Statistically, ethanol is a farm-friendly fuel

  • Article by: Gary Pestorious
  • Updated: August 21, 2013 - 9:23 AM

Livestock farmers aren’t burdened by feed costs — they’re making money.

  • 27
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jd55604Aug. 20, 13 7:39 PM

Gary, I'm glad it's working out so well for you and the other millionaire ethanol investors out there but the rest of us outside of the ag industry don't care for your product and resent your paid lobbyists using government to force the rest of us into having to purchase this inferior fuel against our will.

59
7
fatredneckAug. 20, 13 8:26 PM

Doesn't change the fact that it uses just as much fossil fuel to produce it and then it's inferior in energy density to fossil fuels. And it's made from food. It's totally idiotic, but congratulations on profiting from making the world a worse place to live.

48
7
SpringerguyAug. 20, 13 8:42 PM

Gary - if the ethanol industry is allowing for less government subsidies why did your farm collect $827,000 in government subsidies the past 4 years? If anyone doubts the number go check the EWG Farm Subsidy Database. As far as I'm concerned the ag business is just that - a business. However, it is unlike any business I'm familiar with based on the vast amount of government subsidies. - not just direct payments but mandated use of ethanol by your friends in Washington. And don't play the "green" card with ethanol, I'm active in the conservation arena and these subsidies are incenting farmers to plow every square inch since the government in now subsidizing crop insurance - in other words, plow it under and we'll guarantee you a payment. If your ethanol product is so superior let the product stand on it's own - no more mandated use of ethanol and no more subsidies.

52
5
kilofoxAug. 20, 13 9:11 PM

Why aren't we allowed to decide if we want to burn ethanol or regular gas. Ethanol wastes water, wastes a food source and is very inefficient to produce. It also damages engines and requires more maintenance. It seems the only one benefiting are the farmers and investors.

46
6
ks1954Aug. 20, 13 9:45 PM

As a food animal veterinarian I can confidently say that anyone in the livestock business, cattle, swine, dairy, chicken, turkey, the last several years have been disastrous all because of feed costs. I am always amazed how free market people are willing to support mandates when it lines their pockets.

42
5
ks1954Aug. 20, 13 9:47 PM

As a food animal veterinarian I can confidently say that anyone in the livestock business, cattle, swine, dairy, chicken, turkey, the last several years have been disastrous all because of feed costs. I am always amazed how free market people are willing to support mandates when it lines their pockets.

23
4
thatisright1Aug. 20, 1310:40 PM

Even though I'm not a huge fan of any sort of subsidy (e.g., welfare, crop insurance support, etc.), I think Gary raised some good points about the merit of the arguments emanating from the ethanol naysayers.

6
41
owatonnabillAug. 21, 13 5:53 AM

To distil this mass of regurgitated talking-points down, a main point would be this: Ethanol is good because farmers are making money. True--if you're a CORN farmer. But you raise beef, pork or poultry, or are in dairy, then this ethanol nonsense hits you right in the pocketbook. Feed costs drive up the cost of the product, forcing you to sell at a higher price in order to realize the same profit margin. Except that you don't--people cut back on usage as the price rises. It is heartening to see that so much of this con is now coming to light, but we have a ways to go yet.

29
3
mmediaAug. 21, 13 6:57 AM

I agree it seems wasteful and ironic that fossil fuel is burned to produce "renewable" fuel, but how much fossil fuel is burned to make a gallon of fossil fuel? Something tells me it's about the same amount or more.

7
18
davehougAug. 21, 13 7:10 AM

All complaints against corn ethanol will be even worse with switch-grass ethanol. Even more acres will be taken away from food and feed production. Roads will be torn up even more by the increased number of trucks needed for the same million gallons of ethanol. Corn is high-density, switch-grass is low density input to ethanol. * * * Instead of a mandated 15% blend, why not mandate coal plants must burn 15% of their fuel as dried corn???? WHAT environmental goal of blended gasoline would not be better served by skipping conversion to ethanol and using corn directly?????

2
10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT