The IOWA FARMLAND rush continues on...........

[Groty]

What exactly did I make up? That chart reflects the past productivity/technological advances that I discussed in previous posts (widespread use of fertilzer, irrigation, pesticides, etc. to increase yields).

I said that in the long term, I fully expect additonal technological advances to improve yields. But in the short to intermediate term, which to me is 2-5 years, the productivity advances will be limited.

So what exactly did I make up?

[hawk59]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly did I make up? That chart reflects the past productivity/technological advances that I discussed in previous posts (widespread use of fertilzer, irrigation, pesticides, etc. to increase yields).

I said that in the long term, I fully expect additonal technological advances to improve yields. But in the short to intermediate term, which to me is 2-5 years, the productivity advances will be limited.

So what exactly did I make up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why will yield improvements stop for the next 2-5 years given that they have been steadily increasing for the last 70 years and there is no sign of a let up? Do you have any real facts pertaining to this? Vague ideas do not count.

[Groty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What exactly did I make up? That chart reflects the past productivity/technological advances that I discussed in previous posts (widespread use of fertilzer, irrigation, pesticides, etc. to increase yields).

I said that in the long term, I fully expect additonal technological advances to improve yields. But in the short to intermediate term, which to me is 2-5 years, the productivity advances will be limited.

So what exactly did I make up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why will yield improvements stop for the next 2-5 years given that they have been steadily increasing for the last 70 years and there is no sign of a let up? Do you have any real facts pertaining to this? Vague ideas do not count.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are incredibly dense. Not once did I say yield/productivity improvements would stop. Twice I said they were reaching a point of diminishing returns (temporarily due to a lack of technological innovation in the immediate pipeline). In another post I said essentially the same thing when I noted that additional yield improvements would be limited for the next few years. I clearly never said yield improvements will stop. You invented that assertion in your imagination. In other words, you made it up.

And I’ll repeat once again that the major yield enhancements came in the last century from the widespread adoption of new technologies like fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, irrigation, and hybrid seeds. That is an uncontroversial statement that a reasonable person would accept on its face. Every year the chemical companies and seed companies come out with new and improved versions of those products that contribute to minor yield improvements compared to the improvements achieved when the initial innovations were introduced. That’s why I said yield improvements are increasing but at a decreasing rate, not that they had stopped. I even showed you data showing wheat yields were basically flat over a 10 consecutive year period across the entire U.S. 10 consecutive years of data across the entire country nd you somehow reach the illogical conclusion that is cherry picking the data. Weak.

The much ballyhooed adoption of bioengineering of seeds in the ‘90s hasn’t increased yields nearly as much as the other innovations mentioned above. Tell another lie that I’m making it up if it makes you feel better. I know what I know. I also know DuPont, BASF, Mosaic and others are working on projects, but Monsanto is the leader with the most robust pipeline. Some of the things Monsanto is working on could potentially make significant contributions to yield improvements, but most of the projects are in the early to mid stage of development and won’t be commercialized until after 2010.

You make wild and unsupported accusations that I’m making stuff up. To back your claim, you write drivel about how technological improvements have lead to increasing yields for 10,000 years. Leonard the Wonder Monkey knows as much. But the huge leaps in yields come from the adoption of new breakthrough technologies, such as those mentioned in the second paragraph, not from tweaking existing technology. And to the best of my knowledge, there are no huge breakthroughs on the horizon prior to 2010.

I’m tired of this. We’re done.

[Fishhead24]

Meanwhile, back to rising land prices.

-FH-

ps- It appears the stock market is in for another red day today.

[iron81]

My personal read on the political situation is that ethanol subsidies are unlikely to dry up in the next few years. Ethanol is very popular on Capitol Hill because it is promoted as environmentally friendly and a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Of course, ethanol doesn't help with either, but the real reason it is being promoted is that it funnels money to farmers.

Farmers are very popular in Washington, both for nostalgic reasons and their disproportionate representation in Congress via farm state congressmen. Also, Iowa's prominence in the Presidential primaries means that the Presidential candidates have to toe the line on ethanol. Every major candidate is in favor of ethanol.

People aren't building ethanol plants like crazy because ethanol is a short term phenomenon. Literally dozens of plants have been built in the last 10 years and more are on the drawing board.

[Fishhead24]

iron81- Right on. Speaking of ethanol plants, Iowa is far and away the leading state with current ethanol plants and proposed plants in the future. Illinois has many proposed plants as well as a few that will be opening up within the next 1-4 months.

Here is the deal, farmland, and specifically Iowa farmland for this discussion, has no bearish signs in sight for at least 24 months. Time is money and money is time right now if one wants to reap the rewards of this boom.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
iron81- Right on. Speaking of ethanol plants, Iowa is far and away the leading state with current ethanol plants and proposed plants in the future. Illinois has many proposed plants as well as a few that will be opening up within the next 1-4 months.

Here is the deal, farmland, and specifically Iowa farmland for this discussion, has no bearish signs in sight for at least 24 months. Time is money and money is time right now if one wants to reap the rewards of this boom.

[/ QUOTE ]

another red day for the dow and maybe iowa will be flooded with investors!

[scott1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iron81- Right on. Speaking of ethanol plants, Iowa is far and away the leading state with current ethanol plants and proposed plants in the future. Illinois has many proposed plants as well as a few that will be opening up within the next 1-4 months.

Here is the deal, farmland, and specifically Iowa farmland for this discussion, has no bearish signs in sight for at least 24 months. Time is money and money is time right now if one wants to reap the rewards of this boom.

[/ QUOTE ]

another red day for the dow and maybe iowa will be flooded with investors!

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is awesome, in the same way late night infomercials are awesome. But wait! That's not all you get!

[Fishhead24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iron81- Right on. Speaking of ethanol plants, Iowa is far and away the leading state with current ethanol plants and proposed plants in the future. Illinois has many proposed plants as well as a few that will be opening up within the next 1-4 months.

Here is the deal, farmland, and specifically Iowa farmland for this discussion, has no bearish signs in sight for at least 24 months. Time is money and money is time right now if one wants to reap the rewards of this boom.

[/ QUOTE ]

another red day for the dow and maybe iowa will be flooded with investors!

[/ QUOTE ]

A negative stock market tone is most definetly a positive for farmland real estate, especially land the produces corn.

[Sniper]

Fish, what happens when natural gas takes over as the alternative fuel of choice, rather than ethanol?