Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Food For Fuel Is A Terrible Idea
Benzinga ^ | 9-2-2011 | Jonathan Chen

Posted on 09/04/2011 4:19:35 PM PDT by blam

Why Food For Fuel Is A Terrible Idea

By Jonathan Chen
Benzinga Staff Writer
September 02, 2011 12:17 PM

Pretty soon, corn will be more valuable than a barrel of oil.

There is an article on Bloomberg Government from last month that still holds true today. (Gasp! Something written more than 30 seconds ago still holds true?)

It is a sad fact that the U.S. is using corn almost as much as Saudi oil as fuel in this country. The "food for fuel" idea has been around for a long time, and it has been seen as a bailout of the farmers of the past who were unable to sell their excess corn.

That time has come and gone, with the world's population approaching 7 billion later this year.

In the article, senior finance analyst Vijay Sankaran talks about what exactly is going on. He goes on to say that Ethanol is impacting the various Republican presidential candidates, as some support the "bailout" of the farmers, while others, like former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. do not.

Sankaran writes, "The U.S. government has supported the ethanol industry through a series of tax credits and tariffs. In addition President George W. Bush signed legislation in 2005 mandating how much ethanol should be in gasoline consumed in the U.S. The volume under this Renewable Fuel Standard was 9 billion gallons in 2008.

The mandated volume will reach 15 billion gallons by 2015, the same amount of crude oil the U.S. imported from Saudi Arabia in 2009. Saudi Arabia dropped from being the top single source of crude oil for the U.S. in 2000 to the third-biggest in 2010, behind Canada and Mexico, according to the Energy Information Administration."

President Bush had a good idea to try to increase jobs in the United States, and at the same time, get the U.S. off its addiction of foreign oil. However, this idea has a terrible side affect. It has caused corn prices to soar, as evidenced by this chart. Using food for fuel is a terrible idea, as it constrains one commodity to try to replace another. We have seen the rise in corn prices affect everything we eat. Meat has become more expensive, as feed for cattle has become more expensive. This is evidenced by both live cattle and feeder cattle.

As the world's population continues to grow, and corn supplies continue to be even more constrained, we will see prices rise. It's basic economics. The law of supply and demand. This has never been more precedent than what we are seeing in the fertilizer names, like Potash (NYSE: POT), CF Industries (NYSE: CF [FREE Stock Trend Analysis]) and Mosaic (NYSE: MOS). These companies are seeing record earnings, thanks in part to farmers' demand for fertilizers.

When Potash released earnings, President and Chief Executive Officer Bill Doyle said, “The continuation of strong fertilizer demand combined with the limitations of global production, especially in potash, resulted in tight fertilizer markets and rising prices for our products. With farmers committed to increasing yields and capitalizing on the unprecedented economic opportunity, we worked to keep pace with growing demand, which resulted in a record quarter for our company. We believe our ongoing investment in expanding potash operational capability is playing an integral role in the world's food story, and we demonstrated our increased ability to deliver – for our customers and our shareholders.”

"[U]nprecedented economic opportunity." Those three words should ring echoes in Washington, and unfortunately, they are not. It is one thing to try to help your country's exports, which is the job of any President. It is completely another to do it haphazardly. When it is hurting everyone, especially the lower and middle classes, it does net no economic good.

The Obama administration has tried to move towards electric cars and furthering this process, but unfortunately, mass production and wide spread adoption of electric cars is years away. Most Republicans back the ethanol tax credit and subsidies provided to farmers, as that is where the majority of their constituents are based. Nebraska. Iowa. Idaho.

Until the food for fuel mantra changes in Washington, inflation will only continue to hurt those that can barely bear the brunt of it now.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: commodities; corn; inflation; ntsa; oil; opec
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 09/04/2011 4:19:38 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam

It wasn’t that long ago that if you brought this subject up right here on FreeRepublic, you were shouted down by the pro-Bush/corn ethanol crowd.


2 posted on 09/04/2011 4:44:09 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
Burning a basic food crop for fuel is a really, really, really stupid idea.

Subsidizing it is crazy. If it made sense, the government wouldn't have to subsidize it. Borrowing 40 cents of every subsidy dollar is insane.

3 posted on 09/04/2011 4:49:15 PM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (We .. have a purpose .. no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the UN. PM Harper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

The only place for ethanol is in a drink. These subsidies are a perfect example of the kind of crony capitalism that Sarah was talking about in her speech.

Republicans, especially the Georgetown Cocktail Party set, need to get their collective heads out of their nether regions and realize that they are going to have to wean their business constituent communities OFF the government tit.


4 posted on 09/04/2011 5:12:11 PM PDT by Ronin (Obamanation has replaced Bizarroworld as the most twisted place in the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam

The author of the article is blowing it out his arse.


5 posted on 09/04/2011 5:48:36 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

Harness that methane!


6 posted on 09/04/2011 5:53:39 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism - "Who-whom?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes

Ha! Good one!


7 posted on 09/04/2011 6:03:24 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

If that were true, you’d be right - but comparatively little corn grown here goes into actual food. A tiny bit goes into sweet corn production, but most corn grown, is just feed - that hasn’t been turned into steaks yet.

Ethanol production just turns the starch in the kernel into alcohol.

This part is important boys and girls - pay attention -

The remaining mash is sold as Distillers Dried Grains and - sold as feed rations, just as customary, to make steaks and beef products that millions of people enjoy.

Anyone making this argument isn’t being honest, or at least very uninformed.


8 posted on 09/04/2011 6:25:10 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Wonder what “favors” were exchanged to sell this stupid idea? I’ve wondered a long time.

Bush signed it, bought into it and embraced it. Why? How did he become convinced this could ever be a good idea? He was not alone. He had lots of help.

Who got paid off and how much?

Doing something this stupid could only have happened by greed and stupidity.

When will it get reversed? When will the gravy train end for the farm belt?


9 posted on 09/04/2011 6:30:00 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

Good points, I suppose, and I’ve also heard that the ethanol fuel deal is becoming more economically feasible.

So when they can do it without tax dollar subsidies, sign me up.


10 posted on 09/04/2011 6:36:06 PM PDT by moonhawk (The only problem I have with burying Bin Laden at sea is that he was already dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
Burning a basic food crop for fuel is a really, really, really stupid idea

And what SHOULD be done with our mountains or surplus? Plow it under?

All of this basic corp is converted to another form before human use, fuel is just one a a dozen viable options for a farmer to choose.

I used to convert it to pork, many still chose to do so.

11 posted on 09/04/2011 6:51:56 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moonhawk

Well, oil is subsidized?

It seems to me strange that these kinds of emotional arguments have to be made (with respect to Ethanol), for my part the real downside is that the engines are not tuned for alky. A “flex fuel” engine isn’t (yet anyway) optimized for the slower burning alcohol, and the compression ratio is way too low regardless. Timing can also be advanced quite a bit, and at least with computerized fuel injection, the pulse width can lengthened.

In real cold weather, gasoline is much easier to use, as it starts off better. It’s possible to fill up with, mix, or end up with anywhere from 10% to 85%
alcohol and everything in between and it just seems like there must be too many compromises made in tuning to make a flex fuel auto.

My point is that ethanol and gasoline are very different fuels and “adaptive strategies” aren’t quite there yet. It’s great stuff but it’s like burning 120 octane in a lawnmowers, no point in it if the engine isn’t setup to take advantage of it.


12 posted on 09/04/2011 7:05:41 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US; Balding_Eagle
I know corn is used as cattle and pig feed. I said it was a basic food crop. I didn't say what or whom it was feeding. It is insane to subsidize the use of this basic food crop to burn as a motor fuel. It is even crazier to borrow the money to fund the subsidy.

You have corn surplus to your needs? Grow something else. You want to turn it into ethanol? Go ahead. Do it without a hefty government subsidy AND protective tariffs and you have my blessing.

13 posted on 09/04/2011 7:08:12 PM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (We .. have a purpose .. no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the UN. PM Harper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

Corn doesn’t require the 7th Fleet to protect it!


14 posted on 09/04/2011 7:12:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
On second thought, a surplus? What are you talking about?

You can sell your "surplus" corn at $7 a bushel. If you can't make money at that price, you should grow something else. If you grew so much that you have a "surplus" (although I can't really imagine what you are talking about), whose fault is that?

15 posted on 09/04/2011 7:18:23 PM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (We .. have a purpose .. no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the UN. PM Harper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

How about planting other crops?


16 posted on 09/04/2011 7:22:42 PM PDT by Tea Party Terrorist (Yes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: moonhawk

And drop the ethanol mandates.


17 posted on 09/04/2011 7:29:04 PM PDT by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

We’re still here, but there’s not much reason to respond to an author who complains that US agriculture is too productive and who is unaware that an acre of corn requires less potash than an acre of the forage with which he would replace the corn.


18 posted on 09/04/2011 7:31:20 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Now, you’re talking politics, and changing the subject, however my point is that “food into fuel” argument isn’t factual.

Yes there are subsidies for growing corn (or were). There were people paid, even, I’m told, NOT to grow corn, but I’m pretty sure I can’t burn THAT in my car.

See where I’m going with that? There are a bazillion subsidies and tax credits and tax debits and surcharges and fees and if anybody knows what a gallon of juice is REALLY costing us, they aren’t telling.

I know the dollars stay in the local community and banks and feedlots and
jobs for the locals. They are deposited in banks and further lent out and the distilleries are getting the expertise and infrastrucure down so they can
utilize other feedstocks - cellulosic. Many other things than corn can be (partially) utilized to make ethanol. This is a good fuel if done right, the detractors always turn this kind of thing into either/or arguments - hysterical claims - these are the hallmarks of detractors having no factual arguments.

There’s no silver bullet for energy folks. Lp natural gas has promise. Small diesels would be excellent in pickups like the Ranger here in America but for federal red tape are not available. The BTU rating is higher than gasoline.


19 posted on 09/04/2011 7:33:26 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

Reading these posts from time to time one would think all that we eat is CORN! Corn meal, corn oil, and corn flakes would be the main foods. Sweet corn is a different corn and is not used for ethanol. And yes, the by-product from ethanol is still used for animal feed. The only argument to make would be the subsidization by the government.


20 posted on 09/04/2011 7:33:55 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

I don’t feel like going through the thing tonight, maybe someone else can pick it up.

However, real quick, the huge surplus of 2009 corn nearly destroyed the hog industry in 2010. We, as a country, were within 60 to 90 days of the entire industry (all indiviual producers) going bankrupt. Direct result of too much corn.

We’ve had enormous surplus of corn since 1950. 2011 is no exception.

See tagline.


21 posted on 09/04/2011 7:35:36 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

It may not be entirely relevant to the topic, but a few years back when talk about corn ethanol and alternative fuels from things like switchgrass was center stage, I did a back of the envelope calculation to find out how feasible these numbers were. The values are somewhat dated (two or three years) but here goes. If one were to convert the entire annual output of palm oil produced by both Indonesia and Malaysia to biofuel, it would satisfy the US domestic transportation industry for about 22 days or roughly three weeks. And they produce a LOT of palm oil, live in favorable tropical conditions, and grow the stuff like it’s going out of style. Given all that, the US temperate climate, and enormous demand for refined petroleum (gasoline), I see the “growing our way” out of the dependence on good old crude a pipe dream.


22 posted on 09/04/2011 7:45:21 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Actually, the current supply is in the 750 million bushel range and falling. Are hog producers any better off feeding $8 corn?


23 posted on 09/04/2011 7:46:02 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

I’ve made that point a number of times here,and got ignored every time.People believe what they want to believe and there’s no use stating the facts.


24 posted on 09/04/2011 7:50:17 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blam

The whole idea of using ethanol as a fuel is flawed. Ethanol has about 34% less energy per volume than gasoline so combining it with gasoline in any proportion results in a mixture with less energy than straight gasoline. Thus gasoline/ethanol blends REDUCE gas mileage. Last year about 40% of the US corn crop was turned into ethanol, yet ethanol provided only a about 10% of US fuel needs so even converting 100% of all the corn grown in the US would not substantially reduce our dependence on oil. Ethanol is a huge boondoggle.


25 posted on 09/04/2011 7:51:00 PM PDT by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

Rule of thumb, better off feeding expensive corn than cheap corn.

Cheap corn leads to too much pork, beef, and poultry, and as a result, low prices.

America has a surplus of every food commodity.

Never before, in all of recorded history, has a country ever had such a wide voariety of food as such low prices.

That’s all pivioting on our oversupply of corn.


26 posted on 09/04/2011 7:54:58 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

Hey, I keep an open mind about fuel, esp. at the pump! Biodiesel is another promising avenue. There may be some good arguments against ethanol, it’s just strange to me that the article didn’t list any, and left out the fact the food isn’t being diverted from starving grandparents as some would like you to believe. In general too, it is practically impossible for people to come to the right conclusions about issues and things if the facts they are given aren’t really facts but some kind of fear mongering editorial posing as science and such. In cases like these it really helps to see who or what is funding the debate if all they have is “facts” that aren’t really facts.


27 posted on 09/04/2011 7:56:22 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

>> “Biodiesel is another promising avenue” <<

.
If you really believe that, I’d like to invite you to my investment seminar...


28 posted on 09/04/2011 7:59:17 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Sarah Palin - 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

There you go again. If you burn ALCOHOL

In a GASOLINE engine

It doesn’t run very well.

This is a surprise? That’s why I question just about everything in the media and everything else, and half of what I do know.

Just look who’s for and again’st something, and you can usually figure out what’s going on.


29 posted on 09/04/2011 8:02:57 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

>> “of food as such low prices” <<

.
I’d like to know where.

Certainly not in grocery stores, where most prices of meats have doubled in two years.


30 posted on 09/04/2011 8:03:10 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Sarah Palin - 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean; Freedom4US

I don’t think you’re being ignored, it’s just that there is no ‘comeback’ to the facts.

Keep posting it, help others learn the truth.


31 posted on 09/04/2011 8:03:33 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

There is no doubt that food prices have gone up considerably, so these numbers (going by memeory here) are a little dated;

from 1970 through 2009, food costs, as a percentage of income, fell by 30%, from just over 14% of income to just under 9% of income.


32 posted on 09/04/2011 8:16:14 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

You won’t find a single falling food price in the US.

Lamb chops that used to cost $3.29 / pound in 2009 are now $8.99. That is almost triple.


33 posted on 09/04/2011 8:24:58 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Sarah Palin - 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

Here are the valid arguments ethanol. Government subsidy, energy per unit and energy used to produce such unit. Yes, the article should mention these things but doesn’t. The food argument is the most emotional and effective.


34 posted on 09/04/2011 8:42:42 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Previous assessments by others and a few by myself support this conclusion... we ca’t grow our way out of oil dependence.

For another point of view, my screen background is a depiction of Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2009, some 95 quads. At that time:

All Biomass, including Ethanol, is 3.88 quads or about 4% of all fuels, is this worth the disruption of ALL the food supply?

57% of all fuels consumed are wasted to heat and other non-productive uses

A 0.002% increase in efficiency of all other fuels would replace ALL the wind and solar now produced

Natural Gas production would have to almost Double to replace petroleum imports


35 posted on 09/04/2011 9:00:03 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blam

Modern agriculture is the conversion of petroleum into food. This resulted in cheap, abundant food and less starvation.

Modern left-wing ‘green’ fuels, is the opposite. It will make food expensive and scarce and will result in starvation for millions in poor countries.


36 posted on 09/05/2011 1:17:14 AM PDT by Bon mots ("When seconds count, the police are just minutes away...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
I didn't change any subject. My initial statement was that burning a basic food crop as fuel was dumb. Subsidizing production of ethanol was dumber. Borrowing money to pay the subsidy was the dumbest. I stand by that and no one has refuted or even addressed that statement.

I do not think the government should be subsidizing fuel production, especially turning a basic food into fuel.

37 posted on 09/05/2011 4:57:35 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (We .. have a purpose .. no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the UN. PM Harper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
We obviously have different definitions of "surplus". At $7 a bushel, how can there be any surplus? Sell your "surplus". If you cannot recover your cost of production, switch to another crop.

As I stated before, if you can make money turning corn into ethanol, go ahead. But you can't. You need a government subsidy and tariff barriers. The government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar to subsidize the ethanol industry. The tariff is just a tax by another name.

38 posted on 09/05/2011 5:03:47 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (We .. have a purpose .. no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the UN. PM Harper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Like I said, corn isn’t a “basic food crop”. It’s cattle feed, mostly. Yes, some is turned into cornflakes, some is turned into corn syrup.

After the starch is turned into fuel, the corn isn’t gone. It’s used for - surprise! Cattle feed.

Anyone who leaves out this basic part of the equation can’t really be trusted.


39 posted on 09/05/2011 5:17:23 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
Corn is a basic food crop. See post 13. It is a building block for hundreds of other foods, including beef and pork. I mentioned this throughout all my posts.

I don't care if you trust me or not. I'll do it backwards for you. If the US continues to borrow 40 cents of every dollar it uses for a useless ethanol subsidy it will go bankrupt. If you can produce motor fuel out of corn without a subsidy or protective tariffs, do it. You can't.

40 posted on 09/05/2011 5:51:20 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (We .. have a purpose .. no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the UN. PM Harper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Agreed.


41 posted on 09/05/2011 5:59:25 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam

It’s the New World Order’s (The Evil Empire’s) intent to create famine and death anywhere they can. Burning up the corn is one way.


42 posted on 09/05/2011 6:09:07 AM PDT by RoadTest (Organized religion is no substitute for the relationship the living God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Surplus; The American Farmers produce more foodstuffs than our citizens can consume.

This has been going on since at least the 1950’s, and for a long period of time the US government managed the problem with a ‘Cheap Food for Consumers’ program most often labeled ‘The Farm Program’. There were constant cries of paying farmers not to plant.

With the advent of ethanol, farmers began receiving enough return on their investment, and as a result, most no longer use ‘The Cheap Food for Consumers’ programs.

Now there are cries that food is too expensive.

Too bad, the consumer got what they wished for, no more paying farmers not to plant. Too bad they weren’t wise enough to see what getting their wish would all entail.


43 posted on 09/05/2011 6:31:20 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

You can change the subject if you want, I can shift gears.

But let’s stick to one issue at a time. Corn is not a basic food crop.

Yes, you can eat corn flakes for breakfast. The box costs more than the corn itself. As a percentage of the US corn production though, it is infinetismal. Would you concede the fact that most of the corn grown has always been used as feed for livestock?

Note, that’s a question.

Agricultural subsidies is another issue. The short answer to my way of thinking, there are an awful lot of .gov subsidies that (should) probably get the axe (sorry, scalpel. Hm.) than the people who grow our food.

Subsidies, we can talk about those too. Can we agree that oil is subsidized as well? Further, corn (as well as other crops) are renewable! Oil, once burned, is gone.

Again, I am open to discussing facts. When I point out that corn is used as primarily livestock feed, somebody opines that Ethanol runs poorly in their F150.

Well, duh. It’s a gasoline engine. We can talk auto shop too, etc., but again, different subject.


44 posted on 09/05/2011 6:40:54 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
You can change the subject if you want, I can shift gears.

But let’s stick to one issue at a time. Corn is not a basic food crop.

5,250 million bu. - livestock feed BASIC FOOD
3,650 million bu. - ethanol production
1,850 million bu. - exports BASIC FOOD
943 million bu. - production of starch, corn oil, sweeteners (HFCS,etc.) BASIC FOOD
327 million bu. - human consumption - grits, corn flour, corn meal, beverage alcohol BASIC FOOD

Oh, ok only about 75% is used as a basic food or foodstock. 25% is subsidized to burn in gas tanks. Take away the subsidy and 100% is used as a BASIC FOOD CROP, either directly consumed or used to produce other foods.

Yes, you can eat corn flakes for breakfast. The box costs more than the corn itself. As a percentage of the US corn production though, it is infinetismal. Would you concede the fact that most of the corn grown has always been used as feed for livestock?

See above.

Note, that’s a question.

Note, I always recognized that corn was a cattle and pig feed. As such it is a BASIC FOOD CROP. Humans eat pigs and cattle. Corn is fed to pigs and cattle so that humans can eat them. You can't get any more basic than that.

Agricultural subsidies is another issue. The short answer to my way of thinking, there are an awful lot of .gov subsidies that (should) probably get the axe (sorry, scalpel. Hm.) than the people who grow our food.

And that is an emotional argument. No facts "...to my way of thinking...", just emotion and your opinion. So, how about some facts.

Subsidies, we can talk about those too. Can we agree that oil is subsidized as well?

Nope. How so?

Further, corn (as well as other crops) are renewable! Oil, once burned, is gone.

There is enough oil in North America to last for hundreds of years. That's enough for me. You will not replace a significant portion of gasoline use with ethanol. You will not replace an ounce of gasoline use with ethanol without a government subsidy. You will, however, increase the cost of corn, all all the other basic food stuffs that input corn, if you try.

Again, I am open to discussing facts. When I point out that corn is used as primarily livestock feed, somebody opines that Ethanol runs poorly in their F150. Well, duh. It’s a gasoline engine. We can talk auto shop too, etc., but again, different subject.

45 posted on 09/05/2011 7:09:56 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (We .. have a purpose .. no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the UN. PM Harper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

No, a basic food crop would be one that majority utilize as their basic sustenance.

You would agree that Americans do not largely or even in part, sustain themselves on cornmeal. Am I correct in that?

It’s not a basic food crop. So the initial claim isn’t factual. Next, upon this mistaken assumption, yet another falsehood is laid, the notion that this food is being wholly consumed e.g. “food into fuel”.

That, it turns out, isn’t true either. Merely the starch is extracted and turned into alcohol. The remaining grains are STILL FOOD!

Another excellent use of wheat, is to turn it into BEER. Barley, tons of it, is grown and converted into a tasty, nutritious beverage.

BEER, therefore, IS A FOOD CROP. It should be heavily subsidized, and any and all taxes be rescinded. Thank me later.


46 posted on 09/05/2011 7:49:03 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: blam

I really don’t care what a farmer chooses to grow or what he chooses to do with his crop (in a free market).

But I sure as hell hate the facts that:
(1) I am forced to subsidize him with my tax money and;
(2) I am forced to buy the product.


47 posted on 09/05/2011 8:00:58 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a small monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

“Because I am forced to buy the product.”

Yes, the government forces us to do all sorts of things. MTBE is a gasoline additive required by the government. Then it was banned by the government. So 10% ethanol was substituted, in lieu of MTBE.

Don’t get mad at farmers is all I’m saying. They help feed the world with all kinds of products. In fact, it is one bright spot in the economy.


48 posted on 09/05/2011 8:32:36 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

“...Don’t get mad at farmers is all I’m saying...”
-
Gee, why should I blame the farmers,
who push for the protection,
elect politicians to lobby for the protection,
and accept the proceeds from the protection?


49 posted on 09/05/2011 9:28:06 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a small monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th; blam
I am forced to buy the product.

It's not polite to talk with food in your mouth.

50 posted on 09/05/2011 4:19:36 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson