(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

demise of fuel with ethanol?

Back when the idea was first floated I was all for it. We were paying $5.00 a gallon for gas. When was that 2007 or 08? I was also paying about $9-10.00 a hundred for rolled corn. Now corn is twice that, though dropping, and the fallacy of using a fuel that cost more to produce than it sells for is understood. I just hope the corn farmers didn't buy all new equipment. I hope they paid off their bills.
 
(quoted from post at 04:59:10 11/25/13) Back when the idea was first floated I was all for it. We were paying $5.00 a gallon for gas. When was that 2007 or 08? I was also paying about $9-10.00 a hundred for rolled corn. Now corn is twice that, though dropping, and the [b:589c6ec2de]fallacy of using a fuel that cost more to produce than it sells for is understood.[/b:589c6ec2de] I just hope the corn farmers didn't buy all new equipment. I hope they paid off their bills.
Click to expand...

Oh this old argument again........
 
keep makin ethanol , and get the stupid people to understand they can cure their ignorance by educatin themselves ...
 
It has certainly become a political football.

Too bad so many fumble the ball so often. ;)

Paul
 
Reporter from AZ has article in a NY paper and they claim to know whats going on in Iowa. Did anyone read the other articles in same paper. Even people who are on this site believe anything they hear or read even though its mite be yrs old stuff from nowhere.
 
Don't you wonder why the price of gas has been falling? Stop cheering for the big oil companies and support the farmers. I bet you spend a lot more for fuel then you do for rolled corn. And where do you get the idea that it costs more to produce ethanol than it's worth? How much corn do you grow?
 
The ethanol industry is built on politics and is being sold as the answer to our source of energy. However, people need to stop listening to the politics of either side and think for themselves.
I would like ethanol to be the answer to our energy source but my experience suggest it's not. After four years of monitoring fuel economy, I have found I loose about 7-10% when using 10% ethanol. If you add 10%, loose 10% and factor in the energy consumed to produce the ethanol, I don't see any gain. Published data suggest a 20-25% loss in economy when using E85. Once again the loss on MPG and the energy consumed to to make up the loss questions the gain if any.
In the article you posted, "We use 10-percent of ethanol in the gasoline in our cars. Do you want to import another 10 percent of oil" Grassley told the AP. "No, you don't." This is an example of distorted in formation. A gallon of ethanol doesn't replace a gallon of imported oil.
We need to find a more efficient uses of our energy sources. Alternatives for public transportation, maybe propane, natural gas or electric. Transfer interstate truck freight to rail. Further improve auto economy. I don't know much about diesel, but maybe diesel bio-fuel is more efficient.
Hopefully comments on this subject will not be taken over by political opinions. I would like to hear people relate their personal experience with ethanol but not their politics.
 
It still amazes me how much ethanol is bashed, and how it is SO bad for everything. Back almost 100 years, there were lots of farmers running PURE alcohol in their tractors. Anyone that buys into that line that its bad for you will buy into the line that only range free eggs are good for you. Organic veggies are the only way to go, cause that is what Granddad ate. Well Hell, Granddad got off his lazy butt, and did everything with manual labor, and he still died at 70 years old.
Get real people!!!
 
Henry Ford said when he came out with the model T he figured farmers would just make their own fuel for it. Aint nothing new.

As for the free range eggs, we have a dozen hens running around the farm. I far prefer the brown eggs we get from them versus the store. Larger, fresher and tastier. Nothing wrong with that.
 
I agree 100% that fresh eggs are so much tastier than weeks-old store bought. But for the life of me I cannot tell the difference between white and brown shell. Maybe someone can explain that to me. But personally, I don't eat the shell!!!
 
A country burning up its food supply is insanity.Ethanol is terrible for the taxpayers that subsidize it and the consumers that are forced to use it.If its such a good idea cut all Gov't support and the mandate to use it and then see how it does in the real marketplace.Ethanol from corn has been an enviromental and financial disaster for the US time to cut it loose.
 
I'll say it again --
Ethanol from corn has been tried since the 1920's, and has NEVER been an economicaly viable replacement for gasoline......
 

IMHO - The article is kind of a mis-leading rant about very little.

The RFS standard came into being in 2005 and outlined the minimum gallons of ethanol required to be blended into gasoline each year. It also projected increased requirements in future years. The EPA was authorized to levy fines against refiners who did not comply. In 2007 it was expanded to include bio-diesel blend requirements with a goal of some 36 billion gallons bio-fuels by year 2022. There have been adjustments along the way and the EPA has wavied requirements in the event supplies were interrupted or not yet invented, as in the case of cellulosic ethanol.

Since 2005 our gasoline useage did not increase at the rate anticipated and today there is not enough gasoline sold to blend the required bio-fuels with - the so called "blend wall". The revision referred to in the article has more to do with adjusting the blend requirements to current gasoline useage than any change in policy.

Since ethanol has become available the refiners can reduce costs by: 1) producing 84/91 octane gasoline (refining in octane costs money) and 2) blending the two gasoline grades and adding 10% ethanol (ethanol is cheaper than gasoline) to make the higher octane grades. As long as ethanol remains cheaper than gasoline I would not expect ethanol to go away even if the RFS was eliminated.

I have never been a fan of the RFS mandate and would like to see all pumps labeled as to fuel type and priced accordingly. For those that prefer non-ethanol gasoline, let them have a choice. For those that prefer E-10, let them have a choice.
 
Regardless of what IA (and other) politicians do or do not do, the large scale use of corn derived ethanol as a motor fuel in the US will eventually end as do all practices that do not make economic sense.

Dean
 
I have posted facts on this site showing it is economically viable.

Show me some facts that it is not.

$700 to grow an acre of corn. 165 bushel grown makes 462 gallons of ethanol. At 2.40 a gallon equals $1108.8 per acre return. Plus the distillers grain that is sold for feed.

Gary
 
The simple 'economics' one needs to know is that if an industry can not stand on its own, without tax payer support & forced use of the product, then in a free enterprise system , it is NOT a viable industry. Remove the support & mandates & see if it thrives. If yes, great. If not, so be it.
 
Ethanol production is NOT subsidized, so there goes that part of your argument right out the window.

We aren't "burning up our food supply" either. Over 60% of the corn we grow is exported because the market inside the United States can only use so much. We would have huge surplus of corn and prices would drop to cause unsustainable loss of profit by US farmers without ethanol production.

Then there's the simple fact that the ONLY part of corn that is used to make ethanol is the starch, which is NOT digestible by cattle, and the remnant is brewers grain, which is a very valuable feed stock, worth just as much as the corn from which it is derived.

No, I don't agree that the government should be mandating percentages of ethanol used, but considering the alternative, NOT using ethanol, plays directly into the hands of "big oil", I'm all for farmers making their buck instead of Exxon (and the like) making ALL the profits on gasoline marketed in the US.

The only "financial disaster" I see would be for American farmers if ethanol production was halted. I for one don't wish to see us bankrupted simply because of short-sightedness on the part of those who don't like ethanol.
 
The standard that congress established in 2007 was for gasoline to contain an average of 10% ethanol. That was back when things were booming. Back then, gasoline use for 2013 was projected to be 160 billion gallons. That would mean 16 billion gallons of ethanol. With the great recession continuing, and motor vehicles getting ever better mpg, and people driving less, the expected use of gasoline in 2013 will be 130 billion gallons. Requiring 13 billion gallons of ethanol under the established standard. However, the way it's written up, refineries are required to use 16 billion gallons of ethanol in 2013. Some sort of compromise is likely to be worked out. Requiring less ethanol.
 
The tax payer support has been gone for almost one year.

I do not agree with the forced use of ethanol fuels. Get on your local retailer to put in another pump offering non ethanol fuel. We"ve had a choice here in Iowa for 40 years whether to use ethanol or not. Most choose ethanol over importing oil from the middle east.

Question to ponder. Where would the price of gas be without the competition from ethanol?

Gary
 
I can't help but comment on the FACT that the anti-ethanol crowd is almost always a little short on the use of facts. They rely on disinformation, innuendo, and simple out and out fabrication.

Without ethanol, we would have huge surplus' of corn. That would drive prices below break even levels, putting many a US farmer out of business.

Cattle cannot digest the starches from corn. Those starches are what is used to make ethanol. The resulting brewers grain is a very valuable, very marketable byproduct.

All things considered, I'd MUCH prefer US farmers to make a decent buck than to line the pockets of big oil and middle eastern oil cartels.

Apparently, based on those facts, most of the anti-ethanol crowd prefer to break the backs of US farmers and to boost the finances of the Arab oil world. Personally, I'm not seeing that as something a real American would tend to favor.
 
I think the recession is over in MN, for sure in ND, but ND is so strong because ag is doing well and oil is booming. If the bottom fell out of oil ND would be an instant recession on it's own. I have read the reason we are using less gas is because the average vehicle on the road is more efficient than in the past.
 
Im now wishing it wouldn't have even mentioned the brown shell. The only thing is I see the brown shell and it makes me think of the fresh eggs from our farm. Its an association thing. For example a John Deere collectors favorite color being green.
 
I don't understand who came up with the stupid idea of putting ethanol into gasoline in the first place. In the mean time it does nothing but drive up the price of hard liquor. I wish I could drink gasahol 'cause it is a whole lot cheaper than whiskey. Some of the lower priced whiskeys taste like they are putting 10% gasoline in it anyway. And explain to me why a gallon of E85 costs around $3 and a gallon of Seagrams costs over $40. Lets get our priorities straight here.
 
Did you also see that on that list 28 ethanol plants are closed. In our state there was several new plants put on hold.
 
Who the frick eats No.2 yellow corn?? Nobody I know. Iowa alone produces more corn than humans eat in cereal or corn chips or any other corn based food.
 
I don't think ethanol is going away any time soon...
Personally, based on my gut instinct, I believe the energy cycle of ethanol is a pure loss equation. The profitability is based on market cycles and prices for corn and gasoline.... so sometimes there will be money in ethanol and sometimes there won't be. I don't believe that the existence of ethanol has made ~any~ measurable difference in the price of oil/gasoline/fuel. What it has done is re-monetize cropping in north America and throughout the world. The fact that one can now turn a profit in growing a crop is, in my mind, a good thing. It removes the need for the government to continually subsidise the production of staple crops to maintain a reserve. As far as corn's usage in fuel is concerned... I would imagine that after a few boom/bust cycles and the debt gets written down enough... the plants will stabilise and probably the price they pay for corn will as well. So I think ethanol will be around for some time to come.

Rod
 
So many inaccurate statements in this thread.
1. The 16 billion gallons is ALL renewable fuels, not just ethanol.
2. Ethanol IS "subsidized" via the mandate. But oil is also heavily subsidized, yet no one seems to care much about that.
3. Lower gasoline use is a combination of less miles driven AND higher miles per gallon on vehicles.
4. 60% of corn exported? Try more like 12% or less. Now... that percentage is much higher if you count DDGs and meat -- the old adage of walking corn off the farm.

IF the mandate is ended? Again, HAH! Anyone remember MTBE? Ethanol is used in its place -- about 7.5 billion gallons annually.

So, those who get all riled up on this are doing so because of an original less than objective story and followed by many statements that are not based in fact.

There is an old adage in journalism -- never let the facts get in the way of a good story. That can apply to discussion threads like this as well.
 
Ethanol IS subsidized in a number of ways especially with Federally backed crop insurance on corn which
costs the Taxpayers Millions$ every year because the premium the farmers pay don't come close to covering the loses.Talk about the 'evils' of Big Oil I'll bet you use diesel fuel to run your tractors and trucks and most of your suppliers do too.The way ethanol should work is the farmers that are benefitting from it should have to run their machines off of it if its so good.
 
E10 has 3% less energy than straight gas,, so where do you get a 10% drop in fuel economy ?

Depending on the engine, research by several universities found anywherte from a 3% loss to a 1% gain using E10. My own experience has been similar.

As for the efficiency of Ethanol production cost, the latest numbers out of USDA is that modern Ethanol production shows a 33% energy gain.
For each BTU of Diesel fuel, natural gas or coal energy you apply to growing, transporting converting to Ethanol, you get 33% more energy out than you put in. Where does the 33% come from ? It comes from the free sunlight that grew the crop to produce the starch/ sugar/ Ethanol .
 
Well... I think someone needs to go back to animal science 100...
The main reason that corn has been fed to cattle and other livestock for the last 70+ years is... get this clear now... STARCH. It's all about the starch. The availability of that starch is challenging which is why it's ground up, cracked, steam flaked, etc... but make absolutely no mistake, the purpose of feeding it is starch and energy.
What's left in DDG's is a shadow of what was there and not nearly as valuable a feed...

Rod
 
Maybe you need to go back to animal science 100 and see that starch produces fat, protien produces meat . As a byproduct of yeast producing Ethanol, they convert starch to protien. DDG is much higher protien content than corn .
 
Yeah, DDG is higher protein. Last I checked, fat is why the corn was fed... If all they needed was protein, alfalfa is what they'd be feeding.

Rod
 
I think that ethanol is pretty much the same as windmills.

Great for the landowner or farmer but is a net loss for the country and the taxpayer.

I happen to burn shelled corn to heat my home and in ten years the price went from 85 dollars a ton to close to $300.

I respectfully submit that 'big oil' and 'big corporate' farms are much the same.

Brad
 
(quoted from post at 13:25:42 11/25/13) Well said, JMOR.

Dean
Click to expand...
hank you, Dean. Once we dump the emotions, fodder, and get past the smoke & mirrors, this is the bottom line, simple as that.
"The simple 'economics' one needs to know is that if an industry can not stand on its own, without tax payer support & forced use of the product, then in a free enterprise system , it is NOT a viable industry. Remove the support & mandates & see if it thrives. If yes, great. If not, so be it."
 
How with all the corn wasted making inefficient ethanol are we not wasting our corn (food) on so called fuel??? It is absolutely a waste of corn, water, and fuel to cook the corn to make the less than efficient ethanol? Those are absolute facts, mixing it into real fuel has caused problems from day one, another fact. I have found those that are staunch supporters of this fiasco are the ones making Thousands of dollars profit while they have now plowed down all their other crops because corn is artificially inflated in price directly due to the mandate they create sub standard ethanol. That in itself is more than a subsidy, it's an outright demand, which is still a subsidy.
 
Actually it does not.

Still waiting to learn how the oil industry is "heavily subsidized."

Dean
 
(quoted from post at 14:12:37 11/25/13) Actually it does not.

Still waiting to learn how the oil industry is "heavily subsidized."

Dean
Click to expand...
hat?! How can that be? You mean to tell me that Hagen's totally unbiased, "fair & balanced" link didn't convince you? Me neither. :(
 
I looked again.

I scrolled to the bottom to the notes and found "closed" to be denoted as PC or Permanetly Closed. I looked through the list again trying to find PC and found one.

I can find "idled" plants on the list. Maybe they are the ones you are referring to as "closed".
 
Over 2002-2008....Tax breaks... including:

Foreign Tax Credit ($15.3 billion)IRC Section 901
Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels ($14.1 billion). IRC- Section 45k
Oil and Gas Exploration & Development Expensing ($7.1 billion)- IRC Section 617.
Oil and Gas Excess Percentage over Cost Depletion ($5.4 billion)- IRC Section 613.
Credit for Enhanced Oil Recovery Costs ($1.6 billion) - IRC Section 43.
 
Corn burning stoves were made for grain farmers who grew their own corn for fuel. The best use of corn may not be for heat.Corn is like wood, if you have your own source, burn it. If not, it is not cost effective to use for heat. How did burning corn wind up on a post about ethenol in gas?
 
Well, guess we solved the ethanol question again, right.
I see no one is talking about the oxygenation part of the use of ethanol.
 
(quoted from post at 05:35:41 11/25/13) Don't you wonder why the price of gas has been falling? Stop cheering for the big oil companies and support the farmers. I bet you spend a lot more for fuel then you do for rolled corn. And where do you get the idea that it costs more to produce ethanol than it's worth? How much corn do you grow?
Click to expand...

The price of gas is RISING, not falling friend. I'm not cheering big oil, I'm not cheering big ethanol either. Of course I spend more for fuel than corn, I use a lot more. Your point is? If you read through some of the other posts here you'll see the argument about the actual end cost of ethanol, that why it costs more to produce than it's worth. I don't grow much corn, we're not exactly in the corn belt up here, that's why we have to buy it in. What does get grown goes mostly for silage, but a lot of farmers are going shelled corn now because ethanol has driven the price up so much.

As I said, I hope the corn guys used their money wisely and didn't go whole hog based the belief the corm boom would last. It isn't going to. It'll eventually go the same way Emus, Ostriches and pot bellied pigs did. Look to the future.
 
If you look some of them have been idle for years. One of those plants has been closed for several years not idled like they say 2012. They are looking for a buyer and yet to find one. If ethanol is the going thing why are so many setting idle?
 
Well the oxygenation part... that's the ethanol replacing MTBE.

And as for an unbiased look: THe Congressional Research Service. Nonpartisan.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/R41227EnergyLegReport.pdf
 
We do use products containing ethanol as well. Some use biodiesel where it is available. Many grain farmers do not buy into the crop insurance as they believe they would be betting against themselves and inspite of what some stupos believe it is not free or cheap.
 
Someone posted that if ethanol was not used, corn prices would drop because of there would be a huge surplus.

Rather than grow so much corn as to create a surplus wouldn't farmers grow lower amount of corn closer to what the actual demand would be to keep prices at a profitable level?

I do have a question. I know there are other sources for ethanol than corn. One that is being looked into is ethanol derived from kudzu. I know some people in the south are very excited about that prospect. So my question is for those that are strong supporters of ethanol....would you still be a strong supporter of ethanol if a financially viable alternative to corn is found?
 
"Nonconventional fuels????" Are we not talking about oil?

"Depletion?" This is simiply depreciation of a wasting asset. Any business, farmers included, can depreciate wasting assets. Accounting 101.

"Foreign Tax Credit?" How does this apply only to the oil industry?

"Exploration and Development?" Any industry can expense costs, including develpment costs. Again, accounting 101.

Off to work.

Dean
 
The nut cases on Huffington Post know nothing about farming or ethanol but they sure think they do..They arent aware that drought in 2011-2012 drove the price of corn up to $7.00 a bushel and that a more normal year in 2013 has driven it back down to $4.00 a bushel..For some that is close to the cost of production..
 
Why idle? If the price of fuel is down and the price of corn is up... the economics of producing ethanol tend to turn negative. In three months time it could go to the other extreme...
That is the business cycle.

Rod
 
Yes- work is already being done on cellulosic ethanol, with at least one production plant in the works. The key to cellu is to find the right enzyme that can break it down at a profitable cost. Kudzu is just another cellu source being looked at, like wood chips, switchgrass, corn stalks or other cellulose.

Why wouldn"t I favor it? Yesterday I filled with E85 at 82 cents/gal under the E10 price. Doesn"t take a math whiz to figure the cost advantage, despite the mileage drop. I"m dollars ahead at a 40 cent margin, and I have a decade of experience, so I know my numbers. Corn belt farmers are way ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to truth vs BS re ethanol. We"ve heard all the lies and mistruths that appear at each of these discussions.
 
Let's not mislead people to support your argument. There is not $1108 of return. You totally left out processing cost. The other error in your math is that the maximum yield that I can find is 2.5 gallons per bushel. That would be 412 gallons on 165 bushels. Without processing costs that makes $988.00 per acre.

The only fair way to compare this would be to compare the ethanol value with other venues in which the corn could be used. How much could be made from cattle on the same 165 bushels of corn? I'm betting a better return on investment.

Also consider that the tax on a gallon of E85 is lower than the tax on a gallon of gasoline. That's money missing from the government's hand which is a subsidy.

Lets also talk about effeciency of vehicles which would take the return per acre to the next step. Even vehicles equiped for E85 typically experience a 20% decrease in fuel econonmy over gasoline. That puts gasoline at a cost advantage over ethanol by quite a few cents despite the tax break for E85. For the end user this is a reduction in value.

My only reason for posting this was to prevent someone from seeing only one side of the situation. Ethanol is not rosey despite what some would like to believe. The government has yet to do anything effeciently and this is no exception. The govenment has no business in setting price floors/ceilings or adjusting market prices.
 
Those who line their pockets will always be defenders of the source of the money, while attacking any competition. Corn growers of ethanol and oil producers of oil.
 
Dean you can,t win with these type folks. Me I am planting 2,000 acres of corn again next year. Sure helps to have something to offer that takes the place of oil.
 
That article starts out with a totally false premise:

"What is a fossil fuel subsidy?
A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers."

Every business is allowed to deduct expenses, taxes paid to foreign governments, etc. Those are not fossil fuel subsidies.
 
Three things will happen when the ethanol mandate is lifted:
1. Commodity prices will collapse (Already happening)
2. The price of gasoline will skyrocket.
3. The price of food will NOT drop one penny.
 
I started burning corn for home heat in 2002. I raise my own corn so I can logicaly have it cheaper then a nonfarmer. But when corn price went up I switched to pellets which is also reasonable heat.
If you look back in the last few years we have had droughts followed by floods which made grain prices go up. If you want to support mideast countries who hate us rather then give the farmers a little boost I feel sorry for you.
Minn had one of the earliest corn processing plants It started as a value added coop with farmers mortgaging their farms to fiance the plant. It was determined early on that ethynol wouldn't be a profitable venture unless fuel prices went real high. Remember the threats from the mideast of cutting the fuel to teach us a lesson?
Fuel did go high and the threat was real. No one knew about the oil fields we presently have so it was a way of cutting usage.
My question now is why has fuel stayed so high??
 
if you are smart enough to predict what crop might be profitable in the future please let us know, the reality is that corn has been a cash flow staple in the midwest for many years and people go with what works, i'd like to have something else with lower input costs but then a person has to establish a market and hope it lasts, because of livestock use and ethanol I can be pretty sure that I will have someone to buy it though maybe not always at a price I like
 
the i diots you are referring to is us midwest farmers! I have a hunch that some of the posters here are even more ignorant than us though.
 
(quoted from post at 16:51:11 11/25/13) I started burning corn for home heat in 2002. I raise my own corn so I can logicaly have it cheaper then a nonfarmer. But when corn price went up I switched to pellets which is also reasonable heat.
If you look back in the last few years we have had droughts followed by floods which made grain prices go up. If you want to support mideast countries who hate us rather then give the farmers a little boost I feel sorry for you.
Minn had one of the earliest corn processing plants It started as a value added coop with farmers mortgaging their farms to fiance the plant. It was determined early on that ethynol wouldn't be a profitable venture unless fuel prices went real high. Remember the threats from the mideast of cutting the fuel to teach us a lesson?
Fuel did go high and the threat was real. No one knew about the oil fields we presently have so it was a way of cutting usage.
My question now is why has fuel stayed so high??
Click to expand...

First off, I think some misinterpret the not so rosy view of ethanol as taking a shot at corn growers. Not so. I'm glad the corn guys had some good years, like I've said repeatedly, I hope they paid ff everything they could. But those great years for corn were lousy years for the rest of us that had to buy corn. Pork, beef, poultry, lamb, etc. We all have to pay a lot more now because corn was so high. And lets not kid ourselves, the bushel price may have dropped to $4.00, but the feed store price is still running about $18.00@cwt up here. There's a lot of middlemen working to get themselves out of holes, pay their taxes, fuel, etc. too that goes into the price. That's above and beyond the ethanol issue.

As to why fuel is so high? Consider that since 1990 our dollar has lost 80% of it's value. 10% in the last 2 years. Purposeful devaluation of the dollar is part of why fuel is still high. Oil is bought and sold on the world market, we pay what everyone else does with a devalued dollar. Plus, the oil companies have to pay for that ethanol the govt mandates, the research, the shipping, the exploration, etc. Yeah, they get tax breaks just like any other company, but lets not try to say big oil is getting breaks and big ethanol isn't. That's not even close to real.

In the end, if ethanol plays out for a good while longer, that's great for the corn guys. Pay your debt now. If not, if switch grass or kudzu or (I wish) pig weed and dandelion are the next big thing, then it's going to happen. Meanwhile that lovely brewers grain that was mentioned early on is obscenely expensive no matter how good it is, and thats before you truck it. Corn is going to remain relatively high (above $16.00@cwt) according to my feed guy for the foreseeable future. He'd LOVE to be able to get $4.00 corn, but it's just not available in a reasonable distance and there's no one stepping up to get a train load around here. So all us smaller dairy, hog, poultry, sheep, etc guys that can't buy tons and tons at a time are going to be stuck with the dirty end of the stick for some time and so will the consumer that's looking at $16.00@lbs steaks for the good stuff. I don't know about you, but we eat a lot of raman noodle soup and cheap Holstein burger.
 
nah i'd lean more towards dumb a$$, he never gives any facts , just agrees with everyone else and repeats it like a parrot, I don't think him or traditional farmer could find their a$$es with both hands
 
(quoted from post at 01:36:37 11/26/13) nah i'd lean more towards dumb a$$, he never gives any facts , just agrees with everyone else and repeats it like a parrot, I don't think him or traditional farmer could find their a$$es with both hands
Click to expand...
ow that is certainly an intelligent, not-ignorant argument from an anonymous 'guest'. :roll: No facts, no information, no rebuttal.........just name calling. Wow! I'm sure impressed!
 
How is a tax credit not a subsidy? O'care provides tax credits to low income families to pay for their policies; do you call that a subsidy or an "un-subsidy"?

I think what you really mean is a tax credit is not a subsidy as long as you happen to like it.
 
2.5 gallons per bushel was yield back 5 years ago.

Some plants are getting close to 3 gallons per bushel.

As far as less energy per gallon. My example already adjusted for that with the price of ethanol at 2.40 a gallon. You will go the same miles on a 3.25 gallon of gas as you will 3.25 dollars worth of E85.

If we fed all the corn grown to livestock there would be so much meat that the price of meat would be a loosing deal for the livestock farmer.

The bottom line is there more than enough corn for livestock, ethanol and exports.

Livestock producers are enjoying some of the best prices they have ever received. They will make more money than the grain farmer the next few years.

The gas tax per gallon is the same for ethanol as it is for gasoline. So if you are saying it takes more gallons of ethanol to go the same miles the tax on ethanol is higher per mile.

Gary
Read this.
 
I'm sorry... but you have your head completely up your as$ in regards to the cattle business... at least in terms of how it operates in this country. While the price has grown some in the past 2 years it's been entirely eaten up by price inflation in every thing we buy, including corn... and that's after coming off the worst 8 years previous in half a century.
There has been absolutely nothing good about the present corn prices for anyone in livestock.

Rod
 
Even on this forum, its amazing of all the knowledge
on the business of farming, and all the people that left the farm
and still know more than the average farmer on the business
continue to know so much with little knowledge, no matter
the american farmer will fill the super market shelves, even
with all the bad reports, and feed you.
 
The present corn price is almost half of a year ago.

Corn was 7.50 plus a year ago. $4.10 a bushel today and still headed down. Another good crop next year and it could be under $3.00 a bushel.

Finished beef is at $1.20 a pound and higher. 500 pound feeders are bringing $2.00 a pound.

If you don't make money on cattle now you may be in the wrong business.

I said it here 2 years ago when corn price was on the rise "Cattle will follow the corn price upward" and they have.

I assume you are in Canada. Maybe Canada cattle prices are not as good.

A lot of Stock Cows went to market the last 3 years. Many because of drought with no pasture and many others went to grow more corn on pasture land. With the corn price going down more hay will be grown so hay prices will come down as well.

If you are still paying high grain prices (4.50 per bushel plus) maybe we should get together and I'll send a few semi loads up to you.

The livestock producer will be in good times if he is not already.

I raised hogs and cattle for 34 years. I understand it a little.

Gary
 
So you're saying you skipped that class?
A tax credit means if a corporation is working on something the government deems critical or noteworthy or something similar they are allowed to pay a reduced rate of tax. In other words, instead of taking 50% of their earnings the government only takes 40%. The 10% difference is a credit.
A subsidy is what the government does for too many people with the money they take from others.
Many of those it is given to pay no taxes AT ALL.
I know you like your clever little slogans like corporate welfare and corporate subsidies but in fact the government has no money to give except what it takes from others.
 
Yes the nonconventional fuels applies to oil.
Never said the foreign tax credit applied only to the oil industry.
As for the others, obviously you headed off to your job as an accountant!

Have a good one!
 
Why not blend ethanol with diesel so the corn farmers can use their crops to offset their fuel costs? Or better yet, tractors, combines and farm trucks that use pure ethanol?
Seems to me, the corn crop uses petroleum in every stage from tillage to planting to market, no matter how the end product is used (fuel or food). Any farmers want to have it blended in with diesel for their farm equipment or use pure ethanol?
 
(quoted from post at 02:19:21 11/26/13) How is a tax credit not a subsidy? O'care provides tax credits to low income families to pay for their policies; do you call that a subsidy or an "un-subsidy"?

I think what you really mean is a tax credit is not a subsidy as long as you happen to like it.
Click to expand...
an afraid that we have people here talking far beyond their expertise. People who don't know anything whatsoever about the meaning of tax credit, tax deduction, capital expenses, amortization, etc. Need to do a little research, education, learning, and less mouth running before mind in gear!
 
In so many words, you confirmed what I said: A tax credit is not a subsidy if you happen to like it. If you really believe this, I'm guessing you have problems balancing your own checkbook.

First off, "subsidy" is not a word with negative connotations, unless you choose to make it so. There are and have been plenty of government subsidies, some good, some bad. It's unlikely the transcontinental railroad would ever have been built had the federal government not given the railroads millions of acres in exchange for its construction.

Secondly, the math is simple: if the government gives a tax credit to a individual or corporation, that's money it doesn't collect and it's money the individual or corporation doesn't pay in taxes. If you think that's not a subsidy, then I guess you have a new definition for the word.

Politicians LOVE to give tax credits because it's a not-too-clever way to spend money while pretending to not spend money. You can fool some of the people all of the time.
 
98% of US farm operations are conducted by family and/or individual ownership. The vast majority of gasoline sold by "big oil" is distributed by a very limited number of large corporations. There is little comparison.

If you're paying $300 a ton for shelled corn, you're being ripped off by a middle man and NOT by the US farmer. We don't get anywhere NEAR that for what we grow. I can BUY shelled corn all day long for half that price. If your skills as a consumer are lacking, don't blame anyone besides yourself.

If you think the largest single commodity involved in the food chain is a "waste of taxpayer money", I respectfully submit you quit eating. We won't miss your business.
 
One thing is obvious is the only people that like ethanol are those that are getting $$$ directly from its production.Really when the fiscal conservatives and the Enviromentalists have teamed up together to get rid of something its a goner.
 
Eventually farmers would grow less corn AFTER they suffered several years of crushing loss'. It's just not in our nature to scale back in preparation for a bad price on our crops that may OR MAY NOT happen. The nature of farming economics in this country doesn't play well with lowering our production in large increments.

And in spite of what the anti-ethanol zealots profess, ethanol production only plays a very small part in driving corn prices. What most fail to understand is, or as the case may be, IGNORE, is dramatically increased exports to a number of Asian countries over recent years has done the majority of "driving".

I also find it ridiculous how so many think farmers still need to sell our crop at 1960's price levels. (A) How many of YOU work for the same income you did 50 years ago? Our cost of production has increased along with every other business in the world, yet non farmers expect us to survive as if we were paying the same price for inputs and equipment that we were decades ago.

It's really a joke how many self proclaimed economic experts we have here who express the opinion that farmers shouldn't adjust income in parallel with the rest of the worlds economy. It's simple....A business that represents hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of yearly RISK has a right to make a significant REWARD. If you feel different, I hope you can find a way to survive on a diet of anger and hostility. Because, at that point, you have no right to the food we produce since you find it so morally reprehensible when we price it according to a fair market value.
 
Well... corn is still actively trading at 7.50 up here. Down slightly from where it was. Keep in mind that where I'm at on the east coast we have a significant transportation cost that is reflected in that price.... Our region doesn't produce enough corn to meet our needs so pricing generally reflects the Ontario price plus freight. The balance may shift on that in the next couple of years... or mabey not.

As far as cattle go... the Canadian herd has been in contraction mode since about 2003-05 after BSE. IIRC, the US herd is also in contraction the last few years because of feeding costs... but to say that the price of beef has come up because the price of corn has risen... I think is not quite correct. It's risen because supply is short... which is no doubt because of the price of feed... but when feed becomes more available, the herd will grow again the price will flatten again.

The other problem we have here is that we spent 20 years working with a 60 cent dollar and a lot of our costs are inflated in real terms to reflect that. Now that our dollar has appreciated in the range of 95 cents to par with the US dollar, the real prices we receive have declined but the cost base is still there... so there's no great pot of money to work with here.

For an example on prices... the last feeder sale a week ago... 5-600# steers brought an average price of $1.58 with the top group going for $1.72... On an average weight of 568# @ $1.58 that cow made ~900 bucks for the year. She's apt to have a pretty lean winter if she's going to pay for her feed.
I have no doubt that on a fairly large scale and very low cost model you could make some money at it here... but the reality is that most are not operating on a large scale... and it would require a huge investment for them to get there... which is probably not warranted given the cycles we see here.

Rod
 
Blending alcohol with diesel fuel is a great way to destroy injectors and fuel pumps... Alcohol is dry and removes lubricity from the fuel.
Adding bean oil would be a different story...

Rod
 
I work in the livestock industry and I tire of the livestock farmers complaining about the price of corn going up. They sure as heck weren't complaining when they could buy corn for $1.50.

The corn producers built a market for their product, is it perfect, heck no, but it is adding value to a commodity.
 
Oil is not subsidized! they get a aggressive depreciation schedule for there drilling components. Like farmers know nothing of depreciation. Oil producers are also especially
heavily Taxed. More than any other business except cigarettes, but for the farmer more subsidizes for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Considering a Built-In Bio-Ethanol Fireplace: Need Advice
Replies
7
Views
601
Fixingfarmer
Fixingfarmer
C
Problem with Predator 3500 generator
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Hemmjo
Hemmjo
Geo-TH,In
Ethanol Fuel Tester
Replies
12
Views
1K
docmirror
D
P
Is it necessary to run lead additives in these old engin
2
Replies
21
Views
892
F-Dean
F
super99
Tractor shows in Eastern Iowa or Northwest Illinois
Replies
0
Views
249
super99
super99
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top