The narrative is powerful

“A life unexamined is not worth living.”
Socrates, Athens, 469-439 B.C.

For the 98-99 percent of Americans who do not actively participate in production agriculture, farming and ranching and the production of the food they eat is a great unknown. These people, living in largely urban and suburban areas and generally within a few hundred miles of the east and west coasts, are nearly all two or more generations removed from production agriculture. Most have never set foot on a farm or ranch, and only a vanishingly small number have relatives engaged in farming or ranching. What they know of production agriculture is what they learn in school, from entertainment, and from the major media.

For most of these folks, there’s a vast gulf between what they think they know about farming and ranching and what they actually do know.

Why is this?

The answer is fairly simple.

Above all else, they have no direct experience. They have no idea how to set the rpm on a cow to get optimal P.T.O. performance. They don’t know which side of the corn kernel goes “down” when planting. They don’t know how many acres there are in a gallon or how many rods make a remuda.

If you happen to be a farmer or rancher, you know that the above paragraph contains a number of non-sequiturs. But if you’re not a farmer or rancher, how would you know? You certainly wouldn’t be able to rely on experience.

The 98-99 percent of non-farming, non-ranching Americans must find a different way of understanding production agriculture. They do this largely through school, the media, and entertainment. Let’s look at school this time.

Farmers and ranchers who went to school when I did – the 60’s and 70’s – know that the only time our agriculture lessons came reasonably close to reality was during vocational agriculture classes in high school. Other than vo-ag classes, we got Charlotte’s Web and Steinbeck, a few meaningless and out-of-context facts and figures, and “farmers grow the food we eat.” Tractors were mentioned, and sometimes combines, but we were seldom if ever told what tractors and combines are used for. Or, to any kind of close approximation, how farmers grow the food we eat.

Judging from the questions I take from non-farm kids, the most basic concepts of farming and ranching are still not being taught. In fact, most non-farm and non-ranch kids leave school these days with the distinct impression that farmers and ranchers are happy to destroy the planet in order to make a quick buck. They know this is so because the farmer planned to ultimately murder Wilbur, and because the only good farmers that ever existed were forced off their land, which caused the dust bowl, and were then compelled to drive rickety cars to California, and ultimately, into a life of misery in the concentration camps.

If you think this is far fetched, perhaps you should peruse a few K-12 text books and ask a few teachers what they know – and in particular, what they feel – about production agriculture.

Is it really necessary for students to be taught about production agriculture? Many argue that it is not, despite the fact that so very, very few produce all the food that the many take for granted.

A few years ago a state college professor told me that his college owned enough land that it should be able to become organically self-sustaining in a single year. The college, he said, would easily be able to feed every administrator, professor, lecturer and student a completely nutritious, meat-free, pesticide-free diet.

And he was right. The college has plenty of land. But perhaps his proposition is a bit more complex than he imagined. This is a good example of the difference between knowing something and thinking you know something.

Who, for instance, would grow the crops?

We’ll, the professor opined, they’d all have to pitch in.

Okay. And who would harvest and store and preserve and prepare the organically hand-grown food?

Well, he repeated, we’d all have to pitch in.

I asked him if he had any idea why so few subsistence farmers attend college classes. He kind of scratched his head at that one. I asked him to write me a short paper explaining how his plan would work and how much time students and professors would have for class and extracurricular college-type activities when they’d finished with their shared farming duties – duties which had to come first if they were to eat.

Believe it or not, he never got back to me. And the last time I checked, the college didn’t appear to be farming.

Farmers and ranchers know that the fantasy narrative peddled by academia, the media, and entertainment industry falls apart when it meets the realities of the physical world.

The narrative is powerful and never ending. When the insects fail to die and the worldwide famines fail to erupt and when the superbugs fail to materialize, the narrative is never wrong. The day of reckoning is simply postponed. Like the iconic image of the deranged man carrying a sign proclaiming that the world will end on Tuesday, the narrative-singers simply scribble over ‘Tuesday’ and pencil in ‘Wednesday’.

The narrative is not only powerful, it infects, to a greater or lesser extent, the entirety of the non-farming, non-ranching population. Even in the small, rural, ag-centric towns of middle-America. One would hope that the vast, silent majority remain at least somewhat skeptical of the libel spread against farming and ranching. But after watching events unfold and after visiting with the people that one meets, one begins to wonder.

Case in point. Some of my posts appear in a weekly agriculture-oriented newspaper. The previous post did, as did this one. If you read my newspaper column last week you would have seen that the accompanying picture, which someone in the office had pulled off the web, was of dairy cattle at a feedbunk in a confinement setting. Leave aside the fact that they were dairy animals illustrating a column about meat animals. Ranchers know that during the 30-month lifespan of a beef animal, 27 months of that life are spent at pasture, eating grass or hay. Why do you suppose an image of a confinement operation was selected?

The narrative is powerful. And most people who buy into the narrative don’t believe they are doing so. They are quite certain that the narrative simply reflects reality. They, along with their neighbors, lining the route of the royal procession, ignore what their eyes clearly see and agree that the King’s outfit is indeed the finest set of clothing ever worn by mortal man.

Mega media fail on antibiotic use in food animals

“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory is killed by an ugly fact.” – Thomas Henry Huxley, 1825-1895, English Biologist, contemporary and supporter of Charles Darwin

According to Tim Groseclose, UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, a majority of Americans think that the major media shoots it right down the middle when it comes to reporting the news.

But they don’t. This fact is known far and wide and supported by so much evidence it would take thousands of volumes of text to begin to scratch the surface. Just a few rhetorical questions to ponder. Are all the insects dead? Is the world so overpopulated by humanity that scores of millions die of malnutrition each year? Is the earth literally unlivable due to terrific global warming? Did you recently contract and die from SARS, heterosexually transmitted AIDS, BSE (mad cow disease) or of cancer directly caused by alar?

Just to refresh your memory, the major media have trumpeted these and countless other pending apocalyptic disasters for years. Yet insects continue to thrive, humanity’s population curve has peaked and is heading down, and the earth has been cooling for more than a decade. SARS and alar poisoning were flashes in the pan. Heterosexually transmitted AIDS is such a rarity that it’s undetectable in the statistical noise. BSE, which was predicted to depopulate Great Britain by the turn of the last century, has not done so.

There was never a shred of factual evidence to support any of those lurid claims. The media were pushing hypotheses, money-making hypotheses generated by activists.

Today another activist inspired hypothesis has claimed the media’s support, ink and air time. According to Consumer Reports magazine’s public policy and advocacy group:

“We are asking supermarkets to step up to the challenge and tell their suppliers to procure only meat and poultry that has been raised without antibiotics,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union. “Antibiotics are losing their potency in people, leading to a major national health crisis, and we need to drastically reduce their use in food animals….”

This activist campaign was kicked off with a Consumer Reports March telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. respondents asking – presumably, because the actual survey and survey questions are not available – whether Americans want antibiotic-free meat. According to the executive summary of the report, “key findings” were:

• Eighty-six percent agreed that customers should be able to buy meat and poultry raised without antibiotics at their local supermarkets.
• Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported that meat raised without antibiotics was available to them. Eighty-two percent said they would buy it if it were available.
• More than 60 percent stated that they would be willing to pay at least five cents a pound more for meat raised without antibiotics, while 37 percent would pay a dollar or more extra per pound.
• Sixty-one to 72 percent said they were extremely or very concerned about the use of antibiotics in animal feed, including the potential creation of “superbugs” due to overuse of antibiotics, unsanitary and crowded conditions for livestock, human consumption of antibiotic residue, and environmental effects due to agricultural runoff containing antibiotics.

Let’s deconstruct this report.

Firstly, respondents were asked about their opinions and not about their factual knowledge. Secondly, a cohort of 1,000 is tiny in a nation of more than 310 million. Thirdly, The pejorative phrase, “crowded and unsanitary,” was not defined. In general, human ideas regarding sanitation and crowding have no bearing on animal health.

A cow and calf in their natural environment. Beef food animals spend only 3 of their 30-month lifespan in feedlots.

Fourthly, Agricultural runoff has caused unintended changes in river/ocean interface habitats. Such changes are factually neither good nor bad, they are simply changes. Given relative populations, antibiotics and antibiotic residues found in these interface zones are far more likely to have originated in human waste rather than food animal waste.

Halloran, the mouthpiece for Consumer’s Union on this issue, sets up a false argument by stating that antibiotics are losing effectiveness in humans and therefore antibiotic use in food animals must be drastically reduced.

There’s no doubt that antibiotic resistant pathogens are a problem for those humans infected by them. There is a great deal of factual evidence suggesting that chronic under-dosing, that is, patients not taking the full course of antibiotic prescribed, is highly correlated with the development of antibiotic resistant pathogens. In other words, under-dosing kills the highly susceptible pathogens but leaves the naturally mutated, less susceptible pathogens weakened but alive. Over the course of the last 70 years, under-dosing has contributed greatly to the creation of so-called superbugs.

In addition, superbugs live almost exclusively in hospitals, where disease is concentrated. Most pathogen-caused hospital mortality is caused by nosocomial, or hospital-derived, infection.

There is no factual evidence that antibiotic use in food animals has ever caused a superbug which crossed over and infected a single human.

In most cases, different antibiotics are used therapeutically in animals and humans. When the same antibiotic is used in humans and animals, extraordinary measures are taken to prevent mis- or under-dosing in animals. In all cases, antibiotics can only be administered therapeutically to food animals when prescribed by a licensed veterinarian. Growth-enhancing bacteriostats such as ionophores are not classed as antibiotics. Neither is the topical bacteriostat iodine.

Of the 1,000 respondents, 370 said they would be willing to pay an additional dollar per pound for meat raised without antibiotics. Would those same people be willing to pay extra if they were aware of antibiotic withdrawal periods in food animals and that USDA inspectors prevent meat with antibiotic residues from being sold? If they knew that antibiotic use in food animals has never produced a crossover superbug?

The food animal market is largely fixed, in that the producer can’t really haggle to raise his price. He has to take what is offered or not sell. Therefore, he can’t make up disease death losses by raising prices. He can only combat disease by proper management of his animals. High disease mortality would drive many producers out of business in short order. Fewer livestock producers would mean a smaller supply of food animals, and a consequent increase in demand – and price. A one dollar increase in retail price wouldn’t begin to cover the price in a low-supply/high-demand situation.

At the bottom line, there is no factual evidence supporting the notion that antibiotic use in food animals puts consumers at any level of risk. There are multifaceted checks and balances in place to mitigate such risk. Once again, the major media is selling, yes selling, a lie.

If you’re a food animal producer, I suggest you do what you can to shed a little light on the truths of meat production as well as on the lies propagated by the major media.

Reptiles in the Panhandle?

Much of the tri-state region is known as “flyover country” to most Americans, more than 90 percent of whom hail from within 100-200 miles of the east and west coasts, the highly urbanized and suburbanized population centers of the nation.

Visitors to this region generally remark at how bare and stark the area seems, and often complain that there’s “nothing to do.” This is hardly surprising, for those who live along the coastlines live in a land of short horizons, buildings and forests, and constant swarms of activity.

There’s often a paradox involved when people talk about flyover country or look at the Great Plains as a sea of nothingness. For a great many of our urbanized and suburbanized coastal brethren are strongly drawn to the “green” movement, and fear that we humans tread far too heavily on nature. Yet they live in artificial enclaves where nature is largely represented by zoo exhibits.

But to see a breathtaking glimpse of nature’s intricate bounty, a visitor to our region need only drop his eyes from the magnificent horizon and look closely at the vista opening at his feet.

The native prairie ecosystem of our region is more equal in complexity to the most pristine rain forest. In fact, when you take seasonal changes into account, the prairie is often more complex and more varied. On a spring day, in the near distance from the tips of the toes to a mile, one can see scores of grass and forb species, wildflowers galore, hundreds of birds, and with careful observation, many species of mammal ranging in size from the tiny vole to the magnificent Bison. Insects of every shape, color and size clot every square meter of ground and buzz about the nearby air their thousands. Beneath the surface, plant and animal life is equally abundant and varied. But there’s one thing more. Reptiles and amphibians.

Josh Mead, UNL Herpetology Assistant, holds an adult male Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

A pair of UNL researchers visited a ranch in Kimball County Sunday and came away with a good deal of data on, and more than a few specimens of, the southwest Panhandle’s reptile population. Over the course of six hours, they covered more than three square miles and collected lizards, skinks and snakes, as well as data on sightings, weather conditions and environmental topography and condition.

Josh Mead, UNL Herpetology Assistant, and Dennis Ferraro, UNL Herpetologist, collect a specimen Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

Dennis Ferraro, an Extension Educator and University of Nebraska’s Herpetologist, who led the excursion, said, “My main goal in my career and in life is the conservation of amphibians, reptiles and turtles in North America.” Ferraro maintains the university's live animal lab of native Herpetofauna – that’s reptiles and amphibians – for research and educational purposes.

Dennis Ferraro, UNL Herpetologist, collects a skink Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

As UNL’s herpetologist, Ferraro sometimes gets unusual calls. “The State Patrol called me last year to the scene of a meth-lab they had busted back east. The criminals had hidden their stash of drugs in a fish aquarium and thrown a half-dozen rattlesnakes in the tank on top of the drugs. Of course they didn’t care for the snakes and they were half-dead from malnutrition, but I was able to collect them and the police got the drugs.

Josh Mead, UNL Herpetology Assistant, holds an adult skink Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

Accompanying Ferraro was senior Fish and Wildlife studies major and UNL herpetology assistant Josh Mead from Kearney, Neb. “I love this stuff,” he said, “absolutely love it.”

Dennis Ferraro, UNL Herpetologist, shows of an earless lizard Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

The main goal of the pair in Kimball County was to collect data on, and specimens of, male and female Short-horned Lizards (Phrynosoma hernandesi), commonly known as “horny toads” or “horned toads.” The Short-Horned lizard is a reptile, of course, and not a toad, which is an amphibian. The lizards are ubiquitous across our tri-state region, though not often seen due to their excellent camouflage.

A female Prairie Rattlesnake(Crotalus viridus), held safely and comfortably by snake tongs by a UNL herpetologist Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

The Short-horned Lizard  features a broad, flat body typically about 10 centimeters (cm) in length as adults. Newborns and young have the same body shape but are quite small, from 2 cm shortly after birth to nearly 4 cm at first hibernation. They have short, pointed spines at the back of the head, with spiny scales along the back and sides. They are quite colorful with patterns of black, brown, green, gray and white, but their coloration blends so well with their environment they are hard to see when they are still. Coloration and markings often vary considerably from location to location.

Josh Mead, UNL Herpetology Assistant, transcribes data while Dennis Ferraro, UNL Herpetologist, prepares to tag and a female Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus) Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

They are viviparous, non-placentropic reptiles, which means that the female retains the eggs inside her body until fully developed, when they hatch and emerge as live young. Most reptiles lay eggs in nests. Viviparous reptiles, said Ferraro, are thought to have adapted the internal carriage of eggs due to sharp day-night temperature changes across the region. In our area, externally nested eggs might not survive. Though reptiles are exothermic, or cold-blooded, sun basking and normal activity make the inside of the lizard’s body a more consistent and reliable place for the eggs to develop.

Dennis Ferraro, UNL Herpetologist, inserts a tracking tag under the skin of a female Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus) Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

In addition to collecting Short-horned Lizards, the pair of researchers also collected a number of skinks, an earless lizard, and several snakes.

Dennis Ferraro, UNL Herpetologist, uses a handheld reader to check the status of a newly inserted tracking tag in a female Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus) Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

“We’ve had a female Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) in our collection,” said Ferraro, “since 2002. Unfortunately, she developed a tumor on her head and though we removed it, the carcinoma was malignant and is growing back, She’s still eating, but I’m afraid we’ll lose her soon, so we’d really like to find a replacement.”

Ferraro and Mead had collected a male Prairie Rattlesnake the night before near Benkelman, Neb. Ferraro said he travels about 50,000 miles each year, crisscrossing the state in search of data and specimens.

In the first location they chose to search for rattlesnakes, they found and adult Prairie Rattlesnake under the first piece of debris they turned over. Quickly securing the snake with snake tongs, the pair prepared to examine, tag, and measure the animal.

The operation is quite intricate, and begins by carefully placing the head and front half of the snake inside a narrow, clear plastic tube. In this fashion the snake is both protected and it’s dangerous head is contained.

With Mead’s assistance, Ferraro quickly examined the snake and determined that it was a female. The initial determination is made by counting the number of ventral scales between the vent, or cloaca, and the base of the rattle. Twenty-four or more indicate a male, 22 or less indicate a female. This snake had 23, so Ferraro carefully probed the cloaca and verified the snake was indeed female. “She’s probably gravid (pregnant), too,” he said with a big smile on his face.

Ferraro then inserted a tiny tracking chip just under the skin of the snake along its side. This chip can be read by a handheld device to verify the snake’s identity. In this case, the snakes new name is 985121012679829.

Prairie Rattlesnakes are viviparous as well, and with any luck, the UNL Herpetarium will soon be home to a growing population from Kimball County.

Josh Mead, UNL Herpetology Assistant, plays with a friendly bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer) Sunday during an expedition to western Nebraska.

Risk taking

Production agriculture is an inherently risky business. We hear that all the time. Generally, however, when people are talking about risk in agriculture, they are talking about monetary risk – the gambles we all take hoping to eke out a living in farming and ranching. We plant crops knowing that weather, insects and weeds represent a risk to producing a harvest and that market swings are a risk to realizing a profit. We raise cattle knowing that weather or disease can shatter the profitability in a calf crop and that a combination of weather and feed prices can quickly drive us to the point of heavily culling or even liquidating our cow herds.

There are other risks in production agriculture though. Risks to life and limb. Depending on which survey you read, farming and ranching almost always show up in the top 10 of dangerous professions. They often make the top five, and in a particularly accident-prone year can claim the top spot.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but the short answer is that farmers and ranchers often work alone, with potentially dangerous equipment and livestock, and we work in rural settings often miles from help, and even farther from emergency medical help. Most of us have a friend or neighbor or two (and sometimes more) who went out to work one day and were found dead from accident only after they failed to show up on time for supper. It’s a chilling possibility that rattles around in the back of our minds perhaps more often than we like to admit.

The biggest contributing factor is that our profit margins are often razor-thin. It costs a lot of money to produce crops, and the value of our harvest is often only a tiny fraction higher than our cost of production. In this environment the producer who stays in business is most often the one who keeps production costs low. In doing so, we often take calculated risks with the idea of saving money and time (which is often just another way of saying money).

If we’re thorough in our calculations, and weigh each factor correctly, and if bad luck doesn’t crop up, we’re generally successful in executing our calculated risk.

But just as our profit margins are tight, so to are our safety margins. Powerful equipment can crush, shred or electrocute. Livestock can be unpredictable, and in most cases our animals are much larger and more powerful than we are.

Monday I took two calculated risks which were slightly more dangerous than the normal, everyday risks I take. I fixed a windmill and I cut a neighbor’s bull out of my cows and drove him home.

The windmill fix was simple, replacing a worn connector in the pump rod. But to change out that 30-cent part, I had to climb the windmill and do the job about 25 feet above the ground. I wear a safety harness on most windmill jobs, but this particular windmill is constructed of oilfield pipe, and none of my carabiners are large enough to work. So I decided to forego the harness.

A 30-cent part was all it took to fix this windmill Monday on the EJE Ranch. A 30-cent part and a calculated risk.

I was very careful. I wore good boots with non-slip soles. I planned ahead, took my time, made sure of my hand- and foot-holds, moved slowly and deliberately, and didn’t overextend my reach. The job took more time than I wanted to spend, but not more time than I was willing to spend. Everything went fine, and the well is now pumping gangbusters.

But the risk was there. A fall would have caused painful injury at best, and would have been fatal at worst. A less risky way would have been to have another person with me to call for help if needed and to have spent the money for some new, large-diameter carabiners. That’s what I would recommend to anyone asking my advice on a similar project. I’d never advise anyone to take the risks I took. That’s a good illustration of the paradox we ag producers sometimes find ourselves dealing with. We know how to mitigate risk, and advise others to do so, but we sometimes take risky shortcuts. They usually work out okay. But sometimes they don’t.

I moved the bull by myself, on a four-wheeler. The bull was fairly aggressive, and showed me plenty of signs that he was open to the idea of taking me on. I was able to bluff him successfully with a combination of my own aggressive behavior and the noise from the four-wheeler.

In this instance I didn’t make a plan. I found the bull in with the herd while routinely checking cows. I decided I’d handle the problem immediately rather than to get help or switch to a more substantial vehicle. I knew what the dangers were, and I know people who’ve been badly injured attempting the same job. I took a calculated risk, but I made that decision on the spur of the moment. I chose to risk injury or death to save time, and to a certain extent, to prevent introduction of the bull’s unknown genetics into next spring’s calving mix.

Everything worked out okay, but there were a few nervous moments. Again, I’d never recommend that anyone work a bull alone on  a four-wheeler. It’s simply too risky, too dangerous. Yet occasionally, rarely, I’ll take the chance myself.

We all take calculated risks in this business. The possibility that the risk will turn around and bite us hard is always there. We work in a dangerous profession. We have to do the best we can to mitigate risks while knowing that we simply can’t do everything possible to mitigate every risk.

It’s a good topic to think about

Perspective

If you’ve read this blog for more than a few years you’ve probably come across my all-time favorite movie line before.

In Lonesome Dove, cattleman and former Texas Ranger Agustus McCrae has gangrene in his leg, “…from them arra’s them Indians shot in ‘im.” The town drunk and doctor (same man, of course) has already amputated one of Gus’s legs and wants to amputate the other to save his life.

Gus’s lifelong friend Woodrow Call tries to talk him into accepting the amputation to save his life.

“It ain’t dyin’ I’m talkin’ about,” said Gus, “It’s livin’!”

I’ve also noted on these pages that those of us in production agriculture live a little closer to nature than the rest of our fellows in America. I like to think of it as living at the intersection of reality and fantasy. We exist at the meeting place of nature’s reality and the fantasy world we modern folks inhabit.

Our fantasy world is a wonderful place. We built it, and we share it with an amazingly diverse population. It’s home. So far as we know, none other of nature’s manifold creatures have ever built anything like it.

I visit nature every day, but I don’t live there. I live in our shared home. I come to nature with pockets stuffed to overflowing with home-built conveniences, driving a modern pickup, with light and power and factory-made tools at my beck and call. Those things make me feel strong and smart and nearly invincible.

Nature visits me anytime she wants to. Sometimes she bears priceless gifts, like colorful sunrises and starry skies and new baby calves. Sometimes the gifts she bears are painful to receive, like hailstorms and drought and dead heifers. There’s no difference in nature’s mind (if I may be so bold); it’s all the same to her.

We all, city folk and country folk alike, get reminded of this from time to time.

Nature visited last night and ripped a friend away, away from his mortal existence, away from the warm embrace of those who loved him, away from our shared home. It’s springtime and we’re surrounded by new life. Nature’s new life. But she gives and takes as she chooses. She always has. She always will.

At a time like this, it’s easy to say that nature is indifferent, or cruel, or uncaring. But those words don’t apply to nature.

As my heart was breaking and as I struggled to hold firm in the face of disaster, I got a big assist from an unexpected source.

Ricki came to our ranch again last week, the guest of a niece. She’s a pretty little girl, with hazel eyes and a heart-shaped face and a scattering of freckles across her nose. She’s just now crossing the divide between tomboy coltishness and young womanhood, though she probably hasn’t realized that fact just yet.

Ricki lives life at full speed. She’s always in motion; ready to fill every momentary silence with a question, an observation, or grand, unified statement. Some grownups, averse to new experience or perhaps simply filled a bit too tightly with grownupness, opine that Ricki is too loud, too talkative, too restless, and too busy to suit their notion of how a 12 year-old should behave.

I find Ricki’s traits not only endearing, but promising. Ricki doesn’t wait for life to happen, she grabs life by the heart and causes it to happen.

As she and I and her friend (my niece) were checking cows this morning, looking for a heifer with a new calf, Ricki spotted the pair only a moment later than I, a fact she chose to keep to herself. My plan was to let the girls search and search in futility, then point out the clues they’d overlooked, clues a keen observer could use to locate the pair.

Ricki and Gracie in the back of the Gator with a new cow-calf pair in the background on the EJE Ranch Sunday.

But Ricki, already a keen observer, spoiled that grownup plan, and in doing so, brought me down to size with a big grin on my face.

As we motored toward the new pair, we passed the long-bleached bones of a cow that died years before Ricki was born. She looked at the bones, then looked over at the cow and new calf, then looked at me and flashed a brilliant smile. “Circle of life,” she said.

Later, as they loaded up to head home, Ricki took one last look around, reached out, and touched my arm lightly. “I wish I could stay here forever,” she said.

She can't, of course, and she knows it.

But Ricki, you will always be a welcome and honored guest on our ranch.

And Drew, you made our shared world a better place, man. I miss you.

Farm Bill 101

Thomas Sowell, the brilliant economist presently working at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, notes that perhaps the most pervasive economic misunderstanding is the “zero-sum fallacy.”

This fallacy assumes that in any transaction between two parties, one party gains while the other party loses. In other words, the net value of traded items is permanent and never changing. If this assumption were true, and one party got a good deal, the other party would have to get a bad deal.

But economic zero-sum is a fallacy because it’s simply not true. Each party gains from the transaction, else the transaction would never occur (unless half the world’s population were complete idiots, and even then, the phenomenon would be self limiting – the idiots would eventually lose everything and die of starvation).
But values are not fixed and permanent, nor are they measured only in absolute monetary terms. In the real world, each party gains in every two-party transaction, so long as the terms of the transaction are mutually agreeable. Let’s look at a simple agricultural transaction.

I raise beef cattle but no corn, and you raise corn but no beef cattle. I want to purchase corn to feed my calves, while you want to purchase beef to fill your freezer. We approach each other and propose a trade. I will give you a certain amount of cash for your corn, while you give me a certain amount of cash for my beef. We dicker a bit on price. I would of course like to pay the lowest possible amount for your corn, and you would like to pay the lowest possible amount for my beef. Each of us would prefer to pay the other nothing, but we would never be able to agree on terms, because neither of us would gain from the transaction.

Eventually we do agree on terms. We might even dispense with the cash aspect altogether, and trade commodity for commodity. We probably do not do this, however, for in the 21st century, money can be easily exchanged for all other goods we might be interested in. I can't, for instance, take a calf to the local market and exchange it for $700 of groceries. Well, perhaps I could, but I'd surely spend days or even weeks negotiating the trade. Turning calves into money gives me flexibility and saves me time. The same is true for my corn farmer colleague. Money is an extremely useful trading tool, which is why it was invented.
At any rate, the corn farmer and I are each satisfied with the trade, having given up what we could afford in exchange for something we needed but didn’t have.

That’s the way an absolutely free market works. But just as ideal gas laws don’t really exist in nature, neither do absolute free markets exist in free societies. An entity vested with the power to impose an advantageous level of trading fairness must exist, lest the balance of economic power swing to a minority and the sovereign members of society become no more than the property of the wealthy -- the economic "Laird." But emplacing a controlling entity, which we call government, comes at a cost. The laws of thermodynamics rule in nature as well as in human society. There is no free lunch.

When government becomes involved, three parties, rather than two, must agree on terms. This means that fewer terms will be acceptable to all three parties, fewer transactions will occur, and both of the non-government parties will find themselves in a less advantageous position than before. Neither will be able to gain in total the advantage they would have enjoyed in a two-party trade. Still, there is some advantage to each party when government "regularizes" commerce and ensures a reasonably level playing field. Up to a point.

Unfortunately, even the governments of free societies grow in power and authority over time, eventually hindering more than helping. An additional factor is that the number of parties involved in transactions grow as more parties join the transaction. Layers of bureaucracy are added. Groups band together to lobby government for specific advantage. Is our society in such a situation vis-à-vis the government now? We may in fact be, and the farm bill provides a good illustration.

If you read, watch or listen to major media stories about the farm bill, the predominant narrative is about spending federal dollars to prop up farmers. Once they’ve heard the reports, the question that the 98-plus percent of Americans who are not farmers or ranchers ask themselves is this: “Why are we giving money – essentially welfare – to people who own lots of land, nice homes in the country and incredibly expensive equipment and support structures?”

It’s a very good and astute question, and like most substantive questions, it’s one that the major media doesn’t answer objectively or completely. It’s also a question that many consumers, those who have enough to eat and are unconcerned (thus far) about their tax bill, don’t really worry or even care about.  Still, the question is one that farmers and ranchers should be prepared to thoroughly and objectively answer when a non-farmer/rancher asks it. So let’s look at the farm bill. What is it, why is it part of the budget, and why is it necessary?

The farm bill is an omnibus bill – a single piece of legislation covering a wide variety of  food and agricultural programs. These programs are administered and implemented by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Renewed approximately every five years, the multi-year, broad nature of the farm bill gives both agricultural producers and congress the ability to plan for and implement ag policy and activity in the longer term rather than annually through the budgeting process. In theory, this allows a comprehensive approach for policy makers and stability for ag producers.

Although the farm bill is omnibus legislation and sets the USDA budget for five years, these laws are often modified by the Congress during the life of the legislation. Congress can also approve extensions, in whole or in part, of the bill. Sometimes this happens when negotiations for a new farm bill are held up in congress by conflicting interest groups or when the congress cannot reach agreement with the President. The 2008 farm bill, which when it became law was titled “The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,” for instance, was actually due in 2007, but was held up by legislative and executive roadblocks.

The 2012 farm bill is already having it’s own share of legislative teething troubles. After being unable to pass a national budget (required annually by law) for more than three years, Congress turned the chore over to a bipartisan deficit-reduction supercommittee in 2011. The supercommittee failed, grid-locked along party lines. As it turns out, their failure was probably a good thing, because they met in secret, and the budget process is supposed to be done in the open. The supercommittee even tried to shoehorn the next farm bill into the mix during their behind-closed-doors negotiations. The farm bill and other budget legislation may have ended up going to the Supreme Court just as the secretly written “Obamacare” legislation has.

The federal farm bill had it’s beginnings in the “Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916.” Congress introduced additional ag policy legislation and spending during the depression, and passed six additional agricultural acts between 1938 and 1971. The first true omnibus farm bill was the “Food and Agricultural Act of 1965.” Through 2008 there have been 10 such bills. The next farm bill is scheduled to be enacted this year.

In broadest terms, the farm bill is intended to be a national food security measure. The agricultural policies it sets forth are designed to ensure that U.S. consumers have ready access to the most abundant, safest, and most affordable food supply in the world. Since the country does in fact have the best food supply in the world, the farm bill has contributed significantly, though not without controversy.

As with most federal programs, the farm bill has grown significantly over the years in both policy and spending, and these increases have often been hotly debated. Many question the overall effectiveness of farm support programs and their cost. Other arguments question whether farm support continues to be necessary for either agricultural producers or food security. Many permanent fixtures of the farm bill are decades old features and no longer necessarily support modern food production, U.S. economic plans, common global trading rules, or federal regulatory and budgetary policies. Although there are many opponents of the farm bill, there are just as many proponents.

In recent years, the farm bill has been expanded to include, in addition to farm support systems, conservation, nutrition, bioenergy and other programs. The 2008 farm bill process saw a very large expansion in the number and type of extra-legislative proposals coming from state organizations, national farm groups, commodity associations, conservation, recreational and rural development organizations, faith-based groups, and many other nontraditional interest groups.

As enacted, the 2008 farm bill includes 15 titles encompassing commodity price and income supports (including crop insurance), farm credit, trade, agricultural conservation, research, rural development, energy, and foreign and domestic food assistance programs, to name but a few.

Though broad in scope and expensive, the Farm Bill makes up only a fraction of federal spending, totaling about $128.4 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of total federal spending for the year, which came in at more than  $3.6 trillion. For comparison, the federal government spent $793 billion (22 percent) on pensions, $882 billion (24 percent) on health care, $130 billion (4 percent) on education,  $482 billion (13 percent) on welfare, and $903 billion (25 percent) on defense.

The media narrative emphasizes welfare payments to rich farmers who don’t need or deserve federal cash, but the farm bill is much more complex than that. Not that there isn’t some truth to those assertions – some wealthy land owners do needlessly benefit from farm subsidy payments. According to one database, 5,220 land owners living in cities with populations larger than 100,000 received $394 million in subsidy payments this year. Some of these people were undoubtedly actively engaged in farming and spent the money to produce food, though one can argue that those wealthy enough to live in big cities while at the same time owning farms and ranches in the country probably don’t need federal cash to keep their ag operations afloat. Many others are land speculators, who receive a subsidy bonus when they purchase land already enrolled in one or more farm programs.

In addition, between 1995 and 2009, 23 members of Congress received $5.8 million in subsidy payments.

The vast majority of farmers, however, have come to rely on the annual payments to keep their food growing operations in business. This isn’t necessarily because they demand federal cash or because they enjoy filling out stacks of USDA paperwork. Most farmers would probably prefer to be free agents in a free market. But after nearly a century of ag policy designed to keep U.S. food supplies inexpensive and abundant, there is simply no quick-fix scheme – or even any proposal – to significantly modify government influence and return food production and consumption to a two party transaction.

Keep in mind that while $394 million probably shouldn’t have been paid to undeserving parties, it represents only three percent of farm income stabilization payments authorized by the farm bill in for 2011. The other 97 percent not only kept farmers producing an incredible array of safe and nutritious food, it also helped keep food costs down for consumers.

Speaking of costs, the media rarely if ever reports completely on how the money allocated through the farm bill is actually spent. Of the $128.4 billion spent in 2011, 81 percent, or $104.1 billion, went to food assistance programs such as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps), WIC (Women and Infant Children), school meal programs, and other programs that provide food to needy people for free or at reduced prices.

There is a good and strong argument to be made that food assistance programs are necessary and beneficial to our society, particularly when the nation’s farmers provide such abundant and inexpensive food. Among all welfare programs, food assistance provides the by far the most help at the least cost – the most “bang for the buck.” Nevertheless, one has to wonder why food assistance spending is part of the farm bill, which was designed to produce food rather than succor the needy, and why such spending is not adequately addressed in the farm bill spending narrative.

Of the remaining 19 percent of 2011 farm bill spending, $11.8 billion (just over nine percent) went to farm income stabilization programs including direct and countercyclical payments (farm subsidies) and the federal crop insurance program. $7.2 billion went to conservation, and $5.4 billion went to agricultural research and services (including the incomes of USDA employees).

The federal dollars that go to conservation and research are monies well spent, or as well-spent as any government can manage. They not only help maintain a healthy environment, they increase crop yields and reduce the quantity of fertilizer and pesticides used to grow food.

And as we’ve established, most of the direct farm subsidy and crop insurance payments are necessary, at least at the present time, to maintain food security and to keep food prices as low as possible for consumers.

From a taxpayer standpoint, it would be nice to sharply reduce farm bill expenditures, and over time this is theoretically possible. But slashing ag programs is a two-edged sword. In this country, only 1-2 percent of the population are farmers and ranchers, and they feed the entire population, including themselves. Were they to be driven out of business by overzealous and badly implemented spending cuts, U.S. food security would disappear, food prices would skyrocket, and famine would rear its ugly head for the first time in our nation’s history. These are things to keep in mind as legislative preparations for the 2012 farm bill are reported over the next year or so.

challenges and wildflowers

As you may recall from previous posts, I've had a series of health challenges over the past few years. Mostly normal getting-older stuff; much of it exacerbated by lifestyle choices over the years. Too fat, poor diet choices, etc.

At Christmastime I had a traumatic concussion and suffered from what I thought was post-concussion syndrome for a few months. While there was probably some PCS going on, there was a slightly more serious problem underlying that.

Sometime during the last six months or so I developed b-cell lymphoma. I'm undergoing treatment and monitoring and have been able to just keep up with most of my daily activities.

But the illness and its cure have left me quite fatigued and with little energy reserve.

Therefore, unfortunately, I'll be unable to offer a formal wildflower event on the ranch this year.

I may be able to offer individual tours on a person-by-person basis. Contact me if you're interested.

shaunevertson@charter.net

Saving the planet with ethanol

What could be better than ethanol? The mostly corn-based, renewable biofuel extends the US gasoline supply, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and boosts the income of the American Farmer. Ethanol’s higher octane rating makes it more powerful than regular gasoline, and every gas pump in the land prominently displays a sticker or sign encouraging consumers to Save the Planet by using the ethanol blend. The ethanol blend is almost always priced from 4-10 cents lower per gallon than regular unleaded gasoline, so consumers can not only help Save the Planet, they can also save money at the pump. What a deal!

Unfortunately, little of the above is true, although it is the way the ethanol story is reported by the major media, by corn and ethanol advocates and lobbyists, and by environmental activist organizations.

And because that’s the way the story gets reported, it’s become a major part of the green narrative, and therefore enjoys wide public, and of course, political support.

So let’s look at the claims made about ethanol and whether turning corn into fuel is on balance helpful or harmful to American farmers, ranchers, and consumers.

While there’s no doubt that ethanol extended the U.S. fuel supply in 2011 by about 10 percent (nearly 250 million gallons), one has to wonder whether corn ethanol is really a renewable fuel. Can corn ethanol production be sustained at the levels federal law calls for?

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) is the law of the land regarding ethanol production. Under the aegis of that law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops and implements regulations regarding EISA, setting the national Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

The RFS calls for a tiered increase of biofuel production and blending into the domestic fuel stream through 2022. In 2008 the RFS was revised and upgraded, calling for a production increase from 8 billion gallons of renewable fuel each year to 36 billion gallons annually by 2022.

According to the RFS, 31 billion of the 36 billion gallon annual requirement is to be ethanol. Fifteen billion gallons is required to come from traditionally fermented and distilled corn starch each year. Cellulosic biofuel – ethanol produced with feedstocks other than corn – is required to produce 16 billion gallons each year. The remaining five billion gallons is called “undifferentiated advanced biofuel,” described as “…other than derived from corn starch…(including) “cellulosic biofuels, “biomass-based diesel”, and “co-processed renewable diesel.” While corn ethanol is very nearly meeting those legally binding goals, undifferentiated advanced biofuels are falling far short.

According to numbers published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), about 328.5 million barrels (bbl) of corn ethanol was expected to be produced (about 900,000 bbl/day). At 42 barrels per gallon, 2011 corn ethanol production should total just under 13.8 billion gallons, roughly quantity set for the year by the RFS and about 92 percent of the annual total called for by 2022.

According to Kansas State economist Ted Schroeder, who spoke last month at the Range Beef Cow Symposium at Mitchell, Nebraska, this production accounted for 35 percent of U.S. corn production, a number which is expected to grow to 40 percent by next year. And corn ethanol produced this year came from last year’s corn crop (the 2011 corn harvest is still under way).

Is there enough farmland to grow the quantity of corn required by the RFS? The answer is yes, but the question of corn ethanol sustainability is complicated by the fact that corn is an important food crop. It feeds humans directly as bread, meal and syrup (sweetener), and indirectly as livestock feed.

According to the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture, U.S. farmland totals 406.5 million acres. In 2007 corn was cultivated on 86.2 million acres and produced 12.7 billion bushels. According to the USDA, 2009 corn production hit 13.2 billion bushels, the highest annual production on record, on 86.5 million acres. In 2010 corn production was 12.45 billion bushels on 81.4 million acres. The 2011 forecast is 12.3 billion bushels on 83.9 million acres.

If 35 percent of the 2010 yield of 12.45 billion bushels produced 92 percent of the 15 billion gallon corn ethanol RFS, then only a three percent increase would meet the RFS goal. But corn production isn’t static, and the 2011 yield is expected to be lower, so that it will take 40 percent of this year’s crop to match 2011 ethanol production in 2012.

In theory, it is possible to eke out enough corn to hit the 15 billion gallon annual RFS mandate, but is that target reliably sustainable? What happens when the weather doesn’t cooperate? What happens when there is drought, or flooding, or disease or pest problems?

Proponents of the RFS and the mandate to produce 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol annually opine that the solution is to plant more acres of corn. But is upping U.S. corn acreage possible? And at what cost? If you count sorghum, soybean, sugarbeet, and even dry bean acres, you could theoretically add about 70.6 million additional acres of high-yield corn cultivation, for a total of nearly 160 million acres. But that’s really all the suitable high-yield corn land available in the U.S. And if you convert all sorghum, soybean, dry bean and sugarbeet acres to corn, the law of supply and demand will become the driving force. As stocks of the non-planted crops dwindle, their value will increase. Farmers, if they remain at liberty to plant the crops which will bring them the highest economic return, will turn away from corn and begin planting the more valuable crops. Corn production will fall off.

Ethanol production and government subsidies are not new phenomena in the United States, but the quantity of corn used for fuel was fairly low through the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s. Production began picking up in 2002 and 2003, and has grown rapidly since, driven by the ethanol demand of the RFS. As fuel prices increased, auto manufacturers stepped up production of E-85 vehicles and states began mandating ethanol to replace other fuel additives. The increase in corn ethanol demand, which effectively links corn prices to oil prices, has caused corn prices to increase. This means more profitability for corn farmers, but it not only increases fuel prices for consumers, it also increases food prices for consumers. As corn prices rise, so do the prices of wheat, soybeans, and other crops. The price of plant-based food goes up, but since livestock are also fed by with corn, grains and soybeans, the price of meat goes up as well.

Each 56-pound bushel of corn processed for fuel produces 2.8 gallons of ethanol and roughly 18 pounds of animal feed in the form of distillers’ grains, so about one-third of the corn used in ethanol production returns to livestock production. Even so, the use of corn for fuel has played a role in increasing the price of corn from $2 per bushel in 2005 to $6 in 2011. There are other factors, such as exports and food use, but Schroeder said that corn prices would be $1 to $1.50 per bushel lower if no corn went to ethanol production. Those lower prices would be reflected in lower food costs.

And while increased crop prices are a boon to farmers, ethanol production has a large negative effect on the economics of livestock production. According to Schroeder, for instance, a $1 per bushel increase in corn prices drives alfalfa hay prices up by about 15 percent, which increases the production costs for cow-calf operations and reduces their profitability. The same $1 increase raises feedyard cost of production by about $60 per head, resulting in lower prices at the sale barn for cow-calf producers while still increasing the retail price of beef.

There is a similar economic impact in every other livestock sector, including pork, lamb, and poultry. Consumers are paying more for meat and poultry, while producers, feeders and retailers find their profit margins reduced – or in some cases, gone completely.

The picture isn’t entirely bleak for those livestock producers who have survived. New technologies and improved management practices have allowed many producers become more efficient. In the cattle sector, a smaller U.S. cow herd and small increases in domestic and international demand for beef have led to a higher value for calves and feeder cattle. But high feed costs continue to erode profitability, and consumers continue to pay more for food.

Still, these things are a small price for food producers and food consumers to pay to Save the Planet, right?

Well, perhaps not.

Despite the dire and ongoing predictions of the environmental activists and global warming alarmists, the planet has actually been cooling since 1998. Although it runs counter to the popular narrative, there’s more and better evidence that global cooling poses a larger threat than global warming. Geologic and historical data show that global temperatures have been both significantly warmer and significantly cooler over the past 10,000 years. Periods of warmth have been times of plenty, and periods of cold have been times of famine.

As we’ve discussed in previous editions of this series, there’s also increasing evidence that greenhouse gases do not drive either global temperature or climate change, and that the role man made greenhouse gases play is insignificant.

One of the major arguments for the RFS and blending ethanol into the fuel stream has been to reduce man made greenhouse gas emissions. If you discount the evidence militating against man made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW), and believe the key to Saving the Planet lies in reducing man made carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) and nitric oxide (NO₂), then ethanol, with it’s lower carbon footprint, still has to be a good idea, right?

Again, perhaps not.

Combustion of most ethanol-blended gasolines produces essentially the same carbon footprint as gasoline. CO₂ production is sharply reduced in high ethanol:gasoline ratios, such as E-85, but at the cost of increased ozone (O₃) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The total carbon footprint of E-85 is unchanged with respect to plain gasoline or lower ratio ethanol blends. Unlike the hydrocarbon gasoline, made up of hydrogen and carbon, ethanol is an alcohol, composed of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen. Because alcohols have higher octane, or anti-knock ratings than gasoline, ethanol was considered as a replacement when lead anti-knock additives were banned from gasoline in the early 1970’s. While lead was eventually replaced by safer compounds, ethanol was shown to reduce smog emissions, mainly through increased combustion efficiency and reduced detonation in the higher compression engines of the day, and ethanol additives began to be used in urban areas in the late 1970’s.

Ethanol is able to reduce CO emissions because it features oxygen in each molecule, and when combusted, that oxygen combines with carbon monoxide in the exhaust (carbon plus one oxygen, CO) to form carbon dioxide (carbon plus two oxygen, CO₂). CO₂ is a less toxic gas, but nevertheless, it’s the one said to be a major player in global warming.

Reducing carbon monoxide levels is a reasonably good thing, particularly in densely populated areas with lots of automobile traffic. But ethanol combustion produces considerably more ozone than does gasoline combustion. And ozone, a major constituent of photochemical smog, is not a good thing in densely populated areas with lots of automobile traffic.

Recently a number of studies, including one conducted at Stanford University, showed that ethanol combustion produces at least two airborne carcinogens, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Since gasoline also produces carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, cancer rates attributed to motor vehicles powered by internal combustion engines will likely remain the same, regardless of fuel type. Unfortunately, the increased levels of smog associated with ethanol would probably increase smog related premature deaths by about four percent and spike asthma-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

So after spending the last forty-plus years reducing smog, ethanol may reintroduce the nasty “brown cloud” to generations who’ve never experienced it.

Ethanol blended gasoline is also more likely to contaminate groundwater than straight gasoline. Being hydroscopic, ethanol absorbs water, increasing corrosion in gasoline storage tanks and transport pipelines, increasing the incidence of leakage and spillage. Ethanol blending also makes the gasoline mixture more aqueous, allowing it to more readily permeate soils than straight gasoline. Also, ethanol has been shown to increase soil porosity, in effect increasing the rate of soil permeation.

Still, ethanol is more powerful, more fuel efficient, and less expensive, right?

Well, not quite.

Gas station price boards and fuel pumps refer to the 10 percent ethanol blend (E-10) as “premium” unleaded gasoline, and tout the higher octane rating of E-10 blends. Many consumers believe that higher octane ratings are equated with higher power ratings. This isn’t true, however. Octane ratings simply describe how much the fuel/air mixture can be compressed without detonation. Ethanol has a much higher octane rating than gasoline, and can therefore be compressed more without detonating. E-10 blends typically have an octane rating 10-15 points higher than regular, or unblended, gasoline. Detonation can quickly ruin an engine, so in general, a higher octane rating could potentially improve the life of the engine. But modern gasoline engines are designed with compression ratios low enough so that they can safely burn regular gasoline, so the octane advantage of ethanol blends is largely a moot point.

Rather than increasing the power of gasoline, blending it with ethanol actually reduces the power it can produce. Gasoline produces a lot of energy, about 115,000 Btu (British thermal units) per gallon, according to data produced by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee. ORNL is one of the main research institutions of the Department of Energy.

The same data show that ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline, containing only 75,700 Btu, or 66 percent the energy of gasoline. The ratio of energy input to work output is constant in an engine. You can think of it as 1:1; for each energy unit you put in, you get one work unit out. Put in less energy, you get less work out. If your car goes 10 miles on one quart of gasoline, it’ll only go 6.6 miles on one quart of ethanol.
Blending gasoline with ethanol dilutes the energy content of the fuel. A 10 percent blend has only .966 (96.6 percent) the energy of regular gasoline, a reduction of 3.4 percent. It seems a small number, but it reduces the range of your vehicle. If your car can travel 500 miles on a tank of regular gasoline, it will only go 483 miles on a tank of E-10. Still, that’s just a paltry 17 miles, right? Though E-10 may not be Saving the Planet, or more powerful than regular gas, and though it might reduce your range by 3.4 percent, it’s still cheaper. It says so right there on the gas pump. Right?

Ethanol blend prices typically run 4-10 cents lower than regular gasoline prices. On December 13, 2011, in Kimball, Neb., regular gas was $3.39 per gallon, while the E-10 ethanol blend was $3.36. To break even, or to pay the same price per unit of energy, the ethanol blend price would have to be $3.27 (.966 x $3.39). So the ethanol blend actually costs more per unit of energy. Ethanol blending doesn’t save the consumer money at the pump unless it beats the energy spread.

As an aside, on May 30, 2012, regular gasoline was $3.76 in Kimball, while the 10 percent ethanol blend was $3.66 per gallon. The breakeven price for this binary set solution is $3.63. Though gasoline prices have come down in recent weeks, the ethanol blend still costs more MONEY (one-half of the solution set) per unit of ENERGY (the other half of the solution set).

Recently the EPA okayed the use of a 15 percent blend, or E-15, in unmodified gasoline engines. The availability and use of E-15 hasn’t yet become widespread, for a number of reasons. Gasoline retailers would have to either switch from E-10 to E-15, or offer E-15 in addition to E-10. Each would cost time and money, and that cost would be passed on to consumers. There are also questions about whether most engines can function properly on a diet of E-15. Ethanol actually breaks down the rubber in fuel tanks and hoses, and while E-10 seems dilute enough to avoid this in most cases, there have been rubber breakdown problems in testing and road use with both blends. Ethanol is also highly hydroscopic, tending to absorb water, and as most of us know, water in the fuel is not a good thing.

Leaving aside those problems, there’s still the problem of energy dilution and price. A 15 percent blend has only .949 (94.9 percent) the energy of regular gas. To calculate the breakeven price, multiply the regular gas price by .949. Using our previous example, $3.39 times 0.949 equals $3.21. Therefore, a 15 percent ethanol blend must cost $3.21 per gallon, simply to provide the same energy for the same price. And since E-15 is 5.1 percent less energy dense than regular gasoline, it reduces our 500 mile range to 475 miles.

The news is even worse for E-85, which has an energy ratio of .711. If E-85 is priced at $2.50 today, it is nine cents above the breakeven price of $2.41. A tank of E-85 will make it only 355 miles, rather than the 500 miles for unleaded gasoline. E-85 also requires a special flex fuel engine, and will not work in a regular gasoline engine.

But E-85 isn't priced at $2.50. On May 30 at Scottsbluff, Neb., it was $3.38. That's nearly a dollar above breakeven.

Ethanol also costs you more than the pump price reflects. In addition to higher food and fuel prices, ethanol costs you more in taxes. Because it’s more expensive to produce than gasoline, and because it’s a weaker, less energy dense fuel, the ethanol industry cannot compete in the marketplace or even exist without taxpayer money. Though in January Congress allowed both the 45 cent-per-gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit and the 54 cent-per-gallon ethanol import tariff to expire, the Small Ethanol Producer Credit, and the Alternative Vehicle Refueling Property Tax Credit are stillo in place, propping up the industry. It is also protected by the ethanol import tariff. As Senator Diane Feinstin (D-CA) said in 2011 year, “The ethanol industry is the only one to ever receive the triple crown of government intervention. Ethanol use is mandated by law, its users receive federal subsidies and domestic production is protected by tariffs. That policy is not sustainable.”

Direct federal subsidies to the ethanol industry rang up at more than $6 billion in 2011. With about 200 corn ethanol plants in the U.S., that means that each plant receives subsidies worth on average $30 million. Looked at another way, the cost of the ethanol industry to each American taxpayer is more than $36 each year. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with ethanol as a fuel, or with having an ethanol industry, or even with basing so much of it on corn. But like all for-profit industries receiving federal subsidies, ethanol should be able to make it on its own in the market on the merits of its product.

All in all, corn ethanol really doesn’t deliver very well on the promises made by the major media, corn and ethanol advocates and lobbyists, and environmental activist organizations. It costs more and delivers less energy, emits the same carbon footprint as gasoline, and emits both ozone and carcinogens. It does increase the profitability of corn farmers, but at the cost of increased food prices, fuel prices, and taxes.

Does corn ethanol help or hinder ag producers, consumers, or taxpayers? You be the judge.

Climate change and starvation: assessing the risk

“The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might.” – Mark Twain

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” – attributed to Mark Twain

There were a lot of stories in the major media late last year touting experts predictions that climate change will lead to mass starvation unless we do something immediately.

Fortunately, the experts are almost certainly wrong, as they have been for decades, which we’ve pointed out in this series. The stories, however, illustrate the ongoing and pervasive nature of the environmental alarmist narrative.

At least two of the stories appeared in the on-line agricultural journal Drovers CattleNetwork.
The first was a Reuters story reporting the position of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), that the planet’s environment is seriously degraded, threatened by global warming, and that by 2050 agriculture will be unable to feed the growing global population.

The second story reported on nearly identical findings reported by researchers from Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, convened by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.

These stories and a number of dubious scientific reports were timed to coincide with environmental and food security concerns voiced at the 17th annual global warming conference in Durban, South Africa. The formal recommendations of the conference were “…to advance, in a balanced fashion, the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Bali Action Plan, and the Cancun Agreements.”

These protocols, plans and agreements are intended to fight anthropogenic or man-made global warming (AGW) through: 1) carbon emission sequestration through the carbon market, 2) the Clean Development Mechanism, and Joint Implementation, as outlined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Carbon sequestration and carbon trading quickly fell apart. There’s simply no evidence that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane drive global temperatures or have ever driven temperature on the planet. Neither does physics allow for such a thing to happen.

As for carbon trading, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) closed in 2010 after carbon prices fell from $7.50/metric ton to less than a nickel/metric ton. The European Carbon Exchange (EEC) is still trading carbon, but at great cost – at least $67 billion annually – to the economy of the European Union (EU). In the U.S. carbon trading was an unworkable scheme; in the EU it is an expensive, and failing, scheme.

The Clean Development Mechanism is perhaps the costliest swindle ever perpetrated on the third world. In simplest terms, it disallows third world development, because development causes greenhouse gas production, and greenhouse gases cause global warming. Those countries which have become dependent on UN money face the choice of losing UN cash if they attempt to develop on their own or continuing to barely subsist on UN rations. Since third world governments are the largest beneficiaries of the UN payouts, there is little if any incentive for them to change. The masses of the third world population continue to live a life of agrarian subsistence.

Joint Implementation is a combination of blackmail and swindle, where the developed countries are expected to pony up $100 billion annually to save the undeveloped world from global warming.

But a funny thing happened on the way to global warming. Despite the pronouncement by the UN’s International Energy Agency last month that global warming will become “catastrophic and irreversible” in 2017, the whole scheme has begun to fall apart. The Earth began to cool in 1998. Sea levels have not risen at all, let alone catastrophically. CO2 levels continue to rise, but none of the horrific greenhouse gas predictions have come true. Thousands of “climategate” emails now reveal the deeply unethical and flawed practices of the environmental alarmist and UN scientific “experts.”

And while the theory of man-made global warming is falling apart, so is the global economy. As Bret Stephens noted recently in the Wall Street Journal, first world nations can no longer afford to pour money into the invented notion of saving the planet by mitigating man-made greenhouse gases. Environmental alarmists and the UN have been barking up an invented tree, and the world can no longer afford to expend its wealth chasing imaginary demons.

“The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won’t be signing on to a new Kyoto,” said Stephens. “The Chinese and Indians won’t make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesia’s of the world is risible, especially after they’ve spent it all on Greece.

“Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent’s heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. “Green” technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

“That’s where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the “hide the decline” emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.

“But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren’t going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise – if much at all. Greenland isn’t turning green. Florida isn’t going anywhere.

“The reply global warming alarmists have made to these disclosures is that they did nothing to change the underlying science, and only improved it in particulars. So what to make of the U.N.’s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty? Oddly, the report has left climate activists stuttering with rage at what they call its “watered down” predictions. If nothing else, they understand that any belief system, particularly ones as young as global warming, cannot easily survive more than a few ounces of self-doubt.”

But if the theory of man-made climate change is falling apart, what about the specter of  famine as the global population continues to grow? As we outlined in parts two and four of this series, there’s little evidence to support the notion that agriculture is destroying the planet or that it will be unable to continue to feed the global population. These are simply more alarmist myths, calculated to instill fear and loosen global purse strings in the pursuit of a political agenda.

Not only is agriculture keeping up with global food demand, it is improving the ecology of the planet. The shrinking number of agriculture’s adverse environmental impacts continue to be mitigated by improved farming and ranching practices. At the same time, diets, health, and life spans continue to improve around the globe. This is hardly a catastrophe.

Global famine could happen, of course. The climate is changing, just as it has continually changed for more than four billion years, and an extended period of global cooling would doubtless lead to crop failures and hunger. Global cooling or the beginning of a new ice age is by far the most likely possible cause of widespread famine. As recently as the Little Ice Age (LIA, 1300-1850 A.D.) crops failed and human populations fell around the globe. And famine isn’t the only threat to humanity.

There are no guarantees in life.

As mortal beings, we all learn this at an early age. It’s an intellectual fact for the young, but it becomes real and visceral as the years begin to add up.

That’s for the individual of course.

But there are widespread risks of deadly peril to humanity as a whole. There’s no sense arguing the fact. A major asteroid colliding with Earth would probably kill all or nearly all of us. So would a large-scale exchange of nuclear weapons. So would the sudden onset of a planetary glaciation. So would world wide crop failure. And so, probably, would a world wide and long-term interruption of electricity.

Each of these things can happen. In fact, with the exception of nuclear war, each has happened, right here on this planet.

But what is the risk of one of these things – or some other catastrophe – devastating humanity in the near future? How does one assess such a risk, and then having made an assessment, how does one prepare for the coming crisis?

For some potential catastrophes, it doesn’t matter. Were a very large (greater than 500 kilometers in diameter) asteroid or comet found to be on collision course with Earth and due to strike within the next decade, there would be nothing humanity could do to avert the disaster. Oh, there would doubtless be a crash program to destroy or deflect the object, but at our level of technical and political ability, these ideas are the stuff of science fiction – America hasn’t even begun to rebuild on the site of the former World Trade center yet. What kind of crash program are we capable of? The object would strike and life as we know it – perhaps all life – on Earth would end.

The same is essentially true for nuclear war, sudden onset of glaciation (the onset of some glaciations, or ice ages, have happened within mere decades, according to the geological record), world wide crop failure, and the long-term interruption of our ability to use electricity.

There would almost certainly be one difference with these last four, however. Life on this planet would survive. Humans would be very hard hit – societies would collapse, populations would plunge, human lives would become brutish, nasty and short – but the rest of Earth’s life forms would quickly adapt and go on much as before.

Now, that’s a lot of doom and gloom. But if you objectively quantify the risks of each of those things happening, you find some rather good news. A massive impact could occur, but none have for about four billion years. Nuclear war could happen – the risk is far greater – but a world wide nuclear exchange is almost certainly beyond our present technical and political capabilities. As for a world wide crop failure, it’s hard to imagine more than one likely circumstance which would drive such a global catastrophe. It could happen, but the risk is quite small.

Perhaps the highest catastrophic risk of the five mentioned above is the long-term loss of our ability to use electricity. A massive solar flare could do it, as could a coordinated electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, where large nukes would be set off high in the atmosphere and the resulting rain of radiation and nuclear particles – which would be mostly harmless (at least in the short term) to human life – would nevertheless destroy all unshielded electrical equipment. No computers, or cell phones, or “cloud” based devices. No stock exchange. No electrical generation and none of the heating, cooling and lighting based upon such generation. No cars or motorcycles. No refrigeration. No ATM’s. The list goes on and on. In such a suddenly changed regime, life would be very hard for people. Harder perhaps than you can imagine.

Still, the likelihood of any of these events actually occurring within the next twenty years is  relatively small.
One way to assess risk is mathematically. We’ve just done this, on the back of an envelope as it were, for the above catastrophic scenarios. To describe it mathematically, or to “say it in math,” goes something like this. C=Rl/Dle, where C is catastrophe, Rl is likelihood that the risk will occur (quantified level of risk), and Dle is the devastation level expected to occur.

Now comes the fun part, assigning numerical values to the various mathematical expressions. This yields a catastrophe quotient – given as a percentage, of the probability of human devastation caused by a particular catastrophic event. It’s not a predictive tool, rather, it’s a way to wrap your mind around the problem.
Because Rl is expected to be small in the above scenarios, let’s scale it from 0-5, with zero being not expected to happen, ever, and five unlikely to occur, but still a distinct possibility. As for Dle , lets use a range of 0-100, where aero is no devastation and 100 is complete loss of human life on the planet.

In our massive impact scenario, Rl would be quite small, on the order of 0.02. Devastation to planetary life, however, would be huge, the maximum possible of Dle=100. Therefore our equation would look like this C=0.02/100, or 0.002 percent. In this mathematical context, not a very big risk.
Now let’s look at scenario five from above, world wide long-term interruption of electricity, using the same formula.

On Nov. 3, 2011, a powerful solar flare erupted from a huge sunspot  on the surface of our star. It was classified as an X 1.9 flare. Although the flare wasn’t aimed directly at Earth, it still caused some radio and other communications interruptions and breakdowns.

Solar flare energy is rated on x-ray output and measured in Watts per square meter. The November 3 flare, classified as X 1.9, released 1.9 times 10 to the fourth power Watts per square meter, or 1.9 x 100,000 W/m2 , or 190,000 W/ m2.  To put this in perspective, the normal solar flux reaching the surface of the Earth is about 5 W/ m2, or about 38.000 times less energetic. But X class flares can achieve level 9.9, which would put their output at 990,000 W/ m2, an increase of about 800,000 W/m2, and even higher.

Stronger flares have been measured including X-28+, X-20, x-17, X-15, X-14, X-12, X-10, and X –9.0 – X – 9.8, all during the last 30 years. None of these flares have directly impacted Earth. However, should one do so, it would quickly overwhelm the Earth’s protective magnetic field, leading to a de facto EMP event.

How do you assess such a risk? Applying our simple math from above, we find that the Rl is quite high. With 30 solar flares of X-9 magnitude or greater in less than 30 years, perhaps as high as 2.5. The Dle, in human terms, is also quite high, perhaps on the order of 90 (How long do you think you would survive without food, heat light, etc.). this makes the equation come out differently, at 0.27 percent, or two full orders of magnitude higher than the impact scenario.

What about widespread crop failure and famine caused by global cooling then? At the onset of the Little Ice Age, it took barely 20 years for food production, and then population, to begin falling off. So how do we assess a similar risk today?

In general, the risk would probably fall somewhere between the two extremes cited above.

We could reasonably set Rl at 1.0, and  Dle to 50. Therefore our equation would look like this: C=1.0/50, or 0.02 percent. Again, not a huge risk, but potentially a troubling one.

With history as a guide, however, it’s more likely that our climate will remain reasonably stable for at least hundreds of years. Also, agricultural techniques and technologies have improved greatly since the Little Ice Age, so the impact of a similar cooling period would probably be greatly reduced when it comes to food security.

Overall, an objective assessment of the likelihood of catastrophic climate change and global famine shows that the risk is there, but it appears to be quite low, at least for the foreseeable future.