Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America's grain stocks running short (food security and export control?)
The Grand Island Independent ^ | 02/24/08 | By Robert Pore

Posted on 02/25/2008 5:08:27 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster

America's grain stocks running short

By Robert Pore robert.pore@theindependent.com

Print Story | e-mail Story | Visit Forums

Global demand for grain and oilseeds is at record levels, causing the nation's grain stocks to reach critically low levels, according to Purdue University agricultural economist Chris Hurt.

With a weak U.S. dollar and global demand so high, foreign buyers are outbidding domestic buyers for American grain, Hurt said.

"Food consumers worldwide are going to have to pay more," Hurt said. "We ended 2007 with our monthly inflation rate on food nearly 5 percent higher. I think we'll see times in 2008 where the food inflation rate might be as much as 6 percent."

Increasing food costs will ignite the debate on food security this year, Hurt said.

"We'll have discussions about whether we should allow the foreign sector to buy our food," he said. "Is food a strategic item that we need to keep in our country?"

The USDA recently released a revised forecast for agricultural exports, predicting a record of $101 billion for fiscal year 2008.

According to the U.S. Grains Council, a significant increase in feed grain exports buoyed the forecasts. Specifically, the forecast for coarse grain exports is raised to 70 million tons, up 2 million tons since November. Corn and sorghum exports are up $2.4 billion from November. Coarse grain exports are forecast at $14.1 billion, $4.3 billion above last year's level.

Hurt said the 2007 U.S. wheat crop is virtually sold out, while domestic soybean stocks soon will fall below a 20-day supply. Corn inventories are stronger, but with demand from export markets, the livestock industry and ethanol plants, supplies also could be just as scarce for the 2008 crop.

More than 70 percent of Nebraska corn crop this year could go to ethanol production.

But what concerns Hurt the most is weather. Adverse weather could trim crop yields this year and cause crop prices to skyrocket even further.

Last year, Nebraska had a record corn crop of nearly 1.5 billion bushels. But rainfall was exceptional last year, especially during the growing season, which helped increase crop yields.

He said recent cash prices for wheat, soybeans and corn are up dramatically from two years ago. Wheat prices have been near $10 a bushel, more than $6 a bushel higher. Cash prices for soybeans are about $13 a bushel, up more than $7 a bushel. Corn is pricing at almost $5 a bushel, an increase of greater than $3 a bushel.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: agw; california; corn; drought; ethanol; foodsecurity; grain; grainshortage; hydrocarbons; lowstock; maize; methane; oilseeds; opec; petroleum; pricehike; soybeans; water
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-274 next last
To: paleorite
If nothing else, it will teach the ag lobby that greed and not putting the American consumer first has consequences.

The "ag lobby" has no duty to put the American consumer first. Their "duty" is to turn on profit on the capital investment in land, equipment and supplies to their investors. The final consumer of their product is not a consideration.

61 posted on 02/25/2008 9:06:52 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike

Buy oil stocks or grain futures!


62 posted on 02/25/2008 9:08:25 AM PST by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Real Nice! The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.


63 posted on 02/25/2008 9:09:33 AM PST by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Two solutions: (1) suspend ethanol mandates for a few months, let the corn go into feed rather than ethanol, and (2) any acreage we’re paying farmers NOT to grow on, tell them to grow stuff this year

The corn market in Idaho has spoken. The animal feeding operations were willing to pay more for the corn to make food (feed livestock) than the market price of ethanol would support. Two ethanol plants have been idled because they aren't economically viable.

64 posted on 02/25/2008 9:10:56 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I have an objective outlook unlike corn farmers who are knee deep in government mandates and subsidies. There is a growing (no pun intended) conflict between fuel and food. We have never had fuel mandates, especially the huge size of these mandates. The impact of the fuel mandates is difficult to determine. In the short run, ethanol mandates along with other factors (global demand, oil prices, and weak dollar) are leading to strong inflationary pressure.

The increase in future corn production is heavily driven by ethanol mandates and subsidies. Making corn more attractive to produce than other crops has already had many negative side effects. You could apply your argument to any good or service. Simply have government provide huge mandates and subsidies to shift demand. Government mandates and subsidies of the ethanol size will have many negative long-term impacts on any good or service.

I find the ethanol mandates and subsidies ironic. I have never read anything that indicates corn-based ethanol will ever be a viable alternative to petroleum. Somehow the ethanol mandates have been justified on the basis of some future biofuel source that will be economically viable. Bottom line: corn-based ethanol is a fraud with huge negative economic repurcussions in the short-term and long-term.


65 posted on 02/25/2008 9:13:07 AM PST by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

It’s a good thing food isn’t part of the core inflation calculations, isn’t it?


66 posted on 02/25/2008 9:14:33 AM PST by null and void (The less you know, the better Hillary looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV
And what explicit numerated power in the US Constitution allows the US government to do that?

So that old-fashioned, outdated term "In our National Interest" no longer applies to anything? Sell to the highest bidder, even if it means starvation in the producing country? (I know we're not there yet, but it's a possible outcome.)
67 posted on 02/25/2008 9:16:22 AM PST by BikerJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: null and void
That is so true. Because if you compared the inflation calculation that includes food with the one that does not (but really does), then the figures would be identical.
68 posted on 02/25/2008 9:17:00 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: paleorite
Obiviously you are too young to remember 1973, but this economic sabotage caused great “pocketbook mayhem” even before the oil shock hit. I don’t want to see Americans suffer now like they did back then.

No. We don't.

69 posted on 02/25/2008 9:17:04 AM PST by null and void (The less you know, the better Hillary looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
By the way, what is the status of the ground water acquifer in Nebraska and neighboring status.

The light up ahead is a train. ....as in train wreck.

70 posted on 02/25/2008 9:20:19 AM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: paleorite
Well if prices are going to be high because of increased export or high because speculators will decrease production if export is cutoff, then it makes more sense to cutoff export. If nothing else, it will teach the ag lobby that greed and not putting the American consumer first has consequences. The American consumer will be no worse off (albeit no better off) either way.

Wow. Where to begin?

Are you seriously suggesting that the world will be a better place if there is NO FOOD, than if abundant food is expensive?

Starving people never revolt, or go to war for resources in your happy little world, do they?

71 posted on 02/25/2008 9:22:34 AM PST by null and void (The less you know, the better Hillary looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kabar; paleorite
Or let the market operate freely, which will make it more attractive for farmers to put more land into production to take advantage of an expanding market.

Which, of course increases the supply, lowering the unit price, but raising the farmer's income because of shear volume.

Everyone eats, and the farmers get paid.

72 posted on 02/25/2008 9:25:46 AM PST by null and void (The less you know, the better Hillary looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Etoo
Gouging American consumers so Chinese communists can purchase and drive automobiles for the profit of globalist carpetbaggers is quite another.

No one is gouging. Crop prices respond quickly to the laws of supply and demand. Witness the plummet in corn futures back in march/April of this year when the anticipated plantings report came out.

Farmers indicated that they were going to plant for the largest corn crop in the entire history of the earth. Futures plunged on the report 25 -30% as I recall (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). The farmers came through with their plans. they harvested the largest corn crop ever, about 13 billion bushels.

What this year is bringing is a situation where the old "Farm Programs", more properly should be named "Cheap Food for Consumers Programs", are no longer a restraint on farmers.

This year, it looks like farmers will plant in response to a free market instead of a government calculated plan.

They are understandably very nervous, no one has done that for over 50 years. Imagine that, 50 years! Is it going to result in financial ruin, financial success, or what? It will be exceiting either way. I wish them well.

In any event, for the next few years at minimum, the USDA's Cheap Food for Consumers program is not working.

We are going to be forced to buy food at unsubsidized market prices.

Rush has said that the most expensive commodity traded in the United States is ignorance. It's certainly true of the farm programs. Everyone thought food would get cheaper without those programs, and wanted them gone. They now have their wish, they're gone, and understandably the same folks aren't happy.

73 posted on 02/25/2008 9:28:10 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Western Phil; paleorite; no one in particular
Or the government will get involved and...

Revelation 6:6
Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

74 posted on 02/25/2008 9:29:45 AM PST by null and void (The less you know, the better Hillary looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
Adverse weather could trim crop yields this year and cause crop prices to skyrocket even further

And we are being MANDATED to burn food at record levels while we leave crude [which has very little nutritional value] sitting in the ground.

wait til we have a major dry year nationwide, and are forced by congress to eat or produce billions of gallons of ethanol... LFOD...

75 posted on 02/25/2008 9:34:04 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Vote for Principle to inspire Conservatives to service...LiveFreeOrDie...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BikerJoe

HINT: It’s not actually in our national interest to have the government pass a program like has been suggested. How about citizens do for themselves what they should do and the government do the things its explicitly charged to do? People can and do buy their own food you know.


76 posted on 02/25/2008 9:47:16 AM PST by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
(1) suspend ethanol mandates for a few months

...do not damage the oil and the wine!"

I'm no Bible expert, but, removing feedstocks from the biodiesel/ethanol loop would quite literally damage the "oil" and "wine"...

77 posted on 02/25/2008 9:48:50 AM PST by null and void (The less you know, the better Hillary looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Thank you. Well said. Populism is really ugly, isn’t it.


78 posted on 02/25/2008 9:51:16 AM PST by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

The cost of my dog food- cheap brand- not a yuppie brand- has risen 62.5 % in the past 3 years.


79 posted on 02/25/2008 10:12:26 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
The cost of my dog food- cheap brand- not a yuppie brand- has risen 62.5 % in the past 3 years.

Mine went up 20% in the past week, so I know exactly what you mean. Cat food is the same.

80 posted on 02/25/2008 10:28:36 AM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-274 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson