6/24/11
Nervous Nelly
6/22/11
Secure your lawn mower!
6/21/11
Embryos for sale
Call Mike Treinen for more info 712-229-3815
6/19/11
Close call
6/18/11
Fairbank Iowa
Have you ever been to Sturgis before Bucky???
6/17/11
Bernard Picnic
Its time for the small towns in Iowa to have celebrations. Bernard is a small town on eastern edge of Iowa south of Dubuque and has a small livestock show with the festivities. Lots of show cattle are bred in that area.
Winthrop Days this weekend.
We are lucky to have a great clinic so close to us. Great vets and friendly staff and they are quick to show up for those 3 am c-sections!
6/16/11
Senate vote marks start of end for ethanol subsidies
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to eliminate billions of dollars in support for the U.S. ethanol industry, sending a strong message that the era of big taxpayer support for biofuels is ending.The 73-27 vote may ultimately be symbolic since the White House has vowed not to repeal ethanol subsidies fully and the bill the repeal language is attached to is not expected to make it into law. But it underscores the growing desperation to find savings in a budget crisis that is forcing both sides of the aisle to consider sacrificing once-sacred government programs.
"Ending this wasteful handout would ensure taxpayers no longer subsidize the already profitable corn ethanol industry," Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said.
The increasingly hostile attitude toward federal ethanol support has added fuel to a steep fall this week in the price of corn, from which most U.S. ethanol is made.
The Senate vote shows the odds are diminishing that the 45-cent-a-gallon subsidy the government gives refiners and the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol -- both targeted in Thursday's vote -- will be extended at current rates beyond their scheduled expiration at the end of this year.
The Senate measure still faces a long road to becoming final. The White House issued a statement saying it was against a full repeal of ethanol subsidies, indicating it could use its veto power if the amendment continued to advance in Congress.
"We need reforms and a smarter biofuels program, but simply cutting off support for the industry isn't the right approach," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said.
The strong vote in favor of eliminating the $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies reflects the push by both parties to rein in the government's huge deficit.
"The way we get out of trouble as a nation is a couple of billions of dollars at a time," said Republican Senator Tom Coburn, who co-sponsored the ethanol amendment.
The Senate vote also comes as criticism mounts globally over subsidies for corn-based ethanol, blamed by some for raising food costs.
Last week, the World Bank and other international organizations called on governments to stop their ethanol subsidies because of concerns they were driving up food prices.
While more ethanol is good for corn farmers, U.S. livestock producers argue their feeding costs have gone up, which has raised food prices for consumers.
CORN PRICE COLLAPSE
While a loss of subsidies may hurt profits for companies such as Valero and Marathon Oil that blend ethanol into gasoline, it would be unlikely to cause a large or sudden fall in ethanol output.
Fuel companies must still blend a minimum of 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol into the gasoline pool this year under the federal Renewable Fuels Standard. Current output is running at less than 10 percent above that rate.
But the prospect of an even modest reduction in demand has helped drive Chicago corn prices more than 12 percent lower this week, pulling them down from a record near $8 a bushel a week ago.
Traders are betting on reduced demand from ethanol makers whose profit margins are being squeezed by near-record corn costs and falling gasoline prices, in addition to the longer-term risk of reduced government support.
"This helps explain continued fund liquidation in the feed-grains today, as the continued record prices keep pressure on government to lower food prices," said analyst Mike Zuzolo of Global Commodity Analytics & Consulting in Lafayette, Indiana.
The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association welcomed the Senate vote. "Allowing other alternative fuels like sugarcane ethanol to compete fairly in the U.S. will save Americans money, cut dependence on Middle East oil and improve the environment," the trade group said.
The U.S. Renewable Fuels Association trade group called the vote shortsighted and said it didn't make sense given that the Senate voted less than a month ago to keep billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies that are making record profits.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked his Republican colleagues who voted down the ethanol subsidies also to end government financial breaks for Big Oil.
U.S. lawmakers are working on other compromise measures to scale back ethanol subsidies.
Republican Senator Charles Grassley and fellow Democrat Kent Conrad have introduced legislation to continue the blender tax credit and import tariff at much lower rates for five years.
On Tuesday, the Senate fell far short of the 60 votes needed that would have stripped the industry of federal incentives.
The ethanol subsidy amendment on Thursday from Coburn and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein will be tacked on to an underlying economic development bill, which faces a difficult time passing the Senate.
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives voted 283-128 on Thursday to prevent Agriculture Department funding for tanks and blender pumps that the ethanol industry wants so stations can sell gasoline with higher ethanol blend rates.
The Senate took the opposite view, voting against a separate amendment that would have blocked federal funding for such ethanol infrastructure.
6/15/11
High ankle sprain
Mike Treinen stepped in a hole the other day and twisted his ankle up pretty good.
From Matt Lautner
Enjoy your blog. Added it to my blogroll.
Our reply
Thanks. Just bred a cow to Mon 2 for u
Our reply
Thanks. Just bred a cow to Mon 2 for u
6/14/11
Ethanol Subsidies
June 14, 2011
Costly subsidies for homegrown fuel won a vote of confidence Tuesday on Capitol Hill. In a key test vote, the Senate blocked a measure that would have immediately ended both federal subsidies and protective tariffs for corn-based ethanol fuel.
The outcome showed the continued clout of farm states. But it also showed that most Senate Republicans are willing to get rid of at least one tax break.
A 'Very Controversial Subject'
Where senators stand on ethanol tax subsidies often has more to do with which state they're from than which party they belong to.
"This is a very controversial subject," says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). "We have members in our conference on both sides of this issue."
Still, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn had been trying for months to force colleagues to take a stand on the more than $5 billion in tax breaks for the ethanol industry this year.
Coburn angered some colleagues when he resorted to a parliamentary maneuver late last week to oblige the Senate to vote on taking up his measure. It would cut off the $3 billion worth of tax credits still to be paid this year to those who by law are already required to blend ethanol with gasoline.
According to Coburn, virtually all that money goes to big oil companies, which he says don't want it.
"Here's something that is $3 billion that the people we're paying ... say they don't want ... and we're not going to take them up on it?" he says. "What part of stupid are we?"
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein says it's Congress that's helped push up food prices by encouraging farmers to grow corn for fuel rather than food.
"Diverting 39 percent of our crop towards ethanol is artificially driving up corn prices," she says, "which in turn is straining people and industries that depend on affordable corn."
But Iowa Republican Charles Grassley argues it makes no sense for Congress to end the tax breaks for corn-based ethanol, which is now 10 percent of the nation's fuel supply.
"We'll get less domestically produced energy, it will cost U.S. jobs, it will increase our dependence upon foreign oil, it will increase prices at the pump for the American consumer," he says.
Still, other farm state senators acknowledge that the ethanol subsidies, while still a big issue for presidential hopefuls in Iowa, are getting harder to justify.
"We're going to see a phasing out of the support for biofuels in terms of federal policy," says Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar. "But the time to do it is not in the middle of the year, after seven years of federal support, with five days' notice."
A Tax Debate
For others, this wasn't a vote about ethanol at all. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who has gotten most congressional Republicans to sign vows not to raise any taxes, questions Coburn's motives in trying to end the ethanol tax breaks.
"What he's trying to do is trick some Republicans into voting for a tax increase so he can say to them, 'Now join me in my support for working with Obama to raise taxes,' " Norquist says.
Republican Pat Toomey disagrees. Like the anti-tax Club for Growth that Toomey previously headed, the Pennsylvania freshman says he doesn't care if ending the ethanol subsidy does mean a higher tax bill for some people.
"I think my credentials as a pro-growth, limited government, low-tax guy are pretty strong, and they're gonna stay that way," he says. "I see this as just egregiously flawed policy that we should fix."
Thirty-three other Senate Republicans apparently felt the same way, too; they voted to take up Coburn's tax-break-ending measure, as did half a dozen Democrats. That left them 20 votes short of the 60 the proposal would have needed to advance.
Still, the tally showed that when it comes to at least one tax break, even Republicans who generally oppose raising taxes are willing to make an exception. Which might also mean some GOP lawmakers could make another exception in a deal to raise the debt ceiling this summer
Costly subsidies for homegrown fuel won a vote of confidence Tuesday on Capitol Hill. In a key test vote, the Senate blocked a measure that would have immediately ended both federal subsidies and protective tariffs for corn-based ethanol fuel.
The outcome showed the continued clout of farm states. But it also showed that most Senate Republicans are willing to get rid of at least one tax break.
More Ethanol Coverage From NPR
Where senators stand on ethanol tax subsidies often has more to do with which state they're from than which party they belong to.
"This is a very controversial subject," says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). "We have members in our conference on both sides of this issue."
Still, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn had been trying for months to force colleagues to take a stand on the more than $5 billion in tax breaks for the ethanol industry this year.
Coburn angered some colleagues when he resorted to a parliamentary maneuver late last week to oblige the Senate to vote on taking up his measure. It would cut off the $3 billion worth of tax credits still to be paid this year to those who by law are already required to blend ethanol with gasoline.
According to Coburn, virtually all that money goes to big oil companies, which he says don't want it.
"Here's something that is $3 billion that the people we're paying ... say they don't want ... and we're not going to take them up on it?" he says. "What part of stupid are we?"
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein says it's Congress that's helped push up food prices by encouraging farmers to grow corn for fuel rather than food.
"Diverting 39 percent of our crop towards ethanol is artificially driving up corn prices," she says, "which in turn is straining people and industries that depend on affordable corn."
But Iowa Republican Charles Grassley argues it makes no sense for Congress to end the tax breaks for corn-based ethanol, which is now 10 percent of the nation's fuel supply.
"We'll get less domestically produced energy, it will cost U.S. jobs, it will increase our dependence upon foreign oil, it will increase prices at the pump for the American consumer," he says.
Still, other farm state senators acknowledge that the ethanol subsidies, while still a big issue for presidential hopefuls in Iowa, are getting harder to justify.
"We're going to see a phasing out of the support for biofuels in terms of federal policy," says Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar. "But the time to do it is not in the middle of the year, after seven years of federal support, with five days' notice."
A Tax Debate
For others, this wasn't a vote about ethanol at all. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who has gotten most congressional Republicans to sign vows not to raise any taxes, questions Coburn's motives in trying to end the ethanol tax breaks.
"What he's trying to do is trick some Republicans into voting for a tax increase so he can say to them, 'Now join me in my support for working with Obama to raise taxes,' " Norquist says.
Enlarge Alex Brandon/AP Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) talks with reporters before a caucus luncheon on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Coburn had been trying for months to force colleagues to take a stand on the more than $5 billion in tax breaks for the ethanol industry this year.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) talks with reporters before a caucus luncheon on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Coburn had been trying for months to force colleagues to take a stand on the more than $5 billion in tax breaks for the ethanol industry this year.
"I think my credentials as a pro-growth, limited government, low-tax guy are pretty strong, and they're gonna stay that way," he says. "I see this as just egregiously flawed policy that we should fix."
Thirty-three other Senate Republicans apparently felt the same way, too; they voted to take up Coburn's tax-break-ending measure, as did half a dozen Democrats. That left them 20 votes short of the 60 the proposal would have needed to advance.
Still, the tally showed that when it comes to at least one tax break, even Republicans who generally oppose raising taxes are willing to make an exception. Which might also mean some GOP lawmakers could make another exception in a deal to raise the debt ceiling this summer
6/12/11
6/11/11
6/10/11
Like this guy
Pawlenty on Ethanol
"
One of the immutable laws of modern American politics is that no candidate who wants to win the Iowa Presidential caucuses can afford to oppose subsidies for ethanol. So it's notable—make that downright amazing—that former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty launched his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination Monday by including a challenge to King Corn.
"The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out," Mr. Pawlenty told a crowd in Des Moines. "We simply can't afford them anymore."
He's certainly right about that, though that hasn't stopped nearly every other candidate from deploring the federal deficit while supporting the most egregious of corporate welfare subsidies. This marks a change for Mr. Pawlenty, who over two terms leading Iowa's northern neighbor first fought farmers on subsidies but later supported their push for a 20% ethanol mandate for gasoline. But in refusing to stick to the script for candidates looking to harvest votes in February's Iowa caucuses, Mr. Pawlenty has passed an early test of fortitude. By opposing ethanol despite the political risks, Mr. Pawlenty will also gain credibility to tackle other energy subsidies that drain the federal fisc to little good effect.
Intriguingly, Mr. Pawlenty said he's also ready to take on other taboos of modern politics. "Conventional wisdom says you can't talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street," he said. "But someone has to say it." Maybe this Presidential season will be more interesting than we've imagined.
Buying Land Still Makes Sense
June 10, 2011
By: Ed Clark, Top Producer Business and Issues Editor
Despite the huge run-up in land values over the past year, it still can be a good investment, even at more than $10,000 per acre for prime Midwest land. “Based on today’s commodity prices, it’s cheap,” says Randy Hertz, chairman of the board, Hertz Land Management and President of Hertz Real Estate Services, Nevada, Iowa. “If you have cash and it fits into your long term plans, it may be a good time to buy.”
Despite the huge run-up in land values over the past year, it still can be a good investment, even at more than $10,000 per acre for prime Midwest land. “Based on today’s commodity prices, it’s cheap,” says Randy Hertz, chairman of the board, Hertz Land Management and President of Hertz Real Estate Services, Nevada, Iowa. “If you have cash and it fits into your long term plans, it may be a good time to buy.”
He spoke at this week’s Top Producer Summer Seminar in Bettendorf, Iowa. Good Midwest land values could still go up another $1,000 to $2,000 per acre, assuming strong commodity values hold. That’s because present land values provide a 6% return based on $5 corn and $11 soybeans. As a result, land has more room on the upside. He sees prices softening if corn goes back to $4/bu., however. To illustrates, farmland values softened in 2009 due to lower commodity prices after strengthening in 2008. “But I don’t expect them (farmland) to tumble,” Hertz says.
The returns from farmland are beating 25 mutual fund 401-K’s his company manages. Yet that’s nothing new as it’s been that way, on average, for the past 40 years, Hertz says. As a result, a small number of people owning farmland are interested in selling it because there is nowhere else to put money that can match farmland’s return on investment. To illustrate the fact that owners of farmland are holding onto it, from 2008 to 2010, land market land sales declined by 33%, according to data from the Farm Credit Services of America.
A wide variance exists among states in land value escalation. In Iowa, values have increased 139% over the past 10 years, while they have jumped 231% in South Dakota, the latter largely attributable to a shift to more corn and soybeans, higher value crops.
Hertz noted that recent sales have been very strong. Two weeks ago, a 73.5 acre track near Champaign, Ill., sold for $12,900/acre.
6/9/11
6/8/11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)