• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

ethanol policy

One question, why should corn farmers be restricted on their marketing of corn?

Why do we have to pit one segment of the ag industry against another.
 
Larrry said:
One question, why should corn farmers be restricted on their marketing of corn?

Why do we have to pit one segment of the ag industry against another.

I don't think the issue is one of restricting marketing options.

It is more a matter of having to compete against the government treasury to procure one's input needs.

It makes us wonder how the corn farmers would like it if they were bidding against their neighbor for fertilizer if their neighbor was getting a cheque from the government for 30% of the price paid for the goods . . .


The comparisons comment about beef farmers receiving aid through the food stamp program really doesn't fit here because moving more beef has zero negative effect on corn input costs. In fact, it likely helped create a better market for corn.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I am not advocating government intervention. I am saying we should as American be able to peddle our wares without government restrictions, whether we are selling our expertise as a doctor, electrician, manufacturer, farmer or rancher.
 
Larrry said:
I am not advocating government intervention. I am saying we should as American be able to peddle our wares without government restrictions, whether we are selling our expertise as a doctor, electrician, manufacturer, farmer or rancher.

Don't think anybody here would argue those points.

Somebody mentioned the price of fuel with out ethanol but when every gallon of ethanol costs the taxpayer money to make it as "cheap" as gasoline why would our fuel costs be any higher?
 
The ethanol plants are not the reasone corn prices are high. This was a historic year in farming with the weather that covered the bread basket of America. If the drought didn't come along this year you would be seeing corn priced at $5 or less. The ethanol plant 45 miles from us is running at half capacity, and they are not taking any new crop corn. But there is still a distillers trucks running by my place everyday all week long.

I'm sorry but there is no way that cattle or human consumption could use all the corn that we can raise in one year today or raised in south america. That's why we need ethanol plants to help keep corn prices from falling.
 
Any one that claims that ethanol is market driven is kidding themselves. Without the mandates ethanol wouldn't go away but it sure would be a lot smaller in size. I am all in favor of the market working, but the market isn't being allowed to work. The govt. has placed its thumb squarely on the side of ethanol. The notion that somehow ethanol is the result of market forces is silly. Instead of responding to market signals, corn farmers decided to take another route. They decided to use the coercive force of govt. to make another market for their product. There is all sorts of marketing fluff being spread around about how it helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil and how the cattle feeders like the distillers more than whole corn and so on. But it doesn't change the fact that instead of allowing the market to work and responding to market signals by planting less corn they chose to use the force of govt. to make people purchase what they chose to produce. That isn't a free market. That is crony capitalism at its worst.
 
AAA urges EPA to halt approval of E15 for vehicles
By David Shepardson
Detroit News Washington Bureau
95 Comments







Washington — AAA, the nation's largest travel organization, on Friday urged the Obama administration to halt the sale of E15 — a new fuel with a higher blend of ethanol — because of possible engine damage to most vehicles on the nation's roads.

AAA, which has 53 million members, said it has found in a new survey a strong likelihood of consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties and vehicle damage as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent approval of E15 gasoline for 2001 model vehicles and newer.

All vehicles on the road can travel on E10 — which is 10 percent ethanol. Corn advocates successfully petitioned the EPA to approve E15, which is 15 percent ethanol, for vehicles since 2001. But the fuel is only being sold at a handful of stations.

The EPA said in a statement it shares AAA's concern about educating consumers, but didn't directly address the request that it halt the sale of the fuel.

"To address these concerns, EPA has been working with AAA and other stakeholders to help inform consumers about the use of E15 and recently required all retailers that sell E15 to label fuel pumps with a prominent orange and black label that EPA developed with the Federal Trade Commission. While EPA does not require retailers to sell E15, the label will help ensure consumers are aware about which vehicles are approved for its use," EPA said.

Nearly all — or 95 percent — of people surveyed have not heard of E15, AAA said.

With little consumer understanding of E15 and less than five percent of cars on the road approved by automakers to use the fuel, "AAA is urging regulators and the industry to stop the sale of E15 until motorists are better protected."

Bob Dinneen, who heads the ethanol advocacy trade group — the Renewable Fuels Association — blasted AAA, saying the concern raised "reflects a pathetic ignorance of EPA's unprecedented test program before approving E15 for commercial use. The fact is E15 has been the most aggressively and comprehensively tested fuel in the history of the agency."

Dinneen accused AAA of being in the pocket of oil companies. "For years, refiners in vast swaths of the country have sold sub-87 octane fuel, which no auto company warranties today. Where's AAA's outrage and concern about that?" Dinneen said. "Ethanol has helped reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil by 45 percent in 2011 and is supporting more than 400,000 jobs across the country that can't be outsourced."

But a prominent House Republican, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, called on EPA to act. He has introduced legislation to halt the sale of E15.

"AAA's findings affirm what we have already heard — E15 causes premature engine damage and voids warranties, even on new models," Sensenbrenner said. "Concerns about E15 are not diminishing, they are increasing. That is telling. When an organization like AAA, a nationally trusted source for motorists, calls out the EPA, you would think the administration would listen."

AAA said just 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the roads today are approved by manufacturers to use E15 gasoline, based on a survey conducted by AAA of auto manufacturers.

General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. have approved the use of the fuel for new model vehicles only. Chrysler Group LLC said this week it still doesn't approve the use of E15 for any of its vehicles.

"It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle," said AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet. "Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers."

AAA said five manufacturers (BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen) are on record saying their warranties will not cover fuel-related claims caused by the use of E15. Seven additional automakers (Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo) said E15 does not comply with the fuel requirements specified in their owner's manuals and may void warranty coverage, AAA said.

Vehicles currently approved by automakers to use E15 are flex-fuel models — those that can run on E85 — and 2001 model-year and newer Porsches, 2012 model-year and newer GM vehicles and 2013 model-year Ford vehicles.

EPA has prohibited the use of E15 in heavy-duty vehicles, boats, motorcycles, power equipment, lawn mowers and off-road vehicles.

"The sale and use of E15 should be suspended until additional gas pump labeling and consumer education efforts are implemented to mitigate problems for motorists and their vehicles," Darbelnet said.

More than 95 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States contains up to 10 percent ethanol — and since E15 was approved, just 10 stations are selling it nationwide.

All major automakers, including Detroit's Big Three, unsuccessfully filed suit in December 2010 in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington to block a federal plan to allow fuel stations to start selling E15, warning it could corrode engines. Boat manufacturers and lawn equipment makers joined automakers in the lawsuit.

The U.S. House voted last year to block E15, but the Senate never took up the measure.

Automakers and many other groups urged Congress to act to bar the increase, including: the American Bakers Association; American Meat Institute; American Petroleum Institute; National Petrochemical & Refiners Association; National Turkey Federation; Outdoor Power Equipment Institute; and Specialty Equipment Market Association

"Simply stated, this amendment will call a halt to EPA's headlong rush to introduce E15 at least until unbiased and independent testing on the impact of E15 on vehicle and the environment can be completed," the groups said.

Automakers have expressed concerns about using a higher percentage of the ethanol blend that could corrode engines.

[email protected]


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121130/AUTO01/211300415#ixzz2Drxt23c5
 
jodywy said:
AAA urges EPA to halt approval of E15 for vehicles
By David Shepardson
Detroit News Washington Bureau
95 Comments







Washington — AAA, the nation's largest travel organization, on Friday urged the Obama administration to halt the sale of E15 — a new fuel with a higher blend of ethanol — because of possible engine damage to most vehicles on the nation's roads.

AAA, which has 53 million members, said it has found in a new survey a strong likelihood of consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties and vehicle damage as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent approval of E15 gasoline for 2001 model vehicles and newer.

All vehicles on the road can travel on E10 — which is 10 percent ethanol. Corn advocates successfully petitioned the EPA to approve E15, which is 15 percent ethanol, for vehicles since 2001. But the fuel is only being sold at a handful of stations.

The EPA said in a statement it shares AAA's concern about educating consumers, but didn't directly address the request that it halt the sale of the fuel.

"To address these concerns, EPA has been working with AAA and other stakeholders to help inform consumers about the use of E15 and recently required all retailers that sell E15 to label fuel pumps with a prominent orange and black label that EPA developed with the Federal Trade Commission. While EPA does not require retailers to sell E15, the label will help ensure consumers are aware about which vehicles are approved for its use," EPA said.

Nearly all — or 95 percent — of people surveyed have not heard of E15, AAA said.

With little consumer understanding of E15 and less than five percent of cars on the road approved by automakers to use the fuel, "AAA is urging regulators and the industry to stop the sale of E15 until motorists are better protected."

Bob Dinneen, who heads the ethanol advocacy trade group — the Renewable Fuels Association — blasted AAA, saying the concern raised "reflects a pathetic ignorance of EPA's unprecedented test program before approving E15 for commercial use. The fact is E15 has been the most aggressively and comprehensively tested fuel in the history of the agency."

Dinneen accused AAA of being in the pocket of oil companies. "For years, refiners in vast swaths of the country have sold sub-87 octane fuel, which no auto company warranties today. Where's AAA's outrage and concern about that?" Dinneen said. "Ethanol has helped reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil by 45 percent in 2011 and is supporting more than 400,000 jobs across the country that can't be outsourced."

But a prominent House Republican, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, called on EPA to act. He has introduced legislation to halt the sale of E15.

"AAA's findings affirm what we have already heard — E15 causes premature engine damage and voids warranties, even on new models," Sensenbrenner said. "Concerns about E15 are not diminishing, they are increasing. That is telling. When an organization like AAA, a nationally trusted source for motorists, calls out the EPA, you would think the administration would listen."

AAA said just 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the roads today are approved by manufacturers to use E15 gasoline, based on a survey conducted by AAA of auto manufacturers.

General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. have approved the use of the fuel for new model vehicles only. Chrysler Group LLC said this week it still doesn't approve the use of E15 for any of its vehicles.

"It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle," said AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet. "Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers."

AAA said five manufacturers (BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen) are on record saying their warranties will not cover fuel-related claims caused by the use of E15. Seven additional automakers (Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo) said E15 does not comply with the fuel requirements specified in their owner's manuals and may void warranty coverage, AAA said.

Vehicles currently approved by automakers to use E15 are flex-fuel models — those that can run on E85 — and 2001 model-year and newer Porsches, 2012 model-year and newer GM vehicles and 2013 model-year Ford vehicles.

EPA has prohibited the use of E15 in heavy-duty vehicles, boats, motorcycles, power equipment, lawn mowers and off-road vehicles.

"The sale and use of E15 should be suspended until additional gas pump labeling and consumer education efforts are implemented to mitigate problems for motorists and their vehicles," Darbelnet said.

More than 95 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States contains up to 10 percent ethanol — and since E15 was approved, just 10 stations are selling it nationwide.

All major automakers, including Detroit's Big Three, unsuccessfully filed suit in December 2010 in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington to block a federal plan to allow fuel stations to start selling E15, warning it could corrode engines. Boat manufacturers and lawn equipment makers joined automakers in the lawsuit.

The U.S. House voted last year to block E15, but the Senate never took up the measure.

Automakers and many other groups urged Congress to act to bar the increase, including: the American Bakers Association; American Meat Institute; American Petroleum Institute; National Petrochemical & Refiners Association; National Turkey Federation; Outdoor Power Equipment Institute; and Specialty Equipment Market Association

"Simply stated, this amendment will call a halt to EPA's headlong rush to introduce E15 at least until unbiased and independent testing on the impact of E15 on vehicle and the environment can be completed," the groups said.

Automakers have expressed concerns about using a higher percentage of the ethanol blend that could corrode engines.

[email protected]


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121130/AUTO01/211300415#ixzz2Drxt23c5


I am not going to decide who is right on corn prices - - - but if you contact the program AgPHD they high lighted research about 3 years ago that show percentages up to 30% will not harm our vehicles - - - the AAA has its own agenda. These higher percentages would also help to clean up our air and while the BTUs of ethanol are lower than gas it makes the gas burn more effectivly and while 15% would lower the fuel milage at 25% we are back to even and at 30% we can get higher fuel economy.

The large ethanol plant near here is not taking new corn but we are hauling cattle feed out of it daily as they are using up the large stockpiles of lower cost corn they had in inventory.

Yes all of the feedlots around here ( between 500 and 2,000 head ) feed either dried DG or wet DG and view it as a good part of a complete ration.

I do not have all of the answers but I will look at things with an open mind.
 
Larrys right ......But how do you get from here to there . Remember Jimmy Carters GRAIN EMBARGO . It almost killed american agriculture .
Letting the government run farming is like given a monkey a jet airplane to fly .
 
lefty said:
Larrys right ......But how do you get from here to there . Remember Jimmy Carters GRAIN EMBARGO . It almost killed american agriculture .
Letting the government run farming is like given a monkey a jet airplane to fly .

I had one of the largest cattle and hog feeding facilities in the area till Carter - - - you would think cheap grain would have helped me - - - I was one of the few that did not file bankruptcy and go out of business. Then the drought of 1983 came and I quit livestock for several years - - - two hits back to back was hard to absorb - - - then another drought in 1988 and a wreck in 1994 ( left me paralyzed for 21 days and healing for about 3 years) and I sold my equipment and rented out my ground till 2000 when my son was old enough to take over.

I currently sell my calves but my son and I are talking about reopening the facilities and feeding 500 to 1,000 calves a year - - - there is no longer a market for hogs in this area and the hog facility just needs a bull dozer - - - and hogs stink!
 
There have been a lot of acres pulled into corn production that have no business being farmed period. Taxpayer subsidized Federal Crop Insurance is one of the big reasons that is happening. Without that subsidy and without a ethanol mandate a lot of those acres would return to beef production because that is the most sustainable use for that land.
 
"Letting the government run farming is like given a monkey a jet airplane to fly ."
I kind of think we are doing both of these. I generally don't get into these discussions much because I don't have any idea what I am talking about. If my memory serves me right, when they first started building ethanol plants here in Nebraska they couldn't keep the doors open without government help. I can't say that I am for or against ethanol, I think distillers grains are one of the best things that ever hit the cattle industry. I have to ask, if your corn makes 35 bushel and normally makes 100 or whatever that number may be, do you get a subsidy for the lack of production. I know that a rancher can buy price protection on his calves, but he does not get a subsidy if he has a bad year and his calves are 75lbs light or 25% of his cows are open. The rancher is expected to take the loss and his choices are pretty cut and dry in years like this, you have to destock with no compensation for the loss in production. You can't buy insurance nor do you get a subsidy for that. It's a tough business to be in no matter what part of agriculture you get into. Unfortunately we are starting to see a lot more emotional influence on regulation, there are to many people in this country that do not realize where their food supply actually comes from. One more thing, correct me if I am wrong. Distillers grains are an effecient growing feed, but you still have to have an unprocessed corn product to finish cattle.
I hope someone can enlighten me as to how it really is, I am sure I have a misperception of how things really happened or how they really are.
 
You can buy insurance on your pasture land and hay ground. Its basically like guessing which months of the year wont rain (or get a normal amount of rain). We been buying it for years paid good this year. Every block has if I remember 3 months in it like June/July/August and if its a rainy month in your part of the world the premium might be higher that 3 others months that are historicly lower in rain fall.
 
You don't recite e a subsidy. You buy an insurance policy with a certain level of protection compared to your last10 years of proven yields. The more you want gaur entered the more it cost. Even in this dry year my farm as a whole I got enough money to just pay my premium. I have been farming since I was in high school and have only collected from drought twice I have payed the premium however the other 15 years. So forgive me if I don't feel bad for collecting at least my premium back this one year
 
Compare private insurance to Federal Crop. It is a subsidy and one that is going to cost taxpayers a ton of money this year. Always amusing how many farmers dislike the government but are up to their neck in government subsidies. It is also being used to direct and control production.
 
flyingS said:
I know that a rancher can buy price protection on his calves, but he does not get a subsidy if he has a bad year and his calves are 75lbs light or 25% of his cows are open. The rancher is expected to take the loss and his choices are pretty cut and dry in years like this, you have to destock with no compensation for the loss in production. You can't buy insurance nor do you get a subsidy for that. It's a tough business to be in no matter what part of agriculture you get into.

Good point
 
Angus 62 said:
Compare private insurance to Federal Crop. It is a subsidy and one that is going to cost taxpayers a ton of money this year. Always amusing how many farmers dislike the government but are up to their neck in government subsidies. It is also being used to direct and control production.

If federal crop is nothing but a subsidy then where does my premium go 85 percent of the time? What kind of subsidy do you pay in to 85 percent of the time? I know it's partially funded by the gov. But do you honestly think that more farmers collect than farmers that pay in on average?
 
4Diamond said:
flyingS said:
I know that a rancher can buy price protection on his calves, but he does not get a subsidy if he has a bad year and his calves are 75lbs light or 25% of his cows are open. The rancher is expected to take the loss and his choices are pretty cut and dry in years like this, you have to destock with no compensation for the loss in production. You can't buy insurance nor do you get a subsidy for that. It's a tough business to be in no matter what part of agriculture you get into.

You do make a good point. But if you could buy insurance to gaurentee you 75% of your average calf crop the past 10 years would you? Most people think 75 % calf crop would be pretty bad. But that's what we are insuring is 70 to75 %. And it only comes into play for a major disaster like this year. When you figure the farm as a whole. Second point is that ranchers shouldn't blame the farmers for the system that is in place for us we didn't make the rules just follow them accordingly.
 
Farmers and ranchers are affected by subsidies and an awful lot of ranchers receive subsidies. There is fencing, well, grazing, feed, conservation and many other subsidies. That being said, I don't know of anyone in agriculture who enjoys the subsidies and would gladly get back to a free market. However the government isn't going to let loose of that control.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top