It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The End of U.S. Sugar

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

Most wild grasses have way more cellulose and fewer sugars. Even though corn is not as good as cane, it's still far more potent than undomesticated grasses. You can make ethanol from garbage, but it frequently takes more energy to produce than it creates for fuel.


That is precisely why we use corn instead of wild grasses. However, from www.sciencedaily.com... :

Patzek's ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent. Later, Patzek says he realized the loss is much more than that even.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I have heard several differing statements about how much energy it takes to produce corn ethanol, but the most optimistic indicates no net energy profit, just a break-even scenario.


From a cash-crop point of view, the patented varieties produce such a higher yield that the hierloom varieties cannot compete. Since most US farmers are all about maximizing bushels per acre, there isn't a lot of interest out side of research.


I can't disagree with this, as it is the purpose of any business (that includes Ma and Pa Kettle's farm) to maximize profits. Yet this would appear to be the reasoning behind the use of oil companies relying on corn ethanol. Corn takes a lot of room to grow compared to other crops, and corn is the most genetically modified crop we have. All of the high-yield varieties are patented, meaning that the patent owner has full control of the crop, even though they did not raise it. Contractually, seeds cannot be retained by the farmer, at risk of extremely high penalties. I even remember a thread a while back about one farmer who was being sued by the seed producer over his crop's pollen cross-pollinating a neighboring corn field.

It sounds more and more like the farmers, instead of being business owners themselves, are becoming employees of the seed producers. It also sounds to me like someone has gotten themselves a nice, sweet little monopoly, and all this sugar could mess that up. How terrible for them! Perhaps we should go ahead and learn to eat the wild grasses so they can have the corn for their ethanol.


TheRedneck

Edit to add: I just reread this post and I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. I am not disagreeing with you, nor attacking your post. I am simply extending it to a more conspiratorial level.


[edit on 26-6-2008 by TheRedneck]




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
It shouldn't make that much price difference the farmers up north can make up the lost acreage without any problems. Michighan makes lots of sugar and I'm sure many other states grow it too.

mikell



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Everything is set up to try and keep the giant corporations in power and keep the fruit of everyones labor flowing to the super rich. People need to wake up to the reality that corporations are far more evil than government.



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join