I am just picking up on one point made in this excellent article. The writer says:
Usually, the cure for high prices is … high prices. In the medium term, and perhaps even sooner, the marketplace will probably work its magic and prices will subside. Already, there are reports from the US, Canada, Europe, Thailand and Vietnam that farmers are responding with increased plantings. Astonishingly, the UK's Independent tells us poppy growers - as in opium - are shifting to wheat in some areas. If you ever needed evidence that farmers respond to price signals, there it is!
In my youth the Darling Downs of Queensland was regarded as the wheat bowl of Australia, producing the best prime hard wheat. Due to two factors, a change in rainfall patterns and the inability of the wheat price to keep pace with the cost of production, farmers switched to growing sorghum and sunflowers. If they had irrigation water they grew cotton.
If the weather cycle again changes to regular winter rain and the price of wheat increases, the farmers will make an ecconomic choice and grow more wheat.

The food crisis storm is not on the horizon because it already exists in shops and supermarkets and under-developed nations everywhere, especially involving the price of fish. The storm involves more and more people unable to afford fish or food that agribusiness is capable of producing.

Why is there now need to get agriculture ready? Agriculture should be ready already!

With a background like you have Professor Cary Fowler, please answer the following. This request is not to point blame but to help find urgent solutions toward peace and prosperity while alleviating poverty.

Norway has been a major fishing nation of the world and the nation's economy was developed from fishing, but now traditional staple food supply from the world ocean is devastated. What was the record year total tonnage of fish harvested by Norway from the international ocean environment in say 1967, and in comparison last year - 2007?

Has world ocean fish stock devastation been noticed and if not why not? Cost of increased time and fuel needed to harvest the same amount has been noticed. Was development of aquaculture a response? What estimates were made concerning available arable farm land and sustainable supply and cost of protein feed for aquaculture, end cost and consumer ability to buy?

Why does business in the food producing nation Australia need to import feed (fish) for aquaculture, and, is supply sustainable?

Are world government agriculture policy proponents certain there is no need to regenerate wild fish stocks? Should government policy continue to virtually ignore the present seriousness and generality of world ocean fish stock depletion and ecosystem collapse? Should world resources be made available for science to urgently regenerate and sustain marine environment where possible?

I request The Forum forward these questions to author Cary Fowler and that response appear in this thread. Thank you

With grain ethanol suddenly using up to ten percent of the worlds grain I find it strange that this industry did not get a mention among the factors increasing demand. It is contributing 30 percent to the rise in grain prices.

It is becoming increasingly clear that converting grain to ethanol offers no benifits with the enviromental, humanitarian and economic costs plain to see.

Productivity increases in agriculture have shown us over the years that moderate increases in demand can be met, probably met too well for Country Girl with the resultant low prices.

It is the rapidity of the development of the government sponsered grain ethanol industry that is the problem today.
Agriculture is struggling to meet this additional demand and people are suffering.

The pity of it all is that converting grain to ethanol serves no good purpose. It was conceived by a coupling of lobby groups and govermnent and is being nourished from birth by by governments using unwitting taxpayers money.

While I agree with Geoff that productivity increases in agriculture have shown us over the years that moderate increases in demand can be met, I disagree that it is the rapidity of the development of the government sponsered grain ethanol industry that is the problem today.
Too many people are blaming the shortage of grain, wheat or corn, on ethanol production.
Australian farmers don't have an obligation to feed the hungry of the world and like anyone else in our society they deserve to be paid a reasonable price for their labour. That price should cover the cost of producing the product and give them a living wage. If people can't or won't pay farmers to produce wheat for bread, but a new market like ethanol arrives it is logical that they will sell their wheat or corn for that purpose.
An ethanol plant is about to open in Dalby on the Darling Downs, with the aim of purchasing wheat from the farmers. The farmers will only be able to supply the wheat if they get winter rain to grow the crop.
I personally think it a dreadful shame that the best hard wheat in Australia will be used for this purpose, when it could be used to produce the best bread in the world. I would be prepared to pay a higher price for Dalby flour, but unless there is a change in marketing due to a willingness by other Australians to do the same, I won't be given a choice.

Country girl, I think farmers are on the cusp of getting a fair deal at last. If the shortage of grain is not due to ethanol as you say then they will not need a subsidized grain ethanol industry to achieve this fair deal.

I have a farming background and have experienced in the 1960/70s the difficulties of selling into a global market while buying inputs and paying living costs in a different market, an Australia protected by tariffs and a fixed currency. That protectionism is in the past and the country is wealthier from trading in a freer market.
When you say that’ the price should cover the cost of production and give them a living wage’ that is how domestic sales of wheat used to be priced. It was a great way to build inefficiencies into an industry.

By supporting a grain ethanol industry you are suggesting we turn back the clock to protectionism and away from the benefits of trading comparative advantage.
Ethanol produced from grain just cannot compete with ethanol imported from Brazil made from sugar cane. The USA has high tariffs on ethanol to protect their corn growers.
The grain ethanol industry can only exist as a subsidized, protected industry. The excise rebate of 38.143 cents per litre on domestic ethanol amounts to a subsidy of about $150 per tonne of grain converted to ethanol. The capital grants available are additional to that.

Under current legislation, in June 2011 imported ethanol will receive the same excise treatment as domestic ethanol. If the Federal Government stands firm on this I am not certain that farmers will be selling much sorghum to the Dalby ethanol plant.
The new market for your grain is a taxpayer funded mirage.

I understand only part of the wheat grain is used to produce ethanol. Same with sugar cane.