I guess that's one indication of bad economics
Who knew that trail mix was cheaper than corn? Not me, at least not until this morning's WSJ article entitled "With Corn Prices Rising, Pigs Switch To Fatty Snacks".
GARLAND, N.C. -- When Alfred Smith's hogs eat trail mix, they usually shun the Brazil nuts.
"Pigs can be picky eaters," Mr. Smith says, scooping a handful of banana chips, yogurt-covered raisins, dried papaya and cashews from one of the 12 one-ton boxes in his shed. Generally, he says, "they like the sweet stuff."
Mr. Smith is just happy his pigs aren't eating him out of house and home. Growing demand for corn-based ethanol, a biofuel that has surged in popularity over the past year, has pushed up the price of corn, Mr. Smith's main feed, to near-record levels.
...
Mr. Smith says he's paying about $63 to feed a single pig for five or six months before it goes to market -- up 13% from last year. His costs would be even higher if he didn't augment his feed with trail mix, which he says helps him save on average about $8 a ton on feed.
(ellipsis mine)
The presumption that corn-based ethanol was somehow going to be a great net-positive for the US economy has always been based on the thinnest of pretense, put forward by the farm lobby in the US. As covered in an earlier post here (regarding Michael Bloomberg's energy plan), corn is just about the stupidest way to make ethanol, perhaps second only to making ethanol out of oil itself, if such a thing is even possible.
And even if it were technically wise to do so, the mad rush to corn-based ethanol, driven by government mandates and subsidies that help nobody but the farm lobby, was always going to affect the supply/demand curve for corn.
Better late than never, there appears to be a sudden realization of the problem, if recent press mentions count for anything:
- LA Times (via Truth About Trade) -
Why ethanol backfires - Food USA -
Expanding US ethanol market provokes food price surge - From the investing world, Seeking Alpha -
Taking Stock in Ethanol: Risks, Challenges and Opportunities - Pork Magazine (really) -
Ethanol Industry Needs to Look Beyond Corn - Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle -
U.S. should buy cane-based ethanol from Brazil - Spero News -
Expert says Brazil could meet world's gas needs
The items above are cherry-picked from among many, many other such recent stories. The last two are of a genre that puts the lie to the entire boondoggle being foisted onto the American consumer, particularly given that cane-based ethanol actually generates far more energy than it takes to produce, unlike corn-based ethanol. Cane-based suffers, however, from the choke-hold the farm lobby continues to wield on the American legislative windpipe.
Much the same as, say, in the waste industry, where at a high enough price for landfill space, people are willing to recycle, prices for oil in the energy market can cause people to willingly overpay for alternatives. But when the costs of the alternatives, direct and indirect, become high enough, as they appear to be doing in the ethanol market, consumers are certain to rethink that entire "energy independence" thing.
Corn based ethanol is "ethanol done wrong". Add to that the fact that it's "ethanol done expensive", and you can just wait for the increased backlash, attempting to drown out the farm lobby. The question, of course, is whether our legislative overlords will be allowed to listen and undo the damage they've done over the past twenty years on this front.
A final tidbit from the WSJ piece:
Dwight Hess, a cattle feedlot operator in Marietta, Pa., is located in the heart of snack country, near Hershey and Herr Foods Inc., a maker of potato chips, pretzels and snack mixes. His cattle ration consists of about 17% "candy meal," a blend of chocolate bars and large chunks of chocolate; 3% of what he calls "party mix," a blend of popcorn, pretzels, potato chips and cheese curls; 8% corn gluten; and the remainder corn and barley he grows. He says the byproducts save him about 10% on feed costs. Still, it costs him about 65 cents to put a pound on a steer, up from 42 cents last year.Near the Snake River in Idaho, Cevin Jones of Intermountain Beef is struggling to feed his 12,000 cattle in light of higher feed costs. Traditionally, he has used up to 30% corn or other grains in his feed mix. This year he's using 100% byproducts, including french fries, Tater Tots and potato peels.
"It's kind of funny," Mr. Jones says, "every once in a while, you can spot a couple of cattle fighting over a whole potato."
I suppose that soon, my family too will be able to eat junk food more cheaply than grains. I'm not looking forward to that, and I have something like 2% of the US population (plus 80% of the legislature) to thank for the sad fact.
See also - "Corn Too Expensive? Turn Pigs into Ethanol"
Also posted at issuesblog.com
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]


I think it would be really
I think it would be really funny to watch two cows fighting over a potato. That guy could probably make a real hit on youtube.
Perhaps when politicians say
Perhaps when politicians say that ethanol is a "solution," they mean it is a homogeneous, molecular mixture of two or more substances - then they would be correct.
If the politicians think it is the "solution" to their fund-raising problems by gaining them huge campaign donations from ADM and other agro corporations and farm organizations– again, they are correct.
If, however, they actually believe that ethanol is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, they are sadly mistaken. I have seen studies that assert that it requires more energy to produce and deliver a gallon of ethanol than the energy content of that gallon.
For certain types of ethanol,
For certain types of ethanol, your statement is correct. Corn-based ethanol, for instance, borders on, and sometimes crosses the line into, being a waste of energy. Sugar-based? Not a waste of energy at all.
If you're curious for further details, have a look at the">http://issuesblog.com/2007/05/12/non-campaigning/#ethanol]the links at this link
I'm not sure if people would
I'm not sure if people would support sugar-based ethanol if they knew it was coming from plantations cut from the Amazon rain-forest. I'm still not convinced it makes real economic sense as a fuel instead of simply allowing more drilling for petroleum.
A real alternative would be building more nuclear power plants and pushing families and business towards purchasing electric cars for commuting.
Bram,
Bram,
...electric, and fueled by a tiny chip of a nuclear reactor.
The Atomic Car of the Future- Today!
I'm holding out for a Mr.
I'm holding out for a Mr. Fusion powered Tesla roadster, myself.
But as far as alternative fuels for internal combustion powered vehicles - I think we're pursuing the wrong track here. Corn meth is wasteful in both economic and ecological terms and only benefits vast agrobusinesses like ADM while hurting the honest, hard working yeoman farmer. Cane meth is wasteful in ecological terms, and benefits people like Brazil and Greenpeace. Oil has the advantage of coming from under the ground, not from on top of it. Yet - there is another way.
Methanol burns. But so does alcohol. And like the military has tried to consolidate on one fuel type, we as consumers could do the same. We could drink, drive, and barbecue on the same stuff. Everclear is clearly the way to go.