tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post3211274267542000580..comments2024-02-03T07:12:06.620-05:00Comments on U.S. Food Policy: Livestock and ethanol subsidiesusfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-20980429512194832442010-05-05T01:36:41.572-04:002010-05-05T01:36:41.572-04:00But the livestock producers are not "seeking ...But the livestock producers are <i>not</i> "seeking … a return to the days they bought corn under the price of production for the American farmer" -- at least that is not what they have been saying. What they have been calling for is an end to subsidies, and a tariff that protects domestic ethanol producers, that favor one end-use for grain (ethanol) over another (livestock feed). That is hardly the same as seeking to have corn sold below the cost of production.<br /><br />I assume that the RFA is being ironic when they refer to the days when farmers got "more income from the government than they could from the marketplace" -- as if the derived demand for corn (now 1/3 of U.S. production) for ethanol -- which is driven by a government mandate, a blenders' subsidy and an import tariff on ethanol -- resembles anything like an unrigged market.<br /><br />What the RFA should be saying to challenge the livestock producers is: "OK, are you prepared to also call to the end of all crop subsidies that encourage over-production, as well as subsidies for ethanol? Because, if that were to happen, the equilibrium price for corn would likely rise to a level that more closely reflects true production costs, which would be a lot higher than the old $2 per bushel you used to enjoy."Ron Steenblikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17419590389761944796noreply@blogger.com