Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Enviromental Impact Biofuel

Which could lead to another dust bowl type incident. miles

Well, yes and no..

Yes - because the weather conditions of the '30s could return again.

No - because the farming techniques to prevent that very issue were not known nor practiced back then. "No-till" planting is one. Leaving the trash on top or (like now) planting a 'cover crop' after an early harvest works to prevent soil erosion. All that, coupled with minimal cultivation and higher density planting works quite well to prevent another 'dust bowl' or, at the very least, to minimalize (sp?) the effects..

I occasionally manage a farm co-op when my brother the regular manager has to be absent. We sell only non ethanol gasoline because the farmers who support ethanol mandates do not want it in their engines and will pay extra to not have to use it. As a matter of fact they will drive several miles to come to the co-op rather than use the ethanol laced fuel.

Dang it, I knew I forgot something. I'm reaching for the ibuprofen right now.

And here I was thinking that pain in my ass was just from reading your posts.

It's the Joooos. And Bush.

"Which environmental groups advocate growing more corn for gasoline?"

I'd say ALL of them advocate for more ethanol which means they advocate for more corn.

You guys can help the situation you know.


Buy local.

Buy what local?

I use quite a few tons of corn per year here at the ranch, and it's locally grown.

One way to get away from a "production" model of agriculture and towards a "profit" model is to produce crops other than commodities.

Farmers and ranchers, as you probably know, only get to keep 10 or 11 cents of the agricultural dollar. Yet, they still get the blame when food prices go up.

Lots and lots of different factors go into the decision to raise field corn, not the least of which is there is a bit of a govt safety net under corn. The reason for that is that the govt wants and needs you to raise corn, soy and wheat. There are just too many entities taking the profit out of it.


So when I say "buy local" I mean that increased support for local farmers and ranchers means increased diversity of crops and products.

The Cargills, ConAgras, Swifts, Smithfields, IBP's, and others are taking the profit, and the Govt comes along and gives a few nickles to the producers.


Screw those guys. Folks can buy a side of beef from me and pay less money for a better product than they can at the store.

The consumer saves money, I make more money and the environmental impacts are lessened.

When farmers dont have to own the whole county and produce every inch to make it, they can concentrate on farming WITH nature rather than against it.

"That's only part of the problem. The rest is pollution from homeowners who hire 'lawn services' that apply 3-4 'treatments' (fertilizer/weed killer) on their lawns. Then the homeowner's sprinkler system is overused and the runoff gets into the sewer system - which ends up in the lakes (and rivers).. Farmers here are mandated to leave a 'buffer' (a swath of land not planted/fertilized) next to any river or dry run to prevent that very issue."

Have you ever been to the Valley on the coast of south Texas? It's covered with big farms that use synthetic fertilizers and insecticides year round. There are few houses with sprinkler systems. I fish in south Laguna Madre that gets a lot runoff from all this cultivated land. The fish are smaller and in limited numbers compared to north Laguna Madre where all the runoff is from ranch land. The limit for trout in south Laguna Madre is 5 and the limit for trout in north Laguna Madre is 10. Years ago I asked the Texas Parks and Wildlife about the reason for so few fish in south Laguna Madre and they said they are studying the problem. They know exactly what the reason is but there's no way the state of Texas will ever ban fertilizer and insecticides use in the Valley. It gets in the drinking water too.

the earth is a closed loop system. stuff can only go into the earth, water, or air. or we can pack it on a spacecraft and jettison it into the sun to be "purified."

the river water that flows out of the atlanta metro after trtmnt is like a chemical factory. all kinds of stuff that runs downhill to the gulf of mexico. that's an important reason i live on the north side of town.

Sure, you can say that all you want but that doesn't make it true.

And they ALL advocate for more soybeans (biodiesel).

To see "environmental impact", folks ought to see the Texas Panhandle. Years ago, this was primarily wheat and cotton country. It had to be, because there isn't enough rain to reliably grow most other crops.

Most of the land in the northern Panhandle was ranch and wheat country. Drive around now, and you'll see that much of that land is now irrigated corn. Folks are tearing up what used to provide antelope, mule deer, quail habitat, putting in pivot irrigation, and sucking MILLIONS of gallons of water out of the aquifer, to grow CORN in the middle of a high plains desert.

Take another look at a map of the Panhandle, and you'll quickly realize there aren't many lakes. Most of the drinking water comes from GROUNDWATER. The same groundwater, from the same aquifer, that farmers are sucking DRY to grow crops in a "desert".

Convert natural gas into fertilizer, use diesel to power combines, to grow corn, to convert into fuel. Makes so much sense

Add emissions controls to diesel vehicles, to burn 20% more fuel, to reduce emissions ???

Adding another link to a chain is never going to enhance overall strength. Any gain in emissions is offset by about a 10% decline in efficiency. We'd be more ahead if we pushed diesel for as much as possible.