More on latest Fed swap lines


[Skip to the end]

The Fed is able to unilaterally lend (functionally unsecured) $30 million each to Mexico and Brazil?!?!

There are far more sensible ways to restore prosperity.

Last figures I saw indicate $522 billion in these loans that have been advanced so far.

It’s looking more and more to me like this massive USD lending to foreign CB’s who reloan it to entities with the slimmest of collateral, is both a transfer of real wealth away from the US and a highly inflationary bias.

For the moment it’s halting deflation, but once unleashed there’s no telling where it will go.

Fed Opens Swaps With South Korea, Brazil, Mexico

By Steve Matthews and William Sim

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve agreed to provide $30 billion each to the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore, expanding its effort to unfreeze money markets to emerging nations for the first time.

The Fed set up “liquidity swap facilities with the central banks of these four large systemically important economies” effective until April 30, the central bank said yesterday in a statement. The arrangements aim “to mitigate the spread of difficulties in obtaining U.S. dollar funding.”


[top]

More USD swap lines


[Skip to the end]

The problem is the Fed doesn’t see the risks involved in this program.

They are only seeing ‘success’ as USD interest rates fall for lesser credits around the world.

The question is why they would want USD rates to come down for lower quality borrowers?

This policy does not reduce international USD borrowings.

Instead, it supports and encourages increased USD borrowings with attractive USD rates and terms.

And in unlimited quantities for the ECB, BOE, BOJ, and SNB.

Yes, unlimited USD lending to anyone who can breathe in and out lowers rates.

And as it’s going to several entities that will probably never pay it back, it’s the largest monetary handout/transfer of wealth of all time.

It’s also a policy that, once implemented, historically has become more than problematic to shut down.

US Fed launches four new currency swap lines

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON, Oct 29 (Reuters) – The Federal Reserve on Wednesday extended U.S. dollar liquidity aid beyond traditional markets, opening four new $30 billion currency swap lines with Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore.

The temporary arrangements, authorized through April 30, 2009, are aimed at easing global U.S. dollar funding shortages, the Fed said.

“These facilities, like those already established with other central banks, are designed to help improve liquidity conditions in global financial markets and to mitigate the spread of difficulties in obtaining U.S. dollar funding in fundamentally sound and well-managed economies,” the Fed said in a statement released in Washington.

The decision comes a day after the Fed established a $15 billion swap line with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The U.S. central bank now has 13 swap lines with foreign central banks.


[top]

Re: Russia/OPEC


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

Thanks! it’s all about price setting, as previously suspected.

Warren

>   
>   On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Scott wrote:
>   
>   Moving on, we note that Russia and OPEC held high level talks
>   yesterday in Moscow as President Dmitry Medvedev met with OPEC’s
>   Secretary-General, Abdallah Salem al-Badri. This is, to the best of our
>   knowledge, the first such “summit” meeting between Russia and OPEC.
>   The talks, apparently, were to discuss the volatile oil market, and it
>   appears that Moscow is pushing for wider and more open co-operation
>   with other world energy producers. Neither the Kremlin nor OPEC
>   released details of the meeting, but before the talks between he and
>   Mr. Medvedev began, Mr. al-Badri dispensed with the idea that he’d
>   come to Moscow to ask for an output reduction. Obviously we do not
>   believe that statement, nor should anyone else. It is in OPEC’s best
>   interest to get Russia, Norway, and any other large… or soon to be
>   large, such as Brazil… to curtail production. Further, the ‘summit’
>   followed an agreement between Russia, Qatar and Iran to consult with
>   one another on the natural gas market, to possibly pursue joint
>   projects and perhaps to create their own nat-gas cartel. Mischief is
>   afoot. We can just sense it.
>   


[top]

OPEC to cut output


[Skip to the end]

Saudis still price setters, this is just a smoke screen to disguise that. The great Mike Master’s sell off that also triggered the last leg of the financial crisis must have run it’s course in the crude markets. Price hikes may return, this time with no excess inventory and very weak world economies. If their motives are the destruction of the Great Satans and Putin is with them it’s going to get very, very ugly.

OPEC’s oil supply must be ‘significant’- Khelil

(Reuters)- OPEC oil producers will cut oil supplies when they meet next week in Vienna and “the reduction must be significant,” the group’s president, Chakib Khelil, was quoted as saying on Saturday.

“There will be a reduction of the output and the reduction must be significant to restore the balance between supply and demand,” Algerian state news agency APS quoted Khelil as telling reporters.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries will hold an emergency meeting on Oct. 24 in Vienna to discuss the impact of economic weakness on oil markets.

“If the cut is 1.5 million barrels per day, then it will be 1.5 million barrels. If it is 2.0 million barrels per day, it will be 2.0 million barrels per day,” added Khelil, who is also Algeria’s energy and mining minister.

Saudis will just start raising their posted prices and let their quantity adjust. The fall in demand for their output won’t be all that much as prices rise, suggesting to an unsuspecting world OPEC didn’t cut as much as they proclaimed.

Earlier, Khelil was quoted in Saturday’s edition of Algerian daily El Watan as saying that OPEC saw oil prices bottoming at $70-$90 per barrel.

“Normally, OPEC has no price target. The market decides on prices. But people say that the bottom price, the bottom cost below which we can not step down, is between $70 and $90 per barrel,” El Watan quoted Khelil as telling reporters.

What they are really saying is the Saudis decide the price, and the markets then determine how much they want to buy at that price.

He cited cases of Canada and Brazil, where oil could not pumped if prices were to fall below $70 per barrel.

On Friday, Khelil told Algerian state radio a “decision will be taken to lower oil supply by some OPEC members so that the oil price will not be damaged.

“This decision will not be implemented immediately because there are contracts, but will probably be implemented 40 days after it (the decision) is taken.” He did not say which countries were likely to cut supplies.


[top]

EU leaders to agree to relax stability rules


[Skip to the end]

This will only move them closer to brink of investors refusing to buy their debt.

EU leaders agree to relax Stability Pact rules (Roundup)

by Siegfried Mortkowitz

Paris – To help prop up their banking systems, European leaders meeting Saturday in Paris agreed to loosen the requirements of the European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact, which imposes rules on member states regarding their public spending.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi also called for an international conference of the 14 largest industrial nations to ‘rebuild the international finance system,’ as Sarkozy phrased it.

Also attending the mini-summit of the EU’s four members of the G8 group of industrial nations were European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso, European Central Bank (ECB) president Jean-Claude Trichet and the head of the Eurogroup, Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker.

The meeting was called by Sarkozy, currently president of the EU, to formulate a common European position to surmount the finance crisis.

A statement released after the talks said, ‘The application of the Stability and Growth Pact should also reflect the current exceptional circumstances.’

This was a victory for Sarkozy, whose closest advisor, Henry Guaino, earlier this week had declared: ‘Temporarily, (the Stability Pact) is not the priority of priorities. The priority is to save the world banking system and therefore save citizens’ savings.’

The criteria, set out in the Treaty of Maastricht, include a national budget deficit totalling less than 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and public debt not exceeding 60 per cent of GDP.

The leaders at the meeting also called for an international conference on the financial crisis that would include the G8 countries and large developing economies such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

‘We will work with all major economies to rebuild the international banking system,’ Berlusconi told journalists when asked about the purpose of the meeting of the so-called G14.

Sarkozy said the aim of the international conference would be to construct ‘the foundation of an entrepreneurial capitalism instead of a speculative capitalism. We want to build the beginning of a new financial world as they did in Bretton Woods.’

The 1944 international meeting in Bretton Woods established the rules for commercial and financial relations among the world’s major industrial states.

The EU leaders also agreed to work to change European accounting rules, increase regulation of credit rating agencies and hedge funds and alter the way executives are rewarded, in order to prevent the payment of ‘golden handshakes’ – that is, exorbitant severance payments – to executives who have created risk for their companies.

‘Executives who failed must be penalized,’ Sarkozy said.

The summit was preceded by a controversy over a proposal to create a 300-billion-euro (413-billion-dollar) fund to bail out struggling financial insitutions, similar to the plan passed by the US House of Representatives and signed into law by President George W Bush late Friday.

Reportedly supported by the Dutch and the French, the idea was summarily rejected by Germany and Britain, and was not on the summit’s agenda.

Sarkozy told journalists that the idea was not his.

‘I never assumed it, I never proposed it, I never imagined it,’ Sarkozy said.

Instead, in line with German and British wishes, each EU member state is to aid its troubled banks with its own funds, but after discussions with other countries, a reference to the unilateral decision by the Irish government to establish a 100-per-cent guarantee for depositors in the six largest Irish-owned banks.

The move, made without consultation with the European Commission, has already attracted investors away from British banks, and has put pressure on the Brown government government to match it.

Merkel said that the European Commission and the ECB would talk to the Irish about their move, which contravenes the EU’s state aid and competition requirements.

‘But my satisfaction about (this solution) is limited,’ the German chancellor said.

Decisions taken at Saturday’s mini-summit are to be further elaborated at Tuesday’s meeting of EU finance ministers and at the October 15-16 EU summit in Brussels.


[top]

MoneyBlog: Saudis cut production?


[Skip to the end]

The Saudis will ‘meet demand’ but at their price. So the question remains as to what their price is. With their production (to meet demand) nearing their max capacity, seems they want higher prices to try to cool demand so as not to lose control of price on the upside.

But we can only guess!!!

The death of OPEC

by Douglas McIntyre

Saudi Arabia walked out on OPEC yesterday. It said it would not honor the cartel’s production cut. It was tired of rants from Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the well-dressed oil minister from Iran.

As the world’s largest crude exporter, the kingdom in the desert took its ball and went home.

As the Saudis left the building the message was shockingly clear. According to The New York Times, “Saudi Arabia will meet the market’s demand,” a senior OPEC delegate said. “We will see what the market requires and we will not leave a customer without oil.”

OPEC will still have lavish meetings and a nifty headquarters in Vienna, Austria, but the Saudis have made certain the the organization has lost its teeth. Even though the cartel argued that the sudden drop in crude as due to “over-supply”, OPEC’s most powerful member knows that the drop may only be temporary. Cold weather later this year could put pressure on prices. So could a decision by Russia that it wants to “punish” the US and EU for a time. That political battle is only at its beginning.

The downward pressure on oil got a second hand. Brazil has confirmed another huge oil deposit to add to one it discovered off-shore earlier this year. The first field uncovered by Petrobras has the promise of being one of the largest in the world. That breadth of that deposit has now expanded.

OPEC needs that Saudis to have any credibility in terms of pricing, supply, and the ongoing success of its bully pulpit. By failing to keep its most critical member it forfeits its leverage.

OPEC has made no announcement to the effect that it is dissolving, but the process is already over

Top Stocks blogger Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.


[top]

AFP: Burning up more food for fuel


[Skip to the end]

The monetary system will burn up the world’s food supply for fuel until the marginal individual about to starve to death has enough political influence to stop the process.

I’m pretty sure that’s not the millionth one to die of starvation. And probably not the ten millionth.

As more and more acreage goes to biofuels, expect the real price of food to continue to rise.

Lula and Indonesian president pledge biofuel cooperation

by Zulhefi

(AFP) Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his Indonesian counterpart pledged cooperation on biofuels during talks here Saturday in a bid to take advantage of surging oil prices.

Lula and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed off on an agreement to share knowledge on biofuel technology after meeting at Jakarta’s presidential palace.

The Brazilian leader called spiralling global commodity prices a “great opportunity” for developing countries such as Indonesia and Brazil, both of which are major producers of biofuel.

“The developing countries that have the characteristics that Indonesia and Brazil have should not analyse this crisis as only a problem. We have to see this moment as a great opportunity,” Lula said.

“We have land, we have sunlight, we have water resources, we have technology and, thanks to God, the poor of the world have started to eat more, three meals a day, so they will demand more food production.”

The two leaders signed memoranda of understanding that would see the countries exchange experts and students to share knowledge on biofuels. Yudhoyono will also make an official visit to Brazil in November.

“In the energy sector, both countries are cooperating in the field of alternative energy. Brazil has succeeded in developing bio-ethanol and Indonesia can learn from Brazil to develop bio-ethanol,” Yudhoyono said.


[top]

Competing for fuel


[Skip to the end]

Here’s what I see happening at the macro level:

The US, for all practical purposes, was able to successfully compete for the world’s fuel supply such that nearly everyone in the US could afford to drive.

Now other populations/regions of the world where almost no one could afford to drive are increasing their ‘wealth’ and competing with us for fuel.

In these nations, like China, India, Brazil, much like in the west, the majority of the ‘wealth’ flows to the top.

These people at the top are increasingly able to afford to outbid us for fuel as they bid up the price.

Our lowest income individuals get outbid first, and it works its way up from there as total world fuel output stagnates.

This process continues as their wealth increases and a larger number of their ‘rich’ outbid our ‘poor.’

A small percentage of their much larger populations gaining wealth means a larger percentage of our smaller population gets out bid.

And rising fuel prices/declining real terms of trade further foster this effect.

[top]

Bloomberg: Exports booming

(Yes, I know, just anecdotal.)

Honeywell Wins $23 Billion Jet Award, Its Biggest, From Embraer

by Courtney Dentch

(Bloomberg) Honeywell International Inc. won its biggest business jet engine order, beating two rivals for a $23 billion contract from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica SA.

Honeywell will build engines for two new Embraer planes over the next decade, the companies said after the close of U.S. stock markets yesterday. The contract is the Brazilian company’s first engine order with Morris Township, New Jersey-based Honeywell and includes repair parts and services.

Delta Farm Press: aggregate demand

Looks like inflation as measured keeps ripping.True, there isn’t a shortage of available crude. the issue is that at the margin the available crude is sold by a ‘swing producer’ /monopolist who can hike prices indefinitely until there is a supply response as in the 1980’s when OPEC production dropped by 15 million bpd as they attempted to hold up prices.

I don’t see that kind of supply response this time around any time soon.

Markets volatile with index funds influence, bio-fuel requirements

by David Bennett
Farm Press Editorial Staff

The grain and livestock industries have experienced a certain change in attitude since USDA’s late January crop report.

RICHARD BROCK, right, author of the Brock Report, and Carl Brothers, vice president at Riceland Foods, both spoke at the recent 2008 ASU Agribusiness Conference in Jonesboro, Ark.

Several weeks ago, agriculture economist Richard Brock was at a conference with a professor from Kansas State University who “… indicated that currently in Kansas there’s such a quick liquidation that there’s a three-year wait to get slaughter space for sows.

“There is a wait list, but I don’t think it’s three years. In Illinois, we’re seeing a lot of 1,000- to 1,300-sow units being liquidated,” said Brock, author of the Brock Report and contributor to Delta Farm Press, at Arkansas State University’s Agribusiness Conference in Jonesboro, Ark., on Feb. 13.

Regardless, if the corn market isn’t corrected soon, “frankly there will be irreparable damage in the pork industry. Pork prices will be absolutely through the roof in 12 to 18 months.”

As for problems the poultry industry is having, it was announced in early February prices for chicken breasts are set to rise 7 to 10 percent. “We’re seeing probably a cutback in poultry for the first time since I’ve been in business over 30 years. So there are repercussions from this strong grain market and changing world.”

In the grain elevator business, “the last three weeks have been the most chaotic I’ve ever seen. A week ago, I was speaking at the Minnesota Feed and Grain Convention. I had dinner with a banker from a large, national bank the night before. Just (days) before they’d notified some of their clients, independent grain elevator operators, not to come back for additional lines of credit.”

There are “huge problems” in the grain elevator business. “If they can’t increase a line of credit, they must liquidate their position. That means an increasingly wide basis.”

Further, a large, regional Midwest elevator company announced two weeks it wouldn’t even make bids for new-crop soybeans, wheat or corn. A farmer in that region “can’t even get a price, right now. These are some of the issues the industry as a whole will be facing.”

Economic rules
While studying agriculture economics at Purdue University, one of Brock’s professors said, “the laws of economics have never been repealed and probably never will be. If you keep the price of any commodity too high, too long, someone will find a way to produce more of it, use less of it or use something else.”

Brock finds that “particularly true of the energy market, right now. We’ve kept prices much too high for way too long. We don’t have a shortage of energy, of crude oil. We have a perceived shortage of crude oil.

“The only time we’ve had a real energy shortage was in 1973. That’s the only time I can remember lines at gas stations because of shortages.”

What is happening now is a huge change in technology. For example, China has eight nuclear plants under construction with 45 others on the drawing board.

Few are aware that within the next 18 months, six nuclear plants will start up in the United States, the first built in the country since the frightening Three-Mile Island incident in 1979.

Meanwhile, “if you drive through the Midwest, you can’t go 10 miles without seeing windmill farms. They’re going up everywhere.”

Regarding the value of the U.S. dollar, Brock takes a position contrary to many agriculture economists. “I don’t understand why a lot of the press and ag economists have convinced producers that a cheap dollar is good for us. I think — particularly if you’re a corn or soybean farmer — a cheap dollar hurts more than helps.”

The value of the dollar is a relative issue. “We don’t compete against anyone in the corn market so what difference does the value of the dollar make? We’re the majority of the world’s corn export market. We have no significant competition.”

Last year, the United States exported more corn at $4.50 than it did two years ago at $2. Is there any correlation between the value of the dollar and price of corn? “Countries buy corn based on need not price.”

What about soybeans U.S. farmers are competing against in South America? “Again, show me a correlation between the value of our currency and Brazil’s and soybean exports. My guess is you’d find a much stronger correlation between ocean freight rates and soybean exports.”

Fifty percent of the nitrogen used in U.S. agriculture is now imported along with 80 percent of the potash. What has really happened “is the value of the dollar has substantially increased the price of our inputs. And I’d argue it has helped the selling price not at all. Yet, for some reason, we’re led to believe the (lower) value of the dollar is good for us.”

Funds
Very few are aware one of the biggest issues impacting U.S. agriculture are index funds.

“There are two commodity funds. Regular funds can be both long and short. In 2002, those had about $51 billion in. By last September, the most recent data, that number had risen to about $185 billion.”

The real issue, though, is with index funds. “The granddaddy of them is the Goldman and Sachs Index Fund. Our last estimate was it had $103 billion.”

Three or four years ago, any fund that traded commodities was subject to position limits. Suppose the position limit on corn was around 18 million bushels. “If you’re a manager of a Goldman Sachs fund and the market moves $1, that’s (potentially) $18 million dollars. That’s a lot of money to us but if you’re working with $103 billion, it’s a pimple on an elephant’s back.”

So the index funds petitioned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to be classified as commercial companies. The limits on a commercial company like ADM or Cargill are only the amounts of grain being sold or bought.

Meanwhile, the index fund companies don’t have any grain, only cash. Their only limit is the amount of money on hand. This allows them to go long on as much corn, beans, wheat and crude oil as they have cash.

There are smaller index funds “and they all have perspectives and must maintain balances at the end of each month. For the Goldman Sachs fund, 74 percent of its money must be invested in the energy market. In other words, the fund has $75 billion to be used in crude oil and gas futures. Further, 8.2 percent of its money must be traded in grain markets.

“Think about this, the fund has $8.5 billion for corn, soybeans and wheat and $74 billion for crude oil and heating oil. I never thought I’d be considering a conspiracy theory. But I can see a novel being written in about five years as to where the money was coming from for these funds. Wouldn’t it be ironic if we discovered that of that $103 billion, a lot is oil money from the Middle East. And the fund is self-perpetuating: put the money in the fund, they have unlimited access to buying oil futures to keep the price of oil up and keep the flow of money going. I’m not saying that’s happening, but I’ve seen stranger things.”

What does worry Brock is that, as of a month ago, the index funds position in Chicago on soft red winter wheat represented 270 percent of the crop.

“That was the position! People wonder why the wheat market is so volatile — because the funds are buying more wheat than we produce. In the corn market, (the funds) represent only about 15 percent of the crop. They actually have a current position in cotton of over 50 percent of the crop.”

The largest long position is held by the index funds — currently long on about 400,000 corn contracts. “That’s 2 billion bushels of corn. The regular funds are long on another 100,000 contracts. So, between the two types of funds, they’re long on over 3 billion bushels of corn.”

Brock is unsure of a solution. However, the livestock and poultry industries are “all over” the CFTC to get regulations changed.

The index funds distort the market, insists Brock. With such a high futures market, “the cash can’t keep up. There are basis swings like we’ve never seen before because the grain elevators can’t meet margin calls.

“The one thing that could happen is — and let’s use the Goldman Sachs fund as an example — if, hypothetically, crude oil dropped $15 a barrel. At the end of the month, the fund must adjust assets.” If all other commodities stay the same and no other cash flow is coming into the fund, “they’ll have to sell corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton in order to bring their percentages back in line.

“If they have more money coming into their fund, though, instead of selling corn, beans, wheat and cotton they could buy more energy to maintain the monthly balances.”

Fuel
Currently, there are 127 U.S. ethanol plants with an average capacity of 59 million gallons. There are 68 facilities under construction with an average capacity of 84 million gallons. Another 88 facilities are on the drawing board with over 89 million gallons of capacity.

“If you take a look at the mandate in the energy bill that just passed, 36 billion gallons of ethanol (are required) by 2015 and 15 billion of that is to come from corn.… In 12 to 18 months, we’ll already be producing enough ethanol with what’s already under construction to reach the 2015 mandate.”

If the plants proposed are built, by 2015 the United States will produce about 22 billion ethanol. “But I don’t think we’ll get there because of what’s happened in the last month. By year’s end, in Illinois 22 percent of the corn crop will be used for ethanol. In Indiana 41 percent, Iowa 53 percent, Kansas 38 percent, Kentucky 8 percent, Nebraska 40 percent, North Dakota 45 percent, South Dakota 58 percent.

Ohio — which a year ago was at zero — will be at 35 percent. Ohio has always been a corn-deficit state because it ships corn east and southeast to pork and poultry industries. Here they are, already in a corn deficit, and now 35 percent of their crop will be in an ethanol plant. That doesn’t make a lot of sense, but it’s being done.”

With current corn prices, some ethanol plants are losing money. “I received an e-mail last night from the president of a feed company in California. He named three (plants) that are under construction and have stopped building and six plants that were on the drawing board and (have been dropped).

“I think what the industry will find is if the corn market stays high much longer, a lot of the plants being planned will disappear. We won’t reach the big (predictions) made.

“This industry has changed enormously in just the last six weeks. The economics have changed because of the price of corn.”

Another issue in California is almost all of the corn used for ethanol is coming from Nebraska, South Dakota and Minnesota.

This year, there’s plenty of corn. However, next year is a concern.

“Corn can be found, but as anyone in the railroad industry knows, the problem is there aren’t enough railcars to get it from the western Corn Belt to California. And even if you could get the railcars, there isn’t enough track. It isn’t like building a new track through Arkansas — there are these things called the Rocky Mountains that aren’t flat. Getting new track built won’t happen.”

Ethanol is about $2.20 per gallon. That means using a break-even formula, $6 corn is required. In California, by the time “they pay about $1.40 per bushel to get the corn from the western Corn Belt the price (is too high). That’s why some plants are shutting down.”

Brock estimates that about 3.2 billion corn bushels from this year’s crop will go to ethanol. Next year, he says, the number will be between 3.8 billion and 4 billion.

A possible bearish factor to add to the mix: the 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol expires in 11 months.

“If you’d asked me three months ago about the chances of that being renewed, I’d have said 95 percent. But with political pressure in Washington, D.C., right now, I’m not so sure it’ll be renewed. It’s up in the air and might depend on who the next president is.”

Genetics and enzymes
The next thing that could change things around is genetic improvements. “Talk to executives at Pioneer and Monsanto and they’ll say a 10-bushel-per-acre increase in the next two years is inevitable. Most are more optimistic than that. Add 10 bushels to the corn yield and it would solve a lot of problems. We’d have corn running out of our ears.”

Two weeks ago, Brock made a mistake while giving a speech. “I said someone would be coming along with an enzyme that would allow poultry and pork to digest more than the 10 percent of DDG (Dry Distillers Grain) equivalent in their rations.”

As soon as the speech was over, “some executives (approached me and explained) they’d released a product called Allzyme SSF about a month ago. This is being commercially marketed to the poultry and pork companies. If (it works), this would change the demand for corn quite a bit. DDG could be fed more aggressively to poultry.”