The Mess in the Corn Belt or "Turkey on the Combine"

By Lisa M. Hamilton

This fall has been a mess for farmers in the Corn Belt. Rain this spring meant planting dangerously late, then cool weather delayed crops’ development. By September there was fear that corn across the Midwest wouldn’t finish the growing cycle before the first killing freeze. Most corn and soybeans are now safely mature, but seemingly endless rain has made that almost irrelevant. For most of the fall it has been too wet and muddy to get into the fields; when the combines do make it out, often the crop is too wet to harvest.

On the chat group Crop Talk, farmers who were incredulous that they might be harvesting past Thanksgiving started joking about “turkey on the combine.” As the rain continued through October, the jokes spread. “Turkey on the combine for sure,” Michigan’s 7810greenmachine wrote, “and maybe I hang some christmas lights on it too...I have a feeling its going to be a long harvest.” By November 1, Illinois had only 19 percent of its corn harvested, compared to 86 percent in an average year. And it was the same story across the region—Iowa had 18 percent harvested, Indiana 28 percent

So, who cares? Really, why should this matter to non-farmers, particularly those who want to change the commodity-focused food system? Well, it’s true that the corn and soybeans at issue are neither locally sold nor organic; their growers are not people you’ll meet at the farmers market. And yet, with wheat, they are the basis for an overwhelming percentage of the calories consumed in this country. Likewise, the majority of family farms in the U.S. are part of this business. If you want to change the food system, this is it.

To my eyes, the disaster unfolding in the Corn Belt is further evidence of a dangerous lack of resiliency. To run properly, our current agricultural system relies on a precise set of conditions: cheap fuel, ample water, stable climate; tweak one of those conditions and the system derails. In the meantime, the industry continues its narrow focus on yields. Nearly all season the USDA has been breathlessly forecasting record-breaking yields in corn—but with virtually no mention of the extenuating circumstances that might make that big, fat crop unharvestable.

Now, across wide swaths of the Corn Belt, farmers are finding their corn covered with molds called aflatoxins, which can be harmful to cattle and so are causing some buyers to reject the crop. In the mid-South, Kansas State University economist Rich Llewelyn reported a different problem: crops there matured earlier, but because rain left them sitting in the field for weeks, both corn and soybeans have begun sprouting while still on the stalk. Though Midwest skies have been clear this past week, most crops are still too high in moisture to be stored for any length of time. They could be dried down mechanically, but in many cases the high cost of propane is making that prohibitively expensive. Instead, those farmers are leaving the crop in the field and hoping that, somehow, their luck will change.  

In an article this spring I wrote that part of the solution to challenges like these would be to increase diversity, from the crops’ germplasm all the way up to the wholesale markets. Amidst the muddy debacle taking place this fall, I would underscore the emphasis on using diversity to breed more resilient plant varieties. Rather than focus solely on yield or specific items such as drought-tolerance or herbicide resistance, we need varieties that can flex along with whatever conditions they encounter. With climate change afoot, it may be that turkey on the combine will become an annual affair. We need to be ready for that, and whatever else Mother Nature sends our way.

Lisa M. Hamilton is the author of Deeply Rooted: Unconventional Farmers in the Age of Agribusiness

Comments

[Caleb Schultz]

Lisa,

I read your book and found it to be a quick, thought provoking and interesting! I don't quite understand the need to change from our commodity system that local food advocates muse about and I would love to discuss it with you further if there was a chance to do so over email. I am trying to learn exactly why there is thought that the current system is so disastrous.

One final thought. I hope that you do not seem to think that today's ranchers are different from the one who you profiled in your book. While the other two stories really did highlight some differences in ag practices, I did not find much different about the New Mexico rancher and many of the ranchers that I have been associated with. Very interested in a conversation.

[Lisa M. Hamilton]

Caleb, there is a whole slew of reasons why people disagree with the commodity system; some are valid, some are the product of misinformation. I invite others to share their thoughts here.

Here's my short answer: For my part, I would offer the objection that the commodity system disempowers farmers and ranchers. Its very nature is to consolidate food production into a centralized system that makes little to no distinction between individuals. The result is that the people on the ground lose their bargaining power and are locked into a system that offers them few variables by which they can improve their lots and make stewardship a top priority. Fred Kirschenmann cites an ISU study which shows that corn/bean farmers can increase their productivity and reduce their inputs (and therefore costs) by incorporating alfalfa into their rotation. The problem is, there's generally nowhere to sell the crop; the elevators in Iowa--often the only buyers around--trade almost exclusively in corn and beans alone.

For decades now, farmers and ranchers have been asked to compete in an anonymous marketplace that values neither their particular conditions of production nor the value they bring to the crops--much less to their land or communities. (Indeed, in an increasingly globalized market, American farmers and ranchers are now lumped together with those in Brazil, Argentina, etc., furthering the sense that they are interchangeable, and, ultimately, dispensable.) In my eyes, a key to correcting our food system is to recognize and esteem the value that humans bring to agriculture, and re-order our priorities for the food system accordingly. The commodity system simply does not allow for that.

[Mark Lambert]

Dear Lisa

Your article is interesting but misleading. Harvesting this year has been a major inconvenience for farmers but they are making rapid progress. What we are dealing with is the wetest harvest weather in 40 years. This is an anomaly an no reason to walk away from a food production system that is the envy of the world. When the dust settles we will be looking at one of the largest crops of all time despite the challenges. There will be some crop condition issues to manage in storage and drying costs will be higher, but we will have plenty of corn to supply the U.S. and much of the world once again. Rain may be falling but the sky isn't.

[Lisa M. Hamilton]

Mark, thanks for your comment. It's true that by sheer yield this might turn out to be a record corn harvest; even as the USDA dropped its projection by 1.3 bu/acre last week, the predicted 162.9 bu/acre would be higher than ever before. However, it's impossible to say what the actual harvest will be for some time yet. Downpours in the heart of the Corn Belt yesterday and today are a good reminder that we probably won't know the full story until the USDA's full report is released in January. In the meantime, though, I would point to a study out of Ohio State in 2005 , which shows a steep decline in yields (not to mention quality) once harvest stretches past mid-November. As of Monday, 11/15, the eighteen major corn states' harvest was 54 percent complete, compared to an annual average of 89 percent. I'd say there's significant decline to come. (That OSU study is the top item in their current C.O.R.N. newsletter, found at http://corn.osu.edu .)

That said, I think a more important point is that whether or not there are record yields, that is still only one narrow measure of a crop's success. A bumper crop of poor quality corn is not the mark of a reliable food system; nor is one that requires tremendous amounts of propane in order to become dry enough to store. In some areas farmers are adding $75-100/acre to their cost of production, just to dry down their corn. That's simply not sustainable in terms of natural resources or individual farm economics. If we look at this season with a lens broader than sheer yield, the story is far more complex--and ultimately less rosy.