Discussion:
Infill Housing
(too old to reply)
Paul Berg
2007-08-17 13:57:56 UTC
Permalink
`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 17, 2007

A kinder, gentler infill?

What started as an appeal before the Portland City Council on Thursday
on a narrow land-use issue became a second chance for a developer and
neighbors to work out differences.

The City Council's message: Urban density is the price of protecting
forests and farmland. But jamming it down neighbors' throats isn't good
policy.
In this case, the developer agreed.

"I'm always committed to full citizen participation," said Ken
Sandblast, the developer's consultant.

Developer Jeremy Osterholm proposes 19 two-story rowhouses on a vacant
rectangular parcel between Southeast 74th and 76th avenues south of
Powell Boulevard in the Foster-Powell neighborhood. Zoning allows as
many as 25 units.

Earlier in the process, Osterholm met with residents from surrounding
single-story homes alarmed that a veritable village could grow in their
big backyards. They reached some understanding but not an agreement.

Then a land-use hearings officer denied Osterholm's proposal June 29.
The problem: The project creates a new stretch of Southeast 75th that
is, for now, a dead end. But the proposal included no turnaround for
emergency vehicles.

Osterholm appealed to the City Council, arguing that the street is only
temporarily a dead end; at some point, 75th will be extended, so
requirements for dead ends shouldn't apply.

Nonetheless, Osterholm and Sandblast came to Thursday's hearing
proposing a 70-foot-wide turnaround.

Much discussion focused on the fact that 70 feet works for a garbage
truck but not a firetruck, which needs 90 feet. The Portland Fire Bureau
signed off on the project though because Osterholm added sprinkler
systems in most of the homes, conceivably buying firefighters time if
navigating the street proved difficult.

Some 20 neighbors showed up. They argued for a larger turnaround and
losing a few rowhouses to make room and avoid pushing the houses closer
to neighbors' backyards.

Neighbor Constance Crain, a former heavy-equipment operator, announced
that she would communicate her opposition to the project through
interpretive dance. She didn't. But she got the council's attention.
"Something that's bad for the neighborhood is not good for the city,"
she said.

Commissioner Randy Leonard said he would make a motion that, while he
didn't say it outright, would uphold the hearings officer's denial and
force the developer into an expensive appeals process. But he'd hold off
if the developer would meet again with neighbors. Both sides agreed and
will return to the City Council on Sept. 13.

Neighbor Joe Shapiro said the hearing showed that livability -- not just
whether a project meets the zoning code -- is the issue. "I thought it
was very positive," he said.

Leonard said he learned early in his tenure how much Portlanders hate
infill. So he tries to encourage communication and creativity between
neighbors and developers.

"I try to walk that fine line between preserving density and doing it in
a way that people are OK with," he said.

`
george conklin
2007-08-17 18:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Berg
The City Council's message: Urban density is the price of protecting
forests and farmland. But jamming it down neighbors' throats isn't good
policy.
In the end the planners will work with developers to push more density
through, no matter what. "Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS
destructive use than modern-day farming techniques.
Stephen Sprunk
2007-08-18 03:11:48 UTC
Permalink
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more food
out of farmland than tract housing.

Exactly what are people supposed to eat if we turn the entire US into one
giant suburb/trailer park from ocean to ocean as you seem to favor?

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
george conklin
2007-08-18 11:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more food
out of farmland than tract housing.
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Baxter
2007-08-18 16:01:33 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more food
out of farmland than tract housing.
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and more
food?
Don Homuth
2007-08-18 16:35:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:01:33 -0700, "Baxter"
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and more
food?
Food prices are going up by and large because of distribution costs.
The prices to the farmers are not.

We are importing more and more food because we, as a nation, demand
more and different foods that used to be n/a out of season. And to
some degree we are taking a bunch of "truck" farms out of production,
and either developing them or putting them into commodity production.

There are some other reasons as well marginally, but those are the
biggest ones.
george conklin
2007-08-18 16:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:01:33 -0700, "Baxter"
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and more
food?
Food prices are going up by and large because of distribution costs.
The prices to the farmers are not.
We are importing more and more food because we, as a nation, demand
more and different foods that used to be n/a out of season. And to
some degree we are taking a bunch of "truck" farms out of production,
and either developing them or putting them into commodity production.
There are some other reasons as well marginally, but those are the
biggest ones.
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import food to
help life third-world countries out of poverty.
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA. New Hampshire used to be
3/4 cleared for farming. It is now 3/4 forested with rock walls in the
woods showing where fields used to be. Same with a lot of upstate New York.
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen
2007-08-18 17:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to
import food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
And help alleviate the wretched poverty of the agribusiness
corporations that import the food (and whose CEOs were real generous
during the campaign).
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
revbob at crispen dot org
Ex Cathedra weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/

An object never goes into its concept without leaving a remainder. -
Theodor Adorno
Baxter
2007-08-18 21:09:28 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to
import food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
And help alleviate the wretched poverty of the agribusiness
corporations that import the food (and whose CEOs were real generous
during the campaign).
In fact, the US government wants to third-world countries to become
dependent on US agribusiness and not develop sustainable agriculture and
small farms of their own.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-18 23:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
In fact, the US government wants to third-world countries to become
dependent on US agribusiness and not develop sustainable agriculture and
small farms of their own.
IT'S A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!
george conklin
2007-08-19 11:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
In fact, the US government wants to third-world countries to become
dependent on US agribusiness and not develop sustainable agriculture and
small farms of their own.
IT'S A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!
Baxter does not like much of anything.
Baxter
2007-08-18 21:07:53 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import food
to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut strawman. No
such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals support small US farms
and things like Farmers Markets.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-19 02:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import food
to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut strawman.
No such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals support small US
farms and things like Farmers Markets.
Most people who are in favor of small farms and Farmers' Markets are also
against the subsidies for large agribusiness that are also hurting farmers
in other countries.
george conklin
2007-08-19 11:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import
food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut strawman.
No such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals support small US
farms and things like Farmers Markets.
Most people who are in favor of small farms and Farmers' Markets are also
against the subsidies for large agribusiness that are also hurting farmers
in other countries.
Not everyone can afford to double their food bill to meet the liberal
agenda.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-19 14:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import
food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut strawman.
No such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals support small US
farms and things like Farmers Markets.
Most people who are in favor of small farms and Farmers' Markets are also
against the subsidies for large agribusiness that are also hurting
farmers in other countries.
Not everyone can afford to double their food bill to meet the liberal
agenda.
Big clue, George... If you're paying subsidies or you're paying to buy food,
you're still paying.
Sancho Panza
2007-08-19 16:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import
food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut strawman.
No such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals support small US
farms and things like Farmers Markets.
Most people who are in favor of small farms and Farmers' Markets are
also against the subsidies for large agribusiness that are also hurting
farmers in other countries.
Not everyone can afford to double their food bill to meet the liberal
agenda.
Big clue, George... If you're paying subsidies or you're paying to buy
food, you're still paying.
But why pay more, even double or triple, at Whole Foods?
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-20 13:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import
food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut
strawman. No such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals
support small US farms and things like Farmers Markets.
Most people who are in favor of small farms and Farmers' Markets are
also against the subsidies for large agribusiness that are also hurting
farmers in other countries.
Not everyone can afford to double their food bill to meet the liberal
agenda.
Big clue, George... If you're paying subsidies or you're paying to buy
food, you're still paying.
But why pay more, even double or triple, at Whole Foods?
Just because you're not handing it over to the same person when you're
paying it in taxes does not mean you are NOT paying double or triple. You
just don't see it as part of your food bill.
george conklin
2007-08-19 20:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import
food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut strawman.
No such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals support small US
farms and things like Farmers Markets.
Most people who are in favor of small farms and Farmers' Markets are
also against the subsidies for large agribusiness that are also hurting
farmers in other countries.
Not everyone can afford to double their food bill to meet the liberal
agenda.
Big clue, George... If you're paying subsidies or you're paying to buy
food, you're still paying.
Food prices at Whole Foods are almost twice those at Wal-Mart on basic
staples. People are now shopping Wal-Mart for the basics, and Whole Foods
for designer food, so they think. At Wal-Mart we found frozen scallops for
less than one-third the price at Whole Foods, and they tasted the same too.
Who can afford the liberal food agenda? Small farms? ha Ha HA
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-19 22:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Baxter
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to
import food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut
strawman. No such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals
support small US farms and things like Farmers Markets.
Most people who are in favor of small farms and Farmers' Markets
are also against the subsidies for large agribusiness that are also
hurting farmers in other countries.
Not everyone can afford to double their food bill to meet the
liberal agenda.
Big clue, George... If you're paying subsidies or you're paying to
buy food, you're still paying.
Food prices at Whole Foods are almost twice those at Wal-Mart on basic
staples. People are now shopping Wal-Mart for the basics, and Whole
Foods for designer food, so they think. At Wal-Mart we found frozen
scallops for less than one-third the price at Whole Foods, and they
tasted the same too. Who can afford the liberal food agenda? Small
farms? ha Ha HA
You better be reading the labels. A lot of seafood is coming from China
and is seriously bad.
Baxter
2007-08-19 18:55:50 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Baxter
-
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import
food to help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Oh what a piece of revisionist crap. This is a right-wingnut strawman.
No such liberal agenda exists. In fact, most liberals support small US
farms and things like Farmers Markets.
Most people who are in favor of small farms and Farmers' Markets are also
against the subsidies for large agribusiness that are also hurting
farmers in other countries.
Not everyone can afford to double their food bill to meet the liberal
agenda.
Paying less for transportation costs will not double your food bill. Plus
it is fresher and riper.
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 00:53:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:01:33 -0700, "Baxter"
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and more
food?
Food prices are going up by and large because of distribution costs.
The prices to the farmers are not.
We are importing more and more food because we, as a nation, demand
more and different foods that used to be n/a out of season. And to
some degree we are taking a bunch of "truck" farms out of production,
and either developing them or putting them into commodity production.
There are some other reasons as well marginally, but those are the
biggest ones.
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import food to
help life third-world countries out of poverty.
No -- no such Liberal agenda actually exists. Not anywhere.
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Post by george conklin
New Hampshire used to be
3/4 cleared for farming. It is now 3/4 forested with rock walls in the
woods showing where fields used to be. Same with a lot of upstate New York.
Generally speaking, NH cannot be included in the "good farmland"
category. It was always better at growing forests. Same thing with
much of Oregon, for example.
george conklin
2007-08-19 11:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
New Hampshire used to be
3/4 cleared for farming. It is now 3/4 forested with rock walls in the
woods showing where fields used to be. Same with a lot of upstate New York.
Generally speaking, NH cannot be included in the "good farmland"
category.
Oh I see. Now you are defining good. Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you. Then if the cities there grow, no problem,
no sprawl, no issues. So, when the population concentrates on the coasts
and in New England, this is good because it was crappy farming anyway. Just
import the food. None of this "locally-grown" crap for New England.
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 15:21:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:28:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
New Hampshire used to be
3/4 cleared for farming. It is now 3/4 forested with rock walls in the
woods showing where fields used to be. Same with a lot of upstate New York.
Generally speaking, NH cannot be included in the "good farmland"
category.
Oh I see. Now you are defining good.
No -- I'm merely noting what's obvious. Areas that had previously
been mostly forested tend, on the whole, to have really thin topsoil.
Raise a bunch of food crops on it constantly, and before too long the
soil becomes depleted.

Which is not to say that there aren't Some areas that can be farmed
successfully, providing you do good soil conservation and husbandry.
But by and large, forested areas are not among them.
Post by george conklin
Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you.
No -- that would be an overinterpretation. It is, however, to say
that when you find stone walls that had Previously demarcated field
lines that are now overgrown with forests, Nature is trying to tell
you something important. Those fields had previously been forests,
but the trees had been cut, the stumps laboriously removed, the rocks
(that made up the fencelines you discuss) pried from the soil by way
of endless Years of removal after the frost forced them to the top,
and Still what Nature really wants is forestland.

River bottoms, for example, used to have a reputation as pretty good
farmland, Until of course the dams erected to control flooding started
to cause problems by Not depositing the silt yearly that kept the
river bottoms fertile. The "good" farmland in NH is oftimes in such
territories, but there are those places where deposits of primordial
ooze that demarcate former swamplands were also fertile for a fairly
long time too.

You can grow crops on little more than some loamy sand, If you wish to
do it by endlessly applying fertilizer and chemicals with which to
trick the plants. But that's a really spendy way to "farm."

Most of NH grows trees rather well. Letting it grow trees is quite
probably the Highest and Best use of the land itself, based on a
cost/benefit ratio that includes all of the inputs.

(My late next door neighbor tried that New Hampshire farming about
thirty years or so ago. Lowered Nose they tried about everything, and
Nature didn't really care. In the end, they planted a tree farm and
sold out. At that, they didn't Quite break even.)
Post by george conklin
Then if the cities there grow, no problem,
When folks are determined to let cities grow, they prefer to grow them
in farmland, because those are usually the flattest and have the
fewest problems wrt installation of infrastructure. And are also the
least expensive to build on.
Post by george conklin
no sprawl, no issues.
You did note, of course, that the growth of cities in NH is, as such
things go, minimal when compared to other places.
Post by george conklin
So, when the population concentrates on the coasts
and in New England, this is good because it was crappy farming anyway. Just
import the food. None of this "locally-grown" crap for New England.
No -- again that's an overstatement. It's not a question of None --
it's a question of How Much.
george conklin
2007-08-19 20:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:28:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
New Hampshire used to be
3/4 cleared for farming. It is now 3/4 forested with rock walls in the
woods showing where fields used to be. Same with a lot of upstate New York.
Generally speaking, NH cannot be included in the "good farmland"
category.
Oh I see. Now you are defining good.
No -- I'm merely noting what's obvious. Areas that had previously
been mostly forested tend, on the whole, to have really thin topsoil.
Raise a bunch of food crops on it constantly, and before too long the
soil becomes depleted.
Which is not to say that there aren't Some areas that can be farmed
successfully, providing you do good soil conservation and husbandry.
But by and large, forested areas are not among them.
Post by george conklin
Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you.
No -- that would be an overinterpretation. It is, however, to say
that when you find stone walls that had Previously demarcated field
lines that are now overgrown with forests, Nature is trying to tell
you something important.
No, it is economics. We don't need to use the land for farming at the
present time. When transportation was poor, it was needed. No longer.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-19 22:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:28:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
New Hampshire used to be
3/4 cleared for farming. It is now 3/4 forested with rock walls in the
woods showing where fields used to be. Same with a lot of upstate New York.
Generally speaking, NH cannot be included in the "good farmland"
category.
Oh I see. Now you are defining good.
No -- I'm merely noting what's obvious. Areas that had previously
been mostly forested tend, on the whole, to have really thin topsoil.
Raise a bunch of food crops on it constantly, and before too long the
soil becomes depleted.
Which is not to say that there aren't Some areas that can be farmed
successfully, providing you do good soil conservation and husbandry.
But by and large, forested areas are not among them.
Post by george conklin
Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you.
No -- that would be an overinterpretation. It is, however, to say
that when you find stone walls that had Previously demarcated field
lines that are now overgrown with forests, Nature is trying to tell
you something important.
No, it is economics. We don't need to use the land for farming at the
present time. When transportation was poor, it was needed. No longer.
Ok, explain to me how paying taxes that go to subsidies is not paying. It
seems like paying to me...
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 22:54:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:41:05 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:28:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you.
No -- that would be an overinterpretation. It is, however, to say
that when you find stone walls that had Previously demarcated field
lines that are now overgrown with forests, Nature is trying to tell
you something important.
No, it is economics. We don't need to use the land for farming at the
present time. When transportation was poor, it was needed. No longer.
When folks all pretty much lived in the East, what had been forestland
became "farmland" in a manner of speaking. But such forestland was
never Good farmland, and once other alternatives became available, it
got phased out over time.

Cleared land tends, ceteris paribus, to remain cleared and farmed for
longer than it ought. But what Nature really wants most such lands in
NH to be is forest -- not farmland.
george conklin
2007-08-19 23:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:41:05 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:28:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you.
No -- that would be an overinterpretation. It is, however, to say
that when you find stone walls that had Previously demarcated field
lines that are now overgrown with forests, Nature is trying to tell
you something important.
No, it is economics. We don't need to use the land for farming at the
present time. When transportation was poor, it was needed. No longer.
When folks all pretty much lived in the East, what had been forestland
became "farmland" in a manner of speaking. But such forestland was
never Good farmland, and once other alternatives became available, it
got phased out over time.
Cleared land tends, ceteris paribus, to remain cleared and farmed for
longer than it ought. But what Nature really wants most such lands in
NH to be is forest -- not farmland.
So it is useful for housing today. That is its best use.
Don Homuth
2007-08-20 00:27:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:57:56 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Cleared land tends, ceteris paribus, to remain cleared and farmed for
longer than it ought. But what Nature really wants most such lands in
NH to be is forest -- not farmland.
So it is useful for housing today. That is its best use.
That is it's current use.

Whether it is its Best Use is problematic. Paved driveways and patios
aren't terribly productive.
george conklin
2007-08-20 11:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:57:56 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Cleared land tends, ceteris paribus, to remain cleared and farmed for
longer than it ought. But what Nature really wants most such lands in
NH to be is forest -- not farmland.
So it is useful for housing today. That is its best use.
That is it's current use.
Whether it is its Best Use is problematic. Paved driveways and patios
aren't terribly productive.
They are useful to humans.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-20 00:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:41:05 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:28:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you.
No -- that would be an overinterpretation. It is, however, to say
that when you find stone walls that had Previously demarcated field
lines that are now overgrown with forests, Nature is trying to tell
you something important.
No, it is economics. We don't need to use the land for farming at the
present time. When transportation was poor, it was needed. No longer.
When folks all pretty much lived in the East, what had been forestland
became "farmland" in a manner of speaking. But such forestland was
never Good farmland, and once other alternatives became available, it
got phased out over time.
Cleared land tends, ceteris paribus, to remain cleared and farmed for
longer than it ought. But what Nature really wants most such lands in
NH to be is forest -- not farmland.
Nature doesn't "Want" anything. And that land can be profitably farmed.
Don Homuth
2007-08-20 00:29:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:12:48 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Cleared land tends, ceteris paribus, to remain cleared and farmed for
longer than it ought. But what Nature really wants most such lands in
NH to be is forest -- not farmland.
Nature doesn't "Want" anything.
Oh shur it does! Nature wants valleys to be exalted, and mountains
and hills to be made low.

Which is to say, Gravity Works.

Nature also Wants certain things to grow in certain places, and not in
others too.
Post by Lobby Dosser
... And that land can be profitably farmed.
It can be farmed, but probably not profitably, and certainly not As
profitably as other lands located elsewhere.

NH grows trees wondrous well, with little or no inputs required.

The Great Plains grows grass variants, like wheat, wondrous well too,
but not trees.

There's a reason why some things grow better some places than others.
george conklin
2007-08-20 11:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:12:48 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
Cleared land tends, ceteris paribus, to remain cleared and farmed for
longer than it ought. But what Nature really wants most such lands in
NH to be is forest -- not farmland.
Nature doesn't "Want" anything.
Oh shur it does! Nature wants valleys to be exalted, and mountains
and hills to be made low.
Which is to say, Gravity Works.
Nature also Wants certain things to grow in certain places, and not in
others too.
Post by Lobby Dosser
... And that land can be profitably farmed.
It can be farmed, but probably not profitably, and certainly not As
profitably as other lands located elsewhere.
If it could be farmed at a profit, it would be. It was unprofitable even
in 1840.
george conklin
2007-08-20 11:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:41:05 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:28:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you.
No -- that would be an overinterpretation. It is, however, to say
that when you find stone walls that had Previously demarcated field
lines that are now overgrown with forests, Nature is trying to tell
you something important.
No, it is economics. We don't need to use the land for farming at the
present time. When transportation was poor, it was needed. No longer.
When folks all pretty much lived in the East, what had been forestland
became "farmland" in a manner of speaking. But such forestland was
never Good farmland, and once other alternatives became available, it
got phased out over time.
Cleared land tends, ceteris paribus, to remain cleared and farmed for
longer than it ought. But what Nature really wants most such lands in
NH to be is forest -- not farmland.
Nature doesn't "Want" anything. And that land can be profitably farmed.
In fact it CANNOT be farmed for a profit today to produce food we don't need
and is only set out to rot. You will condemn more and more families to a
life of extreme povery by today's standards if your agenda comes to pass,
but what the heck, it is the planner's agenda these days.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-19 22:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
No -- I'm merely noting what's obvious. Areas that had previously
been mostly forested tend, on the whole, to have really thin topsoil.
Raise a bunch of food crops on it constantly, and before too long the
soil becomes depleted.
You don't know much about farming either.
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 22:54:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:33:15 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
No -- I'm merely noting what's obvious. Areas that had previously
been mostly forested tend, on the whole, to have really thin topsoil.
Raise a bunch of food crops on it constantly, and before too long the
soil becomes depleted.
You don't know much about farming either.
Heh!

More than You know.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-20 00:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:33:15 GMT, Lobby Dosser
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
No -- I'm merely noting what's obvious. Areas that had previously
been mostly forested tend, on the whole, to have really thin
topsoil. Raise a bunch of food crops on it constantly, and before
too long the soil becomes depleted.
You don't know much about farming either.
Heh!
More than You know.
So you were trolling?
Curt
2007-08-20 04:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Don Homuth
No -- I'm merely noting what's obvious. Areas that had previously
been mostly forested tend, on the whole, to have really thin topsoil.
Raise a bunch of food crops on it constantly, and before too long the
soil becomes depleted.
You don't know much about farming either.
Maybe he doesn't, but he's right about forest soil. It doesn't make good
farm land.

Curt
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-19 20:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
New Hampshire used to be
3/4 cleared for farming. It is now 3/4 forested with rock walls in the
woods showing where fields used to be. Same with a lot of upstate New York.
Generally speaking, NH cannot be included in the "good farmland"
category.
Oh I see. Now you are defining good. Ok, New England should be abandoned
as farmland, according to you.
Proally should. Too many rocks in the soil for modern agricultural
methods to work well.

And those damn rocks keep surfacing every year, no matter how many ya'
haul away.

And the climate ain't that great for growing things either.

It's best suited for forest or maybe some pasture land if you're really
committed to doing agriculture there.

Peace and justice,
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-19 13:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:01:33 -0700, "Baxter"
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and more
food?
Food prices are going up by and large because of distribution costs.
The prices to the farmers are not.
We are importing more and more food because we, as a nation, demand
more and different foods that used to be n/a out of season. And to
some degree we are taking a bunch of "truck" farms out of production,
and either developing them or putting them into commodity production.
There are some other reasons as well marginally, but those are the
biggest ones.
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import food to
help life third-world countries out of poverty.
No -- no such Liberal agenda actually exists. Not anywhere.
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
New Hampshire used to be
3/4 cleared for farming. It is now 3/4 forested with rock walls in the
woods showing where fields used to be. Same with a lot of upstate New York.
Generally speaking, NH cannot be included in the "good farmland"
category. It was always better at growing forests. Same thing with
much of Oregon, for example.
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 15:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
Every empty place you see from the air is not "the best of" farmland.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-19 16:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
Every empty place you see from the air is not "the best of" farmland.
Ok, so then what is your point? That we're going to run out of food?
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 16:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
Every empty place you see from the air is not "the best of" farmland.
Ok, so then what is your point? That we're going to run out of food?
As I said earlier, we import food because we demand foods that
previously were simply n/a because they were out of season.

All those Chilean grapes that show up at odd times of the year come
here because folks Want them.

The iron rule of economics is that when there's a Demand, a Supply
will make itself known shortly.

(which also, obtw, explains much about Illegal Immigration as well)

Specialty crops like grapes and fresh vegetables, etc tend to be High
Value-Added. That's the stuff we import.

We export mostly commodities -- which are Low Value-Added, but
something we can grow because of our industrialized farming practices.

Few Murkens buy raw wheat. Many Murkens buy "fresh" grapes from
Chile, apparently.

Murkens pretty much consume the "truck" produce right here in the
YewEssofAye. We don't export many tomatoes, do we?

Now -- sort out those differences and you'll see something important
about how the food bidniss in this nation really works.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-19 22:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Murkens pretty much consume the "truck" produce right here in the
YewEssofAye. We don't export many tomatoes, do we?
Maybe if you translated to English, more people might pay attention.
george conklin
2007-08-19 20:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
Every empty place you see from the air is not "the best of" farmland.
Most of it used to be farmland, but it is no longer needed. It is crazy
all these urbanites who never lived on or near a real farm writing about the
romance of farming. Small farms were a poor way to live by modern
standards, worse than welfare living. I wonder how many students today
started school wearing feed bags? Well, my wife did, and so did one member
of my editorial board. It was very common. Dental access? Forget it. No,
there was never enough money on the small farm. People were glad to get off
such places and never looked back.
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 22:56:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:44:04 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
Every empty place you see from the air is not "the best of" farmland.
Most of it used to be farmland, but it is no longer needed.
Some of it used to be farmland, but never should have been used for
that purpose. The midwest and Great Plains areas, especially, have
large swatches of sub-marginal "farmland" that is semi-arid most of
the time.

It was never really Needed as such. It was, however, Available.

But it was still a bad use of it.

Which was why, if conditions were anything other than about Perfect,
so many of them went bust.
Baxter
2007-08-19 18:59:44 UTC
Permalink
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-19 19:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Yes, how dare we give people a 1/4 acre lot! Americans are so SELFISH!
Americans need to cram into urban neighborhoods like the worker bees they
are! How dare they not want their neighbors breathing down their neck? How
dare they not want to deal with idiotic, urban green politicians who wish to
micromanage every aspect of their lives! How dare they want good schools,
spacious dwellings, and clean air!

Anyway, what are you trying to say? We'll run out of food? Gimme a break.
Baxter
2007-08-19 20:45:39 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Yes, how dare we give people a 1/4 acre lot! Americans are so SELFISH!
Americans need to cram into urban neighborhoods like the worker bees they
are! How dare they not want their neighbors breathing down their neck? How
dare they not want to deal with idiotic, urban green politicians who wish
to micromanage every aspect of their lives! How dare they want good
schools, spacious dwellings, and clean air!
Anyway, what are you trying to say? We'll run out of food? Gimme a break.
I'm saying we shouldn't build houses on the best farmland - the rest of the
crap above is your strawman.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-19 22:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Yes, how dare we give people a 1/4 acre lot! Americans are so SELFISH!
Americans need to cram into urban neighborhoods like the worker bees they
are! How dare they not want their neighbors breathing down their neck?
How dare they not want to deal with idiotic, urban green politicians who
wish to micromanage every aspect of their lives! How dare they want good
schools, spacious dwellings, and clean air!
Anyway, what are you trying to say? We'll run out of food? Gimme a break.
I'm saying we shouldn't build houses on the best farmland - the rest of
the crap above is your strawman.
Where should we build it? And why shouldn't we build houses on the best
farmland?
george conklin
2007-08-19 20:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Yes, how dare we give people a 1/4 acre lot! Americans are so SELFISH!
Americans need to cram into urban neighborhoods like the worker bees they
are! How dare they not want their neighbors breathing down their neck? How
dare they not want to deal with idiotic, urban green politicians who wish
to micromanage every aspect of their lives! How dare they want good
schools, spacious dwellings, and clean air!
Anyway, what are you trying to say? We'll run out of food? Gimme a break.
Planners do say frequently, "We are running out of land." It is a lie, but
something to scare people with so you can drive up land prices for the
benefit of developers.
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 22:59:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:45:36 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Planners do say frequently, "We are running out of land." It is a lie, but
something to scare people with so you can drive up land prices for the
benefit of developers.
We are, in many places, running out of Easily Developable land,
clearly. And besides, we really Ought to be developing more in places
that are Not easily developed anyway.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-19 23:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:45:36 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Planners do say frequently, "We are running out of land." It is a lie, but
something to scare people with so you can drive up land prices for the
benefit of developers.
We are, in many places, running out of Easily Developable land,
clearly. And besides, we really Ought to be developing more in places
that are Not easily developed anyway.
"we really Ought to be developing more in places that are Not easily
developed anyway." Is this some sort of kooky green language that I haven't
learned yet?
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 23:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
"we really Ought to be developing more in places that are Not easily
developed anyway." Is this some sort of kooky green language that I haven't
learned yet?
Nope -- case in point: The south bay area near San Jose.

Some years back, the Greenies screwed the pooch when they declared the
surrounding hills to be Off Limits for development. At the time, they
rather liked the Scenic Values of the hills.

But in the summer, when the Scenic Hills are sere and brown, the
developments on the flatlands paved over some of The best farming land
in all of CA.

We ought to develop in places where perfectly good farmland is not
what gets paved over. It is, in the long run, Far more important both
economically and ecologically than is some otherwise rocky slope.
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 22:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Yes, how dare we give people a 1/4 acre lot! Americans are so SELFISH!
Nobody "gives" people a quarter-acre lot.

But yes -- Americans are selfish so often.
Post by Joe the Aroma
Americans need to cram into urban neighborhoods like the worker bees they
are! How dare they not want their neighbors breathing down their neck? How
dare they not want to deal with idiotic, urban green politicians who wish to
micromanage every aspect of their lives! How dare they want good schools,
spacious dwellings, and clean air!
Trust me, child -- a quarter acre lot is hardly a suburban paradise.
Your neighbor's leaf blower will Still cause an unholy ruckus.
Post by Joe the Aroma
Anyway, what are you trying to say? We'll run out of food? Gimme a break.
Because we'll subsidize the hell out of it to ensure a large supply.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-19 23:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Yes, how dare we give people a 1/4 acre lot! Americans are so SELFISH!
Nobody "gives" people a quarter-acre lot.
But yes -- Americans are selfish so often.
Boo hoo.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
Americans need to cram into urban neighborhoods like the worker bees they
are! How dare they not want their neighbors breathing down their neck? How
dare they not want to deal with idiotic, urban green politicians who wish to
micromanage every aspect of their lives! How dare they want good schools,
spacious dwellings, and clean air!
Trust me, child -- a quarter acre lot is hardly a suburban paradise.
Your neighbor's leaf blower will Still cause an unholy ruckus.
Your sarcasm detector must be off tonight huh?
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Joe the Aroma
Anyway, what are you trying to say? We'll run out of food? Gimme a break.
Because we'll subsidize the hell out of it to ensure a large supply.
What?
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-20 00:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
But yes -- Americans are selfish so often.
Speak for yourself.
Curt
2007-08-20 04:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Yes, how dare we give people a 1/4 acre lot! Americans are so SELFISH!
Americans need to cram into urban neighborhoods like the worker bees they
are! How dare they not want their neighbors breathing down their neck? How
dare they not want to deal with idiotic, urban green politicians who wish to
micromanage every aspect of their lives! How dare they want good schools,
spacious dwellings, and clean air!
Wow, that was a hard right. How'd we get from "most of the good farmland is
taken" to "urban green politicians"?

Curt
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-20 04:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Post by Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Yes, how dare we give people a 1/4 acre lot! Americans are so SELFISH!
Americans need to cram into urban neighborhoods like the worker bees they
are! How dare they not want their neighbors breathing down their neck? How
dare they not want to deal with idiotic, urban green politicians who wish
to
Post by Baxter
micromanage every aspect of their lives! How dare they want good schools,
spacious dwellings, and clean air!
Wow, that was a hard right. How'd we get from "most of the good farmland is
taken" to "urban green politicians"?
I was satirizing idiotic positions.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-19 22:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
99% hardly - and a lot of that "empty" land is not useable for farming.
Plus, land that IS good for farming is easily disrupted by housing
development. Put 25 houses, each with a 1/4 acre lot in a 640-acre
Section and you ruin that entire section for farming.
Moronity knows no bounds!
Curt
2007-08-19 20:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:01:33 -0700, "Baxter"
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and more
food?
Food prices are going up by and large because of distribution costs.
The prices to the farmers are not.
We are importing more and more food because we, as a nation, demand
more and different foods that used to be n/a out of season. And to
some degree we are taking a bunch of "truck" farms out of production,
and either developing them or putting them into commodity production.
There are some other reasons as well marginally, but those are the
biggest ones.
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import
food
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
to
help life third-world countries out of poverty.
No -- no such Liberal agenda actually exists. Not anywhere.
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
Yeah, because the good spots are taken. They're filled with cities and
farms.

Curt
george conklin
2007-08-19 20:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curt
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:01:33 -0700, "Baxter"
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and more
food?
Food prices are going up by and large because of distribution costs.
The prices to the farmers are not.
We are importing more and more food because we, as a nation, demand
more and different foods that used to be n/a out of season. And to
some degree we are taking a bunch of "truck" farms out of production,
and either developing them or putting them into commodity production.
There are some other reasons as well marginally, but those are the
biggest ones.
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import
food
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
to
help life third-world countries out of poverty.
No -- no such Liberal agenda actually exists. Not anywhere.
Post by george conklin
There is a vast surplus of farmland in the USA.
The best of it is being paved over as fast as possible.
Nonsense. Ever see the US from the air? It's like 99% empty.
Yeah, because the good spots are taken. They're filled with cities and
farms.
Curt
Most of the rest of it used to be farms. But you know what? People are
tired of starving to support rich cities.
Curt
2007-08-19 22:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Curt
Yeah, because the good spots are taken. They're filled with cities and
farms.
Curt
Most of the rest of it used to be farms. But you know what? People are
tired of starving to support rich cities.
No.. Most of the rest of it didn't used to be farms. Most of the rest of it
doesn't have water, and/or is made out of rocks or steep slopes.

Curt
george conklin
2007-08-19 22:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curt
Post by george conklin
Post by Curt
Yeah, because the good spots are taken. They're filled with cities and
farms.
Curt
Most of the rest of it used to be farms. But you know what? People
are
Post by george conklin
tired of starving to support rich cities.
No.. Most of the rest of it didn't used to be farms. Most of the rest of it
doesn't have water, and/or is made out of rocks or steep slopes.
Curt
Which of course is not true.
Curt
2007-08-20 04:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Curt
Post by george conklin
Post by Curt
Yeah, because the good spots are taken. They're filled with cities and
farms.
Curt
Most of the rest of it used to be farms. But you know what? People
are
Post by george conklin
tired of starving to support rich cities.
No.. Most of the rest of it didn't used to be farms. Most of the rest of it
doesn't have water, and/or is made out of rocks or steep slopes.
Curt
Which of course is not true.
Except that it is. I took a motorcycle trip a while ago to the Grand Canyon.
Passed through the 99% empty part you're talking about.

You couldn't even raise marijuana on that land. Nothing there but sagebrush
and snakes and Joshua trees.

Curt
Curt
2007-08-19 02:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Further, the so-called "liberal" agenda now is for the USA to import food to
help life third-world countries out of poverty.
Nonsense. We import food because it's cheaper.

Curt
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-18 17:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more
food out of farmland than tract housing.
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and more
food?
It's not just food. Inflation causes all prices to rise. The notion that we
have a shortage of food while we have to subsidize farmers is beyond idiotic
(but this is the newsgroup where things are often suggested that are beyond
idiotic isn't it?).
Baxter
2007-08-18 21:12:03 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and
more food?
It's not just food. Inflation causes all prices to rise. The notion that
we have a shortage of food while we have to subsidize farmers is beyond
idiotic (but this is the newsgroup where things are often suggested that
are beyond idiotic isn't it?).
George is wrong, as usual, the US is not "awash in surplus food". There may
be surplus/over-production of some crops, but there is no overall surplus
of food and we are importing a large part of our meats, fruits and
vegetables.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-18 23:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more
and more food?
It's not just food. Inflation causes all prices to rise. The notion
that we have a shortage of food while we have to subsidize farmers is
beyond idiotic (but this is the newsgroup where things are often
suggested that are beyond idiotic isn't it?).
George is wrong, as usual, the US is not "awash in surplus food".
There may be surplus/over-production of some crops, but there is no
overall surplus of food and we are importing a large part of our
meats, fruits and vegetables.
Because it is cheaper to do so. Like everything else.
george conklin
2007-08-18 23:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more
and more food?
It's not just food. Inflation causes all prices to rise. The notion
that we have a shortage of food while we have to subsidize farmers is
beyond idiotic (but this is the newsgroup where things are often
suggested that are beyond idiotic isn't it?).
George is wrong, as usual, the US is not "awash in surplus food".
There may be surplus/over-production of some crops, but there is no
overall surplus of food and we are importing a large part of our
meats, fruits and vegetables.
Because it is cheaper to do so. Like everything else.
There is far, far too much food in the USA. Baxter is paying the
ignorant fool, as is his habit.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-19 13:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and
more food?
It's not just food. Inflation causes all prices to rise. The notion that
we have a shortage of food while we have to subsidize farmers is beyond
idiotic (but this is the newsgroup where things are often suggested that
are beyond idiotic isn't it?).
George is wrong, as usual, the US is not "awash in surplus food". There
may be surplus/over-production of some crops, but there is no overall
surplus of food and we are importing a large part of our meats, fruits and
vegetables.
And we export a large portion as well. What's your point, you think we're
going to run out of food? Are you kidding?
Sancho Panza
2007-08-19 16:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and
more food?
It's not just food. Inflation causes all prices to rise. The notion that
we have a shortage of food while we have to subsidize farmers is beyond
idiotic (but this is the newsgroup where things are often suggested that
are beyond idiotic isn't it?).
George is wrong, as usual, the US is not "awash in surplus food". There
may be surplus/over-production of some crops, but there is no overall
surplus of food and we are importing a large part of our meats, fruits
and vegetables.
And we export a large portion as well. What's your point, you think we're
going to run out of food? Are you kidding?
Hold onto both cheeks. Agriculture Portland-style will save us!
george conklin
2007-08-19 20:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and
more food?
It's not just food. Inflation causes all prices to rise. The notion
that we have a shortage of food while we have to subsidize farmers is
beyond idiotic (but this is the newsgroup where things are often
suggested that are beyond idiotic isn't it?).
George is wrong, as usual, the US is not "awash in surplus food". There
may be surplus/over-production of some crops, but there is no overall
surplus of food and we are importing a large part of our meats, fruits
and vegetables.
And we export a large portion as well. What's your point, you think we're
going to run out of food? Are you kidding?
Hold onto both cheeks. Agriculture Portland-style will save us!
Mother Earth News once published an 1855 book called "Five Acres Enough."
It was the story of how a farmer in New Jersey discovered that urban
Philadelphia dwellers always were short fresh fruit. So he cultivated 5
acres in NJ and took the train in with his berries under the seat and sold
them on the street. He said 5 acres was enough. They should republish that
book in Portland. Then a local farmer with 5 acres of berries can take a
flat or two on the state-subsidized trolley car system to downtown Portland
and sell them off the street corner. Heck, planners don't want 1920. They
want more like 1850.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-20 14:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
The nation is awash in surplus food.
Then why are food prices going up? And why are we importing more and
more food?
It's not just food. Inflation causes all prices to rise. The notion
that we have a shortage of food while we have to subsidize farmers is
beyond idiotic (but this is the newsgroup where things are often
suggested that are beyond idiotic isn't it?).
George is wrong, as usual, the US is not "awash in surplus food".
There may be surplus/over-production of some crops, but there is no
overall surplus of food and we are importing a large part of our meats,
fruits and vegetables.
And we export a large portion as well. What's your point, you think
we're going to run out of food? Are you kidding?
Hold onto both cheeks. Agriculture Portland-style will save us!
Mother Earth News once published an 1855 book called "Five Acres
Enough." It was the story of how a farmer in New Jersey discovered that
urban Philadelphia dwellers always were short fresh fruit. So he
cultivated 5 acres in NJ and took the train in with his berries under the
seat and sold them on the street. He said 5 acres was enough. They
should republish that book in Portland. Then a local farmer with 5 acres
of berries can take a flat or two on the state-subsidized trolley car
system to downtown Portland and sell them off the street corner. Heck,
planners don't want 1920. They want more like 1850.
Right. It could never work.
http://www.somertontanksfarm.org/about/pwd_iilf.shtml

Stephen Sprunk
2007-08-18 20:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more
food out of farmland than tract housing.
The nation is awash in surplus food.
First of all, that's irrelevant since more food produced is more food
produced, period. If we don't need all of it for ourselves, it's still a
valuable export commodity. Taking farmland out of production for tract
housing reduces that, period.

Second, one of the arguments again biofuels is that we're short on food and
we'll all starve to death if we try relying on agriculture for our energy
needs. If we're actually "awash" in surplus food, that means we have plenty
of agricultural capacity available to serve our energy needs. Perhaps not
all of them, but buying surplus food from farmers to use as fuel is a lot
better than giving all our money to terrorists to buy oil, taxing city
dwellers to pay farmers not to raise crops, and then taxing everyone to
fight wars against the very middle-eastern terrorists we're giving oil money
to. The more farmland we take out of production, the more we lock ourselves
into the latter scenario -- particularly with the car-centric lifestyle that
you want to force everyone into living.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
george conklin
2007-08-19 11:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more
food out of farmland than tract housing.
The nation is awash in surplus food.
First of all, that's irrelevant since more food produced is more food
produced, period. If we don't need all of it for ourselves, it's still a
valuable export commodity. Taking farmland out of production for tract
housing reduces that, period.
Most of the farmland which goes out of production is simply abandoned.
Very, very little of it goes for housing, and you know it.
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Second, one of the arguments again biofuels is that we're short on food
and we'll all starve to death if we try relying on agriculture for our
energy needs. If we're actually "awash" in surplus food, that means we
have plenty of agricultural capacity available to serve our energy needs.
No one has stated here that losing energy growing corn to turn into fuel
solves any problems. It just supports more agri-business.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
2007-08-19 12:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more
food out of farmland than tract housing.
The nation is awash in surplus food.
First of all, that's irrelevant since more food produced is more food
produced, period. If we don't need all of it for ourselves, it's still a
valuable export commodity. Taking farmland out of production for tract
housing reduces that, period.
Most of the farmland which goes out of production is simply abandoned.
Very, very little of it goes for housing, and you know it.
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Second, one of the arguments again biofuels is that we're short on food
and we'll all starve to death if we try relying on agriculture for our
energy needs. If we're actually "awash" in surplus food, that means we
have plenty of agricultural capacity available to serve our energy needs.
No one has stated here that losing energy growing corn to turn into fuel
solves any problems. It just supports more agri-business.
It ISN'T in the food banks, Booji Boy. CITE. I got no meat in the
howse, and that's peachy (NOT).
Stephen Sprunk
2007-08-19 16:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Second, one of the arguments again[st] biofuels is that we're short on
food and we'll all starve to death if we try relying on agriculture for
our energy needs. If we're actually "awash" in surplus food, that means
we have plenty of agricultural capacity available to serve our energy
needs.
No one has stated here that losing energy growing corn to turn into
fuel solves any problems. It just supports more agri-business.
According to Argonne National Labs, ethanol from corn currently returns 179%
of the input energy, and that rises every year as we get better at
fermenting and distilling, create new enzymes and strains of yeast with
higher output, etc.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Curt
2007-08-19 20:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Second, one of the arguments again[st] biofuels is that we're short on
food and we'll all starve to death if we try relying on agriculture for
our energy needs. If we're actually "awash" in surplus food, that means
we have plenty of agricultural capacity available to serve our energy
needs.
No one has stated here that losing energy growing corn to turn into
fuel solves any problems. It just supports more agri-business.
According to Argonne National Labs, ethanol from corn currently returns 179%
of the input energy, and that rises every year as we get better at
fermenting and distilling, create new enzymes and strains of yeast with
higher output, etc.
Hard to believe. Thirty pounds of dextrose and high yield yeast will get you
about five gallons of 20% wash. That adds up to about a gallon of white
lightning. (I read a book once.) You have to cook it for a long time to
squeeze it out, which takes energy.

Can you run a tractor far enough to raise thirty pounds of dextrose (how
much corn is that? I don't even know) on a gallon of ethanol? And, remember,
you have to run the still all day on whatever's left over from running the
tractor.

Someone may come up with a magic enzyme some day, but so far, corn ethanol
is a total boondoggle.

Curt
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-19 22:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Curt wrote:

-snip-
Post by Curt
Hard to believe. Thirty pounds of dextrose and high yield yeast will get you
about five gallons of 20% wash. That adds up to about a gallon of white
lightning. (I read a book once.) You have to cook it for a long time to
squeeze it out, which takes energy.
Can you run a tractor far enough to raise thirty pounds of dextrose (how
much corn is that? I don't even know) on a gallon of ethanol? And, remember,
you have to run the still all day on whatever's left over from running the
tractor.
Dunno 'bout the dextrose yield but typical the resultant ethanol yield
is about 1/3rd of the weight of the corn you start out with.

One ton of corn should get you 'bout +/- 650 pounds of ethanol or about
100 gallons of the stuff.

I assume those numbers start with dried, shucked, and shelled corn and
not with the weight of corn as it comes from the field in the
harvester's bin.

Peace and justice,
Curt
2007-08-19 22:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Curt
Hard to believe. Thirty pounds of dextrose and high yield yeast will get you
about five gallons of 20% wash. That adds up to about a gallon of white
lightning. (I read a book once.) You have to cook it for a long time to
squeeze it out, which takes energy.
Can you run a tractor far enough to raise thirty pounds of dextrose (how
much corn is that? I don't even know) on a gallon of ethanol? And, remember,
you have to run the still all day on whatever's left over from running the
tractor.
Dunno 'bout the dextrose yield but typical the resultant ethanol yield
is about 1/3rd of the weight of the corn you start out with.
One ton of corn should get you 'bout +/- 650 pounds of ethanol or about
100 gallons of the stuff.
I assume those numbers start with dried, shucked, and shelled corn and
not with the weight of corn as it comes from the field in the
harvester's bin.
Being as I'm not a corn farmer, I have no idea how much land it takes to
grow a ton of dried corn, nor how much ethanol a tractor would burn tilling
and planting that much land. But I'm pretty sure that, plus the ethanol to
run the still for however long, would be more than a hundred gallons. Which
puts you far behind.

It's entirely possible there's some new enzyme thing out there that I don't
know about, but it's not on the Internet. I google this stuff every now and
then and haven't found it, anyway.

Curt
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-19 23:34:20 UTC
Permalink
-snip-
Post by Curt
Post by Bill Shatzer
Dunno 'bout the dextrose yield but typical the resultant ethanol yield
is about 1/3rd of the weight of the corn you start out with.
One ton of corn should get you 'bout +/- 650 pounds of ethanol or about
100 gallons of the stuff.
Being as I'm not a corn farmer, I have no idea how much land it takes to
grow a ton of dried corn, nor how much ethanol a tractor would burn tilling
and planting that much land. But I'm pretty sure that, plus the ethanol to
run the still for however long, would be more than a hundred gallons. Which
puts you far behind.
Doing some quick web checking, the corn harvest in Indiana (which I
assume is fairly typical) runs about 145 bushels an acre which, at 56
lbs a bushel of corn, would give ya' just about 4 tons of corn per acre.

Dunno 'bout total energy usage but an acre isn't all that big and the
2,400 gallons of ethanol resulting from four tons of corn should run a
tractor over a whole -bunch- of acres almost forever.

I found one source which indicates tractor fuel consumption is 0.06
gallons per hour per horsepower for gasoline tractors and 0.044 gallons
per hour per horsepower for diesel tractors.

Which means, I think, a 200 hp gas tractor will use .06 x 200 or 12
gallons per hour while a 200 hp diesel tractor will use .044 x 200 or 9
gallons per hour.

Ethanol contains a bit less energy than gasoline so say a ethanol
tractor uses 25% more fuel than a gasoline one - which gives 15 gallons
a hour.

Or, that 2,400 gallons of ethanol will run your tractor/corn havester
for 160 hours. Iffen you could get by with a 100 hp machine, double
that to 320 hours.

Either number should be sufficient to plow, till, rake, disc, fertilize,
weed, and harvest that acre of corn many many many times over.

I don't think farm usage is the problem. Rather, it's the energy
required to make the fertilizer and pesticides, transport the corn to
the ethanol factory, process the corn into ethanol, and transport the
ethanol out to the various users - including the farmer iffen he's using
ethanol tractors.

Peace and justice,
Curt
2007-08-20 04:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Curt
Post by Bill Shatzer
Dunno 'bout the dextrose yield but typical the resultant ethanol yield
is about 1/3rd of the weight of the corn you start out with.
One ton of corn should get you 'bout +/- 650 pounds of ethanol or about
100 gallons of the stuff.
Being as I'm not a corn farmer, I have no idea how much land it takes to
grow a ton of dried corn, nor how much ethanol a tractor would burn tilling
and planting that much land. But I'm pretty sure that, plus the ethanol to
run the still for however long, would be more than a hundred gallons. Which
puts you far behind.
Doing some quick web checking, the corn harvest in Indiana (which I
assume is fairly typical) runs about 145 bushels an acre which, at 56
lbs a bushel of corn, would give ya' just about 4 tons of corn per acre.
Dunno 'bout total energy usage but an acre isn't all that big and the
2,400 gallons of ethanol resulting from four tons of corn should run a
tractor over a whole -bunch- of acres almost forever.
I found one source which indicates tractor fuel consumption is 0.06
gallons per hour per horsepower for gasoline tractors and 0.044 gallons
per hour per horsepower for diesel tractors.
Which means, I think, a 200 hp gas tractor will use .06 x 200 or 12
gallons per hour while a 200 hp diesel tractor will use .044 x 200 or 9
gallons per hour.
Ethanol contains a bit less energy than gasoline so say a ethanol
tractor uses 25% more fuel than a gasoline one - which gives 15 gallons
a hour.
Or, that 2,400 gallons of ethanol will run your tractor/corn havester
for 160 hours. Iffen you could get by with a 100 hp machine, double
that to 320 hours.
Either number should be sufficient to plow, till, rake, disc, fertilize,
weed, and harvest that acre of corn many many many times over.
Not knowing a lot about tractors, I'll defer to your googling. But that
sounds mighty optimistic.
Post by Bill Shatzer
I don't think farm usage is the problem. Rather, it's the energy
required to make the fertilizer and pesticides, transport the corn to
the ethanol factory, process the corn into ethanol, and transport the
ethanol out to the various users - including the farmer iffen he's using
ethanol tractors.
Ya, that's what I'm getting at. You're better off just using the diesel to
drive around with in the first place, and the corn to make delicious steaks.

Curt
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-20 14:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curt
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by Curt
Hard to believe. Thirty pounds of dextrose and high yield yeast will
get
you
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Curt
about five gallons of 20% wash. That adds up to about a gallon of white
lightning. (I read a book once.) You have to cook it for a long time to
squeeze it out, which takes energy.
Can you run a tractor far enough to raise thirty pounds of dextrose (how
much corn is that? I don't even know) on a gallon of ethanol? And,
remember,
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Curt
you have to run the still all day on whatever's left over from running
the
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Curt
tractor.
Dunno 'bout the dextrose yield but typical the resultant ethanol yield
is about 1/3rd of the weight of the corn you start out with.
One ton of corn should get you 'bout +/- 650 pounds of ethanol or about
100 gallons of the stuff.
I assume those numbers start with dried, shucked, and shelled corn and
not with the weight of corn as it comes from the field in the
harvester's bin.
Being as I'm not a corn farmer, I have no idea how much land it takes to
grow a ton of dried corn, nor how much ethanol a tractor would burn tilling
and planting that much land. But I'm pretty sure that, plus the ethanol to
run the still for however long, would be more than a hundred gallons. Which
puts you far behind.
It's entirely possible there's some new enzyme thing out there that I don't
know about, but it's not on the Internet. I google this stuff every now and
then and haven't found it, anyway.
You could ferment the stalks and cobs for methane.
george conklin
2007-08-19 20:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Second, one of the arguments again[st] biofuels is that we're short on
food and we'll all starve to death if we try relying on agriculture for
our energy needs. If we're actually "awash" in surplus food, that means
we have plenty of agricultural capacity available to serve our energy
needs.
No one has stated here that losing energy growing corn to turn into
fuel solves any problems. It just supports more agri-business.
According to Argonne National Labs, ethanol from corn currently returns
179% of the input energy, and that rises every year as we get better at
fermenting and distilling, create new enzymes and strains of yeast with
higher output, etc.
Environmentalists have argued for years that ethanol uses up more energy
than it produces.
Don Homuth
2007-08-19 23:01:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:52:34 -0400, "george conklin"
Post by george conklin
Environmentalists have argued for years that ethanol uses up more energy
than it produces.
Under some circumstances and with some substrates, it does.

Sugar cane, viz Brazil, actually produces More energy from ethanol
than it takes to make it, under the conditions current there.

Corn is less productive, as are other substrates.
Curt
2007-08-19 20:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Most of the farmland which goes out of production is simply abandoned.
Very, very little of it goes for housing, and you know it.
I dunno where you're posting from, but here in the Portland area, we build
housing developments on it.

Nobody abandons land around here.

Curt
george conklin
2007-08-19 20:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curt
Post by george conklin
Most of the farmland which goes out of production is simply abandoned.
Very, very little of it goes for housing, and you know it.
I dunno where you're posting from, but here in the Portland area, we build
housing developments on it.
Nobody abandons land around here.
Curt
The population is moving to the coasts. So? Some land near the coasts needs
to be converted into housing. Others here argue that New England is bad
farming so maybe some Portland types should move to New Hampshire where
abandoned farmland is easy to find as forest. By the way, my father had an
abandoned farm for 50 years, my cousin still lives on one (400 acres or so),
and I have a piece of one myself. None of it useful in today's agricultural
economy, although I could in theory grow Xmas trees, since the tobacco
allotment went away. But there is no shortage of Xmas trees either right
now.
Jack May
2007-08-18 21:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more food
out of farmland than tract housing.
Exactly what are people supposed to eat if we turn the entire US into one
giant suburb/trailer park from ocean to ocean as you seem to favor?
Cities cover only 0.3% of all land in the US. City coverage will be about 3%
of arable land in 2030.

The US is in no danger of being turned into a giant suburb/trailer park.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
george conklin
2007-08-18 21:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more food
out of farmland than tract housing.
Exactly what are people supposed to eat if we turn the entire US into one
giant suburb/trailer park from ocean to ocean as you seem to favor?
Cities cover only 0.3% of all land in the US. City coverage will be about
3% of arable land in 2030.
The US is in no danger of being turned into a giant suburb/trailer park.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
The bigger cities get, the more the unused land in what used to be called
rural areas.
Baxter
2007-08-18 21:18:09 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Jack May
Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Protecting" farmland? Housing is a LESS destructive use than modern-
day farming techniques.
If the land is consumed by housing, it's no longer farmland at all.
"Destructive" modern-day techniques or not, you're going to get more food
out of farmland than tract housing.
Exactly what are people supposed to eat if we turn the entire US into one
giant suburb/trailer park from ocean to ocean as you seem to favor?
Cities cover only 0.3% of all land in the US. City coverage will be about
3% of arable land in 2030.
The US is in no danger of being turned into a giant suburb/trailer park.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
And yet many species of plants, insects and animals are going extinct
because of the enrochment of cities and the loss of habitat.
Curt
2007-08-19 02:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Cities cover only 0.3% of all land in the US. City coverage will be about 3%
of arable land in 2030.
The US is in no danger of being turned into a giant suburb/trailer park.
Yeh but bear in mind.. cities and suburbs are in the Best Parts.

No cities to speak of in rural Nevada, say (you can tell because they call
it "rural"), but that's mostly because you can't farm there.

Curt
rotten
2007-08-17 21:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Berg
`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 17, 2007
A kinder, gentler infill?
What started as an appeal before the Portland City Council on Thursday
on a narrow land-use issue became a second chance for a developer and
neighbors to work out differences.
The City Council's message: Urban density is the price of protecting
forests and farmland. But jamming it down neighbors' throats isn't good
policy.
In this case, the developer agreed.
"I'm always committed to full citizen participation," said Ken
Sandblast, the developer's consultant.
Developer Jeremy Osterholm proposes 19 two-story rowhouses on a vacant
rectangular parcel between Southeast 74th and 76th avenues south of
Powell Boulevard in the Foster-Powell neighborhood. Zoning allows as
many as 25 units.
Earlier in the process, Osterholm met with residents from surrounding
single-story homes alarmed that a veritable village could grow in their
big backyards. They reached some understanding but not an agreement.
Honestly they can go to hell. They have no right deciding what is
built on someone else property unless it actually damages them
physically somehow.
george conklin
2007-08-17 22:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by Paul Berg
`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 17, 2007
A kinder, gentler infill?
What started as an appeal before the Portland City Council on Thursday
on a narrow land-use issue became a second chance for a developer and
neighbors to work out differences.
The City Council's message: Urban density is the price of protecting
forests and farmland. But jamming it down neighbors' throats isn't good
policy.
In this case, the developer agreed.
"I'm always committed to full citizen participation," said Ken
Sandblast, the developer's consultant.
Developer Jeremy Osterholm proposes 19 two-story rowhouses on a vacant
rectangular parcel between Southeast 74th and 76th avenues south of
Powell Boulevard in the Foster-Powell neighborhood. Zoning allows as
many as 25 units.
Earlier in the process, Osterholm met with residents from surrounding
single-story homes alarmed that a veritable village could grow in their
big backyards. They reached some understanding but not an agreement.
Honestly they can go to hell. They have no right deciding what is
built on someone else property unless it actually damages them
physically somehow.
If the zoning is changing, the current property owners have a lot to say.
One of the most dirty tricks a city can play on people is to change zoning
which, yes, will make current property lose value and make selling the
property privately (and not to a developer with money for political bribes).
But smart growth and developers work hand in hand to drive out traditional
single-family housing and push the Sierra Club agenda of common walls.
Stephen Sprunk
2007-08-18 03:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Honestly they can go to hell. They have no right deciding what is
built on someone else property unless it actually damages them
physically somehow.
If the zoning is changing, the current property owners have a lot to say.
One of the most dirty tricks a city can play on people is to change zoning
which, yes, will make current property lose value and make selling the
property privately (and not to a developer with money for political bribes).
The article implies that the project meets the _current_ zoning
requirements, other than the emergency vehicle turnaround (which the fire
bureau was okay with).

If that's the case, then the adjacent property owners shouldn't have any say
at all. If they disagreed with a zoning change in the past, that's when
they should have fought it. If it's always been zoned that way, they knew
that when they bought their houses.

If they're not happy with their decision to live there or their failure to
fight a supposed past zoning change, they should rezone their own properties
and sell them to a developer (perhaps the same one) for a huge profit and
move somewhere else.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
george conklin
2007-08-18 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Honestly they can go to hell. They have no right deciding what is
built on someone else property unless it actually damages them
physically somehow.
If the zoning is changing, the current property owners have a lot to say.
One of the most dirty tricks a city can play on people is to change
zoning which, yes, will make current property lose value and make selling
the property privately (and not to a developer with money for political
bribes).
The article implies that the project meets the _current_ zoning
requirements, other than the emergency vehicle turnaround (which the fire
bureau was okay with).
If that's the case, then the adjacent property owners shouldn't have any
say at all. If they disagreed with a zoning change in the past, that's
when they should have fought it. If it's always been zoned that way, they
knew that when they bought their houses.
If they're not happy with their decision to live there or their failure to
fight a supposed past zoning change, they should rezone their own
properties and sell them to a developer (perhaps the same one) for a huge
profit and move somewhere else.
The average person does not have the money to fight the establishment.
Only those with money for bribes get zoning they want.
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-18 18:08:36 UTC
Permalink
george conklin wrote:

-snip-
Post by george conklin
The average person does not have the money to fight the establishment.
Only those with money for bribes get zoning they want.
Funny, I was a LU hearings officer for, oh, fifteen years and no one
just ever offered me a bribe.

Drat the luck.

Peace and justice,
Sancho Panza
2007-08-19 16:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by george conklin
The average person does not have the money to fight the establishment.
Only those with money for bribes get zoning they want.
Funny, I was a LU hearings officer for, oh, fifteen years and no one just
ever offered me a bribe.
Drat the luck.
Nah. Everyone probably already knew how you would vote and that you wouldn't
change your mind no matter what.
Bill Shatzer
2007-08-19 20:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by george conklin
The average person does not have the money to fight the establishment.
Only those with money for bribes get zoning they want.
Funny, I was a LU hearings officer for, oh, fifteen years and no one just
ever offered me a bribe.
Drat the luck.
Nah. Everyone probably already knew how you would vote and that you wouldn't
change your mind no matter what.
Funny. I often had no idea at all how I would "vote" until after the
hearing was completed - and sometimes not even then. Nor can I begin to
estimate the number of times I changed my mind while working through my
analysis of the proposal.

They must have been channeling tiernan who often tells me what I believe
before I've even thought about it and what I would say before I say
anything.

Peace and justice,
Ted Mittelstaedt
2007-08-19 20:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-
Post by george conklin
The average person does not have the money to fight the establishment.
Only those with money for bribes get zoning they want.
Funny, I was a LU hearings officer for, oh, fifteen years and no one
just ever offered me a bribe.
This is an idiotic simplification.

The property developers and the Mayor and City Council and Portland
Development Commission work hand in hand to change the laws the
way the developers want them changed. You, as a peon hearings officer,
are merely charged for carrying out the law. Your superiors - ie: City
Council,
get their bribes in the form of reelection funding and they make the law and
tell you how high to jump.

And what the developers want is what anyone wants - to make money.
As a city grows land does not grow, thus it becomes cheaper for the city
to increase density rather than to build new roads and sewers to sprawl
outwards. When you put more people into the same area you can get
more money for the same space. Thus the developers aims of getting
more money are in line with the cities aims of saving money by increasing
use of existing infrastructure, and that is why they scratch each other's
backs all the time.

What is lost in all of this is that increasing density decreases livibility.
Increased density means things like more deed restrictions, more noise,
more congestion, less privacy and most importantly, less space. How
many homes in East Portland can the father and son go into the yard and
throw a ball around? Not many. How many arguements are there over
people taking their dogs to the park for exercise because they do not have
room at home?

To offset this the cities launch giant public relations campaigns (like
the stickers on the ass-end of the Trimet busses claiming that X cars
are at home because I'm no the road) aimed at convincing people of
a lie, that increased density is better. But not everyone is dumb enough
to swallow that which is why there's a lot of anger among the population
over crap like row houses, snout houses, subdividing a 50x100 plot of
land to 2 plits of land and building a house with a common wall, etc.

Ted
Sancho Panza
2007-08-19 16:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
The article implies that the project meets the _current_ zoning
requirements, other than the emergency vehicle turnaround (which the fire
bureau was okay with).
That's not much of a criterion. Based on past postings here, the Portland
fire department says it can roll at speed down 26-foot-wide streets with
cars parked on both sides. Maybe will all that rainfall, they don't have
that many big conflagarations to attend to.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...