Too good to be true?

[Duane Bozarth]

...

The last of those is definitely true...well over half of the county in which I reside is now in CRP (including a sizable fraction of ours). The reason is only that it was an available option at a time when a significant number of those farming it were, as my Dad, at the age of retirement and the kids (including me) had left owing to various factors, a lot having to do w/ the great "land depression" after the Carter era grain embargoes that killed the small grain export markets.

No, the average production of the similar land still in production has actually increased dramatically since the time of the initial CRP put-ins. This is owing to continuing improvements in genetics as well as practices. Low- and no-till has had marked success in actually tilth as opposed to degrading it combined w/ decreasing inputs. Of course, the cultivation cycle include rotation, including fallow periods. This is a mandatory part of an effective pest control strategy even without the consideration of fertility.

There is chance that any significant numbers of people living on and farming it for a living will not continue to improve practices, not degrade them. It is economically required to survive as well as common sense. Plus, if my input requirements were to skyrocket owing to such practice, my friendly hometown banker would immediately demand to know why and put a stop to my endangering his collateral! :)

I've not and do not advocate widespread removal of CRP ground--I only mentioned it as it is there in quite large acreages and could, if circumstances were right, be returned to production. If the 2007 farm bill reduces the payout as much again as the last time, I think it will be inevitable that a sizable amount be broken back out as it will not be feasible economically to maintain it with it not producing more than it would be at that point. I'm hoping it won't, but making long term plans just in case...

[Duane Bozarth]

No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are largely used up.

There are continuing significant improvements in hybrids specifically for ethanol production in corn and soybeans for biodiesel. I am unaware of any research into large-scale usage of milo for ethanol--I believe the potential yields are simply not competitive w/ corn.

No one, even its most ardent supporters, is claiming biofuels can replace all petroleum. It is simply a resource that is (a) renewable, and (b) does have a positive NEV (net energy value). The latter does continue to increase owing to both improved feedstocks and processing. I suspect both will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, but have no idea where we are now as compared to the ultimate that may be achievable.

As for central station generation, the switch from coal to petroleum-fired was a major mistake as well was the abandonment of nuclear which be the predominant form of central station generation.

[fredfighter]

[the behaviour in question being abuse of emminent domain to effect tranfer of ownership from one private party to another private party]

That's the problem, not the solution! Leaving it up to government to decide who may keep their property and who must sell it to another PRIVATE party is not only morally wrong it is also certain to result in land-usage that favors short-term monetary profit at the expense of anything else including what would be best for society in the long run.

Agriculture will never be able to lobby as effectively for a specific parcel of land as will 'developers'. The money to be made per acre per election cycle for 'development' will always be orders of magnitude greater than that made from agriculture for the same acreage over the same election cycle. duration of one election cycle. Now factor in the tax-revenue generated per acre post-'developement' as compared to that for farmland or, God forbid undeveloped land. Only that rarest of creatures, a politician acting for the best long-term interests of society, can resist all that.

[Duane Bozarth]

In places outside the US it isn't nearly as small...I ran across an engineer at a Canadian power plant a number of years ago while servicing equipment on site. He was complaining that the pay packet contained less than half of his earnings. Needless to say, it was not motivation to improve the economics of his province, thus providing for the growth required to "lift" the others in less fortunate circumstances. It simply is against human nature, and thereby self-limiting.

[Duane Bozarth]

...

...

That's not the take I have....I fully expect public outcry to force legislatures to severely restrict the usage of eminent domain...

[Doug Miller]

So zero economic growth requires zero population growth, and we achieve zero population growth by greater-than-zero economic growth.

Right. I got it.

[Doug Miller]

[Juergen Hannappel]

[...]

So would I if I thought it were possible. But consider that the standard of living cannot be measured by material wealth alone.

[...]

As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and poor will open ever farther.

Today with no formal division between a well of nobility and a rightless population but rather a graduation of differences with the lure of everyone hope to get richer personaly there is less chance of a revolution than at the end of feudal reign.

[Dave Hinz]

Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself. If I could make much more with soybeans, I'd consider it, but right now it's just as profitable, and much less work, to let it sit.

Yes. The days of people being ignorant of crop rotation and soil quality are long gone. Some may choose not to do any of it, but they're at lesat not ignorant of it.

At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe.

[Dave Hinz]

Well, last time a German fellow proposed that sort of thing, it didn't go well...

[Duane Bozarth]

wrote: ...

Well, as I suspected, your experience "back there" :) is in the buffer or wetland programs...we have 6 full quarters of our own plus 4 more we still rent on shares...that's right at 1600 A. There are another 10 contiguous quarters abutting all this from four separate neighbors who all chose to retire and start the CRP lay-in at or within a couple of years of the time Dad started. All except one were at least in their

70's at that time. The one exception had nearly gone under w/ the hog market disaster and took it as the only way to save the home place at the time. He was in his early 60s. The same scenario took place over large areas out here, not just in our county.

...

I know none that are real production farmers that aren't both aware and serious practicioners--it is simply not possible to survive economically otherwise. All those who used to operate that way are long gone, at least around here.

At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different. It could be hayed for breakeven most years...w/ the requirements for mowing, weed control, etc., the operating cost is not trivial. We got an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback), it costs $20/A just for the chemical, w/o application cost. It just really chaps me that they us plant the damn weeds in the grass in the first place (which incidentally cost us half that cost out of pocket besides), introducing the stuff in the first place, and now the entire control cost comes out of our pocket on top of which the new leases are for 20% or more less than the initial. If that occurs again, it's almost a given it will be renewed. It may stay in grass, but it at least will be able to be hayed and grazed even if it doesn't go back into grain production.

[Doug Miller]

I never said that it was.

You are proceeding from a mistaken assumption. You observe economic stagnation in Europe, and assume that it is the result of economic growth having encountered a natural limit of some kind, when in fact the stagnation is the direct, and entirely predictable, result of socialism. Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any limits.

And with good reason, I'd say.

[Doug Miller]

And I see no grounds for supposing that it would do any better in reruns.

[Juergen Hannappel]

[...]

Not really. I see economic growth all around me taking away all that is nice in the world. The whines you hear about stagnation in Europe are just from those that cannot get enough...

As the free market advocats make you believe, to your own disadvantage.

That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world which has to suffer the consequences.

[Dave Hinz]

Right, I only have 30 acres total. So, I'm happy leaving it in the long term crop it's growing now (trees). 8000 planted, plus a few thousand volunteers (mostly ash...nice lumber,that) is enough to keep me busy between keeping the listed weeds down, and keeping the lumber shaped properly.

In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some cases.

Is that what it's down to now? My contract is good for a few more years, I didn't know it was that low.

Nice going to whichever idiot told you to plant it then, eh? I bet he's not real popular...

I'm almost to the point where the trees make changing my mind a non-option. I've got (thinks....) maybe 5-6 acres in native wildflowers, the university sent out a couple of people to do a site survey and plan & got us started. Looks nice, keeps the weeds out.

[Duane Bozarth]

...[regarding his view of US participation in WWII in Europe]...

Well, I just finished re-reading Churchill which chillingly reminds us that actually, until France fell and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we were content to simply watch, participating only by Lend-Lease which took FDR an inordinate amount of collusion to get passed. If it hadn't become imperative to our own survival, it's not cleat there ever have been sufficient sentiment in the US to intervene in Europe alone until it would (probably) have been too late to prevent the fall of England. After that, while the eventual result would have been the same, it would have become a more dicey...

The recounting of the history in the first volume between the end of WWI and the beginning of WWII is quite disconcerting, actually, and none come off very good, including the US. :(

[Duane Bozarth]

30 acres here is just enough to turn the combine around in... :) ...

Not everyone is in full no-till here, either, of course. But there's nobody still turning enverything over w/ a oneway plow four times a year like was done in the 50s, either. Anyone farming here is using modern practices or thy're not surviving--fact of life w/ $1.50 ag diesel...

Contract levels are based on conservation district and soil type, etc. Back there where it rains, :) conditions are grossly different than this dryland. But, for us, yes, that's what current are...what'll happen in

2007 is anybody's guess.

Was part of the last CRP practices to "enhance recreational use"...out here, of course, that means pheasant hunting, primarily. The forbs were required practice to add to the seed availability. The lespedeza was weed seed in the forbs, not an intended consequence. That I can live with--shxx happens. What PO's me is no help in fixing a problem not of our causing.

...

Here, trees are a no-no...they're exotics. This is short grass prairie (although there was significant bluestem and other taller grasses. Coronado's journals talk of shoulder high in his wandering around.)

[Mark & Juanita]

The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal* block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the brazos to declare themselves so).

Your reference above had nothing to do with "national security interests" in the referenced case and everything to do with tax revenue and the ability to advance the cause of statism.

Actually, screwing farmers for the sake of "national security" is nothing new. Ask the heirs of some of the farmers during WWII who were "relocated" by Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Denver or some of the other military infrastructure needs at the time.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Tom Quackenbush]

Can you elaborate on how O'Conner colluded with the "liberal" block in the Kelo case?

R, Tom Q.

[George]

In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to turn it under.