By replacing up to 20 percent of the flour used in a recipe with distillers dried grains, the scientists have managed to up the protein and fiber content of traditional breads such as naan and chapatti. People in Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are then able to increase the nutritional content of their diet despite lacking the money to purchase more expensive foods, particularly meat.
Many in the world fight malnourishment caused by lack of fiber and protein. Most are children who need even more nutrients during their vital years to even survive. With research showing that distillers dried grains and ethanol are part of the solution, it is unconscionable to insinuate that they are part of the problem.
Tell those with vested interests and poor science that you have thought about it already. As a humanitarian, you realize it is time to put rhetoric aside and push for a real change that can save lives and help our environment. Tell them you back ethanol.
I just finished reading comments from The World Bank that say “…the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called “financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.”
The whole time I was reading it I kept hearing the Ghostly voice of Gilda Radner, of Saturday Night Live fame saying “Nevermind.”
Her character Emily Litella was an elderly woman with a hearing problem who made regular appearances on SNL’s Weekend Updateop-ed segment in the late 1970s. Attired in a frumpy dress and sweater, Litella was introduced with professional dignity by the news anchors, who could sometimes be seen cringing slightly in anticipation of the verbal faux pas they knew would follow.
After ranting in an outraged manner, the news anchor would point out she didn’t get the point to which Gilda would reply “Nevermind.”
The World Bank’s leaked” report in 2008 erroneously blamed biofuels for 75 percent of the commodity price spike. The authors of their most recent report conclude that it is unlikely biofuels played a significant role because they do not represent a large percentage of worldwide grain and oilseed use.
It really might have been nice to know this before the World cost the nation’s family farmers dearly in terms of public trust. More importantly, they left the public thinking we should reserve our corn for human food consumption alone. Given this market is mature and our corn yields are soaring, we must look to other markets to keep farmers profitable and viable. And the markets with the most growth potential are things like ethanol, biodegradable products and other industrial uses.
“In reversing course, this World Bank report reaffirms the marginal role biofuels play in world commodity and food prices,” said RFA President Bob Dinneen. “The RFA has long noted that ethanol production has continued to increase while corn prices have now returned to normal levels. Volatile oil prices, speculation, and adverse weather conditions all played far more significant roles in driving commodity prices to record and near record prices. This report should silence critics in the food processing industry, the livestock industry, on Capitol Hill, and anywhere else that sought to portray ethanol as the boogeyman. With this phony food and fuel discussion put behind us, perhaps a real conversation about America’s energy future can ensue.”
Well put Bob but I think the cow left the barn in regard to the damage the World Bank did with their previous faux pas. I wish Emily/Gilda was still around to tell American consumers “Nevermind.”
My brother-in-law recently asked me why ethanol had a great reputation for two decades and suddenly seems to be getting pounded constantly, especially in editorial/opinion pages by the media.
He doesn’t have a farming background and isn’t invested in the ethanol industry so he is a neutral and somewhat uninformed observer. He is also one of the busiest guys I know so for him to notice it means the anti-ethanol crowd are now officially pervasive. Apparently, it’s not just me feeling paranoid.
The conversation came back to me in a hurry this week with the latest “ethanol is evil” Tsunami rolling across the country once again. It started with the Wall Street Journal (No link here because you have to pay for this tripe) and the Washington Post and worked its way across the country hitting the Chicago Tribune and Des Moines Register yesterday and likely making its way for the West Coast like some cheap traveling circus.
And like the aforementioned Circus the anti-ethanol gang leave a trail behind much like Barnum and Bailey’s elephants only there is no guy with a shovel and bucket cleaning up in their wake. They leave their load of “misinformation” to fester in the road in full knowledge that most people are also too busy to check the veracity of their propaganda.
The public lynching of ethanol began with the bogus food vs. fuel charade in 2008 and since then has continued to resurface over and over again in several different guises that get trotted out and recycled whenever opportunity presents itself.
Several things remain consistent as the attacks continue. The noxious cocktail they serve up is made with equal parts of the best bad science money can buy and poor logic. And the olive on the toothpick seems to be just plain old avarice.
That’s greed, materialism, or covetousness with a Capital “C.” The people fanning the fires of these attacks have rationale and motivation that are simple if not transparent. They are the folks that want the cheapest corn possible because it boosts their profits; want ethanol to be made from another source; or want ethanol crippled forever because the market share just got too big.
So, for the next couple of days come back here and you will get a sneak peak each day of some of these players and the Machiavellian games they play and fund all to snuff out the only real competition that imported petroleum faces in the marketplace today…ethanol.
A new kitty litter made from corn may not save the planet but it does present an educational opportunity. Corn is a versatile product used in thousands of products every day and the list keeps growing. The evolution from livestock feed to human food, to a growing list of industrial uses (ala corn kitty litter) is a natural one based on the staggering productivity of America’s family farmers.
So much focus is placed on the growing use of corn by the ethanol industry that I think we forget all the other products made from corn and how and why this expansive list of corn uses started. Today, nearly every state growing corn also sports a “checkoff program.” These farmer supported efforts take a small amount – from fractions of a cent to as much as a penny per bushel – from each bushel of corn sold to pay for promoting corn products, to increase exports markets and to research and develop new uses for corn.
Checkoffs changed the way people think. Corn suddenly became a chemical feedstock or stored solar energy just waiting to be released. Scientists and business entrepreneurs who thought the corn world revolved around sweet corn began to see unlimited potential for commercial corn.
As a result corn consumption for industrial or non-food uses has been outpacing the growth in food and feed uses for a long time. So it seems kind of silly that we continue to wring our hands over salacious debates over whether we should be using corn for things like fuel (ethanol) when it could be used for food and feed. This debate is ancient history and the market won. The advanced production power of U.S. agriculture today ensures a growing supply of corn that will continue to satisfy demand for domestic use and exports.
Today, there are more than 4,200 different uses for corn products ranging from toothpaste to paint. And just when you think you have heard of it all along comes the World’s Best Cat Litter™ is produced by GPC Pet Products in Muscatine, Iowa.
Developers say it is the only litter with a patented formula that harnesses the microporous power of whole-kernel corn to control odor better, absorb moisture faster, clump tighter, and last longer than all other litters—while providing a 100% renewable, 100% biodegradable cat litter that is pet, people, and planet safe.
And apparently it is safe for human consumption too, as one of the videos featured on the web site shows a gentleman eating the product to prove it is safe. Now that is grassroots marketing of a different kind.
Understanding why farmers started a self-administered checkoff programs is a little easier to grasp. Decades of $2 a bushel corn was a pretty good motivator. Corn grower’s productivity was crushing the prospects for profitability for the nation’s farmers as markets for livestock feed and domestic food uses matured.
Much like the sun coming up in the morning it is in farmer’s nature to try to produce as much corn as they can. Getting more bushels per acre has traditionally been the key to survival, so rather than throw in the towel they decided to be pro-active and build uses and markets. And the effort has paid off. Corn use continues to grow and so does farmers productivity. Seven of the largest corn crops in history have been grown in the last 7 years and without expanding acreage.
A 17 billion bushel crop is no longer a pipedream, but a looming reality so bring on the new uses.
Representatives from the American Meat Institute (AMI), Environmental Working Group (EWG), Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Taxpayers for Common Sense used the CBO report’s findings that it costs taxpayers $1.78 per gallon of corn ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78, and statements from Growth Energy that “the VEETC has served out its purpose” (7/16/10 eTeam Update), to further its long-standing agenda to eliminate incentives for corn based ethanol. In a press conference yesterday, the groups trotted out just about every criticism of corn ethanol they have used for the last several years, and then some. Here are a few choice quotes – and differing facts to the contrary.
AMI president J. Patrick Boyle -
“The blenders tax credit has distorted the corn market, increased the cost of feeding animals and squeezed production margins, resulting in job losses and bankruptcies in rural communities across America.”
FACT: Based on an AMI report claiming 5500 jobs were lost in 2008. A report on the contribution of the ethanol industry to the economy in 2008 found that while plants were closed or idled that year due to the economic downturn, the ethanol industry still supported more than 494,000 jobs, a significant portion in rural areas.
“Continuing to subsidize ethanol will not solve our energy needs nor end our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum – it will inflate the cost of food production.”
FACT: A Congressional Budget Office report released in April 2009 and a recent report from the UK found that it was mainly higher oil prices that drove prices for both food and feed higher in 2008. That was proven true last year when the amount of corn used for ethanol increased from 2008, but feed and food prices went down. (more…)
If you listen to the Girl Scouts, you start to hear some pretty strange things lately. The organization that helped girls build useful skills and fostered healthy self images for generations has expanded its range of activities. Now, in addition to teaching girls skills like camping or sewing, Girl Scouts teaches misinformation about agriculture and promotes an anti-corn agenda.
For their “Senior Journey,” scouts can now select an option called “Sow What? It’s Your Planet-Love It!” Theoretically, teaching young girls often completely disconnected from the farm where their food comes from and how it is grown should be positive and fun. Unfortunately, the Girl Scouts have their facts wrong.
In the manual for the project, the Girl Scouts attack traditional agriculture, rouse long-dead arguments over food prices and propagate baseless accusations against high fructose corn syrup.
Here’s one example: “When you grow only one crop, a disease or pest can wipe out your entire harvest. Therefore single-crop farmers often rely heavily on chemicals to control insects and protect crops.”
In reality, farmers today use far fewer pesticides and insecticides than they did even 20 years ago. As growers continue to adopt hybrids with insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant traits, they have greatly reduced the need for synthetic applications of herbicides and insecticides. The family farmers who comprise 95 percent of the farms in America strive to use fewer chemicals to produce a healthy, abundant crop. (more…)
It is pretty hard to improve upon corn-fed beef, but research coming out of the University of Illinois shows that there may be a way to maintain the delicious flavor and reasonable cost while improving farmer profitability.
Beef lovers know that high marbling makes a great steak. Just by looking at the cut in the butcher’s case, they can see the quality. Corn-fed beef offers better marbling than any alternative.
Now, farmers can achieve the same succulent steak by utilizing the ethanol co-product distillers dried grains. Created when starch is removed from corn to make ethanol, DDGs are rich in essential nutrients such as protein, fat, minerals and vitamins. As one bushel of corn produces 2.8 gallons of ethanol and 17 pounds of distillers grains, they offer an economical, environmentally friendly alternative.
The research indicates that beef produced using this product can improve farmers’ bottom lines without compromising quality. Following the feeding guidelines that the trial recommends even cuts the time needed to prepare the cattle for market.
“We believe feeding a high-grain ration to cattle at a young age and finishing them on co-products is the most profitable way to produce high-quality beef,” said University of Illinois animal scientist Dan Shike.
Research from the University of Nebraska- Lincoln shows that feeding “reproducing cows corn co-products is beneficial to their post calving gain, reproduction and may improve beef production sustainability.” Again, corn co-products produce a win-win situation as growers can improve profitability implementing suggestions in the while increasing industry sustainability.
With growers increasing profitability and consumers enjoying the same corn-fed taste that they already love, everyone wins.
Some may argue that food and fuel are at odds, but DDGS provide a perfect example of how we can have domestically produced ethanol and a functional and efficient feed product. The more facts that emerge, the more evident it becomes that corn can meet these needs making both refiners and livestock growers profitable while sparing consumer pocketbooks.
New jobless claims took another jump last week and unemployment for the month of March continued to be just a couple of ticks below 10 percent nationwide. That’s a whole lot of people out of work.
But it is interesting to note that four of the six states with the lowest unemployment rates are top ethanol producing states (IA, NE, SD, and KS).
The 2010 Ethanol Industry Salary Survey by Ethanol Producer Magazine, estimated that the ethanol industry is directly or indirectly responsible for almost 500,000 jobs nationwide. More than 75% of those workers earn at least $50,000 per year and virtually every one of them has health care benefits. Many of those jobs are in rural areas that have literally been revitalized by ethanol plants, as Renewable Fuels Association president Bob Dinneen noted in a January editorial in the Huffington Post. Towns like “Janesville, Minn., where a new 120 million-gallon-a-year ethanol plant is now not only the town’s largest employer, second only to the school district, but also one of the biggest property taxpayers in the county.”
These are real jobs for real people in real America. But recent studies indicate they could be lost if the ethanol tax incentives are allowed to expire at the end of the year.
A study prepared by IHS Global Insight determined that eliminating import tariffs could cost as many as 160,000 full and part-time jobs. Another study, done by the University of Missouri’s Community Policy Analysis Center, found that six states would see the largest declines in jobs due to removal of the ethanol import tariff – NE, IA, IL, MN, IN, and SD. Three of those are states that currently have unemployment levels as much as half the national average.
More research done by economist John Urbanchuk shows that even non-traditional ethanol producing states like California, Texas, Georgia, Colorado, and Tennessee would be hit by job losses due to the expiration of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC). The number of jobs losses ranges from as few as 16 in Louisiana, to nearly 30,000 in Illinois.
Amazingly, the coalition that includes the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Meat Institute, and other groups representing food corporations, oil companies, environmentalists and boat manufacturers is now claiming that corn ethanol is bad for rural communities! That claim is backed up on their new website – FollowTheScience.org (or is it FollowTheMoney?) – by a single study done by AMI and the poultry industry that alleges some 5500 jobs were lost in 2008 when meat processing plants closed because ethanol made the price of feed too high. Yet the Congressional Budget Office report released in April 2009 and a recent report from the UK found that it was mainly higher oil prices that drove prices for both food and feed higher in 2008. That was proven true last year when the amount of corn used for ethanol increased from 2008, but feed and food prices went down.
At a time when America is bleeding jobs, we can’t afford to lose good ones like those created by the ethanol industry. Renewing the VEETC and the tariff will help retain those jobs – increasing the blend rate to 15 percent will help increase them. Ethanol – Real Jobs for Real People!
An old saying states that you can tell the measure of someone by the company they keep. In that regard, the American Meat Institute is keeping some rather curious company these days as it wages war on an imagined enemy, the corn ethanol industry. AMI recently signed onto political letters and advertisements with environmental extremists like Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group that they should avoid at all costs. These three organizations have all attacked animal agriculture with the same level of rhetoric as PETA or the Humane Society.
As the self-proclaimed representative of the “companies that process 95 percent of red meat and 70 percent of turkey in the U.S. and their suppliers throughout America,” AMI really should avoid such curious connections.
I recently asked someone very familiar with the membership of AMI – companies like Tyson’s, Smithfield and Hormel – to help me understand the logic that would persuade AMI to take these actions. He laughed and said, “You have to realize, these are companies whose business is ‘blood on the floor,’ and all that they can see is short-term.”
Fortunately, most of the rest of agriculture is trying to take a long-term view and has realized that it is high time to put petty differences aside and agree to disagree on certain issues – like ethanol policy, with the realization that we all have much greater battles to fight with those outside of agriculture who are threatening to undermine the very fabric and structure that has made us the most successful and productive sector in the U.S. economy.
Among the challenges common to row-crop and animal agriculture are the following:
The Humane Society of the United States, whose goal is to completely change the structure of animal agriculture in the United States. If successful, it would result in a significant increase in the cost of meat produced here, drive much of our meat production out of the U.S. and undermine much of the demand base for row crop agriculture. AMI should be solidly opposed to HSUS and be an active part of the groups that are working to oppose HSUS. Instead, they are embracing Friends of the Earth, a solid ally of HSUS and a cohort in HSUS efforts.
Indirect land use change. AMI signed on to letters supporting the application of this mythological impact of biofuels. In EPA and California Air Resource Board modeling, that single theory changed domestic ethanol and biodiesel from being advanced biofuels to being worse in greenhouse gas measures than gasoline. If that sticks, where will that put the carbon footprint of the domestic livestock industry – the single-largest user of U.S. corn and soybeans?
Commodity prices. Seemingly the reason AMI has formed its unholy coalition is to make more corn and soybeans available and at a cheaper price, for the livestock industry and eliminate the competition for such by the ethanol industry. Yet AMI’s “allies” in this fight roundly condemn corn and soybean production as environmentally unfriendly. An NRDC representative, in recent Congressional testimony, suggested that we grow “too much” corn in the United States and we ought to be growing less. NRDC also has promoted eating “grass-fed” over “corn-fed” beef.
House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson. Regardless of political affiliation, few of us in agriculture can help but be grateful for congressional leadership like that of Rep. Peterson. Apparently AMI is one of those few. Their friend and ally, Friends of Earth, last month named Chairman Peterson their 2010 “Biofool of the Year.”
AMI’s high-profile, expensive media and ad campaign is nothing but classic short-term thinking and “blood on the floor” mentality. What is to gain in the short-run by embracing the very people who are out to put you out of business? Their recent ad spawned an editorial in the Washington Times this week titled “Stop Big Corn.” Just as emotional labels like “factory farming” and “corporate farms” are unfortunate, inaccurate and misleading, with more than nine out of 10 farms being family-run, so are labels like “Big Corn.”
The American Meat Institute is doing itself and its industry and all of agriculture a major disservice by engaging in these scorched-earth tactics and being a part of this unholy alliance. It’s time for some long-term thinking and for all of us in agriculture to work together and not split ourselves apart. There are plenty of folks doing a pretty good job of that – they don’t need any help from AMI.
Representatives from the American Meat Institute (AMI), Environmental Working Group (EWG), Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Taxpayers for Common Sense used the 
The 