A great discussion at the 6th Annual Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit featured corn and cattle organizations on the same panel talking about the “Synergies of Livestock and Ethanol.”

Moderator Iowa Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey opened the discussion by noting that sales of crops and livestock have risen as ethanol production has increased from $12 billion in 2002 – 6 billion in crop and 6 billion in livestock – to $24 billion in 2010, and 2011 is expected to be about $30 billion with at least $13 billion of that for livestock. “$13 billion on the livestock side versus $6 billion nine years ago,” Northey said. “Has ethanol been good for livestock agriculture in Iowa? I think very clearly.”

Listen to a brief interview with Secretary Northey here: Iowa Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey

The livestock industry has traditionally been the most important market for corn, noted Iowa Corn Growers CEO Craig Floss, although use for ethanol has increased significantly in the past decade. “But a third of every one of those bushels that goes into an ethanol plant goes into DDGS,” he said, noting that Iowa corn farmers will continue to meet the growing demand for all markets – feed, fuel, food and exports.

Listen to Craig’s part of the panel discussion here: Craig Floss on IRFA panel

Iowa Cattlemen’s Association Executive Director Matt Deppe says it’s easy to see the benefits that distillers grains (DDGS) have brought to especially cattle feeders. “We look at it as a corn replacement,” Deppe says about DDGS. “It means that they (feedlot operators) have another option that’s cost effective to put into their rations.”

Listen to an interview with Matt Deppe here: Matt Deppe Interview

Photos from 2012 Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit

The major finding of the report is that a metric ton of DDGS can replace an average of 1.22 metric tons of corn and soybean meal feed. “We found that, on average, for the past 5 crop years (2006/07-2010/11), 1 mt of distillers’ grains substitutes for about 1.22 mt of corn and soybean meal combined in the United States,” concludes the Economic Research Service (ERS) report. That means that almost a full 40 percent of the corn used for ethanol goes directly back into the feed supply.

As of 2010/11, DDGS replaced soybean meal as the number two feedstuff fed, and is second only to corn. An increasing amount of soybean meal is being replaced over corn in livestock rations. The report also found that as DDGS market share for beef cattle have declined, market shares for dairy cattle, swine, and poultry have increased. Beef cattle’s DDGS substitution rate for corn is remains higher than any other type of livestock/poultry but is the lowest for soybean meal.

“This report reiterates what we have been saying for years: ethanol produces both fuel and food, in the form of high protein animal feed known as distillers grains,” said Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis, noting that distillers grains cost livestock producers about 25 percent less. “This valuable feed displaces a greater volume of field corn and soybeans, is less expensive to the producer and is much more nutritious for the animal.”

Geoff Cooper, Renewable Fuels Association Vice President of Research & Analysis, believes the report has important implications regarding ethanol’s impact on feed grains availability, feed prices, land use effects, and the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of producing corn ethanol.

“USDA’s new analysis clearly shows the importance of accurate DDGS accounting,” Cooper said. “The Environmental Protection Agency and CARB should immediately adopt these new findings into their GHG modeling for the RFS2 and LCFS. The resulting decrease in ethanol’s lifecycle GHG emissions could be significant.”

Earlier this year, RFA compared the production of DDGS to only the amount of corn used for feed. With estimated production of 39 million metric tons of distillers grains for feed in the current marketing year, that is the “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.” Accounting for soybean meal substitution, that makes even more!

What we call DDGS in general can also include a number of other individual ethanol co-product. There’s a whole alphabet soup of them – DDG, DWG, DDGS, DWGS, CDS, corn gluten feed (CGF), wet corn gluten feed (WCGF), and corn gluten meal (CGM). The report suggests that future industry surveys could be more precise if they estimated the effects of all the different ethanol coproducts on the U.S. feed complex.

This report includes some of the most specific and well-researched data on distillers grains production, consumption and the ratios by which it is being used in the different livestock and poultry markets. Read it here.

In the case of U.S. Department of Agriculture figures on corn usage, government categories are obscuring reality and, in doing so, fueling food-versus-fuel panic based in incomplete information and, sometimes, intentionally obtuse interpretations. Now, the National Corn Growers Association wants to help the public understand what agricultural experts already know- corn used in ethanol production actually creates both feed and fuel.

In a recent interview, NCGA Vice President of Production and Utilization Paul Bertels got at the heart of the issue, and it is all about how USDA compiles the numbers. Noting that ethanol production has increased, he points out that, “basically one-third of what is being processed is coming right back into the livestock ration.”

Notably, this third is not reflected in corn usage data released by the agency. Instead, the total sum is attributed to ethanol with no accounting for the addition of high quality feed products that enter the livestock sector post-production.

“People get a little hysterical about the food vs. fuel,” said NCGA CEO Rick Tolman. “They believe that we are taking corn away from livestock producers.” That’s not the case, however. “The big difference is the pie is growing. Those pieces that have been going for feed and food are still there—they are not any smaller—it’s just that the pie got bigger.”

As in so many cases, the truth calms fears based in a lack of knowledge. Instead of perpetuating the pandemonium, realize that sensationalized stories sell magazines without regard for their impact upon the country. Buying into the mass hysteria only harms both farmers and the industry providing a domestic, renewable, sustainable fuel for the United States. Take a look at the broader picture instead of being blinded by skewed stats.

Probably because they know that “curtailing” policies created to promote domestic, sustainable, renewable energy will fatten the wallets of their benefactors, not the animals they feed.  If these poultry pushers and meat marketers have their way, the production of corn-based ethanol will cease altogether.

Not only would this flood the market with unsustainably cheap corn, it would impact what consumers pay at the pump.  In modern America, almost every citizen relies on motorized transit, be it public or private.  As studies have shown , without ethanol consumers will pay more for every gallon of fuel thus negating grocery aisle savings.

Higher fuel prices impact more than the cost of filling up the family car.  Nearly all goods purchased in the United States are transported to the final point of sale from another destination. Higher fuel prices mean that each of these products will reflect the increase.  By channeling all corn from ethanol production, they would have us trade a more reasonable fuel cost felt throughout the economy for momentary meat savings.  But then again, poultry and meat are trucked to grocery stores too.

The many myths surrounding “magical” grass-fed beef illustrate this point precisely.  Oft touted for its environmental and health benefits, proponents rely on the halo-effect that foodies grant nearly any item produced by a small-scale operation that involves a hefty price tag.  But when you get down to it, statements promoting the sustainability of grass-fed beef are as accurate as if they had been transported through a children’s telephone play chain.

Luckily, real, non-biased experts are setting the record straight.  Hudson Institute Center for Global Food Issues Director of Research and Education Alex Avery’s message is clear – corn-fed beef is a more environmentally-friendly, sustainable choice.

Noting that he “loves the sustainability question, if it’s an honest discussion,” Avery offers concrete data to back up his assertions.  In place of dubious claims involving hip buzzwords, he explains his analysis citing studies that conclude corn production reduces greenhouse gases emissions and land use in beef production. An avid proponent of the practice, he confidently has presented arguments to corn-fed beef ranchers that they should place labels on their packaging to help consumers understand that their product is actually environmentally-friendly and sustainable.

It’s time to stop relying on feel-good messaging created by agenda-driven propagandists disguised as friendly hippies.  Don’t play telephone.  Share real, concrete information by posting a link to this article on your Facebook or Twitter page.

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?

It all starts with knowledge because once the average American understands the business of farming better and has a better handle on how essential this industry of independent entrepreneurs is to us all then the thankfulness comes naturally.

And that’s what the National Corn Growers Association’s Holiday Viral Email campaign is about. The idea is to take one small part of agriculture and connect the dots. In this case the focus is on showing the important role corn and distillers grains from ethanol production to raising all kinds of livestock and related products and converting it to critical protein to keep us healthy and vital.

Attached to this blog is the second email in the series which showcases beef. The first message featured a turkey and went out the week of Thanksgiving. Chicken, pork and dairy are yet to come. You can view them all at the link above.

The idea of a viral email is simple; it starts with one person sending it to 10 people and asking them to send it to their friends, family, and business associates via email, facebook etc… This seemingly simple concept can result in thousands of people getting a positive message about our largest and most important industry.

I would appreciate your help in disseminating this to the widest possible audience. The entire image is clickable and goes to a backgrounder online related to the importance protein.

It’s easy…..just go to What Does Protein Do. At the bottom of the page you will find all of the images. Pick one and cut and paste it into an email along with a message asking your friends to pass it on. Come back each week between now and Christmas and send another one. The turkey is fair game again if you haven’t already sent it and you get bonus points for sending to non-Aggies.

HSUS and its allies insisted all along it is just about the puppies and that agriculture is over-reacting in seeing a threat.

This morning, less than two days after Prop. B won, we see who was right. The groundwork is already being laid for extending HSUS influence in the Show-Me State, in the form of the popular comic strip Mutts – which has not only placed HSUS’s Wayne Pacelle on a pedestal in the past but actively promoted Proposition B before Tuesday’s election.

Didn’t take very long, did it now?

Tweet

Funny thing is that chickens have a pretty strong menu avoidance mechanism. In much of farm country free range chickens are referred to as coyote hors d’oeuvres. Most are smart enough not to wander to far from people and they head for the chicken house before dark because of the aforementioned coyote and or fox. And truth is we can’t feed a hungry world with these old school methods.

In today’s New York Times William Neuman says, “shoppers in the supermarket today can buy chicken free of nearly everything but adjectives… free-range, cage-free, antibiotic-free, raised on vegetarian feed, organic, even air-chilled….coming soon stress free.”

The stress is eliminated by a new process that puts them to sleep with carbon dioxide prior to slaughter. My immediate reaction was to think of about three inappropriate jokes/references but then I read further to see that Temple Grandin, a renowned professor of animal science at Colorado State University and a prominent livestock expert,  helped design the system.

There are other experts who note most of the time people don’t want to think about where their food comes from or how the animal was killed which may in itself be a problem. In fact those opposed to animal agriculture use this as a tool to shackle and inhibit the industry. They show video footage of inhumane examples of animal treatment and slaughter that are not the norm.

The same experts argue to fight back in this image war we should show consumers a real farm, a real high-tech and modern slaughter facility. Research does show that this kind of exposure might make someone stop eating hamburgers or chicken but they get over it in a matter of days. Afterwards they get inoculated to future attempts to shock them by these animal rights groups.

This I do know; with few exceptions livestock from hogs to chickens are cared for well and humanely. Many live in climate controlled environments, they see a doctor/vet more than I do, and humane husbandry is the rule. This too I know; if our trend towards food with lots of adjectives describing it continues you will pay lots more for food.

 I am writing in response to the opinion piece that was published in your Lifestyle section on October 11, 2010. It is sad that you would publish an article by an animal rights activist that paints every farm, ranch and animal facility with one broad brush of inaccuracy and fallacy. The vast majority of farmers and ranchers treat their animals humanely and respectfully. As a rancher and an active animal welfarist, I would like to share the following thoughts.

First, this is a personal issue for family farmers and ranchers like me. We consider our animals a part of our family and often spend more time caring for our animals than we spend with our families. We make sure our animals have the highest quality food, water and veterinary care; health is paramount. We also do our best to protect our animals from disease, competition, injury and predators.

Second, the writer makes it sound as though these practices are typical. Those of us involved in farming and ranching know that is not so. Without healthy, content animals, farmers and ranchers could not stay in business. We understand the importance of animal care in assuring safe and high-quality meat, milk and eggs for our communities. Some of us personally know our consumers, others do not, but we always make it a priority to ensure that the food we are raising is the best cared for and of the highest quality.

Third, farmers and ranchers are as disgusted as anyone by the abuse alleged in this opinion piece. If people are abusing animals, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. One incident of mishandling is one too many. There must be zero tolerance for inhumane animal treatment, period.

There are a lot of dedicated people who specialize in animal care, people like veterinarians, animal scientists and experts on animal well-being. Farmers and ranchers have been actively working with them to create quality-assurance programs that set guidelines for animal handling to eliminate stress, decrease risk of injury (to both animal and human) and ensure the highest quality of animal products for American consumers.

In closing, as a family rancher, I thank you for the opportunity to respond as an individual who depends on ensuring the health and welfare of the livestock I raise to be able to continue to provide a high quality, safe, wholesome and nutritious product.

Farmers and ranchers across the United States are telling their stories through videos, blogging and photos. Consumers can connect with them to see how they care for their animals and raise the safest food possible at http://www.agchat.org. You can contact Jeff here.