More ethanol data

[Glenn]

A new major study on ethanol put the nail in the coffin of anyone who was dumb enough to hang on the notion that the nation is well served by the ethanol mandate. Among the findings:



Ethanol, because its energy cost is higher than gasoline and because of its negative effect on fuel mileage, added about $14.5 billion, or 10 cents a gallon, to motorists' fuel costs in 2011.
Increased ethanol production since 2007 has had no effect on gasoline production or oil imports. Contrary to supporters' claims, oil imports have declined not because of increased ethanol production but because of increased domestic crude oil production and higher refinery yields.
Corn used for ethanol production rose 300% from 2005 to 2011, increasing from 1.6 billion bu. to 5 billion. (Ethanol production now uses more than 40% of the U.S. annual corn supply.)
Corn now represents about 80% of the cost of producing ethanol compared with 40-50% before implementation of the mandate.
Corn prices jumped to more than $6 a bu. in 2011 from $2 in 2005.
The rate of change for the Consumer Price Index for meats, poultry, fish and eggs increased by 79% while it decreased by 41% for non-food items since the RFS was revised in 2007.
Ethanol production costs and ethanol prices have all but eliminated a market for ethanol blends higher than 10%.
The United States exported 1.2 billion gallons of ethanol in 2011.

[Deleted]

Be carefull. There are groups out there who would love to get these high beef prices down too.
Your data is pretty one-sided. There are many factors that have led to higher grain prices...no 1 being the cheap money policy of the Fed and Govt. Many of the costs of corn use in ethanol production are offset by the re-introduction/sale of by-products directly into the feed markets that many are so concerned about.
Ethanol would never have come about had it not been for the 20+ years of cheap food policies by our government. As a farmer in that era, I can tell you it was very frustrating having my own government subsidize the over production of grain and driving the grain prices down to "market clearing" levels. That $2./bushel corn price in 2005 only occured because our government doled out complicated production subsidies that paid farmers to raise corn at prices that were below their cost of production. That production and those low prices would never have occured if it weren't for government intervention.
It seems like not too long ago, there was alot of excitement that if only our govt would open up our bio-fuels markets to Brazilian imports by eliminating import terrifs the price of corn would be driven down. I think that market did get opened up and you know where corn prices are. Corn farmers worked and invested to create new markets to give them prices that are above their costs of production that is what cattle producers need to be doing.

[Glenn]

It is far too easy for them to get the price of beef down. All they have to do is drag out another 'mad cow' or a 'pink slime' story......

[Deleted]

My heart doesn't bleed for this issue. I was in west/central Texas for the D-Bar sale in 2005 and had my eyes opened by the locals hatred of ethanol. Ethanol wasn't sold at the stations and I asked about it and was told it ruined cars' engines. I was a corn farmer at the time and it certainly was interesting to experience a 180 degree attitude.
Here is an article that presents a different side of the discussion.
news.yahoo.com/analysis-why-u-ethanol-mandate-drought-resistant-180653330.html

[Glenn]

Right. I understand some of our members are/were corn farmers too, so I don't expect us to agree 100% on the issue. I would hope that people would see the silliness of a MANDATE by fiat. If this all occurred in an open marketplace, it would be easier to accept.

[Deleted]

It is about as hard to find a free market place as it is to find an objective news article.