Farm subsidies

[Mill]

Are you for or against Farm subsidies? I know some are good and necessary, but it seems like the government pays a lot of rich farmers an over inflated price to grow product x which isn't needed. I've heard that ethanol and corn syrup production has increased and been used only because of subsidies. Is it true that ethanol takes more energy to make that it creates? Seems like the average person is against them, but we can't get rid of them.

 

[sandorski]

Your Poll is confusing: Yes should be For; No should be Against. Or vice-versa.

 

[dmcowen674]

Farms? We still have those?

Should all be subdivisions by now and import all our food. We exported all our jobs, why not farming?

 

[tnitsuj]

Subsidies in general are just political pandering.

 

[busmaster11]

Yes. I don't understand - why not let capitalism take its course and run most of them out of business until they've reached a semi-profitable equilibrium? Why use our tax dollars to artificially inflate prices and to create surpluses which end up rotting anyway?

 

[alchemize]

I voted "No", as against.

If we want to direct farm subsidies, then they should have a positive impact on the health of Americans and the environment. Current subsidies are nothing but welfare for farmers, and encourage the fattening of our society. Want to save on healthcare? Redirect subsidies into organic local farming. Heck, doesn't even have to be organic, but focus on small farms that serve the local community.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Mill
Are you for or against Farm subsidies? I know some are good and necessary, but it seems like the government pays a lot of rich farmers an over inflated price to grow product x which isn't needed. I've heard that ethanol and corn syrup production has increased and been used only because of subsidies. Is it true that ethanol takes more energy to make that it creates? Seems like the average person is against them, but we can't get rid of them.

Ethynol's problem is scale. Processors will be able to cut costs when the qty increases when it replaces other additives

Farm subsidies is too broad and can be twisted to mean a variety of things. Overall concept of subsidies, I'm against - however....there are things that are necessary as far as infrastructure and such. Yep- vague...but so is "farm subsidies"

CkG

 

[naddicott]

No.

I'm tired of tasting high fructose corn syrup in every beverage out there. Maybe if we didn't subsidize corn production so heavily, making corn syrup so cheap to use, we might see a little more variety in beverage sweeteners. I'm a big fan of good old cane sugar myself.

Unfortunately, the people who want farm subsidies repealed are less passionate about it than those who want them maintained, making it an obvious "pander to farmers to get their votes without losing many votes elsewhere" issue.

 

[Mill]

I sort of figured Cad would be partially for them considering his state's livelihood is directly linked to corn and ethanol. Cad, can you show me something that says higher production of ethanol would make it cheaper and actually produce more energy than it takes to create?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Mill
I sort of figured Cad would be partially for them considering his state's livelihood is directly linked to corn and ethanol. Cad, can you show me something that says higher production of ethanol would make it cheaper and actually produce more energy than it takes to create?

I've only been back here in Iowa for a few years I grew up and lived in Wisconsin - so I'm really not that partial to any one thing/place. Anyway - there are huge companies just waiting for the widespread ethanol use before they invest huge capital into refining operations. The direct subsidizing of Ethanol(which occurs now) would/could go away if it's use became widespread. The current ethanol refineries are mainly smaller and heavily subsidized plants.

I'll look through my stuff to see if I can find a good synopsis for you. But to pre-answer your question - yes - it would be cheaper if done on a massive scale. Same with Bio-diesel.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This study, released in July 2002 by the United States Department of Agriculture analyzes many of the previous studies on the energy balance of producing ethanol. The conclusion by the study's authors is that there is 34% more energy in a gallon of ethanol than it takes to produce it.

I picked that one to post only because it was a USDA report and it includes analysis of other studies and other such considerations into account and lays a good foundation for understanding Ethanol. Ofcourse you may want to go google surfing to learn the process of how it's made so you understand what/why some of the energy usage things are taken into account. Or you can take a peek at the AFDC site.

I'll have to dig some more to find capacity and current efficiency data. But as you will read in the first link - there are byproducts that can also be quite usefull but currently aren't being processed(meaning - they are wasted).

CkG

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Farms? We still have those?

Should all be subdivisions by now and import all our food. We exported all our jobs, why not farming?

Cause we got all that land that is so nicely divided up into rectangles all across the country. Ever flown in a plane cross country and looked out the window. This country is mostly all farmland from coast to coast. Might as well let it grow stuff as it takes hardly any work compared to how much produce comes out of it. I mean mostly you just sit and watch stuff grow.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

ETHANOL AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY

This would help make farming more "market based" instead of it's current reliance on subsidies. Ofcourse it's still "subsidized" in a way but less "direct" than today. The economic impact looks to be quite good and might just help save small rural midwest towns.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If we want to direct farm subsidies, then they should have a positive impact on the health of Americans and the environment. Current subsidies are nothing but welfare for farmers, and encourage the fattening of our society. Want to save on healthcare? Redirect subsidies into organic local farming. Heck, doesn't even have to be organic, but focus on small farms that serve the local community.

Props for a quality post.

Ethanol is a crock of poo. Investment in R&D for more efficient vehicles would preclude the need to "rush" to create an infrastructure to serve corn farmers. But I'm definitely a fan of "local" ethanol production and biofuels.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

If we want to direct farm subsidies, then they should have a positive impact on the health of Americans and the environment. Current subsidies are nothing but welfare for farmers, and encourage the fattening of our society. Want to save on healthcare? Redirect subsidies into organic local farming. Heck, doesn't even have to be organic, but focus on small farms that serve the local community.

Props for a quality post.

Ethanol is a crock of poo. Investment in R&D for more efficient vehicles would preclude the need to "rush" to create an infrastructure to serve corn farmers. But I'm definitely a fan of "local" ethanol production and biofuels.

Rush to create infrastructure to serve corn farmers? Did you read the links? There isn't an "infrastucture" that needs built - just the processing plants. Grain hauling is already inplace in the areas we are talking about and the product(main) is only an additive to gas which already has a wide infrastructure - no? Yes R&D should be done for other fuels but to ignore the benefits of Ethanol and other Bio options is silly when the benefits are clear and the process is easily implimented.

I don't believe in direct subsidies, that's part of the reason I support Ethanol and Bio-diesel. It allows for actual products to be made instead of just grown because it gets them a check.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There isn't an "infrastucture" that needs built - just the processing plants.

Anything that comes between the source material (corn) and final use by consumer (pump) is infrastructure. I'm sure you can find something to argue with me about . . . but that one is just plain weak.

 

[Mill]

Well that USDA study is surely valid, but it says we have to have more modern processing facilities, fertilizer, and normal crop yields. So, their conclusion is based on theory and not fact then right? The prior studies it talks about were just as valid, but were done when the technology wasn't there. So while the amount of energy that can be derived from ethanol may be increasing, the past studies were not wrong. In other words we'd have to R&D it just like any other source, but most of the ideas and ability to use it already exist.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

There isn't an "infrastucture" that needs built - just the processing plants.

Anything that comes between the source material (corn) and final use by consumer (pump) is infrastructure. I'm sure you can find something to argue with me about . . . but that one is just plain weak.

Both of you are arguing semantics. The studies conclusion is that there has to be better fertilizer and processing plants. This has been happening over time, so that is why their study is so much more optimistic than other studies.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

There isn't an "infrastucture" that needs built - just the processing plants.

Anything that comes between the source material (corn) and final use by consumer (pump) is infrastructure. I'm sure you can find something to argue with me about . . . but that one is just plain weak.

Yeah, you certainly can find things to take issue with, but my statements still stand even with you declaring the actual process plant as "infrastructure".
You obviously didn't read the links I provided or present any info of your own. There is no "rush" to do anything, and it's implementation would be quite easy due to the presence of most of the rest of the infrastructure needed to make this work. So yes the infrastructure is there. The source(farms), delivery(Road/rail), and willing workers(hard hit small town midwest america) - all that is needed is the plant. Yep - too much would have to be done - I guess it isn't a viable option then. Ethanol is a crock of poo.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

There isn't an "infrastucture" that needs built - just the processing plants.

Anything that comes between the source material (corn) and final use by consumer (pump) is infrastructure. I'm sure you can find something to argue with me about . . . but that one is just plain weak.

Both of you are arguing semantics. The studies conclusion is that there has to be better fertilizer and processing plants. This has been happening over time, so that is why their study is so much more optimistic than other studies.

Yeah - semantics it was, but my point was still valid - most of it already exists.

With the advent of GM, hi-breds, and the like - fertilizer and things of that sort may not be as vital as once thought. If GM corn is processed into an additive - the only concerns with it would/could be human consumption(some have taken issue with it anyway) and some cross pollination issues(which have and are being addressed).

Yes, MORE ethanol plants would have to be built but as the info states - there are many existing plants in 19 states. R&D would still be a vital part of the process just as it is in the gasoline industry - trying to tweak all the energy and efficiency out of things as we can. It'd be a part of any energy operation.
Ethanol isn't something new - it's been in development for years and it's use has grown quite dramatically since newer more efficient operations have been started.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yep - too much would have to be done - I guess it isn't a viable option then. Ethanol is a crock of poo.

If you insist but after reading your links I really think ethanol should be part of our energy diversification plans . . . including greater investment in infra . . . processing plants.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Farms? We still have those?

Should all be subdivisions by now and import all our food. We exported all our jobs, why not farming?

Well that is the current trend and has been for two decades (longer, actually). Domestic producers have thus far been able to withstand increased pressure from imported produce only through massive subsidies.