Sure. From your link:

Reasons include new demands for food crops, especially corn (or maize), for ethanol and other biofuels, increased energy and freight prices, higher demand for grain-fed meat in the emerging economies of China, India, and Brazil, and increased use of natural gas as liquefied natural gas (LNG)


Farmers in industrialized countries are applying high levels of fertilizers to maximize harvests of grain at the highest prices ever

Prices of phosphate fertilizers rose more steeply than the price of nitrogen-based urea because production sources are more limited,” Bumb says. Most of the world’s phosphate fertilizers are produced in the United States, Morocco, and along the Baltic Sea. Canada produces 70% of the world’s muriate of potash. But plants to manufacture urea, for which natural gas is the main raw material resource, are dispersed worldwide.



What I'd like to understand is this:

In the United States, 70% of corn production has traditionally been used as animal feed, Humphres says. But 18% to 20% of the 2007 U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol, driving corn prices up by 70%.

U.S. corn production in 2007 was 13.1 billion bushels (333 million tons) according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—24% more than in 2006 and the largest U.S. corn harvest since 1933.




If production increased 24%, and 18-20% of it was used for ethanol, resulting in a net gain over 06 of 4% more corn to eat, why should corn go up 70% solely on ethanol use?

__________________
1984 300TD