|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 28650
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:14 am Post subject: |
 
|
| Blue Peter wrote: |
What does marginal land mean in this case?
|
I believe they mean land on which it isn't possible to produce food crops. |
|
|
|
 |
Northern_Lad
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14081
Location: Somewhere
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
| cab wrote: |
| Blue Peter wrote: |
What does marginal land mean in this case?
|
I believe they mean land on which it isn't possible to produce food crops. |
Usually either too wet or too dry; due to the ever expanding Sahara these marginal lands are getting bigger. |
|
|
|
|
Andy B
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 3614
Location: Brum
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
| Blue Peter wrote: |
| cab wrote: |
| I think the smart money is that the research will include crop development (marginal land crops, maximising yield of feedstock, etc.) |
What does marginal land mean in this case?
Peter. |
Somebody elses!! |
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2089
Location: Milton Keynes
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
| Northern_Lad wrote: |
| cab wrote: |
| Blue Peter wrote: |
What does marginal land mean in this case?
|
I believe they mean land on which it isn't possible to produce food crops. |
Usually either too wet or too dry; due to the ever expanding Sahara these marginal lands are getting bigger. |
I ask because I'm rather suspicious of biofuels, because I think that they raise the spectre of food versus fuel. In general, the amount of energy you get out of biofuels compared to the amount you put in is quite low (some people claim/believe that, at least in certain cases, you get out less than you put in).
For economic reasons, I suspect that any biofuels cropping on a reasonable scale, has to use big machinery, and I wonder how compatible that is with marginal lands? Too wet doesn't sound good, and too dry raises the problem of exacerbating water shortages. I wonder if there won't be pressure to move from marginal to more machine friendly land?
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 28650
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
| Blue Peter wrote: |
I ask because I'm rather suspicious of biofuels, because I think that they raise the spectre of food versus fuel. In general, the amount of energy you get out of biofuels compared to the amount you put in is quite low (some people claim/believe that, at least in certain cases, you get out less than you put in).
|
Theres an argument that really intensive agriculture followed by conversion to a biofuel is not even carbon neutral. But thats part of what BP are asking to be looked at (thats my reading of it).
| Quote: |
For economic reasons, I suspect that any biofuels cropping on a reasonable scale, has to use big machinery, and I wonder how compatible that is with marginal lands? Too wet doesn't sound good, and too dry raises the problem of exacerbating water shortages. I wonder if there won't be pressure to move from marginal to more machine friendly land?
|
All things that you'd be looking for the new institute to look at, imho. |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 18569
Location: In the pond with the frogs
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
| Blue Peter wrote: |
| I ask because I'm rather suspicious of biofuels, because I think that they raise the spectre of food versus fuel. In general, the amount of energy you get out of biofuels compared to the amount you put in is quite low (some people claim/believe that, at least in certain cases, you get out less than you put in). |
Same here. I'm also not too sure of a company that has huge reserves of oil being responsible for developing alternatives. Is it in their interest to bring these fuels to market ASAP?
If you spent $500 million could you not develop food crops that grow in the marginal land?
On a different note, I was looking at grain fed stoves yesterday. Apparently poor quality grain can be much cheaper than most other fuelds and there are special boilers to burn them. |
|
|
|
|
Andy B
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 3614
Location: Brum
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
there isnt much unused space in the first world ! I cant see anyone wanting to grow this stuff in any unstable third world type place. |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 28650
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
Same here. I'm also not too sure of a company that has huge reserves of oil being responsible for developing alternatives. Is it in their interest to bring these fuels to market ASAP?
|
What Dougal said. BP are bringing biobutanol to market imminently. Theres demand, so theres profit, so theres a will to make the profit. BP can distribute it via the network they already have, so it fits well for them.
| Quote: |
If you spent $500 million could you not develop food crops that grow in the marginal land?
|
Probably. Dunno what BP would be doing that for though, it isn't thier business. |
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2089
Location: Milton Keynes
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
| cab wrote: |
| Probably. Dunno what BP would be doing that for though, it isn't thier business. |
This is something I saw on the George Monbiot mailing list, but here about bioethanol:
| Quote: |
For our 8-county area around Black Hawk County, we have about 8,500 farmers who mostly raise corn and beans and some livestock. On the average, from 1999 to 2003, these farms sold $1.08 billion worth of crops every year. But, they spent $1.14 billion every year to produce it. A loss of $62 million, /every year/, from 1999-2003. Most other counties in Iowa are doing worse, even as we see images of record harvest, etc.
During the same period, our 8-county area farms received $173 million per year in federal government crop subsidies for corn and beans. It is a long story, but by every measure rural communities are declining and these huge subsidies have not helped, because these are not community-building subsidies, these are commodity-exporting subsidies for two specific crops.
Commodity agriculture is acre-based. It requires acres, grain elevators, fuels and chemicals. A gas station and a bar are what is left in many rural towns. But a human community requires churches, schools, health clinics and civic organizations which are all people-based, and "modern agriculture" has no place for them. Most of the subsidies end up in more seeds, chemicals, machinery from the same companies that these farms sell their crops to. A sort of company town with its token currency. And not surprisingly, these companies heavily shape the federal farm policies that bring them the wealth. This is not something grain farmers alone can change. They are simply trying to make a living in an unfair system they have little control over.
In addition to this economy of loss, we are seeing soil loss and degradation as a result of harsh farming practices encouraged by federal crop subsidies. We are seeing corn fertilizer and corn pesticides in our drinking waters.
Now, to top it off, there is a bi-partisan rush by state legislators to make the matter worse: let's subsidize ethanol even more. And here is the four headed monster: a quadruple gravy train of ethanol subsidies. First, you have the huge federal corn subsidies that mask an economy of loss I described above. Then you have the federal ethanol subsidies to makers of ethanol. The third head of the monster is all the tax dollars Iowa Department of Economic Development is handing out to build the ethanol plants. The forth head is the one that makes ethanol blend cheaper at the gas station--state subsidies to ethanol retailers.
It would be very interesting to add up the total annual subsidies our state and federal governments provide to make corn ethanol cheap, and then to think how better we could have spent it towards revitalizing our rural communities. And now the multinational grain merchants want the tax payers to pay for an ethanol pump at every gas station. A pump that, to me, signifies the monster is winning. A pump that really reflects the soil-eroding, nitrate-leaking, money-losing, community-ruining "farm" policies of the last 50 years.
I have not even mentioned that by some analysis ethanol is a net energy loser. Even by promoters' most optimistic analysis, it barely makes enough energy to make up for all the fossil energy burned to produce it. Meanwhile farmers pay for high fuel and energy costs on the farm!
The fields are farmed for an export economy shaped by crop subsidies and unfair prices set by distant corporations. With a sea of cheapened corn, cheapened ethanol fits well into this picture. But things do not have to be this way. We should not have to go down this road further. We can create a more enduring food, agriculture and energy economy for our region. I will suggest alternative policies and practices that deal with the two claims of ethanol promoters-- "helping the farmer" and producing significant energy from farms.
Let's look at what we have going for us: knowledgeable, skilled farmers, the best soils in the world, community-minded people, sunshine and excellent rainfall. How can we guard these assets and build on them?
First, we already know how to farm without damaging the soil or polluting our waters. Raising grain crops in 4 or 5 year crop rotation and grass-based livestock production has numerous benefits: less purchased inputs, less fuel, less or no pesticides, better soils, better yields, more resistant to pest and disease, better water quality, and better income. Numerous farmers all over the nation are demonstrating these by living it. Iowa State University research has proved it. There is solid data here to create good public policy.
In other words, we already know how to farm so that agriculture will not be a threat to soils and water. Yet, none of these well-proven practices are encouraged by current crop subsidies, except the Conservation Security Program which has been on the chopping block.
In a smart and inspiring move, Woodbury County, Iowa, beginning in 2006, offers its own tax rebate program for farms which diversify into 4-year crop rotation and organic production as an economic development strategy. The first county in the nation to enact local farm policies that treat agricultural land as wealth-generating rather than money-losing.
Another much needed strategy is to expand local/regional markets for local farmproducts. Farmers I know do not want favors, just fair markets. We know people of our region spend more than $500 million on food every year and we need to develop new markets, processing and distribution infrastructure to capture this huge leak of financial capital. This would reconnect our plate to their fields, our grocery expenditures to their livelihood.
Now imagine if only $1 million per year of that $173 million crop subsidy for our 8-county area were invested in strengthening of the local and regional food economy of our region. We would see more truck farms, more orchards, more canneries and creameries, more bakeries, more processing facilities, all meeting primarily local/regional food needs. We have lots of work to do to accomplish these.
Why are the state and local officials not investing in the above strategies "to help the farmer"? Why are they stuck on corn and "pharm" crops neither of which are doing any good for us? Well, you should ask them.
And in terms of farms being a source of energy generation, yes, it is critical that farms produce most of their own energy needs and perhaps some for the immediate local area (electricity from wind and sun, wood and other biomass for heat, etc.) We need programs that assist farms to make a transition in that direction and in strong energy conservation.
But to say that our farmlands will provide endless supply of energy for our wasteful driving habit is simply not possible. There is nothing "renewable" about it. It will take us back to more of what we already have--soil degradation, corn weed killers and nitrate in our waters. Our elected officials owe it to us to be smarter, see a broader picture, and not fall for the pie-in-the-sky "bio-fuels," ignoring all that we already know.
Sorry for such a lengthy response.
Kamyar EnshayanAgricultural engineer
|
It doesn't fill me with hope,
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 28650
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
Thats precisely why the fuel companies want to move away from growing grains to make ethanol. Make no mistake, the decision to fund bioethanol production in the US has been a political one set up to support farmers; keep your eye out for more such announcements in the run up to elections over there. |
|
|
|
|
Nick
Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 16772
Location: Hereford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
| Andy B wrote: |
| there isnt much unused space in the first world ! I cant see anyone wanting to grow this stuff in any unstable third world type place. |
And how much of our oil and gas currently comes from stable places? Middle East, Eastern Soviet states, etc? |
|
|
|
|
Nick
Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 16772
Location: Hereford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
I wonder if anyone's looking at growing stuff in the sea. We're continually hearing about massive blooms of algae, and the like, and we have far more sea than farm land. |
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 37768
Location: Essex
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
| nickhowe wrote: |
| I wonder if anyone's looking at growing stuff in the sea. We're continually hearing about massive blooms of algae, and the like, and we have far more sea than farm land. |
It could be used in conjunction with largescale mid ocean fish farming, something that's being talked about seriously in the US. At the moment huge areas of the ocean bear very little fish life because there isn't an adequate nutrient supply, the idea is to increase nutrient supply to encourage microorganisms which can then be used to feed fish....
Not entirely sure I like the sound of it though. |
|
|
|
|
Shane
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1499
Location: Bottom of the Ruck
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| I'm also not too sure of a company that has huge reserves of oil being responsible for developing alternatives. Is it in their interest to bring these fuels to market ASAP? |
As we saw when Shell were forced to admit that their reserves weren't as extensive as they had thought, the share price of the oil companies is strongly linked to their reserves. We are rapidly reaching the point where reserves will start to fall every year. There is an enormous amount of activity in trying to secure new reserves at the moment - the rental price of drilling rigs has gone up fourfold in the last few months, for example.
The oil companies know that as soon as their reserves go into decline, their business will become less attractive to investors. That is more than enough reason for them to be making serious efforts to add alternative fuels to their portfolios. |
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 06 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
| nickhowe wrote: |
| I wonder if anyone's looking at growing stuff in the sea. We're continually hearing about massive blooms of algae, and the like, and we have far more sea than farm land. |
Its a strangely senior moment to realise that you know something or other about that, but you can't remember what, other than that it involved the Japanese and kin' eeenormous nets... anyway, here it is, from May 05:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1611170,00.html
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts