Japan to Make Ethanol From Rice ?

29. February 2008 by P. Leslie Riley.

An opportunity for the Delta or the best example of the Food vs Fuel Debate ?

http://nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.22a.html

Japan to Make Ethanol From Super-Harvest Rice

Japan’s first commercial plant to produce ethanol for cars from locally grown rice will reach full capacity of 1,000 kilolitres a year by March 2009, a few months behind schedule.

The project in Niigata, central Japan, for which the Japanese government is paying half the plant construction cost of 1.6 billion yen (US$15 million), is one of Japan’s three such government-backed commercial production schemes.

It is managed by the National Federation of Agriculture Co-operative Associations (Zen-Noh) and will use non-food rice.

Ippei Koike, general manager of Zen-Noh’s farming planning department, said the delay is partly due to paperwork for construction approval.

He said farmers were planting two types of super-harvest rice in more areas than planned this year after the 2007 harvest of one type gave a lower-than-expected yield of 602 kg of brown rice, excluding broken rice, per 10 ares.

An are is 100 square metres (1,076 sq ft).

In Japan, the average rice farming household cultivates a rice area of 107 ares, or 1.07 hectares, with an annual revenue of 1.8 million yen (US$17,000).

“We had expected this type to consistently harvest 800 kg per 10 ares — 30 to 40 percent more than that of ordinary rice. But last year’s experience made us realise that’s hard to achieve,” Koike said in an interview.

“We won’t give up. Japanese farmers are accustomed to much tougher conditions,” Koike said, referring to unusually low temperatures in July last year that thwarted the development of rice kernels.

RICE PLANTING

The Niigata project involves engineering company Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co and Satake Corp, a food processing machinery maker based in Hiroshima, western Japan.

Japan lacks competitive farm produce to make enough ethanol to mix with gasoline and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

But the project aims to use non-food rice planted in abandoned farmlands. A fall in domestic consumption of rice every year results in the Japanese government’s plan to reduce planting for food rice by some 100,000 ha in 2008 from 2007.

Zen-Noh has said it will buy rice from farmers at 20 yen a kg to make its auto fuel competitive with regular gasoline.

Ordinary food-quality rice costs well above 100 yen a kg and harvests 500 to 600 kg per 10 ares.

“Despite the loss-making process, farmers now think that the rice for ethanol is one of the forward-looking options to make the best use of the abandoned fields,” Koike said.

Zen-Noh, which retails gasoline mainly for farmers, plans to sell gasoline directly blended with 3 percent of the rice-origin ethanol at its 40 gas stations in Niigata.

Posted in Foriegn Agriculture, Alternative Crops & Enterprises, Biofuels from Farms, Rural Development, Alternative Energy | Print | No Comments »

40¢ a Gallon - Fuel From Crop Waste !

29. February 2008 by P. Leslie Riley.

http://nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.18c.html 

Syntec Biofuel to Make Biomass Ethanol for 40¢ a Gallon

Syntec Biofuel Inc., a company developing biomass to fuel conversion technologies, is pleased to announce that it has achieved a yield of 105 gallons of alcohol per ton of biomass (making the fuel cost about 40¢ a gallon to produce). This marks a major milestone for Syntec as this yield is equivalent to revenues in excess of $27 million per year for a 300 ton per day biomass processing facility.

“We are consistently seeing monthly improvements in our Biomass to Alcohols (B2A) Process,” says Michael Jackson, President of Syntec Biofuel Inc. “This level of achievement makes the B2A process profitable in relatively small scale facilities using a wide variety of waste biomass feedstocks in any combination.”

The Syntec B2A technology, initially developed at the University of British Columbia, is focused on second-generation cellulosic ethanol production. The Syntec process parallels the low-pressure catalytic synthesis process used by methanol producers. Syntec’s innovative technology uses any renewable waste biomass such as hard or soft wood, sawdust or bark, organic waste, agricultural waste (including sugar cane bagasse and corn stover), and switch-grass to produce syngas. This syngas, comprised of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is then scrubbed and passed through a fixed bed reactor containing the Syntec catalysts to produce ethanol, methanol and higher order alcohols. The Syntec technology can also produce alcohols from biogas (sourced from anaerobic digestion of manure and effluent), landfill gas or stranded methane.

Recent media coverage on ethanol produced from food crops, such as corn, and the use of agricultural cropland for biofuel production, has prompted an international questioning of the ethics and “hidden costs” behind the production of such alternative fuels. “Syntec’s technology only uses sustainable waste biomass to produce its biofuel,” explains Mr. Jackson. “We believe strongly that fueling the worlds energy needs can be achieved without further impact to our environment, and that we possess the best and most ethical solution to bio-ethanol production.”

Posted in Alternative Crops & Enterprises, Biofuels from Farms, Rural Development, Alternative Energy | Print | No Comments »

On Site Processing of Timber Waste Bio Fule ???

6. February 2008 by P. Leslie Riley.

Could this be an opportunity for botom-up economic development ?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.5c.html

New Chemical Process Turns Forest Waste into Bio-Crude

CSIRO and Monash University have developed a chemical process that turns green waste into a stable bio-crude oil.The bio-crude oil can be used to produce high value chemicals and biofuels, including both petrol and diesel replacement fuels.

“By making changes to the chemical process, we’ve been able to create a concentrated bio-crude which is much more stable than that achieved elsewhere in the world,” says Dr Steven Loffler of CSIRO Forest Biosciences.

“This makes it practical and economical to produce bio-crude in local areas for transport to a central refinery, overcoming the high costs and greenhouse gas emissions otherwise involved in transporting bulky green wastes over long distances.”

The process uses low value waste such as forest thinnings, crop residues, waste paper and garden waste, significant amounts of which are currently dumped in landfill or burned.

“We’ve been able to create a concentrated bio-crude which is much more stable than that achieved elsewhere in the world.”Dr Steven Loffler

“By using waste, our Furafuel technology overcomes the food versus fuel debate which surrounds biofuels generated from grains, corn and sugar,” says Dr Loffler.

The plant wastes being targeted for conversion into biofuels contain chemicals known as lignocellulose, which is increasingly favoured around the world as a raw material for the next generation of bio-ethanol.

Lignocellulose is both renewable and potentially greenhouse gas neutral. It is predominantly found in trees and is made up of cellulose; lignin, a natural plastic; and hemicellulose.

Posted in Alternative Crops & Enterprises, Biofuels from Farms, Rural Development, Family farm Opportunities, Alternative Energy | Print | No Comments »

NZ Economy Helped by Dairy Farms — Thriving, Subsidy Free, Grass Based

4. January 2008 by P. Leslie Riley.

Mississippi’s once prosperous dairy industry is at crisis levels & may not exist much longer. Commissioner Spell in the Mississippi State Debate said this was a natural consequence of market forces.

Conventional “wisdom” big governement/ big corporation/ big land grant-USDA “experts” agree with this. The belief that they share with all is :
1) Dairy farms must be on a mega scale, confinment oriented, in dry climates, corporate owned heavily financed & with heavy inputs. And that there will be fewer and fewer.
Because of this, Mississippi cannot compete with new non-traditional dairy areas like California, Arizona, Wesr Texas, and Idaho where the arid conditions are “ideal” to put 4000 or 5000 head confinement dairy operations on 40 to 100 acres. Hire lots of help & “efficiently” run it like a factory.
2) This same folks also push for heavy subsidies on milk to “help” family farms ( they never quite say why the number of farms has decreased in direct proportion to the size/ number of dairies)
3) And, “conventional wisdom” is that Agriculture is at worst an impediment and at best a afterthought/ minor component of a healthy & growing economy.

Turning this “conventional wisdom” on it’s head with facts is New Zealand.
New Zealand’s dairy farms are almost exclusively grass based/ family owned
New Zealand got rid of subsidies 10 years ago — and are thriving.
And, according to the article below, New Zealand’s economy is in a slow down, but it being proped up by : the dairy industry.  Go Figure.

There is no reason that Mississippi can’t have a thriving dairy industry again that offers prosperity for hard working family farmers; produces healthier milk, cheese, butter, etc. for  Mississippians (which would, in turn, drive health care cost down); provides better Stewardship of God’s Creation; and is a vital part of economic growth for rural communities.

BUT, as we all know, one definition of insantiy is to continue doing the same thing, the same way, and expecting different results.

 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=195&objectid=10484890

 Dairy bonanza likely to soften slowdown

5:00AM Tuesday January 01, 2008
By Brian Fallow 

The housing market is at a standstill.

The country ended 2007 with some respectable numbers on its economic report card.

The economy expanded 3.3 per cent in the year ended September, while inflation over the same period was 1.8 per cent.

The unemployment rate is 3.5 per cent, a record low.

The terms of trade - relative prices of the kinds of things we export compared with the kinds of things we import - are the most favourable since 1974.

The Government’s coffers are overflowing.

But the outlook is less rosy than these numbers would suggest. On a quarterly basis growth peaked back in March.

The economy expanded as much in the first half of 2007 as it had over the previous year and a half.

But it has slowed markedly since then as households, whose consumption represents more than 60 per cent of economic activity, battle higher mortgage rates and global inflation in oil and food prices.

The consensus among economic forecasters is that private consumption growth will run around 1.6 or 1.7 per cent through 2008 and 2009, the weakest rate since 2000.

Advertisement

Advertisement

That is in spite of household incomes being underpinned by brisk wage growth, the prospect of tax cuts and a tsunami of dairy cash.

The problem is that the necessities of life - housing, food and energy - are gobbling up a larger share of people’s incomes, leaving less to spend on other things.

The housing market has flipped from one in which house prices were climbing and borrowing costs were low to one where house prices are flatlining but borrowing costs are rising.

After doubling over the the previous six years house prices, as measured by the Real Estate Institute’s national median, have been going sideways since May.

But the long boom has pushed the average house price to six times the average household disposable income, nearly twice its long-term average.

Households with mortgages are consequently carrying much more debt relative to their incomes than they used to and are more exposed to interest rates.

And with fear and suspicion now the dominant sentiment in international credit markets, the days when New Zealand banks could tap cheap money offshore to fund home loans are over.

Two-year fixed mortgage rates are now the highest they have been for nearly 10 years.

The average mortgage rate being paid is around 8 per cent, the highest since October 1998, and the Reserve Bank expects it to approach 9 per cent by 2009.

About 30 per cent of all fixed-rate mortgages, representing a quarter of all mortgage debt, come up for an interest rate reset over the next 12 months. At currently available mortgage rates these borrowers will face increases of 0.7 to 1.5 percentage points.

Meanwhile the plateau in house prices is expected to turn off a phenomenon which has turbocharged the domestic spending side of the economy in recent years: the wealth effect.

That is when people borrow and spend some fraction - a few cents in the dollar - of the increase in the value of the equity in their homes, allowing spending to grow faster than incomes.

The biggest new factor on the positive side of the income ledger is the prospect of a bumper dairy payout.

It will pump about $4 billion more cash into the economy than last season, says Westpac chief economist Brendan O’Donovan. And it will all get spent, he believes.

While some farmers will take the opportunity to reduce their debt, others will borrow to expand their operations. Rural land prices have already risen sharply as farmers do what they always do and capitalise improved returns, O’Donaovan says.

“In aggregate they won’t be paying down debt, they will be leveraging up.”

But it takes time for higher farm incomes to flow through the rural towns to the big cities.

And every silver lining has its cloud.

The global “agflation” that is boosting dairy farmers’ incomes is also making trips to the supermarket an increasingly expensive business.

Likewise the tightness of the labour market underpinning wage growth is partly because of a dwindling of net migration inflows as a widening income gap lures more and more New Zealanders across the Tasman.

The Reserve Bank forecast inflation to be above 3 per cent all through this year.

Crucially, it also expects it to remain in the top quartile of its target band of 1 to 3 per cent through 2009 as well, even with interest rates and the dollar remaining at their current elevated levels.

Those projections assume $1.5 billion worth of tax cuts, which may well prove to be on the low side, and do not include the impact of the emissions trading scheme on transport fuel costs from the start to 2009.

This makes for an environment in which the central bank has little”headroom” to accommodate further upward pressure on inflation.

Yet the international environment might deliver just that.

The global credit crunch could well get worse before it gets better.

If 2007 is anything to go by, when global risk aversion goes up the kiwi dollar goes down and investors lose their appetite for the carry trades which underpin the exchange rate.

That might be blessed relief for exporters but it pushes up the cost of imported goods.

The biggest uncertainty overhanging the economy in 2008 is how the global credit crunch, arising from the US sub-prime mortgage crisis, will play out. Rising global interest rates would be bad news for us, a country up to our neck in debt.

---

This story was found at:
Copyright ©2007, APN Holdings NZ Limited

Posted in Foriegn Agriculture, Alternative Crops & Enterprises, Organic vs Conventional Faming, Over Regulation of Agriculture, Sale of Meat Direct to Consumers, Lester Spell, Mississippi Politics, Grass Farming, Dairy Farming, How Agriculture affects Everything else, Smaller Government, Freedom in Agriculture, Rural Development, Farm Subsidies, Difficult Issues in Agriculture & Rural Life, Agrarianism, Big vs Small Farms, Mississippi Agricultural News, Family farm Opportunities | Print | No Comments »

Researchers May Prove Campaign Claims Right about Farm Scale Ethanol Production

22. December 2007 by P. Leslie Riley.

During the Campaign I talked a good bit about a decentralized system for Biofuel prodction that would provide maximum benefit for farmers & rural communities & maximum independence from foriegn oil/ big government/ big business.
This was built upon a market based, bottom up approach and centered on the production and farm level processing of sugar/ sweet sorgum based fuel.

This idea was detailed in this post :
BioFuels #2 - Ethanol Produced on Farms
Farm Scale Fuel Production would mean economic boom for rural communities and less dependance on oil from the Middle East

And was met with some skecticism. However, according to this piece in Next Energy News researchers agree with the basic premise — that Sugar is a much better source of biofuels than what is currently being pursued . . . .

“Production of energy, such as ethanol, from sugar is more efficient than production from grains in both cost per unit and energy efficiency,” Da Silva says. “Sugarcane is ranked first among all other crops for biomass production and can be a key component of biomass supply. Technology for producing ethanol from sugarcane is well established in tropical countries such as Brazil, where energy independence has been achieved.”

Why is such a strategy not being pursued ?

Likely because it doesn’t offer more power/ controll to politicians & more $$$ in the hands of the multinational corporations that feed them . . .

 The election is over, but our fight for family farmers & more freedom has only begun

The entire article is here :

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news10.30a.html

Researchers Search for Perfect Crop for Biofuel Researchers have been studying fuels from biomass for years. Now, with growing dependency on foreign oils and an energy-conscious society emerging, biofuels are fast becoming part of a fuel revolution that could reach pumps all across America. Ethanol blends are already available at some gas stations. However, their availability varies from state to state, depending on the volume of ethanol produced. Sources of biomass for biofuel production in each state also vary widely.”To see it everywhere, we have to make more of it on a regional basis,” says Dr. Bill Rooney, professor of plant breeding and genetics, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas A and M University. “The best source for biofuel in a region is contingent on the environment, growing season, water and fertility availability, stress resistance, and processing and conversion techniques. In any location, there will be several species grown for biomass.”Approximately 20 percent of grain sorghum is now used for ethanol production. Rooney is currently developing sorghum varieties specifically for bioenergy. He will discuss this topic on Wednesday, Nov. 7 during his talk, “Sorghum Breeding for Bioenergy Traits,” at the International Annual Meetings of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA) and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). He will speak at 2:30 pm during the symposium “Breeding and Genomics of Crops for Bioenergy” at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans, room 207.Another presentation related to biofuels, “Sweet Fuel for the U.S.”, will be given by Dr. Jorge Da Silva, associate professor of molecular genetics and plant breeding, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas A and M University, on Tuesday, Nov. 6 at 10:15 am. His presentation will be during the symposium “Agronomic Aspects of Biofuel Crop Production” in room 214 of the Convention Center. “Production of energy, such as ethanol, from sugar is more efficient than production from grains in both cost per unit and energy efficiency,” Da Silva says. “Sugarcane is ranked first among all other crops for biomass production and can be a key component of biomass supply. Technology for producing ethanol from sugarcane is well established in tropical countries such as Brazil, where energy independence has been achieved.” Although there is no finite development timeline, there is clearly a race for biofuels as the cost of petroleum reaches previously unimaginable levels, reserves diminish, and environmental concerns soar. If won, this race could bring about a revolution as significant as Henry Ford’s creation of the Model T car.

Posted in Sweet Sorgum & Sugar, Biofuels from Farms, Rural Development, Family farm Opportunities | Print | No Comments »

Could Algae become the Ultimate Alternative Crop for Family Farms ?

22. December 2007 by P. Leslie Riley.

33000 gallons of oil per acre — sounds like a profitable farm enterprise for some enterprising farm family . ..

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.17c.html

High Density Algae Test Delivers 33,000 Gallons of Oil Per Acre
The Vertigro Joint Venture has released initial test results from its high density bio mass (algae) field test bed plant located at its research and development facility in El Paso, Texas.

During a 90 day continual production test, algae was being harvested at an average of one gram (dry weight) per liter. This equates to algae bio mass production of 276 tons of algae per acre per year. Achieving the same biomass production rate with an algal species having 50% lipids (oil) content would therefore deliver approximately 33,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year.

The primary focus of the 90-day continuous production test was determining the robustness of the field test bed. Other secondary tests were also conducted including using different ph levels, CO2 levels, fluid temperatures, nutrients, types of algae, and planned system failures. It is important to note that the system has not been optimized for production yields or the best selection of algae species at this time.

The next phase of development will include increasing the number of bio reactor units from 30 to 100 and then continuing a number of production tests that may further increase production as well as initiating various extraction tests. The results released today are in keeping with data previously announced from the Joint Venture’s laboratory proof of concept test bed. Subsequently, the joint venture intends to build out a one acre pilot plant with engineer design work underway at this time.

As a comparative, food crop such as soy bean will typically produce some 48 gallons oil per acre per year and palm will produce approximately 630 gallons oil per acre per year. In addition, the Vertigro Bio Reactor System is a closed loop continuous production system that uses little water and may be built on non arable lands.

Glen Kertz and Dr. Aga Pinowska, who head the research and development program, commented, “This is a major milestone for us as we have demonstrated the robustness of the Bio Mass System with satisfactory production results from a system that has not yet been optimized for algae production, which will become part of the next phase of testing.” They also noted, “We have learned how to produce a very large algal bio-mass under varying environmental and operating conditions in our continuous process photo bioreactors. We believe these initial results are amongst the best achieved to date, and we are confident we can now increase the productivity.”

“We are extremely pleased with the robustness and performance of the Vertigro technology in sustainably producing commercial quantities of algae biomass,” states Doug Frater, Global Green Solutions CEO. “Over the coming months we will further optimize the technology and demonstrate economic algae production for biofuel feedstock purposes.”

The Vertigo system may be a solution to the renewable energy sector’s quest to create a clean, green process which uses mainly light, water and air to create fuel. The Vertigro technology employs a proprietary high-density vertical bio-reactor that produces fast growing algae which may yield large volumes of high-grade algae oil. This oil can be refined into a cost-effective, non-polluting diesel biofuel, jet fuel and other applications. The algae derived fuel may be an energy efficient replacement for fossil fuels and can be used in any diesel powered vehicle or machinery. In addition, 90% by weight of the algae is captured carbon dioxide, which is “sequestered” by this process and so contributes significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gasses.

Posted in Rural Development, Family farm Opportunities, Alternative Energy | Print | No Comments »

Fuel from Timber Wastes

22. December 2007 by P. Leslie Riley.

Mississippi researchers at USM & MSU have been working on similar concepts. It would be nice to see someone in the private sector come up with model that could be profitable for family businesses in rural areas of our state.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.21a.html

Quote:

Biomass Harvester Eats Trees to Make Bio-diesel A new machine to harvest forest underbrush for use as fuel had its first public demonstration Wednesday in woods east of New Bern. About 50 people in hard hats watched as the machine gobbled trees in the forest off County Line Road. Those watching the one-of-a-kind bush eater represented the gamut of public and private forest-related industries and service in North Carolina. The big red processor, pushed by a tractor on treads, uses carbide teeth to pulverize everything in its six-foot path. As the 56,000-pound behemoth cuts a trail, a belt-driven vacuum sucks the ground-up cuttings through an extended chute over the cab and into an agricultural silage wagon hitched to the tractor. Despite its weight, the machine produces ground pressure of only 7.1 pounds per square foot, so it moves easily over soft forest bed and pocosin. The biomass harvester is being developed by North Carolina State University for Fecon Inc., manufacturer of the heavy equipment and attachments including Bull Hog commercial mulchers, in cooperation with Tim Tabak, a Craven County forestry management consultant. The new harvester allows more of the forest’s organic products — bushes, leaves and needles, and trees under 6 inches in diameter — to be used for bio-diesel and ethanol in addition to its present market in steam-generated electric production, Roise said. “It is powerful,” he said. The machine has a 440-horsepower engine. When perfected, it is expected to be used mostly for plantation thinning in tree farming, for clearing between the rows, and for forest management, said Roise. Roise has been working since the summer with Tabak and NCSU Forestry graduate students Lindsay Hannum and Glen Catts to correct design flaws. But Roise said the work thus far has produced “results much better than we ever thought. It’s done remarkably.” Croatan National Forest District Ranger Lauren Hillman sees potential for forest management in fire prevention and habitat preservation or restoration. Camp Lejeune’s efforts to restore habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers might be able helped by the machine, said Danny Marshburn, base forest manager. John Duff of Rankin Timber Company in New Bern said, “I think it will be useful tool on a lot of forest land that is tough to manage.” The machine can now harvest between two and four tons of forest bulk an hour and it’s real profitability lies in harvesting brush for bio-diesel and ethanol. Its advantage for that use is that it blows underbrush upward without picking up the dirt. The product saved from just being mulch on the forest floor contains both oil and sugar, said Roise and fellow NCSU professor Dennis Hazel. The oil would be used for bio-diesel or the sugar for ethanol. The professors are already debating which element of the biomass grabbed by the harvester will make it pay off first.

_________________

Posted in Rural Development, Family farm Opportunities, Alternative Energy | Print | No Comments »

Subsidies — Their cost & my head scratching ?????

18. December 2007 by P. Leslie Riley.

I have spoken out strongly against the USDA & for the elemination of subsidies.
It is no secret that I believe federal subsidies paid to farmers are a bad idea. There is a two fold reason for this.

1) They violate nearly every principle I believe about limited government — I think subsidies not only violate the Constitution, but also God’s Law and the lessons of history & economics. Beyond that they are Marxist to their core and represent an intrusion and an affront to liberty.

 2) I am convinced that subsidies are immeasurably harmful to the very farmers & rural communites they profess to want to help on more fronts than I care to list here ( a different post maybe ?)

That being said, while I have some ideas, I cannot completely explain the level of opposition they get from much of the mainstream press, liberals, neo-conservatives & city folks in general.

It is certainly not that the folks at the New York Times, the Enviormental Working Group, and other liberal media. non profit “think tanks” , and Democratic politicians have suddenly become doctrinare libertarian advocates of smaller government.

For Big government, balanced budget neo-cons who are likewise not concerned about too much government controll of our lives or aren’t hindered by questions about whether or not something is a legitimate function of government, but just seek for government micromanagement to be more efficient & business like are really confusing because of the following :

The TOTAL “Farm Bill” is less than 1% of the Federal Budget. ( not much fat would be cut out if it were eleminated entirely).
Of this 1% — roughly $88.8 Billion USDA Budget in 2007 the following closer breakdown shows that most of this does not go to farmers in the form of subsidies but rather to things like food stamps,  foriegn aid, even “rural development” includes things like grants to buy police cars & remodel government buildings in small towns.

Here are some particulars :
“Farm Programs” : $12.4 Billion or 13.9% of the total
* That means that 86% of the “Farm Program” is not subsidies paid to “rich farmers” at the expense of “poor farmers in developing nations”. Or, put another way, the farm subsidies represent slightly over 1/100th of 1% of the Federal Budget or .00139 %. I am fairly certain that even someone as dumb as me could find a whole list of other boondoggles that are much more costly.
Domestic Food Programs ( i.e. welfare, food stamps, etc): $51.4 Billion or 57.8%
That’s right, government welfare makes up almost 60% of the “Agriculture” budget
Other areas that fall under the “Farm Bill” heading include $2.4 Billion in “Foriegn Ag Service”, $3.0 Billion for “Rural Development”, $2.5 Billion for “Food Safety Inspection” and $ 5.1 Billion for “Conservation Programs”.
I wonder how many of the neocons would be in favor of cutting out the Foreign Aid or liberals at the Enviormental Working Group would want to drop off the 5 billion of Conservation Programs ? ( I think we all know the answer).

So again, I am not defending farm subsidies — FAR from it –, I just wonder why they are so derided by people who otherwise never met an increase in government spending or power that they didn’t like.

I have some ideas, but I’ll save them for later . Any of you have any thoughts that you’d like to share, please feel free to.

LR

Posted in Difficult Issues in Agriculture & Rural Life, Cotton, Farm Subsidies, Smaller Government, Freedom in Agriculture, Rural Development | Print | No Comments »

Jimmy Carter vs Cato & a Midwest Grain Farmer on Subsidies

13. December 2007 by P. Leslie Riley.

Here are three opposing pieces on Farm Subsidies by former President liberal former president, globalist agitator and sometime humanitarian Jimmy Carter — the somewhat libertarian Cato Institute — and Midwest Grain Farmer/ Agri Journalist John Phipps ( in that order)First Carter’s piece for the Wall St Journal:
( if you follow the link to the originall article, there are lots of good hyperlinks to follow for more info)

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/12/10/does-jimmy-carter-really-speak-for-african-farmers/

Quote:

Subsidies’ Harvest Of Misery By Jimmy Carter Monday, December 10, 2007; Page A19Congress can still act decisively this year to right a wrong that is hurting both small American farmers and the poorest people on the planet. A long-overdue debate is taking place on reform of the 1933 farm bill, passed during the Great Depression to alleviate the suffering of America’s family farmers. I was a farm boy then, and the primary cash crops on my father’s farm were peanuts and cotton. My first paying job was working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, measuring farmers’ fields to ensure that they limited their acreage and total production in order to qualify for the life-sustaining farm subsidy prices. Tragically, in its current form this legislation does not fulfill its original purposes but instead encourages excess production while channeling enormous government payments to the biggest producers. This product of powerful lobbyists now punishes small-scale farmers in the United States and is devastating to families in many of the world’s least affluent countries. It is embarrassing to note that, from 1995 to 2005, the richest 10 percent of cotton growers received more than 80 percent of total subsidies. The wealthiest 1 percent of American cotton farmers continues to receive over 25 percent of payouts for cotton, while more than half of America’s cotton farmers receive no subsidies at all. American farmers are not dependent on the global market because they are guaranteed a minimum selling price by the federal government. American producers of cotton received more than $18 billion in subsidies between 1999 and 2005, while market value of the cotton was $23 billion. That’s a subsidy of 86 percent! The Carter Center works primarily among the world’s poorest people, including those in West Africa whose scant livelihood depends on cotton production. For instance, in 2002 Burkina Faso received 57 percent of its total export revenue from cotton, while Benin depended on cotton exports for more than 75 percent of its national export revenue. Overproduction in the United States leads to the dumping of U.S. cotton on global markets, which drives prices down. In recent years, cotton exported from the United States has been sold 61 percent below its cost of production. Fragile African economies that depend on agricultural exports, especially cotton, are sometimes devastated by these practices. A 2002 report by Oxfam International estimates that in 2001 sub-Saharan Africa lost $302 million as a direct result of U.S. cotton subsidies, with two-thirds of the loss sustained in eight countries — Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Central African Republic, Chad and Togo. Compared with American humanitarian assistance, the subsidies to U.S. cotton farmers amount to more than the U.S. Agency for International Development’s total annual budget for all of sub-Saharan Africa. Two amendments being proposed in the Senate represent the best hopes for fixing what’s wrong with the system of crop subsidies. Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have proposed the Farm, Ranch, Equity, Stewardship and Health Act of 2007 as an amendment to the farm bill; it would replace the subsidies with an insurance program protecting farmers from excessive losses and catastrophes such as flooding or drought. This approach would correct many of the flaws I’ve noted in the current farm bill. An amendment being circulated by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) would place a $250,000 cap on annual subsidy payments to a farmer. Various schemes under the present law allow these limits to be grossly exceeded, with some big farmers receiving several million dollars annually. Both amendments would go a long way toward making the farm bill fair for farmers at home and abroad. I am still a cotton farmer, and I have been in the fields in Mali, where all the work is done by families with small land holdings. Cotton production costs 73 cents per pound in the United States and only 21 cents per pound in West Africa, so American farmers do need protection in the international marketplace. But Congress has a moral obligation to protect American agriculture with legislation that will serve our national interests, that will feed hungry people and that does not suppress the ability of the poor to work their way out of poverty. Former president Jimmy Carter founded the not-for-profit Carter Center, an international nongovernmental organization based in Atlanta.

Second, Cato :

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/12/10/does-jimmy-carter-really-speak-for-african-farmers/

Quote:

Does Jimmy Carter Really Speak for African Farmers? by : Daniel Ikenson Jimmy Carter’s grasp of economics apparently hasn’t sharpened in the 27 years since he imparted a wretched U.S. economy to his successor. Or perhaps his poor-man-advocate bona fides should be scrutinized more closely. In a Washington Post op-ed today, the former president rightly protests the egregious U.S. farm bill for its continuation of lavish subsidies to American commodities’ producers. Carter explains how subsidies breed overproduction, which suppresses world commodity prices, thereby reducing the incomes of poor farmers in countries where commodities dominate the economy. Carter favors proposed amendments to the current farm legislation that would replace subsidy programs with crop insurance programs to protect farmers against excessive loss, which is an improvement, though not a solution. But, in the last paragraph of his article, Carter contradicts everything he writes before that, revealing himself to be no friend of poor farmers abroad or simply ignorant of economic processes. He writes: I am still a cotton farmer, and I have been in the fields in Mali, where all the work is done by families with small land holdings. Cotton production costs 73 cents per pound in the United States and only 21 cents per pound in West Africa, so American farmers do need protection in the international marketplace. Now wait a second. This is a very curious statement. If cotton production is so much cheaper in West Africa than in the United States, then more production should happen there and less should happen here. If Carter is really interested in the well-being of West African farmers, “whose scant livelihood depends on cotton production,” he should advocate free trade in cotton. Why instead does he advocate that U.S. farmers be protected in the international market place? West African incomes will continue to suffer if U.S. subsidy programs are replaced by U.S. tariffs, which is what Carter seems to be advocating. How does it help Malian farmers lift themselves out of poverty if they can’t effectively compete on their advantages? Higher U.S. tariffs would only drive down the world price (as subsidies do) and likely compel other importer nations to raise tariffs to protect their own producers, shrinking the market further for Malian farmers. Meanwhile, does Carter have any empathy for America’s lower income families?Apparently, not enough. Protection of U.S. cotton farmers artificially raises the prices of textiles, which means that clothing and shoes are more expensive than they would be otherwise. Expenditures on necessities, like clothing and food, account for a higher proportion of the budgets of lower income families. Thus, artificially raising the prices of those products is akin to a regressive tax – it burdens those with less income disproportionately. Perhaps Carter is not writing as the founder of the Carter Center, an international NGO, as the byline indicates, but as a small cotton farmer from Plains, Georgia, who believes the current subsidy system unfair because the big farms get most of the largesse.

Finally Grain Farmer/ Agri Journalist John Phipps’ comments :
(Phipps takes subsidies, but thinks they’re a really bad idea)

http://johnwphipps.blogspot.com/

Quote:

Sunday, December 09, 2007 This explains the single term, maybe…Former President Jimmy Carter, whose accomplishments after his presidency dwarf the actual tenure in office (much like Herbert Hoover, whom I also admire), demonstrates why his grasp of economics didn’t help him in office. In an editorial in the WaPo this week, he concludes with this astonishing bit of illogic. I am still a cotton farmer, and I have been in the fields in Mali, where all the work is done by families with small land holdings. Cotton production costs 73 cents per pound in the United States and only 21 cents per pound in West Africa, so American farmers do need protection in the international marketplace. But Congress has a moral obligation to protect American agriculture with legislation that will serve our national interests, that will feed hungry people and that does not suppress the ability of the poor to work their way out of poverty. [My emphasis] Mr. President, the fact that your production costs are way above your competitors does not automatically create an entitlement. Otherwise there would be no reason to control costs. What is does mean is you should not be in the cotton business. I know, I know- “This will mean the end of all cotton farming in the US!!!”. I think not. We grow about 16% of the world’s cotton and use a quarter of it here, exporting the rest. In fact, the US ships 40% of the world’s exports. If we stopped subsidizing cotton today, where would cotton futures open tomorrow? I’m guessing significantly lower than the current US supported price, but high enough to get the acres needed to supply the world. Oddly, this seems to be the case for other commodities. Posted by John Phipps

Posted in Difficult Issues in Agriculture & Rural Life, Farm Subsidies, Smaller Government, Freedom in Agriculture, Rural Development | Print | No Comments »

Agriculture of the Middle — Why should you care ?

3. December 2007 by P. Leslie Riley.

There is a fairly new project/ web site called “Agriculture of the Middle” that anyone who cares about farm policy of rural culture should check out.

 This piece is particularly worth checking out —

Why Worry About the Agriculture of the Middle?

Posted in How Agriculture affects Everything else, Agrarianism, Big vs Small Farms, Difficult Issues in Agriculture & Rural Life, Rural Development | Print | No Comments »