Corn Price Decline Less Than 1% With Full RFS Waiver

What is in this article?:

 

A full waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard’s (RFS) conventional biofuel requirement might reduce corn prices by just 0.5% (4¢/bu.) in 2012-2013, according to a new analysis conducted by the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute. The study also found corn ethanol production might slip by just 1.3% with a waiver in 2012-2013, while corn available for livestock feed might increase just 0.6%. Further, the analysis concluded a waiver of the RFS would have no effect on retail beef prices in 2013, and might shave just 1¢/lb. off of retail pork prices. The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) said the new FAPRI study adds to the mounting body of evidence showing that a waiver of the RFS would not meaningfully impact feed prices.

“The new FAPRI study is just the latest in a series of recent reports that show waiving the RFS would not have the types of impacts claimed by the livestock groups and grocery manufacturers,” says RFA President Bob Dinneen. “The suggestion that an RFS waiver would significantly bring down feed prices and reduce retail meat prices is absolutely absurd. The only real impacts of a waiver would be to discourage farmers from planting corn next spring and to interrupt and delay important investments in new feedstocks and advanced biofuels technologies.”

Waiving the RFS requirements during the 2012-2013 corn marketing year (Sep. 1, 2012 to Aug. 31, 2013) would have “limited market impact,” FAPRI wrote, adding that “…overall ethanol use and production are projected to be motivated mostly by crop and fuel market conditions in the current marketing year, not the RFS.”



FAPRI analyzed the impacts of a full waiver of the RFS on corn prices, corn demand, ethanol output, imports and exports and numerous other agriculture and biofuel market factors. The report found a waiver might be expected to reduce corn use for ethanol by just 1.3% in 2012-2013 and reduce corn prices from $7.87/bu. to $7.83 . In the following marketing year (2013-2014), corn use for ethanol might fall 6.6% and corn prices might decrease 3.2%, FAPRI says. However, the 2013-2014 result is based on the questionable assumption that RFS credits (called RINs) would still be generated during the period of a waiver and allowed to roll forward for compliance in 2013-2014. If this assumption is not valid, then a waiver in 2012-2013 would actually lead to a 6¢/bu. increase in corn prices in 2013-2014. FAPRI says these results represent an “extreme case” and pointed out that “more modest reductions seem likely” with a partial waiver.

Contrary to the statements from livestock and poultry groups, a waiver of the RFS would not meaningfully increase the amount of corn available for feed use in 2012-2013. FAPRI’s results show a waiver results in just 25 million more bushels of corn being fed to livestock, a 0.6% increase over the case where there is no waiver. Notably, it was recently confirmed that livestock operations in the southeastern United States have purchased 30 million bushels of corn imports from Brazil – more than the amount of corn that might become “available” to them domestically via a waiver of the RFS. The FAPRI study also found that supplies of important animal feed co-products generated by the biofuels industry, such as distillers’ grains, would fall marginally with a waiver and prices would rise. The report says lower corn prices would lead to slightly lower feed costs for livestock producers “unless offset by slightly higher soybean meal and distillers grain prices.”



The effect of a waiver on retail meat prices is imperceptible, the FAPRI results show. Retail beef prices are projected at $5.30/lb. with  or without a waiver of the RFS. Retail pork prices might be reduced by one penny from $3.59/lb. to $3.58, a 0.04% reduction.

 

Discuss this Article 4

D.DiTullio (not verified)
on Oct 8, 2012

As an advocate of biofuels especially ethanol (E10 in out tanks) I'd prefer RFS stay on track with implementation of E15 rather than going the waiver route. Keeping this nascent industry viable would (I believe) stimulate cellulosic ethanol production and this would over the long term decrease corn ethanol production over cellulosic ethanol production

D.DiTullio (not verified)
on Oct 8, 2012

As an advocate of biofuels especially ethanol (E10 in out tanks) I'd prefer RFS stay on track with implementation of E15 rather than going the waiver route. Keeping this nascent industry viable would (I believe) stimulate cellulosic ethanol production and this would over the long term decrease corn ethanol production over cellulosic ethanol production

Bobby Fontaine (not verified)
on Oct 8, 2012

not true at all, they are looking at supply and demand corn values while ignoring corn futures speculating,, the fact the government has required such an expanded use of corn to make ethanol tells speculators that corn prices can do nothing but go up,, commodities markets are meant to be uncertain and volatile,, they are designed to be used as hedges against losses, not speculating on sure things,, the RFS changes the market by pointing it in a government required upward direction, which has resulted in a great deal of the price of corn being propped up by gamblers rather than actual futures traders who are actually involved in corn production and use, or other commodities markets,, the RFS changes the whole commodity curricula as farmers move to corn to support ethanol production because there’s more money in it,, that means they move away from other crops creating shortages in them and driving up those costs as well,, this makes commodities markets far more transparent than they were designed to be,, if the RFS was dropped, prices would drop like a rock as speculators exit futures markets,, ands this is not rocket science so you really have to question who comes up with these studies,, it seems that when it comes to doing research on anything related to commodity markets, reporting on speculators is off limits,, I just don’t see how the news media can expect anyone to believe they are provided the service they claim when the real stories get filtered this way

bethanyjones
on Jan 18, 2013

Substances like bio-fuels are very important resource that is used by all in routine. So its conservation is must.

chemical
peels

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Corn and Soybean Digest ID
(optional)

Newsletter Signup

Continuing Education Courses
New Course

Accredited for 2 hours/CCA Soil & Water credits. The 2,000 member...

This online CE course details sound mechanical irrigation design and management practices to...
Keeping crop protection chemicals on the crop for which they are intended has been a...
Connect With Us