Ethanol industry sees red over E15 warning label

The bright orange warning label that the government is proposing for E15 pumps has angered some in the ethanol industry.

Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, says the label is going to scare motorists from putting the fuel even in cars where it's permitted.

"I don't think anyone with a straight face would say this label would do anything except reduce the amount of E15 sold, even in applications where it's allowed," he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced two weeks ago that it was allowing the use of gasoline containing up to 15 percent ethanol in 2007 and newer cars and trucks. At the same time, the EPA proposed regulations, including the warning label, to ensure that the fuel isn't put in other vehicles.

Shaw questions the label's truthfulness because of the sentence that says the "fuel might damage other vehicles." The government is still studying the impact on models from 2001 to 2006 and isn't doing any research on vehicles older than 2001, so there's no basis to say that E15 might damage cars older than 2007 models, Shaw said. "That is a flat-out unsupportable statement that is very prejudicial," he said.

The ethanol content of gas used in conventional cars and trucks has been restricted to 10 percent until now.
Bikers speak out over OK of E15 for newer cars

Two things you shouldn't tell motorcyclists: Wear a helmet or use ethanol.

In a post with a headline, "Is the EPA Trying to Poison Our Motorcycles?," the website AllAboutBikes has loosed its latest salvo against ethanol after the Environmental Protection Agency approved the 15 percent blend for use in motor vehicles.

The EPA said specifically that the waiver didn't cover small engines, but motorcycle groups that have long complained about what they see as a threat to their engines didn't hold back.

The American Motorcyclist Association said: "The AMA supports the use of cleaner-burning fuels, but we are concerned that gasoline containing more than 10 percent ethanol could result in premature engine damage or failure while a motorcycle is being ridden. We're also concerned about any degradation in performance, fuel economy and rideability that may result from the long-term use of blended fuels with greater than 10 percent ethanol."
Election could affect subsidy reform

The future of the Iowa Farm Bureau's proposal to scrap farm payments could hinge, at least for the near term, on the outcome of the Nov. 2 election.

If Republicans take over the House, there is likely to be less urgency to take up the farm bill next year, says IFB President Craig Lang. He notes that the likely GOP chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Oklahoma Rep. Frank Lucas, comes from a state where the direct payments are popular.

The committee's current chairman, Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson, wants to start work on the next farm bill in 2011, and he's open to the idea of shifting money now going into direct payments into another type of program that would be pegged to fluctuations in farm revenue.

If Republicans take over the House, "we'll continue to champion the cause of an improved safety net and a different look at the direct payments, but I would say the strategy may be different," Lang said.

The direct payments have come under heavy criticism because farmers get the same amount of money every year no matter how well they're doing or whether they even grow any crop. Another concern, often voiced in Iowa, is that the money winds up benefiting landowners primarily because the payments get capitalized into land values and rental rates.

Lang acknowledged that the Iowa proposal is going to be an especially tough sell to rice and cotton producers, who benefit more from that form of subsidy than corn and soybean growers in the Midwest.

Lucas strongly defended the direct payments in a recent interview with Agri-Pulse Communications. "I personally believe that one of the key elements of every farm bill since 1996 has been the annual payments, things that producers could count on, show their banker, show their landlord, could sit down and plan with."

He goes on to make a pretty clear reference to the Iowa proposal: "So many of the concepts we've worked in the direction of the crop insurance seem to me to be designed so that if you have great years and great rain and great soil, you have a great potential return."

Know a state that happens to have "great rain and great soil"?
Drop in corn exports disappoints farmers

Since corn futures went over $5 per bushel last month, hitting a two-year high, farmers and traders have worried that what has been a good export year for corn might hit a wall as demand fades in the face of the higher prices.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's weekly export figures show net corn export sales down 77 percent to 212,500 metric tons for the week of Oct. 8-14.

Japan, consistently a big U.S. corn customer, hung in with purchases of 144,900 metric tons. But Mexico, the largest U.S. corn customer, cut its purchases by 45,000 metric tons.

For the current marketing year, corn export sales are up 20 percent to 13.2 million metric tons.
USDA rules could harm animals, expert warns

Temple Grandin, the nation's best-known authority on animal welfare, says the Obama administration's proposed rules on livestock marketing could result in cattle and hogs getting mistreated.

Her concerns, which she outlined in a Huffington Post article, stem from restrictions the Agriculture Department wants to place on meatpackers.

One proposal would forbid packers from selling cattle and hogs to each other. Instead, a packer would have to sell its livestock to an independent buyer. Grandin said that restriction could result in livestock being shipped longer distances. "Adding shipping time is stressful to livestock and stands to increase injury and potential death losses," she wrote.

Grandin also is concerned about the USDA's proposal to require packers to justify paying some producers more for livestock than other farmers. She said that could discourage packers from contracting with niche producers who can meet higher animal welfare standards.

"Niche producers are some of the great success stories in livestock agriculture. ... These companies need established relationships with farmers and ranchers they can trust to raise livestock in a way that is consistent with their brands and their humane labels. But the new proposal would make it easier for farmers and ranchers to sue meat companies that pay premiums to farmers who offer a higher quality animal that was raised in a certain way," she said.

The USDA said it would evaluate Grandin's concerns.

source: desmoinesregister