Posted on 11/28/2006 5:31:51 PM PST by SJackson
If something appears to be too good to be true, it often is.
Some people are saying that's the case with ethanol, which has been described by many in agriculture as the best thing to happen to the industry in 50 years. Ethanol promoters are saying the alternative fuel could replace oil purchased from volatile parts of the world and it could provide farmers with added value for the corn they produce on their farms.
There's no disputing those points, but the new technology could have some unpleasant side effects. An Iowa State University Extension livestock specialist was quoted in last week's edition of The Country Today as saying ethanol plants could cost some rural communities more jobs than they create if farmers switch their operations away from livestock and toward grain.
John Lawrence said in some communities, agricultural employment opportunities could decrease if corn that traditionally has been fed to livestock is transferred to ethanol plants. He said a 100-million-gallon-a-year ethanol plant that uses 37 million bushels of corn would employ 80 people, compared with 242 to 800 people who could be employed if that corn was fed to beef or hogs on livestock farms.
"If we trade the livestock industry for ethanol, we lose jobs in rural Iowa," Mr. Lawrence said. "I don't think that's fully understood."
The same certainly could be said for rural communities in Wisconsin, Minnesota and other Midwest states where ethanol is a hot commodity. Ethanol could be important to rural economic development, but only if the livestock industry remains vibrant.
Some officials say the key to making ethanol a positive for agriculture is keeping the investment local. At a "Future of Farming and Rural Life" forum in Platteville last month, former DATCP Secretary LaVerne Ausman said locally owned plants return 56 percent more to local communities than those owned by outside investors.
"There's an opportunity for wealth creation in rural communities with these plants," Mr. Ausman said.
At that same Platteville forum, Sarah Lloyd, a UW-Madison graduate student who lives near an existing ethanol plant near Friesland and a proposed facility near Cambria, said she's not so sure all ethanol plants provide economic benefits to farmers and community members.
Ms. Lloyd said farmers generally receive 7 to 10 cents a bushel more for their corn if they are within close proximity of an ethanol plant, and those who invest in the plant also make money. It also could be argued ethanol is responsible for the recent dramatic increase in the price of corn to all farmers.
Ms. Lloyd said the required investment in some plants makes it prohibitive for many community members to get involved.
"The minimum investment at some of these plants is $10,000," she said. "A 40-million-gallon ethanol plant is supposedly profiting between $13 million and $16 million a year. But how much of that wealth is getting back into the community?"
Mr. Ausman said the new ethanol plant near Wheeler is an example of one facility where a local community is receiving a substantial benefit. He said 518 local farmers and community members own the plant. If the plant makes money, the entire community benefits.
Ms. Lloyd and others have expressed concern venture capitalists and foreign investors will build ethanol plants or buy out the facilities that already are up and running.
It's a good bet that if Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland end up owning ethanol plants built in rural communities across the Upper Midwest, money made at those plants won't be going into rural residents' pockets. It will be going into the coffers of multi-national companies.
This is not to say ethanol is a bad thing for agriculture. It can be a good thing if it doesn't squeeze out the livestock industry and local ownership of ethanol plants is maintained.
Shortage of corn could cause another civil war, the south needs their grits.
Well, the UN promotes a veggie "sustainable" lifestyle. And with less oil, too!
The farming industry will adjust as it always has.Livestock producers have been cutting labor pretty agressively for years with automation and computer assist.Case in point;one of the local guys just started production at his new state of the art hog barn.One man can raise 6000 animals start to finish.
Besides, the leftovers, what is left after they make ethanol, becomes feed.
Sorry - it's all solar power (locked up in carbon) - so it doesn't matter if you burn your corn, or 100 million year old dead veggies. So.. if you want to burn today's food, instead of yesterdays refuse, have at it.
I KNEW it!!!!
Ethanol IS a Hindu/Muslim/PETA plot to destroy America!
Sure, it could be argued, but arguing doesn't make it so. The facts are that a severe drought in the months of August and September resulted in lost crops and smaller yeilds. Ethanol did have an impact, but not nearly so much as good ol' Mother Nature.
Grows real well in Louisiana.
How much crack have you smoked today??
BINGO.... LET'S MAKE ETHANOL FROM THE LAWN TRIMMINGS GENERATED BY ILLEGAL ALIENS....
I had a friend of mine back in college-when Carter was running for Pres, with "Fritz" Mondaleas veep-went to the train station in Huntingdon PA when Carter's campaign train was going through town-held up the following sign-
"Grits and Fritz give me the shi_s"
"I KNEW it!!!!
Ethanol IS a Hindu/Muslim/PETA plot to destroy America!"
AND what about the impact on beer production?!?!?!
Maybe with the increased price of corn we could actually get rid of farm subsidies?
OH, no! Look out for "Big alcohol."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.