5 ms·

I'm curious about corn rotting. I live in a country that produces quite a lot of corn. Some is sold as fresh produce, but any surplus ends up on the rooves of

by zhte415 13y ago

I'm curious about corn rotting. I live in a country that produces quite a lot of corn. Some is sold as fresh produce, but any surplus ends up on the rooves of farmers' houses, dried, consumed during the winter as the major starch. The husks are used for fuel - quick and hot burn stir fry. There is no need to let corn rot. Why let it rot?

hga 13y ago
We certainly didn't let it rot in the US before this debacle. The corn is dried using propane or maybe natural gas if the farm is lucky enough to have a hookup, the husks, or sometimes the whole plant, are used for silage and fed to animals, as is most of the corn, although that's generally sold to middlemen and bought by feedlots for cattle, and those who specialize in feeding other animals.
- randomdata 13y ago
  Perhaps I didn't fully characterize the situation. Certainly we had other uses for corn, but around the year 2005-2006 there was so much corn being grown it started to exceed the storage capacity and immediate need for the crop, so it was being dumped outside because there was nowhere else to put it. Exposure to the elements started the process of decay. The ethanol programs came in to use up those excesses.
  - hga 13y ago
    I do remember that, but it was a temporary problem. E.g. right now at least my part of the Midwest is suffering from 3 years of drought, and we haven't had even 1 inch total of rain this spring since snow stopped. Save during the fat years, consume during the lean years and all that.
    - randomdata 13y ago
      Which technically should be sorted out through the market price. Ethanol is only viable when corn is cheap, which is only reached when supply greatly exceeds demand. However, then you run into people not liking their jobs tied to the random fluctuations of the corn market. The whole situation is kind of a big market failure full of small patches trying to stop the leaks.
      - hga 13y ago
        I don't think it's a "market failure" so much as people not being willing to accept that "Sorry, today the value for the corn you painstakingly grew is close to $0", and they've been told since at least the '30s that the Federal government will take care of them (well, back then, it would if they were Democrats). The New Deal policies, BTW, both raised food prices while the same USDA (US Department of Agriculture) estimated 25% of the population was malnourished, which was confirmed by the WWII draft. Which lead to the Federal school lunch program, which was eventually widely extended to breakfast, and now even dinner I hear in some places.
        randomdata 13y ago
        The government needing to take care of you seems like a pretty big market failure to me. And those attempts to take care, instead of solving the root of the problem, is what has ultimately lead to the need for ethanol.
        hga 13y ago
        Well, the problem is, how does a society address the issue of steadily decreasing commodity prices as science and engineering produce them? The New Deal helped farmers, back then a much larger percentage of the population, at the expense of everyone else. The real solution was to move people from farming to industry, or as it turned out, the US military and industrial production to support it for WWII (and per the WWI song, "How 'Ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the Farm? (After They've Seen Paree)" (Paris), between that, the "GI Bill" subsidizing college education, learning all sorts of useful skills, etc. I gather many if not most didn't return). The New Deal, as I've pointed out above, didn't really solve the problem when it's policies damaged so large a portion of the population. No Holodomor, but just as deliberate. I've seen a newsreel of this: http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/crops_17.html http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/crops_17.ht... ; you can imagine what hungry people back then thought when they saw it.
randomdata 13y ago
Lack of storage capacity was the problem. Even more capacity wouldn't really have solved the problem though. There was still more coming in that was needed to be used.

by zhte415 13y ago

hga 13y ago

We certainly didn't let it rot in the US before this debacle. The corn is dried using propane or maybe natural gas if the farm is lucky enough to have a hookup, the husks, or sometimes the whole plant, are used for silage and fed to animals, as is most of the corn, although that's generally sold to middlemen and bought by feedlots for cattle, and those who specialize in feeding other animals.

randomdata 13y ago
Perhaps I didn't fully characterize the situation. Certainly we had other uses for corn, but around the year 2005-2006 there was so much corn being grown it started to exceed the storage capacity and immediate need for the crop, so it was being dumped outside because there was nowhere else to put it. Exposure to the elements started the process of decay. The ethanol programs came in to use up those excesses.
- hga 13y ago
  I do remember that, but it was a temporary problem. E.g. right now at least my part of the Midwest is suffering from 3 years of drought, and we haven't had even 1 inch total of rain this spring since snow stopped. Save during the fat years, consume during the lean years and all that.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    Which technically should be sorted out through the market price. Ethanol is only viable when corn is cheap, which is only reached when supply greatly exceeds demand. However, then you run into people not liking their jobs tied to the random fluctuations of the corn market. The whole situation is kind of a big market failure full of small patches trying to stop the leaks.
    - hga 13y ago
      I don't think it's a "market failure" so much as people not being willing to accept that "Sorry, today the value for the corn you painstakingly grew is close to $0", and they've been told since at least the '30s that the Federal government will take care of them (well, back then, it would if they were Democrats). The New Deal policies, BTW, both raised food prices while the same USDA (US Department of Agriculture) estimated 25% of the population was malnourished, which was confirmed by the WWII draft. Which lead to the Federal school lunch program, which was eventually widely extended to breakfast, and now even dinner I hear in some places.
      - randomdata 13y ago
        The government needing to take care of you seems like a pretty big market failure to me. And those attempts to take care, instead of solving the root of the problem, is what has ultimately lead to the need for ethanol.
        hga 13y ago
        Well, the problem is, how does a society address the issue of steadily decreasing commodity prices as science and engineering produce them? The New Deal helped farmers, back then a much larger percentage of the population, at the expense of everyone else. The real solution was to move people from farming to industry, or as it turned out, the US military and industrial production to support it for WWII (and per the WWI song, "How 'Ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the Farm? (After They've Seen Paree)" (Paris), between that, the "GI Bill" subsidizing college education, learning all sorts of useful skills, etc. I gather many if not most didn't return). The New Deal, as I've pointed out above, didn't really solve the problem when it's policies damaged so large a portion of the population. No Holodomor, but just as deliberate. I've seen a newsreel of this: http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/crops_17.html http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/crops_17.ht... ; you can imagine what hungry people back then thought when they saw it.

randomdata 13y ago

Lack of storage capacity was the problem. Even more capacity wouldn't really have solved the problem though. There was still more coming in that was needed to be used.