Because it's government madated, and everythign government madated increases
the price.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...


equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is higher in protein than whole corn so
the
rancher needs less DDGS than whole corn and they get it at a reduced price.
So
how can the cost of food (which means beef) go up?

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:07:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
What you say is true in some areas of Africa - but even in countries
with "stable governments", starvation and food shortages - and extreme
poverty, are REALITIES.

I've been there. Even in GOOD times, the average west african spends
about 10 times as much of their resources on food compared to the
average American - and that is for barely adequate food. In east and
central africa it is no better, and in many cases worse.

You don't have warlords in jeeps terrorizing the people in Zambia,
Botswana, Malawi,Swaziland, Tanzania, Rwanda, and many other countries
in east/central Africa - nor in Burkina Faso or Ghana in West Africa -
or even in the Republic of South Africa, yet the vast majority of
people in these countries can barely afford to feed and clothe
themselves, even before the grain prices went through the roof over
the last several years.

What you say is amazingly true. But the countries involved don't have a food
problem, they have a government problem.

There has never been a famine in a democracy (before anyone jumps, there
HAVE been food shortages in, for example, India, but not a full-blown
famine).

And that is NOT strictly a function of the form of government.
And India is hardly a pure "democracy" - it is one of, if not the,
most CORRUPT countries, and governments, in the entire world -
developed or otherwise.

What many of these countries have is a combination of a transportation
problem and a resource problem.

The road infrastructure is poor - and the rains - when they do come,
wipe out even good, well-constructed roadways. The countries do not
have the resources to reconstruct them in a timely and proper manner,
so when food shortages occur it is difficult to get food to the
affected regions. Also, the people do not have the money to pay to
have the food flown in - they can hardly afford to buy it at the best
of times. Countries like Burkina, in particular, have virtually no
resources but their people - the VAST majority of the GNP of Burkina
Faso (litteral translation - the home of the honest man - not an
extremely accurate description) comes from Burkinabe men working in
the mines etc in Ivory Coast. A large part of their burgeoning and
under-reported AIDS problem stems from those men, away from their
wives, availing themselves of infected prostitutes in the IC, and
returning home to their (numerous) wives - infecting them as well.

The big problem in Zambia was not the Kaunda government but the World
Bank - policies put in place made Zambia almost totally dependent on
copper just at the time that the world price of copper dropped through
the floor and the easily retrievable copper supplys ran out.
Agriculture was de-emphasized - particularly small scale agriculture,
which had been able to not only feed the country but also export Maize
and other crops. The Nakambala sugar estates and pineapple
plantations, and other large-scale commercial agriculture projects did
not provide a net increase in agricultural output.

Bottswana had a stable government, but was also blessed by the
diamond mines - which provided enough income for the government to
provide good infrastructure and social programs - and it is hard to
say whether the government was responsible for or possible because of
the prosperity of the country (which is, by the way, a FANTASTICALLY
BEAUTIFULL country. - deaserts and all. - Chobe game park is
incredible!!)

Zimbabwe, an the other hand, should be - and at one time WAS the
breadbasket of Africa - and the only solution to their problems
involves the rather distastefull job of "offing" a certain world-class
crook and ASS by the name of Mugabe - and then filling the vacuum it
would leave with a fully functioning member of the HUMAN species.

The entire tribal nature of African society also needs to be changed -
with people becoming proud to be, for instance, Rwandan rather than
HUTU or TUTSI, and Zambian, rather than Bemba, Tonga, Lozi or Ngone.
Zambia has done a pretty reasonable job of it - with tribalism not
being a severe issue over the last several decades - and Rwanda is
doing a pretty good job, post Genocide.
Zimbawe has a long way to go.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:24:44 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 12/28/2011 3:38 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 12:46 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable?
Are they needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

om ...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a
mistake. This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of
money to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the
oxygenate requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at
whim of EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA
says thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

Whatever you say, the air in New York City is now MUCH, MUCH better
than it was in 1976.

To answer you more directly, death certificates usually state the
direct cause of death, not the underlying (series of) causes.

Of course. I understood that 90% of auto exhaust pollution was
eliminated when first legislated. To keep clamping is not worth the
gains.

Even just considering the last few years, the cleanup of buses in terms
of diesel exhaust has been remarkable. But there are still old or
dysregulated trucks running around ... And there still is a lot of coal
burning going on that BADLY needs cleaning up.


Getting off track. Important point is that ethanol does nothing to
reduce pollution.
More accurately - it does VERY LITTLE to reduce polution that could
not be done at least as effectively by other, more sensible, means.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:12:28 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.


********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce, somewhat
on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a gallon as compared
to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida) Ethanol from corn is made
from field corn which is almost always used as animal feed. In the process of
making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers at a cost that is less than the
equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is higher in protein than whole corn so the
rancher needs less DDGS than whole corn and they get it at a reduced price. So
how can the cost of food (which means beef) go up?

Beef is NOT the only way humans eat corn--- You need to get out into
the real world and see how the other 90+% live.
Here in North America people eat sweet corn, and people eat animals
that eat field corn. And we eat wheat. And we eat, wear, and use all
kinds of things that contain CORN - which is not "sweet corn" or
"table corn". High fructose corn syrup is the most predominant
sweetener used in foods of all sorts in North America.
Corn Starch is used in all kinds of foods, as well as industrial
plastics and other processes.
In MOST of the rest of the world, sweet corn is not even AVAILABLE,
and "field corn" or "grain corn" or "maize" is THE staple food.
In the developing world you eat Cassava, Manioc, Rice, Maize, or
Millet. And you eat it, if you extremely fortunate, for 3 meals a day.
MOST live on 2 meals a day or less.

When the world price of corn goes up 15%, it can mean the difference
between a family being able to eat 2 meals a day and barely being able
to afford ONE.

And when corn prices go up, the prices of the local alternatives,
whether Manioc, Millet, Cassava, or rice also go up because of demand.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:16:21 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...hanol-tariffs-
on-imported-ethanol-end/

so the question becomes: how many barrels of oil were not need for gasoline
production over the past 30 years and what was the value of the gas they would
have produced?
The amount of gasoline and/or diesel fuel displaced by ethanol,
overall, is only a SMALL percentage of the number of gallons of
ethanol produced and burned as motor fuel. A VERY SMALL percentage..

At $0.45 per gallon for E10, the SUBSIDY amounts to $4.50 per gallon
of ethanol, more or less.

Brazilian ethanol, made from Cane Sugar, costs a lot less to produce
than North American corn hooch. - including a whole lot less
natural-gas-sourced Nitrogen fertilizer.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:17:52 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

Tegger wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has
quietly ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special
import tariff on Brazilian ethanol.



You'll notice the ethanol mandate itself remains untouched. Blenders
are still required by law to include a certain percentage of ethanol
in the total fuel they sell.

Continued mandate + no subsidy = more expensive gas.

Don't think so. Ethanol from Brazil, as the article pointed out, is
WAY cheaper than domestic ethanol. On the order of $1.00 per gallon
cheaper.



But you still need to get it up here, which costs.

That dollar cheaper, from what I understand - is LANDED COST.

There's a catch somewhere in this whole mess. There are way too many farm-
state votes at stake for this to be as simple as it appears on the surface.

On Dec 28, 8:50*am, Frank wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:08*am, "Stormin wrote:
From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of money
to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.

Al was all for it at one time. I guess hes made all the money he can
make off of it.

Jimmie

On Dec 28, 12:11*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/27/2011 7:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...mestic-ethanol...

Switchgrass is a plentiful biomass to use for ethanol production and I
don't know why it hasn't received the push it needs to be the new source
for ethanol.

http://www.farmland.org/programs/env...energy/Ethanol...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cxpry9u

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum

TDD

.....or make it out of sugar cane. We dont need all that sugar anyway.
Crap is worse than cocaine.

Jimmie

In article ,
wrote:


But still extreme poverty issues across the board - with no war-lords
involved. Extremely high food costs in relation to income - and
unbearably high rates of inflation.

But still mostly related to lousy governments over the years.


Democracy may be a lofty ideal, but in many cases - in many parts of
Africa, a "strong man" government is the only viable solution..

Why? What is it inherent in Africa that they can't find a way to
govern themselves w/o the strong man?


Kagame's Rwanda is, in many ways, a model for developing African
nations. Yes, there is a LOT of foreigh "Aid" pouring into the country
- but the country is, apparently, making wise use of the majority of
it, and Kigali is, at this point, one of the safest African cities,
with most of the city even safe at night.
ANd making good use of the resources they have. Africa, as a
continent, has probably done the best job of squandering resources of
any continent.


Too bad "african development" has come to be suchan oxymoron.

As you mentioned, many are (finally) coming out of it. A LOT of the
problem stems from Europeans mucking around all those years (see also
the Middle East). When they pulled out, there was often a power vaccum
and it was filled by not often the best people. So, much of Africa lost
a few decades while they worked things out. You don't just develop a
cadre of leaders and more importantly mid-level managers overnight. You
are beginning to see some of the glimmers of change for the better. But
still many of the problems stem from government ineptitude if not
complete corruption.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Dec 29, 5:56*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
*But still extreme poverty issues across the board - with no war-lords
involved. Extremely high food costs in relation to income - and
unbearably high rates of inflation.

But still mostly related to lousy governments over the years.



Democracy may be a lofty ideal, but in many cases - in many parts of
Africa, a "strong man" government is the only viable solution..

* *Why? What is it inherent in Africa that they can't find a way to
govern themselves w/o the strong man?


That's the $64,000 question isn't it? The same question could
be asked of most of the Middle East. Perhaps it's changing
there, but only time will tell. Iraq has the best shot, but it's
still very questionable there. Afghanistan I think there is little
hope for. Egypt and Libya, who knows. Then there are
places like Iran where you had a
strongman in the form of the Shah, who took Iran into the
20th century, built schools, universities, educated the illiterate,
lifted many out of povertyand made Iran a regional power.
Look what you have now after the
human rights advocates like Jimmy Carter helped under-
mined him. The Shah had the nut case extremists locked
up in prison or exiled, where they belonged. Now they are
running the place and building nukes.

Speaking of Jimmy, I see the North Koreans said that he
sent his condolences on the loss of their great leader.
And he wished the son success in his leadership. Figures
doesn't it? A dictator like the Shah that is at least
half way decent and
a strong ally of the USA he bitched about. But a commie
that starves millions, torpedoes destroyers, builds nukes
and blackmails the USA, that's the kind he likes....

On Dec 28, 10:09*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:07:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:





wrote:
What you say is true in some areas of Africa - but even in countries
with "stable governments", starvation and food shortages - and extreme
poverty, are REALITIES.

I've been there. *Even in GOOD times, the average west african spends
about 10 times as much of their resources on food compared to the
average American - and that is for barely adequate food. In east and
central africa it is no better, and in many cases worse.

You don't have warlords in jeeps terrorizing the people in Zambia,
Botswana, Malawi,Swaziland, Tanzania, Rwanda, and many other countries
in east/central Africa - nor in Burkina Faso or Ghana in West Africa -
or even in the Republic of South Africa, yet the vast majority of
people in these countries can barely afford to feed and clothe
themselves, even before the grain prices went through the roof over
the last several years.

What you say is amazingly true. But the countries involved don't have a food
problem, they have a government problem.

There has never been a famine in a democracy (before anyone jumps, there
HAVE been food shortages in, for example, India, but not a full-blown
famine).

And that is NOT strictly a function of the form of government.
And India is hardly a pure "democracy" - it is one of, if not the,
most CORRUPT countries, and governments, in the entire world -
developed or otherwise.

What many of these countries have is a combination of a transportation
problem and a resource problem.


Sorry, I don't buy that. There are plenty of countries around
the world that have limited natural resouces yet are very successful,
modern economies. Japan, Singapore, Switzerland come to
mind. As for a transportation problem, why can't they build
roads like the rest of the world? The Romans figured that out
thousands of years ago.




The road infrastructure is poor - and the rains - when they do come,
wipe out even good, well-constructed roadways. The countries do not
have the resources to reconstruct them in a timely and proper manner,

I think the lack of roads is a symptom, not the cause of their
problems.




so when food shortages occur it is difficult to get food to the
affected regions. *Also, the people do not have the money to pay to
have the food flown in - they can hardly afford to buy it at the best
of times. Countries like Burkina, in particular, have virtually no
resources but their people - the VAST majority of the GNP of Burkina
Faso (litteral translation - the home of the honest man - not an
extremely accurate description) comes from Burkinabe men working in
the mines etc in Ivory Coast. *A large part of their burgeoning and
under-reported AIDS problem stems from those men, away from their
wives, availing themselves of infected prostitutes in the IC, and
returning home to their (numerous) wives - infecting them as well.

The big problem in Zambia was not the Kaunda government but the World
Bank - policies put in place made Zambia almost totally dependent on
copper just at the time that the world price of copper dropped through
the floor and the easily retrievable copper supplys ran out.
Agriculture was de-emphasized - particularly small scale agriculture,
which had been able to not only feed the country but also export Maize
and other crops. *The Nakambala sugar estates and pineapple
plantations, and other large-scale commercial agriculture projects did
not provide a net increase in agricultural output.

Bottswana *had a stable government, but was also blessed by the
diamond mines - which provided enough income for the government to
provide good infrastructure and social programs - and it is hard to
say whether the government was responsible for or possible because of
the prosperity of the country (which is, by the way, a FANTASTICALLY
BEAUTIFULL country. - deaserts and all. - Chobe game park is
incredible!!)

Zimbabwe, an the other hand, should be - and at one time WAS the
breadbasket of Africa - and the only solution to their problems
involves the rather distastefull job of "offing" a certain world-class
crook and ASS by the name of Mugabe - and then filling the vacuum it
would leave with a fully functioning member of the HUMAN species.

The entire tribal nature of African society also needs to be changed -
with people becoming proud to be, for instance, Rwandan rather than
HUTU or TUTSI, and Zambian, rather than Bemba, Tonga, Lozi or Ngone.
Zambia has done a pretty reasonable job of it - with tribalism not
being a severe issue over the last several decades - and Rwanda is
doing a pretty good job, post Genocide.
Zimbawe has a long way to go.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All the above is relatively recent, but Africa's problems have been
going on for hundreds of years.

On Dec 28, 9:12*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
*"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.

********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce, somewhat
on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a gallon as compared
to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida) Ethanol from corn is made
from field corn which is almost always used as animal feed. In the process of
making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers at a cost that is less than the
equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is higher in protein than whole corn so the
rancher needs less DDGS than whole corn and they get it at a reduced price. So
how can the cost of food (which means beef) go up?

OK, let's take a look at how that's possible.
You say DDGS, the byproduct of corn from distillation, costs
less than pure corn. The question is how much less? If it's
say 25% less, then with the price of corn doubling and tripling,
it's easy to explain how the price of beef went up. Even
though DDGS is cheaper than corn today, it's still a lot more
expensive than corn was before the diversion to ethanol.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Because it's government madated, and everythign government madated increases
the price.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...


equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is higher in protein than whole corn so
the rancher needs less DDGS than whole corn and they get it at a reduced
price. So how can the cost of food (which means beef) go up?

you obviously don't understand the corn-alcohol-ddgs cycle

In article ,
wrote:


so the question becomes: how many barrels of oil were not need for gasoline
production over the past 30 years and what was the value of the gas they
would have produced?
The amount of gasoline and/or diesel fuel displaced by ethanol,
overall, is only a SMALL percentage of the number of gallons of ethanol
produced and burned as motor fuel. A VERY SMALL percentage..

this makes no sense. ethanol is produced to displace oil (and lower emissions)
so every gallon of ethanol produced/sold displaces a gallon of gasoline

unless you can show that ethanol is being used for some other process/product



At $0.45 per gallon for E10, the SUBSIDY amounts to $4.50 per gallon of
ethanol, more or less.

Brazilian ethanol, made from Cane Sugar, costs a lot less to produce
than North American corn hooch. - including a whole lot less
natural-gas-sourced Nitrogen fertilizer.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Dec 28, 9:12*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , *"Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy
than it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage.
I'm encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our
people.

********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce,
somewhat on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a
gallon as compared to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida)
Ethanol from corn is made from field corn which is almost always used as
animal feed. In the process of making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers
at a cost that is less than the equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is
higher in protein than whole corn so the rancher needs less DDGS than whole
corn and they get it at a reduced price. So how can the cost of food (which
means beef) go up?

OK, let's take a look at how that's possible. You say DDGS, the byproduct of
corn from distillation, costs less than pure corn. The question is how much
less? If it's say 25% less, then with the price of corn doubling and
tripling, it's easy to explain how the price of beef went up. Even though
DDGS is cheaper than corn today, it's still a lot more expensive than corn
was before the diversion to ethanol.

can't be. as the price of corn goes up DDGS will tend to remain stable...it is
after all a waste product of the ethanol process and would otherwise require the
producers to spend money disposing of it.

I can't speak to the prices of corn then and now but as the price of corn rises,
beef would tend to rise, yes. but the price of DDGS won't follow the same price
curve and therefore the price of beef should remain more stable or rise slower
than if there was a crop shortage of corn, rather than a market shortage of corn

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:12:28 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy
than it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.


********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce,
somewhat on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a gallon
as compared to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida) Ethanol from
corn is made from field corn which is almost always used as animal feed. In
the process of making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers at a cost that
is less than the equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is higher in protein
than whole corn so the rancher needs less DDGS than whole corn and they get
it at a reduced price. So how can the cost of food (which means beef) go up?

Beef is NOT the only way humans eat corn--- You need to get out into
the real world and see how the other 90+% live.

but it is basically the only way they eat field corn


Here in North America people eat sweet corn, and people eat animals
that eat field corn. And we eat wheat. And we eat, wear, and use all kinds of
things that contain CORN - which is not "sweet corn" or "table corn". High
fructose corn syrup is the most predominant sweetener used in foods of all
sorts in North America. Corn Starch is used in all kinds of foods, as well as
industrial plastics and other processes.

I realize that corn starch has many uses, but it is not a food, more an
additive. Might actually be a good thing if the price of HFCS rises. Corn starch
can be replaced in most recipes by other forms of starch



In MOST of the rest of the world,
sweet corn is not even AVAILABLE, and "field corn" or "grain corn" or "maize"
is THE staple food. In the developing world you eat Cassava, Manioc, Rice,
Maize, or Millet. And you eat it, if you extremely fortunate, for 3 meals a
day. MOST live on 2 meals a day or less.

When the world price of corn goes up 15%, it can mean the difference between
a family being able to eat 2 meals a day and barely being able to afford ONE.

And when corn prices go up, the prices of the local alternatives, whether
Manioc, Millet, Cassava, or rice also go up because of demand.
--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

so every gallon of ethanol produced/sold displaces a gallon of gasoline

No. The reduced energy content of Ethanol means it only displaces 2/3 of a
gallon of gasoline.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 05:43:01 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 28, 10:09Â*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:07:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:





wrote:
What you say is true in some areas of Africa - but even in countries
with "stable governments", starvation and food shortages - and extreme
poverty, are REALITIES.

I've been there. Â*Even in GOOD times, the average west african spends
about 10 times as much of their resources on food compared to the
average American - and that is for barely adequate food. In east and
central africa it is no better, and in many cases worse.

You don't have warlords in jeeps terrorizing the people in Zambia,
Botswana, Malawi,Swaziland, Tanzania, Rwanda, and many other countries
in east/central Africa - nor in Burkina Faso or Ghana in West Africa -
or even in the Republic of South Africa, yet the vast majority of
people in these countries can barely afford to feed and clothe
themselves, even before the grain prices went through the roof over
the last several years.

What you say is amazingly true. But the countries involved don't have a food
problem, they have a government problem.

There has never been a famine in a democracy (before anyone jumps, there
HAVE been food shortages in, for example, India, but not a full-blown
famine).

And that is NOT strictly a function of the form of government.
And India is hardly a pure "democracy" - it is one of, if not the,
most CORRUPT countries, and governments, in the entire world -
developed or otherwise.

What many of these countries have is a combination of a transportation
problem and a resource problem.


Sorry, I don't buy that. There are plenty of countries around
the world that have limited natural resouces yet are very successful,
modern economies. Japan, Singapore, Switzerland come to
mind. As for a transportation problem, why can't they build
roads like the rest of the world? The Romans figured that out
thousands of years ago.


Even the Brits and the Frenchies could not build and maintain decent
roads there. You need good gravel to make good roads - and LOTS OF IT
when the native soil is not stable.. Road building is a BIG
challenge.




The road infrastructure is poor - and the rains - when they do come,
wipe out even good, well-constructed roadways. The countries do not
have the resources to reconstruct them in a timely and proper manner,

I think the lack of roads is a symptom, not the cause of their
problems.


Partly - but you really need to be there - and LIVE there for a while
to understand it.



so when food shortages occur it is difficult to get food to the
affected regions. Â*Also, the people do not have the money to pay to
have the food flown in - they can hardly afford to buy it at the best
of times. Countries like Burkina, in particular, have virtually no
resources but their people - the VAST majority of the GNP of Burkina
Faso (litteral translation - the home of the honest man - not an
extremely accurate description) comes from Burkinabe men working in
the mines etc in Ivory Coast. Â*A large part of their burgeoning and
under-reported AIDS problem stems from those men, away from their
wives, availing themselves of infected prostitutes in the IC, and
returning home to their (numerous) wives - infecting them as well.

The big problem in Zambia was not the Kaunda government but the World
Bank - policies put in place made Zambia almost totally dependent on
copper just at the time that the world price of copper dropped through
the floor and the easily retrievable copper supplys ran out.
Agriculture was de-emphasized - particularly small scale agriculture,
which had been able to not only feed the country but also export Maize
and other crops. Â*The Nakambala sugar estates and pineapple
plantations, and other large-scale commercial agriculture projects did
not provide a net increase in agricultural output.

Bottswana Â*had a stable government, but was also blessed by the
diamond mines - which provided enough income for the government to
provide good infrastructure and social programs - and it is hard to
say whether the government was responsible for or possible because of
the prosperity of the country (which is, by the way, a FANTASTICALLY
BEAUTIFULL country. - deaserts and all. - Chobe game park is
incredible!!)

Zimbabwe, an the other hand, should be - and at one time WAS the
breadbasket of Africa - and the only solution to their problems
involves the rather distastefull job of "offing" a certain world-class
crook and ASS by the name of Mugabe - and then filling the vacuum it
would leave with a fully functioning member of the HUMAN species.

The entire tribal nature of African society also needs to be changed -
with people becoming proud to be, for instance, Rwandan rather than
HUTU or TUTSI, and Zambian, rather than Bemba, Tonga, Lozi or Ngone.
Zambia has done a pretty reasonable job of it - with tribalism not
being a severe issue over the last several decades - and Rwanda is
doing a pretty good job, post Genocide.
Zimbawe has a long way to go.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All the above is relatively recent, but Africa's problems have been
going on for hundreds of years.
David Livingstone died in 1873, so although their "problems" may
go back hundreds of years, the rest of the world has not been aware of
them for longer than about 150 years, and the majority of the problems
have been in the last 75. Look at European involvement as the
"instigator" of most of the problems.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:35:32 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


so the question becomes: how many barrels of oil were not need for gasoline
production over the past 30 years and what was the value of the gas they
would have produced?
The amount of gasoline and/or diesel fuel displaced by ethanol,
overall, is only a SMALL percentage of the number of gallons of ethanol
produced and burned as motor fuel. A VERY SMALL percentage..

this makes no sense. ethanol is produced to displace oil (and lower emissions)
so every gallon of ethanol produced/sold displaces a gallon of gasoline

unless you can show that ethanol is being used for some other process/product

No, every gallon of ethanol produced from corn CONSUMES aproxemately
1 gallon of gasoline/diesel/natural gas to produce, so it only
displaces a SMALL FRACTION of a gallon of gasoline by it's use.



At $0.45 per gallon for E10, the SUBSIDY amounts to $4.50 per gallon of
ethanol, more or less.

Brazilian ethanol, made from Cane Sugar, costs a lot less to produce
than North American corn hooch. - including a whole lot less
natural-gas-sourced Nitrogen fertilizer.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:40:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Dec 28, 9:12Â*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , Â*"Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy
than it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage.
I'm encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our
people.

********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce,
somewhat on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a
gallon as compared to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida)
Ethanol from corn is made from field corn which is almost always used as
animal feed. In the process of making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers
at a cost that is less than the equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is
higher in protein than whole corn so the rancher needs less DDGS than whole
corn and they get it at a reduced price. So how can the cost of food (which
means beef) go up?

OK, let's take a look at how that's possible. You say DDGS, the byproduct of
corn from distillation, costs less than pure corn. The question is how much
less? If it's say 25% less, then with the price of corn doubling and
tripling, it's easy to explain how the price of beef went up. Even though
DDGS is cheaper than corn today, it's still a lot more expensive than corn
was before the diversion to ethanol.

can't be. as the price of corn goes up DDGS will tend to remain stable...it is
after all a waste product of the ethanol process and would otherwise require the
producers to spend money disposing of it.

I can't speak to the prices of corn then and now but as the price of corn rises,
beef would tend to rise, yes. but the price of DDGS won't follow the same price
curve and therefore the price of beef should remain more stable or rise slower
than if there was a crop shortage of corn, rather than a market shortage of corn
As long as the demand for corn/DDGS is there, the price goes up. If
there was no market for DDGS, the price would drop - but because it
can be used as a replacement for high-priced corn, the price WILL (and
does) rise with the price of corn.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:44:43 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:12:28 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy
than it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.


********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce,
somewhat on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a gallon
as compared to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida) Ethanol from
corn is made from field corn which is almost always used as animal feed. In
the process of making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers at a cost that
is less than the equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is higher in protein
than whole corn so the rancher needs less DDGS than whole corn and they get
it at a reduced price. So how can the cost of food (which means beef) go up?

Beef is NOT the only way humans eat corn--- You need to get out into
the real world and see how the other 90+% live.

but it is basically the only way they eat field corn

Boy, do YOU have a narrow view of the world!!!!!

You are totally ignorant about how 90+% of the world lives.


Here in North America people eat sweet corn, and people eat animals
that eat field corn. And we eat wheat. And we eat, wear, and use all kinds of
things that contain CORN - which is not "sweet corn" or "table corn". High
fructose corn syrup is the most predominant sweetener used in foods of all
sorts in North America. Corn Starch is used in all kinds of foods, as well as
industrial plastics and other processes.

I realize that corn starch has many uses, but it is not a food, more an
additive. Might actually be a good thing if the price of HFCS rises. Corn starch
can be replaced in most recipes by other forms of starch



In MOST of the rest of the world,
sweet corn is not even AVAILABLE, and "field corn" or "grain corn" or "maize"
is THE staple food. In the developing world you eat Cassava, Manioc, Rice,
Maize, or Millet. And you eat it, if you extremely fortunate, for 3 meals a
day. MOST live on 2 meals a day or less.

When the world price of corn goes up 15%, it can mean the difference between
a family being able to eat 2 meals a day and barely being able to afford ONE.

And when corn prices go up, the prices of the local alternatives, whether
Manioc, Millet, Cassava, or rice also go up because of demand.
--

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:54:29 -0700, Robert Neville
wrote:

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

so every gallon of ethanol produced/sold displaces a gallon of gasoline

No. The reduced energy content of Ethanol means it only displaces 2/3 of a
gallon of gasoline.
Actually 50% - and that totally disregards the amount of petroleum
required to produce it.

In article ,
wrote:

Boy, do YOU have a narrow view of the world!!!!!

You are totally ignorant about how 90+% of the world lives.

how 90% or the world lives is not germane to food prices in the US

In article ,
wrote:

I can't speak to the prices of corn then and now but as the price of corn
rises, beef would tend to rise, yes. but the price of DDGS won't follow the
same price curve and therefore the price of beef should remain more stable
or rise slower than if there was a crop shortage of corn, rather than a
market shortage of corn
As long as the demand for corn/DDGS is there, the price goes up. If
there was no market for DDGS, the price would drop - but because it can be
used as a replacement for high-priced corn, the price WILL (and does) rise
with the price of corn.

but since it is an important avoided cost to the distillers, the price will
never be higher than corn and most certainly will tend to be stable. Don't
forget there are many areas that grow field corn but that don't necessarily
grow cattle

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:35:32 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


so the question becomes: how many barrels of oil were not need for
gasoline
production over the past 30 years and what was the value of the gas they
would have produced?
The amount of gasoline and/or diesel fuel displaced by ethanol,
overall, is only a SMALL percentage of the number of gallons of ethanol
produced and burned as motor fuel. A VERY SMALL percentage..

this makes no sense. ethanol is produced to displace oil (and lower
emissions)
so every gallon of ethanol produced/sold displaces a gallon of gasoline

unless you can show that ethanol is being used for some other
process/product

No, every gallon of ethanol produced from corn CONSUMES aproxemately
1 gallon of gasoline/diesel/natural gas to produce, so it only
displaces a SMALL FRACTION of a gallon of gasoline by it's use.

I realize that the energy inputs are close in value to the energy derived from
the ethanol, but I would hope that some of the smart farmers are using E85 in
their farm equipment





At $0.45 per gallon for E10, the SUBSIDY amounts to $4.50 per gallon of
ethanol, more or less.

Brazilian ethanol, made from Cane Sugar, costs a lot less to produce
than North American corn hooch. - including a whole lot less
natural-gas-sourced Nitrogen fertilizer.

In article ,
Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:
...snipped...
I realize that the energy inputs are close in value to the energy derived from
the ethanol, but I would hope that some of the smart farmers are using E85 in
their farm equipment
...snipped...

Cut out all the middlemen and the expensive processing. Use horses, mules,
or oxen and feed the corn directly to them.


--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Dec 29, 11:49*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
wrote:







On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:35:32 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

so the question becomes: how many barrels of oil were not need for
gasoline
production over the past 30 years and what was the value of the gas they
would have produced?
*The amount of gasoline and/or diesel fuel displaced by ethanol,
overall, is only a SMALL percentage of the number of gallons of ethanol
produced and burned as motor fuel. A VERY SMALL percentage..

this makes no sense. ethanol is produced to displace oil (and lower
emissions)
so every gallon of ethanol produced/sold displaces a gallon of gasoline

unless you can show that ethanol is being used for some other
process/product

*No, every gallon of ethanol produced from corn CONSUMES aproxemately
1 gallon of gasoline/diesel/natural gas to produce, so it only
displaces a SMALL FRACTION of a gallon of gasoline by it's use.

I realize that the energy inputs are close in value to the energy derived from
the ethanol, but I would hope that some of the smart farmers are using E85 in
their farm equipment


American farmers might be able to use soy diesel in their
equipment but
not ethanol. Almost all modern farm equipment is diesel powered
nowadays.
The gasoline burning tractors still running are all old and relatively
small by todays
standards. A 200 hp tractor is fairly common now. The gas
burners I remember
were well under 100 hp.
A fair number of stationary power units for irrigation and such
are powered by
natural gas or propane. The rest of the stationary units are
commercial electric
power or diesel. Commercial electric is generally cheaper for
operating cost
and maintenance but not readily available depending on location.


At $0.45 per gallon for E10, the SUBSIDY amounts to $4.50 per gallon of
ethanol, more or less.

*Brazilian ethanol, made from Cane Sugar, costs a lot less to produce
than North American corn hooch. - including a whole lot less
natural-gas-sourced Nitrogen fertilizer.

On Dec 29, 2:40*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,





" wrote:
On Dec 28, 9:12*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , *"Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy
than it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage.
I'm encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our
people.

********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce,
somewhat on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a
gallon as compared to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida)
Ethanol from corn is made from field corn which is almost always used as
animal feed. In the process of making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers
at a cost that is less than the equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is
higher in protein than whole corn so the rancher needs less DDGS than whole
corn and they get it at a reduced price. So how can the cost of food (which
means beef) go up?

OK, let's take a look at how that's possible. You say DDGS, the byproduct of
corn from distillation, costs less than pure corn. *The question is how much
less? *If it's say 25% less, then with the price of corn doubling and
tripling, it's easy to explain how the price of beef went up. * Even though
DDGS is cheaper than corn today, it's still a lot more expensive than corn
was before the diversion to ethanol.

can't be. as the price of corn goes up DDGS will tend to remain stable...it is
after all a waste product of the ethanol process and would otherwise require the
producers to spend money disposing of it.

Junk cars and air conditioners are waste products too.
But the price of those tracks the price of iron, copper,
and aluminum.



I can't speak to the prices of corn then and now

I can it's tripled.



but as the price of corn rises,
beef would tend to rise, yes. but the price of DDGS won't follow the same price
curve and therefore the price of beef should remain more stable or rise slower
than if there was a crop shortage of corn, rather than a market shortage of corn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you don't even know the price of corn over the last few
years, what does that say about your credibility in the
whole discussion?

On Dec 30, 12:47*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

I can't speak to the prices of corn then and now but as the price of corn
rises, beef would tend to rise, yes. but the price of DDGS won't follow the
same price curve and therefore the price of beef should remain more stable
or rise slower than if there was a crop shortage of corn, rather than a
market shortage of corn
*As long as the demand for corn/DDGS is there, the price goes up. If
there was no market for DDGS, the price would drop - but because it can be
used as a replacement for high-priced corn, the price WILL (and does) rise
with the price of corn.

but since it is an important avoided cost to the distillers, the price will
never be higher than corn

No one said it would be higher than corn. What you claimed
was that the price of beef is not sensitive to corn prices
because farmers can use DDGS and that DDGS pricing
is not related to corn pricing. With corn prices tripling,
anything that comes from corn will go up with it as well.
The substitute doesn't even have to come from corn.
If you have two commodities that can be used interchangeably,
say soy beans and corn, if one triples, the other isn't
going to stay constant, it will rise too.



and most certainly will tend to be stable. Don't
forget there are many areas that grow field corn but that don't necessarily
grow cattle

Which has nothing to do with anything.

On Dec 29, 2:35*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

so the question becomes: how many barrels of oil were not need for gasoline
production over the past 30 years and what was the value of the gas they
would have produced?
*The amount of gasoline and/or diesel fuel displaced by ethanol,
overall, is only a SMALL percentage of the number of gallons of ethanol
produced and burned as motor fuel. A VERY SMALL percentage..

this makes no sense. ethanol is produced to displace oil (and lower emissions)
so every gallon of ethanol produced/sold displaces a gallon of gasoline

unless you can show that ethanol is being used for some other process/product


Since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about,
why not stop making an ass of yourself?

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:46:06 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Boy, do YOU have a narrow view of the world!!!!!

You are totally ignorant about how 90+% of the world lives.

how 90% or the world lives is not germane to food prices in the US
Which was NEVER the issue of this thread.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:47:57 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

I can't speak to the prices of corn then and now but as the price of corn
rises, beef would tend to rise, yes. but the price of DDGS won't follow the
same price curve and therefore the price of beef should remain more stable
or rise slower than if there was a crop shortage of corn, rather than a
market shortage of corn
As long as the demand for corn/DDGS is there, the price goes up. If
there was no market for DDGS, the price would drop - but because it can be
used as a replacement for high-priced corn, the price WILL (and does) rise
with the price of corn.

but since it is an important avoided cost to the distillers, the price will
never be higher than corn and most certainly will tend to be stable. Don't
forget there are many areas that grow field corn but that don't necessarily
grow cattle
And their are trains, and trucks, that in North America, are very
effective at moving materials from source to market. What a dipstick!

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:49:58 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:35:32 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


so the question becomes: how many barrels of oil were not need for
gasoline
production over the past 30 years and what was the value of the gas they
would have produced?
The amount of gasoline and/or diesel fuel displaced by ethanol,
overall, is only a SMALL percentage of the number of gallons of ethanol
produced and burned as motor fuel. A VERY SMALL percentage..

this makes no sense. ethanol is produced to displace oil (and lower
emissions)
so every gallon of ethanol produced/sold displaces a gallon of gasoline

unless you can show that ethanol is being used for some other
process/product

No, every gallon of ethanol produced from corn CONSUMES aproxemately
1 gallon of gasoline/diesel/natural gas to produce, so it only
displaces a SMALL FRACTION of a gallon of gasoline by it's use.

I realize that the energy inputs are close in value to the energy derived from
the ethanol, but I would hope that some of the smart farmers are using E85 in
their farm equipment

Except VIRTUALLY NO feild equipment is designed to run on the crap.
Better than 90% oif American field equipment is deisel powered. And
E85 can not be used to manufacture nitrogen fertilizer. (which is a
LARGE portion of the "petroleum input" involved in producing "corn
ethanol"



At $0.45 per gallon for E10, the SUBSIDY amounts to $4.50 per gallon of
ethanol, more or less.

Brazilian ethanol, made from Cane Sugar, costs a lot less to produce
than North American corn hooch. - including a whole lot less
natural-gas-sourced Nitrogen fertilizer.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:49:59 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 29, 2:40Â*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,





" wrote:
On Dec 28, 9:12Â*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , Â*"Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy
than it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage.
I'm encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our
people.

********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce,
somewhat on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a
gallon as compared to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida)
Ethanol from corn is made from field corn which is almost always used as
animal feed. In the process of making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers
at a cost that is less than the equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is
higher in protein than whole corn so the rancher needs less DDGS than whole
corn and they get it at a reduced price. So how can the cost of food (which
means beef) go up?

OK, let's take a look at how that's possible. You say DDGS, the byproduct of
corn from distillation, costs less than pure corn. Â*The question is how much
less? Â*If it's say 25% less, then with the price of corn doubling and
tripling, it's easy to explain how the price of beef went up. Â* Even though
DDGS is cheaper than corn today, it's still a lot more expensive than corn
was before the diversion to ethanol.

can't be. as the price of corn goes up DDGS will tend to remain stable...it is
after all a waste product of the ethanol process and would otherwise require the
producers to spend money disposing of it.

Junk cars and air conditioners are waste products too.
But the price of those tracks the price of iron, copper,
and aluminum.



I can't speak to the prices of corn then and now

I can it's tripled.



but as the price of corn rises,
beef would tend to rise, yes. but the price of DDGS won't follow the same price
curve and therefore the price of beef should remain more stable or rise slower
than if there was a crop shortage of corn, rather than a market shortage of corn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you don't even know the price of corn over the last few
years, what does that say about your credibility in the
whole discussion?


He's likely never even BEEN on a farm, much less worled or lived on
one - and has never had to look at the price of corn - much less had
his livelihood depend on it.

His credibility in this discussion??
Zilch. Or less.

I'm beginning to think he lives under a bridge in a fairy tale, myself

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:55:32 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...d-ethanol-end/

Now if we can just get it out of our gasoline and back into ageing
barrels where it belongs....
--
Mr.E

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:09:37 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 12/28/2011 12:46 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are
they needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of
money to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the
oxygenate requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at whim
of EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA
says thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

Whatever you say, the air in New York City is now MUCH, MUCH better than
it was in 1976.

To answer you more directly, death certificates usually state the direct
cause of death, not the underlying (series of) causes.

Of course. I understood that 90% of auto exhaust pollution was
eliminated when first legislated. To keep clamping is not worth the gains.

Well, there you have the major problem with "liberalism". They don't care
about cost/benefit analysis. "It's for the children." Hell, they don't even
care if a program *works*, just as long as it feels good. Right, Han?

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Frank wrote:

On Dec 28, 7:08*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.

As I see it, it's as step in the wrong direction. Ethanol is still mandated.
There may be a severe shortage because of this.

The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of money
to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:15:55 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 12/28/2011 1:51 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
You have common sense, which is no longer common. I had high hopes for GWB,
but was disappointed. I remember hearing that Mitt Romney was pushing
socialized medicine when he was in Mass. Mormon or not, I don't have high
hopes for him being conservative.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

While having voted for Romney in the last primary, I have your concerns.
I do like what Ann Coulter who supports him said, that while he may be a
flip flopper, he's flopping in the Conservative direction.

Every time someone flips, the next flop becomes that much easier. I don't
trust Romney either (I voted for him last primary, too) and his flop doesn't
convince me.

Let's not forget, that Reagan was once a Democrat.

He learned the error of his ways. Are you convinced Romney has?

For that matter, so was I.

Comes with learning and maturity.

Oh, I believe Romney is mature enough. Maybe not honest enough (with himself,
if no one else).

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:29:44 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:33:57 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are they
needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message
...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of money
to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the oxygenate
requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at whim of
EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA says
thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.
Not GUT it, but put a bridle on it and make it usefull. Regulations
are required. Action is needed - but it needs to be EFFECTIVE action,
and the regulations need to be reasonable and well thought out.

That's too much to hope for, where government bureaucrats are involved.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:13:27 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Hey, just cause your grocery store has food, doesn't mean that the food
chain is unaffected.

I suppose you would also say "I had dinner last night, so there is no
starvation in Africa." Same general concept.

you might say that, but no rational person would

Dennis did, therefore...