Food prices are going up and up

[Topaz]

Food prices will be going up this year and wheat will be hit first so bread and other wheat products will be hit first. I read at Loblaws are upping their prices 5% so I guess No Frills won't be so cheaper to shop. In my area, small town On., we have No frills and sobeys only and sobeys have kept their prices reasonable unlike no frills. So now, Canadians will have HST, increase in gas prices, increase in food prices, increase property taxes but no increase wages for most Canadians. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Food+prices+their+analysts/4386643/story.html

[Saipan]

THANKS TO "EVIRONMENTALISTS" :angry:

[William Ashley]

Food prices will be going up this year and wheat will be hit first so bread and other wheat products will be hit first. I read at Loblaws are upping their prices 5% so I guess No Frills won't be so cheaper to shop. In my area, small town On., we have No frills and sobeys only and sobeys have kept their prices reasonable unlike no frills. So now, Canadians will have HST, increase in gas prices, increase in food prices, increase property taxes but no increase wages for most Canadians. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Food+prices+their+analysts/4386643/story.html

A lot of Canadians could save a lot of money if they grew thier own food. Many countries such as Russia grow close to 50% of their annual produce in their own lawns. In Canada Canadians grow grass... and sometimes some flowers (which may or may not be edible). Canadians could save a little money if only they adopted growth instead of sod. Oddly most common lawn weeds are actually edibile.

Sadly Canada doesn't make use of its greenspace. The GTA is one of the richest agricultural areas in Canada rivaled only by areas such as the Okanagan valley in BC. Yet it is mostly Urban sprawl. It isn't a likely rectitude but before you complain about food prices people who have access to land to grow are passing up the freeest food source there is... FREE food grown on your very own land.

Save your seeds and plant them, most vegetables have foods, as long as they arn't GMO.. then there is the whole pollination issue. I'll be attempting to grow again this year.

Try this.. buy a bag of bird seed (maybe will cost about $10 for 10kg of mixed seeds such as millet and sunflower) and sprinkle it on your lawn and see if anything grows. Take the seedy juice from your tomatoes and put it in the soil, take the seeds from your squash.. plant a few onions and wait for potatoes to eye up, then chop up the sections and plant them.. the list goes on and on...lentils and wheat grass and incredibly easy to grow but 30-90 days latter (in some cases in less than a week) you will have nearly free food.

Things like apple trees and grapes might take a few more years to get going but fruit trees bear fruit usually within 5 years.

Of course there is also hunting a fishing for a low liscensing cost - however this is not very practicle due to legislation.

However chickens and pigs are both relatively cheap to raise, rabbits have lots of grass and other goodies to chew on. Guneia Pigs were domesticated food stock, of course animals like dogs are off limits even though they in North America and elsewhere were an emergency food stock for thousands of years, even up until quite recently say 1800 or so. Wild turkeys and the list goes on. The legality of eating animals or raising animals for slaughter is complex though.

There are also other food sources such as mushrooms ... and most people heat their homes so they could also grow indoors be it hydroponic or not, hydros not just for pot. Spooring is actually very simple once you learn how, and it ain't just for the illegal kind of mushroom.

Don't depend on someone else to feed you. Most homeowners actually have enough land and resources to feed themselves for most of the year. What is lacking is the willingness. There are lots of school age children that could probably be employed to homegrow and cost less than it would to buy the food. Likewise the unemployed could be put to work in growing food.

Edited March 5, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

THANKS TO "EVIRONMENTALISTS" :angry:

you have the retard vote Saipan

[Michael Hardner]

A lot of Canadians could save a lot of money if they grew thier own food. Many countries such as Russia grow close to 50% of their annual produce in their own lawns. In Canada Canadians grow grass... and sometimes some flowers (which may or may not be edible). Canadians could save a little money if only they adopted growth instead of sod. Oddly most common lawn weeds are actually edibile.

A rough calculation tells me I spend 30-40 minutes a day working towards groceries. Could I feed myself (completely) with that kind of effort ?

Sadly Canada doesn't make use of its greenspace. The GTA is one of the richest agricultural areas in Canada rivaled only by areas such as the Okanagan valley in BC. Yet it is mostly Urban sprawl. It isn't a likely rectitude but before you complain about food prices people who have access to land to grow are passing up the freeest food source there is... FREE food grown on your very own land.

The land is worth more for people who want to live on it. Is that because there's a misalignment for the true value of the land ? Or is it that farming isn't the best use of land, when it can be done on cheap land elsewhere with better crop yields ?

Save your seeds and plant them, most vegetables have foods, as long as they arn't GMO.. then there is the whole pollination issue. I'll be attempting to grow again this year.

Try this.. buy a bag of bird seed (maybe will cost about $10 for 10kg of mixed seeds such as millet and sunflower) and sprinkle it on your lawn and see if anything grows. Take the seedy juice from your tomatoes and put it in the soil, take the seeds from your squash.. plant a few onions and wait for potatoes to eye up, then chop up the sections and plant them.. the list goes on and on...lentils and wheat grass and incredibly easy to grow but 30-90 days latter (in some cases in less than a week) you will have nearly free food.

Things like apple trees and grapes might take a few more years to get going but fruit trees bear fruit usually within 5 years.

That all sounds like fun.... for you. I can't think of many things I would hate more than crouching in the mud and fighting with the neighbourhood squirrels over seeds. Then again, I live in El-Toro and the squirrels carry guns here.

Of course there is also hunting a fishing for a low liscensing cost - however this is not very practicle due to legislation.

However chickens and pigs are both relatively cheap to raise, rabbits have lots of grass and other goodies to chew on. Guneia Pigs were domesticated food stock, of course animals like dogs are off limits even though they in North America and elsewhere were an emergency food stock for thousands of years, even up until quite recently say 1800 or so. Wild turkeys and the list goes on. The legality of eating animals or raising animals for slaughter is complex though.

Guinea Pigs ? Remind me to never come to your house for a b-b-q.

There are also other food sources such as mushrooms ... and most people heat their homes so they could also grow indoors be it hydroponic or not, hydros not just for pot. Spooring is actually very simple once you learn how, and it ain't just for the illegal kind of mushroom.

Mushrooms, eh ?

Don't depend on someone else to feed you. Most homeowners actually have enough land and resources to feed themselves for most of the year. What is lacking is the willingness. There are lots of school age children that could probably be employed to homegrow and cost less than it would to buy the food. Likewise the unemployed could be put to work in growing food.

Don't depend on someone else to make your clothes, provide shelter, or energy, or transportation or electronics...

Self sufficiency is a great idea as a hobby but it's not practical on the whole. Not since the Neolithic Age, I think. Maybe it will come back, though. I'm thinking 1000 years or so.

[William Ashley]

A rough calculation tells me I spend 30-40 minutes a day working towards groceries. Could I feed myself (completely) with that kind of effort ?

The land is worth more for people who want to live on it. Is that because there's a misalignment for the true value of the land ? Or is it

that farming isn't the best use of land, when it can be done on cheap land elsewhere with better crop yields ?

That all sounds like fun.... for you. I can't think of many things I would hate more than crouching in the mud and fighting with the neighbourhood squirrels over seeds. Then again, I live in El-Toro and the squirrels carry guns here.

Guinea Pigs ? Remind me to never come to your house for a b-b-q.

Mushrooms, eh ?

Don't depend on someone else to make your clothes, provide shelter, or energy, or transportation or electronics...

Self sufficiency is a great idea as a hobby but it's not practical on the whole. Not since the Neolithic Age, I think. Maybe it will come back, though. I'm thinking 1000 years or so.

This is very true though some things arn't practicle to 100% depend on yourself if you are integreated.. but the community should have a back drop - take for instance a gas line explosion in Northern ontario near where my home is. If the electricity also failed with -40 degree weather the place would be a lot colder. Having some emergency fuel supply or a backup generator can go a long way -- You may not be able to do everything yourself but you can prepare. Noowadays some clothes can last a lifetime. I see it more as "supplimenting" rather than sole provision. It is not impossible, but it is about "improving land use efficiency"

Squirels taste better than chicken, imo. I'm not out hunting squirels. Put up some fencing/meshing etc.. it ain't impossible to enclose a garden.

Neolithich living "isn't" complex, it is just challenging in a non abundant blight. A good solid modern tool can do away with years of training in flint knapping.

The more seeds you plant the more seeds survive potentially. Technically with snaring and other tricks you can get a lot of the animals that try to eat the seeds. Even luring them. Small animals are tasty and most of the bones are fully edible. Of course you shounld't kill an animal unless it is life or death.

Horticulture doesn't equate the tending form of agriculture. The more time you spend usually the better results you get, but preparation can do a lot to save time. It is all about process. And it depends on conditions.. you might only need to worry about watering or setting up a watering system - if rainwater isn't dependable.. you can even collect rainwater for this purpose from clean storm drains (evestroughs).

Edited March 5, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

Self sufficiency is a great idea as a hobby but it's not practical on the whole.

As practical as life insurance.

But more important to sustain life.

[CANADIEN]

THANKS TO "EVIRONMENTALISTS" :angry:

And how's that, pray tell?

[Saipan]

A lot of Canadians could save a lot of money if they grew thier own food. Many countries such as Russia grow close to 50% of their annual produce in their own lawns. In Canada Canadians grow grass... and sometimes some flowers (which may or may not be edible). Canadians could save a little money if only they adopted growth instead of sod. Oddly most common lawn weeds are actually edibile.

I agree 100%

People would be a LOT healthier if they grew dandelions on golf courses. It's FOOD. Dandelion flower tea can save life if one has liver problem. Leaves are salad. (good to soak in luke warm water first).

I have lot frozen in deep freeze for tea.

Same with rosehips

We pick shaggy manes on lawn areas such as around hospital etc. Lot people advice us, very concerned, that we will poison ourself

Those mushrooms are also in our deep freeze to be use in winter. Just add chopped onion, some garlic and couple of eggs lightly fry the mix and enjoy with or without toast. Shaggy Manes are the last mushrooms of the season, usually coming in September. But our bulk are Boletus, which is also good to add to moose or beaver roast in last few minutes.

[Saipan]

And how's that, pray tell?

Biofools.

[Michael Hardner]

This is very true though some things arn't practicle to 100% depend on yourself if you are integreated..

To me, it sounds like you enjoy all of these activities. I don't think I would, so I'd rather work and pay for such things. I think most would.

[CANADIEN]

Biofools.

Aiming at the wrong target here, aren't you?

The problem is not that some environmentalsts promoted biofuels. It's that big multinational companies have seen them as a cash cow, and have in the process stolen land from there rightful owners, destroyed communities, limited the capacity for people in the South to feed themselves.

But hey, they're rich and powerful, hence they do no wrong, do theyÉ

[Saipan]

To me, it sounds like you enjoy all of these activities. I don't think I would, so I'd rather work and pay for such things. I think most would.

Of course. But it's not always possible. Like during WW I and WW II for example. My parents brought me to live with my grandparents in the country where there was homegrown food

(and less bombing)

First one was "war to end all wars" the second was "this will never happen again" war. Now it's "this is different era "It cannot happen now".

[Shady]

And how's that, pray tell?

He's partly right. The insistence of producing ethanol has greatly affected some food prices. Brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood environmentalist. It's just another example of the unintended consequences of "good intentions."

[CANADIEN]

He's partly right. The insistence of producing ethanol has greatly affected some food prices. Brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood environmentalist. It's just another example of the unintended consequences of "good intentions."

Nice try. It is not environmentalists who took land away from local communities and owners in the South. It's big companies, which couldn't care less about the environment and saw a cheap buck to make. If ethanol had not been a cash cow to them, no amount of "it's better for the environment" would have lead them to turn to it.

[Saipan]

Nice try. It is not environmentalists who took land away from local communities and owners in the South. It's big companies, which couldn't care less about the environment

1) The "big companies" didn't come up with the idea. (remember "big oil"?)

2) No big (or small) company can take anything away in free country. Only buy it.

I.e. buying land has nothing to do with biofuel. Environmentalist forcing government to make it mandatory do.

[ToadBrother]

He's partly right. The insistence of producing ethanol has greatly affected some food prices. Brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood environmentalist. It's just another example of the unintended consequences of "good intentions."

The problem isn't the ethanol, the problem is giving subsidies to corn farmers to produce it, and corn being one of the major staple grains, it has the effect of raising prices. There are alternatives that would use more agriculturally marginal land and not have delirious effects on food prices.

There was never a dumber idea than sticking food in gas tanks.

Edited March 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[CANADIEN]

1) The "big companies" didn't come up with the idea. (remember "big oil"?)

2) No big (or small) company can take anything away in free country. Only buy it.

I.e. buying land has nothing to do with biofuel. Environmentalist forcing government to make it mandatory do.

Keep digging.

Big companies didn't come with the idea of biofuel. They use it as a way to make profits on the cheap.

The use of corrupt, abusive, even downright violent methods throughout the Global South by multinational corporations to acquire land, whether for mining, or mass industrial agriculture, is well known. Thanks anyways for admitting that those countries aren't free.

That being said, I got have a good laugh at the idea that buying vast tracts of land for the purpose of growing biofuels has nothing to do with biofuels.

[Shady]

The problem isn't the ethanol, the problem is giving subsidies to corn farmers to produce it, and corn being one of the major staple grains, it has the effect of raising prices. There are alternatives that would use more agriculturally marginal land and not have delirious effects on food prices.

There was never a dumber idea than sticking food in gas tanks.

I completely agree.

[Shady]

That being said, I got have a good laugh at the idea that buying vast tracts of land for the purpose of growing biofuels has nothing to do with biofuels.

If there is indeed a buying of land for biofuels, it's not because it's actually profitable. Only with government subsidies can one make any real money. Which again comes back to stupid environmental policy. As has already been stated, using food to make fuel is idiotic, and only succeeds in producing higher food prices due to a diverting of some of the supply.

[Saipan]

The problem isn't the ethanol, the problem is giving subsidies to corn farmers to produce it, and corn being one of the major staple grains, it has the effect of raising prices.

1) First time I heard producing more of anything rise the price

2) They don't produce ethanol. They produce grain. And grain is sold at WORLD prices - whatever you do with it. Eat it, make alcohol, sell it to other countries.....

3) Subsidies were here LOOONG before ethanol. Highest agri subsidies are in Europe.

There was never a dumber idea than sticking food in gas tanks.

Exactly. But environmentalists think it's a GREAT idea. Ask Jay Ingram of "Discovery".

[ToadBrother]

1) First time I heard producing more of anything rise the price

2) They don't produce ethanol. They produce grain. And grain is sold at WORLD prices - whatever you do with it. Eat it, make alcohol, sell it to other countries.....

3) Subsidies were here LOOONG before ethanol. Highest agri subsidies are in Europe.

By forcibly creating a market for ethanol fuel, it has the effect of increasing demand and raising prices.

Exactly. But environmentalists think it's a GREAT idea. Ask Jay Ingram of "Discovery".

Some environmentalists thought it was a good idea. A lot of the more educated folks understood there were inherent problems. First and foremost, ethanol isn't all that good a fuel on its own making its use for large scale transportation infrastructure like large trucks largely unsuitable, secondly it's more difficult to store and too much of mixture in gas is bad for most vehicles (ethanol has a corrosive effect), and beyond that, as has often been noted, anything that creates higher demands for foodstuffs while not being used for foodstuffs is generally not a good thing.

[CANADIEN]

If there is indeed a buying of land for biofuels, it's not because it's actually profitable. Only with government subsidies can one make any real money. Which again comes back to stupid environmental policy. As has already been stated, using food to make fuel is idiotic, and only succeeds in producing higher food prices due to a diverting of some of the supply.

Big companies buy land knowing it's not profitalbe. Yeah right

Now, using food for fuel is actually a bad idea. Using by-products of food production is not. Interestingly enough. criticism of the diversion of food crops to the production of biofuels has come from environmentalists a lot more than it has come from business quarters.

[blueblood]

By forcibly creating a market for ethanol fuel, it has the effect of increasing demand and raising prices.

Some environmentalists thought it was a good idea. A lot of the more educated folks understood there were inherent problems. First and foremost, ethanol isn't all that good a fuel on its own making its use for large scale transportation infrastructure like large trucks largely unsuitable, secondly it's more difficult to store and too much of mixture in gas is bad for most vehicles (ethanol has a corrosive effect), and beyond that, as has often been noted, anything that creates higher demands for foodstuffs while not being used for foodstuffs is generally not a good thing.

You do know that there is a situation with high energy prices. Ethanol is the lowest cost alternative to petrol for use in transport. Oil imorts are projected to cap and have a small decline in the usa by 2030. That and the usa is the worlds largest ag exporter. Not only do they put a cap on energy imports, they stop sending money to unfriendly nations, they also increase the value of their exports which improves their economy. It was never about the environment it was for national and economic security.

Those big companies in the ag sector are publically traded with the exception of cargill, there is nothing stopping ordinary people from making investments and getting a healthy return due to the ag situation.

[William Ashley]

To me, it sounds like you enjoy all of these activities. I don't think I would, so I'd rather work and pay for such things. I think most would.

I do, it is whole feeling - gives you the chance to go into the back yard and actually use it for something.

This is not "odd" in a global sense. There are quaint recollections of watching kids running around with slingshots chasing pheasants/wild turkeys in and around Coba, QR - it isn't all that abnormal. I have no expectation to live off it at this point of development but I know enough about survival to reduce my intake so I can eat pine if I need to, know what mushrooms I can eat (ceps are delicious), know what I can pull up or pluck from the ground, I'm by no means an expert but you can make a lawn stew even if suplimenting with a ration of rice - you have your greens right there. Nettle is highly nutritious, the list goes on and on and on. There is a lot of untapped food out there. AND it is free. (and pesticide free with any luck)

You might think things like pine arn't palatable but when prepared correctly there are quite good, a tree can substitute for a bag of flour or more. Careful resource management is required for these things though, and the cycles are much longer. ... when done you can get masts and more

The name “Adirondack” is an Iroquois word which means tree-eater and referred to their neighbors (more commonly known as the Algonquians) who collected the inner bark during times of winter starvation. The white soft inner bark (cambial layer) was carefully separated from the hard, dark brown bark and dried. When pounded this product can be used as flour or added to stretch other starchy products. The young staminate cones were stewed by the Ojibwe Indians with meat and were said to be sweet and not pitchy. In addition, the seeds are sweet and nutritious but not as good as those of some of the western nut pines (Fernald, 1943).

AND firewood.. of course you need to plant 100 saplings for every tree you eat. You are already seperating the seeds anyway. Some trees even die of natural causes.. and are just waiting to be gobbled up.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/80945/learning_about_edible_trees_pg2.html?cat=5

Edited March 5, 2011 by William Ashley