Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Does ethanol production hurt livestock farmers? The latest report seems to think so...

The latest report by the George Morris Centre released yesterday states that ethanol production has hurt livestock farmers by boosting the feed grains prices. The price increasesare  reported to be higher in Ontario than Western Canada.

 

Do you agree with this? Is ethanol production the biggest factor driving up feed grain prices?

 

The George Morris Centre sent out this:

 

MEDIA RELEASE

 
Canadian Ethanol Policy Impacting Canada’s Livestock and Meat Industries
 

Guelph, ON (January 31, 2012) Canadian ethanol policy has directly impacted Canadian grain markets and users of grain, such as the Canadian livestock and meat industry.  According to a study released today by the George Morris Centre, while there are many factors that influence grain and livestock prices, Canadian ethanol policies also have a direct and important negative influence on the Canadian livestock industry.

 

Canadian federal and provincial governments have developed policies for biofuels as part of a green fuels strategy to reduce petroleum fuel consumption and associated emissions.  The Canadian ethanol industry has been created and supported by federal and provincial subsidies, grants and mandated usage of the product in gasoline.  As a consequence, it creates a subsidized competitor for Canadian feed grains that form the basis of Canada ’s export-based livestock and meat industry. 

 

The study found the following:

§         Canadian ethanol production increases the price of feed grains in eastern and western Canada by about $15-20/tonne and $5-10/tonne respectively.

§         Canadian ethanol production resulted in reduction in livestock feeding margins and or increased losses for Canadian producers amounting to about $130 million per year.

§         Expanded use of ethanol to a 10% mandate will result in a serious reduction in feed availability in eastern Canada .  This will result in a dramatic reduction of cattle and hog feeding in eastern Canada .

 

The bottom line is that federal and provincial ethanol policy has resulted in reduced incentives for livestock production in Canada .  Expansion of the ethanol industry in Canada will amplify the negative consequences. As biofuel policy evolves it is important that governments and industry understand these implications on livestock and meat development.  Government has demonstrated that in a short time, it can create a large ethanol industry.  The same cannot be said for the livestock and meat industry.  Governments must realize that the red meat industry developed over a long period of time; if it were to drastically decline, it would take a very long time to return.

 

The complete GMC report, “Impact of Canadian Ethanol Policy on Canada ’s Livestock and Meat Industry 2012” is available on the homepage of the George Morris Centre website at: www.georgemorris.org
 

The George Morris Centre is a national, independent, economic research institute that focusses on the agriculture and food industry. The Centre’s areas of research include:  trade, regulation, cost of production, food safety, market analysis, agricultural research, environment, competitiveness and corporate strategy.

 

 

 

Views: 397

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Grain Farmers of Ontario:  Stop the Ethanol MisInformation.

 

GUELPH, ON– Once again the George Morris Centre pits farmers against one another in a report falsely accusing the ethanol industry of causing harm to livestock farmers. Since one third of the corn used for ethanol becomes livestock feed through an ethanol byproduct called distillers grains, the effect of the ethanol industry in Ontario on our feed supply is negligible. In fact the George Morris Centre report actually shows that livestock production has been maintained in recent years and livestock prices have been at or near record high levels despite the growth of the ethanol industry.

“There are so many examples of erroneous information in this report that I am disappointed Canadian livestock producers would choose to point a finger at the ethanol industry as the culprit for lost revenue,” says Don Kenny, Chair of Grain Farmers of Ontario.  “Many of my neighbors with livestock are also enjoying high grain prices so we are talking about the same farmers here.”

Instead of pointing fingers and placing blame, Grain Farmers of Ontario offers to work cooperatively with the livestock industry in pursuit of solutions that will raise the value of the whole agricultural industry.  Grain farmers are pleased with the recent gains in the livestock industry because the grain industry depends on a healthy livestock sector.

Corn yields in Ontario are growing at a rapid rate and without the ethanol industry to take the corn, there would be a significant glut in the market with a detrimental impact on corn farmer income.  In fact, the increase in corn production since 2000 is almost equivalent to the increased amount of corn going for ethanol production.

The George Morris Centre study states that there is unfair competition between livestock and ethanol grain buyers due to government subsidization and tariffs.  Grain farmers in Ontario are not protected from an influx of American corn by a tariff.  In addition, subsidies are not unique to the ethanol industry. 

“The benefit of ethanol should be looked at from the big picture in Canada, not through the single lens of livestock production.  Let’s not forget that the 5% ethanol mandate is reducing greenhouse gas emissions by over 2 million tonnes each year,” says Kenny. “That is equivalent to taking 440,000 cars off the road.”  

Ethanol production from grain has meant a 62 percent reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions on a per-litre, per-calorie-of-combustible-energy basis. This Canadian-made fuel contains 1.6 times the energy content that is required to grow the grain.


Source: GFO

Not surprisingly, that is exactly the kind of spin one would expect coming from the GFO. The heavily subsidized ethanol industry has done immense harm to the cowherd of Canada at a time when it was already reeling from the blow dealt to it by the government's bungling of the BSE fiasco. Oh yeah, the cattle industry really owes the government a debt of gratitude, doesn't it!

A cow/calf producer can quite easily calculate precisely how much each 50 cents per bushel increase of corn price takes from the value of a stocker calf. Simple math tells the tale. The feeder/finisher sector can maintain their margins by downloading the increased corn cost onto the cow/calf producers, who in turn have nowhere to download their losses.

Ethanol production certainly is a legitimate industry on its own - but that's the problem - it hasn't developed on its own, rather, being just another artificially contrived industry that has been a spin-off from a faulty ideology that is not supportable by sound science. However, the GFO is not the first entity, nor will it be the last, that lasciviously sacrifices principle for profits.

If the GFO wants to "...work cooperatively with the livestock industry in pursuit of solutions that will raise the value of the whole agricultural industry.", perhaps they could work some magic and persuade the packing industry to be a bit more generous in their bids for cattle - now that would be something real and deserving of appreciation!

But until then, don't pi$$ on us and tell us that it's raining.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

2025-2026 Year in Review Showcases Impacts of Beef Producer Investments

What have your investments in the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off accomplished for the industry lately? The Beef Cattle Research Council’s 2025–2026 Year in Review highlights how producer investments and input are advancing research, addressing industry priorities and delivering practical value back to Canada’s beef producers. “The BCRC continues to enhance coordination across the broader beef system, bringing researchers and industry groups together so we can make the best use of limited resources and move solutions and benefits to producers more quickly,” said BCRC Executive Director Tracy Herbert. “The BCRC’s collaborative approach is essential as we address complex challenges and position the Canadian beef industry for long-term success.”   The 2025-2026 BCRC Year in Review provides a broad funding overview by program area and source. In the past fiscal year, the BCRC received on average $0.66 (unaudited) of every $2.50 of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off collected by provincial

Pre-harvest products and how to use them

Canola growers have three primary reasons for a pre-harvest spray application: Weed control ???????Desiccation Manage uneven crop ??????????????Use scenarios for pre-harvest spray Weed control Pre-harvest can be a good time to manage weeds, especially when straight combining. The act of swathing and curing can also provide weed control. Effective control is challenging on big weeds: apply product at the recommended rate with high water volumes to penetrate the crop canopy and achieve thorough coverage. Note: Set reasonable expectations on preventing seed set. Charles Geddes, weed management scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Lethbridge, Alberta, says: “There is no easy way to tell if weeds will have mature seed, but in my experience, it happens earlier than one might think. I suggest that the latest a weed should be left is until it is flowering. Once it starts to flower, then some of the seed can mature on the plant after it is terminated. From a weed management p

Pre-harvest glyphosate staging tips help produce market-ready crops

As harvest approaches, Keep it Clean is reminding Canadian canola, cereal and pulse growers to follow proper staging practices for pre-harvest glyphosate application to help protect crop marketability and preserve access to domestic and export markets. Applying pre-harvest glyphosate for weed control too early can result in unacceptable product residues in harvested grain. Keep it Clean’s Pre-Harvest Glyphosate Staging Guide provides visual examples to help growers identify when grain moisture content in canola, cereals and pulses is less than 30 per cent – the only stage at which pre-harvest glyphosate may be applied. Where allowed, glyphosate is registered for pre-harvest weed control and is not to be used as a desiccant. Pre-harvest glyphosate may only be applied when grain moisture content is less than 30 per cent in the least mature part of the field, including any areas of regrowth that may produce seed. “Glyphosate is an important tool in the grower’s toolbox for crop manage

Safeguarding Cereals Against Allergens

Maintaining a reputation for clean, safe grain is essential for both domestic and international markets. Shipments contaminated with allergenic grains can lead to costly rejections, recalls and long-term damage to market confidence. Unintentional mingling of allergenic grains with cereals is a concern for export markets and must be actively managed.  Certain crop types can be allergen sources in our export markets. When these crops are unintentionally mixed with cereals, they can pose serious food safety and market access risks.   Common allergen sources in grain exports include:  Mustard   Soy   Buckwheat   Buckwheat is considered highly allergenic, and even very small amounts mixed into wheat, barley or oats can cause severe reactions in some markets. Because of these risks, many export markets apply strict limits for allergenic material in cereal shipments.  How allergens can contaminate grain  Allergen contamination most often occurs through shared equipment and handling system

Canada Launches First Private Forest Owner Survey in Over 20 Years, Farmers Invited to Participate

Canadian farmers who own woodlots or private forests are being asked to participate in the first national survey of private forest owners in more than 20 years.

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service