Since arriving in Iowa the most distinct impression I have is of vast stretches of farmland which are home to corn, and some soy, crops. Before I got to Iowa, while I knew about the prevalence of corn, I assumed that a place considered to provide a large amount of the food supply would have to grow more than just corn. My skepticism at this only grew when we went to one of the leading GMO seed producers, Dupont Pioneer, and they gave one of their founding principles as being “feeding the world”. This feeding the world theme was continued by the Iowa Corn Growers Association. They presented increasing the supply and demand for corn as being the solution to all our problems. I found this hard to digest in light of the knowledge that edible sweet corn only accounts for 1% of corn production and the rest is inedible before being processed. My next question was where does this seemingly useless crop go? The ICGA answered that of course the corn is being used to feed more livestock (hence “feeding the world”), exports, and ethanol.

I do not buy that corn is good for advancing the cause of “feeding the world.” I understand that the argument many proponents of corn domination of Iowa agriculture make is how perfect the Iowa soil is for corn yields. However, just because it works does not mean it is right or ideal. First of all, it seems inefficient to allocate such large amounts of land in to feed livestock that take up even more land and consume a huge amount of resources to produce food for humans far less than they end up consuming. It seems far more logical that if “feeding the world”, rather than making the most money, was the goal the land would be used to grow something actually directly edible such as a grain, starch, or even produce. After seeing yesterday how successful Dalona’s fruit trees and other garden yields have been (partly thanks to Iowa soil) it seems that other crops could fare just as well as corn.

Of course the numerous other uses that have been found for corn must also be taken into consideration. These include various biodegradable plastics, corn strarch and high-fructose corn syrup, and most notably ethanol. I found the ICGA representatives discussion of Ethanol to be extremely interesting. There seemed to be much conflict of interest between oil companies and corn/ethanol producers centering around, not surprisingly, profits. Except the difference is of course the environmental impact of ethanol use over oil. Considering the current various environmental crises we face anything that could potentially alleviate these concerns must be taken seriously. Ethanol seems to have the potential to do a lot of good to reduce CO2 and GHG emissions, although Dr. HN later pointed out that some information/perspectives had been left out of the presentation concerning the energy it takes to produce ethanol. After adding ethanol into the equation it becomes somewhat more difficult for me to take a strong position on the current rates of corn production. But I still think I can say that I remain highly skeptical of  the long-term effects this sort of exclusivist agriculture, particularly in the midwest, will have.