# Prairies vanish in push for green energy



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Life is ironic. Conservative farmers hate Obama, don't believe in global warming, and it's making them rich. I just wish I had a choice at the gas pump and didn't have to buy the crap. It's hard to avoid High Fructose Corn poison too.

For the full sickening story: http://www.sfgate.com/business/energy/a ... 977288.php



> ROSCOE, S.D. (AP) - Robert Malsam nearly went broke in the 1980s when corn was cheap. So now that prices are high and he can finally make a profit, he's not about to apologize for ripping up prairieland to plant corn.
> 
> Across the Dakotas and Nebraska, more than 1 million acres of the Great Plains are giving way to corn fields as farmers transform the wild expanse that once served as the backdrop for American pioneers.
> 
> This expansion of the Corn Belt is fueled in part by America's green energy policy, which requires oil companies to blend billions of gallons of corn ethanol into their gasoline. In 2010, fuel became the No. 1 use for corn in America, a title it held in 2011 and 2012 and narrowly lost this year. That helps keep prices high.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> This expansion of the Corn Belt is fueled in part by America's green energy policy, which *requires* oil companies to blend billions of gallons of corn ethanol into their gasoline.


Word play. Oil companies were not legislatively required. They were behind the push for oxygenated fuel to blend with some substandard fuel they were trying to pedal.

Does anyone really believe that they stood down years ago and let a fledgling ethanol market expand and take market share without their blessing?

And another thing, corn prices are now less then $4.00 bucks. Markets find a way to correct themselves.



> It's hard to avoid High Fructose Corn poison too.


Written by the poison pen.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Remember how the left talked about all of those "idle" acres? Well those acres were CRP. I think ethanol is a joke, and has been a joke since it started. Corn prices are awful this year, some people will loose money this year.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

In some aspects farming never changes. There will always be "bandwagoning". Prices get high on one commodity and everyone jumps in. As a result a couple years later prices bottom out and everyone whines forgetting that they added to the surplus....

FWIW probably a majority of the "rich" farmers are so only on paper. For many it is a house of cards and more than a couple of bad years could cause it to tumble.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dakota.... you are correct.

I hope now that the push for ethonal is going down that the FED will start to see the positive in the CRP programs. I hope enrollment goes up again or they will make everything come into balance.

One thing is that some landowners (not farmers) were getting way too greedy with rent prices. If corn keeps dropping people will have to lower rent. What is scary is people went out and bought land thinking they could get $400-$500 per acre rent (in my area). So they paid even more inflated prices for land. They could end up losing that land if corn stays where it is.

It could be a few scary years coming up. But for those of you who saved up some pennies.....you could get some deals on land compared to the price of it now (well land prices should come down).


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> Dakota.... you are correct.
> 
> I hope now that the push for ethonal is going down that the FED will start to see the positive in the CRP programs. I hope enrollment goes up again or they will make everything come into balance.
> 
> ...


Funny how people forget history when money is involved. Tulips. Think of the last land bubble from the Russian wheat deal. Dot Com another. Housing bubble. Just keeps repeating.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Remember how the left talked about all of those "idle" acres? Well those acres were CRP. I think ethanol is a joke, and has been a joke since it started. Corn prices are awful this year, some people will loose money this year.


I just got back from a farm friends house a couple of minutes ago. He was telling me corn was taking a dive.



> What is scary is people went out and bought land thinking they could get $400-$500 per acre rent (in my area). So they paid even more inflated prices for land. They could end up losing that land if corn stays where it is.


This isn't a shot at agriculture, but anyone in any business that acts this stupid should not be in business. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean just physical strength in this world. If your stupid you get weeded out too.

Shaug remember the old TV ad that says "sugar is sugar". Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact it isn't even any kind of sugar until the acid bath and enzymes. It's estimated that it is the number one thing in our diet responsible for obesity in the United States. Google High Fructose Corn Syrup dangers.

Tell me Shaug do you think your wallet is more important than our lives? Serious question. I am certain groups like Farm Bureau think so. They could give a rats behind if we curl up and die as long as their wallet stays plump. It may be only opinion, but I believe it.



> Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup | Healthmad
> healthmad.com/nutrition/dangers-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup
> Jul 04, 2007 · High fructose corn syrup is the new silent killer. Sadly, it is found in almost everything we eat. find out how to avoid it.





> Scientists Finally Prove High Fructose Corn Syrup Risks
> 
> 032310-cornsyrup.jpg Pin_it_button For the last several years, getting good answers about the health risks of high fructose corn syrup has been difficult. There has been a lack of true scientific substantiation on either side of the debate.
> Although many of us suspected this stuff really isn't healthy for us, we didn't actually know how it was affecting our bodies.
> ...


For the full story: http://www.thekitchn.com/princeton-prov ... ose-112003

Edit: Look a few post down at "Don't drink the milk". Agriculture wanted to put artificial sweetner in milk. They are so kind hearted and concerned about child health that they wanted to encourage them to drink more milk. Ya, right and I have some swamp land for sale. The problem is they use politicians for force this crap down our throat. Where is our choice. It's simply a scheme to make kids drink more of their surplus.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Up in my corner of the state you didn't see a single ear of corn until maybe 10-12 years ago. I'm assuming there was a reason it wasn't grown before then but I don't know what it was.

One down side of all the farming subsidies is that it allows bad farmers to continue to farm badly. We have a few in our area that really shouldn't be farming. They wouldn't have lasted a year if they had farmed 50-60 years ago. I think that also adds to the "grabbing" of land. By having guys like this underproduce on good land it forces the good operators to seek out marginal land because that is all that is available.

I helped my uncles and grandfather with farming when I was in high school (and enjoyed it) and could have continued on but I'm glad I didn't choose that path..............


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

dakotashooter2 said:


> One down side of all the farming subsidies is that it allows bad farmers to continue to farm badly. We have a few in our area that really shouldn't be farming. They wouldn't have lasted a year if they had farmed 50-60 years ago. I think that also adds to the "grabbing" of land. By having guys like this underproduce on good land it forces the good operators to seek out marginal land because that is all that is available.


Bingo!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 you and your family look into the future when it comes to land management and that is why you don't get upset and go off the deep end like some people. You have a much more realistic view and I enjoy your input on the ag things. Not once have you called me anti ag when I don't like a particular practice. :beer:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> blhunter3 you and your family look into the future when it comes to land management and that is why you don't get upset and go off the deep end like some people. You have a much more realistic view and I enjoy your input on the ag things. Not once have you called me anti ag when I don't like a particular practice. :beer:


Its not hard to realize where the wildlife that I enjoy hunting and watch come from.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I was in Iowa this last weekend. Hell the citizens from Iowa can only talk about two things. The first is corn and the second is so and so has cancer.

I love the ethanol industry. What I do not like is they think it is a fuel that will save us from evil oil. They are doing it wrong. Where are the oak barrels to age it?

Same goes for wind as the savior from coal. What gets me is states that make the claim they need XX% of their power from "clean" energy and will not put them in their state. I am looking at you MN.

The phrase 'dead ringer' refers to someone who sits behind Chuck Norris in a movie theater and forgets to turn their cell phone off.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug said:


> > This expansion of the Corn Belt is fueled in part by America's green energy policy, which *requires* oil companies to blend billions of gallons of corn ethanol into their gasoline.
> 
> 
> Word play. Oil companies were not legislatively required. They were behind the push for oxygenated fuel to blend with some substandard fuel they were trying to pedal.
> ...


Shaug, once again you are wrong.

Under the EPA's renewable fuel standard program, oil companies are required to dilute their gasoline with increasing amounts of biofuel every year. This year's mandate calls for the production of 13.2bn gallons of biofuels.

See; *A. Renewable Fuel Standard*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#A._Renewable_Fuel_Standard


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

interesting article about ethanol production in last weeks Minnesota Outdoor News.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot wrote,



> Shaug, once again you are wrong.
> 
> Under the EPA's renewable fuel standard program, oil companies are required to *dilute* their gasoline with increasing amounts of biofuel every year. This year's mandate calls for the production of 13.2bn gallons of biofuels.


Dilute.....you mean enhance by blending oxygenated alcohol with substandard fuel.

And longshot you need to tell the rest of the story. The RFS was reduced from 14.4 billion gallons to 13.2 billion. That is significant because we are talking about 500 million bushels of corn that will not be required. That could whipsaw prices.

I know you guys on here are big fans of cellulosic alcohol. Congress passed a mandate of 6 million gallons. Trouble is this country hasn't even produced one million gallons. The American Petroleum Institute is contesting.

Instead of lamblasting farmers who CAN meet the ethanol demand, why don't you fellas get out make some cellulosic alcohol.

Oh, and try to do that without borrowing on the technical advancments made by corn ethanol.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Shaug.... Do you think ethonal is good or bad?


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

almost anything that is government mandated is not good. if it were good it would happen without the government.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Instead of lamblasting farmers


One must be extremely self centered to think everything is about farmers. This is about wasting fuel, wasting tax dollars, damaging the environment, and shear stupidity. Leave the farmers out of it. It's about government policy, and the damage it does when they act without thinking or without knowledge.

So since you think it's about farming simply because they are on the receiving end does that make it right? Here I thought you were a conservative.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug said:


> Dilute.....you mean enhance by blending oxygenated alcohol with substandard fuel.


No I mean dilute when it comes to ethanol. I don't want that crap in my tanks so now I'm forced to buy 92 octane when I don't need it nor want to pay for it.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Before ethanol you were forced by the EPA to buy unleaded fuel with the oxygenate MTBE in it. Big oil loved it because they alone produced it and they had complete control over the fuel supply. But it was determined to be carcinogenic and because it is highly soluble was being found in groundwater supplies. Big oil said for years that was a load of crap but science proved them wrong. So the EPA decided natural ethanol would be required to be used as an oxygenate.

I am a farmer, but I do not raise corn and because of my geographic location probably never will. I don't have any skin in the game; however, I don't like being thrown in the mix as a nature destroying, money grubbing, greedy, SOB. Instead of lumping all farmers in the EVIL group, take that energy and aim it at the entities that MAKE you do something you don't believe in. Namely the EPA and/or federal government. Support some other form of oxygenate whatever that may be. But please don't forget we as mutal citizens are bound by the same laws and required to purchase the same fuel you are. We have to buy equipment that costs tens of thousands of dollars more because of emission requirements. We have to spend thousands of dollars on new fuel tanks to abide by EPA regulations. The list goes on and on as to what is needed to compliy with the ever changing regulations. WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY! Not all crp is being broke up. I and several neighbors have enrolled land in the new perpetual crp program. Alot of the crp land being taken out is owned by urban families who want the big rent payments instead of smaller crp payments. In closing, this is much more complicated than a farmer versus conservationist dilema. Personally I am offended that it is come to that as I consider by their very nature farmers must be inherintly conservationist to help preserve that which helps feed their families as well as thousands of other families.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 thanks for the perspective. You certainly give me other trails to track on and investigate for my own education. I'm also pleased that unlike some you don't evidently look at sportsmen as the enemy either. For clarity I don't look at farmers as the enemy, but some are. Most often it's stupid government programs as you say. Some are pushed by environmentalists who don't think things through, and some are pushed by ag interests. Often those of us not directly involved don't know which.

Often I complain about a particular ag practice only to be met with the name calling "ag basher". Those people make me think farmers like them are the enemy. Some sure are happy about the ethanol. Drive through the Oaks, North Dakota area and look at the farm homes and you will know why. EPA or farmers, or environmentalists the ethanol is not good. It's not leading to energy independence as some farmers tell me.

Your post tells me that some farmers wanted the ethanol, but not all. Whatever, I will continue to judge each individually because your right it isn't right to lump them. By the way, you may have noticed that I get lumped constantly by the ag guys on here because I was a government employee. Everyone lumps me. I have thick skin.


----------

