Posted on 07/05/2011 11:07:26 PM PDT by xjcsa
A recent survey of likely Republican caucus goers shows that support of federal subsidies for the ethanol industry has waned significantly in recent years. The poll, which was commissioned by TheIowaRepublican.com, finds that Iowa Republicans view a candidate who supports ending federal ethanol subsidies more favorably than a candidate who doesn’t.
The survey asked, “Some of the candidates have proposed to end federal subsidies for ethanol. Do you have a very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative reaction to candidates taking this position?” Forty-seven percent responded by answering very or somewhat positive. Only 24 percent of respondents said that they had a negative reaction to a candidate who is campaigning against ethanol subsidies.
(Excerpt) Read more at theiowarepublican.com ...
Bottom line: a Republican candidate in Iowa is likely to do better by *opposing* ethanol subsidies and mandates than by supporting them.
Makes sense, as Iowa can still sell all the corn it can grow — there’s no sense in paying for it out of the public purse if it sells well on the open market.
Maybe Iowans are getting tired of being called subsidy-suckers and corporate welfare scammers.
Hmmm. Once again, Palin at the leading edge....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2729930/posts
If this is true, it seems odd that Pawlenty is the only one really running on cutting these subsidies in Iowa. This looks like a winning issue.
Right, and in Pawlenty's case he has not yet repudiated his support for ethanol *mandates*. Who needs subsidies if you can just use mandates instead? In addition, Pawlenty's stand is actually exactly the same position taken by the Iowa ethanol lobby. Not exactly a profile in courage.
But yes, this is a winning issue, and the conventional wisdom regarding Iowa caucus-goers is quite wrong.
Minnesota is a huge ethonal producer also.....maybe they’ll come around on this......aside from that, THIS IS THE BEST NEWS I’VE HAD TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When oil is refined, one can produce various grades of octane rating, and the higher the better.
Higher grades would reduce fuel consumption, and engine size. We no longer need low octane fuels to reduce pollution. We have ways to make high octane fuel come out as clean as low octane and/or mixed fuels.
Iowa was sold a fake bill of goods on the Ethanol deal. It was never a good idea. At least for Iowans, and the rest of the country in the long term. Many power brokers and politicians made off with the real money.
Gee, if we didn't use our food for FUEL, we could sell it to other needy nations, even very cheap, and help balance our import/export trade again.
The sooner they get that 'substitute' out of our gas, the better.
About damn time, since we have pissed away billions of this and they were glad to take it back then.
Here’s another point to ponder.
To clean up car exhaust, we use catalytic converters.
Why are there no Catalytic converters on prop engines or jets?
Sarah leads and the others follow.
It has the theoretical virtue of combating gas line freeze ups. People pay high prices for little bottles of methanol or isopropanol (both alcohols) to put in their tanks in the winter. I say theoretical because alcohol in the fuel can gather more water from atmospheric water vapor, and the longer it sits the more water is gathered.
IIRC, atmospheric ozone takes care of pollution emitted at aircraft cruising levels long before it can build up to problem concentrations for humans far below. Pollution at ground level can create smog, and weather and geographic conditions can combine to trap smog near the ground where it cannot dissipate. It would matter less on aircraft piston engines, but it would still reduce power as well as making the use of leaded aircraft gas impractical.
It is destroying all of the internal combustion engines that they own too!
LLS
The added-value ag market is going a different direction anyway. Ethanol is becoming a bottleneck rather than helpful to the farmer. It’s time to do away with the subsidy.
Iowa has a lot of potential to increase livestock production and add value to commodities in many ways.
The Wells Blue Bunny dairy production in NW is a great example in my opinion.
Ethanol backers will say you don't have to choose one over the other; but I disagree.
Livestock as added value ag is old school, the original model that our farm policy was structured around. In reality, meat and dairy were the original ethanol, and the govt maintained an interest in that with subsidies and other tools to keep the infrastructure centered around that paradigm.
Ethanol broke us out of that, and although they sort of had the right idea, they went about it the wrong way. Part of it was due to the fact that the technology wasn’t mature enough. Basically they fermented the carbs and ignored the fat and protein, which became the byproduct known as DDGS.
DDGS stands for dried distillers grain and stillage. Where they went wrong was that most ethanol refiners combine the two and sell it to farmers for feed. It’s great feed, but it would be better if the stillage was left out because the stillage contains the fat, and combining it raise the fat content too high and therefore can’t be fed in as high as ratio.
The way it needs to be done with corn, and all grains, is separate the fat, protein, and carbs up front and sell or process them further. This will benefit the farmer a great deal more because they can control exactly the ratios they want and get their optimum feed mix. This will also create other valuable products with greatly broaden the market for farm products. There is a huge demand for oil and protein, and the leftover carbs can be fermented to a number of things beyond ethanol.
This is the way it is going. There are several technologies out there that are able to extract protein/oil/carb separately, with little heat input that doesn’t destroy the nutritional value. A number have small plants up and running and are beginning to scale up, what is needed now is to end the ethanol subsidy to force a shakeup in the industry and let it resettle to it’s natural order. It’s become a hinderance more than a help in moving to the next level.
Niche type meats are not real big right now; but in my opinion there is a big potential for Iowa to do some interesting things ion that area also.
We also didn't use to be a big player in poultry (eggs and meat). Again that has changed and we now are.
If we get rid of all the other subsidies and other govt props and livestock farming does well, I’m all for it. Let the market dictate.
On a side note, you talk about niche meat. Our family buys their beef from a local farmer, quarters, halves, wholes depending on how much we think we need and how long to the next cow. With processing it’s $2.25/lb. for everything, all cuts of meat. It’s hard to buy good hamburger for that.
The farmer uses no hormones and very little antibiotics. The meat is top grade. Why more farmers don’t do this I don’t know.
Good question. As a former livestock producer who now lives in a urban area I think I have some idea.
Most people just don't have the time, or take the time to shop for food in this way. And they probably don't know how or where to go.
I think for that reason these things have to be done through retail outlets; grocery stores.
I go to the Des Moines Farmers market occasionally. It has gotten very large. There are some meat products sold there; not sure how much moves.
But I do think people will pay a premium if there is a measurable difference in a food product.
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.