• Just some info on how damaging to the environment corn is.

    All vegetables are inherently evil. The only proven artifact to preserve our survival is meat because with meat eating you don’t get people who are trying to stop others from eating it. Eating meat creates an open mind,whereas eating a vegetable creates a vegetable mind that is angry because it has no flavor and its pissed off that other people are enjoying their lives full of flavor and having no care in the world about what died to feed them. And they shouldn’t.

    People who are of the persuasion of the perceived environmental impact of having too many cows are just looking for an angle to cling on to in support of ancillary arguments dealing with “hurting” animals and they are grabbing at straws and voodoo. Its primarily a psychological study to understand that what you are denying yourself is EXACTLY the same thing as what you want to deny in others so as to make your guilt of denial go down easier.

    But thats the vegans problem.


    • improve organic agriculture

    Yeah, well, that has been done for 5000 years now, so there is no real possibility to further enhance the mediocre harvests (when compared to “conventional” agriculture) of organic farming.

    • eat less meat

    Nice slogan, but not really an option, as lots of people just WANT to eat meat (me included). Systems and ideas that don’t work because “the people don’t get it right” are bad systems and ideas. Those things have to work with the people that are around, else they are useless systems and ideas.

    No, a bit wrong, in Europe it’s the other way around. After the war, Europe’s countries decided they should be self-sufficient, they didn’t want to rely on foreign policies for their most basic need: food. That’s why the governments started sponsoring agriculture, leading to the cheap surplus they have today. It’s not investing to keep the prices high, but investing to keep the prices low. Hell, they even exported to Africa, and the prices of European food were lower there than the price of food produced by the local farmer, who as a result couldn’t climb out of the pit colonialism had left because he couldn’t sell his food to his subsaharan palls. Shuck, now I’ve really dragged everything into this. Just note that Europe should stop sponsoring it’s agriculture (especially France, ces imbécils!).

    The conclusion (stop to sponsor agriculture) is right, although for different reasons, which go too far into politics, and I don’t want to get this thread closed. The rest is almost totally wrong. After the war there have been sponsorings for increasing agricultural production, and after ca. 1970 there has been a vast overproduction. Since 1992 it has been obligatory for farmers not to use a certain amount of their arable land in order to recieve direct payments from the European Union. So effectively the EU was using tax money to pay farmers not to produce. And that continued until the end of 2007, as can be read here:

    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1402&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

    So according to this press release (26/09/2007):

    The current area under obligatory set-aside amounts to 3.8 million hectares in the EU. If the set-aside rate was set to 0 %, the effective return of land could be between 1.6 and 2.9 million hectares. Considering average trends, it is likely to bring around 10 million tonnes of grains onto the market.

    So it seems there could be a massive boost in the amount harvested this year, which will take some pressure off the market for agricultural goods, but it will take some time until you can harvest that extra amount.


  • @Smacktard:

    Jermo, I don’t think your chart takes into account the energy costs that go into creating/extracting biofuels/oils. The energy needed to grow and harvest an acre of corn for biofuel use is going to be much greater than the energy needed to extract a like number of barells of  crude. In some places in the Middle East, it literally bubbles to the surface.

    That being said, we need to be develping technology that efficiently makes use of the lleftovers of crops (corn husks, etc.)

    It assumes the biofuel originates in the country it is burned and that the land did not need to be converted to farmland before planting a biofuel crop.  Otherwise, it may exceed oil, but oil is also subject to extraction, refining, shipping (!), etc.  Furthermore, you must include that growing a biofuel crop also offsets itself in emissions by natural plant respiration which oil does not do.


  • The other problem with ALL current biofuel analysis in the United States is that currently the computations are based on CORN, which is one of the least efficient sources of ethanol.

    If we were to remove the price supports on Sugar, and analyze sugar cane and sugar beats as a source of ethanol the math changes DRAMATICALLY.  In this regard Jenifer has consistently over the past several years been very accurate in her posts regarding the values of various biofuel sources (though the posts with the info have been deleted as they were previously in PD)

    Also, biodiesel is a completely different kettle of fish from ethanol, and is currently 100% viable, even in small production facilities such as the one in Pittsboro, NC that is producing only 200,000 gpy.  Their biodiesel is just under $4.00 per gallon, while petroleum diesel is about $4.70 per gallon and rising…

    Another neat thing about biodiesel that I recently learned is that, due to the cleaning nature of biodiesel (1 wrong move and you have grandma’s lye soap), is that even though the biodiesel does not have quite the same energy value as petroleum diesel, because the engine is clean the combustion is more efficient and the energy values initially INCREASE with biodiesel in terms of MPG over petroleum diesel.


  • Woot, I’m learning! Didn’t know the EU sponsoring to keep production low part, apology there.
    But aren’t they still sponsoring to keep prices low too?

    @Complex:

    • improve organic agriculture

    Yeah, well, that has been done for 5000 years now, so there is no real possibility to further enhance the mediocre harvests (when compared to “conventional” agriculture) of organic farming.

    • eat less meat

    Nice slogan, but not really an option, as lots of people just WANT to eat meat (me included). Systems and ideas that don’t work because “the people don’t get it right” are bad systems and ideas. Those things have to work with the people that are around, else they are useless systems and ideas.

    I don’t think any of the Egyptians/Romans/Ancient Chinese/Middle-Agers/Aztecs/Conquistadores/Romantici/Communists/… ever even had the faintest idea of what the word organic agriculture meant. Besides, why could geneticaly modifying crops not help organic agriculture? That’s not something ever tried the past 5000 yrs… And how about mass production of organic food, ever tried the passed 5000 years? And organic fertilizer (“compost” in my language, it’s not exactly a real fertilizer…)? And the growing of natural enemies of harvest reducing bugs, ever seen a viking try this?
    (I’m getting the impression your definition of organic is different of mine. The way I see it: organic means without chemicals damaging the environment, with as little pollution as possible)

    As for the “eat no meat”: It’s possible to make people eat less meat. Just raise the prices. Which is happening right now :-D Tbh, I’m not a vegetarian, but I don’t HAVE TO get my portion of meat every day. And I seldomly eat more than about 200 grams (most humans have fysically enough with less than 100 grams). I don’t get why everybody’s going “Don’t Touch My Meat Or I Kill Ya!”. (Un)Fortunately, if the need arises to consume less meat, we won’t have to choose: the food prices will do the choosing in our stead…
    Here’s the core of the problem: meat is a luxury people have gotten used to.

    @Smacktard: I completely agree with you, because we share the same opinion, differently formulated. (“biofuels are bad because they are done wrong” vs “when done right, biofuels are good”).


  • Organic agriculture is something for the rich people too, because it simply produces much less food with more of everything. And if you believe there are no chemicals used with organic agriculture then you are wrong. They too use fertilizer, only the ones they are allowed to use are much older then the modern developed furtilizers used in the common agriculture and are sometimes even more damaging to the enviorment then the latter. And even dung and slurry contain the same chemicals (e.g. phosphate and nitrate) as the normal fertilizer and if used too much they are equally bad for the “nature”.

    And don’t you dare touch my meat  :-D


  • Owkey, since I didn’t know exact numbers, I checked Wiki: estimates for the yields of organic agriculture in respect to conventional agriculture range from 95-100% to 90% (in undeveloped countries it’s more like 130%). This is not “a lot less”, this is a bit less. However, there are studies stating organic harvests only get to 50%, and to be honest, I don’t know who’s right. I do know it can’t be worse for the environment than conventional agriculture.

    But I agree, prices are quite high compared to conventional agriculture. And there are quite a lot of people who simply can’t afford it. But no one can make better quality without raising prices, that’s just the way it works… Côte d’Or is more expensive than your local store’s chocolate, yet I don’t hear anyone complaining, because it’s obvious Côte d’Or is better quality. Ow, and those prices aren’t higher because there is lower yield per acre, but rather lower yield per hour of work spend on the acre. So more people are needed to produce organic food, resulting in higher prices.

    Aw well, if I won’t buy an expensive car, leaves enough money for decent food  :-)


  • Hey no problem this dicision must be made by everyone for himself, but some people propose to do only organic agriculture (and I understood your post in this way) and thus to stay with your choclate example you propose to remove the “milka” and produce only “Côte d’Or” now only the rich people can buy the choclate.


  • Well, if it could, it would be great to do only organic agriculture, but alas, it’s not possible (yet  :wink: )

  • '19 Moderator

    If you raise the price of meat, I will start raising cows in my back yard using your cheap grain and my non meat eating neighbors can enjoy the smell of organic cow crap. :)


  • @Ranor:

    Organic agriculture is something for the rich people too, because it simply produces much less food with more of everything. And if you believe there are no chemicals used with organic agriculture then you are wrong. They too use fertilizer, only the ones they are allowed to use are much older then the modern developed furtilizers used in the common agriculture and are sometimes even more damaging to the enviorment then the latter. And even dung and slurry contain the same chemicals (e.g. phosphate and nitrate) as the normal fertilizer and if used too much they are equally bad for the “nature”.

    This makes no sense.  The people that are involved and interested with organic farming are pretty low on the economic ladder.  By nature, they can’t be mega farms because that goes against the principles of the idea.

    The fertilize they use is natural and nondamaging…that’s kinda the point of organic farming.  The standards prohibit using artificial fertilizers, sewage, human waste, which has all been used.

    For meat, the livestock must have an organic diet (which prevents the use of animal carcasses and shit fed to vegetarian animals), can’t be routinely treated with antibiotics, growth hormones are barred, and they have to have some humane setting for the animals, I believe.

    Organic sales account for so little of the total product sold that it debunks your theory.

    In my own experience, organic produce, meat, and processed foods are always better hands down, and I’m not some Walmart shopping moron that thinks I can get quality for cheap every time. You get what you pay for…


  • I was referring to the lower yields of organic agriculture in comparision to “normal” agriculture and the more work you have to invest in it, thus leading to higher prices for the consumer.

    This makes no sense.  The people that are involved and interested with organic farming are pretty low on the economic ladder.  By nature, they can’t be mega farms because that goes against the principles of the idea.

    I can’t speak for your country but here in germany so many people are obsessed with the “bio, green and nature” thing that farmers who are in the organic agriculture business are not poor. And neither is it the poor that buy those products, simply because they cost more money than the regular food.

    The fertilize they use is natural and nondamaging…that’s kinda the point of organic farming.  The standards prohibit using artificial fertilizers, sewage, human waste, which has all been used.

    Sewage and dung have the same purpose as the evil chemical fertilizer they increase the ammount of certain compounds available to the plants (e.g. nitrates). And if you bring out to much sewage on the field these nitrates will surely land in the water, as with artificial fertilizer if you overdose. The nitrate is the same regardless of the source where it came from. Actually the probability to overdose is greater if you use sewage since you can’t be sure of it’s quality (I know sound funny when talking about sh*t), where the quality of the artifical fertilizer is always the same.
    Furthermore I know for a fact that here in  germany organic agriculture farmer are allowed to use old fertilizers that have been developed before any standards have been raised. These old fertilizers do contain for example copper and are themself much more damaging to the enviorment than artificial fertilizers that have been developed in the recent past

    Organic sales account for so little of the total product sold that it debunks your theory.

    I didn’t propose any theory I was only refering to my previous poster who thought it would be a good idea to do only organic agriculture. I don’t mind the people who want to eat only “bio” food, but to do only organic agriculture would surely result in an increase of prices for food.

    In my own experience, organic produce, meat, and processed foods are always better hands down, and I’m not some Walmart shopping moron that thinks I can get quality for cheap every time. You get what you pay for…

    In my experience they are not - but hey who cares  :wink:


  • You know, I live in Belgium, and the good thing about Belgium is we’ve got a lot of scandals. Which means, a lot of scandals that make it to the newspapers. I’m pretty sure we’re not having an above average of scandals, we’re having an above average of scandals that reaches the news. Now what does this have to do with organic food? Well, a couple of years ago, some people noticed the dioxine-levels in a lot of mega-produced chickens were too high (causing a significant increase in the cancer risk for anyone consuming those chickens). How did this happen? Producers of livestock foods for conventional agriculture mixed highly toxic motor oil (!!!) (which should have been processed in specialized recycling factories) in their foods, and thus the chickens who ate this food became “toxic” too. And those chickens should not have been sold to consumers. Which, ofcourse didn’t happen. Nowadays Belgium is one of the countries with the highest food standards and most rigurous food control procedures. Nonetheless, I believe if people don’t want to spend enough money to their food, their food will always be crap (or motor oil) (especially outside Belgium).
    I’m convinced that the chances of organic food containing motor oil is waaaaay smaller than the chances conventional food containing motor oil. Now if you still think your cheap food is as good as the companies want you to believe, go ahead, though I wouldn’t really like to eat motor oil…


  • I’m sure noone wants his chickens fed with motor oil and this clearly was a crime. But this is also a single event and can not be generalized for a whole branch of farming. I’m pretty sure that common agriculture has its own standard which forbades using motor oil.

    Neither am I advocating prices for food that are so low, that farmers are forced to such criminal methods. But even with fair prices I think you will agree with me that conventional farming is less expensive than organic agriculture.


  • That’s true, one single event can not be generalized for a whole branch of farming…
    How many do you need?

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2551-hormone-food-scandal-rocks-europe.html
    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-06-04-petfood-scandal_N.htm
    http://www.expat.ru/forum/health-news/45776-donut-chain-latest-string-japan-food-scandals.html
    http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=53590-water-injected-meat
    http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/04/mineral-depleted-food-scandal.html
    http://www.japaneconomynews.com/2007/10/31/yet-another-domestic-food-scandal-bush-to-lobby-for-us-beef/
    http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673602110166
    http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/2007/10/09/125959/China-may.htm
    http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/04/05/haiti-gedimex-and-the-expired-food-scandal/
    http://givingupcontrol.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/more-fallout-from-the-chinese-food-scandals-heavy-metals-in-our-food/

    from about 11700 hits for ’ “food scandal” -oil -pet -sex ’ on google. Not accounting those that didn’t reach the papers. Nor the routine (!) legal (!) use of antibiotics as growth stimulator in animals, resulting in harder to cure diseases.

    And strange as it might be, I do not think I’ll agree that conventional farming always is less expensive than organic agriculture. (because of the ecological debt we’ll sooner or later have to pay) But if one can afford it, why not buy food which you know is better both for you and for the rest of the world?


  • @Ranor:

    I was referring to the lower yields of organic agriculture in comparision to “normal” agriculture and the more work you have to invest in it, thus leading to higher prices for the consumer.

    Conventional agriculture looks at maximizing profit, but there is a price besides cost and it is not sustainable.  Organic farming is, and the difference in yield is debatable.  However, Big Business has seen the potential for major profit but wants to subvert the standards.

    I can’t speak for your country but here in germany so many people are obsessed with the “bio, green and nature” thing that farmers who are in the organic agriculture business are not poor. And neither is it the poor that buy those products, simply because they cost more money than the regular food.

    In my experience here in the US, the farmers that have been growing organic are small family farms and/or in a farming cooperative.  They are not rich by any means, and really since they are selling directly to us, the get a fair price for what they grow (Fair Trade).  I don’t know how Germany differs, but the movement is legit and not some scheme, that’s just what the megafarm corporations want to do though.

    Sewage and dung have the same purpose as the evil chemical fertilizer they increase the ammount of certain compounds available to the plants (e.g. nitrates). And if you bring out to much sewage on the field these nitrates will surely land in the water, as with artificial fertilizer if you overdose. The nitrate is the same regardless of the source where it came from. Actually the probability to overdose is greater if you use sewage since you can’t be sure of it’s quality (I know sound funny when talking about sh*t), where the quality of the artifical fertilizer is always the same.

    Sewage is not used in organic farming but compost is ok.  In fact, this salmonella outbreak concerning tomatoes in the US is believed to be due to raw sewage.  If it’s organic it won’t have that problem.  But natural fertilizer, while still a problem concerning runoff, doesn’t have the same result as artificial fertilizer.

    Furthermore I know for a fact that here in  germany organic agriculture farmer are allowed to use old fertilizers that have been developed before any standards have been raised. These old fertilizers do contain for example copper and are themself much more damaging to the enviorment than artificial fertilizers that have been developed in the recent past

    There aren’t ogranic standards yet in Germany?  Copper is a trace element and occurs in the soil naturally…in fact, if trace minerals aren’t found in the growing soil, it leads to less nutritious produce.  That’s a problem with conventional farming…it leeches the soil.

    I didn’t propose any theory I was only refering to my previous poster who thought it would be a good idea to do only organic agriculture. I don’t mind the people who want to eat only “bio” food, but to do only organic agriculture would surely result in an increase of prices for food.

    Actually, if it was more prevalent, it would bring the cost down.

    In my experience they are not - but hey who cares  :wink:

    I do. :)


  • Elect me as president and I will have a team determine how to drill through the earth and suck all the oil out from under Saudia Arabia….

    because it’s not THEIR oil, they’re just closer to it!


  • Just conquering lands with oil would be cheaper… Ow wait, they tried that already…


  • I prefer to drive this go kart powered by my own sense of self satisfaction.

    :-D

  • '19 Moderator

    @HolKann:

    Just conquering lands with oil would be cheaper… Ow wait, they tried that already…

    :roll: Wow did you think that one up all by yourself?

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 13
  • 37
  • 10
  • 6
  • 1
  • 33
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

30

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts