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

Wednesday WSJ article on ethanol

JamesBailer

New member
In case anyone missed it the Wall Street Journal had a great front page article yesterday all about the problems with ethanol. It was called “Ethanol Craze Cools As Doubts Multiply.” The piece discussed many of the things Americans are concerned about: rising feed prices, over-use of precious water supplies and massive land use for corn growing.



Ethanol’s lead lobbying in Washington, Mr. Bob Dinneen was profiled and quoted extensively. He was trying to make it look like everyone is piling on him and blaming the country’s problems on ethanol. That’s not what’s going on—Americans just need some more concrete information and questions answered.



Most telling, Dinneen was quoted as saying “We’ve got to build the biggest, baddest coalition we can.” To me that seems like a very Washington approach to a debate—attack the critics if you don’t have the facts on your side to refute them.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Or..........is it a natural reaction to overwhelming, well funded opposition which has at times used less than factual "information" to stall or stop ethanol acceptance?????

I can see several sides of this issue. No doubt ethanol production has raised corn prices. Bad.... for cattle producers and other non-ethanol producing users of corn. Good.... for some farmers and for lowering (at some point in the future, anyway) US dependence upon foreign fuel sources. Bad.... that farmers get blamed for raising food prices, when it is actually far more fuel costs to all involved in food production and distribution of food that is raising those costs.

Best.....would be real cooperation of users and sellers of all resources in increasing, NOT JUST conserving, fuel supplies from all sources, including new ones,within this nation and for our consumers. It is not as if ALL, or even most, fuel used in this country is used wastefully or ostentatiously (as in private jet owning 'playboys/girls' using them for entertainment). IMO, the vast majority of fuel is used to produce food, warmth, light, and goods and services benefitting people all over the world.

mrj

mrj
 

cowzilla

Well-known member
My pellet stove burns grain or compressed sawdust. Sad thing is for several years it was CHEAPER to burn a food product ( feed wheat at $1.50 bu ) than wood pellets ( at $ 4.00 a bag ) which was a waste by product from the sawmills :? Grain is finaly priced to where some farms can turn a profit and if making a fuel out of it is what it takes so be it. Cattlemen will eventually have the edge over other protien producers with there animals able to convert grasses to meat. Behind the dark cloud will shine a better day for cattlemen :wink:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Grain is finaly priced to where some farms can turn a profit and if making a fuel out of it is what it takes so be it. Cattlemen will eventually have the edge over other protien producers with there animals able to convert grasses to meat.

Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great Statement!!!!!!!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
What are requirements for "grass fed beef" re. how the grass is raised, such as" how and with what the soil (or the crop) is fertilized, treated for weed/brush control; maturity of the grasses/forages, forbs, varieties of grasses/forages allowed; additional feeds and/minerals fed?


mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
What are requirements for "grass fed beef" re. how the grass is raised, such as" how and with what the soil (or the crop) is fertilized, treated for weed/brush control; maturity of the grasses/forages, forbs, varieties of grasses/forages allowed; additional feeds and/minerals fed?


mrj

mrj, I never thought a rancher would have to clarify what grass fed means.


Are you sure ncba gave that award out to the right family? Oh yeah, that is the "new" ncba.
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
What are requirements for "grass fed beef" re. how the grass is raised, such as" how and with what the soil (or the crop) is fertilized, treated for weed/brush control; maturity of the grasses/forages, forbs, varieties of grasses/forages allowed; additional feeds and/minerals fed?


mrj

mrj, I never thought a rancher would have to clarify what grass fed means.


Are you sure ncba gave that award out to the right family? Oh yeah, that is the "new" ncba.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex/Econ, you are stuttering or stammering......!

First, I know what I mean by grass-fed......that MOST cattle becoming beef in the USA has been grass-fed for MOST of the life of the animal. Something like 12 to 14 months on grass, then a short feed of maybe 4 to 6 months eating quite a bit of grain along with hay or some other form of grass or forage. Not everyone believes as I do on the subject.


We try to manage our grass wisely and well. Not always as well as we would like during this lengthy drought, despite cutting our numbers drastically. We do have quite a bit more grass showing through the snows we've received recently, than on many ranches between home and Rapid City, a distance of some 120 miles. Sometimes I wonder if we can financially justify the costs, both short and long term, of taking the care of the grass that we do, but we like the way it looks.

The perception that cattle are force fed corn and little else for MOST of their life is being promoted by some people.

Some people insist grass-fed means no grain. Some say the grass has to be green and growing. That leaves cattle producers in a very large portion of the nation unable to qualify during all but a very short spring-time growing season. I asked the question to see what people on this site think it means.

My GUESS is that there are many variations between the extremes I mentioned, and I wonder if there is any legal criteria for use of a "Grass Fed Beef" label.

And it has NOTHING to do with any awards given us by NCBA, for the record, Tex/Econ.

Another point: our families were active in predecessor organizations of NCBA virtually from the beginning, as we have at least 117 years on one side of the family, and possibly a little less than that on my side, active in the cattle business and organizations in SD.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex/Econ, you are stuttering or stammering......!

First, I know what I mean by grass-fed......that MOST cattle becoming beef in the USA has been grass-fed for MOST of the life of the animal. Something like 12 to 14 months on grass, then a short feed of maybe 4 to 6 months eating quite a bit of grain along with hay or some other form of grass or forage. Not everyone believes as I do on the subject.


We try to manage our grass wisely and well. Not always as well as we would like during this lengthy drought, despite cutting our numbers drastically. We do have quite a bit more grass showing through the snows we've received recently, than on many ranches between home and Rapid City, a distance of some 120 miles. Sometimes I wonder if we can financially justify the costs, both short and long term, of taking the care of the grass that we do, but we like the way it looks.

The perception that cattle are force fed corn and little else for MOST of their life is being promoted by some people.

Some people insist grass-fed means no grain. Some say the grass has to be green and growing. That leaves cattle producers in a very large portion of the nation unable to qualify during all but a very short spring-time growing season. I asked the question to see what people on this site think it means.

My GUESS is that there are many variations between the extremes I mentioned, and I wonder if there is any legal criteria for use of a "Grass Fed Beef" label.

And it has NOTHING to do with any awards given us by NCBA, for the record, Tex/Econ.

Another point: our families were active in predecessor organizations of NCBA virtually from the beginning, as we have at least 117 years on one side of the family, and possibly a little less than that on my side, active in the cattle business and organizations in SD.

mrj


Another point: our families were active in predecessor organizations of NCBA virtually from the beginning, as we have at least 117 years on one side of the family, and possibly a little less than that on my side, active in the cattle business and organizations in SD.

mrj

mrj, what changed that you allow the NCBA to represent packers instead of producers? Do you have an investment there or something?

Grass fed definitions are easy to come by. I see though, that you are able to confuse even yourself. In that regard, I will let you have at it.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
My GUESS is that there are many variations between the extremes I mentioned, and I wonder if there is any legal criteria for use of a "Grass Fed Beef" label.

Having "Grassfed Beef" on a label is a label claim and must be backed by a production protocol (with signed and notarized affidavit under penalty by law) and approved by FSIS in Washington, D.C. This was even before FSIS had a definition for "Grassfed Beef". I think they require 99% of feeds are forage based. I really haven't concerned myself because I already have an approved label and I'm beyond any standards they would require.

mrj said:
Some people insist grass-fed means no grain.
Yes, it does...and the most important of those "some people" is FSIS!

mrj said:
Some say the grass has to be green and growing. That leaves cattle producers in a very large portion of the nation unable to qualify during all but a very short spring-time growing season.
Wrong...that idea is put forth by conventional producers that feel threatened by grassfed producers.
 

mrj

Well-known member
RM, I'm simply putting our some points I've heard grass fed beef promoters claim as fact. The context in which they were stated was as finally giving south eastern US producers an 'edge' over the beef quality edge long held by northern and western raised, short-term grain fed cattle.

Where are the 'rules' posted?

You make my point from other 'arguments' re. labels and what is allowed or not allowed!

I believe, and will check when time allows, that the Beef Checkoff has worked for a long time to get more information re. healthful benefits of beef allowed.

Since you know the difficulty of achieving success with FSIS, it seems surprising you are not more understanding of reasons it has not YET been achieved.

mrj
 

katrina

Well-known member
Alfalfa Offers Many Advantages As Biomass Crop
Although it may be several years before cellulosic ethanol plants start large-scale production, Michael Russelle, soil scientist with the USDA Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS), says the potential to use alfalfa as a biomass crop means there could be many benefits on the horizon for hay growers. Cellulosic ethanol production is in the infant stages now; just a few pilot plants are in the early stages of production, Russelle says. Eventually, experts estimate cellulosic biomass could yield at least three times as much ethanol as corn grain does now.

"If alfalfa stems could be used for biomass energy, we could see greatly increased demand for alfalfa because bigger markets would be created," Russelle notes. "We already have an infrastructure for growing alfalfa. We have consultants, seed production and variety development, which we don't have for crops like switchgrass." More demand for alfalfa would create additional benefits for the allied industries that work with hay growers, too, such as nutrient and lime applicators, pest management consultants and custom harvesters.

Russelle points out that biomass production could reduce weather-related stress for hay growers. If the weather isn't good, growers may be able to shift fields from one type of market to another. "So if it is a really wet spring, you could just wait a few weeks for a dry spell before harvesting without worrying if you are going to have dairy-quality hay," he says. "You aren't going to make as much money with biomass as you might with dairy-quality hay, but hay production might become more flexible."

Alfalfa would not have to be harvested as often to meet biomass stem yield requirements. "For example, in Minnesota the first conventional harvest typically occurs near the end of May, and the second harvest happens close to July 4," Russelle says. "For biomass alfalfa we would be harvesting near the third week of June, on average."

Russelle says greatly increased alfalfa acreage could provide a number of natural-resource-based benefits to the public, too. He will be talking more about the benefits of using alfalfa as a green biomass alternative during a Feb. 4 presentation at the National Alfalfa Symposium.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Hi, Katrina!!!

We know that ethanol does not work out that great from just corn-- it just isn't that great as an energy converter. We have needed better conversions to cellulosic ethanol all along, but now that ethanol is catching on, we really need it. It will be much better for the ground if we could keep it under alfalfa instead of corn because of the fertilizer requirements. I hope they really get the science down for cellulosic ethanol. It will be better for farmers, the land, and our economy.
 

katrina

Well-known member
Tex said:
Hi, Katrina!!!

We know that ethanol does not work out that great from just corn-- it just isn't that great as an energy converter. We have needed better conversions to cellulosic ethanol all along, but now that ethanol is catching on, we really need it. It will be much better for the ground if we could keep it under alfalfa instead of corn because of the fertilizer requirements. I hope they really get the science down for cellulosic ethanol. It will be better for farmers, the land, and our economy.

Hi Tex.

I was reading somewhere ( I wish I could find that!!!) That it takes less energy to convert corn to ethanol tha any other form of fuel.... I found that quite interesting as to the bad rap ethenol takes..... And they are finding out that a mixture of ethenol and gas is way better than straight ethenol...... I sent Porker a pm about this so maybe he will post it for us and if not I will try and find that article too.........
Take care Tex.......
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The reason the higher blends get more miles is the rate of explosion or octanetiming .Gasoline is extremely volatile and easily combusts, making any leakage extremely dangerous. Gasoline for sale in most countries carries an octane rating. Octane is a measure of the resistance of gasoline to combusting prematurely, known as knocking. The higher the octane rating, the harder it is to burn the fuel, which allows for a higher compression ratio. Engines with a higher compression ratio produce more power (such as in race car engines). However, such engines actually require a higher octane fuel. ,More push preasure on the piston after the spark inginites the fuel . Remember when your engine pinged with bad gasoline. I have a JD 720 gas that runs great when in pulling contests with extra ethenol in the tank. You reset the timing and with my super mixture and I can win in my weight class almost every time.
 

katrina

Well-known member
PORKER said:
The reason the higher blends get more miles is the rate of explosion or octanetiming .Gasoline is extremely volatile and easily combusts, making any leakage extremely dangerous. Gasoline for sale in most countries carries an octane rating. Octane is a measure of the resistance of gasoline to combusting prematurely, known as knocking. The higher the octane rating, the harder it is to burn the fuel, which allows for a higher compression ratio. Engines with a higher compression ratio produce more power (such as in race car engines). However, such engines actually require a higher octane fuel. ,More push preasure on the piston after the spark inginites the fuel . Remember when your engine pinged with bad gasoline. I have a JD 720 gas that runs great when in pulling contests with extra ethenol in the tank. You reset the timing and with my super mixture and I can win in my weight class almost every time.

Thanks Porker for clarifiying that for me..... That is so interesting....
My guys came home stoked from a tractor pull in Valentine cuz the tractors where using ethenol....... :D :D
 

Mike

Well-known member
I was reading somewhere ( I wish I could find that!!!) That it takes less energy to convert corn to ethanol tha any other form of fuel....

I read that sugar cane makes the cheapest form of ethanol..........

Cargill is in the process of building a huge sugar cane processing facility in Louisiana.
 
Top