Ethanol mandate results in pollution

I respond to the Thursday letter “Big Oil likes to spread lies about ethanol” from Fred Yoder. I think he has been reading too many farm magazines.

I also am a farmer, and I read the agriculture publications and have discovered their position on ethanol is more than a bit one-sided.

Ethanol does offer slightly less air pollution when burned in an automobile, but it comes with many negatives. Cars get poorer gas mileage when using ethanol. The ethanol manufacturing process uses enormous quantities of water and natural gas, plus generates air and water pollution. And ethanol is made in the Midwest and has to be transported by diesel-burning trucks to all parts of the United States.

Also consider that ethanol is made from corn — lots of corn. The estimates I have read are that 40 percent of our U.S. corn production goes into ethanol. To raise corn, farmers apply lots of fertilizer containing nitrogen and phosphorus, which are the ingredients being blamed for stream and lake pollution because they cause the growth of toxic algae.

I recognize there are other contributors to the growth of toxic algae but agricultural activity has been identified as one of the major contributors.

Since we are mandated to use ethanol blends in our gasoline, we are forced to accept the byproduct of polluted steams, lakes and drinking water. Why is it that 2 percent of our population (farmers) is allowed to earn its living while polluting our streams and rivers that the other 98 percent would like to use, enjoy and drink?

I would like to have the personal freedom to fill my car with 100 percent gasoline. BOB POSTLE Lewis Center