http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/02/18/three-im...The giant red splotch in the map above looks all the world like a gaping wound. And in one sense, that’s kind of what it is — a wound in the heartland of America.The darkest red colors show the parts of the United States suffering from extreme to exceptional drought. The tans show areas of somewhat less intense drought.PF
The darkest red colors show the parts of the United States suffering from extreme to exceptional drought. Extreme to exceptional drought? Where? How is it possible to have a drought if at the same time, in 2012, US farmers harvested the Eighth Largest US Corn Crop On Record? It's official: 2012 corn crop was a bin-buster See http://m.postbulletin.com/business/it-s-official-corn-crop-w...A bin-buster? It must have been quite a drought!USDA Report Shows Eighth-Largest Corn Crop on Record See http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/usda-wasde-report-shows...How can we have a drought and at the same time have record production? Hello?-=Ajax=-
With 'Photoshop' no pictures can be believed anymore.The age of information is more like the age of mis-information.
How is it possible to have a drought if at the same time, in 2012, US farmers harvested the Eighth Largest US Corn Crop On Record?-----------------------------------------------------------A few different reasons. The map in the link in the first post coincides with much of the area of the Ogallala Aquifer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_AquiferEven if it doesn't rain, they can still grow successful crops through irrigation. Much of the area of drought in that map doesn't get a lot of rain anyway. Western Nebraska is much drier than the eastern part.The major corn producing states are Iowa and Illinois. The areas hit hardest by the drought in that map are not corn growing areas. Most of that land is used for growing wheat of various types, and as mentioned, irrigation is common.http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr-pr....2012 wasn't a terrible year for corn growing in the US, but neither was it wildly successful. Below is a chart of the total bushels harvested.http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/cornpro...A big reason why the total production was okay was because a near record number of acres were planted and harvested. The government mandates more corn planted for ethanol production.http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/cornac....If the drought area expands eastward in 2013, then that could spell real trouble for the corn harvest. The amount of rain that falls this spring will be important, as well of course the amount of rain that falls during the growing season.- Pete
2012 wasn't a terrible year for corn growing in the US, but neither was it wildly successful. On the contrary, it was very successful: ...in 2012, US farmers harvested the Eighth Largest US Corn Crop On Record - That says corn growing was very successful! A big reason why the total production was okay was because a near record number of acres were planted and harvested. No. If you have a drought, you don't harvest a "bin-buster" crop. And this is a major contradiction - It is either a drought or a record production, you cannot have both!-=Ajax=-
How is it possible to have a drought if at the same time, in 2012, US farmers harvested the Eighth Largest US Corn Crop On Record?-----------------------------------------------------------A few different reasons...Good summary, Pete. Here's one more factoid worth considering:http://tinyurl.com/aumqmt8U.S. Crop-Insurance Claims Rise to Record After 2012 DroughtThe worst U.S. drought since the 1930s led to record payouts on crop-insurance claims, with farmers collecting $11.581 billion as of yesterday for damage in 2012, government data show.Payments are up 6.8 percent from 2011, when claims reached the previous record of $10.843 billion, according to a Risk Management Agency report published today on the U.S. Department of Agriculture website. In 2010, the total was $4.251 billion.Last year’s Midwest drought sent corn and soybean prices surging to records as output fell, while dry fields across the Great Plains left winter-wheat conditions in November at their worst since at least 1985, when the USDA began collecting the data.A whole lotta acres of corn, wheat and beans were planted, and a whole lotta farmers lost their crop. As you noted, the irrigated farms survived the drought (while depleting the groundwater aquifers).I've mentioned it before, but it's worth repeating - crop insurance subsidies paid by US taxpayers are such that we taxpayers not only get to pay more for our food during drought events, we also fork over large sums of money to large corporate farms:(From the Heritage Foundation)http://tinyurl.com/awlld2oFarm Bill Should End Secrecy in Crop Insurance SubsidiesCrop insurance subsidies are one of the biggest taxpayer handouts to the agriculture sector. In 2011, taxpayers were on the hook for $7.4 billion for crop insurance premium subsidies alone. Unlike most other farm payments, taxpayers are prevented from learning who receives these subsidies and in what amounts. Congress should end the crop insurance secrecy to enable taxpayers to hold lawmakers accountable for this massive spending....crop insurance has grown into an expensive taxpayer-financed handout to large agricultural corporations and insurance companies.Unlike other farm payments, crop insurance premium subsidies are not subject to means tests or payment limits. Coupled with the trend toward larger farms, this has resulted in the bulk of subsidies going to wealthy farm owners. According to 2011 data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, the top 20 percent of farm recipients collected almost 80 percent of all premium subsidies.Premium subsidies cover, on average, 62 cents of every dollar of crop insurance purchased by eligible farmers.In addition to premium subsidies, the government also covered about $1.3 billion for administrative expenses of crop insurance companies in 2011. According to a Bloomberg Industries analysis, administrative costs for crop insurance are about triple the rate of nonfarm property and casualty insurers. It is no surprise, then, that the insurers benefiting from taxpayer crop insurance subsidies earn a 30 percent average return, compared with 12 percent in the private sector.This multi-year drought has cost the US consumer/taxpayer plenty.
Ajax: "How can we have a drought and at the same time have record production? Hello?"I know the answer to that one without concern for the climate change debate because I grew up in a farming community and never stopped following the crop reports for various reasons. Nationally in 2012 we planted the largest acreage since the dustbowl era in 1937. We also have been increasing our production per acre for 70 years. We were on target to produce more corn than ever before:http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2012/06_29_2012.aspThen the drought hit and, as more and more corn plants died, we kept revising the numbers downward, with severe downward projections per acre. They predcted last summer that it would still be the 8th largest overall yield ever because of the development of drought resistant crops and the large number of acres planted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/us-corn-production_...I would love to see you walk up to any farmer in Iowa and say to his face, "There was no drought in the summer of 2012 and I have a cherrypicked internet stat to prove it."
I should have read ahead. Your response more thughtful and carefully written than mine.
Ajax: How can we have a drought and at the same time have record [corn] production? Hello?Yet another exercise in nasty sarcasm by our resident juvenile.I would suggest that he do his own research, but experience teaches that he cannot even read a graph.I did find an article -- blissfully free of any graph or equation -- which talks about the many ways in which farmers are adapting to drought:* drought-resistant hybrid varieties (e.g. AquaMax)* genetically engineered varieties (e.g. DroughtGard)* no-till farming* compostingAccording to one study (link below), the combination of improved practices and better breeding has boosted the drought tolerance of U.S. corn by 1 percent a year in the past few decades.www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_09/article2.aspxThe cumulative effect of 1% improvement per year over multiple decades is substantial. Is it enough to give a record-breaking crop in a drought year? Perhaps so.Loren
Yet another exercise in nasty sarcasm by our resident juvenile.Look in a mirror, Cobb. You get what you offer. Isn't what you just wrote sarcasm???
Ajax: How can we have a drought and at the same time have record [corn] production? Hello? Yet another exercise in nasty sarcasm by our resident juvenile.I would suggest that he do his own research, but experience teaches that he cannot even read a graph. Good grief, our know-it-all resident has spoken...The two events Loren, the drought and the record high production are mutually exclusive events - It is one or the other. You cannot have both of them occurring simultaneously - meaning, one of the two events is a lie. You expect us to believe that we had a drought in 2012 in the face of the Eighth Largest US Corn Crop On Record and a "bin-buster" crop? Seriously, what are you smoking?Besides, this sort of thing comes from the side that manipulates the temperature record and massages the data to show global warming. Frankly, there is something called credibility and the side you are defending in this debate has none!You guys are laughable!-=Ajax=-
The two events Loren, the drought and the record high production are mutually exclusive events - It is one or the other. You cannot have both of them occurring simultaneously - meaning, one of the two events is a lie. No, they really aren't mutually exlusive. As others have pointed out, if the drought is where we grow other crops, if more total acreage is planted, or if the corn is more drought-resistant than in the past, you can have a relatively large crop during a heavy drought. Other things you've claimed are impossible, evidence be damned: (1) That ice on the Greenland coast could be melting, while the interior was well below freezing -- 500 miles away and 10k feet higher. (2) That specific humidity could be increasing (the scientists' prediction), given that relative humidity is falling. Sorry, they're two very different metrics - specific humidity is the total amount of water in the air, while relative humidity is the amount as a % of the maximum water the air could hold without precipitating (so, the latter is temperature dependent, and when temperatures go up, relative humidity can decrease even while specific humidity is increasing). (3) You also persist in saying that temperatures in central England and/or Greenland are representative of the entire planet. Whenever anyone points out this error, you move the goalposts, as in . This despite the fact that coastal Greenland is now warmer than it was in the MWP, if it even mattered. What's next? Are you going to tell us that it's impossible to see both increased droughts and floods, because it's hard to imagine how it could be raining in one place and dry in another? http://boards.fool.com/surface-ice-in-greenland-is-melting-i... http://boards.fool.com/pssst-ajax-you-might-wanna-study-up-o... http://boards.fool.com/is-this-the-global-temperature-no-it-... http://boards.fool.com/australia-agw-causes-droughts-and-flo...
the drought and the record high production are mutually exclusive events - It is one or the other.Well no. As usual you present false choices. One has to wonder how you manage to survive with so many false ideas and methods rattling around. Answers have been provided to you, and you have ignored them. We all understand that you do that Ajax. You don't have the ability to even process information that contradicts your warped reality. It is an extreme thing, and it continually offers me Turing moments.
It's obvious at this point that the underlying factual predicate is completely irrelevant to Alex on this topic. Now I wonder who is egging him on by rec'ing his posts even when he is embarrassing himself. It strikes me as unkind to do that to a person.
Here's another way to up the crop production numbers.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/b...A new study by Christopher Wright and Michael Wimberly of South Dakota State University finds that U.S. farmers converted more than 1.3 million acres of grassland into corn and soybean fields between 2006 and 2011, driven by high crop prices and biofuel mandates (right). In states like Iowa and South Dakota, some 5 percent of pasture is turning into cropland each year.It’s a big transformation in the heart of the country: The authors conclude that the rates of grassland loss are “comparable to deforestation rates in Brazil, Malaysia, and Indonesia.” And those changes are already having plenty of impacts.And there's a picture at the link.PF
Answers have been provided to you, and you have ignored them. We all understand that you do that Ajax.I can't understand why a bunch of intelligent people here continue to feed the troll. Doesn't it hurt to repeatedly bang your head against the wall?This fellow has been in my p-box for many months. You guys are continuing to waste my time by responding to his nonsense.Elan
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |