maybe some balance

[jensend]

maybe gerry should have talked to these guys.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/commentary_268.pdf

[TOM4CWB]

jensend;

The CD Howe Institute did itself a VERY big disfavour when it put its name on this document!

This conclusion:

"Canada’s ethanol policy has several disconcerting
features. First, the provision of large subsidies to
encourage ethanol production distorts agricultural
markets and food prices in Canada and elsewhere.
Second, the scientific evidence concerning the
reduction in GHGs and energy consumption
afforded by switching to blended biofuels is
questionable. Finally, a simple analysis of the costs
and benefits associated with ethanol policies
suggests that the government is paying seven times
more than what it could be if ethanol policy was
explicitly geared to reducing GHG emissions."

Is biased in numerous ways... and although many proofs that the governemnts policy is sound... the author ignores them and chooses negative retoric instead of factual arguments to back the conclusion above.

A biased GHG producing document... that is added to a large pile of all eady existing 'hot air'... that does next to nothing to make us more fuel efficient, conserve energy, and polute less! At least Ethanol does all these positive things... as proven in tis documet!

"Cars that run on E85 fuel have lower average volu-metric fuel efficiencies (19.9 L/100km in the city;
14.0 L/100km on highways) than cars that run on
regular gasoline (12.9 L/100km in city driving,
8.7 L/100km on highways).12 The same is true,
although to a lesser degree, for vehicles that use a
5 to 10 percent ethanol blend – ethanol blended
with gasoline at 10 percent has 97 percent as
much energy per litre as regular gasoline…”


Sounds efficient and less poluting... at a very reasonable cost... by adding 10% ethanol... just as the Governments of Canada has just done!

I would like to know who this fellow truly works for...?

[jensend]

do you know what tom? he probably works for the cwb because obviously he's out to destroy prairie farmers! nobody else could have that motive. face it, grain derived ethanol is bogus. when a centre-right, business friendly think tank says it maybe it's more credible. we're not talking greenpeace, sierra club or the like; this is the c.d. howe institute.

[TOM4CWB]

Jensend,

That was an in-depth close inspection of the "Commentary 268" ... I don't know where in this document it said anything about the CWB!

You must have the inside track on this guy...

maybe some balance...?

This CWB's presentation on ethanol at Grainworld this February by the NFU... contained many of the same old outdated arguments... that simply don't hold water!!!

The CD Howe backing this commentary with their name... puts them in the same league as the NFU, NDP, CFA, and Bloc.

If that is the turf... they deem worth marking as their own... so be it!

Its the sexy thing to do right now... but doesn't mean I must agree with it!

[TOM4CWB]

Biofuels, new era grain markets on tap at Purdue Top Crop Farmer Workshop

6/05/2007, 8:39 AM CDT




If you're figuring how to fit your farm into the biofuels revolution and elevated grain prices (so far), mark your calendars for July 22-25. Those are the dates for the 40th annual Top Farmer Crop Workshop at Purdue University.

Experts who will be discussing these topics and others include:

Klein Ileleji, Purdue University agricultural engineer, and Bruce Erickson, Purdue University agricultural economist, agricultural engineer, will discuss how a biomass operation will change the way you farm. Jill Nichols Euken, an Iowa farmer and assistant director of the Iowa State University (ISU) Office of Biorenewables Programs, will address potential technology and policy developments in the bioprocessing industry and how these might affect producers.
Carlos Mayer, a corn, soybean and wheat producer from Argentina, will update attendees how his operation is responding to higher grain and energy prices, and plans to expand his operation.
Steve Johnson, an ISU Extension agricultural economist, will discuss farm lease issues.
Scott Shearer, a University of Kentucky agricultural engineer, will address the economics and other benefits of precision nozzle control.
Tony Vyn, a Purdue University agronomist, will discuss how to optimize strip tillage to achieve higher yields.
Steve Berger, an Iowa farmer, will discuss the benefits of planting cover crops.
Dan Basse, President, AgResource Company, will lay the groundwork on why producers need to adjust their marketing program to benefit from the upcoming extreme market volatility.
Bryan Young, Southern Illinois University weed scientist, will explain why the time you allocate toward managing herbicide-resistant weeds may increase and become your greatest burden.
Chris Hurt, Purdue University agricultural economist, will discuss the implications for grain marketing in light of increased grain storage and handling needs.
Don Hershman, University of Kentucky Extension plant pathologist, will discuss what's in store for Asian rust for the rest of the 2007 growing season, as well as current fungicide use strategies for soybeans.
Howard Doster, Purdue Ag Economist Emeritus will be on hand to teach how to debug your computer solutions, and test for changes in your crop rotation, machinery sizes, tillage system, and land rentals. Since 1968, he and colleagues have helped 7,000 farmers -- mostly in the Corn Belt -- use linear program crop budgets.


http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml;jsessionid=BDU5NBYROMJY5QFIBQ4SBHQ?sto ryid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1181050786192.xml

Sainsbury's got a brand new combine harvester
Jul 4 2008

He’s got a brand new combine harvester - Justin King, chief executive of Sainsbury’s (SBRY) took delivery of one in the supermarket chain’s corporate livery at the Royal Show at Stoneleigh.

It coincided with Sainsbury’s becoming the first supermarket to use flour from guaranteed traceable UK farms in its 390 bakeries, which bake from scratch.

The combine – which is now believed to be the biggest in the UK with a cutter bar that can take up to 35 feet of wheat in one pass – has the capacity to harvest enough wheat in a day to produce a million loaves in Sainsbury’s bakeries.

The 34 tonne ‘Claas Lexion 600’ combine harvester will help Sainsbury’s communicate its close working relationship with wheat farmers in East Anglia. It will be seen by motorists around Saffron Walden, Stansted and Bury St Edmunds – the vivid orange livery reads “Proud to Supply Sainsbury’s”.

Simon Twigger, Sainsbury’s business unit director said: “Our commitment to British farmers is confirmed by this brand new combine harvester – it helps us communicate with our customers and build our relationship with our dedicated wheat farmers.
“Customers care passionately about the provenance of their food, and customers are guaranteed consistently high quality bread made with flour which has been regionally sourced.”

http://www.birminghampost.net/birmingham-business/birmingham-business-news/other-uk-business/2008/07/04/sainsbury-s-got-a-brand-new-combine-harvester-65233-21265894/

[TOM4CWB]

Jensend,

Did you read the 'Fine Print"?

"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary© is a periodic analysis of, and commentary on, current public policy issues. Michael Benedict and
James Fleming edited the manuscript; Heather Vilistus prepared it for publication. As with all Institute publications, the views expressed
here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Institute’s members or Board of Directors."

[jensend]

i'm sure they put that disclaimer on everything they publish, even the ones you might agree with. you haven't disputed any of the data or come up with any comprehensive study by anybody without a financial interest in ethanol. have a nice evening.

[TOM4CWB]

Jensend,

"Agriweek June 9/08 SPECIAL ISSUE: BIOFUELS TODAY

Erroneous claims abound. One is that it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce a gallon of corn-based ethanol; another that ethanol has a negative energy balance; still another that ethanol does little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is not as environmentally friendly as commonly believed and may even have a net negative impact. Biofuel production is causing global food shortages and raising food prices, particularly for the poor. Among detractors are noted and influential opinion-molding media, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Toronto Globe & Mail.

Another criticism is that even if all the corn grown in the United States were converted to ethanol it would supply only 12% of the country's motor fuel. (As of 2007, just under 5% of U.S. gasoline consumption and about 2% in Canada was being displaced by ethanol, produced almost entirely from corn.)

False and misleading information is spread, restated and repeated until the observer who is only marginally interested no longer knows what to believe. Stalwart political supporters suddenly become opponents of biofuel development. The ludicrous argument is often made that other measures (such as stricter automobile fuel-efficiency standards) were adopted, greater reductions in oil use could be made. It is not possible to reduce energy use without reducing living standards. The satisfactory answer to the consequences of shortages is to increase supply.

Actually only about three gallons of water are used to produce a gallon of ethanol today if the water used to grow the corn is not included Most of that comes as rain and is essentially free. Ethanol plants typically now recycle most of the water used in the actual distillation process. The favorable environmental impact of even low-level ethanol and biodiesel blends has been established beyond reasonable question. The biofuel boom does not cause tightening world grain and food supplies but happens to coincide with other new forces in the direction of increasing food needs worldwide.

There is no single, quick or inexpensive solution to today's energy problems, which centre around soaring prices, uncertainty and insecurity of supply, declining reserves, a steadily decreasing pace to new discoveries of oil and gas reserves and soaring ocean transportation costs.

There is a community of energy and geopolitical experts which sees a crisis immediately ahead in the supply of conventional fuels. But such people have sounded the alarm so many times that they are no longer heard. The dependence on politically unstable and hostile crude oil sources such as the middle east is the greatest threat to the economic and social stability of importing countries, including the major Asian economies. Unprecedented financial flows from importing countries to exporters are massively distorting trade balances and concentrating economic power in the hands of despotic, authoritarian regimes.

However the opponents of biofuel development by and large do not worry about the unsustainability of present global energy arrangements. The danger is that public energy policy will be distorted as a result. There is a one-issue mentality these days in which points of view are not required to be justified or legitimized in some larger context. It is considered quite enough to beat one drum at a time."

"THE ETHANOL ENERGY BALANCE


It should be a straightforward matter to determine whether or not there is or is not a net gain in energy from biofuel production. Feedstock and production costs and the value of biofuel and co-products are easily determined. However huge disagreements have arisen even in the economist-scientist communities.

There are two sources of these disagreements: the lack of a consensus on a common starting point for calculations and the accuracy of data and estimates for the quantity, energy content and cost of inputs.

The notion that ethanol requires more energy to produce than it contains has been promoted since the 1980s by Cornell University entomologist Dr. David Pimentel, whose conclusions, though long since discredited, continue to accepted and quoted as the definitive research on the subject. Pimental has contended that ethanol production consumes up to 29% more energy than it yields and that most of it is from fossil fuel sources. He considers all energy requirements for any purpose in any way associated with corn production, including energy used to make and transport farm equipment. He assumes that all corn is irrigated at 1.29 inches per acre per year; that 8.6 gallons of diesel fuel, 3.1 gallons of gasoline and 6.4 gallons of LPG are used to grown each acre of corn. Large amounts of propane, natural gas and LPG were once used to dry grain after harvest but now very little is used due to the development of earlier-maturing corn varieties. Pimmental puts the cost of labor and custom work for corn at $366 per acre; it is actually $15.

Pimental's estimates of fossil inputs for corn production are more than twice as high as those of researchers more knowledgeable in actual farm practices, including the U.S. agriculture department, and his processing input estimate is 40% higher.

Pimental's studies are the only ones to suggest a net loss in energy. Others have shown only small gains, but the latest, most thorough research by the U.S. agriculture department and the Argonne National Laboratory found that ethanol nets up to 67% more energy than it takes to produce. No known energy source nets 100%.

Corn ethanol production is almost 400 US gallons per acre based on current average crop yields of about 150 bushels per acre. A bushel of corn contains about 2.65 gallons of ethanol and the yield is increasing as technology improves.

Actual everyday ethanol economics are based on the cost of the corn, the cost of processing and the value of the resulting products. Corn has remained a leading U.S crop through times of great variations in production costs and corn prices. Though some increase in corn production is clearly attributable to rising ethanol demand, it is both intellectually faulty and logically incoherent to include all crop production expenses in the input load for biofuels. It would only be otherwise if all corn were used for ethanol production."

"ETHANOL & FOOD PRICES


Retail food prices in the U.S. are posting the fastest gain in almost two decades. The rate in Canada is lower, mitigated to some extent by the rising exchange value of the Canadian dollar. Steady food demand from higher consumer incomes and less price sensitivity on the part of consumers as well as higher production and distribution costs contributed to this increase. On an annual basis, 2007 retail food prices were 4% above 2006 levels, compared to the 2.3% rate in core consumer price inflation, a measure that excludes food and energy.

The food industry is trying to deflect possible blame for food price inflation fears by contending that these increases are traceable to higher prices for corn, wheat and soybeans which in turn are being raised by biofuel use. Actually only a very small part of the retail food price is attributable to the cost of raw commodities. The per-dollar share of grocery industry revenues going to farmers has been steadily declining. Between 1984 and 2000, the share of the domestic food dollar that reached the primary producer fell from 35 cents to 19 cents. Marketing costs (the difference between the farm value and consumer spending for food at grocery stores and restaurants) jumped from 67% in the 1970s to 80% today. Labor costs have increased faster than labor rates as production of highly-processed and prepared foods increases. Labor costs have increased to about 39% of total food spending from 28% in the 1970s.

In 1980, the farm-gate price for corn was $2.70 a bushel and the median price of new cars was about $6,000. Two years ago the car price had risen to $19,000 and corn was $3.70 a bushel. Today the median car price is $20,300 and corn is at $6 a bushel, meaning that corn prices have only now restored historic relationships with prices of capital consumer goods.

Recent credible economic research showed that ethanol accounts for no more than 2 to 3% of the increase in food prices over the past year (equal to about 0.1% in the consumer price index). Explosively-growing demand for food, feed and oilseed crops from emerging markets makes up about 55%.

Higher energy costs, arising from steep increases in the world price of crude oil, account for more of the recent increase in food prices than grains and oilseeds. Historically, retail food prices have always increased by about 0.5% in the short-term for every 1% rise in energy prices, which suggests that not all of the dramatic increase in crude oil prices over the past year has yet found its way to the supermarket check-out.

As a practical matter ethanol production in Canada and the use of Canadian grains for this purpose has absolutely no impact on food prices here or abroad. Grain prices globally are determined on American commodity exchanges essentially on the basis of American supply and demand, including export demand. Neither any increase nor decrease in Canadian ethanol production or use would have any measurable impact on U.S. or global supply-demand conditions for major crops."

"BIOFUELS & GASOLINE PRICES


The steady and rapid increase in retail petroleum product prices is a matter of general public concern. However there is evidence that these prices would be even higher, and would increase more rapidly in the future, were it not for the displacement of some of the world petroleum supply by biofuels.

Though U.S. ethanol production accounts for only 5% of motor fuel consumption, economic research suggests retail gasoline prices are between 6 and 15 cents a gallon lower than would be the case if no ethanol were used. Some of this benefit also accrues to Canadian motorists because gasoline is priced on a continental basis.

Gasoline prices in both the U.S. and Canada are at records at over $3.80 a gallon in the U.S. and over $1.25 a litre ($4.73 per US gallon) in Canada. U.S. ethanol prices peaked at about $3.20 a gallon in 2005 but declined to just over $2.00 in late 2007 because of large increases in supply and the completion of the elimination of MTBE. Currently ethanol prices are at about $2.65 to $2.80 per gallon, meaning that ethanol blending is advantageous as a volume extender and octane enhancer alone. Blending would probably occur at the highest rates made possible by available supply even if it were not for mandatory use requirements.

The price of gasoline has not increased as quickly as of diesel fuel, which is not being blended to the same degree because of the limited supply of biodiesel. In the U.S. retail diesel fuel prices are above $4 a gallon or $1.06 Canadian per litre.

Ethanol prices are being held down by transportation costs and logistics. Ethanol cannot be transported by conventional pipelines because of its corrosive and water-absorbing properties. Special ethanol pipelines are only in planning stages. Meanwhile ethanol is distributed by tanker truck and rail. Production is concentrated in midwest farm states which are located long distances from high-population regions on the east and west coasts. As a result ethanol blending is at relatively low levels in the major population areas while far exceeding minimum mandated levels in the midwest states."

"BIOFUELS & LIVESTOCK

Historically the cost of feed has accounted for about 60% of the total production cost of chicken, 47% of hog production costs and 17% in the case of beef. The escalation in corn prices without a commensurate increase in chicken and livestock prices has created severe financial stress in the North American livestock sector. Livestock organizations are now among those demanding a reduction in mandated ethanol use and reduced government supports for biofuels so as to increase the feed grain supply.

The U.S. hog/corn ratio is currently 11.1 to one, compared to 19.4 a year ago. The U.S. steer-corn ratio is 15.4 vs. 27.5. The Alberta steer/barley ratio is 16.5 compared to 25.8 and the Alberta hog/barley is 7.3 compared to 12.0. The livestock-feed ratio is the number of bushels of corn or barley equal in value to 100 lbs. of live animal. The lower the ratio the higher the cost of feed relative to livestock prices and the less profitable livestock production becomes. These ratios are not economically sustainable and livestock production for practical purposes is not currently viable. However little if any of this can be blamed on renewable fuels.

Feed grains, as noted above, have been artificially low-priced for many years, leading to artificially low livestock and meat prices. U.S. corn subsidies also acted as subsidies to the American livestock industry by keeping post-subsidy grain prices low. The same effect was felt in Canada to the extent that Canadian and U.S. feed grain prices are related. American chicken operators are estimated to have saved over $11.3 billion between 1997 and 2005 compared to what they would have paid for corn and soybean meal had feed prices been only at the cost of production.

Ethanol production uses only the starch in corn, leaving as a co-product distillers' grain, a high-protein animal feed suitable for beef and dairy cattle, hogs, poultry and fish feed. Each bushel of corn (54 lbs) produces 17 lbs (31.5%) of DDGS (distillers' dried grains with solubles). The reduction in feed grain supply on account of ethanol use is therefore much less than it seems. The rapidly-rising supply of DDGS has undoubtedly moderated the drastic increase in soybean meal costs over the last two years. Soybean meal prices are currently in the area of $333 a short ton, compared to $192 a year ago. None of this increase is attributable to biodiesel production.

On the contrary, increased biodiesel output would moderate oilseed meal prices because it would increase meal supply. Another driver behind the run-up in protein meal prices has been export demand. Part of the rising requirement for meat in developing countries is being met by higher livestock production, in regions where the potential for internal feed grain and oilseed production has already reached its limits, hence their need to import these products in ever-increasing amounts."

BACKGROUNDER / Morris W. Dorosh, Publisher



How can the planet's energy future not look bleak when crude oil sells at $3 a gallon? When $3-a-gallon crude is converted to $5 gasoline and $4 diesel fuel and still consumption keeps rising? When crude oil production does not increase, as it always has before, in response to sky-high prices? When not one new oil refinery has been built in the U.S. since 1972 because of prohibitive environmental restrictions? When future development of the northern Canadian oil sands, the biggest known petroleum reserve in the world, is made uncertain by threatened regulations, unpredictable royalties, endless native land claims and fanatic ecomaniac opposition? When all countries with significant exportable petroleum resources are controlled by ruthless, despotic, secretive dictatorships which are themselves threatened by religious fanatics who despise western civilization?

The world would rather continue to pump oil and natural gas than look for alternatives. Petroleum was itself once the new, novel, alternative fuel. It took about 80 years for oil exploration, production, processing and distribution to become commercially feasible, sufficiently to bring oil product costs down to the capacity of the mainstream consumer to buy them. A gallon of oil still costs less than a gallon of milk. Oil and oil product prices have tripled in three years, but demand has not skipped a beat. The market has shown that it can modulate neither the supply nor demand side of the petroleum equation. Unless such a capacity is soon and decisively demonstrated we are in for a bigger convulsion than even the pessimists among us can yet imagine.

Price is one thing, supply another in this strange environment. Practically no one seems to appreciate how vulnerable the western world is to a supply disruption, or how instantly any such disruption would be telegraphed everywhere, even to energy-independent Canada. One of the few who do is president Bush: he has ordered his administration to keep filling the strategic oil reserve maintained by the U.S. government even as prices set one record after another. The reserve is at 97% of its capacity of 727 million barrels. It could replace offshore imports for 58 days, but military needs would take such priority that non-essential users would get practically none. No one knows what would happen if an Islamist-terrorist-created oil embargo lasted for 60 or 75 days.

Renewable biofuels are of special interest to this newsletter and most of its subscribers because this sector creates a new and theoretically unlimited market for farm crops, which have been in surplus most of the time for two centuries. Nothing could be more logical than diverting chronic agricultural overproduction towards the alarming energy crisis. However nothing can be proposed or done today without attracting opposition and obstruction, either from special interests which feel threatened or from misinformed and wrongly motivated planet-defenders.

It is very hard to see how any kind of alternative energy development could possibly be opposed by people who appreciate and understand the whole energy situation. The most benign alternative source of electricity is wind, yet intense and organized opposition is developing to wind farms. Construction should be started somewhere in North America on a large nuclear energy plant every two months if there is to be any practical hope of developing an electric-vehicle sector in the next 25 years. Half the electricity in enviro-fanatic France comes from atomic power plants. A few nuclear projects have been proposed in the U.S. and Canada but permitting will take years while construction costs escalate. It takes about four years to build an electricity-generating nuclear reactor. An atomic bomb can be made in 30 days. Even hydro-electric power stations can't be developed without complicated entanglements with wildlife-preservation and native-rights pressure groups. If a station can be built, opposition is certain over the transmission line to move the power to users. Solar panel farms are resisted because they might disorient birds.

No one in the know contends that any alternative energy source can replace all oil. It will take all of them, aggressively pursued on an emergency basis. If biofuels can only replace 10% of petroleum needs the rational reaction is to be grateful that biofuel technology has come this far. A more common reaction is that if biofuels can only replace 10% it's not worth the bother.

But to come back to the sheer precariousness of conventional energy supply. The economic and social consequences of even brief interruptions are many times more important than any issue posed by biofuels. An incident on the scale of the World Trade Center attack could paralyze half the world's oil shipping for weeks. Coordinated terrorist assaults on as few as four or five oil pipelines and tanker terminals would do it. The western world has already gone as far as it can go in appeasing the owners of the oil with money and protection. A day will come when that is not enough. The sheiks and kings will be deposed and anarchy will come. This isn't paranoia. It is the twenty-first century, full bore.

Thanks Morris... you did a great job and service to the Ag community...

Much better research... well done!

This IS BALANCE!

Any more questions... Jensend?

[jensend]

no more questions. i'll just say i trust cd howe as an impartial think tank than morris who's built his circulation as an advocate for farmers. as he says: Renewable biofuels are of special interest to this newsletter and most of its subscribers because this sector creates a new and theoretically unlimited market for farm crops, which have been in surplus most of the time for two centuries. Nothing could be more logical than diverting chronic agricultural overproduction towards the alarming energy crisis.he's not a scientist (no ghg issues addressed) and as time goes on he's definitely in the minority on the overall economics of grain based ethanol. over time it won't fly anyway.

[TOM4CWB]

Jensend,

"CELLULOSE ETHANOL


Cellulosic ethanol, made from crop residues, fast-growing grasses, forestry waste and other biomass materials, represents the technological frontier of renewable fuels production. Cellulosic biomass is plentiful and cheap. Taken together, corn-based and cellulosic ethanol could eventually replace half of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline used annually in the U.S.

A study by the U.S. energy and agriculture departments estimated that 1.3 billion tons of biomass could be produced in the U.S. annually for biofuel production including crop residues which are now incorporated into the soil. The potential could be even larger if technology is developed to take advantage of additional forms of biomass such as algae. However the technology to convert the sugars locked up in these materials is still being developed to a commercial level. Research in this area has been intensive and a sudden, dramatic breakthrough is very unlikely.

There are also questions about how biomass crops and prairie grasses will be grown for ethanol production. With removal of crop residues, there could be impacts on soil fertility and erosion resistance and wildlife habitat could be impacted.

The cost of collecting and transporting crop residue, given its very low sugar content per unit of weight or volume, presents as-yet untested logistical challenges. The true key to non-grain ethanol sources is the ability to grow crops specially for ethanol or biodiesel on land that is not suited to conventional crop production. If land now being cropped is simply diverted to cellulose production, the end result may be little different than using grain."

"ETHANOL & ENVIRONMENT


Polls have established that the perception that renewable fuels offer environmental benefits is the main reason for public support. Yet there is nearly as much controversy over the value of ethanol as a green fuel as over ethanol economics.

It is well established by credible research that ethanol use even in low blends reduces carbon monoxide and ground-level ozone emissions. There are also reductions in compounds that react with moisture and particulate matter to create smog, including carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, benzene, and nitrogen oxides (nitrous oxide and nitric oxide). Ethanol decreases ozone formation. Though burning ethanol also produces emissions, these are less harmful and les reactive with sunlight than those produced by burning fossil fuels.

The so-called greenhouse effect refers to the trapping the sun's radiation in an atmosphere high in carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxide. The use of 85% ethanol-blend fuels (E85) reduces emissions of greenhouse gases by up to 37%. A 10% blend reduces these emissions by 4%. Use of 10% ethanol also results in a 25 to 30% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions by promoting a more complete combustion of the fuel, and a 6 to 10% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions because the carbon dioxide released from ethanol production and use is less than that absorbed by crop plants used to produce ethanol.

Because ethanol is an oxygenate, a 7% overall decrease in volatile organic compounds in exhaust emissions using low-level ethanol-blended fuels. With E85 blends, exhaust VOC reductions are 30% or more."

"Jerry Hagstrom can be reached at jerry.hagstrom@dtn.com.



June 24/08 WASHINGTON (DTN) -- Only one CEO belonging to the Grocery Manufacturers Association agreed to meet with Senate Finance Committee ranking member Charles Grassley and Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer to discuss GMA's campaign to reduce government support for ethanol, so Grassley said he canceled the meeting.

In his weekly call to Iowa reporters, Grassley said he did not want to waste his own time or Schafer's.

The GMA has charged that the use of corn for ethanol has led to reduced supplies and higher commodity prices, resulting in hardships for its member companies.

Grassley said he invited the CEOs of Campbell's Soup Company, Del Monte Foods Company, Lakeside Foods, Sara Lee Corporation, Dean Foods Company, Hormel Foods Corporation, Procter & Gamble Company, Kellogg Company, Land O'Lakes, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Ralston Foods, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, but only the Land O'Lakes official was willing to attend.

"I was hoping to have a good discussion about why each of these companies has decided to blame ethanol for raising their food prices," Grassley said in a statement released Monday. "Instead, it appears that all they want to do is give a thumbs up to their trade association's hiring of expensive PR firms to do their dirty work instead of entering into a real dialogue."

Grassley also said, "I'm sympathetic to people who are hurting, but to put the blame on ethanol and stop a biofuel just as it's making traction in the market is not going to help the situation. In fact, if you take away ethanol, you're going to drive up the cost of energy and food even more. We've got events around the world having a much greater impact on the price of food and gas. We need to stop scapegoating ethanol and be intellectually honest about the real causes behind the increased food prices."

A GMA spokesman said he had no comment about the CEOs declining Grassley's invitation.

Grassley has accused GMA of mounting an "anti-ethanol smear campaign" since GMA's request for proposal to public relations firms and the winning proposal from the Glover Park Group came to light in May. The proposal called for organizing a "global center-left coalition" to oppose government-supported ethanol. GMA and the Glover Park Group have assembled a Food Before Fuel Coalition that includes GMA companies, meat processors, the Environmental Working Group and the National Restaurant Association.

The Food Before Fuel Coalition Monday submitted two studies to the Environmental Protection Agency on the last day of a public comment period on a request for Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry to partially suspend the Renewable Fuels Standard, which sets the federal ethanol mandate. Perry has said the mandate has resulted in higher feed costs that have caused harm to Texas companies such as Tyson's Food. Perry has scheduled a news conference Tuesday in Washington."


How ABOUT some BALANCE...

JENSEND...

I guess... that isn't what you wanted... after all!

[Fransisco]

Ethanol and bio fuels have a long, long, long way to go before they become cost effective against simply drilling a hole in the ground.


Jensen, I'm confused you're the one who claims that the free market doesn't exist anywhere. If that is the case then the subsidy/mandate model being used for ethanol fits perfectly with your worldview. And if that is the case why are you opposed to it?

[jensend]

where did i say i was in favour of subsidies? i don't recall ever saying that but if you can find an instance i would have to own up. my worldview is that free enterprise has been eroded and this is damaging to many sectors of the economy. tom has always denied to me that his crop insurance is a subsidy because everything is subsidized so he's not really getting a subsidy! seems that subsidization is more his worldview. if you took away all subsidies (won't happen, too many special interest groups that own governments) just about every part of the economy would function differently and better.

[TOM4CWB]

Jensend,

What is it with you and your hate on for crop insurance?

'Subsidies'...?

What do you think we do... when we buy diesel for $1.30/L? How much of this ends up in a gov. account... somewhere?

When we buy potash... most of our other inputs... that Gov encourages co's to 'consolidate' and increase profit 'extraction'... so the various gov's can collect massive...more and more...the tax grabs...

This whole system is built on massive gov. involvement in industry/economy...

OPEC... CWB... UIC... WCB... CPP... WTO... NAFTA... GST... Gun control... Autopac... Aerospace... Bombardier... Armed Forces... Rail... Airlines....Banks... cheap food policy...

O.K. so show me where in the competitive economy... on my cost side in particular... when IS gov. NOT regulating!

And you are upset... that our farm is about to write a cheque for well over $100,000... to pay crop insurance for 08?

What is that all about?

What does this have to do with Biofuels... and the C.D. Howe Institute... and their apparent need to scuttle biofuels?

[jensend]

gee tom we agree on most of what you just said. regulation means less free enterprise so efficiencies are lost and bad decisions are made. you like to take the line if i disagree on one thing i disagree on everything. the world isn't so black and white. it's actually quite complex. we all have our hypocricies; the trick is to recognize them for that and see how the world really operates. it's a lot tougher to be objective than dogmatic. nobody has it all figured out but if you don't ask the question you won't find the answer!

[parsley]

"if you took away all subsidies (won't happen, too many special interest groups that own governments) just about every part of the economy would function differently and better."


I agree with you jensend.

Parsley