Don't they (EPA) ever learn? Turning food stock (whether human or animal) into ICE fuel is fool hardy, and wasteful (shakes head as he recalls the Mark Twain quote: "Best Government Money Can Buy") How do we *unfund* this gooberment?

You eat a lot of field corn and soybeans, do you? It is the carbon cycle that matters, and the reduced noxious emissions are just a little bonus.

A typical human uses about 7 MJ of energy per day. This equal to about 1/20 gallon gasoline. The amount of ethanol at 15% in 1/20 of a gallon is 7/1000 of a gallon. So if you consume 1 gallon of E15 gas per day, you are not depriving anyone of food. If you would take a look at this site.

http://grist.org/food/our-crazy-farm-subsidies-explained/

Now even I, a died in the wool liberal, cannot help feeling that growing more biofuel feedstocks (corn and soybeans are not the greatest choice, but most farmers have a lot of equipment and knowledge required to grow it) does five very good things.

1 it reduces the atmospheric additive loading of the carbon cycle by sequestering carbon in the fuel or crops, where it is recycled through the atmosphere, as opposed to unlocking subterranean mineralized carbon that increases the total.

2 It provides a market for agricultural products. I like demand based production, which by the way, is the same thing oil producers like. There is no grain shortage, and spreading that fallacy in the guise of taking away food from people is a bit wacky.

3. It is a national resource that is secure.

4. Ethanol and biodiesel both have lower emission profiles than petroleum based fuels they enhance or replace, reducing environmental impact. (It is still a negative impact, however. This practice of claiming environmental improvement by reducing emissions, by whatever means, is a bit dubious)

5 Environmental destruction from mineral extraction and combustion is worse than environmental destruction from farming and combustion, but I will grant you that they both impact the environment negatively. But, Hey, we gotta eat and drive, so let's make the best choice. Reducing mineral extraction in favor of increasing farming is a deal we should take.

That argument for it cuts into food crop production doesn't hold water and you're late for the party.

See here for more info. EPA ethanol blah blah blah.

Why have beef prices gone through the roof?

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=25

do you realize that you posted and article that uses data 2002-2008?

Corn prices drive planting, and demand drives corn prices.

read this,

http://beefmagazine.com/cattle-feed-prices/usda-expects-more-corn-2016

is ethanol responsible for declining wheat prices? No, it is demand. Farmers don't pick what the rest of the world demands, they plant what the world demands, and sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. Any farmer would prefer higher prices for his product, which induces other farmers to increase supply, which reduces prices. My guess, corn will be down next year, even with new ethanol demand.

...and, land growing "grain" alcohol is land NOT growing "edible" food stock!

That's a weak argument being that crops destined to be human food only represent less than 25% of all crop production total.

Also with ethanol production of the corn used for that only about 10% of the total bulk of it goes into ethanol and the other 90% of it passes right through the ethanol production system and on to other applications that even if the ethanol production presses was eliminated would still use the same amount crop volumes.

Basically, that means that of the ~40% of the corn crop that goes to ethanol production only ~4% of it is actually used and the other 36% of it passes right through the system and onto other applications of which some are human food production/processing related.

All in all, when properly measured and weighted from start to finish against all crop production ethanol production takes ~ 4 - 5% of the total not 40% of the total being the large majority of what goes into ethanol production comes back out and goes onto other applicataions.

Last I read, the only reason we have ethanol for fuel is not because it is cost effective, but because taxpayers are subsidizing it.

To process grain for ethanol requires lots of diesel and gasoline. No matter whether the grain is for cattle feed, human feed, or yeast feed, it is grown and processed the same way, and requires the same energy.

Unfortunately, the yield of ethanol from the starch is a lossy process. Lots of processing and a huge carbon footprint to get each gallon of alcohol. And, lots of carbon footprint to process the wastes from producing the alcohol.

So, basically, the alcohol is hardly a "renewable" energy source when it requires so much non-renewable energy to extract it!!! The math doesn't lie folks!

What a wack-job this entire alcohol-for-energy fairytale has turned out to be!

The true great story would be, borrowing technology from termites: being able to efficiently turn cellulose into sugar-then-alcohol for fuel. Lots more cellulose available from a stalk of corn plant than from the corn starch alone! Lot less processing required, since you don't really have to separate much, and the stalks are already harvested....then rejected back onto the field.