• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

USDA energy grants

btodd_22

New member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I read that the USDA is offering a grant for farmers, ranchers, and small rural businesses that are interested in investing in renewable energy resources, such as solar, wind, thermal, etc. What does everyone think about this and do you think it would be a worth while investment?
 

Oldtimer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
0
Location
Northeast Montana
Industry News - PM
Vilsack says ag would make money on climate change bill

By Rita Jane Gabbett on 7/22/2009


USDA analysis shows the economic benefits to agriculture from proposed climate change legislation recently passed by the House will likely outweigh the costs in the short term, and the economic benefits from offsets markets will easily outpace increased input costs over the long term.

"The agriculture sector will benefit directly from allowance revenues allocated to finance incentives for renewable energy and agricultural emissions reductions during the first five years of the HR 2454 cap and trade program. Funds for agricultural emissions reductions are estimated to range from about $75 million to $100 million annually from 2012-2016," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee.

"Our analysis indicates that annual net returns to farmers range from about $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50, not accounting for the costs of implementing offset practices," he said, adding, "We believe these figures are conservative because we aren't able to model the types of technological change that are very likely to help farmers produce more crops and livestock with fewer inputs."

Higher grain prices

Vilsack also said farmers will likely receive higher commodity prices "as a result of enhanced renewable energy markets and retirement of environmentally sensitive lands domestically and abroad."

He used the following example to illustrate possible financial consequences of the bill:

A Northern Plains wheat producer, for example, might see an increase of $.80 per acre in costs of production by 2020 due to higher fuel prices. Based on a soil carbon sequestration rate of 0.4 tons per acre and a carbon price of $16 per ton, a producer could mitigate those expenses by adopting no-till practices and earning $6.40 per acre.

"It's quite possible that this wheat farmer could do even better if technologies and markets progress in such a way that allows for the sale of wheat straw to make cellulosic ethanol," Vilsack concluded.
 

1982vett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
14
Location
Central Texas
Oldtimer":rq6qtvl4 said:
Industry News - PM
Vilsack says ag would make money on climate change bill

By Rita Jane Gabbett on 7/22/2009


USDA analysis shows the economic benefits to agriculture from proposed climate change legislation recently passed by the House will likely outweigh the costs in the short term, and the economic benefits from offsets markets will easily outpace increased input costs over the long term.

"The agriculture sector will benefit directly from allowance revenues allocated to finance incentives for renewable energy and agricultural emissions reductions during the first five years of the HR 2454 cap and trade program. Funds for agricultural emissions reductions are estimated to range from about $75 million to $100 million annually from 2012-2016," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee.

"Our analysis indicates that annual net returns to farmers range from about $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50, (a)not accounting for the costs of implementing offset practices," he said, adding, "We believe these figures are conservative because we aren't able to model the types of technological change that are very likely to help farmers produce more crops and livestock with fewer inputs."

Higher grain prices

Vilsack also said farmers will likely receive higher commodity prices "as a result of enhanced renewable energy markets and retirement of environmentally sensitive lands domestically and abroad."

He used the following example to illustrate possible financial consequences of the bill:

A Northern Plains wheat producer, for example, might see an increase of $.80 per acre in costs of production by 2020 due to higher fuel prices. Based on a soil carbon sequestration rate of 0.4 tons per acre and a carbon price of $16 per ton, a producer could mitigate those expenses by adopting no-till practices and earning $6.40 per acre.

(b) "It's quite possible that this wheat farmer could do even better if technologies and markets progress in such a way that allows for the sale of wheat straw to make cellulosic ethanol," Vilsack concluded.
(a) What does this mean?

(b) Removing stubble removes soil nutrients. What will be the cost to replace them? And which will be more environmentally friendly? Chemical replacement or organic(turning under stubble)?


One needs to look at the whole picture, not just one aspect of it. You don't make forward progress taking one step forward and two steps back.
 

Oldtimer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
0
Location
Northeast Montana
1982vett":112u9ieq said:
Oldtimer":112u9ieq said:
Industry News - PM
Vilsack says ag would make money on climate change bill

By Rita Jane Gabbett on 7/22/2009


USDA analysis shows the economic benefits to agriculture from proposed climate change legislation recently passed by the House will likely outweigh the costs in the short term, and the economic benefits from offsets markets will easily outpace increased input costs over the long term.

"The agriculture sector will benefit directly from allowance revenues allocated to finance incentives for renewable energy and agricultural emissions reductions during the first five years of the HR 2454 cap and trade program. Funds for agricultural emissions reductions are estimated to range from about $75 million to $100 million annually from 2012-2016," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee.

"Our analysis indicates that annual net returns to farmers range from about $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50, (a)not accounting for the costs of implementing offset practices," he said, adding, "We believe these figures are conservative because we aren't able to model the types of technological change that are very likely to help farmers produce more crops and livestock with fewer inputs."

Higher grain prices

Vilsack also said farmers will likely receive higher commodity prices "as a result of enhanced renewable energy markets and retirement of environmentally sensitive lands domestically and abroad."

He used the following example to illustrate possible financial consequences of the bill:

A Northern Plains wheat producer, for example, might see an increase of $.80 per acre in costs of production by 2020 due to higher fuel prices. Based on a soil carbon sequestration rate of 0.4 tons per acre and a carbon price of $16 per ton, a producer could mitigate those expenses by adopting no-till practices and earning $6.40 per acre.

(b) "It's quite possible that this wheat farmer could do even better if technologies and markets progress in such a way that allows for the sale of wheat straw to make cellulosic ethanol," Vilsack concluded.
(a) What does this mean?


I take it to mean the costs incurred of shifting over to no till practices (if you don't already), putting land into improved pasture, and any of the other programs that qualify...

Many folks up here already use no till- and some are already taking advantage of the cash payments they get for trading of carbon credits that are being offered on a limited basis for their no till and improved pastures- altho now there is not the demand- nor as high a price there will be if cap and trade goes thru...
I'm still waiting for an evaluation from my Senator on this bill and how he reads it...Some have told me that any pasture land (forested or grassland) will qualify for some benefits if you don't break it up...This could be a pretty fair boon to me and a lot of ranching units.. :D
For several years both folks at the Ag Dept. and independent Ag groups have said this will be the "subsidies" of the future for Agriculture-- as with the WTO rulings and all the "free trade agreement" rulings outlawing any type of other farm payment or subsidy- and taxpayers balking at paying them- they will soon be gone.....

I would rather they just paid a fair price for products produced- but that hasn't happened for as long as I can remember..
 

1982vett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
14
Location
Central Texas
Problem with no-till is it doesn't work everywhere. I know it won't work in our heavy clay soils.

And the part about returning stubble back into the soil? All the rage about organic gardening is putting organic matter back into the soil to increase fertility, not toting it off. You need to feed the microorganisms in the soil much like you need the microorganisms in the rumen of a cow. Without them they both die. And if you take the organic matter away from our soil you end up with a parking lot.

In my opinion, the more educated these people become or claim to be, the more dangerous they are to society.

Yeah, I know I just a dumb high school graduate. :roll:
 

Oldtimer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
0
Location
Northeast Montana
1982vett":3rnutko4 said:
Problem with no-till is it doesn't work everywhere. I know it won't work in our heavy clay soils.

And the part about returning stubble back into the soil? All the rage about organic gardening is putting organic matter back into the soil to increase fertility, not toting it off. You need to feed the microorganisms in the soil much like you need the microorganisms in the rumen of a cow. Without them they both die. And if you take the organic matter away from our soil you end up with a parking lot.

In my opinion, the more educated these people become or claim to be, the more dangerous they are to society.

Yeah, I know I just a dumb high school graduate. :roll:

I put the nutrients back by running them thru the cow...After combining I turn the pairs into the stubble fields and pasture around the wheat fields...Seems like the cows really love the stubble off some of the newer wheat varieties and a couple months grazing the stubble/pasture combination sure puts a bloom on the calves....Last year we got fall rain- and a bunch of volunteer wheat- and they thought they'd died and went to heaven ;-)
 

Alberta farmer

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
I suspect some will get very rich on cap and trade but I doubt it will be the dumb old farmer? And when you think about it how smart is cap and trade? Does it really do anything to reduce pollution?
I understand your way of thinking Oldtimer. You will get a "subsidy from heaven" for doing things basically the way you always have...while some factory continues to pollute and has to buy offset credits. Then they turn around and say well we need more money if we have to pay for these credits? But wait another factory in China or India doesn't have to pay for their pollution and can out compete us! Better put some tariffs on...up goes the price of the goods!
Bottom line nothing changes, pollution wise? The taxpayer gets ripped off for nothing.
You the farmer get $6/acre...some greasy city slicker middleman makes billions!
 

1982vett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
14
Location
Central Texas
Oldtimer":51hdwtfu said:
I put the nutrients back by running them thru the cow...After combining I turn the pairs into the stubble fields and pasture around the wheat fields...Seems like the cows really love the stubble off some of the newer wheat varieties and a couple months grazing the stubble/pasture combination sure puts a bloom on the calves....Last year we got fall rain- and a bunch of volunteer wheat- and they thought they'd died and went to heaven ;-)

Don't have a problem with that, it is a good practice and benefits the land. The purpose of all of my crops is for a cow to eat it. But for those in government that want to confiscate our surface water, recycling stubble thru a cow is clearly not what they want. Definitely can't graze stubble that is sold to make ethanol. These green activist, lobbyist and politicians don't see that. After all, control is power.

Oldtimer":51hdwtfu said:
Industry News - PM
Vilsack says ag would make money on climate change bill

By Rita Jane Gabbett on 7/22/2009


"It's quite possible that this wheat farmer could do even better if technologies and markets progress in such a way that allows for the sale of wheat straw to make cellulosic ethanol," Vilsack concluded.
 
Top