Minus microphones, ethanol critics still have their say
By Art Hovey, Lee Enterprises | Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, right, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, speaks during a field hearing in Omaha, Neb., Monday, with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb, left. The hearing explored the changing economic landscape for agriculture, including the role of renewable fuels. (AP Photo)
OMAHA -- The pipe organ at the Strauss Performing Arts Center was a suitable backdrop Monday for a mostly melodious message offered about ethanol at a Senate Agriculture Committee field hearing.
You had to go out in the hall to pick up on the sour notes being sounded by Nebraska critics from livestock and poultry ranks.
Michael Kelsey of the Nebraska Cattlemen isn't happy about what an ethanol policy emphasis is doing to the cattle-feeding sector and -- he wasn't happy about being deprived of an opportunity to say so at a three-hour event presided over by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tom Harkin of Iowa.
Bill Bevans of Waverly and the Nebraska Turkey Growers Cooperative would have been a poor choice to try to cheer up Kelsey.
"It's just been totally overdone," Bevans said of ethanol policy, "and the impact on the price of corn is literally destroying our industry and my business."
Given his chance to speak away from the official microphones, Kelsey hammered away at a similar theme.
"We don't believe it's long-term good policy to mandate demand," he said of an ethanol strategy that does exactly that. "We think demand should be consumer generated and not government generated."
Monday's hearing at the University of Nebraska at Omaha campus was called, according to a statement from Nelson, "to get to the heart of the food versus fuel debate," meaning mostly the impact on food prices that goes with diverting corn to fuel needs, and "to present views on all sides of the issue."
Among those lined up on the pro-ethanol side were Jeff Lautt of Poet Energy in Sioux Falls, Jim Jenkins of the Nebraska Ethanol Board and Tim Recker of the Iowa Corn Growers.
"Food or fuel is not a choice we have to make," said Lautt, whose company puts out more than a billion gallons of ethanol per year. "We can and should do both."
Recker and Jenkins delivered equally upbeat remarks that identified energy prices as much more of a villain in high food prices than corn consumed as fuel.
And they pointed to savings of as much as 45 cents a gallon on fuel costs for Midwest consumers because of ethanol's contribution to the fuel supply.
Recker also emphasized the importance of farmers getting their income from the marketplace. "We're a long way from the huge government-owned stockpiles of grain in the mid-1980s," he said.
Jenkins said higher corn prices are a message to him and other beef producers to lessen their dependence on corn and to look more to grass and other roughage for weight gain.
"The fact of the matter is the market is working," he said.
It would be wrong to suggest criticism of ethanol was crowded out of the hearing format.
Dave Moody, president of the Iowa Pork Producers, got his chance to lament the "dramatic and rapid changes in commodity prices" that have turned loose a tide of red ink for those trying to get livestock to market weight.
And William Lapp, a commodities analyst and the main force at Advanced Economic Solutions in Omaha, said 2008 losses for beef, pork and poultry producers could reach $8 billion -- "more than the U.S. airline industry is projected to lose this year."
But in a format that featured two panels as the basis for testimony, the job descriptions of three of the first six panelists fit with a pro-ethanol stance and the second panel was largely devoted to where ethanol goes from here.
Nelson and Harkin, both solidly in the ranks of ethanol's friends in the Senate, were also mostly supportive.
"I'll admit corn-based ethanol is not perfect," Nelson said in prepared remarks, "but it's been blamed for practically every problem under the sun. What's next? Summer colds? Computer viruses? Bad hair days?"
Bruce Babcock, in the first panel and an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, was unable to answer a Harkin question about what percentage of higher food costs might be coming from ethanol.
"No one knows that," he said when sought out during a morning break.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that a 30 percent rise in the corn price will have only a 1 percent effect on food prices, he added.
The bigger impact on food prices might be at the meat counter as beef, pork and poultry producers try to cut their losses by cutting down further on numbers of animals and birds.
"That will start in '09," Babcock said, "the last part of this year into '09."
Reach Art Hovey at 473-7223 or at ahovey@journalstar.
You had to go out in the hall to pick up on the sour notes being sounded by Nebraska critics from livestock and poultry ranks.
Michael Kelsey of the Nebraska Cattlemen isn't happy about what an ethanol policy emphasis is doing to the cattle-feeding sector and -- he wasn't happy about being deprived of an opportunity to say so at a three-hour event presided over by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tom Harkin of Iowa.
Bill Bevans of Waverly and the Nebraska Turkey Growers Cooperative would have been a poor choice to try to cheer up Kelsey.
"It's just been totally overdone," Bevans said of ethanol policy, "and the impact on the price of corn is literally destroying our industry and my business."
Given his chance to speak away from the official microphones, Kelsey hammered away at a similar theme.
"We don't believe it's long-term good policy to mandate demand," he said of an ethanol strategy that does exactly that. "We think demand should be consumer generated and not government generated."
Monday's hearing at the University of Nebraska at Omaha campus was called, according to a statement from Nelson, "to get to the heart of the food versus fuel debate," meaning mostly the impact on food prices that goes with diverting corn to fuel needs, and "to present views on all sides of the issue."
Among those lined up on the pro-ethanol side were Jeff Lautt of Poet Energy in Sioux Falls, Jim Jenkins of the Nebraska Ethanol Board and Tim Recker of the Iowa Corn Growers.
"Food or fuel is not a choice we have to make," said Lautt, whose company puts out more than a billion gallons of ethanol per year. "We can and should do both."
Recker and Jenkins delivered equally upbeat remarks that identified energy prices as much more of a villain in high food prices than corn consumed as fuel.
And they pointed to savings of as much as 45 cents a gallon on fuel costs for Midwest consumers because of ethanol's contribution to the fuel supply.
Recker also emphasized the importance of farmers getting their income from the marketplace. "We're a long way from the huge government-owned stockpiles of grain in the mid-1980s," he said.
Jenkins said higher corn prices are a message to him and other beef producers to lessen their dependence on corn and to look more to grass and other roughage for weight gain.
"The fact of the matter is the market is working," he said.
It would be wrong to suggest criticism of ethanol was crowded out of the hearing format.
Dave Moody, president of the Iowa Pork Producers, got his chance to lament the "dramatic and rapid changes in commodity prices" that have turned loose a tide of red ink for those trying to get livestock to market weight.
And William Lapp, a commodities analyst and the main force at Advanced Economic Solutions in Omaha, said 2008 losses for beef, pork and poultry producers could reach $8 billion -- "more than the U.S. airline industry is projected to lose this year."
But in a format that featured two panels as the basis for testimony, the job descriptions of three of the first six panelists fit with a pro-ethanol stance and the second panel was largely devoted to where ethanol goes from here.
Nelson and Harkin, both solidly in the ranks of ethanol's friends in the Senate, were also mostly supportive.
"I'll admit corn-based ethanol is not perfect," Nelson said in prepared remarks, "but it's been blamed for practically every problem under the sun. What's next? Summer colds? Computer viruses? Bad hair days?"
Bruce Babcock, in the first panel and an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, was unable to answer a Harkin question about what percentage of higher food costs might be coming from ethanol.
"No one knows that," he said when sought out during a morning break.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that a 30 percent rise in the corn price will have only a 1 percent effect on food prices, he added.
The bigger impact on food prices might be at the meat counter as beef, pork and poultry producers try to cut their losses by cutting down further on numbers of animals and birds.
"That will start in '09," Babcock said, "the last part of this year into '09."
Reach Art Hovey at 473-7223 or at ahovey@journalstar.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 2 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
BlueBlood wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:46 PM:
Wren wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:28 PM: