Monday, January 22, 2007


Should we be concerned that demand for corn for ethanol will lead to increased prices of corn based food products for consumers?

I'm more concerned with the corn used for animal feed vs. human consumption (as in Corn Chips). Corn raised for direct human consumption is a very small part of the total market for corn. It's production and cost functions are quite different from other types of corn. The different types of corn are not likely close substitutes in production. (even soybeans and corn for feed are likely better substitutes) I'm not sure if most corn producers grow more or less corn for human consumption based on demands for ethanol or livestock feed since it's not the same corn (this is also a strong rebuttal to those who laud the comment 'eat a steak starve an African').

Although I agree if corn for ethanol and animal feed becomes profitable enough, some producers may retool and switch to producing commodity grade corn, causing increased price pressures in the food markets as indicated in the previous post.
But for now I think we'll see greater ramifications from the livestock markets and meat prices. We'll see more corn acres grown at the expense of soybeans, driving up their prices as well.

From the livestock producer's perspective, a good policy question would be, why should government be legislatively creating demand for ethanol and creating a boom market for one industry segment, while increasing the costs (in corn and feed prices) in another. Of course there is debate and on going research being done related to how this is actually going to affect livestock producers.

Friday, January 19, 2007


Marketing Myth: Overzealous use of antibiotics in beef production is contributing to resistance to antibiotics essential to human health.

This line of thinking is leading many to advocate possibly ‘outlawing’ the use of feed grade antibiotics. Demonstrable rates of gain can be made by adding low levels of antibiotics to feed rations. These antibiotics are not the same drugs used to fight infection in humans.

Most antibiotics used in the livestock industry are used for treating, controlling, and preventing disease. Only 13% are used to improve nutritional efficiency and enhance growth. Despite fears related to antibiotic use in livestock and resistance in humans, no scientific link has been found.

In fact the health consequences of reducing antibiotic use in animals could have far more serious implications. This may sound counter intuitive to what’s reported in the media. However, in Denmark where some feed grade antibiotics have been banned, an increased reliance on therapeutic usage (30%) has resulted because of the increase in animal sickness. The same thing happened in Sweden as well. Let it be known that this increase represents increased of drugs that happen to be vital for human health.

Even after reviewing the science behind feed grade antibiotics, if consumers still want ‘antibiotic free’ beef, there is certainly a market for it. However, politicians and activists should not make political ‘hay’ from these interests by promoting feeding regulations that endanger the health of consumers as a whole.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007


If you read my previous entry you might say OK, so what about the environment? What good does it do to provide consumers with healthy food if it leads to an unhealthy environment?

Well the same trend in technological advancement that is leading to healthier pork products are also leading to cleaner, ‘greener’ production practices. Simply, improved nutrition and swine genetics means better nutrient utilization and basically less ‘potent’ excrement. With more nutrients being absorbed and utilized by the livestock we have fewer making it into streams and water sources. This results in less pollution

Examples include corn with altered amino acid profiles, energy content, and available phosphorus levels. NutriDense corn developed by ExSeed Genetics is a prime example. Other companies such as Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred are also developing similar products. Rations have even been developed to help manage odor control.

The bottom line is that better nutrition and genetics that leads to improved feed efficiency and rate of gain means less impact on the environment per pound of food produced. The truth is that laws mandating healthier food choices did not bring about these advancements. They were brought about by consumer demands and the profit incentives associated with meeting those demands.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007


McDonalds has been in the news lately for its unhealthy menu. People like to blame unrestrained capitalism for the poor choices people make in their diet and the widespread availability of unhealthy food. However, we must recognize that there are many positive, healthy, and environmentally friendly trends that are also consumer and profit driven.

In order to compete with the poultry industry, and its perceived leaner and healthier food products, the pork industry has been campaigning for over a decade to respond to consumer demands for healthier food choices i.e. the campaign slogan ‘Pork: the other white meat.’ Due to advances in feed technology, management, and swine genetics, the pork industry has been able to improve their products to meet these demands. It is now possible to choose pork over chicken and not have to compromise on fat intake. Pork loin now has less fat than an equal serving of chicken breast.