Ethanol Mandate's Effect On The Beef Industry

The Energy Independence Act, signed into law in December 2007, included the RFS mandate. RFS or Renewable Fuel Standard also known as the Ethanol Mandate has had an effect on the agricultural community. The Beef Industry in particular is one section of agriculture that has been greatly affected. Beginning in 2007, a major setback the beef industry faced was increased feed costs. Although progress has been made in the last 10 years and effective ways to use the byproducts of ethanol have been found, there are still many factors of ethanol production that plague the beef industry. Hi, I am Kyler Bowerman representing the Artesia FFA Chapter. The beef industry is one aspect of agriculture I can connect to. Growing up around beef cattle I understand

Ethanol is a type of biofuel produced from organic matter such as corn, sugarcane, wheat, sorghum, and other grains. The exact feeds that are used to help finish cattle and bring beef from the pasture to your plates. Ethanol is then placed in gasoline as an additive, equaling about a 10 percent Ethanol to 90 percent gasoline ratio. Ethanol not only burns cleaner than gasoline, but also supports the energy Independence Act since we do not have to rely on other countries to supply the corn. The connection between Ethanol production and beef began here in 2007. When the EPA signed into law the Energy Independence Act that included renewable fuels and the ethanol mandate. So where do the issues lie? To begin the immediate effect of the Ethanol mandate was an increase in corn prices. As ethanol plants increased to meet government regulations, corn prices quickly and drastically rose. The livestock industry saw an immediate impact which negatively affected their operations, cow/calf operations were ones impacted the greatest (Gottschalk, 2007). With a $2.35 increase per bushel of corn it became hard to continue to market their cattle and make a profit (Gottschalk, 2007). With feed costs linked to the willingness of what the consumer will pay for a finished product, higher priced feed was lowering the market value of feeder

Distillers Grains have proven to be an effective and efficient supplement. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln reports for feeder cattle expected to gain 500 pounds while at a feedlot the expected saving can reach about 50 dollars per head depending on the percent of Distillers grain (Gottschalk, 2007). However, the issue lies in transportation and storage of the product. Distillers grain contains moisture, therefore spoiling and nutritional value can be affected especially in the summer months. The shelf life of Distillers Grain is fairly short preventing long storage of the feed. Removing moisture from the feed is an option but adds to the cost and introduces the risk of decreased nutritional value.
Larger scale operations benefit from Distillers Grain as ethanol plants must remove the large amount of byproduct as soon as possible to make room for the next batch. This limits the consumer to only those who can feed large loads quickly as storage is not an option. Again, another limiting factor in who can and cannot use the byproduct. In reality, only those within a 60-100-mile radius of an ethanol plant and have the capacity to feed in large volumes can benefit from the byproducts