Forecast

The other day I posted about using native plants in our flower beds around the house.  Texas Sage was the one in the photograph that accompanied the post.  It is known as the Barometer Plant and in South Texas it is known for predicting rain with its blooms.  Well, ours is blooming like crazy even though it has only been planted a short while (photo at bottom of post).

We certainly need the rain, but not as desperately as most of the rest of the state and the Southwestern U.S. in general.  Drought conditions continue and rainfall deficits have left many lakes far below their desired levels.  This condition doesn't bode well for the cities and small communities that depend on those lakes for water.

It also continues to pressure the cattle industry.  High beef prices in the grocery store are directly related to declining numbers of cattle and a growing population that demands high quality protein.  We will not see significant rebuilding of the national cow herd when severe drought limits the availability of suitable forage for grazing.

I am concerned that many people both within and outside the cattle industry will seek to blame the problem on something other than the weather.  Generally, it is the beef packers who are saddled with fault when it comes to beef prices.  It is simple economics surrounding supply and demand with production constraints affecting both sides of the equation.  Most don't see it that way and will call for government intervention.  Such intervention will be directed at the packers because they are everyone's favored whipping boy.  It should instead be directed at urban sprawl which is removing suitable grazing land at a pace faster than drought.  The politics don't work so instead of fixing the problem, government intervention will likely only make it worse.

Oil prices are another issue which is constraining not only to cattle production but to almost every industry.  The blame will fall squarely on the current administration and their actions in Iran which have temporarily caused supply disruptions.  This is one where political pressure again will dictate how and when we withdraw from that action rather than suffering the short-term pain in order to receive the long-term gain of curbing the radicalized regime which has long declared "Death to America."

There are many other issues that we currently face, and everyone has their opinion on how they will turn out.  We all have a "forecast" for the future, and it is based on our personal experience, education, and otherwise gained knowledge.  It's too bad that none of it is as reliable as our little Texas Sage, the Barometer Plant.

We had to cage the sage in order to protect it from rabbits as well as a dog that thinks the flower bed is his napping ground.  Pardon the rusty T-post -- I believe in endless recycling.

This Got My Attention

I recently read The Last Jihad (Political Thrillers Series #1) by Joel C. Rosenberg.  A little history on the book:  It was written pre-9/11 but uncannily predicts a major terrorist attack and war with Iraq.  It was not published until after a "moderating" period and then with minor changes because of the recent history.  One of the centerpieces of the story is the discovery of major natural gas reserves off the coast of Israel and Lebanon.

Natural gas could lead to new Lebanon-Israel war

Eerie.....

The book was one that I couldn't put down.  I now have to read the rest of the series.

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

We frequently hear celebrities on the "bandwagon" about some cause or the other.  They typically are poorly informed about their subject but believe themselves to be experts.  The article linked below is an exception.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2851

I appreciate the fact that Costner put up $21 million of his own money to develop the system.  I wish him well as it is deployed.  It is a worthy use of some of that box-office cash he has raked in.

Now, if we could just get a few more of them investing their money intelligently instead of putting it in the hands of a bunch of lawyers under the guise of a benevolent charity such as HSUS (which is probably the worst wolf in sheep's clothing out there in my opinion).  They play on the heartstrings of gullible people with their appeal for money using images of pitiful dogs and cats that have been mistreated.  Less than 1% of their $100 million warchest has been spent on rescue efforts.  In fact, their stated goal is to eliminate animal agriculture in the United States.  They use deceptive practices to raise that money.  It mostly goes to advertising, lobbyists and for huge salaries for a handful of individuals.

More on Ethanol

This article from CattleNetwork.com is interesting (at least to those of us who seem to be obsessed with Ethanol)....

The Efficiency of Ethanol Production

The efficiency of ethanol productionhas long been questioned. Critics would argue that the industry could not survive without government subsidies and that it takes more energy to produce a unit of ethanol than the energy derived from the ethanol. There might have been some merit to these arguments, given the technology that existed at the time, both in terms of agronomic practices and the processes for turning feedstocks into fuel ethanol.
However, a study published in July 2006 by the University of Minnesota concluded that there is a net energy gain with the production of ethanol from corn. Researchers tracked the amount of energy used to grow corn and to turn it into ethanol, and they factored in the cost of transporting the raw product to the plant.
Researchers also factored in the cost of how much fertilizer and pesticides were required to grow the corn, and the greenhouse gases, nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants that were released into the environment. They concluded that corn-based ethanol yielded 25% more energy than was expended in producing that unit of ethanol.
The cost of producing ethanol varies with the feedstock being used and its availability. In the U.S. and Canada, corn is the most widely used feedstock because it is generally the cheapest, both in terms of the cost of feedstock and the processing costs. In Brazil, sugar cane is the most cost effective feedstock, despite the relatively low ethanol conversion factor. The low cost of sugar cane and the associated processing costs make Brazil’s ethanol producers very competitive in the world ethanol market.
Processing costs, for corn-based ethanol production, depend on the type of milling process. For very large plants, the economics of production favour the wet milling process, despite a lower conversion rate than the dry milling process and higher processing costs per gallon.
The value of by-products derived from wet milling more than offsets the lower conversion rate and higher processing costs, resulting in the lower cost per gallon of ethanol. The by-products of the wet milling process are normally corn oil, corn gluten meal, corn gluten feed, and carbon dioxide, but some larger plants have developed the ability to also produce vitamins, food and feed additives from the same feedstock, by-products which help to reduce the cost per gallon of ethanol.
Dry milling accounts for most of the ethanol produced in the U.S., and the main by-products of this process are distillers dried grain with soluble (DDGS), condensed syrup, and carbon dioxide. DDGS is a high-protein feed ingredient, but it is low in amino acids, including lysine.
The low levels of lysine limit the usefulness of DDGS in hog and poultry rations. However, the abundance of DDGS in the U.S Midwest, where ethanol plants are concentrated, allows nutritionists to incorporate this relatively low cost feed ingredient into feed rations, provided that the customers for the DDGS are within a certain radius of the ethanol plants.
Currently, the U.S. ethanol industry appears to be less dependent on government subsidies than in the past. That move to self-sufficiency can be attributed to several factors, including record high prices for crude oil. High crude oil prices and the market price of ethanol have made its production much more profitable. In fact, ethanol production might be profitable enough to allow producers to operate without the US$0.50/gal subsidy they currently receive from the U.S. government.

_________________________________________

Obviously the profitability of ethanol is dependent on the relative price of gasoline. The subsidy for production probably is just an offset against reduced farm subsidy payments due to increased corn prices in the market so it isn't a real loss to the taxpayer, however, I'd like to see our "all wise and powerful government" end this subsidy for ethanol and let the market take its course.