Oak Point Agronomics

Several unrelated events have conspired to roil fertilizer markets–not that they needed any further disturbance. What we’ve got is a severe case of the “Ikes”:

Hurricane IKE flattened a lot of corn in Northern N.Y., but it also raised hob with fertilizer shipping in the Gulf of Mexico and environs. Hundreds of thousands of tons of fertilizer sat still in ports instead of making its way to dealer storages.

Then there was the Canadian potash miners’ strIKE, which happened because the miners thought they should get a pay hIKE when the price of potash went from a few hundred bucks a ton to $700 or so. It looks like world demand for potash will exceed supply, so every pound of potash that doesn’t get extracted and processed hurts. I think for the first time in memory some farmers will have the money to buy potash but won’t be able to find any.

The price of fertilizer did almost the opposite of what the stock market had been doing of late: It spIKEd while the market tanked. Greatly tightened credit could mean that some fertilizer dealers won’t be able to borrow the necessary funds to fill their fertilizer bins. And don’t count on high prices reducing fertilizer demand enough to make a difference; the governments of enough big fertilizer users subsidize prices enough that demand will remain very high. 

What does this all mean down on the farm? If you haven’t priced fertilizer for this coming spring, when you do you’ll likely say “yIKEs” (or a more colorful term) because in some cases–starter fertilizer, for example–you might be paying close to triple what you paid last year. Yikes indeed.

I’ve been following the “feed vs. fuel” controversy, including attending the Northeast Regional American Society of Agronomy meeting in Montreal this past summer at which biofuel was the topic of several invited speakers. Grain-based ethanol is technically feasible but the economics are sticky, especially with high grain prices. Biodiesel looks terrible with current oilseed prices; I read the other day where it would cost over $4.00 per gallon of biodiesel just for the oilseed feedstock, and this doesn’t include any other production costs!

That’s just the economics of grain ethanol. Then there’s the ethics of using a food product (mainly corn) to produce fuel for our cars while knowing that in the coming 40 years we’ll have to increase world food production something like 150%, both to feed a growing population and to feed our current population better. How can we do this while significantly increasing our use of food grains for ethanol? Simply, we can’t. And if we try, that will mean bringing new land under cultivation, much that’s not currently cropped for the very simple reason that it’s not suited for this purpose. The sad fact is that a very high percentage of the arable land in the world is already being farmed. Another reason to support biotechnology and any other “-ology” that results in more efficient food production.

Cellulosic ethanol on the surface looks like a much better deal, in part because we won’t have to face the food vs. fuel ethical dilemma. However, the technology of cellulosic alcohol production isn’t nearly as advanced, and in order for ethanol from wood products, straw, etc. to be economical the feedstock has to be produced very close to the ethanol plant or transportation costs would quickly eat up the profits. It’s encouraging that biofuels from intensively managed grasses are getting a start in the a couple of areas Southeastern U.S.; I wish them luck since the energy conversion of grass to fuel (calories in vs. calories out) is so much better with grasses. 

Perhaps one of the good things about higher grain prices is that it’s greatly slowed the building of grain ethanol plants. A year or so ago we were going too far, too fast with this whole idea.

One of the biggest changes in agricultural Extension is that most of today’s Extension educators don’t make nearly as many farm visits as the County Agents of a generation ago. Part of the reason for this is economic ($4.00 gas), part is the changing needs of farmers, and of course there’s the internet, which makes techology transfer a lot easier. But when I was in Extension work (for 15 years), farm visits were the most enjoyable part of the job.

Right after starting work as a County Agricultural Agent in Clinton County (NY) in summer 1966, the head agent Merle Reese took me on the rounds to introduce me to a few prominent farmers . He then gave me a list of farmers to visit, a county road map and turned me loose. My first “solo” visit was to Ralph Recore, a fifty-ish farmer who was also a substitute mail carrier. Well tuned into the local scene, Ralph knew whose wife was good and whose check wasn’t. I arrived late morning and after looking at a cornfield or two was invited in for lunch. After lunch we went out to see the cows, then back to the house for coffee and conversation. Ralph was a good talker (and I’m not exactly a slouch), and before I knew it it was late afternoon. Time to go? No, time for some liquid refreshment and you’ll stay for dinner, won’t you? Since I wasn’t married yet, that offer was too good to turn down. I finally left about 7 pm, 8 hours after arriving, and thought: If all farm visits are like this, I’ll never get to see anywhere near all the farmers in the county!

Of course they weren’t all like that, but most were enjoyable; you found out which farmers had good coffee and when they took their morning coffee break. Among the best was breakfast at Lawrence Gonyo’s farm. His wife Adrien made flannel cakes to die for, Lawrence always had the poop on the local agricultural scene, and over the years I had many wonderful “flannel cake breakfasts” with the Gonyos–Lawrence, son Larry and whoever else was in town. Extension workers who aren’t experiencing these kind of interactions and the relationships that develop from them are really missing out.