If a Prius hits a Volvo in a Whole Foods parking lot, does anybody hear it?

Perhaps they'd hear it, but they most likely wouldn't stop to help and they'd probably just walk around it.

Why is it that Whole Foods customers seem to be some of the rudest anywhere?

Perhaps it's that usually a Whole Foods has a ridiculously small parking lot for the number of people that shop there, or perhaps it's that the aisles in the stores are usually pretty tight, so it's hard to get around people. Perhaps that all sets the initial mood. (Or perhaps it's just the kind of customer that tends to shop there?)

I'm not sure what it is exactly, but I have to remember to only go to Whole Foods during off hours; I just can't deal with the generally rude and inconsiderate customers. I don't have the two hours out of my life to wait behind you in an aisle to get around while you stand there talking on your cell phone while you figure out which applesauce your four kids will like, or while you stand in the middle of the aisle with your mouth hanging open while you attempt to figure out which type of soy granola you bought last time. I also don't have the extra time to stand in a check out line while you debate that the lettuce was only $4.98 a pound and that the cashier has charged you $4.99 a pound.

All I ask is to be able to park within a half an hour, to be able to walk down any given aisle unobstructed, and get through a check out line in a timely manner.

Really, people, I don't think it's too much to ask.

Resources, energy security, and national security

There's a lot of "semi-weird" energy and resources-related stuff going on lately (or somewhat lately) with the government and the military, but at least some of our tax money might perhaps be going to potentially worthwhile projects or at least potentially useful research.

Read on:

Securing America’s Future Energy

Climate Change Worries Military Advisers

The greening of the Pentagon (PDF)

Nuts II

Just thought I'd share my excitement at harvesting walnuts again this year. I was working on a project along a creek and came across a walnut tree, and soon found several more trees along the creek in a bend. A few days later I came back with a backpack and filled it with the nuts. I was there on a very windy day, however, and I felt as if the trees were trying to protect their nuts on the ground by bombarding me with them from the air. I ended up collecting just over seven gallons worth of nuts (and I sure didn't have the interesting nut-collecting stories this guy did).

I have yet to husk them, though. I hope they aren't all plagued by the walnut husk maggot, as a few I noticed were. And, I gotta get some gloves so my hands don't stain brown!

I've been keeping an eye on my main Hickory tree, but it doesn't seem to have shed its nuts yet this year. I missed collecting them last year, but may have given up before they dropped. And I'm too lazy to gather acorns.

Ok, that's all I got for now...

Nuts

(This article '"Raw" almonds aren't, really' is excerpted from "What's really in your food?" from the Independent Weekly.)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently required that all almonds produced in the United States be pasteurized, including nuts labeled "raw." The rule went into effect September 1, despite protests from health-conscious consumers who prefer unprocessed nuts and small-scale growers who can't afford the equipment, which costs between $500,000 and $2.5 million.

The move follows two Salmonella outbreaks attributed to raw almonds in 2001 and 2004. Critics of the rule point out that both incidents were the result of faulty practices at large-scale commercial farms. Small-scale and sustainable practices—including mowing and mulching to control weeds, instead of using chemical herbicides—naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more effectively than post-harvest treatment, they say.

The Almond Board of California, a governing body representing all almond growers in the state, pushed for the change. Small growers complain that the board disproportionally represents the needs of the large producers.

A spokesman for the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service says that the agency simply responded to the almond board's request. "We basically move at the behest of industry," spokesman Jimmie Turner says. "If the industry calls and says they want a standard or a marketing order, we take that request, and normally we do what's called a notice in the Federal Register. We seek public comment, and based on that comment, there can be a marketing order established."

The same process is followed for all food stuffs, Turner says.

The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group leading a campaign to convince the USDA to overturn the pasteurization rule, contends that labeling treated almonds as "raw" is deceptive. More than that, the group argues that it epitomizes the industrialization of our food supply.

"This is just the opening salvo of corporate agribusiness wanting to sanitize all of our food," says Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute. The impetus, Kastel says, is the economics of large-scale production. In many cases, such operations utilize growing and cultivation methods that provide much greater opportunity for contamination.

"After the fact, they want to use these technologies ... so they can sanitize our food supply, but it will do great damage to our food and, because of the infrastructure costs, will put out of business small and high-quality growers and independent processors," Kastel added.

To comply with the regulation, almond producers can either steam the nuts or fumigate them with propylene oxide (PPO), the almond board's preferred process. PPO is recognized as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico—and much of the rest of the world.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of foods treated with the fumigant, and while packages of almonds may contain the disclaimer "pasteurized," there isn't likely to be any indication by which process the nuts were treated.

The only way consumers will be able to distinguish how their "raw" almonds were pasteurized is by the organic label. Regulations mandate that foods bearing the "organic" seal cannot be treated with PPO.

Whose bright idea is this anyway?

[*sigh*] About all I can say about this article is that it's all fine and dandy if the government (and Wal Mart ... again, sigh) wants to ban incandescent light bulbs, but I will never convert to CFLs, so I'm going to have to spend even more money on LCD light bulbs (which I was actually planning on doing one day somewhat soon anyway).

I'm just tired of all the uber-positive hype about CFLs; because, no, they're not as bright as advocates say they are; and yes, they do cast a different color (unnatural) light than incandescents; and yes, they flicker and buzz/hum and can affect one's eyesight (like they do mine); and yes, they are more expensive, break more easily, and contain toxic mercury (and I'm sure everyone who buys one will take it to the proper recycling center when it dies). They also don't last as long as manufacturers declare (five-year bulbs last about one year in actuality because of the abuse thy take when switched on and off), and you can't use a dimmer switch with them unless you pay a lot more for special CFLs.

Ok, sure they do save a rather significant amount of power over time, which of course is a good thing (but so is walking or bicycling instead of driving vehicles!).

Anyway, the result may be like that 1996 "Shower Head" episode of Seinfeld, where Newman, Kramer, and Jerry buy black market Yugoslavian shower heads for their apartments after their superintendent installed low-flow shower heads. [Or perhaps it's time to start hoarding incandescent bulbs?]

Acting corny

For the 2007 season, I grew Stowell's (a.k.a Stowell's Evergreen), which is/was a fine corn and all, but perhaps as a friend of mine said, it is one of those heirloom corns that you'd better already have the water boiling before you even pick it. I only grew about 200 stalks of it, so it wasn't too much of a waste of space or time.

So, I of course would pick it a few hours before I cooked and ate it, and wasn't very impressed by its taste. I did save some of the seed (about a quart canning jar's worth), however, just in case I feel compelled to plant it again next year. I also saved a sack of it for chicken feed, as I'm getting a few Dominiques for 2008. Much of the corn was eaten up by worms at the last minute, just before I picked it (it's my own fault really, as I didn't take the necessary precautions).

I may bring it into the twentieth century with corn, however, and plant either Hasting's Prolific or something similar (as a sweet corn) ... but I also may go the other way and plant either Tuscarora (a.k.a Iroquios) White or Gourdseed, both at least eighteenth-century corns (and probably earlier).

By the way, if anyone knows where to obtain some Hasting's Prolific seed, please let me know; I may need to write Don Hastings (no, not the actor; the guy whose grandfather originated the corn type, and who is the writer of several modern gardening books) and ask him about it.

A new weapon for the 'War on Terror' arsenal?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485506&in_page_id=1770

Finally (and just in time, really) ...

Just got some (Inchellium) garlic and (Ed's Red) shallots ordered for planting this fall. Thought I had ordered them (plus a few other things) from the Southern Exposure Seed Exchange a month or so ago, but for some reason my order didn't go through and I just finally realized it. So, needless to say, I couldn't remember who I attempted to order them through originally, and ordered them through Seeds of Change this time.

So, my fall garden is now complete; I have greens, lettuce, carrots, turnips, broccoli, beets, radishes (which aren't planted yet), and now I'll have garlic and shallots. Plus, I still have okra and tomatoes going (but barely).

I guess it's time to start thinking about what I want to plant next spring! Oh boy, here we go again ...

Moo-ving right along ...

I just read an interesting article on why cattle in the United Kingdom come down with so many diseases. This excerpt particularly caught my eye:

But the country does have the distinction of being Europe's primary landing spot for global travel, and that could put livestock at risk. Travelers from every continent pass through London Heathrow Airport (the busiest airport in the world for international traffic), and with them comes food waste from airplanes. Pathology researchers consider airline food waste, which is sometimes processed into food for livestock, the greatest danger to animal health in the world. Airline garbage that's contaminated with foreign diseases can end up in livestock troughs ...

Wow ... that doesn't sound very good, and that as a problem never crossed my mind. Cattle eating animal byproducts is not a very good thing (cows are herbivores, after all, and shouldn't even be forced to eat corn for instance), but feeding them with people food that may be contaminated from an uncontrolled international source sounds very baaad too.

As a side note, Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, wrote an interesting Op-Ed article in 2004 about the USDA and Mad Cow Disease.

I seem to recall a court case against McDonald's in the late 1970s, where they were forced to quit feeding their cattle rendered byproducts from euthanised animals (mainly cats and dogs) collected from animal shelters in the U.S. And, you may never again eat any beef-filled items from Taco Bell after reading these postings.

Ok, that's all for now.

Corn causing problems again

When will outdated monoculture corn farmers come to their senses and give up on growing thousands of acres of corn each season? And when will the government quit giving our tax money away (via subsidies) that really only benefit the big processing companies (like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Monsanto, et al)?

Well, hopefully the bubble will burst soon. A recent article in the New York Times seems to point to another wrench in their gears. (Unfortunately farmers are going to take the biggest hit when the bubble bursts; but again, time to adapt and move on.)

Here's an update.

[On the flip side, here's an article on cellulosic ethanol that sounds promising.]

Beyond [USDA] Organic

This is something I’ve been VERY interested in (I can thank Gene Logsdon for infecting me with the “bug,” and Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma for introducing me to the term), but I just didn’t know its proper name. I’ve always felt that farming like our families did in the 1800s (and even the early 1900s, or at least pre-WWII) is the way to go. Sound, tried-and-true (scientific) farming that produced quality crops in a sustainable manner was the norm until chemical use and monoculture supplanted it.

The man who has really pushed the idea of “beyond organic” is Joel Salatin, of Polyface Farm in Swoope, Virginia. Regarding a pick-up day at Polyface Farm, Lynsie Watkins at perfectflavor.com had these select things to say: "… not an organic farm, but rather a better-than-organic farm” and "These older individuals probably never had to stand in line at a farm delivery. They most likely got most of what they needed from the farm they lived on. … This eat local movement is more like an ‘Ah-ha!’ moment for us, as for the older generation it's a, well, ‘Duh!’ sort of response instead ... " [That statement points out rather well how we're really just going back to an older way of farming; I'm always interested in how "old timers" think about seemingly new-fangled things like "organic" foods.]

Anyway, Mr. Salatin is anti-“USDA Organic” and anti-industrial organic (i.e. places like Whole Foods), largely because of their politically-based, watered-down standards.

He is also proof that if farmers would only go back to the very old ways of farming, they can be profitable. "I am absolutely bullish on the future of this kind of farming," says Salatin. "The weak link is the farmers who don't have the savvy to meet the challenge" (from: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/113/open_48-polyfacefarm.html). I feel that is farmers don't adapt to an evolving market (i.e. towards "natural" or even "organic" products), then it's their fault if/when they go out of business. You can't live in the 1950s forever! (But don't tell any of my rockabilly friends I said that.)

[Oh the irony ...]

The State of the Garden Address (SotGA) #1

Well, my garden's pretty much done with its spring/summer crops, and I just recently planted some fall/winter ones. So far, I've planted (from seed): mustard, cabbage, collards, turnips, kale, lettuce (Grandpa Admire and Black Seeded Simpson), carrots (Oxheart and Touchon), and broccoli. I even planted nine Packman broccoli plants, in case the seed-started ones don't do well. I still have yet to plant some winter squash and some garlic and perhaps even some shallots.

My Cherokee Purple tomatoes are still producing (although not as well as they were; I think the drought's affected them), as are my (late-planted) San Marzano tomatoes. My Marglobes are still producing a few small tomatoes as well. The Cherokee Purples were a big hit amongst everyone I shared them with, and they are likely the best tomato I've ever eaten (I/we have Craig LeHoullier to thank for that).

I still have two squash plants left, but they don't seem to be producing right now (perhaps anymore). My Fin de Bagnol beans are through, and my Ichiban eggplants are long gone (they both apparently fell victim to the drought, and to a problem with my irrigation system). My jalapeno and tabasco pepper plants are still going strong, as are my okra plants. I'm going to pickle my okra, and turn most of the jalapenos into chipotle peppers (by drying and smoking them); I may try pickling some of them as well.

My corn did fine, but it (Stowell's Evergreen) wasn't the best sweet corn I've ever had. Plus, without using pesticides, the ears got eaten up by worms, and I wasn't able to harvest as many as I'd wished. I may try Country Gentleman or a similar open-pollinated corn next year (I'm not quite desperate enough to go back to a hybrid like Silver Queen quite yet).

The only crop that was destroyed by wildlife (deer) was my sweet potatoes. But, it was my fault as I didn't make the fence high enough. And anyway, perhaps the deer meat will taste sweeter this year!

Two more reasons to raise your own food

"the family's bag of Fast Fixin Frozen Chicken Strips contained mercury and glass shards. The parents learned of the problem after their children complained about the taste of the chicken"

read it here: http://www.wgal.com/news/13957356/detail.html

and

"'We've urbanized a world. We have moved people and food around that world at ever increasing speed,' World Health Organization (WHO) epidemics expert Dr. Mike Ryan said. WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan said one of the changes affecting human health was increasingly intensive poultry farming, which may account for the global spread of bird flu.
'It should not come as a surprise that we are seeing more and more disease outbreaks coming from the animal sector,' including Ebola, SARS, or bird flu."

read it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20416085

[Boy am I hungry!]

Get the [friggin'] lead out

The recent discovery that several of Mattel's toy lines that were made in China were painted with lead now appears to be taking the usual turn that many problems we're dealing with these days are, where politically-appointed bureaucrats' incompetence is (thankfully) being exposed.

Darshak Sanghavi, in Slate Magazine, wrote an interesting article where he stated that "Just before the CDC [Center for Disease Control] considered lowering lead limits once again in 2003, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson removed a qualified scientist, Michael Weitzman, from the CDC's lead advisory committee and then rejected the appointments of Bruce Lanphear and Susan Klitzman, the researchers who found toxic effects of lead at low levels. Instead, Thompson moved to appoint Joyce Tsuji, who worked for two companies that represented lead firms, and William Banner, who has stated publicly that 70 mcg/dl of lead is safe for children's brains—a view not shared by any respectable scientists. [The Union of Concerned Scientists and Rep. Henry Waxman publicized Thompson's abuses in a recent New Republic article.] But the political message had already been sent, and no lowered limit resulted. Today, all those parents whose children will be tested in the wake of the Mattel scandal continue to be falsely reassured that all is well, even if the kids have lead levels of 5 to 10 mcg/dl, which may cost them 7 IQ points." And "A few years ago, I talked with Bruce Lanphear at a conference in San Francisco, just after he'd been rejected from the CDC's lead advisory committee. Resistance to lead control is a historical problem, he said. He was clearly frustrated by the politics but said he'd continue working in the field with the hope that somebody will listen. Perhaps the Mattel fiasco will finally bring attention to the hidden toll of lead paint."

Here' some other related articles:

How publicizing the truth about lead poisoning can get you attention by certain offending companies:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/6/977

On the ["secret"] history of lead use:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/20

On a Chinese toymaker committing suicide after the lead-tainted toy recall:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/13/news/international/bc.news.china.safety.mattel.dc.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007081305

Heat over meat

I was just in California, visiting my mom, and read an interesting article in a local newspaper, the Point Reyes Light.

The article was about a slaughterhouse in nearby Petaluma that is closing its doors after almost a century in business serving mostly local cattle ranchers and dairy farmers.

(By the way, the property owner will do very well from the sale of the property, as it’s in a high-priced land area, and its development is already well-planned out, so at least he and his family won’t be hurt by the business’s closing.)

Anyway, hopefully the closing of the slaughterhouse will cause local ranchers/farmers to do away with obsolete mid-twentieth-century practices and become more efficient and profitable.

An organization called North Coast Meats has formed since the slaughterhouse's closure was announced. The group "aims not only to preserve existing infrastructure but also to foster the possibilities for livestock growers and meat providers in the local sustainable agriculture movement."

“The task is to create a regional agricultural infrastructure, but not necessarily to recreate what was here before,” stated North Coast Meats' Sam Goldberger. “Right now, food travels on the order of thousands of miles before it reaches you and consumers are demanding for that to change.”

According to the article, "The group is currently doing a feasibility study examining the costs of building and operating an organic, USDA-approved 'Integrated Animal Processing Center' that would serve a wider variety of functions than traditional slaughterhouses do – such as including a cut-and-wrap facility for the meat and direct distribution of the meats to retailers. They also plan to house a commercial kitchen, provide profit sharing, and make their own energy by processing biological waste."

“Local ranchers are increasingly caught between the rising cost of grain and price competition with large-scale producers. As feedlots, slaughterhouses, distributors and retailers each claim a piece of the profits and the price of conventionally grown meat stays the same, ranchers wind up paying the price.”

By combining several of the steps of slaughtering and packaging meat into one location, North Coast Meats plans to remove the profit-consuming middlemen of the meat business. North Coast Meats hopes “to steer the direction of agriculture in an unconventional direction designed to benefit the rancher and the consumer above any middlemen. ‘If the rancher is going to be able to survive they are going to need higher margin products,’ said Goldberger. ‘I see slaughterhouses as just one link in that chain.’”

Cattle ranchers that are raising local meat to serve the local community will be hurt the most by the closure of the slaughterhouse. David Evans of Marin Sun Farms in Point Reyes said that “it is very important to his locally-grown, grass-fed business that to have a processing facility nearby.”

“This will be most devastating to anyone who is trying to get out of the commodity beef market and do more grass-fed, direct marketing, or community supported agriculture,” said Ellie Rilla, the Marin County Farm Advisor for UCCE.

The article stated that “though only a few local ranches are currently exploring those specialty markets, consumer demand for them is making them more profitable. Last year, The UCCE went to every ranch in Marin County and surveyed them about their interest in pursuing those specialty markets. Over half of them said that they are.”

According to an earlier 2003 University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) survey, out of 186 agricultural producers in Marin County, two percent (or about four) of them were considering leaving the business, even though 63 percent (or about 117 of them) were unprofitable or marginally profitable.

It is absolutely time for a change in farming, ranching, etc.; the government needs to quit subsidizing the largest food producers so as to give the more efficient, more sustainable, and more profitable small-time food producers a chance. The government is always preaching how a market should control itself (basic supply and demand-type stuff), but it still feels compelled to subsidize inefficient business. It’s also time for food producers to quit paying for chemical and poison pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, hormones, and etc., which costs them many thousands of dollars a year, and only profits the companies that produce those chemical and poisons. Post-World War Two, the government and the big chemical companies pushed all that junk onto farmers, and now, several generations later, it’s the only way the large-scale farmers know how to farm.

But, there’s no reason for the smaller farmers to continue to farm the way their fathers or grandfathers did, when they can more profitably and sustainably farm the way their great-grandfathers did.

Sustainability is one major key to keeping family farms going and to obtain profits. The public does want inexpensive food, but it also wants food that tastes like it’s supposed to, and that won’t harm their health in the short AND long term. Produce like genetically-modified tomatoes only help the producer of the tomato; buying a tomato that has a month-long shelf life or a perfect, blemish-free red skin but that internally is unripe and is tasteless is like marrying an attractive person that is ugly on the inside: perhaps gratifying in the short term, but one grows weary of it after awhile.

Need I say more?

Nano nano

I just saw a show (“Modern Marvels”) on the History Channel on engines, and I must say I am very intrigued by some of the “alternate” engines they profiled, particularly “nano engines.” They also profiled hybrid engines (as found in the Toyota Prius and the Honda Camry Hybrid) and hydrogen engines.

Nano-technology engines are so small, they’re mind boggling. I’d really like to research them more. They get an official “hmmm” from me …

Another engine they profiled (that was easier to comprehend, for me at least) was the Stirling Engine. It uses no fuel except heat or cold!

Perhaps one of these “alternate” engines will be one of the future answers to our energy “dilemma.”

I'd rather have a bottle [of purified water] in front of me, than have to have a frontal lobotomy [from cancerous tap water] ...

PepsiCo just got "busted" for bottling treated/purified tap water and selling it for more money than you would pay for it directly out of your own faucet.

Well, normally I am all for the consumer's right for truth in labelling of food and food-type products, but this one is a bit ridiculous. I mean, they (Aquafina and Dasani, for example) already pretty much said that they were obtaining their water from the tap, only they used an acronym ("P.W.S." or public water source). Now, if they had said they got their water from some special spring somewhere, THAT would be misleading.

Groups such as "Think Outside the Bottle" obviously do not understand the problems with tap water, however. Public tap water can be very good and contaminant free at its source, but once it goes through all those miles of leaky public water pipes (that can be contaminated from adjacent sewer pipes or by contaminated ground water that seeps into the pipes), then into your house through some corroded (and likely lead, if it's an old house or building) pipes, it isn't as clean as when it's tested directly at the public water source. Every time I drink tap water, I tend to drink it as fast as I can and drink as little as possible, and while grimacing. A restaurant serving tap water to me is the same as if that restaurant served food that has pesticides, herbicides, and hormones in it. I generally only drink tap water at a restaurant when I'm feeling too cheap to pay $3+ for a bottle of water.

I understand that many, many thousands of used plastic water bottles litter cities, highways, and etc. across the globe, but the two things about that are: that it's better to have guaranteed clean water than potentially contaminated tap water, and the general consumer wants convenience, even at the cost of the environment and/or how much they have to pay for it, money wise.

If nothing else comes out of this "truth in labelling" occurrence, perhaps we will one day have our food labelled with country of origin, poisons used during production, whether it's a GM product, etc. Or, maybe what we should take away from Aquafina example is that PepsiCo doesn't have as many special-interest congressional lobbyists as Monsanto does!

On the amusing side, here's an extreme of 'truth in labelling': http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/enterprise/article640266.ece

..........

Here's some updates (8-20-2007) regarding bottled water issues:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/how-do-you-take-your-water

http://www.slate.com/id/2172541/nav/tap3

and on the plastic bottles themselves:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5024076.html

http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/108/plastic

Land, Corn, and Ethanol

There was an article in USA Today today (July 18) about how due to ethanol, corn prices have risen dramatically which has caused land prices to skyrocket in the Midwestern U.S.

The article, Land prices leave farmers in a lurch, by Sue Kirchhoff, can be found in its entirety at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-07-18-farmland-prices_N.htm.

But here is a few verbatim excerpts from the article that I found to be particularly interesting:

"Looking ahead, it's hard to overstate the potential impacts of the ethanol industry. Acting in response to government subsidies and mandates to combat global warming and reduce U.S. demand for imported oil, about 20% of U.S. corn production is now dedicated to ethanol. Corn prices more than doubled to nearly $4 a bushel on futures markets, before falling recently. Corn closed on the Chicago Board of Trade Wednesday [July 18, 2007] up 4½ cents at $3.27 — still historically high. The price rise has increased the number of farmers buying land to expand."

"'It's all driven by corn prices, but is this sustainable?' says University of Nebraska economist Bruce Johnson, speaking of a 14% rise in land values across the state in the 12 months ended in February. 'We have to be really cautious here so that we don't fall into chasing appreciation.' "

"Rising prices for corn and other crops are pushing up land prices and having other indirect effects. Getting to Paulman's farm means driving through miles of lush corn fields watered by huge wheel-mounted sprinklers. The thirsty corn crop is straining water supplies. If corn prices stay high, farmers could take more fragile land out of the federal Conservation Reserve Program."

"There is a sense of uncertainty beneath the buoyant prices and rush of ethanol plant start-ups here. Federal ethanol economics include a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit for petroleum firms that blend ethanol, a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol and tax incentives for smaller firms. States have their own programs."

"'The goal was for ethanol … to create a local market for corn over which farmers had better control than they had historically' with much of their product exported out of state, say Todd Sneller, administrator of the of the Nebraska Ethanol Board, a state agency. 'I don't think any of these communities would have been willing to host (ethanol) plants if they thought this was short term.'"

What are the morals of this story as see it?
1. Too many farmers overly rely on subsidies.
2. 20% of U.S. corn production is now dedicated to ethanol ... that's a heck of a lot of corn taken away from feeding livestock.
3. Farmers complain when corn prices are down, and they complain when they're up as well.
4. Greedy farmers taking more land out of the federal Conservation Reserve Program, which is not a good thing, as it will greatly increase erosion and other related problems.
5. Government taxes are too high on alternative fuels.

There's a lot more to it, so read the article (and the related Water constraints rain on ethanol zeal article).

What, us worry?

I have always respected other countries for opposing the importation from (mainly) the U.S. and Canada of genetically modified (GM or GMO) foodstuffs, but the strength of their resolve is getting a bit worrisome lately. Of course, it's mainly the politicians, as they're probably getting big donations to their political campaigns and/or personal accounts to push GM/GMO products onto their fellow countrymen and constituents (exactly like it was done in the U.S. and Canada).

I have a strong suspicion that lately it's due to the whole corn prices dilemma, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Here's an interesting article about a consumer choice experiment undertaken in New Zealand recently:

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/stories/282.international_study_consumers_would_buy_gm_products.html

The only "problem" with the experiment is that GM/GMO products will never be cheaper than conventional products, due to the prices charged by the biotech companies to the farmers for such things as the rights to grow their seed, the seed costs, the higher pesticide and herbicide costs, etc.

I also question the accuracy of the experiment, since the GM/GMO products were labelled “spray-free genetically modified.” What does that mean exactly? Not sprayed with diesel fuel? Not with rat poison? Not with human feces? With how GM/GMO crops are produced, a large amount (when compared to conventional and especially organic crops) of herbicides, for instance, has to be applied in order to kill off resistant weeds a.k.a. volunteer "frankenweeds," so it can't mean herbicides. And it can't mean pesticides or insecticides, as farmers have increased their use of pesticides once GM or GMO crops have become established. So these fruits were free from the spray of what? I'd like to know! The term "spray-free" might have influenced customers' decisions, as it mkes it sound harmless compared to the conventional fruit, for instance.

"Every once in a while, you can spot a couple of cattle fighting over a whole potato"

This story is both amusing and amazing:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117971270570109153-zOC0IHWiWPWox_jaHb4rBiWVpIo_20070528.html%3f

The article basically discusses several of the problems with using corn for ethanol production instead of for livestock feed. The main problem I have with it is one of the last paragraphs: "In ethanol-producing states, some farmers have been able to mitigate high corn costs by feeding their animals dried distillers' grains, a corn mash left over from ethanol production. But in states without ethanol plants, distillers' grains aren't always readily available. Also, many farmers say the product lacks sufficient nutrients. Others say their animals don't like the taste."

For one, "dried distillers' grains" (especially when reconstituted) have a higher nutrional value than the pre-distilled grains, due to the fermentation process; second, have you ever seen a pig fed fermented grain of any type? They go NUTS over it!

Another amusing/disturbing statement within the article is regarding the price of corn: "[it] has prompted livestock groups like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Chicken Council to call for an end to federal ethanol subsidies ..." Now that's a bit of a hypocritical statement, ain't it? I guess it's ok when the federal government subsidizes corn (giving away many billions of dollars of U.S. tax payers' money) for animal feed though!

Perhaps they should quit selling their now high-priced corn they produce that was originally intended to feed their livestock, or they can protect their corn subsidy money another way?