The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

17810121321

Comments

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    A lot of planned ethanol refineries have been put on hold or canceled due to high corn prices. There's still money to be made in refining ethanol but it requires the economy of scale that only the major players possess. I'm not a fan of our current ethanol policies and I really hope the government doesn't step in and further manipulate the markets to allow less efficient refineries to be viable.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    My understanding is we guaranteed as tax payers those construction loans. So it will be that much more money down the old ethanol toilet for US taxpayers. Unless it is only the big operators that get the corporate welfare.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    Look Before Leaping is usually good advice. ;)
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the Senate's two working farmers and a longtime ethanol booster, said he finds it hard to believe that ethanol could be "clobbered the way it's being clobbered right now" over the issue of food costs. What does the cost of corn have to do with the price of wheat or rice, he is telling people.

    This statement alone should be grounds for impeachment or dismissal. No one displaying this type of ignorance should be entrusted with a public position.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    . No one displaying this type of ignorance should be entrusted with a public position.

    Wouldn't that leave us with a grand total of about 3 people in Washington?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Grassley is protecting his interest. Shows that this kind of pork is on both sides of the aisle. I would kick out the whole Congress and call for special elections in all 50 states.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Wouldn't that leave us with a grand total of about 3 people in Washington?

    I didn't think of that, but now that you have mentioned it, you might be a bit optimistic at 3.

    And Gary, I agree, boot them all and start over.

    I’m detecting a pattern here.
  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJMember Posts: 10,384
    Gas prices keep rising. So why are ethanol producers hurting?

    Let's see.... government mandates the stuff, gives subsides to growers, puts tariffs on the imported stuff and subsidizes the end users and these people are losing money. Swell. I'd say pass the tequila but it's getting subsidized out of the market....
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Dub hit the old nail on the head. Now if Congress gets their head out of the ADM trough and cuts the subsidy to the producers and removes the tariff from Brazil we may get a legitimate ethanol supply that can live on its own. Also remove the mandate to ethanol laced gas that only cuts mileage and DOES NOTHING for the environment. For those in the Midwest that want to use E85 I say go for it.
  • sirlenasirlena Member Posts: 30
    Yes, some vehicles can run on 100% ethanol. Yes, there is a need for modification, but for fuel delivery only. Kits like the one I got from Flex Fuel My Ride apply the additional amount of fuel to burn ethanol. The ECM can add only so much to the fuel trim, and after about 50% ethanol, you get lean codes. And as far as compatibility, this video showed what happened to a Tahoe that ran E85 for over 100,000 miles. They tore apart the engine and fuel system to inspect it. Tahoe Video Engine and fuel system clean. The comparable gas Tahoe needed a fuel pump, before 100,000 miles.

    Yes, I think this is awesome, making fuel in your back-yard through a non-combustible process. Many of the articles fail to mention that the sugar source is from Mexico and non-edible. It's extremely cheap and that company is looking to provide a distribution network for the sugar. Also, there is a Discarded Alcohol Recovery mode, that reduces the price to 10 cents a gallon. EFuel100

    Oh, and someone keeps mentioning the subsidies. That 51 cents/gallon credit goes mostly to OIL companies, because they didn't want to stop adding MTBE (cancer causing and ground water polluting) to the fuel as a oxygenate. The credit was to help build the infrastructure for the blending. We get some of that money back thru taxing non-US ethanol.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Oh, and someone keeps mentioning the subsidies. That 51 cents/gallon credit goes mostly to OIL companies, because they didn't want to stop adding MTBE (cancer causing and ground water polluting) to the fuel as a oxygenate. The credit was to help build the infrastructure for the blending. We get some of that money back thru taxing non-US ethanol

    Yes the refinery gets the 51 cents per gallon subsidy for adding ethanol. Not to eliminate the MTBE. MTBE was also a government mandate that IS totally unnecessary. Even the EPA website has a good article on the fact that oxygenated fuel is no longer needed. So the fact that ethanol is an oxygenate in small percentages is a waste. The Mandate to lace our unleaded gas with ethanol is corporate welfare to companies like Exxon, ADM and VERASUN. It saves America NOTHING. My mileage drops more than 10% with whatever ethanol they add to our gas in CA. So absolutely no help on cutting imported oil.

    You may be convinced that corn ethanol is a good alternative fuel. I don't think you have swayed many others in that direction. Now that several ethanol stills are going broke due to high corn prices what say ye? That is exactly what happened to the Brazilian ethanol industry in the 1980s. Sugar was more valuable as food.

    No one gets that 53 cent tariff on Brazilian ethanol. It is just added to the price of our ethanol laced gas. Even with the 53 cent tariff Brazil can produce ethanol cheaper than our farmers can with highly subsidized corn. That to me shows the folly in calling it an alternative. It is merely a scam perpetrated on the American public.

    By the logic exhibited with corn ethanol legislation we should be adding a 25% tariff on cars coming from Japan, Korea and Germany, while giving a 25% subsidy to the Big 3 manufacturers in the USA.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    The member comments say it all.

    I think Miss Sharon Begley should find other topics to write about.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    And tell me just why should I believe the ramblings of a space scientist like Robert Zubrin, with an agenda?

    I think your assessment of those of us that totally disagree with you is repulsive. I am not sure why you feel that name calling will convince us that know the truth about ethanol to change our views. Not one to believe in coincidence. I find it most coincidental that the price of oil and food have risen sharply with the expansion of Ethanol production from Corn.

    Last check you have one poster here that sells E85 conversion kits that believes the lies about ethanol....You are a minority here and in the country as a whole. Hope ethanol is making you wealthy at the rest of our expense.

    PS
    Zubrin advocates dropping the tariff on Brazilian ethanol. That to me would signal a serious attempt to cut oil imports. He also believes that hydrogen is a hoax. So we are in partial agreement.

    which means that we could drop our current tariffs against Latin American sugar-ethanol.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,250
    What, another ethanol apologists' ramblings? Don't think so. The ethanol program, as currently implemented in the US, has increased all grain and food prices through crop shifts, and is doing nothing for energy self sufficiency.

    P.S. Sorry, this idiot isn't shutting up... :P
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Unlike corn ethanol that uses about as much fossil fuel as it replaces, Sorghum may be a good alternative.

    A sugary sap inside the plant's stalk, which grow as tall as 12 feet, can be turned into a potent biofuel, and experts and companies are studying its potential with hopes that farmers will want to plant more of it.

    Ethanol made from the stalk's juice has four times the energy yield of the corn-based ethanol, which is already in the marketplace unlike sweet sorghum. Sweet sorghum produces about eight units of energy for every unit of energy used in its production. That's about the same as sugarcane but four times as much as corn.


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_re_us/farm_scene_sweet_sorghum_ethanol-
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Now that's not a bad idea, but ideally we want something that won't use up existing food cropland.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    That is true and part of the balancing act. Corn has proven incapable of satisfying both the ethanol still and the food stocks. That explains the price of corn going through the roof.
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    Gagrice did none of those statistics make any sense to you. The gorilla in this room is OIL!!! Ethanol only took 3.3 billion bushels of the 13.3 billion we produced. There is more corn available right now than there was at this time last year. Soybeans are also a major cause of the rise in corn prices, beans are at an all time low with the price being driven everyday by the crude market which is directly correlated to soybean oil. Oil is the driver behind this rapid increase. Ethanol has had a slight increase but use yesterday as an example. Oil was up $2 a barrel, Soybeans were up 34 cents a bushel, corn was down 9 cents a bushel. Look at that nice correlation, ethanol has no impact right there, soybeans are food which is DIRECTLY influenced by the crude market.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    So what that corn was down 9 cents YESTERDAY? Take a look at the chart of corn futures over the last year from the Chicago Board of Trade
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    The evidence is so incredibly overwhelming as to what ethanol has done to our economy and in some parts the economies of other countries.

    I find it shameful and embarrassing that our government continues to promote and support its use on such a grand scale.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    There is more corn available right now than there was at this time last year.

    What crops were not planted to make way for more corn? I know fields in the Imperial Valley of CA are growing corn where they used to grow lettuce and other vegetables. Good for the farmers bad for the consumers. From your lack of response you must think that the price of oil going up since the ethanol mandate is just coincidence. I think we are caught in a battle between Big Ag and Big Oil. We are just the poor slobs that are paying the price. Also soybeans are being used for biodiesel. Though last I read they were too expensive to use. There is no mandate on biodiesel so the market sets the price, not Uncle Sam. When we come up with a feedstock for ethanol that is not mandated and is cost effective let me know. When Congress lifts the tariff on Brazilian ethanol I will know they are getting serious about alternatives.
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    Pf Flyer I am so glad you know how to make a graph. If you do not understand market drivers behind this dont just look at a picture and blame it on Ethanol. There are so many other factors that caused corn to increase by $2 a bushel. First off Brazil has not had the weather that they would like down there, Europe and Australia have had terrible droughts which has increased the feed use for corn due to the fact that wheat touched $20 and steered feeders away from wheat and into more corn. If you want to talk about inflation influencing food prices you are terribly un informed if you think oil has nothing to do with this. Oil has directly impacted fertilizer prices, chemical prices, seed prices, and most other farm inputs. Ethanol has helped the demand side of the picture but the crude market had had MUCH more impact on the consumer side. Think about a loaf of bread, the farmer's share is less than the cost of the wrapper. Ya know what factors the cost of that wrapper, YEP OIL!!!!!!! Gagrice my lil no-minded friend, the ethanol mandate has been around before 2007. Also the blenders credit for ethanol has been decreased by 6 cents a gallon. Ethanol also brings down the price of gas to the consumer by 10-15%, if you have any idea where to even check the price of ethanol, you will see it is trading in the mid 2.40's range while RBOB gas is 3.12-3.15. Gagrice also you complain about the POOR consumers. You know what, the increase in crude prices since 2001 is equivalent to a 45% increase in the income tax. Hmmm, I wonder what is really putting the pinch on. You people simply amaze me that you are so un-informed, gotta love that California crowd
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    Also my little friend Gagrice, Soybeans are NOT being driven by bio-diesel. It is again major weather concerns in the South African region along with record LOW carry-out numbers that the US is currently experiencing. As the price of crude climbs, the bushels of beans used for Bio-Diesel increases greatly, since it makes Bio-Diesel that much more competitive. If you people really want commodity prices to go down, Oil is going to be the main commodity to recess into a much lower trading range, if that doesnt happen, Higher commodity prices will be here to stay for the time being. Put some market driven thinking to work in your arguments people!
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Gagrice my lil no-minded friend, the ethanol mandate has been around before 2007.

    Yes it has. The energy bill of 2005. I think you really need to do more research before you set yourself up as an authority on a subject. Take a look at when oil took a rocket ride up. It was under $40 per barrel when the ethanol mandate went into affect. You are right the increased demand on diesel and fossil fuel based fertilizers have an affect on oil prices. So does the government thinking they can bully the oil producers by making fuel from corn. Just how much corn have you raised on your farm. I raised a lot and it was not worth the diesel used to plant and harvest it from 1976-1980. Not to mention the interest on seed and fertilizer at 20%. So I do know what farming is all about and I feel for the farmers. The ones that were run out of business in the late 1970s by Mega Ag corporations. The same ones that are reaping a windfall profit at the tax payers expense. When you move out of your utopian ethanol cocoon maybe you will see the real inconvenient truth about corn ethanol.

    Oil rise from 2005 ethanol mandate:
    http://zfacts.com/p/196.html
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,250
    Nascar, I'll make you a deal - farmers growing corn can only raise it using ethanol-fueled tractors, cars, everything. They'll produce next to no net ethanol, as all the energy needed to raise the very ineffecient corn crop uses it up. I've got nothing against farmers, just nonsense laws placating them at no real benefit to the country. The only good source of ethanol today is sugarcane from the tropics - oops, I forgot, there's a tariff, and, oops again, they're cutting down the rainforests to grow it. :sick:
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    For those that think ethanol use in automobiles is a recent development. It was the fuel of choice in the beginning of the automobile age. Just so you know I am not against ethanol. Just ethanol made from important food stocks.

    The first cars back in the late 1800s ran primarily on alcohol.

    It was the only reliable, combustible fuel that was available. Oil had already been discovered, but it had a completely different use at that time; it was used for heating and lighting homes.

    So the part that they couldn’t use for heating and lighting — the stuff that wanted to explode and nobody wanted to put in an oil lamp — they threw away.

    John D. Rockefeller did some experimentation and found out that, although it didn’t do such a good job, it would run a car, too. And he started selling it at dirt-cheap prices in the cities, where he had his oil distribution business.

    So gasoline was an industrial waste by product that was marketed as an alternative to the standard fuel, which was alcohol.

    The big proponent of alcohol in cars was Henry Ford. He thought that alcohol was the very best fuel for cars — it was clean, it was efficient, and there were a lot more stills in this country than gas stations.

    So Ford and Rockefeller fought tooth and nail over what was going to be the nation’s fuel supply, until Rockefeller decided not to play fair anymore.

    Rockefeller gave the Women’s Christian Temperance Union $4 million dollars to lobby Congress with. That would be like $400 million dollars today, and, yes, you can buy Congress for that. And so they passed Prohibition. You probably thought it had something to do with drinking and moral decay. But can you imagine an all-male Congress voting to keep working men from drinking?

    So for 13 years alcohol went off the market as a fuel, as an industrial product that used to compete with many oil products and for drinking also.

    After they make everything they call valuable out of oil — plastics, drugs, pesticides, industrial chemicals — everything left over is dumped into the gasoline. So on any given day there are 400 toxic chemicals dumped into gasoline, and those might not necessarily be the same chemicals the next day. It is whatever is left over.

    So gasoline is the biggest toxic waste disposal system in the world, and its in the open and legal.

    They enable us to use our cars to spew their toxic waste back into the air. And they make something like $2,500 from a barrel of oil, for the industrial chemicals, and something like $100 a barrel from the gasoline, and they don’t care if they made zero, because they get rid of all their toxic waste.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Great History lesson Gary. Thanks
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/verenium-commis.html

    Good old Zymomonas mobilis may save the day.

    I see that Canada has decided to dip their toe in the alcohol, so to speak, by requiring an E5 mix by 2010.

    In 2004, Canada used 10.5 billion gallons of gasoline per year. The E5 mix will require about 500 million gallons of ethanol. In 2007 Canada produced 211 million gallons. Canada will need to build 5 to 6 new ethanol plants, if they are not already in the works.

    Those extra 289 million gallons of ethanol will require about 100 million more bushels of corn. Canada already imports about 43 million bushels a year.

    The ethanol needed in Canada pales when compared to the 4 billion gallons of U.S. ethanol production coming on line in 2008. Corn will be in high demand. Makes me glad I don't own any livestock that eats corn. :shades:

    I wonder what happens in 2009 or beyond when there is a problem with corn production. Weather happens.

    http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/
    https://topcropmanager.annexweb.com/content/view/1481/67/
    http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/outlook/
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I believe the Canadians are close to going into production with a biomass to ethanol plant. They were going to build their first one in Idaho. Not sure what has happened with their funding.

    If Canada is hoping for a quick fix with Corn ethanol, they are in for a big surprise.
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    Looks like the Idaho plant has moved.

    Canadian company nixes Idaho for ethanol plant, picks Saskatchewan May 8, 2008
    http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVhFVIjScxoTrAR8kwpFjTlEZrOg

    "If Canada is hoping for a quick fix with Corn ethanol, they are in for a big surprise. "

    The Canadian plants under construction are going to use corn, wheat and canola.
    http://www.greenfuels.org/lists.php

    I get a kick out of the spin they are putting on the whole fuels vs. food debate. The idea that you can divert 25% of the corn to fuel and claim it is not contributing very much to the increase in food is nonsense. There are several major drivers for the increased food costs; demand for food, transportation, increased inputs like fertilizer and biofuels.

    If you go back a few years you will see that I was for a modest amount of ethanol production. The local jobs helped in many mid-western towns. They should have stopped the ethanol mandate at about 5 billion gallons (corn part), however.

    I've actually stopped buying the E10 (89 octane) fuel. The 10 cent difference does not cover the 3% loss in fuel mileage. The car runs very well on 87. I need to compare my mpg with and without ethanol to see if I can tell what the actual difference is between E10 and plain RUG. So far it looks like it is at least 3%.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I've actually stopped buying the E10 (89 octane) fuel.

    I think in CA they put 10% ethanol in our regular 87. I know the times I have driven to AZ in both my 05 GMC PU and our Sequoia we would get better mileage with the gas over there that does not say ethanol added. We usually fill at the ARCO in Yuma, AZ. The last trip was in the Sequoia and the trip from home to Yuma we got 15 MPG over the 200 miles, much of it down hill into the desert. From Yuma to Phoenix we got just over 17 MPG driving mostly 75-80 MPH. It has to be the crap E10 gas in CA that kills mileage. That is about a 12% loss in mileage. Same results on the return trip.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    This kind of bothers me in respect to ethanol.

    McDaniel said that without greater loan guarantees, Iogen and backers Royal Dutch Shell and Goldman Sachs weren't comfortable building in Idaho.

    What risk will Shell and Sachs have if Canada is putting up the money to build the plant? Will Shell reap the benefits if it is a booming success? To my way of thinking if tax dollars are spent on these ethanol plants, the profits belong to the taxpayers. We did this in the late 1970s with corn ethanol. Our tax dollars guaranteed the investment in those ethanol stills. When the market went flat and 90 stills went out of business you and I were the ones that lost money. I consider that corporate welfare. I would love to have a multi million dollar business without investing my own money.

    I do think the Iogen system shows promise and that using government funds would be good as long as they get repaid if the project is successful.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    "Loan Guarantees" is a euphemism for subsidies. :shades: Remember Congress is looking at lowering subsidies for corn ethanol.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I like to think of it as a government handout to the wealthy. If I loan you money to go into business and the government guarantees you will pay me back. When your business goes broke, who pays the bill? Yes the tax payer. I have not risked anything, you have not risked anything. Only the tax payer has taken any risk. And he has no recourse to say wait a minute that was my money you flushed down the ethanol toilet.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    That's right, welcome to the brave new world of neo-capitalism, where the people must not only subsidize their own business ventures with no safety net, but also make sure those who can hire powerful lobbyists never lose their shirts on their business ventures. ;)

    Of course, the whole corn ethanol thing was corny to begin with. Laugh har har. I still think we should have just licensed Brazil's sugarcane technology..it's a better starting point. At least Hawaii would be able to grow it's own fuel. :shades:
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    At least Hawaii would be able to grow it's own fuel

    Sadly most of the sugar growers are gone from Hawaii. None left on the Big Island. A bit left on Maui. I think they are selling off the last of the cane land on Kauai. It seems that I read Oprah and Bette Midler are buying a lot of it.

    If Congress were serious about ethanol replacing any of our fossil fuel they would lift the 53 cent tariff on Brazilian ethanol. The sooner if becomes a fair market commodity the sooner we will know if it is viable.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Remember Congress is looking at lowering subsidies for corn ethanol.
    Well that should only take another 5 to 10 years to pass. Remember that when you are talking about Government and time you have to think in geological speeds.
  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJMember Posts: 10,384
    True enough. Heck, they didn't technically end WWII with all the paperwork and such until 1952!
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    One bushel of corn can make 2.7 gallons of ethanol. That works out to a cost of $2.68 per gallon of ethanol just for the corn feedstock. At those prices the ethanol plants are going to need to charge $4 a gallon just to break even. And since ethanol will only get you 70% as far, the adjusted price for E85 could be over $5 a gallon.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    There are ethanol plants going broke because corn is so high. I personally think Ethanol is responsible for the current high price of gas. It is responsible for the high price of corn for sure. Congress has created a HUGE mess with their ethanol mandate.

    AAA says that E85 adjusted for mileage is about 36 cents per gallon more expensive than Regular unleaded Nation wide.

    http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    With all the flooding in the mid-west I wonder if there will be enough corn planted to cover the mandate let alone provide food just for the US.

    There is a lot of land under water that will take weeks if not months to dry to the point that any crops can be planted.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    They got a mess back there. Of course it is all caused by GW or was that AG?
    :sick:
  • tfb27tfb27 Member Posts: 15
    Ethanol is keeping gas prices and food prices lower. It is the global boom that is driving up the price of oil and food.
  • tfb27tfb27 Member Posts: 15
    Start doing some research . In 1 bushel of corn you get 2.8 gals of ethanol and 18 lbs of high protein distillers grains used to feed animals like cattle and chickens. And E85 gets you about 80% of the mileage. This is only because engines are not optimized to run on ethanol. There is a ton of potential with the power of E85
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Welcome to the forum.

    And how do you think that ethanol, that has done nothing to cut importation of foreign oil, is helping reduce food and gas prices? Don't you find it odd that as soon as the ethanol mandate was passed by Congress that gas prices started going up along with oil prices? Or the price of corn has risen dramatically since the mandate. That Wheat and Soy crops were not planted to make room for the boom in corn? Or was that just all coincidence?

    If you are one of the beneficiaries of the ethanol boondoggle, I fully understand your position. If you are just wanting an alternative no matter what the cost in human suffering I do not understand.

    I will not argue that ethanol is not a viable alternative fuel. It is the use of food for bio fuels I find ridiculous. If it was just about ethanol, we would remove the tariff from Brazilian ethanol and get them to produce it with sugar cane. That makes more sense.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Well now I have to worry about my beef fed with the ethanol by-product "Distillers Grain"

    Distillers' Grain In Cattle Feed May Contribute To E. Coli Infection

    ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2008) — A new study suggests that the addition of dried distillers’ grain, an ethanol by-product, to cattle feed may contribute to the prevalence of E. coli O157 infection in cattle. The researchers from Kansas State University, Manhattan report their findings in the January 2008 issue of the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

    Escherichia coli O157 is a significant food-borne pathogen of which cattle are major reservoirs. Colonization by E. coli O157 in cattle occurs in the gut and is shed in the feces. Diet is considered to be one of the factors influencing the prevalence and shedding of E. coli O157, emphasizing the need to examine dietary components and their impact on the physiological environment of the gut and the survival of E. coli O157.

    Distillers’ grain is the coproduct that remains following the distillation of ethanol. It may be dehydrated to produce dried distillers’ grain (DDG) which is then commonly used as livestock feed. In the study cattle were administered one of three diets including: no dried distillers’ grain, steam-flaked corn and 15% corn silage with 0 to 25% dried distillers’ grains, or steam-flaked corn with 5% corn silage and 25% dried distillers’ grains, after which fecal samples were collected and tested for E. coli O157. Results showed that cattle fed with 25% dried distillers’ grains and 5% or 15% silage had higher prevalence of E. coli O157 than cattle fed a diet without dried distillers’ grains.

    “The results indicate that there is a positive association between dried distillers’ grain and E. coli O157 in cattle, and the findings should have important ramifications for food safety,” say the researchers.


    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122102428.htm

    In reality cattle should never be fed CORN. It is bad for them. Looks like the ethanol boondoggle is making it worse.
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    "Start doing some research."

    I did, :P

    "Many ethanol plants now produce 2.7 gallons of ethanol and about 18 pounds of animal feed from each bushel of corn."
    http://www.iowacorn.org/cornuse/cornuse_20.html

    ""We've a pretty steep learning curve with distillers grains here (compared with use of corn)," Droulliard said, "because it takes time to figure out how to use it."
    "Distillers grains and cattle health issues also were addressed, with Droulliard noting there are risks such as mycotoxins in the feed, along with high mineral content, especially sulfur. Monitoring is advised. "
    http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/jun08/jun2/Biofuelsco-productfeedingis.cfm?titl- e=Biofuels%20co-product%20feeding%20is%20Roundup%20topic

    2008 Impala
    E85 - combined MPG = 16
    RUG - combined MPG = 22

    AAA National Average as of 6/13/08
    RUG = $4.066/22mpg = 18.5 cents per mile - the winner :D
    E85 = $3.344/16mpg = 20.9 cents per mile

    BTUs
    Diesel - 129,500
    Gasoline - 114,100
    E85 - 81,100

    The potential energy in E85 is less than that of gasoline or diesel.

    "As ethanol demand grows, so does 'Dead Zone' in Gulf of Mexico"
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/bloomberg/bxdead.php
  • tfb27tfb27 Member Posts: 15
    Well before ethanol when a kernel of corn was eaten by a cow about 40% went to waste because that is the starch content. Cows have no use for it. With ethanol, the starch is removed which is used by the cpw anyway then the concentrated protein, fiber and oil was is fed to the cow. This is a more efficient use of resources.

    Oil prices started rising because China and Indias inustry stsrted to ramp up. im 2007 the US planted 92M acrea of corn vs 86 in 2006. Now in 2008 we are back down to about 87.

    There isnt any human suffering in the US. We are a nation of overweight people.

    Field corn used for ethanol cant be eaten by humans which is used for animals. So it is no different than using weeds for fuel.

    The tariff on Brazillian ethanol is planned on goingaway in the furture anyway.
  • tfb27tfb27 Member Posts: 15
    This is how it works with a Ford F150. 15.5 mpg with gas and 12.4 with E85. Do you drive a Toyota Avalon? If so then you wouldnt know. Also, torque is increased with the use of E85. What does that mean? It means that a 3.5L gas engine made to run on gas can get the same torque with a 3.0L E85 engine to close the gap
Sign In or Register to comment.