Bob Zubrin says that people who oppose converting corn to ethanol are Malthusians.
Ummmmm…no.
We’re people who don’t think that government should be distorting the energy markets to buy votes in the Midwest. Also note that in his constant pushing of flex-fuel cars, he completely ignores the performance and engine-wear issues.
My understanding was that the engine wear issues were primarily with using “regular engines” with blended fuels. But that purposefully designed “flex fuel engines” shouldn’t have a particular problem. No?
(Still opposed to the subsidies though.)
I like Bob on Mars, but he’s wrong on this, for exactly the reason you state. I own a copy of Energy Victory, and I read the whole thing. He may have a solid point in the utility of flex-fueled vehicles, but he errs when he suggests they be mandated.
Of note to those who want “energy independence”, methanol made from natural gas gets us neatly to a ready domestic supply of liquid fuel for FFVs. Same for coal-to-liquids outputs. Neither competes with food acreage, and both are readily-understood and scalable processes.
Bob Zubrin doesn’t know much about free market economics.
First, the majority of ‘starving’ people are being starved by their leaders, not by corn prices. F’rinstance, look at all the aid / $$$ that went to Haiti after the quakes. I think, I read that enough money went in there to give every man, woman and child $500.
BUT that didn’t happen.
The money went to NGO’s, and they did their usual thing of distributing the money to God knows who or where. Imagine if they’d just given the money to the poor. Yes, some of it would have been squandered. But much of it would have gone to a booming rebuilding of the country. Instead, many people are just as hungry as they were before the quakes.
It reminds me of Somali ‘soldiers’ beating hungry people away from warehouses full of U.S. Aid bags and boxes. They are still starving in Somalia. I’d bet much of that aid NEVER got to the people. Corn prices? BS is the reason people are hungry.
Second, we can get much better usage out of our oil dollars if more vehicles came with diesel engines as an option. I’m betting the average ‘merican driver doesn’t have a clue what their vehicles ‘zero to 60’ speed is. That used to be the reason why Detroit shied away from diesel.
But given the SUV’s and vans most homes have now, instead of sporty vehicles we used to drive, diesel makes sense.
I think the auto companies stay away from diesel NOW is that they last too long!
Lastly, I’m torn on the whole ethanol thing. And I have no idea who the ‘experts’ are. But back in the 70’s the big thing with swapping over was how few cars at fuel injection. Now MOST of them do. So WHERE’S the problem now?
A disaster for American farmers. Which leads to a disaster for American consumers. Increasing the required percentage in all grades of fuel are a disaster for older cars, those owned mostly by the poor and elderly. This is well known by both the media and government, yet these distorting and wasteful policies remain.
Big Government – Not just clueless, but consistently and destructively so.
IcePilot,
didn’t you hear our Fearless Leader? If your car won’t run on ‘newgas’, just BUY one that WILL run on ‘newgas’. And get one that has a high mileage engine too! That’s why these people are poor to start with you know.
No sense of how to spend their money correctly!
you don’t actually think it’s *their* money do you? đ
No, we’re the people who understand the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Sorry to double-comment, but the problem with diesel is that only around 24% of a barrel of oil is diesel. If Americans drove diesel cars, the price of diesel would skyrocket, while the price of gasoline would plummet, and you’d be wondering why you were driving a vehicle that used $6.00/gal fuel, while your friend drove a vehicle that used $2.50/gal fuel.
I’m a midwesterner. Take it from me: Farmers are nothing but welfare queens wearing John Deere caps.
The invention of fossil-fuel locomotion — first railroads, then internal combustion — was a turning point for mankind because for the first time in history, we could devote all our farmland to feeding ourselves rather than setting aside for draft animals. Each ton of coal dug out of the ground, each barrel of oil, represented acreage that wasn’t needed for pasture and oats, and could be planted with human foodstuffs instead. This was a huge advance, and the ethanol boosters want us to throw it away and go back to the days when half our farmland was devoted to locomotion rather than food.
And if Zubrin doesn’t understand that using the force of the US Treasury to buy up huge quantities of a commodity might have something to do with that commodity’s rising price, well, then he’s hardly worth listening to on matters economic. Still love him on the Mars front, but boy, he should stick to that.
It turns out to be possible to tinker with the refining process to give gasoline with a higher octane rating. The yield is lower so the price goes up, but the result is fuel that will work in cars with few or no additives, and the price increase is only a little more than what comes from adding ethanol — and less than that would be without the methanol subsidy.
Here in Texas the result is a small, mostly under the radar business in “real gas”, fuel entirely compounded from pure sweet petroleum derivatives with no -ols whatever. In my old car, the increased mileage completely offsets the increased price. Their advertising is almost entirely by word of mouth, plus a few small, discreet signs on the dispensaries.
It isn’t a land-office business, and no doubt the Feds will shut them down before long, but in the meantime people trying to preserve older cars, looking for better mileage, or simply making a political statement make it mildly profitable.
No, Diesel isn’t going to get much bigger. Smokey Yunick is vindicated: the price of fuel closely approximates the energy content, meaning that there’s no real advantage. That would only get worse if the market expanded. Gasoline was originally an undesirable byproduct of lubricants and kerosene, and increasing the fraction that goes to Diesel will just increase refining costs.
I oppose ethanol subsidies. Methanol is currently available at a price per BTU that is less than gasoline. How many people know that? How many people would like the option of being able to switch among ethanol, methanol, and gasoline at will? … I would! Brazil has done it for many years and their cars aren’t falling apart!
With older … much older cars … the main issue was the fuel lines. Newer cars don’t have that problem. All it really takes now is a computer chip that can sense the fuel type and make the adjustment on the fly … And that is available! The manufacturers themselves have said that it is less than $200 per car.
So why don’t have that option available to me? The question is really why but why not?
Correction: And if Zubrin doesnât understand that using the force of the US Treasury to buy up huge quantities subsidize a particular use of a commodity might have something to do with that commodityâs rising price for other uses, well, then heâs hardly worth listening to on matters economic.
I support the availability of ethano because it offers an emergency alternative source of liquid fuel that acts as a hedge against embargo or supply disruption. Its distilleries are remote from oil refineries and local to the supply of grain. Now that the distilleries are built I support the ending of the blenders credit… phased out over time. Ethanol should be part of the mix along with increased drilling and shale conversion. A strategic triad if you will.
Its better then paying farmers to not farm which was the norm for much of the 90’s.
If your worried about the effect on food prices, ban horse ownership for pets first. Millions of acres go to produce horse feed and no one even eats horse anymore. Where is the logic in that?
Curious assertion given that Malthus had nothing to say about ethanol. Malthusian theory concerns agriculture’s ability to produce enough food to feed a growing population. Ethanol is about using food to do something other than feed people.
Perhaps Bob Zubrin doesn’t know this.
“First, the majority of âstarvingâ people are being starved by their leaders, not by corn prices.”
And all other things being equal, and from instant to instant they are, introducing new demand for any commodity raises prices and deprives the most marginal purchasers of the ability to purchase that commodity.
Paying for corn to put it into gas tanks means there are people who otherwise could buy the corn who then can’t afford. Period, full stop, it’s an iron law of economics. Zubrin is simply stuck on stupid concerningthe topic. Malthusianism has nothing to do with it.
The Zubrin mandate is for E85/M85 engines, which would be a major boost for natural gas and all these eco-whatever companies making methanol. Current E85-only vehicles (which apparently could run M85 if M85 were available) plus the mandatory E10, are distorting the issue of “burning our food”. Zurbin’s mandate would open M85 and presumably M10 production and distribution, thus reversing the use of corn/etc for fuel. Get rid of the ag subsidies (which readers of his book would realize he also advocates) and you’ve got a freer market with no monopolies on fuel production – which is the whole point of the thing.
Incidentally, during the Carter era I remember someone on a TV variety show doing a crappy song called, “Cheaper Crude or No More Food”, basically issuing an ultimatum to the Middle East to cut off food supplies if they didn’t lower oil prices. At a time with low desert populations an incredible luxury for the Saudi royal family, it was laughable. Now with occasional food riots in oil-exporting countries and the Arab Spring largely sparked by food costs, plus the fact that have effectively mandated E10 because there’s almost no market for more expensive fuels, a drunken rant in 1979 is reality in 2011. Incidentally, good luck getting your lawn mower/etc to work with E10 for an extended period. Sears is selling more new mowers, but they hate it because it makes the just-sold ones look like junk when they fail quickly.
Rip Zubrin all you want, but you’ve got an unmanaged “Zubrin lite” right now. In short, you are getting all the bad effects you warn about if we go full-Bob on the situation, plus all the current and future ill effects of Wahabist expansionism and economic ruin Robert warns about and the news tells us about. You can’t undo E10, you may be able to deal with boutique blends and subsidies, but you can’t fix it with business as usual. If you think you are fixing it with business as usual, you probably walk to work.
Man, so much misinformation so little time. How exactly does adding ethanol increase the cost of gasoline? Last I looked, etoh was trading at a significant discount to unleaded gas–RBOB–and has been for some time. You can prove this for yourself if you look at the E-85 pumps compared to E-10, which trades at a substantial discount. Fact is, the “subidy” is almost entirely passed onto the consumer–if you eliminate it, be prepared to spend more on motor fuel. Also: how is this a “disaser for American farmers”? You cannot argue that ethanol is leading to higher grain prices and not conclude that this is anything but good for them. You geeks should stick to sci-fi fantasies and leave the economics to the grownups.
“Man, so much misinformation so little time. ”
That was a good thesis statement for your comment. It’s rare to see that done these days, my congratulations to you.
I don’t think that Zubrin has ever understood that you don’t convince or teach or persuade people by yelling at them. No, Bob, you are not the smartest man in the room. Quite frequently you are not.
Unix-Jedi:
Trite. Clever, even. But still no refutation on the merits, I note. Facts are stubborn things. May the force be with you.
Josh S, crude oil is turned into that fraction of diesel for economic reasons, not technical. In the fall refineries turn their production heavily toward #2 fuel oil for heating, virtually identical to diesel.
The point is that ALL of these fuels are fungible, their production is driven entirely by economics. When the government distorts the economics for political reasons, shortages are sure to follow.
“But still no refutation on the merits, I note.”
You really didn’t have any merits. Just a lot of misinformation.
Much of which was dealt with in the original post.
“How exactly does adding ethanol increase the cost of gasoline?”
Exactly, by increasing the cost. It’s a simple concept.
First off, once you’ve added ethanol, your transport costs increase massively. Your refinery capacity and storage capacity is severely impacted.
That’s aside from the cost of the ethanol itself.
Zubrin and others like to handwave and ignore this, but it’s not trivial by any means.
“Last I looked, etoh was trading at a significant discount to unleaded gasâRBOBâand has been for some time.”
After massive subsidy, last I saw, Ethanol was almost $3/gallon. That’s marginally cheaper than gas – don’t forget to look at the raw cost of gas before taxes. And *subtract out the cost of ethanol*. This will be more difficult, since you don’t believe it’s there, but do the math and you’ll be amazed.
Then do the math on the energy potential in the fuel. I’ll assume you have that capability – if not, google it, many others have done it for you. But in my vehicles, I burn *more* petroleum with 10% ethanol than I would have to burn straight gas due to the loss in power ethanol introduces.
“Fact is, the âsubidyâ is almost entirely passed onto the consumer”
Demonstrate that.
“Also: how is this a âdisaser for American farmersâ?”
Oh, well, there I can agree with you some. The *farmers* are making out like bandits. It’s a disaster for everybody but the farmers.
“You geeks should stick to sci-fi fantasies and leave the economics to the grownups.”
Like yourself? Let’s see some *math* from you. Us geeks sterotypically are good at it. So far you’ve demonstrated no understanding multiple aspects of the issue, but you want to call names.
I suspect your math will be on an elementary level.
“First off, once youâve added ethanol, your transport costs increase massively. Your refinery capacity and storage capacity is severely impacted.”
Since I suspect Zee-man doesn’t know *why*, let me explain more.
Ethanol absorbs water. Gas doesn’t. So you can’t pipeline fuel with ethanol added. If your refinery system is predicated on moving your product through pipelines to distribution facilities, you now either have to add the ethanol at the distribution area, or you have to truck the fuel.
It also means you can’t store it like you can pure gasoline for the same reason. So you can’t run the refineries optimally.
Much of the entire nationwide system has to be re-worked to remove plastic/rubber pieces. Not a cheap rework.
And that’s just the _start_ of the additional costs.
More tellingly: If ethanol *were* so much better and cheaper and wonderful, riddle me this:
Why would we be forced to use it?
I am opposed to ethanol in our fuel primarily because it reduces the BTU value of fuel. Staight gasoline has approximately 110000 BTU per gallon, while 10% ethanol has approximately 85000 BTU per gallon. You do the math. Clearly, fuel mixed with ethanol won’t take you as far as fuel without ethanol. Moreover, corn devoted to fuel production is diverted from the food stream, and even if every acre of arable land in the US were devoted to ethanol production, we still could not produce enough ethanol to meet the demand for fuel. Furthermore, subsidies to farmers to produce corn for ethanol artificially create a market for corn for ethanol. Finally, focusing our time, energy, and resources on ethanol as an alternative fuel, which it clearly is not, takes that same time, energy, and resources away from developement of a true alternative fuel, whatever that might be, one that actually will replace oil as the basis for fuel.
Another consideration: If I remember my chem classes correctly; burning alcohol produces formalin (formaldahide gas), a known carcinogenic. So we not only end up with lower mileage and less range for the same price, we can also gas ourselves into a shorter lifespan. No thanks!
Common sense Says:
“I support the availability of ethano because it offers an emergency alternative source of liquid fuel that acts as a hedge against embargo or supply disruption.”
Who controls Barter Town?
Kent Says:
“Incidentally, during the Carter era I remember someone on a TV variety show doing a crappy song called, âCheaper Crude or No More Foodâ, basically issuing an ultimatum to the Middle East to cut off food supplies if they didnât lower oil prices.”
Who controls Barter Town?
Victoria’s got it right.
Since Zee-man’s apparently gone off to play with his “grownup” toys, rather than actually sticking to “the merits”, I’ll go ahead and point out some empirical evidence.
My vehicle gets 23 MPG on the highway. With ethanol-free 87 Octane gasoline.
So, for 10 gallons of gasoline, I can travel 230 miles.
With 10% octane gasahol, I get 19 MPG. (These figures were found on a round-trip. Able to fill up at empty with undadulterated fuel after the trip over, and record milage on the way back.)
So 10 gallons of gas = 10 gallons of gasoline = 230 miles.
But 10 gallons of gasahol (with 9 gallons of gasoline) takes me 190 miles. It takes an additional 2.1 gallons of gasahol, with 1.9 gallons of additional gasoline to make up the leftover 40 miles.
So to go 230 miles, it takes 10 gallons of unadulterated gasoline, or 12.1 gallons of 10% ethanol – which contains 10.9 gallons of gasoline.
Let me repeat that. The ethanol means that over the course of just over 230 miles, I’ll burn an ENTIRE ADDITIONAL GALLON OF GASOLINE.
That increases demand, reduces supply. From an economic perspective.
Zee-man, care to come back with the grownups and explain how this doesn’t explain your “How exactly does adding ethanol increase the cost of gasoline? ” question?
Or is math hard? C’mon. Economics is all about math. Come tell me where the SCIFI is there in the real world.
** It occurs to me that I haven’t made a comment on Zubrin – but his passion isn’t just for the economics, it’s also got a political factor in it. Which is _Fine_, as long as he understands that. I don’t think he does, and I don’t think he makes his argument that way. Ethanol increases the price of fuel dramatically, which increases the cost of everything else.
*** Above, I said “Farmers are making out like bandits”. More clarification – CORN farmers are. All the other farmers are getting killed by the price of their fuel, which keeps getting more adulterated, less useful, more likely to be spoiled/contaminated.
I understand gasoline in China is adulterated with methanol. Not legal, but the government turns a blind eye (for a consideration, I suspect) since it reduces oil imports. The methanol is made from domestic fossil fuels.
Car makers wanting to sell in foreign markets may have to address the alcohol compatibility issue whether they want to or not.
Actually, the entire premise of this discussion is false, because Rand Simberg misstated my position at its outset.
I did not say “that people who oppose converting corn to ethanol are Malthusians.” I said that Lester Brown is a Malthusian (which he certainly is,) and that those endorsing his “fuel vs food” argument are buying into a Malthusian conceit (which they certainly are.)
For your ease of use, here is the actual article.
Why Itâs Wrong to Agree with the Malthusians about Ethanol
Rising food prices are the result of rising oil prices, not a growing market for ethanol.
May 13, 2011 – 12:00 am – by Robert Zubrin
Print Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
In an op-ed article printed in the Denver Post May 8, editorial columnist Vince Carroll endorsed the view of population control advocate Lester Brown that the U.S. corn ethanol program is threatening the worldâs poor with starvation. This endorsement is especially remarkable in view of the fact that, as the otherwise generally astute Mr. Carroll has correctly noted many times in the past, all of Lester Brownâs many previous limited-resources doomsday predictions have proven wildly incorrect.
In fact, Lester Brown is wrong about the alleged famine-inducing potential of the ethanol program for exactly the same reason he has been repeatedly wrong about the alleged famine-inducing potential of population growth. There is not a fixed amount of grain in the world. Farmers produce in response to demand. The more customers, the more grain. Not only that, but the larger the potential market, the greater the motivation for investment in improved techniques.
This is why, despite the fact that the world population has indeed doubled since Lester Brown, Paul Ehrlich, and the other population control zealots first published their manifestos during the 1960s, people worldwide are eating much better today than they were then. In the case of Americaâs corn growing industry, the beneficial effect of a growing market has been especially pronounced, with corn yields per acre in 2010 (165 bushels per acre) being 37 percent higher than they were in 2002 (120 bushels per acres) and more than four times as great as they were in 1960 (40 bushels per acre.)
Not only that, but in part because of the impetus of the expanded ethanol program, another doubling of yield is now in sight, as the best farms have pushed yields above 300 bushels per acre. As a result, in 2010, the state of Iowa alone produced more corn than the entire United States did in 1947. Of our entire corn crop, only 2 percent is actually eaten by Americans as corn, or 12 percent if one includes products like corn chips and corn syrup.
These advances in productivity do not only benefit the United States. Americaâs farmers are the vanguard for their counterparts worldwide. New seed strains and other techniques first demonstrated on our most advanced farms, subsequently spread to average farms, and then go global, thereby raising crop yields everywhere.
There may well be hunger among the worldâs poorest this year, but not because of the U.S. corn ethanol program. Rather, the threat comes from high oil prices, which at $100 per barrel will place a tax on the U.S. economy of $800 billion per year, and $3,200 billion on the world economy as a whole. This will raise the price of all goods and slow down the world economy, thereby throwing millions of people out of work and leaving them without income to buy food. According to a Merrill Lynch analysis, if not for the worldâs ethanol programs (of which U.S. production represents about a third), global oil prices would be 15 percent higher than they are, thereby placing an additional $480 billion impost on the world economy.
The problem is not that we are producing too much alcohol to compete against oil, but that we are not producing enough. Corn ethanol has now replaced 8 percent of American gasoline. This is a useful contribution, but it is insufficient to save our economy from the wrecking caused by the OPEC oil cartelâs policy of limiting production to artificially drive up fuel prices. If we are to defeat this policy, we need to throw the liquid fuel market open to alternatives to petroleum on a scale that is simply not the case today.
This could be achieved by adoption of the bipartisan Open Fuel Standard bill (HR 1687) which was introduced into congress last week by Congressmen John Shimkus (R-IL), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Eliot Engel (D-NY), and Steve Israel (D-NY). Under this bill, the majority of new cars sold in to the USA would be required to be fully flex fuel, able to run equally well on any combination of methanol, ethanol, or gasoline. Since foreign car makers would be impelled to conform to requirement if they wish to continue to sell in the U.S. market, this would make flex fuel capability effectively the international standard.
As methanol can cheaply be produced from such abundant sources as natural gas, coal, biomass, or trash (its current spot price is about $1.20 per gallon, without any subsidy, equivalent in energy terms to gasoline at $2.18/gallon), providing consumers with fuel choice in this way would create a permanent competitive constraint on the price of oil.
Agreeing with Lester Brown and the other Malthusians denouncing ethanol is wrong because their fundamental theory of economics is directly opposite to reality. The world economy is not threatened by corn shortages caused by an enlarged market, but by high oil prices engineered by a cartel. To protect ourselves from depression and the worldâs poorest from starvation, we need more competition against the oil cartel, not less. Flex fuel is the way to go.
Mr. Zubrin:
It’s great to see you repaste your article for those of us who already read it.
“Rand Simberg misstated my position at its outset.”
I appreciate that you might not be happy with the headline, but reading the headline on that article, it seems like a perfectly logical conclusion. The headline was “Why Itâs Wrong to Agree with the Malthusians about Ethanol”. You may not have written the headline – but if you did, the error would appear to be yours.
Speaking of mistating positions, why then did you do nothing to deal with the very premise that you say is false?
Rand: “Weâre people who donât think that government should be distorting the energy markets to buy votes in the Midwest. Also note that in his constant pushing of flex-fuel cars, he completely ignores the performance and engine-wear issues.”
Yup. Describes me very well. What’s false about that? You went and ignored all of that, including what was already noted you’d ignored.
That’s exactly my line of thinking, and if you want to convince me, you’ll have to do some engaging and less lecturing without feedback.
To point out some of the problems in your original article:
“There is not a fixed amount of grain in the world. Farmers produce in response to demand.”
To a degree, yes. But it’s not totally elastic, there can be years between increases in cleared farmland, and many other factors (suburbanization, weather, access to farmland) plus the fact that it takes no less than 4 months to bring corn to harvest (plus additional time to process in various ways), and that’s assuming it’s the right time of year to plant. You get a spike in demand in the winter, and well, you’re just right out of luck for 3-6 months, depending where you are. (And the spike in corn demand is why I’m personally laying in a large growing area in the backyard garden.)
“Of our entire corn crop, only 2 percent is actually eaten by Americans as corn, or 12 percent if one includes products like corn chips and corn syrup.”
A very interesting data point. Also one to note that’s very important, because the strains of corn planted for these purposes are often radically different and not-easily-substitutable. I think you’d notice if your microwave popcorn was replaced with corn bred for maximal corn syrup production.
Part of my understanding of what’s happened, is farmers are responding to the subsidies and grants for planting breeds most suited to ethanol – which means they’re not as well suited, or desirable, for food grains.
This doesn’t mean your figures are wrong, but it does mean that there might be another story to the figures, and there’s some ability to disagree on methods and planning.
“which at $100 per barrel will place a tax on the U.S. economy of $800 billion”
It might tax it, but it won’t place a tax. Placing a tax, in the vernacular that I, and others I converse with use, specifically denotes monies paid to the government. Usage in this fashion causes more confusion, not less.
And to get to where I really have a problem with your numbers and conclusions:
“Corn ethanol has now replaced 8 percent of American gasoline. This is a useful contribution”
No, it’s not. I’m assuming you didn’t bother to read the comments you sneered at, but I’ve found that because of ethanol, I’m _burning more gasoline_. That’s not “useful”, it means I’ve been taxed (literally), caused fuel prices to rise, and the end result is I’ve got to buy more of less efficient fuel.
There may well be political reasons, and long term reasons to do that. But in the short term, it’s _exactly the opposite of what you’re saying is happening._
“This could be achieved by adoption of the bipartisan Open Fuel Standard bill (HR 1687) … the majority of new cars sold in to the USA would be required to be fully flex fuel, able to run equally well on any combination of methanol, ethanol, or gasoline … this would make flex fuel capability effectively the international standard.”
Why would that achieve that? You’ve yet to mention a single downside to your plan.
So why must it be _required_, and _mandated_? If there are no downsides, and it would cause prices to drop, and free money for everyone… Why do you have to force me at gunpoint to do it your way?
Are you that bad at persuasion?
I thought it was so great? So, _why_ are you insisting on legislative mandates and requirements, even as you ignore side-effects, unintended consequences (like the impacts to Aviation and aviation fuels, boating, small engine damages)?
As long as you’re ignoring all the very valid concerns, and insisting on forcing me at gunpoint to your way of thinking, perhaps you might cast less aspersions who who’s truly misstating the subjects [pun intended] at hand.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/121367/
(who links to Bob Zubrin a bunch):
INDIANA: Time Running Short For State Corn Crop. âBarely half of Indianaâs corn crop for 2011 is planted and several million acres of seeds still must go into the ground with just a week remaining before Wednesdayâs optimal planting deadline. However, rain and thundershowers keep peppering fields statewide, preventing heavy equipment from getting into the fields without damaging fragile and valuable soil.â
Related: Rain, wet fields wreck spring planting time. âMany of Ohioâs farmers are facing a crisis as record rains that fell this spring have prevented them from planting crops. As of the start of this week, only 11 percent of the stateâs corn crop had been sewn, compared to the nearly 90 percent average for this time of year.â
But, but, but, demand is up! Right?
Surely that won’t mean that other factors might mean supply is less (thus driving the cost higher?)