Report: Ethanol raises cost of nutrition programs

[M.Enterprises]

Originally Posted by shredfit1

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.

Ay yi yi....

Do you know how the pricing structure works?

[shredfit1]

Originally Posted by M.Enterprises

Ay yi yi....

Do you know how the pricing structure works?

Are you refering to the USDA inverse demand pricing structure? If so, yes I'm familiar with it.

[shredfit1]

Originally Posted by M.Enterprises

"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 actually saying the infastructure of growing and harvesting hemp IS exactly the same as corn? Just replace one with the other? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And again, I'm certainly not against hemp ethanol production.

Originally Posted by M.Enterprises

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.

Rhetoical or not, I'll answer. Corn, because there is current infactructure in place for planting/harvesting/delivery of product, where there ISN'T for hemp... period.

[M.Enterprises]

Originally Posted by shredfit1

Are you refering to the USDA inverse demand pricing structure? If so, yes I'm familiar with it.

Hahaha...usda.

Nevermind.