I am reposting this blog article from Minnesota Cornerstone:

Ethanol is not subsidized by taxpayers

“The only problem I have with ethanol is that it’s subsidized by the government!”

“Why take the people’s tax money and hand it to a few corporate faremers (sic) & refiners?” 

“Let’ look at the damage caused by subsidizing ethanol.”

These are actual reader comments on recent newspaper stories that focus on ethanol. If the topic of ethanol comes up among friends or family members, odds are at least somebody will bemoan “all those ethanol subsidies that farmers get.”

Here’s the thing: Ethanol isn’t subsidized. Your tax dollars directly support many different industries, but ethanol isn’t one of them.

Critics take misguided shots (deliberate or otherwise) at ethanol from a number of different angles. But there’s a difference between being misguided and flat-out wrong. If you think ethanol is subsidized, you’re flat-out wrong.

Yes, it’s true that various federal and state tax and blending credits — starting with The Energy Tax Act of 1978 — have aided ethanol over the years.  For example, the Minnesota legislature reduced the state fuel tax on gasoline that contains at least 10 percent ethanol by 4 cents per gallon in 1980. That credit diminished over the years and was phased out completely in 1997. A state ethanol producer payment program, which applied to ethanol plants, not farmers, ended in 2012.

January 1, 2012 marked the end of the federal ethanol blending credit, and, thus, the end to what many considered ethanol “subsidies.” It’s also important to point out that blending credits did not go to farmers. Checks weren’t being cut to farmers simply for growing corn that was made into ethanol. Energy producers (i.e. oil companies and refiners) received the credits as an incentive to blend more cleaner-burning ethanol and reduce the negative impact vehicle emissions had on air quality.

The next time you’re in the same room with someone who starts pounding his or her first on the table and shouting about “those damn farmers and their ethanol subsidies,” execute the following plan:

1. Explain to the angry person the facts about ethanol “subsidies,” as outlined in this post.

2. In all likelihood, the angry person probably will reject the facts because it doesn’t fit his or her predetermined set of beliefs. Once populist rhetoric or easy-to-digest talking points become entrenched in a person’s head, it’s tough to get them out.

3. Direct the anger somewhere more appropriate. If the person is mad about ethanol “subsidies” and refuses to believe that ethanol “subsidies” don’t exist, try to focus their anger on actual subsidies that are alive and well.

4. For starters, you can tell them about the $7 billion per year that oil companies enjoy in public subsidies. Get them fired up about using taxpayer dollars to build sports stadiums for billionaire owners. There are all kinds of actual subsidies to be angry about. Getting all fired up about ethanol subsidies that don’t exist is a tremendous waste of energy.

5. Ask the angry person if he or she would rather get their fuel from an American corn field, or heavily subsidized oil companies that drill in the Middle East or the Alberta Tar Sands?

(You might be wondering what you should do when commenters on articles about ethanol on newspaper websites get the facts wrong. Proceed with caution. Newspaper website comments sections are scary places where facts and reason go to die.)

As the debate about ethanol and the Renewable Fuel Standard (legislation that sets goals for the amount of ethanol we blend in gasoline) heats up, critics of renewable fuels are out in full force. Many of them are still clinging to the blatantly wrong argument that ethanol is directly subsidized by taxpayers. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to reduce the amount of ethanol blended in gasoline by 1.4 billion gallons in 2014 has serious ramifications for farmers, the rural economy and our environment. It is absolutely essential that farmers and renewable fuels supporters push back on myths created by the opposition during this debate.

Ethanol is not “subsidized.” That’s one myth that is easily discredited.

It's been a long, strange harvest season this year. I saw this article by Gretchen Schlosser in the local West Central Tribune today talking about progress in the corn harvest, as well as other crops like soybeans and sugar beets:

Farmers take in 25 percent of corn in a week

By Gretchen Schlosser on Nov 4, 2013 at 11:28pm

 

Minnesota’s farmers harvested 25 percent of the corn crop last week, pushing the total percentage of the crop harvested to 73 percent.

 

According to the weekly U.S. Department of Agriculture crop/weather report, there were five days suitable for fieldwork last week, which pushed the corn harvest ahead of the 72 percent five-year average.
The soybean harvest also pushed beyond the five-year average, with 96 percent of the soybeans harvested as of Sunday, compared to a 92 percent average. Five percent of the soybeans were harvested during the week.

Ninety nine percent of the sugar beets had been lifted, four points better than the five-year average of 95 percent. Fifteen percent of the crop was lifted during the week.

Nationally, the USDA reports that 73 percent of the corn crop has been taken in by farmers in the 18 states that produce the vast majority of the crop. Similarly, 86 percent of the soybean crop has been harvested in the 18 states producing most of that crop. The five-year averages are 81 percent for corn and 85 percent for soybeans.

Farmers in the four states that produce most of the nation’s sugar beets, North Dakota, Minnesota, Idaho and Michigan, had taken in 93 percent of the crop, compared with a 90 percent five-year average.

The report also notes that the corn crop is drying a bit, with the percentage of moisture at 19 percent in the corn, compared to 21 percent last week. Soybeans remained steady at 13 percent moisture.

Crop harvest slowed by conditions but yields better than expected

I got interviewed for a story by Gretchen Schlosser in the West Central Tribune:

Crop harvest slowed by conditions but yields better than expected after wet spring, summer drought
http://www.wctrib.com/content/crop-harvest-slowed-conditions-yields-better-expected-after-wet-spring-summer-drought

Reports from west central Minnesota farmers and agriculture professionals reflect the USDA crop-weather report issued Monday: the crop harvest has been slowed by rain, but yields are better than some farmers expected after a wet, late spring and drought conditions this summer.

Reached on his cell phone as he was combining corn north of Willmar, Alan Carlson reported that he is not far enough along in harvesting the crop. He estimated that he had harvested about 20 percent of his corn and was working in a drier than average field.

The yields were about what Carlson expected, with the lower ground yielding good numbers, but the higher, sandy hills producing less grain. The corn was running about 20 percent moisture, but the date on the calendar won’t allow for any drying in the field, he said. “It’s time to get it done,” he said.
Like other farmers, Carlson reported soybean yields that were better than expected. His average was between 46 and 55 bushels an acre.

The state crop-weather report, the first report issued in three weeks due to the government shutdown, shows that 19 percent of the state’s corn crop has been harvested, compared to 95 percent last year and 49 percent on a five-year average.

The soybean harvest, at 80 percent, is behind last year’s record pace of 100 percent, and on par with the five-year average of 83 percent. The sugar beet harvest lagged, at 66 percent, behind the 86 percent reported last year and the 80 percent five-year average.

Nationally, 39 percent of the corn crop and 63 percent of the soybeans was harvested as of Sunday — a figure based on progress in the 18 states that grow 93 to 95 percent of the two crops. Across the country, 62 percent of the sugar beets had been lifted, slightly less than the 66 percent five-year average.

Locally, the sugar beet harvest has been slowed significantly by rainfall. Noah Hultgren, who farms with his family in the Willmar area, reported that they would usually have 50 to 60 percent of their beets lifted, but had only 20 to 30 percent out of the ground and were having to push or pull each truck through the field to haul out the beets.

“It’s a slow-moving progress,” Hultgren said Monday, estimating that two weeks of good weather, with no rain, would be needed to finish the harvest. Hultgren said the yields on the corn and the sugar beets were a little better than he expected two months ago when drought conditions persisted across the region.

Locally, Wes Nelson, executive director of the Farm Service Agency in Kandiyohi County, estimated that 90 percent of the soybeans had been harvested and that farmers were plugging away at the corn, with an estimated 25 percent of that crop out of the field.

Nelson reported that farmers reported both corn and soybean yields better than they had expected, but with variability based on soils. There have also been reports of lighter than normal test weights in the corn.

Like Hultgren, Nelson stressed that the biggest concern is getting the sugar beets harvested. “We need a dry stretch to get that done,” he said, noting that the piling sites have only small piles so far. “It will be a challenge for the sugar beet producers.”

Nelson was back in the office after the government shutdown and noted that the staff was processing the annual rental payments for the Conservation Reserve Program and then would move on to the Direct and Counter-cyclical Program and Average Crop Revenue Election program payments. He estimated that the CRP payments would show up in landowner’s accounts next week, and the DCP and ACRE payments would be completed in the first full week of November.

Jodi DeJong-Hughes, University of Minnesota Extension crops educator for the region, said that soybean yields were running a lot better than most farmers expected. The usual average is about 40 bushels, but this year’s yields are in the 50-bushel range.

As for corn, most farmers report their crop yields would be good if they could take both the drowned-out low acres and the drought-burned hills out of the equation, she said. “Mother Nature was definitely in control this year,” she said. “There’s not much a farmer could do this year to change that.”

DeJong-Hughes estimated the corn yield at 180 bushels per acre, but cautioned she’s heard reports of yields all over the board. As part of her work in extension, DeJong-Hughes took aerial photos three times this summer to observe and record crop conditions. The fields began the season yellowed by wet conditions, then greened up, and later dried out in the dry conditions.

Even if a field looks green and healthy from the roadway, she said, the view from above and ultimately, the yield totals at harvest time, show what’s really happening on that piece of land.
“Fly over with a plane and the field tells you a different story,” she said, noting that the fields never did catch up this year and that the combine will slow that lost potential at harvest.