Oh, man, I wish I could preserve this article in amber: "Cost of raising corn grows."
Troubling news from the folks who bring you grain-based ethanol:
In February, the USDA forecast that U.S. farmers would spend 12.5 percent more on fuels and oils this year compared with last, with the highest prices this year occurring in the first six months. Fertilizer costs in 2006 are expected to be 6.5 percent higher.
While those percentage increases are smaller than they were in 2005, crop farmers' costs have risen sharply in the past several years, agribusiness leaders said.
That's right: The oil-based products and services used to raise everyone's favorite "alternative fuel" are getting more expensive.
How does Big Ag want to respond to this crisis?
Earlier this month, Iowa agribusiness leaders called on the U.S. Congress to loosen restrictions on oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. law prohibits exploration of fields within 200 miles of the Gulf Coast. The newly formed Iowa Consumer Alliance for Energy Security wants Congress to change that.
"High energy costs are a hardship on all of us," Heartland Cooperative's Coppess said during a May 9 press conference at the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines. The group is part of a national coalition pushing for increased domestic production of energy sources. Iowans involved in the effort are calling for passage of a bill pending in the U.S. Senate that would allow production inside the 200-mile barrier.
Oh, the delicious bitter irony! The feedstock for everyone's favorite alternative fuel can't be grown without oil and natural gas. So rising demand for that liquid-fuel alternative is raising demand for ... the very liquid fuels it's an alternative too.
But surely corn can be raised without all these fossil fuels? Uh:
For grain handlers, farm equipment manufacturers and other agribusinesses, energy costs have become the difference between red ink and black.
"Our business does very little without a lot of transportation fuel expense," said Magnuson, manager of the cooperative in Sully. "It's running the trucks. It's delivering feed. It's floaters in the field, and it's high-clearance sprayers. It's all of our equipment. So that increase is a very substantial part of the impact on our bottom line."
The absurdity of turning to our petro-soaked agricultural sector to free us from oil will, I expect, only grow more obvious and glaring in coming years.
Comments
View as Flat
greenlagirl Posted 11:10 am
21 May 2006
http://greenlagirl.com/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:15 pm
21 May 2006
One person at a computer could control 20 robots, when one stopped because of some sort of anomaly, it would issue a warning and would be remotely restarted, and so forth.
I used your comment about pus contaminated milk on the corporatarians at "Hit and Run", thanks. It is very effective imagery. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:43 pm
21 May 2006
That fuel farming can reduce the cost of fuel.
Even if the cost of production were brought down by using renewable energy for growing, processing, and refining, this source can only come up to about 10% of oil based fuel that is used. That 10%,even were it half the price of gas, won't appreciably effect the overall price soaring with each new war, terror incident, or Katrina like storm.
The pain at the pump will not be alleviated with fuel farming.
Only electric power, at the present equivalent price of 75 cents per gallon, used in a plugin car will do that. Charged from a gome wind or solar system that copst drops from 75 cents all the wat down to zero once your home energy system pays for itself in energy savings.
Stopping the pain at the pump and from the soaring utility bills. Many lower income families fall thousands behind in their heating and electric bills during the heating season now.
Were agribizz fuel farming subdsidies, along with corporate welfare for oil, nuclear, and coal, applied to incentives for families to install home based solar and wind, and purchase plugin cars; then the pain would stop. Until then it will get much, much worse.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
cherenkov Posted 6:51 am
22 May 2006
I have news folks: TECHNOLOGY IS NOT ENERGY.
Please spend a little time with your local physics instructor who can explain the simple, but unrelenting, demands of the laws of thermodynamics.
It is precisely this fantasy thinking that will cause the maximum possible pain as we put off dealing with reality and try one techno-junkie fix after another, discarding each in turn as we discover how unbelievably dumb we are being for trying to buck the above mentioned laws.
Permalink
wendy Posted 2:54 am
25 May 2006
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:49 am
25 May 2006
Replacing fossil fuels on the farm with biodiesel grown on the farm would reduce the amount of biodiesel left over that the farmer could sell. In other words, instead of getting 45 gallons an acre, the farmer might get 37. The net result is that you can displace less fossil fuels off the farm and will have same result in the end had you just used fossil fuel for your tractor.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink