(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Beat to death

Yesterday's Tractor Forums
F

flying belgian

Well-known Member
I know this subject has been beat to death but this may sum it up. You cannot have a net energy increase simply by changing its form. Am I right? You can try and justify it a thousand different ways but in the end you cannot have a net energy gain simply by changing its form. Period, end of story.
 
Energy cannot be created or destroyed is only in a perfect system.
Conservation of Energy Law.

As T in NE already stated, friction, etc will net you a loss during a change.

Rick
 
Also should add that this means there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Conversation of Energy Law is the same the First Law of Thermodynamics.

My parents will be proud, that physics minor gets used more on YTmag than at work. :)

Rick
 
Some say there is no such thing as perputual motion.

There has been machines that violate the law of phycis produced in the past. The powers to be has kept them from being developed.
If one wants to enlighten themselves, read about Nickol Tesla, T.Thompsan Brown and a few others that were on the fringe of advanced science.
 
Your right there is no such thing as a net increase in energy, within the known universe, when looked at from the view of the thermodynamics rule that 'energy can be neither made nor destroyed, it can only change forms. On the other hand if we, as humans, can build machines to harness the power of the sun, the ocean (waves, tides, etc) the wind, the Earth (geothermal), etc we can actually create 'extra', 'free', power for our use here on the Earth that didn't origionate here, and would otherwise would be somewhat 'wasted'. Basically when we use coal, oil, etc that comes from the Earth we are using up resources by changing them in form. However when we use alternative forms we are, in effect, adding to the energy available on our planet. Still, even in the case of 'free' energy, we're still only changing the inputed energy directly into something useful vs gaining it in a round about way. By that I mean the sunshine we harness could just as well help a tree to grow to create firewood for fuel, plants for food, or whatever. Those items, in turn then transform into fuel in the form of coal, oil, etc. Basically it gets transformed 'directly' into electricity, or whatever, instead of us getting the benefits second, third, or more hand like we do now days with fossil fuels.
 
constant wind , running a water pump to turn a water wheel to run a generator to operate light, and charge battery for motor to drive wind operated pump in slow wind conditions .

If the water source is used from a closed tank, so that the water is reused , and only add water when it evaporates... Would that not be perpetual energy ?
Like the 5th wheel idea ?
 
I know a man actually built a huge perpetual motion machine. Had it in his VW repair shop, [he was a very good mechanic]. The thing had the over-reaching lever arms, with weights, that as it rotatetd it levered the weights further out on one side, to provide more leverage. One of the classic designs. Spun very freely, smoothly, and no, it did not work.
 
So what is the story you are trying to end?

Assuming it is ethanol:

We gain energy from the sun, this is the gain as the sun power falls whether we use it or not. This gain amounts to about a 25% increase in btus in corn ethanol.

And we convert a poor heating fuel to a more valuable transportation fuel. This is not an energy gain, but it is a value added.

Paul
 
(quoted from post at 04:18:52 11/26/13) So what is the story you are trying to end?

Assuming it is ethanol:

We gain energy from the sun, this is the gain as the sun power falls whether we use it or not. This gain amounts to about a 25% increase in btus in corn ethanol.

And we convert a poor heating fuel to a more valuable transportation fuel. This is not an energy gain, but it is a value added.

Paul
Click to expand...

The thing is for every gallon of ethanol produced you are using from start to finish about 30% more energy to produce it than it makes. That includes tillage and panting, harvest, transportation to the ethanol plant and moving the finished product to the point where it's blended. So as far as energy is concerned it's a loss, not a gain.

Then ethanol about 70% as efficient as gas. So there is no way that ethanol laced gas will produce the same, or increase mileage at the same octane rating.

Yes the federal subsidy for ethanol has stopped but state and local governments are using federal money to subsidize ethanol plans in their states and local areas.

Rick
 
Perpetual motion hasn't been done by mankind, but it is with the creation... consider the earth orbiting the sun at around 66,000 miles per hour, just keeps ticking along...
 
The universe still keeps ticking along but not forever.
Eventually the universe will stop moving without an addition of energy.

The laws of physics as we know them today, are universal.
 
(quoted from post at 05:08:05 11/26/13) Basically, that's one of the laws of Physics. So far the courts haven't over turned it.
Click to expand...

yeah but wait until O'bummer appoints a few more judges.
 
If you're a good enough salesman, you can make a lot of money selling funny-looking contraptions with lots of wiring and blinkie lights over the internet to people who don't understand those basics and won't listen to their better educated friends.
 
You cannot "net an increase", but you CAN change its form to one that is more readily adaptable to its need, or change it to a more "transportable" for. ie, not many cars have the ability to burn corn to get you to work every day, but they DO have the ability to burn ethanol.
 
If federal subsidy has stopped how could states use federal money to subsidize ethanol. Statement contradicts itself. Farming to grow anything is likely a net energy loss, but we do it anyway, because it can produce an economic gain with good management.
 
Oh, goodness, thought we were past this at least. If you don't
like ethanol fine, but at least there is ample science and work
out there to be past this part by now.

Many good sources out there, Wikipedia is not always a
perfect source, but if you start there they show the 1.3% return
on ethanol in the USA that is the common, well researched,
result I thought everyone knew about by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

Here is a neutral govt study on it:

http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uerser/34075.html

Read the abstract for the core info you all are asking for, you
can download the whole report and read the whole dry paper
for free.



There are many other sources out there.


There was one study, by a Big Oil guy, that factored in the
sunlight as a cost in some slight of hand way, and also took
the ddgs high protein, high mineral feed we get left from
ethanol and just hauled it to a landfill I guess, and his one
study, which has been discredited over and over and over as
pure bunk, is likely what you are basing your ideas off of.

To each their own, but wrong is wrong.

Lot of research and science points to positive energy gain
from:

Corn ethanol in the USA 130% efficient or so.
Milk production in the USA 110% efficient or so.
Certain types of beef production in the USA, tho not all feeding
systems - quite varriable depending on how you value non-
productive grasslands.

Farming is one of the few bright spots on efficiency in the
USA, I'm just always plumb surprised folks on a more rural,
more country oriented site like this are so totally anti-farm and
need to stretch things to be so.

And now, as I often say, corn ethanol is -not- the solution to all
the worlds energy problems, it is but a small player, offers us
perhaps a 3% increase in transportation fuel is all. Evern with
cellulosic added in down the road, wont get to be more than 6-
10% energy increase.It will never ever replace all fuel. But it is
surprising how much extra jingle we all get to keep in our
pockets with just that small 3% gain over the last 5-10 years.

I'm just amazed.

Paul
 
If ethanol used 30% more energy to produce why does anyone produce it? Even with the government giving producers a tax break it still wouldn't make sense - your inputs are more than your outputs.


But then I've also heard the same claim that feeding grain to cattle is the most inefficient method to make them gain weight. That grain should instead be used to make cheap food for starving people.
 
To make it easier for you, I added a link to the papers on
energy efficiency of ethanol.

If you go to the Citations part, you get a list to dozens more
papers on it. This report itself is an updated review and
summery of all those papers, attempting to filter out the good
from the bad. Its dry reading, but have at it.

1.34 return of energy per 1 unit used to create corn ethanol in
the USA. Start to finish, some irrigation, fertilizer, transport,
planting, the whole deal.

This is old, established news?

Now, what is your number based on? Gonna show your work?

Paul
Govt studies on corn ethanol efficiency
 
I don't especially trust any of the studies done... because they're all done by one special interest or another in an attempt to justify their cause.
What I do think is this... if you're talking about energy in vs energy out you need to plan on accounting for all of the energy used in mining the iron to make the steel that goes into the equipment... the energy entrapped in the fertilizer production... transportation, field losses, etc. The only input is the sun's energy... and that is a pretty rough estimate. The bottom line is that the input from the sun has to make up for ALL of the efficiency losses in the system from one end to the other.
As far as the DDG issue is concerned... there is recovery there in that you gain some usage from that product as feed... but when you saturate that market, then it's a waste product, pure and simple. In removing that from the equation I suspect that you'd have a fairly large negative number in the energy calculation. The fact that studies exist with numbers to support both stances in and of itself suggests that the real number is pretty close to zero on a good day.

Rod
 
Some people who have an electric heater made by the Amish, who don't use electricity, think they get more energy out than energy in. Same with some other brands, Edin pure.

That's one horse that's been ridden and put away many times. Add to that list ground and neutral.
 
?

Over half the ethanol plants in my state are farmer owned coops, they make out ok. One near me is over 20 years running now.

For a while there was a govt subsidy I'm sure that helped.

The subsidy was ended over a year ago, as it should be it was just a starter deal to get the ball rolling.

Ethanol is still working out ok standing on its own. Some months are positive, some are negative, but over all they appear to return a small net profit from what I hear. For a couple of years we actually exported our corn ethanol to Brazil, was cheaper for them that their own ethanol,produced that.....

During the ethanol craze 5 years ago a few plants were built by investors with pockets of money and no common sense, some of those have failed. As they should have, they were built in wrong locations, and planned out poorly.

Don't know where the losing money question comes from so probably didnt hit whatever you are trying to ask?

Paul
 
Healthy skepticism is a good thing, I can understand that.

I provided a lot of info, lot of different groups and reports summered in my links, not just one or 2. One has to start somewhere, not just I guess this or I think that, we need to form our opinion from some good solid data and good solid science?

And they point to that 30% or so net energy gain.

What has the other side provided?

I kinda read in your message, "I love my petrochemical business and just don't want to believe anything else....' But that is just healthy skepticism on my part too, I don't mean that personally at all. ;)

If you look at the studies, really look at them, they do go quite in depth to include the fertilizer and all. But you have to look if you want to learn.

How efficient is gasoline, by the way? Oh, I'm sure that isn't very important tho. Only ethanol efficiency should be questioned.....

If you are going to question DDG as a real product or just a waste, you need to get out and look where the ethanol plants are. DDG is what carried manufactured feed through the past few years, it is a sought after commodity. China imports a whole bunch from us as well - we export 20% of what we produce as a high protein, high mineral feed suppliment.. Tthere s demand for it, not a waste to get rid of?

You do know DDGs are traded on the board, this is not some floor sweepings product? Those fellas aren't going to bother setting up a board for a worthless waste product?

http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/agricultural/files/AC-398_DDGS_FC_r6.pdf

Its good to question things and look for biases. There are plenty on both sides of the issue, and I try hard to bypass the ones on my side, only quote and work with the real, good, data from either side.

Hopefully you keep an open mind and look at the real issues and real info.

Paul
Ddg trading
 
You can buy or sell corn in IND today at 4.16/ bu at the mkt terminal. Processing that bushel at an ethanol plant gets you 3 gallon of ethanol to sell. Ethanol sold today on open market is roughly 1.95/gallon. So the plant owners have gross sales revenue over raw material cost of 1.69/bushel. If cost to operate the plant is 1.00/bushel, why are ethanol producers losing money? Appears to be excess revenue .69/bushel going to plant owner.
 
Somewhere along the line someone confused losing ENERGY with losing MONEY, I think...

Not the same thing.
 
I don't have a big problem with ethanol as a product aside from the fact that it makes a lot of misery with carbs on small engines. While the fact that it's driven the cost of corn up is a big negative to the livestock sector... and I don't care what you believe... there is no way you can spin that in a positive manner to me... that part bothers me... but at the same time I am happy to see the rest of you making money for a change because I know very well that most of you have gone for fairly extensive periods of time where you didn't make much. I guess overall I view it as a positive for agriculture...
My issue is it's efficiency. If it was 50% efficient then I would look at it as a viable thing. When it gets down to 20-30% it's getting pretty poor. When it gets down to 10% the dog is just chasing his tail... and then mabey the truth is that it's a net loss in energy?

I view the efficiency of gasoline/diesel/LPG/CNG as irrelevant to this discussion. The production of corn and most other ag commodities ~is~ petroleum based. That's just a plain simple fact of the time we live in. Personally I don't have a problem with that. When you're producing food... I accept that as a cost we bear. Our society is sustained on petroleum today and if that didn't exist there'd be a lot less of us.... So the question to me is this... if you follow this on an energy basis rather than an economic basis... which is what we should be discussing... and you look at all the inputs... then look at the energy you get out in ethanol... do you gain 30% more energy? 20%? 10%? Nothing? What if you lose 20%? What are we doing as a society if we expend all of these petrol resources to grow the crop and get back 20% less than we put in? I'm not saying these are real numbers.... I'm just throwing the number out as an example. MY concern then is that if we get less out of it than we put in... we've simply gone backwards. What does gasoline efficiency have to do with ethanol when you use more energy to make the ethanol than you get back?
That brings us to DDG's... at what point do you run out of market for this stuff? The amount of ethanol produced today is small in comparison to the actual amount of fuel required. If you produced a much larger percentage of the fuel as ethanol... you'd be swimming in DDG's. While I don't know the numbers... I'd gestimate that it's a hell of a lot more than all of the cows on the planet are going to eat. You can only dump some much concentrated protein in front of a cow...The largest part of their diet for most of their lives is still going to come from forage... so I say again... if you saturate the market for DDG's you're going to do so firstly at the expense of bean meal... and secondly... when there simple remains no use for it... then it's a waste product. Then the economic applecart for ethanol is upset...
As it is... I don't think there's any serious argument to be made that the energy gain is more than miniscule if at all when you include DDG's.... never mind when you remove that from the equation.
I wish more folks would separate their economic arguments from the energy equation in this debate as well...
It brings us back to the law of conservation of mass and energy... energy is neither created or destroyed. It only changes form... and with every change in form there is a loss due to friction, etc. inefficiency in the conversion process. So do you harness enough sunlight to still get ahead after you pay off the system losses? I know one thing... there'd be damn little corn grown if the work had to be done with horses in the absence of chemical fertilizer... and modern herbicide... so to me that pretty well answers the question. Most of the output of the system would be consumed by the horses and the slaves... so there wouldn't be much left to go to the plant.

Rod
 
You read the example backwards.

You get 1.34 units of energy returned for every 1 unit it takes to produce.

Gary
 
Your wrong.
The latest numbers from USDA say for every BTU of input, be they oil,NG, coal or other fossil fuel, used to grow, transport and convert corn to Ethanol, you get 33% more BTU's out than you put in. The fact that Ethanol has less BTU's per allon means nothing, as they are not comparing gallons to gallons,but BTU's in to BTU's out. The 33% gain is from the free sunlight that grew the crop.
 
Paul, the only problem with your report is that it's produced by an agenda driven gov't organization- the USDA. I'll take your word for it that corn ethanol is 130% efficient, although that seems impossibly high, and that milk production is 110% efficient- and I know that one is way high. It still doesn't factor in the resulting costs to other people that use corn outside the ethanol production. Corn doubled in price in 6 months and it's not coming back down. Good for corn growers, not so great for the rest of us.
 
Paul,
I applaud your efforts and I've feel the same way about the anti-ethanol on this website.
My dad always said "give a farmer a dollar and he'll spend two". At least with ethanol the money has more chance to help local economies.
 
Actually I got my info from a simple google search. The several sources that I quoted were universality studies that started with tilling the field to the finished product delivered to the refinery for blending. And those studies only dealt with the total number of BTU's consumed to produce as much ethanol as possible out of a certain amount of corn and how many BTU's of energy the ethanol would produce. Sum total a 30% loss in BTU's. I did read studies that claimed as some have state a 30% gain but those studies did not include tillage, transportation of corn nor that of the finished product. In fact those studies really told me that if I burn corn for heat as opposed to burning the ethanol that corn could be turned into that the ethanol produces 130% of the BTU's the corn will. That is the only thing where I can find that makes ethanol viable as a fuel.

Get this guys. I don't hate ethanol. I hate being forced to use it. If I design and make a product that few if any want I go broke....unless I'm a farmer and can get the government to make people use that product.

Tell me again if it's so great why the government is thinking about reducing or getting rid of the mandate to use it.

Rick
 
Who says the government is thinking about getting rid of the mandate to use it?

Maybe a few politicians of a particular persuasion are making some noise about it, but that does not mean it's going to happen. There are LOTS of things that the government supposedly is "going to do" that haven't got a prayer of ever coming true.

All it is, is politicians grandstanding, telling their constituency what they want to hear so they can get reelected. When it doesn't happen, they "fought for you" so you're supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy and vote for them the next time around.

Chuck Schumer does it all the time.
 
(quoted from post at 20:31:51 11/25/13) I know this subject has been beat to death but this may sum it up. You cannot have a net energy increase simply by changing its form. Am I right? You can try and justify it a thousand different ways but in the end you cannot have a net energy gain simply by changing its form. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct; changing a form of energy will result in a loss. For example: 1) using coal to generate electricity will result in a loss of energy...the coal contained more heat than does the generated electricity. 2) refining a barrel of crude oil in gasoline, diesel, jet fuel etc. will result in a loss.

The confusing part is with processes that are not a simple change in form. For example: 1) a ground source heat pump can have a COE (coefficient of performance) greater than 1.0, meaning it provides more heat energy than the electrical energy used to power the heat pump. This can be true since the heat pump moves heat from the water into your home rather than changing its form. 2) corn to ethanol for use as fuel includes the energy of the sun captured by the growing corn. An energy balance (inputs versus outputs) can show a energy gain as a result of the captured energy (input) of the sun.

Now.....the confusing thing about an ethanol energy balance is that there is no agreed to standard of how the energy balance analysis is conducted. One analysis may use 120 bu/acre for corn yield another may use 200 bu/acre. The ethanol yield used may be 2.5 gal/bu while another may use 3.0 gal/bu. Some include the value of the DDGs while another anaylsis does not. As a result the energy balance can lead to very different conlusions.

One may say, "well this is completely goofy, we should have a standard". For example: in years past it was common for the auto companies to dyno test their engines without, air filters, alternator, water pump, cooling fan, an exhaust system. As a result the horsepower advertised was much different than what the engine actually produced in your car. Now there are standards, called J codes, which specify exactly how the test is to be performed.

Until we have a standard for an "ethanol energy balance" one needs to look at the details to understand the input/outputs used for the analysis.

BTW - very good question.
 
(quoted from post at 01:01:01 11/26/13) Some say there is no such thing as perputual motion.

There has been machines that violate the law of phycis produced in the past. The powers to be has kept them from being developed.
If one wants to enlighten themselves, read about Nickol Tesla, T.Thompsan Brown and a few others that were on the fringe of advanced science.
Click to expand...

Not true
 
(quoted from post at 08:11:42 11/26/13) Perpetual motion hasn't been done by mankind, but it is with the creation... consider the earth orbiting the sun at around 66,000 miles per hour, just keeps ticking along...
Click to expand...

Not true. Gravity , strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism are all at work.
 
The local ethanol plant was thinking of shutting down last fall when they were paying 0 basis trying to get the bins filled. But the loss from paying for $7-$8 corn was less than the loss from not filling their distillers contracts.
 
Seriously....You need to learn the difference between a "university study" and a hack study done by someone who's attending (or has attended) a university.

There is a well defined difference, and a VERY well defined lack of protocol used in these "studies" where a pre-determined (desired) result is laid out first, and "data" supplied to (supposedly) validate "findings". These types of "studies" are done with the sole intention of creating a crowd of semi-educated misinformed "believers" on the bandwagon and NOT to actually reach a scientific conclusion.
 
[You cannot have a net energy increase simply by changing its form. Am I right?]
Not true try the following;
Exert the energy of three fingers or thumbs for 30 seconds to write this;
How do I wire this?
Which is better red or green?
How many MPG do you get?
It will result in the return of energy from 40+ other members frantically pounding away at keyboards for an accumulated energy return of three fingers for 90 minutes.
Now how hard is that? :)
 
(quoted from post at 10:55:47 11/26/13) ?

Over half the ethanol plants in my state are farmer owned coops, they make out ok. One near me is over 20 years running now.

For a while there was a govt subsidy I'm sure that helped.

The subsidy was ended over a year ago, as it should be it was just a starter deal to get the ball rolling.

Ethanol is still working out ok standing on its own. Some months are positive, some are negative, but over all they appear to return a small net profit from what I hear. For a couple of years we actually exported our corn ethanol to Brazil, was cheaper for them that their own ethanol,produced that.....

During the ethanol craze 5 years ago a few plants were built by investors with pockets of money and no common sense, some of those have failed. As they should have, they were built in wrong locations, and planned out poorly.

Don't know where the losing money question comes from so probably didnt hit whatever you are trying to ask?

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul what do you can a government rule that requires ethanol to be blended with gas? It's a hidden subsidy. I know for a fact that the state and a least one county are giving cash subsidies for ethanol production here in MN and I read a report last year after the federal subsidies stopped on how much IA was paying out. So the subsidies are still there. Just not as visible. If we were given the choice at the pump between blended fuel and just gas bio fuels would disappear over night. I know of no one, if E85 was taxed fairly who would buy it. In fact the only people I see at E85 pumps are MN government workers filling up government owned vehicles. I know no one who uses E85 in personal vehicles. I know no one given the option who would use the 10% blend.

As far as a government study, do you trust the government to govern wisely? Do you trust them to be honest? Do you trust them to spend tax money or any money wisely? Do you trust them to really think about taking care of our veterans? How about them using our military wisely? And you expect me to trust a study they did? That furthers their agenda? What about all the other studies that disagree with the findings of the governments study? What about the governments "war on drugs"? That hasn't been a great success. Nor has the "war on poverty". The USDA policies haven't been all that successful nor has the EPA's.

Every study that I have read except the governments one claims that it takes more energy to produce one gallon of ethanol that that gallon can produce. Ethanol produces less BTU's per gallon than gas too, 77,000 BTUs compared to 114,000 for gas. They only upside to ethanol is the fact it's renewable.

Rick
 

I had thought a good bit about this as my way to reason that ethanol was not feasable, but then if you think of gasoline and diesel, and any petroleum product, you have to drill for it, pipe it, refine it, pipe it or haul it some more, so there is a huge cost to getting usable gasoline also.

Kinda like hauling fuel over the "hump" in the CBI in WWII. They expended something like 6 or 8 gallons for every usable gallon they got across.

Gene
 

You must not know many people. I see people filling up with E85 all the time. Most pumps in Iowa give us a choice between 10% and 0% ethanol. Most people choose 10%. I also use 10% in my cars and motorcycles. The lawnmowers get 0%.
 
Well I ain't in IA. And I know no one who is using it and have only seen government vehicles filling with E85. Everyone I know who has a flex fuel vehicle tried it, once, swore after that they would never buy E85 again. Here in MN that invisible subsidy kicks in as we cannot fill with anything but 10%. When I am in IA visiting grandkids I always fill with just gas cause I can.

Rick
 
Apparently, when the consumers in South Dakota are given a choice with blender pumps that E15 becomes the #2 seller, even when straight gas is a choice and when it is all totaled up, this station sells up to 28% ethanol in a month.
http://ethanolproducer.com/blog/article/2013/07/e15-success-stories-from-sd-nascar

I do admit that I only buy E85 when it makes economic sense. My truck isn't flex fuel, so I have to blend it manually to get around E50 or less to keep the check engine light from coming on. As long as it is $.70 or so less than E10, E50 costs me less per mile. Mileage loss is about 10% with E50
 

Jim, that's SD with a very small population and a strong farm economy as far as jobs and income goes. Population under 1 million about 850,000. Number of farms, 31, 800.


MN population 5.6 million. Number of farms 81,000.


So by % more people in SD derive their income from ag or ag related business. MN on the other hand has far less of the population by % making a living of ag or ag related industry.


I'm not saying that MN is better than SD, only pointing out that it's different.


Here, west central part of MN the only pro ethanol people I know are the corn farmers. I have 2 towns east and west of me. 2 very small ones about 1 1/2 miles away each with a convenience store, they don't carry E85 because there is no market. the next 2 town have 3 convenience store between them. One carries E85 and sells very little, I know the manager. My wife works at one of these (no E85 and no plans for it) and she is constantly telling me about how many customers complain about being force to buy gas with any ethanol in it at all. If it was legal to sell gas in MN without ethanol I'm sure it would outsell ethanol blends. They do sell noon oxygenated gas for antique vehicles but it's illegal to put that in a daily drive newer car. The place my wife works at sells both regular diesel and bio blend only because state highway trucks fill up there and the state wants bio fuel run in them. That accounts for about 80% of bio blend diesel. I will not run bio blend diesel in my tractor. I run premium diesel only. I do know a few farmers who get bio blend for their equipment.

Rick
 
Interesting argument. I guess farmers are generally smarter than the average person.
No, wait - just found this:
According to this, 25% of the population of Mn are employed in a ag related industry. That is more than the entire state of SD.
http://www.city-data.com/states/Minnesota-Agriculture.html

Must be something else that is different.
Maybe it isn't non-farmers that don't like ethanol. Maybe Lutherans don't like ethanol?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Yesterday's Tractor Forums
Buy Tractor Parts Here Buy Tractor Manuals Here

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2025 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top