If corn is so bad why are we still growing so much of it?

[paradigmus]

Corn is not bad. It is nutritionally good for you and is an important commodity that is essential for many products in the food and agricultural industry and many others.

People that think corn is bad are often referring to GMO (genetically modified organism) corn. They have fears about DNA and genes from other organisms being used to modify the corn and potentially passing on health problems to the public through these modifications.

 

[wpod]

Years ago one of my friends read an article about how toilets spray "stuff" when flushed. He replaced all his toilet seats with seats that "sealed " better when down. While explaining this his two 100 lb labs. were lying in the living room licking their privates then themselves and shaking their dirt and dander in the living room. We really let the media herd our thought good or bad.

 

[PimTac]

Years ago one of my friends read an article about how toilets spray "stuff" when flushed. He replaced all his toilet seats with seats that "sealed " better when down. While explaining this his two 100 lb labs. were lying in the living room licking their privates then themselves and shaking their dirt and dander in the living room. We really let the media herd our thought good or bad.

Good point. A lot of people have never been on a farm either. They have no idea that is used for fertilizer, especially in organic farming.

Nothing wrong with corn. We are feeding the world with the stuff.

 

[Dave9]

Corn is one of the most efficient crops at converting sunlight into starch whether that be for conversion to calories for fattening animals or for producing alcohol. We wouldn't be considering whether alcohol as fuel was good if we didn't have oil to compare against, and eventually we may find that consuming oil faster than mother nature produces it, in areas we can cost-effectively access, results in needing to reserve the oil for other manufacturing then biofuels become more cost effective.

In this regard cassava is more efficient but being a tuber it does not lend itself to mechanical harvesting. Rice and wheat are less efficient, with soy a distant last place among these but for livestock feed, it is high in protein.

 

[y_p_w]

Corn is one of the most efficient crops at converting sunlight into starch whether that be for conversion to calories for fattening animals or for producing alcohol. We wouldn't be considering whether alcohol as fuel was good if we didn't have oil to compare against, and eventually we may find that consuming oil faster than mother nature produces it, in areas we can cost-effectively access, results in needing to reserve the oil for other manufacturing then biofuels become more cost effective.

In this regard cassava is more efficient but being a tuber it does not lend itself to mechanical harvesting. Rice and wheat are less efficient, with soy a distant last place among these but for livestock feed, it is high in protein.

Maybe not starch, but sugar cane is ridiculously efficient. Takes almost no fertilizer. It literally grows like a weed. I know they don't grow it commercially in Hawaii any more, but I saw it just growing feral. Still - Brazil probably has a better climate for sugar cane than even Louisiana or Florida

 

[y_p_w]

A co worker of mine says their accurate within a few inches. I guess turns is where it gets a little sketchy.

I was asking if they could putting one on a riding mower.

I met the guy at an electronics trade show. He had worked with my company (I won't get into the proprietary nature of what we did with them) but he had pictures of the unit installed on the outside of the equipment's cab. I had to look it up since he said he worked "out of LA" but on the John Deere website it has Torrance, California as where they develop "navigation products".

I remembered incorrectly. The photo also wasn't of a combine. He was showing a specific unit meant for a cotton picker, although I'm sure they wouldn't develop GPS devices solely for use with cotton pickers.

 

[wpod]

Tractors have auto pilots the driver programs in the fields and the machine does the rest. When ever I go to the John Dealer I always sit in the huge tractors and combines. Can't help my self. I have a 4 acre grass fired and I get my irrigation from tail water. the water that drains from the fields that are flood irrigated and with out spending $800.00 in fertilizer My field doesn't put out much hay so there isn't that much fertilizer running off. I get my soil analyzed. Fertilizer is expensive and the farmers don't spend any more than necessary. It is science.

 

[CR94]

Corn is one of the most efficient crops at converting sunlight into starch ...
..., with soy a distant last place among these but for livestock feed, it is high in protein.

... which is a lot more valuable nutritionally than starch.

 

[MNgopher]

A co worker of mine says their accurate within a few inches. I guess turns is where it gets a little sketchy.

What sort of damage downstream?

Damage downstream (or externality) can include:

Increased nutrient content in runoff water. The increase in nutrient loading (like phosphorous and nitrogen) comes from fertilizer (not all of it is correctly applied, and even if it is, some of it will leave), increased runoff from bare soils and shallow root systems of row crops versus other vegetation.

Increased volume of water leaving fields from multiple factors. Again, bare soils and shallow root systems. Extending ditching, tiling, and pattern tiling to take what were poor or marginal soils and turning them into conducive for row crops. This adds additional volumes of water to downstream channels. Downstream channels have to adapt to the increase in volume (there is a balance between sediment carrying capacity and volume). Increases in volume drive greater sediment transport requirements drive streambank erosion problems. All this soil also creates nutrient and sediment problems in downstream rivers. This is where many (not all) proponents of the current system will point out "but the water out of my tile looks clear and and clean, so I'm not the problem". What if that water used to be stored upland and didn't make it to the outlet the way it does now?

I can point to the statistical changes in precipitation in my area. The 100 year rainfall I use in design has gone up over 20% since I started my career - and that's only based on statistics through the late 2000's. Part of the cause of that comes from changes in climate. Name your source on where that comes from. But tell me that changing from crops that transpire much less water than corn to corn that raises the dew point up to 5 degrees isn't a source for some of that... (and I will agree - its a piece of it - not nearly all of it).

Point to the changes in streamflow statistics in the cropland portion of our state - baseflows are up. The flow rates for smaller storm events are all increasing - and increasing faster than the increases in precipitation we are observing. One does not have to be a genius to look at these statistics and remember the giant rolls of plastic field tile going in everywhere to start connecting the dots...

Many places where irrigation is occuring are dependent on groundwater, and the rate we are pulling the groundwater out far exceeds the rate the aquifers are replenished... That train is not going to last forever. And again, the losses from some of these processes result in more transpiration losses and the cycle goes on and on...

Or even the good applicators have some of the product they apply find their way into the same aquifers and need to use to drink from... but look at the trends in nutrients and others in these wells in a lot of the corn belt... the numbers aren't good.

I can go on, and on, and on.

Again, I'm not naive. Food has to be grown somewhere. But when 40% of our "food" is being turned into fuel (and some ends up as waste that is then used for "food" in the form of feed products for livestock), and looks at what the externalities of wall to wall row crops are, one starts to ask whether what our policies on ethanol are and whether they make sense. We chose corn because it grew here and the science and process of ethanol production was well known. But was that a wise choice?

One has to look at a different scale sometimes instead of the one field, or one farm operation. Start looking at a macroscale, and see the forest instead of the individual trees.

 

[Dave9]

Corn is one of the most efficient crops at converting sunlight into starch ...
..., with soy a distant last place among these but for livestock feed, it is high in protein.

... which is a lot more valuable nutritionally than starch.

If only it were that simple. It works for livestock because we want to fatten them up, making the carb to protein ratio acceptable and we don't care if they have estrogen issues or toxic side effects. Humans are often better off with other legumes instead, in a sane diet that includes high protein sources like fish instead of making soy into a faux-meat product which is IMO, kind of ridiculous.

Clearly corn is better than some empty calorie things people eat, by a long shot, but neither it or soy are going to promote health if eaten instead of more healthy alternatives that could grow on the same land.

Society just doesn't have a calorie deficit problem in the US and other 1st world countries, so foods with a higher nutrient to calorie ratio than corn, or soy, are a better choice if one has that option.

Not so ironically, things worked out the way they did for good reason, until you get voodoo health trends involved that make people take up all kinds of bizarre diets.

Soy, we could get rid of as a crop and it would improve the human diet. It would make livestock meat more expensive, shifting diets to more fish consumption which is healthier, but for mechanized farming there isn't much of a substitute for corn (as fuel, it really has no purpose beyond that except that it tastes good in a varied diet) unless you want to talk about massive chemical reactors that take in any source of cellulose and convert it to methane, which is a big no-no now that we have the global warming hysteria and liberal idiots attacking things they don't understand, which is sad because ultimately that is exactly what mankind will need in order to survive long term. Oh well, let the next generation call the current one outdated and foolish and learn from our mistakes. Science for the win.

 

[MolaKule]

This is a genuine question as I do not know the answer, so please don't shoot.

So far I heard a lot of negative things about corn using a lot of nitrogen fertilizer, wasteful as ethanol source, feeding cows are not really energy efficient compare to other sources, and growing it is harmful to the soil condition and all.

Yet I'm sure there's a reason why we still grow so much of it to feed cows and pigs and we don't have a better alternative for much of the farmlands in the US. What is the reason? How is the economics of corn compare to say, soy beans, hay, other grains, etc?

PB, you are committing of

This is a genuine question as I do not know the answer, so please don't shoot.

So far I heard a lot of negative things about corn using a lot of nitrogen fertilizer, wasteful as ethanol source, feeding cows are not really energy efficient compare to other sources, and growing it is harmful to the soil condition and all.

Yet I'm sure there's a reason why we still grow so much of it to feed cows and pigs and we don't have a better alternative for much of the farmlands in the US. What is the reason? How is the economics of corn compare to say, soy beans, hay, other grains, etc?

Sorry PB, you have committed the fallacy of presumption and the fallacy of Begging the Question, which we call (petitio principii).

Fallacies of Presumption

An explanation of the basic elements of elementary logic.

www.philosophypages.com

You have asserted an assumed conclusion without any data to support that conclusion.

 

[wpod]

Why do some people eat a Mcdonalds and Jack in the Box?

 

[SeaJay]

I think the evidence that it's bad for you only came out in the last 10 years or so. And the use of HFCS wasn't as much back in the 70's as it is now.

And yes, you're right, the main problem with it is that we eat too much of it.

I seem to remember that it was perhaps the mid 1970's when Coca-Cola switched from regular sugar to corn sugar due to cost. Those were crazy, crazy times when it came to inflation.

 

[y_p_w]

I seem to remember that it was perhaps the mid 1970's when Coca-Cola switched from regular sugar to corn sugar due to cost. Those were crazy, crazy times when it came to inflation.

The first time I'd heard of it was maybe 1984. I think it was a national news piece about how Coca-Cola had been changing the sweetener. They started gradually doing it with maybe 25%, then 50%, then 100%. For quite some time the label still said "sugar and/or high-fructose corn syrup".

 

[Wolf359]

The first time I'd heard of it was maybe 1984. I think it was a national news piece about how Coca-Cola had been changing the sweetener. They started gradually doing it with maybe 25%, then 50%, then 100%. For quite some time the label still said "sugar and/or high-fructose corn syrup".

I thought that was just the shift away from sugar, something to do with Cuba as that's where lots of it came from.

 

[JT20]

Doesn't corn (ethanol) go in all the gas? And why?

 

[y_p_w]

I thought that was just the shift away from sugar, something to do with Cuba as that's where lots of it came from.

Not in the 80s. Mind you - when I heard about the switch, the label still said "sugar". It took a while before they specifically acknowledged that HFCS was in there, although I'm not sure when there became a labeling requirement that it couldn't be called "sugar". There's still no domestic shortage of sugar if anyone really wants to use it. HFCS is simply cheaper. But back in the 80s there was still heavy cane sugar production in Hawaii. There still is in the south as well as plenty of beet sugar. We still have the C&H processing facility around here, although I'm not sure where they get their sugar cane . They were California & Hawaiian Sugar, but it's not as if there's any commercial sugar cane that's coming to California from Hawaii. I looked it up and they process cane imported from countries like Brazil and Vietnam. There used to be protections against imports, but I thought it was to protect the growers in Hawaii.

There also a myth that "Mexican Coke" uses only cane sugar. I believe it's the stuff that's imported into the US which originally sought out the small bottles that contained cane sugar. I heard that most Coke sold in Mexico is the same as sold in the US.

 

[thastinger]

Have a buddy who is sitting on 400K bushels of it waiting on the price to go up. The yield per acre today was unheard of 30 years ago.

 

[wpod]

I thought that was just the shift away from sugar, something to do with Cuba as that's where lots of it came from.

I drove truck for Coca Cola UAS in the late 1970 through 1981 on a casual basis and we would pickup cane sugar from C&H Sugar in Crockett California and Beet sugar in Tracy and Hamilton City California. Tracy and Hamilton Beet sugar places are gone now .

 

[PandaBear]

What sort of damage downstream?

fertilizer and phosphate in water leads to algae boom and dead zone.