Ethanol currently makes up 4 percent of the nations fuel, but takes 20 percent of the nations corn crop. (KOA-850 AM)- Millet

That's one thing not good if people are only doing what they used to know. Converting corn complex carbohydrates unto sugars and fermenting sugars to produce ethanol. We've been producing whiskey this way. "We have to drink the best and burn the rest", so as my friend often quotes to me. So we should not use the grains of the corns to produce our fuel, it should be consumed as food or feed or some of it as whiskey. All over the world, those same uncreative people would make ethanol the only way they do now and wouldn't risk with better but untested technologies. The result is that even the beer making industry that utilizes the same principles (carbs to sugars and sugars to beer) of processing grains into beverages are affected. It is projected that prices of beer will increase if they haven't done yet. The reason is that the grains are also converted ito alcohol.

Fortunately there are now better crops which require lesser input energy to produce ethanol. Among them are sorghum and rye grass which are drought tolerant, can be grown in very marginal lands and have several times the ethanol yield.

There are better alternatives than ethanol, like butanol, which is a higher energy density and less corrosive than ethanol. Microbial communities are being utilized instead of single culture, and the result is efficient production of butyrate and then butanol, all coming from the indigestible parts of the plant such as the lignin and cellulose components. We have to get the starch and sugars for food or produce high quality alcoholic beverages, and leave the lignin and cellulose to microbial community to produce our fuel. Nothing should be wasted.

Corn is used in so many things. Without adding the myriad of price increases in human food, animal feed, manufactured products, beverages, alcohols, starches, sugars, adhesives, medicines, and adinfinitum due to the rise in price of corn caused by the conversion of corn to fuel, the actual price of a gallon of ethanol to the American public must be somewhere between $9.00 to $20.00 per gallon, or possibly more. Let alone the huge quantity of water that corn requires. - Millet

It is driving up all food costs and saving little to no energy considering the fuel costs in producing(diesel for the tractors and fertilizer) and distilling it. It's a big payoff(read subsidy of 53ct/gallon) to the midwest farmers as it can't make it in the free market so politicians are forcing it down our throats. Cheaper alternatives are available. Note that cheaper ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil is not allowed to be imported. Dis-functional government to the highest bidder once again!

That often happens when people to decide are appointed, not according to credentials, but as a favor. Who do you think suffers? Some of those appointee have their brains in their behind if ever they have one, just my opinion. The appointees should have several scientific publications in internationally refereed journals or graduate of some credible universities, or equivalent actual research work. As we are now, the management is always awarded with the most number of benefits and not the actual scientists doing the work. The brains are wasted if these scientists are forced into management to get the most benefits. The compensations should be equitable according to merit and not decided by the whims of the management.

Although, I do not agree with the production of ethanol from corn, as a Colorado wheat farmer it sure has made us farmers a lot of money. So many wheat farmers switched from growing wheat to growing corn it made the price of wheat go sky high. Two days ago in another thread I posted the price of wheat at $9.25 a bushel, today it is up to $9.62 per bushel. (normally $3.80-$4.20) I believe today's price is the highest ever recorded in history. - Millet

With the current subsidy on wheat, it is actually cheaper to produce ethanol from wheat.

Your mention of wheat reminds me of the Augusts I spent on a dry land wheat farm in eastern Washington near Walla Walla in the mid 70s. This was my first experience of farmer directions - oh, go out by the prison and turn left, you will pass a school, 3rd mailbox. Of course he failed to mention that his farm was 50 miles from town! Hot and dry it was! The farmer was getting $3.00 a bushel at that time and paying me $35 a day(quite a long day at that) for driving a wheat truck to the elevator. $9 doesn't seem out of line considering inflation since the mid 70s as I make more than 6 times my 1977 starting salary as an engineer. Then as well as now most farmers would appreciate the government getting out of their lives, but dream on. Odd we still think of farmers as growing all their own food, a thought out of the early 20th century!

It find it odd how people are always inclined to blame something or someone else for problems.

Ethanol from corn produces more energy than it takes. I read once a criticism that ethanol production from corn consumed 70% as much energy as it produced. I wish I got 10 days younger for every 7 days that elapsed! It only makes a small dent in our thirst fuel needs but it's better than going the other way. At current oil prices a subsidy on ethanol production is not necessary. The subisdy level was established when oil prices were much lower to help entice businesses into making the large investment to construct ethanol plants. It would have been better to have established a support price or some such mechanism instead of a fixed subsidy. I haven't heard, but it was expected the subsidy would be eliminated soon. The subsidy is received directly from the ethanol producers, not corn growers.

In addition, the corn being used for ethanol production is not used for human consumption to begin with, it would otherwise be used for animal feeds. If people want corn prices to drop for some reason, they should be consuming fewer animal products and they would probably be healthier for it.

Rather than say that high corn prices are driving up food prices, why not say high oil prices are driving up food prices, just like your driving expense?

Corn and wheat support prices are much below the current prices so these crops are not being subsidized directly, though farmers do receive a base subsidy based on their corn or wheat acreage whether these crops are actually beging grown or not. For instance, I have wheat and corn base and receive a small payment (and I agree to carry out certain conservation practicies) but I am presently growing alfalfa. This is an entirely different issue than the ethanol discussion, though.

I personally like the higher corn prices though, like Millet's mention of wheat growers in Colorado, my view is partially impacted by the fact that higher alfalfa prices are partially due to more acreage being devoted to corn. At the same time, I also think that higher corn prices are long overdue.

I agree with you Harvey. I remember growing up on a farm in the 60s--corn was around 2.50 a bushel then--until this recent increase, it was not much higher than that--I know we would not have made much of anything on corn with our 40 acres if we were still farming. 40 years without a pay increase--that is what happened to a lot of small farms--only large farms could afford to stay in the buisness. Same goes for soybeans-- in the mid 60s beans briefly went to over $10 a bushel, only recently have they gotten higher.

I think there are better crops than corn for making ethanol-- Brazil is energy independent based on ethanol for cane, but we have much more land suitable for growing corn right now. Switch grass is a much better solar collector, and they are beginning to improve efficiencies for making ethanol from it. However, I am with you on doing anything we can to stop the flow of our dollars to those arab oil countries--even if it cost me a few dollars.

I, of course like Harvey, receive benefit from the high corn prices, which indirectly have driven up the prices of the other grain crops, such as wheat. I am now realizing 3 times more money per acre than I normally would. It would be wonderful if ethanol only consumed 70 percent of the energy that ethanol produces, as that would provide 30 percent additional energy. However, the production of ethanol from corn consumes almost an equal amount of energy as it produces. Anyway, admittedly for selfish reasons, i hope wheat reaches $50.00 a bushel. As a side note, two years ago I was paying .92 per gallon for propane. I just filled up the greenhouse propane tank (second time this season) at the current price of $2.12 a gallon. It now is costing around $4000.00+ per winter season to heat the greenhouse. Perhaps the price of citrus will also skyrocket, then I can open up a road side stand to help with the expense. - Millet

It is a controversial subject with all types of numbers flying around. The 70% figure I quoted came from an article that was critical of the corn ethanol scheme but seemed fairly objective (I just disagreed with the logic that 70% was bad).

Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol cites the following:

Quote:

As reported in "The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: an Update,"[38] the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for ethanol made from corn in the U.S. is 1.34 (it yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it). Input energy includes natural gas based fertilizers, farm equipment, transformation from corn or other materials, and transportation.

I think there are better solutions but I think corn has got a bad rap.

There is no practical energy conversion process that is 100% efficient. You put more than what you can get when it comes to energy transfer or conversion. In theory, some processes can be 100% efficient but has no practical application that mankind can use.

Joe, I'm not sure what your post means or implies.

The 134% factor cited in that report is obviously achieved by capturing solar energy which is not included as an input.