LemonBoy- :yourock:
Thanks mang. I've generally found that a lot of locations around here have used organic as meaning "fed organic corn feed," and have had to search out actual grass fed beef.
Printable View
LemonBoy- :yourock:
Thanks mang. I've generally found that a lot of locations around here have used organic as meaning "fed organic corn feed," and have had to search out actual grass fed beef.
CC-
Corn fed beef may not be the most efficient means of getting food on our table but we've developed a taste for corn-fed and that likely won't go away. And a cow finished at the lot is done (ready for market) WAY SOONER than grass finished beef. The feedlot came into existence in order to turn out a consistently finished grade of product in a relatively short period of time. Cows spend well under a year at the feedlots generally 3-4 months I believe.
The bigger problem to my mind with corn-feed is that it is just one more brick in the monoculture wall :(
And there isn't anyway a cow will yield 1500-2000 #s of beef. We bought a big steer from my friend's feedlot over the fall that checked in at 1,352#s IIRC live weight. I think we ended up right around 600-650 cut/packaged weight. Five bills is a good deal though for a cow.
ML- No problem, the east coast should have more grass fed than we do b/c it's a lot easier to do out there... You might check out: http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ (just read an article about this guy). Or: http://www.eatwild.com/products/massachusetts.html (again, google, really www.metacrawler.com is your friend)
btw- DO NOT get farm fresh eggs if you hope to ever eat ones from a store again.
just keep your god damn cattle off my (public) land
thank you
and quit subsadizing dryland farmers to irrigate the land while you are paying Iowans not to grow the same crop.
our ag policies are fuct.
Ethanol was an answer 25 years ago. Imagine what we could have developed in that time,
damn petropolitcs
LB- i meant price not weight, but i'm probably wrong on that too.:biggrin: Do you know the name of the ranch down around trinidad off 25? I've heard they have very sustainable methods going on. Saw a doc recently on the beef industry that featured that farm. Honestly I can't believe with the land prices skyrocketing in the west that anyone can make it as a farmer or rancher if the property is not already in the family.
Anyway, nice to see this discussion happen on a national level, maybe someday well break a few of those bricks.
I think I just found most of my food sources for the year. Lamb from a farm in Amherst, dairy in western mass. We had just signed up for a food co-op, which delivers vegetables based on what's harvested every week (we also get it pretty cheap since we volunteer our time to help harvest/maintain), and whatever I get if I'm lucky enough to go hunting of fishing.
that eat wild site is out of this world.
So does John Kerry and Robert Kennedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOHSHSIHd
Its not the farmers that are complaining about the noise....its the neighbors.
nice, I have friends that run a farm and sell shares. I think were going to buy one this year. Same idea, you get a share of whatever is harvested that week. fucking hippies, gotta love em.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
and in the case of Cape Wind, neighbors with millions of dollars in real estate who claim to be "progressive"Quote:
Originally Posted by Booger
Cyber, I would advise you to buy a share, it's nice knowing exacly where your food comes from, and in my opinion it tastes better since you know so much about it. And generally, they can stear you in the direction of top quality, er, herbs
Isn't the Sierra Club one of the big opponents of Wind Farms?
Yes, but the Sierra Club is in favor of protecting land more so than what is best for society. I worked for the Sierra Club for a little while, and this is one of the reasons I left.
ML/CC- Have you guys considered a garden? It is pretty amazing the amount of food that comes out of them (try: Squarefoot Gardening- Mel Bartholomew (sp?)). After this year ours is going to produce a truly scary amount of fruit (3 apple trees, 1 peach, 1 cherry, 2 blackberry, 3 red razzy, 1 golden razzy, 1 blueberry, 2 gooseberries, 12x4 of strawberries, watermelons, cantaloupes) in addition to all the veggies planted in our raised beds.
I wish I could garden, But living in Cambridge does have its limitations. We have some space, and I use it to grow a collection of herbs, but alas, our landlord will only let us grow flowers in the rest of the space.
container garden?
nice LB, I build some raised beds for my granny a few years ago. Never read about that technique but I'll check it out. Were I live now the soil is shit, so we pretty much have to do raised beds. We haven't had a garden in a few years cause I travel a lot in the summer, but we did do a fall garden a few years ago that worked out well, mostly greens etc, but still nice. Had to go to great lengths though to keep the rabbits out of my goods. C'mon coyotes, do yer job!
Rabbits? probably getting a dog would be the way to go there ;) Either that or just set some snares back there. Shit, you'd probably do better on meat than veggies anyway :) The squarefoot is kind of easy urban intensive gardening...we use a modified version in our's (six 6.5'x 2.5' planters)
lol, my useless mutt. The rabbits have no fear of him now, once they figured out how slow he is.
Thanks to all of America being fleeced by the Ethanol lobby, it looks like my area will seek all the benefits! Its been proven time and again that ethanol produced from corn does little to benefit farmers, does nothing to help consumers, doesn't keep the air clean, doesn't reduce CO2 emmisions, doesn't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and costs the government a huge amount of lost road tax revenue.
I want to thank all the good citizens of this country who every day bend over and take it in the pooper at the pumps for this wonderful news!
We dig ourselves a little deeper into the pit of a command economy run by the long arms of old money.
Quote:
ADM taps C.R. for major ethanol plant expansion
Published: 05/10/2006 10:08 AM
By: George C. Ford - The Gazette
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA - Archer Daniels Midland Co. has selected Cedar Rapids as the site of a new $348 million ethanol manufacturing plant that will produce 275 million gallons of the fuel annually.
That would require a 250,000 additional bushels of corn per day.
The Decatur, Ill., company said it will build a dry corn milling plant adjacent to the existing corn processing plant.
Construction on the Cedar Rapids expansion, expected to be complete in the second half of 2008, is subject to applicable governmental approvals.
My wife has foound that blood meal does a good job keeping the rabbits away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Cop
or just catch one and slaughter it around your veg.
uglymoney got anythign to back up those statements?
I agree with you in principle, but I'm not sure I get these two. It certainly does reduce our dependance on fossil fuel - see Brazil no longer being an Importer of Oil - and since the road tax gets paid at the pump I don't see what effect the composition of the fluid being pumped has to do with lost revenue...Quote:
Originally Posted by uglymoney
Ethanol is exempted from gas taxes...
Ethanol absolutely reduces petroleum reliance.
Wikipedia says it reduces greenhouse gas emissions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85#Lif..._gas_emissions
Something that I haven't seen mentioned is that waste product from the corn->ethanol process is silage, a highly desirable nutricious feed for cattle.
Doesn't anyone understand that the energy and ag policies are dictated by the multinational corps and their policies enacted by the fuckwads we elect to public office who take the bribes offered them for their votes?
Jesus H. Christ - we are all pawns who will get sucked dry because every fucking asshole in the chain of command is serving themselves - not the public. Until the citizens of this country wise up (most likely NEVER) this shit will continue to go on until the Chinese take over.
\
Just my .02 of doom and gloom.
/
After spending 10 years in the energy efficiency business, it became glaringly apparent that if we did what we had the ability to do, there would be little need for utilities and gas companies. But with the lobbying power those corps have, nothing but the current status quo is available and any changes made will be only the ones that keep said corps rolling in dough.
It's a fucking joke...and we are all fools for silently complying.
Thanks for the tip doug, I'll use a babby bunny so the fuckers know I mean business.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by DougW
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/ethanol.gif
Yep, like Summit said, ethanol is exempt from gas taxes, so every time you fill your car up with ethanol, money that would be directed towards the road tax, which pays for our crumbling roads, is redirected to the producers of the ethanol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Remember, I am talking about ethanol from corn. I'm not opposed to the production of ethanol, even biodiesel, if it is makes economic sense. I strongly believe that ethanol from corn is counterproductive, and does not achieve any of the objectives its lobbies claim.
Summit, I'm busy tonight - but I promise that I will continue to forward my thoughts in the future, and I have made my arguments elsewhere on this thread, and otherwise other places, but I will leave you with these piece's that I found after some short googling. The first quote is old, but it shows my train of thought, and the arguments are just as valid today as they were then, even if the powerful ethanol lobby has forwarded misleading studies that "seem" to dispute some of the information, but do not upon closer examination.
http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=4&id=637
Quote:
Orange County Register
August 29, 2003
Pork Politics at its Worst
By J. Bishop Grewell
"Whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass, to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before," wrote Jonathan Swift in "Gulliver's Travels," "would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together."
With the ethanol provisions in current federal energy legislation and calls for even greater ethanol support by Senate leaders Bill Frist and Tom Daschle, today's race of politicians hopes to outwit Mr. Swift by growing millions of ears of corn where none should. After the MTBE debacle, California knows all too well the hazards of mandated gasoline additives.
But bipartisan support is strong for an additive with dubious effects on human health and the environment as the road to the presidency and control of the Senate pass through corn country in 2004.
Sen. Chris Bond, R-Mo., told AP after supporting a change an earlier bill that would have doubled ethanol production, "There are tremendous economic benefits."
He is right. Economic benefits abound for senators and one company in particular. Moving from "Supermarket to the World" to "Corner Gas Station to the World," Archer Daniels Midland has championed ethanol with campaign dollars. Producing over half of the country's ethanol throughout the last decade, ADM receives a lion's share of ethanol subsidies. Over $400 million left the federal treasury for ADM coffers annually during the 1990s.
In return, the company funds Democrats and Republicans alike. Common Cause, a watchdog group, identified $4.5 million worth of political contributions from ADM between 1987 and 1997 - a small investment for hundred-fold returns.
While ethanol enriches congressional war chests, it does not provide economic benefits to the rest of us. Ethanol consumers pay an extra 4 to 8 cents at the pump. Millions of tax dollars support the fuel additive. Along the way, fuel manufacturers are kept from making cheaper, cleaner-burning fuels without ethanol. Why?
Ethanol senators claim the additive reduces smog in metropolitan areas, but government studies do not agree. In 1997, the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that axing ethanol would result in "little change in air quality or global environmental quality." The GAO's study determined that a reduction in ethanol usage would "slightly increase carbon monoxide emissions ... but slightly reduce emissions of ozone precursors." The California Air Resources Board agreed, finding that higher evaporation rates in ethanol-mixed gasoline led to declining air quality.
Similar results were found by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2001. Fourteen of the EPA's 18 most realistic air pollution models determined ethanol augments smog. A 1996 EPA review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards had already concluded that smog and its components pose a greater threat to humans than the one thing ethanol does reduce: carbon monoxide.
Ethanol senators claim the additive will reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Similarly wise investment opportunities have arrived in my e-mail inbox from a host of former African dictators.
And besides supplying a meaningless fraction of fuel for the country, ethanol requires significant fuel and resources to produce. The corn grown for ethanol requires gasoline-powered tractors, harvesters and supply trucks to get to market. In fact, Cornell's David Pimentel argues that ethanol takes 29 percent more energy to produce than it creates.
But it matters not if ethanol yields energy losses. It matters not if ethanol reduces air quality. And it matters not if ethanol will cost consumers money at the pump. What matters is political pork grows fat on corn. Jonathan Swift might be amazed at all the politicians eager to service their country, but I doubt it.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/...ol_clouds.html
Quote:
June 16, 2005
Ethanol clouds senators' judgment
The urge to be seen as doing something about our energy problems is giving rise to legislation that has the potential for more harm than good. The ethanol amendment approved by the Senate yesterday is a case in point.
Yesterday the U.S. Senate approved on a 70-26 vote the Renewable Fuel Standard Amendment to what is to become the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The amendment requires that 4 billion gallons of the motor fuel sold in the U.S. in 2006 be blended with renewable source fuel, rising to 8 billion gallons by 2012.
Whatever the argument in favor of such a measure, it isn't to provide a new energy source. David Pimental of Cornell concluded that when you take into account the energy required to plant, grow, harvest, and process the corn, 1.7 Btu of energy inputs get used up to produce 1 Btu equivalent in ethanol; Resource Insights and Energy Outlook have more discussion of this.
Which is not to endorse an energy theory of value, as if energy were the only wasted input that we should be concerned about. When you add up the value of the land, labor, and capital also used to produce that 1 Btu of ethanol, the economic loss is really quite considerable. Even the current use of ethanol for fuel would not remotely survive without huge public subsidies already in place.
Nor does the justification for ethanol appear to be in its environmental benefits. For example, Knowledge Problem (also here) calls our attention to this study for the California Air Resources Board which concluded that ethanol produces more air pollution than conventional gasoline.
So what is the point of the amendment? Hard to come up with a good answer other than to throw a new benefit to farmers, not to mention Archer Daniels Midland. It looks to me less like an energy plan and more like the usual pork barrel, in this case, corn-fed pork.
http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2005/07/al...anol-fuel.html
Quote:
uesday, July 26, 2005
Alternative Fuel: Ethanol Fuel Production Subsidies
I was recently taken to task by a reader for not giving more coverage to ethanol fuel (alcohol). I replied that I am yet to be convinced that ethanol is either energy positive or economically viable. I then forwarded her reply to the Engineer Poet who continued the correspondence resulting in a post entitled "the money-grubbing mendacity of the ethanol lobby" with accompanying calculations. In reply the original emailer sent me a press release from the "grassroots voice of the U.S. ethanol industry".
The Slate recently ran an article entitled "the ethanol subsidy is worse than you can imagine".
In it Robert Bryce reports that for the last generation, ethanol has been America's fuel of the future. But there has never been more hype about it than there is today. Green-energy analysts like Amory Lovins, environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, neoconservatives like James Woolsey, and farm groups like the American Coalition for Ethanol are all touting the biofuel.
Making ethanol, they claim, will help America achieve the elusive goal of "energy security" while helping farmers, reducing oil imports, and stimulating the American economy. But the ethanol boosters are ignoring some unpleasant facts: Ethanol won't significantly reduce our oil imports; adding more ethanol to our gas tanks adds further complexity to our motor-fuel supply chain, which will lead to further price hikes at the pump; and, most important (and most astonishing), it may take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it actually contains.
The greens, hawks, and farmers helped convince the Senate to add an ethanol provision to the energy bill—now awaiting action by a House-Senate conference committee—that would require refiners to more than double their use of ethanol to 8 billion gallons per year by 2012. The provision is the latest installment of the ethanol subsidy, a handout that has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars during the last three decades, with little to show for it. It also shovels yet more federal cash on the single most subsidized crop in America, corn. Between 1995 and 2003, federal corn subsidies totaled $37.3 billion. That's more than twice the amount spent on wheat subsidies, three times the amount spent on soybeans, and 70 times the amount spent on tobacco.
http://www.straightdope.com/art/2003/031128.gif
The stickiest question about ethanol is this: Does making alcohol from grain or plant waste really create any new energy?
The answer, of course, depends upon whom you ask. The ethanol lobby claims there's a 30 percent net gain in BTUs from ethanol made from corn. Other boosters, including Woolsey, claim there are huge energy gains (as much as 700 percent) to be had by making ethanol from grass.
But the ethanol critics have shown that the industry calculations are bogus. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.
The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.
In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America's total energy consumption, not decrease it. (Pimentel has not taken money from the oil or refining industries. Patzek runs the UC Oil Consortium, which does research on oil and is funded by oil companies. His ethanol research is not funded by the oil or refining industries.)
Ethanol poses other serious difficulties for our energy economy. First, 8 billion gallons of ethanol will do almost nothing to reduce our oil imports. Eight billion gallons may sound like a lot, until you realize that America burned more than 134 billion gallons of gasoline last year. By 2012, those 8 billion gallons might reduce America's overall oil consumption by 0.5 percent. Way back in 1997, the General Accounting Office concluded that "ethanol's potential for substituting for petroleum is so small that it is unlikely to significantly affect overall energy security." That's still true today.
Adding more ethanol will also increase the complexity of America's refining infrastructure, which is already straining to meet demand, thus raising pump prices. Ethanol must be blended with gasoline. But ethanol absorbs water. Gasoline doesn't. Therefore, ethanol cannot be shipped by regular petroleum pipelines. Instead, it must be segregated from other motor fuels and shipped by truck, rail car, or barge. Those shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
There's a final point to be raised about ethanol: It contains only about two-thirds as much energy as gasoline. Thus, when it gets blended with regular gasoline, it lowers the heat content of the fuel. So, while a gallon of ethanol-blended gas may cost the same as regular gasoline, it won't take you as far.