This is originally derived from another work, I believe, but all data ultimately stems from the USDA feed grains yearbook. At first glance this appears to tell a compelling story of how the amount of animal feed in the US has declined, while the amount going to sweetener, chemical or direct food use ("other") has remained fairly constant. Since I've repeatedly asserted this but never before posted data on it, consider this the moment where I finally try to prove my claims instead of simply referring obliquely to the data sources.
The unfortunate part of this analysis is that without an understanding of the full ethanol value chain, you cannot tell the whole story. The whole story is that for every bushel of corn consumed, 17/52 by weight becomes distiller's grains, a food supplement for cattle, hogs and chickens. Cattle can consume it exclusively because they're ruminants, and hogs and chickens can consume up to 15% by weight of it in their diet. If you include distiller's grains in the mix, the story starts to support my assertion that the feed picture hasn't changed, at least in terms of quantity.
So let's look at the US feed consumption of corn.
This picture changes when you start to include the mass of DDG produced each quarter, which goes exclusively into feed use:
|Total Corn and Corn Derivatives Going Into Feed Uses; DDG is included on an equivalent mass basis to corn|
|Total Corn and Corn Derivatives Going Into Feed Uses; DDG included on an equivalent nutritional basis to corn|
However, this is not where the food-fuel substitution argument against corn ethanol is strong. Where it is strong, and why I think it's significant, is in the realm of pricing.
Sources: FGYearbook Table01, Table 04, Table31, link to USDA feed grains yearbook above.