Which means that the US is continually producing far more potential food than we actually use. That constitutes a form of food security. What it gets used for instead - be that animal feed, chemical feedstock, fertilizer, etc - is largely irrelevant.

Are you certain there's no strategic reserve? If not there probably ought to be. Seems like a rather cheap form of insurance in the bigger picture.

▲

fellowmartian 4 days ago | parent [-]

The argument you’re making works just as well for any other crop. Productive land is the asset and the security, not the corn itself. In fact, growing the damn corn everywhere degrades the soil. We might as well grow wheat, rice, legumes, etc. Besides path-dependence there’s little reason for corn dominance.

▲

fc417fc802 4 days ago | parent [-]

Agreed that it's the active land use, not a specific crop, that matters from a food security perspective.

Disagreed otherwise though. Soil degradation is due to people cutting corners to save money. Rice requires significantly more water. Wheat and oats don't have the same shelf life. Legumes are likely comparable but how do they stack up against corn for things like animal feed and chemical feedstock?

The reality is that corn is an extremely practical crop regardless of its lack of political popularity of late.

	▲	fellowmartian 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Well if corn is so productive and efficient then surely it doesn’t need any subsidies. It can stand on its own merits in a real free market.