I was reading that as much as 40% of U.S. corn goes into biofuel. So that follows what I've seen over the last decade or so.

I've seen farmers knock down hedge rows and 15 acre tracts of woods and grow corn property line to property line. I've seen more giant machines than I ever have in my life, and this ain't Nebraska, it's northern Ohio.

I've seen huge tanks of Anhydrous Ammonia, stuff that kills everything. Stuff that if big agriculture and the USDA wasn't behind it would never be approved for use.

Now I'm seeing corn grown two years in a row, the cycle was corn beans wheat before, never two years in a row on corn.

I'm seeing creeks run with algae, as soon as we get a summer slow down the algae fills them. And we wonder why we have that algae problem in Lake Erie.

I get it, ethanol has reduced emissions, but what is it's real environmental impact when you look at the total scope of things?

News flash for you RBB, and that is, I can't think of any "environmentalist" organizations who are in favor of growing more corn to make ethanol for gasoline.

The big money behind it is all from the agricultural lobby.

Or maybe you can come up with a few examples?

Umm...

Do they grow diesel exhaust fluid on corn farms?

That's DEF packaging. The additive they make you put into diesels now to lower emissions. For the environment, ya know?

But, since you asked about environmental groups supporting ethanol...

Wouldn't doubt it for a minute.

That due to the fact that small farmers have a very, VERY hard time surviving; gotta go big or go home..

Bullchit.. AA is used to allow corn to grow to full maturity - a crop that needs a heady amount in order to mature.. Without it, the crop would be stunted and probably end up with about 1/2 the crop otherwise.. Ban that and watch the starvation commence..

Maybe in your area.. Around here it's common for 2-3 years corn, then a year of soybeans or 3-4 years of alfalfa..

That's only part of the problem. The rest is pollution from homeowners who hire 'lawn services' that apply 3-4 'treatments' (fertilizer/weed killer) on their lawns. Then the homeowner's sprinkler system is overused and the runoff gets into the sewer system - which ends up in the lakes (and rivers).. Farmers here are mandated to leave a 'buffer' (a swath of land not planted/fertilized) next to any river or dry run to prevent that very issue.

In vehicles, yeah.. But the process of manufacture AND transportation of the finished product negates every bit of that, IMHO. Sorta like 'electric cars'... Another BS item..

Look at the subject of the OP, then look at my question, and see if you can answer the question I actually asked.

Which environmental groups advocate growing more corn for gasoline?

Not sure now, but when a couple of the first ones around here opened, it took more electricity and water to make a gallon than what it's value was ??? They have since went tits up (yeah)!!

They talk about air, while ignoring all the other impact. If you talk about environmental impact you have to look at the total scope, not just air. Critters can't winter over in a field that is mowed flat with no cover. Fish and aquatic creatures cannot thrive in water choked by algae.

It seems to me that soil has been reduced to nothing more than a medium for the transfer of chemicals and artificial fertilizers.


So what is the total impact?

Keep running in circles. If you get dizzy, stop and rest awhile...

BTW, I sure don't support ethanol, corn subsidies for growing it, or the stupid fuggin mandate to add it to the fuel that causes billions of dollars in damage to otherwise fine motors.

In fact, I don't support agricultural subsidies of any sort, and have never taken a dime of any of them.

LOL, nice diversion. At least I can stay on topic. You may want to read the OP again, that'll help you stay on topic too.

Funny, I thought the subject was green mandates that are not green, and the environmental impacts they have.

You're the one still pissed off about BHA taking all the greenie money.

I just dismiss them as another red herring.

Pissed off, that's a good one. Why would I be pissed off about that thread, you never made any points and were reduced to quoting wacky websites you didn't even know the content of.

As for this thread, once again, read the OP and see if you can figure out what it's about. Once you figure that out, it'll all make sense.

Here's a hint for you: the OP made zero references to any "green mandates," and his question was on the scope of environmental impacts from growing more corn for gasoline.

You must be off your meds today.



If that doesn't relate to ethanol, def, CAFE, and any other subject that the greenies have shoved down our throats through Obama, and his EPA, and any of the subsidies related to green energy, or reduced emissions that have greater environmental impact than they reduce, I don't guess I understand what your policy for being the "On Subject Cop" is.

No I didn't, yet those mandates and federal tax breaks is what drives this. We need to end those tax breaks and subsidies. Yes it will piss off Big AG and the oil companies. But we really need to stop looking at a single layer and sacrificing one for another.

If we only look at air, and at that only on the surface which are emissions from the final user, we can make a case. But if we step back and look at the entire picture from all forms of environmental impact and food production we see a different picture.


Agriculture from it's conception was intended to feed people. True some is used for other things, like cotton and other fibers, but really to feed is the number one thing. So we now expend our soil resources for fuel, I call that stupid.

The end result of agriculture should be food on my plate, not gas in my truck.

And these "groups" that support it, walking in the Global Warming bullshit.

What's left after the starch in corn is used to make ethanol is a high protein feed.

In some ways, I long for "The old days", there is however no going back to 1950.

It will certainly piss off big AG, But, I doubt you'll hear the oil industry bitching if we do away with the ethanol mandate.

And, you are right. Nearly all the environmental policies like this have a worse impact than they let on.

I am sure the small engine-boat motor repairmen lobby for it, it has given them guaranted job security, fixing what that alcohol crap trashes, most miserable junk ever invented for small engines.

And finding all the hidden impacts is near impossible. Some things don't show for long time, then explode. miles

Those wind farms and solar farms fall into the same category.

When corn went to $7 a bushel 4 years ago corporate farms and big corporate farmers bought up every available acre of ground and upped their production of corn. An acre of ground was going for $7000 plus an acre around central Iowa.

Now that corn is $3.50 a bushel and the corporate farmers need to pay for that expensive ground they have to get production out of every acre. That's why all of the trees and fences are being torn out.

Like every one else, they apparently thought the good life of $7 corn was going to continue. If oil continues to go down and continues to make bio fuels less viable, you are going to see more trees and fences go away just so the expensive ground does not go back to the banks. This is not a family farm issue as much as it is a corporate greed issue.
kwg

Which could lead to another dust bowl type incident. miles

Well, yes and no..

Yes - because the weather conditions of the '30s could return again.

No - because the farming techniques to prevent that very issue were not known nor practiced back then. "No-till" planting is one. Leaving the trash on top or (like now) planting a 'cover crop' after an early harvest works to prevent soil erosion. All that, coupled with minimal cultivation and higher density planting works quite well to prevent another 'dust bowl' or, at the very least, to minimalize (sp?) the effects..

I occasionally manage a farm co-op when my brother the regular manager has to be absent. We sell only non ethanol gasoline because the farmers who support ethanol mandates do not want it in their engines and will pay extra to not have to use it. As a matter of fact they will drive several miles to come to the co-op rather than use the ethanol laced fuel.

Dang it, I knew I forgot something. I'm reaching for the ibuprofen right now.

And here I was thinking that pain in my ass was just from reading your posts.

It's the Joooos. And Bush.

"Which environmental groups advocate growing more corn for gasoline?"

I'd say ALL of them advocate for more ethanol which means they advocate for more corn.

You guys can help the situation you know.


Buy local.

Buy what local?

I use quite a few tons of corn per year here at the ranch, and it's locally grown.

One way to get away from a "production" model of agriculture and towards a "profit" model is to produce crops other than commodities.

Farmers and ranchers, as you probably know, only get to keep 10 or 11 cents of the agricultural dollar. Yet, they still get the blame when food prices go up.

Lots and lots of different factors go into the decision to raise field corn, not the least of which is there is a bit of a govt safety net under corn. The reason for that is that the govt wants and needs you to raise corn, soy and wheat. There are just too many entities taking the profit out of it.


So when I say "buy local" I mean that increased support for local farmers and ranchers means increased diversity of crops and products.

The Cargills, ConAgras, Swifts, Smithfields, IBP's, and others are taking the profit, and the Govt comes along and gives a few nickles to the producers.


Screw those guys. Folks can buy a side of beef from me and pay less money for a better product than they can at the store.

The consumer saves money, I make more money and the environmental impacts are lessened.

When farmers dont have to own the whole county and produce every inch to make it, they can concentrate on farming WITH nature rather than against it.

"That's only part of the problem. The rest is pollution from homeowners who hire 'lawn services' that apply 3-4 'treatments' (fertilizer/weed killer) on their lawns. Then the homeowner's sprinkler system is overused and the runoff gets into the sewer system - which ends up in the lakes (and rivers).. Farmers here are mandated to leave a 'buffer' (a swath of land not planted/fertilized) next to any river or dry run to prevent that very issue."

Have you ever been to the Valley on the coast of south Texas? It's covered with big farms that use synthetic fertilizers and insecticides year round. There are few houses with sprinkler systems. I fish in south Laguna Madre that gets a lot runoff from all this cultivated land. The fish are smaller and in limited numbers compared to north Laguna Madre where all the runoff is from ranch land. The limit for trout in south Laguna Madre is 5 and the limit for trout in north Laguna Madre is 10. Years ago I asked the Texas Parks and Wildlife about the reason for so few fish in south Laguna Madre and they said they are studying the problem. They know exactly what the reason is but there's no way the state of Texas will ever ban fertilizer and insecticides use in the Valley. It gets in the drinking water too.

the earth is a closed loop system. stuff can only go into the earth, water, or air. or we can pack it on a spacecraft and jettison it into the sun to be "purified."

the river water that flows out of the atlanta metro after trtmnt is like a chemical factory. all kinds of stuff that runs downhill to the gulf of mexico. that's an important reason i live on the north side of town.

Sure, you can say that all you want but that doesn't make it true.

And they ALL advocate for more soybeans (biodiesel).

To see "environmental impact", folks ought to see the Texas Panhandle. Years ago, this was primarily wheat and cotton country. It had to be, because there isn't enough rain to reliably grow most other crops.

Most of the land in the northern Panhandle was ranch and wheat country. Drive around now, and you'll see that much of that land is now irrigated corn. Folks are tearing up what used to provide antelope, mule deer, quail habitat, putting in pivot irrigation, and sucking MILLIONS of gallons of water out of the aquifer, to grow CORN in the middle of a high plains desert.

Take another look at a map of the Panhandle, and you'll quickly realize there aren't many lakes. Most of the drinking water comes from GROUNDWATER. The same groundwater, from the same aquifer, that farmers are sucking DRY to grow crops in a "desert".

Convert natural gas into fertilizer, use diesel to power combines, to grow corn, to convert into fuel. Makes so much sense

Add emissions controls to diesel vehicles, to burn 20% more fuel, to reduce emissions ???

Adding another link to a chain is never going to enhance overall strength. Any gain in emissions is offset by about a 10% decline in efficiency. We'd be more ahead if we pushed diesel for as much as possible.