when Nora Gedgaudas interviewed Curt Ellis, one of the film’s creators. Ellis and his co-creator Ian Cheney decided to learn about the dominance of corn in our food supply by growing an acre of corn in Iowa, then following where corn goes after it’s harvested. The short answer is: it goes into pretty much everything.
People like to blame the big, bad food industry for turning us into a nation of corn-eaters, but it was clear to me (and yes, this fits nicely with my own bias) that the problem is rooted in stupid government policy. Before Ellis and Cheney even till the ground, the farmer whose land they’re renting tells them, “Without the government payments, you wouldn’t make any money growing corn.”
Duh! As they explain in the film, farmers in Iowa used to grow a variety of crops. Now most of them grow corn, period. Why strictly corn? Because they get subsidies for it. Take away the subsidies, and corn would be far less plentiful, or much more expensive, or both. As any economist will tell you, you get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize.
Mountains of cheap, government-subsidized corn are the reason corn syrup replaced sugar as a sweetener, and also the reason most cattle are raised on corn. Why should a cattle rancher buy enough land to let the cattle graze when it’s cheaper to have a few tons of corn shipped in? As Dr. Al Sears told me during our interview, grains are literally cheaper than dirt - he compared the per-pound price.
So your tax dollars are making nutritionally inferior food cheaper to produce. Those of us who don’t drink sodas are helping to buy them for people who do. Those of us who would prefer to eat grass-fed beef are helping to make corn-fed beef cheaper, which pretty much guarantees it will dominate the market.
Doesn’t that just make you proud of your politicians?
The movie website: King Corn
I don’t know about the movie, but the author of this article doesn’t know a whole lot about the economics of raising corn.
Care to elaborate ?
Having said this, the direct subsidy for corn is no more favorable, and in many cases is less favorable, than subsidies for competing crops. For instance, while corn is eligible for a $.28 per bushel direct payment, wheat is eligible for $.52 per bushel and beans for $.44. While there are cost/benefit calculations for each crop, to the extent that the direct payment is a factor, it tends to depress corn vis-a-vis other crops.
Got that right
Making that measurement per acre makes things look different.
Corn yield of 1 acre =~ 150 bushels
Wheat yield of 1 acre =~ 40 bushels.
So corn is getting subsidized at twice the rate of wheat per acre.
Making that measurement per acre makes things look different.
Corn yield of 1 acre =~ 150 bushels
Wheat yield of 1 acre =~ 40 bushels.
So corn is getting subsidized at twice the rate of wheat per acre.
I saw this on PBS and found it to be an entertaining film. A couple of college kids spend a summer being corn farmers. Their experience reminded me how refugee families are settled- here’s your space, here’s someone who can help you, and here’s where you sign up for benefits. I think they ended up making about seven dollars from their one acre plot. Despite living in an ag state, I knew nothing about corn. It appears that corn is now just a raw material- not a food- and that grain farming benefits from economies of scale. I’d watch it again.
Using your yield figures, priced at today's close on the Chicago Board of Trade, wholly without regard to any subsidy, an acre of soft red winter wheat will gross $211 per acre while an acre of #2 yellow corn will gross $564. It's that corn actually has a value in the marketplace that we plant it.
I don't know about this one. Corn syrup was used by people that couldn't afford sugar long before corn subsidies ever came in to being. Corn syrup today, even without the subsidies, would still offer a much lower cost alternative to sugar. Now, remove the sugar protection too and maybe that could change. Corn syrup is a lousy sweetener without the desirable physical properties of sugar. I think this guy is thinking of high fructose corn syrup, which is a much different product altogether.
and also the reason most cattle are raised on corn
Cattle are raised on corn because it's cheap but also because of its high oil content. Again, before corn subsidies came about, farmers used corn to fatten beef cattle and hogs. Corn is much more fattening than barley, oats or wheat so I don't know that farmers would use anything else to fatten their animals even if there were no price supports on corn.
Those of us who would prefer to eat grass-fed beef are helping to make corn-fed beef cheaper
Grass fed beef with less marbling or corn fattened beef with much more marbling and flavor? Is this guy serious?
So your tax dollars are making nutritionally inferior food cheaper to produce
It's too bad he didn't elaborate more. Nutritionally inferior to what and in what way?
It's a short essay without much detail but it would appear that Tom needs to learn more about the topic before writing such an article. He rails on corn without any mention of the massive amount of support the government provides domestic sugar producers that end up costing consumers billions. "King Corn" may place blame on government, where it squarely belongs, but it looks like the film could be playing loose with many other details. I'll probably save my time and keep my money.
HFCS is made from Corn Syrup too. The government puts tariffs on Sugar so HFCS is comparatively cheap.
Nutritionally inferior, because Grain-Fed beef has more Omega-6 and Saturated fat, and less Omega-3.
Corn would be more expensive if not for the subsidies, and farmers wouldn’t feed so much corn to beef.
The corn has a comparatively high value because
A) It’s subsidized, so it’s cheaper than it would otherwise be.
B) Tariffs on sugar prompt increase usage of HFCS
C) Ethanol is mandated, further increasing consumption of corn.
Corn has a comparatively high value because it’s cheaper?
Then why didn't the author just say HFCS? It's because he makes the same mistake so many others do by equating corn syrup with HFCS. They are two very different products, used in very different applications, and someone who understood the topic he was writing about would have been clear in making the distinction. Corn syrup hasn't replaced sugar as a sweetener like he claims. However, HFCS has replaced sugar in many applications over the past 35 years.
Nutritionally inferior, because Grain-Fed beef has more Omega-6 and Saturated fat, and less Omega-3.
You're just guessing this is what the author meant. We'll never know. The fact he doesn't know the difference between corn syrup and HFCS leads me to believe he wouldn't know Omega 3 from the Omega Syndrome. Besides that, it's absurd to claim that I should eat lousy grass fed beef with poor or non existent marbling just to get more Omega 3 fatty acids. Not at $10.00 a lb.
Corn would be more expensive if not for the subsidies, and farmers wouldn’t feed so much corn to beef.
Corn might be less expensive without the subsidies but farmers would use it just the same to fatten their hogs and cattle. Consumers like flavorful beef and where would the flavor go during cooking without the marbling? You may have to pay more for your steak to compensate for the loss of corn subsidies but there is no way farmers are going to begin using barley, oats or wheat to fatten their commercial animals in place of corn. Additionally, the public isn't going to shift their taste preferences to lousy grass fed beef in any meaningful way so you can be assured that corn will continue to be the product used to make beef and pork taste better.
It has a higher value because government legislates demand for it.
I’m just going to say that although I can’t afford grass-fed beef in the US, Argentinian and Brazilian beef is awesome.
Both Argentina and Brazil have the corn production to support such a move. They also need to better control the prevalence of FMD.
Grass fed beef, no matter how you cut it, doesn't have nearly the marbling of grain fed or grain finished beef. Without that fat there is no place for the flavor to go during cooking. No fat, no flavor. Less fat, less flavor. A small percentage of the beef eating public may choose grass fed beef for flavor and/or health reasons but the broader market here will continue to spend their budget for beef (and pork) on a well marbled product.
Swell, but the point of this article is that it’s artificially cheap because of government legislated supply. So apparently it’s simultaneously too expensive and too cheap.
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.