If feds don't, states may stop ethano...

If feds don't, states may stop ethanol subsidy

There are 59 comments on the The Billings Outpost story from Dec 25, 2013, titled If feds don't, states may stop ethanol subsidy. In it, The Billings Outpost reports that:

While recent Supreme Court rulings on voting rights and same-sex marriage have held the nation's attention, another decision slipped quietly under radar.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Billings Outpost.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#1 Dec 25, 2013
1: Myth It takes more energy to produce it than the fuel provides.

Argonne National Lab report written by Michael Wang: As you can see, the fossil energy input per unit of ethanol is lower--0.74 million Btu fossil energy consumed for each 1 million Btu of ethanol delivered...

2: Myth Food supplies around the world have been disrupted because so much of the corn crop now goes to ethanol.

The US still exports 20% of it's corn crop, so there is no problem with supply. Corn for ethanol competes with livestock feed and the 'distiller grains' from the process still provide a lot of protein to feed livestock. And most other countries use other sources which are much more efficient than corn (such as sugar cane, exergy about 8 vs 1.3 for maize).

3: Myth: It costs taxpayers billions of dollars in subsidies at a time when our nation is already $12 trillion in debt.

"According to a 2008 analysis by Iowa State University, the growth in U.S. ethanol fuel production caused retail gasoline prices to be 29–40 cents per gallon lower than would otherwise have been the case. The U.S. consumed 138.2×109 US gal (523×106 m3) of gasoline in 2008, blended with about 9.6×109 US gal (36×106 m3) of ethanol, representing a market share of almost 7% of supply by volume. Given its lower energy content, ethanol fuel displaced about 6.4×109 US gal (24×106 m3) of gasoline, representing 4.6 percent in equivalent energy units"

There has been a net SAVING to the US from ethanol which displaces a large amount of IMPORTED oil.

4: Myth Even environmentalists have turned against it

Probably not and unsupported in any case.

5: Myth research shows that ethanol production increases the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.”

baloney
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_ ...
"A 2007 study by Argonne National Laboratory found that when these entire fuel life cycles are considered, using corn-based ethanol instead of gasoline reduces life cycle GHG emissions by 19% to 52%, depending on the source of energy used during ethanol production (see graph)."

Note: The current bumper corn crop has depressed prices, despite the demand for ethanol, below the cost to farmers. Good thing they have a secondary market in 'clean gasoline' iwht higher cmpression, lower toxicity and oxygenator to keep prices from crashing entirely.

As to lack of performance, used in a high compression engine, the fuel compares with 'pure gas' over the lifetime of the car. This is because it cleans the engine, prevents fouling and keeps the engine working at maximum efficiency. The 'energy density' argument is a red herring. MTBE, the dirtier, more toxic alternative isn't energy dense either.

Judged:

38

38

37

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#2 Dec 25, 2013
Somewhat rambling and misleading rant against ethanol gasoline. It makes many stupid claims, such as the one about ethanol being negative exergy. Facts are that using ethanol isn't designed to 'produce energy'(the exergy is very modest not negative). It is designed to replace toxic and EXPENSIVE octane boosters like MTBE. And it results in cleaner engines over long periods which eliminates the 'dirty engine' that increase CO2 emissions.

I would suggest that ethanol be produced from cheap imported sugar, but that is blocked by the sugar beet farmers.

As to O-157, that is an issue of farm regulation. They are obviously using a lot of manure to fertilize the corn crop. Doesn't matter if it's distillers grains or direct cattle feed (the majority of corn is for cattle feed, not human consumption).

The idea of cutting out 40% of the corn market to lower prices is, of course, another case of 'screw you' to the farmer who would see his income plummet and probably go bankrupt. This would eventually raise prices back to the 'sustainable' level but with a LOT of collateral damage to farming. P.S. how many farmers do you see driving limousines? Let's be real..

Judged:

38

38

37

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#3 Dec 26, 2013
"ethanol being negative exergy"
//////////
Ethanol needs high compression ratio ethanol engines(like INDY cars), nearly as high as diesel engines to obtain its efficiency. As 10% ethanol blends are NOT burned efficiently in lower compression ratio gasoline engines, ethanol collapses as an energy source. A small percentage of gasoline engines indeed, lose 10% mpg with the use of 10% ethanol blends, as opposed to 100% gasoline. This means that the ethanol produces no excess energy to power the vehicle. Greater than 50% of gasoline engines, have losses of 5% to 8+% mpg comparing 10% ethanol blends to 100% gasoline. Finally, LessHypeMoreFact admits to this, altho like through a backdoor screen.

For this same reason that ethanol is not burned properly in lower compression ratio gasoline engines(sending various percentages of unburned ethanol out the tailpipe), ethanol is also failing as a source of pollution reduction. Compared to the cleanest low sulphur 100% gasolines, already on the market & used in many regions selling 100% gasoline, 10% ethanol blend real-world pollutants are higher than 10% ethanol blends.

Judged:

29

29

28

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#4 Dec 26, 2013
litesong wrote:
"ethanol being negative exergy"
Ethanol needs high compression ratio ethanol engines(like INDY cars), nearly as high as diesel engines to obtain its efficiency. As 10% ethanol blends are NOT burned efficiently in lower compression ratio gasoline engines, ethanol collapses as an energy source.
Two errors. One is exergy refers to the amount of energy as a fuel vs the energy used to produce it. Ethanol is not a big gain but it is not a dead loss like MTBE.

Second error is that modern engines ARE designed for E10 and so use higher compression. This is because Ethanol is used as an OCTANE BOOSTER. To claim that it is inferior due to using in LOW compression engines is just ludicrous. Spin on this is the claim that it is an ENERGY SOURCE. It is an OCTANE BOOSTER, and more energy than MTBE which is what it replaces. It also is an ENERGY TRANSFER since coal and NG is the input while Ethanol is the output of the farming process.
litesong wrote:
" A small percentage of gasoline engines indeed, lose 10% mpg with the use of 10% ethanol blends, as opposed to 100% gasoline. This means that the ethanol produces no excess energy to power the vehicle. Greater than 50% of gasoline engines, have losses of 5% to 8+% mpg comparing 10% ethanol blends to 100% gasoline.
False comparisons abound. How much energy does MTBE produce? Compare apple to apples, you nitwit. And yes, some engines (old cars) are not designed for E10 and thus lose a lot of mileage. BUT E10 is CHEAPER TO PRODUCE and so it is only a matter of range. On an energy per DOLLAR E10 is competitive.
litesong wrote:
"
For this same reason that ethanol is not burned properly in lower compression ratio gasoline engines(sending various percentages of unburned ethanol out the tailpipe), ethanol is also failing as a source of pollution reduction. Compared to the cleanest low sulphur 100% gasolines, already on the market & used in many regions selling 100% gasoline, 10% ethanol blend real-world pollutants are higher than 10% ethanol blends.
Again, burning E10 in an engine that is not DESIGNED for it will give poor pollution control. This is like complaining that you cannot run your diesel tractor on gas. Poor litesong. He has to make up shit and make stupid and invalid comparisons to make his arguments. Lets hope he doesn't put diesel in his engine. I understand it has higher energy density than gasoline and he may be just STUPID enough to try it.

Judged:

37

37

37

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#5 Jan 11, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
..... modern engines ARE designed for E10 and so use higher compression.

And yes, some engines (old cars) are not designed for E10 and thus lose a lot of mileage.

burning E10 in an engine that is not DESIGNED for it will give poor pollution control. This is like complaining that you cannot run your diesel tractor on gas. Poor litesong. He has to make up shit.......
Modern engines use(not burn) ethanol without damage to low compression ratio(8:1 to 11:1) gasoline engines. However, ethanol engines, designed to get the ethanol energy content, have compression ratios of 16:1. Even modern engines (Prius or Mazda compression ratio- 12:1) have reported mpg losses in the 5% to 10% range.

100% gasoline provides emissions as low (even lower) as 10% ethanol blends. The following report from pure-gas.org :
We had to take our 2005 Ford Escape in for an emissions test in order to renew its plates this year and while in the test it received a FAST PASS indicating it is a very clean running vehicle. It's got 110,000 miles on it and the fuel in the tank at the time of the test was 85 octane PURE GASOLINE! This ethanol oxygenation crap is a myth!

Judged:

32

31

31

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#6 Jan 16, 2014
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofue...

Yeah, the ethanol industry is scrambling to re-float their decades long lies about ethanol. All lies have been often refuted, but the ethanol lobby holds many fat fingers in the developing huge holes that weaken the structure of the ethanol dike supports. For years studies have shown how much oil is NOT saved producing ethanol, & second, oil is burned to support the "ethanol for gasoline" industry.

Now, double facts come forward about ethanol inability to produce power inside low compression ratio gasoline engines AND the related fact that ethanol isn't burning clean in a gasoline engine. The post above delineates that information.

Tho the ethanol industry is strong, strong bi-partisan support to eliminate ethanol in our nation's gasoline stocks is rapidly rising.

Judged:

28

28

28

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#7 Jan 16, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
He has to make up shit and make stupid and invalid comparisons to make his arguments. Lets hope he doesn't put diesel in his engine.
You make up shit to continuing the dying ethanol lobby diatribe of decades past. Bi-partisan Congressional support is now flowing against stuffing a completely different type of fuel (ethanol) into our gasoline stocks. Ethanol is so different, it can't function properly in a low compression ratio gasoline engine. It can neither provide properly high energy output to power vehicles, nor can it meet its theoretical lower emissions levels, because it isn't used(not burned) properly in a low compression ratio gasoline engine.

Bi-partisanship? Not often glimpsed. But we have it in Congress now, against ethanol in gasoline. Once strongly mounted, bi-partisanship will end ethanol in gasoline. Your erroneous arguments have no friendly minds to fertilize. Precise attacks from all sides prevail against ethanol in gasoline. Funny, even when the tide turns against some issue, usually there is at least one redeeming factor for the vanquished. However, ethanol in gasoline has no supporting argument, that isn't opposed by a greater serving of truth.

As far as diesel........ don't need it. Just filled with half a tank of January 100% gasoline, untainted by ethanol or even winter blend gasoline(which doesn't provide lesser emissions). In my strictly non-hybrid, non-turboed, non-diesel gasoline car, which is bad mouthed for poor mpg, the fairly accurate trip computer took off! Getting to the highway, mpg strongly built thru the 30's & reached a high of 47mpg. The next day was colder, but mpg still held at 44mpg...... in the winter! This with a car that has 1 to 3 inches more rear seat shoulder room comfort than all other cars with 40mpg capability.

Did you know that altho some "clean" diesels are around, they barely meet the EPA restrictions with an engine that is $5000 more costly than a gasoline engine. A Prius has 10 times less pollution than a "clean diesel".

Judged:

29

29

28

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#8 Jan 16, 2014
litesong wrote:
http://oilprice.com/Alternativ e-Energy/Biofuels/Producers-Pa nic-as-Ethanol-Mandate-Loses-S upport.html
Yeah, the ethanol industry is scrambling to re-float their decades long lies about ethanol. All lies have been often refuted,but the ethanol lobby holds many fat fingers in the developing huge holes that weaken the structure of the ethanol dike supports.
You have yet to even give good references to your rants. Mostly you deal with single extrem examples where ethanol is less effective. But the progress in the automotive engine business, the higher reliability, the smog reduction and the higher MPG are mainly due to using ethanol as an oxygenator and octane booster, instead of toxic MTBE.

Note that overly exaggerated prose is no argument either. It illustrates, rather, your lack of substance.
litesong wrote:
For years studies have shown how much oil is NOT saved producing ethanol, & second, oil is burned to support the "ethanol for gasoline" industry.
Mostly the fuel that is burned producing the ethanol is coal or hydro power. There is a reduction in imported oil as part of the fuel for transport is replace by ethanol and this not only provides a price support for farmers but also reduces the premium price of imported oil.

Your argument is purely a 'strawman' since the purpose of E10 fuel is NOT to eliminate gasoline.
litesong wrote:
Now, double facts come forward about ethanol inability to produce power inside low compression ratio gasoline engines AND the related fact that ethanol isn't burning clean in a gasoline engine. The post above delineates that information.
Again, a stupid non-sequitur and strawman. The whole PURPOSE of octane boosters is to raise compression. Higher compression engines provide most effective use of the energy in fuels. "not even wrong"..
litesong wrote:
Tho the ethanol industry is strong, strong bi-partisan support to eliminate ethanol in our nation's gasoline stocks is rapidly rising.
Only in your small vision. You have the problem that you only listen to those who agree with you. And so you end up with a huge 'confirmational bias' that only gets stronger for the fact that you are, at heart, a fanatic.

Judged:

38

38

37

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#9 Feb 2, 2014
litesong wrote:
http://oilprice.com/Alternativ e-Energy/Biofuels/Producers-Pa nic-as-Ethanol-Mandate-Loses-S upport.html
Yeah, the ethanol industry is scrambling to re-float their decades long lies about ethanol. All lies have been often refuted, but the ethanol lobby holds many fat fingers in the developing huge holes that weaken the structure of the ethanol dike supports. For years studies have shown how much oil is NOT saved producing ethanol, & second, oil is burned to support the "ethanol for gasoline" industry.
Now, double facts come forward about ethanol inability to produce power inside low compression ratio gasoline engines AND the related fact that ethanol isn't burning clean in a gasoline engine. The post above delineates that information.
Tho the ethanol industry is strong, strong bi-partisan support to eliminate ethanol in our nation's gasoline stocks is rapidly rising.
& here it is, the bill passed by the House, to at least, BEGIN the cessation of mixing ethanol into our nation's gasoline stocks.....quick, like a bunny.

Within the Farm Bill, passed by the House, is a provision that effectively cripples blending of ethanol into gasoline stocks. From the article:
Wednesday's vote does not guarantee the subsidy cut will become law, but there is little opponents of the provision can do to stop it. The Senate is expected to vote on the same version of the bill as early as next week, at which point it will go to President Obama for signing into law.
Leaders of the House and Senate agriculture committees have said they expect the resident will sign the bill.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Farm ...

This could be it. I can't believe it moved so fast. This is incredible!

Judged:

29

28

28

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#10 Feb 2, 2014

Judged:

22

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#11 Feb 2, 2014
litesong wrote:
Sure. E10 to E15 is probably not going to happen. Concerns about small engines seems to have killed that move. Not really a big thing. E10 gives you the majority of the benefits. I don't suggest E85 or E100 either.

Of course, some fanatics (like one I could name) will take this as a 'victory' for higher fuel prices and imports, putting OPEC back in charge. Not going to happen.

Well, they did kill food stamps and healthy food prices. No guarantee that this idiot Congress won't make some stupid move. What they won't do is cut subsidies to the fossil fuel companies. Too much of it is kicked back into their election budget.

Judged:

37

37

36

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#12 Feb 2, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
E10 to E15 is probably not going to happen. E10 gives you the majority of the benefits.
No guarantee that this idiot Congress won't make some stupid move.
Glad to see your efforts to minimize the wide reaching effects of this legislation. But that it happened so quickly, without effort tells that "ethanol in gasoline" industry has lost...... again.

Of course, E10 has no benefits. E10 has no efficient power production in low compression ratio gasoline engines(as the ethanol industry toted), leading to 8% to 5% mpg losses(some even say, 10% losses). Also, ethanol, with a lack of complete burning in low compression ratio gasoline engines, also fails as an anti-pollutant ingredient.

Judged:

30

30

30

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#13 Feb 3, 2014
litesong wrote:
Glad to see your efforts to minimize the wide reaching effects of this legislation. But that it happened so quickly, without effort tells that "ethanol in gasoline" industry has lost...... again.
Of course, E10 has no benefits. E10 has no efficient power production in low compression ratio gasoline engines(as the ethanol industry toted), leading to 8% to 5% mpg losses(some even say, 10% losses). Also, ethanol, with a lack of complete burning in low compression ratio gasoline engines, also fails as an anti-pollutant ingredient.
Ha! Here's one of the first eulogies for "ethanol in gasoline" industry:
http://egg-cite.com/Commentary/single.aspx...

Tho softening the blow by ostensively referring to E85, this dirge applies to all forms of the "ethanol in gasoline" industry. From the article:

The entire industry was based on a false foundation of government mandates and supports and appears to be collapsing.......
It is possible that in 5000 years time future archeologists will unearth the remains of Midwest ethanol plants and wonder what sects worshiped large tanks and metal pipes.

Judged:

26

26

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#14 Feb 4, 2014
litesong wrote:
...... this dirge applies to all forms of the "ethanol in gasoline" industry. From the article:
The entire industry was based on a false foundation of government mandates and supports and appears to be collapsing.......
It is possible that in 5000 years time future archeologists will unearth the remains of Midwest ethanol plants and wonder what sects worshiped large tanks and metal pipes.
From another website, these posts I made supporting pure-gas.org , a grassroots organization listing sources for 100%(ethanol-free) gasoline.

Originally Posted by litesong, March 2012:

Altho 4800+ stations sell 100% gas in Canada & the U.S., I note on the map at pure-gas.org , that only 18 (such) stations sell gas in Ohio where you live........

Posted today:
The expansion of the grassroots' pure-gas.org is phenomenal, considering its present 100%(ethanol-free) listings are now 7700. Even more spectacular with the expanded listings, being that the "ethanol in gasoline" industry had extreme EPA support, forcing ethanol in American gasoline stocks. Ohio has inflated to 41 stations & other states are also known to have double their 100% gasoline listings. It is amazing that Wisconsin & Minnesota have ~1100 listings, altho they are crippled with limited octane availability(specially Minnesota) & high prices.

Now that the "ethanol in gasoline" industry is failing, the future of 100% gasoline listings should escalate to 10,000, 20,000 & far more listings. Gov't works slowly, but the days of the lying "ethanol in gasoline" industry are numbered.

Judged:

25

25

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#15 Feb 4, 2014
Litesong. Have you notices how many people your rants DON'T attract? That is the problem with one issue deaf dumb and blind fanaticism. Nobody is interested.

For myself, I have NO fear that E10 will be phased out.

Judged:

33

33

32

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#16 Feb 4, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
I have NO fear that E10 will be phased out.
Of course, you should NOT fear when ethanol blends are phased out. All ethanol blends are inefficient in low compression ratio gasoline engines, lower gasoline vehicle mpg & do NOT lead to lower emissions, because ethanol does NOT burn properly in gasoline engines.

As stated in posts above:
The entire industry was based on a false foundation of government mandates and supports and appears to be collapsing.......

What is nice is 100% gasoline will again be the prominent fuel for gasoline engines & its cost will come down, because 100% gasoline only made up ~5% of our nation's gasoline supplies & was more costly. Also nice is that mpg will go up for gasoline engines, be closer to EPA estimates AND decrease U.S. oil usage(opposite of ethanol industry lies)!. Also nice is that emissions won't go up, because 100% gasoline quality had increased, being able to meet EPA pollution restrictions, WITHOUT the use of ethanol, which failed in its emission targets anyhow.

All in all, a bunch of little "nices" that cause great big grins on American driver's faces. I know 100% gasoline makes me smile now & when the price comes down, I'll....... have a great big grin on my face, too.

Judged:

23

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#17 Feb 4, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you should NOT fear when ethanol blends are phased out.
I have no fear that this will happen. There are a dozen benefits to E10 and only one drawback. Puregas is slightly more energy dense so you can go just a little farther on it. But at a price of higher costs. And that will just get worse. One of the drivers behind the recent improvements in gas mileage has been the fact that E10 keeps the engine clean with no damage to sensitive emissions systems.

NO way will we do back. And only you have a bug up your arse about it.

Judged:

33

33

32

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#18 Feb 4, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
I have no fear that this will happen. There are a dozen benefits to E10 and only one drawback. Puregas is slightly more energy dense so you can go just a little farther on it. And only you have a bug up your arse about it.
Your lack of fear is your excessive belief in the lies of the "ethanol in gasoline" industry. The entire industry was based on a false foundation of government mandates and supports and appears to be collapsing.......

As you say, "Nobody is interested". That is why the EPA is reducing the amount of ethanol in our nation's gasoline stocks, why Senators Feinstein & Coburn, with lots of bi-partisan support introduced legislation to eliminate ethanol in gasoline, & why subsidies are close to being repealed for equipment to mix ethanol in gasoline. Your "nobody cares" is also a lie, which you know to be a lie. Ethanol is in trouble, which you know is not a lie.

As you say, "Puregas is slightly more energy dense so you can go just a little farther on it". However, the majority of car drivers who carefully record comparisons between 100% gasoline & 10% ethanol blends, don't report the 1-3% levels that the ethanol industry states. They report 8% to 5% differences. There cars when going 100,000 miles, will go 5000 to 8000 more miles using 100% gasoline, which makes the ethanol very ineffective. A small minority report a 10% difference between 100% gasoline & 10% ethanol blends, which means ethanol has no energy output for their particular engines.

All you repeat is "ethanol in gasoline" lies, & you also have a fascination with my butt. You are NOT convincing.

Judged:

23

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#19 Feb 12, 2014
litesong wrote:
here it is, the bill passed by the House, to at least, BEGIN the cessation of mixing ethanol into our nation's gasoline stocks.....quick, like a bunny.
Within the Farm Bill, passed by the House, is a provision that effectively cripples blending of ethanol into gasoline stocks. From the article:
Wednesday's vote does not guarantee the subsidy cut will become law, but there is little opponents of the provision can do to stop it. The Senate is expected to vote on the same version of the bill as early as next week, at which point it will go to President Obama for signing into law.
Leaders of the House and Senate agriculture committees have said they expect the resident will sign the bill.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Farm ...
This could be it. I can't believe it moved so fast. This is incredible!
LHMF has stated no one cares what I say.

Here's what I say:
November 2013...... EPA reduces quantities of ethanol to be blended into future stocks of 100% gasoline.

December 2013......Senators Feinstein & Coburn, with lots of bi-partisan support introduce legislation to halt the mandate to blend ethanol into 100% gasoline stocks.

Yes, the Senate did pass the Farm Bill with intact paragraphs, stopping subsidies on equipment to blend ethanol into gasoline. The Farm Bill was signed by President Obama.

LHMF eats crow...... & must think it tastes good.

Judged:

18

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#20 Feb 12, 2014
Let's ask him, hahahaha.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Agriculture Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Governor's order seeks to make Minnesota more b... 48 min woodtick57 20
News Office workers turn urban gardeners on Paris lu... Fri Stephany McDowell 1
News Nation-Now 40 mins ago 9:07 a.m.Biofuels worse ... Fri Apostate 1
News Council OKs request for new $12M intake loan; t... Thu Sandra 1
News USDA to Purchase Surplus Cheese for Food Banks ... Thu Serratus Anterior 1
News Grand Lake St. Marys polluted again with toxic ... Thu Bring Cash and Lysol 2
News Gov't Study Finds Michelle Obama's School Lunch... Aug 24 Serratus Anterior 1
More from around the web