NCBA commends efforts to end 30-year-old ethanol subsidies

 Resize text        

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) supports the nation’s commitment to reduce dependence on foreign energy. However, according to Bill Donald, NCBA president and Montana cattleman, it is time for the mature corn-based ethanol industry to compete on a market-based, level playing field with all other end-users of corn. He added that there are multiple proposals in the 112th Congress to end the 45-cent per gallon blending credit for corn-based ethanol.

“American taxpayers have spent more than $30 billion subsidizing corn-based ethanol for more than 30-years.That industry should be able to operate on the open market like the rest of us do,” Donald said. “As a cattle producer, all I’m asking is to compete head-to-head on a level playing field for a bushel of corn.”

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has introduced S. 520, legislation to repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), and has offered the legislation as an amendment to pending legislation in Senate. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Steve Womack (R-Ark.) has introduced similar legislation to repeal the VEETC.

Kristina Butts, NCBA executive director of legislative affairs, said the VEETC has had a negative economic impact on cattle producers by driving up the cost of feed. According to a 2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service report, feed costs for livestock, poultry and dairy reached a record high of $45.2 billion – an increase of more than $7 billion over 2007 costs.

“Cattle producers across the country are already feeling the effects of high corn prices. From December 2007 to February 2010, the cattle feeding sector of the beef industry lost a record $7 billion in equity due to high feed costs and economic factors that have negatively affected beef demand,” Butts said. “Between 2005 and 2008, corn prices quadrupled to more than $8 per bushel and are around $6.60 per bushel today. We are encouraged that members of Congress continue pushing commonsense solutions to end corn-based ethanol subsidies; to level the playing field for all end-users of corn; and to save taxpayers $6 billion each year.”


Sponsored Links


Comments (6) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

darrell    
Iowq  |  April, 02, 2011 at 01:44 PM

I can't believe how two faced the NCBA is on ethanol.They always forget how much the goverment had to subsidies the grain farmer so the livestock people could have cheap feed! What do you think the price of corn would be if it wasn't for ethanol ($2.50??).Wouldn't most livestock producers like to produce corn for that amount in todays economy. By the way wasn't there 125 dollar fat cattle traded and feeder cattle through the roof today and your still complaining about 6.50 corn.Maybe you should give that some thought before you complain about ethanol!!By the way I am a farmer feeder and cowcalf producer from Iowa so know the pluses and minus of crop farming and livestock production.

Norman Harned    
Bowling Green, Ky  |  April, 03, 2011 at 03:26 PM

The free market should determine economic winners and losers. Only in that manner will we determine the most efficient source of energy, or any other commodity. The corn producers and RFA should man up, and agree that the blending mandate, tax credit and tariff on imported ethanol should end.

chuck crutcher    
Ky  |  April, 04, 2011 at 02:18 PM

The subsidy is no longer needed, because they have been able to capture that much and more from the by products of the industry. The livestock industry will not survive at the high input costs of finishing their products. More land is moving into crop production and out of the cattle industry. The consumer has only so much money to spend........

Dennis    
South Dakota  |  April, 04, 2011 at 02:21 PM

Did the NCBA man up and demand that the subsidies for corn end in 2006 when corn was $1.80 and below the cost of production? The NCBA ( National Cry Baby Association ) should quit using the term CATTLEMEN. I am ebarassed to be a cattleman and have them cry like little girls. No offense intended to little girls.

Kenny Fox    
Belvidere SD  |  April, 04, 2011 at 05:54 PM

High priced corn makes high priced cattle. I am a cattle producer and I support subsidizing ethanol for that reason. If you want to stop subsidizing ethanol then we have to stop subsidizing the petrolem industry as well. Ethanol has a twofold benefit for all of us in the production end of the cattle business because it keeps cattle from being overfed and it keeps gasoline and diesel prices from being even higher than they are. I am with you all the way Darrel from Ia.

Dennis Hoyle    
Soouth Dakota  |  April, 04, 2011 at 07:20 PM

Darrel is right, Bill Donald was not calling for the end of subsidies for corn farmers in 2006 when it was $1.80.
NCBA is a bunch of hippocrites that give cattlemen a bad name. I am embarassed that they use the word cattlemen.


Feedback Form
Leads to Insight