3 ms·

Animals and people. Starch and oil are starch and oil. It's just common dent corn. There are varieties that lend themselves to biofuels and plastics, but they'r

Animals and people. Starch and oil are starch and oil. It's just common dent corn. There are varieties that lend themselves to biofuels and plastics, but they're still starch and oil at their base.

dylan604 3y ago
have you ever had corn that was not intended to be sold as food to humans? it's not good. if that's the only corn you've ever had, then i could see why one might not like corn. i imagine the situation where the first time they are give "good" corn, the clouds part, the ray of light hits them as the chorus of angels rings out. it's that different.
- Loughla 3y ago
  You don't want to eat field corn unless it's very young, as roasting ears. Then it's goood. I'm not talking about eating it just as corn. It's starch. It's oil. It's food component parts to use to make things humans enjoy. Corn is everywhere and in everything. In the US at least.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    well, i'm replying directly to "that corn can be diverted from fuel to food" which sounds like you're walking back from a bit. if you want corn to not be food, you have to make that decision early. you can always let the food corn become other use, but not the other way around. there are also other crops that are better suited for starch/oil. so ultimately, to me, any use of corn other than food is basically just finding a way to subsidize the farmers. i'm not opposed to that, but if we're paying for it anyways, why not grow something better suited for purpose rather than just shoehorning corn as the solution?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      To me, it seemed they were consistently saying the equivalent of: If there is a year where nationwide farm output is, due to bad luck, significantly below average, we can take the crops that were going to make biofuel and use them to make cooking oil. (IIRC farm output is always somewhat irregular, so this is a fairly plausible scenario). If that's what's being defended against, it doesn't matter so much if it's a bit meh, it matters that you'd convinced farmers to plant the crops before they knew they'd be eaten. A government can also pay for overproduction of normal crops, but might want to reduce the cost of that by asking for a dual use crop. I'm still not convinced doing this with corn is good, but it's at least the start of an argument that might convince me.
    - Loughla 3y ago
      You're mistaken. Just across the board. I'm not walking anything back. I have said the same thing every time. Food =/= just eat the corn as is. It's an ingredient in many many many foods. That's what I'm talking about. Starch. Oil. And no, sweet corn (food corn for humans) is not appropriate to be used as field corn for biofuel. Too high of moisture content, even when dried. It just doesn't store well. Finally - Per acre, you will be hard pressed to find a crop that can create as many products, including starch and oil, as corn. Please let me know what you're talking about here.

Animals and people. Starch and oil are starch and oil. It's just common dent corn. There are varieties that lend themselves to biofuels and plastics, but they're still starch and oil at their base.

dylan604 3y ago

have you ever had corn that was not intended to be sold as food to humans? it's not good. if that's the only corn you've ever had, then i could see why one might not like corn. i imagine the situation where the first time they are give "good" corn, the clouds part, the ray of light hits them as the chorus of angels rings out. it's that different.

Loughla 3y ago
You don't want to eat field corn unless it's very young, as roasting ears. Then it's goood. I'm not talking about eating it just as corn. It's starch. It's oil. It's food component parts to use to make things humans enjoy. Corn is everywhere and in everything. In the US at least.
- dylan604 3y ago
  well, i'm replying directly to "that corn can be diverted from fuel to food" which sounds like you're walking back from a bit. if you want corn to not be food, you have to make that decision early. you can always let the food corn become other use, but not the other way around. there are also other crops that are better suited for starch/oil. so ultimately, to me, any use of corn other than food is basically just finding a way to subsidize the farmers. i'm not opposed to that, but if we're paying for it anyways, why not grow something better suited for purpose rather than just shoehorning corn as the solution?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    To me, it seemed they were consistently saying the equivalent of: If there is a year where nationwide farm output is, due to bad luck, significantly below average, we can take the crops that were going to make biofuel and use them to make cooking oil. (IIRC farm output is always somewhat irregular, so this is a fairly plausible scenario). If that's what's being defended against, it doesn't matter so much if it's a bit meh, it matters that you'd convinced farmers to plant the crops before they knew they'd be eaten. A government can also pay for overproduction of normal crops, but might want to reduce the cost of that by asking for a dual use crop. I'm still not convinced doing this with corn is good, but it's at least the start of an argument that might convince me.
  - Loughla 3y ago
    You're mistaken. Just across the board. I'm not walking anything back. I have said the same thing every time. Food =/= just eat the corn as is. It's an ingredient in many many many foods. That's what I'm talking about. Starch. Oil. And no, sweet corn (food corn for humans) is not appropriate to be used as field corn for biofuel. Too high of moisture content, even when dried. It just doesn't store well. Finally - Per acre, you will be hard pressed to find a crop that can create as many products, including starch and oil, as corn. Please let me know what you're talking about here.