The May 19 issue of Farm World carries an op-ed article (Ohio Corn Growers: Ethanol not to blame for meat prices; page 4) from the executive director of the Ohio Corn Growers Assoc.

He charges that the American Meat Institute (AMI) is using “irresponsible tactics” in stating that corn ethanol has increased livestock production costs. He invites livestock farmers to participate in the discussion.

Well, here goes.

The AMI is on target.

Our ethanol policy has indeed dramatically increased production costs of meat, poultry, egg and dairy products and has threatened the financial stability of the total industry.

Ethanol is mandated, subsidized, tax abated, and tariff protected. Not many products can make that claim. When we buy corn to feed our hogs, we are competing against tax-supported ethanol plants.
On this farm for more than 60 years, we have produced hogs in what today would be described as a fair-sized livestock operation.
Hogs have paid the mortgage, educated the kids and provided for retirement. Some years were better than others, but hogs have been a very reasonable source of return to labor and capital.

Recently all that has changed. The substantial increase in cost of production due to ethanol has drained any profit. More than a few producers have closed their doors. Some have gone bankrupt.
As a result fewer hogs are coming to town. Additional costs are finding their way to the marketplace. That has meant much higher prices for hogs and higher prices of meat for the consumer.
We think there should be a future for ethanol. We feel strongly that it is time for ethanol to compete in the marketplace and not be mandated, subsidized, tax abated, nor protected by tariff. In agriculture, we believe in free trade.

If we continue with our present policy, we will jeopardize the entire livestock, poultry and dairy industry in this country. We cannot afford that.

Wayne Townsend
Farmer
Hartford City, Ind.

‘Superweeds’ that are resistant to glyphosate were predictable

Already overburdened American farmers now have a new challenge: the development of weeds resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup.

Twenty years ago, Monsanto promised that its genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops and glyphosate would usher in a new era of less toxic, labor-saving weed control. But now farmers in many parts of the country are reporting resistant weeds that require additional time, money and labor to control. And many are reluctantly returning to older, more toxic herbicides.

In 1990, I co-authored Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest, a report warning that resistant weeds were certain to emerge if farmers widely adopted Roundup Ready crops, which is exactly what has happened. As an alternative, our report advocated modern sustainable agriculture.

This involves rotating a diverse set of crops to discourage weeds and other pests, planting cover crops to control weeds, and tilling the soil judiciously to reduce the need for chemicals and prevent erosion.

Two decades later, with superweeds a growing problem, research and policy incentives to help farmers implement such solutions are needed more than ever.

Jane Rissler
Deputy Director and Senior Scientist
Food and Environment Program
Union of Concerned Scientists