More from SANET - Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Cross-post in response to George's letter. Keith Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 19:58:19 +0530 From: Maple Organics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Low input vs. high input organic systems To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Keith, I really enjoyed going through the letter which you pasted along with your mail. It is a typical reply we get in India as well. I could share with you our response to the farmers. 1. We suggest slow and gradual transition to Organic from chemical farming, say 20-25% per cropping cycle. This would ensure that the yield will not come down drastically. 2. For crops like Corn, which need high amount of Nitrogen (C4 family), we suggest that you make compost out of the crop residue and try and supplement the same with organic matter like chicken waste, lentil waste etc which have high amount of Nitrogen. This generally gives N of about 6-7% in the final compost. 3. Carry out intercropiing with things like Alfa-alfa, Stylo, Soya beans etc. We recommend that these plants could be sown on the sides or even along with the main crops. 4. If enough organic matter in the form of crop residue etc is available, then one could think of mulching as well. It might cost the first cropping time, but becomes sustainable later. 5. If cow dung is available, then excellent, but it is not mandatory that you do need cows. You could make very good compost with what ever organic matter one has, be it plant waste only. C:N ratio is an old paradigm now. Hope my basic inputs help you in your work. Sanjay Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
The major misconception with organic farming is what the chemical companies have to say about how it works overseas... you watch these promotion videos for Monsanto and they show how poor the crops grow in Nepal or Central Africa and they say how foolish they are for not using the most modern chemicals on the market... the truth however is much different: In the United States, it will typically take 7 years of Chemical-free farming to certify the farm organic... but what you must remember is that sustainable farming on land that has been intensely fertilized and the chemical use in general has been high, is that the soil is damaged... the soil microbes like some bacteria, and earthworms have been killed off by the pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used over the years, and to suddenly try to go no-input is like trying to get someone who's trying to quit heroin cold turkey to start living life normally again... I guess that's the best analogy... the idea that the chemicals used are like drugs and once the soil is addicted, the plants will only be able to take up what YOU put on them, and not be able to access the nutrients already in the soil. The transition to organic farming is a slow one, and it takes great discipline because it doesn't necessarily mean cutting cold turkey but reducing those things you use. For example, to start, there is no such thing as zero-input... that is foolish... grains and other feedstock do take from the soil... using manure, and organic fertilizers like Potassium Sulfate or Calcium Phosphate (not oil derivatives such as ammonium nitrate) will help the soil. The most common potassium fertilizer out there now is KCl which is a chloride salt of potassium... if you imagine, pour table salt on your tongue and feel the burn... that's what's happening to your soil. A plant will naturally use what it can by its own means. By putting a highly water soluble chemical fertilizer on your soil, you are in effect disrupting that balance. A water soluble fertilizer isn't the best source because the plant will take this fertilizer in with the water and in some cases, cause toxic effects in the plant. Sure, the corn won't be as green if you use more natural fertilizer _ BUT IT WILL BE HEALTHIER, and the vitamin/mineral content will be better, and remember, it isn't always the yield that makes the money because if you spend $100 per acre to get that extra 50 bushels per acre, are you really making it big if the corn price is less than $2.00 per bushel? It is all about inputs vs. outputs because the more you input, the more you must get out. And if you can put less in and get less out, but still make the same amount of money, why would you do it any other way (other than to go to the local feedmill to brag about your yields) And one last thing, it is foolish to feed all your corn to beef animals rather than to allow those animals to be healthy and pasture them. It may take longer for the animal to reach slaughter weight, but the animals will be healthier and it will be cheaper to feed them. once again input vs. output... And the surprise of all, no one ever mentions dairy, but this is the once situation where feeding corn will make money because a pound of corn will yield more milk $ than just selling the corn itself. Sustainable agriculture and dairy work hand in hand and of course, rotation of crops does is a big key. Notice how one crop grows, and in the process leaves something behind that is beneficial for another crop... and the pest problem is gone... studies have shown that even a crop like oats before corn will help increase corn yields over corn on corn on corn year after year... and sticking a new crop in the mix every year or two will also reduce the need for fertilizers because corn sucks everything out of the soil, while small grains and alfalfas take less maintenance and are good for soil organisms. Sustainable agriculture doesn't necessarily mean no input, but it means smart stewardship. Taking care of the soil because that's all you have. If you abuse the soil, it will not produce. If you take care of the soil, the soil will produce just as much as it would otherwise. In one example for my dad who is a dairy farmer in Wisconsin (I'm at college) we had 200 bushel per acre corn one year (1994), and about average yields in the past decade or so compared with those who use all the modern means of farming and all we use is dairy manure, and a good solid crop rotation. (in case you didn't know, 200 bushel corn is an enviable position to be in no matter where in the US you grow corn, not just NW wisconsin where the weather doesn't favor anything more than 100 bushel per acre corn. check out this webpage for any ideas... http://www.midwesternbioag.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello again George Hello Keith I don't disagree as much as
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
you and me both. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://24.190.106.81:8383/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC - Original Message - From: steve spence Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 19:15 Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge. What irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent farmers, when the gm stuff starts cross breading in the wild. I have to admit, this is were I have a problem with granting pantents for plants / crops. A bee does his job, and a farmer next door winds up in court for not paying a company for the pantented crops he grows. Greg H. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Steve I firmly believe that all GM's should be regarded as potentially dangerous in the regard towards cross breeding and also in the fact that the target of their modification my become immune to their modification. This requires education and management on the farmers part. I can expand on this with the use of a Non-GM crop. If that's what you want to call it. Amaranth was introduced into KS about 12 years ago by a All Veggie group who was wanting someone to grow the plant for them so they could make an all Veggie High Protein flour. It has taken over the entire area. Up to until the introduction of Round-up Ready corn their was no chemical we could use to control Amaranth. This non-GM weed (to us anyway) has cost us more money and lost production that any other single item I know of. Some say it has cross breed with the Common Pig weed to produce a chemically immune pig weed that is also extremely hard to control. If someone was to ask me if I would have been more concerned if amaranth would have been a GM, I would have to answer I could not care less. Both of these weeds were created in hell by Satin himself. Right now the USDA is working on a new variety of grain sorghum that will have a higher starch content. Through selective breeding but someday bio-technology as well. That will yield a higher alcohol yield per bushel of grain. To me this is just plain GREAT Someday we will drown the arab nations in alcohol. Send them back to just killing each other instead of including us. They will have to buy alcohol and biodiesel from us like we are buying crude oil from them now. Since they have no agriculture to speak of. But what really angers me through. No one can come up with a challenge that will stand up in court, many have tried and lost. It wasn't for the lack of money either, these anti everything environmental groups do seem to be very well financed. If someone could come up with a challenge that could stand up in court. Then I could believe it had some merit. I would back off GM's in a flash. But they can't, so then they start in with the mis-information crap. Keith had quite the series of articles awhile back regarding the mis-information on bio-diesel. So it is with all farm chemicals and now all GM's. The chemical Roundup breaks down completely in nature. It was originally produced from Caster Beans. Fact is Monsanto's patent on the Roundup Ready gene in corn and soybeans is being challenged because it exists naturally (some say) in both corn and soybeans. This would make this GM a naturally occurring plant if Monsanto ready did find this gene in corn and soybeans and not man made as the patent requires. So many of the new GM's require a very small amount of chemical, herbicide and insecticide. So little that they would have to be considered Green when compared to the other options available. Maybe someday their will be no chemicals or fertilizer required. They are working on this. The good has to be weighted against the bad and everything has both good and bad traits. I as a farmer do not like to use chemicals. I consider them to be dangerous but necessary. They are also very expensive and I don't like the idea that they have the potential to hurt the environment. I live here too you know. I would have to be considered Environmental Friendly, most farmers are. It is good politics and good business to be as Green as possible. In fact, nothing would make me happier than to throw away all chemicals and non organic fertilizer. I would much rather grow 20 to 30 bushel corn for $10.00 per bushel than 175 to 200 bushel corn for $1.40 like it was last year. The reduced work on me and wear on my machines would be a bonanza. America's cheap food policy depends on agricultural chemicals, and increasingly on GM's as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge. What irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent farmers, when the gm stuff starts cross breading in the wild. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Monsanto wanted to incorporate a Terminator Gene into their Roundup Ready corn seed but was taken to court and ordered not to do so. Farmers in India was reusing roundup ready seed year after year. George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: steve spence Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 19:15 Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge. What irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent farmers, when the gm stuff starts cross breading in the wild. I have to admit, this is were I have a problem with granting pantents for plants / crops. A bee does his job, and a farmer next door winds up in court for not paying a company for the pantented crops he grows. Greg H. Not to mention all the tough questions related to transgenic maize in Mexico, the crop's center of genetic diversity. Last year, and again last month, the Mexican Environment Ministry confirmed that farmers' maize varieties in at least two states had been contaminated with DNA from genetically modified maize. http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=298 Mexico doesn't even grow GM maize. That's not the farmer next door, it's the country next door. Nothing is more important than preserving the centers of genetic diversity of our major crops. Don't say gene banks, everyone admits that that's not adequate, including the gene banks. There are also serious outstanding questions concerning the role of Bt (Bt corn) in the soil environment, and of Roundup-Ready soy, which has seen the use of Roundup increasing, not decreasing as promised, while there are also concerns that genetic drift from the soy could give rise to new superweeds - and anyway both of these approaches are a sure-fire way of creating resistance. Also Roundup (glyphosate) is now shown to be carcinogenic. Nice. Then there's Pusztai's work with GM potatoes that turned out to be toxic, which got him fired, and so on and so on, with a growing host of scientists and their institutions raising further doubts and questions, many of them having changed sides as their doubts grew. Meanwhile we're supposed to entrust all these rather important issues to the likes of Monsanto, who've just demonstrated yet once again just how well they qualify as a responsible corporate citizen. I should add that I have nothing against genetic engineering, per se, it holds great promise which is beginning to be realised in other areas, but this truly bad science from these corporate thugs could wreck all that and very much besides. Now we're being told that the odious Terminator technology - traitor-tech - which Monsanto has publicly promised NOT to deploy, is the ideal answer to the problem of genetic drift from GM crops. Sheesh. The Precautionary Principle is the only sane approach. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Osaka, Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT http://rd.yahoo.com/M=217097.1902236.3397169.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705083269:HM/A=960173/R=0/*http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=29150849siteid=39249818bfpage=moneyyahoo4 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 11:59:04AM -0600, George Lola Wesel wrote: I as a farmer do not like to use chemicals. I consider them to be dangerous but necessary. They are also very expensive and I don't like the idea that they have the potential to hurt the environment. I live here too you know. I would have to be considered Environmental Friendly, most farmers are. It is good politics and good business to be as Green as possible. In fact, nothing would make me happier than to throw away all chemicals and non organic fertilizer. I would much rather grow 20 to 30 bushel corn for $10.00 per bushel than 175 to 200 bushel corn for $1.40 like it was last year. The reduced work on me and wear on my machines would be a bonanza. America's cheap food policy depends on agricultural chemicals, and increasingly on GM's as well. So why don't you? There's plenty of totally organic farmers who are laughing all the way to the bank. You too can end your chemical dependancy -- Just say NO! -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
I would say that is a very fair question. If it was possible I would. I know several organic farmer and they don't laugh all the way to the bank. That is just an image they would like everybody to believe. In order to reach the production goals required by today financial needs, organic don't cut it. Not even close. Zero Input Sustainable Agriculture (name used by the US government) is just a dream of the extreme left wing enviromentalist. Looks good, sounds good but not feastable. You need to draw a clear line between those that do organic farming with an acre or so and those who farm on the x,000 acres plus. To grow a couple of hundred corn plants on 1/2 acre and then petal the roasting ears to people who you meet on the street is probably very profitable but your going to need a job on the side. With a 27,000 population per acre and 1000 acres of corn that's 27,000,000 roasting ears. This is but one big problem. The places that broker organic food are not capable of handling large volume. The market just isn't their yet. Do you have a clue how much manure it takes to equal 250 pounds of NH3. The average amount of nirtrogen put on an acre of irrigated corn here in KS. Or how many cows it would take to produce enough manure to fertilize 1000 acres of irrigated corn. The reason I say irrigated is that dryland corn here in KS is a iffy crop at best. This doesn't even touch on the labor required to load, haul, and spread the manure or the costs involved. To use manure would not only be labor intensely, but terribly costly as well. I would lose my butt big time to use all manure. They say rotate your crops. Yes, alfalfa does put a little nitrogen into the soil. But not nearly enough to grow 200 bu per acre corn. I do rotate my crops, especially my dryland crops but I do rotate my irrigated as well. To keep the chemical costs to a minmium. On a very small farm, an acre or so, organic is the only way to go. Their are organic farms up to 100 acres or so. But their not profitable, just diehard, stubborn Gonna do it organic types. They would do it even if they were starving. If I can't produce in the 175 and up range then I won't be here next year. Someone else will be farming my farm and he won't be organic. For chemicals their is no organic replacement. They simplely let the bugs chow down. Diease is uncontrollable except by rotation. In bad years like we had last year they don't raise a crop. If organic was suddenly required by all governments in this world. No one would be able to buy enough food to live on. It would simpley be a severe food shortage. As long as organic has conventional farmer to produce for the masses then they can produce for the few (and growing) who buy organic only. If everybody tried to buy organic only, their would be one hell of a long line everywhere they sell food. The simple fact is, organic is not ready to replace conventional farming. Except on a small and local scale. One last comparision. I'm sure you don't like to buy gasoline for your car or truck, whatever. I'm sure you don't like to buy tires, oil, and repairs or that you don't like the idea of being a part of the pollution that is generated in the world every day. So why don't you walk to work everyday. I'm sure their is people out their who do, but is it feastable for everybody to walk. Cut down on the gas comsumption of the world, cut down on air pollution and get a lot of good exercise in addition but it's just not workable for the vast majority. So it is with American agriculture. Organic farming cannot feed the world. For me to switch would create such a severe income loss that it is not even a remote option. Conventional ag needs the ag chemicals to produce the crop big enough to pay the bills by as few people (per farm) as possible To close, I'm sure their are places in the world where organic farming on a larger scale than I am portraying here is possible, but they are labor intensive. They just are not possible on a large scale and today's agriculture is growing larger and larger on that scale. It has to, our fixed costs go up every year and the only way to cope is to get bigger. It is a vicious circle. Remember that question about How many cows would it take to fertilize 1000 acres of corn How many ton of poop can you scope in a day? While your scoping poop, who's going to be pinching bugs? I hope I didn't bore you George So why don't you? There's plenty of totally organic farmers who are laughing all the way to the bank. You too can end your chemical dependancy -- Just say NO! -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT http://rd.yahoo.com/M=217097.1902236.3397169.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705083269:HM/A=960173/R=0/*http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=29150849siteid=39249818bfpage=moneyyahoo4 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Seems like there was a post here just awhile back on a study done which showed big farms (and they weren't talking about organic) just weren't able to make it as well as smaller farms, and IIRC, it was around the 200 acre point where things started going down. So sell some land, buy some cows and pigs and chickens and diversify, get rid of the chemicals and giant (ultra-expensive) machinery. You'll make just as much money, live longer, and be happier. Don't sell the corn, feed it to the pigs, or make ethanol, or -- whatever. It's a ridiculous idea to farm corn when corn is the cheapest heating fuel on the market. Sorry, George, I just don't have much sympathy for the American farmer, for the most part. I think if we can get the gov't to stop all the crop subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare, the organic/chemical arguement would end pretty quickly. Farmers have been conned, swindled, bamboozled, by the banks, the chemical companies, ag agents, and ag schools (who all work for chemical companies essentially). Hey, I saw the same thing happening in the logging industry -- guys got conned into buying all that new fancy equipment then lost their shirt when NAFTA came along. The banker tried to talk me into it -- I didn't even ask for a loan, he approached me. I just kept logging with my old crawler, and when the crunch came I just sold it all and went back to school. I really like the way the Amish do it -- no debt. And they definitely do make money, pay cash for their farms. On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:50:56PM -0600, George Lola Wesel wrote: I would say that is a very fair question. If it was possible I would. I know several organic farmer and they don't laugh all the way to the bank. That is just an image they would like everybody to believe. In order to reach the production goals required by today financial needs, organic don't cut it. Not even close. Zero Input Sustainable Agriculture (name used by the US government) is just a dream of the extreme left wing enviromentalist. Looks good, sounds good but not feastable. You need to draw a clear line between those that do organic farming with an acre or so and those who farm on the x,000 acres plus. To grow a couple of hundred corn plants on 1/2 acre and then petal the roasting ears to people who you meet on the street is probably very profitable but your going to need a job on the side. With a 27,000 population per acre and 1000 acres of corn that's 27,000,000 roasting ears. This is but one big problem. The places that broker organic food are not capable of handling large volume. The market just isn't their yet. Do you have a clue how much manure it takes to equal 250 pounds of NH3. The average amount of nirtrogen put on an acre of irrigated corn here in KS. Or how many cows it would take to produce enough manure to fertilize 1000 acres of irrigated corn. The reason I say irrigated is that dryland corn here in KS is a iffy crop at best. This doesn't even touch on the labor required to load, haul, and spread the manure or the costs involved. To use manure would not only be labor intensely, but terribly costly as well. I would lose my butt big time to use all manure. They say rotate your crops. Yes, alfalfa does put a little nitrogen into the soil. But not nearly enough to grow 200 bu per acre corn. I do rotate my crops, especially my dryland crops but I do rotate my irrigated as well. To keep the chemical costs to a minmium. On a very small farm, an acre or so, organic is the only way to go. Their are organic farms up to 100 acres or so. But their not profitable, just diehard, stubborn Gonna do it organic types. They would do it even if they were starving. If I can't produce in the 175 and up range then I won't be here next year. Someone else will be farming my farm and he won't be organic. For chemicals their is no organic replacement. They simplely let the bugs chow down. Diease is uncontrollable except by rotation. In bad years like we had last year they don't raise a crop. If organic was suddenly required by all governments in this world. No one would be able to buy enough food to live on. It would simpley be a severe food shortage. As long as organic has conventional farmer to produce for the masses then they can produce for the few (and growing) who buy organic only. If everybody tried to buy organic only, their would be one hell of a long line everywhere they sell food. The simple fact is, organic is not ready to replace conventional farming. Except on a small and local scale. One last comparision. I'm sure you don't like to buy gasoline for your car or truck, whatever. I'm sure you don't like to buy tires, oil, and repairs or that you don't like the idea of being a part of the pollution that is generated in the world every day. So why don't you walk to work everyday. I'm sure their is
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Hi George Before some list-cop starts yelling Off-topic, I believe it's on-topic enough. Is this a way to dispense with all the huge petroleum inputs in food and ag commodity production in the US (and other industrialised countries) that Dana's just been talking about, and that skew the energy equations of biofuels like biodiesel and ethanol? Short answer - Yes. You're not really talking about organic farming, you're talking about input substitution - chemical farming without the chemicals - and it's usually doomed to failure. Organics is a management system, and proactive, not just a matter of a different set of inputs to achieve the same reactive aims. It looks upstream to determine why the problem exists in the first place and then determines how the system should be managed to avoid having the problem at all. Most organic farmers in the US don't use any pesticides at all, whether approved organic ones or not - they don't need them. They don't use fertilisers either, to feed the crop, and they're not too interested in nutrients. They're interested in humus-maintenance, in building and maintaining very high levels of soil fertility, and in integration. It's an integrated system, not just an extractive one - organic in this sense doesn't really refer to the source of the inputs (whatever the standards might say), it refers to a system characterised by the coordination of the integral parts; organised. It's a different approach, not just a stepping over to business-as-usual with different ingredients. To borrow a couple of useful terms from another organic farmer, your comparisons are with organic by neglect farms - low-input low-output - rather than organic by design farms - low-input high-output. Many organic farmers equal or better their conventional neighbours' yields. There are many large organic farms that do indeed run at a healthy enough profit - but no, they tend not to grow a thousand acres in a monocrop. But I tend to agree that very large farms aren't suited to organic management. I'm not quite sure what they are suited to. Small family and part-time farms are at least as efficient as larger commercial operations. There is evidence of diseconomies of scale as farm size increases. -- Are Large Farms More Efficient? Professor Willis L. Peterson, University of Minnesota, 1997. Re your statement that organic farming cannot feed the world, there's now a lot of considered, studied, expert opinion and evidence that not only can it do just that, but it's going to have to. This isn't just a bunch of dewy-eyed idealists talking, these are scientific studies from reputable institutions, the findings published in reputable journals and widely reported. (Full references available on request.) There's also mounting evidence that it's so-called conventional agriculture that just doesn't cut it - not even economically: one very conservative study found that the hidden (externalised) costs of British farming almost equal the industry's income. Other industrialised nations are not much different. The high levels of fossil-fuels inputs are obviously not sustainable - it's hard to find anything about it that is sustainable. Why grow all that corn? A billion tons of it went unsold last year. And in spite of it all, the US (like all the other industrialised nations) is left importing more food than it exports. (References on request.) I guess you disagree with all this very much. Rather than a long argument about it here, I'll forward your post to the Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group (SANET) for comment and relay any feedback to you, and perhaps we can summarise it for the list later, if that seems appropriate. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Osaka, Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ George wrote: I would say that is a very fair question. If it was possible I would. I know several organic farmer and they don't laugh all the way to the bank. That is just an image they would like everybody to believe. In order to reach the production goals required by today financial needs, organic don't cut it. Not even close. Zero Input Sustainable Agriculture (name used by the US government) is just a dream of the extreme left wing enviromentalist. Looks good, sounds good but not feastable. You need to draw a clear line between those that do organic farming with an acre or so and those who farm on the x,000 acres plus. To grow a couple of hundred corn plants on 1/2 acre and then petal the roasting ears to people who you meet on the street is probably very profitable but your going to need a job on the side. With a 27,000 population per acre and 1000 acres of corn that's 27,000,000 roasting ears. This is but one big problem. The places that broker organic food are not capable of handling large volume. The market just isn't their yet. Do you have a clue how much manure it takes to equal 250 pounds of NH3. The average
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Wait, George, don't sell that land, I've got a better idea. Take maybe 250 acres of it and go to a diversified organic farm, as I said. Take the other 750 and plant it all to switchgrass, big and little bluestem, side-oats gamma, compass plant and prairie dock, coneflower, and all the other prairie plants native to your area. Then sell all that big equipment you won't need anymore, and stock that 750 acres with buffalo and prairie chickens. Set up your own little packing plant (powered by wind) and have sportsman come hunt-for-pay the buffalo and prairie chickens, you butcher and wrap and freeze for them. You'll get rich. Or at least have a fairly comfortable life, eventually you'll convert another 200 acres to prairie, and organic truck farm the last 40 or so to sell organic veggies and herbs to go with that organic buffalo and prairie chicken. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Harmon If I could get out of the taxes this would generate, I would have done that a long time ago. Just a dream now. Remember that vicious circle I wrote about. Their is more than one, not only have to keep getting bigger, but the bigger I get the more it will cost to quit. Good idea though, I really like it George Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait, George, don't sell that land, I've got a better idea. Take maybe 250 acres of it and go to a diversified organic farm, as I said. Take the other 750 and plant it all to switchgrass, big and little bluestem, side-oats gamma, compass plant and prairie dock, coneflower, and all the other prairie plants native to your area. Then sell all that big equipment you won't need anymore, and stock that 750 acres with buffalo and prairie chickens. Set up your own little packing plant (powered by wind) and have sportsman come hunt-for-pay the buffalo and prairie chickens, you butcher and wrap and freeze for them. You'll get rich. Or at least have a fairly comfortable life, eventually you'll convert another 200 acres to prairie, and organic truck farm the last 40 or so to sell organic veggies and herbs to go with that organic buffalo and prairie chicken. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com -- __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Hello Keith I don't disagree as much as you would think. This is definitly on topic because agriculture will power the green revolution. Biofuels are our future and I hope your right about organic farming being their as well. I have one very big problem with small organic farms feeding the world. How will they acquire the land. Government take over by the people maybe. This is a free country and land is very high priced. And no, I am not a Freeman. As for large farms they are suited to large scale production. I can argue the point both ways on efficiently. Which is better, a large farm that produces a lot at a lower cost or a small farm that produces a lower volume but at a higher quality. This could be argued for years. I can't quote any studies. I can't talk about anywhere except here in KS. The people that try to do it here are not competitive with the conventionals. Anywhere but here could be different. So once again I hope your right. I do not believe conventional farming is on the right track. I don't know if organic will work and if it works can it produce enough to feed the world. Conventional agriculture could easily bury the world in grain if the government would turn us loose. But then all the farmers this year would be gone and who would do it next year. I do know their are lots of hungry people in the world and here I am setting on a large pile of corn and a pathetic low price. Their hungry and the American farmer is broke. Don't that make one hell of a pair. The reason everybody plants one crops is money. You plant what will make the most money and hope to survive. Right now that is corn. The only reason I plant wheat is so I can plant corn on the stubble next year. The only reason I plant soybeans is so I can rotate my crops to reduce my input costs. I hope everybody can see that this is not simple. Their is no quick fixes and we will always have problems. As the world population grows I can't help but feel that our problems will grow as well or be replaced by other problems. We have the ability to grow the food, conventional or organic but we need a better way to distribute it to the poorer countries. Something where they can afford to buy and the farmer can afford to sell. My Regards George Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi George Before some list-cop starts yelling Off-topic, I believe it's on-topic enough. Is this a way to dispense with all the huge petroleum inputs in food and ag commodity production in the US (and other industrialised countries) that Dana's just been talking about, and that skew the energy equations of biofuels like biodiesel and ethanol? Short answer - Yes. You're not really talking about organic farming, you're talking about input substitution - chemical farming without the chemicals - and it's usually doomed to failure. Organics is a management system, and proactive, not just a matter of a different set of inputs to achieve the same reactive aims. It looks upstream to determine why the problem exists in the first place and then determines how the system should be managed to avoid having the problem at all. Most organic farmers in the US don't use any pesticides at all, whether approved organic ones or not - they don't need them. They don't use fertilisers either, to feed the crop, and they're not too interested in nutrients. They're interested in humus-maintenance, in building and maintaining very high levels of soil fertility, and in integration. It's an integrated system, not just an extractive one - organic in this sense doesn't really refer to the source of the inputs (whatever the standards might say), it refers to a system characterised by the coordination of the integral parts; organised. It's a different approach, not just a stepping over to business-as-usual with different ingredients. To borrow a couple of useful terms from another organic farmer, your comparisons are with organic by neglect farms - low-input low-output - rather than organic by design farms - low-input high-output. Many organic farmers equal or better their conventional neighbours' yields. There are many large organic farms that do indeed run at a healthy enough profit - but no, they tend not to grow a thousand acres in a monocrop. But I tend to agree that very large farms aren't suited to organic management. I'm not quite sure what they are suited to. Small family and part-time farms are at least as efficient as larger commercial operations. There is evidence of diseconomies of scale as farm size increases. -- Are Large Farms More Efficient? Professor Willis L. Peterson, University of Minnesota, 1997. Re your statement that organic farming cannot feed the world, there's now a lot of considered, studied, expert opinion and evidence that not only can it do just that, but it's going to have to. This isn't just a bunch of dewy-eyed idealists talking, these are scientific studies from
RE: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Hello J Hyde I will! If you have something to say just get in their and say it. Do try to understand this is a big world and all of us have our own opinions. George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: george please look at www.acresusa.com. It is a monthly paper on alternitive farming of all sizes. This is a first time post for me (had to do it). Acres helped us in the community gardens in detroit and a 300 acre farm in the thumb of Michigan. Regards John Hyde [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Harmon I have always believed that studies show the politics of the payee. In my world anyways, small farmers are at a very large disadvange. Many years ago I was a dairy farmer. I started out with 20 cows. Went good for a few years, then had to buy 10 more cows, then 10 more and then 10 more. Finally said the hell with it when Reagon got to be president and sold them all. Your study was done by someone who was paid to do it. Small farmers are selling out by droves now. They simply can't do it with the prices and costs the way they are. All the studies in the world won't save all the guys in the High Plains Journal who are advertizing their farm sales. I have read them as well, I just know better from experience of living it. Regards George Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems like there was a post here just awhile back on a study done which showed big farms (and they weren't talking about organic) just weren't able to make it as well as smaller farms, and IIRC, it was around the 200 acre point where things started going down. So sell some land, buy some cows and pigs and chickens and diversify, get rid of the chemicals and giant (ultra-expensive) machinery. You'll make just as much money, live longer, and be happier. Don't sell the corn, feed it to the pigs, or make ethanol, or -- whatever. It's a ridiculous idea to farm corn when corn is the cheapest heating fuel on the market. Sorry, George, I just don't have much sympathy for the American farmer, for the most part. I think if we can get the gov't to stop all the crop subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare, the organic/chemical arguement would end pretty quickly. Farmers have been conned, swindled, bamboozled, by the banks, the chemical companies, ag agents, and ag schools (who all work for chemical companies essentially). Hey, I saw the same thing happening in the logging industry -- guys got conned into buying all that new fancy equipment then lost their shirt when NAFTA came along. The banker tried to talk me into it -- I didn't even ask for a loan, he approached me. I just kept logging with my old crawler, and when the crunch came I just sold it all and went back to school. I really like the way the Amish do it -- no debt. And they definitely do make money, pay cash for their farms. On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:50:56PM -0600, George Lola Wesel wrote: I would say that is a very fair question. If it was possible I would. I know several organic farmer and they don't laugh all the way to the bank. That is just an image they would like everybody to believe. In order to reach the production goals required by today financial needs, organic don't cut it. Not even close. Zero Input Sustainable Agriculture (name used by the US government) is just a dream of the extreme left wing enviromentalist. Looks good, sounds good but not feastable. You need to draw a clear line between those that do organic farming with an acre or so and those who farm on the x,000 acres plus. To grow a couple of hundred corn plants on 1/2 acre and then petal the roasting ears to people who you meet on the street is probably very profitable but your going to need a job on the side. With a 27,000 population per acre and 1000 acres of corn that's 27,000,000 roasting ears. This is but one big problem. The places that broker organic food are not capable of handling large volume. The market just isn't their yet. Do you have a clue how much manure it takes to equal 250 pounds of NH3. The average amount of nirtrogen put on an acre of irrigated corn here in KS. Or how many cows it would take to produce enough manure to fertilize 1000 acres of irrigated corn. The reason I say irrigated is that dryland corn here in KS is a iffy crop at best. This doesn't even touch on the labor required to load, haul, and spread the manure or the costs involved. To use manure would not only be labor intensely, but terribly costly as well. I would lose my butt big time to use all manure. They say rotate your crops. Yes, alfalfa does put a little nitrogen into the soil. But not nearly enough to grow 200 bu per acre corn. I do rotate my crops, especially my dryland crops but I do rotate my irrigated as well. To keep the chemical costs to a minmium. On a very small farm, an acre or so, organic is the only way to go. Their are organic farms up to 100 acres or so. But their not profitable, just diehard, stubborn Gonna do it organic types. They would do it even if they were starving. If I can't produce in the 175 and up range then I won't be here next year. Someone else will be farming my farm and he won't be organic. For chemicals their is no organic replacement. They simplely let the bugs chow down. Diease is uncontrollable except by rotation. In bad years like we had last year they don't raise a crop. If organic was suddenly required by all governments
RE: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Hello again George Hello Keith I don't disagree as much as you would think. Oh, good, that makes a change! - I'm kind of used to being disagreed with about this. But I know what I'm saying, I've studied it very widely for a long time, not at all just on paper, I've done it myself in several different places, and I'll do it again. I came to this long ago through Third World rural development work - to me, organics is THE appropriate technology for rural development. The more I learn, the more convinced I am of that. This is definitly on topic because agriculture will power the green revolution. Biofuels are our future and I hope your right about organic farming being their as well. Agreed. Starting to get response at SANET to your last letter. Dunno whether to post it on to you or to cross-post it here. Hmm... I'll post some references below and cross-post from SANET in next. For now. I have one very big problem with small organic farms feeding the world. How will they acquire the land. Government take over by the people maybe. This is a free country and land is very high priced. And no, I am not a Freeman. See especially the University of Essex references below. As for large farms they are suited to large scale production. I can argue the point both ways on efficiently. Which is better, a large farm that produces a lot at a lower cost or a small farm that produces a lower volume but at a higher quality. This could be argued for years. I can't quote any studies. I can't talk about anywhere except here in KS. The people that try to do it here are not competitive with the conventionals. Anywhere but here could be different. So once again I hope your right. In Thailand, farms of two to four acres produce 60% more rice per acre than bigger farms. In Taiwan net income per acre of farms of less than 1.25 acres is nearly double that of farms over five acres. In Latin America, small farms are three to 14 times more productive per acre than the large farms. In Brazil, the productivity of a farm of up to 25 acres was measured at $34 per acre, while the productivity of 1200-acre farms was only $0.81 per acre. In India, farms of up to 5 acres had a productivity of 735 rupees per acre, while on 30-acre farms productivity levels were about half of that. Across the Third World, small farms are 2-10 times more productive per acre than larger farms. In the US, farms smaller than 27 acres have more than 10 times the dollar-per-acre output of larger farms. See also: The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture By Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D. http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html The Case for Small Farms - An Interview with Peter Rosset http://www.essential.org/monitor/mm2000/00july-aug/interview.html Many studies have shown that industrialized factory farms do not outyield organic farms. One 15-year study found that organic farming is not only kinder to the environment than conventional, intensive agriculture but has comparable yields of both products and profits. The study showed that yields of organic maize are identical to yields of maize grown with fertilisers and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic fields dramatically improves. (Drinkwater, L.E., Wagoner, P. Sarrantonio, M. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396, 262-265.) A Rodale study found that organic farm yields equal factory farm yields after four years using organic techniques. In the USA, for example, the top quarter sustainable agriculture farmers now have higher yields than conventional farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment, says Jules Pretty, Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex, Feeding the world?, SPLICE, August/September 1998, Volume 4 Issue 6. http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/article2.htm I do not believe conventional farming is on the right track. I don't know if organic will work and if it works can it produce enough to feed the world. The truth, so effectively suppressed that it is now almost impossible to believe, is that organic farming is the key to feeding the world. -- The Guardian, August 24, 2000 http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4054683,00.html Organic farming can 'feed the world' -- BBC Science, September 14, 1999 http://www.purefood.org/Organic/orgfeedworld.cfm The Greener Revolution, New Scientist, 3 February 2001 -- It sounds like an environmentalist's dream. Low-tech sustainable agriculture, shunning chemicals in favour of natural pest control and fertiliser, is pushing up crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 per cent or more. A new science-based revolution is gaining strength built on real research into what works best on the small farms where a billion or more of the world's hungry live and work. For some, talk of sustainable agriculture sounds like a luxury the poor
From SANET - Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Cross-post in response to George's letter. Keith Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:55:06 -0600 From: RDH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Low input vs. high input organic systems To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keith, I can add some insight on a couple of points. One is that farmers generally are terrible book keepers. For someone doing conventional farming to realize the benefits of sustainable agriculture, it takes much thought, some good records, and a bit of math. Many farmers rate their success in bushels and not in net profit. Often the net comes in the mailbox in the form of deficiency payments. The question about the nitrogen content of manure: Cattle grazing crop residue can produce 63 pounds of manure / day with a combined urine and feces nitrogen benefit of 0.3 lbs / day. Adding sheep will increase the nitrogen return without taking from the available forage for the cattle. Worm casts (if not killed by chemicals) can generate almost 5 tons per acre per year. Worm casts can increase the available nitrogen in the soil by 35%. Clover at 40% cover can add approximately 250 lbs. / acre per year in available nitrogen. Often the missing link in nutrient cycling is the livestock. It is important to plant so that you can let the livestock harvest and manure for you. Interseeding legumes in most any crop and grazing crop residue after will provide adequate and sustainable nutrients for subsequent crops. The unseen missing link is the pharmaceuticals (ivermectin) that kill the dung beetles, the chemical fertilizers (unlisted fillers and salts) that destroy the balance of bacteria and fungi, and the herbicides that destroy the photosynthesizing flora of the soil that make the transition to organic painful. Crop pests are more often a result of inadequate nutrients in the soil, i.e. sick plants. Pesticides on top of the rest of the chemicals take care of any beneficial insects that help to balance the system. Organic production isn't so much a method as it is an understanding of the natural processes and learning how to adapt one's needs to the capabilities of one's land. Harmonic agriculture might better describe the intent of most organic producers. RD P.S. There are some x,000 organic corn growers in the Midwest and plenty of less informed organic livestock producers willing to feed it to their cattle and goats. I would say that is a very fair question. If it was possible I would. I know several organic farmer and they don't laugh all the way to the bank. That is just an image they would like everybody to believe. In order to reach the production goals required by today financial needs, organic don't cut it. Not even close. Zero Input Sustainable Agriculture (name used by the US government) is just a dream of the extreme left wing enviromentalist. Looks good, sounds good but not feastable. You need to draw a clear line between those that do organic farming with an acre or so and those who farm on the x,000 acres plus. To grow a couple of hundred corn plants on 1/2 acre and then petal the roasting ears to people who you meet on the street is probably very profitable but your going to need a job on the side. With a 27,000 population per acre and 1000 acres of corn that's 27,000,000 roasting ears. This is but one big problem. The places that broker organic food are not capable of handling large volume. The market just isn't their yet. Do you have a clue how much manure it takes to equal 250 pounds of NH3. The average amount of nirtrogen put on an acre of irrigated corn here in KS. Or how many cows it would take to produce enough manure to fertilize 1000 acres of irrigated corn. The reason I say irrigated is that dryland corn here in KS is a iffy crop at best. This doesn't even touch on the labor required to load, haul, and spread the manure or the costs involved. To use manure would not only be labor intensely, but terribly costly as well. I would lose my butt big time to use all manure. They say rotate your crops. Yes, alfalfa does put a little nitrogen into the soil. But not nearly enough to grow 200 bu per acre corn. I do rotate my crops, especially my dryland crops but I do rotate my irrigated as well. To keep the chemical costs to a minmium. On a very small farm, an acre or so, organic is the only way to go. Their are organic farms up to 100 acres or so. But their not profitable, just diehard, stubborn Gonna do it organic types. They would do it even if they were starving. If I can't produce in the 175 and up range then I won't be here next year. Someone else will be farming my farm and he won't be organic. For chemicals their is no organic replacement. They simplely let the bugs chow down. Diease is uncontrollable except by rotation. In bad years like we had last year they don't raise a crop. If organic was suddenly required by all governments in this world. No one would be able to buy enough food to live on. It would simpley be a severe food
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge. What irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent farmers, when the gm stuff starts cross breading in the wild. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://24.190.106.81:8383/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC Steve I've seen China and the Soviet Union do this many, many times. It is their way of getting something from us. This is just politics. Nothing to it at all, in 6 months or so they will cough up what they want, if we say yes then it's business as usual, if we say no then the ban will be enlarged to include something else. Lots of big word and tough talk but that's all it is. Most likely just driving the price down so they can load up on cheap beans in 6 months or so, maybe a year George The GM issue is an entirely new element in that old game, and takes the game to a new level which is not so easily predictable. Politics, yes, but not just politics, and not only politics. For one thing, China could emerge as a major player in the GM stakes, and seems to cherish such plans, which could make China and the US competitors, not just seller-buyer at their usual haggling. There's probably also some at least genuine concern about GM imports (and labelling), and not only in China. Other countries have succumbed to US strong-arm tactics on this issue, but that doesn't work well with China. Nor with the EU, where it's also being attempted, and less and less with Japan - all China's allies in this, in a way, along with others. It's a complex issue. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Osaka, Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of course. biodiesel comes from plants, hydrogen from fossil fuels. you don't think the oil interests would let him get away with that? hmmm. wonder what they will do with all those GM Soybeans they can't unload on china. Biodiesel anyone? Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://24.190.106.81:8383/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Shukrainternationals [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC Keith: Not a word from Bush this morning (Feb. 25th) about biodiesl in his energy policy speech! He is all for fuel cells. Comment. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:03 PM Subject: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/bw/?story=/news/stories/ bw/20020212/a2118.htmsymbol=SSPC Southern States Power Co. Receives Approval For Up To $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy Under U.S. Department of Agriculture Bio-Energy Program Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
- Original Message - From: steve spence Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 19:15 Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge. What irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent farmers, when the gm stuff starts cross breading in the wild. I have to admit, this is were I have a problem with granting pantents for plants / crops. A bee does his job, and a farmer next door winds up in court for not paying a company for the pantented crops he grows. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
- Original Message - From: steve spence Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 19:15 Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge. What irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent farmers, when the gm stuff starts cross breading in the wild. I have to admit, this is were I have a problem with granting pantents for plants / crops. A bee does his job, and a farmer next door winds up in court for not paying a company for the pantented crops he grows. Greg H. Not to mention all the tough questions related to transgenic maize in Mexico, the crop's center of genetic diversity. Last year, and again last month, the Mexican Environment Ministry confirmed that farmers' maize varieties in at least two states had been contaminated with DNA from genetically modified maize. http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=298 Mexico doesn't even grow GM maize. That's not the farmer next door, it's the country next door. Nothing is more important than preserving the centers of genetic diversity of our major crops. Don't say gene banks, everyone admits that that's not adequate, including the gene banks. There are also serious outstanding questions concerning the role of Bt (Bt corn) in the soil environment, and of Roundup-Ready soy, which has seen the use of Roundup increasing, not decreasing as promised, while there are also concerns that genetic drift from the soy could give rise to new superweeds - and anyway both of these approaches are a sure-fire way of creating resistance. Also Roundup (glyphosate) is now shown to be carcinogenic. Nice. Then there's Pusztai's work with GM potatoes that turned out to be toxic, which got him fired, and so on and so on, with a growing host of scientists and their institutions raising further doubts and questions, many of them having changed sides as their doubts grew. Meanwhile we're supposed to entrust all these rather important issues to the likes of Monsanto, who've just demonstrated yet once again just how well they qualify as a responsible corporate citizen. I should add that I have nothing against genetic engineering, per se, it holds great promise which is beginning to be realised in other areas, but this truly bad science from these corporate thugs could wreck all that and very much besides. Now we're being told that the odious Terminator technology - traitor-tech - which Monsanto has publicly promised NOT to deploy, is the ideal answer to the problem of genetic drift from GM crops. Sheesh. The Precautionary Principle is the only sane approach. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Osaka, Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
There is also apparently some very legitimate concern regarding (unknown) health aspect of human consumption of GM soybeans since China tends to directly consume soy protein rather than running it through livestock first as we do in the US. Even the Chinese leadership must have some strong reservations about feeding their population a foodstuff that while it looks like a traditional one...is not on the molecular level. I suppose though that much of this concern will abate when they get what they want diplomatically speaking. We don't know for certain (or even close enough for my comfort) if GM foodstuffs are safe for human consumption...and the studies run by the labs that were funded by those that had the most to gain that proved they were are of less value than the human studies we are currently running that have shown that they are unfit for some humans consumption. Don't the Japanese have a similar policy on GM soybeans Keith? Dana __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Hello Dana There is also apparently some very legitimate concern regarding (unknown) health aspect of human consumption of GM soybeans since China tends to directly consume soy protein rather than running it through livestock first as we do in the US. Even the Chinese leadership must have some strong reservations about feeding their population a foodstuff that while it looks like a traditional one...is not on the molecular level. I suppose though that much of this concern will abate when they get what they want diplomatically speaking. We don't know for certain (or even close enough for my comfort) if GM foodstuffs are safe for human consumption...and the studies run by the labs that were funded by those that had the most to gain that proved they were are of less value than the human studies we are currently running that have shown that they are unfit for some humans consumption. Much agree with your reservations. A case for the Precautionary Principle (which all these countries have signed). Don't the Japanese have a similar policy on GM soybeans Keith? Dana Yes, I suppose, sort of... It's a bit half-assed though. They don't have a ban per se, they do have a ban on imports of unapproved GM varieties, for example, Starlink. That's Japanese approval, not US approval - Starlink isn't even approved as animal feed here. Otherwise it's mainly a labelling issue. Labelling is mandatory with food products in which GM material is one of the top three ingredients and where the material accounts for five percent or above of food weight. Food products containing less than five percent of approved biotech crops like corn and soybeans can be labelled as non-GMOs. (This because they accept that some inadvertent comingling is inevitable.) Animal feed and food products in which DNA or protein resulting from gene alternation cannot be detected using existing technologies are exempted from labelling. Exempted items include vegetable oil, soy sauce, corn flakes, glucose syrup, high fructose corn syrup, alcoholic beverages with corn starch, dextrin, mashed potatoes, potato starch, potato flakes and processed potato products. - ie, half-assed. Consumer rejection of GMOs is widespread here and growing, there's a burgeoning market for non-GMO imports, especially of soybeans. Japan imports about 4.8 million tonnes of soybeans a year for crushing and food, mostly from the US. Japanese grain traders played down new government procedures to approve GMOs, saying the action was aimed at calming consumer worries and would not disturb trade. I'd hesitate to argue with that. Of course Japan's also a major player, or perhaps plans to be, and much of this could be positioning, as with China. Japanese scientists recently broke new ground when they inserted genetic material from spinach into a pig, which they say will produce healthier pork. (A spig?) They say their spigs produce less fat than normal pigs, so it'll be healthier to eat spig spork. This seems to demonstrate a less-than-profound understanding of health, nutrition, pigs, spinach, nature, the universe, and all the fish. Professor Iritani said only about 1% of GM piglets survived after being born, although breeding among GM pigs would ensure the spinach gene was passed on. Yeah, right, healthy. Off-topic, eh? Maybe not. I guess it could go either way, but there are more and more obstacles in the path of GMs, or at least this kind of GM, Bt corn, RR soy, etc - the Frankenfood stuff from Monsanto, Syngenta, Aventis et al. It could lead to massive surpluses of unsaleable biofuels feedstock, some are expecting just that. So it's perhaps worth keeping an eye on it even you aren't interested in all the other issues - health, environment, genetic drift, and so on. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Osaka, Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Keith and Dana I agree that I wouldn't want anything that isn't safe. Being feed to me or to any animal I was going to eat. But I have a real hard time believing this is completely about safety. In Europe it's called Liberty Link in the US it's called Roundup Ready. For all practical purposes they are the same. The European governments are screaming that Roundup Ready is unsafe and refuse to let the US export either the seed or the chemical. But yet they continue to develop their Liberty Link. Now the US chemical companies (who own the seed companies) are refusing to let Liberty Link or the seed to be sold in the US. This is nothing less than government protection of a new industry in their respective countries, not safety. China is just new to the game and Japan will be soon to join, if they haven't already. I reminder Saccharin sorry for the spelling but it was banned, then 20 years later when the newer higher priced products where firmly established then they suddenly reversed themselves and now we can buy all the saccharin you would ever want. As for some lab saying that something is unsafe, their is at least one lab who would gladly say that it is for every one that would say that it wasn't. It is their money that clearly decides what their lab will say. I personally do not believe that anybody has come up with any strong evidence to warrant all the bans being put on except that which is being spread to protect private industry from foreign interests. Which is all BS to me. During the 70's the big oil people were saying and swearing that ethanol was so bad for our cars. Reminder the signs Contains NO Alcohol on the gas pumps. I do and I think we are seeing them again right now. As I said, just politics. That's all this is to me and until someone comes up with some good solid proof then that is all it will be. I do however respect your opinions and do feel that research should continue until GM's are either proven safe or not safe. Not that this is going to change anybody's mind on this matter. I will wait to see before I make my judgment on them. George Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Shukrainternationals wrote: (It'd be nice to have a name to call you by in return! - but not if you don't want to.) Keith: Not a word from Bush this morning (Feb. 25th) about biodiesl in his energy policy speech! He is all for fuel cells. Comment. Ten years down the road, they say - 10 more years for Big Oil. Someone said the other day: I'd rather have a competent president in bed with an intern than an incompetent one in bed with an oil company. At least one - don't flame me for that please you guys in the US, I didn't say it, I'd rather not have a president at all. Which indeed is my current happy state. Whatever, oil companies would not seem to be entirely absent from the beds of the mighty. I'd have been most surprised if he had said anything about biodiesel. Did he even mention the D-word? Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Osaka, Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:03 PM Subject: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/bw/?story=/news/stories/ bw/20020212/a2118.htmsymbol=SSPC Southern States Power Co. Receives Approval For Up To $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy Under U.S. Department of Agriculture Bio-Energy Program Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Steve I've seen China and the Soviet Union do this many, many times. It is their way of getting something from us. This is just politics. Nothing to it at all, in 6 months or so they will cough up what they want, if we say yes then it's business as usual, if we say no then the ban will be enlarged to include something else. Lots of big word and tough talk but that's all it is. Most likely just driving the price down so they can load up on cheap beans in 6 months or so, maybe a year George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of course. biodiesel comes from plants, hydrogen from fossil fuels. you don't think the oil interests would let him get away with that? hmmm. wonder what they will do with all those GM Soybeans they can't unload on china. Biodiesel anyone? Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://24.190.106.81:8383/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Shukrainternationals [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC Keith: Not a word from Bush this morning (Feb. 25th) about biodiesl in his energy policy speech! He is all for fuel cells. Comment. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:03 PM Subject: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/bw/?story=/news/stories/ bw/20020212/a2118.htmsymbol=SSPC Southern States Power Co. Receives Approval For Up To $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy Under U.S. Department of Agriculture Bio-Energy Program Updated: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 08:18 AM ET ONTARIO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 12, 2002--Southern States Power Co. Inc. (OTCBB:SSPC) today announced that the company has received notification that its application has been approved for the 2002 United States Department of Agriculture Bio-Energy Subsidy Program (CCC-850). As a result of the growing national interest of developing renewable energy sources, the U.S. government initiated this program to support renewable fuel production. Under the subsidy, the company will be reimbursed quarterly for purchases of bio-based feedstock used in the production of biodiesel. Harrison A. McCoy III, CEO of Southern States Power Co., commented, Approval of the company's application represents an important step in development of Southern States as a biodiesel producer and is another milestone in its expanding corporate strategy, putting Southern States in an ideal position to capture a substantial portion of the regional market. This program also assists U.S. efforts to establish homeland energy security and shift payments from foreign oil interests to America's farmers, assisting in the overall health of domestic agriculture, McCoy added. All biodiesel produced from soy oil by Southern States Power Co. for fiscal year 2002, up to a maximum amount of $7.5 million, will be eligible under the Bio-Energy subsidy program. The subsidy includes biodiesel produced from the Coachella joint venture plant, as well as any soy-based biodiesel produced at planned facilities in Reno, Nev., Phoenix, and Sacramento, Calif. About Southern States Power Co. Southern States Power Co. is a fully reporting publicly traded company, whose core business is to develop, produce and distribute alternative fuels, particularly its OxEG Biodiesel. Southern States Power Co. has two synergistic divisions: one for the production and sale of biodiesel and the other devoted to the generation of power using alternative fuels. Tightening clean air standards and growing fossil fuel costs are forcing municipal and private commercial fleets to look toward alternative fuel products. Major biodiesel initiatives have been passed at the federal and state levels across the United States. More information can be found at the company's Web site: http://www.sspowerco.net/www.sspowerco.net or call 909/476-3575, or e-mail Investor Relations at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address
Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Steve I've seen China and the Soviet Union do this many, many times. It is their way of getting something from us. This is just politics. Nothing to it at all, in 6 months or so they will cough up what they want, if we say yes then it's business as usual, if we say no then the ban will be enlarged to include something else. Lots of big word and tough talk but that's all it is. Most likely just driving the price down so they can load up on cheap beans in 6 months or so, maybe a year George The GM issue is an entirely new element in that old game, and takes the game to a new level which is not so easily predictable. Politics, yes, but not just politics, and not only politics. For one thing, China could emerge as a major player in the GM stakes, and seems to cherish such plans, which could make China and the US competitors, not just seller-buyer at their usual haggling. There's probably also some at least genuine concern about GM imports (and labelling), and not only in China. Other countries have succumbed to US strong-arm tactics on this issue, but that doesn't work well with China. Nor with the EU, where it's also being attempted, and less and less with Japan - all China's allies in this, in a way, along with others. It's a complex issue. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Osaka, Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of course. biodiesel comes from plants, hydrogen from fossil fuels. you don't think the oil interests would let him get away with that? hmmm. wonder what they will do with all those GM Soybeans they can't unload on china. Biodiesel anyone? Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://24.190.106.81:8383/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Shukrainternationals [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC Keith: Not a word from Bush this morning (Feb. 25th) about biodiesl in his energy policy speech! He is all for fuel cells. Comment. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:03 PM Subject: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/bw/?story=/news/stories/ bw/20020212/a2118.htmsymbol=SSPC Southern States Power Co. Receives Approval For Up To $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy Under U.S. Department of Agriculture Bio-Energy Program Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
