And I know if Tina Turner can do it, our elected "savior" should be able to as well.

I have seen the cost of feed of for my cattle go up because of the increase in the demand for corn. Since the "libs" are saying that cattle are making too much methane, why dont the figure a way to gather and use this "DANGEROUS" flamable gas? Ya'll ever seen the third "Mad Max"? Tina Turner was running a whole city on methane (pig farts)

o k here I go,
Natural gas is a much higher octane rating than gas or ethanol.
Natural gas is very readily available and in fact we now have a huge surplus.
Natural gas as of right now is selling for $3.99 MMBTU.
Natural gas storage as of right now is 2,557 billion cubic feet.
Natural gas can be available for fueling vehicles with minimal work due to the pipelines already being in place.
last but not least Natural Gas leaves 0 emisions that harm the atmosphere, so the tree huggers are appeased, your vehicle will not require oil changes as frequently due to no carbon or gas breakdown.
I could go on but I think you get the point, this puts ALOT of people to work, gives us a viable energy source for ALOT of years,eases the need for foriegn oil greatly, and the best part of all is if a system is implemented to have fill stations readly available as gas stations are then the price will be like the gas was in the 60's (yeah I'm that old, 15 cent gas).
again sorry for the length but Ethanol is not the answer to our problems, nor is biodiesel (whole other story there) we could be self suficient for at least 15-20 yrs if the idiots would let us drill our own oil and gas. nuff said.

Really??? The feed your buying this year was harvested last year when gas was $4.00 per gallon, and diesel even hire than that. I'm guessing that has way more to do with the cost of your feed than the demand for ethonol....

When the price of Sugar goes up to astronimic points then I will believe that ethonol is causing food costs to increast substantially.

please explain to us how the cost of sugar has anything to do with ethanol in this country, we use corn and soy beans for our bio fuels, corn for ethanol and soy for biodiesel. some "food" for thought-with about 3 million trucks on the road hauling literally everything you touch how many tons of soy beans would it take to fuel everyone of them just on a daily basis, how many tons of corn would it take to keep every car on the road fueled with ethanol (just an e85 blend). short answer you can't do it we could grow soy beans on every acre of farm land in this country and not have enough for biodiesel, the more states that require ethanol the more corn needed to make it and as the demand rises so does the price, simple supply and demand. we need to drill for and produce our own oil and gas while we develop other means to supply our needs. this puts people to work, creates royalty payments for mineral owners, and keeps our dollars in our country not the countrys that want us dead or out of existance. with ethanols loss of mpg (say its 15%) that would mean you need to burn at least 10% more gas to make up the difference (guesstamating) so there we go buying more oil from the middle east and elsewhere, get the picture. DRILL BABY DRILL!

It's all right now. Soon every one that eats beef will see a rise in those prices. Then we'll see how the Iowa farmers like the ethenol idea.

Your math is way way off actually. Using the curren mix of 90/10 you loose 15% efficiency on ONLY 10% of the fuel. Using simple numbers for every 100 gallons you pump into your tank, 10 gallons are alcohol. So 15% of that 10 gallons is 1.5 gallons which means you use 91.5 gallons of Gas and 10 gallons of alcohol to equan that same 100 gallons of gas. Still a reduction of 8.5 gallons of gasoline.

o k so how did I loose on only 10% of the fuel? 15% is on the total consumption for the vehicle hence you loose 15% on 100 gals not 10 = 15 gal.= 1.5 gal. gas to make up the difference. I said I was guesstamating because I am not 100% sure of the #'s could be more or less. regardless take the total # of cars on the road and multiply by 1.5 gal. per 100 gal. of fuel burned for the ethanol blend and viola thats alot of fuel.
I'm not trying to bash you and I applaud you for working like you do on the farm (I grew up on an alfafa/vegetable farm)but the ethanol blend is not the answer now or later, current vehicles (except the flexfuel) are not engineered to handle the alcohol and unless the govt. is going to pay for the repairs needed for alcohol damage then we dont need it. get all the vehicles on the road flexfueled and then I wont have near the problem with it I do now although I will still say natural gas/propane is the better choice. last off I am curious where this sugar is coming from? brazil uses 100% ethanol in all the vehicles they run and I don't know of any sugar producers that we import from that can supply that kind of quantity as on a per capita basis I think we have alot more vehicles on the road than they do and am guessing it would take a similar amount of sugar to mix in with our 22 million barrels of oil a day.

I get 2 to3 mpg more on non ethanol fule than gas with it. So as long as I can get gas without it I will. The money in my pocket is better than being in someone elses.