Sustainability is about more than just the environment. As important as that is, we cannot have sustainable production without taking into account economic and community sustainability.
The folks at Farmers’ Ethanol in Ohio call that the triple bottom line – profit, people and planet. The company is dedicated to transforming the corn ethanol industry by combining energy and food production within the same facility.
The fermentation and distillation process is similar to a conventional plant, but the facility will be fueled by the steam heat from a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generator.
The ethanol plant will be capable of producing 23 million gallons/year. In addition to providing the heat for system processes, the CHP generator will provide 7.5MW of green electricity. The generator is fueled by the methane produced by an anaerobic digester. The anaerobic digester is fed the waste from the distillation process and the wastes from 2,000 dairy cattle and 10,000 beef cattle being raised on the site. The cattle will get part of their daily food ration from wet distillers grain (WDG) which is a by product of the ethanol fermentation.
Interesting concept they believe can be “franchised” around the country and adapted to different feedstocks.
Last year a controversial (non-peer reviewed) study was published in Science magazine by environmentalist Tim Searchinger that introduced the innocuous four-letter acronym ILUC, or Indirect Land Use Change.
According to ILUC theory, corn used for ethanol production cuts into American grain exports and thus provides a bigger market for competitors such as Brazil. This in turn leads to deforestation as Brazil expands its grain production.
Many well-meaning folks, including some prominent Washington, D.C. decision makers, bought the concept hook, line and sinker. As time goes on it is becoming increasingly obvious that what we are really witnessing is perhaps the most aggressive taking of land by military force or governmental influence since the Louisiana Purchase or the Oklahoma land rush of 1889. All of which has nothing to do with corn or ethanol production in the U.S.
While most land grabs are about expanding territorial holdings or broadening power, this new generation of real estate pilfering in Brazil seems to be about pure economics and is fueled by efforts to transfer land to the poor as a social program. In other places like Peru, petro dollars, or timber and mining profits are driving the land circus. Until the public at large begins to understand this, the rainforests will remain at risk, and we will continue to hold back the ethanol industry in the U.S. which has real environmental contributions to make.
The latest stir is being caused by a law expected to be approved by Brazil’s Congress granting 1.2 million people and numerous companies legal titles to a huge chunk of the Amazon rain forest. The government says the new bill will benefit impoverished peasants who were encouraged to settle the Amazon during the 1964-85 military dictatorship but were never provided with legal support, public security or financial aid.
Reutters news wire recently did a decent job of exploring this issue and exposing the true villains of Amazon destruction. http://tiny.cc/pbQ2r
“It’s not about world demand for agricultural products,” said John Carter, a rancher from San Antonio, Texas, who moved to the northeast of Mato Grosso 13 years ago with his Brazilian wife. “This is no man’s land and it’s a case of grab all you can while it’s still easy.”
Carter, who advocates more thoughtful planning and integrating rainforest conservation as part of Brazil’s land use strategy, has openly expressed his concern at difficulties in enforcing any laws or programs geared to save the rainforest, but also in the world’s apparent lack of understanding of the entire issue. While Brazil has aggressive environmental regulations in place, including the preservation of rainforest, much of the Brazilian frontier in Carter’s neck of the woods is subject to lawlessness akin to the American Wild West of the 1880’s. There are laws. There’s just little or no enforcement.
In fact, deforestation has been going on in Brazil for more than three decades, long before ethanol became a significant market for corn. The Brazilian government seeks to benefit impoverished peasants who are being encouraged to settle the Amazon, often without benefit of land titles or legal ownership. The lure is free land. Once they arrive the fastest way to make a quick buck – hey, they are legitimately poor, is to cut the valuable Brazilian hardwoods down. They harvest these trees not only on the land they are given but anywhere else they can get away with it, even if they have to do so under cover of darkness.
Squatters come into an area and set up a “residence.” They cut down a few trees, plant a few crops…and then lay claim to land that is actually owned by someone else, sometimes an absentee landowner. Many times, the courts have found in the favor of the squatters…because they are actually doing something to “improve” the land…in spite of the fact they have entered it and developed it illegally.
Land use has been changing ever since Man showed up on the planet. We turned prairie into farmland. The East Coast of the U.S. cut down forests to build cities. Brazil built its new capital city in the middle of virgin territory in the 1960s. We build canals to provide drinking water to Los Angeles. And we scar the earth with quarries, copper mines, oil fields, wars, etc. Not to mention what Nature does with fires, floods and hurricanes. I’m not saying its’ right or wrong. It just is. Some people will call it progress and some will call it willful negligence.
That is a debate for another day, but while we ponder this heavy philosophical question will the anti-ethanol faction (big oil, grocery manufacturers, etc) stop trying to bury our best hope for long-term energy solutions under a bogus land use issue.
Land use, especially rainforest protection, is a big issue and one that deserves careful thought, but we should remove the U.S. corn and ethanol industry from the equation.
Iowa State University researchers are studying how to put flu vaccines into the genetic makeup of corn, which could someday allow humans and animals to get a flu vaccination simply by eating corn or corn products.
“We’re trying to figure out which genes from the swine influenza virus to incorporate into corn so those genes, when expressed, would produce protein. When the pig consumes that corn, it would serve as a vaccine,” said Hank Harris, professor in animal science and one of the researchers on the project.
The corn vaccine would also work in humans when they eat corn or even corn flakes, corn chips, tortillas or anything that contains corn, said Harris.
The research is funded by a grant from Iowa State University’s Plant Sciences Institute, and is their Biopharmaceuticals and Bioindustrials Research Initiative. The corn vaccine may be possible in 5 to 7 years if research goes well.
In a letter to the Governors Biofuels Coalition this week, President Barack Obama stressed his support for corn-based ethanol as the foundation for the next generation of biofuels.
“My administration is committed to moving as quickly as possible to commercialize an array of emerging cellulosic technologies so that tomorrow’s biofuels will be produced from sustainable biomass feedstocks and waste materials rather than corn,” Obama said in the letter. “But this transition will be successful only if the first-generation biofuels industry remains viable in the near term.”
Obama was responding to a letter sent to him by the coalition in February asking him to take steps to support biofuels and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Those steps include establishing a task force to address biofuels’ greenhouse gas emissions and increase the blend percentage of ethanol in gasoline to at least 13 percent. Obama noted in his response that the letter from the governors was “helpful” in the development of his Presidential Biofuels Directive issued earlier this month.
It has never been more important for supporters of corn ethanol to set the record straight and make their voices heard.
Here is a perfect opportunity. A Business Week editorial by Ed Wallace posted yesterday is crying out for comments. “The Ethanol Lobby: Profits vs. Food” presents a re-hash of all the same tired arguments against ethanol – from food versus fuel, to cutting down rainforests, to excessive water usage, etc.
One new criticism I found especially slanted was that states like Indiana and Nebraska don’t support the use of E85 because, in the writer’s opinion, they don’t have enough E85 stations. He ignores the fact that of the 2000 E85 stations in the country, nearly 1300 are located in the corn belt. I have already commented on this article – corn growers need to do so as well.
The National Corn Growers Association last week called on all those interested in the future of U.S. corn to help the association set the record straight about false attacks on the corn and ethanol industry. NCGA President Bob Dickey said, “Now, more than ever, we need an team of 300,000 proud U.S. farmers who grow corn to defend our way of life and stand up to these false attacks now and always in order to win the debate.” NCGA has also provided an on-line resource for growers to utilize in getting facts to back up their opinions.
One of the ways NCGA suggests is writing letters to the editors of local weekly and daily newspapers as frequently as possible. I would add that searching out and commenting on anti-ethanol articles posted on line is important as well. Unlike writing to local newspapers, most on-line comments are published without delays or editing. You can also engage other commenters in discussion and challenge their opinions. If even half of our 300,000 proud U.S. farmers would take an hour a week on their computers to search for stories about ethanol and make comments, it would make a significant impact.
Speaking of comments, the Environmental Protection Agency has officially opened a 60-day comment period for proposed changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard. The comment period will be open until July 27. Corn growers are strongly urged to make their voices heard on this important issue for the ethanol industry. In addition, the comment period on the proposal to allow an increase in the amount of ethanol that can be blended into regular gasoline has been extended to July 20.
This may be a busy time of year for many farmers, but it is worth it to take some time and fight back to win the debate over corn and corn ethanol.
While most of the country was on holiday for the Memorial Day weekend, the nation’s farmers were hard at work, planting while the sun was shining and the ground was reasonably dry.
Illinois and Indiana played catch-up last week and made significant progress, although they are still running behind normal for this time of year. According to USDA, another 42 percent of the crop was planted in Illinois, to bring the total up to 62 percent, while Indiana is now at 55 percent. North Dakota also made some serious progress last week, with over 60 percent now planted. All three states are still about 30 percent behind, but the nation as a whole is only down about ten percent from the five year average. Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska are running right on schedule with planting almost complete.
If the weather cooperates this week, we could very well see farmers pretty well caught up by this time next week.
The “American Clean Energy and Security Act” passed last week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee seems to be making strange bedfellows. Agricultural and environmental groups, as well as both Democrats and Republicans, have all voiced opposition to the legislation that intends to reduce greenhouse gases by 83 percent over the next 40 years.
On the agriculture side, National Corn Growers Association President Bob Dickey said, “We strongly believe the bill will increase input costs without specific opportunities to offset those additions. We cannot support the American Clean Energy and Security Act in absence of the provisions that we have explained in some length to the Committee.”
American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman says the bill “ignores the complex needs of a very diverse U.S. agricultural industry” and it is certain to “increase our operating costs and reduce our competitiveness abroad.” Other groups voicing opposition include the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, United Egg Producers and the Fertilizer Institute.
On the environmental side, a coalition of groups that includes Greenpeace USA and Friends of the Earth, issued a statement that reads, in part, “the decision-making process was co-opted by oil and coal lobbyists determined to sustain our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, even as the country stands ready to rebuild our economy and clean up the environment with real clean energy. The resulting bill reflects the triumph of politics over science, and the triumph of industry influence over the public interest.”
Republican lawmakers are also opposed to the bill. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio says the bill could cost the average American family as much as $3,100 a year. Congressman Joe Barton of Texas, top Republican on the House committee, threatened to have the 1000-plus page bill read in full to slow action on the legislation. He backed down on that threat, but committee chairman Henry Waxman – the bill’s co-author – hired a speed reader just in case. (Funny video of that on YouTube is worth watching.)
And even Democrats are opposed to the bill. House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson has voiced his strong opposition to the bill and indicated last week that he has the votes to defeat the legislation.
So, the question is, does anyone besides the bill’s authors actually like this piece of legislation?
How many ways can you define sustainability? What does it mean to you? I’m beginning to think the list is endless. During a conference I attended this week I heard three very prominent people offer their definition during a round table discussion. This was at the Alltech Symposium where the theme was The Sustainability Principle. The panelists at this session each took a turn answering the question, “How do you define sustainability? There were also asked to put that in terms of how the audience should be interested in it. Anyone who is in agriculture, including corn growers, needs to know how people are looking at this issue since it will be important as new legislation and regulations come about as a result of it.
Our first panelist to tackle this question was Lutz Goedde, Deputy Director, Agricultural Development, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He says the Foundation he works for looks at sustainability “through a very different lens compared to many other organizations.” He then proceeded to say that there are a billion people in the world who live on under a dollar a day and described what that is like. He says that agriculture is the primary means for most of them to get food and earn a living. He says they follow the Bill and Melinda sustainability philosophy that “every person on the planet has the right to live a healthy and productive life.” Next he says that there are normally three dimensions to sustainability which are economic, social and environmental.
Listen to Goedde’s reply here:
Next up was Dr. Michael Boehlje, Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and the Center for Food and Agricultural Business, Purdue University. He said we could look at sustainability from a traditional farm management standpoint of carrying capacity that recognizes current and future capacity on a global basis and deals with absorbing waste in terms of the economic or production activity you’re involved in. He says that although government is involved in this issue, it will be consumers who “will be the ultimate in terms of whether in fact sustainability practices are adopted and those who adopt them are compensated for them.”
Listen to Boehlje’s reply here:
Finally we heard an answer to this question from Philip Wilkinson, Order of the British Empire, Executive Director, 2 Sisters Food Group. He said that the definition he would use is the one used by the United Nations but since that has already been brought up by earlier speakers he composed a slightly different one. He says, “A sustainable agricultural system is one which maximizes production by increases in yield while minimizing environmental impact and does not compromise animal welfare.” He says farmers are the logical custodians of the land who can accomplish this. He also quoted a former United Kingdom Minister who summed it us as, “Don’t cheat your children.”
Listen to Wilkinson’s reply here:
So there you have it. Three more ways to look at this issue. Now if we could all just agree on a common definition . . . You can find NCGA CEO Rick Tolman’s definition here.
Representatives of agribusiness in St. Louis pitched the importance of the Show Me state and the Bio Belt at the 2009 World Ag Congress Tuesday.
Novus International, the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), the American Soybean Association (ASA), and the University of Missouri were among those touting Missouri’s unique agribusiness climate and characteristics. NCGA Director of Biotechnology and Economic Analysis Nathan Fields said they were proud to call St. Louis home, which gives them a grassroots perspective.
I talked with Nathan about the World Ag Congress and how the corn growers are working on the missions of sustainability and feeding the world. “We feel that U.S. corn production is a model system for the world,” he said. “We we have the greatest efficiency in production and we think that we have a lot of information that we can impart internationally to promote the technology that we use to increase productivity.”
The Environmental Protection Agency is allowing another 60 days for comments on the proposal to allow an increase in the amount of ethanol that can be blended into regular gasoline.
The original public comment period was to end on May 21 and will now end on July 20, giving farmers behind on planting more time to get comments submitted.
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) President Bob Dickey said they were glad to hear the news. “Because of the importance of this issue to America’s farmers and the pressing need to get our crops in the ground, we asked EPA to extend the time for comments from 30 to 90 days. Our growers need this extra time to be full participants in this important public policy process,” he said.
Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis said, “We are aware of over 10,000 Americans who have already voiced their support for a higher blend of ethanol in our fuel supply and this extension makes it possible for thousands more to participate. We think it’s especially important that the American farmer, who is in the fields from sunrise to sunset this time of year, is given more time to get involved.”
The current limit on the amount of ethanol that can be blended into a gallon of gasoline is at ten volume percent ethanol (E10) for conventional (non flex-fuel) vehicles. Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers submitted the E15 waiver application on March 6, and EPA must make a decision by December 1, 2009.
The folks at Farmers’ Ethanol in Ohio call that the triple bottom line – profit, people and planet. The company is dedicated to transforming the corn ethanol industry by combining energy and food production within the same facility.
In a 
Here is a perfect opportunity. A 
While most of the country was on holiday for the Memorial Day weekend, the nation’s farmers were hard at work, planting while the sun was shining and the ground was reasonably dry. 
On the agriculture side, National Corn Growers Association President Bob Dickey said, “We strongly believe the bill will increase input costs without specific opportunities to offset those additions. We cannot support the American Clean Energy and Security Act in absence of the provisions that we have explained in some length to the Committee.”
Our first panelist to tackle this question was Lutz Goedde, Deputy Director, Agricultural Development, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He says the Foundation he works for looks at sustainability “through a very different lens compared to many other organizations.” He then proceeded to say that there are a billion people in the world who live on under a dollar a day and described what that is like. He says that agriculture is the primary means for most of them to get food and earn a living. He says they follow the Bill and Melinda sustainability philosophy that “every person on the planet has the right to live a healthy and productive life.” Next he says that there are normally three dimensions to sustainability which are economic, social and environmental. 
Next up was Dr. Michael Boehlje, Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and the Center for Food and Agricultural Business, Purdue University. He said we could look at sustainability from a traditional farm management standpoint of carrying capacity that recognizes current and future capacity on a global basis and deals with absorbing waste in terms of the economic or production activity you’re involved in. He says that although government is involved in this issue, it will be consumers who “will be the ultimate in terms of whether in fact sustainability practices are adopted and those who adopt them are compensated for them.” 
Finally we heard an answer to this question from Philip Wilkinson, Order of the British Empire, Executive Director, 2 Sisters Food Group. He said that the definition he would use is the one used by the United Nations but since that has already been brought up by earlier speakers he composed a slightly different one. He says, “A sustainable agricultural system is one which maximizes production by increases in yield while minimizing environmental impact and does not compromise animal welfare.” He says farmers are the logical custodians of the land who can accomplish this. He also quoted a former United Kingdom Minister who summed it us as, “Don’t cheat your children.”
Representatives of agribusiness in St. Louis pitched the importance of the Show Me state and the Bio Belt at the 2009 
I talked with Nathan about the World Ag Congress and how the corn growers are working on the missions of sustainability and feeding the world. “We feel that U.S. corn production is a model system for the world,” he said. “We we have the greatest efficiency in production and we think that we have a lot of information that we can impart internationally to promote the technology that we use to increase productivity.”
The original public comment period was to end on May 21 and will now end on July 20, giving farmers behind on planting more time to get comments submitted.