Every little helps?
Grumpy
Fulbourn store. I was staggered to learn it is over £1.1M per week and
their "target" for the Christmas week is £3.4M.
When you consider Tesco has four supermarkets and gawd knows how many
"Tesco Express" stores in Cambridge, if you do the math, this is an
enormous amount of the share of food spend in this city of ours.
No wonder the inhabitants of Mill Road don't want another Tesco! Still,
someone has to pay for Terry Leahy's petrol in his gas guzzling Roller,
every little helps eh?
Martin
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Grumpy wrote:
> Earlier this week I happened to found out the weekly turnover of Tesco
> Fulbourn store. I was staggered to learn it is over £1.1M per week and
> their "target" for the Christmas week is £3.4M.
>
> When you consider Tesco has four supermarkets and gawd knows how many
> "Tesco Express" stores in Cambridge, if you do the math, this is an
> enormous amount of the share of food spend in this city of ours.
51%, according to the Competition Commission. Like we really need
another..
>
> No wonder the inhabitants of Mill Road don't want another Tesco! Still,
> someone has to pay for Terry Leahy's petrol in his gas guzzling Roller, every
> little helps eh?
>
Martin
Grumpy
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
Personally speaking my spend in Tesco has gone down by at least 60%,
mainly because I have seen so many examples of poor food hygiene
practice in the Fulbourn store.
I am talking about chilled and / or frozen food lying about in cages
ready to put onto shelves, being warm to touch, defrosting / sweating.
Politely point this out to the floor staff or managers and you are told
either "oh that's fine we have 20 minutes to get it onto/into
chillers/freezer cabinets".
Yeah well, I saw this 20 minutes ago so what's your excuse now?
And I won't mention examples of where I have seen staff remove date
labels, add a couple of days and put back in the chillers.
danw
> No wonder the inhabitants of Mill Road don't want another Tesco!
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/consumer/story/0,,2229591,00.html
HTH, Dan
Fevric J Glandules
[Link to a Julie Burchill rant about how wonderful Tesco is]
Yeah, but the covering letter went something like this:
"Will that do? If not, call me before four as I have to nip
out to the butcher's to get some of his pork and leek sausages."
--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.
magwitch
Yeah and who wants to look like a 15 stone Julie Birchall?
Just another of her 'alternative' rants... like in the 80s around the
fall of the Berlin Wall, Julie was extolling the joys of living under
Stalin (and how would she know one wonders?).
Grumpy
news:LtudnQ2LgKrPB_Ta...@pipex.net...
Birchill is to journalism what Clarkson is to home decorating, she
deliberately takes the opposing view in the mistaken belief she's
interesting.
Alan
If you've really seen that - I presume you have reported it to the
authorities, although of course only "use by" dates have any health
implications. "Display until" and "Sell by" are only indicators for
stock rotation, and "Best before" as a guide to quality for stuff that
deteriorates.
--
Alan
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam.com' with penguinclub.org.uk to reply in email
Andrew May
> Earlier this week I happened to found out the weekly turnover of Tesco
> Fulbourn store. I was staggered to learn it is over £1.1M per week and
> their "target" for the Christmas week is £3.4M.
>
And they get that money almost as soon as you go through the checkout,
even if you do pay by credit card. The time between receiving the goods
from their supplier and selling it to you is pretty short and they pay
their suppliers on what? 90-day terms if they are lucky. So that is
something like 13 weeks sales or 14.3m pounds sitting in the bank
earning interest at any one time for the Fulbourn store alone.
I am sure that I have seen somewhere that when Tesco was rolling out
stores at the peak rate they were funding it from holding cash between
the till and paying their suppliers.
Andrew
Duncan Wood
And for somebodywho objects to other peoplehaving access to Tescos spends
an awfull lot of time there.
Paul Rudin
> No wonder the inhabitants of Mill Road don't want another Tesco!
> Still, someone has to pay for Terry Leahy's petrol in his gas guzzling
> Roller, every little helps eh?
It's entirely within the control of the residents - if nobody spends
money there it won't stay open.
Eleanor Blair
>
>Yeah and who wants to look like a 15 stone Julie Birchall?
I don't tend to agree with much of what she writes, even when I quite
like her style of writing some of the time, but does her appearance
really have all that much bearing on her opinions?
My boyfriend and I sometimes shop at Tesco, one of us is thin, the other
isn't. I don't think changing where we do our shopping is going to make
any difference to that.
Roland Perry
Dec 2007, Andrew May <andrew...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>I am sure that I have seen somewhere that when Tesco was rolling out
>stores at the peak rate they were funding it from holding cash between
>the till and paying their suppliers.
That's how all the big retailers work. Every so often it goes wrong (one
of the off-licence chains imploded a few years back when they misjudged
it - Unwins I guess).
--
Roland Perry
Fevric J Glandules
Perhaps - in the same way that Easyjet now gives you the option of paying
for a carbon offset when you pay for a flight - Tesrose etc. could allow
you to pay a small premium towards paying their suppliers now rather than
later.
magwitch
According to them we have been already with their milk cartel.
The defence was that "we raised milk prices to pass it on to the
suffering dairy farmers." Only trouble is, none of the dairy farmers can
remember receiving any extra income, quite the opposite.
Waitrose btw is not involved.
magwitch
> magwitch wrote:
>> Yeah and who wants to look like a 15 stone Julie Birchall?
>
> I don't tend to agree with much of what she writes, even when I quite
> like her style of writing some of the time, but does her appearance
> really have all that much bearing on her opinions?
Well it obviously does to her, she was still inserting her 19-year
NME-era avatar next to her column until about 5 years ago.
>
> My boyfriend and I sometimes shop at Tesco, one of us is thin, the other
> isn't. I don't think changing where we do our shopping is going to make
> any difference to that.
>
Whenever I've been in Tescos, some years ago, I found it quite good on
the dietary side, there was nothing there I'd waste good money on.
Simon Morris
> Grumpy wrote:
>
>> No wonder the inhabitants of Mill Road don't want another Tesco!
>
> http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/consumer/story/0,,2229591,00.html
>
The other reason for admiring Tesco is that they keep the riff-raff out
of Waitrose. (Stolen from Stephen Fry,
<http://www.oldvictheatre.com/whatson.php?id=37>)
S.
Roland Perry
20 Dec 2007, Fevric J Glandules <fev...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>>I am sure that I have seen somewhere that when Tesco was rolling out
>>>stores at the peak rate they were funding it from holding cash between
>>>the till and paying their suppliers.
>>
>> That's how all the big retailers work. Every so often it goes wrong (one
>> of the off-licence chains imploded a few years back when they misjudged
>> it - Unwins I guess).
>
>Perhaps - in the same way that Easyjet now gives you the option of paying
>for a carbon offset when you pay for a flight
Even though schemes like that are somewhere between snake oil and
counterproductive.
>- Tesrose etc. could allow you to pay a small premium towards paying
>their suppliers now rather than later.
Why would I care? I might as well pay extra so they can give the staff a
pay rise, if I'm into social conscience while shopping.
--
Roland Perry
magwitch
> Quiz.
>
<cam.misc> Shouldn't that be the late Alan Coren? <cam.misc>
Deryck
> Whenever I've been in Tescos, some years ago, I found it quite good on the
> dietary side, there was nothing there I'd waste good money on.
A friend of mine used the same principle to lose weight on a trip to the US.
When he ruled out crap restaurants and over priced restaurants there weren't
a lot of places left to eat at (the exhange rate was 1GBP = 1.4USD or so at
the time).
Cheers
Deryck
Roland Perry
Dec 2007, Deryck <der...@REMOVElonghope.co.uk> remarked:
>
>A friend of mine used the same principle to lose weight on a trip to the US.
>When he ruled out crap restaurants and over priced restaurants there weren't
>a lot of places left to eat at (the exhange rate was 1GBP = 1.4USD or so at
>the time).
Very true. When I was living there I was struck by the relatively small
numbers of mid-priced restaurants.
--
Roland Perry
Richard Torrens (news)
Alan <a.b...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> "Best before" as a guide to quality for stuff that
> deteriorates.
.. and a legal cop-out for stuff that will actually keep for yeare!
Some stuff (e.g. many cheeses) is significantly Best After...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. N.B. email address nos...@4qd.org is valid.
All email addresses are copyright. Resale or use on any lists is expressly forbidden.
4QD manufacture speed controllers for battery electric motors.
www sites http://www.4QD.org and http://www.4QD.co.uk
---------- We use a RISC PC 32 bit RISC computer ----------------
Fevric J Glandules
> In message <IKraj.646$ou3...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, at 10:47:04 on Thu,
> 20 Dec 2007, Fevric J Glandules <fev...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>Perhaps - in the same way that Easyjet now gives you the option of paying
>>for a carbon offset when you pay for a flight
>
> Even though schemes like that are somewhere between snake oil and
> counterproductive.
Wouldn't surprise me. Got any good links?
>>- Tesrose etc. could allow you to pay a small premium towards paying
>>their suppliers now rather than later.
>
> Why would I care? I might as well pay extra so they can give the staff a
> pay rise, if I'm into social conscience while shopping.
Well quite.
Fevric J Glandules
> He wasn't late when he said it!
IIRC he timed it quite nicely.
Pies
<snip anti-Tesco rant>
The answer is simple. Don't shop there. And,whilst we'd love to shop at
Waitrose as a sop to our social conscience, some of us can't afford it.
Tim Ward
news:0ICaj.12135$745....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> And,whilst we'd love to shop at Waitrose as a sop to our social
> conscience, some of us can't afford it.
Oh, doesn't John Lewis' "never knowingly undersold" apply to their Waitrose
business then?
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Pies
> "Pies" <pi...@nospam.cantab.net> wrote in message
> news:0ICaj.12135$745....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> And,whilst we'd love to shop at Waitrose as a sop to our social
>> conscience, some of us can't afford it.
>
> Oh, doesn't John Lewis' "never knowingly undersold" apply to their Waitrose
> business then?
>
Item Tesco Price Waitrose Price
Whole Milk 2.272ltr £1.34 £1.67
Own Brand Cornflakes £0.86 £0.89
8 smoked back bacon rashers £1.88 £2.29
magwitch
If I were that poor I'd sell the computer.
Pies
It's not a question of being poor, it's simple arithmetic. Feeding a
family of four is cheaper at Tesco's than at Waitrose. Why should I pay
more, just because you say so?
Theo Markettos
> Tim Ward wrote:
> > "Pies" <pi...@nospam.cantab.net> wrote in message
> > news:0ICaj.12135$745....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> >> And,whilst we'd love to shop at Waitrose as a sop to our social
> >> conscience, some of us can't afford it.
> >
> > Oh, doesn't John Lewis' "never knowingly undersold" apply to their
> > Waitrose business then?
> >
> Evidently not:
It does (there was publicity about how it had become Waitrose policy fairly
recently), but as with all JL purchases it's based on like-for-like brands.
So a box of Kellogg's cornflakes will be the same price or cheaper, but they
don't claim their own-brand will beat Tesco own brand or Asda Smartprice.
Their justification for this was that Waitrose own-brands may be at a
different quality level to other supermarkets' own-brands so it wouldn't be
a fair comparison. For example all Waitrose own-brand fish claims to be
sustainably sourced, while I'm not aware of any other retailer doing that
across the board.
Theo
Paul Rudin
They're not necessarily the same thing tho', are they?
(Although I do wonder how different "whole milk" can be?)
Al Grant
> magwitch wrote:
> > If I were that poor I'd sell the computer.
>
> It's not a question of being poor, it's simple arithmetic. Feeding a
> family of four is cheaper at Tesco's than at Waitrose. Why should I pay
> more, just because you say so?
If I were that poor I'd sell the family.
Roland Perry
21 Dec 2007, Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
remarked:
>> > Oh, doesn't John Lewis' "never knowingly undersold" apply to their
>> > Waitrose business then?
>> >
>> Evidently not:
>
>It does (there was publicity about how it had become Waitrose policy fairly
>recently), but as with all JL purchases it's based on like-for-like brands.
>So a box of Kellogg's cornflakes will be the same price or cheaper, but they
>don't claim their own-brand will beat Tesco own brand or Asda Smartprice.
Will they honour BOGOF offers (of branded goods) at other retailers, or
is there very little overlap between those and what Waitrose happens to
stock?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Fri, 21 Dec 2007, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>> The answer is simple. Don't shop there. And,whilst we'd love to shop
>>at Waitrose as a sop to our social conscience, some of us can't
>>afford it.
>
>If I were that poor I'd sell the computer.
My typical trolley-full at Morrisons costs more than the last three
computers I bought put together (and I suspect they have virtually nil
resale value). So that won't work.
--
Roland Perry
Al Grant
> It's entirely within the control of the residents - if nobody spends
> money there it won't stay open.
Even a total boycott by residents doesn't mean nobody will
spend money there. E.g. McDonalds on Madingley Road,
which seemed to be universally unpopular with locals.
Or let's suppose for the sake of argument that the Mill Road
area is 90% populated by vibrant, multicultural trendies,
5% by BNP-voting carpet fitters and 5% by slobs on benefits.
Maybe the 10% buy enough lager and fags to keep Tesco's
in business. There does seem to be an element of social
engineering in all this - give the people what they want as
long as they're the right sort of people.
Al Grant
wrote:
> For example all Waitrose own-brand fish claims to be
> sustainably sourced, while I'm not aware of any other retailer doing that
> across the board.
But the key point here is whether Waitrose are supporting
this sustainability by passing on the premium to the source.
There seems to be no guarantee that this is the case.
For example Waitrose require their own-brand milk suppliers
to participate in a wildlife scheme called WildCare, set up
by... Waitrose. So they make their own rules about what
makes the milk special. But what Waitrose are not doing
is ensuring the farmers get more per pint - not even a penny.
The 5p extra per pint goes into the pockets of the John Lewis
'colleagues'. Instead of Terry Leahy's greed you have the
greed of ten thousand Thatcherites.
Mark Ayliffe
Pies <pi...@nospam.cantab.net> illuminated us with:
It depends what you select. I picked some items from our own shppoing
a month or two back & posted here the price difference. In nearly all
cases Waitrose (Ocado in our case) was cheaper than Tesco. And Ocado's
delivery service is in a different league to Tesco's[1], such that IMHO
it would be worth the difference even if it was more expensive. Oh and
Waitrose smoked bacon tastes _much_ nicer than Tescos too. IMHO, YMMV,
may contain nuts, etc.
[1] Politeness, willingness to check all is OK before leaving, frozen
goods still frozen etc.
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.
ayliffe dot org |
Mark Ayliffe
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> In message <IKraj.646$ou3...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, at 10:47:04 on Thu,
> 20 Dec 2007, Fevric J Glandules <fev...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>Perhaps - in the same way that Easyjet now gives you the option of paying
>>for a carbon offset when you pay for a flight
>
> Even though schemes like that are somewhere between snake oil and
> counterproductive.
I wonder if burning snake oil is worse for the environment than
burning kerosene? Hey it's Friday.
--
Mark
Real email address | A conscience is what hurts
is mark at | when all your other parts feel so good.
ayliffe dot org |
Roland Perry
<7b698742-cb53-41d6...@l32g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, at
23:52:11 on Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Al Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> remarked:
>On 20 Dec, 09:34, Paul Rudin <paul.nos...@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>> It's entirely within the control of the residents - if nobody spends
>> money there it won't stay open.
>
>Even a total boycott by residents doesn't mean nobody will
>spend money there. E.g. McDonalds on Madingley Road,
>which seemed to be universally unpopular with locals.
FSVO of "local". When I lived in Newnham Croft I looked forward to
taking my kids there as it was one of the few places that didn't regard
children as a notifiable disease. It was basically a choice of there or
that kid-friendly pub in Grantchester (Red Lion perhaps).
--
Roland Perry
Andrew May
Or one I came across last week:
Jordans Tropical Fruit Crunchy Cereal
Tesco 2.29
Waitrose 2.99
Only when you get home do you realise that Waitrose sell 1kg bags and
Tesco 750g bags which works out at 3.05/kg.
Andrew
Paul Oldham
> Tim Ward wrote:
>> "Pies" <pi...@nospam.cantab.net> wrote in message
>> news:0ICaj.12135$745....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>> And,whilst we'd love to shop at Waitrose as a sop to our social
>>> conscience, some of us can't afford it.
>> Oh, doesn't John Lewis' "never knowingly undersold" apply to their Waitrose
>> business then?
>>
> Evidently not:
>
> Item Tesco Price Waitrose Price
> Whole Milk 2.272ltr £1.34 £1.67
That's a KPI ("Known Price Item" - the sort of thing consumers remember
the price of, so Tesco will be selling it at cost or lower), not a good
comparison.
> Own Brand Cornflakes £0.86 £0.89
From experience of both stores' "own brand" Waitrose is consistently
streets ahead of Tesco in terms of everything other than price. In this
case paying only 3p more for Waitrose rather than Tesco's idea of what
constitutes a cornflake sounds like a bargain.
> 8 smoked back bacon rashers £1.88 £2.29
Same here. To get *close* to comparing Tesco with Waitrose you have to
compare their top end own brand range, can't remember the name now but
it features a lot of silver in the packages.
Fundamentally Tesco sell on price, Waitrose on quality, but if you want
to do a price comparison pick some things which aren't own brand, which
aren't KPI, and compare those prices. I think you'll find less
difference there than you might expect.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"MONOGAMY: Repressed polygamy"
Paul Oldham
No. Although you might consider paying more because your family will
appreciate better quality food, it will probably be healthier for them
too (less salt, less fat, less E numbers, less chemicals) and they'll
probably live longer.
We switched from Sainsbury and Tesco to Waitrose a couple of years ago.
I'll not deny that it does tend to cost us a bit more as we buy nicer
food and a lot of organics. But the food is so much nicer. For us it was
about an extra UKP10 per week, so for you it might be UKP20 if there's
four of you. But because we're eating good food at home we eat out less
- why bother when the food at home is so good - so I suspect we've
actually saved money overall and we're eating better, healthier food.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue..."
Paul Oldham
Or at least rent them out.
What gets me in the whole food price thing is that, compared to other
places where our disposable income goes, food is costing less and less
as a proportion - but still people chase price rather than quality. It's
very odd.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"TEAMWORK: The possibility of putting the blame on others"
Duncan Wood
However if that is the case then what's the disadvantage of them being
there?
Anetta Meriranta Pirinen
> Evidently not:
I think I have to take a closer look into this. While on the Tesco
delivered things like onions tended to off fairly quickly, even though
when they were delivered, they seemed fine. It was an illusion of
freshness, and as I didn't know better, I fell for it. With Ocado
(Waitrose), except for ripe mangoes (which they have reimbursed
without a fault) everything keeps fine for longer, from onions on.
Now, if I with Tesco had to throw food away, and with Ocado, can use
most (except the mangoes, I better stop ordering ripe ones), which
option will, in the end, cost me more?
The main reason for changing from Tesco to Ocado was the early
delivery times. Now, do come clean, who steals the 9 - 10 delivery
time we'd need? They manage to do it even when my Partner goes on-line
moments after the time has become available. I'd really need him to be
around when the delivery arrives, disabled people are like that, they
need help.
Sorry, it's Friday. <g>
Anetta to reply drop NOSPAM
Forgiveness is the only hope I hold.
And love-- love will be my strongest weapon. -- R.E.M.
Al Grant
> However if that is the case then what's the disadvantage of them being
> there?
Three things:
- genuine intrusion and loss of amenity, e.g. smells, litter,
late-night noise etc. It would be stupid to tell the people
outside whose house a kebab van parks every night
"if it's keeping you awake, don't buy kebabs". Could be
an issue here but Mill Road already has plenty of fast food
places and late-night drunks.
- competitive threat to local businesses; said to be an
issue here but seems doubtful - given that Al Amin,
Cho Mee etc. attract customers from beyond Mill Road
will they really be threatened by a large newsagents?
- offends moral prejudices - applies to Tescos, McDonalds,
sex shops and guided buses.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:45:53 GMT, Pies <pi...@nospam.cantab.net> wrote:
>
>> Evidently not:
>
> I think I have to take a closer look into this. While on the Tesco
> delivered things like onions tended to off fairly quickly, even though
> when they were delivered, they seemed fine. It was an illusion of
> freshness, and as I didn't know better, I fell for it. With Ocado
> (Waitrose), except for ripe mangoes (which they have reimbursed
> without a fault) everything keeps fine for longer, from onions on.
> Now, if I with Tesco had to throw food away, and with Ocado, can use
> most (except the mangoes, I better stop ordering ripe ones), which
> option will, in the end, cost me more?
>
Thats probably because waitrose stuff is properly irradiated to kill the
bugs.
Tim Ward
news:v2ds35-...@bigjohn.hug...
>
>> 8 smoked back bacon rashers £1.88 £2.29
>
> Same here. To get *close* to comparing Tesco with Waitrose you have to
> compare their top end own brand range, can't remember the name now but it
> features a lot of silver in the packages.
With bacon what matters is how much injected water you're paying for. Expect
to pay more for bacon that will actually fry (rather than boil in the frying
pan).
The Natural Philosopher
Tim Ward
message news:dqanm3h645e9l39qi...@4ax.com...
>
> except for ripe mangoes
Never had a decent mango in the UK. Best one was in Hawaii ... from the tree
in the tour guide's mother's garden, where he made a point of stopping the
minibus on the way past.
The Natural Philosopher
And its set to get even higher, if the current trends ij agricultural
prices continue.
I wonder if we will return to the sort of situation that was really most
of my adult life, that food, rent and keeping a necessary vehicle on the
roads absorbed 110% of my income?
Leaving very little indeed for capital goods, or indeed clothes.
Jules
> I wonder if we will return to the sort of situation that was really most
> of my adult life, that food, rent and keeping a necessary vehicle on the
> roads absorbed 110% of my income?
I suspect it's still that way for most families with children - disposable
income is a luxury of the childless classes.
Jules
> No. Although you might consider paying more because your family will
> appreciate better quality food, it will probably be healthier for them
> too (less salt, less fat, less E numbers, less chemicals) and they'll
> probably live longer.
Hypothetically, can we have a society where it's cheaper to produce
healthy food rather than crap - or is the population too high for the
healthy route to scale to everyone? (I'd assume that it takes more
physical space* to produce healthy food than it does to load up food with
cheap extras in a factory somewhere)
* Yes, I know people with green fingers can do wonders with a little bit
of land, but that doesn't really work for the meat side of things, and not
everyone will want to go that route anyway (e.g. due to available time /
ability). We'd still need farms for the raw materials and a distribution /
processing network...
Jules
> "Anetta Meriranta Pirinen" <seashor...@pirinen.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:dqanm3h645e9l39qi...@4ax.com...
>>
>> except for ripe mangoes
>
> Never had a decent mango in the UK. Best one was in Hawaii ... from the tree
> in the tour guide's mother's garden, where he made a point of stopping the
> minibus on the way past.
It's little tales like that which give me faith that we're not going to
all disappear up our own backsides in the next few years :)
Jules
> may contain nuts, etc.
Traces of nuts. Or been in a factory that used a nut once. Or handled by
someone who once ate a nut. (I don't really understand the whole nut
allergy thing - is it a recent development, or have people been dying
from nut-related problems in the same numbers for years, and nobody
really noticed / knew / talked about it?)
Oh, I saw a 'contains celery' warning on a product a while ago - that's a
new one...
Duncan Wood
& you'd need some definition of healthy that wasn't open to argument. The
vegan lobby would suggest that the solution is obvious. Those who aren't
overweight or suffering from high blood pressure could point out that it's
currently your own choice.
Jules
> - offends moral prejudices - applies to Tescos, McDonalds,
> sex shops and guided buses.
Do Tesco sell prostitues yet? (Or lease, or whatever the correct term
might be)
Francis Turton
Absolutely certainly. Modern agriculture, like virtually everything
else, depends on oil. As oil gets firstly more expensive, and then
scarce, so will food. I understand the current hike in food prices is an
indirect reflection of this phenemenon, since the US is diverting vast
agricultural resources to the provision of biofuels to replace oil,
rather than food production.
In a world without oil, most of the world's 6.5-7 billion people are
going to starve. Long before that, almost certainly in the next 5 years
and probably much sooner, there will be a stock market crash like we've
never seen, as it hits home that the world economy is on a *permanent*
downward curve; most of us are going to be out of work and will
effectively be reduced to a subsistence existence - if we're lucky.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Sarah Brown
Al Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On 21 Dec, 00:25, Pies <p...@nospam.cantab.net> wrote:
>> magwitch wrote:
>>
>> family of four is cheaper at Tesco's than at Waitrose. Why should I pay
>> more, just because you say so?
>
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate!
Jules
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:39:49 -0000, Jules
> <julesric...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hypothetically, can we have a society where it's cheaper to produce
>> healthy food rather than crap
>
> & you'd need some definition of healthy that wasn't open to argument.
Yes, maybe 'healthy' is the wrong word, and something like 'unprocessed'
might be better (meat that's not full of water etc.).
I've got no problem with people choosing to eat badly - but the stores
seem to make it extremely easy to do. However, now that farmers - and
available farmland - are vanishing at a steady rate, and population
goes ever-higher, I'm curious as to whether we even have the resources to
feed ourselves 'properly' even if we wanted to (at least without resorting
to vast levels of import).
cheers
J.
Roland Perry
Dec 2007, Francis Turton <francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org>
remarked:
>Long before that, almost certainly in the next 5 years and probably
>much sooner, there will be a stock market crash like we've never seen,
>as it hits home that the world economy is on a *permanent* downward
>curve; most of us are going to be out of work and will effectively be
>reduced to a subsistence existence - if we're lucky.
I needed cheering up on a gloomy Friday afternoon...
--
Roland Perry
Jules
> I understand the current hike in food prices is an
> indirect reflection of this phenemenon
Presumably the bulk of that increased cost is the shipping of goods from
overseas though, rather than local distribution? In other words, if the
ability to make things within the country hadn't been largely killed off,
prices would be a lot lower...
> In a world without oil, most of the world's 6.5-7 billion people are
> going to starve.
Nature will take its course, I guess - if it happens, it happens for a
good reason...
J.
Jules
>>If I were that poor I'd sell the family.
>
> Every sperm is sacred.
> Every sperm is great.
> If a sperm is wasted
> God gets quite irate!
And said in a thread about food, no less.
magwitch
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:45:53 GMT, Pies <pi...@nospam.cantab.net> wrote:
>
>> Evidently not:
>
> I think I have to take a closer look into this. While on the Tesco
> delivered things like onions tended to off fairly quickly, even though
> when they were delivered, they seemed fine. It was an illusion of
> freshness, and as I didn't know better, I fell for it. With Ocado
> (Waitrose), except for ripe mangoes (which they have reimbursed
> without a fault) everything keeps fine for longer, from onions on.
> Now, if I with Tesco had to throw food away, and with Ocado, can use
> most (except the mangoes, I better stop ordering ripe ones), which
> option will, in the end, cost me more?
Aha! This proves my fat Julie Birchall point. You have to scoff
everything the minute you get it home from Tescos or it will go off, so
you are, therefore, consuming more than is sensible.
>
> The main reason for changing from Tesco to Ocado was the early
> delivery times. Now, do come clean, who steals the 9 - 10 delivery
> time we'd need? They manage to do it even when my Partner goes on-line
> moments after the time has become available. I'd really need him to be
> around when the delivery arrives, disabled people are like that, they
> need help.
I'm sure... it's just taken me half an hour to put away all the Waitrose
shipping for Christmas. You know, you want to put things in the fridge
and then find there's a rotting red pepper lurking, so you have to wash
out the veg trays... and so on.
magwitch
> "Anetta Meriranta Pirinen" <seashor...@pirinen.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:dqanm3h645e9l39qi...@4ax.com...
>> except for ripe mangoes
>
> Never had a decent mango in the UK. Best one was in Hawaii ... from the tree
> in the tour guide's mother's garden, where he made a point of stopping the
> minibus on the way past.
>
them to make hot mango chutney, the heat kills off any nasties and
they're better for this if a bit over-ripe.
magwitch
Pies
> On 21/12/07 00:25, Pies wrote:
>
>> magwitch wrote:
>>> Pies wrote:
>>>> Grumpy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip anti-Tesco rant>
>>>>
>>>> The answer is simple. Don't shop there. And,whilst we'd love to shop
>>>> at Waitrose as a sop to our social conscience, some of us can't
>>>> afford it.
>>>
>>> If I were that poor I'd sell the computer.
>>
>> It's not a question of being poor, it's simple arithmetic. Feeding a
>> family of four is cheaper at Tesco's than at Waitrose. Why should I
>> pay more, just because you say so?
>
> No. Although you might consider paying more because your family will
> appreciate better quality food, it will probably be healthier for them
> too (less salt, less fat, less E numbers, less chemicals) and they'll
> probably live longer.
>
> We switched from Sainsbury and Tesco to Waitrose a couple of years ago.
> I'll not deny that it does tend to cost us a bit more as we buy nicer
> food and a lot of organics. But the food is so much nicer. For us it was
> about an extra UKP10 per week, so for you it might be UKP20 if there's
> four of you. But because we're eating good food at home we eat out less
> - why bother when the food at home is so good - so I suspect we've
> actually saved money overall and we're eating better, healthier food.
>
Alex Selby
>>
>
> Absolutely certainly. Modern agriculture, like virtually everything
> else, depends on oil. As oil gets firstly more expensive, and then
> scarce, so will food. I understand the current hike in food prices is an
> indirect reflection of this phenemenon, since the US is diverting vast
> agricultural resources to the provision of biofuels to replace oil,
> rather than food production.
>
> In a world without oil, most of the world's 6.5-7 billion people are
> going to starve. Long before that, almost certainly in the next 5 years
> and probably much sooner, there will be a stock market crash like we've
> never seen, as it hits home that the world economy is on a *permanent*
> downward curve; most of us are going to be out of work and will
> effectively be reduced to a subsistence existence - if we're lucky.
>
>
> --- www.dogsticks.org ---
Francis my dear chap. You are talking with apparent certainty about the
future, but your extreme pessimism is surely only justified if you
simultaneously assume the worst possible outcome for many situations
for which no-one knows for sure what is going to happen.
For example, you say that modern agriculture depends on oil, and that
oil will run out. Well maybe, but the time scales matter here. If oil
is going to run out on the time scale of several decades (a plausible
enough hypothesis) then that is quite long and there will be time to
adapt. Over this period, we could see non-oil ways to run machinery
necessary for agriculture. Populations may stabilise. Crops could be
developed to have much higher yield (as they have been continuously
up to now). The US is diverting some agriculture to biofuel, but
second generation biofuel could use non food crops. Etc..
If you elevate a possible total world disaster scenario to some kind of
inevitability without being remotely sure about it then I think you are
not being realistic so much as wilfully nihilistic.
You really think the stock market will do an unprecedented crash in the
next year or two? ("probably much sooner than 5 years"). How sure are
you? Would you like to bet on it? (Or insure yourself against it?)
I don't know if this is relevant, but Feynman tells of a period after
the end of the second world war when he became very depressed. He
thought nuclear oblivion was inevitable and thought people were crazy
to carry on doing ordinary things like building roads and bridges. Later
he looked back at that time and commented that he was very glad that
people did go on building the bridges.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:22:34 +0000, Francis Turton wrote:
>> I understand the current hike in food prices is an
>> indirect reflection of this phenemenon
>
> Presumably the bulk of that increased cost is the shipping of goods from
> overseas though, rather than local distribution? In other words, if the
> ability to make things within the country hadn't been largely killed off,
> prices would be a lot lower...
>
No we still grow about 50% of our food.
The pint is, that when a farmer can sell wheat for bioethanol to germany
at 120 a ton, is he going to sell it to Allinsons at 65 a ton for flour
milling? Or 45 a ton for cattle feed.
>> In a world without oil, most of the world's 6.5-7 billion people are
>> going to starve.
>
> Nature will take its course, I guess - if it happens, it happens for a
> good reason...
>
In a world without oil, we will just have to build nuclear power stations.
> J.
>
The Natural Philosopher
Mark Ayliffe
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
> news:v2ds35-...@bigjohn.hug...
>>
>>> 8 smoked back bacon rashers £1.88 £2.29
>>
>> Same here. To get *close* to comparing Tesco with Waitrose you have to
>> compare their top end own brand range, can't remember the name now but it
>> features a lot of silver in the packages.
>
> With bacon what matters is how much injected water you're paying for. Expect
> to pay more for bacon that will actually fry (rather than boil in the frying
> pan).
IME that pretty accurately describes the difference between Tesco and
Waitrose smoked back bacon. Waitrose one is much drier.
--
Mark
Real email address | I've got to get back to work.
is mark at | When I stop rowing, the slaveship just goes in circles.
ayliffe dot org |
Mark Ayliffe
Pies <pi...@nospam.cantab.net> illuminated us with:
Not if you get it delivered, though the delivery man may not be keen
on nakedness :-). With careful selection need not cost any more than
going to the store, even neglecting the cost of getting there, for a
family sized delivery. I think that may be true for Tesco and Ocado
FWIW. I'm not sure about Waitrose own delivery, you may need your
shirt & tie there.
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | Why do we call the airport "the terminal" if flying is so safe?
ayliffe dot org |
Mark Ayliffe
Jules <julesric...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:40:41 +0000, Mark Ayliffe wrote:
>> may contain nuts, etc.
>
> Traces of nuts. Or been in a factory that used a nut once. Or handled by
> someone who once ate a nut. (I don't really understand the whole nut
> allergy thing - is it a recent development, or have people been dying
> from nut-related problems in the same numbers for years, and nobody
> really noticed / knew / talked about it?)
It seems most likely that we are just more aware of it than we have
been. The few articles I just looked at seem divided on whether it's
increasing recently or not. My wife, who was previously a secondary
school Chemistry teacher, had to stop doing the peanut burning
experiment many years ago due to the nsafety elf. I think there was a
case where a peanut-sensitive child had a reaction somewhere once
during the experiment.
FWIW one of my daughters has a mild peanut allergy, discovered after
we found out about her egg allergy the hard way[1]. That's not the
sort of allergy which gives rise to anaphylaxis if someone has a
peanut butter sandwich in the next room though.
> Oh, I saw a 'contains celery' warning on a product a while ago - that's a
> new one...
What an excellent idea, celery is one of the few foods I detest.
[1] Trying her with scrambled eggs before her first MMR jab which
apparently [contains|is cultured with] egg. Followed by an evening at
the CamDoc surgery and later a longer visit to the allergy unit at
Addies.
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | Time is what keeps everything from happening at once
ayliffe dot org |
Alan Braggins
>On 20/12/07 23:45, Pies wrote:
>> Item Tesco Price Waitrose Price
>> Whole Milk 2.272ltr £1.34 £1.67
>
>That's a KPI ("Known Price Item" - the sort of thing consumers remember
>the price of, so Tesco will be selling it at cost or lower), not a good
>comparison.
Surely that depends how much of your shopping is Known Price Items?
If they are rememebered because they are common typical grocery type
things and that's what you mostly buy, then being sold them at cost
is a good thing for that customer.
>Same here. To get *close* to comparing Tesco with Waitrose you have to
>compare their top end own brand range, can't remember the name now but
>it features a lot of silver in the packages.
"Finest". (I'm not convinced there is that much difference between one
cornflake and another, but bacon, absolutely.)
Mark Ayliffe
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
> Jules wrote:
>>
>> Presumably the bulk of that increased cost is the shipping of goods from
>> overseas though, rather than local distribution? In other words, if the
>> ability to make things within the country hadn't been largely killed off,
>> prices would be a lot lower...
>>
>
> No we still grow about 50% of our food.
>
> The pint is, that when a farmer can sell wheat for bioethanol to germany
> at 120 a ton, is he going to sell it to Allinsons at 65 a ton for flour
> milling? Or 45 a ton for cattle feed.
I don't think much UK-grown wheat is any good for bread flour, mostly
we get that from elsewhere. BICBW.
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | All history is bunk. -Henry Ford
ayliffe dot org |
Duncan Wood
> On or about 2007-12-22,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
>> Jules wrote:
>>>
>>> Presumably the bulk of that increased cost is the shipping of goods
>>> from
>>> overseas though, rather than local distribution? In other words, if the
>>> ability to make things within the country hadn't been largely killed
>>> off,
>>> prices would be a lot lower...
>>>
>>
>> No we still grow about 50% of our food.
>>
>> The pint is, that when a farmer can sell wheat for bioethanol to germany
>> at 120 a ton, is he going to sell it to Allinsons at 65 a ton for flour
>> milling? Or 45 a ton for cattle feed.
>
> I don't think much UK-grown wheat is any good for bread flour, mostly
> we get that from elsewhere. BICBW.
>
Historically that was true,but apparently it's changed.
http://www.agr.gc.ca/mad-dam/index_e.php?s1=pubs&s2=bi&s3=php&page=bulletin_17_09_2004-06-11
Paul Oldham
> In article <v2ds35-...@bigjohn.hug>, Paul Oldham wrote:
>> On 20/12/07 23:45, Pies wrote:
>>> Item Tesco Price Waitrose Price
>>> Whole Milk 2.272ltr £1.34 £1.67
>> That's a KPI ("Known Price Item" - the sort of thing consumers remember
>> the price of, so Tesco will be selling it at cost or lower), not a good
>> comparison.
>
> Surely that depends how much of your shopping is Known Price Items?
> If they are rememebered because they are common typical grocery type
> things and that's what you mostly buy, then being sold them at cost
> is a good thing for that customer.
There's some truth in that, however the number of KPIs most people
remember is allegedly very small (10 or less I think) and most people
remember the same few (sliced loaf, milk, tin of baked beans, that sort
of thing).
>> Same here. To get *close* to comparing Tesco with Waitrose you have to
>> compare their top end own brand range, can't remember the name now but
>> it features a lot of silver in the packages.
>
> "Finest".
That's the chappy.
> (I'm not convinced there is that much difference between one
> cornflake and another, but bacon, absolutely.)
Aye. If I'm lucky Beth makes ours for us[1], but it's time consuming so
we often fall back on shop bought.
[1] She had fun finding someone who would sell her saltpetre ;-)
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off"
Paul Oldham
> OK. I might just try [Waitrose]. Do I have to wear a shirt and tie?
They'll accept smart casual at the discretion of the bouncers ...
Actually I sometime pop in there on a Sunday in full camo and rather
muddy, but they probably assume I'm a TA officer on his way home from a
weekend exercise ;-)
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously"
The Natural Philosopher
Funnily enough,I tried Kellogs cornflakes when waitrose was out of stock
of 'own brand'
They seemed thin and lacking in substance, soggier and sweeter..which is
odd because I didn't think they added sugar to cornflakes.
The Natural Philosopher
> On or about 2007-12-22,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
>> Jules wrote:
>>> Presumably the bulk of that increased cost is the shipping of goods from
>>> overseas though, rather than local distribution? In other words, if the
>>> ability to make things within the country hadn't been largely killed off,
>>> prices would be a lot lower...
>>>
>> No we still grow about 50% of our food.
>>
>> The pint is, that when a farmer can sell wheat for bioethanol to germany
>> at 120 a ton, is he going to sell it to Allinsons at 65 a ton for flour
>> milling? Or 45 a ton for cattle feed.
>
> I don't think much UK-grown wheat is any good for bread flour, mostly
> we get that from elsewhere. BICBW.
>
We do for the finest breads yes, and normally a fair amount of Durum -
canadian IIRC - is blended in, but there still is British wheat in yer
loaf. And certainly in yer pastry and cakes.
The Natural Philosopher
I wasn't aware that the bulk goes as cattle feed.Here in east anglia I
think the bulk goes for flour milling.
Anyway, the main pint is that worldwide agricultural prices are ion a
bit of a hike at the moment.Not because of transport costs, but because
demand is outstripping supply.
The US is subsiding farmers to grow corn for bioethanol - they cut it
with petrol to make part biofuel.
Suddenly corn syrup is expensive. The US lives on corn syrup, corn
flakes, corn the other..thats why they are the shape they are.
Alan Braggins
Nor did I, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornflakes says we're wrong,
and Kellogg's, at least the US version, does have added sugar (and that
it caused a rift between Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and his brother
Will Keith Kellogg).
I retract my earlier statement, I am now convinced cornflakes can differ.
Mark Ayliffe
Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> illuminated us with:
>
> [1] She had fun finding someone who would sell her saltpetre ;-)
Given the interrogation I got for trying to buy some Isopropyl
alcohol, I'm not surprised.
I dare say I won't be able to have the same fun with my son that my
dad & I did using that and the other two obvious ingredients. I'd
guess finding non-welded steel tube of adequate thickness for the
cannon would be hard too ;-)
--
Mark
Real email address | All those who believe in psychokinesis
is mark at | raise my hand.
ayliffe dot org |
The Natural Philosopher
> On or about 2007-12-22,
> Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> illuminated us with:
>> [1] She had fun finding someone who would sell her saltpetre ;-)
>
> Given the interrogation I got for trying to buy some Isopropyl
> alcohol, I'm not surprised.
>
> I dare say I won't be able to have the same fun with my son that my
> dad & I did using that and the other two obvious ingredients. I'd
> guess finding non-welded steel tube of adequate thickness for the
> cannon would be hard too ;-)
>
Actually for a simple cannon you don't need that strong a tube.
DAMHIKT
magwitch
Think it depends on the summer.
Was it 2006 or 2005? I was talking to a farmer harvesting it and he said
the wheat that year wasn't even fit for animal feed — a long drought
when it was growing and a month of rain in August when they wanted to
harvest — it was all mouldy.
This year (around here) it's been perfect, hence the high prices as
there's been a bad harvest elsewhere.
Duncan Wood
That's high ergot content, which does make it useless as animal feed or
anything else really, the high gluten varietes are more prone to being
knocked flat so suffer from it even more,
Mark Ayliffe
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
>>
>> I don't think much UK-grown wheat is any good for bread flour, mostly
>> we get that from elsewhere. BICBW.
>>
>
> We do for the finest breads yes, and normally a fair amount of Durum -
> canadian IIRC - is blended in, but there still is British wheat in yer
> loaf.
80% according to the useful link Duncan posted.
> And certainly in yer pastry and cakes.
Yebbut that's soft wheat, not hard as is needed for breadmaking. Of
course if you're talking about Chorleywood bread then it's probably
all UK wheat. Well the small proportion which isn't water ;-)
--
Mark
Real email address | The sooner you fall behind,
is mark at | the more time you'll have to catch up.
ayliffe dot org |
Mark Ayliffe
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
> Duncan Wood wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:40:42 -0000, Mark Ayliffe <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think much UK-grown wheat is any good for bread flour, mostly
>>> we get that from elsewhere. BICBW.
>>
>> Historically that was true,but apparently it's changed.
>> http://www.agr.gc.ca/mad-dam/index_e.php?s1=pubs&s2=bi&s3=php&page=bulletin_17_09_2004-06-11
>>
> Fascinating...
Indeed YLSNED
> I wasn't aware that the bulk goes as cattle feed.Here in east anglia I
> think the bulk goes for flour milling.
Possibly, but more likely true of the counties S of London I expect.
> Anyway, the main pint is that worldwide agricultural prices are ion a
> bit of a hike at the moment.Not because of transport costs, but because
> demand is outstripping supply.
>
> The US is subsiding farmers to grow corn for bioethanol - they cut it
> with petrol to make part biofuel.
>
> Suddenly corn syrup is expensive. The US lives on corn syrup, corn
> flakes, corn the other..thats why they are the shape they are.
corn != wheat. That corn is what we'd call sweetcorn I think.
--
Mark
Real email address | I know only two tunes. One of them is Yankee Doodle,
is mark at | and the other one isn't.
ayliffe dot org |
PaulB
news:ph5v35-...@news.ntlworld.com...
> On or about 2007-12-22,
> Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> illuminated us with:
>>
>> [1] She had fun finding someone who would sell her saltpetre ;-)
>
> Given the interrogation I got for trying to buy some Isopropyl
> alcohol, I'm not surprised.
>
FFR you can buy a 1 litre in can in Maplin's no questions asked.
Paul
PaulB
news:11982644...@damia.uk.clara.net...
<big snip>
> Grow yer own, order those seeds now.
Thanks but we'd have trouble getting the combine harvester into the garden
between the two houses :-)
Paul
Sarah Brown
>On 21/12/07 23:06, Pies wrote:
>
>> OK. I might just try [Waitrose]. Do I have to wear a shirt and tie?
>
>They'll accept smart casual at the discretion of the bouncers ...
ANd it's easy to find your car in the car park too - just look for the
gap in the rows of SUVs, all owned by people called Rupert and
Felicity. ;-)
Mark Ayliffe
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
It's best if it isn't welded though. Which used to be more of a problem.
--
Mark
Real email address | The squeaky wheel doesn't always get the grease.
is mark at | Sometimes it gets replaced.
ayliffe dot org |
The Natural Philosopher
> On or about 2007-12-22,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
>> Duncan Wood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:40:42 -0000, Mark Ayliffe <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think much UK-grown wheat is any good for bread flour, mostly
>>>> we get that from elsewhere. BICBW.
>>> Historically that was true,but apparently it's changed.
>>> http://www.agr.gc.ca/mad-dam/index_e.php?s1=pubs&s2=bi&s3=php&page=bulletin_17_09_2004-06-11
>>>
>> Fascinating...
>
> Indeed YLSNED
>
>> I wasn't aware that the bulk goes as cattle feed.Here in east anglia I
>> think the bulk goes for flour milling.
>
> Possibly, but more likely true of the counties S of London I expect.
>
>> Anyway, the main pint is that worldwide agricultural prices are ion a
>> bit of a hike at the moment.Not because of transport costs, but because
>> demand is outstripping supply.
>>
>> The US is subsiding farmers to grow corn for bioethanol - they cut it
>> with petrol to make part biofuel.
>>
>> Suddenly corn syrup is expensive. The US lives on corn syrup, corn
>> flakes, corn the other..thats why they are the shape they are.
>
> corn != wheat. That corn is what we'd call sweetcorn I think.
>
based chemistry - like wheat often is here,though sugar beet is more usual.
Mark Ayliffe
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
>>
>> corn != wheat. That corn is what we'd call sweetcorn I think.
>>
> Never said it was, however is the main feedstock for starch and alcohol
> based chemistry - like wheat often is here,though sugar beet is more usual.
Indeed, any sort of corn is pretty much rubbish for alcohol
production, the sugar sources are much better. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Efficiency_of_common_crops
for example. I think sugar beet is around the same as sugar cane in
this respect. Only in the US do people seem to think that (transport)
alcohol from wheat is a good idea. Best leave it for whisk[e]y
production.
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | A closed mouth gathers no feet.
ayliffe dot org |
Richard Torrens (news)
Mark Ayliffe <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On or about 2007-12-22,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> illuminated us with:
> > Mark Ayliffe wrote:
> >>
> >> corn != wheat. That corn is what we'd call sweetcorn I think.
> >>
> > Never said it was, however is the main feedstock for starch and alcohol
> > based chemistry - like wheat often is here,though sugar beet is more usual.
> Indeed, any sort of corn is pretty much rubbish for alcohol
> production, the sugar sources are much better. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Efficiency_of_common_crops
> for example. I think sugar beet is around the same as sugar cane in
> this respect. Only in the US do people seem to think that (transport)
> alcohol from wheat is a good idea. Best leave it for whisk[e]y
> production.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/pdf/badger.pdf
has many facts on sugar, starch and cellulose fermentation.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. N.B. email address nos...@4qd.org is valid.
All email addresses are copyright. Resale or use on any lists is expressly forbidden.
4QD manufacture speed controllers for battery electric motors.
www sites http://www.4QD.org and http://www.4QD.co.uk
---------- We use a RISC PC 32 bit RISC computer ----------------
Francis Turton
> Francis my dear chap. You are talking with apparent certainty about the
> future, but your extreme pessimism is surely only justified if you
> simultaneously assume the worst possible outcome for many situations
> for which no-one knows for sure what is going to happen.
>
> For example, you say that modern agriculture depends on oil, and that
> oil will run out. Well maybe,
How come "maybe"?
Most people get their information from the newspapers and the TV news.
Hence they think climate change will be just a bit of an inconvenience,
and are oblivious to the issue of oil production probably having peaked
(if it hasn't done already, it'll be in the next couple of years), and
all the economic and geopolitical implications of this.
Trust me, this is not a question of optimism or pessimism. It's a
question of whether it happens in 2 years or 20 (and not many experts
are saying 20).
Without some sort of confidence in the future, an economy collapses.
Without oil, and short of a miracle substitute coming out of nowhere
very soon, there can be no confidence in the future. Oil is what feeds a
world population of 6.5 billion people. Don't delude yourself otherwise.
I learned about all this from my sister-in-law, who's an optimistic
person, but her verdict regarding both climate change and peak oil is
that we're stuffed. And soon. Her attitude is to prepare for the worst
rather than just worry about it. She has young kids and a job so she
doesn't have time to worry, in any case.
The peak oil crisis is something politicians have been secretly worrying
about for years, but keeping quiet for fear of triggering a panic.
That's all the Iraq war was about.
> but the time scales matter here. If oil
> is going to run out on the time scale of several decades (a plausible
> enough hypothesis) then that is quite long and there will be time to
> adapt. Over this period, we could see non-oil ways to run machinery
> necessary for agriculture. Populations may stabilise. Crops could be
> developed to have much higher yield (as they have been continuously
> up to now). The US is diverting some agriculture to biofuel, but
> second generation biofuel could use non food crops. Etc..
>
The simple fact is that we don't have the first idea where we could get
enough (clean) energy to replace all the oil the world uses. Nuclear
fission is the only viable option in the medium term, with no hint of a
long-term solution. Some things just aren't technically possible, but
we've the idea in our heads that technology's potential is limitless.
> If you elevate a possible total world disaster scenario to some kind of
> inevitability without being remotely sure about it then I think you are
> not being realistic so much as wilfully nihilistic.
>
I wouldn't say "without being remotely sure": I've read serious articles
about this stuff. I'm not *absolutely* sure and I hope I'm wrong: all
I'll say is that the optimists do not present a very convincing case,
and trust me, I want to believe them. As with climate change, the
naysayers are mostly right-wingers who spend their time slagging the
"lefty agenda" of the pessimists, without refuting the latters' arguments.
> You really think the stock market will do an unprecedented crash in the
> next year or two? ("probably much sooner than 5 years"). How sure are
> you? Would you like to bet on it? (Or insure yourself against it?)
>
The economy may stagger on longer than 5 years, as speculators will all
be waiting to see who jumps first. The paper economy always lags behind
the real economy. So no, it may be longer than 5 years. But it's going
to happen: just as the fall in house prices was always going to happen,
because the growth in prices did not reflect the underlying economy.
You can't just go on borrowing against the future, assuming eternal
growth, unless you have an eternal source of energy. Collapse *at some
point* is inevitable, unless we miraculously find a replacement for oil
*very* quick. Wealth IS energy.
> I don't know if this is relevant, but Feynman tells of a period after
> the end of the second world war when he became very depressed. He
> thought nuclear oblivion was inevitable and thought people were crazy
> to carry on doing ordinary things like building roads and bridges. Later
> he looked back at that time and commented that he was very glad that
> people did go on building the bridges.
Fair enough. I hope, but don't believe, that reflects the current
situation. Nuclear war was a possibility, but an energy crisis, like
runaway global warming, is a virtual certainty. I know you're thinking,
"If it's that big a problem, why isn't everyone talking about it?" Well,
that's how big a problem it is.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Alex Selby
> Alex Selby wrote:
>
>> Francis my dear chap. You are talking with apparent certainty about the
>> future, but your extreme pessimism is surely only justified if you
>> simultaneously assume the worst possible outcome for many situations
>> for which no-one knows for sure what is going to happen.
>>
>> For example, you say that modern agriculture depends on oil, and that
>> oil will run out. Well maybe,
>
> How come "maybe"?
Because I'm not aware of how much modern agriculture depends on oil
(or whether this is necessarily so, or simply a convenience resulting
from historically cheap oil) and I'm taking your word on it for the
purposes of the discussion.
>
> Most people get their information from the newspapers and the TV news.
> Hence they think climate change will be just a bit of an inconvenience,
> and are oblivious to the issue of oil production probably having peaked
> (if it hasn't done already, it'll be in the next couple of years), and
> all the economic and geopolitical implications of this.
Lots of news has been apocalyptic. Lots of news hasn't been. I don't
accept that there is a conspiracy to cover up how bad it is.
>
> Trust me, this is not a question of optimism or pessimism. It's a
> question of whether it happens in 2 years or 20 (and not many experts
> are saying 20).
>
> Without some sort of confidence in the future, an economy collapses.
> Without oil, and short of a miracle substitute coming out of nowhere
> very soon, there can be no confidence in the future. Oil is what feeds a
> world population of 6.5 billion people. Don't delude yourself otherwise.
If all the experts are thinking this then the world economy would have
collapsed already since it would be "factored in". It simply can't be
true that every informed person believes what you say.
>
> I learned about all this from my sister-in-law, who's an optimistic
> person, but her verdict regarding both climate change and peak oil is
> that we're stuffed. And soon. Her attitude is to prepare for the worst
> rather than just worry about it. She has young kids and a job so she
> doesn't have time to worry, in any case.
>
> The peak oil crisis is something politicians have been secretly worrying
> about for years, but keeping quiet for fear of triggering a panic.
> That's all the Iraq war was about.
>
>> but the time scales matter here. If oil
>> is going to run out on the time scale of several decades (a plausible
>> enough hypothesis) then that is quite long and there will be time to
>> adapt. Over this period, we could see non-oil ways to run machinery
>> necessary for agriculture. Populations may stabilise. Crops could be
>> developed to have much higher yield (as they have been continuously
>> up to now). The US is diverting some agriculture to biofuel, but
>> second generation biofuel could use non food crops. Etc..
>>
>
> The simple fact is that we don't have the first idea where we could get
> enough (clean) energy to replace all the oil the world uses. Nuclear
> fission is the only viable option in the medium term, with no hint of a
> long-term solution. Some things just aren't technically possible, but
> we've the idea in our heads that technology's potential is limitless.
Yes but the medium term could be thousands, millions or maybe billions
of years with nuclear fission. What's the problem? If you are going to
worry about the fact that entropy eventually wins then I can't console
you. Even if the medium term is only 100 years with (mainly) fission
(and I would argue that it is likely to be much more) then that is loads
of time to come up with something better, or for the world population to
gently decline through lower birth rates.
>> If you elevate a possible total world disaster scenario to some kind of
>> inevitability without being remotely sure about it then I think you are
>> not being realistic so much as wilfully nihilistic.
>>
>
> I wouldn't say "without being remotely sure": I've read serious articles
> about this stuff. I'm not *absolutely* sure and I hope I'm wrong: all
> I'll say is that the optimists do not present a very convincing case,
> and trust me, I want to believe them. As with climate change, the
> naysayers are mostly right-wingers who spend their time slagging the
> "lefty agenda" of the pessimists, without refuting the latters' arguments.
I agree there are people with agendas who are to be treated with
caution, but to be honest I don't (yet?) find your argument at all
convincing. I accept there is likely to be a problem, since that's what
the experts are saying, but I don't think mainstream expert opinion is
saying that it is necessarily catastrophic. Would I be right in guessing
that you regard the IPCC report as some kind of a whitewash effectively
written by denialists?
(Personally I think we may be in trouble for other reasons, but that's
beside the point...)
>
>> You really think the stock market will do an unprecedented crash in the
>> next year or two? ("probably much sooner than 5 years"). How sure are
>> you? Would you like to bet on it? (Or insure yourself against it?)
>>
>
> The economy may stagger on longer than 5 years, as speculators will all
> be waiting to see who jumps first. The paper economy always lags behind
> the real economy. So no, it may be longer than 5 years. But it's going
> to happen: just as the fall in house prices was always going to happen,
> because the growth in prices did not reflect the underlying economy.
>
> You can't just go on borrowing against the future, assuming eternal
> growth, unless you have an eternal source of energy. Collapse *at some
> point* is inevitable, unless we miraculously find a replacement for oil
> *very* quick. Wealth IS energy.
Earlier you said it was a virtual certainty that there would be an
unprecedented crash within 5 years, and it was those comments to which
I was taking exception. If you are going to indefinitely postpone the
super-crash then I might have to agree with you since we can't outlive
the universe.
>
>> I don't know if this is relevant, but Feynman tells of a period after
>> the end of the second world war when he became very depressed. He
>> thought nuclear oblivion was inevitable and thought people were crazy
>> to carry on doing ordinary things like building roads and bridges. Later
>> he looked back at that time and commented that he was very glad that
>> people did go on building the bridges.
>
> Fair enough. I hope, but don't believe, that reflects the current
> situation. Nuclear war was a possibility, but an energy crisis, like
> runaway global warming, is a virtual certainty. I know you're thinking,
> "If it's that big a problem, why isn't everyone talking about it?" Well,
> that's how big a problem it is.
My experience is of seeing and hearing large numbers of people talking
about it, and every day I hear of many more. I don't buy into this
conspiracy of silence. Maybe our notions of "it" are different.
>
>
> --- www.dogsticks.org ---
The Natural Philosopher
> Alex Selby wrote:
>
>> Francis my dear chap. You are talking with apparent certainty about the
>> future, but your extreme pessimism is surely only justified if you
>> simultaneously assume the worst possible outcome for many situations
>> for which no-one knows for sure what is going to happen.
>>
>> For example, you say that modern agriculture depends on oil, and that
>> oil will run out. Well maybe,
>
> How come "maybe"?
>
> Most people get their information from the newspapers and the TV news.
> Hence they think climate change will be just a bit of an inconvenience,
> and are oblivious to the issue of oil production probably having peaked
> (if it hasn't done already, it'll be in the next couple of years), and
> all the economic and geopolitical implications of this.
>
> Trust me, this is not a question of optimism or pessimism. It's a
> question of whether it happens in 2 years or 20 (and not many experts
> are saying 20).
>
> Without some sort of confidence in the future, an economy collapses.
> Without oil, and short of a miracle substitute coming out of nowhere
> very soon, there can be no confidence in the future. Oil is what feeds a
> world population of 6.5 billion people. Don't delude yourself otherwise.
>
There is a miracle substitute:Its called uranium.
> I learned about all this from my sister-in-law, who's an optimistic
> person, but her verdict regarding both climate change and peak oil is
> that we're stuffed. And soon. Her attitude is to prepare for the worst
> rather than just worry about it. She has young kids and a job so she
> doesn't have time to worry, in any case.
>
> The peak oil crisis is something politicians have been secretly worrying
> about for years, but keeping quiet for fear of triggering a panic.
> That's all the Iraq war was about.
>
Partly. Mostly it was a distraction though.
>> but the time scales matter here. If oil
>> is going to run out on the time scale of several decades (a plausible
>> enough hypothesis) then that is quite long and there will be time to
>> adapt. Over this period, we could see non-oil ways to run machinery
>> necessary for agriculture. Populations may stabilise. Crops could be
>> developed to have much higher yield (as they have been continuously
>> up to now). The US is diverting some agriculture to biofuel, but
>> second generation biofuel could use non food crops. Etc..
>>
>
> The simple fact is that we don't have the first idea where we could get
> enough (clean) energy to replace all the oil the world uses. Nuclear
> fission is the only viable option in the medium term, with no hint of a
> long-term solution. Some things just aren't technically possible, but
> we've the idea in our heads that technology's potential is limitless.
>
Nuclear fission will do fort the next 100 yeaqrs, by which time fusion
will probably finally work. Or we just keep going with fission. For the
next 10,000 years. There is plenty of fissile material around if there
is enough energy to isloate it, and we can even breed more..
>> If you elevate a possible total world disaster scenario to some kind of
>> inevitability without being remotely sure about it then I think you are
>> not being realistic so much as wilfully nihilistic.
>>
>
> I wouldn't say "without being remotely sure": I've read serious articles
> about this stuff. I'm not *absolutely* sure and I hope I'm wrong: all
> I'll say is that the optimists do not present a very convincing case,
> and trust me, I want to believe them. As with climate change, the
> naysayers are mostly right-wingers who spend their time slagging the
> "lefty agenda" of the pessimists, without refuting the latters' arguments.
>
The problem is, this is a highly multidisciplinary problem, and
politicioans don't even have a grasp of basic home economics, let alone
engineering, cost benefit analysis, risk management, ecology and so on.
And even if you say 'nuclear will do it at +25% of todays costs,
windmills will do it at +900% of todays costs' they won't beleive you.
Nor will the eco bullshitters, and tbig oil has its hands over its ears,
and guess who has the money and the hearts of the great unwashed.
The religious right WANT armageddon. So do the eco nuts. The right wants
it to prove they were right, and gods vengeance on all poofters, and to
justify military dictatorships. The eco nuts want it to prove that its
all scienbces fault, and living in tepee was the right thing after all.
Of course they don't even want bicycles really.
Those of us whop say 'wqell for all its faults, this isn't bad way to
live and there are far worse, and its worth a few pounds of radioactive
slag a year to keep it this way and avoid Mega Death, are hated by all
sides.
>> You really think the stock market will do an unprecedented crash in the
>> next year or two? ("probably much sooner than 5 years"). How sure are
>> you? Would you like to bet on it? (Or insure yourself against it?)
>>
>
> The economy may stagger on longer than 5 years, as speculators will all
> be waiting to see who jumps first. The paper economy always lags behind
> the real economy. So no, it may be longer than 5 years. But it's going
> to happen: just as the fall in house prices was always going to happen,
> because the growth in prices did not reflect the underlying economy.
>
I don't actually think so.
What we are going to see is that fuel prices will keep going up and
things will slow down, and eventually someone will notice that
electricity from a nuclear power station costs less, and from windmills
even more, and suddenly people will start demanding nuclear power
stations. Meanwile the Japanese Koreans and chinese will be making
electric cars, and suddenly we will realise we didn't actually need aoll
the fuel after all.
You CAN run a country without using much oil or producing much carbon,
if you use uranium.
> You can't just go on borrowing against the future, assuming eternal
> growth, unless you have an eternal source of energy. Collapse *at some
> point* is inevitable, unless we miraculously find a replacement for oil
> *very* quick. Wealth IS energy.
>
Sure, and the sun will die a heat death in a billion years. And te
universe a billion billion years after that.
But the earth is a reactor thats been going a few million years, and
theres plenty of fissile material left. Enough to make running out of
energy a complete joke.
Carbon fuel was just the loan we took out to build a nuclear world.
We just have to realise it and get on with it.
>> I don't know if this is relevant, but Feynman tells of a period after
>> the end of the second world war when he became very depressed. He
>> thought nuclear oblivion was inevitable and thought people were crazy
>> to carry on doing ordinary things like building roads and bridges. Later
>> he looked back at that time and commented that he was very glad that
>> people did go on building the bridges.
>
> Fair enough. I hope, but don't believe, that reflects the current
> situation. Nuclear war was a possibility, but an energy crisis, like
> runaway global warming, is a virtual certainty. I know you're thinking,
> "If it's that big a problem, why isn't everyone talking about it?" Well,
> that's how big a problem it is.
>
>
True. But *we* are.
Just keep insisting 'we want nuclear power stations and electric cars;'
until a government promises to deliver, and vote out any munch of
loonies that won't let it happen.
> --- www.dogsticks.org ---