Meat Prices Going Up

"Dave Bugg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

Interesting article. Might be time for a 10 foot high electric fence, a big
vegetable garden, and plenty of shotgun ammo. Our cars are about to compete
with our food supply.

If we stop making all this useless high-fructose corn syrup and
start relying on sugar, which we have plenty of, then we'd have
plenty of corn for the cattle.

How come with all this propaganda, we're not hearing of or seeing
the price of soda go up? I don't see ADM, Pepsico, or Coca-Cola
shaking in their boots. And they use a lot of corn. About 1/4 of
that can of soda is made from corn. Not to mention the hundreds
of thousands of other products made with HFCS instead of sugar.

How much will Gasahol cost compared to Soda?

Could it be it's all [censored] to fool us into thinking we really
need this War on Oil?

Nah. Couldn't be that.

-sw

Dave Bugg said:

http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

"The USDA is predicting that the 2006 corn crop will sell for an
average of $3.10 a bushel at the farm gate"

Wow. They must have a crystal ball.

-sw

Steve Wertz <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

If we stop making all this useless high-fructose corn syrup
and start relying on sugar, which we have plenty of, then
we'd have plenty of corn for the cattle.

hmm, not to mention grass fed beef tastes better & corn isn't
really a good feed for chickens...
this is something that is an inconvienience for agribiz meat
producers, but not really for small farmers.

Quoted message said:

Could it be it's all [censored] to fool us into thinking we
really need this War on Oil?

Nah. Couldn't be that.

heavens, no! this is a Just War. just ask Bush & the neocons.
lee

enigma said:

Steve Wertz <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

If we stop making all this useless high-fructose corn syrup
and start relying on sugar, which we have plenty of, then
we'd have plenty of corn for the cattle.

hmm, not to mention grass fed beef tastes better & corn isn't
really a good feed for chickens...

Grass fed beef tastes different, not better.

Couldn't tell you about chicken feed, I though they had progressed to
just growing giant chicken [censored] in a big vat in a lab somewhere these
days. Certainly that factory "chicken" bears little resemblance to
anything you'd expect to see wandering a farmyard.

Quoted message said:

this is something that is an inconvienience for agribiz meat
producers, but not really for small farmers.

Quoted message said:

Could it be it's all [censored] to fool us into thinking we
really need this War on Oil?

Nah. Couldn't be that.

heavens, no! this is a Just War. just ask Bush & the neocons.
lee

This war has nothing to do with oil. If you'd take your Bush hating head
out of your posterior and look at the real world you might realize that.
Bush is most certainly an idiot and he and his cronies are handling this
war very poorly, however that in no way negates the very valid reasons
for the war.

There is a very real danger to this country and indeed the entire
civilized world that is coming from the wing nuts on both end of the
left-right spectrum who have so totally blinded themselves with
irrational Bush love or hate that they fail to see what is really going
on in the world and form rational opinions on what should be done.

Pete C.

Steve Wertz said:

If we stop making all this useless high-fructose corn syrup and
start relying on sugar, which we have plenty of, then we'd have
plenty of corn for the cattle.

Perhaps. But the question then becomes why do manufacturers use HFCS if
domestic sugar supplies are highly available? Then we could go off into
domestic price control issues and monopolies on sugar production, along with
tariffs on imported sugar that artificially inflates the price of sugar.

Quoted message said:

How come with all this propaganda, we're not hearing of or seeing
the price of soda go up? I don't see ADM, Pepsico, or Coca-Cola
shaking in their boots. And they use a lot of corn. About 1/4 of
that can of soda is made from corn. Not to mention the hundreds
of thousands of other products made with HFCS instead of sugar.

Possibly because they (HFCS producers) probably have futures contracts in
place and a large supply of corn in inventory? I would expect that

Quoted message said:

How much will Gasahol cost compared to Soda?

Probably the same ratio as the price of Perrier vs. gasoline.

Quoted message said:

Could it be it's all [censored] to fool us into thinking we really
need this War on Oil?

Personally, I doubt it.

Quoted message said:

Nah. Couldn't be that.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

enigma said:

Steve Wertz <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

If we stop making all this useless high-fructose corn syrup
and start relying on sugar, which we have plenty of, then
we'd have plenty of corn for the cattle.

hmm, not to mention grass fed beef tastes better & corn isn't
really a good feed for chickens...
this is something that is an inconvienience for agribiz meat
producers, but not really for small farmers.

Quoted message said:

Could it be it's all [censored] to fool us into thinking we
really need this War on Oil?

Nah. Couldn't be that.

heavens, no! this is a Just War. just ask Bush & the neocons.

Sheesh. Talk about thread drift. I'm sorry I brought the thread into the NG.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Steve Wertz said:

Dave Bugg said:

http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

"The USDA is predicting that the 2006 corn crop will sell for an
average of $3.10 a bushel at the farm gate"

Wow. They must have a crystal ball.

Well, the 2006 crop is the current inventory.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg said:

http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

I thought this political cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post
yesterday was very appropriate:

http://tinyurl.com/2jc6ve

I rather resent having my food prices go up so some [censored] can commute 50
miles each way to work alone in his monster SUV.

Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to this issue this week... a woman driving a Ford
Expedition she couldn't handle backed into my sister-in-law's Honda causing
a few thousand dollars damage earlier this week.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

wff_ng_7 said:

Dave Bugg said:

http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

I thought this political cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post
yesterday was very appropriate:

http://tinyurl.com/2jc6ve

I rather resent having my food prices go up so some [censored] can
commute 50 miles each way to work alone in his monster SUV.

Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to this issue this week... a woman driving
a Ford Expedition she couldn't handle backed into my sister-in-law's
Honda causing a few thousand dollars damage earlier this week.

I thought the issue was environmental, not supply. Even if every car on the
road was a Prius, the reduction -- and eventual elimination of petroleum
fuels -- is the issue with the ethanol/environmental connection.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wff_ng_7 said:

Dave Bugg said:

http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

I thought this political cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post
yesterday was very appropriate:

http://tinyurl.com/2jc6ve

I rather resent having my food prices go up so some [censored] can commute 50
miles each way to work alone in his monster SUV.

While some PYVs have have their big SUV for no good reason, they
represent a pretty small percentage of the users. The underlying reason
you see a lot of solo commuters in big SUVs is actually purely economic.
A lot of people actually need the large vehicle for other activities and
the added cost in taxes, maintenance and insurance for a second small
vehicle that would be used for commuting and groceries is vastly higher
than the potential gas savings.

Not everyone can afford to throw money away to make an eco-social
statement, nor are they willing to throw away their personal activities.
I did the math a while back when I was commuting and found that getting
a small car to use for commuting instead of my big truck would cost me
something like $1,500 a year more in extra taxes, maintenance and
insurance vs. just using the truck for everything and that figure didn't
even include the cost of that extra vehicle.

Quoted message said:

Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to this issue this week... a woman driving a Ford
Expedition she couldn't handle backed into my sister-in-law's Honda causing
a few thousand dollars damage earlier this week.

I'm afraid this issue is very widespread and has nothing to do with the
vehicle. I've witnessed the exact same type of issues with people
driving very small cars. The issue isn't too big a vehicle for the
person to handle which should be obvious due to the vehicle controls and
effort required to operate them being pretty much identical across the
entire spectrum of consumer autos. The issue is a total lack of spatial
skills.

More and more children are growing up with fewer and fewer opportunities
to develop critical spatial skills. Kids who don't have a yard to play
in and can't go to a park because their parents aren't able to take them
for whatever reason. Kids who can't play outside because of high crime
areas. Kids who get to do little other than watch TV and play video
games.

Play time with activities like LEGOs, erector sets, outdoor play with
tree climbing, rock hopping, bike riding and similar physical activities
have a big impact on development of spatial skills. Without developing
these spatial skills early on, these future drivers don't have the
skills to be aware of their vehicles extents and judge clearance
distances properly.

I've seen this issue once with someone in one of the tiny Geo Metros who
had a heck of a time fitting it into a parking space twice it's size. I
see it constantly with drivers of average size cars who have to make a 6
point maneuver to back their car out of a parking space where it could
easily be backed out in a single maneuver.

I once watched someone in a Ford Excursion try to get it into a parking
space for nearly 10 minutes before finally giving up and moving on, the
exact same parking space where after I stopped laughing I pulled my
truck which is larger in both length and width up to and backed into
with a 10 second 3 point maneuver.

Oh, and to stay relevant to the food theme, the same factors that are
preventing development of spatial skills are also some of the big ones
behind the obesity epidemic.

Pete C.

"Pete C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wff_ng_7 said:

Dave Bugg said:

http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

I thought this political cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post
yesterday was very appropriate:

http://tinyurl.com/2jc6ve

I rather resent having my food prices go up so some [censored] can commute
50
miles each way to work alone in his monster SUV.

While some PYVs have have their big SUV for no good reason, they
represent a pretty small percentage of the users. The underlying reason
you see a lot of solo commuters in big SUVs is actually purely economic.
A lot of people actually need the large vehicle for other activities and
the added cost in taxes, maintenance and insurance for a second small
vehicle that would be used for commuting and groceries is vastly higher
than the potential gas savings.

Not everyone can afford to throw money away to make an eco-social
statement, nor are they willing to throw away their personal activities.
I did the math a while back when I was commuting and found that getting
a small car to use for commuting instead of my big truck would cost me
something like $1,500 a year more in extra taxes, maintenance and
insurance vs. just using the truck for everything and that figure didn't
even include the cost of that extra vehicle.

You know what's strange, though? 30 years ago, "a lot of people" didn't need
huge SUVs, so I don't think your theory is full of holes. Now, you *could*
make the argument that "a lot of people" had much bigger sedans 30 years
ago, but that idea wouldn't work, either. There are plenty of big sedans
that'll hold 5 adults and a ton of stuff in the trunk.

I have no more stats than you do to back up MY theory: "A lot of people" own
big SUVs because they're afraid of being creamed in an accident.

Dave Bugg said:

I thought the issue was environmental, not supply. Even if every car on
the road was a Prius, the reduction -- and eventual elimination of
petroleum fuels -- is the issue with the ethanol/environmental connection.

I'm not sure there's much environmental benefit in it, beyond the initial
10% that is added routinely to gasoline for air pollution reasons to replace
MTBE. Personally I think going to E85 is more of a "feel good" thing than
actually being useful for the environment.

Ethanol is being heavily promoted as a way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. That plays well politically. But even using most of the corn
crop for ethanol is hardly going to make a big dent in our oil imports. It's
a fantasy that prevents us from pursuing other proven methods, such as
improving fuel economy or reducing miles traveled. It's so easy for
politicians to tell the public we're going to solve the dependency problem
in a way that requires absolutely no sacrifice. Things sure are different
than back in the 1970s and early 1980s when people understood everyone has
to pitch in.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"JoeSpareBedroom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Pete C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wff_ng_7 said:

"Dave Bugg" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

I thought this political cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post
yesterday was very appropriate:

http://tinyurl.com/2jc6ve

I rather resent having my food prices go up so some [censored] can commute
50
miles each way to work alone in his monster SUV.

While some PYVs have have their big SUV for no good reason, they
represent a pretty small percentage of the users. The underlying reason
you see a lot of solo commuters in big SUVs is actually purely economic.
A lot of people actually need the large vehicle for other activities and
the added cost in taxes, maintenance and insurance for a second small
vehicle that would be used for commuting and groceries is vastly higher
than the potential gas savings.

Not everyone can afford to throw money away to make an eco-social
statement, nor are they willing to throw away their personal activities.
I did the math a while back when I was commuting and found that getting
a small car to use for commuting instead of my big truck would cost me
something like $1,500 a year more in extra taxes, maintenance and
insurance vs. just using the truck for everything and that figure didn't
even include the cost of that extra vehicle.

You know what's strange, though? 30 years ago, "a lot of people" didn't
need huge SUVs, so I don't think your theory is full of holes. Now, you
*could* make the argument that "a lot of people" had much bigger sedans 30
years ago, but that idea wouldn't work, either. There are plenty of big
sedans that'll hold 5 adults and a ton of stuff in the trunk.

I have no more stats than you do to back up MY theory: "A lot of people"
own big SUVs because they're afraid of being creamed in an accident.

Oops. I *do* think your theory is full of holes.

JoeSpareBedroom said:

I have no more stats than you do to back up MY theory: "A lot of people"
own big SUVs because they're afraid of being creamed in an accident.

I've considered getting an SUV for that reason alone.
I like small cars and don't like SUVs, but I feel
like I'm endangered by other drivers who have SUVs.
I do so little driving that the fuel question would
not be a consideration.

I hardly eat any red meat, either. So it doesn't
bother me if prices rise. It does bother me if
prices rise based on bogus science -- according
to some sources, ethanol is a net energy consumer.
If true, we'll consume MORE oil with increased
ethanol consumption.

JoeSpareBedroom said:

"Pete C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wff_ng_7 said:

"Dave Bugg" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2zm2hn

I thought this political cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post
yesterday was very appropriate:

http://tinyurl.com/2jc6ve

I rather resent having my food prices go up so some [censored] can commute
50
miles each way to work alone in his monster SUV.

While some PYVs have have their big SUV for no good reason, they
represent a pretty small percentage of the users. The underlying reason
you see a lot of solo commuters in big SUVs is actually purely economic.
A lot of people actually need the large vehicle for other activities and
the added cost in taxes, maintenance and insurance for a second small
vehicle that would be used for commuting and groceries is vastly higher
than the potential gas savings.

Not everyone can afford to throw money away to make an eco-social
statement, nor are they willing to throw away their personal activities.
I did the math a while back when I was commuting and found that getting
a small car to use for commuting instead of my big truck would cost me
something like $1,500 a year more in extra taxes, maintenance and
insurance vs. just using the truck for everything and that figure didn't
even include the cost of that extra vehicle.

You know what's strange, though? 30 years ago, "a lot of people" didn't
need huge SUVs, so I don't think your theory is full of holes. Now, you
*could* make the argument that "a lot of people" had much bigger sedans 30
years ago, but that idea wouldn't work, either. There are plenty of big
sedans that'll hold 5 adults and a ton of stuff in the trunk.

I have no more stats than you do to back up MY theory: "A lot of people"
own big SUVs because they're afraid of being creamed in an accident.

I agree with that last point. I mentioned it in another thread (washing
greens) about how so many things are sold on "fear". The SUV one is
interesting, because everyone says they need an SUV to avoid being creamed.
But that's only because so many people are driving SUVs that can hit them.
If everyone was in smaller vehicles, the issue largely wouldn't be there.
It's an escalation thing were I've got to get a bigger gun because you've
got a bigger gun. Smaller cars can be extremely safe if they were only being
hit by other smaller cars. But not if they are being speared through the
side by the frame of a huge SUV. In this escalating war with larger and
larger vehicles, I'd say that perhaps the overall safety has gone down, as
roll overs are so commonplace with SUVs compared to smaller (and
particularly lower) cars.

I also take issue with the statement that only a small portion of SUV owners
have them for no good reason. That might be true in some rural areas, but in
any major metropolitan area there is a huge number of people driving them
purely for the social status and/or perceived safety value. Needing a large
SUV because of "the family" is pretty weak considering family sizes on
average have gone down in the past 30 years, while the size of vehicles (and
houses) has gone up. I know my parents were able to deal with 5 kids in a
three row standard Chevy station wagon, and my brother with 3 kids was fine
with a K-car. Yet someone with 1 or 2 kids these days needs an Expedition?
Part of the problem is the whole way of life has changed and that's what
generates the need for these things. Back in my childhood we didn't have
"soccer moms" driving theirs and their neighbors kids all over creation. You
did everything in your own neighborhood, and you walked or rode your bike.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

wff_ng_7 said:

Dave Bugg said:

I thought the issue was environmental, not supply. Even if every car
on the road was a Prius, the reduction -- and eventual elimination of
petroleum fuels -- is the issue with the ethanol/environmental
connection.

I'm not sure there's much environmental benefit in it, beyond the
initial 10% that is added routinely to gasoline for air pollution
reasons to replace MTBE. Personally I think going to E85 is more of a
"feel good" thing than actually being useful for the environment.

I agree

Quoted message said:

Ethanol is being heavily promoted as a way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. That plays well politically. ....snip

Granted. But there is the "feel good" factor that I think is the bigger
factor. The oil industry is a big bogey man in the whole global
warming/environmental degradation community. Brazil is constantly touted as
a model for weaning America from oil and onto ethanol by these groups.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Mark Thorson said:

JoeSpareBedroom said:

I have no more stats than you do to back up MY theory: "A lot of
people" own big SUVs because they're afraid of being creamed in an
accident.

I've considered getting an SUV for that reason alone.
I like small cars and don't like SUVs, but I feel
like I'm endangered by other drivers who have SUVs.
I do so little driving that the fuel question would
not be a consideration.

I hardly eat any red meat, either. So it doesn't
bother me if prices rise. It does bother me if
prices rise based on bogus science -- according
to some sources, ethanol is a net energy consumer.
If true, we'll consume MORE oil with increased
ethanol consumption.

Good points, Mark.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Pete C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

A lot of people actually need the large vehicle for other activities and
the added cost in taxes, maintenance and insurance for a second small
vehicle that would be used for commuting and groceries is vastly higher
than the potential gas savings.

Sorry, but I cannot agree. Have you been to Europe? You won't see many
SUVs, no full sized pickups, etc, yet they manage to exist comfortably.
Sure, the price of gas (I paid $6.50 a gallon two weeks ago) is a factor,
but most of our "needs" are really "wants". Two and four seat cars such as
the Toyota Yaris, Smart, assorted Fiats are the norm. For the upscale
crow, this is a common Mercedes for the family
http://www.mercedes-benz.it/vetture/gamma/berline/classe_a/default.htm

Quoted message said:

Not everyone can afford to throw money away to make an eco-social
statement, nor are they willing to throw away their personal activities.
I did the math a while back when I was commuting and found that getting
a small car to use for commuting instead of my big truck would cost me
something like $1,500 a year more in extra taxes, maintenance and
insurance vs. just using the truck for everything and that figure didn't
even include the cost of that extra vehicle.

What did people do a few years ago when only tradesmen used trucks? We
survived very well. Try re-figuring and just rent a truck when you really n
eed one and see how that works out.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and to stay relevant to the food theme, the same factors that are
preventing development of spatial skills are also some of the big ones
behind the obesity epidemic.

If we all drove small cars and scooters, we'd probably cut back on food so
we could fit into them. Not to mention that kids no longer walk two houses
down to get on the school bus. It has to stop at each damned house.