Article

2010-01-24 Economy

One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars - not people, new figures show

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Uncle Phester 2010-01-24 10:04|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Hey, we could have used coal ... but that's not carbon neutral... he he he...

Posted by 3dc 2010-01-24 12:57|| 2010-01-24 12:57|| Front Page Top

#2 Either that or feeding the jihad with US dollars.

Posted by ed 2010-01-24 13:00|| 2010-01-24 13:00|| Front Page Top

#3 One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars - not people, new figures show

Isn't it nice we have he grain to spare, I'll remind you that grain grows every year and will easily outlast Oil, no matter how much there is, it will eventually run out, grain won't.

American ingenuity, a pure marvel to behold.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-01-24 13:44|| 2010-01-24 13:44|| Front Page Top

#4 It's only "ingenious" if you consider that it's all caused by Government stupidity.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-01-24 13:58|| 2010-01-24 13:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Well marbled Fords?

Posted by no mo uro 2010-01-24 14:03|| 2010-01-24 14:03|| Front Page Top

#6 ...Oil, no matter how much there is, it will eventually run out...

If you truly believe that, and don't care how much your taxes are (that pay subsidies) and how much your food costs (competing resources), then,without regard to any preposterous AGW argument, this shouldn't make any difference:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?article_id=38645
'Sustainable Oil?'

Posted by logi_cal 2010-01-24 14:17|| 2010-01-24 14:17|| Front Page Top

#7 Oh, and be sure to ignore the amount of oil that was imported to raise the grain in order to burn it.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-24 17:23|| 2010-01-24 17:23|| Front Page Top

#8 without the ethanol subsidy corn would cost much less per bushel

that's good for keeping beef prices down and its good for our trade balance but it is not all good

- it means we dump on the world market and it ruins the efforts of foreign countries to develop their own ag
- it means subsidies to keep land idle
- it means way less employment, profits, taxes paid, etc. in rural America

Posted by lord garth 2010-01-24 20:01|| 2010-01-24 20:01|| Front Page Top

#9 In most places corn will produce 165 bushel to the acre and a bushel of grain will produce 2.5 gallons of ethanol producing 412.5 gallons of fuel per acre.In the midwest a farmer might use 6 to 10 gallons of fuel per acre and in the southwest where we have to pump water maybe 25 gallons of fuel. If you do the math it is a good return.

Posted by darrylq 2010-01-24 20:12|| 2010-01-24 20:12|| Front Page Top

#10 If it's such a great return, why does it require mandates and subsidies?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-01-24 20:16|| 2010-01-24 20:16|| Front Page Top

#11 If it's such a great return, why does it require mandates and subsidies?

Because Grain Producers have really good political lobbyist.

Posted by Glaviger Bonaparte6825 2010-01-24 20:36|| 2010-01-24 20:36|| Front Page Top

#12 If it's such a great return, why does it require mandates and subsidies?

Iowa. First contest in the quadrennial ~~"Just How Dumb Are You Rubes, Anyway?"~~ election cycle.

And 100 preening idiots in the Senate who think if there were enough of the population gullible enough to buy Oblahblah's load of chit, twice*...they're stupid enough to buy whatever crap they're gonna be flinging.

*~ Remember, Iowa gave him a large margin over Hillary in the caucus, and he won the state with almost 54% of the votes cast. So much for the "wonderful" public edumacayshun here in the Hawkeye State, eh?

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2010-01-24 22:44|| 2010-01-24 22:44|| Front Page Top

#13 A disguised agricultural subsidy and due to the power of the agricultural lobby.

From memory 50% is exported. So the American taxpayers are subsidizing European drivers.

Posted by phil_b 2010-01-24 23:29|| 2010-01-24 23:29|| Front Page Top

#14 And a pet peeve of mine. If these climate change environmentalists really cared about the environment they would return this land to its original forest. Great for carbon capture, preserving wildlife, recreation, etc.

Posted by phil_b 2010-01-24 23:33|| 2010-01-24 23:33|| Front Page Top

#15 We've been doing our bit to reforest the landscape since the Green Revolution, phil_b, and probably since the beginning of the 20th century... as we've turned farms into suburbs.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-01-24 23:51|| 2010-01-24 23:51|| Front Page Top

#16 It requires mandates to force oil companies to blend and requires subsidies to entice investers to start up industries that will require possibly a decade to get a full return on their money.We use fuel, do we create the industry and make it here or continue to be hostages to the arabs and Hugo?

Posted by darrylq 2010-01-25 00:00|| 2010-01-25 00:00|| Front Page Top

00:00 darrylq
23:51 trailing wife
23:39 Procopius2k
23:37 trailing wife
23:33 trailing wife
23:33 phil_b
23:29 phil_b
23:23 SteveS
23:14 trailing wife
23:13 tipper
23:03 GirlThursday
22:58 Rob06
22:50 Cornsilk Blondie
22:44 Cornsilk Blondie
22:23 GirlThursday
22:16 Bright Pebbles
22:02 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:00 Pappy
21:38 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
21:33 Pappy
21:23 Procopius2k
21:10 KBK
21:09 GirlThursday
21:04 Frank G