AD 1026 form

[sw363535]

So what's the point?

Are you advocating the social confiscation of all privately owned property because the tax structure is not fair?  Or a segment of the economy is subsidized?  

Have you recently visited Baltimore?   And the St. Louis area?

A tax code based on workers who work.... And companies who make profits......providing revenues for a government that serves the under employed and subsidizes companies without profits........ all to create the utopian society that takes whining to an art form...

Is there anything more comical than one american citizen complaining about another american getting a subsidy or a tax break?

[idalivered]

BA, i'll probably agree. Also, (right now) cattle on some of that converted pasture looks alot better than 3.20 corn. when i started farming 38 years ago, there was no widely used crop insurance. I farmed with crop share leases, so my financial exposure was much smaller, so my need for crop insurance was just less. to be fair , the cost to support my wife and i was much smaller. I will say that crop insurance has done more to promote concentration in agriculture than anything else we've seen.

I will also say that for many of us, it should not be called "crop insurance". It's real title should be "banker insurance".

[BA Deere]

Hey Ida, through alot of the 90`s and early 2000s corn was raised below the cost of production.  It was basically $1.75, through LDPs, direct payments, counter-cyclical payments you got 50¢...it cost you $2 to raise and you had that extra 25¢/bushel to live off.  Tricky guys maybe milked a extra 25¢/bushel off of the board of trade.

The coop tacked on 15¢ for handling to the $1.75 corn they bought from you and sold it the Austin Jack DeCoster that put up all those "pretty" hog and chicken houses around Eagle Grove. The "DeCosters" had no desire at all to raise their own corn because farmers were stupid enough to raise it below the cost of production..all enabled by the cheap food policy of the farm programs.  The small hog farmer had no advantage in raising his own corn and quickly quit or went broke, it was the Walmartization of American agriculture.

Any money that a farmer can get out of the government is only small reparations for what rural America has lost.  Look at the boarded up store fronts and empty school buildings in the small towns as evidence and look at the bank accounts of the big hog integrators to see where the money has went.

But in 2007 a funny thing happened. Things were so depressed that politicians saw no harm in throwing farmers a bone, so they promoted the RFS Ethanol...well a perfect storm hit along with the boost in renewable fuels, there were droughts and we had it pretty darned good up until the party ended last fall.  That wasn`t intended and the cheap food policy of enticing every acre to be farmed finally kicked in and here we are back to burdensome supplies.  The bears were wrong for 6 years in a row, but now they`re having their day in the Sun. 

[sw363535]

BA add to that last paragraph the number of failed enviro-based subsidies to economic development and ethanol became the poster child of successful government promotion ---- so it got promoted and promoted --- and we are still promoting-- cellulostic...

Another idea expecting the farmer to create the input at a price that does not support the labor involved..

[OKdon]

What is wrong with ethanol is that the consuming public is not clamoring for it The price of blended ethanol is significant compared to real unleaded gas. And e-85 is significantly lower in cost but there doesn't seem to be much demand for it. Possible because our engines are not calibrated right for ethanol.

In stead of mandate to use 15 or 20 % , there ought to be consumer demand for it and it doesn't seem to be in the cards.

[WCMO]

Consumer demand for ethanol unleaded seems to be heavily influenced by continuing anti-ethanol propaganda, most likely originating from or funded by the oil companies, or their minions.  Up to 15% blend, don't really see any difference in miles-per-gallon -- unfortunately, at high blends like 85% ethanol, the gas mileage drops off, this gets publicized, and that's all the general public seems to remember.  Then you have some old study info that keeps popping up, although it is no longer valid since production efficiencies have improved significantly over past few years -- less oil/gas products required to produce the ethanol, and more ethanol obtained per bushel of corn.  The old study info also includes gas/fuel/oil usage annually to plant those extra corn acres, as though that land would otherwise not be used for anything -- at the same time, the old study info does not penalize oil production based on the fact that it is irreplaceable, once out of the ground, for all practical purposes.  And, the old study info does not consider the costs of oil beyond the costs to get it out of the ground -- political/foreign influences, pipeline/shipping costs, and environmental damage/cleanup costs (remember Exxon, BP, etc.).

In addition, I think it was California that originally said we had to show 20-30% net reduction in oil consumption (ethanol/biofuel compared to oil/gas), or ethanol/biofuel should not be required.  ANY improvement is a net reduction in oil consumption, uses excess grain supplies, and supports rural employment opportunities. 

Locally, when 10% ethanol blends were first provided at the pumps, the gas price was 10 cents higher for ethanol unleaded than for regular unleaded -- even though the actual cost of the ethanol was less than the actual cost of the unblended unleaded.  Eventually, they priced them the same.  I think in Missouri generally, you could be getting anything between 0% and 10% ethanol unleaded at the pumps -- gas deliveries to the bulk tanks depend on the relative prices of ethanol and unleaded at the time, (if 100% ethanol price exceeds 100% unleaded price, then delivery into the bulk tanks is 100% unleaded, otherwise it is 10% ethanol blend).  The bulk tanks aren't necessarily empty when deliveries are made, so the net mix at the pump can be anything up to 10%. The only exceptions I'm aware of are for gas sold primarily for boats (at the boat docks) that can be 100% unleaded.

[BA Deere]

I know alot of people that will drive across town and wait in line to buy gas that is 10¢ cheaper, what Ethanol has to do is bottle that determination into enthusiasm for the better value of the renewable fuel.

I listen to farm markets on the radio or watch "Corn College Tv" and hear ads for Ethanol, the woman in the lab coat standing in NYC reciting poetry for POET bio-refining....that is all well and good but that is preaching to the converted. How about advertise on tv shows like "Two Broke Girls"  or "Modern Family"...that`s the consumer base, get those consumers to utilize the money saving feature of their E-85 capable vehicle.

My Wife`s car uses E-85 and we figure if E-85 is 50¢ cheaper, that makes up for the lower mileage, we have been seeing E-85 run consistantly 80¢ cheaper.  The public needs to be educated about this savings.

Some gas stations that carry E-85 filled their tank when prices were high and didn`t sell enough of it and when gas prices dropped significantly, those stations were stuck with high priced E-85 that they had to sell at or higher than the regular unleaded price.  All of which is bad PR for Ethanol. Stations that are current, however were able to pass on the savings.

I think Ethanol needs to run a series of 30 second infomercials with a hot spokeswoman like "Jan" from Toyota..run those ads during Good Morning America or the Regis and Kelly show. In these ads maybe feature the savings of two cars on a trip and the savings in fuel between the Ethanol car and the regular unleaded car, also tout the lower "carbon footprint" of the E-85 car.

[sw363535]

Mr. Don,

Did I just see you print that the public does not want the clean air mandates??

Does the public not know what is good for it??

Isn't that the force behind bio fuels...

The one thing I enjoy about going to a metro area..... The smog clouds are not there like they used to be.