Burning Food in Cars – an ‘anti-human ethos’

The post sounds like a gross exaggeration: The US has food coming out of its ears; it can afford to set aside a percentage of the farmland for ethanol.
No, I don’t care about starving Biafrans or whatever the latest tear-jerking famine story is.

Nothing illustrates the anti-human ethos of the Greens better than their support for “biofuels”.

Not true.
Their support for DDT ban have sentenced half a million people to death every year.
But biofuels come close, though.

Very well said! For us in the industrialized world, who pay around 5-10% of our budget on food, doubling food prices is an inconvenience, but not crippling. For the poorest in the world, who might spend 50% of their income on food, it’s a really BFD.
And it’s starting already. The so-called Arab Spring was sparked in part by rising food prices.

“Up to 10% ethanol” is such a wonderfully ambiguous phrase. Imagine pouring “may contain some milk fat” fluid onto your breakfast cereal.
After a protracted email exchange with Shell Canada, they admitted there is no way I can know what exactly I am buying at the pump as the ethanol dilution of gasoline is a federally mandated amount of their total national sales volume.
What you actually pump at any given time and location is “mystery mix” with an unknown energy (and thus mileage value) content of lower value ethanol.
Makes you wonder why they bother with the weights and measures inspectors calibrating the pumps for accurate volume delivery over a range of temperatures.

The US farmer lobby paid for this legislation to go through and it wants its money’s worth. To get it repealed you need to find somebody with deep enough pockets to outbid them, which would be difficult. That is what you get when your government is for sale. You guys might want to look at fixing your democracy sometime. In case you haven’t noticed, it is broken. At the moment you’ve got the best government … money can buy.

Joe Guerk says:
July 22, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“The post sounds like a gross exaggeration: The US has food coming out of its ears; it can afford to set aside a percentage of the farmland for ethanol.”
Yes, we (US) have corn coming out our ears. Which we used to sell in poor regions of the earth at bargain prices. Now we burn it, and they pay higher prices or starve.
” No, I don’t care about starving Biafrans or whatever…”
Exactly the point. Thank you.

I have to say that I think this is a bit excessive. Lots of states in the United States (at least) do not have an enormous amount of cropland growing food. In fact, in North Carolina we have rather a lot of cropland growing tobacco, that is to say, growing something even more useless and bad for mankind than biodiesel crops or corn from which ethanol can be made. There’s little profit in people trying to grow food on the land — first of all, the US has an enormous surplus of food grown on the farm and has for years to the extent that it has been subsidizing farmers for many decades not to grow food; second some of the land is too dry, too depleted by a couple of centuries of growing tobacco, too acid, to support growing more food that merely drops the price of food to where the farmer can’t make a living at it any more. In NC a lot of farmers grow tobacco because it is a high return crop. Corn isn’t.
Maybe pot would be, but of course hemp has a huge number of uses (not just smokability) — it can be made into paper, clothing, rope, and yes, alcohol or biodiesel. It grows fast and could easily be a major cash crop to replace tobacco on all accounts. Too bad it is restricted at best, illegal at worst, to grow.
People grow all sorts of things besides food. They grow trees to make into furniture or paper or houses. They grow grains like barley for the sole purpose of making them (at a ruinous loss relative to their food value) into beer, which is hardly a necessary nutrient. Well, maybe it is, but not as far as nutritionists are concerned. They grow hops just to put into the barley-wasting beer.
Asserting that there are people starving now because there are other people growing corn not to feed hogs but to turn into ethanol is an egregious claim, at least in the US. First of all, there are hardly any people in the US that are starving. Second, you’d have to show that somebody would farm food on the land being used to grow ethanol precursors, that the food thus grown wouldn’t cause farmers to go out of business by dropping food prices to where the market corrected itself right back to the current level of competitiveness. Third, you’d have to show that the food thus grown, openly sold on the free market, would prevent somebody else from starving because see first, hardly anybody in the US is starving and there are already programs galore that would feed them from our incredible surplus of food as it is.
Anything but free market prevention of starvation puts you right back into the government intervention seat. Should the government subsidize farmers not to grow anything to keep small farmers in business at a reasonable profit? Should they subsidize them to grow a big surplus so that the surplus doesn’t drive prices down to where they go out of business, or rather, so that they don’t go out of business as the price inevitably goes down? Should they subsidize some other crop that at least makes the farmer earn a living while keeping too many of them from growing food in a country where efficient farming means that one has to grow a huge, corporate amount of food to be profitable (on a good year)? Should they subsidize nothing, in which case it is very unlikely that one single person will be saved from starvation (or vice versa) in the free market, where if anything the free market is likely to drive people out of farming altogether and then drive prices up with even less food being grown?
The point is that markets are complex. Government policy and intervention have been involved in the manipulation of markets to accomplish goals held to be in the public interest from the very beginning of this country, with the very first tariffs and protections, with the very first taxes. You are perfectly within your rights to argue for or against the public policy decision that encourages farmers to grow crops that can be turned into fuel, but if you are going to claim that people are starving because of it, you’ll have to show me the people, and if you claim that world food prices are increasing, you’ll also have to show that the would be being propped up at this “increased” level without the benefit of fuel production otherwise.
Personally, I might even agree that mandated ethanol in gasoline is a questionable practice, and yes, it is bad to run in my boat even with enzymatic protections (although that is largely due to the way the motor is designed and built, not anything intrinsic or unfixable). I have moderate doubts that with current crop hybrids one can ever — or at least easily — establish a steady state biofuel basis for even the 1/3 or so of energy consumption that runs cars.
However, that’s now, this year. Next year somebody may genetically engineer a seed crop with 3x the oil production and the resulting biodiesel may be cheaper than the regular kind without subsidy. Or Iran could succeed in building a nuclear device, use it on Israel, which retaliates by nuking the entire middle east into a radioactive wasteland for the next 100 years, and the resulting rise in prices might make biodiesel and ethanol and gasoline made from coal enormously profitable, whereupon our existing limited capacity to keep things going with it might be all that saves civilization while it adjusts. And finally, while I know it is never welcome on this of all sites, it is the simple truth that the warmists could be right and evidence finally accumulates that convinces even me, even you, even Anthony. Honesty requires acknowledging at least the possibility, even if you think it unlikely.
Then the question is one of hedging one’s bets. By maintaining a moderately profitable biofuel industry, the government paves the way for scaling things up or down as future evidence dictates. If temperatures start dropping radically with no change in aerosols, perhaps because of the solar minimum, perhaps because of nonlinear negative feedbacks kicking in we know not of, a lot of supporters of the CAGW hypothesis will change their minds, including many climate scientists. Scaling down is easy. If temperatures start going up radically over the next decade, with over a 0.2 C bump consistent with the supposed 2.8 C climate sensitivity on doubling CO_2 to 600, scaling up is easy too. The current level of production is arguable, but as a hedged bet it isn’t insane.
Now if they’d just legalize hemp and openly encourage its investigation as a possible biofuel source, no matter how it turns out it wouldn’t be a total loss…;-)
rgb
rgb

Joe Guerk says:
July 22, 2012 at 12:41 pm
The post sounds like a gross exaggeration: The US has food coming out of its ears; it can afford to set aside a percentage of the farmland for ethanol.
No, I don’t care about starving Biafrans or whatever the latest tear-jerking famine story is.
We have had this discussion on a previous thread.
There is every chance that next year the US will be importing wheat from South America as long as their harvests don’t fail. It is already importing corn.
“Grain prices set records as U.S. drought, food worries spread
CHICAGO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Grain prices pushed to record highs on Thursday as scattered rains in U.S. Midwest did little to douse fears that the worst drought in half a century will not end soon or relieve worries around the world about higher food prices.
Government forecasters did not rule out that the drought in the U.S. heartland could last past October, continuing what has been the hottest half-year on record.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-20/news/sns-rt-us-usa-droughtbre86f1d4-20120716_1_grain-prices-moderate-drought-national-drought-mitigation-center
and
Soybean prices set an all-time high; wheat, corn rise as crops crumple in blistering heat wave
The price of soybeans hit an all-time high Wednesday as a devastating heat wave continued to pound crops in fields.
Soybeans for August delivery rose 44.5 cents, or 2.7 percent, to finish at $16.835 per bushel. Wheat prices ended at the highest level since the spring of 2008 and corn prices are pushing toward their all-time high set in June 2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/soybean-prices-set-an-all-time-high-wheat-corn-rise-as-crops-crumple-in-blistering-heat-wave/2012/07/18/gJQAvqtDuW_story.html
and
World grain price surge triggering defaults
(Reuters) – Grains suppliers are starting to default on previously agreed sales to major importers, including top wheat buyer Egypt, rather than deliver on contracts that are now losing money because of the huge rally in prices sparked by the U.S. drought.
The worst drought in more than 50 years is wilting crops in the U.S. Midwest and sending prices into overdrive, with corn alone surging by around 50 percent in the last month. Soybeans have also hit record highs, with wheat not far behind.
Crop downgrades in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan as drought followed a bitterly cold winter have added to global price rises, stoking fears of unrest especially in Middle Eastern countries, where high food prices can trigger political protest.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/19/us-grain-market-defaults-idUSBRE86I0EZ20120719
Its rapidly becoming not Biafra you need worry about but the USA. Supermarkets only hold 3 days of food the reserves ‘grain mountain’ has largely gone. see:
Spotlight G-20: Grain Reserves and the Food Price Crisis
With the U.S. government announcement last week that this year’s corn crop is expected to be much smaller due to an extended drought, agricultural commodity markets are yet again headed for high and unstable prices this summer. Is the world better prepared for the shortfall then it was in 2007? Certainly, the United States is not. To cite agricultural journalist Alan Guebert:
Indeed, according to CCC (Commodity Credit Corporation), there is not one teaspoon of sugar, one pound of peanuts, one slice of butter, one wheel of cheese, one bushel of wheat or even one chickpea in USDA’s pantry. CCC has nothing—nada, zip, goose egg—to release into the marketplace to slow or moderate what’s certain to be fast-climbing food prices in the coming months.
Other headlines
Russia grain harvest downgraded due to Black Sea weather – Reuters
Drought to cut Serbia grain harvest, drive up prices
Brazil ships corn to drought-stricken US
Argentina sees grains windfall from US drought
and on and on…..
And people pump grain based ethanol into their vehicles to run less efficiently.
I know _you_ don’t care but in the time you took to read this about a dozen children died of hunger.

People complain about how the process for making biofuels is inefficient, but trust me- you don’t want to see an effecient version. If that happens you could get the price of fuel and food to equalize (with the gap equal to the cost of the refining process. That would be bad. The only version of biofuels that is intelligent is one that converts residual plant waste. Even converting non-food crops is bad because you are increasing the demand for land to grow crops.
Joe Geurk
“The post sounds like a gross exaggeration: The US has food coming out of its ears; it can afford to set aside a percentage of the farmland for ethanol.”
The problem is that for the last 70 years the US government has subsidized agriculture to the point that we now determine world food prices. Demand is increasing (from population growth) and the US is reducing supply. The result is a price shock even though the drop in quantity is small, because demand for food is highly inelastic.
Now, in a market economy with a baseline set up this would automatically correct itself, but we don’t have that. Poor countries have diminished capacity to ramp up food production, poor people don’t have enough buying power to change food habits (if food becomes more expensive for first worlds we can simply eat less meat) and they have become dependent on US food because are subsidies allow us to dump agricultural products.
Essentially this is a food version of the 2001 California energy crisis, where shutting down a few plants caused electricity prices to spike and capped prices for the plant owners keep them from expanding.
I think the larger green organizations have come around and realize this is a bad idea, but it is unlikely to be fixed anytime soon. It is sort of funny- unlike almost all other political controversies in the US, this has an obvious answer… but one that won’t be embraced because a small group massively benefits (American farmers) and the rest of the population (despite statements of spreading democracy, the faith, complaints about collateral damage or anything else) doesn’t seem to care about foreigners. It isn’t an American problem- agricultural subsidies exist in the Eurozone and Japan. I’m not sure if they also embrace this specific stupidity, but if they don’t it is probably due to a lack of convertable crops.

Studied this at horticultural college. The fossil fuels required to plant, maintain and harvest the biofuel crop used much the same energy that the crop produced. Good earner though when the subsidies are taken into account.
Next thing will be to subsidise Photovoltaic panel schemes on productive farmland as photoynthesis is considered bad for the planet.

http://archvillain.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/not-this-again.jpg
The U.S. meets ALL domestic needs plus fulfilled ALL corn export demand and still adds to the surplus.
Almost every claim in the orig post is either wildly inaccurate or an outright lie. This is nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated and undocumented “drive by”
IMO this type simplistic activist comment simply does not deserve a response here. Little more than an advocacy “commercial” with no exhibited desire for discussion.

Time to subsidise pond scum?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/25/the-presidents-oil-from-algae-idealower-than-pond-scum/

Hey,
how else can they reduce the surplus population?
I propose that anyone who supports burning food for transportation be required to use the food they would have consumed, you know:
    they walk their talk!
(and this should especially apply to anyone who mandates it!)
Naaah, can’t have that, after all, they know what is good for you and
they’ll work real hard to make sure you toe the line for their religion!
LOL in Oregon

The US has food coming out of its ears
No, we do not. If you check the USDA data, the US used to carry approx a 9 month supply of cereal grains in inventory. Now we carry less than 3 months, and in the winter our stocks drop to mere weeks.
With corn crops failing due to drought, it remains to be seen where we will be come March 2013.

Another massive “feel good” screwup, that is considered to being that bad that even Al Gore actually developed a late conscience about it and admitted it to being just that case, a major cockup. It’s killing people, it’s causing starvation and it makes the “Greens” look like they are in the ‘Ethnic Cleansing” business. Only this time it’s killing thousands every week including entire families and they claim to having a care. They lie, the proof is right there and they basically do not give a damn about human life as they have already already demonstrated when banning DDT, that action alone is killing millions every year as well. Not one single regret from any of them.

rgbatduke says:
July 22, 2012 at 1:49 pm
….Maybe pot would be, but of course hemp has a huge number of uses (not just smokability) — it can be made into paper, clothing, rope, and yes, alcohol or biodiesel. It grows fast and could easily be a major cash crop to replace tobacco on all accounts. Too bad it is restricted at best, illegal at worst, to grow….
_________________________
Again I am afraid you are incorrect. Pot is not hemp. They are two different plants. You are correct about hemp being a VERY useful plant that should be legalized.

Hemp Is Not Pot:
….With 25,000 known applications from paper, clothing and food products — which, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal this January, is the fastest growing new food category in North America — to construction and automotive materials, hemp could be just the crop to jump-start America’s green economy.
But growing hemp remains illegal in the U.S. The Drug Enforcement Administration has lumped the low-THC plant together with its psychoactive cousin, marijuana, making America the planet’s only industrialized nation to ban hemp production. We can import it from Canada, which legalized it in 1997. But we can’t grow it….

The Wall Street Gerbil has this to say

…..In the U.S., hemp is often associated with marijuana or rope. The plant’s distant relation to Cannabis has raised concerns over its THC levels, the psychoactive substance found in the illegal drug.
But findings published in the July/August 2008 Journal of Analytical Toxicology indicate that hemp foods in the marketplace do not contain detectable levels of THC.
Now, food companies are trying to overcome the challenges of shedding the mysteries of hemp by introducing it as milk, protein powder and nuts (shelled hemp seeds) with some success.
According to a study by natural products market research firm SPINS, these are the top three growth-driving categories for the industry. The report found that from 2007 to 2008, sales of hemp milk grew about 162%, protein powder increased 21% and nuts rose 44%.
Living Harvest, the first company to commercially produce hemp milk in the U.S., hopes to cash in on that growth in April, when their hemp milk ice creams debut. The company will offer vanilla bean, chocolate fudge, toasted coconut and lime, coffee biscotti and mint chip. It will also introduce a cooking oil the same month.
Hemp milk benefits: Hemp milk contains no common allergens and is easily digestible….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069062782044697.html

Ric Werme says:
July 22, 2012 at 1:59 pm
……I wonder if it’s legal for a gas station to advertise their current gas is low ethanol, and boost their price a bit to pay for the federal penalty.
I haven’t checked the web, but there really ought to be some simple ways of checking or removing ethanol. The local outdoor equipment folks would love to have non-ethanol fuel….
______________________________
I live near a boating area and we have two gas stations in the county that sell regular non-biofuel gas. (premium) at an increased cost. I use it on all my gas powered equipment.

Joe Guerk says (July 22, 2012 at 12:41 pm): “No, I don’t care about starving Biafrans or whatever the latest tear-jerking famine story is.”
Fair enough. Do you care about your wallet?

Ethanol = “Food for clunkers”

Being here in dried up Nebraska, I’m feeling a coin toss is needed when it comes to so-called Bio-fuels. Much of the waste ends up feeding livestock that also feeds us. If we can get the good stuff out of that grain and such first, ok. Not like the prime stuff gets used for making ethanol and pre-cooking it would seem to me, better for the livestock.
Not understanding the wheat thing. Most of it gets harvested before it gets hot outside anyway. (June)
Seed oil being converted to bio-diesel should actually be a good way to keep it from ending up in a landfill. Cottonseed oil doesn’t take food out of peoples mouths and yes, hemp will grow anywhere. Hempoil burns super hot.
Ethanol sucks in 2 cycle motors. They just won’t warm up. Seems to shorten the life of these motors also.
I don’t mind people trying things if they work. Some may need some assistance to make it work right and should give up when it doesn’t but, there is a baby in that water. Don’t throw it all out.
(And for a giggle) When I meet a vegetarian I say “my food poops on your food”.

Al Gore on ethanol:
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for President.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572404575634753486416076.html

“Nothing illustrates the anti-human ethos of the Greens better than their support for “biofuels”.
Greens supporting biofuels to save the World from ‘evil’ fossil fuel and CO2 emissions. Is the same as campaigning for ‘Green” Mercury CFLs. While protesting about mercury contamination.
There’s been reports including an EU one which finds biofuels produce about the same or infact produce more CO2 emissions than fossil fuel. Soyabean oil was 4x higher with CO2 emissions.
So greens fail with their Gaia saving fantasyworld again.

*Sigh* I wish the anti-biofuel brigade would educate themselves…
FACT: The largest crop grown in the United States is… wait for it… TURF! That’s right, lawn. Pristine grass fields designed in the shape of dog legs for your golf courses, rectangles for your football fields, squares for your kids’ schools and patches for your backyard kingdom. Turf is the most managed, most watered, most polluted, most energy intensive and not to mention, most useless “crop” in the universe.
FACT: Existing corn ethanol processes maintain <70% of the protein content from the corn feedstock which is carried through as wet or dry distillage. The food value of the crop is not lost. As such, the whole, ‘food vs. fuel paradigm’ was a complete hoax – propagated by vested interests.
FACT: American GMO yellow dent corn does not feed people. American GMO yellow dent corn destined for export –also- does not feed people. This so-called ‘corn’, is purchased by global conglomerates for factory farms and the production of other products e.g. HFCS. Obviously we need more processed food, more pink slime, more Coca-Cola, more diabetes, obesity and heart disease on planet right?
FACT: US crops like corn, sugar, cotton et cetera, are grossly subsidised at the expense of the rest of the developing world. Go read up on how and why Cuba’s sugar industry was destroyed. Or why Mexican farmers have had to give up their livelihood – a livelihood that persisted for generations in the birthplace of corn.
FACT: People on this planet aren’t starving because there isn’t enough food. They’re starving because the distribution system is corrupt and because capitalism only works when somebody, somewhere, is being exploited. Do yourself a favor and watch Darwin’s Nightmare. I promise, henceforth, you will never look at a starving child in the same light again.
Club of Rome indeed.

Smokey says:
July 22, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Carl Brannen,
Your arguments seem dubious to me.
—————————-
He’s pretty well spot on Smokey. Unfortunately, I’m too busy to collate a bunch of links for you (I know you like that). I would suggest that you get a free subscription to Biofuels Digest and you will see the flip side of the coin – over time. You will be able to cut through the partisan sh!t and get to the truth.
There is no MTBE in the US anymore, so as CB points out, ethanol is indispensable.
I’m in a business that will compete with the ethanol industry for feedstocks so, as a competitor, I have to know the space, but I don’t have a vested interest in saying this.
Also, there are some really major developments in biofuels and specialty chemicals going on right now in the US. Sure, there are freeloaders, but there will be winners too.
Maybe the people whining about not getting food from the US because of this should get off their ar$e$ and vote for people who are competent enough to organize food production programs in their own countries.
Also, interestingly, the more green and holier than thou Green Democratic Fake Socialist Republic of Europe is actually too useless to make its own ethanol, and now has ETBE (the ethyl version of MTBE) in most of its gasoline/petrol. So they whinge and whine about the environment and CO2 while simultaneously shoving metric tons of this major pollutant into the environment.

Despite the recent headlines about the corn shortage, when one actually reads the USDA Corn crop report – you find out the truth is something less dire.
The truth is the early spring, adequate moisture – very favorable conditions, along with the 95.9 million acres planted (vs 91.9 and 88.2 for 2011 and 2010) – had led them to increase the projected yield from the 152.8 and 147.9 bushels/ac of 2010 and 2011, to 166 bu/ac in their Jun 2012 projection.
The lack of moisture in some parts of country thru July caused them to reduce that optimistic yield forecast to a more realistic 146 bushels/ac in their July report. The same report however noted that planted acres were actually larger yet – 96.4 million acres.
This week has seen rain across the Upper Midwest, and there is an expected break in the stationary high allowing cooler Canadian air in to the area. Moisture primarily, and more seasonal temps, will likely see the recent USDA downgrade overly strong.
Even with the current USDA estimate the corn crop is projected to be 12,720 million bushels, almost exactly the same as 2011 and 2010’s 12,358 and 12,447 respectively.
Corn used for ethanol was 5,021 mill/bu in 2010, 5,050 in 2011, and was originally projected at 5,450 for 2012. Current projection is 4,900 million bushels – 150 million bushels less than last year.
Simply put, as of today, even with the significant downgrade by the USDA – the US Corn crop will be larger than 2011 by nearly 400 million bushels.
How about that terrible old price increase? The USDA crop report shows avg Farm Price of $5.10 per bushel in 2010 and $6.10 to $6.30 per bushel for 2011. They projected a price of $4.20 to $5.00 for 2012, but with the downgrade expected the price to be $5.40 to $6.40.
In other words – even with the reduced production the price spike being touted in the press – is simply a reversion to the avg prices from LAST YEAR.
And the reality is with this weeks rain and cooler temps projected across much of the upper Midwest corn belt, those yields and acres harvested will very likely increase – increasing the yield and overall production.
These facts haven’t deterred the fear mongers – there are press reports like this one – about food shortages, and massive price increases, and calls for ending the ethanol mandate.
These practices are EXACTLY like the AGW alarmists using recent heat, drought, tornado’s and the like to whip up their scare-mongering. And the claims made by each are equally unsupported by the real facts.

Smokey at 4:34 , Smartly done! 🙂

pat says:
July 22, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Notice how a lawn mower that used to last 15 years now lasts 2? Ethanol. And EPA mandated nonadjustable carburetors. Plus they suck fuel at up to 3 times the rate of old.

Even as far back as 1996 ‘Downstream Alternatives’ compiled a list of small engine manufacturers position on ethanol use:
http://www.sentex.net/~crfa/smallengines.html
20 of 27 power equipment manufactures said YES – the remaining 7 did not reference in their manuals.
20 of 20 motorcycle, recreational and boat manufacturers said YES.
Clearly the do NOT use “3 times” the fuel – the energy content of E10 is only a small amount less than straight gas.

Smokey says:
July 22, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Got the U.S. farm acreage planted in turf, vs corn, or wheat, for example?
————————-
I can help partially here. Go to slide 7.
http://www.ascension-publishing.com/BIZ/Ceres-ABM.pdf
The question remaining is what is the ratio of acreage of US lawns, sportsfields, etc. to golf courses ??
This presentation, by the way, is an excellent introduction to the concept of US sugar reserves versus oil reserves in the Middle East.

Ric Werme says:
July 22, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I haven’t checked the web, but there really ought to be some simple ways of checking or removing ethanol. The local outdoor equipment folks would love to have non-ethanol fuel…
There is a simple test for alcohol in gasoline that is based on water absorption:
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2011/04/19/testing-for-ethanol/
There is a local convenience store that sells alcohol/ethanol free gas that I use in an airplane. My understanding is that the ethanol is mixed at the distribution center so it is possible to get a truck load of real gas. As someone posted earlier, marinas and airports are good places to look for real gas and businesses that listen to customer demand.

I couldn’t resist.
Total turf in the USA 46 million acres vs. 35 million acres for corn ethanol.
http://www.thelawninstitute.org/faqs/?c=183313
You fricking golfers, soccer players and lawn lovers. Cut it out immediately would ya. Don’t you know you’re killing children in third world countries with your vile habits ??

A. Scott says:
July 22, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Gail … I absolutely agree that small farmers get the shaft. The middleman and manufacturers make majority of profit with a fraction of the risks….
Were I a smaller farmer I would be a proponent of the ADM’s – a rising tide raises all ships. They certainly have many negatives but at end of the day higher prices and improved yields and efficiency are good for the farmers aren’t they?
________________________
No, farmers are not better off when you are dealing with monospony, a situation where several producers compete for the business of only one buyer.
ADM has already been busted for price fixing. Purdue University: ADM was at the center of at least three international price-fixing conspiracies…

July 1999 More price fixing scandals to come, expert says
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating 30 price-fixing cases, and many of these involve food additives, feed supplements and vitamins, says a Purdue University professor.
John Connor, professor of agricultural economics and an expert on price-fixing cartels, says news about agribusiness price-fixing scandals will become more common in coming months. “We’ve entered an era when transportation and communication appear to facilitate global price fixing,”

81 million acres of corn is accurate. This is a scientific analysis of corn ethanol mandated demand on price and reserves. Mandating corn ethanol standards benefits agribusiness at the expense of everyone else.
“U.S. energy policy now mandates that about 15 percent of global corn production be converted into ethanol for fuel use. We use a structural VAR to estimate the dynamic effect on corn prices of the quadrupling of corn‐based ethanol production since 2005. Our model allows for ethanol production to affect corn prices not only by increasing current corn demand, but also by raising the demand for inventories. We estimate that corn prices were about 30 percent greater, on average, between 2006 and 2010 than they would have been if ethanol production had remained at 2005 levels.”
“In 2011, 38 percent of U.S. corn was used to make ethanol for blending with gasoline, up from 14 percent in 2005. The federal government mandated this rapid growth through the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires a minimum quantity of ethanol content in gasoline. The RFS was introduced in the 2005 U.S. Energy Policy Act. In 2007, under the provisions of the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, this standard almost doubled. Under the expanded RFS, corn ethanol now comprises 10 percent of finished motor gasoline in the U.S., up from 3 percent in 2005. In this article, we estimate that the 2007 expansion in the RFS caused a persistent 30 percent increase in the price of corn.”
http://agecon.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/aaron-smith/docs/Carter_Rausser_Smith_Ethanol_Paper_submit.pdf
“Corn prices are naturally surging in response; current corn prices are 21% higher than they were a year ago. Because so much of the corn crop is devoted to meeting ethanol mandates, there is a potential supply conflict being set up between food producers and ethanol producers.
This was always the risk in my mind; that a major drought could reduce the corn crop and result in surging fuel and food prices at the same time. This creates a situation that politicians who are not friendly to the ethanol industry will likely exploit. It won’t likely lead to an end to the mandates, but support for a 15% ethanol mandate (E15) — something the industry desperately wants — will likely erode in the face of the weak corn crop ”
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/07/13/poor-corn-crop-will-have-major-impact-on-ethanol-market/
“In fact, using 33 percent of all US corn for ethanol production has increased the price of meat, milk, and eggs by 80 percent for the US consumer. As many farmers switched from raising wheat and other grains to raising corn, the price of bread increased by 100 to 200 percent. The most serious concerns, however, have been the grain shortages in other nations, especially developing nations. As grain becomes scare, the rates of starvation and malnutrition soar.”

BTW the residual protein, oil, and fiber is included in other categories of corn use and is fully accounted for in official USDA figures.

5 to 7% ethanol as a fuel oxygenation additive is sustainable but the soon to be required 15% mandate will not be sustainable and will double from today the cost of meat dairy and eggs.

For people that argue ethanol has no impact on food prices, how do you explain the fact food prices increased. Obviously it isn’t a supply only problem (70 million Chinese a year moving out of poverty means they switch from rice to meat), but if the market works as efficiently as people assert, it would be able to deal with this fine.
Guy
“FACT: US crops like corn, sugar, cotton et cetera, are grossly subsidised at the expense of the rest of the developing world. Go read up on how and why Cuba’s sugar industry was destroyed. Or why Mexican farmers have had to give up their livelihood – a livelihood that persisted for generations in the birthplace of corn.”
That isn’t, in itself, a bad thing. The US has .7% of its population involved in food production while Mexico and Cuba have 13.7 and 20% while the respective GDP contribution is 3.8 and 4%. Having people leave agriculture and move into more productive sectors.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
The problem is that while in a functioning market economy the economy would be able to absorb these individuals and find them more profitable employment, not all countries have the a functioning market economy or the resources (human capital, capital, etc) to adjust. However, I believe this is mostly a problem for Africa- most of Latin America is developed and wealthy enough to adjust.
Guy
“FACT: People on this planet aren’t starving because there isn’t enough food. They’re starving because the distribution system is corrupt and because capitalism only works when somebody, somewhere, is being exploited. Do yourself a favor and watch Darwin’s Nightmare. I promise, henceforth, you will never look at a starving child in the same light again. ”
That is both right and wrong. People haven’t been in danger of starving to death due to lack of food world wide since the end of world war 2. However, the distribution system isn’t corrupt- it works like every other commodity. The problem is that the distribution system can break down, usually to political crazyness or war.
Capitalism works fine without exploitation. Capitalism is private ownership of assets. You are thinking of the free market (they aren’t they same- you can have capitalism with price controls for example). However the free market doesn’t require exploitation- that only occurs when one agent has monopoly power or political sway. It is hard to exploit people purely through market mechanisms (it can be done- see company towns.).
Looked at the summary for Darwin’s Nightmare. Essentially rich people are willing to pay more for food than poor people and get first dibs. Most of the resulting horror in the film seems to be the result of having people who are dirt poor. Given that 80% of Tanzania’s labor force is in agriculture and that is where 85% of their exports come from I think it is wrong to blame the fishing industry for any famine.
Looking through this which provided many of the reviews and gave insight into its supporters mindset
http://www.darwinsnightmare.com/reviews.htm
well, it suggests many of the people who liked the film have no idea what they are talking about. For example-
“If, say, the World Bank dictated that 50% of the fish had to remain in Tanzania at a price the locals could afford, that would be fairly simple to monitor. If food security for Africa were a priority, that is.”
See the problem yet? The locals would immediately take the fish and resell it on the world market- after all, the fish are more expensive than most foods so now they can get food and cash. So either the sale price would be bid up until profit was minimal or the government would keep prices low and give the fish to connected individuals.

Ian H says July 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm
The US farmer lobby paid for this legislation to go through and it wants its money’s worth…..
_______________________________________
Jim says: @ July 22, 2012 at 3:27 pm
….Farm Lobby Beats Back Assault On Subsidies….
_________________________________
Smoke and mirrors _Jim. I can call myself anything I want but it does not mean that is who I really am. A bunch of us farmers scrapped together money so a couple of us could join and go to the 2008 NIAA Annual Meeting. Here is the report back link I am including it to give you a feel for the difference between real farmers and the Astro-turf farmers.
Now look at what YOUR LINK from the Wall Street Journal is actually saying

Farm Lobby Beats Back Assault On Subsidies
The agribusiness industry plowed more than $80 million into lobbying last year, according to the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks spending on lobbying.
…Today, farmers make up less than 1% of the U.S. population, and agriculture production is dominated by large, industrial farms that have annual sales of $1 million or more. In 2006, average farm household income was $77,654, or about 17% more than average U.S. household income, according to the Department of Agriculture. Average farm household income is expected to be about $90,000 this year….
….The goal was to target more benefits at farmers who work the land and need financial assistance, while weaning benefits away from the well-to-do. Recent recipients include 92-year-old David Rockefeller Sr., heir to oil-baron John D. Rockefeller. He received $554,000 in subsidies from 1995 to 2005 for farm operations and land conservation in New York, according to a spokesman for Mr. Rockefeller and government data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, which is lobbying for an overhaul of farm programs…..
The farm lobby already was fighting back. Led by the American Farm Bureau Federation…

So who exactly is the American Farm Bureau? A quick internet check finds this (Something I was already well aware of)

…The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) bills itself as the voice of American agriculture–and often succeeds in getting the media to identify it as such…
The myth that AFBF represents the interests of farmers is longstanding, though it has long been debunked. In Samuel “Sandy” Berger’s 1971 book, Dollar Harvest: The Story of the Farm Bureau, he argued that the AFBF is “quietly and systematically amassing one of the largest business networks in America, while turning its back on the deepening crisis of the farmers whom it supposedly represents.”
The underlying pattern has not changed in the ensuing generation….
The Farm Bureau was founded in the early 1900s by the New York Chamber of Commerce and funded with money from Rockefellers and Vanderbilts via the Chicago Board of Trade (A.V. Krebbs, Corporate Reaper). It was designed to counter the nonpartisan, populist farm movement that was emerging at the time.
In a sophisticated manner, Farm Bureau leadership is still, as one observer put it, “trying to keep Bubba down on the farm from realizing who his real enemy is.”
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1507

Then there is the other BIG LIE

….farmers make up less than 1% of the U.S. population, and agriculture production is dominated by large, industrial farms that have annual sales of $1 million or more. In 2006, average farm household income was $77,654,

So what does the actual data tell us because these are the facts the MSM never bothers to tell the public.
Agriculture contributes more than $950 billion — 16 percent — to the GNP each year. link
The following is from the 2007 Ag census
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/index.asp
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_063_063.pdf
There are 2.2 million farms in the USA. According to the 2007 census over half the farms, 1,167,751, reported losses, with an average loss $15,596.
Only 396,054 farms have gains of over $25,000 a year, that means 1.8 million are near or BELOW the poverty threshold.
1,070,668 farms have less than 25% of their income from farming.
Only 4,048 are full time farmers deriving 100% of the income from farming.
There are 34,726 Corporate farms of those only 5,105 are non Family farms.
The average age is 55.4 years with many farmers beyond or approaching retirement age
According to the USDA, almost 90 percent of the total income of rancher or farmer households now comes from outside earnings. More than 60 percent of US farms are resource, residential or retirement farms.There is a widening gap between retail price and farm value. a USDA market basket of food has increased 2.8 percent while the farm value of that food has fallen by 35.7 percent!
Now tell me how the heck are American farmers, already working two jobs so YOU can get cheap food, going to afford the time or money to deal with the politicians in DC. No wonder the buyers can pass themselves off as the “Farm Lobby” . The more than $80 million into lobbying last year certainly did not come from the 1.8 million are near or BELOW the poverty threshold. or the 34,726 Corporate farms.

@rgbatduke,
As usual a great read! One thing you got wrong was this:
“Anything but free market prevention of starvation puts you right back into the government intervention seat. ”
The ethanol in our gasoline is an example of a government that already is in the “Intervention Seat”, interfering with free markets. If ethanol free gasoline were on sale side by side with gasohol the market could operate properly. My expectation is that the majority would reject gasohol absent the government subsidies but the market should be given the opportunity to sort winners from losers. That is not going to happen as long as ADM (Archer, Daniels, Midland) and other large agri-businesses pour money into the political machine.

Smokey says:
July 22, 2012 at 8:26 pm
philincalifornia,
You keep posting that link, but it does nothing to address my comment. I had simply questioned the assertion that turf grass was the largest U.S. crop, as Guy specifically stated.
——————–
Our posts crossed.
As I said, I think that Guy was guilty of perhaps calling turf a crop and not calling it a “crop”. My own sarcasm on this re. lawns was also misinterpreted ….. but I’ll let Guy answer for himself if he comes back.
The link was just to the numbers on Slide 7, but I’m sure you can also see the significance of the concept of sugar reserves, which Richard Hamilton came up with. I think this is an economically sound concept, and the independent capitalist community is funding such projects, and some better ones coming down the pike.
If all was break even (let’s bury the sunk costs, because either way, that’s how it is today), wouldn’t you rather the money stay in Iowa and Nebraska et al. than go where it currently goes …… ?

Smokey, because everyone here’s an expert but, actually not answering your questions, I’ll try.
planted acres for 2011/2012 in millions of acres…..Corn–91.9, Soybeans–75, Wheat–54.4. Nothing else comes anywhere close. No word from the USDA about the sophist argument re. turf.
Start here for fun with U.S. crops….. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops.aspx
Well, there’s much more to say, but it’s all been said already. The reality rejection of the higher prices, the total failure to address our energy needs or decoupling from oil is something I don’t usually see here. Uncle Sugar sure knows how to manipulate just about anyone. Welfare, it’s for everyone today!

It should also be pointed out that about 2002/2003 that Corn, Wheat, and Soybean were much more closer in terms of acreage planted…… Wheat was in the mid 60s, while corn and soybean were in the 70s of millions of acres planted. So, as we can see, wheat and the other crops weren’t planted and was replaced by corn to pour down our gas tanks.

Smokey says:
July 22, 2012 at 9:27 pm
James Sexton,
You made it look so easy!☺ What’s your secret?
==========================================
Lol, yeh, it’s a neat trick I learned some while back. 🙂

_Jim says:
July 22, 2012 at 6:55 pm
A. Scott says July 22, 2012 at 5:55 pm … I quoted facts – which I have extensively documented here many times.
Sure you have; and I have (and have seen) facts which place your ‘facts’ into the category of ‘in dispute’ if not outright falsified.
When you cite studies which do not include critical factors, studies which minimize other factors and completely ignore additional factors it’s easy to prove any darn thing which you have set as a predetermined goal, or subscribe-to like an agenda (eco-greenie or ‘Peak Oiler’) whether you are ‘paid’ disinformationalist (or not) or simply appearing on websites as a ‘debate subject specialist’ (doubtful).

I have cited multiple studies and reports – most peer reviewed – from individual scientists to governmental agencies. I provided direct links to the data to support my comments.
You and several other simply reply with adhominem attack asserting your positions – yet strangely when pressed you never seem to want to support them.
Please prove your claims. We expect the AGW proponents to provide the information and data for their claims – we should expect the same from people here. Please present the studies, and data, in whatever form, that you allege supports your claims.

Smokey says:
July 22, 2012 at 9:27 pm
James Sexton,
You made it look so easy!☺ What’s your secret?
Hey, I know your secret: you answered the actual question, not some other strawman question.
Thanks.

I answered your question long ago. I gave you the accurate data. You simply refused to acknowledge it. Turf is NOT the largest crop – as I pointed out it is behind, at minimum, corn, wheat and soybeans. Total turf acres are larger than corn acres used for ethanol – which it appears was the intended point albeit not what he said.

http://i45.tinypic.com/35l6rf7.jpg

rgbatduke says:
July 22, 2012 at 1:49 pm
+1

But talk about legalising hemp for fuel and other industrial needs and watch the eyes cloud over and the minds close … ?
Hemp for victory!

I blame this genocidice-promoting idiot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich
for the Green’s love of biofuels.

Would hemp be a profitable crop? That’s the simplest way of asking the associated questions, would hemp products be consumed, would U.S. farmers grow hemp, would hemp replace other biofuels crops, would hemp be used in biofuels, would hemp…well, you get the idea.
Most of these discussions are raw speculation, including the discussions about ethanol and corn usage, as long as subsidies and mandates are present, for subsidies and mandates obscure the simple question, would production be profitable, absent those subsidies and mandates?
So, drop the subsidies and mandates, including the mandate against hemp production, and let producers produce. The profit motive will determine their actions and we won’t have to spend endless hours speculating on whether ethanol production makes sense, or on whether hemp products would replace existing products.
Our time would be better spent discussing how to protect the constitutional form of government bestowed upon us by our Founders. Getting the government out of farming would be a start. Bring on the next Earl Butz. (For those of you too young to remember, after getting the government to sell off it’s agricultural surplus, he then sold the government storage bins for good measure.)

_Jim says:
July 22, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.” – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all
It gets worst. If you want the real price of gasoline read this – http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm

dalyplanet says:
July 22, 2012 at 9:50 pm
philincalifornia,
The document you link overestimate by an order of magnitude the barrels of petroleum that an acre of corn can produce over a 21 year contract….
________________________
Nicely put. The other point that is overlooked is the manufacture of fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides and the mining, smelting and fabrication of all the farming and transport equipment, storage silos and processing facilities.
Biofuel is a money boondoggle just like Windmills and solar farms.

Khwarizmi says:
July 22, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Gail Coombs
Pot is not hemp. They are two different plants.
…The plant’s distant relation to Cannabis
Pot is hemp. Cannabis is hemp. There are not different.
_____________________________________
Same family but different “Varieties” if you will.

Arizona Industrial Hemp Council
The word “hemp” is English for a number of varieties of the cannabis plant, particularly the varieties like “industrial hemp” that were bred over time for industrial uses such as fuel, fiber, paper, seed, food, oil, etc.
The term “marijuana” is of Spanish derivation, and was primarily used to describe varieties of cannabis that were more commonly bred over time for medicinal and recreational purposes, like cannabis indica , and certain strains of cannabis sativa…
…science readily allows us to distinguish them from industrial hemp by simple tests for the huge difference in the potency of the plants, i.e. the percentage of the psychotropic ingredient: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), the active psychotropic ingredient found in the leaves and flowers of the female plant…
Two cannabinoids are preponderant in cannabis: THC, the psychoactive ingredient, and CBD, which is an antipsychoactive ingredient. Marijuana is high in the psychoactive cannabinoid, THC, and low in the antipsychoactive cannabinoid, CBD. The reverse is true for industrial hemp; when hemp was or is bred for its desirable industrial qualities, the percentage of THC is minimal, while the percentage of CBD is high…..
This explains why the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recently adopted a resolution strongly urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to collaboratively develop and adopt an official definition of industrial hemp.
This also explains why legislation to deregulate industrial hemp and/or allow scientific study by state universities is pending or passed in over 20 states:
Bills Passed: ND, HI, MN, IL, MD — Resolutions Passed: AK, CA, KY, MT, VA, VT
Legislation In Process: SD, IA, ME, NH, NM, OR, TN — Voter Initiatives: AK, CO, MI

Joe Guerk says:
July 23, 2012 at 4:46 am
Yes, but unless the US government is insane, it will not allow so much wheat/corn/soybeans to be exported that prices will become high enough in the US that Americans will suffer financially in order to buy food.
___________________________
The US Government is INSANE or rather the government is OWNED by those who do not give a rat’s behind if we all starve.
All you have to do is look at the US balance of trade since NAFTA (1993) WTO (1995) and the entry of China in the WTO (2001) and see the export of US jobs to understand our politicians are more interested in “Global Governance” and the welfare of “International Corporations” than in the USA.
US Balance of Trade 1992 to 2012 notice the chart starts at $0 at the top and goes into the red (neg balance)
Chart of Real Unemployment Rate
change in federal withholding payroll taxes
This is worth a look and shows the USA has become a “service” economy – (store clerks, truck drivers and burger flippers) link The top chart shows the ONLY employment sector to gain is Education and Health all other sectors esp. manufacturing and construction have lost jobs

How the Economy was Lost by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
…. it wasn’t long before corporations discovered that the high speed Internet let them offshore a wide range of professional service jobs. In America, the hardest hit have been software engineers and information technology (IT) workers.
The American corporations quickly learned that by declaring “shortages” of skilled Americans, they could get from Congress H-1b work visas for lower paid foreigners with whom to replace their American work force. Many US corporations are known for forcing their US employees to train their foreign replacements in exchange for severance pay….
The pressure of jobs offshoring, together with vast imports, has destroyed the economic prospects for all Americans, except the CEOs who receive “performance” bonuses for moving American jobs offshore or giving them to H-1b work visa holders….

So a lot of those work statistics and payroll tax information is related to H-1b work visas foreigners and not working US citizens. Ask any computer type how many in the office are from India or China, that is if you can still find an American working in the building.
Chasing after shareholder return and “performance bonuses,” US corporations deserted their American workforce. The consequences can be seen everywhere.
Remember to thank Clinton for pushing through NAFTA, WTO and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.

Ray says: July 23, 2012 at 7:49 am
Ray, letting a corporation or individual keep their own money through a “tax break” instead of confiscating that money through a tax is not a subsidy. A subsidy requires the government to give money to the entity subsidized. A tax credit is only a subsidy if the credit exceeds the tax owed and the government actually pays the difference to the taxpayer. If the credit can only be applied to taxes owed, it is not a subsidy.

Oh I forgot to mention one thing, Alabama is a Coal producer, a Natural Gas producer, an Oil producer, a Wheat producer, a Cotton producer, a Soybean producer, a Peanut producer, a Corn producer, a Pine Tree producer, …. you get the picture 🙂 and yes in my lifetime the local temperatures have generally gone down a bit.

cui bono says:
July 22, 2012 at 2:58 pm
“Time to subsidise pond scum?”
We already do. They are called politicians.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 7:52 am
If the current high price of corn is due to the ethanol mandate, please explain why the current corn price on an inflation adjusted basis is almost identical to its price in 1983 long before any ethanol mandates existed.
Please note that in 1983 many of the same other market forces did exist, like crappy economy, crop failures in other countries and high oil prices.
The only “aggravating factor” that did not exist in both 1983 and today is an ethanol mandate and a significant fuel ethanol industry.
Using the same logic you folks apply to the climate debate, “correlation does not indicate causation”, your looking under the wrong rock.
Larry

Not worth the effort Larry … these folks are all experts – they know what they know and aren’t interested in any type real facts or data – no matter how many times they’ve been peer reviewed. .
If the current corn price is due to ethanol perhaps eyesonu and some of the others can explain why the price of corn skyrockected from Jun 2010 thru Jun 2011? Ethanol production didn’t change – if anything it went down slightly.
And eyesonu and others claimed corn prices increased from 2006 to 2008 because of ethanol production ramping up – while ignoring that wheat, soybeans, barely and most other commodities increased faster and higher during the same time.
In the last go around on this eyesonu tried to make claims about planted acres – that corn acreage took over other commodities acreage – which was proven equally incorrect.
But hey a “model” showed that corn prices increased 30% because of ethanol … despite that a simple review of the real world numbers at places like indexmundi shows ALL commodities rose vitually in unison at that time. Its funny too, as these same people all berate the use of similarly flawed models when it comes to AGW yet blindly accept them when it supports their beliefs and agendas.
The best part is when pressed to prove or support their claims they never do – you get an adhominem attack in response – but rarely if ever support for their claims. And when they do provide links – take _Jim for example – the stories they link to are nothing but promo puffery from interest groups – often not a shred of real data or science to support their positions.

Jim G says:
July 23, 2012 at 10:06 am
None of that matters. If there was no mandate demand would be less and corn prices would be less. Supply and demand. The regulating factor is good farm land. If less corn were planted more soybeans or wheat would be planted. So, even if as demand went down and so did supply, other crops would be planted. Burning crops for fuel hits prices across a variety of crops and, as noted by most here on this site, produces no benefit other than to the politicians who receive donations from the beneficiaries of the legislation .

That all sounds good in theory but that is not how the world really works.
For decades corn farmers were selling corn at or near the cost of production.
Big corporations like Tyson foods got subsidized indirectly with corn livestock feed that was far cheaper than the true value of the crop. Now they are whining because they have to pay the true cost of production and the farmers are actually making a living on their crop instead of squeaking by on price supports and crop insurance etc. and losing money or breaking even on the crop, often working a second job to pay the bills in addition to their farm income.
It is in the strategic interest of the country to have strong vibrant farm economy and to be able to be self sufficient in food and industrial crop production.
The equation of farm production and food production is orders of magnitude more complex than your simplistic model.
Food for export is an important part of foreign policy also, not to mention defense and security so the government has a vested interest in “managing” farm production for that and other reasons such as farm land set aside programs to try to prevent the sort of land abuse that resulted in the dust bowl.
A totally free market farm economy inevitably results in a boom bust commodity market.
Much of what you folks are blaming ethanol for has occurred multiple times when ethanol was not even on the table. It is obviously not the “cause”.

If there was no mandate demand would be less and corn prices would be less. Supply and demand.

And if the Federal government did not have regulations against untaxed alcohol, we would be awash in alcohol and it would be the highest profit margin product of many farms (read a bit of history about the whiskey rebellion). The market is already manipulated and controlled on multiple layers long before fuel ethanol boom of recent years.
In fact fuel alcohol was the dominant fuel for autos until they were driven out of business due to Federal regulations over small home alcohol production (prohibition) and market manipulation by major businesses who wanted a market to sell their “waste product” gasoline, drove them out of the market.
Folks whine about alcohol subsidies yet the blenders tax credit and the tariff on foreign ethanol was eliminated the first of the year. Everyone here predicted the ethanol market would crash and it would disappear. Didn’t happen.
In spite of that, well run outlets are selling E85 fuel at $2.75/gallon vs local gasoline prices of $3.54 for regular gasoline. Locally it sells for $3.09 per gallon compared to $3.59 for regualr.
If ethanol is such a losing proposition financially and energy wise without subsidies, how can they accomplish that with no direct artificial cost incentive at the pump?
The farmers are making a fair return on corn production (for the first time in about 30 years) well run fuel ethanol production operations can compete heads up against gasoline in mature markets which do not have punitive local regulations such as minimum mark up laws that make it illegal to sell fuel ethanol at its fair market value.
We have already discussed this issue in depth on at least 3 threads over the last year or so, the facts have not changed and fuel ethanol is still moving forward. In spite of all the bogus information, there is a strong market for E85 in areas that understand it and it has a mature distribution network so it has some economy of scale.
It is a highly desirable fuel in E85 for some car owners, and is highly valuable as an octane enhancer allowing more oil to be turned into gasoline. It also effectively converts other forms of energy that are less useful as transportation fuels in to a useful fuel commodity (ie most of the energy for production comes from natural gas and coal, effectively converting them to a motor fue).
It is not going away any time soon.
Larry

Something has caused a lot of cropland to be diverted to growing corn. Something has caused a sizable increase in the price of grains. What happened between year 2005/2006 and year 2011/2012 to cause such a change? This is unbelievable change. This is not the kind of change I can believe in.

Can you say price of oil and total supply?
“I can make more money selling corn than wheat which should I plant?”
That has to be the biggest Duh question of the year, any farmer that was not brain dead would plant the crop that will make him the best return on his investment, just like a book publisher publishes the books that people want to by or car makers build the cars people want to drive.
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_articles/Corn_Inflation.asp
Most of the cost of food products at the store and cost of grains at the dock is energy costs to grow and transport them — Hmmm same sort of thing happened when we had peak corn prices in the early 1980’s sudden increase in energy cost and a screwed up economy. The peak in 1995/96 was due to low projected end of year stocks and evaporated with good crops the following year. Production shortages are not caused by predictable increases in demand (that drives increasing production) but by sudden crop losses due to weather or other factors.
Corn production by year
1993 160986 (1000 MT) -33.12 %
1994 255295 (1000 MT) 58.58 %
1995 187970 (1000 MT) -26.37 %
1996 234518 (1000 MT) 24.76 %
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=corn&graph=production
Now if we still had strategic food reserves to level out the humps????
Larry

If you want to grow a biofuel use something besides corn. Corn is a rotten crop because it damages the soil.
[Here] is a much better choice:

Warm Season Legumes
CCS Sunn Hemp™
CCS Sunn Hemp quickly restores poor or depleted soils. It grows rapidly, up to 6′ in 60 days, while producing roughly 60 pounds of nitrogen per acre. It is very drought tolerant, and in fact thrives in dry conditions.
CCS Sunn Hemp has a narrow planting window, and dies at first frost. The stalks can be rolled down to establish a thick mat of organic material protecting soil over winter.
http://www.covercropsolutions.com/products/warm-season-legumes.php

Even the USDA is recommending it as a cover crop rotated with corn. But the DEA is dead set on banning it.

As usual the ethanol bashers display their ignorance with the same old trope.
Corn ethanol only uses the sugar from corn and the co-product replaces soybean protein and oil in livestock feed.

eyesonu says:
July 23, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 2:56 pm
=====================
What relevance does the rest of your post have to do with the main topic of this thread. You are bringing up the 1990′s, ten years prior to the mandates for ethanol. Try to stay on topic or no one will play with you except perhaps A Scott.

See now – thet there’s yer problem …
You don’t understand why the historical past performance is relevant to prices today. Just like you never figured out last time we did this you were using completely wrong data – a tiny subset of what you thought you were reporting. And despite numerous attempts – pointing you directly to the correct data – you refused to pay any attention.

In general, the government should not be subsidizing anything: ethanol, solar, wind, fossil fuel or any other type of production. It inevitably distorts markets and leads to lower efficiency and ultimately higher costs to consumers. Having said that, if you look at commodity prices over the last 10 years, the prices of ALL major commodity groups have risen essentially the same amount. I certainly don’t believe metals prices, for example, are driven by grain prices. (Only now are energy prices starting to decouple from other commodities as a result of lower natural gas prices from, primarily, fracking.) If corn-for-ethanol was really a major factor in grain pricing, those commodities should have decoupled from the rest and risen at a greater rate. They have not.
Even at today’s drought-inflated prices, the actual cost of the corn in an 18oz. box of corn flakes is on the order of $0.12 – $0.15. Double the price of corn and the price goes up by only that amount… on a $4 box of cereal. I do however agree that the world’s poor suffer disproportionate impacts from increased food prices. Again, get the government out of it and let the markets decide how to ration food crops.
In my opinion, there should be no discussion about the cost to consumers of corn-for-ethanol that doesn’t also include the impact of energy prices, increased world demand and the value of the dollar, i.e. government monetary policy. Most commodities everywhere in the world are traded in U.S. dollars — the lower the value of the dollar, the more expensive the commodities.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:55 pm
You actually make an excellent argument for getting the government completely out of the agricultural products market, though I am sure that you don’t see it. Do you also argue that alcohol is an energy efficient way to go for fuel in spite of its Rube Goldberg route from field to pump?

Smokey, I thought you were not a big fan of ad hominems.

Um, snarky insult != ad hominem. It is the Internet illiterati that have invented the use of ad hominem in place of insult to lend some logical credence to their charge of a flawed argument. Klimatologists are particularly fond of this misuse, and generally commit both insults and true ad hominem arguments while screaming from the rooftops.
Mark

Great new insight regarding the rise of biofuels. I honestly did not see this coming.
Ed

Smokey says:
July 24, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Carl Brannan,
“I did no research on you at all, I just suspected from your comment that you have a vested interest in ethanol. Now it turns out that you’re also young enough to know everything. Must be nice, having no need of decades of real world experience.”
Well, that would, indeed, explain his problem with facts, and perhaps logic, too.

Smokey says:
July 24, 2012 at 7:41 pm
End the ethanol madness!
And Viv Forbes, you are so right. If anyone could accurately forecast commodity prices, he wouldn’t just be sipping champagne from a glass slipper, he would have scores of naked teens peeling grapes for him as he counted his gold bars. And that’s just for starters…
_________________________
Seems Goldman Sachs and the rest tried and won big.

Bankers recognized a good system when they saw it, and dozens of speculative non-physical hedgers followed Goldman’s lead and joined the commodities index game, including Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Pimco, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers….
Since the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, there has been a 50-fold increase in dollars invested in commodity index funds. To put the phenomenon in real terms: In 2003, the commodities futures market still totaled a sleepy $13 billion. But when the global financial crisis sent investors running scared in early 2008, and as dollars, pounds, and euros evaded investor confidence, commodities — including food — seemed like the last, best place for hedge, pension, and sovereign wealth funds to park their cash….In the first 55 days of 2008, speculators poured $55 billion into commodity markets, and by July, $318 billion was roiling the markets. Food inflation has remained steady since…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=0,1

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers bankers. ~ 17th Earl of Oxford

eyesonu says:
July 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm
A. Scott says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“And eyesonu and others claimed corn prices increased from 2006 to 2008 because of ethanol production ramping up – while ignoring that wheat, soybeans, barely and most other commodities increased faster and higher during the same time.
In the last go around on this eyesonu tried to make claims about planted acres – that corn acreage took over other commodities acreage – which was proven equally incorrect. ”
====================
My comment (Ref: eyesonu says: July 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm ) simply showed a summary of the USDA data from year 2005/2006 to 2011/2012.
I would agree with “Hotrod Larry’s own words that it would make good business sense to plant corn rather than any other crop to maximize profit “Duh”. Perhaps that is why we see a dramatic drop in planted acres in other grains and a dramatic increase in corn.

Sorry – didn’t have time to respond back … but will now.
Supply and demand is a factor with most every product. But you show you don’t understand the relevance of historical data when you blew off the comments regarding production in the 1990.
You also show you do not understand when you think Krugmans chart helps your case – by all appearance seems you don’t understand what it shows and means – the difference between yield and production – and how that is relevant to the corn discussion.
You have – as the last time – cherry picked a couple numbers you think shows the smoking gun – but again becasue you do not understand the data or subject – you think this partial picture somehow proves your point.
You make the claim that corn prices rose starting in 2005 and that it is becasue ethanol use began increasing demand for corn about the same time. You are correct – corn prices started rising in 2005 and ethanol use increased in 2005 as well.
Unfortunately correlation does not equal cause.
If, as you claim, the corn prices were driven by ethanol demand – which is very different than watt Larry said – then you’ll have a hard time proving that after a look at this chart:
Corn & other crops price history 1997-2012
I can make the same claim as you – I claim because wheat, soybeans, and barley prices all skyrocketed almost EXACTLY the same as corn – that their price increases are also a result of ethanol.
But wait – that would be silly – there is no relation between those products and ethanol. Yet their prices went up just like corn did.
I also wonder why you stopped your earlier comparison of acres planted at 2011 – comparing 2005 to 2011 acres planted – instead of using the 2012 numbers that were right there.
Actually I know why – but that’s for the next post.

eyesonu says:
July 22, 2012 at 5:28 pm

A. Scott says:
July 22, 2012 at 4:49 pm

1. Would like to tell us what the price of corn was prior to the government ethanol mandate? IIRC last years price was a record by about 600% above the avg prior to government mandates for ethanol.
2. Would you like to tell us how much of a reduction in planted acres of soybeans, oats, and other grains were reduced as a result of the government ethanol mandate?
3. Would you like to tell us how much the price of the grains increased with the land being converted to corn production?
4. Would you be more truthful with your figures on this thread than the last?
Would you tell us why you have such a dedicated interest in defending the corn lobby?

Since you refuse to support your claims I guess I’ll have to address them. I’ll even use your data to do so for a good share of the response – you provided link earlier to a table from the “USDA Feed Grains Data: Yearbook Tables” … and other USDA data for rest.
1. Avg corn price:
1975-2000 – $2.37 actual … $ 2.30 CPI adjusted
1913-2000 – $1.45 actual … $ 4.19 CPI adjusted
2001-2012 – $3.58 actual … $ 1.72 CPI adjusted
Sorry – while prices increased in the last 10 years as ethanol came in to use, as has been shown above those increases were not in any significant part related to ethanol – as wheat, barley, soybeans etc all saw nearly identical price spikes during that time.
The CPI adjusted numbers show the real story however. Current prices are, when adjusted for inflation, well below the prices of the past – the many decades before ethanol.
2. Sure … lets use your data, but this time lets not leave out 2012 numbers (million acres) …
Corn –
2005 = 81.78 … 2012 = 96.14 … net 14.63 million more acres of corn 2005 to 2012 …
Sorghum –
2005 = 6.45 … 2012 = 6.21 … net 0.24 million less acres of Sorghum2005 to 2012 …
Barley –
2005 = 3.88 … 2012 = 3.68 … net 0.20 million less acres of Barley2005 to 2012 …
Oats –
2005 = 4.25 … 2012 = 2.75 … net 1.50 million less acres of Oats 2005 to 2012 …
Soybeans –
2005 = 72.03 … 2012 = 76.10 … net 4.07 million MORE acres of soybeans 2005 to 2012 …
Wheat –
2005 = 57.21 … 2012 = 56.02 … net 1.19 million less acres of Wheat 2005 to 2012 …
Funny thing there eyesonu … corn planted IS up 14.63 million acres 2012 vs 2005 …
… but when you look at the rest of the crops the total reduction in planted acres 2012 vs 2005 is quite interesting … add up the reduction for all BUT soybeans and the answer to your question is there was a total reduction of 3.13 million planted acres between 2005 and 2012.
And as for soybeans – their planted acres INCREASED by 4.07 million acres from 2005 to 2012.
So the correct answer to you question is that 20012 vs 2005 the total reduction in acres planted for all the other other products – wheat, sorghum, barley, oats and soybeans – was … ooops a net INCREASE of 0.94 million acres (3.13 million less + 4.07 million more soybeans)
There was NO NET REDUCTION IN PLANTED ACRES FOR OTHERS from 2005 to 2012 as a result of increased corn plantings.
Well now … wasn’t THAT inconvenient to your claims?
With that I need to get some sleep .. you ponder how you got in to such a predicament again … and I’ll try and address rest of your questions later …
Here’s some help for you – the spreadsheet where I compiled the data for you … the answer why your conclusion, that the increased corn crop has seriously reduced other plantings, is wrong – is in there
Now to be fair to you … I did not research locations – where each crop grows and/or was planted …the data set you orig provided – the USDA Feed Grains Data Yearbook, while extensive only gives us a national picture

According to this story:
http://www.agriculture.com/news/business/using-crop-insurce-in-2012_5-ar22519
In Illinois for example – 81% of corn and soybean acres were insured in 2011 with multi-peril policies (all risk vs single policies ie: for hail only). The vast majority were insured with a form of Revenue Protection policies. The loss coverage ratio’s on the vast majority of the polices weres 7% to 85%
As I understand it from this story:
http://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/hedging-to-protect-crop-revenue_2-ar25402
… the Crop Insurance works like this:
The insurance protects farmer for a certain revenue guarantee. They take a “trend adjusted actual production yield history” yield times the higher of original projected price of the harvest price. When revenue is below the guarantee they pay projected (insured) revenue minus actual revenue received.
When prices are above the projected, as they are now, insurance pays the yield shortfall times harvest price. It appears to me it would work like this:
160 bushel/acre expected yield
x 80% insured coverage
= 128 bu/ac insured yield
x $5.68 (2012 projected price)
=$727 insured revenue per acre
If your actual yield was 70 bu/acre and the harvest price was $7.00/bushel you would receive $490 per acre plus insurance would pay $237 per acre for total received of $727 per acre.
Your FULL expected revenue per acre would have been 160 bu/ac yield x $5.68 projected price = $908 per acre. You would have taken a loss of 20% … but still likely made a small profit – I saw break 2012 even costs for corn noted as approaching $5.
The story goes a step further and outlines how, when harvest price is well above projected insurance price, that the insurance becomes yield insurance. … (and how the insurance can be used as a hedge.)
In same example above if the insured yield is 80% of 160 – or 128 bu/ac … and if the actual yield is 70 and the harvest price is $8.50 per bushel, the insurance would pay for 58 bushels at $8.50 = $493, plus the farmer would receive $8.50 x the 70 bu/ac actual crop = another $596 = total received of $1,088 … actually more than the projected original revenue. That said this is still 20% below what the original 160 acres would have returned at the $8.50 harvest price (= $1360 per acre).
Regardless – in any event it seems pretty clear – while there may be insurance payments in some areas, looking at the whole crop (below), with the bushels harvested down 18.94% this would be below most insurance coverage caps. More important it seems are the other numbers – if I calculated right, based on a $5.68 pre-season projected price for this crop and an if the actual harvest price was $8.50 – the value of the 19% smaller than projected harvested crop would still be almost 50% higher than the VALUE of the original projected crop harvest.
Last – it seems troubling, unless I misunderstand the program – that a farmer can make more than their original projected revenue. It would seem we should not be insuring, especially with subsidies, the speculative benefit/risk of price appreciation.
96,410,000…. ac planted
166….yield
16,004,060,000….bushels
$5.68….projected price
$90,903,060,800….projected value
….
88,850,000…. ac harvested….-7.84%
146….yield….-12.05%
12,972,100,000 …. bushels….-18.94%
$8.50…. proj price ….49.65%
$110,262,850,000 ….proj value….21.30%

Today (July 30, 2012), in the newspaper “Le Soir” (Belgium) I read the striking statement of Olivier De Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. (own translation from French)
“I am very upset about this subject [biofuels]. An irresponsable policy is being established. In the USA, 40% of the maize crop was used to produce ethanol! And the European Union continues to plan to impose the figured objectives for the year 2020 concerning biofuels. Since 4 years one is shouting his hoarse to explain that biofuels are a significant part of the problem concerning the right to food but nothing changes.
Obviously there are interests to one cannot run counter, neither in the United States – and still less in this election year – nor in Europe!”
I fully agree with his view. It’s really a shame!