IRS records show there are currently 1.8 million direct subsidy recipients. Saying farmers don't receive subsidies (and those are just the direct subsidies) is either intentionally being misleading, or is misinformed.

 

News from this past week:

"At least 2,702 farmers nationwide received subsidies between 2003 and 2006 even through they were making more than the $2.5 million gross income cutoff. The unwarranted payments totaled $49 million and exposed enduring Agriculture Department management problems, investigators concluded."

 

Ken: The majority of farmers do not recieve government payments. I don't think you understand that fact!

When corn prices were in the $2.00 range (2002-2005), they recieved a loan deficiency payment so they could pay the bills, since that price does not pay for producing the crop.

Most of the subsidies go to buisnesses and rich land owners, not the farmer. Not sure what the farmers are like in your area, but they aren't exactly loaded here. Comfortable yes, but not rich.

I am in Central Iowa.

 

I bring documented facts to the table, you bring wishful thinking!

According to the IRS 1.8 million farms received direct subsidies. According to the EPA there are roughly 2.1 million farms. That's 87.5% of farmers receiving a subsidy, and that doesn't include artificial price props due to import restrictions.

So the question is, if 87.5% isn't a majority, what is?

I don't care if farmers are rich, comfortable, etc. - more power to them! I do care if they engage in wealth redistribution via subsidies and preferential tax treatment.

 

LDP- 2002-2005. Yes, they recieved the subsidy when crop prices were low.

 

USDA data:

- 2007... average farmer household ($86,798 in 2008) income was 27.5% higher than the national average.
- The median income of farm households in 2007 ($52,455) was greater than the median for all U.S. households ($50,233).

I don't have any problem with any group making more money. As a small businessman I understand and applaud success on its own. I think someone creating wealth is fantastic! I just don't like government weath redistribution. It seems too anti-free market.

 

The farmers work off of a free market, and many times that market does not provide a profit. Food is a national security issue, so the government provides security for the farmers.

Does your data show how much of that income is from the spouse working a job outside of the farm? Or how about the farmer that has a side job in town to help pay the bills on the farm?

 

Before we get TOO far off-topic......

Ethanol is NOT a national security issue, and unlike biodiesel, it is heavily-subsidized......and any unnecessary 'alternative' fuel source which relies on billions of taxpayer dollars---and is, in the process, inefficient---is a BAD idea, and one which needs to end.

 

Economic growth is a national security issue, and keeping taxes high to subsidize a group which earns, on average, more than most people earn, slows growth. If a farmer can't compete, and his farm is bought by someone who can make it profitable, that's the way of business. 4 out of every 5 businesses fail in the first 5 years, and that's the free market's way of insuring the strongest survive and raises the bar for everyone

The fact is that the amount of farmed land in this country has grown in the past 50 years while the total number of farmers has gone down (souce: USDA). Inefficiencies are being removed from the sytem. Farmers who are priced out of the market --- its just the market's way of getting rid of inefficiences. If a new combine owned by a corporation can do the job to 5 independent farmers, with 15 year old equipment and do it cheaper... that is better for national security, especially if there was a war which required the draft because it frees up able bodied men.

Politicians are concerned with one thing only: their continued power. That means votes. If buying votes and campaign contributions with a $300 billion farm bill and ethanol subsidies is they way they accomplish it they'll do it just as with any other pork barrel project.

 

I know my family farm is being rented by a larger Farmer/Cooperation. We only farmed 350 acres, but just wasn't feasible. Couldn't ever get ahead.

 

A 40 hour week's pay for your job, plus the rental income, sounds like a win-win over the long term. Same as folks who rent homes... land is an extremely valuable asset to lease/rent. Someone else pays the mortgage... you keep the asset.

Folks, don't get me wrong with my blunt statements. I don't like seeing anyone lose a job or have a business fail, but I also know that's the reality of the world. No one ever told me life was fair, but I was told that America gives me all the opportunities I need to succeed. My family has farmers in it - my great uncle's family (god rest his soul) runs a huge grass seed and cattle farm in Florida. I've lost jobs, gained jobs, had a business fail, had a business succeed, etc. and have had all my gains and losses solely as the results of just my efforts, not any government help. Its the way it should be, even when its hard (and I've been through some of those broke baloney sandwich, ramen noodle and mac-n-cheese stages in my life). Funny thing... tonight the family ate chicken pot pies from Aldi for 55 cents each. We chuckled about how at one point in our lives it was all we could afford and how grateful we are that its a rare thing now. Total cost for dinner for 5: $4.40

 

Ken, you're incorrigable. I can't figure out why this is so hard for some of you to understand. It really isn't that difficult.

On the subsidies thing.......subsidies would on the surface seem indefensible. But it isn't that simple. We all want to eat, so it is in our best interest for our AG economy to be in good shape. Then you have to remember that the ethanol guys are trying to compete against the oil industry, which means it isn't even close to a free market ( a 'fair fight' ). Currently the oil industry unquestioningly dominates the transportation fuel market. Why is that ? In the early 1900s, as automobiles were being developed, ethanol was the fuel of choice. Petroleum fuels came to dominate only because of governmental interfearance and decree. Ethanol was and remains a better fuel choice, but the oil industry, with help from lots of Rockafeller money, like 20 million ( in 1929 ) dollars, succeeded in useing the government to out law their competitor and thus establish a monopoly on the trans portation fuel market. It was a manuver motivated by greed and fear of free market competition. What the oil industry has done to the nation in the past has been nothing short of evil. If you need to convince yourself, read Prff Kovarik's history of tetraethyl lead. Kovarik also has written extensively on ethanol history. So, it seems that subsidizing a competitor of the oil guys kind of balances out some of the exceedinly preferential treatment they have recieved in the past.

Yes, Ken, some of us HAVE read the emissions studies, and ethanol in fact burns much much cleaner. Something like 90% cleaner. Ethanol burners do however give off a small amount of aldehydes. How harmful those are, or whether they can be reduced, needs more study. But our best understanding right now says burning alky is less bad that burning gasoline.

Ethanol is not, repeat, IS NOT corrosive. You can even drink the stuff ! It is methanol that is corrosive. With ethanol, you can have damage if the fuel is water contaminated. But I have to imagine that petroleum fuel that is contaminated with water won't do your engine any good either. and if you spill gasoline in the soil or water, you have lots of problems. If ethanol is spilled in the soil or water, you have very happy earthworms and fish.
If ethanol is not corrosive, why can't it go through pipelines ? In my state, Michigan, pipelines are owned by a consortium of oil companies, and they won't let it go through. The pipes and the pumps can handle it just fine.
It doesn't damage your engine or its parts, either. The E85 guys have driven millions of miles without trouble. And they have disassembled and measured and tested. Engines like ethanol just fine.
It isn't 'less efficient', its more. Some of you need to go back to physics class in High School and learn how efficiency is measured. If you want the same miles per liquid gallon, ethanol can do it. The NEVC guys have proven this many times over. All one needs to do is look at some information from someone other than the oil indusrty or their supporters. In the interest of disclosure, I make no money from petroleum or ethanol or farming. The 'facts' some of the antiethanolers parrot won't become true simply from endless repetition. DinosaurFan

 

So instead of presenting facts and debating them you'll say I'm "incorrigible" and "don't understand"?

We don't need subsidies to compete. Is the American farmer not good enough to take on the world?

Your lesson of already well known history doesn't negate facts about ethanol.

Okay, since you've read the studies, I assume you didn't read just those made by ethanol proponents?

Let's take a look at the entire picture:

Ethanol emissions cannot be measured at the tail pipe alone, since that is actually just a small component of ethanol emissions:

1. Ethanol production creates a great deal of "source" emissions at the plants. Its the reason California is passing emission laws governing wineries.
Ethanol Pollution Surprise, EPA Finds Worrisome Levels Of Toxic Air Pollutants At Ethanol Plants - CBS News
Ethanol Plant Clean Air Act Enforcement Initiative | Compliance and Enforcement | US EPA
Gopher State Ethanol: Minnesota Dept. of Health
EPA Announces Proposed Changes to Ethanol Plant Air Permitting - Ethanol Producer Magazine
Ethanol plants generate 15% of state's emissions | DesMoinesRegister.com | The Des Moines Register - 15% of Iowa's emissions are from ethanol plants!

2. Corn ethanol production has massive inefficiencies.
USATODAY.com - Election-year ethanol talk is good politics, bad math


3. Forest land cleared for corn production unlocks carbon.

4. Agricultural equipment, not subject to on-road emissions laws, has a huge carbon foot-print.

5. Ethanol cannot be transported in traditional pipelines. It requires larger amount of energy to ship.

6. Huge amounts of water is needed for grain production, causing pollution run-off, algae blooms and ground water depletion.

7. Corn ethanol produces less energy than it consumes. It takes between 18,392 - 33,590 BTU of energy to create one pound of nitrogen fertilizer. It takes 24,500 Btu per pound of N, 4,000 Btu per pound of P2O5, and 3,000 Btu per pound of K20 to deliver these nutrients. It takes 53,000 Btu to produce a pound of herbicides, and 158,000 Btu to produce a pound of insecticides. The average energy used for transporting a bushel of corn is 5,636 Btu. Dry mill ethanol plants use about 47,166 BTU of energy per gallon of ethanol produced. Wet mill plants use about 49,208 BTU per gallon of ethanol produced. Ethanol contains 74,000 to 80,000 Btu of energy depending on purity. I haven't even included the BTU's required to transport the final product and the ethanol picture is already looking grim.

Because its conductive and corrosive.

Since you mentioned physics, let's look at the physics. Drinking something has nothing to do with whether its corrosive. Carbonated water will dissolve a tooth yet we drink it all the time. Our stomachs product hydrochloric acid required to digest food and its extremely corrosive.

Ethanol's chemical makeup is CH3 CH2 OH. It is electrically conductive (unlike gasoline). It contains halide ions which chemically attack oxide films on metals (which causes the fallacy that its cleaner because metal exposed to it is shiny due to the surface being stripped). This starts out by initially stripping the protective oxide film on metals, then as pitting, etc. With aluminum fuel lines it breaks it down into aluminum hydroxide. With steel fuel lines galvanic corrosion is an even bigger problem (due to the conductivity of ethanol). Ethanol breaks down the carbon to carbon bonds in polymers and rubber. It causes them to initially swell then eventually break down completely.

Due to the corrosive and conductive properties of ethanol the following changes must be made to support E85:

- Stainless steel fuel lines.
- Special polymers more resistant to carbon-carbon break-down.
- Special insulation of electrical wires.
- Different type of fuel sensor (pulse and hold).
- Special fuel filters (look up Ford's part numbers, they are different)
- Different filler tubes.
- Different fuel injectors
- Upgraded fuel rails
- In some cases different valve seats and intake valves.
- Special holding tanks and E85 dispensors.

The conductive and corrosive properties of any alcohol (ethanol, methanol, etc.) prevents it from being transported in traditional pipelines. E85 tanks have different EPA requirements due to the corrosive nature of ethanol.

So the auto industry is just wasting money upgrading systems? Yeah, okay.

Better to have to go back to physics class than to never have attended one in the first place. You've presented no physics, not even basics.

Here's some more physics:

A gallon of gasoline contains, on average, 123.40 MJ of energy.
A gallon of pure ethanol contains, on average 79.87 MJ of energy.
(MJ = energy density by mass)

Gasoline has a stoichiometric ratio of 14.7.
E85 has a stoichiometric ratio of 9.765, requiring about 34% more fuel per combustion event.

Now, without any changes this could result in up to a 34% decrease in economy, but that leaves out real world driving conditions and the ability of modern engines (especially Flex-Fuel) to increase ignition advance to make better use of the energy available.

Real world fleet tests have shown between 6% to 26% less fuel economy using E85.

Now, the efficiency of E85 can be increased somewhat by increasing compression (turbo-charging), but turbo-charging also increases the efficiency of gasoline (especially with direct injection since compression ratio can be increased significantly for gas).

I'll take EPA and fleet tests over the propaganda produced by state interest groups, state politicians, ethanol producers, agricultural interests and ethanol suppliers, who make up the membership of the NEVC.

Let's take a close look at some of the NEVC's board of directors:

Chairman
Bernie Punt
General Manager, Siouxland Energy & Livestock Cooperative

Vice Chairman, Dwayne Siekman
Ohio Corn Growers Association
Ohio Corn Marketing Program

Treasurer, Roger Moore
Minnesota Corn Growers Association

Curtis Donaldson
President/CEO, CleanFUEL USA
(produces E85 dispensors)

Shirley Ball
Executive Director, Ethanol Producers and Consumers

Ray Hutchinson
Vice President of Business Development, Gilbarco Veeder-Root
(produces E85 dispensors)

Larry Pearce
Governors’ Ethanol Coalition, Nebraska Energy Office

Mindy Larsen Poldberg
Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Corn Promotion Board

Jere White
Executive Director, Kansas Corn Commission

Ryland Utlaut
Mid-Missouri Energy
(farmer owned co-operative)

Brent Rockhold
Missouri Corn Growers Association

Theresa Schmalshof
Vice Chair – Ethanol Committee, National Corn Growers Association

Dave Hallberg
PRIME BioSolutions
(ethanol producer)

Melissa Ullerich
VeraSun Energy
(ethanol producer)

Horace Ward
Executive Vice-President, White Energy Holding Company, LLC
(ethanol producer)

Now, before you mention the auto companies on the board and as part of the membership, there's a reason why they are there. They have managed to get the CAFE requirements tilted favorably with Flex Fuel, due to the fact that the only gas portion (15%) of the mpg number is required to be reported and the Flex-Fuel CAFE credits they gain.

Such as the information from the ethanol lobby (NEVC)?


All one needs to do is look at some information from someone other than the ethanol industry or their supporters.

I make no money from petroleum, ethanol or farming.

I'll welcome an honest debate containing facts and physics you bring to the table. If physics, economics and fleet tests prove me wrong I'll admit it, but so far nothing has been forthcoming.

Signed,
The Not Understanding Incorrigible

 

Interestingly, the Rockefeller family is actually involved in ethanol as well due to increased land rents that have resulted due to increased corn ethanol production. The Rockefeller's have an agribusiness, agri-land rent business and banking which securitizes mortgages on farms. They benefit tremenously by pushing direct and indirect ethanol subsidies. So, your Rockefeller example from the past only serves to show that they are at it again; this time playing both sides of the equation. So, if you believe people were manipulated by them in the past, I cannot help but draw the conclusion that our government and others are being manipulated by them now, and opinions based on the propaganda they put forth is likewise being manipulated.

Signed,
The Not Understanding Incorrigible who does his homework.

 

Lots of homework you posted today ... I don't know that I would ever have time to compose such lengthy posts!

I like E85 from a performance and racing standpoint (school project was an FSAE car powered by a turbocharged 600cc motorcycle engine at 12:1 compression running almost 2bar of boost), but the more I learn about the subject, the less attractive it has become for an alternative energy source for street driven vehicles. No matter how one looks at it, corn is certainly not viable, although other methods of ethanol production look more promising.

A question arose from your post regarding the emissions from ethanol production. Is there a comparison between ethanol production emissions and the emissions from fossil fuel production?