|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 20, 2010 13:14:21 GMT
There's an ongoing debate in the farming community about that issue of food vs fuel, and prices. There have been some experimental plots that have yielded 300 bu/acre (corn ) lately, but that's been done on prime land with specific varieties of GM corn and a lot of tlc. The avg. is around 160 or so. There is a big push to get yields up for cash crops like corn and soy, but a lot of folks figure we're pretty close to the limit already. Rice, wheat, etc. also are in that category. Fruits & Veggies are not a big issue, since there's plenty of land, etc. and lot's of people grow their own - I do. It's not unusual for a veggie crop to be plowed under due to market saturation. It's a real balancing act for farmers. Yield increases don't always pay off, because of increased inputs for fertilizer, water, fuel, etc. Corn, wheat, and soy need to be dryed (natural gas), stored, transported, etc. It's one of the most complicated businesses going, and the competition is international, which means tariffs and subsidies in some cases. Feeding an ever growing global population, that is expanding their diets into new areas ( more meat, greater variety, etc. ) is a significant challenge. This is a common sight in Europe where subsidies unbalance the market even more than in the US. But much of the 'saturation' is also due to the consumer moving to a domestic version of 'just in time' food stocking. Consumers have got so used to the local supermarket having fresh fruit and vegetables at all times regardless of the season, that the old practices during a glut of bottling, drying, pickling and other long-term food storage methods have become lost skills. If the second dip of the depression we are in goes as deep as it appears it will do - I think these skills will need to be relearned. Those with land may also need to think hard about what crops to keep for themselves and how to keep them safe from hungry townies. (For those who want simple fruit pickling - I recommend making rumtopf  ) That's true. Even among farming family's there aren't nearly as many who preserve as much as was the case only 50 years ago. Used to be hard to find mason jars at yard/farm sales but these days you can buy them cheap by the truck load. Freezing is far more common than canning, which raises the spectre of lengthy electrical outages destroying your supplies. Hence the obvious concern with reliable generation and distribution of power. I don't think the proponents of on-again/off again electricity alternatives have given this aspect much thought. They seem to think that losing power is merely an inconvenience - sort of a so what? attitude if you can't surf the net or watch tv for a few days. One of my recurring nightmares is being in the path of a horde of New York City locusts descending on my little patch and stripping it bare.   |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 20, 2010 15:58:26 GMT
We dehydrate and freeze from our garden. My wife goes on a terror, usually 3rd week of Aug freezing sweet corn. 2009 had no production, so we are still working on 2008 but the supply is getting very low.
Electricity is certainly mans friend 24/7. I do not want nor desire to use my generator to overcome power outages.
The cap and trade idea is so stupid as the validity of co2 being a menance is so overblown. I want to see a 2.0C increase in global temps. The benifit to mankind as a whole will be huge.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 20, 2010 16:12:47 GMT
We dehydrate and freeze from our garden. My wife goes on a terror, usually 3rd week of Aug freezing sweet corn. 2009 had no production, so we are still working on 2008 but the supply is getting very low. Electricity is certainly mans friend 24/7. I do not want nor desire to use my generator to overcome power outages. The cap and trade idea is so stupid as the validity of co2 being a menance is so overblown. I want to see a 2.0C increase in global temps. The benifit to mankind as a whole will be huge. OUr wonderful congress was trying to pass a law that would make growing your own food illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2010 16:46:13 GMT
We dehydrate and freeze from our garden. My wife goes on a terror, usually 3rd week of Aug freezing sweet corn. 2009 had no production, so we are still working on 2008 but the supply is getting very low. Electricity is certainly mans friend 24/7. I do not want nor desire to use my generator to overcome power outages. The cap and trade idea is so stupid as the validity of co2 being a menance is so overblown. I want to see a 2.0C increase in global temps. The benifit to mankind as a whole will be huge. OUr wonderful congress was trying to pass a law that would make growing your own food illegal. They already have done this using the 'commerce clause' of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) as a get-out to work around the 10th Amendment. "In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in the context of the Second World War, the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm—that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionTo take this to its ultimate........ "If everyone grew their own tomatoes in their garden, the cumulative effect would lower the commercial price of tomatoes across the United States. By this reasoning, Congress would have the authority to forbid families from growing tomatoes in their backyards. If everyone heated with a wood stove, and cut trees on their own property for fuel, the cumulative effect would lower the commercial price of energy across the United States. Then Congress would have the authority to forbid families from cutting wood to heat their own homes. Put more abstractly, in principle at least, Congress has the authority to forbid people from taking care of themselves, providing their own food and shelter, without being enmeshed in the public grid of commerce. In essence, Congress has the clout to mandate that we are all wards of the state, and what freedoms we do still have, we have at their pleasure."frontpage.americandaughter.com/?tag=commerce-clauseDo you think that the current politicians with power like this won't use it?  |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 20, 2010 17:33:24 GMT
OUr wonderful congress was trying to pass a law that would make growing your own food illegal. They already have done this using the 'commerce clause' of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) as a get-out to work around the 10th Amendment. "In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in the context of the Second World War, the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm—that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionTo take this to its ultimate........ "If everyone grew their own tomatoes in their garden, the cumulative effect would lower the commercial price of tomatoes across the United States. By this reasoning, Congress would have the authority to forbid families from growing tomatoes in their backyards. If everyone heated with a wood stove, and cut trees on their own property for fuel, the cumulative effect would lower the commercial price of energy across the United States. Then Congress would have the authority to forbid families from cutting wood to heat their own homes. Put more abstractly, in principle at least, Congress has the authority to forbid people from taking care of themselves, providing their own food and shelter, without being enmeshed in the public grid of commerce. In essence, Congress has the clout to mandate that we are all wards of the state, and what freedoms we do still have, we have at their pleasure."frontpage.americandaughter.com/?tag=commerce-clauseDo you think that the current politicians with power like this won't use it? I've also read in the last year or so that FDA (I think, but no link at present that I know of ) wants home growers that sell out of the back of their pickups, or at farmers markets, to jump thru the same regulatory hoops as large commercial growers to "ensure food safety". While it sounds reasonable from that perspective, they fail to understand that these small farmers/truck gardeners also eat what they sell, so they are far more likely to ensure their produce is safe since they and their families would be the first ones affected by any problems. For that reason, I'm far more comfortable buying (or trading ) what little I don't grow myself from my neighbors, than something imported by Walmart from Chile, Vietnam, California, etc. The only thing the govt is doing by this kind of dictatorial policy and rule making is driving people into the underground economy, and making themselves irrelevant in a quest to extract more and more revenue thru hidden taxation. They need to back off.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 20, 2010 17:43:13 GMT
This is becoming political.....  But, the function of a Fed Government is to provide an environment for people to prosper. People included corps, as legally they are a person. Our government has been growing slowly for the past 80 years to the point that it consumes so many resources that its primary function is being lost. How to change the mentality that the government solves problems....I don't know. I do know that we need to instill in our children/friends/neighbors etc a sense of self reliance for the better of the whole community. When we see someone in need, we need to help, rather than think "government" will help etc. The change to more efficient government has to start with one. It has started with me, my children and most of my friends. I hope it expands outwards before we implode. I read a most interesting comment earlier today on a cap and trade article. The person commenting indicated that cap and trade would make fossil fuel so expensive that the alternatives would then be feasable. What that person forgot was the economic stress that a huge increase in energy costs would do to the economy as a whole. I just shake my head in dismay at people who don't/won't look at the whole picture of things. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 20, 2010 18:23:15 GMT
I've also read in the last year or so that FDA (I think, but no link at present that I know of ) wants home growers that sell out of the back of their pickups, or at farmers markets, to jump thru the same regulatory hoops as large commercial growers to "ensure food safety". While it sounds reasonable from that perspective, they fail to understand that these small farmers/truck gardeners also eat what they sell, so they are far more likely to ensure their produce is safe since they and their families would be the first ones affected by any problems. For that reason, I'm far more comfortable buying (or trading ) what little I don't grow myself from my neighbors, than something imported by Walmart from Chile, Vietnam, California, etc. The only thing the govt is doing by this kind of dictatorial policy and rule making is driving people into the underground economy, and making themselves irrelevant in a quest to extract more and more revenue thru hidden taxation. They need to back off. Yes, this is the bill I was talking about. There were a couple of versions all labeled food safety bills. It would effect farmers markets, organic farming and even your back yard plot. HR 875 was one of the bills. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 20, 2010 18:25:40 GMT
I read a most interesting comment earlier today on a cap and trade article. The person commenting indicated that cap and trade would make fossil fuel so expensive that the alternatives would then be feasable. What that person forgot was the economic stress that a huge increase in energy costs would do to the economy as a whole. I just shake my head in dismay at people who don't/won't look at the whole picture of things. Those types often advocate for the poor as well. They don't see the disconnect with their environmental policy and the survival of the poor. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 20, 2010 19:37:59 GMT
I've also read in the last year or so that FDA (I think, but no link at present that I know of ) wants home growers that sell out of the back of their pickups, or at farmers markets, to jump thru the same regulatory hoops as large commercial growers to "ensure food safety". While it sounds reasonable from that perspective, they fail to understand that these small farmers/truck gardeners also eat what they sell, so they are far more likely to ensure their produce is safe since they and their families would be the first ones affected by any problems. For that reason, I'm far more comfortable buying (or trading ) what little I don't grow myself from my neighbors, than something imported by Walmart from Chile, Vietnam, California, etc. The only thing the govt is doing by this kind of dictatorial policy and rule making is driving people into the underground economy, and making themselves irrelevant in a quest to extract more and more revenue thru hidden taxation. They need to back off. Yes, this is the bill I was talking about. There were a couple of versions all labeled food safety bills. It would effect farmers markets, organic farming and even your back yard plot. HR 875 was one of the bills. Thanks for bill number. I'll have to read it, although I know it will have some fees, etc. in it. It's getting so that every govt agency is starting to resemble the "revenoors", from the old days of moonshine. I wonder how long it will be before backyard gardens have to be hidden and cucumbers smuggled out in a modern version of Thunder Road.  |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 20, 2010 19:53:35 GMT
No problem. Tracking legislation is what I do. Well one of my hobbies anyway. Best place to look at legislation is Thomas (Library of Congress) thomas.loc.gov/ |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 20, 2010 20:53:38 GMT
No problem. Tracking legislation is what I do. Well one of my hobbies anyway. Best place to look at legislation is Thomas (Library of Congress) thomas.loc.gov/I'm familar with Thomas. Read the bill. Interesting verbiage as to what constitutes a "Food Production" facility - any farm, orchard, etc. without regard to size. A little research informed me that there is no specific legal definition of a "farm" other than what is found in Websters as the common definition; "land cultivated for agricultural production". Whereas the legal definition of a Farmer is a person who derives 80% or greater of his income from farming. So by extension it could be argued that a farm is land which provides the owner with greater than 80% of income. I assume that income would be interpreted as AGI for tax purposes. That said, it still leaves many open questions and assumes that the farmer has income from other sources in order to calculate the actual dollar amount as a percentage of total income. If the above is how the bill would be interpreted then it may exempt the vast majority of people who "grow their own", although I'd prefer that the bill contained specific exemptions related to acreage under cultivation for the specific food crop, bushels harvested, etc. As it stands, it leaves far too much to the imagination of the FDA. The Penalties section floored me. $1,000,000 per instance fines, 5 to 10 years in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2010 21:09:22 GMT
No problem. Tracking legislation is what I do. Well one of my hobbies anyway. Best place to look at legislation is Thomas (Library of Congress) thomas.loc.gov/I'm familar with Thomas. Read the bill. Interesting verbiage as to what constitutes a "Food Production" facility - any farm, orchard, etc. without regard to size. A little research informed me that there is no specific legal definition of a "farm" other than what is found in Websters as the common definition; "land cultivated for agricultural production". Whereas the legal definition of a Farmer is a person who derives 80% or greater of his income from farming. So by extension it could be argued that a farm is land which provides the owner with greater than 80% of income. I assume that income would be interpreted as AGI for tax purposes. That said, it still leaves many open questions and assumes that the farmer has income from other sources in order to calculate the actual dollar amount as a percentage of total income. If the above is how the bill would be interpreted then it may exempt the vast majority of people who "grow their own", although I'd prefer that the bill contained specific exemptions related to acreage under cultivation for the specific food crop, bushels harvested, etc. It leaves far too much to the imagination of the FDA. Like many Bills the actual initial wording can be innocuous but the interpretation and subsequent 'executive orders' or 'statutory instruments' can nudge the meanings into something that was not intended by the original framers. So in the case you state - 'farm' could be defined, for the purpose of this bill only, to include any land used to produce food that is subsequently sold or bartered. You can imagine the 'but we have to ensure that people obtaining food are kept safe' justifications for this interpretation. Unfortunately, we have many politicians and associated NGOs that just love the power that this can give them. So things need to be watched. |
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Mar 13, 2010 22:28:27 GMT
I was wondering if anyone else had stumbled upon Tim Hunkins' interesting website. An English eccentrics' experiments with windpower is documented here: www.timhunkin.com/a125_arch-windpower.htmTowards the end of the page he quotes from a skeptical windpower report from Germany and Canada "As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed. As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4% "......."Large thermal power stations do not disconnect from the grid even following serious grid failures, instead they generally trip into auxilliary services supply and until then, "support" the grid. Wind farms, however, have so far disconnected themselves from the grid even in the event of minor, brief voltage dips. Experience shows that this can lead to serious power failures" |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 13, 2010 23:09:53 GMT
I was wondering if anyone else had stumbled upon Tim Curtins' interesting website. An English eccentrics' experiments with windpower is documented here: www.timhunkin.com/a125_arch-windpower.htmTowards the end of the page he quotes from a skeptical windpower report from Germany and Canada "As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed. As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4% "......."Large thermal power stations do not disconnect from the grid even following serious grid failures, instead they generally trip into auxilliary services supply and until then, "support" the grid. Wind farms, however, have so far disconnected themselves from the grid even in the event of minor, brief voltage dips. Experience shows that this can lead to serious power failures" Interesting. Another aspect of this that is regularly discussed, and of particular interest to consumers, is the cost. Particularly, subsidies in the form of tax breaks, accelerated depreciation, etc. Here's a couple items: This is a little dated (2003 ) but gives an idea of what's what. It's somewhat complicated due to accelerated depreciation, etc. The paper bottom lines it at about 7cents per kwh back then. www.tsaugust.org/images/Cost_of_Electricity_from_Wind... . The author is/was a analyst for a private company: Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. And another from the EIA (2007) that is of interest: www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.... Electricity production subsidies and support per unit of production (dollars per megawatthour) vary widely by fuel. Coal-based synfuels (refined coal) that are eligible for the alternative fuels tax credit, solar power, and wind power receive, by far, the highest subsidies per unit of generation, ranging from more than $23 to nearly $30 per megawatthour of generation (Table ES5). Subsidies and support for these generation sources are substantial in relationship to the price or cost of electricity at the wholesale or enduser level. The average U.S. electricity price was about $53 per megawatthour at the wholesale level in 2006 and about $92 per megawatthour to end users in all sectors in FY 2007 |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 16, 2010 3:11:13 GMT
Seems like those jobs are blowin in the Spanish wind and Obama wants to destroy the U.S. economy on AGW ideology. I can here the group chants We can do it here...We can do it here... "The Big Wind-Power Cover-Up" "Scandal: Spain exposed the boondoggle of wind power in 2009, discrediting an idea touted by the Obama administration. In response, U.S. officials banded with trade lobbyists to hide the facts. It was a cold day at the Energy Department when researchers at King Juan Carlos University in Spain released a study showing that every "green job" created by the wind industry killed off 4.27 other jobs elsewhere in the Spanish economy." www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=527214 |
|
)
