When all else fails read the data. See:
<http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/uspricehistory/USPrice.asp>
which will draw you a graph of historical prices received at the farm,
not Kellogg. Try the graph of average annual prices from about 1991 to
2011 for corn or any other starting year you want. 2012 annual data
shows 0 so going to the current year is not useful.
I'd have chosen USDA data except their site is too hard to navigate for
historical data. Forecasts aplenty but historical data not so easy.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/20/2012 10:31 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> But who should you believe, Ken? Is the oil industry really wrong and the
>> bio-fuel industry completely above board?
>
> There was one "study" which was intended to slam bio-fuels that put in
> stupid things like wasted gas while the average commuter sat in a
> traffic jam. HUH?
>
> When you see stuff like that, the only thing I can do is reject the
> entire study. Especially when they apply those "adjustments" to
> bio-fuel, but not to dino-fuels.
>
> What I've seen from the bio-fuels industry is very few wild claims
> because they are so easily disproved. About all they are doing is just
> responding to the attacks.
>
> Food costs rising because of bio-fuels? That's also a bunch of
> "hogwash". Drivel. More nonsense spread by the talking heads in NYC
> that think that all farmers are a bunch of hayseed hicks anyway.
> Sorry, but it all comes down to supply, demand, transportation and the
> cost of production. The fact your Corn Flakes cost so much has nothing
> to do with the cost of corn. Even at today's inflated corn prices,
> there is still only something like 20 cents worth of corn in that box
> of Corn Flakes. We may have an absolute block-buster harvest this
> year. Price per bushel will drop through the floor below cost of
> production. I can guarantee that your Corn Flakes won't drop in price.
>
> Beef, pork and poultry production is also blamed for all the world's
> evils. Not that many years ago, Iowa was almost entirely corn/beans
> production. The only farmers that actually made any money were running
> livestock too. Livestock provides fertilizaer. Livestock also provides
> value-add to the raw resources. Livestock is run on land that isn't
> very good for crops or on off-years or after harvest to eat the
> blow-by. Now, Iowa is the #1 egg production place in the world. Did
> you know that for every person there is a laying hen? It made no sense
> to transport the grain from Iowa to other parts of the country to feed
> the chickens. We built massive production facilities here (factory
> farms?) with millions of hens and truck/fly out the eggs all over the
> country.
>
> Anyway, I mention livestock because there are people who claim that
> this is energy-negative too. If you are selective in which factors to
> include in your calculations, this is correct. But how does this
> explain the hog operations which make more money off of the fertilizer
> than they do from the meat itself? There are operators that aren't
> bothered in the least when the hogs sell at a loss.
>
> To put a different twist on all this. We humans are energy-negative.
> The fact is, we consume and produce nothing of value to the planet.
> Nothing at all. Therefore, we should be opposed to human existance.
> Right? Sorry, Moose, Chuck, Chris, ME, we're all a drain on the
> planet. We serve no useful purpose.
>
> Sorry, folks. Back to your regularily scheduled programming. But I
> couldn't let this one slide.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|