YES, Monsanto now actually has some competition. Two companies in particular, not that I am any big fan of global conglomerates, but at least now there is someone to challenge this barnyard bully. Dupont through it subsidiary Pioneer Seed will be introducing corn and soybean varieties with the GAT gene and Bayer CropScience will be introducing soybeans with the LibertyLink genetics.
LibertyLink genetics have been available in dent corn for many years and I've used it in the past. The Liberty herbicide was effective, in fact I found it 'Hot' and that's one of the reasons I quit it. It was okay on the corn with the genetics for it, but Boy it sure burned everything else....right down to the ground. Kinda like a negligent discharge with a firearm, point that stuff in the wrong direction and...Bingo! It's Dead.
The attraction now is it is a viable alternative to Monsanto's Roundup Ready (glyphosate) product and one doesn't have to deal with an organization that operates like a criminal underworld enforcer.
The Pioneer product is another alternative to glyphosate products, but the advantage here is it is reported to also produce a 5% yield increase and one doesn't have to use Monsanto branded products in conjunction with it. Yippee!
I've already ordered at least two mini-bulk containers of the Pioneer soybean seed for next year and will probably order more as next year's picture becomes a little clearer. We don't know if I will be able to get enough LibertyLink soybeans (restricted availability) from my other seed provider for all the acres at the East farm, so that issue remains in doubt.
It's probably a good thing I'm not in the upper echelons of management at either Pioneer Seed or Bayer CropScience because I would cause Monsanto a whole bunch of heartburn. What I would offer the growers who purchased this seed is a contract stating that as long as they agreed to purchased specific herbicides in the quantities relative to their planted acres of this specific seed, they would be free after harvest to clean and save their own seed for the following year as long as they didn't offer it for commercial sale.
I guarantee you within a three years or less Monsanto's soybean seed business would be dead in the water and these companies would have so much business they wouldn't be able to produce enough quantities of their specific herbicides.
The problem is many are afraid Monsanto will simply purchase Bayer CropScience to curb any serious competition to their RoundUp Ready technology seed. They certainly have the money to do so, although they may not be able to purchase Dupont outright.
Without question Monsanto is the most hated company in agriculture today and that's because they operate on a level that could give lessons and seminars to the mafia.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Friday, July 18, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
IF I COULD ONLY OWN ONE RIFLE...
Yesterday, I posted about owning only one gun and how it would be a 4" Model 57 or 657. Today is kind of a continuation of that thread, but here the difference is the final selection is not as pre-determined. I have used a lot of rifles in my lifetime and although I'm not that well known for writing about rifles (the majority of my published work has been mostly on handguns and submachine guns) I have a fair number in my gunsafe library.
The obvious candidate for selection as the single rifle one would own would be a .22 rimfire of some sort. I think you'll find that most of the 'non-gun' types living in rural areas around my neck of the woods adhere to that philosophy. My dad did. Dad never owned anything other than a .22 semi-auto rifle in .22 Long Rifle caliber until I started giving him guns and even then there were only two he cared about. Both were Smith & Wesson revolvers (yes, there is a pattern here) with the first being a Model 17 K-22 that he used to kill sparrows roosting in the barn and tool sheds with .22 birdshot and a 4" Model 66 that he kept for years under the bed. He gave the Model 66 back to me when the kids became active on their own because he was afraid he would forget about it and they might find it in their childhood exploring of grandpa's house. Otherwise guns were nothing more than tools to him like his farm implements. He used them to serve a purpose and for no other reason.
I have his rifle. He bought it new from Sears & Roebuck and I remember when he bought it. It was made under contract by High Standard for Sears and dad purchased it when we returned from a summer vacation. He discovered the 'hired man' who did chores on the hog farm while we were gone had really screwed up his previous .22 rifle. It was a mess because some parts were completely absent and nowhere to be found. I don't remember much about the earlier gun, but I remember the Sears gun. It has always shot to the left for me and no matter what I do, I can't correct that windage problem. It's been a good gun, but I'm not sure I would select any .22 rimfire rifle as my sole remaining rifle.
Truth is I just don't shoot them all that much anymore. Although having said that, I must confess I've been using my son's Jim Clark accurized Ruger 10/22 with two 25 rd. banana clips to shoot starlings off the cat food dish at dusk in the back yard. That's fun! But you only get one a night and no more than twice a week because starlings are not all that dumb. They figure things out pretty quick. Still, it's fun to shoot their dirty butts, but I still don't think I would be happy with a .22 rimfire as my last rifle.
My next candidate at first thought was going to be an AR-15 of some kind or another. I have several now and I've owned several others over the years. I've used them to take coyote as well as a number of other creatures I won't mention. For a farmer any good, well built AR-15 offers advantages not found with your typical bolt action. For one thing, they are rugged. They were designed to be used by soldiers. 'Nuff said. They are not THAT dust or dirt sensitive, a great point for a farmer and his pick-up truck. Another good point is most of the top of the line AR-15's are accurate. Certainly accurate enough to tag a coyote at more than 300 yards because I've done it more than once with an AR. Yet, if the truth be told, a coyote is about the limit on size of game animals for the .223 Rem. round and although it's comforting to have one in the closet next to the bed loaded with two 30 rd. magazines (Mag-Cinch combo) I'm not sure it would be my last rifle either.
I have a couple of primo custom built bolt-action rifles that I'm very pleased with and both were built by Robby Barrkman. One is on a Remington Model 700 long action in 6.5-284 and it is scary accurate at 600 yards. Another is built on a CZ bolt action in 6.8SPC and it too is accurate, but compact and handy are its greatest advantages. Neither of them, however, have the power or the penetration to take an elk at 13,000 feet of elevation. (Although I don't know if I have what it takes anymore to hunt elk at 13,000 feet of elevation like I once did? Probably not, but don't kill my fantasy with a dose of reality.)
No, my last rifle would the Remington Model 700 LTR in .308 Win. caliber. You can see it in the photo over my profile for this blog. That photo was taken near Canton, Oklahoma last December after I shot the pig shown next to me. The distance? Oh yeah, that's the neat part. It was over three-tenths of a mile and it was a one shot kill. We figure it was somewhere around 530 yards, give or take a couple of feet, and there were two witnesses; my son, Michael, and Justin White. The ammo was 165 gr. Nosler Black Hills Gold and the scope is a Leupold tactical scope with a mil-dot reticle.
Actually, that rifle is absolutely no different than what many police agencies are issuing to their precision marksman. It is completely factory stock. The trigger has been adjusted, but it hasn't been customized or enhanced in any way. Everything about this rifle is just as an issued police marksman rifle would be from Remington Law Enforcement sales. Yet, it absolutely shoots like a house afire. I've shot so much stuff with it that it has become an extension of my body. If I can see it and gauge the distance, I can hit the target with it.
I love it, but like any lengthy love affair I know where the weak points in the relationship are. For one thing, the four round detachable box magazine is a mess and will sometimes cause a misfeed. It is so unreliable I always load from the top once I'm sure the magazine has been correctly seated. Secondly, it has become second nature to visually check my bolt as I feed a new round to make sure I don't have a last second screw-up. This requires me to take my eyes off the target, which in a tactical situation could lead to a major screw-up or worse. Fortunately, my 'tactical' days are over...that is, if they ever existed in the first place.
The .308 Winchester round is not the most powerful, nor the most accurate at extremely long range, but it is versatile and with good ammunition it can do a lot of things in a lot of different situations. This rifle contributes to the round's accuracy and versatility and that's the reason it is probably the rifle I would have if I could only own one, but perish the thought against that actually happening.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
The obvious candidate for selection as the single rifle one would own would be a .22 rimfire of some sort. I think you'll find that most of the 'non-gun' types living in rural areas around my neck of the woods adhere to that philosophy. My dad did. Dad never owned anything other than a .22 semi-auto rifle in .22 Long Rifle caliber until I started giving him guns and even then there were only two he cared about. Both were Smith & Wesson revolvers (yes, there is a pattern here) with the first being a Model 17 K-22 that he used to kill sparrows roosting in the barn and tool sheds with .22 birdshot and a 4" Model 66 that he kept for years under the bed. He gave the Model 66 back to me when the kids became active on their own because he was afraid he would forget about it and they might find it in their childhood exploring of grandpa's house. Otherwise guns were nothing more than tools to him like his farm implements. He used them to serve a purpose and for no other reason.
I have his rifle. He bought it new from Sears & Roebuck and I remember when he bought it. It was made under contract by High Standard for Sears and dad purchased it when we returned from a summer vacation. He discovered the 'hired man' who did chores on the hog farm while we were gone had really screwed up his previous .22 rifle. It was a mess because some parts were completely absent and nowhere to be found. I don't remember much about the earlier gun, but I remember the Sears gun. It has always shot to the left for me and no matter what I do, I can't correct that windage problem. It's been a good gun, but I'm not sure I would select any .22 rimfire rifle as my sole remaining rifle.
Truth is I just don't shoot them all that much anymore. Although having said that, I must confess I've been using my son's Jim Clark accurized Ruger 10/22 with two 25 rd. banana clips to shoot starlings off the cat food dish at dusk in the back yard. That's fun! But you only get one a night and no more than twice a week because starlings are not all that dumb. They figure things out pretty quick. Still, it's fun to shoot their dirty butts, but I still don't think I would be happy with a .22 rimfire as my last rifle.
My next candidate at first thought was going to be an AR-15 of some kind or another. I have several now and I've owned several others over the years. I've used them to take coyote as well as a number of other creatures I won't mention. For a farmer any good, well built AR-15 offers advantages not found with your typical bolt action. For one thing, they are rugged. They were designed to be used by soldiers. 'Nuff said. They are not THAT dust or dirt sensitive, a great point for a farmer and his pick-up truck. Another good point is most of the top of the line AR-15's are accurate. Certainly accurate enough to tag a coyote at more than 300 yards because I've done it more than once with an AR. Yet, if the truth be told, a coyote is about the limit on size of game animals for the .223 Rem. round and although it's comforting to have one in the closet next to the bed loaded with two 30 rd. magazines (Mag-Cinch combo) I'm not sure it would be my last rifle either.
I have a couple of primo custom built bolt-action rifles that I'm very pleased with and both were built by Robby Barrkman. One is on a Remington Model 700 long action in 6.5-284 and it is scary accurate at 600 yards. Another is built on a CZ bolt action in 6.8SPC and it too is accurate, but compact and handy are its greatest advantages. Neither of them, however, have the power or the penetration to take an elk at 13,000 feet of elevation. (Although I don't know if I have what it takes anymore to hunt elk at 13,000 feet of elevation like I once did? Probably not, but don't kill my fantasy with a dose of reality.)
No, my last rifle would the Remington Model 700 LTR in .308 Win. caliber. You can see it in the photo over my profile for this blog. That photo was taken near Canton, Oklahoma last December after I shot the pig shown next to me. The distance? Oh yeah, that's the neat part. It was over three-tenths of a mile and it was a one shot kill. We figure it was somewhere around 530 yards, give or take a couple of feet, and there were two witnesses; my son, Michael, and Justin White. The ammo was 165 gr. Nosler Black Hills Gold and the scope is a Leupold tactical scope with a mil-dot reticle.
Actually, that rifle is absolutely no different than what many police agencies are issuing to their precision marksman. It is completely factory stock. The trigger has been adjusted, but it hasn't been customized or enhanced in any way. Everything about this rifle is just as an issued police marksman rifle would be from Remington Law Enforcement sales. Yet, it absolutely shoots like a house afire. I've shot so much stuff with it that it has become an extension of my body. If I can see it and gauge the distance, I can hit the target with it.
I love it, but like any lengthy love affair I know where the weak points in the relationship are. For one thing, the four round detachable box magazine is a mess and will sometimes cause a misfeed. It is so unreliable I always load from the top once I'm sure the magazine has been correctly seated. Secondly, it has become second nature to visually check my bolt as I feed a new round to make sure I don't have a last second screw-up. This requires me to take my eyes off the target, which in a tactical situation could lead to a major screw-up or worse. Fortunately, my 'tactical' days are over...that is, if they ever existed in the first place.
The .308 Winchester round is not the most powerful, nor the most accurate at extremely long range, but it is versatile and with good ammunition it can do a lot of things in a lot of different situations. This rifle contributes to the round's accuracy and versatility and that's the reason it is probably the rifle I would have if I could only own one, but perish the thought against that actually happening.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
IF I COULD ONLY OWN ONE GUN...
First of all, I couldn't live in a place where I was allowed to own ONLY one gun. I just wouldn't fit. Not in that kind of society, not in that kind of legal system, not in the kind of atmosphere where such laws were considered Just, tolerated by the population, and promoted by the authorities. I wouldn't survive for very long before becoming a guest or victim (as the case might be) of the system. However...
If I was allowed to own only one gun, it would be a Smith & Wesson Model 57 or Model 657 with a four inch barrel in .41 Magnum. Why? Because such guns have worked for me for well more than thirty years. I've written so much about .41 Magnum handguns and the cartridge I'm sure that somewhere, someplace I'm the poster child for this gun and cartridge combination, but I have my reasons and all of them derive from personal experience.
Handguns when it comes to stopping and putting things down (as in immediately) are terribly inefficient tools. This was especially true when I started shooting them back in the mid-1960's. (Yeah, I was NO flower child. Put a flower in the end of my barrel and I was just as likely to pull the trigger and blow it to 'kingdom come' with a hot handload.)
The big shortcoming then was the poor quality expanding bullets we had, if we had any at all. Most of the stuff I shot was hard cast, hand cast SWC Keith style bullets. Yeah, Lee Jurras was pushing that Super Vel stuff but no one took it seriously at first. Then some Lafayette, Indiana police officer shot a bad guy with a .38 Special and people (i.e.; other police officers) started to take notice of this high speed hollow point ammo because he dropped like a rock, when everyone else was having a hard time getting them to go down with the .357 Magnum.
I, in the meantime, was well on my way to a crusade against all things four legged and not wanted on the farms. Only I was doing it with a handgun because it was too darn difficult to mount or carry a long gun on my dad's open station tractors. I came to the conclusion if you wanted to be armed on the farm it HAD to be a handgun because before there were cab tractors, the dust was just too pervasive for anything but a handgun in a shoulder holster seated deep inside layers of warm clothing. Open tractors back in the day were nothing in my view to get nostalgic over because the dust was all encompassing. They were extremely dirty. (I will never get misty-eyed when a parade of old tractors go past on the 4th of July. Good Riddance, I say.) I can remember spending a solid 15 minutes in the basement shower doing nothing more than blowing black dirt out of my nose with the warm water. I have a lot of empathy for the drovers who rode 'drag' on cattle drives in the old West. It's something you just have to have experienced to understand.
The problem in the fields though was I discovered ground hogs were NOT impressed with anything from a .22 LR revolver, but they were easy to hit. Just nothing happened, unless you put one in the brain. Nor were they too impressed with .38 Special handloads from a six inch Model 10, but it must be said it was far more difficult to connect with the Model 10 because my marksmanship was still in its infancy.
Eventually, I found a Smith & Wesson Model 27 with a six inch barrel and I thought my problems were solved. I loaded with home cast Keith 173 grain SWC bullets over a heavy charge of 2400 in a .357 case. Elmer said this was the answer. Well, if that was the answer, I was working with the wrong question.
I shot so much stuff with that gun and ammo combination it was unreal and most often the result was an embarrassment, especially in front of my dad or some of his friends. Although I'm sure a good number of these events were flat-out misses, I know for a fact a vast number of them were solid hits because in several cases I saw the hide 'belch' at the point of impact. It was just that my hard cast bullets went in like a laser beam, straight through and out in exactly the same manner. The animal? Oh yeah, he headed out at an extremely rapid velocity for parts unknown or deep underground, never to be seen again.
Next I went through a series of guns and calibers. The .38 Super, the .45 ACP, a 9x19mm, even a .30 Luger, none of which worked any better at the whole affair, but remember I was working at the time with traditional bullet designs, nothing like that available today. The .45 ACP did work when loaded with a hard cast SWC weighing 255 grs., but two things were apparent. One, it was hard to feed through my Seventies series Colt 1911 and, Two, this load when loaded heavy was EXTREMELY HARD on the frame, but it did anchor things to the spot where they were standing when I got close enough. I mention this last because the .45 ACP cartridge is NOT a 100 yard round in most instances in the field. Too much of a rainbow trajectory, nor was the gun initially all that accurate.
A little later I was living and working in Colorado when during the space of two months I was able to acquire two used Smith & Wesson Model 57's with four inch barrels. Ammo was hard to locate, so I counted my brass like each piece was a gold coin. I studied the handloading tables and used my spent brass for loads to used at proficiency practice while employing the hotter Remington factory load for all things serious.
While out west, I found I used my vacation time to come back and help the folks with planting every spring. Ground hogs were still a problem but considering my history of non-performance my dad was a great critic of the handgun as a tool for their elimination. That spring I brought the .41's back with me and while working in the fields shot five separate ground hogs the first day back. Each was anchored only with one shot, and each fell over like a bowling pin falling off a steel table. I remember taking that first ground hog over to show dad while he was planting corn. He wanted to know what I shot it with as he was searching for my .22/250 rifle. When I showed him the revolver out of my shoulder holster, he shook his head and muttered something about the critter dying of fright or a heart attack. He then let the clutch out and continued planting.
Later that night when we put the machinery away in the sheds after dark, he counted off the dead ground hogs carried on the back step of my two cylinder John Deere 720 and said, "You know that Damn Thing is a cannon, but IT WORKS!"
I know we have better bullets now for much smaller and easier to control cartridge and handgun combinations in terms of terminal ballistics, but I learned to place my faith in a combination that didn't need high-tech bullets before they even existed. I ask you if a gun and cartridge combination won't stop a fourteen pound red fox, what makes you think it will save your ass when danger close?
I'll stay with my .41's because they have always worked up till now. And if I can have only one gun it will be a 4" Smith & Wesson Model 57 or Model 657.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
If I was allowed to own only one gun, it would be a Smith & Wesson Model 57 or Model 657 with a four inch barrel in .41 Magnum. Why? Because such guns have worked for me for well more than thirty years. I've written so much about .41 Magnum handguns and the cartridge I'm sure that somewhere, someplace I'm the poster child for this gun and cartridge combination, but I have my reasons and all of them derive from personal experience.
Handguns when it comes to stopping and putting things down (as in immediately) are terribly inefficient tools. This was especially true when I started shooting them back in the mid-1960's. (Yeah, I was NO flower child. Put a flower in the end of my barrel and I was just as likely to pull the trigger and blow it to 'kingdom come' with a hot handload.)
The big shortcoming then was the poor quality expanding bullets we had, if we had any at all. Most of the stuff I shot was hard cast, hand cast SWC Keith style bullets. Yeah, Lee Jurras was pushing that Super Vel stuff but no one took it seriously at first. Then some Lafayette, Indiana police officer shot a bad guy with a .38 Special and people (i.e.; other police officers) started to take notice of this high speed hollow point ammo because he dropped like a rock, when everyone else was having a hard time getting them to go down with the .357 Magnum.
I, in the meantime, was well on my way to a crusade against all things four legged and not wanted on the farms. Only I was doing it with a handgun because it was too darn difficult to mount or carry a long gun on my dad's open station tractors. I came to the conclusion if you wanted to be armed on the farm it HAD to be a handgun because before there were cab tractors, the dust was just too pervasive for anything but a handgun in a shoulder holster seated deep inside layers of warm clothing. Open tractors back in the day were nothing in my view to get nostalgic over because the dust was all encompassing. They were extremely dirty. (I will never get misty-eyed when a parade of old tractors go past on the 4th of July. Good Riddance, I say.) I can remember spending a solid 15 minutes in the basement shower doing nothing more than blowing black dirt out of my nose with the warm water. I have a lot of empathy for the drovers who rode 'drag' on cattle drives in the old West. It's something you just have to have experienced to understand.
The problem in the fields though was I discovered ground hogs were NOT impressed with anything from a .22 LR revolver, but they were easy to hit. Just nothing happened, unless you put one in the brain. Nor were they too impressed with .38 Special handloads from a six inch Model 10, but it must be said it was far more difficult to connect with the Model 10 because my marksmanship was still in its infancy.
Eventually, I found a Smith & Wesson Model 27 with a six inch barrel and I thought my problems were solved. I loaded with home cast Keith 173 grain SWC bullets over a heavy charge of 2400 in a .357 case. Elmer said this was the answer. Well, if that was the answer, I was working with the wrong question.
I shot so much stuff with that gun and ammo combination it was unreal and most often the result was an embarrassment, especially in front of my dad or some of his friends. Although I'm sure a good number of these events were flat-out misses, I know for a fact a vast number of them were solid hits because in several cases I saw the hide 'belch' at the point of impact. It was just that my hard cast bullets went in like a laser beam, straight through and out in exactly the same manner. The animal? Oh yeah, he headed out at an extremely rapid velocity for parts unknown or deep underground, never to be seen again.
Next I went through a series of guns and calibers. The .38 Super, the .45 ACP, a 9x19mm, even a .30 Luger, none of which worked any better at the whole affair, but remember I was working at the time with traditional bullet designs, nothing like that available today. The .45 ACP did work when loaded with a hard cast SWC weighing 255 grs., but two things were apparent. One, it was hard to feed through my Seventies series Colt 1911 and, Two, this load when loaded heavy was EXTREMELY HARD on the frame, but it did anchor things to the spot where they were standing when I got close enough. I mention this last because the .45 ACP cartridge is NOT a 100 yard round in most instances in the field. Too much of a rainbow trajectory, nor was the gun initially all that accurate.
A little later I was living and working in Colorado when during the space of two months I was able to acquire two used Smith & Wesson Model 57's with four inch barrels. Ammo was hard to locate, so I counted my brass like each piece was a gold coin. I studied the handloading tables and used my spent brass for loads to used at proficiency practice while employing the hotter Remington factory load for all things serious.
While out west, I found I used my vacation time to come back and help the folks with planting every spring. Ground hogs were still a problem but considering my history of non-performance my dad was a great critic of the handgun as a tool for their elimination. That spring I brought the .41's back with me and while working in the fields shot five separate ground hogs the first day back. Each was anchored only with one shot, and each fell over like a bowling pin falling off a steel table. I remember taking that first ground hog over to show dad while he was planting corn. He wanted to know what I shot it with as he was searching for my .22/250 rifle. When I showed him the revolver out of my shoulder holster, he shook his head and muttered something about the critter dying of fright or a heart attack. He then let the clutch out and continued planting.
Later that night when we put the machinery away in the sheds after dark, he counted off the dead ground hogs carried on the back step of my two cylinder John Deere 720 and said, "You know that Damn Thing is a cannon, but IT WORKS!"
I know we have better bullets now for much smaller and easier to control cartridge and handgun combinations in terms of terminal ballistics, but I learned to place my faith in a combination that didn't need high-tech bullets before they even existed. I ask you if a gun and cartridge combination won't stop a fourteen pound red fox, what makes you think it will save your ass when danger close?
I'll stay with my .41's because they have always worked up till now. And if I can have only one gun it will be a 4" Smith & Wesson Model 57 or Model 657.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
CRP ACRES HAVE BEEN RELEASED FOR GRAZING...
Just as I thought last weekend, today's issue of Farm World confirms that CRP acres have been released for a number of counties in Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky and Ohio for grazing.
According to the article to get approval, the operator must write their county FSA office, obtain a modified conservation plan and receive county office approval before grazing livestock on their CRP acres. A number of states besides those previously mentioned have counties that will allow CRP grazing including Colorado and South Dakota.
Hopefully, this will be good news for the livestock operators in the areas affected.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
According to the article to get approval, the operator must write their county FSA office, obtain a modified conservation plan and receive county office approval before grazing livestock on their CRP acres. A number of states besides those previously mentioned have counties that will allow CRP grazing including Colorado and South Dakota.
Hopefully, this will be good news for the livestock operators in the areas affected.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
BEND OVER HERE COMES INFLATION...
By now everyone I'm sure is tired of hearing about ever increasing costs and prices, but the morning dead tree media had an article stating that various experts (pick one) feel that home heating fuel for the coming winter will increase 50% in cost.
Real inflation, like we last experienced under the tutelage of the Georgia peanut farmer, has arrived.
Of course, my view is all this is the result of OPEC and our dependence on foreign sourced oil. We as a nation have to figure out a way to stop buying their oil and learn to live on our own sources of energy. If this is grain origin biofuels, off shore deep water oil wells, solar energy, geo-thermo, or methane cow-fart gas, I don't care, as a nation and a society we have to explore all the possibilities and then exploit them.
Inflation in the present situation is the direct result of increased crude oil prices and a weakening dollar. And it is going to get worse before it even begins to get better.
I learned yesterday that our old buddies at Monsanto are going to raise the 'tech' fee on a bag of "Triple Stack" seed corn by $70 for 2009. That added to what the seed companies have to charge for increased costs (fuel?) will mean that most of next year's seed corn will average well over $300 per bag at full retail cost. That translates into approximately $100 per acre just for the cost of the seed.
I received an email from an agweb newsletter that the University of Illinois estimates the variable (non-fixed) input costs for corn next year will increase by more than $141 per acre. That means just the cost of the variable inputs alone, but not counting things like cash rent, equipment replacement, depreciation, etc. will be over $529 per acre. Add in a projected cash rent of $225 to $260 per acre for good ground in the Midwest and it would be easy to see a combination of cash asset requirements of well over $800 per acre. Divide that by an average yield of 150 bu/acre and it's easy to see the operator will have to have $5.33 per bu. JUST TO BREAK EVEN.......................SO MUCH FOR THE HIGH GRAIN PRICES.
Now then what happens if the operators can't contract this break-even price or something better? In my opinion we will see the 1980's all over again. The only piece missing from this puzzle is Jimmy Carter's hyper inflationary bank loan interest.
I paid 21% on a note back then and it wasn't to a loan shark but to my local bank.
My fear is the University of Illinois projection is actually TOO ROSEY, because I'm sure we are going to see a round of price increases all across the board in the ag sector alone that will boggle the mind. (I also learned last night that a local equipment dealer is raising his shop labor rate from $72/hr. to $80/hr. come harvest time.) Eventually these increases will be felt and shouldered by the general public and the everyday consumer.
If the banking industry is reeling now with the mortgage loan crisis wait until the ag sector gets in trouble. That will give religion to the worst unbeliever. A number of local banks that survived the Great Depression failed or were sold during the Ag Crisis in the 1980's for this area and it was a lesson that many around here won't soon forget.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Real inflation, like we last experienced under the tutelage of the Georgia peanut farmer, has arrived.
Of course, my view is all this is the result of OPEC and our dependence on foreign sourced oil. We as a nation have to figure out a way to stop buying their oil and learn to live on our own sources of energy. If this is grain origin biofuels, off shore deep water oil wells, solar energy, geo-thermo, or methane cow-fart gas, I don't care, as a nation and a society we have to explore all the possibilities and then exploit them.
Inflation in the present situation is the direct result of increased crude oil prices and a weakening dollar. And it is going to get worse before it even begins to get better.
I learned yesterday that our old buddies at Monsanto are going to raise the 'tech' fee on a bag of "Triple Stack" seed corn by $70 for 2009. That added to what the seed companies have to charge for increased costs (fuel?) will mean that most of next year's seed corn will average well over $300 per bag at full retail cost. That translates into approximately $100 per acre just for the cost of the seed.
I received an email from an agweb newsletter that the University of Illinois estimates the variable (non-fixed) input costs for corn next year will increase by more than $141 per acre. That means just the cost of the variable inputs alone, but not counting things like cash rent, equipment replacement, depreciation, etc. will be over $529 per acre. Add in a projected cash rent of $225 to $260 per acre for good ground in the Midwest and it would be easy to see a combination of cash asset requirements of well over $800 per acre. Divide that by an average yield of 150 bu/acre and it's easy to see the operator will have to have $5.33 per bu. JUST TO BREAK EVEN.......................SO MUCH FOR THE HIGH GRAIN PRICES.
Now then what happens if the operators can't contract this break-even price or something better? In my opinion we will see the 1980's all over again. The only piece missing from this puzzle is Jimmy Carter's hyper inflationary bank loan interest.
I paid 21% on a note back then and it wasn't to a loan shark but to my local bank.
My fear is the University of Illinois projection is actually TOO ROSEY, because I'm sure we are going to see a round of price increases all across the board in the ag sector alone that will boggle the mind. (I also learned last night that a local equipment dealer is raising his shop labor rate from $72/hr. to $80/hr. come harvest time.) Eventually these increases will be felt and shouldered by the general public and the everyday consumer.
If the banking industry is reeling now with the mortgage loan crisis wait until the ag sector gets in trouble. That will give religion to the worst unbeliever. A number of local banks that survived the Great Depression failed or were sold during the Ag Crisis in the 1980's for this area and it was a lesson that many around here won't soon forget.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
ET TU OBAMA, NO SENSE OF HUMOR?...
The cover of THE NEW YORKER has many in political circles up in arms. Even the McCain camp decries it as an example of bad taste. Okay, for those who came in late, the cover in question portrays a cartoon caricature of Obama in a turban and his wife Michelle with a big Afro hairstyle and an AK-47 across her back and a bandoleer across her chest as the two of them face each other and 'fist-bump'. Oh Yeah, there is an American flag burning in the fireplace of the living room setting. Nice touch, that.
The staff of THE NEW YORKER defended the cover as "satirical", but the reaction among the MSM and others of the left has been outrage and extreme. This staff's stated purpose was to ridicule the extreme right and how Obama and Michelle will be characterized by minions of the far-right.
Well actually, I think it was the work of and exhibits what those who promote the Dragon Lady actually think. While the far-right may not think much of Obama, don't tell me everything is sweetness and light in the Democratic party. THE NEW YORKER is not known for its conservative political views, so I think Hillary's people had more to do with this than what meets the eye.
However, the larger point of the whole affair is just how sensitive those on the left are to ridicule and humor. Gary Trudeau has long made fun of Republican candidates, but seldom does the cartoon series "Doonesbury" make fun of anything liberal, left-leaning or from the Democratic Party. The same can be said for all the late night talk shows and their scripted comedians. Everything Republican (NOT that I would defend or even associate myself with the Republicans presently) and Conservative in nature is fair game for these observers of social wit, but nary a word is said about Obama, our ridiculous Democratic Congress or anything leftist.
I can't help but think about the old saw, "Those you can dish it out, but sure can't take it."
It's called a lack of courage, integrity and intestinal fortitude for lack of a better explanation.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
The staff of THE NEW YORKER defended the cover as "satirical", but the reaction among the MSM and others of the left has been outrage and extreme. This staff's stated purpose was to ridicule the extreme right and how Obama and Michelle will be characterized by minions of the far-right.
Well actually, I think it was the work of and exhibits what those who promote the Dragon Lady actually think. While the far-right may not think much of Obama, don't tell me everything is sweetness and light in the Democratic party. THE NEW YORKER is not known for its conservative political views, so I think Hillary's people had more to do with this than what meets the eye.
However, the larger point of the whole affair is just how sensitive those on the left are to ridicule and humor. Gary Trudeau has long made fun of Republican candidates, but seldom does the cartoon series "Doonesbury" make fun of anything liberal, left-leaning or from the Democratic Party. The same can be said for all the late night talk shows and their scripted comedians. Everything Republican (NOT that I would defend or even associate myself with the Republicans presently) and Conservative in nature is fair game for these observers of social wit, but nary a word is said about Obama, our ridiculous Democratic Congress or anything leftist.
I can't help but think about the old saw, "Those you can dish it out, but sure can't take it."
It's called a lack of courage, integrity and intestinal fortitude for lack of a better explanation.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Monday, July 14, 2008
THIS WOULD SUCK...
The headline at the top of the back page article reads "FARMERS LOSE ACREAGE AS WABASH CUTS NEW CHANNEL."
I had heard about this event last week at the local FSA office. During the June floods the Wabash River cut a new channel down in Posey County at the very 'toe' of the state of Indiana. The island that was left is surrounded by swift moving water on all four sides and is estimated to be approximately 1,700 to 2,700 acres in size. That estimate does NOT include the area also covered by the new channel. The area in question is farmed by a dozen farmers and although the article in today's paper didn't say, the local FSA office said last week some of this ground had already been planted.
Only now there is no way to get to it for spraying or harvest this fall. Essentially it is farm ground that has disappeared....literally over night. Speaking as a landowner and farmer, I have to say THAT WOULD REALLY SUCK!
The river bank is unstable and still collapsing so no one knows what to do. Obviously, the farmers can't afford to build a bridge to it and using a barge to move equipment over to the new island may be out of the question because there is nothing to anchor to, to keep it from moving down river with the water flow as they try and unload the necessary farm equipment.
I've always viewed tillable farm ground as one of the most reliable investments anyone could make. Until I read this I firmly believed it would never disappear overnight. Farm ground may not pay the best return or dividend, but in most cases it endures when other investments can disappear in a bankruptcy, a fire, a flood, or in the case of a war. Farm ground usually endures, but this event adds a new wrinkle.
I guess the lesson is Don't Buy Farm Ground Next To Or Even Near A Fast Moving River Like The Wabash.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
I had heard about this event last week at the local FSA office. During the June floods the Wabash River cut a new channel down in Posey County at the very 'toe' of the state of Indiana. The island that was left is surrounded by swift moving water on all four sides and is estimated to be approximately 1,700 to 2,700 acres in size. That estimate does NOT include the area also covered by the new channel. The area in question is farmed by a dozen farmers and although the article in today's paper didn't say, the local FSA office said last week some of this ground had already been planted.
Only now there is no way to get to it for spraying or harvest this fall. Essentially it is farm ground that has disappeared....literally over night. Speaking as a landowner and farmer, I have to say THAT WOULD REALLY SUCK!
The river bank is unstable and still collapsing so no one knows what to do. Obviously, the farmers can't afford to build a bridge to it and using a barge to move equipment over to the new island may be out of the question because there is nothing to anchor to, to keep it from moving down river with the water flow as they try and unload the necessary farm equipment.
I've always viewed tillable farm ground as one of the most reliable investments anyone could make. Until I read this I firmly believed it would never disappear overnight. Farm ground may not pay the best return or dividend, but in most cases it endures when other investments can disappear in a bankruptcy, a fire, a flood, or in the case of a war. Farm ground usually endures, but this event adds a new wrinkle.
I guess the lesson is Don't Buy Farm Ground Next To Or Even Near A Fast Moving River Like The Wabash.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
