Climate Change Finally Impacts Important Industry

Socguy writes "According to a New Zealand scientist, Jim Salinger, the price of beer in and around Australia is going to be under increasing upward pressure as reductions in malting barley yields are experienced as a side effect of our ongoing climate shift. "It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," Mr. Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention."

Comments

home brewers

[Missing_dc]

Those of us who home brew have already seen the hit on both barley and hops.

Re:home brewers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're silly. The dramatic hop shortage has nothing to do with climate change. It had to do with a global glut of hops that induced a whole pile of acreage to switch from hops to crops that weren't dirt cheap, followed by the major hop warehouse fire in Washington and some other smaller stock supply disasters.

Re:home brewers

[electrictroy]

According to the History Channel, this is not the first time climate change has destroyed an industry.

The "Mini Ice Age" of 1400-1800 destroyed the Wine Industry in Britannia. For 1400 years Romans and their descendents had been growing vineyards and producing wine in the warm England climate. Then suddenly the earth grew cold, and the vines stopped growing.

England seemed to survive this catastrope, and I'm sure Australia will too.

Re:home brewers

[wattrlz]

Unfortunately the price of corn is skyrocketing already because of bio-ethanol There, fixed it for you. Bio-diesel is made from shortening.

Re:home brewers

[Cerberus7]

But this is beer. In Australia. The country will collapse.

Re:home brewers

[CraftyJack]

I thought the hop shortage was more of an economic thing than an environmental thing. The way I read/heard it, stored pellets and hop extract from previous boom years have finally run out, so the industrial brewers are buying up everything in sight. The stored stuff had been keeping demand artificially low, so the growers can't cope now. At any rate, you can't get Cascade for love or money.

Re:home brewers

[raddan]

There's also the recent Puccinia graminis "wheat blight" currently happening across Asia. Puccinia graminis affects both wheat and barley (and some other crops). Combine that with a weak U.S. dollar, which means we are exporting more, and the fact that U.S. growers have been switching to the more-profitable corn growing, and you can see why grain prices have gone up, at least in the U.S.

Re:home brewers

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize the "wackos" you refer to are Congress and the corn lobby, right?

Re:home brewers

[Missing_dc]

I can't check the link at work, and I am not an expert on the subject though I have been making beer and Meade for about 2 years now. I start a 5 gallon batch every 1-2 weeks. That having been said:

I get my barley for about $2 a pound, regardless of the variety/malt.
I get my hops for about $2.5/ounce, in pellet form. It's available as cones, but they are more expensive.
it takes between 5-10 pounds of barley for a 5-gallon batch of beer and about 2 ounces of hops (more or less to taste, the hops have 3 functions, they add a spicy flavor, a bitter flavor, and they help preserve the beer. some beers I have seen take 4 OZ of hops, some only require .5 OZ)

The yeast sachets are about $2 each for beer yeast and about $.60 each for wine yeast.

These are local prices in Stafford, VA. northern brewers tends to be cheaper.

So, we are looking at $17 minimum for a batch of beer, more if you add the malt extracts (barley sugar) as it tends to be about $4/pound or you can use more grain. It is technically possible to use corn sugar (about $1/pound) to increase the alcohol content, but that tends to give a thin-feeling beer.

Pure beer (accourding to the germans) cannot contain anything but barley, hops, water and yeast.

A 5-gallon batch of imperial stout uses about 10 pounds of grain and 3 ounces of hops.

The cost of barley has gone up for me in the last 2 years, I used to get it for $1.30 /pound
and the hops has drastically jumped from $1.30 to $2.50/ OZ.

A minor note on hop growing, it takes 2-3 years for your hops to reach production levels. It's best to leave them alone while they attain that stage of growth. The hop farmers have noticed the high demand and planted more acres, that does not help now, but will in a few years.

Just my 2 cents or so...

Re:home brewers

[jc42]

Corn is ideal because we already had the infrastructure in place to integrate corn-based ethanol plants into the supply chain with virtually no cost (money or energy).

That depends on where you live. It may be true in the US's Midwest or other farming areas with well-established grain crops. In other parts of the world, there are already commercial crops of Jatropha curcas, a dryland shrub whose seeds contain oil that can be burned directly by diesel engines without refining. There's also a tropical tree, Copaifera langsdorffii, which is tapped much like sugar maples, and whose sap also qualifies as diesel fuel. Google finds lots of info on both of them.

These two plants have only recently been domesticated, so there's a lot of research and breeding going on in the areas where they grow. J. curcas has potential to be a major crop the American southwest and southern Europe, as it's cold tolerant and needs only around 250 mm of rain per year to keep it happy. But the cultivation is rather different from corn, so you wouldn't expect corn farmers to immediately succeed with it, and it may not be a competitive crop for areas with more rainfall. C. langsdorffii isn't feasible outside the tropics, and is a medium-sized tree, so it has only been used for small-scale local fuel production so far, and will probably take some time to become a practical crop plant.

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) has gotten some attention in the US, where it's a native plant with a lot of potential. Even President Bush has heard of it. But its cultivation, harvesting, and processing into fuel would be something new for corn farmers. Sugar cane growers would probably be better prospects, as the process would be familiar to them -- except for the final fermentation stage, which you'd want to hand over to the rum producers ;-). A problem here is that sugar cane (and rum) is a (sub)tropical crop, while switchgrass is better suited to temperate zones, so we'll either need to educate some farmers (and brewers), or persuade the sugar-cage people to move to places where it gets cold.

There are a number of other plants undergoing serious research for fuel production. Of course, each species will require educating farmers and development of infrastructure for its use. That's part of why so many people have been suggesting that we should be doing the R&D now, rather than wait until our fuel-supply problems grow even more serious.

Re:home brewers

[Curunir_wolf]

I can't check the link at work, and I am not an expert on the subject though I have been making beer and Meade for about 2 years now. I start a 5 gallon batch every 1-2 weeks. That having been said:

I get my barley for about $2 a pound, regardless of the variety/malt.
I get my hops for about $2.5/ounce, in pellet form. It's available as cones, but they are more expensive.
Yea, I generally pay about the same. The hops on the NB site, though, were running $7/once for high-alpha varieties (Magnum, Centennial).

it takes between 5-10 pounds of barley for a 5-gallon batch of beer and about 2 ounces of hops (more or less to taste, the hops have 3 functions, they add a spicy flavor, a bitter flavor, and they help preserve the beer. some beers I have seen take 4 OZ of hops, some only require .5 OZ)
One of my favorites is a clone of Stone's Ruination IPA. Very bitter beer with at about 100 IBUs. Takes 5-6 oz. of high-alpha hops.

The yeast sachets are about $2 each for beer yeast and about $.60 each for wine yeast.
What kind of yeast are you using? I guess I'm using the pricey stuff - White Labs liquid yeast, either WPL001 or WPL008 runs me about $8 per vial. But it produces a lot better beer than the dry stuff I was using before.

These are local prices in Stafford, VA. northern brewers tends to be cheaper.
Sounds like your costs are comparable to mine here in my part of VA.

So, we are looking at $17 minimum for a batch of beer, more if you add the malt extracts (barley sugar) as it tends to be about $4/pound or you can use more grain. It is technically possible to use corn sugar (about $1/pound) to increase the alcohol content, but that tends to give a thin-feeling beer.

Pure beer (accourding to the germans) cannot contain anything but barley, hops, water and yeast.

A 5-gallon batch of imperial stout uses about 10 pounds of grain and 3 ounces of hops.

The cost of barley has gone up for me in the last 2 years, I used to get it for $1.30 /pound
and the hops has drastically jumped from $1.30 to $2.50/ OZ.

A minor note on hop growing, it takes 2-3 years for your hops to reach production levels. It's best to leave them alone while they attain that stage of growth. The hop farmers have noticed the high demand and planted more acres, that does not help now, but will in a few years.

Just my 2 cents or so...
My hops are going to be in their 3rd year this year, and I'm definitely planning to harvest and cure them this year. I'm still skeptical I'll get enough to brew more than 2-3 batches, but maybe they'll do better than I think. Wish me luck!

Re:home brewers

[robertjw]

Where are you getting this "eek" assumption from? Farm subsidies are very generous in the US. I don't think it's an "eek", it's no 7-figures, but it's certainly sustainable.

From personal experience. I've watched my Father quit farming and go to work at the USPS because he couldn't make a living. I've watched my sisters and I all enter different career fields because the lack of opportunity in agriculture. I've seen many of the local farms that I grew up with be sold off either because the operation wasn't profitable or because the children of the farmers didn't think it would be in the future.

Take a look at historic corn prices. When adjusted for inflation the price of corn has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY in the last 35 years. Just as we've seen lately, the price of corn directly impacts the price of other crops and livestock. If the price of corn stays down, the farmer doesn't make much money.

My great grandfather, in the years before and after the great depression, was a profitable enough farmer that he was able to purchase 3 separate farms and pay them all off. Most farming operations today are either living off government subsidies or going broke. I can't really comment on the subsidies, we never took any significant money from the government, but I know it's tough to make a living in agriculture without that government money.

Re:Going on two years

[NorbrookC]

However, there are many other crops from which alcohol can be derived.

Which have also jumped markedly in price. Corn, wheat, and rice are all running at record or near-record highs in their prices. So your other libations will also jump in price.

Re:Unlike fuel

[mweather]

The police have never made a dent in the illegal drug market.

Re:Uh, not due to climate change though...

[tcopeland]

Yup, and for some more numbers and some good commentary on this, check out this post from EU Referendum: 'A world gone mad'.

Re:Somebody please!....AHEM

[xaxa]

They drink beer? My friends didn't drink beer that often, not until we were about 17. Before then it was cider (cheap and strong) or spirits (usually vodka, or premixed vodka cocktails).

I never did weed, probably half my friends did.

Re:Climate change, guess old buzzword wasn't worki

[Missing_dc]

Regardless, it is still affecting my beer making.

Two years ago, it cost about $12 to make a 5-gallon batch of beer, now it costs between $20 and $30.

  (I know, I'm bitching about paying 4-6 dollars for the equivelant of a 12-pack of beer.)

Re:Uh, not due to climate change though...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that using corn for making ethanol actually ends up putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the next century than simply continuing to burn fossil fuels. Last week's Time magazine had a long, well-written article about this topic.

Re:Unlike fuel

[maxume]

They make local market dents all the time. The cumulative effect is pretty much nil, but I'm sure that they impact prices and availability in a given city or region fairly often.

Re:Beer lovers get the shaft either way

[bunratty]

You are correct that scientists are split in their opinion about the next solar cycle. Some say it will be more intense than the last one, and others say it will be less intense. But it doesn't have anything to do with any global warming debate.

Re:Uh, not due to climate change though...

[Abcd1234]

Yup [startribune.com] and it's really hurting everyone from large pizza chains [news-press.com] right down to the local Asian restaurant my wife and I frequent at least three times a month.

Just thank god you don't live in, say, Haiti or Egypt, where there've been food riots due to skyrocketing prices (like, 40% increases since January type skyrocketing).

The use of food as a fuel source is, without a doubt, the most idiotic, selfish, short-sighted thing the developed world has ever dreamed up...

Re:Going on two years

[toxic666]

Not to mention that corn and ethanol production has expanded to areas where it requires irrigation and ground water for industrial use.

We have been mining Ogalala Aquifer ground water for decades. Now, with increased subsidies, we have expanded the area and rate at which we are depleting the resource.

Re:Trying to regulate every little thing is stupid

[Original Replica]

Sorry, but the Heartland Institute has the is an dedicated to unregulated, free markets. They are a policy organization masquerading as a research group, one which has been accused of being funded heavily by Exxon. Now I usually view GreenPeace's "facts" with quite a bit of skepticism, but I do the same with anything coming out of the Heartland Institute. Both organizations are so hell bent on political influence, that they can't maintain the objective view needed to supply useful facts. At some point science-with-a-political-slant becomes political-rhetoric-with-a-scientific-slant. Both of these organizations are well over that line.

Re:Uh, not due to climate change though...

[bunratty]

What? Nitrogen gas constitutes 78 per cent of the atmosphere and it has no direct greenhouse effect..

Re:Beer lovers get the shaft either way

[georgep77]

Well to start
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/
  sun cycle length predicts coming cool period

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/03/there-is-no-sun-link-with-global-warming/
sun cycle has no effect on temperature

http://reason.com/news/show/125300.html the David Archibald presentation mentioned here interested me.

AFAIK empirical data will be the final arbiter of the various climate beliefs (climate religion).

I don't discuss religion publicly so this is my final post on this subject. Too many people are too emotional on this subject.

Regards,
    _GP_

Re:Trying to regulate every little thing is stupid

[Rei]

Pollution and environmental issues are *the* classic economic textbook example of market failure.

I believe the word you're looking for is "externalities". Pollution and environmental issues are external to the market, so the market doesn't account for them. You need to internalize externalities with taxes based on them -- you need to assign them a realistic cost compared to what damage they do to society, and the market will readjust with that taken into account.

I'm a Keynesian; I don't believe in the authoritarian-socialist view of telling businesses, "You will do this," or, on the economic-libertarian view, doing absolutely nothing. I believe in the government simply adjusting the prices of elements of the market with taxes when needed to make externalities that have serious costs but are normally ignored now have costs that are factored into the market, and letting the market make its own choices now that it's facing true costs. And with the taxes collected as such, you can reduce general taxation on corporations and inviduals and/or ameliorate the damage caused.

In such a situation, I think that, for example, coal power would largely become uneconomical, while techs like wind, solar, and deep geothermal (EGS or whatnot) would become much more popular. But if coal power plant operators can still be profitable when compensating for the greenhouse gasses, heavy metals, and particulate matter they emit (prices based on the consequences of those actions, such as increased healthcare costs), and while paying more for coal that's compensating for the water pollution and so forth (also with prices based on the consequences of those actions), then by all means, continue.

Re:Climate change, guess old buzzword wasn't worki

[asilentthing]

He was most likely referring to this or maybe this.

Do you think a cultural push toward hysteria proves global warming or something?

Re:Trying to regulate every little thing is stupid

[Hubbell]

CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. I'm appalled to see so many on slashdot giving in to this obvious bs. Every other body in the solar system has gone up in temperature by ~2degrees celsius in the last few decades, and all the ice core samples we've seen show that C02 only correlates to temperature increases after the fact, that is once the temperature increases, more CO2 is introduced into the atmosphere via ocean trapped CO2 being released.

Re:More GW BS

[tomdcc]

It is light on details. this one is better:

But over the last five years, Australia has experienced three droughts. In 2006, in what was dubbed the 100-year drought, barley production fell 70 per cent. Last year, drought caused a 40 per cent fall. So drought leads to decreased barley yields. We've had more drought in Australia in recent years than in any previously recorded time. And it just happens to correlate with the highest global temperatures ever recorded. But you're right, it's probably just BS. Why don't you come down under and enjoy our water restrictions?

Re:Wait a second..

[Kaydet81]

Raising the temperature a few degrees changed the Sahara from lush vegetation to desert.

Begging your pardon sir, but it appears that is incorrect. If I understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Pump_Theory correctly, the Sahara was caused by simple lack of rain. It was actually larger during the ice age.

Re:Trying to regulate every little thing is stupid

[Socguy]

Why should I re-invent the wheel? I'm representing the conventional viewpoint. If you wish to dispute current scientific thought then you must provide evidence. However, in the interests of expediance, here you go.
On the warming of planets:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

So, your contention fails. Not all the planets are warming. Further, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you finger the Sun as the main culprit here, although you didn't explicitly state that. However, solar output hasn't increased since we've begun specifically measuring it in '78.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Now to the Ice cores:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11640
If anyone takes the time to read through the above links they will discover that there are many factors that can and have influenced global temperatures in the past. (As the skeptics continually refer) Some of these factors include, Solar luminosity, Cloud formation, particulate in the air, Carbon Dioxide and so on. If there is a big change in any of the factors that control climate (which there has been in the past)then you would expect to see an effect on climate. CO2 records from ice cores DO match up well with the CO2 record but there are cases where they don't. HOWEVER: these deviances are satisfactorily explained by the presence of other factors over-riding the effect of CO2 during a specific geologic era. What's happening today is that we are altering the climate mainly by heavily altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.