Posted By Cindy May 10, 2011
The livestock feed generated as a co-product of ethanol production is enough to make 50 billion quarter-pound hamburgers each year, according to a new report from the Renewable Fuels Association.
According to the report, “Fueling a Nation; Feeding the World,” ethanol producers are expected to turn out about 39 million metric tons of livestock feed in the form of distillers grains in the current marketing year. That amount is equivalent to the 4th largest corn crop in the world, and is enough feed to produce 50 billion quarter-pound hamburgers – seven patties for each person on the planet – or enough to produce one chicken breast for every American every day for a year.
This is a message that needs to be shouted from the rooftops because it helps to visualize the point that ethanol uses much less of the nation’s corn supply than simple statistics imply. Last year, ethanol production provided 35 million metric tons (mmt) of livestock feed – more than the total amount of grain consumed by all of the beef cattle in the nation’s feedlots!
In other words, we are producing both food and fuel from every bushel of corn that goes into an ethanol plant. Why don’t people get this?
Posted By Cindy May 10, 2011
Last week, the planting prognosis was pretty bleak, but a week of better weather in some areas allowed farmers to make significant headway in the fields.
The latest crop progress report from USDA has 40 percent of the corn crop planted – half of what it was at this time last year and nearly 20 percent less than the 5-year average. Missouri and Nebraska moved up significantly to be pretty close to average now at 59 and 57 percent planted, but Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio are still in the single digits when they should be at or near the halfway point by now.
The slow planting progress and continued wet weather in many areas are causing concerns about the impact on both yield and acreage. However, as National Corn Growers Association First Vice President Garry Niemeyer of Illinois points out, planting dates alone do not determine how successful a crop growers have. “There are still several months of growing time for our crops,” Niemeyer said. “The expected increase in corn acreage strengthens our expectation of being able to meet all needs for food, feed and fuel come the fall harvest.”
It’s not clear yet how much of the 130,000 flooded acres in southeast Missouri were expected to be planted to corn, but USDA will release its first monthly estimate of yield, supply and demand for the crop now being planted on Wednesday.
Posted By Cathryn May 6, 2011
The battle of the sweeteners rages on as the Western Sugar Cooperative sues the Corn Refiners Association and corn processors to stop use of the words “corn sugar” in place of the more traditional “high fructose corn syrup.” Despite arguments that they want to protect consumers from false advertising, the reasons behind the suit are anything but sweet.
Even the notable foodie and nutritionist Marion Nestle agrees, the biochemical difference between sugars made from corn, beets or cane is insignificant. In a recent article, Nestle goes so far as to state that “your body cannot tell them apart.”
If corn sugar is biochemically the same as other sugars and reacts the same way in a human body, why is the Western Sugar Cooperative crying foul? They want to maintain the marketing advantage that anti-HFCS campaigns have built over the past decade.
By scaring consumers into the mistaken belief that HFCS somehow magically metabolizes differently than other almost biochemically identical sweeteners, sugar has gained an advantage. Now, many familiar products boast that they are not made with HFCS. Should consumers become aware of the fact that the amount (not the type) of sweetener in their food causes weight gain, they would most probably opt for the more affordable option: Corn sugar.
Vote with your pocketbook this weekend. Whether shopping for groceries or picking up a special treat for mom, don’t be fooled into picking a product just because it doesn’t contain corn sugar. Be smarter than the anti-HFCS marketers expect and buy affordable, delicious foods without unfounded fear – even top nutritionists know that it is okay.
Posted By Cindy May 6, 2011
His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales was in the United States this week, just days after the royal wedding of his son. His main gig was a keynote address at “The Future of Food” conference at Georgetown University, sponsored by the Washington Post.
As Cathryn wrote in a post last fall here, Prince Charles is a critic of modern agricultural practices. Because he has “tried to farm as sustainably as possible for some twenty-six years,” the prince believes that we can feed nine billion people on this planet with a food system that is “not dependent upon the use of chemical pesticides, fungicides and insecticides; nor, for that matter, upon artificial fertilizers and growth-promoters or G.M.”
I like the way the prince references the “facts” he uses to back up his concerns about the “perilous state” of our food future. “Here in the U.S., I am told, four out of every ten bushels of corn are now grown to fuel motor vehicles,” he said. He was also told that one acre of farmland in the United States “is lost to development every minute of every day.” He didn’t say who told him these facts.
The prince seems to bemoan the fact that modern food production techniques are more efficient and result in cheaper food than organic or his definition of sustainable. He blames that mainly on subsidies that favor “overwhelmingly those kinds of agricultural techniques that are responsible for the many problems” he outlined, including food insecurity, declining yield increases, climate change, growing demand for food and fuel, heavy reliance on fossil fuels and land and water usage, and he says that the cost of the “damages” to nature are not figured in to the cost of modern food production. However, he admits that moving to the kind of “sustainable food production” system that he envisions may result in higher food prices.
“Nobody wants food prices to go up, but if it is the case that the present low price of intensively produced food in developed countries is actually an illusion, only made possible by transferring the costs of cleaning up pollution or dealing with human health problems onto other agencies, then could correcting these anomalies result in a more beneficial arena where nobody is actually worse off in net terms? It would simply be a more honest form of accounting.” (Read the whole speech here.)
It’s good to be prince and to be able to afford a carefully monitored organic food system that uses heritage seeds and preserves rare breeds, but most of us just want healthy, nutritious and affordable food.
Posted By Cathryn May 2, 2011
According to a study recently released by the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, U.S. ethanol saves drivers money at the pump. Tracking historic data over the past decade and looking specifically at 2010, research shows that ethanol helps keep gas prices down.
Department of Energy data shows U.S. gasoline use averaged 138 billion gallons per year from 2000 to 2010, meaning annual savings due to ethanol during the decade averaged $34.5 billion.
In the study, professors Dermott Hays and Xiaodong Du find that “the use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average if $0.89 per gallon in 2010.” The Renewable Fuels Association extrapolates that, in 2010 alone, ethanol reduced the average American’s household gasoline bill by $800. While the facts go on and on, the bottom line stays the same – Ethanol keeps money in consumer pockets.
*Gas prices could almost double to “historic proportions” if ethanol production immediately halted
*Drivers saved an average of $0.25 per gallon from 2000-2010
*Annual savings from 2000-2010 averaged $34 billion dollars
In 2011, gas prices have reached an average of roughly $3.90 per gallon. Consumers still reeling from the recession cannot afford to lose ethanol, one of the few mechanisms for lowering ever-rising fuel prices. Instead, consumers deserve a choice. Allowing customers to select scientifically-proven E15 at the pump provides an option that will both lower consumer fuel costs and decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
