An associate of mine, who is in the grain handling business, sent me the latest crop report. An excerpt of this is as follows: " Yield is no longer the only factor being
impacted by poor crop conditions. Traders are now taking harvested acreage
numbers into consideration. The million dollar question at this point will be
how many acres will not be harvested for grain, whether they’re chopped for
silage or disced under. The amount of farmers owning crop insurance has
increased significantly from 1988."
I replied to him as follows:
Bob,
Thanks for sending me the crop report. Several things come to mind.
The high proportion of insured farmers is obviously favorable to keep them in business, but as Larry says, the drought is so extensive and losses so widespread that there may be an excessive burden on the insurers. We can only hope that there is not.
With respect to crop quality and quantity, apparently there was sufficient germination, but the subsequent lack of water has left the "fruit" in a dehydrated and shrunken condition. Because the water content is low, the size of corn ears will be smaller and the weight lower. It will be generally unfit for human consumption, but cattle should be able to handle it with their grinding teeth and if given enough water. The shrunken kernels are also still usable for ethanol production, since normal procedures is to ferment a mash, which is obtained from ground kernels and added water, if necessary. Cereal processors also use the same procedure, without the fermentation. If I'm right about any of this, the situation may not be quite as bad as it appears.
As the report points out, farmers and their production are always victims of weather conditions, of which drought is the most significant. Local windstorms can easily wipe out a field or two, but that normally can be handled by crop insurance.
Since I now live in the Southwest, which is generally considered an arid area of the US, I have become much more cognizant of water needs in farming. We live in an area of highly concentrated cotton production, and rainfall is generally low. Dry land farming of cotton can be a crapshoot. Irrigated cotton is almost always profitable, although there is some variation in quantity and quality from year to year. Our water for irrigation comes from the Ogallala, which is an underground river having its origin in the Northern Rockies. Lubbock is the terminus of this aquifer (underground river), and we have seen it shrinking in recent years, as more and more farmers continue to draw on it for their irrigation needs.
For a possibility of additional irrigation, lets consider the general topography of the central US and its rainfall.
The Northwest Mountain states are Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with an average annual rainfall of 12 inches. Lubbock has an average annual rainfall of 19 inches, which we know is marginal. Therefore, present rainfall in the Northwest Mountain states is insufficient and that topography is not conducive to large-scale production of field crops, such as corn and soybeans. Similarly, the Southwest Mountain states of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona have an average rainfall of 11 inches with poor topography.
Thanks for sending me the crop report. Several things come to mind.
The high proportion of insured farmers is obviously favorable to keep them in business, but as Larry says, the drought is so extensive and losses so widespread that there may be an excessive burden on the insurers. We can only hope that there is not.
With respect to crop quality and quantity, apparently there was sufficient germination, but the subsequent lack of water has left the "fruit" in a dehydrated and shrunken condition. Because the water content is low, the size of corn ears will be smaller and the weight lower. It will be generally unfit for human consumption, but cattle should be able to handle it with their grinding teeth and if given enough water. The shrunken kernels are also still usable for ethanol production, since normal procedures is to ferment a mash, which is obtained from ground kernels and added water, if necessary. Cereal processors also use the same procedure, without the fermentation. If I'm right about any of this, the situation may not be quite as bad as it appears.
As the report points out, farmers and their production are always victims of weather conditions, of which drought is the most significant. Local windstorms can easily wipe out a field or two, but that normally can be handled by crop insurance.
Since I now live in the Southwest, which is generally considered an arid area of the US, I have become much more cognizant of water needs in farming. We live in an area of highly concentrated cotton production, and rainfall is generally low. Dry land farming of cotton can be a crapshoot. Irrigated cotton is almost always profitable, although there is some variation in quantity and quality from year to year. Our water for irrigation comes from the Ogallala, which is an underground river having its origin in the Northern Rockies. Lubbock is the terminus of this aquifer (underground river), and we have seen it shrinking in recent years, as more and more farmers continue to draw on it for their irrigation needs.
For a possibility of additional irrigation, lets consider the general topography of the central US and its rainfall.
The Northwest Mountain states are Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with an average annual rainfall of 12 inches. Lubbock has an average annual rainfall of 19 inches, which we know is marginal. Therefore, present rainfall in the Northwest Mountain states is insufficient and that topography is not conducive to large-scale production of field crops, such as corn and soybeans. Similarly, the Southwest Mountain states of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona have an average rainfall of 11 inches with poor topography.
The theoretical
breadbasket of the US is all of the area known as the Great Plains. This
constitutes an area from the Rocky Mountains eastward to the Mississippi River.
The possibility of agricultural production in this large area, considering
topography and rainfall, is:
The Great Plains states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico are borderline mountainous, but have significant usable agricultural portions if properly irrigated. The present average rainfall of these four states is only 12 inches (19 is marginal).
The next eastern line is North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Since all of the states are in the Great Plains, they are active ideally suited topologically for massive field crop agriculture. Generally their western portions are deficient in rainfall, although the average is 26 inches.
The net result of these observations is that there is a vast topographically suited land area available for massive field crop production providing water could be made available.
The federal government has been occupying itself with climate control, which is basically impossible. There is presently even little or no ability to control weather. Alternatively, should be considering a huge project to irrigate portions of the Great Plains.
There were two available sources of water.
The first is Great Lakes water, which is continually replenished by rainfall in the Northeast. The Mississippi is geographically closer, but is not a dependable source. It is now almost not navigable under present drought conditions. Generally the states bordering the Great Lakes regard this water as their personal property. It would take an act of Congress to declare it as "eminent domain" for the federal government.
The second is a salt water source from Baja California or the Gulf of Mexico. This water would have to be desalinated to an extent suitable for agriculture. However, such technology through super filtration or sometimes called reverse osmosis is available. Another difficulty is the elevation of the land area to be irrigated. The elevation of the land to be irrigated is 1200 feet on the east side and about 7800 feet on the west. The Great Lakes has an elevation of 600 feet, and seawater elevation is zero. In any case, water would have to be pumped to a higher elevation for practical gravity irrigation. The best source of power would be nuclear plants, which could be placed in remote areas to avoid the usual fear of nuclear by the general population.
With respect to pipelines for transmission and the subsequent restructuring of ground surfaces for gravity irrigation, we now have available very large earth moving machinery, the availability of fuel for its operation, and a large supply of unemployed manpower for its operation.
We are in an intensive financial recession, and many people are looking for employment opportunities. This is a project that would not only makes jobs, but accomplish something useful as a result. Recall that the Romans built aqueducts throughout Eastern and Western Europe and through the Mediterranean area and North Africa, all without the benefit of modern construction technology.
The Great Plains states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico are borderline mountainous, but have significant usable agricultural portions if properly irrigated. The present average rainfall of these four states is only 12 inches (19 is marginal).
The next eastern line is North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Since all of the states are in the Great Plains, they are active ideally suited topologically for massive field crop agriculture. Generally their western portions are deficient in rainfall, although the average is 26 inches.
The net result of these observations is that there is a vast topographically suited land area available for massive field crop production providing water could be made available.
The federal government has been occupying itself with climate control, which is basically impossible. There is presently even little or no ability to control weather. Alternatively, should be considering a huge project to irrigate portions of the Great Plains.
There were two available sources of water.
The first is Great Lakes water, which is continually replenished by rainfall in the Northeast. The Mississippi is geographically closer, but is not a dependable source. It is now almost not navigable under present drought conditions. Generally the states bordering the Great Lakes regard this water as their personal property. It would take an act of Congress to declare it as "eminent domain" for the federal government.
The second is a salt water source from Baja California or the Gulf of Mexico. This water would have to be desalinated to an extent suitable for agriculture. However, such technology through super filtration or sometimes called reverse osmosis is available. Another difficulty is the elevation of the land area to be irrigated. The elevation of the land to be irrigated is 1200 feet on the east side and about 7800 feet on the west. The Great Lakes has an elevation of 600 feet, and seawater elevation is zero. In any case, water would have to be pumped to a higher elevation for practical gravity irrigation. The best source of power would be nuclear plants, which could be placed in remote areas to avoid the usual fear of nuclear by the general population.
With respect to pipelines for transmission and the subsequent restructuring of ground surfaces for gravity irrigation, we now have available very large earth moving machinery, the availability of fuel for its operation, and a large supply of unemployed manpower for its operation.
We are in an intensive financial recession, and many people are looking for employment opportunities. This is a project that would not only makes jobs, but accomplish something useful as a result. Recall that the Romans built aqueducts throughout Eastern and Western Europe and through the Mediterranean area and North Africa, all without the benefit of modern construction technology.
