date:20020228


motie_d wrote:


 I have an experimental plot of Reed Canary Grass growing now. It was 
 established last year and seems to have taken well. I'll have yield 
 results next fall.
 
 


 So what do you plan to do with the Reed Canary Grass?




-- 
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] Range Rover '89 TDi conversion

2002-02-28 Thread Rawls Moore


Malcolm- I am interested to hear about your RR with the tdi.  I was told
that wasn't really possible.  Most people have told me you need a Defender
or a Disco I.  I currently have a 91  RR, but it isn't in the greatest
shape.  I would like to see if I could get it to run off of ethanol though.
If you don't mind, shoot me a mail and let me know how the conversions went,
cost (if you don't mind sharing that stuff!), and you experience with the
tdi.

thanks for the mail!

--rawls

-Original Message-
From: malcolm maclure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:14 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [biofuel] Range Rover '89 TDi conversion


Dear Rawls,

I saw your post on the Biofuel group.

We have a G reg RR, a tdi conversion (from a 4.9 petrol)
I'd love to chat. I'm very interested in biodiesel  ethanol production
 use!

So do get in touch!

Cheers

Malcolm


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] Range Rover '89 TDi conversion

2002-02-28 Thread craig reece


Rawls,

Not sure where you are, but I know a guy who's installing a 2.8 (?) BMW 6 cyl.
turbodiesel in a Range Rover - the BMW 524 and 528's in the mid-80's that had
the turbodiesel used it with the same ZF automatic that the Rangies have. I've
seen entire 524's on Autotrader for less than $3000, and Ford also installed
the BMW turbodiesel in some Lincoln Mark VII's in the mid-80's, and these
engines are out there in junkyards - often with low mileage, from cars owner by
folks who never went anywhere.

Supposed to be a good engine - and the Ford angle makes parts availability good
- although BMW dealers can get everything too. The Ford workshop manuals are
supposed to be better.

Craig

Rawls Moore wrote:

 Malcolm- I am interested to hear about your RR with the tdi.  I was told
 that wasn't really possible.  Most people have told me you need a Defender
 or a Disco I.  I currently have a 91  RR, but it isn't in the greatest
 shape.  I would like to see if I could get it to run off of ethanol though.
 If you don't mind, shoot me a mail and let me know how the conversions went,
 cost (if you don't mind sharing that stuff!), and you experience with the
 tdi.

 thanks for the mail!

 --rawls

 -Original Message-
 From: malcolm maclure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:14 PM
 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [biofuel] Range Rover '89 TDi conversion

 Dear Rawls,

 I saw your post on the Biofuel group.

 We have a G reg RR, a tdi conversion (from a 4.9 petrol)
 I'd love to chat. I'm very interested in biodiesel  ethanol production
  use!

 So do get in touch!

 Cheers

 Malcolm

 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.
 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

2002-02-28 Thread George Lola Wesel


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

2002-02-28 Thread George Lola Wesel

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] Making Something From Nothing

2002-02-28 Thread Dana Linscott


Ken,

Isn't Wake Island a mid pacific US military
installation? I think they refuel ships and jets
mainly so the figures could be skewed as they
sometimes are.

I have heard arguments that the US per capita energy
use is similarly skewed since it does not take into
account the huge petroleum use that is needed to raise
and tranport crops which then end up in other
countries without the energy use being attributed to
those end use countries.

Dana
--- Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Where is wake island and what are the people doing
 there, powering a death
 ray?
 
 Ken C.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.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/

[biofuel] Its not possible to make affordable biodiesel in the UK...

2002-02-28 Thread Giacomo Mosca


Gd Evening,

I dont think its possible to make biodiesel for a better price than DERV Diesel 
using new oil!!! Someone please prove me wrong i really want to use biodiesel 
but i wanna be able to afford it!!

To make a litre of biodiesel it would cost:
Cheapest New Oil (37p/L - 750ml) 28p
Biodiesel Tax (from april)  25p/L
Anhydrous Methanol (£1.92/L - 250ml) 48p
Sodium Hydroxide 
My own time and effort and electricity Negligable

Cost of Biodiesel £1.01/L (exc sodium lye) - Cost of DERV 74p/L

Someone please help,

Giac Mosca


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 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

2002-02-28 Thread George Lola Wesel

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

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

[biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC

2002-02-28 Thread jhyde16833


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]


 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


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] A New Use for Glycerine....


Hi Ken

Very interesting! I know Dow and others are deeply into this, and 
it's bound to be a growth sector. I think there are a few items in 
the archives about it.

Making it from petroleum would seem to be nuts - the oft-stated aim 
is to conserve fossil-fuels and to produce plastics that are fully 
biodegradeable (and, I guess, carbon-neutral).

I suppose the million-dollar question would be, does it provide a 
market for the crude, unrefined glycerine we produce? How to find out?

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Osaka, Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/


I ran across an interesting new application for glycerine. Do a web search
on biodegradable polyesters and you'll see what I mean. These novel
plastics are based on 1,3-propanediol condensed with succinic acid or
other dibasic acids. Guess where 1,3-propanediol comes from -- the
fermentation of glycerol by various bacteria! They're looking into ways
to make the stuff from petroleum instead (!!!) because glycerol is so
expensive!

Maybe there's a way we could capitalize on this, both to find a good
ecologically sound outlet for our glycerol, and also to encourage the
replacement of petrochemicals in plastics production-K


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/

Coppice Willow Hardwoods Part Dieu was Re: [biofuel] Re: Cornburning Stoves

2002-02-28 Thread motie_d


--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 motie_d wrote:
 
 
  I have an experimental plot of Reed Canary Grass growing now. It 
was 
  established last year and seems to have taken well. I'll have 
yield 
  results next fall.
  
  
 
 
  So what do you plan to do with the Reed Canary Grass?

Eventually, I plan to gasify it, and run the gas through a Fischer-
Tropsch catalytic processor to make synthetic Diesel fuel.
Integration Engineering is being a Bear to do.(And expensive)

It will be nearly 3 years to have the facility running to do it. In 
the meantime, I will keep production records of harvest quantities, 
and develop as efficient of harvesting operation as I can. I would 
like to gasify some of it to quantify the energy potential.
Any that I can't use initially, will be given to the U of M to feed 
their experimental cattle herd.

Motie
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 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


   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

[biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC

2002-02-28 Thread jhyde16833


Hi george, john again. Do not believe every thing that Monsato  says. Monanto 
said in the 60s-70s that agent orarnge was safe, but aloute of my freinds are 
sike or dead from sickness cought in the nam. Most of them either handled or 
got sprayed with agent orange. Monsanto lied then, so we can beleive now. 
regards John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 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


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