Feed costs are soaring in the United States for two reasons. Increasing amounts of acreage are devoted to planting corn for ethanol usage. Which means less land is being used to grow crops for livestock feed--or for catfish farms.
Farmers who plant grains for whatever reason face difficulties--high fuel costs means it's more expensive to operate tractors.
The Jackson Clarion-Ledger goes into more detail:
(Mississippi) has lost 30 catfish operations since last year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The area dedicated to catfish farming dropped 13.1 percent since last year from 92,500 water surface acres last July to 80,400 water surface acres last month.
And the number of fish processed plummeted from 700 million pounds in 2003 to 500 million pounds in 2007, a 28.6 percent dip.
Catfish feed - typically a mix of corn, soybeans and other grains - costs more than $400 a ton versus $250 a ton farmers paid last year. (Mississippi State University) estimates catfish farmers spend half their production costs feeding their fish.
The newspaper made note of one catfish farmer, Rick Moyer, who says he makes fewer trips to fish processors--so he can save fuel.
Chinese competition is also hurting Mississippi cultivators. Their fish is cheaper, but the savings may not be worth it. Moyer told the Clarion-Ledger that 52 Chinese catfish shipments were stopped at the US border because they contained chemicals that are banned on American-raised catfish.
Drill here, drill now, lower food costs.
Technorati tags:
China 
中國 
中国 
Mississippi 
catfish 
catfish farming 
farming 
energy 
business 
Drill here, drill now
7 comments:
...And a teensy bit of domestic oil that won't be available for 8 years will help these catfish farmers in 2008 how?
If we could somehow tap into the cons' hot air over their johnny-one-note energy "plan" we'd have all the energy we need and then some. Seems to be quite plentiful and obviously renewable. ;)
"Johnny one note energy plan"...
OMG!
At least there IS a plan, right John, er... Rob?
You really ARE too much!
What plan? Take lobbyist money from oil companies to promote ... oil companies?
That's a plan?
Why is it "too much" to call on our leaders in Washington to develop an actual comprehensive energy plan when that is what they claim they all want to do (Republicans included)?
...The Trib today has a story on farmers worried about the declining cost of grains (incl. corn), thanks in part to the decreasing cost of fuel.
It mentions the sharp decline in corn (among other grains) as summer weather proved fruitful after the spring floods ended.
No mention of why corn would be declining despite the yet to be proven theory that... "Increasing amounts of acreage are devoted to planting corn for ethanol usage. Which means less land is being used to grow crops for livestock feed--or for catfish farms."
In fact, the actual decline in costs for corn and other grains bursts that bubble you've filled with this fiction...
If the "increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol" theory were correct, corn prices would be holding steady or even increasing against the declining petro fuel costs.
Instead, the opposite is happening.
Gasoline prices, at their current "low" level, are still almost a dollar more than they were last year.
Also, Rob, assuming you're correct on the availabilty of new oil, what do we do eight years from now?
That Trib article says to me, "Drill here, drill now."
John,
The way the noodles line up in your soup tells you to drillheredrillnow. ;)
Whether or not the Tribune article whispers sweet nothings in your ear John, the fact remains that corn prices are declining when your theory on corn-for-ethanol indicates they ought to be either remaining steady or increasing. Ergo, your theory that ethanol is somehow responsible for rising food costs is flat-out wrong.
Yet, in the face of these facts, you stubbornly stick to your baseless unreality... Why again do you think anyone should trust your judgment?
Post a Comment