5 ms·

> You could feed way more people if you ate the corn We're already eating too much corn, no thank you. If you check the label on the packaged goods you buy, co

by maratd 12y ago

> You could feed way more people if you ate the corn We're already eating too much corn, no thank you. If you check the label on the packaged goods you buy, corn is pretty much in all of them in one form or another. We should grow less corn, let the cows eat grass, and have people eat people food (which might occasionally include a corn on the cob).

lutorm 12y ago
I agree with all those points. All I'm saying is that if you argue that using corn ethanol as fuel is bad because it's "burning food", then you have to confront all the other ways in which the agricultural system is not really about making food.
- 001sky 12y ago
  cattle food is going into the food-system as a subsidy for human food... ie it is making high-quality proteing cheaper.... on the other hand, ethanol just makes people food more expensive....and it sucks as a fuel anyway (engineering reasons)...
  - bcg1 12y ago
    sucks because of "engineering reasons" - wow, thanks for the comment Corn-fed beef is not high-quality protein, it is usually feed lot beef laced with antibiotics, andreline and cortisol.
- kissickas 12y ago
  Additionally, sugarcane-derived ethanol is far more efficient than the corn-based stuff we use in the US. I've seen numbers ranging from 3x to more than 7x more efficient than corn-based ethanol, which would mean that the use of ethanol could actually be a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, unlike what we get from using corn. No reason to demonize sustainable, renewable fuel - instead, we should look at the agriculture subsidies that "protect our farmers" and see how they're hurting everyone (including the farmers, affected arguably more than the rest of us by global warming) in the long run.
  - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    Ag subsidies seem to mainly stabilize price regimes. There would arguably be costs associated with increased risk of production if the subsidies were not in place. They might be obsolete, but the fraction of people's time spent on food (both as producers and consumers ) continues to decline. It's also argued that the availability of abundant food is a legitimate public good. Our levels of food security in the First World are recent. I doubt anyone from... say, 1850 would put food security in terms of a human right as we now do. The irony is that petroleum products are an input into ethanol-corn production. How much I don't know; but the present subsidy regime nearly guarantees some measure of overproduction.
hueving 12y ago
There isn't enough grass to 'let the cows eat' while sustaining affordability for lower income people. That's why they switched to corn, much better density of calories.
- littletimmy 12y ago
  It is not absolutely essential that lower income people eat beef. More importantly, the state should not be allowed to waste tax payer money on the ridiculous idea that lower income people must have beef to eat. Why on earth should my tax dollars go to a steak party?
  - stbtrax 12y ago
    Pardon the pun, but your complaints are incredibly rarified. No one's having a steak party, they're eating burgers and tacos in between their long shifts because of lack of fresh produce and time to cook it.
    - littletimmy 12y ago
      The government cannot subsidize fresh produce instead of the beef industry?
      - mjevans 12y ago
        The average voter feels a burger/taco/burrito is tastier and 'American'. The average voter probably has also not had /good/ experiences with salads that are actually tasty for reasons other than bacon. (Can we PLEASE stop adding bacon to /everything/ (at least as a default?); some of us just don't like the smokey taste.)
      - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
        They do. Heavily. There is an argument that says the Central Valley of California farmers basically funded Reagan's White House run in 1980. Carter was going after payments for all that water...
  - 12y ago
wtbob 12y ago
> If you check the label on the packaged goods you buy, corn is pretty much in all of them in one form or another. Well yeah: corn grows really well in the American Midwest; it's pretty cool that we're able to make so many products from it (kinda like the work George Washington Carver did with peanuts, which grow very well in the South).
- nerdo 12y ago
  It's also an efficient crop as it uses the C4 pathway, and as you've said can be reprocessed infinite ways, even as gas as you see here. Great for an industrialized market economy.

by maratd 12y ago

lutorm 12y ago

I agree with all those points. All I'm saying is that if you argue that using corn ethanol as fuel is bad because it's "burning food", then you have to confront all the other ways in which the agricultural system is not really about making food.

001sky 12y ago
cattle food is going into the food-system as a subsidy for human food... ie it is making high-quality proteing cheaper.... on the other hand, ethanol just makes people food more expensive....and it sucks as a fuel anyway (engineering reasons)...
- bcg1 12y ago
  sucks because of "engineering reasons" - wow, thanks for the comment Corn-fed beef is not high-quality protein, it is usually feed lot beef laced with antibiotics, andreline and cortisol.
kissickas 12y ago
Additionally, sugarcane-derived ethanol is far more efficient than the corn-based stuff we use in the US. I've seen numbers ranging from 3x to more than 7x more efficient than corn-based ethanol, which would mean that the use of ethanol could actually be a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, unlike what we get from using corn. No reason to demonize sustainable, renewable fuel - instead, we should look at the agriculture subsidies that "protect our farmers" and see how they're hurting everyone (including the farmers, affected arguably more than the rest of us by global warming) in the long run.
- ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  Ag subsidies seem to mainly stabilize price regimes. There would arguably be costs associated with increased risk of production if the subsidies were not in place. They might be obsolete, but the fraction of people's time spent on food (both as producers and consumers ) continues to decline. It's also argued that the availability of abundant food is a legitimate public good. Our levels of food security in the First World are recent. I doubt anyone from... say, 1850 would put food security in terms of a human right as we now do. The irony is that petroleum products are an input into ethanol-corn production. How much I don't know; but the present subsidy regime nearly guarantees some measure of overproduction.

hueving 12y ago

There isn't enough grass to 'let the cows eat' while sustaining affordability for lower income people. That's why they switched to corn, much better density of calories.

littletimmy 12y ago
It is not absolutely essential that lower income people eat beef. More importantly, the state should not be allowed to waste tax payer money on the ridiculous idea that lower income people must have beef to eat. Why on earth should my tax dollars go to a steak party?
- stbtrax 12y ago
  Pardon the pun, but your complaints are incredibly rarified. No one's having a steak party, they're eating burgers and tacos in between their long shifts because of lack of fresh produce and time to cook it.
  - littletimmy 12y ago
    The government cannot subsidize fresh produce instead of the beef industry?
    - mjevans 12y ago
      The average voter feels a burger/taco/burrito is tastier and 'American'. The average voter probably has also not had /good/ experiences with salads that are actually tasty for reasons other than bacon. (Can we PLEASE stop adding bacon to /everything/ (at least as a default?); some of us just don't like the smokey taste.)
    - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
      They do. Heavily. There is an argument that says the Central Valley of California farmers basically funded Reagan's White House run in 1980. Carter was going after payments for all that water...
- 12y ago

wtbob 12y ago

> If you check the label on the packaged goods you buy, corn is pretty much in all of them in one form or another. Well yeah: corn grows really well in the American Midwest; it's pretty cool that we're able to make so many products from it (kinda like the work George Washington Carver did with peanuts, which grow very well in the South).

nerdo 12y ago
It's also an efficient crop as it uses the C4 pathway, and as you've said can be reprocessed infinite ways, even as gas as you see here. Great for an industrialized market economy.