Corn Based Alcohol (may be worse) for the environment. (Page 2/5)
2.5 FEB 15, 09:46 AM
This should have been known by all since the 90s, it's certainly been said by many, but narratives are strong, as are feelings.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-15-2022).]

olejoedad FEB 15, 09:49 AM
At one time, IIRC, taxpayers dollars substidized the ethanol industry to the tune of 50¢ per gallon......

We get taken advantage at every turn.
maryjane FEB 15, 10:56 AM

quote
so I assume that has a lot to do with the corn subsidy as well. Really, I understand we're supporting farmers, but we're basically making them produce things that we don't want, and isn't really good for us.



Corn yield (bu per acre) has been on a steady increase since the end of WW2. Yield has a lot more to do with improvements on farming techniques than anything else.
Corn production (acres planted and harvested) didn't make a substantial increase when the ethanol mandate began in 2005 (mandate was expanded in 2007). About 12-13% increase, but that also coincides with better export demand. Nor did it drop precipitously when the ethanol subsidy ended in 2011. IMO, doing away with ethanol production wouldn't decrease the number of acres planted.Itwould just make more avalable for animal feed at a lower price per bushel and more available for export. There will always be a big demand for corn.
(the chart doesn't show it, but we actually have far fewer acres planted in corn now than we did in 1900. Don't need them due to better yield/ac.


But, I do NOT support the ethanol mandate thing at all.
maryjane FEB 15, 11:26 AM
Federal Corn subsidy to farmers comes predominantly in the form of failed crop insurance, which the farmer has to buy just like any other kind of insurance. Federal crop insurance began in 1938. It's no different than buying federal flood insurance.

I recently read what seemed to be pretty much a hatchet job by Scientific American on corn subsidies in which it stated how much the crop insurance was paid out in 2012 which was a really bad drought year, and it went on to state that corn made record profits that year. What it failed to state was that the profits were price per bushel and most of the midwest farmers didn't harvest any (or not very much) that year. It then asked the question: "Does it make any sense to pay out subsidy in a year that had record sales?"

The article had some good points but that part was definitely skewed and mis-leading.
82-T/A [At Work] FEB 15, 11:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:


Corn yield (bu per acre) has been on a steady increase since the end of WW2. Yield has a lot more to do with improvements on farming techniques than anything else.
Corn production (acres planted and harvested) didn't make a substantial increase when the ethanol mandate began in 2005 (mandate was expanded in 2007). About 12-13% increase, but that also coincides with better export demand. Nor did it drop precipitously when the ethanol subsidy ended in 2011. IMO, doing away with ethanol production wouldn't decrease the number of acres planted.Itwould just make more avalable for animal feed at a lower price per bushel and more available for export. There will always be a big demand for corn.
(the chart doesn't show it, but we actually have far fewer acres planted in corn now than we did in 1900. Don't need them due to better yield/ac.

But, I do NOT support the ethanol mandate thing at all.




That's good to know, I assumed that the corn subsidies were still going on... and also assumed that all of the demand was more or less forced (corn syrup replacing sugar, ethanol, etc.). I know we export a lot... but I still am curious as to why all the US-based food companies have chosen to replace natural cane sugar (and others) with corn syrup. It seems that's in everything. Hoping you either already know, or feel like doing the Googles for me... haha.

The consensus is that corn syrup seems to be worse for us than normal sugar by the way the body processes it (or something).
maryjane FEB 15, 06:53 PM
I don't know much about real sugar but I do know for many decades, there was a Sugar Act, that expired in the mid 70s and quickly, price went crazy, and by '85, both Pepsi and Coca cola had switched to corn sweetener. The Cuban embargo played a part in it, since we used togeta lot of cheap sugar pre-Castro. Every US President since then has signed off on price and quotas limits on sugar in each farm bill. (Except Bush Senior. He vetoed the farm bill because of the sugar subsidy but congress over rode his veto)
I tried to understand the sugar subsidy but couldn't.
The sugar thing is much more convoluted than the corn ethanol subsidy every thought about being.
williegoat FEB 15, 07:11 PM
Every time I see this thread, I get "Rocky Top" stuck in my ears.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-15-2022).]

blackrams FEB 16, 04:25 AM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Every time I see this thread, I get "Rocky Top" stuck in my ears.






And now, so do the rest of us…. 😜

Rams
82-T/A [At Work] FEB 16, 08:01 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

I don't know much about real sugar but I do know for many decades, there was a Sugar Act, that expired in the mid 70s and quickly, price went crazy, and by '85, both Pepsi and Coca cola had switched to corn sweetener. The Cuban embargo played a part in it, since we used togeta lot of cheap sugar pre-Castro. Every US President since then has signed off on price and quotas limits on sugar in each farm bill. (Except Bush Senior. He vetoed the farm bill because of the sugar subsidy but congress over rode his veto)
I tried to understand the sugar subsidy but couldn't.
The sugar thing is much more convoluted than the corn ethanol subsidy every thought about being.




Florida produces a TON of sugar also... which is cool. You drive up route 27 and you see Domino Sugar company burning their fields and harvesting the sugar crop.

Ok, I guess that makes sense then. It also explains why every other country that has Coke / drink products still uses natural cane sugar.
Fats FEB 16, 08:08 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

..




I wonder if they signed something with the plants saying they would only grow and sell to certain ethanol plants and we just misunderstood when they said they couldn't use that corn for anything else.

And yea, the C02 was the part I worked in, and it was just what olejoedad said. They were "green" because they took Carbon Dioxide, turned it into either solid or liquid, and sold that to people that sent it back into the atmosphere at another location.