From an "expert"

[Red Robin]

ThePigSite News Desk

March 12, 2008



US - The soaring meat and poultry prices are being fueled by the US ethanol policy drive, says the preliminary results of a recent analysis.



Economist Tom Elam, Ph.D., president of Farm Econ, says "You cannot use the combined grain crops of Australia and Indonesia for U.S. fuel and not have an impact on corn, soybean and food prices". He expects food price inflation to rise five or six percent in 2009.



Elam said that he estimates the cumulative costs to the food industry of the renewable fuel program will be about $100 billion from 2005-2010. The program mandates minimum ethanol production and provides tax incentives for ethanol use.



As part of his analysis, Elam compared what would have happened without the federal biofuels program with what has happened. According to his findings, farm level corn prices in 2008 would have averaged about $2.77 per bushel without the program. Ethanol tax credits have added $1.33 per bushel, and may drive corn more than $5 a bushel in 2009.



Without the biofuels program, Elam estimates that 2008 ethanol production would have been 4.5 billion gallons, but the program has added at least 4.2 billion gallons. Ethanol would have been $1.69 a gallon, but increased demand for corn and higher corn prices are driving ethanol prices up and they now are 51 cents a gallon higher than they would have been without the program.



Approximately 76 million acres of corn would have been harvested in 2007, but the program added 10.5 million acres.



Elam noted that as a result of the program this year's costs to the broiler industry are up $3.4 billion; turkey input costs are up $646 million; swine input costs are up $2.9 billion; cattle input costs are up $2.24 billion; and dairy producer input costs are up $2.7 billion. Translated into a cost per animal, Elam estimated the costs at 53 cents per chicken; $3.40 per turkey; $38 per hog and $117.50 per fed beef animal.



Elam offered the preview of his soon-to-be-released study at the Annual Meat Conference, March 9-11, 2008, in Nashville, Tenn.

 

[fedup2]

If this guy doesn't believe that weather in these other countries and the US had anything to do with these prices, he doesn't have a clue!

--------------------------------------------------------
March 13th, 2008
Ethanol Industry Counters Attacks
Posted by Cindy Zimmerman

The Renewable Fuels Association countered attacks from the food processing and petroleum industries this week with fact checks.

Referencing news stories about statements made by officials with Valero Energy and Pilgrim's Pride, RFA President Bob Dinneen said, "To put the blame for rising commodity, food and energy prices solely at the feet of the American ethanol industry is misleading and diversionary. This kind of overheated, chicken little rhetoric is meant to distort the truth and deliberately misinform the American public."

In news stories this week, Pilgrim's Pride Chief Executive Clint Rivers in a statement blamed high feed costs causing plant closings and layoffs on "the U.S. government's ill-advised policy of providing generous federal subsidies to corn-based ethanol blenders."

RFA says, "What is not included in Mr. Rivers statement is that a host of factors, ranging from record global demand to poor weather conditions around the globe, are driving commodity prices. Moreover, Mr. Rivers conveniently ignores the processing, packaging, and transportation costs associated with oil prices climbing to record highs near $110 a barrel. In addition, no mention is made of the calculations by Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University that estimate the broiler chicken industry specifically was able to save more than $11 billion between 1997-2005 by purchasing corn and feed well below the market cost of production." (Re: "Feeding at the Trough: Industrial Livestock Firms Saved $35 billion From Low Feed Prices.")

Citing studies by Argonne National Laboratories and Environmental Defence, RFA also responded to a Reuters story this week in which Valero Energy Chief Executive Bill Kleese made the claim that, "Corn and ethanol production and the resulting high prices will impact the world in a much more acute negative way than greenhouse gas emissions and climate change ever will."

Fact Check: Compared to gasoline, ethanol is reducing global warming gas emissions by more than 20 percent. As the world continues to irresponsibly deplete its reserves of traditional petroleum, new sources like tar sands in Canada must be developed. The conversion of the tar sands into a usable petroleum products produce 300 percent more greenhouse gases than traditional oil production.

 

[Kato]

Fact Check: Compared to gasoline, ethanol is reducing global warming gas emissions by more than 20 percent.

There are also studies out there that show there is more greenhouse gas produced growing the grain for ethanol that what is saved by using it. Not to mention the additional fertilizer, water, and the use of marginal land for crop production.

Then there's the statement this week from the U.N. that the cost of feeding the world's poor has increased by 40%. Which means that more and more people are going to be hungry unless food aid also increases.

I have always said, and continue to say that as long as there are people in this world who are starving, it is immoral to use food crops to run cars.

What ever happened to the idea of conserving fuel???? Are people so in love with their big gas guzzlers that they just can't give them up? The only big vehicles on the road should be vehicles that are actually working, like trucks. Jumping in a Hummer to run two blocks to the grocery store is just plain shameful. Any pleasure vehicle that gets less than 40 mpg should be parked. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

end of rant.

 

[Red Robin]

Fact Check: Compared to gasoline, ethanol is reducing global warming gas emissions by more than 20 percent.

There are also studies out there that show there is more greenhouse gas produced growing the grain for ethanol that what is saved by using it. Not to mention the additional fertilizer, water, and the use of marginal land for crop production.

Then there's the statement this week from the U.N. that the cost of feeding the world's poor has increased by 40%. Which means that more and more people are going to be hungry unless food aid also increases.

I have always said, and continue to say that as long as there are people in this world who are starving, it is immoral to use food crops to run cars.

What ever happened to the idea of conserving fuel???? Are people so in love with their big gas guzzlers that they just can't give them up? The only big vehicles on the road should be vehicles that are actually working, like trucks. Jumping in a Hummer to run two blocks to the grocery store is just plain shameful. Any pleasure vehicle that gets less than 40 mpg should be parked. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

end of rant.

There are several logical problems with your post. You need to rethink several of these thoughts.

 

[RobertMac]

Fact Check: Compared to gasoline, ethanol is reducing global warming gas emissions by more than 20 percent.

There are also studies out there that show there is more greenhouse gas produced growing the grain for ethanol that what is saved by using it. Not to mention the additional fertilizer, water, and the use of marginal land for crop production.

Then there's the statement this week from the U.N. that the cost of feeding the world's poor has increased by 40%. Which means that more and more people are going to be hungry unless food aid also increases.

I have always said, and continue to say that as long as there are people in this world who are starving, it is immoral to use food crops to run cars.

What ever happened to the idea of conserving fuel???? Are people so in love with their big gas guzzlers that they just can't give them up? The only big vehicles on the road should be vehicles that are actually working, like trucks. Jumping in a Hummer to run two blocks to the grocery store is just plain shameful. Any pleasure vehicle that gets less than 40 mpg should be parked. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

end of rant.

There are several logical problems with your post. You need to rethink several of these thoughts.

What he said!!!

 

[cowzilla]

Shame on you Kato :!: We can't be telling all those ranchers and grain farmers not to use there big Daullys to pick up their mail and go for coffee. There on farm bussiness right? And don't even think about driving past the local rink :lol: :lol: :lol: I think $1.30 litre gas this summer will slow the sale of some of the bigger SUV's.

 

[cedardell]

Why should the big trucks have all the fuel? Maybe so they can haul all the stuff that used to be made in my home town here from China? Maybe so they can run down the NAFTA Superhighway? You want to blame corn for high prices? Maybe you should start blaming some politicians. Start with the Clintons- Bill and Hilery and all the bag money they took from Tyson to start NAFTA.

 

[Kato]

Repeat.

What ever happened to the idea of conserving fuel????

Speaking of logical problems, please explain the logic of consuming food supplies to run vehicles when there are so many ways of reducing the requirement for fossil fuels in the first place.

We all have work trucks, and that's fine and dandy. They are work trucks. We use the truck for work, and the car for the other stuff. There are lots of people who buy a big truck that never leaves town just to drive the kids to their baseball games.

Forget the price of anything. Just think about the morality of it. :!: Is it more important to drive the biggest SUV on the road, or feed a family for a couple of years?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[ranch hand]

Some people just don't live 10 miles from town. I drive 60 miles of gravel before I hit a highway. Cars just can't handle the roads 80 percent of the time. Have you ever hauled a ton of salt in a 40 mpg car? :?

 

[Red Robin]

Repeat.

What ever happened to the idea of conserving fuel????

Speaking of logical problems, please explain the logic of consuming food supplies to run vehicles when there are so many ways of reducing the requirement for fossil fuels in the first place.

We all have work trucks, and that's fine and dandy. They are work trucks. We use the truck for work, and the car for the other stuff. There are lots of people who buy a big truck that never leaves town just to drive the kids to their baseball games.

Forget the price of anything. Just think about the morality of it. :!: Is it more important to drive the biggest SUV on the road, or feed a family for a couple of years?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Your socialist point of view doesn't hold water with me. It's my money. I worked for it, I own it. You can spend yours whatever way you like. If you drink pop, you're using corn syrup which takes grain off of the world market, driving the price up so some poor person can't afford to eat. Living in Canada is less efficient than living in Arkansas. You have to run your heat more days than I do. You're wasting "fossil" fuel and I'm not. From your line of reasoning it's more "moral" to live here than there. Your argument isn't very well thought out.

 

[Mrs.Greg]

Always get a chuckle out of "some" of the Americans that don't like "something" the Canucks say...they throw in the "socialistic" word.

Our healthcare system's socialistic,our tolerance of predetors,socialitic,looking after our enviroment,socialistic.............

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Some people just don't live 10 miles from town. I drive 60 miles of gravel before I hit a highway. Cars just can't handle the roads 80 percent of the time. Have you ever hauled a ton of salt in a 40 mpg car? :?

ranch hand can't you read. She said work trucks for work. Did she say haul a ton of salt in a car? NOOOooo.

She was commenting on these big trucks that never seem to get off the pavement or haul anymore then the kids to baseball. It's just like the rancher can't hardly afford to buy w "work truck" now cause they have leather seats and all the bells and whistles that aren't really needed on a "Work" truck" as they are designed for the urban consumer.

 

[RobertMac]

It's socialistic because man-made global warming is a hoax!!!
Where were the SUVs that melted the last Ice Age?????????

 

[PORKER]

Ditto, The sunspot apperance and disapperance which we are in now controls the earth's temps. Gore's global warming thoughts are a plot to buy an sell carbon credits. What he needs to do is eat beef,not rocks!

 

[Red Robin]

Always get a chuckle out of "some" of the Americans that don't like "something" the Canucks say...they throw in the "socialistic" word.

I always get a chuckle out of Canadians that chuckle nervously when a word describes what they don't like about themselves. :lol:

 

[QUESTION]

Guys maybe check out the different ways of producing ethanol. The quickest and most energy inefficent way is using corn but there is another way that is more energy efficent and carbon neutral but slower process it is cellulosic based ethanol production. You can use cardboard, milling waste, straw basically any plant cellulose material to produce ethanol. I think where kato was going is why take food of the table for people who are starving so those who want to show off can drive a gas guzzler when we do not have to. Bio feuls are a good idea to replace fossil feuls as they will eventually run out but is has to be made efficently.

 

[Rambo]

There are more known reserves of fossil fuels than at any time in history. The technology is being developed to reduce harmful emmisons.

Nuclear energy is basically untapped.

Burning food for fuel is a bad idea, imo. Converting biomass profitably without taxpayer assistance is years, perhaps decades away.

IMO the Gore religion is going to wreck the worlds economy if it is allowed to run on unchecked. They need to provide scientific proof, not scare tactics.

Is higher CO2 really a bad thing? What is one of the things plants need to survive? Maybe more CO2=more plant growth. More plant growth would lead to more effient food production.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Just because we got it does that me we have to burn it.

We were talking about more efficient cars and trucks and some conservation ideas. It got shot down as "Socialist".
Heck I would like a vehicle that burns less fuel I have seen to rush of the oil patch and it disrupts the way of life most any rancher would hold dear.
Maybe some of you folks the farm and ranch in more populated areas don't might the traffic and crap that comes with dealing with the patch or strip mining but if a little conservation could could slow the pace of what ever is happening it wouldn't be a bad thing to me.

 

[Mike]

Guys maybe check out the different ways of producing ethanol. The quickest and most energy inefficent way is using corn but there is another way that is more energy efficent and carbon neutral but slower process it is cellulosic based ethanol production. You can use cardboard, milling waste, straw basically any plant cellulose material to produce ethanol. I think where kato was going is why take food of the table for people who are starving so those who want to show off can drive a gas guzzler when we do not have to. Bio feuls are a good idea to replace fossil feuls as they will eventually run out but is has to be made efficently.

You might be wrong..."Q".

Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. maize-based industry. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[7] Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Ethanol is produced by yeast fermentation of the sugar extracted from sugar cane. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square meter exposed to the sun.

U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Unfortunately, despite this cost differential in production, in contrast to Japan and Sweden, the U.S. does not import Brazilian ethanol because of strict U.S. trade barriers (tariffs) corresponding to a levy of a 54-cent per gallon – a levy designed to offset the 51-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[8] These are promoted by the powerful American sugar lobby, which does not want a competitor to high-fructose corn syrup, and domestic sugar interests.[citation needed] The United States and Brazil lead the industrial world in global ethanol production. On March 9, 2007 Ethanol diplomacy was the focus of President Bush's Latin American tour, in which he and Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, agreed to share technology. The Brazilian sugar cane trade agreements permit various Central American (Colombia, Costa Rica, and Panama), Caribbean, and various Andean Countries tarrif-free trade thanks to concessionary trade agreements.

 

[gcreekrch]

It's 240 miles to our nearest major center, I wish I had a "socialist" truck to drive there. Took some cows to the sale last Thursday and hauled 4 tonnes of grain home. At 1.19 a litre it was a $300 round trip, compared to about $180 a year ago. Fuel shortage my @s$.
When they build a fuel efficient work truck that will stay together on these roads I'll be first in line.