|
|
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Posted by Ken Maltby on July 17, 2008, 2:42 pm
> John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
> Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else comes
> close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land. People
> are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the farmers
> job.
>>
>> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
>> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
>> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
>> ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
> I am in full agreement with you there. It also drives prices of grain
> up out of reach of the poorest.
> Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one off
> the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from grain
> including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about 10-20% return
> if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI and still with
> scope for improvement.
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
As a diabetic, the potential for a rise in refined sugar prices and
a restriction in its availability, is not too alarming. But still there is
that "Nutrasweet" and some other sugar substitutes have real sugar
as a feed stock. I guess it could be said that the world, as a whole,
can get along without it's main sweetener better than a major feed
stock like corn and soy. The protein that the corn & soy eventually
provides the world will keep people alive, the sugar?
Luck;
Ken
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 18, 2008, 4:13 pm
>
> ..
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>>
>>>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>>>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
>>
>> Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else comes
>> close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land. People
>> are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the farmers
>> job.
>>>
>>> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
>>> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
>>> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons
>>> of ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of
>>> food.
>>
>> I am in full agreement with you there. It also drives prices of grain
>> up out of reach of the poorest.
>>
>> Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one off
>> the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from grain
>> including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about 10-20%
>> return if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI and still
>> with scope for improvement.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
> As a diabetic, the potential for a rise in refined sugar prices and
> a restriction in its availability, is not too alarming. But still
> there is that "Nutrasweet" and some other sugar substitutes have real
> sugar as a feed stock. I guess it could be said that the world, as a
> whole, can get along without it's main sweetener better than a major
> feed stock like corn and soy. The protein that the corn & soy
> eventually provides the world will keep people alive, the sugar?
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
Ugh, and that nasty High Fructose Corn Syrup. The older I get, the fewer
processed foods I eat, not so much because I don't like cereal or so on,
but there is so much HFCS in the vast majority of products now that
they're inedible to me - I don't know how poeple can stomach the stuff.
Even something as simple as a Kaiser roll is now nauseatingly sweet.
I've gotten to where I'm starting to even make my own bread, that's how
disgusting most of the commercial items have gotten. And obesity is
described as being "an epidemic" among even young children. The last
thing we need is ever-more HFCS in everything. And studies indicate that
it is worse than regular sugar, something to do with it being iether
unrecognized ro poorly-recognized by the hormones that signal the brain
we're satiated. Not to mention that the hidden sugar only contributes to
obesity and type-II diabetes. I mean, why the heck does something like
*sausage* "need' to have HFCS added? IMO, it'd be a blessing if that
crap was turned into ethanol, because that'd mean less of it would be
going into food products.
At least, that is my opinionated opinion ;)
Posted by John Larkin on July 18, 2008, 4:53 pm wrote:
>>
>> ..
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>>>
>>>>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>>>>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
>>>
>>> Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else comes
>>> close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land. People
>>> are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the farmers
>>> job.
>>>>
>>>> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
>>>> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
>>>> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons
>>>> of ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of
>>>> food.
>>>
>>> I am in full agreement with you there. It also drives prices of grain
>>> up out of reach of the poorest.
>>>
>>> Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one off
>>> the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from grain
>>> including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about 10-20%
>>> return if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI and still
>>> with scope for improvement.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin Brown
>>
>> As a diabetic, the potential for a rise in refined sugar prices and
>> a restriction in its availability, is not too alarming. But still
>> there is that "Nutrasweet" and some other sugar substitutes have real
>> sugar as a feed stock. I guess it could be said that the world, as a
>> whole, can get along without it's main sweetener better than a major
>> feed stock like corn and soy. The protein that the corn & soy
>> eventually provides the world will keep people alive, the sugar?
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
>>
>Ugh, and that nasty High Fructose Corn Syrup. The older I get, the fewer
>processed foods I eat, not so much because I don't like cereal or so on,
>but there is so much HFCS in the vast majority of products now that
>they're inedible to me - I don't know how poeple can stomach the stuff.
>Even something as simple as a Kaiser roll is now nauseatingly sweet.
>I've gotten to where I'm starting to even make my own bread, that's how
>disgusting most of the commercial items have gotten. And obesity is
>described as being "an epidemic" among even young children. The last
>thing we need is ever-more HFCS in everything. And studies indicate that
>it is worse than regular sugar, something to do with it being iether
>unrecognized ro poorly-recognized by the hormones that signal the brain
>we're satiated. Not to mention that the hidden sugar only contributes to
>obesity and type-II diabetes. I mean, why the heck does something like
>*sausage* "need' to have HFCS added? IMO, it'd be a blessing if that
>crap was turned into ethanol, because that'd mean less of it would be
>going into food products.
>At least, that is my opinionated opinion ;)
Here, you can buy Mexican cokes, in glass bottles, made with real
sugar. They're pretty good.
And sourdough bread is made from flour and water, with maybe a little
salt.
At least the trans-fat hydrogenated soybean oil is going away. That
was really foul.
John
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 19, 2008, 9:10 pm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> m. ..
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even
>>>>>> easier to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
>>>>
>>>> Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else
>>>> comes close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land.
>>>> People are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the
>>>> farmers job.
>>>>>
>>>>> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient
>>>>> carbohydrates to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and
>>>>> airplanes is grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a
>>>>> couple of gallons of ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste
>>>>> a half of a ton of food.
>>>>
>>>> I am in full agreement with you there. It also drives prices of
>>>> grain up out of reach of the poorest.
>>>>
>>>> Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one
>>>> off the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from
>>>> grain including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about
>>>> 10-20% return if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI
>>>> and still with scope for improvement.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin Brown
>>>
>>> As a diabetic, the potential for a rise in refined sugar prices
>>> and
>>> a restriction in its availability, is not too alarming. But still
>>> there is that "Nutrasweet" and some other sugar substitutes have
>>> real sugar as a feed stock. I guess it could be said that the
>>> world, as a whole, can get along without it's main sweetener better
>>> than a major feed stock like corn and soy. The protein that the
>>> corn & soy eventually provides the world will keep people alive, the
>>> sugar?
>>>
>>> Luck;
>>> Ken
>>>
>>
>>Ugh, and that nasty High Fructose Corn Syrup. The older I get, the
>>fewer processed foods I eat, not so much because I don't like cereal
>>or so on, but there is so much HFCS in the vast majority of products
>>now that they're inedible to me - I don't know how poeple can stomach
>>the stuff. Even something as simple as a Kaiser roll is now
>>nauseatingly sweet. I've gotten to where I'm starting to even make my
>>own bread, that's how disgusting most of the commercial items have
>>gotten. And obesity is described as being "an epidemic" among even
>>young children. The last thing we need is ever-more HFCS in
>>everything. And studies indicate that it is worse than regular sugar,
>>something to do with it being iether unrecognized ro poorly-recognized
>>by the hormones that signal the brain we're satiated. Not to mention
>>that the hidden sugar only contributes to obesity and type-II
>>diabetes. I mean, why the heck does something like *sausage* "need'
>>to have HFCS added? IMO, it'd be a blessing if that crap was turned
>>into ethanol, because that'd mean less of it would be going into food
>>products.
>>
>>At least, that is my opinionated opinion ;)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Here, you can buy Mexican cokes, in glass bottles, made with real
> sugar. They're pretty good.
More and mroe, I go for things like fruit, baby carrots, apples, and
other "natural sweets", esp. when in season, mostly because I'm already
far too overweight (weight gain due to prolonged illness last year).
One of my top favorites is those cherry tomatoes (not the teensy "grape"
tomatoes, they're *too* sweet) and "Campari" tomatoes. And Romas. If
given a choice tomatoes, and chocolate, forget the chocolate, I'd pounce
on the tomatoes. I can eat a whole pound of them easily and happily.
Dunno why, tomatoes are just one of my favorite things, raw or cooked or
juiced (the latter 2 prefably low salt of course).
Just picturing a sugar cookie, versus a tomato, makes me want to go grab
a tomato. Go figure <LOL!>
>
> And sourdough bread is made from flour and water, with maybe a little
> salt.
Technically, but I'm a habitual label-reader, and the last time I felt
like having some bread, I started reading the labels, including the
"sourdough" labels - ugh... I ended up with tortillas, because the
ingredients were "real".
>
> At least the trans-fat hydrogenated soybean oil is going away. That
> was really foul.
>
THat stuff was awful. The reason I started reading lables was that, when
I ate things made with transfats, my gallbladder would feel like it was
trying to burst - the pain was awful. So was the effect on the rest of
my digestion. Transfats and MSG.
It amazes me that people *don't* get sick from eating a lot of this
stuff.
Posted by John Larkin on July 20, 2008, 4:40 pm wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> m. ..
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even
>>>>>>> easier to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
>>>>>
>>>>> Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else
>>>>> comes close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land.
>>>>> People are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the
>>>>> farmers job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient
>>>>>> carbohydrates to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and
>>>>>> airplanes is grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a
>>>>>> couple of gallons of ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste
>>>>>> a half of a ton of food.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in full agreement with you there. It also drives prices of
>>>>> grain up out of reach of the poorest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one
>>>>> off the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from
>>>>> grain including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about
>>>>> 10-20% return if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI
>>>>> and still with scope for improvement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Martin Brown
>>>>
>>>> As a diabetic, the potential for a rise in refined sugar prices
>>>> and
>>>> a restriction in its availability, is not too alarming. But still
>>>> there is that "Nutrasweet" and some other sugar substitutes have
>>>> real sugar as a feed stock. I guess it could be said that the
>>>> world, as a whole, can get along without it's main sweetener better
>>>> than a major feed stock like corn and soy. The protein that the
>>>> corn & soy eventually provides the world will keep people alive, the
>>>> sugar?
>>>>
>>>> Luck;
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ugh, and that nasty High Fructose Corn Syrup. The older I get, the
>>>fewer processed foods I eat, not so much because I don't like cereal
>>>or so on, but there is so much HFCS in the vast majority of products
>>>now that they're inedible to me - I don't know how poeple can stomach
>>>the stuff. Even something as simple as a Kaiser roll is now
>>>nauseatingly sweet. I've gotten to where I'm starting to even make my
>>>own bread, that's how disgusting most of the commercial items have
>>>gotten. And obesity is described as being "an epidemic" among even
>>>young children. The last thing we need is ever-more HFCS in
>>>everything. And studies indicate that it is worse than regular sugar,
>>>something to do with it being iether unrecognized ro poorly-recognized
>>>by the hormones that signal the brain we're satiated. Not to mention
>>>that the hidden sugar only contributes to obesity and type-II
>>>diabetes. I mean, why the heck does something like *sausage* "need'
>>>to have HFCS added? IMO, it'd be a blessing if that crap was turned
>>>into ethanol, because that'd mean less of it would be going into food
>>>products.
>>>
>>>At least, that is my opinionated opinion ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here, you can buy Mexican cokes, in glass bottles, made with real
>> sugar. They're pretty good.
>More and mroe, I go for things like fruit, baby carrots, apples, and
>other "natural sweets", esp. when in season, mostly because I'm already
>far too overweight (weight gain due to prolonged illness last year).
>One of my top favorites is those cherry tomatoes (not the teensy "grape"
>tomatoes, they're *too* sweet) and "Campari" tomatoes. And Romas. If
>given a choice tomatoes, and chocolate, forget the chocolate, I'd pounce
>on the tomatoes. I can eat a whole pound of them easily and happily.
>Dunno why, tomatoes are just one of my favorite things, raw or cooked or
>juiced (the latter 2 prefably low salt of course).
Excuse me, you typed "forget the chocolate". What could those words
possibly mean?
I had a sticky bun for breakfast, with a double-shot latte with 6 (or
was it 7?) packets of light brown sugar. I add sugar until it tastes
just barely bitter.
John
ps: there are no "baby carrots." They're just regular carrots they run
through a machine.
This Thread
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
|
|
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
> Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else comes
> close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land. People
> are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the farmers
> job.
>>
>> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
>> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
>> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
>> ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
> I am in full agreement with you there. It also drives prices of grain
> up out of reach of the poorest.
> Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one off
> the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from grain
> including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about 10-20% return
> if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI and still with
> scope for improvement.
> Regards,
> Martin Brown