G.O.P. Oil Refinery Bill Squeaks By

October 8, 2005

By CARL HULSE

Published: October 8, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - It took more than 40 raucous minutes of [:"red"] pleading[/] and [:"red"] cajoling[/], [:"red"] bargaining[/] and [:"red"] begging[/] on Friday. But House Republican leaders managed to squeeze through an oil refinery bill in a tumultuous floor vote that severely tested a leadership team rocked by the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas.

After teetering on the verge of an [:"red"] embarrassing [/] defeat, desperate party leaders managed to persuade enough of their members to switch positions to win narrow 212-to-210 approval of a measure that its backers said would expedite refinery construction and crack down on price gouging.

Forum: The 109th Congress

"House Republicans have taken the lead in providing America with price stability and a bold plan for this nation's energy future," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who along with Mr. DeLay and other senior lawmakers buttonholed and browbeat resistant Republicans as the clock ticked on the vote.

Democrats attacked the substance of the bill and the process that the Republicans employed to force it through. The Democrats accused the majority of abusing House rules by stretching what should have been a five-minute vote to deliver a bill that Democrats said would benefit profitable oil companies but do little for American drivers.

"It took that long for the indicted leader of the House of Representatives to twist the arms necessary to get a vote against the American people, against the consumer, against the taxpayer and against the environment - in favor of the energy companies," said the minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California.

Thirteen Republicans joined united Democrats in opposing the bill.

The vote was one of the last acts before lawmakers left for a weeklong recess. The House and Senate also passed and sent to President Bush a measure that directs more than $750 million in already approved hurricane aid to Gulf Coast governments for essential services. The Senate approved its version of a $445 billion military bill that includes $50 billion for the Iraq war and sent the White House a measure that provides $31.9 billion for domestic security.

The flurry of activity ended a frenzied six weeks in which Congress scrambled to respond to Hurricane Katrina against a backdrop that included the start of investigations into stock sales by the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, and the indictment of Mr. DeLay, the combative leader who was forced to step aside because of charges of money laundering and conspiracy in Texas.

The activity also gave a taste of the difficulties that Republicans will face when they return to confront a plan to cut $50 billion or more from popular programs, a difficult debate over immigration changes and a Supreme Court confirmation at a time the White House is on the defensive, Republican lawmakers are splintered, and public support is shaky.

Even before bringing the refinery measure to the floor, its authors had to strip out language that the White House sought to make it easier for utilities to expand without installing new antipollution equipment, a provision that Republican leaders acknowledged would have doomed the bill.

But stiff resistance remained among Democrats and a handful of Republicans led by Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican of New York, who is chairman of the House Science Committee. Mr. Boehlert complained that the bill promised federal subsidies to the builders of smaller refineries but did nothing immediately about pump prices.

"We're enriching people, but we are not doing anything to give the little guy a break," said Mr. Boehlert, who campaigned hard against the measure. As the vote scheduled to take five minutes started shortly after 2 p.m., it quickly became apparent that Republicans were in trouble as the "no" votes piled up. The leadership quickly went to work.

Mr. Hastert repeatedly cornered Representative C. W. Bill Young, Republican of Florida, a longtime lawmaker who opposed the measure, and pressed him to change his vote.

Mr. DeLay, who may be officially out of power but not out of practice as a persuader, concentrated on Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland.

The majority whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, helped work on Representative Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, who was unhappy with a liability provision in the bill.

During the lawmaker-on-lawmaker lobbying, House decorum deteriorated. Democrats who have been outraged over the Republican willingness to hold votes open to secure close victories called loudly for the gavel to fall, sending the bill to defeat.

"Doesn't this make the House a banana republic?" Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, asked as the two sides shouted down each other.

Eager to beat the Republicans they believe are wounded by Mr. DeLay's indictment, Democrats did some persuading of their own, getting three of their lawmakers backing the bill - Gene Green and Henry Cuellar of Texas and Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia - to oppose it, forcing Republicans to pass it by themselves.

"The number of Democrats that would usually be there for a bill like this just were not there," Mr. Blunt said.

In the end, Mr. Gerlach and Mr. Young, along with Representative Wayne T. Gilchrist, Republican of Maryland were among the switchers, and Mr. Bartlett voted for the measure, sending it to the Senate, where its future is dim, because Republicans there say it would face a filibuster.

Mr. Bush praised the House for "passing legislation that would increase our refining capacity and help address the cost of gasoline, diesel fuels and jet fuels."

Democrats said that the Republicans succeeded in forcing some of their lawmakers to take a tough vote for a bill that they really opposed while showing that Mr. DeLay remained a potent force in the leadership.

"The American people will have to draw their own conclusions," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the minority whip.

Pollution 'Switcheroo' Rejected

[:"blue"] So let me get this straight....There is plenty of crude oil out there for our taking and because there is a bottle neck in the oil refinerys, this is what is causing the high prices of oil???

How does this explain the prices and the number of refinerys back in 1999 with the same current demand and same current supply? There was the current nuber of oil refinerys, and a lower price with the same demand...explain t me again the need for this bill???[/]

October 8, 2005

Much of our gasoline is imported. That means not all of it is refined here in the US. The more gasoline we can refine here, and the less we have to import, the more stable the price can be. So as our demand grows or refinary capacity decreases, our imported gasoline increases. That isn't good for our trade deficit either <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

The Republicans get a very very big <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> with this one. BUT it is only a first step. We also need to expand oil drilling operations AND require alternate fuel technology. The Postal Service needs to be required to change all its vehicles over to alternate fuels like biodesiel and E85. That will put in a national infrastructure for alternate fuel supply.

The problem with the Democrats is they don't have a plan. All they say is "This bill profits the oil companies". Instead they should be saying things like "This bill should have included... " In fact if they would have jumped on board, the Democrat leadership should have been able to get alternate fuel mandates on this very same bill. The Democrat leadership could have said, "We will support the bill IF these alternate fuel mandates are included." But it seems like the Democrats just want to fight instead of work for the good of the American people.

October 9, 2005

Quote:

The more gasoline we can refine here, and the less we have to import, the more stable the price can be.

Concidering that the price per barrel is regarding CRUDE OIL, I have not a clue what/where you are thinking regarding the "stability" of gas prices...Add to that reasoning that most of our oil IS manufactured HERE in the US, and I just don't understand your reasoning. As I understand it, the hurricans have, or did, shut down 25% of our total gas production. Most of that affects the piplines coming out of NO, and Texas which feeds the southern and south eastern states. So, how do you expect to create stability of gas prices when we manufacture CRUDE OIL into gas and CRUDE OIL fluctuates? The cost to manufacture it will be added to what ever the price of CRUDE is...

But I do agree that we need more diversity in our energy sources.

Biodesal is still a largely petroleum product....And adding wood alcohol to gas still makes gas a petroleum product. Manufactoring hybrid car/trucks/engines only REDUCE the amount of petroleum we are using.

We need to switch to wind power generators to produce electricity to foster electric cars for short distance use.

We need that same electricity to produce hydrogen for long range vehicles for the likes of trucking industry.

Wave generators have been in existance for many years, and we need to concider using them to manufacter electricity.

I am afraid that we need to convert the postal trucks, that go accross the country, to hydrogen source fuel first. Then the mail delivery to electric vehicles second.

Quote:

The problem with the Democrats is they don't have a plan.

There is a reason why there is a MAJORITY of republican in the houses and they push ANY and ALL bills thru the houses....all the democrates can do, at this time, is do damage control for all the hair brained ideas that the republicans can produce.....

October 9, 2005

Biodiesel data

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend.

B20 is a common form of biodeisel currently and it only contains 20% biodesiel BUT that is not to say that biodesiel must be blended to be usable. Desiel engines can run on 100% biodesiel.

B20 is available at the follow locations:

[]http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/map_point_map_R_.gif[/]

E85 is 85% ethanol and only 15% gasoline. If we were to transition more to E85 the demand for gasolne would drop dramatically.

Ethanol is environmental friendly

[]http://www.clubadventist.com/ubbtreads/attachments/190638-photosynthesis.gif[/]

E85 has 105 octane! Typically it costs about the same as gasoline although in the Midwest, where much of it is manufactured, it costs about 40¢ less than gasoline. Any gasoline engine can run it but if it is not designed for it the ethonal will eat away the fuel lines, gaskets and filters quicker than gasoline will.

Over half of our crude oil is imported and not all crude oil is the same. The price per barrel that is publicized is for "sweet" crude. Much of the crude pumped out of Kansas, Montana and even parts of Texas is not "sweet" and is sold for less. However even with all of our own crude and the imported crude, we still don't have enough to supply our demand for gasoline so in addition to importing crude, we also imported gasoline which is already refined.

Something I don't understand about hydrogen technology. If we split the hydrogen away from the oxygen and use water as fuel, aren't we actually consuming water and removing it from the water cycle? While that may cure the issue of rising oceans, won't that cuase long-term drought?

Wind techmology is a long way from being a good source of power. There is a lot of potencial there but it has a long way to go.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

all the democrates can do, at this time, is do damage control

The job of the minority party is not just "damage control". The minority party is to advance ideas and solutions. If and when the majority party rejects those ideas and solutions, the minority party than uses them as issues in Congressional campaigns. That is how the Republicans won Congress in 1994. Congressional Democrats use to do that when Bill Clinton was president and Republicans controlled Congress. However since then their leadership has changed and not for the better. Richard Gephardt is missed.

October 9, 2005

>>"The American people will have to draw their own conclusions," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the minority whip.<< [ed]

Oh my, I s’pose we’ll hafta, won’t we? Is that the minority whip caught posturing!?

My conclusion: Partisan and obstructionist politics as usual -- right down the middle.

Get over it Hoyer, when the Democratic Party ruled America as a one-party State for… wow! for an entire generation -- they foisted or ramrodded every conceivable bad idea upon the people; [/hyperbole]

now that power is on the other side of the aisle they bore us to death with their incessant grousing and whining.

As for refineries: There are thousands of wells that were capped because the ‘easy’ oil had already been pumped off -- leaving behind the hard-to-pump ‘sludge’ (or heavy oil) for lack of existing technology to extract it profitably. Now, advancements have been made with flywheel technology that can easily be utilized to bring those abandoned oil fields with their capped wells online. Besides,

remember Nazi Germany? They didn’t have geological fields of oil within their borders. What was available was that mainly, which Romania supplied; otherwise, approximately three-fourths of the Reich’s fuel was synthetic, primarily, a product of hydrogenation processing --from readily and abundant coal.

It is estimated that the USofA has 300 years supply of coal at present rate of use.

More, and many ‘refineries’ may be an idea whose time has come ‘round again (isn’t there something slightly unseemly {obscene?} about diverting food grains for mobility?).

Per diesel technology... even powdered metal will provide combustion under pressure. Powdered coal as a slight slurry ought to work just fine with a little tweaking to our present diesel technology.

After that, not too far down the line, we ought to be able to 'capture' energy from those invisible streams of energy flowing all about us -- you know yin/yang

October 9, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

(isn’t there something slightly unseemly {obscene?} about diverting food grains for mobility?).

Actually well over 50% of the food grown is fed to animals and the government pays farmers not to grow food so there isn't a surplus that will drive prices down. We have a huge capacity for producing food. As more third world adapt modern agraculture technology the world will have even more food.

October 9, 2005

Quote:

the government pays farmers not to grow food

Ummm.......Are you sure about that???

I know that they USED to do that....But I was under the impression that is not the case anymore....There is some protection against cheaper imports iesome produce and honey...but over all...I think that this subsidy was eleminated...

October 9, 2005

It was still in place a few years ago but I don't know if it still is. No chance on making honey into fuel?

BTW animals are poor converters of food. Most of the food they eat goes out their backside. It takes some 15 lbs of corn to make 1 lb of beef.

October 9, 2005

Quote:

No chance on making honey into fuel?

The stuff you get at the super market is where the ocmmerical beekeepers litterall dump all thier honey. Among conicers of honey, it is concidered a low grade of honey. And the price of this "low grade" honey is nearly $3.00 per 1 LB JAR [about a 1/2 pint]. Specialized honey, from blackberry bushes and starthistle, is distinctive in color and flavor. It's cost is MUCH more, ie ~ $5.00 per 1 LB jar. Less if you get it direct from the beekeeper. As for adding it to the fuel supply, I doubt you would want the extra cost........However, upon reflection, it is said that there is contaminated honey that is so bad, even the bees refuse to eat it, and that is after the hive beetle has infested some honey houses/and hives. That could be used, cheap too...

Quote:

It was still in place a few years ago but I don't know if it still is

I know that the cattle industry has some easy loans and financial arrangement for small ranchers...but NO subsidys of the type that has been pointed out.

I also am aware of some tobacco subsidies that have been removed from the subsidie list. Or atleast, I think they have been removed. I believe that during the Regan years, subsidies were being removed and a free market was being pushed. And I thought the last of the subsidies were removed during the first part of the Bush adminstiration...

Guess I am gonna have to check....

October 9, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

No chance on making honey into fuel?

<hr /></blockquote> ???

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

It was still in place a few years ago but I don't know if it still is.

I may be wrong but I think that it is, across the board, history. And, it was limited to specific crops.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Actually well over 50% of the food grown is fed to animals and the government pays farmers not to grow food so there isn't a surplus that will drive prices down. We have a huge capacity for producing food. As more third world adapt modern agraculture technology the world will have even more food.

During at least the past 50 years our Ag Specialists have worked with many third world governemnts to assist them in the fine art of producing more food. I don't believe they have experienced great successes.

As for the USA having a huge capacity for producing food, have you looked at the large numbers of urban housing/mfg development recently ... our acres of farm land are deminishing. polution is taking it's toll, the family farm is almost completely non-existant. Big Agri-businesses have much more control price and production, and this trend is most likely to increase.

Whether it is the Petro Chemical business or Agri-business, life as we have known it is changing.

Naomi

October 9, 2005

Johanns: U.S. Farm Subsidies Need Overhaul

Thursday October 6, 2005 11:46 PM

By LIBBY QUAID

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States must overhaul farm subsidy payments or risk losing global agriculture sales, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Thursday.

The fairness of the current system - favoring corn, wheat, soybean, cotton and rice farmers - is being challenged by farmers in the U.S. and abroad, Johanns said.

``You can understand why I describe the current farm bill as perhaps the most high-risk approach we could take for our nation's farmers and ranchers in the future,'' Johanns told lobbyists for the major commodities during a luncheon at a Washington hotel.

His comments came the day after Republican lawmakers suspended plans to cut farm payments by only half as much as the Bush administration wants.

The administration is preparing for a critical meeting of trade ministers in Hong Kong in December aimed at narrowing wide differences in agriculture subsidies and other areas to conclude the current round of global trade talks by the end of 2006.

If the U.S. approaches world trade talks with a subsidy system wedded to the past, Johanns said, ``we can expect a future of playing defense to protect our share of trade and wondering which U.S. farm program will be challenged next.''

[:"blue"] It appears that I was wrong and subsidies are still being used. I also note that dairies are being subsidized as well. What I don't understand, when it comes to subsidies, is if the goverment is paying to STOP GROWING certain foods, ie cotton, corn, wheat, ect. I also am not certain, thru my quick search, what is concidered a subsidy...? Is a loan concidered a subsidy? Disaster relief program? conservation program? What exactly is concidered a substidy? [/]

Lastest Guardian article on subsidies...

October 9, 2005

Another good place to go to get information is the Eviormental Working Group. They do a lot of research in already established studies and bring to light what is going on...For example,

US Farms- nearly 2,183,000 farms

US farms that recieve subsidys- nearly 707,600

The percentage reciving subsidies- 33%

Here is what they say regarding that- [:"blue"]

"To put this expenditure in perspective, for the money taxpayers have provided in commodity and disaster subsidies alone over this period (88 percent of the total), not counting $16 billion in conservation payments, we could have bought 25 percent or more of all the farms in 302 counties--land, barns, farmhouses and all. In 47 counties where agriculture exists almost purely by the grace of government, taxpayers could have bought outright half the farms or more for the money we've spent in just the past nine years.

It's not as if the subsidies are 'saving the family farm.' Of the 2,128,982 farms enumerated by the most recent Census of Agriculture, for 2002, only 33 percent received government payments. Two-thirds of the nation's farmers get no subsidy payments whatsoever. For the most part they don't qualify because they grow the 'wrong' things. If you want to see what the wrong things are, stroll through the produce aisle or meat department of your local supermarket. The farmers who produce most of America's food do so without a check from taxpayers.

As the Farm Subsidy Database has documented in the past, the vast majority of the farmers who do receive government subsidy checks get minimal amounts of money. Eighty percent of the recipients between 1995 and 2003 received, on average, $6,918 for the entire period (see table on payment concentration). That comes to $768 a year, just over sixty-five bucks a month. Not much to run a family farm on—though in aggregate, the 2.4 million recipients in this category ended up taking almost $17 billion from taxpayers over 9 years.

Corn subsidies are a good example of the farm subsidy pyramid. In area, corn is the most important crop grown in this country--some 78 million acres have been planted in recent years--and no USDA subsidy program sends taxpayer money to more recipients. Between 1995 and 2003, government records show, 1,438,423 individual farmers, partnerships, corporations, estates and other entities received at least one corn subsidy payment. Yet 80 percent of them collected, on average, just over $4,700 total over the 9 years (see EWG's payment concentration analysis for corn). That's about $529 per year. No American family farm--no business, for that matter--is materially assisted by payments of less than $50 a month. Yet because there are 1.15 million subsidy beneficiaries in this category (the bottom-most 20 percent of recipients), taxpayers paid them $5.5 billion, about 15 percent of total corn subsidies.

The real action is at the top of the farm subsidy food chain, where 10 percent of the recipients—just over 305,023 individuals, partnerships, corporations, estates and myriad other entities—took in 72 percent of the total payments taxpayers provided for conservation, commodity and disaster programs over the 9 years. (That's an upward tick of 1 percent in concentration for the top 10 percent over the eight-year analysis EWG presented last year.) They collected, on average, $309,823 each, roughly $34,000 annually. The elite in this world of government dependency collected even more. The top four percent of recipients, for instance, number just over 122,000. Yet they cost taxpayers about $65 billion over 9 years, which works out to an average of $529,000, or nearly $59,000 per year.

What makes that particular number memorable is that it is almost exactly what the average American household earned in 2003. The average farm household is a different matter. They made significantly more, nearly $10,000 more (16 percent), averaging $68,605. To compound the irony of subsidies as family farm safety net, almost all of the income for the average farm household, 89 percent, came from off-farm sources, the jobs in town or elsewhere that make farm living pencil out for most Americans. It's not just that government subsidies aren't saving the family farm. Not even farming is."[/]

And here is the EWG agricultural Website

October 9, 2005

The bottom line?

Quote:

Frodo failed...Bush has the Ring!

October 10, 2005

There is plenty of land to farm in the US that isn't being farmed now. City and urban development are taking up a very small percentage of the property. Texas has thousands of acres that are farmable with the expansion of irrigation systems. I suspect the same is true of New Mexico, Arizona and California. The US is still not a very populated nation when compared to other world nations.

Many farmers in some African countries still plant and harvest by hand. With irrigation and mechanization, Africa could out produce Europe in food production.

The destruction of the family farm is bad for the families affected but good for the consumer. Large agriculture companies are more efficient. They produce more food per acre than the family farm has traditionally. The result is cheaper milk, produce, cereals and bread.

The use of food for fuel may have an unpredictable impact on the price of our food, especially meat. Many large agriculture companies may start expanding into Latin America and Africa. That is yet to be seen.

October 10, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

There is plenty of land to farm in the US that isn't being farmed now. City and urban development are taking up a very small percentage of the property. Texas has thousands of acres that are farmable with the expansion of irrigation systems. I suspect the same is true of New Mexico, Arizona and California. The US is still not a very populated nation when compared to other world nations.

The operative word here is irrigation systems. The systems won't work without water. In the areas which you mentioned water is not readily available. We have not done a good job of water conservation.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Many farmers in some African countries still plant and harvest by hand. With irrigation and mechanization, Africa could out produce Europe in food production.

Amd how many years and different approaches have been made to bring these countries up to the 20th centure ... much less the 21st century?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The destruction of the family farm is bad for the families affected but good for the consumer. Large agriculture companies are more efficient.

<hr /></blockquote> Short term perhaps ... now please tell me that the nuturational quality of produce, artificial fertilizers, and heavy saturation of pesticides, etc is good for us and our children.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That is one of the reasons they produce more food per acre resulting in cheaper milk, produce, cereals and bread.

Pay now or pay later.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The use of food for fuel may have an unpredictable impact on the price of our food, especially meat. Many large agriculture companies may start expanding into Latin America and Africa. That is yet to be seen.

Think I heard this same discussion over 30 years ago. All in good time.

Naomi

October 10, 2005

All Kennedy and Wilacy county need is a desalination plant and the infrastructure for the irrigation. If one flies over west Texas they will see round green circles spotting the plain. The water is there, it is just deep and we need to go down and get it. That wont be done by the small family farm. It won't be done until a large agri-business decides they can make enough money to justify it.

As the cities and urban areas expand into the irrigated areas, the irriagation system can be extended at the same rate into non-irrigated areas without increasing the demand the system was designed for.

Desalination will be the answer to most of our irrigation problems but, of course, it will take big agri-business to make that happen. Big agri-business is bad for the family farmer but good for the consumer. It is like Wal-Mart putting the corner department store out of business.

October 10, 2005

Quote:

but, of course, it will take big agri-business to make that happen. Big agri-business is bad for the family farmer but good for the consumer. It is like Wal-Mart putting the corner department store out of business.

Oh, Shane...How short sighted of you! These "big business" farmers pollute our water/land resources and [in some cases] air quality and destroy a way of life for the family farm. As much as you tout big business and the cheapness of the food produced by them, the truth is that they can not produce it much cheaper with good land managment better than the small family farm. And with produce middlemen increasing the crops cost, you have to admit that the store's price of produce is not that cheap than if you buy direct from the family farm. It may look better, with it being polished, waxed, and gussied up, but the taste is flat, mushy, or worse, tasteless.

That is why the Farmer Markets are so important. They provide a better income to the farmers, cut out the middle man, provide a better nutritional product at a better price to the public. Support your local farmers market, a readily available place for better tasting, more nutritional fruits and veggies.

Besides, big business concentrate a larger portion of money to ONE individual, whereas the wealth or larger portion of moneys spent go to many individuals. It's harder to track ecomonically thru the family markets/farms, but more people benefit rather than one individual.

October 10, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

These "big business" farmers pollute our water/land resources and [in some cases] air quality and destroy a way of life for the family farm.

Not when they are regulated. In fact such incidents also happen on the family farm but since they are family business, there are no whistle-blowers. In an agri-business, like Pilsbury, there are laws that protect and encourage whistle-blowers.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

As much as you tout big business and the cheapness of the food produced by them, the truth is that they can not produce it much cheaper with good land managment better than the small family farm.

Take a look at other countries where big agri-business are not yet major players in the food market and you will find the people spend a much larger percentage of their income on food. Well regulated, large agri-business are a blessing to the consumer.

Let's not place sainthood on the small family farmer. They cheat and violate environmental standards just as quickly as do corporations and often get away with it. I worked on a family farm as a teenager that would mix goat's milk in with the cow's milk to increase its fat content and get a higher price for the milk. I doubt anyone ever found out.

October 10, 2005

Quote:

Let's not place sainthood on the small family farmer.

Sainthood on the family farm??? Who talking about sainthood? You wrote that the large agribusness farms are a " blessing to the consumer."...Have you lived down wind from a pig farm? Have you worked on a pultry farm? I have, on both occasions and to say that they are a blessing to the consumer is to bless the blight they provide to the country side. Even today, as I was driving home , NPR talked about pultry farms in Arkanas/Oaklohoma that are increasing the nitrates of various river waters and choking the fish habitats. Waters that used to be 6 ft clear as little as 20 years ago are so polluted that at 2 ft deep, you can not see the bottom. Waters that have NO oxygen in them for fish, and water that is polluted such that you can not drink it. All caused by the high nitrate content in the water. It's affecting the water table as well.

I agree that there is a place for big agribusness, but I also agree that most US subsidies aren't going where they need to go, to the small family farm.

And I can see where regulation can be useful in big business agriculture. I can see where the manure can be moved to biodesial/methane plants....and the resulting mixture fertilizer, sold cheaply to farmers and bagged to home consumers as well and thus removed from the ground pollution that is prevailant in many areas....

But to push that big agribusness is a type of savior....that needs to be rethought out....

October 10, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

Not when they are regulated. In fact such incidents also happen on the family farm but since they are family business, there are no whistle-blowers. In an agri-business, like Pilsbury, there are laws that protect and encourage whistle-blowers.

REGULATED ... do you honestly believe we need more and bigger government?? ... that we need more agencies?? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

As much as you tout big business and the cheapness of the food produced by them, the truth is that they can not produce it much cheaper with good land managment better than the small family farm.

Have you ever tasted a nice fresh tomatoe or piece of fruit right from the vine/tree? As I said earlier; quality or quanity.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Let's not place sainthood on the small family farmer. They cheat and violate environmental standards just as quickly as do corporations and often get away with it. I worked on a family farm as a teenager that would mix goat's milk in with the cow's milk to increase its fat content and get a higher price for the milk. I doubt anyone ever found out.

Unbelievable <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/Nixe_nixe02b.gif" alt="" />

October 10, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Neil D said:

That is why the Farmer Markets are so important. They provide a better income to the farmers, cut out the middle man, provide a better nutritional product at a better price to the public. Support your local farmers market, a readily available place for better tasting, more nutritional fruits and veggies.

Amen & Amen!

What the world needs is more Wal-Mart type business. Perhaps one day we can just have one world-wide company which can raise our food, process it, mfg our clothing and auto accessories and we can then pay the price which they choose to charge. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/sad25.gif" alt="" />

Naomi

October 10, 2005

The meat industry is not a blessing. When I was talking about big agribusiness I was thinking about Pilsbury and ADM. Can you imagine how many chickens are raised and killed each year to meet the demand of the fried chicken chains alone? Now consider all the eggs we consume. All those chickens eat grain that could otherwise be fed to humans or made into fuel. And, as Brother Neil pointed out, they polute our environment. Same can be said of turkeys, cows, sheep and pigs. It doesn't matter if the animals are raised on a small family farm or a large feedlot. The same amount of waste comes out the backend and much of it is washed into rivers, lakes or seeps into ground water. Our desire for flesh food requires more animals to be raised than we need for the manure production for fertilizer. The excess manure polutes our environment.

October 10, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

REGULATED ... do you honestly believe we need more and bigger government?? ... that we need more agencies??

The amount of regulation we have now is enough and much more than it was in the "good old days" of the family farm.

Sign In

G.O.P. Oil Refinery Bill Squeaks By

Recommended Posts

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jasd

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Robert

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity