E85 not worth it for me, but I tried.

[SD Farmer]

Currently 40% of the US corn crop is going to ethanol. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/

50% more corn is being grown in the US, than previously, to provide the feedstock. http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/0...rade-deficit-and-ensure-chinas-food-security/

I do not dispute your argument regarding that value of distillers grains.

There are lots of different sets of facts. Mine say 17.5% of the US corn supply goes to ethanol. http://www.growthenergy.org/images/uploads/GROW_14012_Fast_Facts.pdf

Corn acres are entirely based on prices. The drought in 2012 caused the corn prices to rise dramatically solely based on supply shortages. When corn is more profitable than cotton, soybeans, wheat, oats etc etc farmers plant corn. The same works in reverse. Corn acres are down, corn prices are down. Ethanol production is about as high as it has ever been. Those are the on the ground facts. Yields per acre set a record high in 2014 so just because there is more production doesn't mean there are necessarily more acres being devoted to corn.

 

[woodgeek]

The 40% number was in the first ten links I checked out, including several national media sources as well as the USDA and the Heritage Foundation, but I only linked one. The 17% number in your link (corn ethanol trade group/lobbyists) is clearly trying to 'correct' the value by some logic like half of the corn that goes to ethanol should be called feed instead, because of the distillers grains. It still appears that nearly half of the corn bushels grown in the US go straight to a fermenter.

That farmers are businessmen that respond to price signals, and that those signals are related to demand, I have to agree. Ethanol production in the US has increased corn demand by 60%. That is, prior food/feed demand/crop (ten years ago) was 100-40%=60% of the current crop, new demand is 100/60 = 160%, a 60% increase in demand. While crop yields have steadily improved, that improvement has slowed a bit in the last ten years, and certainly can't account for a 60% increase in yield.

(data here: http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/0...rade-deficit-and-ensure-chinas-food-security/)

You seem to be saying that a 60% increase in corn demand does not affect corn prices, or farmers' choices to plant corn, which is hard to believe. At the same time, you are saying that your community is getting a lot more revenue than it did before, which is good, which is it?

Some other analyses I have read reported that US land under cultivation (as opposed to fallow/banked) is at a historic high, and underwent a huge surge (along with farmland prices) at the same time that ethanol was launched.

 

[SD Farmer]

The 40% number was in the first ten links I checked out, including several national media sources as well as the USDA and the Heritage Foundation, but I only linked one. The 17% number in your link (corn ethanol trade group/lobbyists) is clearly trying to 'correct' the value by some logic like half of the corn that goes to ethanol should be called feed instead, because of the distillers grains. It still appears that nearly half of the corn bushels grown in the US go straight to a fermenter.

That farmers are businessmen that respond to price signals, and that those signals are related to demand, I have to agree. Ethanol production in the US has increased corn demand by 60%. That is, prior food/feed demand/crop (ten years ago) was 100-40%=60% of the current crop, new demand is 100/60 = 160%, a 60% increase in demand. While crop yields have steadily improved, that improvement has slowed a bit in the last ten years, and certaintly can't account for a 60% increase in yield.

(data here: http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/0...rade-deficit-and-ensure-chinas-food-security/)

You seem to be saying that a 60% increase in corn demand does not affect corn prices, or farmers' choices to plant corn, which is hard to believe. At the same time, you are saying that your community is getting a lot more revenue than it did before, which is good, which is it?

Some other analyses I have read reported that US land under cultivation (as opposed to fallow/banked) is at a historic high, and underwent a huge surge (along with farmland prices) at the same time that ethanol was launched.

The % number depends on what year you pick. In 2012 it was a bigger number than it will be in 2014 when we produced 14.5 billion bu. Corn cost of production is >$3.50 for the average producer and current prices are <$3.50. Prices will adjust corn acres planted in 2015. Crude oil prices have driven up Ag inputs for several consecutive years so it won't take long to move acres away from the highest input cost option which is corn. We are projected to have 2 billion bu of carry over corn this crop year even with ethanol output at historical highs. In 2012, many ethanol plants went idle due to high corn prices. This happened around the $6 per bu level but it had no impact on the resulting climb to $8.

There is no doubt value to the producer in ethanol just as their is to every US consumer. Building a 50 million gallon per year ethanol plant is a boom of epic proportions to a town of 1000. The biggest impact to the western corn belt has been leveling basis. Corn in SD used to be worth about $1 per bu less than it was in IL near the river market, today it is nearly even . This has driven up land prices proportionately more than out east-where they were much higher start with. This also contributes to the overall land price spike numbers.

Fallow/banked acres are a function of gov programs and their price levels. When you can solidly make more money growing a crop than you can enrolling it in a program that pays you not to plant, it's a business decision and acres shift.

Corn yields are affected hugely by weather conditions. The dry years of 2010-2013 make it seem that trend line yields increases were running out of steam. 2014 blew the top off the thing. On my farm, we have made steady overall yield increases the last 5yrs as have many others.

 

[smokedragon]

...I have weighed all the factors and will use nothing else...use all you can...I'll grow a fresh batch!

I don't disagree that it is something we can grow vs. importing. But for me, it is less economical (price) and harder on the fuel system. If it were cheap enough that I felt like I was breaking even monetarily, I would run it. I am glad they are finally selling it in this area, and it gives people an option (even if it is from the same distributor as the gas).

 

[spirilis]

I haven't seen anyone here discuss this yet-

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-re...port-lifecycle-greenhouse-gas-balance-ethanol

WASHINGTON, Jan 12, 2017—Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced the release of a report studying the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of corn ethanol. The report, A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol, finds that GHG emissions associated with corn-based ethanol in the United States are about 43 percent lower than gasoline when measured on an energy equivalent basis. Unlike other studies of GHG benefits, which relied on forecasts of future ethanol production systems and expected impacts on the farm sector, this study reviewed how the industry and farm sectors performed over the past decade to assess the current GHG profile of corn-based ethanol.

"This report provides evidence that corn ethanol can be a GHG-friendly alternative to fossil fuels, while boosting farm economies" said Vilsack.

This report found greater lifecycle GHG benefits from corn ethanol than a number of earlier studies, driven by a variety of improvements in ethanol production, from the corn field to the ethanol refinery. Farmers are producing corn more efficiently and using conservation practices that reduce GHG emissions, including reduced tillage, cover crops and improved nitrogen management. Corn yields are also improving—between 2005 and 2015, U.S. corn yields increased by more than 10 percent.

Between 2005 and 2015, ethanol production in the U.S. also increased significantly—from 3.9 to 14.8 billion gallons per year. At the same time, advances in ethanol production technologies, such as the use of combined heat and power, using landfill gas for energy, and co-producing biodiesel helped reduce GHG emissions at ethanol refinery plants.

 

[blades]

interesting- perhaps a bit biased?