Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Ethanol Booms, Farmers Bust

By Lisa M. Hamilton, AlterNet. Posted May 25, 2007.


From the news these days you'd think farmers have never had a better friend than ethanol. But if you actually are a farmer, ethanol, with the high corn prices it brings, is looking less and less like a blessing -- and more like a curse.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

More stories by Lisa M. Hamilton

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

From the news these days you'd think farmers have never had a better friend than ethanol. Headlines holler that corn prices are soaring and that at this moment farmers are planting more acres of corn than they have in the last 50 years. Reporters writing about the ethanol boom are throwing around words like gold rush, jackpot, and nirvana. But if you actually are a farmer, ethanol and the high corn prices it brings is looking less and less like a blessing -- and more like a curse.

In concept, corn ethanol could benefit American farmers. Anytime we as a country look to them to supply our daily needs, it's an opportunity for rural communities to win. The problem is that the boom is taking place in the same old agricultural economy, which works to the benefit of those on top: landlords, processors, and companies selling inputs like seeds and fertilizers. It's agribusiness as usual, and like always, farmers will finish last.

"Initially we all were excited by the high prices," said Troy Roush, a sixth-generation farmer who grows 2,600 acres of corn in central Indiana. "But the truth is that the farmers won't keep any of it. There's an old saying that expenses will always rise to meet revenue. It all gets built in."

And that's exactly what has happened: As the price of corn has gone up, so has the cost of growing it. In just two months, the price Roush paid for fertilizer doubled. And speculation has driven land prices through the roof. "It's insane," Roush said. "In the last four months our land values have increased 40 percent. We're all sitting around wondering if it's real."

While most farmers own some land, the vast majority rent part or all of their acreage. Rents already swelled in some areas for this season, and farmers are bracing themselves for an even greater increase in 2008. A study by the Illinois Society of Professional Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers forecasted that if corn prices stay high, rent for prime farmland in the state next year will rise by 19 percent -- to 218 dollars an acre. For young farmers, something rural America desperately needs, such inflation can make getting into the business impossible.

It is true that ethanol can offer farmers more control in the market through cooperative ownership of production plants. But thanks to the recent boom, corporate investors from around the world are now building plants that dwarf the farmer co-ops of the 1990s. And in the rush to meet the government's renewable fuel mandate, most incentives no longer favor farmer-owned plants.

In this new marketplace many farmer co-ops have cashed out, selling themselves partially or entirely to outside investors. According to the American Coalition for Ethanol, of the 75 plants slated for construction over the next two years only 25 percent are farmer-owned, and even those are often run in part by non-farmers from Des Moines and Chicago.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: farmers, corn, ethanol

Lisa M. Hamilton is a writer and photographer who focuses on food and farming. She's currently writing a book about the changing place of farmers and ranchers in American life, and a new movement to restore their leadership role in the food system. Read more about her.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The government is in my business
Posted by: mizipi on May 25, 2007 3:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep, let the government get involved in farming, and WALLAH, the poor ol' farmer suffers. Agricultural subsidies, another way to say welfare for the rich. Where is our true CAPITALISM? Isn't this one of the principles we go to war over?
Ethanol is not the answer to our energy problem. Getting government out of our lives might help.
The only good thing about corn-based fuel.....200 proof moonshine!
Maybe we need to talk Cheney into irrigating Iraq and planting corn there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing."
Posted by: Leman on May 25, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I know, the song was about somebody's mother...
Just pretend that Pink Floyd was singing about the government and it pretty much summarizes this article: Farmers' life will suck but with the price support they may still sing.

Here is a simpler solution: grow your corn, sell it to the processors. If it does not give you the profits you need - do not grow your corn, do something else instead. There is no need to involve the government in the whole argument at all. If the State happens to be your major customer, that's a different issue. But then you are probably not a farmer but a missile manufacturer and the issue of corn does not concern you anyway.

The "subsidies vs. price floors" argument is just a rural version of the "wellfare vs. minimum wage" dilemma. In either case it involves people who can do things other than what their parents have been doing but somehow deciding not to change. And in both cases the "safety net" comes out of the pockets of people who spent years studing and training for better jobs and in many cases willing to move all over the country (if not the globe) in search of better opportunities.

I have plenty of friends doing their 3rd, 4th or 5th posdoctoral fellowship for 32-35 K a year. This means they spent 4-5 years as slaves to get their PhD and then another 4-10 years as serfs - meanwhile moving from one position to another accross the whole country every 2-3 years with almost no hope of ever getting a real job as a faculty. And they are supposed to feel bad for a dude paying too much for his fertilizer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Really Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» Really Not Really Posted by: Jarmadi
farming
Posted by: jmndodge on May 25, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Buy everything retail, sell everything wholesale, pay the shipping both ways and let everyone else set the price." I work for a local farmer. I help plant and harvest 800 acres of corn, and 800 acres of beans. It is about 12 weeks of work if the weather co-operates. I operate machinery that would cost hundres of thousands of dollars to replace, we work long hours, and during harvest are in an out of many different situations. All the trucks are different, as well as the many kinds of harvest equipment needed. You can't afford a minimume wage employee on that expensive equipment. Only a retired person can cut his earnings to 12 weeks to 4 months of income. Farming is an essiential industry, todays knowledge base incredible, and the yearly risk total. Imagine playing holdem having to go all in every hand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the devastation---seen with my own eyes, from a farmer
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 25, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a farmer in Nebraska, where I farm 160 acres of corn (a "small" farmer by any standard). I have lived on my farm for 50 years. I wish people could see up close the devastation to the local countryside that this ethanol frenzy has brought---and is going on as we speak. Landowners are ripping-out beautiful windbreaks and tree stands of cottonwoods and elms, these were windbreaks that were planted by the CCC back in the New Deal days, and getting the land ready to grow corn. This past winter, a factory hog farm came in and purchased a neighbor's farm. This farm was a beautiful piece of property with a grand 100 year old home and excellent buildings. They outbid all of the local farmers who wanted to buy it. Within 2 months they had completely stripped everything away--it's all gone. It just broke my 88 year-old dad's heart to see it. Other farmers around me are busy plowing-up grass pastures for corn production, land so hilly and highly erodable I never would have thought it could be used for growing row crops.

This corn-for-fuel thing has everyone in my area plowing-up their alfalfa fields. Alfalfa is an excellent low-input crop. Once it is established it pretty much takes care of itself, doesn't need any fertilizer or herbicides. I produces alot of protein and naturally enriches the soil. It takes a good two years after planting to get a crop from alfalfa, so with the dissappearance of these fields I don't care to think about the long term effect it is going to have on dairy farmers in my area, who need lots of locally grown hay.

I'm just a farmer and not good at writing, but I hope I have given Alternet's readers some idea about what is happening "out here". I wish I could post some pictures I have taken of the devastation.

New-built and proposed ethanol plants are going-up in the cities around me. No matter that they require enormous amounts of water in an area that is experiencing growing water shortages. The Platte River, which is about 10 miles from where I live, is a major gathering place for birds migrating to Canada. It has completely dried up in the summer months the past several years.

Our senators Nelson (D) and Hagel (R) beat the drum for ethanol production with every speech they make. But that is probably because Monsanto and ADM were big contributors to their campaigns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» same thing in Brazil Posted by: fanny666
» Monsanto and ADM Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: Monsanto and ADM Posted by: zooeyhall
» Well Said Zooeyhall Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» thank you Posted by: Philip Newton
» Even worse than I thought Posted by: ssearthgirl
Not only in Nebraska...
Posted by: Farmertim on May 25, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in southwest ohio our local ethenol plant is going up funded by a Iowa firm and local supporters complete with pickups with slogans of feel good ethoenol running around to local hardware stores for the ocassional screwdriver, not anything more local than that for it is all shipped in.
The workers are all from out of state and the only thing locally produced for the plant is the cement, 30,000 yards of it.
2.2 million gallons of water will be used per day at the plant and when they ran the test for the well to supply the plant people within a half mile lost there water pressure for 3 days yet it was still approved.
Long range plans are to move dairies and feedlots close to the plant to feed the remainder of the process and rebirthing the swill dairys of the 19th century that killed unknown numbers of infants due to the quality of the milk from that
byproduct.
The corn base here has grown by at least 45 % and the only ones planting beans are the farmers who have long term contract to do so.
Alphalfa here is dissapearing under the spray boom and notilled into corn at a high rate, and there wasn't much to start with and hay prices are begining to show response to that.
As a biological Consultant for organic and conventional farmers and the test results from area soils around here putting corn on corn is the worst thing that could be done right now and will create a larger problem of production in the future.
At some point in time when we realize we need to feed humans not corn with the land and resources we have, we will have a very difficult time producing anything worth eating for the mineral base in the ground will be nonexsistant and the nutrient level of the food will be very low.
I have been to your state and cannot imagine the damage now being done to the fragile soils of Nebraska.
How soon we forget when the old ones die off and we begin to make the mistakes of the past all over again.
They might chew our ass and we feel it is not their place but we shall soon see what they meant and wish we would have listened.
Farmer Tim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS EMERGING
Posted by: rwa on May 25, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LOWEST FOOD SUPPLIES IN 50 OR 100 YEARS:


SASKATOON, Sask.—Today, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its first projections of world grain supply and demand for the coming crop year: 2007/08. USDA predicts supplies will plunge to a 53-day equivalent—their lowest level in the 47-year period for which data exists.

“The USDA projects global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record. Further, it is likely that, outside of wartime, global grain supplies have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer,” said NFU Director of Research Darrin Qualman.

Most important, 2007/08 will mark the seventh year out of the past eight in which global grain production has fallen short of demand. This consistent shortfall has cut supplies in half—down from a 115-day supply in 1999/00 to the current level of 53 days. “The world is consistently failing to produce as much grain as it uses,” said Qualman. He continued: “The current low supply levels are not the result of a transient weather event or an isolated production problem: low supplies are the result of a persistent drawdown trend.”

Demand for food is rising rapidly. There is a worldwide push to proliferate a North American-style meat-based diet based on intensive livestock production—turning feedgrains into meat in this way means exchanging 3 to 7 kilos of grain protein for one kilo of meat protein. Population is rising—2.5 billion people will join the global population in the coming decades.
“Every six years, we’re adding to the world the equivalent of a North American population. We’re trying to feed those extra people, feed a growing livestock herd, and now, feed our cars, all from a static farmland base. No one should be surprised that food production can’t keep up,” said Qualman.

Qualman said that the converging problems of natural gas and fertilizer constraints, intensifying water shortages, climate change, farmland loss and degradation, population increases, the proliferation of livestock feeding, and an increasing push to divert food supplies into biofuels means that we are in the opening phase of an intensifying food shortage.

Qualman cautioned, however, that there are no easy fixes. “If we try to do more of the same, if we try to produce, consume, and export more food while using more fertilizer, water, and chemicals, we will only intensify our problems.
Instead, we need to rethink our relation to food, farmers, production, processing, and distribution. We need to create a system focused on feeding people and creating health. We need to strengthen the food production systems around the
world. Diversity, resilience, and sustainability are key,” concluded Qualman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

During the Depression, the banks got control - and still have it.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 25, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only that, modern agriculture uses huge amounts of fossil fuel - 50% of that goes to ammonia fertilizer production.

However, these issues have little to do with the stated topic, ethanol production. These issues relate to all sectors of the US agricultural system - the government subsidies paid out to ADM and Cargill, the sharecropper system that most small farmers still operate under, the entrenched resistance to organic agriculture across most of the US, and so on.

Basically, if you don't have sustainable agriculture you can't have sustainable biofuel production.

However, considering that 50% of corn grown in the US is used to feed hogs, cattle and poultry, with huge amounts of pollution being produced, why isn't the title of this article "Hog farming causes problems for corn farmers?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to stop burning things for energy
Posted by: fanny666 on May 25, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ethanol is better than gasoline, but it's not great. We need to stop oxidizing carbon. Carbon dioxide does not care whether it came from oxidizing hydrocarbons like petroleum or oxidizing carbohydrates like corn or oxidizing pure carbon like coal. We need to stop burning organics for fuel. Solar energy is where the push needs to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ethanol rush: business as usual
Posted by: Dietforadeadplanet on May 25, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice piece. As I've written for The American Prospect and elsewhere (links below), the chief beneficiaries of ethanol, as usual, have been Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. Our current subsidy system spends roughly $20 billion a year on large-scale pesticide-intensive agriculture, again mainly benefiting food processing and livestock corporations (and now ethanol corporations) -- not farmers or consumers. Our subsidy system needs to be overhauled so we are investing in sustainable farming and community food security, instead of today's corporate controlled commodity system. For more about this, you can check out my link below, and my book, Diet for a Dead Planet (www.dietforadeadplanet.com).
-- Christopher Cook
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news (search for "ethanol")
http://www.prospect.org/cs/search?keyword=ethanol

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 25, 2007 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ethanol from any agricultural crop is still not going to work or be sustainable in the long term.

Just like the "green"washed lightbulbs that require more packaging because they contain mercury... you have to look beyond the superficial.. and not a damned bit of it is going to work in the long term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» what kind Posted by: apophenia_monkey
re: Mansanto, ADM's ROI
Posted by: Willis Nessle on May 25, 2007 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"....reasonable return on their investment." I nominate that for understatement of the month. It seems that whenever I read an article that mentions the pay to play scenario, the upshot is that a legislator's corporate benefactors typically reap enormous wealth from relatively paltry contributions. For example, a couple $10k's gets you multi-gazillions in subsidies, no-bid contracts, M&A green lights, etc.

I only mention it bc the initial letter so well described the dismal reality of a much ballyhooed program. To add just a meek epilogue about corporate's reasonable ROI, assumed sarcasm notwithstanding, does the piece a disservice. And it does not "transcend bickering", it dulls the poignancy, if I may bicker myself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]