VisualEconomics: Unraveling the Complexities of Economic and Financial Data
Visual Economics > Infographics > Ecornomics: America’s Favorite Crop

Ecornomics: America’s Favorite Crop

Comments
Share
('DiggThis’)
ve-ecornomics-r5


The Big Numbers:

Over the last decade, corn has become the most dominant crop on American soil. It is in a quarter of our everyday foods, and it is being used to fuel our cars as well. Why is America so attached to this crop? Here is some insight into the popularity of America’s addiction to corn.

Net Returns for Crops

One reason that America uses so much corn is that the net returns for growing corn are higher than the net returns of growing soybeans, wheat, sorghum, barley and oats. The net return for growing corn has grown rapidly in the last few years, going from about $175 an acre in the ‘96/’97 season to about $275 in the ‘09/’10 growing season.

Corn Consumption Breakdown

The vast majority of the corn crop is used as feed. The next largest use of corn is for ethanol. The third largest use of corn is for the high fructose corn syrup that has grown ever-more pervasive in the American diet. Corn is also used as glucose and dextrose, starch, cereal and alcohol.

The Fuss About Ethanol

In the last several years, ethanol production and consumption has tripled. As of October 2007, the U.S. has the capacity to produce 7 billion gallons of ethanol a year. This has begun to limit our dependence on foreign oil while saving a lot of money.

Total Corn Subsidies

Total corn subsidies have risen sharply, adding billions to the production of corn in the U.S. In 1995, corn subsidies were almost $3 billion. In 1996, corn subsidies were almost $2 billion. In 1997, corn subsides were almost $3 billion. In 1998, corn subsidies were about $7.5 billion. In 1999, corn subsidies were about $7.5 billion. In 2000, corn subsidies were close to $8 billion. In 2001, corn subsidies were about $5.5 billion. In 2002, corn subsidies were about $2 billion. In 2003, corn subsidies were almost $3 billion. In 2004, corn subsidies were about $4.5 billion. In 2005, corn subsidies were more than $9 billion. In 2006, corn subsidies were about $5 billion.

The total invested in ethanol since 1978 is $20 billion. The total saved in foreign oil purchases is $100 billion.

Corn Production

Corn production occurs across the Unites States, from New England to the Southwest. The top five corn-producing states produce more than half of the corn that is produced in the United States. The highest corn-producing state is Iowa. Number two in corn production is Illinois. Number three in corn production is Nebraska. Number four in corn production is Minnesota. Number five in corn production is Indiana. All of the U.S. corn production equals about 40 percent of the world’s corn production.

It’s in Our Food

Of the 10,000 items in a typical grocery store, at least 2,500 use corn in some form during production or processing. About 25 percent of the products on the shelves use corn in some capacity.

There are also unnoticed uses of corn, including hamburger, in which the corn was used in cow feed. Corn is also used as chicken feed, contributing to the eggs. Corn oil, corn meal and corn starch are all used in processed foods. Soda and sweetened drinks use high fructose corn syrup as the sweetener.

Posted by: cbennett     Tags: , ,

related visualeconomic articles

  • tj
    According what I have read this is non-starter as far as far as a source of energy. It does not matter how much government subsidizes the corn industry - it's the net energy that is produced.

    Net energy = Energy Out/ Energy in.

    So if it takes more than gallon of energy to produce a gallon of equivalent ethanol than it's not a started - I think we need Net Energy of atleast around 10 to be a good source of energy, Ethanol clearly is not.

    As someone else suggested, corn on the cob...umhhhhhhhh.
  • If there were no crop subsidies,farmers would produce just as much (tho not necessarily the same crops) because they need to earn a living. However, the price of land would fall. In Illinois, most cropland is tenant-farmed, so it is mainly absentee investors who would object. Unfortunately they also have inordinate influence on legislatures.
  • Agreed, what a cornucopia of interesting information.
  • With the amount of corn being used in processed foods, no wonder Americans are husky
  • Jonathan
    Ethanol may be at EROI 1.4:1, but cellulosic ethanol is between 4:1 to 10:1 and is currently being produced by a few plants.

    Don't trash the concept for replacement of foreign oil until you know about all of the technologies just around the corner.
  • JP Kab
    BNielsen,

    While I agree with some of your conclusions regarding the amount of fossil fuels needed to create a gallon of ethanol, you are incorrect in assuming that ethanol has to pay for itself. Corn is a highly subsidized commodity, and the majority of farmers would not be able to grow it profitably without taxpayer money being given to them for every acre they grow.
    However, since the electricity used to create ethanol from corn is generated from coal, it does reduce oil dependence. But we have to remember that the corn itself uses petroleum based fertilizer and is farmed with machinery powered by diesel fuel, so there is an amount of fossil fuel being used to grow it.
  • Dude that is amazing. I love corn!
  • BNielsen
    Creating corn ethanol does not consume more energy than it produces. There have been studies that struggle to suggest this however just looking at costs and profits its obvious the researches need to start over.

    Today ethanol futures ended at about $2.01/gallon, gasoline at $1.99/gallon, and diesel at $2.06/gallon. Neeley Biofuels is currently posting a net profit of 37.5 cents per gallon of ethanol.

    If it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to create a gallon of ethanol then the cost of the fossil fuel will be in the price of the ethanol. Add in all the other overhead costs and a gallon of ethanol should be priced well above the per gallon cost of fossil fuels, but that is not the case. The reason, the studies are bogus.

    The problem with corn is that it is not the most efficient means of creating ethanol. I can only assume its what we use because we have lots of corn production already in place.
  • Zanduar
    Devon beat me to it. It is actually more expensive to make Ethanol.
  • Scott
    Most studies have shown a slight energy gain from producing corn ethanol (1.15/1), but that's only if you count the co-products like distiller's grains that are left over.

    Some of those fossil fuels that go into ethanol production are natural gas (for fertilizer) and coal (for electricity at ethanol plants), so in that sense we're using local fossil fuels rather than imported oil. But the actual benefit is quite small.
  • Matt
    @Devon: citation needed
  • Chris
    Missing one type of consumption: corn on the cob. mmm...tasty
  • Space Yek
    I thought America's favorite crop (both in financial standing and recreational use) was marijuana? Hemp is by far a more flexible material then corn will ever be. Putting out ten times as much oxygen per acre then timber, hemp is one of the ultimate renewable energy sources. And did I mention it can be harvested twice a month under optimal conditions? Take that corn and timber.
  • Mike
    It doesn't. Those studies are old.
  • Brendan
    They're not counting the subsidies. The Ethanol costs more, but the farmers get a lot of kickbacks.
  • Devon
    If it takes over 1 gallon of fossil fuel, as studies have shown, to have a finished product of Ethanol at the gas pump how are we saving on foreign oil?
blog comments powered by Disqus
JOINBOX
Join thousands of VE readers!
SHAREBOX
Share this page with friends!
Yahoo