Adidas & US Cotton

[yee dawgy]

Here is a portion of an article by economist O A Cleveland. Agriculture provides my livelihood and has for 36 years since I graduated from MSU in 1981. It is under fire today like no time I can recall by misinformation spewed by so called "environmentalists" as well as our current administration in Washington. Please read since it pertains to this weeks baseball matchup.

We had the big grand slam last week with our demand comments and using Adidas as an example.
I was misquoted more last week than I have ever know in my life…even after I corrected one individual they continued to carry on with the misquote. As the World Turns, These are the Days of Our Lives. Drama, Drama, Drama
For the record I am neither anti BCI or Adidas. For the record I am into cotton. BCI has admirable goals. On the surface, they seem to want to bully the U.S., arguably the most environmentally conscious agricultural producer in the world. It appears that some of its founders do not (want) anything that uses any chemical. Maybe they need a bit more “natural water” to get their system adjusted.
Staying with Adidas – their products are found in two locker rooms that I have access to. The Mississippi State and Texas A&M locker rooms are chuck full of athletic sportswear bearing the name Adidas. Beautiful Stuff…All Maroon and White, a lot like Heaven I imagine.
NEARLY ALL, not all, A VAST VAST MAJORITY have the following phrase on each item…100% polyester. Some, but only a limited number have the phrase 65% polyester 35% cotton. My guess, well more than 75 percent of the items are 100% polyester. I did not personally go to the other locker room. A young lady that calls me DAD did that one for me. I reminded her that cotton had paid her way and her DAD needed help. She totally and completely concurred with what I found in the locker room that I viewed. Additionally, she went through her husband’s closet and he had 31 items that came from the respective university athletic department. Oh, her husband is titled Assistant Head Coach. She told me her husband brings home 5 to 6 new items every month and they all are polyester. She said he had only one cotton t-shirt. She said he could not get cotton athletic apparel, saying it was all polyester. A university athletic employee told me they wanted cotton, but Adidas said they could not get it. Ah!! Mississippi State and Texas A&M meet in mortal combat on the baseball diamond a week from today. That place will be packed with 100% polyester. The winner will get the Polyester Cup, in beautiful Maroon and White, of course
I know little about Adidas, but I do know two customers that feel Adidas does not want to provide them anything cotton. I know that their written policy is to use 100% BCI cotton by 2018. Let’s say that is two more crop years away and the U.S. produced only 183,000 bales of BCI cotton in 2015. None-ZERO in Mississippi and about 30,000 bales in Texas. Thus, you can bet there will be little if any maroon and with dyed cotton used by those two “cotton” colleges in the coming years—any U.S. cotton that is. Too, both of the aforementioned mentioned university customers emphatically stated to me that they want cotton and do not like the polyester. The comment was that polyester is not comfortable. I have not heard that in a long time, but I use to hear it every day sponsored by Cotton Incorporated, the company that once used another daily slogan, “The fabric of our lives.” Young folks do not know that one anymore.
Thus, to those that continue to find pleasure in misquoting me, no problem. I was born getting a whipping and suppose I will go out that way. However, please support the American cotton grower and the world cotton grower, forget me. Get the message to the world that it is okay to wear cotton, that it is okay to support the cotton grower.
All of us PhD’s, lawyers, ginners, warehousemen, cooperatives, chemical companies, seed companies, input suppliers, media, big shots, Board of Directors and speech givers – WE work for the cotton farmer. HE pays for our living. He takes financial risks. We talk about risks. We run off at the mouth. Sometimes they do to, but they have a financial and emotional investment that we will NEVER understand. Direct all your energy toward helping them, not trying to reduce the importance of another.
God Bless the American Cotton Grower and all of you. We give thanks to the grower for our livelihood. We live off their backs. We live off their emotions. Support Them. Forget the Petty Stuff.
Give A Gift of Cotton Today………Make that 100% cotton…..Adidas 100% cotton…it can even have Ole Miss on it as long as it in that new baby blue and pick uniform they wear.

 

[codeDawg]

The bottom line is that US cotton is more expensive. Adidas can't just go buy cotton from other countries without facing a huge backlash, so they invent a sustainability campaign that makes it look like they are making a moral decision instead of an economic one.

What the agricultural schools should do is pressure Adidas to come up with a plan that allows US cotton to be certified under this marketing organization Adidas has created and then Adidas can proclaim they are able to provide sustainable US cotton to US consumers.

Adidas then charges $X more for the more expensive US material because it can claim a benefit / value. Win-win.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

http://forums.sixpackspeak.com/showthread.php?154928-Thanks-Adidas!&highlight=Adidas

 

[rugbdawg]

Mississippi Cotton Production is all but dead. It's corn and beans. In this

case, I wouldn't blame the market (corporate actors), I'd blame the government. Corn is king. The government said so. I'm not a farmer but my father in law is in the MS Delta. 15-20 years ago all he planted was cotton. Two years ago....he did not plant a single acre of cotton. With the crash of corn and beans, he has diversified a little bit lately but the huge upside for U.S. cotton will NEVER return.

Edited to add: I am a farmer but its on the side. Nothing like the scale of my father in law.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

There's been a big increase in cotton and rice acres this year. Corn was king but it wasn't solely because of ethanol. Emerging markets in China and India and bad weather drove corn and soybeans to huge prices for several years in a row. Add to that the economic downturn in the US caused the US Dollar to drop so much that trade with other countries became very favorable. It was a no brainer to grow soybeans and corn plus you can grow them much cheaper than cotton and except for one year, cotton prices have pretty much sucked.

The cotton market is controlled by the Chinese. They control the textile industry now and like to dabble in fibbing on their cotton warehousing numbers that make the market go up and down.

People have turned back to cotton and rice because of the drop in prices brought on by several huge crops in a row, a stronger dollar, and economic recessions in Asia.

 

[yee dawgy]

My bad. I didn't realize that original article had started another message board shoot out. Sorry!

 

[WhiteShepherd07]

Do yourselves a favor and listen to this podcast, http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...sode-496-where-the-planet-money-t-shirt-began, you won't be disappointed.

 

[ShrubDog]

The reason polyester is used so much more in athletic gear is for the wicking and drying factor.

 

[patdog]

There are a lot of advantages to wearing cotton. But not for playing sports or in 95+ degree weather. Unless you just enjoy being miserable.

 

[ShrubDog]

Cotton is more breathable. Seems like wearing polyester under armor and other garments like that are popular with every sports team in the nation.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

You know they used to make leisure suits out of polyester?

View attachment 3666

 

[BiscuitEater]

What the agricultural schools should do is pressure Adidas to come up with a plan that allows US cotton to be certified under this marketing organization Adidas has created and then Adidas can proclaim they are able to provide sustainable US cotton to US consumers.

Adidas then charges $X more for the more expensive US material because it can claim a benefit / value. Win-win.

Apparently, you forgot to read the OP .. or you didn't get the part about the US already producing BCI cotton.

Adidas is a 'founding member' of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and has a 'written policy is to use 100% BCI cotton by 2018' (see above). NONE of the cotton they do use currently comes from the US. And, it has moved primarily to polyester .. instead of using cotton.

 

[codeDawg]

Apparently, you forgot to read the OP .. or you didn't get the part about the US already producing BCI cotton.

Adidas is a 'founding member' of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and has a 'written policy is to use 100% BCI cotton by 2018' (see above). NONE of the cotton they do use currently comes from the US. And, it has moved primarily to polyester .. instead of using cotton.

No, I didn't see that in the wall of text, but it is a good point. I even found this: http://bettercotton.org/about-better-cotton/regions/usa/

So, if Adidas isn't using US grown "Better Cotton", it must be a cost issue. They need to charge more for US Better Cotton goods and market it properly.

 

[AROB44]

There's been a big increase in cotton and rice acres this year. Corn was king but it wasn't solely because of ethanol. Emerging markets in China and India and bad weather drove corn and soybeans to huge prices for several years in a row. Add to that the economic downturn in the US caused the US Dollar to drop so much that trade with other countries became very favorable. It was a no brainer to grow soybeans and corn plus you can grow them much cheaper than cotton and except for one year, cotton prices have pretty much sucked.

The cotton market is controlled by the Chinese. They control the textile industry now and like to dabble in fibbing on their cotton warehousing numbers that make the market go up and down.

People have turned back to cotton and rice because of the drop in prices brought on by several huge crops in a row, a stronger dollar, and economic recessions in Asia.

Why can't the ethanol subsidy get repealed? Farming interest, perhaps?

 

[patdog]

Why can't the ethanol subsidy get repealed? Farming interest, perhaps?

You nailed it. We're subsidising a fuel that's worse for the environment overall, damages engines, and unnecessarily drives up food costs. There's nothing but downside to this if you're anything other than a corn farmer.

 

[Dawgg]

Why can't the ethanol subsidy get repealed? Farming interest, perhaps?

It's a non-starter for any candidate wanting to win the Iowa Primary.

Also, the majority of the top 10 corn producing states are generally identified as 'swing' states in statewide and national elections:
Iowa
Illinois
Nebraska
Minnesota
Indiana
South Dakota
Kansas
Ohio
Wisconsin
Missouri

 

[rugbdawg]

Yea. Not a fan of wearing cotton either. Pretty much ever.

 

[ShrubDog]

You nailed it. We're subsidising a fuel that's worse for the environment overall, damages engines, and unnecessarily drives up food costs. There's nothing but downside to this if you're anything other than a corn farmer.

.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It does very little to drive up food costs.

 

[noxdog]

Well,

It does very little to drive up food costs.

1 outta 3 aint bad, is it DCD?


**

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Well there actually data to argue for and against its environmental impact. It's about 60/40 fall on the side of saying its a net gain.

The thing is the corn will be grown no matter what. You may see a fluctuation in acres year to year but in the Midwest corn is their livelihood. They can't grow soybeans year after year.

 

[ShrubDog]

I read this the other day and hesitated posting it in this thread because its about cotton. Well its after 10:30 pm so here goes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredme...ians-love-burning-food-for-fuel/#91fa3916b410

Pasted because the mobile Forbes site has a pop ups.

the Green/Left has been pushing biofuels for decades
The ethanol scammers like to claim that their motor fuel moonshine is cheaper than gasoline
Burning food for fuel does not sound like the best idea. However, that is precisely what U.S. ethanol policy requires. Though federal supports for ethanol have changed over the past decades, the disappointing results of the program—including the waste of motorists’ dollars—have continued. In what follows, my Manhattan Institute colleague Robert Bryce explains why Americans are still stuck with destructive ethanol programs that do not help the environment, promote energy independence, or aid the economy:
Jared Meyer: What are the main ways that the government promotes the ethanol industry? How have these industry supports changed over time?

Robert Bryce: Americans have been paying to support corn ethanol since 1978, when Congress approved a 40 cent-per-gallon subsidy for the fuel. That year, the Bee Gees topped the pop charts with their disco hit, “Stayin Alive.”
Big Corn was able to keep those subsidies flowing until the end of 2011 when Congress finally killed them. Today, taxpayers are not directly subsidizing ethanol producers, but they are still providing billions of dollars per year in federal crop insurance for corn farmers.

More importantly, thanks to Congress, we have a federal mandate that requires retailers to blend about 13 billion gallons of corn ethanol per year into the gasoline they sell to the public. That mandate is just another form of subsidy because it requires motorists to buy a fuel that, on an energy-equivalent basis costs more than conventional gasoline. Making matters worse, ethanol is corrosive, hydrophilic (meaning it absorbs water), and it’s bad for small engines.
Regarding that last point, I am compelled to add a personal anecdote. I have a small (4 horsepower) outboard engine that I use on my old wooden boat. A few weeks ago, I had it serviced. As I handed it over, I asked the mechanic (James, the owner of Highland Outboards) how many of the engines he works on have been damaged by ethanol. His reply: “all of them.”

JM: Harvard economics professor and former member of the President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers James Stock argues that, “Yes, [ethanol promotion] is a government subsidy, but one that is warranted as support for the most promising short-term path toward reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector.” Do biofuels actually reduce carbon emissions?

RB: The claim that biofuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions is one of the biggest fibs of the modern age. The EPA’s own data shows that corn ethanol is worse for the environment than conventional gasoline.
In 2010, the agency published a 1,100-page document that detailed the environmental and economic effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is the federal mandate that requires retailers to blend ethanol into the fuel they sell to the public. The EPA foundthat ethanol-blended fuel increases “emissions of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and other pollutants” and that will “lead to increases in population-weighted annual average ambient PM [particulate matter] and ozone concentrations, which in turn are anticipated to lead to up to 245 cases of adult premature mortality.”
Or look at the work published last summer by John DeCicco, a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute. DiCicco, who has been studying automobile fuels for more than two decades, found that greenhouse gas emissions from corn ethanol are up to70% higher than those from standard gasoline.
Or consider a 2014 report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers from the University of Minnesota. Jason Hill, one of the authors of the report, said flatly that “If we’re using ethanol for environmental benefits, for air quality and climate change, we’re going down the wrong path.”

JM: Most environmentalists seem to agree with you. The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit dedicated to helping the environment, recently succinctly stated that, “corn ethanol is environmentally destructive and is not a renewable fuel.”
RB: I have to dispute your claim that “most environmentalists” agree. Remember, the Green/Left has been pushing biofuels for decades .
In 1976, Amory Lovins, the co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute and a longtime darling of the Green/Left claimed that “exciting developments in the conversion of agricultural, forestry and urban wastes to methanol and other liquid and gaseous fuels now offer practical, economically interesting technologies sufficient to run an efficient U.S. transport sector.” Given better efficiency in automobiles and a large enough installation of cellulosic ethanol distilleries, he claimed, “the whole of the transport needs could be met by organic conversion.”
Since then, Lovins has frequently repeated his specious claim that biofuels are going to magically displace our need for petroleum. Further, recall that in her 2008 presidential platform, Hillary Clinton pushed for a dramatic increase in biofuel use—to 60 billion gallons by 2030. She claimed that “homegrown biofuels can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

JM: Speaking of our “dependence” on foreign oil, some conservatives—even those outside of Iowa—still support ethanol subsidies and mandates because they argue that these programs reduce American’s reliance on oil imports. Does the energy independence argument hold any water? After all, Republican President George W. Bush signed the RFS into law.
RB: Since the 1970s, ethanol boosters have been using the bogeyman of foreign oil to justify subsidies and mandates for their fuel. The result: ethanol distilleries now consume nearly40% of all domestic corn output in order to produce fuel equivalent to about 600,000 barrels of oil per day. And it took nearly four decades of federal subsidies and mandates to get the ethanol sector to that size.
That meager quantity of fuel has done effectively nothing to reduce our need for imported energy. Since 2006, domestic oil production has increased by more than 3.6 million barrels per day. Thus, in just the last nine years, the oil sector has increased production by six times the total output of every ethanol distillery in America. That increased oil production did not happen because of congressional mandates.
It happened because privately owned companies risked billions of dollars, and in doing so they innovated in everything from drill bits to mud pumps. The result: dramatic decreases in oil and natural gas prices which are saving American consumers billions of dollarsper year. Promoting this type of entrepreneurial risk-taking and innovation is the path forward, not throwing more money at ethanol.

JM: You argue that the federal ethanol program is not only ineffective, but that it is very costly. Just how much have federal subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol cost American consumers?
RB: The ethanol scammers like to claim that their motor fuel moonshine is cheaper than gasoline . That is true on a volumetric basis, but not on an energy-equivalent basis. And energy equivalence is what matters. Ethanol contains about 76,000 Btu per gallon.Gasoline contains about 114,000 Btu per gallon. Thus, to get the same amount of energy contained in a gallon of conventional gasoline, a motorist would have to purchase about 1.5 gallons of ethanol.
As I showed last year in a report for the Manhattan Institute, ethanol mandates now impose about $10 billion in additional fuel costs on motorists over and above what they would have paid for gasoline alone. That means that eachof the 212 million licensed drivers in the United States is paying about $47 per year in excess fuel costs.
It is time to call the ethanol scam what it is: a tax on every motorist in America.

JM: After Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus despite his opposition to federal ethanol supports, the ethanol program was pronounced dead by many pundits. However, ethanol is still alive and well and continues to draw support from the public and policymakers. A new Des Moines Register poll found that 71% of Iowans (and 66% of the state’s Republicans) favor the RFS. Why does a program that places such heavy costs on everyday Americans and the environment continue to receive such passionate, bipartisan support?

RB: Simple: voters love pork, and I am not talking about bacon. Iowa has kept a stranglehold on presidential-selection process for years. The result of that stranglehold is that presidential wannabes have to march in near-lockstep on the question of ethanol.
Sure, Cruz came out against ethanol (but he later waffled on his position.) Further, last September, while campaigning in Iowa, current delegate leader Donald Trump said, “Ethanol is terrific, especially with the new process, and I am totally in favor of ethanol, 100%. And I will support it.”
The hard fact is that Big Corn and Big Agriculture have powerful lobbying groups that are spread across many states. Presidential candidates do not want to cross swords with those groups. Further, those lobbying groups hold lots of sway in the U.S. Senate. Rather than buck Big Agriculture, Democrats and Republicans alike continue to support a mandate that requires us to use a fuel that is worse for the environment and costs more than conventional fuel. It is just another unfortunate example of how narrow special interests are corrupting American politics

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Last time I checked Cruz won Iowa and is totallh against the RFS.

 

[mstateglfr]

The reason polyester is used so much more in athletic gear is for the wicking and drying factor.

Yup, sweat dries and the BO factor, which is whats left on the shirt, is intensified by 10. Strangest material to be made popular for athletics.