|
My Declining Standard of Living
|
12-07-2008, 04:06 PM
mikeylikesit wrote: Didn't Trader Joe's start with a convenience store in a largely mexican neighborhodd out by you somewhere? Or am I jumbling that somehow . . .
12-07-2008, 05:15 PM
JoeH wrote: You got a source for that? Or is it made up on the spot like most internet statistics? Even at half, that removes a lot of feed from the market to feed cattle and other livestock. What kind of link? A price list of feed? It's a myth, because only half the resource by weight is used for the production of ethanol. The co-product or residue feed is one quarter the cost of feed corn or in some cases less. But for instance Dakota Bran Cake contains one hundred per cent of the energy value for one quarter the cost of corn. Dakota Bran Cake is one of the hundreds of by-product feeds that have better nutrition than feeding corn. The feeds that are dried down do add more cost to them but it's still such a better value than feeding corn. By using co-products the low quality varieties (high starch) can have their fat and protein levels increased by fermenting off half the starch. There by increasing the value of the feed. This is not rocket science, but it seems to never be reported correctly when you see ethanol blamed for the rising cost of food. I'm not in total support of ethanol because of the huge use of water during production. but that is something else.
12-07-2008, 05:29 PM
Yeah, I always buy my eggs and milk at Trader Joes because they're reasonably cheap. Like decocritter, I don't find Walmart to be all monumentally cheaper than what I can generally find elsewhere save for a handful of items (like my cat treats) that's always cheapest there. I think we shop in a similar fashion.
12-07-2008, 06:34 PM
DevoBill wrote: You got a source for that? Or is it made up on the spot like most internet statistics? Even at half, that removes a lot of feed from the market to feed cattle and other livestock. What kind of link? A price list of feed? It's a myth, because only half the resource by weight is used for the production of ethanol. The co-product or residue feed is one quarter the cost of feed corn or in some cases less. But for instance Dakota Bran Cake contains one hundred per cent of the energy value for one quarter the cost of corn. Dakota Bran Cake is one of the hundreds of by-product feeds that have better nutrition than feeding corn. The feeds that are dried down do add more cost to them but it's still such a better value than feeding corn. By using co-products the low quality varieties (high starch) can have their fat and protein levels increased by fermenting off half the starch. There by increasing the value of the feed. This is not rocket science, but it seems to never be reported correctly when you see ethanol blamed for the rising cost of food. I'm not in total support of ethanol because of the huge use of water during production. but that is something else. No, how about a figure that supports your supposition that half the corn used did end up back in the feed chain as feed cake or whatever. That does not match up with other reports that the amount that actually made it into feed supplements was closer to a quarter, perhaps even lower. Mostly because drying, post processing and transportation was more expensive than what they would get for it because the huge increase in its supply as a waste product from fermentation depressed the market price. In any case, a major fraction of the corn crop went to ethanol production. It raised the price of corn due to the demand, also reduced crop acreage of other feed crops when more corn was planted instead, raising their prices too. There were farmers and feed lot operations who could not get as much feed as they normally could, so they raised fewer animals also raising prices. Also reduced the amount of corn available for HFCS production. Like I said, it was not the only cause but a contributor; its effect fans out through the agricultural markets adding a few cents here and there to prices.
12-07-2008, 09:36 PM
Joe,
What state are you in? I'm in South west MN. We have nearly forty Ethanol plants with in a hundred miles. There is huge surplus of residue co-product feed, it's going to beef, dairy, hog confinements, poultry. Still there is a surplus. We have local farmers contract to the ethanol plant with corn and part of the contract is hauling residue back to their cattle. They make out better than cutting silage, or hauling to the elevator.
12-07-2008, 10:01 PM
I live in W. MA. However, I have relatives farming in Missouri, Wisconsin and Michigan still. You may have a local surplus of the feed residue, but it is being taken care of by requiring the farmers to take it back as feed. You probably do not see much of it shipped more than a couple hundred miles, if that far, the transportation costs and/or the drying to reduce the weight tip the price figures to not being economical. Your local farmers may be doing better than the alternative, but that will only be local to plants. It certainly is not making it to this area much if at all. So, if there is enough places to use it local to a plant, the residue gets used up as feed. But that does not apply to everywhere. Other places have air dried and then burned it as a fuel for the distallation process to use it up, but that is not as feed.
12-07-2008, 10:48 PM
Mikey,
I love Trader Joes. I've been going to them for more than twenty years. It is by far one of my favorite stores. Nonetheless, Trader Joes is a speciality store. A place like Walmart does in fact have better prices on a slew of goods, many that you can't get at a specialty store like Trader Joes. And, yes, TJs did start as a chain of store similar to 7-Eleven. If I remember correctly, they decided that competing with the 7-Elevens of the world was a losing battle. I'm glad they decided to transform themselves into a the TJs we all know and love. I just wish there was one within a short distance of my house. Robert
12-08-2008, 05:48 AM
vision63 wrote: Like decocritter, I don't find Walmart to be all monumentally cheaper than what I can generally find elsewhere save for a handful of items (like my cat treats) that's always cheapest there. I've heard the old cliché of "eating dog food" when times get hard and money gets tight, but this is the first reference I've seen to cat treats. Is there something about them nutritionally, or cost-wise, that makes them a particularly good staple?
12-08-2008, 01:34 PM
DevoBill wrote: That is a myth. The ethanol residue is feed and is used in place of corn that would have been fed anyway. Huh ? use of corn for ethanol didn't drive feed prices up ? even if the < Milk is down 20 cents a gallon here. Dunno if that is a retreat due to milk production costs or just stores in a price war.
12-09-2008, 09:08 PM
Black Landlord wrote: I've heard the old cliché of "eating dog food" when times get hard and money gets tight, but this is the first reference I've seen to cat treats. Is there something about them nutritionally, or cost-wise, that makes them a particularly good staple? Dey be tasty! |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
