girlnextdormouse: That may well be. I don't know how much these farmers get from the government, but I'm guessing it must be a substantial amount if it outweighs what they would get for selling the corn. It's not like there's a shortage of people who want to buy corn, so from the farmer's point of view at least, it can't have anything to do with supply and demand.
I just found this;
Corn growers riled by pact between U.S., Mexican sugar growers PHILIP BRASHER
The new year brought a milestone for U.S. and Mexican farmers. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, duties on corn, sugar and other farm commodities have now ended.
That was supposed to clear the way for Mexico's growing soda industry to sweeten most soft drinks with U.S. corn syrup rather than more expensive Mexican-grown sugar.
That's a long-time goal of American corn growers and agribusiness giants such as Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co., which process corn into high-fructose corn syrup.
Now, they worry that the goal may not be realized. U.S. and Mexican sugar growers have agreed on a plan to control sugar trade between the two countries.
The plan, on which U.S. industry officials briefed congressional aides last week, would restrict the amount of surplus Mexican sugar that could be shipped to the United States as soft-drink makers shift to U.S. corn sweetener.
The plan puts no limits on the amount of U.S. corn syrup that could be shipped to Mexico, says Jack Roney, director of economics and policy analysis for the American Sugar Alliance, which represents U.S. sugar growers.
But that assurance isn't good enough for U.S. corn processors and their allies in Congress, who say that tinkering with NAFTA would give Mexico an excuse to restrict corn syrup imports again.
"We now have NAFTA fully enforced. We have free trade in sugar. We have free trade in high-fructose corn syrup, and we want to make sure we don't have any interference," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who has battled with Mexico for years over the sweetener trade.
The sugar industry's plan needs approval from the Mexican and U.S. governments. The Bush administration has not announced a position. Some of the agreement's provisions would be written into a new farm bill now pending in Congress.
Food and candy companies have long complained that U.S. sugar policy keeps sugar prices artificially high by limiting imports. A coalition that includes General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Hershey and Sara Lee denounced the growers' agreement as an attempt to undo NAFTA. Bruce Babcock, an economist at Iowa State University, said the dispute ultimately means little for corn farmers, given that grain prices are soaring. About 4 percent of U.S. corn is used to make high-fructose corn syrup, compared with about 25 percent that goes into fuel ethanol.
U.S. sugar growers, however, face a political problem if their Mexican counterparts lose their soft drink market and ship their excess sugar to the United States. That's because the new farm bill is likely to require the U.S. Agriculture Department to buy up that surplus Mexican sugar and sell it at a steep discount for processing into ethanol. Babcock said the cost of that sugar-to-ethanol program could undermine political support for the U.S. sugar policy. The USDA traditionally has kept domestic sugar prices artificially high - at little or no cost to taxpayers - by strictly limiting imports of cheaper foreign sugar.
"What the sugar guys are trying to do is to forestall what they know will be the demise of the sugar program because of NAFTA," Babcock said.
girlnextdormouse: I wouldn't be so sure. A lot of farmers here are paid by the government to burn their excess corn crops. I have no clue why. But it's tons and tons of good healthy corn being burnt every year. Seems to me it's a waste of food that could either feed the hungry or propell a car either way. Some kind of use would have to be better than just burning it.
If anyone has a clue why the government pays these guys to burn it, I'd love to hear a reasonable explanation.
LOL- helps somewhat to stop erosion, the same ground is planted for decades, gets to the point that you can't grow anything on it without chemicals.. burnoff puts nutrients back into the ground, just like a forest fire
trish123: ah, there you are - was it you who did the thread the other day to keep some of the more memorable bit in - and if so, what was it called please?
I agree, more sources of power are needed for sure
I not sure what you are talking about, I did a blog on global warming hype a month ago?
girlnextdormouse: I wouldn't be so sure. A lot of farmers here are paid by the government to burn their excess corn crops. I have no clue why. But it's tons and tons of good healthy corn being burnt every year. Seems to me it's a waste of food that could either feed the hungry or propell a car either way. Some kind of use would have to be better than just burning it.
If anyone has a clue why the government pays these guys to burn it, I'd love to hear a reasonable explanation.
One good long drout there would be no food or fuel.
Tomorrow I'm calling E.F. Hutton and telling them I want to get a corner on the sugar market. That's where the $$$'s at.... Of course, I'll have to spend it by 12/12/2012, it appears?
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).