4 ms·

We've been doing stupid crap - like subsidizing corn production for ethanol - that seriously needs to end. The amount of government/market mismanagement and int

by EricE 4y ago

We've been doing stupid crap - like subsidizing corn production for ethanol - that seriously needs to end. The amount of government/market mismanagement and interference driven by special interests is beyond ridiculous. The rubber band is beginning to snap!

oh_sigh 4y ago
Doesn't that mean we have extra corn that can be used for human/animal consumption if shit hits the fan? Right now we're growing a bunch of crops that don't feed anyone, but it would not be hard at all to have that be the case. Much easier than the whole process of starting from scratch to get new farmland ready for growing corn.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jonhohle 4y ago
  Ethanol corn can be digested by animals but not humans.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    It can be turned into corn meal and can definitely be digested by humans. It just can't be eaten directly off the cob.
simonsarris 4y ago
Excess agricultural capacity is generally a good idea. If we have zero excess in the system, then when a hiccup occurred we might find ourselves in famine. With corn-for-ethanol, the US gov is paying to keep farmland productive that has no human-or-livestock feed value. But you could imagine a situation where more human or livestock feed is needed (massive disruption of cropland, say), and in those or subsequent years we could convert basically-for-ethanol fields to consumption fields. Or if you are running out of fertilizer instead of running out of food, then you can divert expected and stored fertilizer for ethanol fields onto human-and-livestock feed fields. Once again the excess capacity acts in your favor. (Or ought to) This is assuming that governing bodies and farmers are making coherent rational decisions and in addition responding to local conditions. I have no opinion on that. Just explaining why subsidizing what looks like superfluous excess capacity is not necessarily a dumb thing to do.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Can't this corn-for-ethanol be used directly as livestock feed or even human food if needed? Also, I have no idea where i heard it, but i remember from somewhere, that pretty much all of the pet food has to be edible by humans too, "just in case" shit hits the fan..
  - kickout 4y ago
    Most field corn is not directly palatable for humans. Livestock feed, yes. There is lots of stuff we could eat to get nutrition from when shit hits fan. Most of us don't haven't tried though, lol
mfer 4y ago
Can the world feed itself is also a matter of asking, which model of food production do we use and are we even able to realistically consider? A lot of the mismanagement comes from big AG and profit/growth goals. For example, people in the United States eat about 5 times the amount of meat per person as people did 100 years ago. The population has grown, too. The amount of food grown to produce the calories/nutrients needed to feed the animals which people then eat is far more than for when people eat the produce. It we're talking economies of scale, here. Big AG has a mass influence on subsidies, regulations, and even recommendations that come out of governments on diet. If you look at what healthiest for us as individuals and societies with economies of scale taken into account... it's not what Big AG is guiding. Not according to the scientists who study this stuff, anyway. Big AG is influencing a lot of mismanagement to help with their profits. So far, it's worked well for their bottom lines.

by EricE 4y ago

oh_sigh 4y ago

Doesn't that mean we have extra corn that can be used for human/animal consumption if shit hits the fan? Right now we're growing a bunch of crops that don't feed anyone, but it would not be hard at all to have that be the case. Much easier than the whole process of starting from scratch to get new farmland ready for growing corn.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jonhohle 4y ago
Ethanol corn can be digested by animals but not humans.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  It can be turned into corn meal and can definitely be digested by humans. It just can't be eaten directly off the cob.

simonsarris 4y ago

Excess agricultural capacity is generally a good idea. If we have zero excess in the system, then when a hiccup occurred we might find ourselves in famine. With corn-for-ethanol, the US gov is paying to keep farmland productive that has no human-or-livestock feed value. But you could imagine a situation where more human or livestock feed is needed (massive disruption of cropland, say), and in those or subsequent years we could convert basically-for-ethanol fields to consumption fields. Or if you are running out of fertilizer instead of running out of food, then you can divert expected and stored fertilizer for ethanol fields onto human-and-livestock feed fields. Once again the excess capacity acts in your favor. (Or ought to) This is assuming that governing bodies and farmers are making coherent rational decisions and in addition responding to local conditions. I have no opinion on that. Just explaining why subsidizing what looks like superfluous excess capacity is not necessarily a dumb thing to do.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Can't this corn-for-ethanol be used directly as livestock feed or even human food if needed? Also, I have no idea where i heard it, but i remember from somewhere, that pretty much all of the pet food has to be edible by humans too, "just in case" shit hits the fan..
- kickout 4y ago
  Most field corn is not directly palatable for humans. Livestock feed, yes. There is lots of stuff we could eat to get nutrition from when shit hits fan. Most of us don't haven't tried though, lol

mfer 4y ago

Can the world feed itself is also a matter of asking, which model of food production do we use and are we even able to realistically consider? A lot of the mismanagement comes from big AG and profit/growth goals. For example, people in the United States eat about 5 times the amount of meat per person as people did 100 years ago. The population has grown, too. The amount of food grown to produce the calories/nutrients needed to feed the animals which people then eat is far more than for when people eat the produce. It we're talking economies of scale, here. Big AG has a mass influence on subsidies, regulations, and even recommendations that come out of governments on diet. If you look at what healthiest for us as individuals and societies with economies of scale taken into account... it's not what Big AG is guiding. Not according to the scientists who study this stuff, anyway. Big AG is influencing a lot of mismanagement to help with their profits. So far, it's worked well for their bottom lines.