When will the nonsensical ethanol fuel mandates ever end?

[BenGrimm]

Lol @ wiki answers.

Beef cattle are only fed corn right before theyre slaughtered. Not long enough to give them health problems.

Also, dairy cattle aren't fed THAT much corn.

I there's a livestock family you want to pick on, what about hogs?? They're fed a lot more grain than cattle. Chickens too for that matter

I've read enough about food contamination to know this is a problem. My understanding is there is a distinct difference between what you are describing, grain finished beef, as opposed to grain fed beef. Either way its not healthy for the cow. One study I ran across showed that beef in fast food burgers tested were 93% corn residual. Granted we are talking fastfood but its not as if the practice is limited to that. If they are only fed corn for such a short period of time, as you say, then why does it test so high?

 

[gsvol]

What is the official measurement of a "bushel?" Are 8 bushels really enough to feed a person for a year?

How corny can you be?

The official measurement for a "bushel" is two pecks.

Any more dumb questions?

Ethanol subsidies are truly one of the most absurdly retrograde policies that our government undertakes. It's mind-boggling stupid and makes zero sense from just about any perspective.

Plus the price of my untaxed whiskey has skyrocketed, who does Barry think he is, George Washington?

just something interesting for thought. most boat engine problems are because of ethanol gas. its either the 1st or 2nd greatest cause why boats come into shops to get fixed. its better to use nonethanol for your boat. just for your info. it may save you money in the long run

Two cycle engines don't do well on ethanol at all, that's a fact Jack!

Goes for weedeaters, rice burner bikes and anything else.

Even then, ethanol is bad for four cycle engines also.

Yep, it is all Obama's fault. I swear just reading some of the posters on VN, you would think Obama has superhuman powers.

For someone who claims to be a Johnson libertarian you sure do defend Obama.

It is Obama's appointed EPA director who is issuing these stupid mandates.

1 bushel is about 50 pounds of shucked corn

Aw shucks, I was gonna say that.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yep, it is all Obama's fault. I swear just reading some of the posters on VN, you would think Obama has superhuman powers.

God forbid that he show some leadership and sign one of those executive orders of his to at least suspend the ethanol during this year of record high corn prices and food prices on the rise.

 

[TennesseeOrange]

God forbid that he show some leadership and sign one of those executive orders of his to at least suspend the ethanol during this year of record high corn prices and food prices on the rise.

The EPA has the ability to waive the mandate. Some of the bigger chicken companies tried to get the EPA to waive the mandate because of the drought and they denied the waiver. ADM owns us all.

 

[gsvol]

Yep, it is all Obama's fault. I swear just reading some of the posters on VN, you would think Obama has superhuman powers.

Name one Obama energy policy of which you approve.

JUST ONE FREAKING ONE!

Seriously, Obama's energy policies make no sense on any level.

God forbid that he show some leadership and sign one of those executive orders of his to at least suspend the ethanol during this year of record high corn prices and food prices on the rise.

It's Obama's nutty EPA director that is driving the ethanol mandate numbers upward.

I've read enough about food contamination to know this is a problem. My understanding is there is a distinct difference between what you are describing, grain finished beef, as opposed to grain fed beef. Either way its not healthy for the cow. One study I ran across showed that beef in fast food burgers tested were 93% corn residual. Granted we are talking fastfood but its not as if the practice is limited to that. If they are only fed corn for such a short period of time, as you say, then why does it test so high?

What do you think is being contaminated?

Cattle can't eat whole corn, they can't chew it and digest it, they must have it ground before it is fed to them.

Now beef that is taken directly off grass and slaughtered just doesn't taste near as good a corn fed beef.

Plus, the higher the rating of the beef, the more it is marbled, it takes grain to get that marbling which also makes it more tender.

As for dairy cattle, they are fed ground grains most all of their life.

Methinks you have been reading crap from some nutty animal rights site.

What is this corn residual stuff??

Read the labels on some of the foods you buy in the market, corn products are in an amazing amounts of foods (and other products), there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

The only place corn shouldn't be is in your gas tank.

Isn't Iowa the problem? And their inflated importance in the political process due to the timing of their primary?

You can be sure that out and out commie senator Tom Harkin has a lot to do with it, I can't understand why the good people of Iowa keep electing such a creep.

Do you mean the cows die in the trucks? If so, no I don't want to eat that meat.

I'm under the impression that if a cow dies before it is slaughtered that the meat can't be processed for human consumption. Again, I could be wrong.

Slaughterhouses can't process meat for human consumption that they don't kill themselves.
(there are a lot of idiotic animal rights rules that must be followed during that process but that's a topic for another thread.)

Now, here is another trick the animal rights idiots put over on people.

A 'downer' cow cannot be slaughtered and processed for human consumption, that is a cow that is so sick or injured that it is falling down.

The animal rights people get these films of people prodding or trying to lift a cow up to drive it into the slaughterhouse.

From all those films I've seen this is a very ignorant tactic foistered on a public that knows little or nothing about the whole business.

Old dairy cows that aren't productive anymore are sent to the slaughterhouse to mostly be ground up into hamburger.

The thing about a dairy cow is this, they are creatures of habit, at milking time in the morning and evening they line up to go in the barn in a certain order that they decide themselves, they go to their particular feeding/milking station without fail.

When you disrupt their routine (by sending them to the slaughterhouse for instance), they will sull, lay down and will not move. It's not that they are sick or that they are being abused, you just have to get them back on their feet and convince them to move on.

 

[golfballs]

I've read enough about food contamination to know this is a problem. My understanding is there is a distinct difference between what you are describing, grain finished beef, as opposed to grain fed beef. Either way its not healthy for the cow. One study I ran across showed that beef in fast food burgers tested were 93% corn residual. Granted we are talking fastfood but its not as if the practice is limited to that. If they are only fed corn for such a short period of time, as you say, then why does it test so high?

It's the same thing. There's no point to feeding grain until the cow is ready to fatten up. Too expensive otherwise anyway.

Also, most fast food burgers are Holstein cattle - either male calfs or dairy cows that dont produce anymore.

 

[Abe Hoffman]

Grits are good. Eat more grits.

 

[PKT_VOL]

For someone who claims to be a Johnson libertarian you sure do defend Obama.

It is Obama's appointed EPA director who is issuing these stupid mandates.

I am fair to the man. Shoot me. I think he has been an absolute disaster of a President on the domestic front. However, he is only one man. Everything wrong with the USA is not his fault.

Because there weren't ethanol mandates before Obama took office? Got it.

Sometimes I don't think you believe your own posts are totally sincere.

 

[PKT_VOL]

God forbid that he show some leadership and sign one of those executive orders of his to at least suspend the ethanol during this year of record high corn prices and food prices on the rise.

Where is the leadership from the GOP House of Representatives, Democratic Senate, Bush Administration, and Congresses prior to this one? There is plenty of blame and irresponsibility to go around.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Name one Obama energy policy of which you approve.

JUST ONE FREAKING ONE!

Seriously, Obama's energy policies make no sense on any level.

I generally like his green/renewable energy stance. No doubt that turned into crony capitalism.

But that is the difference between I having agreeable ideals and the execution of those ideals.

The bailouts come to mind as well which fall under both administrations.

 

[gsvol]

Ethanol subsidies are truly one of the most absurdly retrograde policies that our government undertakes. It's mind-boggling stupid and makes zero sense from just about any perspective.

I've strained my brain trying to think of a more absurdly retrograd policy, I can't come up with even one.

I would like someone to explain to me just one way it makes sense from any perspective.

Another undesirable affect it has is that the demand for yellow corn has gotton so strong that white corn, which a very basic staple food item in Mexico, is also being used to make ethanol and that drives more illegal immigrants accross our southern border.

 

[gsvol]

I generally like his green/renewable energy stance. No doubt that turned into crony capitalism.

But that is the difference between I having agreeable ideals and the execution of those ideals.

The bailouts come to mind as well which fall under both administrations.

I'm surprised you like his green/renewable energy stance.

At one time I would have thought you were way too smart to buy into the 'stop the rise of the sea, heal the Earth' schtick.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2.
----------------------------

We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
-------------------------

Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ? CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Now I am convinced I was 180% wrong about your astuteness.

I am fair to the man. Shoot me. I think he has been an absolute disaster of a President on the domestic front. However, he is only one man. Everything wrong with the USA is not his fault.

Because there weren't ethanol mandates before Obama took office? Got it.

Sometimes I don't think you believe your own posts are totally sincere.

Don't worry about being fair to him, be fair to your own self.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm surprised you like his green/renewable energy stance.

What is wrong with renewable energy?

I don't like his implementation of the goal, but I do not believe renewable energy is a bad thing. You couldn't possibly believe renewable energy is bad thing.

At one time I would have thought you were way too smart to buy into the 'stop the rise of the sea, heal the Earth' schtick.

Umm...there is no doubt that our climate is changing. Then again, climate is always changing. That is nothing new. Sea levels will continue to rise.

Whether this is because of humans or not, I have no idea. I don't think it has been proven either way. Releasing all the CO2 in the atmosphere as we do is certainly not a good thing. I don't think you would disagree there. There is nothing wrong with trying to reduce our carbon foot. I think everyone agree on that. It is on the implementation of reaching that goal in which people disagree so vehemently.

Now I am convinced I was 180% wrong about your astuteness.

Because I like the idea of renewable energy? If you hate the idea of renewable energy, you have bigger problems.

Don't worry about being fair to him, be fair to your own self.

Seriously? Do you believe your own post? Why wouldn't you want to be fair to anyone at any given time?

 

[82_VOL_83]

I've read enough about food contamination to know this is a problem. My understanding is there is a distinct difference between what you are describing, grain finished beef, as opposed to grain fed beef. Either way its not healthy for the cow. One study I ran across showed that beef in fast food burgers tested were 93% corn residual. Granted we are talking fastfood but its not as if the practice is limited to that. If they are only fed corn for such a short period of time, as you say, then why does it test so high?

This is actually a followup to GS's comments. The reason it is corn/vegetable residual is because a lot of fast food meat has added TVP. I worked for a Bar-B-Que plant in middle Tenn when I was young and we added it to all the processed meat.

 

[gsvol]

What is wrong with renewable energy?

Then you should be extremely happy with this Hitleresque move:

President Obama Issues Executive Order on Carbon Emissions and Industrial Efficiency | TheBlaze.com

I don't like his implementation of the goal, but I do not believe renewable energy is a bad thing. You couldn't possibly believe renewable energy is bad thing.

No but spending trillions on crap that doesn't work is a bad thing.

Umm...there is no doubt that our climate is changing. Then again, climate is always changing. That is nothing new. Sea levels will continue to rise.

As a matter of fact sea levels are NOT rising.
We had a thread on that not so long ago.

Whether this is because of humans or not, I have no idea. I don't think it has been proven either way. Releasing all the CO2 in the atmosphere as we do is certainly not a good thing. I don't think you would disagree there. There is nothing wrong with trying to reduce our carbon foot. I think everyone agree on that. It is on the implementation of reaching that goal in which people disagree so vehemently.

Why is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere as we do a bad thing? I do disagree, we at near the absolute mimimum of atmosphereic CO2 level to maintain life on Earth, more CO2 IS NOT a bad thing.

Because I like the idea of renewable energy? If you hate the idea of renewable energy, you have bigger problems.

Stopping the use of present energy sources without something to replace it is what I hate and if you don't oppose it yourself you are going to find yourself with a bigger problem than you can imagine.

Seriously? Do you believe your own post? Why wouldn't you want to be fair to anyone at any given time?

Because they aren't being fair to me and far more importantly they are being blatently unfair to my progeny and that kind sir is intergenerational rape!

This is actually a followup to GS's comments. The reason it is corn/vegetable residual is because a lot of fast food meat has added TVP. I worked for a Bar-B-Que plant in middle Tenn when I was young and we added it to all the processed meat.

Burntorange doesn't have much of a grasp on anything really scientific is the victim of propaganda that has led to many such idiotic policies such as the the ethanol mandates.

I just pointed it out as being one of the most idiotic policies ever imposed on America society.

I don't think there is a man on Earth than can defend the ethanol mandates as being rational.

 

[82_VOL_83]

The point I was trying to make in my post on the OP is that since good ole Barry is so quick to sign EO's why isn't this one that he should sign for this corn crop. It is dismal and is only going to get worse since the mandates haven't been lifted and the crop is going to ethanol instead of food. The reason he hasn't is it won't net him votes. Period. Don't blame it on the EPA, they don't take a crap without permission from Barry, Moochelle, and Valerie. Barry has all of his regime run just like he wants it, under HIS thumb.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Then you should be extremely happy with this Hitleresque move:

President Obama Issues Executive Order on Carbon Emissions and Industrial Efficiency | TheBlaze.com

Red herring fallacy.

No but spending trillions on crap that doesn't work is a bad thing.

Agreed.

As a matter of fact sea levels are NOT rising.
We had a thread on that not so long ago.

So the level of the seas have not moved at all?

Or the levels of the seas are not moving as fast as the "experts" once said.

Those are two very different claims.

Why is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere as we do a bad thing? I do disagree, we at near the absolute mimimum of atmosphereic CO2 level to maintain life on Earth, more CO2 IS NOT a bad thing.

It is a green house gas. We obviously don't need to pump it into the atmosphere unless we were going through a natural ice age. Since that is not the case, we shouldn't be pumping it into the air at the rate that we do.

This does not mean it can't be avoided given our current technology. But if we are talking perfect world, there is no reason to actively want to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

Stopping the use of present energy sources without something to replace it is what I hate and if you don't oppose it yourself you are going to find yourself with a bigger problem than you can imagine.

No doubt. To do that is economic suicide and would do more harm to cause than benefit the cause.

Because they aren't being fair to me and far more importantly they are being blatently unfair to my progeny and that kind sir is intergenerational rape!

Who are they? I thought we were talking about Obama.

As far as the fairness doctrine, Socrates taught us that is much better for someone or society to transgress us rather an for us to transgress another person or society.

I believe a certain person who founded your religion also preached about this. I wonder if it was an original thought of his or if he ripped it straight from Socrates.

 

[gsvol]

1. Red herring fallacy.



2. Agreed.



3. So the level of the seas have not moved at all?

4. Or the levels of the seas are not moving as fast as the "experts" once said.

5. Those are two very different claims.



6. It is a green house gas. We obviously don't need to pump it into the atmosphere unless we were going through a natural ice age. Since that is not the case, we shouldn't be pumping it into the air at the rate that we do.

7. This does not mean it can't be avoided given our current technology. But if we are talking perfect world, there is no reason to actively want to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.



8. No doubt. To do that is economic suicide and would do more harm to cause than benefit the cause.



9. Who are they? I thought we were talking about Obama.

10. As far as the fairness doctrine, Socrates taught us that is much better for someone or society to transgress us rather an for us to transgress another person or society.

11. I believe a certain person who founded your religion also preached about this. I wonder if it was an original thought of his or if he ripped it straight from Socrates.

1. Why would it be a red herring issue for the top exec to bypass congress to impose mandates based on a hoax?

2. Then we would also agree doing the same thing over and over while telling the people we should expect different results is insane as per the Einstein definition of insanity?

3. Sea level has actually been falling as determined by the latest in satelite technology.

4. See (3.).

5. But both shoot a hole in the global aramist's aka climate change predictions that don't hold water either in theory or in observable scientific factoids.

6. Why not? It is hard to call it a green house gas when CERN has shown that it has zero affect on atmospheric temperature and other scientists have shown that we are the near minimum for sustaining life on Earth. More of it gives us more plant growth and therefore a more abundant food supply.

7. There is no reason to want to completely stop all human production of CO2, there is no real reason to want to greatly reduce it either. After all every time you breathe you produce CO2.

8. So why would we want to commit economic suicide?

9. When I used the word 'they', I was referring to the Obama administration and anyone else who supports their idiotic energy policies.

10. Socrates should have accepted the offer of Sparta or one of the other Greek city states instead of committing suicide for the sake of a pack of liars.

11. Have you ever heard of Asclepius?

 

[gsvol]

The EPA has come up with more mandates.

The Obama government has come up with 80,000+ pages of new regulations accross the board in each of his years in office.

In the pipes are 100 new EPA regs, no telling how many pages that will be.

One reg is that anyone purchasign E-15 (15% ehtanol) which the EPA is mandating, must buy a minimum of 4 gallons.

Several republican legislators have written a letter of protest to the EPA saying they protest, what about a biker whose bike won't hold 4 gallons, what about someone who wants to refuel his lawnmower and has a 1 or 2 gallon can, etc?

Fo-Mo-Co has stated publicly that they will not warranty their engines if E-15 is used in them.

 

[hog88]

Fo-Mo-Co has stated publicly that they will not warranty their engines if E-15 is used in them.

Cov't Motors will....

 

[PKT_VOL]

1. Why would it be a red herring issue for the top exec to bypass congress to impose mandates based on a hoax?

It is a red herring because you countered with an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention from my original question.

2. Then we would also agree doing the same thing over and over while telling the people we should expect different results is insane as per the Einstein definition of insanity?

Yes.

3. Sea level has actually been falling as determined by the latest in satelite technology.

That does not make any sense. There is a lot of ice melting. Sea levels should be rising in some capacity. Again, I would have no idea how much. If they aren't, where the hell is the melted ice water going?

4. See (3.).

See my response there.

5. But both shoot a hole in the global aramist's aka climate change predictions that don't hold water either in theory or in observable scientific factoids.

They are both very different statements. Both can't be true. Empirical evidence would support one or the other.

6. Why not? It is hard to call it a green house gas when CERN has shown that it has zero affect on atmospheric temperature and other scientists have shown that we are the near minimum for sustaining life on Earth. More of it gives us more plant growth and therefore a more abundant food supply.

It all depends on how much we are talking about.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No doubt about it. The real question is the amount. As you alluded to, a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere can actually help plant life. However, there are better ways to deliver CO2 to our agricultural plants if we so wish.

Blindly pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is just not a good idea.

7. There is no reason to want to completely stop all human production of CO2, there is no real reason to want to greatly reduce it either. After all every time you breathe you produce CO2.

No sh*t?! I had no idea that I was exhaling carbon dioxide! I bet you don't the biochemical reaction which makes that possible.

At any rate, I have never asserted that we should completely stop all production of CO2. Now, if we can safely reduce it in an environmentally safe and economically feasible way, why not do so?

8. So why would we want to commit economic suicide?

Again, I did not assert that we should do so. Quite the opposite actually.

10. Socrates should have accepted the offer of Sparta or one of the other Greek city states instead of committing suicide for the sake of a pack of liars.

That is blasphemy. The Apology, Crito, and Phaedo are sacred texts in my eyes. Not only did he teach us about the essence of "justness" be also practiced being "just" on the highest level.

11. Have you ever heard of Asclepius?

Yes.

 

[gsvol]

Cov't Motors will....

But gubmit mtrs won't insure your garage if you park a volt in it.

It is a red herring because you countered with an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention from my original question.

No matter what your red herring question is, the government mandated use of ethanol as a fuel is idiotic and it is based not only bad science but there is a huge nonsequiter in the equation.

Mandated use of ethanol doesn't accomplish the purpose that supposedly motivates the program, cease and desist immediatly.

Bottom line is that the responsibility lies directly at the feet of Barack Hussein Obama.

Yes.

Then why do we keep doing it?
Why no public outcry that we stop doing it?

That does not make any sense. There is a lot of ice melting. Sea levels should be rising in some capacity. Again, I would have no idea how much. If they aren't, where the hell is the melted ice water going?

Well you can check with the latest satelite data, sea level has fallen slightly over the last few years.

You may have been brainwashed to believe differently but that is a factoid.

See my response there.

Refresh my memory.

They are both very different statements. Both can't be true. Empirical evidence would support one or the other.

Empirical evidence overwhelmingly indicates that CO2 caused global warming is a crock of sh!t!

Lindzen (the noted MIT scientist) and Choi proved by observing Earth's atmosphere that glabal warming wasn't happening as the theory states.

CERN successfully duplicated Earth atmosphere in a closed environment and then duplicated cosmic rays emitting from the sun.

The level of cosmic rays directly determined the temps.

Levels of CO2 from zero to much higher than we have ever experienced had zero effect on the temps!

End of story.

It all depends on how much we are talking about.

No it DOES NOT.

Another thing, CO2 in the atmosphere IS NOT hazardous to human health, for nearly sixty years now our nuclear submarines have been using air that containes about eight times as much CO2 with no bad effect on crew members.

Also, there have been times in Earth's history where the atmosphere contained as much as eight times as much CO2 as we have now and it was much colder.

Bottom line is that CO2 does not affect glaobal temperatures, that is determined by other factors, primarily solar activity.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No doubt about it. The real question is the amount. As you alluded to, a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere can actually help plant life. However, there are better ways to deliver CO2 to our agricultural plants if we so wish.

CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.

We are near the minimum of CO2 in the atmosphere for life on Earth.

BTW, the use of ethanol as fuel doesn't decrease CO2 in the atmosphere, in reality all things considered, it actually adds to the CO2 level when used as an alternative to oil based fuel, not to mention the dire effects it has on the economic production of food and feed. In other words all your food costs more because of ethanol mandates and in poor third world countries people starve to death and ethanol mandates are a contributing factor.

Blindly pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is just not a good idea.

Why not?

How about shipping 100 million tons of coal to China annually?

China is bringing on about 4 new coal fired elec plants on line per month and India isn't far behind while we are closing down the same at about the same rate, how does this make sense?

No sh*t?! I had no idea that I was exhaling carbon dioxide! I bet you don't the biochemical reaction which makes that possible.

I don't the biochemical reaction?

Maybe the oxygen is fueling my brain, I only wish I could say the same for you.

At any rate, I have never asserted that we should completely stop all production of CO2. Now, if we can safely reduce it in an environmentally safe and economically feasible way, why not do so?

It is already at an environmentally safe level.

Economincally we are committing suicide with present energy policies.

Again, I did not assert that we should do so. Quite the opposite actually.

Then why are we doing it and why do you parrot the same falsehoods that supposedly are the supposedly motivation to do so?

That is blasphemy. The Apology, Crito, and Phaedo are sacred texts in my eyes. Not only did he teach us about the essence of "justness" be also practiced being "just" on the highest level.

The only thing Socrates taught me, (no matter how much I hold him in high regard as a thinker), is that ultimately he was a fool to drink the hemlock to satisfy the demands of a bunch of jealous liars.

Yes.

Raising the dead can be a dangerous business.