You better hope so, because you'll need more of it to get milk.
Most agriculture experts say milk prices will jump in coming months as producers pass along increased costs for livestock feed (read: higher corn prices because of ethanol) and a spike in overseas demand.
Of course that is not the only reason, but I thought ethanol was to be produced from excess crops and corn stalks.
Why are they taking food away from animals to produce fuel. If this is true, ethanol does not sound like the viable solution that has been advertised.
Anyone have any insight into this?
Edit: I didn't preview post and it looked horrible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They're taking away food from animals to produce food because, in at least some (and likely large) part due to government incentives, it is more profitable to produce fuel with it.
Of course, milk itself has long been subject to government interventions that lead to higher prices; based on someone who tried to break away from the legal cartel, prices would be at least ten or twenty percent lower on milk without government intervention.
edit: in fact, that latter (an already artificially high price) might be why the price of milk hadn't gone up already. Mexico has already been feeling the hurt with prices of corn products, which are a major part of the diet, especially for poorer people.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
That still doesn't make sense. Why would the government step in and hit the everyday person so hard.
Not everyone has or will have an ethanol burning vehicle, but everyone (except the lactose intolerant) drinks milk.
Kinda bass akward to me.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Also, cows eat corn. Corn takes oil to grow. Spike in oil prices=spike in cow product prices.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why would the government step in and hit the everyday person so hard.
Subsidies hurt the everyday person by keeping produce prices high, but help local farmers maintain their land without forcing them into larger cooperatives/corporations. Without subsidies, American farmers would be disappearing faster than they already are. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is an open question.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't get why they can't just feed cows GRASS. It's what they are supposed to eat instead of feeding the corn, then giving them anti-biotics because they can't handle corn. It's illogical.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't get why they can't just feed cows GRASS.
My wife is a dairy forage researcher.
Let's put it this way: if you fed dairy cows grass, milk would be $12 a gallon.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Also, cows eat corn. Corn takes oil to grow. Spike in oil prices=spike in cow product prices.
I could understand that. Prices for everything is going up due to gas prices (since everything is shipped), but this wasn't the reason stated in the article. I expect some price increase due to shipping costs. I do not understand using corn for fuel if there is already a shortage of corn for feed.
Does the answer sound too obvious to me? I don't see ethanol as the solution to get us off foreign oil. Hydrogen fuel cells still sound like the best option to me. More money should be placed in development of that technology.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why would the government step in and hit the everyday person so hard.
Subsidies hurt the everyday person by keeping produce prices high, but help local farmers maintain their land without forcing them into larger cooperatives/corporations. Without subsidies, American farmers would be disappearing faster than they already are. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is an open question.
It wouldn't be government if they didn't step in everytime they get a chance. I guess they don't want Wal-Mart farms taking over. Even though, in a capitalists society, if you can't make enough money to survive, you shut down.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do not understand using corn for fuel if there is already a shortage of corn for feed.
That's not really the way it works.
Here's the (over-simplified) process: 1) We have a lot of extra corn. Corn is cheap. 2) We are running low on oil. Oil is expensive. 3) It is more expensive to turn corn into gas than to turn oil into gas, so we still make gas out of oil. 4) The government, hoping to lower the price of gas in the long run (and stave off the eventual depletion of our oil resources), gives people money to encourage them to make gas out of corn. 5) Suddenly, our extra corn is now going to make gas. This does not produce enough gas to lower gas prices appreciably. 6) The government offers a little more money to farmers to encourage them to sell corn to gasoline producers. With these subsidies, it is now more profitable for farmers to meet the demand of gasoline producers than it is for them to meet the demand of feed companies. 7) Ergo, the supply of corn to feed companies goes down. 8) The price of feed goes up. 9) Whether the price of gas goes down is still unknown.
This process would be much more effective if all of our waste stock could be used for ethanol -- but, again, much of our waste stock is currently used for feed, so the same economics kick in.
quote:I guess they don't want Wal-Mart farms taking over.
There is a huge social value in avoiding corporate monoculture in agriculture, and unfortunately it's a value which is not perceived by the consumer. Like the EPA, federal farm subsidies exist to defend the big picture from individual bargain hunters. This may or may not be a good thing from all perspectives.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
1) We have a lot of extra corn. Corn is cheap.
I get that as a concept but that doesn't seem to be the case.
quote: But while the news may be bad for consumers, an uptick in prices is manna from heaven for dairy farmers looking for relief like Lorraine Merrill who got hammered during the 2006 spring drought.
So do we have too much or not enough?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah, the overwhelming supermajority of those grain subsidies goes to extremely large industrial farms. Family farms are FAR more efficient at raising crops and FAR less environmentally destructive than agribusinesses. However, agribusinesses are MUCH better at feeding on government welfare.
That extra boost from subsidies allows agribusinesses to ruin their own farmland, then buy new farmland from families forced out of the business.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I get that as a concept but that doesn't seem to be the case.
It IS the case. But we don't have nearly enough spare corn (or similar products) to meet the potential demand for ethanol, especially when you consider that farm equipment in itself demands fuel. In other words: ethanol is not a magic bullet, and cannot alone "solve" our oil dependency problem.
quote:Nah, the overwhelming supermajority of those grain subsidies goes to extremely large industrial farms. Family farms are FAR more efficient at raising crops and FAR less environmentally destructive than agribusinesses. However, agribusinesses are MUCH better at feeding on government welfare.
Here's the problem: while agribusiness is more efficient at obtaining subsidies, small farms without the subsidies could not survive. It's a case of the rich getting richer off the same money that enables the poor to survive; as with any federal program, those who least need it often wind up benefiting most. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the decision to award benefits to those who most need it is a bad one; it simply means (once you grant that federal interference with the market is occasionally valuable) that the criteria need to be more closely examined.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Family farms are FAR more efficient at raising crops ...
This is interesting to me. Please elaborate on what measure of efficiency is used and what source you have to back this up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
By far most farm subsidies go to large farms, not local farmers.
In fact, many foods typically produced by small farms (typical fruits and veggies other than corn and a few other big crops) are mostly or entirely unsubsidized.
Furthermore, a substantial subset of small farms never make money; they're owned (but only sometimes run) by people with another job.
I've always had a hard time with the belief that someone who isn't able to support themselves with an activity should be paid by the government to undertake that activity anyways. I'm not sure I see the benefit anywhere in that.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
I was reading this article about subsidies for processed foods as opposed to produce in the Farm Bill. It mentions that corn is one of the things subsidized and, like someone already menitoned, how that hurts the economy of Mexico, etc. In regards to ethanol, this article says that increased corn prices due to ethanol are a problem all over the world thanks to US economic involvement. What it doesn't say though, is how those two ideas connect - if corn prices go up because of ethanol, and the government is subsidizing corn already to make cheep processed foods, how is this whole thing a good idea from the perspective of the government's economic policy? Won't they just have to keep pouring more money into the subsidy?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Large corn producers (ConAgra, for example) lobby their representatives so the government pays them to produce ethanol.
That's the bottom line.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Has it ever been shown anywhere that burning ethanol is actually a fossil fuel positive? By that I mean that the energy from burning the ethanol is actually greater than the energy (from fossil fuels) that went into its production?
I haven't looked at this at all, but frankly I'd be shocked if it was even breaking even. I suspect its a net negative.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It's not just milk. Corn and corn byproducts (corn syrup in soda, corn starch, etc.) are used throughout the US food supply. A government estimate last night on a network news show was that the average yearly grocery bill could go up $50 per person because of higher use of corn for ethanol. Suddenly I'm not so crazy about ethanol. . .
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
This is starting to sound more and more crazy. I understand ethanol uses a renewable resource, but it sounds like they are sacrificing for a fuel that may or may not reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use.
If this impact is possible with the small amount of ethanol vehicles out there, what will happen if people really start buying these vehicles. Will we have to chose between eating and driving to work?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Darn. So much for my idea of a milk-powered car.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay, I just have to weigh in here. Forgive me if I didn't read every post word-for-word.
But wanted to address this that Tom said:
quote: 6) The government offers a little more money to farmers to encourage them to sell corn to gasoline producers. With these subsidies, it is now more profitable for farmers to meet the demand of gasoline producers than it is for them to meet the demand of feed companies.
Actually, in my neighborhood, it is like this:
Farmer harvests corn. Looks for best price. Local elevator has corn price posted at whatever "current market value" seems to be per bushel.
Just six miles down we have an Ethanol plant. They send out flyers and post prices and say "we will give you $$$ more if you bring your corn here instead".
Which do you think the farmer chooses? Ethanol plant has huge demand, has to take in enough corn to meet that demand. The more they can get locally , the less they need to pay to haul it in via railcar from some other state.
It's being driven (in large part) by free market competition.
Elevators send out corn lots of different directions (from the plants that make your Corn Flakes, to the processor that grinds it into cattle feed). They can only pay farmer enough to make their little margin of profit.
Syn -- There isn't enough grass in the WORLD to feed all the cattle that consumers go through. About the only cattle lucky enough to be grass fed are the purebreds used for breeding certain strains, and, of course, the small-farm herds. Most all your store beef comes from HUGE HUGE pens of cattle in places similar to Dodge City, etc. where they are grain fed X number of months, then slaughtered. Photo Link Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Syn -- There isn't enough grass in the WORLD to feed all the cattle that consumers go through.
Are you sure? I thought I had read that carefully managed grassland farms (extremely labor intensive, and thus only the realm of small farms) can produce more food for animals than the same land would if it were growing corn.
Granted, that would make everybody's grocery bill skyrocket overnight, but it's possible.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You can thank the government for helping to put corn so thoroughly in the US diet. Something like 80% of what we eat in America is corn, or corn fed, or corn derived, it's ridiculous. So now that so much of our diet is attached to one crop, when that crop has a price jump, the effects are felt over thousands of food products rather than just one.
And I have a hard time believing that small farms are more efficient than large ones. Large farms I would think have more access to the kind of technology that produces high yield crops. GPS mapping, satelite imaging, and the newest equipment, those things I imagine, have to be expensive.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
It depends on what you mean by efficient. Large farms are more efficient than small ones in terms of amount of food/feed produced per person. Small farms are (perhaps I should say can be) more efficient in terms of food/feed produced per acre. However, if someone tries to run a small farm like a large one (lots of large machinery, etc) then they will be less efficient in both ways. Replacing machinery with human labor tends to make the land more efficient; replacing human labor with machinery tends to make the few humans that are left more efficient. It's a trade-off.
--Mel
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I thought I had read that carefully managed grassland farms (extremely labor intensive, and thus only the realm of small farms) can produce more food for animals than the same land would if it were growing corn.
While I would love to see this happen, the reality is there is no way you could get the big industry to convert to this philosophy at this time.
And I don't have exact numbers on how much grassland we have available as opposed to cattle; but I will tell you in just the 10 square miles around my farm -- over 80% of the grassland has been tilled under in the last 20 years..... to grow corn instead...
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:While I would love to see this happen, the reality is there is no way you could get the big industry to convert to this philosophy at this time.
Oh, I wasn't talking about the feasibility of getting industrial agriculture to raise beef that way -- I'm just responding to idea that it would be impossible to raise all the beef we use today on grass instead of corn. Now, you didn't say that exactly, but that's what I thought you were saying when I responded.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, yes. And I was just saying more and more grassland is disappearing all the time. I personally, just from what I know of my own state, don't see it being possible here from simply the "amount of grassland/number of cattle" ratio.
But I don't know enough to know whether it is really possible or not OVERALL, if you could include all the grassland and cattle in the world.
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Also, if as a society we decided that it's best to raise cattle on grass instead of corn, a lot of the corn fields would get turned into grasslands.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: Has it ever been shown anywhere that burning ethanol is actually a fossil fuel positive? By that I mean that the energy from burning the ethanol is actually greater than the energy (from fossil fuels) that went into its production?
I haven't looked at this at all, but frankly I'd be shocked if it was even breaking even. I suspect its a net negative.
Yes, numerous studies have been done on the subject with mixed results. The bottom line seems to be that if the corn is raised using the best current practices, you get ~ 1.8 gallons of oil equivalent ethanol per gallon of oil. However, very few farmers use the best practices. For example, the average farmer uses twice the recommended amount of fertilizer. If farmers are using the typical practice used in 1970, you get less than 0.90 gallons of oil equivilent ethanol per gallon of oil.
There is also a very significant uncertainty associated with the distance between the farms and the ethanol plants because it takes a large amount of energy to ship the biomass (i.e. corn). For there to be any hope of doing better than breaking even, the farms can't be more than ~60 miles from the ethanol plants.
If the goal is to make ethanol, corn just isn't a very good crop to start with. You'd get much higher efficiency with sugar beets.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thanks for the data, Rabbitt.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:a lot of the corn fields would get turned into grasslands.
Ah.. this sounds so easy. However, from personal experience I can say, rolling it back the other direction is SO hard. Yes, it can be done; but nothing we do is the perfect polyculture that the native grasses were.
Rabbit said:
quote: For example, the average farmer uses twice the recommended amount of fertilizer.
Not sure where you're getting that from, Rabbit. Farmers work very hard to keep their costs low, and using twice the amount of fertilizer needed just blows that. Most pay soil consulting companies $$ to come out and test the soil frequently to find exactly what/how much they need. (I see this and hear this talk a lot with my neighbors. I don't personally do this because mine is all grassland. However, I know several of the area "testers" personally).
(edit - oh, and around here, there is actually more ethanol being made out of sorghum (milo) than corn, overall. There are other crops, as Rabbit points out, that can produce Ethanol besides corn)
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
btw -- just fyi --- I'm not a huge Ethanol fan, even though I see how it is helping farmers profit.
What I also see is that more and more of them are tearing up more and more acres of land to grow corn (granted, not as many acres as urban sprawl is taking away from us each year); anyway -- much of that land isn't truly fit to grow corn. And Corn in this state, at least, requires a GREAT deal of water to grow, with means major saps on our groundwater supplies to keep up with all that irrigation.
It is just causing a huge cycle of sacrificing one set of resources in an attempt to save other resources..
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To answer questions about why the government does these things, two major issues to consider are rent seeking and the principle-agent problem.
Rent-seeking is where people with power use that power to better themselves. This means, typically, doing things to ensure their positions continue (creating regulations) and doing things to get votes or other forms of (usually legal) support (such as doing things that please powerful lobbies).
The principle-agent problem is where people in charge of doing something cannot be accurately evaluated by those choosing them, due to information assymetries. Elected and appointed officials are able to get away with many stupid things that cause great harm -- for instance, the subsidization of corn and other high-calorie farm products in preference over lower calorie, but healthier, products has recently been linked to obesity issues -- but the information to evaluate that harm is, even if available to officials, less frequently available to voters/appointers, at least in a form able to inform decisions.
The principle-agent problem helps make rent seeking effective.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Russel, that's a good way to analyze it. Pandering to lobbyists in general and to the Iowa caucuses has been crucial to ethanol's growth. From 20/20 tonight, a piece called "Sacrificing Our Children to the 'Corn God' Ethanol May Not Be the Miracle It's Made Out to Be"
quote:from page 2 of 3 Why Do Politicians Like Ethanol?
So if ethanol isn't any cheaper or better for the environment, why is it so popular among politicians?
"It's no mystery that people who want to be president support the corn ethanol program," said Taylor [Jerry Taylor of the conservative Cato Institute]. "The first caucus is in the state of Iowa, and if you're not willing to sacrifice children to the corn God you will not get out of the Iowa primary with more than 1 percent of the vote."
Presidential candidates know that if they want to do well with Midwest voters, they need to buddy up with corn producers. By pushing to subsidize ethanol, candidates are able to keep voters happy in critical Midwestern election states, and seem like friends of the environment. It also lets them convince voters that we're moving toward the hallowed state of "energy independence."
quote:the last 2 paragraphs, pp 3 of 3 When a fuel source is expensive and bad for the environment and won't help our foreign policy, then there's no reason to force taxpayers to foot the bill for producing it.
"This is a naked transfer program designed to take money from people who buy corn and to give it to people who grow corn and people who make ethanol for a living. That's all it is," said Taylor.
One fact from the 20/20 story I didn't know is that because ethanol degrades, it cannot be transported via pipeline, the cheapest and most energy efficient method. It has to be trucked, which uses oil, is less efficient, and thus drives up it's net energy balance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Farmers work very hard to keep their costs low, and using twice the amount of fertilizer needed just blows that.
Christy, in her previous job, did exactly this research. On average, farmers use around 25% more fertilizer than is optimal. This is to some extent an expected behavior, since the consequences of underfertilizing are more serious than the consequences of overfertilizing (from the farmer's perspective).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have read the same thing. Using a extra fertilizer is often seen as a sort of insurance.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Christy, in her previous job, did exactly this research. On average, farmers use around 25% more fertilizer than is optimal.
Well, they're stupid then!
However, that WOULD explain some talk and reading I was doing just last week about our current wheat crop. As some of you know, our area got hit very hard with a late freeze/snow that damaged the wheat pretty much beyond viability for many farmers.
I was thinking "so they can just cut it for hay, or graze it instead" -- and was immediately told too many of them had fertilized (probably with anhydrous ammonia) right before the freeze, so the nitrate content of the wheat is too high to be used for either hay or grazing. What a waste.
FG (that's another reason why I've always been organic)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Historically, human beings should be getting their nutrients from something like 80,000 different species.
It's a good thing you're not exaggerating, or it would be too easy to dismiss what you're saying as poppycock. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
So the food pyramid should have 80,000 bricks in it? That's hard to swallow.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't quite tell if you're backing away from your previous statement that we should each be eating 80,000 species. Where exactly did you get that number from?
(hint: I've read Omnivore's Dilemma also, and I liked it, so I know that you didn't get your number of 80,000 species from that book.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many thousands? Ignoring the question of small insects, I suspect its not feasible for hunter-gatherers to ingest more than a few dozen different meats and maybe one or two hundred different plants over the course of the year, and fewer for those using cultivated agriculture.
Additionally, I suspect most of a person's diet has always been from a few sources, even with hunter-gatherers, and definitely with agrarian society. In the past few hundred years we've seen great growth in the abundance of food available to the poor, not great decrease. Our current local variation is a blip, not a regression.
Also, there's no "should" or "meant" about it, at least from a genetic perspective. There's nothing incorrect about varying levels of efficiency or adaptation, that's imposing human values on what simply is. If someone ingests things that lacks some needed vitamins and then eats vitamins to compensate, there's nothing wrong about it.
For my part, I think fresh fruits and veggies and high quality meat taste good, so I eat them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's nothing inherently about eating a smaller variety of things that makes one overfed or malnourished, that's a property of the specific variety of things (and can easily happen even with a wide variety of things).
Attacking the variety of things we eat is unlikely to do much about obesity, particularly when its posssible to have variety while still having a few things dominate in quantity (which more aptly describes today's state, anyways). What we eat certainly is and can be a problem for us and for society.
I think that, when human raised, herbivore diets are not particularly diverse (though they can certainly be more diverse than the current state). I'm not sure what the situation would be for wild herbivores.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pollan said:
quote:humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species, and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use
That's a far cry from what you said:
quote:human beings should be getting their nutrients from something like 80,000 different species.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Well, why should people be eating thousands of species? If people are getting nutrition enough from what they eat, is that not good enough? Life spans have only gone up, except for the current obesity related slight downturn, which seems to indicate something is going right.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I completely agree that subsidies for corn and soybeans should go, and that the presence of those subsidies is, in addition to the 'economic damage', leading to significant health damage to many people in the United States, which would be greatly lessened if the government simply didn't subsidize.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If so, why do we feel the need to eat so much of it?
I know that's a rhetorical question, but would you like an answer anyway?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)