|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Gervase
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 7414
Location: Ceredigion, West Wales
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 14, 08 6:31 pm Post subject: Already paying the hidden cost of biofuels? |
 
|
I know we are. This weekend I made inquires about ordering this year's fertiliser for our holding.
The answer was, quite frankly, shocking. Our local supplier usually has a stock of 4,000 tonnes for local growers (we just want one tonne of that...).
This year, howewver, their total allocation is being pegged at 640 tonnes. The rest, it seems, has been shipped to the USA for the biofuel industry. The silos and bunkers are empty.
And, to add insult to injury, the meagre amount that the supplier has been left with has gone up by £100 a tonne over last year's price.
I foresee near riots in the next couple of months at agricultural suppliers across the land.
And that's not mentioning the cost of cereals. A poor harvest here and massive amounts of grain land being ploughed up for biofuel in North America has seen cereal prices shoot up.
As a result animal feed has gone up by a third, and I have heard one dealer predicting the £4 pint by the end of the year because of a shortage of barley. Already the major brewers are telling wholesalers to prepare for a 25 per cent hike in bottled beer prices by March.
It's one aspect of the green fuel debate that may not have been aired much, but you can bet that it will become a major issue by the end of the summer. |
|
|
|
 |
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 17820
Location: York
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 08 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
Well it would seem a perfect opportunity to reassess the unsustainablity of applying fertiliser 
We sat down & worked it out before we went into the stewardship scheme- we were relying upon a decent price and good harvesting conditions just to cover the cost of fertiliser & applying it, it just didn't add up. |
|
|
|
|
RichardW
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 6096
Location: Llyn Peninsular North Wales
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 08 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
Our local merchant was saying the same last week. We wont be spreading any so can feel smug.
Justme |
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 08 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
The problem isn't with biofuels, per se.
There is however a massive problem with the US subsidy system that, having distorted its internal market is now causing mayhem in disparate markets worldwide.
AFAIK, the problem is that US-produced stuff is being subsidised when converted into biofuel, leaving other domestic demands unsatisfied, causing international purchasing to make good the shortfall - for example of US cattlefeed. (So its not exactly that international stocks are being purchased specifically directly for biofuels.)
But yes, it is a big, unwelcome, inflationary twist that is the consequence.
Then add in a falling pound against the dollar and prices across the board will shoot up.
A 2008 General Election is highly unlikely. |
|
|
|
|
RichardW
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 6096
Location: Llyn Peninsular North Wales
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 08 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
So will this push up the retal prices for intensivly produced meat & veg? If so that could push more consumer & ultimatley producers to choose organic / low intensity farming.
Justme |
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 08 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
| Justme wrote: |
| So will this push up the retal prices for intensivly produced meat & veg? If so that could push more consumer & ultimatley producers to choose organic / low intensity farming. |
I'd expect that would depend on how much of the costbase of the intensive production was represented by those intensive inputs (as opposed to labour, cost of land/money, etc.
But I'd expect it would at least tend to narrow the differential, yes.
Doubt we've got near the stage when intensive production is more expensive, though. Peak Ag?  |
|
|
|
|
RichardW
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 6096
Location: Llyn Peninsular North Wales
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 08 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
| dougal wrote: |
But I'd expect it would at least tend to narrow the differential, yes.
Doubt we've got near the stage when intensive production is more expensive, though. Peak Ag? |
I agree but could be the final nail for some buyers & producers to make the change espesialy in the current media / economic / celeb chef climate.
Justme |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 17820
Location: York
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 08 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
Unless you've got a capital intensive system that you've already invested in & must make it pay, I can't see there being any incentive to borrow to be intensive anymore. It didn't make sense in 2003 and I'd have thought it's only gone one way. Personally I wouldn't be farming using a capital intensive system, there's much better things to do with life. |
|
|
|
|
Shane
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1597
Location: The Gallows, or something
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 08 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
| dougal wrote: |
| AFAIK, the problem is that US-produced stuff is being subsidised when converted into biofuel, leaving other domestic demands unsatisfied, causing international purchasing to make good the shortfall - for example of US cattlefeed. (So its not exactly that international stocks are being purchased specifically directly for biofuels.) |
Spot on. Of course, it's pure coincidence that the states that benefit the most from the huge subsidies are key to deciding the outcome of the next presidential race (if I remember rightly the article I read last month)... |
|
|
|
|
Cho-ku-ri
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 4228
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 08 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
Gosh, it looks as though 'living unsustainably' is starting to affect us. I mean us, who would have thought it. |
|
|
|
|
Jonnyboy
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 22871
Location: location, location
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 08 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
Gervase's point is that the knock on effect can have unforseen implications. |
|
|
|
|
Cho-ku-ri
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 4228
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 08 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
| Gervase's point is that the knock on effect can have unforseen implications. |
Only unforeseen if you haven't looked for them. If we are told we are living unsustainably, we should all be looking at the ways things are going to have to change. Foods, fuel, plastics, metals, everything even fertilisers are going to get more and more expensive due to scarcity, each has a knock on effect. For those that have foreseen, and mentioned them often get lambasted as being miserable and pessimistic, as the bearer of bad news. |
|
|
|
|
gil
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 13980
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 08 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
Time to stock up on homebrew kits and beer-making supplies ? |
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2271
Location: Milton Keynes
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 08 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
| Gervase's point is that the knock on effect can have unforseen implications. |
Here's an article trying to foresee some of these implications:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2431
| Quote: |
Many people are aware that food-based biofuel production has had an influence on food prices. Many people also know that US ethanol production is growing rapidly and now using a noticeable fraction of the total corn supply. However, I'm going to argue that the situation in the near term is potentially more serious than is generally realized.
I will use a mixture of existing data, analysis of biofuel profitability, and simple modeling of biofuel production as an infection or diffusion process affecting the food supply, to demonstrate that there are reasonably plausible scenarios for biofuel production growth to cause mass starvation of the global poor, and that this could happen fairly quickly - quite possibly within five years, and certainly well within the life of the existing policy regimes. It doesn't have to be this way, but unless we start doing things differently soon, the risks are significant.
|
Though, there is a follow-up article, which argues that things may not be as bad as he had first feared:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3495
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
VSS
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 2368
Location: Llyn Peninsula, North Wales
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 08 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
Don't get the idea that everyone who uses fertiliser is farming intensively. I would argue that we farm extensively with an overall stocking density of around 1 ewe per acre, but we use some fertiliser to get a decent crop of hay off what little land we have that is suitable for mowing.
Beware of tarring all fertiliser users with the label intensive. It simply isn't so. |
|
|
|
|
|
View Latest Posts