Holy See: Biofuels Shouldn't Block Right to Food

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anybody who eats American corn-fed beef is in no position to criticise one who burns corn ethanol in a car.

How is it any worse to use corn for cattle feed (which cows are NOT naturally able to eat in more than small amounts and need big doses of antibiotics to prevent serious resulting illnesses) than to use it for ethanol?

Americans aren’t starving and we are growing WAAAY more corn than we can eat. Heck, we CAN’T eat most of the corn we grow, its inedible!

Sorry, but high food prices are due to the high oil dependency of modern agriculture and speculation in the ag futures market. Food prices will get WORSE if we DON’T reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Food prices are up because oil is up.
The corn used to feed cows and to make ethanol, isn’t the type humans eat. Its what we use to call, cow corn. Its easier to grow and doesn’t require the sort of land that regular corn, like you get in the supermarket requres.

Jim
 
The corn used to feed cows and to make ethanol, isn’t the type humans eat. Its what we use to call, cow corn. Its easier to grow and doesn’t require the sort of land that regular corn, like you get in the supermarket requres.

Jim
Here we call it feed corn. But if farmers stop growing sweet corn to produce feed corn the end result is the same LESS FOOD. The same acreage just not the same crop and from the available land. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t maze, cord meal made from feed corn?
 
I just watched a very long video of a Clean Energy Event at UCLA…the best line from it follows:

“Best use of ethanol? Beer, wine, scotch…preferably single malt.” - Dr. John Turner, NREL (National Renewable Energy Labs)
 
I’m a farmer, growing various crops and have grown “dent corn” (Latin botanical name of zea maize indentata) otherwise known as feed corn and officially classifed in the marketplace as “No. 2 Yellow Corn” which is traditionally been used for feed corn. It can also be used for human consumption. It is edible. Polenta, some corn chips, conrbread, and the bottom of your pizza crust come to mind. While hybridizing has had some drawbacks, most of this is the fact that we have put more of our “eggs in one basket”, only growing a few gene lines and leaving us more suceptible to disease and insect problems. It still has oil and protein, not just starch like one poster stated. Further, much of the dent corn is genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate herbicides which is controversial and such corn is not approved for human consumption. Basically, all farmland that can grow dent corn can grow sweet corn but that is a meaningless comparison. The sweet corn market is very small in comparison to the corn (based on some rough estimates I just made, each person in the USA would need to eat about 4,500 ears of sweet corn in a year if we were to consume all the corn we grew only sweet corn and not dent corn).

The brining up of farm subsidies in this thread is inappropriate as these subsidies are fairly insignificant at current crop prices and have no effect in rising the price of food, which is the subject of this thread. If anything, subsidies keep food prices lower since they keep more marginal producers in business and keep supply higher.

The use of corn for ethanol has received much attention and is definitely controversial. Some scientists say ethanol production uses more energy than it produces while some say the process uses about 70% as much energy as is produced. That 70% figure is made to sound bad even at that, though I personally think it’s good. It’s like starting off a trip in your car with a half tank of gas but ending up with a full tank after driving X number of miles. I don’t know what the real math figures are though I’ve heard some arguments which take into account the use of solar energy in computations. That makes no sense to me whatsoever unless you have some means to otherwise convert that energy to some usable form of energy throughout the countryside.

One poster made the comment that “it’s all about profits”, or something to that effect. Profits is a big motivation behind this but energy independence is also a big goal. On the other hand, profits should not be classified as some evil. Is it okay for the average consumer to get paid for their work but not the person who grows your food?

Agriculture, corn growers included, are big users of petroleum to operate agricultural machinery but also to fertilize crops as most nitrogen fertilizers are petroleum-based (either oil or natural gas). Because of increased petroleum prices, the operating expenses for farmers has also increased substantially in recent years. One grower was telling me a couple of weeks ago that his cost of production was about 75% of what he could presently sell his corn for and that’s if he gets normal yields without any problems such as unusual weather, etc.

In my area of California, dent corn growers are presently getting about $.10 per pound and wheat growers are getting about $.20 per pound (wheat production is lower per acre). Wheat is not used for ethanol but some acreage that can be used for wheat can instead be planted to corn so that can have an affect on wheat production and prices. Also, weather-related problems in Europe did lead to production problems (a European country recently cancelled a large contract with a country in the Middle East due to the inability to fill the contract). The weak U.S. Dollar does boost our crop prices (and also increase our petroleum prices) due to the advantages of the countries with stronger currencies who are purchasing our grains or the other competing countries with stronger currencies having to charge more.

I certainly don’t understand the cause of people starving in various countries as it is not something that can be understood very simply, I’m sure. Grain prices still don’t seem very high when measured in a price per pound, but the standard of living in many poor countries may make that still a big challenge to finance. If the purchasing countries has not seen a big decline in their currency, they will have seen less of a price increase than what our growers in the USA have seen.

I am afraid of what might happen. Oil prices are still increasing and this can increase food production costs and food prices up even more. How high can it go? Will their be major civil unrest events around the world? In the USA we still spend a very small percentage of our income for “food” (not counting dining out) and even much of that goes for processing costs by large food manufacturers.

For what it’s worth, my largest crop being grown for the past couple of years is alfalfa which requires no nitrogen fertilizer. I am very thankful for that since my production costs have not increased significantly. All of my alfalfa is used for dairy cows. I also grow chestnuts and will be producing pomegranates in a year or two and both of those are exclusively for human consumption.
 
The problem here is people who are more interested in a “cause” but not in solutions.
One solution would be to eat less meat. Americans, per capita, are eating 200 pounds of meat each year - compare that to the 1950s when we ate only 140 pounds of meat per capita.

Raising meat is very inefficient - it takes seven pounds of corn to produce one pound of beef. The livestock industry consumes more than half of corn grown in the US, so cutting back on livestock herds would have a major effect on corn supply.

A simple thing for all of us to do, if we are concerned about the food crisis, is to cut back on our meat consumption. There is enough corn to go around, we just aren’t using it wisely.
 
Jim Kramer, ala “Mad Money,” was on the radio this morning. He blames the high cost of food primarily on ethanol bio-fuel. I don’t have all the details, but his program tonight, is going to focus on this issue.

He said if they removed the mandate for ethanol in gas production, food prices would drop 50%.

I predicted long ago, that this would happen. If the government does nothing, because of pressure from neo-environmentalist with Al Gore as their champion and animal rights activist, we will be pushed into a world wide famine.

Famine is the first cause of armed revolt in a society. We’re just seeing the beginning of it in poor nations, where violence has already erupted because of the food crises there.

I don’t think we’ll get to that level in the US, but the instability in the rest of the world, will have negative effects on us for sure.

Jim
 
Jim Kramer, ala “Mad Money,” was on the radio this morning. He blames the high cost of food primarily on ethanol bio-fuel. I don’t have all the details, but his program tonight, is going to focus on this issue.

He said if they removed the mandate for ethanol in gas production, food prices would drop 50%.

I predicted long ago, that this would happen. If the government does nothing, because of pressure from neo-environmentalist with Al Gore as their champion and animal rights activist, we will be pushed into a world wide famine.

Famine is the first cause of armed revolt in a society. We’re just seeing the beginning of it in poor nations, where violence has already erupted because of the food crises there.

I don’t think we’ll get to that level in the US, but the instability in the rest of the world, will have negative effects on us for sure.

Jim
Whew…you had me worried for a second after reading the previous paragraph. I was going to put you on “armed revolt” watch. 😉 😛
 
Jim Kramer, ala “Mad Money,” was on the radio this morning. He blames the high cost of food primarily on ethanol bio-fuel. I don’t have all the details, but his program tonight, is going to focus on this issue.

He said if they removed the mandate for ethanol in gas production, food prices would drop 50%.

I predicted long ago, that this would happen. If the government does nothing, because of pressure from neo-environmentalist with Al Gore as their champion and animal rights activist, we will be pushed into a world wide famine.

Famine is the first cause of armed revolt in a society. We’re just seeing the beginning of it in poor nations, where violence has already erupted because of the food crises there.

I don’t think we’ll get to that level in the US, but the instability in the rest of the world, will have negative effects on us for sure.

Jim
Kramer is a speculator. Speculators are one of the main contributor to the volatility in the commodity markets.

Study: A variety of factors are driving up corn prices
Research concludes ethanol isn’t responsible for high food costs

Before the “shoot the messenger” comments start, the were studies done by universities, not by Ethanol Producer itself.

In addition, we will see a big shift away from corn as a biomass for the ethanol industry in the next couple of years as alternative sources continue to come on-line.

The myopia of some is what is causing the hysteria and it is starting to get old as you can see in my blog: The Myopia of Secularism
 
Proof? Do you want to continue to supply revenue to Terrorists and Dictators? I for one don’t.
It takes more oil to create ethanol than it saves. Plus, it takes a ridiculous amount of space to produce minuscule amounts of ethanol. Ethanol burns cleaner than gas yes, but it is a waste of time and money if we need to use more oil to make it.

I guess no one else here grew up on a farm?
 
Apparently, only one or two people on this thread know that ethanol from non-food crops is coming online now. It is being produced now. Again, no food crops are involved.

Billions of taxpayer dollars going to farm subsidies is the same as taking it out of the consumers’ pockets. It is a form of price control.

God bless,
Ed
 
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but Jim Cramer is an idiot. For example, on March 11th Cramer responded to a caller’s question asking if they should be worried about Bear Stearn’s liquidity and sell. Jim responded “No, No, No!!! Bearn Stearns is fine, they are not in trouble…Don’t be silly!” Bear Stearns was trading at $63 then and a few days later fell to $2. Jim Cramer is an entertainer more than a financial guru (I used to subscribe to his web site until I couldn’t stand his failure to admitting to being wrong so often).

If food prices drop 50%, most farmers will not be able to cover production costs and supplies would decline. Oil prices need to decline to help bring food prices down. A stronger dollar would help that. We import too many foreign goods, including oil. Yes, eating less meat would also help decrease demand for corn and other feed grains and help lower prices somewhat. Pork is a more efficient conversion from grains and poultry is even more efficient.

People are not going to change their diets quickly and their is no quick answer to the food crisis being experienced in some parts of the world. We’re not even being told much about the crisis (are prices just too high or supplies too limited?). Most Americans are not even aware of any increase in the price they are paying for food items.

Should we drill for oil in environmentally sensitive areas of Alaska? Should we have more nuclear energy? These are some alternatives that are not very popular with much of the public but we need to bring down energy prices to help bring down food prices.
 
Apparently, only one or two people on this thread know that ethanol from non-food crops is coming online now. It is being produced now. Again, no food crops are involved.

Billions of taxpayer dollars going to farm subsidies is the same as taking it out of the consumers’ pockets. It is a form of price control.

God bless,
Ed
I think it is you, Al, and myself that fit that category.

Being a programmer analyst, I have learned to look at the bigger picture in everything. If not, you get burned.
 
I know very well that switchgrass and other biofuels are coming online but those have their own controversies as well. Many are bulky and costly to transport. There is no cure-all for the energy crisis.

Many people claim to look at the big picture but it’s one that they’ve painted themself. There are many biases and we all have them and there is no pure and perfect source of information.

Farm subsidies are all over the world and generally do not increase the cost to the consumer but do the opposite, keeping suppliers higher but helping marginal producers stay in business or even good producers in business during periods where prices are below the cost of production. I don’t really care if I get a subsidy payment or not, it is about 1% of my income, but it does help other growers that otherwise might not make it. Citizens in the USA spend less of their income for food than any other country, by the way. They also use more petroleum than any other country and that is a bigger source of the problem.
 
The title of this post is not supported by what is happening right now. Instead of suggesting anyone doubt the current information, why not discuss it? Food crops are being phased out, non-food crops are being phased in - that’s a fact. But when people post links to sources of accurate information, it still doesn’t stop people from saying what amounts to “Yeah, maybe, well, maybe.”

Get educated. Look at the links others have posted. You’re on the internet! Get some good data.

biomassmagazine.com/

Peace,
Ed
 
The title of this post is not supported by what is happening right now. Instead of suggesting anyone doubt the current information, why not discuss it? Food crops are being phased out, non-food crops are being phased in - that’s a fact. But when people post links to sources of accurate information, it still doesn’t stop people from saying what amounts to “Yeah, maybe, well, maybe.”

Get educated. Look at the links others have posted. You’re on the internet! Get some good data.

biomassmagazine.com/

Peace,
Ed
Ed, your comments don’t seem to relate to anything that anybody in this thread has stated, I believe.

Where do you get the “yeah maybe” comments? Who are your comments directed towards?

What specifically are you suggesting that we read at the link you’ve posted? That is a rather general site and I don’t believe most people are going to be following every article there. Do you think the underlying causes to this problem have easy answers?
 
I’m a farmer, growing various crops and have grown “dent corn” (Latin botanical name of zea maize indentata) otherwise known as feed corn and officially classifed in the marketplace as “No. 2 Yellow Corn” which is traditionally been used for feed corn. It can also be used for human consumption. It is edible. Polenta, some corn chips, conrbread, and the bottom of your pizza crust come to mind. While hybridizing has had some drawbacks, most of this is the fact that we have put more of our “eggs in one basket”, only growing a few gene lines and leaving us more suceptible to disease and insect problems. It still has oil and protein, not just starch like one poster stated. Further, much of the dent corn is genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate herbicides which is controversial and such corn is not approved for human consumption. Basically, all farmland that can grow dent corn can grow sweet corn but that is a meaningless comparison. The sweet corn market is very small in comparison to the corn (based on some rough estimates I just made, each person in the USA would need to eat about 4,500 ears of sweet corn in a year if we were to consume all the corn we grew only sweet corn and not dent corn).

The brining up of farm subsidies in this thread is inappropriate as these subsidies are fairly insignificant at current crop prices and have no effect in rising the price of food, which is the subject of this thread. If anything, subsidies keep food prices lower since they keep more marginal producers in business and keep supply higher.

The use of corn for ethanol has received much attention and is definitely controversial. Some scientists say ethanol production uses more energy than it produces while some say the process uses about 70% as much energy as is produced. That 70% figure is made to sound bad even at that, though I personally think it’s good. It’s like starting off a trip in your car with a half tank of gas but ending up with a full tank after driving X number of miles. I don’t know what the real math figures are though I’ve heard some arguments which take into account the use of solar energy in computations. That makes no sense to me whatsoever unless you have some means to otherwise convert that energy to some usable form of energy throughout the countryside.

One poster made the comment that “it’s all about profits”, or something to that effect. Profits is a big motivation behind this but energy independence is also a big goal. On the other hand, profits should not be classified as some evil. Is it okay for the average consumer to get paid for their work but not the person who grows your food?

Agriculture, corn growers included, are big users of petroleum to operate agricultural machinery but also to fertilize crops as most nitrogen fertilizers are petroleum-based (either oil or natural gas). Because of increased petroleum prices, the operating expenses for farmers has also increased substantially in recent years. One grower was telling me a couple of weeks ago that his cost of production was about 75% of what he could presently sell his corn for and that’s if he gets normal yields without any problems such as unusual weather, etc.

In my area of California, dent corn growers are presently getting about $.10 per pound and wheat growers are getting about $.20 per pound (wheat production is lower per acre). Wheat is not used for ethanol but some acreage that can be used for wheat can instead be planted to corn so that can have an affect on wheat production and prices. Also, weather-related problems in Europe did lead to production problems (a European country recently cancelled a large contract with a country in the Middle East due to the inability to fill the contract). The weak U.S. Dollar does boost our crop prices (and also increase our petroleum prices) due to the advantages of the countries with stronger currencies who are purchasing our grains or the other competing countries with stronger currencies having to charge more.

I certainly don’t understand the cause of people starving in various countries as it is not something that can be understood very simply, I’m sure. Grain prices still don’t seem very high when measured in a price per pound, but the standard of living in many poor countries may make that still a big challenge to finance. If the purchasing countries has not seen a big decline in their currency, they will have seen less of a price increase than what our growers in the USA have seen.

I am afraid of what might happen. Oil prices are still increasing and this can increase food production costs and food prices up even more. How high can it go? Will their be major civil unrest events around the world? In the USA we still spend a very small percentage of our income for “food” (not counting dining out) and even much of that goes for processing costs by large food manufacturers.

For what it’s worth, my largest crop being grown for the past couple of years is alfalfa which requires no nitrogen fertilizer. I am very thankful for that since my production costs have not increased significantly. All of my alfalfa is used for dairy cows. I also grow chestnuts and will be producing pomegranates in a year or two and both of those are exclusively for human consumption.
Thank you. Very interesting information. I might add only that much, perhaps most, wheat land in the U.S. will not grow corn successfully, though I don’t doubt most or all corn land will grow wheat.
 
One solution would be to eat less meat. Americans, per capita, are eating 200 pounds of meat each year - compare that to the 1950s when we ate only 140 pounds of meat per capita.

Raising meat is very inefficient - it takes seven pounds of corn to produce one pound of beef. The livestock industry consumes more than half of corn grown in the US, so cutting back on livestock herds would have a major effect on corn supply.

A simple thing for all of us to do, if we are concerned about the food crisis, is to cut back on our meat consumption. There is enough corn to go around, we just aren’t using it wisely.
I have to dispute you, at least to a degree. I am, among other things, a rancher, and have been all my life. I agree that many ranchers feed corn to cattle, though I think that is changing. I do not feed grain to cattle. Not ever. My cattle are 100% grass-fed. Granted, people like the “marbling” that the feed lots put in the meat with corn. There are other ways, perhaps less satisfactory, to do it. I have, myself, butchered totally grass-fed steers and, while you have to put a little oil in the pan to fry hamburgers or a steak to keep it from sticking, I like it just fine. For roasts, marbling serves no useful purpose and is actually a big negative in my mind. Unmarbled beef is indisputably healthier.

Now, I am aware, though I have not tried it yet, that I can “marble” the beef by no-tilling beets into a pasture or even by overseeding wheat on “warm season” pastures like Bermuda. (I have done the latter for “backgrounding” but not for full feedout, so I can’t speak from experience on that.)

But the big thing about beef is the utter uselessness of a great deal of land for anything but grass. Grass is totally indigestible to humans, because the sugars and proteins are locked up in cellulose. But, if one feeds that otherwise useless grass to cattle, (or sheep) which can digest the cellulose because of their unique double stomachs, they convert it to high quality, highly digestible protein; to-wit, meat. When cattle (or sheep) are raised on lands that will produce nothing but grass, they are a big net plus to the human food supply.

It is no accident that Indo-Europeans have a high tolerance for meat protein and milk sugar (lactose). Our remote ancestors came from the Eurasian steppes, where absolutely nothing but grass will grow.

Even the feedlots have begun to change, at least to a degree. They no longer want fat steers. They want steers that are a bit older, a bit bigger, and grass fed. Obviously, they are doing that in order to use less corn. They now prefer to just add the marbling to a nearly finished animal.

If you don’t want to burden the corn supply, buy grass-fed beef. It’s a little more expensive, for now, but it’s as easy as that.
 
Hello Harvey,

“easy answers”? I just don’t think enough facts have been presented here to have a viable discussion, even though we are all on “the information superhighway.” Biofuels from a wide variety of sources are viable now. Breakthroughs to lowering costs are being made. For anyone to say that someone else is taking a bag of Doritos out of anybody’s mouth is foolishness.

But laboratories that make those breakthroughs are not going to give their knowledge away for nothing. And don’t think for a minute that the average farmer is involved in this in the US. Giant companies like Archer Daniels Midland make conscious decisions, and it’s all about making a buck. It’s not about helping people.

For years, the United States actually dumped surplus food into the ocean. Why? Flooding the market with free food means demand for regular food drops. And who’s going to pay to bag it, store it and ship it?

This is a simple problem called greed. Poor people in foreign countries will suffer more. Instead of importing oil, their governments will use whatever is at hand to make ethanol, including food crops. And they will refuse to pay for the advanced technology to make ethanol from non-food crops. The money will go into their pockets, starving people or not.

God bless,
Ed
 
Ridgerunner - you are correct on the majority of wheat acreage. Since some what corn acreage can be planted to wheat and because wheat can and is also used as an animal feed, there are still influences on the prices of wheat and corn when the price of the other goes up or down. You’ve probably seen it yourself when you’ve followed the cattle markets. Where are you located? I’ve been wanting to try some grass fed beef lately but it’s not in the markets I shop normally.

Ed, you didn’t answer most of my questions. Was there a specific article you thought we should read. You say not enough info has been presented here but you didn’t link to a specific article. And you made another comment about Doritos that nobody mentioned. You’ve alluded to a solution to our energy woes by saying the technology is already here, but haven’t given links to article to explain it. Also, can you give me a reference to food being dumped? I honestly don’t recall ever reading of such a claim. It’s much more common for suprlus food items to get put into school lunch programs, aid to foreign countries, etc. I’m not trying to argue here but I’m still puzzled when I read your comments.
 
Where are you located? I’ve been wanting to try some grass fed beef lately but it’s not in the markets I shop normally.
Missouri. Sorry. I don’t sell grass fed beef to end consumers. I sell into the organized markets like everybody else, and butcher only for my own family. I do have a niece and a daughter, however, who are interested in eventually going into consumer selling eventually. It’s a lucrative market. However, it is not well organized yet, and is somewhat complicated by the “parallel” market for “organically raised” beef, which precludes the use of hormones (which I do not use) or antibiotics (which I do), pesticides (which I do not use) or herbicides (which I do for now, but won’t later). However, I will say that I can’t imagine grass fed beef being unavailable in No. Cal. Here, the market is, as I said, somewhat disorganized, but you can buy it all day long in specialty “connoisseur” or “organic” shops. Anything “new” like that takes awhile to get well enough organized to get the prices down. Grass fed beef is more expensive, but only because production isn’t high enough (though it’s growing) but mainly because of the parallel market for “organic” beef, which is inherently more expensive than “regular” beef, chiefly because the land on which the “organic” beef is raised has to have been free of herbicides and pesticides for some number of years, which I can’t recall. When you are returning a tract of land to the best permanent grasses, you just have to use herbicides to do it well and quickly. Since purchased hay is the chief source of the introduction of undesirable grass species, it also helps to go to a system of year-round grazing, largely eliminating hay feeding.
All that takes time.

Having said all that, there are undoubtedly specialty shops in your area. But the best (and cheapest) way would be to find a local rancher who has his own “grass only” program, buy steers in the field, then find a local slaughterhouse (most are small, family-operated concerns) to do the processing. I have never asked one to find the steers for me because I don’t have to, but I don’t much doubt that such a concern would not only do the processing for you, but would find the animals for you as well. They’re very service-oriented because they’re competing with the big packing companies. I like dealing with those little enterprises, many of which do excellent work and are good people. They have USDA inspectors too, so don’t worry about that. I do have one find my family’s pork for me, because I don’t raise hogs myself. The quality is outstanding; much better than what’s in the stores. Those little concerns don’t advertise much, but I guarantee to you that any rancher can tell you where to find them, because ranchers utilize them themselves.

Finally, in my opinion, the best beef is not actually from steers but from young bulls. It’s tender if the bull is not too old.(about a year at the outside) But it’s even leaner than grass-fed steers, so cooking it is a little more demanding. (No fat in the pan) But in my opinion, it’s more flavorful than any other beef.

Good luck to you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top