# 30-year-old corn ethanol subsidy nixed by Washington



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

By Dan Roth RSS feed 
Posted Dec 27th 2011 11:31AM

Corn-based ethanol is a controversial fuel in its own right, and a longstanding federal subsidy for blending the biofuel with gasoline has been an additional source of consternation over the last 30 years. According to The Detroit News, Congress has wrapped up its work for 2011 without extending the incentive, a move that's drawn praise from environmental groups and taxpayer advocates.

Hand-in-hand with the discontinuation of the tax subsidy, an import tariff on ethanol imported from Brazil has also been cancelled, which opens the tap for a source of ethanol that doesn't have the reputation of being a dirty diversion of a food crop that corn-based ethanol carries. That means that while the blenders' tax credit is no more, the 2007 legislation calling for a significant increase in the use of renewable fuels is likely not going anywhere if the abundant ethanol produced from Brazil's sugarcane economy can be used instead.

The corn lobby is naturally not thrilled with the news, but it has put on a brave face. Tom Buis of Growth Energy, a group that supports and fosters the cause of domestic ethanol production, tells the DetNews, "without the tax credit, the ethanol industry will survive; it will continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, and strengthen our economy." That statement isn't exactly at odds with the actions of Congress, since there's now about $6 billion per year that could be plowed into further renewable fuel research and development that would ensure corn ethanol is indeed a stepping stone fuel, as it was sold in the first place.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> it will continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil


Continue? Continue? It has increased our dependence on foreign oil because it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it. People kept saying, but we will improve the technology. What technology, at the ethanol plant? The energy to produce the fertilizer will not change, the energy to prepare the ground, harvest the corn, ship to market will not improve. Where is this magic improvement they speak of?

I have always supported grain prices because I thought it was the only way to get money to the farmer. The elevator, the flour mill, the baker, the retail store, the shippers would all get money with a price increase, but I am not sure the farmer would. However, in the past 48 hours I have had a change of mind. Why? I'm reading a book that makes a lot of sense. It's called "Politics - According to the Bible" by Wyne Grudem. Wyne Grudem is a conservative theologian.

Anyway, it covers dozens of current topics including grain price support, and uses wheat as an example. Since in the past year of so I left an ultra liberal church (ELCA who are against GM grain) I was expecting it to support grain subsidies. Not so, it's conservative and covered things I would not have expected, and on a world scale. First it takes from the taxpayer, then it explains that if the American farmer produces a surplus and drives the price down he doesn't care because he is guaranteed a good price from the government. If it's a bad year the market price is up and he makes a good income then. However, the American consumer pays about the same for food, while the government dumps the cheap grain on the world market driving the price down. Low prices on the world marker hurts the farmers from other countries. Other countries also benefit by picking up cheap grain subsidised by the American taxpayer. It's a good deal for the American farmer, but a poor deal for the American taxpayer, consumer, and farmers from other countries. From a humanitarian standpoint it's a net loss. So much for the "I feed the world" mentality of some farmers.

I have not read the property rights issue yet. The author said each chapter stands on it's own so it's ok to jump around, but read the first four chapters first. I cheated and read the subsidies chapter first. Now I am starting chapter two. It should be interesting.

Oh, chapter one covered how our supreme court is overstepping it's powers. Chapter two will get into the ACLU and other subjects.

Later.

PS. Oh, ya, for the subject of subsidies he used many citations including a nationally renowned ag economics professor from the U of Iowa.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> So much for the "I feed the world" mentality of some farmers.


plainsman, does he have a chapter explaining why the United States has had for decades the lowest priced, safest, most readily avalible food supply for which the citizens of this country pay the lowest percentage of their disposable income of any other modernized industrial country in the world?

Does he mention what other country feeds a larger percentage of the world with it's excess production even after providing this for their own citizenry than does the US?

I'm curious plainsman, did you ever read that article from the Furrow magazine entitled Feeding 9 Billion that I provided a link to in another thread? It addresses the FACT the world is losing arble acres (ground able to grow a crop) at the very same time the world population is set to double by 2050. Is there a chapter in this book you are reading that explains how these two facts will continue to allow for enough food production to feed a global population of this magnitude?

It is relatively easy to write a book hypothisizing how things are, but much more difficult to deal with the actual realities facing a global population, necessary food production and how his global change factors into this countries food security priorities. Anyone beleiving this countries farm programs have not been designed to accomplish a food security program for this country simply does not understand the basis from which they were created. By no means have they been perfect in design, yet it would be hard to argue they have not accomplished the task they were meant to. If anyone wishes to argue this point, please start by showing which other county spends as low a percentage of their disposable incomes on food as does the US for the last 50 years.

So if the author of your book indeed addressses more than "farm subsidies" and actually suggests how to realistically deal with feeding the growing world population over the next century while maintaining the food security this nation has grown accustomed to, please share these veiws as well, I would be curious to hear them.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> It's a good deal for the American farmer, *but a poor deal for the American taxpayer, consumer*, and farmers from other countries.


Oh, by the way, does he mention any where in this "subsidy" chapter, this being so "poor" for the American taxpayer/consumer as you state, how much of a return on the tax dollar paid to these subsidies is at the grocery store for the consumer?

In other words, if you pay 1 dollar of your taxes to food, er I mean farm "subsidies", and that dollar in return creates 3 dollars you are able to keep in your pocket instead of spending at the grocery store as a result of lower cost food, how "poor" of a deal does he claim this is for the American consumer/taxpayer?


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

gst I would appreciate you not hihacking my thread! This is about corn ethanol subsidies, not food. Plainsmen was just telling about a book he is reading about subsidies and such. You read the book and you can tell us about it. I usually don't get into the pi$$ing matches but when you start to hijack before almost anyone can respond that aint right. At this point you have effectively kill my thread with your supposed two cents worth!

I take most of the stuff people say with a grain of salt like most everyone on here, but you are so thin skinned that you want let any little thing go. You put so much drivel on here that most will not read it.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

ShineRunner said:


> gst I would appreciate you not hihacking my thread! This is about corn ethanol subsidies, not food.
> 
> I take most of the stuff people say with a grain of salt like most everyone on here, but you are so thin skinned that you want let any little thing go. You put so much drivel on here that most will not read it.


YUP you hit the nail on the head


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ethanol is a non starter for a replacement fuel and has been from the get go. Lack of efficiency to process sugars to fuel related to energy in vs energy out. Even higher yield per acre have not changed this much at all.

Has the affect of using corn based ethanol had an affect on our nation? From a conservation point of view, I think it has. It has pushed new acres into corn displacing other grains, which also have a market which caused native grasses to be lost along with highly erodible acres being put into production.

All in all I am glad the direct subsidy went away, but one thing missed is that the industry got what it wanted a Gov mandated blending requirement that established a false market demand. Without the Gov picking ethanol as the winner of Gov support it would not have existed and we would likely have seen a free market move to finding a solution or alternative. Instead we are now still fossil fuel dependent and ethanol has done nothing to change that!


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

I look at it this way. I pay subsidies through taxes then I "have" to pay for the product back at the pump and then get poorer fuel mileage to boot. Simplified but true. I have some old tractors and they are costing me also. I just had to do a valve job on one that probably wouldn't have needed to be done if I wasn't required to buy the fuel with ethanol.

You can find a lot of information on ethanol and older engines both pro and con. You usually just have to look at who is making the statements about the stuff to figure out if they are telling the facts or not.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > it will continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
> 
> 
> Continue? Continue? It has increased our dependence on foreign oil because it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it. People kept saying, but we will improve the technology. What technology, at the ethanol plant? The energy to produce the fertilizer will not change, the energy to prepare the ground, harvest the corn, ship to market will not improve. Where is this magic improvement they speak of?
> ...


shinerunner, perhaps if you look more closely the "hijacking" away from talking about corn ethanol subsidies began a little earlier than what you suggest. I have emboldened and italisized in the quote above perhaps where it started. Exactly where in this book report plainsman gives is there a chapter specifically on corn ethanol subsidies? What percentage of his comments are soley regarding corn ethanol subsidies?

As to "drivel", all that has been asked repeatedly is to refrain from the anti ag "drivel" that comes from a small handful of people on this site and I would not even be on here, so perhaps you should be stepping up and confronting it when it happens and your threads will be safe! I must say though, your statement below I have quoted is most certainly true on this site in regards to agriculture! 



ShineRunner said:


> You usually just have to look at who is making the statements about the stuff to figure out if they are telling the facts or not.


 

So to stay "on topic" and avoid "killing" a thread, rons statement fairly and accurately sums up my veiws on the ethanol issue quite nicely.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Not to hijack the thread....but ron stated this:


> All in all I am glad the direct subsidy went away, but one thing missed is that_ *the industry got what it wanted a Gov mandated blending requirement that established a false market demand*_. Without the Gov picking ethanol as the winner of Gov support it would not have existed and we would likely have seen a free market move to finding a solution or alternative. Instead we are now still fossil fuel dependent and ethanol has done nothing to change that!


Now the "industry" is AG. They got a false demand in place for corn based ethanol. So now GST.....how can one say this is wrong in your eyes with out being Anti-AG? Now I am in no way shape or form anti-ag. But I am anti-ethanol, anti-subsidies towards ag. I have had many discussions with farmers and people in Ag. My one big complaint is as a business owner if I screw up and don't produce I don't get bailed out. Ag does. No other industry is bailed out or gets money every year from the goverment.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I hope it's not to hard to just replace the word wheat with corn. The author used wheat as an example. Corn would be worse because rather than feeding the world we are starving the world by using food as an energy source. Using corn is just one more nail in the "humanity" coffin.

I don't like the mandate because it takes away from my choice at the pump. It's not very good when your living in a nation that you consider free, yet the government can dictate what I put in my tank. It's my vehicle, do I have "property rights"? I would guess it would drive the price up even higher at the pump, but the Brazil ethanol may save us from that. I say buy it all from Brazil. Let them deal with the environmental problems associated with it.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

c


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Chuck Smith said:


> Not to hijack the thread....but ron stated this:
> 
> Now the "industry" is AG. They got a false demand in place for corn based ethanol. So now GST.....how can one say this is wrong in your eyes with out being Anti-AG? Now I am in no way shape or form anti-ag. But I am anti-ethanol, anti-subsidies towards ag. I have had many discussions with farmers and people in Ag. My one big complaint is as a business owner if I screw up and don't produce I don't get bailed out. Ag does. No other industry is bailed out or gets money every year from the goverment.


Chuck, there are any number of issues within ag that are not perfect. Simply pointing them out in a factual manner as Ron did does not make the comment "anti ag" It is when fact gives way to untrue content and purpose in these "claims" that they become "anti ag".

The industry is not simply all ag, there is a refining as well as a fuel sales industry as well as various unions that lobbies as hard or harder for ethanol mandates as does agriculture.

In considering your position on subsidies for food production in agriculture here in the US, honestly answer one question if you would please. For every dollar spent in taxes towards the ag subsidy program you as a taxpayer pays, how many dollars do you beleive are returned to your pocket in low cost food at the grocery store that would not be returned if this govt had not had a cheap food policy thru their farm programs?

Chuck there are indeed any number of industries besides agriculture that are subsidized and bailed out by govt and the taxpayer. Simply take a look around at the news. Either in tax breaks, interest subsidies, grants for start up, expansion, minority hiring, ect... Just because an industry does not have a line item in the Federal budget does not mean they are not subsidized or bailed out. Take a look at the news of late. Hell even the lawyers that represent groups like Defendersof Wildlife and National Wildlife Federation are "subsidized" by the very govt they are sueing!!!! 
http://ruralliberty.org/karen-budd-falen-speech
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/c ... ne/2007566
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009 ... itigat.htm

And I supose it is all in ones perspective. I know any number of people that would beleive the govt spending taxpayers dollars for someone to trap salamanders is "subsidizing" an unnecessary industry while the house wife who is deciding what she should spend her limited resources on in food for her family might better understand the value of that dollar subsidizing ag that has played a role in providing her not only the lowest cost food in which Americans spend the lowest percentage of their disposable income on of any other nation, but also the very food bank and assistance programs that are funded out of these "ag" subsidy dollars as well.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck there are indeed any number of industries besides agriculture that are subsidized and bailed out by govt and the taxpayer. Simply take a look around at the news. Either in tax breaks, interest subsidies, grants for start up, expansion, minority hiring, ect... Just because an industry does not have a line item in the Federal budget does not mean they are not subsidized or bailed out. Take a look at the news of late. Hell even the lawyers that represent groups like Defendersof Wildlife and National Wildlife Federation are "subsidized" by the very govt they are sueing!!!!
> http://ruralliberty.org/karen-budd-falen-speech
> http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/c ... ne/2007566
> http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009 ... itigat.htm


GST.... The tax breaks, start ups, expansions, and even the minority hiring. They have nothing to do with production. If a farmer fails or has poor production they get paid! FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE. It pays for production. Yes if you have good production you don't get paid. If you have poor production you get paid. Even in good growing season people can still get paid by the gov. for failure. I as a business owner if I don't sell policies or homes i don't get paid. Because the housing market is upside down I don't get a check from the goverment. That is my huge issue.

Again I am not anti-farm or Ag. I just don't understand why someone should get paid for doing a poor job. It is again a show how "federal" insurance programs don't work. If crop insurance was privatized it would still cover people for weather if that was the cause of poor production. But it would not cover for poor farming. Which now bad farmers get paid if they buy the insurance

With the sites you listed it tells of money given to groups. Then the groups use it in the wrong way. I am sure years ago when the Gov started to give them the funds it was supposed to be used to make projects, etc. Now they are using it in a different way. You can see mismanagement of funds in every way.

Now you talk about food.....how come rice is cheaper than corn based foods? How come we are using corn for ethanol instead of keeping food lower? If farmers are feeding the world....why are many shifting from wheat to corn? How come about 30% of the corn production is going to ethanol? Ask beef, pork, milk, etc producers if feed is getting cheaper? Ask them if the rise in the feed cost is coming back in the return for the price of the beef, swine, milk, etc. at market?

The feed the world argument is not holding its water as much as it used to.

Here is a little side note or something food for thought.... Do you think land prices would be as high as they are now or rent be climbing as much as it has if there were no crop insurance or subsidies? How about fertilizer costs or other input costs? Would they be as high if the farmer was not getting a pay check on the federal dime?

Edit....

Shine...sorry for hijacking the thread. But subsidies and ethanol kid of go hand in hand.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Chuck Smith said:


> I as a business owner if I don't sell policies or homes i don't get paid. Because the housing market is upside down I don't get a check from the goverment. That is my huge issue.


Chuck, how many homes are sold in the housing market as a result of govt "subidies" thru Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? I beleive this "subsidy" program is a large part of the economic problems this country is facing. But hey that is completely different right?

Chuck, the simple fact is this country deemed food security an important enough issue to develope the farm program it has. As I said it is not perfect and indeed has unforeseen consequences such as you mention of land rents, larger farms ect. Alot of that is also from outside influences besides govt.

You do realize that like any other insurance program there is a premium attached to the Federal Crop Insurace programs right? As to privatizing Federal corp insurance and weeding out the people that take advantage, hey I agree 100% with you. I have been farming 30 plus years and I can count on one hand the number of times I have not paid a premium and have gotten a Federal Crop Insurance check. I am not a big fan of govt involvement in agriculture, but unfortunately it is a reality if you are in production ag. The point being made here is that while these payments do go to ag producers, you can not discount what dollars they ultimately return to the consumer as well. Did you ever stop and figure out what percent of your tax dollar goes towards these subsidy payments and what it returns to your pocket in the lowest cost food of any modern industrialized country?

You simply can not compare rice to corn as apples to apples as there are MANY different usages for corn that are not for rice. As well there are geographical demands on where rice will grow. I do not belive anyone has claimed the reason behind why farmers farm is to "feed the world", this altruistic fact is merely the result of what are for profit operations. You would be hard pressed to argue that the end result of what farmers do is not in fact "feed the world". Where does what the world comsumes in food come from? I posted an article on ths site in another thread titled Feeding 9 billion out of the Furrow magazine. If you are truly interested in th challenges facing ag in "feeding the world" even with the increase in ag inthe countries you mention it is worth the read.

Chuck, one question if you would, if you wish the govt and tax payer dollars out of agriculture, should the govt still maintain the regulatory control over agricultrue and the private property involved in ag it now has?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, how many homes are sold in the housing market as a result of govt "subidies" thru Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? I beleive this "subsidy" program is a large part of the economic problems this country is facing. But hey that is completely different right?


YES it is different. One is a loan program where they give a person money and they were supposed to pay it back with interest. *They have to pay the loan back.* It is giving money to someone and then getting it back. They made bad loans because of more goverment involvement. Comparing Farm subsidies to Fannie or Freddie is apples and Oranges. Do farmers pay back the money they get with interest? NOPE. They pay in a premium. Which if something happens or loss of production they get money back which is more than the premium. Now again this production was originally based off of poor weather or acts of mother nature. Yet people are getting paid because of poor practices. If you spray your corn and use too much and kill a portion of your crop. The total production of your crop is down so crop insurance will pay! Again you got paid because of poor practice. You switch fertilizer or something....production goes down.... YOU GET PAID.

Now comparing rice to corn....yes you can make comparisons.....Rice can be used in feeds (not as high of weight gain or milk production) but it can be used. Rice and be used cereal blends among other things. So yes they are camparable. Does corn have more by products or uses....yes. Soybeans have even more. But yet you don't see everyone scrambling to plant soybeans.



> Chuck, one question if you would, if you wish the govt and tax payer dollars out of agriculture, should the govt still maintain the regulatory control over agricultrue and the private property involved in ag it now has?


I will answer you this.... Yes the goverment should stay involved and regulate Ag. Just like it regulates other businesses. Should a farmer be allowed to dump any chemicals on their land as they see fit? NOPE. Should a farmer be allowed to pollute a stream, lake or under ground water system that is on their land? Nope. See all forms of industry should be regulated or have a "watch dog".

Now I know why you are asking this question. It is to go off on the HF again and property rights. So don't try to rope me into that mess. HF or running a business that is not deemed illegal or has no ill effect on others is different thing than subsidies and ethanol being the wrong choice. If you look at my opinion on the HF or property rights you are barking up the wrong tree and arguing with the wrong person.

I am going to be done with this because you do agree that Federal Crop insurance should be gone. It should become privatized. We agree :bop:

You also have stated Ethanol is not the right choice either....Again we agree... :bop:

If you read what I have said about property owners and rights and HF.... We agree :bop:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

cChuck I do not beleive I compared Federal crop insurance to fannie mae in an apples to apples comparison. Only that there are in fact tax payer dollars goig to industries and business many of which are NOT required to be paid back either.

I borrowed half the money I needed to build my home. I did not qualify for any "subsidized" (the wording used by the lending officer at the time) home loans because of the equity I had saved to build a house, so I paid 7.5 % on a 15 year note which was paid off in full. So who then is paying the difference between the 7.5% interest of my note and the 3.5% (or lower) interest of these "subsidized" notes??? What does FHMA stand for? How many of these federaly subsidized laons are refinances and rewritten and interest forgiven on? So if everyone was required to pay the flat 7.5% interest, how many less homes would you sell because of peoples inability to pay this higher amount?

So indeed in a round about way the taxpayer IS "subsidizing" how many different industries involved in building and selling houses? And who is "paying back" these dollar differences? As I said it may not be a line item in a Federal budget as is the farm program, but please do not claim taxpayer dollars do not go to many other industries as well in many different forms .

Where in the US geographicaly is rice grown or able to be grown economically?



gst said:


> Did you ever stop and figure out what percent of your tax dollar goes towards these subsidy payments and what it returns to your pocket in the lowest cost food of any modern industrialized country?


Chuck I am not trying to be antagonistic with this question, I am simply curious if people who have a negative attitude towards farm commodity subsidies understand the basis for their formation years ago and realize what it does in fact provide this country and it's citizens over and above what any other country has in low cost food which was indeed the ultimate goal of these farm programs when they were created .


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Hey Shine.....what was the question ? 

:eyeroll: :shake:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You usually just have to look at who is making the statements about the stuff to figure out if they are telling the facts or not.


Shinerunner what are you saying? I always heard that you could go to the junk yard, pick out any old heap, pour in a gallon of corn ethanol, and it would do 0 to 60 in 5.3 without any tune up.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Plainsman that only happens with the Clampett truck with Granny's special blend. Thanks for the levity here guy's!

I think that in the beginning I brought up that the subsidies where being taken away for ethanol. We should not be made/ordered/forced to buy ethanol period. I am a believer in that if it has to be subsidized by the government it is not economically pheasible to produce anything. A jumpstart government business loan or grant would make more sense if a person/company has a really good business plan. Not year after year of being propped up. I have a little working knowledge of what the cost's are "without" all the government regulations!

Plainsman if this thread keeps going off topic, you have my permission to delete it. :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Another thing about that book I am reading is property rights. When we hear it here in North Dakota we immediately think land and farming. However, in the Biblical sense it means any property one owns. So where is our property rights as vehicle owners when it comes to what we put in our tank? Once again it looks like behind the scene agriculture is dictating to us.

I don't want ethanol in my vehicle (once in a while when it's far below zero and it's cheaper than a can of gas line antifreeze) and I don't want to pay for habitat destructive corn. When you pay against your will isn't that the same as robbery?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> Chuck I am not trying to be antagonistic with this question, I am simply curious if people who have a negative attitude towards farm commodity subsidies understand the basis for their formation years ago and realize what it does in fact provide this country and it's citizens over and above what any other country has in low cost food which was indeed the ultimate goal of these farm programs when they were created


gst, the basis of farm subsidy programs at the start and what it has morphed into now are two different animals and the first one was about food security and low cost. The current has nothing to do with that whatsoever!

They are not close nor is there an argument to try and say it is!

Move on! The subject remains ethanol !!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Hey I don;t think I was the one that drug this thread of topic! :wink:



Plainsman said:


> Anyway, it covers dozens of current topics including grain price support, and uses wheat as an example. Since in the past year of so I left an ultra liberal church (ELCA who are against GM grain) I was expecting it to support grain subsidies. Not so, it's conservative and covered things I would not have expected, and on a world scale. First it takes from the taxpayer, then it explains that if the American farmer produces a surplus and drives the price down he doesn't care because he is guaranteed a good price from the government. If it's a bad year the market price is up and he makes a good income then. However, the American consumer pays about the same for food, while the government dumps the cheap grain on the world market driving the price down. Low prices on the world marker hurts the farmers from other countries. Other countries also benefit by picking up cheap grain subsidised by the American taxpayer. It's a good deal for the American farmer, but a poor deal for the American taxpayer, consumer, and farmers from other countries. From a humanitarian standpoint it's a net loss. So much for the "I feed the world" mentality of some farmers.


I do not beleive I have ever disagreed that these Fedral Ag programs using taxpayer dollars have "morphed" into something more than they were intended, (including wildlife expansion and habitat creation as well as hunting opportunities) but ron exactly where does the US rank in what percentage of the consumers disposable income is spent on food? Even yet today. If people are going to comment on food production and the effect subsidies have on it as was done in the quote above, it is only right that the pertinant dialogue is shared. Where is the word "ethanol" or corn used in the above quote? :-?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

A much better question is where would we be if the Farm Program went away? I think in about the same place for the most part!

But the thread is about ethanol, if you want to discuss the Farm Bill and its future, I think a separate thread would be a good thing!

Happy New Year all, heading to bed early, tonight since New Years Eve is for amateurs. Do not want to share the road with any impaired drivers with slippery conditions and high winds! Might go fishing tomorrow if the wind lets up!


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

glad it's gone! now what can we get rid of next?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron Gilmore said:


> But the thread is about ethanol, if you want to discuss the Farm Bill and its future, I think a separate thread would be a good thing!


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95235&start=0

kinda hard when they get locked!!!  :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> > But the thread is about ethanol, if you want to discuss the Farm Bill and its future, I think a separate thread would be a good thing!
> ...


Cry me a river. Start a thread if you want. All you have to do is control your mouth and they will not be locked. The ball is in your court. Put up or shut up.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> All you have to do is control your mouth and they will not be locked


You mean like some are in the "talk to a farmer" thread??   So plainsman, as a moderator, how do you pick and choose what comments are crossing a line and which are not? How are we as posters to know what is "controling ones mouth" and what is not? It appears in the above mentioned thread, if someone agrees with your position you loosen the reins substantialy, but when the tables are turned perhaps not so much! :wink:

Apparently Csquared's cleverly spelled statement that he does not give an airborne intercourse slides by as appropriate control of ones mouth? :-?

C squared wrote: "Describes me to a "T". I didn't give a *fyin fluck* about this subject matter until gst showed his arse.

Plainsman, perhaps you could show where this comment was addressed by you as a moderator? Surely given your involvement in the thread itself you did read this did you not? It was emboldened and enlarged at one point in the conversation as well, rather hard to miss. Should we use the type of comments made in that thread as a basis for what you will accept as a moderator?

Yes indeed, "fair and balanced" is likely not a description of the moderating on here! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's really none of your business gst, but I already recieved an apology, and an explanation. I will explain however so people understand.


> Fluck is a proper name of IL settlers from Europe


As I understand he put it there for you to jump on because you always use word games. I guess he wanted to watch the hypocricy since your a potty mouth yourself. 
Your right about one thing, and that is I don't like it. However, I often tell you on open form because you will not read my PM's and I don't read yours. I don't read yours because they have become to abusive. If you have nothing to say other than call me every name you can I am not going to read them. I simply see you as someone here to destroy the sand box. You don't want people to know the underhanded power plays the NDSA and NDFB are making so your here to try destroy anyone who lets people know what's going on. Your their pit bull. One by one you will try make people loose their cool in hopes they will get booted. That's what this is about.

Let me warn you gst, that rather than let you raise such a storm that threads get locked in the political form I will simply delete your posts. This isn't the hot topics where nearly everything goes. You will not be allowed to sabotage these threads.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Thanks Plainsman, I couldn't have said it better myself, he talks like a politician, must be wanting to be on the ballot with our "I hope to be" ex-pres. :beer:

I am on a couple of other forums and most liberals only know how to ask rhetorical questions, don't know the answers or don't want to believe it when they read or hear it. In other words more concerned with effect or style rather than content or meaning! :eyeroll:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

C squared wrote: "Describes me to a "T". I didn't give a *fyin fluck* about this subject matter until gst showed his arse.



Plainsman said:


> It's really none of your business gst, but I already recieved an apology, and an explanation. I will explain however so people understand.
> Fluck is a proper name of IL settlers from Europe


THAT is your explanaition justifying tis??? :lol: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, I hope you didn't think that was my explanation. It was csquared and came with the apology. I really appreciate when people make a mistake that they apologize for it. I can't help but respect those people, and forgive them for their mistake. I can relate, because in the moderator decisions I make every day I have to try make those decisions in the best interest of the site. I hope I do that right. I often think of the old cliche that you can keep some of the people happy some of the time, you can keep all of the people happy some of the time, but you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time. Maybe it should not include you can keep all of the people happy some of the time.

Since this poster rarely makes those types of mistakes and has apologized, not to mention he has been in the political form for years, I think it 's time to move on. Corn ethanol/ subsidies is the subject.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

http://www.houseofnames.com/fluck-family-crest

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Plainsman, and once again I apologize for allowing an angle to be played against you and for any grief it may have temporarily caused you. I also apologize to anyone who I may have accidentally offended by my use of a word that must be more "regional" than I might have otherwise realized. But most of all I need to apologize for forgetting to use an upper case F and omitting one "L", since I should have typed *flying Fluck*.

I think we can all agree I picked the right "L" to leave out!!! And what egregious offenses those were, huh? 

Most here probably aren't aware I'm from IL...the very place the Fluck ancestors settled in during the mid 1800's. My intent was to show how much I care, of what little value I had previously given the subject matter (in another thread...something gst is famous for doing). And since most people I know undertsand full well that Flucks don't fly, it would follow that a flying Fluck would most likely be non-existent, hence, have no value, so my mention (or attempted mention) of a non-existent entity (a flying Fluck) was meant to quantify the level of interest I had in the subject at the time.

Please let it be known I mean no disrespect to any of the Flucks from IL who may be reading this, for I have the upmost respect for virtually every Fluck who is (or is not) on here at any given time. So as I've apologized to all the non-Flucks on here, please allow me also to extend my sincere apologies to any of the real Flucks I may have inadvertently offended. I certainly don't want anyone to think I don't give a Fluck the respect they deserve :wink:

But to gst, who I would imagine quite possibly isn't worthy of a Fluck since he didn't even know they existed, I submit this. Could you, sir, quite possibly be the victim of the very thing Plainsman suggested, and simply took the bait that was dangled in front of you? I could answer that, but since it could never be substantiated it would be blown off as mere opinion, so I guess we'll never know for sure. 

Thanks for letting me use your thread, Shine! :beer:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Oh, gst...since you're so adept at it, would you please paste my apology in the thread it belongs, where I made the typo?

Thanks, Buddy :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

C squared wrote: "Describes me to a "T". I didn't give a fyin fluck about this subject matter until gst showed his arse.

That is your guys "explanations"?? 

And you guys call me the "spin master"?????  That one right there would tear the motor right out of a washing machine!! 

How "supid" do you think people are? :lol: :roll:

Indeed, no "potty mouth" inuendo in old Csquareds "explanation" at all eh plainsman?? :wink:

Nothing more than a "typo" in a good old reference to a fine upstanding family name from Illinois used as a metaphor! :eyeroll:

:withstupid:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I obviously can't speak for all Flucks, gst, but thanks for the kind words.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

6162rk said:


> glad it's gone! now what can we get rid of next?


the 10% blenders mandate

gst you have screwed up another topic!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That book I am reading called Politics -according to the Bible speaks about property rights. It doesn't mean only land like some farmers think. It means anything you own. Evidently through back door political manipulation the corn farmer thinks it's his right to violate my right to put whatever I want in my gas tank. Jerks of the highest order.

If it made us energy dependent I may run ethanol. My Yukon is made for ethanol. However, I don't want to because ethanol makes us more energy dependent. It isn't an energy thing, it's another agriculture welfare program. How many people know we export more oil than we import. Yup we are exporting like crazy to Japan and other Pacific countries.

ShineRunner don't worry about this thread going to pot. If bickering continues I will leave the post up, but delete the contents. We will stay on subject. I like the debate of ideas in this form, and will not let it become petty bickering. I am not pointing fingers, and I hope everyone agrees with me on this.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

shinerunner,

i believe we (Minnesota) are mandated in the near future to go to 20% blend. thanks to a state senator (deceased) that made sure he left us that blessing before he passed away.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Not to overstate the obvious, but take a look at the number of replies in these political forum threads that are started. Not much discussion to "screw up" in most cases!

Perhaps these most recent top reply getters are the examples of fine discussion of politics here on Nodak!

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=95246

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=64523

 Thought provoking indeed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What, did someone bruise your little heart princess gst? You liberals are so touchy. :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Naw plainsamn, just "teasing"on you a little bit! 

Hey what do you know, a thread in the political forum that actually has 2 pages of comments!!! :wink:

That happens what every 6 monthes on here????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> Naw plainsamn, just "teasing"on you a little bit! :wink:


    And for once I was on the same page. :wink: If I had not I wouldn't have given you that little oke: in the previous post.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Continue? Continue? It has increased our dependence on foreign oil because it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it. People kept saying, but we will improve the technology. What technology, at the ethanol plant? The energy to produce the fertilizer will not change, the energy to prepare the ground, harvest the corn, ship to market will not improve. Where is this magic improvement they speak of?


Plainsman, we have gone over this before. I believe I even sent you articles from PNAS or Science showing the research... but I will say again it is simply not true that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than what you receive from it (net loss). It used to be, but the technology has improved (yes, improved... dramatically) What technology? Better enzymes, better bacteria, better fermentation processes... you really think things can't be improved, that technology has plateaued on this? It sounds to me your beliefs are more politically motivated, than science-based.

You all are arguing about other things that I don't follow or care about... my only point here is that the technology has improved, will continue to improve (like all science), and that there is no net loss with ethanol production. It's not a wonderful gain, but it's not a net loss.

Here is some more (Wikipedia: take from it what you want):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the big energy consumption comes before the ethanol plant. Sure the ethanol plants are improving, but producing the machinery like tractors, combines, spray equipment, producing the fertilizer, trucking the machinery, fertilizer, applying chemicals, etc etc. are the energy consumers. When one includes absolutely everything even the life of the tractor and it's maintenance while you use it the benefit is lost.

Bigdaddy I respect your opinions in this field, and I agree once the corn hits the ethanol plant much has improved. I am still of the opinion though that it's a net loss. Look at Brazil and they are far more efficient because they use sugar cane. It's the steps before the ethanol plant that have improved little. Especially when you look at the marginal land taken out of CRP (highly erodible) and used for corn. Big efficiency loss there. It cost the same to run a tractor across ten acres in North Dakota as Iowa, but with what, half the production? Very inefficient.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I think the big energy consumption comes before the ethanol plant. Sure the ethanol plants are improving, but producing the machinery like tractors, combines, spray equipment, producing the fertilizer, trucking the machinery, fertilizer, applying chemicals, etc etc. are the energy consumers. When one includes absolutely everything even the life of the tractor and it's maintenance while you use it the benefit is lost.
> 
> Bigdaddy I respect your opinions in this field, and I agree once the corn hits the ethanol plant much has improved. I am still of the opinion though that it's a net loss. Look at Brazil and they are far more efficient because they use sugar cane. It's the steps before the ethanol plant that have improved little. Especially when you look at the marginal land taken out of CRP (highly erodible) and used for corn. Big efficiency loss there. It cost the same to run a tractor across ten acres in North Dakota as Iowa, but with what, half the production? Very inefficient.


No, not true. These studies take into consideration tillage, fertilizer... the whole cost of production. Still a net gain. Just read the articles I sent you :wink:

Plainsman, this is Seabass, not Bigdaddy! 8)

I do agree that the location of where corn produces relates to relative efficiency... but still a net gain unless you are growing corn in eastern Montana and hauling it to Whapeton.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

does that take into account that ethanol is less efficient to burn in vehicles. just from doing some of my own tests this year i drove 15000 miles on e-85 and 15000 miles on no ethanol and found that the e-85 was an average of 15-20% less mileage. That was with a 2010 1/2 ton crew cab chevy. That has to figure into the game some how. With tech we should be working on the 30 mpg ethanol engine, but i know alot of other factors will prevent/block that from happening


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

My older Yukon got 19 mpg at 65 and 15 mpg with ethanol at the same speed. Our government in their infinite wisdom said they needed to develop the engine so it got the same mileage with ethanol. Yup, now they both get 15 mpg and the government is happy. I sure hate to tell people I worked for the government. :******:


----------

