Artificial trees could be planted in order to soak up CO2, as some have suggested. An interesting idea, but how many would be needed to make their purpose worthwhile? I looked at this topic in a recent blog posting, which might be worth a read: http://solarukweblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/chicken-feed/

There is no such agreement. That is an intellectually dishonest debate technique called a false premise. That was not true the first three times you said it, and it still isn’t true, and it won’t be true, no matter how many times you say it.

It takes 56 pounds of corn kernels to produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol, 11.4 pounds of distiller’s grain., 3 pounds of Glutan meal, and 1.6 pounds of corn oil. So, 56 – 11.4 -3 -1.6 = 40 pounds of corn lost that cannot feed people (or the cows that people eat).

40/56 x 100% = 71 percent of a bushel of corn is lost to the human food chain when used for fuel.

“…If 1/2 of U.S. corn is delivered to ethanol plants according to RFS2 in future years, only 1/6 of the total crop will become ethanol…”

Not true. We used just over 1/5 of our corn crop last year for ethanol and that is accounting for the distiller’s grains, and only added roughly 5% to our gasoline supply.

“…The starch is only good for fattening cows before slaughter, and the merits of doing so are dubious especially when considering the hungry and poor that do without…”

I’ll let you corn ethanol enthusiasts continue to fight over the corn with the livestock producers. I’m not in either camp.

“…The cows can grow and thrive just as well on distillers grain and corn gluten, as well as the many other feed options…”

That’s a strawman. Nobody said that distiller’s grains are not a fine feed supplement. That isn’t the point. The point is that 70% of a bushel of corn is lost to the human food chain when used to make ethanol.

“…I think we all can agree that ethanol 1) uses a minority portion of the corn crop…”

Nobody said that corn ethanol is presently using more than half of the corn crop.

“…and 2) the use of the starch portion in feed is dubious and wasteful…”

i certainly never agreed that the starch portion of livestock feed is dubious and wasteful.

“…when compared with decreasing imports of foreign oil and the American jobs and economic benefits from domestic ethanol fuel….”

Hundreds of billions have been spent on corn ethanol and states like Nebraska got a whopping thousand extra jobs. 25 thousand square miles of the most productive cropland on earth and a doubling of corn prices to add roughly 5% to our gasoline supply.

“…Russ, the price of corn is far far below the price of corn in the 1970’s, when adjusted for the value of the dollar…”

Corn prices were at a record high in 1972. The following quote is from the source that follows it:

“…In the grain deal of 1972, the Russians bought large quantities of U.S. wheat and corn at a time when American farmers were already fairly scraping their silos to meet heavy domestic and foreign demand. Prices of some grains more than doubled as a result, giving a sharp upward kick to inflation…”

Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919164,00.html

In 1972 one out of every four human beings on earth was starving.

“…In 3rd world countries like those of Africa, a large portion of the population is still rural and farming. Our constant overflow of high corn yields has depressed the world price of grains, keeping those people poor and hungry. …”

You are now repeating arguments others have already made in the above comments. You should read those comments before making the mistake of repeating them. Following is how your above comment was previously addressed. If you repeat it in the future, just return to this response every time, rinse, and repeat:

“…It’s odd to see a commodity farmer parroting a dog-eared mantra from the seventies and eighties. Funny how American farmers kick and scream for crop supports one minute, happy to depress world grain prices, and in the next minute argue that raising the price of food 60 or so percent for the billion starving poor would actually be a good thing. If they can grow corn for less than they can buy it, you would already be demanding a tariff to keep them from undercutting you by selling their surplus to the ethanol refineries, like you do for cane ethanol…”

You go on to say:

“…By increasing the value of grain some by ethanol to more sustainable levels, we put money into those nations, which allows their farming population to build their infrastructure and nation’s wealth and to become less impoverished and hungry…”

No. We are starving people. The number of hungry has passed through a billion for the first time in history. American farmers have handed the poor a one-two knock-out punch by first depressing grain prices outside of our country via subsidies to the point that they stood no chance of competing with their own farms and now they are down, raising the cost of food to the point they can’t afford to eat. You expect a poor African farmer to run out a buy a corn harvester now that those corn prices are high?

“…People are going hungry now due to infrastructure problems and poor national economies, not out of lack of grain. …”

You are suggesting that doubling the price of food for an impoverished mother will some how help that situation. The only thing that matters to an impoverished mom trying to feed her children is the “price” of food. Corn is a major staple and corn ethanol has doubled its price.

“…Our livestock and dairy operations are out of business while grain prices are still historically depressed when adjusted for the value of the dollar…”

No. Our grain prices are not historically depressed. Following is my response to the other poster who made that claim:

“…Terminology matters. A market determined commodity price might not be as high as a farmer wants it to be, and that may be depressing, but you can’t call a market determined price “depressed.” It’s a function of supply and demand, except in America, farmers are also subsidized, which does indeed tend to depress prices in other countries, but not here…”

You have been told this before. Up to 60% of their costs can be in feed. Double the price of feed and you force them into the red until they can get retail prices in the grocery stores high enough to cover costs. In the future when you make this argument again, refer back to this response, rinse, repeat.

“…It’s not due to grain prices that some of these operations are going out of business. An honest operator will tell you it’s because they have too much debt, and because the market now is no good due to over-expansion and the world economy fallout. …”

No. Debt is a fact of life for businesses. Clearly, one definition of “too much debt” is when the price of feed goes up too much to make loan payments.

“…Russ, because you are uneducated (the kind use of the word) of the agriculture industry, you continue to spread false myths. …”

Sciguy2, I strongly suspect that anyone with an even slightly open mind bothering to read our debate would draw the opposite conclusions.

“…Please become educated on these topics or stop posting about biofuels. I know–you’ve spent huge amounts of time building up your myths website…”

I am an authority on the topic of biofuels. The myth website took very little time. I own dozens of websites. I add to it on occasion. It’s nothing but an online reference sheet. Often maturity can be found in admitting mistakes and working to correct them.

“…I truly believe your calling involves getting the Bolivians to give up their lithium for batteries cheaply…”

Here, I’ll repeat this one again, as I have repeated so many other responses. There is a lithium mine in Nevada that “could be used to produce ((1000/0.6)*9.35) = 15.6 billion kWh of lithium batteries or about 1 billion Volt PHEVs or 650 million Nissan Leaf EVs.”

Source: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/09/western-lithium-20090910.html

Debate is not to convince your debate partner of your point of view. That is not possible. Debate is for the audience, assuming you have one.

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/04/photo-credit-patries71-on-flickr.html

Russ, the price of corn is far far below the price of corn in the 1970’s, when adjusted for the value of the dollar. It’s a lot like our $1,100 gold today is nothing compared to in the 1980’s, when it would have been over $2,000 in today’s dollars.

In 3rd world countries like those of Africa, a large portion of the population is still rural and farming. Our constant overflow of high corn yields has depressed the world price of grains, keeping those people poor and hungry. By increasing the value of grain some by ethanol to more sustainable levels, we put money into those nations, which allows their farming population to build their infrastructure and nation’s wealth and to become less impoverished and hungry. That’s the way economics work. People are going hungry now due to infrastructure problems and poor national economies, not out of lack of grain. There’s plenty of grain being exported from the U.S. and other nations.

Our livestock and dairy operations are out of business while grain prices are still historically depressed when adjusted for the value of the dollar. This is because they overexpanded and took out too much debt for that expansion, a double-whammy. The operations that are making it are servicing little or no debt, because they didn’t make the mistake of over-expansion. It’s a constant boom and bust cycle with livestock and especially dairy. The world recession and resultant less consumption of meat and dairy products also put a hit on these industries big-time. It’s not due to grain prices that some of these operations are going out of business. An honest operator will tell you it’s because they have too much debt, and because the market now is no good due to over-expansion and the world economy fallout. Russ, because you are uneducated (the kind use of the word) of the agriculture industry, you continue to spread false myths. Please become educated on these topics or stop posting about biofuels. I know–you’ve spent huge amounts of time building up your myths website. Often maturity can be found in admitting mistakes and working to correct them. I truly believe your calling involves getting the Bolivians to give up their lithium for batteries cheaply. You are tenacious and intelligent in those regards, and can serve the world well in doing such. Thanks.

No, it’s not a kid I think I’m talking to and that part about CO2 is not true.

“…Even the most rabid ethanol critics, including those pushing the ILUC hoax, admit that you get back 60% of your cattle feeding ability when you process a bushel of corn for ethanol (NREL says it’s closer to 70%.)….”

Also not true.

“…And, the fact still remains, Brazil is planting 5 Million FEWER Acres in Beans than they were in 2003…”

That fact is irrelevant to the land use argument for reasons pointed out to you half a dozen times in the above comments.

“…Oh, and you can still buy all the corn you want for $0.07/lb. How many pounds of corn can You eat in a day?….”

I don’t eat unprocessed grain. Even livestock does better if it has been cracked first.

That’s the wholesale price and note that it is double the price received in the years 2000 through 2005. Then the ethanol mandates started to take hold.:

http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img30.gif

And no, I can’t buy it for that, and neither can the poor of Africa. The retail price is what we have to pay.

Obviously that price was high enough to put some livestock and dairy farmers out of business, while causing others to reduce production to minimize losses. Up to 60% of their costs is feed.

It is obviously also high enough to help push the number of hungry over a billion.

Even the most rabid ethanol critics, including those pushing the ILUC hoax, admit that you get back 60% of your cattle feeding ability when you process a bushel of corn for ethanol (NREL says it’s closer to 70%.)

And, the fact still remains, Brazil is planting 5 Million FEWER Acres in Beans than they were in 2003.

Oh, and you can still buy all the corn you want for $0.07/lb. How many pounds of corn can You eat in a day?

We certainly do NOT put 70% of our corn into our gas tanks. If we are now sending 1/3 of our corn to our ethanol plants, and 1/3 of that (starch) is going into our fuel tanks, then right now 1/9 of our corn is going into our fuel tanks. That’s about 12%. Even if we send 1/2 of our corn to ethanol plants (near the maximum expected any time soon by RFS2), we will still only be putting 1/6 of our corn into our fuel tanks-or about 17%.

Still plenty of corn to fatten cattle. Other grains provide starch as well, such as sorghum, oats, wheat, etc. Who says we have to fatten cattle for market anyway? Out west we eat a whole lot of tasty grass-fed cattle; no need to fatten. Fattened cattle is a gimmick to add fat weight that either 1) makes people fat or 2) gets cut off and thrown away as waste. Sure it tastes good to some, but necessary? No. Especially if you are worried about people starving in other nations, you should be worried about corn being used to fatten U.S. cattle. Are you, Russ?

All of this back-and-forth continues to demonstrate that people who do not know agriculture and ethanol processes should not be posting negative myths relating to ethanol. In the kindest sese of the word, it spreads dangerous ignorance.

Russ, please place your focus on getting the Bolivians to give up their lithium for batteries cheaply.

No. About 70 percent of a bushel of corn is lost to the food chain when you use it to make ethanol. I’m guessing that you missed this in one of my posts so I’ll repeat it:

“It takes 56 pounds of corn kernels to produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol, 11.4 pounds of distiller’s grain., 3 pounds of Glutan meal, and 1.6 pounds of corn oil. So, 56 – 11.4 -3 -1.6 = 40 pounds of corn lost that cannot feed people (or the cows that people eat).”

40/56 x 100% = 71 percent

“…So even if we used EVERY SINGLE KERNEL of corn in the U.S., we would only be putting 1/3 of the corn into our gas tanks…”

No. We would be putting 70% of our corn into our gas tanks. See above calculations.

“…Now instead of shipping useless corn starch with the corn kernels, we ship the distillers grain and corn gluten…”

Most cattle in the US is fattened 3 to 6 months on a mostly corn diet. The starch provides the energy needed to put on weight quickly. It is anything but useless.

Citing the RFA in defense of corn ethanol is like citing Phillip Morris in defense of cigarettes. And the numbers are easily disputed. Their for hire analyst has been exposed many times for cooking up ridiculous reports in support of the RFA. Get that report published in Nature or Science and I’ll respect it.

For starters, they used in their spreadsheet an “estimated” 162.9 bushels per acre. That number will come down once the crop is in. And in bad crop years they will be scrambling to make excuses for the spike in corn prices, blaming everyone but themselves as they always do (grocers, meat and egg producers, big oil, and on and on).

They also deliberately mislead readers with their wording by comparing what they hope is a bumper crop year against last year. No mention that the last three years are the largest corn plantings in 60 years.

I could go on and on.

The world is counting on increasing yields to keep billions from starving. They have been increasing on average for decades. Diverting yield improvements to American gas tanks just pours gas on that fire.

“….New real numbers show ILUC to be a sham…..”

Not true

“…We are producing more corn on fewer acres than previous years, while ramping up ethanol production and having corn left over…”

The 30 year trend line for increasing corn yields is about 1.5% a year. That is not nearly enough to compensate for the 25% of our corn we put into fuel tanks. The last three years were the largest corn plantings in 60 years.

And of course there is corn left over, until we put it all into our gas tanks, which is why the government limited the amount of ethanol that can come from corn. They fear a voter backlash should they allow all of our food to be turned into fuel.