Sep 18, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions Sign UpLogin

U.S. Farm Report Mailbag

RSS By: U.S. Farm Report, US Farm Report

Comments, questions, opinions...this is your chance to speak out regarding anything and everything reported on U.S. Farm Report. Viewer feedback updated regularly.

Ethanol, Salt & Taxes

Jul 26, 2011


***The following comments were received in response to the July 23-24, 2011 edition of U.S. Farm Report...



#1: Now the Feds want to do what Blogo couldn't. Tax/license farm tractors and equipment that travel on the road. Every piece of equipment would get a license plate and pay a fee every year whether you drive it one day or everyday on the road. If the tax/license fee is too big the big guys can probably get around it by loading it up on a semi. It won't make it any safer just raise costs and reduce productivity.

Ok, a corn planter is on the road about 10 days a year, (actually U of I says you should size your planter to be able to plant your corn in 5 days), and a combine 6-8 weeks from start to finish depending on weather. It would surprise me if a combine is on the road a half hour between fields on any day.
Then, they are considering having anyone driving a piece of farm equipment on the road to get a commercial drivers license equivilant to a truck driver. That means a regular physical, medical card, testing, etc.  Ok, it appears that they are going from subsidies to taxing ag?
Marty Wittig
#2:  John, I believe to be fair in reporting the "ethanol drawdown on corn stocks" that you should report the net bushels of DDG's or WDG's used by the livestock industry as well.

These are bushels that replace corn bushels in the demand side, and the livestock industry has embraced the feedstock for it's efficiencies and advantages. It's a new paradigm.

Just as you say that ethanol supporters have to stay on the same side of the argument all the time on the demand side, then we must have the livestock industry report the total usage of the "corn products" not just the "corn bushels" on the supply side.

Dan Gillespie
Meadow Grove, NE

#3: John, you’re dead on with your reply to Mr Hartwig’s statement. Your analogy’s dead on, to!Just like you, I go way back to the corn surplus-ridden late 70s and the days of the upstart: “gasohol”.

You may or may not know but in countless of my internet commentaries over the years (I am known as “smallfarmor”), I’ve maintained that ethanol from corn makes it just as close as physically possible to use the same bushel of corn TWICE! Take the ethanol out and the DDGs make up nearly all the “lost” feed values. And, I’ve cautioned in the past for farmers to not summarily bump up corn acres based on “gotcha USDA usage numbers”.
“Ethanol” from corn was doomed from the minute it became trendy and fashionable for politicians to promote it! (and the sycophantic NCGA is very culpable in this also)
Dick House
Arthur, IL


#4: It troubles the American public when we here the latest national news health watch gives out data on another study of some product that is not good for you.  Salt has been the center of these studies and then later we hear something complete opposite that states  the study was in error.  I have enjoyed Campbell Soup most all my life and I also do not like the reduced sodium brand. I and 64 years old and do not have a problem with my blood pressure.  We need to question the studies and research on our own to see if these are legitimate.  As for me pass the salt,  and take these things in moderation.  If you drink too much water you could drown!  That's my opinion.

Bob Hatfield

Log In or Sign Up to comment


No comments have been posted, be the first one to comment.
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions