This week I had the opportunity to testify at a public hearing in Kansas City regarding proposed renewable fuel standards. Following is what I had to say on the topic:
I’m a fourth generation family farmer and purebred cow/calf operator from Buckeye, Iowa. I also had the privilege of serving in the Iowa House of Representatives from 2009 to 2013, including two years as Chair of the House Agriculture Committee.
Like many who have spoken before me today, I want to strongly urge EPA to raise its proposed blending targets for both ethanol and biodiesel. For corn ethanol, we have more than an adequate supply to meet the 15 billion gallon volume called for by law in 2017. The same is true for biodiesel, where a 2.5 billion gallon level could easily be achieved in 2018.
Whenever I’m involved in a policy discussion in which livestock and ethanol are mentioned together, it’s inevitable that I get asked about the “food and fuel” topic. And my answers today are the same as they’ve always been:
- First, the RFS isn’t causing higher food prices.
- There is no correlation between expanded ethanol production and retail food prices.
- Only 2 cents of every dollar spent on retail food are related to corn.
The price of corn is currently below the cost of production, and, in fact, lower than it was before the RFS went into effect.
- Second, the RFS is not diverting grain away from feed markets.
- We have more than enough corn available today for both feed and fuel.
- In fact, we also have more than enough corn for food, fiber, industrial uses and exports.
- And, after all those demands have been satisfied, we still have nearly two billion bushels of corn left over. That’s right, two billion bushels of excess supply with no home!
Living and working on a farm in rural Iowa, I have seen the negative impact of that excess supply on the grain markets, the ag economy, and the Iowa economy as a whole. What we need today is more domestic demand for our corn and soybeans. And the RFS, if implemented according to the plain language of the law and the clear intent of Congress, could-and should-be a significant driver for increased domestic demand. Not only would this increased domestic demand help revive the struggling ag economy, it would have significant benefits for the environment, for energy security, for fuel choice and competition at the pump, and for consumers’ wallets.
Speaking of fuel choice and consumer savings, I am pleased to report that by the end of this year, my home county, Hardin County, will have its first ever retail location offering lower cost, cleaner burning E15 and E85, made possible in part by USDA’s Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) program. We need more fuel choice in my county, as well as in my state and throughout the nation, and a strong and growing RFS, combined with programs like BIP, is essential to achieving that goal.
Lastly, I want to reiterate my firm belief, based on years of experience, that successful livestock production and successful renewable fuels production go hand-in-hand. Livestock operations, including mine, have seen significant economic benefits in the form of lower feed costs by utilizing ethanol co-products in feed rations. Similarly, without thriving livestock operations, there would be no market for those ethanol co-products. As the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. If EPA gets the RFS back on track by raising the proposed volumes for ethanol and biodiesel, it will undoubtedly have a positive ripple effect on not only the renewable fuels industry, but on the entire ag economy-including livestock producers like me.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by the author are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions or positions of Pro Farmer.
