12-07-2008, 06:34 PM
DevoBill wrote:
[quote=JoeH]
[quote=DevoBill]
That fraction is half.
You got a source for that? Or is it made up on the spot like most internet statistics?
Even at half, that removes a lot of feed from the market to feed cattle and other livestock.
What kind of link? A price list of feed?
It's a myth, because only half the resource by weight is used for the production of ethanol. The co-product or residue feed is one quarter the cost of feed corn or in some cases less. But for instance Dakota Bran Cake contains one hundred per cent of the energy value for one quarter the cost of corn. Dakota Bran Cake is one of the hundreds of by-product feeds that have better nutrition than feeding corn. The feeds that are dried down do add more cost to them but it's still such a better value than feeding corn. By using co-products the low quality varieties (high starch) can have their fat and protein levels increased by fermenting off half the starch. There by increasing the value of the feed. This is not rocket science, but it seems to never be reported correctly when you see ethanol blamed for the rising cost of food. I'm not in total support of ethanol because of the huge use of water during production. but that is something else.
No, how about a figure that supports your supposition that half the corn used did end up back in the feed chain as feed cake or whatever. That does not match up with other reports that the amount that actually made it into feed supplements was closer to a quarter, perhaps even lower. Mostly because drying, post processing and transportation was more expensive than what they would get for it because the huge increase in its supply as a waste product from fermentation depressed the market price. In any case, a major fraction of the corn crop went to ethanol production. It raised the price of corn due to the demand, also reduced crop acreage of other feed crops when more corn was planted instead, raising their prices too. There were farmers and feed lot operations who could not get as much feed as they normally could, so they raised fewer animals also raising prices. Also reduced the amount of corn available for HFCS production. Like I said, it was not the only cause but a contributor; its effect fans out through the agricultural markets adding a few cents here and there to prices.