Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Costs of Factory Farming

Report Targets Costs Of Factory Farming



Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 30, 2008; Page A02

Factory farming takes a big, hidden toll on human health and the environment, is undermining rural America's economic stability and fails to provide the humane treatment of livestock increasingly demanded by American consumers, concludes an independent, 2 1/2 -year analysis that calls for major changes in the way corporate agriculture produces meat, milk and eggs.

The report released yesterday, sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, finds that the "economies of scale" used to justify factory farming practices are largely an illusion, perpetuated by a failure to account for associated costs.

Among those costs are human illnesses caused by drug-resistant bacteria associated with the rampant use of antibiotics on feedlots and the degradation of land, water and air quality caused by animal waste too intensely concentrated to be neutralized by natural processes.

Several observers said the report, by experts with varying backgrounds and allegiances, is remarkable for the number of tough recommendations that survived the grueling research and review process, which participants said was politically charged and under constant pressure from powerful agricultural interests.

In the end, however, even industry representatives on the panel agreed to such controversial recommendations as a ban on the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals -- a huge hit against veterinary pharmaceutical companies -- a phaseout of all intensive confinement systems that prevent the free movement of farm animals, and more vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the increasingly consolidated agricultural arena.

"At the end of his second term, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation about the dangers of the military-industrial complex -- an unhealthy alliance between the defense industry, the Pentagon, and their friends on Capitol Hill," wrote Robert P. Martin, executive director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, which wrote the report. "Now the agro-industrial complex -- an alliance of agricultural commodity groups, scientists at academic institutions who are paid by the industry, and their friends on Capitol Hill -- is a concern in animal food production in the 21st century."

The report, "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Production in America," comes at a time when food, agriculture and animal welfare issues are prominent in the American psyche.

Food prices are rising faster than they have for decades. Concerns about global climate change have brought new attention to the fact that modern agriculture is responsible for about 20 percent of the nation's greenhouse-gas production. And recent meat recalls, punctuated by the release of undercover footage of cows being abused at a California slaughterhouse, have struck a chord with consumers.

The report acknowledges that the decades-long trend toward reliance on "concentrated animal feeding operations," or CAFOs, has brought some benefits, including cheaper food. In 1970, the average American spent 4.2 percent of his or her income to buy 194 pounds of red meat and poultry annually. By 2005, typical Americans were spending 2.1 percent of their income for 221 pounds per year.

But the system has brought unintended consequences. With thousands of animals kept in close quarters, diseases spread quickly. To prevent some of those outbreaks -- and to spur faster growth -- factory farms routinely treat animals with antibiotics, speeding the development of drug-resistant bacteria and in some cases rendering important medications less effective in people.

It appears that the vast majority of U.S. antibiotic use is for animals, the commission noted, adding that because of the lack of oversight by the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies, even regulators can only estimate how many drugs are being given to animals.

The commission urges stronger reporting requirements for companies and a phaseout and then ban on antibiotics in farm animals except as treatments for disease, a policy already initiated in some European countries.

That's a good recommendation. A strong recommendation," said Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which released its own report last week documenting billions of dollars in farm subsidies to factory farming operations and annual federal expenditures of $100 million to clean up their ongoing environmental damage.

The Pew report also calls for tighter regulation of factory farm waste, finding that toxic gases and dust from animal waste are making CAFO workers and neighbors ill.

In calling for a 10-year phaseout of intensive confinement systems such as gestation crates for pigs and so-called battery cages for chickens, the commission adds impetus to recent commitments from some corporate operators to drop, gradually, those controversial practices.

"These animals can't engage in normal behavior at all," said commission member Michael Blackwell, a veterinarian and former assistant U.S. surgeon general.

Calls for comments from industry representatives were not returned.

The report also calls for implementation of a long-delayed national tracking system that would allow trace-back of diseased animals within 48 hours after a human outbreak of food-borne disease. And it calls for an end to forced feeding of poultry to produce foie gras, a delicacy that Blackwell described unpalatably as "diseased liver."

Activists said it will be up to Congress and agency officials, under public pressure, to implement some of the commission's recommendations. Congress is now considering a bill, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, that would accomplish some of the Pew recommendations.



Dumb as We Wanna Be - New York Times

Dumb as We Wanna Be - New York Times

EU biofuels developments

Oil hits fresh high as biofuels rethink looms

By Carola Hoyos in Rome and Ed Crooks and Javier Blas in London

Published: April 22 2008 23:52 | Last updated: April 22 2008 23:52

Expectations rose on Tuesday that soaring food prices will provoke a
rethink of support for biofuels in Europe and the US, as the price of
oil hit a new high of almost $120 a barrel.

Biofuels produced from crops such as corn and soya provide a small but
fast-growing share of road-fuel supplies, and had been expected to
make an important contribution to meeting growing demand.
EDITOR'S CHOICE
EU eyes stricter standards for biofuel imports - Apr-27
Consensus on crops turns into acrimony - Apr-26
UN says oil rise hits food prices harder - Apr-26
Environmental benefits not always so great - Apr-26
Alarm and irritation from carmakers - Apr-26
IEA warns against retreat on biofuels - Apr-25

But Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, said on Tuesday the country
could push for a change in a European Union target to increase the
proportion of biofuel to 10 per cent of road fuels by 2020.

Malcolm Wicks, the UK energy minister, went further, telling the
Financial Times that the targets should be reviewed because of
mounting concern that they are contributing to food shortages.

The remarks will reinforce perceptions in the oil market that
government support for biofuels, without which US and European
production is unlikely to be commercially viable, is at risk.

Kevin Norrish of Barclays Capital said that two years ago the
assumption was biofuels would provide a significant share of the fuel
supply – enough to make up new US demand for petrol.

"The realisation now is that this may not happen, because of the
impact on food prices," he said.

Biofuels still have strong political support in many countries. Angela
Merkel, Germany's chancellor, said last week: "Those rising global
food prices have nothing to do [with] biofuels."

But Rob Bailey of Oxfam said: "We want the government to stop adding
fuel to the fire by subsidising the diversion of land to biofuels
production."

Agriculture diplomats are concerned that governments are focusing on
biofuels as the main reason for rising food prices. They argue that
the use of agricultural land and crops for fuel is only part of a mix
of problems including higher demand in Asia, climate change, declining
growth in farming productivity and water scarcity.

The European Commission has been defending its 10 per cent target.
Asked by reporters on Monday whether the EU was reconsidering its
position on the biofuels target, a spokesman said: "The answer is very
simple. No."

However, Mr Brown said in a statement on Tuesday, ahead of a meeting
on food prices with industry leaders and development experts, that if
a UK government review of the impact of biofuels now under way "shows
that we need to change our approach, we will also push for change in
EU biofuels targets".

The review was launched in February and is due to deliver initial
conclusions next month, with a full report by the end of June.

Speaking in Rome, Mr Wicks voiced the most open criticism yet from a
British minister of European and US policies to encourage the use of
biofuels.

"It would be ridiculous if we fill up our cars with 5-10 per cent of
biofuels if the consequences are that somewhere else in the world
people are not being fed," he said.

"We need to have a second look [at the EU's biofuels target]. I think we will."

Environmental and social groups have intensified their campaigns
against biofuels as food prices have risen, arguing that they are
diverting production away from food and animal feed.

Until now the government's policy has been to support the increased
use of biofuels.

The renewable transport fuel obligation, compelling suppliers to
provide 2.5 per cent of their sales as biofuel, took effect last week.
The proportion rises to 5 per cent in 2010.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

IEA wants biofuels

IEA warns against retreat on biofuels

By Carola Hoyos and Javier Blas in London

Published: April 25 2008 22:30 | Last updated: April 25 2008 22:30

Biofuel production is critical to meeting current and future fuel
demand in spite of its possible role in driving up food prices, the
west's energy watchdog has warned.

Amid signs of a growing backlash against biofuels in the wake of the
worst food price spike since the 1970s, the International Energy
Agency said that the crop-based fuel was vital to meeting current and
future demand.
EDITOR'S CHOICE
EU eyes stricter standards for biofuel imports - Apr-27
Consensus on crops turns into acrimony - Apr-26
UN says oil rise hits food prices harder - Apr-26
Environmental benefits not always so great - Apr-26
Alarm and irritation from carmakers - Apr-26
Comment: Food or fuel? An agonising policy choice - Apr-25

Biofuels already make up about 50 per cent of the extra fuel coming to
the market from sources outside the Opec's oil cartel this year. This
explains why fears of a retreat from biofuels this week helped drive
oil prices to record levels.

William Ramsey, deputy executive director at the IEA, said: "If we
didn't have those barrels, I am not sure where we would be getting
those half a million barrels [from]," adding that Opec has said it
would not raise supply.

The warning comes as the backlash from rocketing food prices has
increased pressure on the European Union and the US to review their
support of fuel made from crops.

The views of the IEA carry significant weight in Europe and the US and
policymakers have warned that the debate about biofuels should take
into account its implications for energy markets and climate change.
The issue has been put on the agenda for the next G8 summit in July.

However, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation says biofuels are
not a major cause of the food crisis. The FAO estimates biofuels
account for 10 per cent of the food price spike.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

New EU biofuel production standards?

EU eyes stricter standards for biofuel imports

By Andrew Bounds in Brussels

Published: April 27 2008 22:05 | Last updated: April 27 2008 22:05

US-produced biofuels could in effect be shut out of Europe under plans
being discussed in Brussels.

Anxious to distance itself from charges that its push for biofuels is
creating hunger round the world, the European Union is considering
stringent social and environmental criteria for imports that the US
and some other big biofuel producers would not meet.
EDITOR'S CHOICE
Editorial Comment: Barnier's barriers - Apr-27
Consensus on crops turns into acrimony - Apr-26
UN says oil rise hits food prices harder - Apr-26
Environmental benefits not always so great - Apr-26
Alarm and irritation from carmakers - Apr-26
IEA warns against retreat on biofuels - Apr-25

The sustainability criteria under discussion would in effect bypass
World Trade Organisation rules forbidding biofuel bans. By excluding
those products not meeting the criteria from its biofuels target of a
10 per cent contribution to the fuel mix by 2010, the EU would deprive
those products of government support, removing incentives to import
them.

One option under discussion is to exclude imports from countries that
have not ratified a range of international agreements on labour and
environmental standards, including the Kyoto protocol on global
warming.

Documents seen by the Financial Times state that exporters would have
to abide by at least 10 of 12 treaties, from International Labour
Organisation accords on equal pay, child labour and the right of
workers to organise, to the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity. The US, wary of labour market restrictions, has ratified
few of these. Malaysia, a big palm oil producer, would also fall
short, according to ILO data.

A second option would require producers to prove that they had
complied with national laws enforcing ILO standards, that pesticide
use was limited and that the local population had been consulted about
biofuel plantations. Diplomats from EU member states have been unable
to agree on how tough the criteria should be.

"There is a wide consensus among the member states to include
environmental and social criteria for the production of biofuels
regardless of their origin; however, how to implement these principles
is still being debated," said a spokesman for Slovenia, which is
chairing the talks.

Countries including the UK and Belgium have expressed doubts about
whether the EU should stick with its biofuel targets. Environment
commissioner Stavros Dimas and development commissioner Louis Michel
are also questioning them.

A spokesman for José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president,
said he still backed the target. However, he had asked staff for
updated data on biofuels' effect of on food prices.

The Commission last year estimated that about 15 per cent of EU
farmland would be used to grow energy crops by 2020, with about 20 per
cent of demand – about 14m tonnes – met by imports.

Separately, the EU and US face a trade spat after EU biodiesel
producers on Friday asked the Commission to investigate subsidised US
imports they said were driving them out of business. US producers can
receive $300 per tonne if they add a "drop" of mineral diesel to
biodiesel, the European Biodiesel Board said. "Such a blend can then
be exported to Europe where it is also eligible for European subsidy
schemes," it said in a statement.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

article : Food & deforestation in Brasil

As Food Prices Surge, So Could Amazon Destruction
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version

BRAZIL: April 30, 2008


RIO DE JANEIRO - Vast areas of idle land in Brazil could be part of
the solution to the world food crisis but there is a danger that
surging prices will lead to more burning of the Amazon rain forest.


Experts say deforestation in the Amazon closely tracks moves on global
food markets as farmers along Brazil's vast agricultural frontier
react to the prospect of greater profits by cutting trees and burning
the land to make way for pasture or crops.

"At the very edge of the agricultural frontier, it's very dynamic and
that's why you get statistics for deforestation that swing wildly from
one year to the next," said Roberto Cavalcanti of Conservation
International.

"A small shift in food prices can have a big impact on whether it's
economical or not to move into the forest."

The governor of Mato Grosso, one of Brazil's biggest farming states,
last week advocated more deforestation as a solution to the sharp
rises in staples such as rice that are threatening to push millions of
people into hunger.

"There is no way to produce more food without occupying more land and
taking down more trees," Blairo Maggi, also Brazil's largest soybean
producer and widely known as the "King of Soy", told the Folha news
agency.

Brazil has become one of the world's breadbaskets, a leading exporter
of foods such as soybean and beef, fuelled by strong demand from
Europe and developing giant China.

The demand has helped feed the destruction of the world's largest rain
forest for cattle ranching and crop production.

With up to 50 million hectares (193,000 sq. miles) in degraded farm
land that could be reused -- an area bigger than California -- experts
say Brazil could raise its farm production without making further
inroads into the forest.

"We are trying to get farmers and producers to have access to new
technologies so that they don't have to advance into new areas,"
Environment Minister Marina Silva said last week when asked about
Maggi's comments.

But weak public policy and enforcement mean economics still work
against the forest, which has shrunk by about a fifth -- an area the
size of France -- since the 1970s.

"No-one (in the government) says how to recover that area, because in
the Amazon basin it's more easy and cheaper to cut down trees than
recover the degraded land," said Paulo Moutinho of IPAM, an Amazon
research institute in Brasilia.


OPPORTUNITY

Cavalcanti said the fact that fuel prices were also rising meant the
food crisis was an opportunity for governments in Brazil and elsewhere
to encourage farming in areas away from forests, where productivity is
often low and costs high.

"By providing incentives for the use of these degraded areas, you
could redirect the pressure," he said.

Deforestation hit a record high in 2004 when commodity prices were
high and Brazil's currency was weak.

About 7,000 square km (2,700 square miles) of the forest was lost
between August and December last year, coinciding with a rise in
global food prices and marking a sharp annualised increase after three
years of declines.

In response, the government launched the "Arc of Fire", its biggest
operation yet against illegal logging, which resulted in dramatic
riots by loggers in Para state in February.

Hundreds of police and federal agents in the giant frontier states of
Para, Mato Grosso and Rondonia have been deployed, imposing fines,
making arrests and confiscating wood. But the vastness of the area
alone makes slowing deforestation difficult.

Roberto Smeraldi, Amazon director of Friends of the Earth, said a
preliminary study showed that less than 1 percent of the fines imposed
during the operation had been collected.

A further 1,500 square km (580 square miles) of forest was cut down in
the first three months of this year, according to preliminary figures
from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research, a high figure
considering it was the wet season.

"If there is no law enforcement ... the correlation between commodity
prices and deforestation is high. If there is law enforcement you
would see a correlation with increased productivity," said Carlos
Nobre, a scientist with the institute and a leading Amazon expert.

(Editing by Kieran Murray)


Story by Stuart Grudgings


REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

Washington Post on US corn ethanol

Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars
As farmers feed ethanol plants, a costly link is forged between food and oil. By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 30, 2008; Page A01
CHARLES CITY, Iowa
Erwin Johnson picks up a clump of the dark, rich soil that he has farmed
for 35 years, like his father and grandfather before him. In a few months,
this flat expanse of northern Iowa will be crowded with corn ready to be
trucked to market.
A year ago, that market got a little closer -- and a lot better. Instead
of sending his corn to a barge company to be shipped down the Mississippi
River for export, Johnson now loads it into an open truck and sends it two
miles up the gravel road to a hulking new ethanol distillery that he can
see from his field. The plant is paying him $5.50 or more a bushel, more
than twice as much as Johnson could get just a couple of years ago.

"This is a fantastic time to be farming," Johnson says. "I'm 65, but I
can't quit now."

Across the country, ethanol plants are swallowing more and more of the
nation's corn crop. This year, about a quarter of U.S. corn will go to
feeding ethanol plants instead of poultry or livestock. That has helped
farmers like Johnson, but it has boosted demand -- and prices -- for corn
at the same time global grain demand is growing.

And it has linked food and fuel prices just as oil is rising to new
records, pulling up the price of anything that can be poured into a
gasoline tank. "The price of grain is now directly tied to the price of
oil," says Lester Brown, president of Earth Policy Institute, a Washington
research group. "We used to have a grain economy and a fuel economy. But
now they're beginning to fuse."

Not everyone thinks it's fantastic. People who use corn to feed cattle,
hogs and chickens are being squeezed by high corn prices. On Monday, Tyson
Foods reported its first loss in six quarters and said that its corn and
soybean costs would increase by $600 million this year. Those who are
able, such as egg producers, are passing those high corn costs along to
consumers. The wholesale price of eggs in the first quarter soared 40
percent from a year earlier, according to the Agriculture Department.
Meanwhile, retail prices of countless food items, from cereal to sodas to
salad dressing, are being nudged upward by more expensive ingredients such
as corn syrup and cornstarch.

Rising food prices have given Congress and the White House a sudden case
of legislative indigestion. In 2005, the Republican-led Congress and
President Bush backed a bill that required widespread ethanol use in motor
fuels. Just four months ago, the Democratic-led Congress passed and Bush
signed energy legislation that boosted the mandate for minimum corn-based
ethanol use to 15 billion gallons, about 10 percent of motor fuel, by
2015. It was one of the most popular parts of the bill, appealing to
farm-state lawmakers and to those worried about energy security and eager
to substitute a home-grown energy source for a portion of U.S. petroleum
imports. To help things along, motor-fuel blenders receive a 51 cent
subsidy for every gallon of corn-based ethanol used through the end of
2010; this year, production could reach 8 billion gallons.

Now, however, the legislation is being criticized for making food more
expensive while gasoline prices continue to climb. Rick Perry, a
Republican who succeeded Bush as Texas governor, has asked the
Environmental Protection Agency to waive half of the "misguided" ethanol
requirements because of rising food costs; every penny increase in
per-bushel corn prices costs his state's livestock industry $6 million a
year, he said.

Although ethanol was once promoted as a way to slow climate change, a
study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas
emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol "exceed or match those
from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits." By
encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of U.S.
cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And
the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would
compound damage to waterways all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

Development specialists have also joined the fray. "While many are
worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are
struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more
difficult every day," World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick said in a
recent speech.
No place demonstrates the competing demands on corn better than Iowa, one
of the two biggest corn-exporting states. Iowa is home to 28 ethanol
plants, which consume more than a quarter of its corn crop; two dozen
others are under construction or in planning stages.

Two leading oil pipeline companies are exploring the feasibility of
building a $3 billion ethanol pipeline, the first of its kind, to link
Iowa and other parts of the Midwest with motor-fuel markets in the East.
It would carry 3.65 billion gallons a year and give another industry a
vested interest in maintaining high ethanol output. Because of this
domestic demand, Iowa's exports of corn are expected to shrink to less
than half of current levels in the next couple of years. Nationwide, corn
stockpiles are dwindling.

All that could make this cycle of corn prices different from previous
ones, when prices eventually fell back. "As long as you keep that ethanol
industry running, grain prices will be high," says Bruce Babcock,
professor of economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural and
Rural Development at Iowa State University. "If you didn't have this large
growth in ethanol corn, prices would be nowhere near where they are
today."

Corn as Fuel

As consumer prices climb, more and more people are pointing fingers at
ethanol plants, like the one VeraSun Energy built here just outside
Charles City. VeraSun is riding the crest of the ethanol boom. Thanks to
internal expansion and the purchase of a rival, VeraSun will become the
nation's biggest producer of ethanol by the end of the year, with about
four times as much capacity as it had in 2005.

The plant is hard to miss. Its two massive concrete silos reach 150 feet
into the air; each one holds half a million bushels of corn, delivered by
an average of 110 brimming trucks every day. The silos are connected to a
distillery with giant shiny steel vats for milling the corn, then
fermenting and distilling it into 200-proof, fuel-grade ethanol. The
ethanol is shipped out by train, 84 black tanker cars at a time.

The VeraSun facility is buying up almost all the corn produced in Floyd
County and much of the corn produced in the four surrounding counties.
While that might seem anathema to East Coast grocery shoppers, around here
it makes VeraSun pretty popular.

"From Washington where Lester Brown is sitting, agriculture can't do
enough to satisfy the nation's energy needs and meet all the demands put
on it for food and feed," says Matt Liebman, an agronomist at Iowa State
University. "But from agriculture's point of view, [ethanol] enhances
market opportunities. So it really depends on your perspective."

Some folks around here get defensive when talking about corn prices.
Johnson, the corn farmer, points out that the share of household income
that goes to buying food has dropped steadily over the past 50 years; U.S.
government statistics say that the portion is half of what it was in the
1950s. And of that portion, farmers get about a fifth; the rest goes to
middlemen, food manufacturers, transportation, packaging and advertising.
Indeed, farm groups say that energy costs in transportation and packaging
have boosted food prices more than the price of corn has.

"There's no doubt that food prices are going to increase, but I suggest to
you that food is still reasonable," Johnson says.

Don Endres, the chief executive of VeraSun and owner of 20 percent of its
shares, grew up on a farm in Watertown, S.D., where his father and
grandfather raised corn. His brothers are still farmers.

Endres says ethanol plants aren't to blame for high corn or food prices.
He notes that the corn used to make ethanol isn't the kind that people eat
anyway. Moreover, he says, ethanol plants like VeraSun's extract the
starch in corn for fermentation while producing a dry feed that contains
protein and nutrients. Piles of it are collected from industrial dryers at
the plant. VeraSun then sells that feed, known as dried distillers grain,
back to farmers who raise animals. Much of it goes to Texas, Mexico and
China; it accounts for about 15 percent of VeraSun's revenue. When the
grain is mixed with inexpensive starch, such as alfalfa, farmers can save
money, Endres says.

Finally, he says, yields on corn will continue to increase so that the
current acreage will be able to meet both food and fuel demands. His
grandfather got 40 bushels to an acre, his father got 80, and his brothers
get 160. Someday, Endres says, farms will get 300 bushels an acre.
"I think we'll see this thing come back into balance," he says. "There's
an ability to produce so much more at these price levels."

About 20 minutes' drive from Johnson's farm and the VeraSun plant, two
neighbors, Bill Huebsch and Ray Avila, are raising about 15 percent of the
nation's capons, castrated roosters that are popular fare on Easter,
Thanksgiving and Christmas. In a shed longer than a football field, 13,000
of the birds scurry about, nibbling at a corn mixture fed through
automated pipes. In a matter of weeks, each tiny bird will eat about 40
pounds of feed.

The cost of that feed, three-quarters of which is corn, has risen sharply,
and as a result, Huebsch and Avila are asking to be paid more for their
capons -- a premium of 10 cents a pound last year and maybe another 15 or
20 cents this year -- to cover the added cost.

"Ultimately, you know where that price has to go," Huebsch says.
"Ultimately, it's the consumer that's got to take the brunt of it."

He doesn't buy Endres's argument. He says that capons, like egg-producing
chickens, can digest only limited quantities of the dried distillers
grain. And the price of that protein-rich feed is also rising. (Cattle,
which have four-chambered stomachs, can digest the distillers' grain more
easily.) Some studies have also linked dried distillers grains with the
bacterium E. coli in feedlot cattle.

"I think the ethanol is hurting us," Huebsch says. "It hasn't lowered our
fuel prices at all, and it has increased feed costs."

The sharp rise in corn prices has confounded Avila's buying plans.
Ordinarily in the fall, he buys all the corn he needs for the next season.
But with prices around $4 a bushel last fall, he decided to wait. Now
they're even higher, and he's buying only four days' supply, hoping that
the price will go down.

"I'm just going day to day," Avila says. He says that a corn farmer friend
of his bought a boat, and Avila asked whether he would name it Four Dollar
Corn. Now, Avila jokes wryly, his friend would have to name it Six Dollar
Corn.

Capons are a niche product, but high corn-feed prices are also giving
poultry and egg producers a lot to cluck about. Iowa produces more eggs,
13.5 billion, than any other state. And chickens, like capons, mostly eat
corn feed. The Charles City ethanol plant alone consumes three-quarters as
much corn as the entire Iowa egg industry.

"Corn has gone up dramatically since the ethanol plants went in," says Deb
Wolf, a small egg producer in Osage. "They're buying millions of bushels.
That's got to come from somewhere." She and her husband, Keith, have a
sign reading "Eggs 4 Sale" outside their home on Route 9, and customers
often get the eggs while they're still warm. The Wolfs have tripled the
price they charge for a dozen.

"We don't have to make fuel out of corn and soybeans, but we do have to
feed animals," says Kevin Vinchattle, executive director of the Iowa Egg
Council. "We're going to be right there bidding for feedstocks and making
sure that we have the highest-quality feed available. We just don't have
an alternative."
Back in Charles City, farmer Johnson is reaping the benefits of high corn
prices. He knows what the other extreme is like. His grandparents arrived
from Germany in 1913 and, dirt poor, worked as farmhands before buying
this land. Johnson took it over in the early 1970s, when prices, which
hadn't changed much since the end of World War II, doubled and then
leveled off again for most of the next three decades.

Two hundred years ago, he says, this was prairie covered with
six-foot-high switchgrass. Winnebago Indians lived here, and then white
settlers came in the mid-1800s.

But now the ethanol plant and 50 wind turbines that were erected over the
winter have brought new energy to a town that Johnson says long lived off
"the ground God created with glaciers and laid down here."

VeraSun built its plant in this area to be close to corn farms; Johnson
says that he keeps part of the money that once went to trucking his corn
to the barge company. "That money stays in my pocket now, and I like
that."

Johnson is a one-person summary of how high corn prices are washing
through the world of agriculture and climate change. Normally, he plants
half of his 900 acres with corn and half with soybeans. He alternates
crops on each field because it is better for the soil.

But last year he planted 500 acres of corn and 400 of soybeans, and this
year he will do the same. "The market was screaming, 'Farmer Johnson,
plant more corn, plant more corn,' " Johnson says.

Farmers across the country joined him. In 2007, U.S. acreage devoted to
corn hit a record 93.6 million acres, up 20 percent from the year before.
Farmers are expected to plant a little less than that this year.

That market response would ordinarily bring nothing but cheers, but the
growing alarm about climate change casts it in a different light. In the
United States last year, corn edged out some soybeans, which as a result
are being grown in greater numbers on previously unplowed areas in other
countries. And that releases carbon dioxide that had previously been
stored in the soil as organic matter.

Johnson, along with about two dozen other people in the area, has invested
in 25,000 acres of cattle-ranching and savanna land in Roraima state in
northern Brazil, where they have planted 750 acres of soybeans and plan to
expand. He says U.S. agriculture is a mature market. "We're maxed out," he
says.

Meanwhile in Iowa, he is tilling his own soil more often, a farming trend
that dismays climate experts. Usually Johnson doesn't till his soil in the
fall; he points to short remnants of cornstalks that still stand in rows
where soybeans will be inserted. But Johnson plans to till a piece of land
where he will plant corn for a second year in a row.

Johnson also owns a small piece of land that is part of the federal
government's conservation reserve program, which pays farmers for leaving
land vacant. Millions of acres are in the program. The CRP parcels tend to
have lower-quality soil, and they attract birds and other wildlife. In the
climate-conscious era, they have the added virtue of storing carbon in the
soil.

Johnson put a 10-acre parcel aside years ago and signed a 10-year contract
with the government to leave it undisturbed. But the contract is running
out, and he's thinking about planting corn. The CRP contract pays him $170
an acre. Johnson says, "I'm making a lot more than that now."



--