It takes 450-lbs. of Corn to produce just one (1) gallon of ethanol.
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce just one (1) gallon of ethanol.

Millet

Here's a much much much more efficient process of producing ethanol. You wouldn't have the implied problems connected with corn. We eat the corn, and produce alcohol from inedible plant parts, reduce waste and save water all at the same time. Thanks to the combined power of biological and thermochemical engineers:

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9891603-54.html?tag=nefd.top

It seems to be a very novel method.
1) Wood separated into Cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin.
2) Cellulose and hemicellulose converted into acetic acid without losing carbon dioxide
3) lignin is broken down to produce hydrogen
4) the hydrogen from lignin is added into the acetic acid to produce ethanol via reformation process.

By doing this way, no carbon dioxide is given off, unlike traditional methods of converting cellulose into sugars and fermenting the sugars.
The biggest advantage is that by not releasing carbon, there is more alcohol produced, 40% more than what can be done with current alcoholic fermentation process.
And third, there is minimal waste, almost everything are used up. Current ethanol producing facilities make plenty of wastes.

Joe

While it may take 1,700 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol...

In comparison,

According to Professor Pimentel, it takes 12,009 gallons of water to produce a lb of beef. Pimentel is a celebrated professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, who has published over 500 scientific articles, 20 books and overseen scores of important studies. The amount of water to produce one cow is more than enough to float a Naval Destroyer, with plenty of wiggle room to spare.

The beef industry managers and big wigs who have no understanding of science, promotes a study that determined, using highly suspect calculations, that only 441 gallons of water are required to produce a pound of beef.


And if we try to calculate how much gallons of water to create 1 gallon of biodiesel from cow:

Assuming 15% weight of cow is fat (biodiesel), 7.09 lbs/gallon.

that gives us (7.09 lbs/gallon)/(0.15) = 47.3 lbs beef / gallon biodiesel
times 12,009 gallons water /lb beef

My goodness, it would take 567,625 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of biodiesel.

In the span of just eight months, the price of Corn, the U.S.'s most important crop- our biggest agricultural export as well as the staple feed for our livestock - has doubled from $2, about where it had been stuck since the late 1990s, to $4 a bushel. The cause is the soaring demand from ethanol plants, which bought 2.2 billion bushels last year, 34% more than in 2005. Today corn futures are trading at $4.80 a bushel. - Millet

Ethanol production is only part of the reason for the price increase. In any event, I believe $4 is a much fairer price to the US corn grower than $2, especially given today's high fuel costs.

Most ethanol plants in the USA are struggling with current high prices so things will probably settle down eventually.

I can now sign a contract with the elevator for all future crops of wheat that I will grow through 2009 at an amazing price of $10.00 a bushel. Three times higher than normal wheat pricing. Wheat has never ever been anywhere close to that price. All due to the fact that wheat is projected to be in very short supply due to huge numbers of farmers switching from various cereal grains to corn, to get in on the band wagon. Harvey, I as a farmer understand what you are trying to convey when you write concerning the issue of "fair price for a crop". However, what crops sell for has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with being "fair," crop pricing has to do with supply and demand. Fairness is not an issue. All farmers generally know before hand what the price for a commodity crop will be. No one is forcing us to grow or not to grow. Besides what the published price for a crop is, is certainly NOT what the farmer receives. There are also subsidy payments on top. Heck, I can could get paid by the government for NOT FARMING, if I wished to sign a CRP contract. However, I never have. - Millet (Drill ANWR)

Fairness IS an issue! When something is printed in such a way to make it appear that prices are now unreasonably high, it should be pointed out that the prior price being compared to was unreasonably low. Balanced reporting, that's all.

By the way, I switched from corn to alfalfa and can make more money with alfalfa.

Most farmers do not know what they will get for a crop before they plant. I worked in agricultural lending for 25 years or so and saw very few people contracting or hedging their crops, though it is definitely more common in the midwest. Nobody knows what their yields are going to be and you can't make a fully informed economic decision; it's a gamble.

Your subsidy payments will be minimal (if they ever pass a new farm bill) at current commodity prices or do you know of some way to get a LDP payment when you're getting $10/bu on wheat? In return for your small payment, you do agree to follow some conservation regulations. I know some growers that refuse to participate because they feel it's not worth the risk of getting hung up in some bureaucratic process of being accused of violating some regulation. There's already enough of those.

By the way, I like it with all the attention corn is getting. How much of the public knows that you're getting $10 for wheat? I have had a lot of folks tell me that they bet I'm sorry I'm not growing corn instead of alfalfa. I just smile. Alfalfa was at record prices last year and are even higher this year. I'm arranging to rent another 200 acres next year with my partner. I can finally feel good about retiring early from my banking career from both a mental and financial point of view.

Alfalfa delivered this week in my market averaged $259/ton, up from $201 last year. My nitrogen fertilizer cost was $0. (Potash was only about $25/acre.) My customer baler is charging the same price as last year even though fuel prices are higher.

Bob, I am not a proponent of corn ethanol, by the way, though I do appreciate that it has made farming more profitable for some growers (even unreasonably so for some, possibly) while also making it for challenging for many beef/pork/pountry/dairy producers.

However, I don't think your post is accurate. Where did you get that conversion figure from? I believe it is way off at 450 pounds per gallon. Cornell's paper that criticizes the economics of it works out to just under 22 pounds. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html. Here in the Central Valley of California growers and feed users use tons as a unit of measure and I've usually heard of the conversion as gallons/ton.

Harvey, glad to hear your alfalfa is doing well for you, that's great. As a farmer, I think we would have been better off if, a long time ago, the government never got involved with farming. Wheat farms in Colorado never fertilize with NPK. Those that do fertilize, normally use only Anhydrous Ammonia. Harvery, in all respect to another farmer, I cannot agree with you on your fairness issue. In an dynamic economy, nobody owes you anything, not anything. We are not "owed" a living whether we are in farming or not, and I think its time for farmers to stop crying about everything from pricing and fuel costs, to the weather . If one does not like the price, or the profit, then don't plant the crop, find something else to do. What you say is true that farmers don't know how many bushels will still be in the field at harvest, but that is exactly why I purchase crop insurance every year. Until recently we pretty much knew what the general pricing for commodities would be. They have not changed much over the years. I also am not a suporter of ethanol, but if the government wants to keep promoting ethanol, it is certainly fine with me ----- just keep sending me more and more money, and I'll gladly keep accepting it.. Now farmers can stop crying, and the bakers, butchers, and America's food buyers can start crying. Take care, and the very best of wishes that you have a good crop this year. - Millet (Drill ANWR)

Bob, the fairness I was speaking of is that in reporting information. We got more for corn and wheat in inflation-adjusted dollars 30 years ago then we are today. Comparing current prices to a period with very low prices is not a fair comparison.

I don't think anyone should be guaranteed a profit and I don't know of any farmers in the U.S. that do have such a guarantee. However, the principles behind goverment subsidies is to allow farmers to hold on during tough times so that we we hopefully never rely on other countries for our food supply (like we do with oil). I don't know that the program really works like it theoretically was designed to, however. Sometimes it just seems to keep marginal producers in business longer and drags down everyone else when we are in periods of surplus production.

Corn is what requires a lot of nitrogen around here, though wheat is given some, especially on irrigated land. The breakeven price for corn growers around here right now is about $4.20 according to one friend, though I don't know that it's really that high. We're a "corn deficit state" here in California so we get higher prices, we were at $5.80 a couple of weeks ago.

I don't know of any farmers crying other than those that rely on grains for feed. It seems odd that dairy producers were making tremendous profits here 2-3 years ago and had low grain prices. Now they have lower milk prices, much higher grain and hay prices, and now they are even faced with production quotas by their creameries as there is inadequate capacity. It is next to impossible to get permits for new creamery facilities, just like oil refineries. I do feel bad for them.

Have you noticed how bread prices have increased? That is crazy. The cost of the wheat for the bread may have gone up $.20 but the price of a loaf of bread has gone up $1.50 or more. Of course, you know who gets blamed for that.

Best wishes for a prosperous 2008!

Ha, ha, ha. Farmers profits have come from the federal government for years. Another example of government programs run amuck. The US department of agriculture, 1930s New Deal idea, exists today to hand out subsidies to mega farmers. Why do we need a federal agency to support giant corporate farm businessmen? I say dissolve it and all the price support programs that go along with it.

This is an interesting thread. Here in the city you don't hear farmers "talk shop" other than a few citrus growers that come into my office from time to time. There seems to be fewer and fewer of them each year.

Anyway, I don't have much to add other than what I can observe as a city slicker. Gas is $3.75 here in San Diego. I wouldn't mind paying more for American agricultural products that benefit the American farmer if it meant that we reduced our dependence on foreign oil. So far though Ethanol, Oil, and ag commodities all appear to be going through the roof. If the scheme to shift to Ethanol was to reduce oil costs, so far it doesn't seem to be working.

Phillip

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs. - Millet (Drill ANWR)