

Industry associations lost their last appeal








Source: Detroit News

Comments     Threshold


By Dr of crap on 3/28/2013 12:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
Um, sorry but the corn used to make ethanol is feed grade corn and is not used for food. We eat the sweet corn, not feed corn. So yes after the consumption of corn for ethanol is reduced the sweet corn planted could go up, but the corn used for ethanol can't be used to feed anyone. And if you think I'm way off, try some feed grade corn. It tastes very bad. I couldn't eat it!

By superflex on 3/28/2013 1:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think beef prices have shot through the roof. Feed corn not being used for feed drives up costs.

By HammerStrike on 3/28/2013 4:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but "sweat" corn is a very small subset of the overall corn crop and is only applicable to actual corn (or corn kernels) that humans consume whole - corn on the cob, or frozen corn from the from the freezer isle.

Vast majority of corn is regular "feed" corn that is either used to feed livestock or converted into food products that go into processed goods - mainly corn starch and high fructose corn syrup.

Diversion of of any corn, regular or "sweat", from the food chain to alternative uses increases the demand for corn, which increases corn prices. According to the US Dept of Agriculture, the market price per bushel of corn has gone from $2 in 2005/6 to about $7 today. Corn is one of the major food crops, and an increase in it's price affects anything that uses corn, which is a majority of the entire food supply.

Even if all the corn used for ethanol had no food value, we would still be diverting arable land that could be used to grow other food stocks, which would shrink the supply of those crops and, by definition, increase the price. Not to mention the environmental impact from all the peticide/herbicides/fungicides, fertilizers, etc we use to produce a substandard, inefficient and unwanted form of energy.

By JediJeb on 3/28/2013 8:17:28 PM , Rating: 2

What most people never take into consideration is the farmers. Yes there has been a large increase in corn prices in the past decade, but what most never post is that in 1970 the average price per bushel of corn was in the $1-2 range. For 35 years the price of corn never rose, yet the cost of fuel farmers use along with everything else rose quite a bit ($0.50/gallon for diesel versus $3.00). In 1970 a farmer with a few hundred acres could easily support a family of four in an above poverty manner. Now even when a farmer has over a thousand acres the cost of living usually means either he or his wife must work off the farm to supplement their income just to break even and keep their family above the poverty line.

If we revert the price of corn back down to $2 per bushel, either farmers will switch to growing something more profitable or go bankrupt and quit farming. Where will we be if farmers begin to stop farming and work other jobs? I don't see anybody going into farming now days who were not raised on a farm to begin with. If we try to hold food prices low and not allow things like corn to increase in price, should we also force farmers to keep producing while earning less and less just so the non-farm population can continue to have their cheap food? To me that would be turning farmers into state sponsored servants of the people. If that is allowed, why don't we also force auto workers to work for less money just so we can have cheaper cars, or computer programmers to work for less money so we can have cheaper computer software?

Sorry I didn't mean to get so off topic, but I get fired up when people go on about how our food supply is going to fall apart if we don't force all farm ground to be used to produce edible food or that we force farmers to help keep prices down for other people while having to give up their right to actually be profitable and strive to be more than just poor farmers.


Related Articles
