Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:efx_e.372089$x96.299337@attbi_s72...
You absolutely MUST make the economic argument and NOT the "it'll be
too expensive for me to play with my toys" complaint.

Thanks, Blanche -- good point.

Flying farmers are a fairly big deal in this state -- and Rep. Nussle is well aware of the financial impact of the
airport.

Well, he's been told anyway. As a politician, he may conveniently "forget" these things, from time to time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

..Blueskies. wrote:




Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer. The fact is
there are so many ethanol plants up and running and so many more being
built or planned that the price of ethanol will continue to plummet.

More plants cost more money to build and operate. Higher costs and lower
prices must mean bigger losses and even bigger government subsidies.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


.Blueskies. wrote:




Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for)
ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a
profit from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer. The
fact is there are so many ethanol plants up and running and so many
more being built or planned that the price of ethanol will continue to
plummet.

Newps writes:

Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

--kyler

There are two sets of subsidies at play. From 1995 to 2003, corn was
subsidized to the tune of $37 billion dollars. Ethanol subsidies are tax
credits and loan guarantees to build plants. Unless or until the Federal
corn program can differentiate corn grown for feed or food vs. ethanol,
corn for ethanol is subsidizied.

http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/region.php?fips=00000

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
Newps writes:

Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for)
ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a
profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about
(but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

--kyler

"sfb" writes:

There are two sets of subsidies at play. From 1995 to 2003, corn was
subsidized to the tune of $37 billion dollars. Ethanol subsidies are tax
credits and loan guarantees to build plants. Unless or until the Federal
corn program can differentiate corn grown for feed or food vs. ethanol,
corn for ethanol is subsidizied.

That's why the statement "A farmer cannot make a profit from selling the
corn outright to an ethanol producer" still confuses me. Perhaps I'm not
getting all of the implications behind "outright"? Or perhaps "to an
ethanol producer" was just misleading/superfluous?

So...do we get to talk about the billions of dollars subsidizing oil
production?

--kyler

Kyler Laird wrote:
Newps writes:


Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?


Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit

from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

Selling corn to make ethanol is not profitable without the federal
government stepping in to prop up the prices. If corn was sold on the
open market at market prices with no government interference there would
be no ethanol. You want to know what you're paying farmers and
ranchers? Take a look at this website and start crying.

http://www.ewg.org/farm/

Newps writes:

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

Selling corn to make ethanol is not profitable without the federal
government stepping in to prop up the prices. If corn was sold on the
open market at market prices with no government interference there would
be no ethanol.

O.k., so you really weren't saying anything ethanol-specific from the
farmer's perspective, right? Selling for ethanol vs. selling for feed (or
whatever) really makes no difference. (Granted, the ethanol plants would
not be able to afford to *buy* grain at market prices without subsidies
but that's not seen by the farmer...usually. I often joke that ethanol
plants are just a way of extracting money from taxpayers. That doesn't go
over well at the ethanol plant meetings.)

You want to know what you're paying farmers and
ranchers?

Uh...I *are* one. I'm all for getting rid of the subsidies though. I
thought we were going to do that a few years ago but that changed.

Let's get rid of all of the subsidies - starting with petroleum.

--kyler

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:17:03 GMT, Kyler Laird
wrote:

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

The subsidy goes to the ethanol producer, primarily Archer Daniels
Midland.

(The corn is subsidized too, of course, but no more for ethanol than
for cornflakes


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com