Food Price Inflation

Year-on-year percentage change in monthly consumer food prices and prices paid to farmers (average across all farm products) Jan 1970 - October 2007. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics, and National Agricultural Statistics Service. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

The Archdruid had a piece last week about the likely future of agriculture in a world with less fossil fuel. In that piece, he had an unsourced statistic stating that US food inflation was currently 20%. That sounded high to me. A quick check at the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed that current food inflation for US consumers is just a little north of 4%. In email with the Archdruid, he came up with more statistics. The FAO's global food price index, which summarizes agricultural commodity prices, rose 37% year on year to September 2007. This piqued my interest to explore the issue a little further, and here is a quick tour of what I found.

Let's start by looking at the last almost 50 years of consumer inflation in the United States. I have separated out energy, food and beverages, and everything else (this last is often called "core" inflation by economists). In this graph I am showing the percentage change in prices from 12 months ago to the current month:

Year-on-year percentage change in monthly energy prices, food prices, and the rest of the CPI inflation basket Jan 1960 - October 2007. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

As you can see, energy prices are far more volatile than everything else, but food is only slightly more volatile than the average consumer good. Energy price inflation is now of the same order of magnitude as in the 1970s, but food inflation is not yet that remarkable at the consumer level. At least, not when averaged across the BLS's basket of food items.

This next graph is the same, but zooms in just on the period from 1978 to now, and with some of the full range of the energy inflation cut off. I have also emphasized the green food curve more heavily, and made the red energy curve partially transparent, to allow food to be seen more easily:

Year-on-year percentage change in monthly energy prices, food prices, and the rest of the CPI inflation basket Jan 1978 - October 2007. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

Again, consumer food price inflation is a little over 4%. This is well below levels in the late 1980s, never mind the 1970s. However, it is rising rapidly.

I next explored farm prices by looking at the National Agricultural Statistics Service statistics for average prices for all farm products. I've plotted the yearly changes in that basket on the same graph with the consumer food price changes:

Year-on-year percentage change in consumer food prices and prices paid to farmers (average across all farm products) Jan 1970 - October 2007. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics, and National Agricultural Statistics Service. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

As you can see, the prices that farmers receive for their wares are much more volatile than the prices that consumers see at the checkout stand. In general, farmers have had a miserable couple of decades in the 1980s and 1990s as their price increases generally fell below other forms of inflation. Indeed farm prices frequently dropped substantially even in nominal terms. However, since 2000, they have been seeing larger price increases, and for a larger fraction of the time. However, this series, too, is not at 1970s levels. At least not yet.

Unfortunately, the NASS all farm products price series only goes through the end of 2006. That conceals what is probably a significant spike in prices in 2007, centered in grain prices.

Here are corn prices (and now I'm switching to price levels (of futures contracts) rather than percentage changes.

Monthly corn prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, 1999-present. Source TFC Commodity Charts. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

Corn has gone up dramatically. Wheat is even more dramatic:

Monthly wheat prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, 1999-present. Source TFC Commodity Charts. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

Rice is not as bad, but is still higher than in the last decade:

Monthly rice prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, 1999-present. Source TFC Commodity Charts. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

The causes? As the UN Food and Agricultural Organization Summarizes:
Among major cereals, this season’s main protagonist is wheat, the supply of which has been hampered by production shortfalls in Australia, a major exporter, and low world stocks, while demand has been strong, not only for food but also feed. In September, wheat was traded at record prices, between 50 and 80 percent above last year. Maize prices increased progressively from the middle of last year until February 2007, when they hit a ten-year high, but have fallen considerably since. Supply constraints in the face of brisk demand for biofuels triggered the initial price hike in maize prices. However, reacting to a massive expansion in plantings and expectations of a record crop this year, prices have started to come down, although by September they had still remained 30 percent above last year. Prices of barley, another important cereal, also soared lately. Supply problems in Australia and Ukraine, tighter availability of maize and other feed grains, compounded with strong import demand, have contributed to the doubling of prices of both feed and malting barley in recent weeks.

The tightness in the grain sector also affected the oilseed complex, which witnessed a year-on-year price surge of at least 40 percent, depending on crops and products. Soaring maize markets during the second half of the previous season contributed to keeping oilseed prices at high levels as maize plantings expanded at the expense of oilseed plantings. Due to the expected shrinking of world supplies and historically low inventories in 2007, in the face of faster rising demand for food and biodiesel, as well as unusually strong demand for feed, oilseed markets are experiencing further increases in prices in these early months of the new season.

Among all agricultural commodities, dairy products have witnessed the largest gains compared with last year, ranging from 80 percent to more than 200 percent. Higher animal feed costs, tight dairy supplies following the running down of inventories in the European Union and drought in Australia, the suspension of exports by some countries coupled with the imposition of taxes by others, and dynamic import demand are the main factors that have sustained dairy prices at historically high levels.

Here's milk, at the center of the dairy sector price increases mentioned above:

Monthly milk prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, 1999-present. Source TFC Commodity Charts. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

Not all commodities have gone up though, explaining how averages are lower than the wheat/corn high flyers. Here's pigs:

Monthly lean hog prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, 1999-present. Source TFC Commodity Charts. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

This commodity inflation has a much more muted effect on consumer prices in developed countries, since we largely eat fairly processed foods. The actual commodity (ie food) input in what we buy in the grocery store is a modest fraction. For example, wheat costs about 16c/lb, but bread is well over a dollar a pound. Hence bread prices have not increased nearly as much, percentage-wise, as wheat prices, though they are up:

Monthly price of white bread, Jan 1999 - Nov 2007. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

Products unlinked to the major commodities are often not unusually high. Eg, nothing special has happened to the price of lettuce:

Monthly price of iceberg lettuce, Jan 1999 - Nov 2007. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics. Graph is not zero-scaled. Click to enlarge.

In short, although commodity prices for key agricultural products have increased a lot lately, the impact on consumer food prices in the developed world is quite modest, and no immediate threat to middle class consumers. Calls to stockpile food are way off the mark in my opinion. We have a huge amount of room to eat more cheaply by eating less processed food and less meat.

However, it's another story altogether in the developing world, where a massive tragedy may be in the early stages of playing out if the trends of this year were to continue. Very poor people eat far less processed food, and rely very heavily on cereals, so they are much more exposed to the price rises in grains than western consumers. I haven't been able to find any statistics on diet/hunger that are recent enough to show the effects of this year's price rises, but we can engage in some speculation based on long standing patterns of diet. For example, here's consumption of major food groups in a very poor nation, Bangladesh:

Consumption of major food groups in Bangladesh 1964 - 1996. Source FAO Nutrition Country Profile for Bangladesh. Click to enlarge.

As you can see, the diet in Bangladesh is completely dominated by grains, no doubt mostly rice. And Bangladeshis were hungry to begin with:

Rates of malnutrition in Bangladesh are among the highest in the world. More than 54% of preschool-age children, equivalent to more than 9.5 million children, are stunted, 56% are underweight and more than 17% are wasted. Although all administrative divisions were affected by child malnutrition there were important differences in the prevalences of the three anthropometric indicators...

Bangladeshi children also suffer from high rates of micronutrient deficiencies, particularly vitamin A, iron, iodine and zinc deficiency. Bangladesh should be commended for making significant progress in reducing vitamin A deficiency (VAD) among preschool children over the past 15 years; however, consumption of vitamin A rich foods is still low, suggesting that the underlying causes of VAD require further attention and support. Anemia is also highly prevalent among children in Bangladesh and few programs have been initiated to improve their iron status...

Malnutrition among women is also extremely prevalent in Bangladesh. More than 50 percent of women suffer from chronic energy deficiency and studies suggest that there has been little improvement in women's nutritional status over the past 20 years...

It's not hard to imagine that sharp increases in the price of grains will have immediate and significant effects in worsening the situation of people already so vulnerable.

Closer to home, here is the diet of a less destitute country, Mexico:

Consumption of major food groups in Mexico 1964 - 2000. Source FAO Nutrition Country Profile for Mexico (Spanish). Click to enlarge.

Here, cereals make up about half the calorific intake (which is ample on average). So Mexicans are not as vulnerable as Bangladeshis. Still, the averages will hide many poorer people who have both less food altogether, and a much higher proportion of it from corn and rice (staples of the Mexican diet). And increasing the hardship of Mexico's poor is just about certain to increase their tendency to try to move north across the border, which is a major source of political tension in the US.

And there lie the key issues for wealthy citizens of developed nations I think.

In the last year, there have been food riots, protests, or stampedes in Mauritania, China, Senegal, India, Pakistan, Morocco, Mexico, Yemen, Indonesia, and Burkina Faso.

If food prices continue to go up, the world's middle classes will still be able to afford ample food. But it's hard to see how, in the long term, we will be insulated from the social and ecological collapses that might get triggered in poor countries.

Thanks a lot Stuart, as usual it's first rate work!

Indeed calls to stockpile food appear be off the mark in the"developed" countries based on the trends shown in your graphs. Still, I chuckle and think about the "turkey analogy".

"We have a huge amount of room to eat more cheaply by eating less processed food and less meat."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7106726.stm

New York hunger levels 'rising'
The shelves at Food Bank are empty (Pic: Food Bank)
Food Bank is unable to meet demand, with shelves empty
Over 1.3 million people, one in six New Yorkers, cannot afford enough food, with queues at soup kitchens getting longer, anti-poverty groups say.

The CRB and the Baltic Dry Indexes are the sinquo non
for grain, fiber, metals, and energy.

http://www.investmenttools.com/futures/bdi_baltic_dry_index_bdi_crb.htm

12/13/07 Since cumulative wheat sales have reached an amazing 89.6% of the USDA forecast as compared to 66.7% on average, there is now talk, that stocks will at some point be wiped out and the US may be forced to curtail or embargo further sales.

These charts will compliment yours.

Inflation is theft, IMHO and Americans have been
impoverished by it.

They'll realize that over the Holidays.

We have zero room for error now.

James Kunstler-

"Some other differences this time around: in the background is a "real" economy of depleting natural resources (oil, soils, aquifers, etc) and the systematic disassembly of an industrial manufacturing infrastructure. In the 1930s, many people could return to family farms and get by, even with little money. Today there are far fewer family farms."

Finally, thank you for your interest in food and fiber,
Stuart.

And a quote:

"Selling a soybean contract short is worth two years at the Harvard Business School - Robert Stovall."

http://sixtythirtyten.com/

Found this at your link, it brings a little perspective to the "record" prices

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

alan,

Once more, the late 1970's mirror works....it is ASTOUNDING.

You can look at the historical charts on wheat, corn, copper, tin, bauxite, oil, natural gas, propane, almost all the metals and you see exactly the same top in the late 1970's....I graduated high school in that period and it seemed like the Western economies were FINISHED.

So what is yet to fall into place?
The stock market: It is still due for a serious correction. That is not doomer talk, it just makes sense....the markets have weathered the dot com crash, the 9/11 attack, the Asian bond crash, the runup of energy prices....so do we assume the market is now exempt from normal rules? I wouldn't bet on it.
My guess is that we should see a 9500 point Dow sometime in the next couple of years....but what will cause it?
Interest rates: They MUST go up. contrary to popular belief, they are still very, very low, and need to rise to perhaps 10% for at least a short time.

The fundamentals of the U.S. economy are at least as good as any nation in the world (certainly MUCH better than the fundamentals of the E.U. or China)

What we are seeing is a currency/curve, pure and simple, and we are doing what we have always done with the Fed, trying to stick our finger in the dike.

This cycle could go another 3 to 4 years, and then, just as in 1982, when all the "little guys" and weak players have been shaken out, on one sunny day without warning, the markets will take off, the economy will begin what could be an astounding expansion with new efficiency technologies pouring into every corner of the U.S. economy, and pity the pour swine who got shaken out of everything he or she had.....they will not have the cash to enjoy the rebound.

It's an old story....you can't time the market. But it can sure time you.

RC

The stock market: It is still due for a serious correction. That is not doomer talk, it just makes sense....the markets have weathered the dot com crash, the 9/11 attack, the Asian bond crash, the runup of energy prices.

It depends what you mean by "weathered". The markets have gained basically nothing in the last 7 years (S&P, which is the broadest measure; DJIA is up ~50%, but Nasdaq is down ~50%). When compared to 8% historical growth, that means the stock market is down 42% from where we'd expect it to be, which is pretty severe.

Comparing to the 70s, the markets fell about 45% from Aug/00 to Sept/02, vs. 45% from Dec/72 to Sept/74. Five years after the bottom, the market was up 1% in Sept/07, vs. down 7% in Sept/79 (it wasn't until Jul/80 that it reached up 1%). Both had oil problems and a 10% correction in their fifth year after the low point, oddly enough.

So if the 70s are a good analogy - and the behaviour of the stock markets is surprisingly similar - then the markets should be due for a good run. I personally wouldn't push the comparison that far, though.

Yes. I've noticed/noted that, as well.

This "deflation" of grain prices along with
gasoline (I'm sure the chart would look similar)
has been the "lid" on price pressure.

Note the "crush" in pricing occurs with Volker and the
15% interest hikes in 81.

And also note the breakout occurring this year.

I loved this article. We always hear that corn is up because of the ethanol demand, but it's good to see just how far up. One question that I have though, why is it only the cereals are going up? Is it because they are the most major commodities? Or is it because vegetables tend to get grown locally? (Hence minimizing the oil consumed in transport.) I'm just typing out-loud, maybe someone has the answer.

*edit* I just reread the article and the UN report seems to suggest that it's specific events that are driving the price increases: drought in Australia, ethanol demand for corn, etc.

From what I've read we've been drawing down worldwide grain reserves 6 years running. There isn't much hope for a turn around due to drought and global climate change.

It's one thing to find a super-giant oil field and spend the next 20 years using more oil than one finds. But that doesn't work with food. If enough food isn't grown then soon people start to die.
I've not seen grain prices go up but I buy local organic stone ground oats and hard wheat. It's already at least 2x as expensive and decoupled from ethanol / world reserves and distribution.

This helpful report from the International Food Policy Research Institute has a graph of cereal stocks - looks like they have bottomed out, and further supply-demand mismatch is directly resulting in price increases:

Grim harvest for Australian farmers
by Staff Writers
Grenfell, Australia (AFP) Dec 12, 2007

Ask Stephen Lander what is helping Australian farmers survive the worst drought in living memory and he smiles before revealing the secret: "An understanding bank manager."

"You will find that 80 to 90 percent of farmers are all living on borrowed money," he explains at the hot and dusty property he has worked for decades in the baking dry central west of New South Wales.

As the worst drought in a century grips much of the country, the nation's 130,000 farmers are bearing the brunt of the impact as their hopes for an income again die as their crops fail.

"There's a lot of emotion," says the National Farmers Association's Geoff Knight. "These people haven't had an income for two years."

Lander said it has been seven years since farmers in the region -- who have battled frost, locusts and plant disease as well as the drought -- have made a good living from wheat.

"It's been very difficult the last few years, there's no two ways about it," he said. "I've never seen two years like this in a row." ...

Interesting, so the food price increases I have been seeing are double what the farmers/producers have been getting. I guess one could pin that on transport costs, but one would think that farmers feel the full force of fossil fuel prices so they should be driving the inflation.

Farmers are the only producers who buy retail and sell wholesale.

All farmers can do is hold back product.

Which is costly and the USDA/Merchants of Grain
will take advantage of everytime.

The only protest a farmer has:

Stop producing. How's that working?

Or war.

Or no more grain can be produced. Usually associated with
Death of Empires.

Kunstler-

The nation is acting just now like a crowd of bystanders watching a car wreck that has nothing to do with them -- as though they were just occupying the Nascar grandstand on a particularly bad day. They'll discover soon that it's their own society that's hit the wall out there on the track. It raises the question, under the circumstances, as to whether the next presidential election will have any legitimacy.

Thanks for these fascinating graphs. I agree that the updated 2006-2007 price hikes need to be reflected in some of them.

I also agree with mcgowanmc that the food crisis is already here in the USA if you know where to look for it. A demand spike for food assistance is becoming difficult to meet. When you consider the rising costs of other household budget items ie utilities such as heating and cooling, the pennies are being pinched in food budgets of the poor. And in the USA, the poor eat MORE processed foods not less. [Dollar meals at McD's] The urban poor also pay more for their food than suburban shoppers because grocery food costs more in the city, especially if the closest food is at the 'convenience' stores.

Not scientific but in our town some school PTA meetings have seen increased attendance when canned food is available those nights.

Food prices will continue to rise, given the fact that agriculture is so dependent on unsustainable practices. So I understand the food hoarding recommendations as anticipatory preparation for even worse food prices or shortages.

However, I think hoarding food is not as helpful in the long run as learning how to grow food yourself and sharing that info and experience with others around you.

Happiness is... a peaknik in his victory garden.

There you go. 8D

And almost all of a dandelion is edible.

This is a really interesting article.

Your thoughts parallel my own.

When I think about eating less processed food, and work to do so myself, it means I buy grains and dry beans in bulk, mix with fresh veggies from my garden and farm...in other words, I engage in old fashioned home economics and can eat very cheaply. The rise in the price of dairy isn't so much of a big deal when I am saving in so many other ways.

However, I am putting in the time to think about this, organize my habits accordingly, and be creative. I also happen to have little cultural resistance to eating this way, as my wife and I are very health conscious and aware of the hazards of eating highly processed foods.

By contrast, I listen with sadness to people lamenting about how difficult it is for them to NOT eat the food they are used to. Mothers saying their husband and kids don't like the "new" food they try to cook. Single parents working 2 jobs have little time to do the extra work it takes to shift behavior patterns.

It is all unsustainable, of course, but you can imagine the tension that builds.

ps. I am wondering if anyone has familiarity with what food banks accept. I am familiar with canned goods being highly desired, but what if I wanted to donate a 50 lbs bag of whole grain wheat? Would they be able to give it away? Do the people they serve have grain mills?

There are some good suggestions in the comments to a thread on casuabons book - see here:
http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2007/11/saving-life-that-may-be-your-o...

To summarise: they won't find your unprocessed grain useful. Typically the recipients may be working multiple job and don't have the time or resources for processing very basic foods (in many cases it may be older kids cooking). Canned foods are popular as some do not have even the means to cook and canned food is still OK cold. Food banks accept cash donations too.

Sure, for the long term growing and sharing are the only answers. But an element of hoarding is inherent to the grow-your-own solution. Until such time as each of us is competent to survive by the fruit of our garden it may still be prudent to stock-pile essential staples. As we have seen, courtesy of various natural desasters, our nation's storehouse on wheels quickly presents bare cupboards when disrupted. Harvest time can seem a long way off especially if you are eating your seed grain.

In the U.S., only about 20% of the energy that goes into getting food into mouths is consumed by farm operations (including the embedded energy of equipment and fertilizers).

See: http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/21368509

I think the energy inflation of the 70s and 80s did a lot to reduce the energy footprint of farming, so yes, many farmers are complaining that they can't cut back more.

See: http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=7175
Diesel prices pick farmers' wallets
Fresno, Dec. 5, 2007

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for commodity food and energy prices to spill over into the retail sector given the sources Stuart cites. I have seen suggestive articles that this began in earnest in 2007. Each part of the "food chain" has what economists would call a "menu cost" for changing their prices that puts friction into the price system. I suspect transportation would be the main driver since they can pass on higher costs to customers via fuel surcharges, whereas most farmers are at the whim of commodities brokers and can't directly pass on the burden of higher fuel and fertilizer costs.

In the U.S., only about 20% of the energy that goes into getting food into mouths is consumed by farm operations (including the embedded energy of equipment and fertilizers).

The corollary to this, surely, is that there is a HUGE reservoir of energy savings (most of the remaining 80%) in reducing the length of the processing/distribution/consumption chain.

I am alarmed that "home refrigeration/preparation" consumes more energy than primary food production...

A diet based on local, unprocessed, fresh foods being the ideal. (A few fancy far-flung condiments, and fine wines, are excusable because they are only a small proportion of one's total consumption!)

"The global commodities boom that has lifted prices of everything from gasoline to gold is now elevating rice -- a staple food for half of the world -- to its highest level in nearly 20 years."

December 15, 2007
By LAUREN ETTER
The Wall Street Journal

http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2007/12/rice-prices-are-steaming-with-many....


http://politics.reddit.com/info/63878/comments/

thanks for your support...it is appreciated.

"In general, farmers have had a miserable couple of decades in the 1980s and 1990s as their price increases generally fell below other forms of inflation."

Lower prices doesn't necessarily mean farmers were miserable. Agricultural markets are heavily distorted as a result of farm subsidies, particularly in developed countries, and prices paid to farmers don't necessarily bear a direct relationship to their final income. In some years, in fact, thanks to our bizantine farm policy government payments to farmers have equalled or exceeded the income farmers received from selling their crops. This applies, of course, to those planting program crops (staple grains, oilseeds, feedgrains, dairy, cotton and peanuts). Fruit and vegetable farmers, and some others, are on their own to deal with market volatility.

If you take a look at these graphs, from this USDA report, it seems pretty clear that smaller farms have been losing money, and selling out to big farms, which now produce most of the food. Presumably at higher prices, the smaller farmers would not have needed to do that. I would imagine that would have been a "miserable" experience for a lot of them.

I'm hardly an expert in ag eco, but I did live in a midwest farm town for several years and count farmers among my friends. At least part of this consolidation is children getting out of the family business and selling the farm to the neighbors. All of the farmers I knew were incorporated, presumably for legal and tax reasons, but they were all still family run operations.

I think your observation is correct.

For any sort of income grain or commodity farming, you've needed the base acres to be eligible for commodity payments. One of the best ways to increase base acreage was buying another farm. Farming without commodity payments has been the surest ticket to bankruptcy.

When the kids leave after a while, or the old folks find the kids aren't interested, the sale is usually to other farmers and neighbors close by. The plum is established base acreage.

In the past, operations I've observed who sold to wealthy investors for the commodity payments often have been resold once the the depth of the pocket was reached. Hard to predict how this will play out with increased commodity prices.

Stuart, when I think about the "size of a farm" I usually think first of farm area, not gross sales. I am sure there is a relationship between farm area and gross sales, but I am not sure it is linear.

There's an interesting chart here:
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html

that looks as though smaller farms yield much more income per unit area. There could be many reasons for this but the ones that immediately come to mind are:

1. small farms concentrate on higher value products

2. small farms have a higher labor input per area and so can more smartly manage the space

3. small farms are more likely to be "organic" or attempting "sustainable agriculture" which feeds back into 1 and 2

It would be interesting to see if the monetary profitability of farms is actually bimodal, with big farms focussed on commodities able to take advantage of fossil-fueled powered economies of scale, while small farms, e.g., less than 50 acres able to manage well with strategies 1-3.

Jason,

Have you thought of starting organic gardening/farming classes, perhaps in association with a local school district or community college?

Yes, I initiated a farm at a school last year. We are still putting in infrastructure but are a very active farm. The local community college is open to having courses at the site and I see this as critically important. We are potentially looking for a really keen intern for 2008 but don't have the funding solid yet. A local organic farmer offered courses for 2008 at our farm starting this fall, but there were few takers. She may try again in the spring.

You can follow this project and my thoughts about agriculture and food systems here:
http://www.energyfarms.net/blog/willits

Jason:

Very interesting. The chart is:

The ultimate source of it seems to be this report which presents evidence that the same pattern applies in the US.

So it seems that small farms produce more output/acre, but use more labor input to do it, and so overall are less profitable (at least at current wage levels and energy prices).

Do these studies take into account soil quality and other important factors like length of the growing season?

Highly fertile soil allows for very small intensely farmed plots. And soil quality can vary substantially within the same region.

So it seems that small farms produce more output/acre, but use more labor input to do it, and so overall are less profitable (at least at current wage levels and energy prices).

For what it's worth, much the same thing is true regarding organic vs. conventional farming - same yields per acre, but at current prices 50% more energy is cheaper than 15% more labour, so conventional farming is more profitable.

Check out the price of forage
http://future.aae.wisc.edu/data/monthly_values/by_area/874?area=US&tab=f...
Am I the only one who sees a breaking point in the economy of scale and agriculture? As food prices rise it's not the farmer on 10,ooo acres that is seeing all the money, it's cargill and monsanto

Great eye-catching graph.

I spent quite awhile with a neighbor couple of draws over yesterday. We were trudging thru the snow to catch one of his cows that missed the roundup last fall. That girl has gone "wild", hanging out in some pretty steep, dense timber. We thought the cold would have driven her into my corrals, but not yet. Joking, I told him this was one way he could skirt high hay prices, browsing my pasture and timber brush.

"Nope, I need to get her" (One point we'd noted blood in her urine on the snow, so that was uncontested) But I pressed about hay, as I'm not sure I have enough and its been bugging me.

"I'm not worried. She and the rest are taking a vacation"

What?

"I've got some pasture lined up down in California. Should start to green shortly. Bring em back in the spring for calving."

Isn't that..

"Pencil it out. I'll save a bunch."

He does alot of trucking-hay and livestock. He watches his costs. Even with diesel close to $4, I see where he'll come out ahead with good hay pushing $200.

Hello SS,

Thxs for the detailed analysis, I always read your excellent work.

http://www.ftd.de/karriere_management/business_english/:Business%20Engli...
-------------------------------
Potash is the scarcest of the three main raw materials of fertiliser; the others are nitrogen and phosphates.

Government officials in Regina, capital of the province, did not issue a single potash exploration permit in the 15 years to 2004.
------------------------------
The two key controlling potash consortiums of Canpotex and Uralkali have ridden this structural underinvestment trend to great profit, but it takes a long time and big buck$$$, to create a new greenfield mine plus the associated beneficiation factories and distribution network capacity.

The rising prices of energy and steels adds to the expansion difficulty too. We are talking of the required movement of millions of tons of rock/powder--not weightless Internet Packets. The physics and chemical formulas are fixed; impossible for any kind of Moore's Law improvement.

From a prior posting: it takes roughly 250 lbs of inorganic NPK and other trace elements/acre to efficiently sustain the topsoil mining process above a potential Liebig Minimum-- this is a daunting global requirement if one considers that P & K mines are much fewer than oilfields or natgas fields; these long distribution spiderwebs only add to the final farmer's cost.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

All the places I have lived and gardened, potash was the least needed 'raw material' for the soil since the soil was already rich in potassium. I don't know how general this is, but phosphorus has always been the Leibig ingredient in all of my gardens. This might have something to do with the fact that potassium is frequently a product of deteriorating rocks, especially granite, while phosphorus is usually (I think) derived from living matter. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but it seems like the phosphorus in the environment is more diffuse and is concentrated by processes such as shells forming on animals and dropping into phosphate beds that are mined at some point in the future.

Anyway... I'm looking to buy a ton of rock phosphat