Re: [Biofuel] Paraguayans 'ill through GM crop pesticide' - 24 Aug 2008 *#
Keith My understanding was that the 'poistive' attributes of GM crops/foods were supposed to be that they got a higher yield, for insects didn't take as much, plus it was less expensive to grow them for there was no need for pesticides, etc. It seems that even those traits are not panning out though. Or have I misunderstood? best wishes Shan In a message dated 25/08/2008 2:13:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Most studies have found that use of pesticides with GM crops goes up, not down as promised by Monsanto et al. Best Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Doug, I see you bought into Al Jazeera's headline. What is the Connection between the crop being GM and the harm caused by the pesticide? Regards, Wendell Nope, I've not bought into anything, merely copy and pasted the title into the email. True, there's no mention of GM in the video... has to do more with the pesticides used on the crops. It's my opinion that crops grown naturally will maintain a natural resistance to pests, and while the pests may consume a percentage of the crop, the pests are a lesser bane to both the farmers, and the consumers of food, than whatever pesticides might be used to control the pests, (and in the process, killing the organisms, earthworms, bacteria, mycelium, in the soil that make for a living substrate for crops grown in it.) As far as getting my news from Al Jazeera, yes, I do read it, and CNN, and PressTV, and Haaretz, and Democracy Now, The Hindu, Voice of America, Reuters, the list goes on and on... Each one has their own style of spin, and like religions, each has a small thread ot truth that winds through it. Careful analysis will expose truth amongst the spins... Unless I am there, and have seen with my own eyes, all reports arriving at my eyes are suspect... doug -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080825/ce7dc4bd/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Paraguayans 'ill through GM crop pesticide' - 24 Aug 2008 *#
Hello Shan Keith My understanding was that the 'poistive' attributes of GM crops/foods were supposed to be that they got a higher yield, for insects didn't take as much, plus it was less expensive to grow them for there was no need for pesticides, etc. It seems that even those traits are not panning out though. Or have I misunderstood? Well, that's the spin, but it ain't so. None of the pro-GM spin checks out: yields aren't higher, they're often lower, pesticide use goes up, not down, the GM traits don't stay put, they spread through the pollen, polluting other crops and creating superweeds, and the basis of the claims for safety and health are based on bent science, no science, and suppression of science that finds harmful effects (eg Árpád Pusztai, most famously). Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years Dr. Charles M. Benbrook Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center The substantial increase in herbicide use on RR crops is now unmistakable in USDA pesticide use data. http://www.biotech-info.net/Full_version_first_nine.pdf Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans -- A report by consultant Charles M. Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center in Idaho found that farmers are using more herbicide than ever before, despite biotech industry claims to the contrary. Using US Department of Agriculture data from 1998, Benbrook found that farmers sprayed 11.4% more herbicide on herbicide-resistant genetically engineered crops than on fields treated with conventional herbicides. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/RRS-Troubled-Benbrook.htm Dr. Charles M. Benbrook Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center GE Crop Yields/Pesticide Use No Better Recent data from the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service for the 1997 and 1998 growing season found that in most cases genetically engineered crops were not getting any better yields than conventional crops, and farmers were using about the same amount of pesticides on engineered crops as conventional crops. http://www.purefood.org/Organic/oca19.cfm#GE New Soil Association report shows GM crops do not yield more - sometimes less 04/14/2008 The Soil Association has published a report on the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years (see report below). The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties. http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument Most of the genetic modifications introduced in crops aim at making them resistant to pests or weed killing, but not to increase yields, says Hans-Joerg Jacobsen, biologist at the University of Hanover in Germany. Modern cultures, free of any genetic modification, have higher yields than genetically modified seeds. GM foods the problem, not the solution, Inter Press Service (IPS), May 23, 2008 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42480 Vandana Shiva says: Genetic engineering so far has only achieved transfer of single gene traits such as herbicide resistance and Bt. toxin production. Yield and environmental resilience are multigenetic traits, and there is no GM crop currently engineered for high yields. Monsanto has claimed that its Bt. Cotton in India yields 1,500 kg/acre. Most independent studies have found 300-400 kg/acre as an average, with many farmers facing total crop failure due to pest attack and some getting more than 1,000 kg if the weather was not too dry or two wet. Why Prince Charles is right: we need GM free food and agriculture for food security By Dr Vandana Shiva The Daily Telegraph, 22 August 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/21/eashiva121.xml Genetically modified agriculture will not solve the world's hunger problem, Hans Kast, managing director of the plant science branch of the chemical giant BASF told the German newspaper Die Sueddeutsche Zeitung. -- GM foods the problem, not the solution, Inter Press Service (IPS), May 23, 2008 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42480 Martin Taylor, chairman of Syngenta, said the current industry focus on farmers in rich countries meant it would take 20 years to launch crop varieties designed to address the problems of the developing world. He told the Guardian: GM won't solve the food crisis, at least not in the short term. -- GM will not solve current food crisis, says industry boss, June 27 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/27/gmcrops.food?gusrc=rssfeed=networkfront And so on. Best Keith best wishes Shan In a message dated 25/08/2008 2:13:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Most studies have found that use of pesticides with GM crops goes up, not down as promised by Monsanto et al.
Re: [Biofuel] Paraguayans 'ill through GM crop pesticide' - 24 Aug 2008 *#
Hi All ; One of the genetic modifications made on crop plants is to make them roundup ready. Such plants are resistant to the herbicide so it can then be sprayed on them multiple times throughout the growing season .. double and triple dosing all those living in the vicinity or working in the fields, as well. Yes thanks for your post, and I know you are not supporting RoundUp. You know, scientists recently were shocked to find abundant life at 5,000 meters in the crushing depths of the ocean near volcanic vents spewing corrosive streams of superheated water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent If life can adapt and flourish in these harsh conditions, why would anyone think that it would take a mere heartbeat for nature to form super life forms resistant to RoundUp or any other puny chemical we can dream up? Yes the weeds are sick but we are even more sick. How foolish and blind we sometimes are. Best Regards, Peter G. Thailand ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Paraguayans 'ill through GM crop pesticide' - 24 Aug 2008 *#
-- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080826/01f02754/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Paraguayans 'ill through GM crop pesticide' - 24 Aug 2008 *#
http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg44739.html [Biofuel] Glyphosate Toxic Roundup Worse http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg53067.html [Biofuel] Fwd: PANUPS: Rethinking Roundup http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg70472.html [Biofuel] Scientists Estimate That Pesticides are Reducing Crop Yields by ONE-THIRD Hi All ; One of the genetic modifications made on crop plants is to make them roundup ready. Such plants are resistant to the herbicide so it can then be sprayed on them multiple times throughout the growing season .. double and triple dosing all those living in the vicinity or working in the fields, as well. Yes thanks for your post, and I know you are not supporting RoundUp. You know, scientists recently were shocked to find abundant life at 5,000 meters in the crushing depths of the ocean near volcanic vents spewing corrosive streams of superheated water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent If life can adapt and flourish in these harsh conditions, why would anyone think that it would take a mere heartbeat for nature to form super life forms resistant to RoundUp or any other puny chemical we can dream up? Yes the weeds are sick but we are even more sick. How foolish and blind we sometimes are. Best Regards, Peter G. Thailand ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Wasted food draining the world of water, experts say
Full report: Saving Water: From Field to Fork -- Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain [PDF] http://www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Papers/Paper_13_Field_to_Fork.pdf http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gv7oLsKL37KqLSHmSmrkYl_SeDzA Wasted food draining the world of water, experts say August 22, 2008 STOCKHOLM (AFP) - As much as half the water used to grow food worldwide is lost due to waste, experts said at a Stockholm conference that wrapped up Friday, pointing out that the squandered resources are a major contributor to global water shortages. There is huge waste and loss of water through food that is produced, since roughly 50 percent of the food that farmers grow is lost or wasted, said Jan Lundqvist, who heads the scientific programme at the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI). There is a need for a mentality shift... It would make a lot of sense for people to waste less, he told AFP. According to SIWI, which hosted the annual World Water Week in the Swedish capital, tremendous amounts of food, and thus water, are discarded in the fields, during processing, in transport, in supermarkets, restaurants and in people's kitchens. In a new report on saving water the institute points out that in the United States, 30 percent of food, worth 48.3 billion dollars (32.5 billion euros), is thrown away each year. That corresponds to 40 trillion litres of irrigation water, enough water to meet the household needs of 500 million people, said the report, entitled Saving Water: from Field to Fork -- Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. Food wastage depended largely on the society in which it was grown and consumed. In poor countries most food was lost in the fields or due to lack of storage and cooling systems or poor transport mechanisms. In many areas of the world you simply cannot store food efficiently, because it is not handled well, SIWI project director Jakob Granit told AFP. In richer societies, most waste happened at the consumer level, while changing diets and an increased appetite for water-intensive foods like dairy products and meet, especially beef, in these regions amplified the water drainage, according to experts. In urban settings, we have lost touch with realities. People do not know where food comes from, they do not know what it takes to produce food, Lundqvist said, pointing out that it takes between 10 and 15 tonnes water to produce a single kilo (2.2 pounds) of beef. Now if you throw away half of that kilo, that means you've thrown away 7.5 tonnes of water, he said. As the world struggles to feed and provide water to growing populations, it was essential that governments strived to reduce the amount of food wasted by at least 50 percent by 2025, according to the SIWI report. Unless we change our practices, water will be a key constraint to food production in the future, Pasquale Steduto of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's Water Resources, Development and Management Service said in a statement. For change to happen, economic incentives were essential, according to Granit. The key incentive to make change is the price, he said, pointing out that in Sweden the consumption of beef had recently gone down by 30 percent because the price went up. And in Kuwait, where water remained a free commodity, each person on average used 600 litres of water a day, while in water-rich Sweden the average was just 150 litres, he said. We pay a price here for water that is not very high, but we also couple that with education and awareness so people know there is a cost to the environment to use that water, Granit said. According to Lundqvist, today's massive food waste actually has a silver lining. It means there is a huge potential for improvement, he said. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Ethanol 85
Hi Kurt I live within ten miles of four different E85 pumps, for most of them it's just right there on one of the islands with the gas pump. It's a separate nozzle, like diesel, but it isn't attended. If I'm the one filling the car up, I splash-mix to about an E40 blend by putting the E85 in first, then topping off with gasoline. I've had some good success making ethyl esters using E85, too. It's dry, and if you compensate for the gasoline volume it works nicely. I'd wondered about that, but you don't get E85 here. Letting it sit in the sun in a black container tends to drive off most of the residual gas vapors post-wash. With the cost of E85 per gallon comparable to the local cost of methanol, I just use the E85. Only E85, or do you use a proportion of methanol too, as Ken Provost suggests? http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_link.html#ethylester Do you use low-FFA oil? Thanks! Best Keith Once I have the recovery still working properly, I'll put the recovered alcohol/gasoline mix in one of the cars rather than cycling it back into the process. -Kurt Chris Burck wrote: i suspect this has more to do with wanting to avoid any chance of legal action from people who try to get intoxicated with it: you never told me this was poisonous, so give me 35 million dollars. ckearly this is lunacy. but there's so many urban legends out there about punitive damage awards, corporate policies as you describe are no surprise. of course, who's to say they're not just using potential liability as cover for limiting our choices. On 8/22/08, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All; It has been a while but I am not idle. I hope everyone is keeping well. I have been working on converting a 2 stroke to run on ethanol. Engine work is well underway. I wanted to get some ethanol to start testing what lubricants I can use as a substitute for the commercial 2 stroke lubes meant for gasoline. I am hoping esters are the answer obvioisly. I don't have any anhydrous ethanol so I found out that one of the only two stations that sell E85 is about 1/2 hr away so I drove out with a jerry can, only to find that they WILL NOT SELL any E85 unless you pull up with a flex fuel vehicle and they will only fill the tank and no extra cans. The kid at the pump jerks his thumb over his shoulder and tells me he can only pump it if the guy in the building says so. I walk up to the building with its big red banner above the door with proud letters that read ONTARIO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY COUNCIL I asked the manager how I was supposed to get fuel to do my research and he said he could not help me. I asked if it was a company policy or a law and he told me (wrongly) that it was the law. I have since discovered that it is just the company policy but there is nowhere else to buy. I can produce my own anhydrous ethanol but I thought I'd save the hastle and give some of my dollars to help promote the alt fuel business. I guess the bond between car manufacturers and fuel producers is nowhere stronger than in the alternative fuels area eh? I'm going to vomit nowplease excuse me. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Paraguayans 'ill through GM crop pesticide' - 24 Aug 2008 *#
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/USDAgifttoMonsanto.php ISIS Press Release 26/08/08 USDA Gift to Monsanto The US Department of Agriculture's give-away insurance rates for GM crops risk bankrupting the public coffers. Prof. Joe Cummins The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) is part of the Risk Management Agency (RMA) that serves under the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), a Federal Executive Department (or Cabinet Department).The USDA-FCIC safeguards the economic stability of agriculture through a system of crop insurance and provides the means for research in devising and establishing such insurance. It is managed by a Board of Directors, subject to the general supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture. On 12 September 2007, the FCIC Board of Directors approved a Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE) pilot programme submitted under section 523(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. The result is that farmers growing Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) maize receives crop insurance at a greatly reduced cost of between 20 and 70 percent. The BYE programme was crafted by the Monsanto Corporation and its first beneficiary is limited to its GM maize. This insurance bonanza is intended for farmers planting Monsanto's GM maize that has Bt genes against corn borer and root worm stacked with a gene for tolerance to Round-up herbicide. The FCIC Board of Directors, at its 14 August 2008 meeting, approved additional seed technologies for premium rate reduction for producers planting certain corn hybrid varieties; i.e., those containing Bt genes for corn borer and rootworm stacked with genes for tolerance to herbicides such as glyphosate and glufosinate. The companies benefiting from the largesse of the USDA give-away insurance include besides Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred [1, 2]. The crop insurance policies insure producers against yield losses due to natural causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost, insects, and disease [3]. It is clear that the stacked GM maize lines are protected against corn borer and rootworm, but not particularly well protected against drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost and disease, nor against the numerous insect pest that are likely to take advantage of reduced competition from borer or root worm. It may be that the stacked maize lines will benefit from a USDA give-away insurance that specifically protects against any such secondary insect pests; for they have indeed already emerged in China and India as the result of growing Bt cotton [4, 5] (see Why Prince Charles is Right, SiS 40 and Deadly gift from Monsanto to India, SiS 39) FCIC is presuming that the stacked GM maize lines will consistently produce more than conventional or organic maize, but that has not been proven scientifically. It is based solely on an act of faith on the part of the USDA bureaucrats. Why then do these new GM constructs deserve the gift of reduced insurance cost at the US taxpayers' expense? Have the taxpayers been consulted before such egregious largesse has been doled out to well-heeled farmers and the corporations who licence the GM seeds? The rest of the farming community may feel especially aggrieved at this blatant display of favouritism on the part of the FCIC. After all, insured organic farmers were not compensated for damages from epidemics of fungal disease, even though the conventional fungicides were ineffective against the fungus disease. It seems that FCAC is taking on the role of sugar daddy to the GM industry and compliant farmers. And that may go a long way towards promoting universal GM farming practices and bankrupting the public coffers. References 1. Pugh, S. FCIC BOARD EXTENDS BIOTECHNOLOGY PILOT COVERAGE AREAS AND QUALIFYING HYBRIDS 3008 http://www.rma.usda.gov/news/2008/08/fcicbiotech.html 2. Witt,T Pilot biotechnology yield endorsement Insurance Standaards Handbook 2008 and Succeeding Years, http://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/2/2008/08_20070.pdf 3. Crop Policies Risk Management Agency Actual Production History 2008 http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/ 4. Shiva V and Ho MW. Why Prince Charles is right. We need GMO-free food and agriculture for food security. Science in Society 40 (to appear). 5. Kalaspurkar R. Deadly gift from Monsanto to India. SIS 38 - Letters to the editor. Science in Society 38, 51, 2008. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Ethanol 85
For the most part I have been using straight E85. Single stage, base, sodium hydroxide since I'm still using up stock. If I have time, I'll try to move and do some KOH catalyzed. All my oil is from home use or a frequently changed burger stand, titrates 5 every time, typically around 1-2. Total failure tends to result if the E85 isn't fresh. If it's been sitting a week, I cut it approximately 50/50 with methanol and it does decently well, but unless I miss a batch it doesn't tend to sit. -Kurt Keith Addison wrote: Hi Kurt I live within ten miles of four different E85 pumps, for most of them it's just right there on one of the islands with the gas pump. It's a separate nozzle, like diesel, but it isn't attended. If I'm the one filling the car up, I splash-mix to about an E40 blend by putting the E85 in first, then topping off with gasoline. I've had some good success making ethyl esters using E85, too. It's dry, and if you compensate for the gasoline volume it works nicely. I'd wondered about that, but you don't get E85 here. Letting it sit in the sun in a black container tends to drive off most of the residual gas vapors post-wash. With the cost of E85 per gallon comparable to the local cost of methanol, I just use the E85. Only E85, or do you use a proportion of methanol too, as Ken Provost suggests? http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_link.html#ethylester Do you use low-FFA oil? Thanks! Best Keith Once I have the recovery still working properly, I'll put the recovered alcohol/gasoline mix in one of the cars rather than cycling it back into the process. -Kurt Chris Burck wrote: i suspect this has more to do with wanting to avoid any chance of legal action from people who try to get intoxicated with it: you never told me this was poisonous, so give me 35 million dollars. ckearly this is lunacy. but there's so many urban legends out there about punitive damage awards, corporate policies as you describe are no surprise. of course, who's to say they're not just using potential liability as cover for limiting our choices. On 8/22/08, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All; It has been a while but I am not idle. I hope everyone is keeping well. I have been working on converting a 2 stroke to run on ethanol. Engine work is well underway. I wanted to get some ethanol to start testing what lubricants I can use as a substitute for the commercial 2 stroke lubes meant for gasoline. I am hoping esters are the answer obvioisly. I don't have any anhydrous ethanol so I found out that one of the only two stations that sell E85 is about 1/2 hr away so I drove out with a jerry can, only to find that they WILL NOT SELL any E85 unless you pull up with a flex fuel vehicle and they will only fill the tank and no extra cans. The kid at the pump jerks his thumb over his shoulder and tells me he can only pump it if the guy in the building says so. I walk up to the building with its big red banner above the door with proud letters that read ONTARIO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY COUNCIL I asked the manager how I was supposed to get fuel to do my research and he said he could not help me. I asked if it was a company policy or a law and he told me (wrongly) that it was the law. I have since discovered that it is just the company policy but there is nowhere else to buy. I can produce my own anhydrous ethanol but I thought I'd save the hastle and give some of my dollars to help promote the alt fuel business. I guess the bond between car manufacturers and fuel producers is nowhere stronger than in the alternative fuels area eh? I'm going to vomit nowplease excuse me. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Jatropha -- Reality or Hype?
I am having a similar doubt here as well, is Jatropha a reality? Indeed it is a living tree, even I had one germinated from seed as a pot plant. But is it a reality? What make it better then the more productive oil palm if it still need fertilizer and irrigation to thrive? Or course, Jatropha can thrive on more soil then oil palm, and perhaps can better adapt as claimed. And then rather then planting it in marginal land, there wont be enough marginal land and if the demand is high, the lesser demand, such as less profitable and labor intensive vegetable land, will be replaced with Jatropha, or just got eaten by large plantation. The biggest doubt in my mind is Jatropha is not been throughoutly studied like soy bean, maize, oil palm, etc. There is no high yield hybrid avalable but most are germinated from regular seeds and hence the quality may differ. This will make unpredictable return for an investment, which is bad. Whats worst is the waste of farmland into some worthless venture. Furthermore, it is labor intensive, no mechanized harvesting available. I believe that Jatropha can be survive in US in the more arid area. And for maximum output, irrigation will be provided. But I strongly doubt it will ever landed in USA as labor cost a bomb there. 1/2 cent. Regards Rexis On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: If reality, can it be done in the US or only developing nations? I wonder what you're talking about? Jatropha is certainly a reality, it's something that exists, it's not just hype, it's a tree. So? There's a lot of information on jatropha in the archives. Try this, eg: Jatropha - the agrofuel of the poor? (160 kb) http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=480 GRAIN, July 2007 Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080827/4db31d5c/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
