Do you think food is expensive now? Some see costs rising further, and soon.

"When are the good times going to end? Could it be next year? And what happens if a drought or some other disaster cuts yields dramatically?"

While farmers will likely absorb some of the added costs, Schnitkey says consumers also should expect to pay more for products ranging from cereals and syrups to grain-fed beef.

"There's not going to be a reduction back to lower food costs as long as we have these higher production costs," he said. "Energy prices are driving a lot of what's going on and ultimately that hits the consumer."

Along with fertilizer, grain farmers also will see hefty cost increases next year for inputs ranging from seed to fuel for tractors and other machinery, according to the study.

The study projects non-land production costs for corn will total $529 an acre next year, up 36 percent from 2008 and nearly 85 percent higher than the average of $286 per acre from 2003 to 2007. At $321 an acre, soybean input costs are projected to rise 34 percent from 2008 and more than 78 percent from the 2003-2007 average of $180 an acre.

Schnitkey says the per-acre costs are based on high-producing farmland in Central Illinois, but corn and soybean farmers across the country will see similar increases.

Assuming cash-rent fees of $200 an acre, the study projects a break-even price of $3.82 a bushel for corn in Central Illinois, based on an average yield of 191 bushels an acre. Soybeans would break even at $9.65 a bushel, based on yields of 54 bushels per acre.

Schnitkey says 2009 prices should be significantly above break-even prices. Based on futures markets, corn should sell for about $6 a bushel next year, with soybeans in the $13 to $14 range.

"Looking further ahead, though, a lot of things could happen to bring that down," he said. "Demand could bring on more land in Argentina and Brazil, or the Ukraine might get its act together and increase production."

Higher production costs will likely force farmers to try to hold down cash-rent payments, monitor commodity markets closely to sell at the best price and consider increasing crop-insurance levels, Schnitkey said.

"Input prices will have doubled in just a few years and that's a major investment for farmers," he said. "If something bad happens that hurts yields, their downside risk is much higher now."

The cost of fossil fuels, in all forms, is the culprit here. It isn't only an issue for food production since bushels of grain at the farm gate are of little use to humans.

. . . changes to methods of food processing, packaging and distribution could also help to reduce fuel consumption. Although well-established energy-saving considerations in lighting, heating and packaging materials all have their part to play, the authors again highlight individual responsibility as having the biggest impact. They contend that the most dramatic reduction in energy used for food processing would come about if consumers reduced their demand for highly processed foods. This would also help cut down food miles and its related fuel cost as US food travels an average of 2,400 km before it is consumed.

This study argues strongly that the consumer is in the strongest position to contribute to a reduction in energy use. As individuals embrace a 'greener' lifestyle, an awareness of the influence their food choices have on energy resources might be added encouragement for them to buy good, local produce and avoid highly processed, heavily packaged and nutritionally inferior food.

The issues are real. Costs will rise. But the prescriptions offered by activists are nonsense, as usual. They trot out the same failed ideas of social regimentation, though the net effects of such behavior change would be trivial while the costs of doing so would be huge. This is the common thumb-on-the-scales measurement method of activists: they exaggerate the costs of the thing the hate, while discounting the costs of their alternative suggestions. They aren't truly interested in the problems, they just use them to advance their political and cultural objectives.

The assumptions of all of these scenarios is that many costs will remain unchanged, such as land and water. That can't happen since there is a limited supply and demand will surely rise. Even if Argentina, Brazil, the Ukraine or even Africa begins to produce at higher levels this will only be a moderating influence on ever rising demand.

That doesn't mean that we should not be adopting methods that are more frugal to keep costs down, it means that this is not a solution to the general, longer term problem and that only methods that do both - save now while keeping production up - make sense. In this, as in everything else, we have to do it all at once. We have to be smart managers who survive today but we must also do so in ways that do not sow the seeds of future failure.