On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:10:13 -0700, Jan Steinman wrote:
>> From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> It's far more profitable
>> to turn that top-grade acreage into a subdivision.
>It took a whole lot of words for you to finally agree with me, AG! :-)
>I think it's fair to say that the situation is complex. After
>boosting yields using "green revolution" techniques (basically,
>applying petroleum to soil to produce food), China is steadily
>falling shorter and shorter.
China isn't short on anything. For decades, they followed a state policy of
maintaining stores vastly in excess of their needs, but have been liquidating
that excess in the past few years. Liquidating
excess commodities is a great way to bring in US dollars, and to build capitol
for textile mills and dam projects (both of which increase production capacity).
>The last time this happened was
>(ironically) during the last energy crunch of the '70's, and then,
>the US simply refused to sell them grain.
How is Nixon's embargo against China relevant to modern ethanol/bio-diesel
production?
>But two things are different now: 1) climate change and high fuel
>prices are beginning to impact US grain production,
Market forces produce seasonal variation in acreage. US grain production has
see-sawed in recent years.
>Before this decade is over, China's
>going to need two grain ships a day from the US, 365 days a year,
>just to break even.
That would be great news for US farmers and the US economy..
>Will the US have all that extra grain? Maybe,
>maybe not.
If not, Chinese producers and the Brazilians, among others, will be more than
happy to fulfill the demand.
>When your plot
My "plot"?
>is doing good, it's hard to imagine that the aggregate
>total is not looking so good.
US Farmers have been selling into a world market for decades. You'll find few
of us who aren't pretty familiar with international trade, international
production, political issues, and current technology.
>You may be looking forward to higher
>prices.
It's true. I do. I suppose I'm unique in wanting to earn more money at my job.
Of course, I also think a healthy farm sector is key to a healthy economy and
national security. I as know that US
producers are at the forefront of technology, finding ways to increase
productivity without sacrificing land stewardship.
>But some people won't eat because of those higher prices.
Putting aside the fact that no one will starve from $4 corn or $8 soybeans, the
fact that many countries refuse food and seed donations because of an
irrational fear of GMO, and the fact that the
world has shown an amazing ability to turn production on and off in reaction to
market forces, I have to wonder how many of those folks were offering to prop
up grain producers when corn was at
$2 and beans were at $4.85.
> The
>global economy is very near a zero-sum game right now.
How do you figure? It never has operated like a zero sum game, and I don't see
any signs that it ever will.
>:::: The Apocalypse has Four Horsemen: climate change, habitat
>destruction, industrial agriculture, and poverty. Each Horseman holds
>a whip called Growth in his hand. None can be stopped unless all are
>stopped. -- David Foley ::::
Mere words cannot express the level of my respect for someone who compares
agriculture to poverty and habitat destruction as one of the four horsemen of
the apocalypse.
BB
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
--
Barry B. Bean
Bean & Bean Cotton Company
Peach Orchard, MO
www.beancotton.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|