Report: Ethanol raises cost of nutrition programs

[shredfit1]

Originally Posted by M.Enterprises

Baack is right. Even if it is not the corn that chicken's actually eat, it is made on the same farms that could be growing something that actually is profitable without farmer's welfare.

This premise IS correct, however... What is profitable? The more corn(or any cash crop) you have the less it is worth. Simple supply and demand. We have been producing an overabundance for years, as I pointed out, which was also subsidized and left to rot in bins.

Again, hemp IS NOT viable due to the lack of CURRENT American infastructure, and likely would not be for years. Come on, it's common sense... It's like asking a pig farrower(that can farrow pigs VERY well) to now raise and clip alpacas. It's just different, period.

[LandShark]

GROW FOOD......NOT FUEL....Bio fuels are a total waste of time....even if its not the corn we eat IT IS USING THE LAND THAT THE CORN WE EAT could be grown on....

[M.Enterprises]

Originally Posted by shredfit1

This premise IS correct, however... What is profitable? The more corn(or any cash crop) you have the less it is worth. Simple supply and demand. We have been producing an overabundance for years, as I pointed out, which was also subsidized and left to rot in bins.

Again, hemp IS NOT viable due to the lack of CURRENT American infastructure, and likely would not be for years. Come on, it's common sense... It's like asking a pig farrower(that can farrow pigs VERY well) to now raise and clip alpacas. It's just different, period.

In a homely example, it is more like asking millions of unemployed people to get jobs in the hemp industry. No one that likes raising pigs will be asked to raise anything else. People that would like to make more money than corn farmers would be hemp farmers. People that are allergic to profit would still be called corn farmers, though. Until hemp gets going... then all of a sudden corn farming isn't so bad anymore.

Farmers switch from tomatoes to corn and cotton and back again and they don't need permission from anyone.

[shredfit1]

Originally Posted by LandShark

GROW FOOD......NOT FUEL....Bio fuels are a total waste of time....even if its not the corn we eat IT IS USING THE LAND THAT THE CORN WE EAT could be grown on....

Bio fuels are NOT a waste of time... IF they were, why are the oil companies buying into it? And it's NOT about food. The state of California(or country if you so choose) with it's growning season, and current technology can produce 10 times the food that Americans can consume... so with this state alone there IS a large surplus.

The future is in bio-diesel, and I'd bet the farm on that....

[shredfit1]

Originally Posted by M.Enterprises

In a homely example, it is more like asking millions of unemployed people to get jobs in the hemp industry. No one that likes raising pigs will be asked to raise anything else. People that would like to make more money than corn farmers would be hemp farmers. People that are allergic to profit would still be called corn farmers, though. Until hemp gets going... then all of a sudden corn farming isn't so bad anymore.

Farmers switch from tomatoes to corn and cotton and back again and they don't need permission from anyone.

I don't really disagree, I think hemp would be great. However, the problem is getting current corn growers educated on the implementation of hemp as a cash crop. Undoubtedly, hemp would have to be heaveyly subsidized at first for incentives. The whole market would have to change.

[M.Enterprises]

[quote=shredfit1;952976] The state of California(or country if you so choose) with it's growning season, and current technology can produce 10 times the food that Americans can consume... quote]

California is FAR from independant. They may produce enough food to export for marginal profits, but they also cannot sustain their imports. I suggest looking into California's budget crisis before passing judgement on it's investments. If there was any state that was supreme example of mismanagement and malinvestment, it is CA.

[M.Enterprises]

Originally Posted by shredfit1

I don't really disagree, I think hemp would be great. However, the problem is getting current corn growers educated on the implementation of hemp as a cash crop. Undoubtedly, hemp would have to be heaveyly subsidized at first for incentives. The whole market would have to change.

This is the equivalant of "lets spand $99999999999 dollar researching marijuana tto see if it is fatal or not." We don't need to run public service announcements telling farmers what crops to plant, and this doesn't change with repealing prohibition. The taverns did not have to be educated about alcohol production when alcohol became legal, did they? If there was an education seminar happening, it would not be run by King Obama. It would likely be in the hands of engineers, farmers and businessmen. All seeking a profit. If there was no profit...nothing would change.

The whole market would not change as dramatically as you are implying. It would be more efficient, yes. It would not cause pigs to fly on hemp seed ethanol, though. Assuming the market DID need to change everything about itself, that is no concern. The market has changed in crazy ways since the first cars, planes and boats were constructed. In none of these cases, has there been a need for political approval. Where have all the brightest ideas come from, government? They come from individuals with crazy ideas that seek profit. They don't need direction from any government organization or guidance from any politician.

[shredfit1]

Originally Posted by M.Enterprises

This is the equivalant of "lets spand $99999999999 dollar researching marijuana tto see if it is fatal or not." We don't need to run public service announcements telling farmers what crops to plant, and this doesn't change with repealing prohibition. The taverns did not have to be educated about alcohol production when alcohol became legal, did they? If there was an education seminar happening, it would not be run by King Obama. It would likely be in the hands of engineers, farmers and businessmen. All seeking a profit. If there was no profit...nothing would change.

The whole market would not change as dramatically as you are implying. It would be more efficient, yes. It would not cause pigs to fly on hemp seed ethanol, though. Assuming the market DID need to change everything about itself, that is no concern. The market has changed in crazy ways since the first cars, planes and boats were constructed. In none of these cases, has there been a need for political approval. Where have all the brightest ideas come from, government? They come from individuals with crazy ideas that seek profit. They don't need direction from any government organization or guidance from any politician.

What I mean about education is that hemp yeilds would be different insofar as nutrient types, irrigation, crop rotation, harvest implimentation and so on... than current cash crops(ie corn, soy beans, sunflower). It's not as simple as saying..."Next year, we'll all plant hemp".

Market wouldn't change? What good would the hemp be if there was no market structure to turn hemp into a cash commodity? Your suggesting the silly... If there is a current demand for oranges, why would someone most certainly plant apple trees?

[shredfit1]

Originally Posted by M.Enterprises

California is FAR from independant. They may produce enough food to export for marginal profits, but they also cannot sustain their imports. I suggest looking into California's budget crisis before passing judgement on it's investments. If there was any state that was supreme example of mismanagement and malinvestment, it is CA.

There you go, food production IS in many ways ONLY marginally profitable(bio-fuels are slightly more profitable). However, California can and does have the ability to produce 10 times what we need as food crops. This is where the whole food vs. fuel smear campaign just doesn't hold water.

One has to remember that about 10% of fuel consumption last year WERE renewable bio-fuels.

[M.Enterprises]

Originally Posted by shredfit1

What I mean about education is that hemp yeilds would be different insofar as nutrient types, irrigation, crop rotation, harvest implimentation and so on... than current cash crops(ie corn, soy beans, sunflower). It's not as simple as saying..."Next year, we'll all plant hemp".

Market wouldn't change? What good would the hemp be if there was no market structure to turn hemp into a cash commodity? Your suggesting the silly... If there is a current demand for oranges, why would someone most certainly plant apple trees?

"Next year, we'll plant hemp. Run the same infrastructure as tomatoes. Send it to the ethanol plant instead of to the grocery stores." Actually, it IS that simple. Believe it or not, alot of businessmen made alot of decisions that did not require your approval, just so you could get on this forum and post nonesense about how stagnant and inflexible farming is.

Your second paragraph is a rhetorical question that I posed to you. Why corn, when you could plant hemp? Its liek your playing that game that 6 year olds play where you repeat everything I say until I can flub you up.