As a more upbeat follow-up to our last discussion of ethanol in the Golden State, there is this news item about how ethanol and biodiesel availability is expanding in California.
OAKLAND, CA–(Marketwire – August 31, 2010) – At a grand opening event today at the Bay Area’s newest renewable fuel station, California Energy Commissioner Anthony Eggert, Director of California Governor Schwarzenegger’s Office of Economic Development (GoED) Joel Ayala, and officials from Propel Fuels, CALSTART, and East Bay Clean Cities, formally launched Propel’s Bay Area operations, which will include more than 20 stations across the Bay, with up to 10 open by the year’s end. The event also announced a $10.9 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and California Energy Commission (CEC) to build and operate 75 retail renewable fuel stations throughout California over the next two years.
This week we are supposed to be afraid of eating eggs. Apparently we have about a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting salmonella from eating eggs. The odds are slightly higher that you will die in a fall this year. I will take those odds and so would Vegas.
Interestingly enough I celebrated the big egg scare by whipping up a wonderful spinach quiche and an omelet the next day. I wish I could say I am really that sarcastic and warped, but I really already bought the stuff and had a hankering for eggs.
Eggs are a great tasting, inexpensive source of protein that are fast and easy to cook so I wasn’t real big on letting fear overpower good judgment or my taste buds. As with many food scares a little common sense goes a long ways toward keeping you safe, healthy and well fed.
Food related illnesses in the U.S. are actually pretty rare considering the size of our population and the amount of food we consume at home, at work, at play and on the run.
If an egg containing Salmonella has been kept refrigerated and someone who uses good hygiene practices serves it to you immediately after proper cooking, you’ll simply have a nutritious meal. If the egg has been improperly handled, though, you might experience the foodborne illness
Ok, anyone besides me get a little irked when the Chicago Board of Trade and others read the USDA crop report like it was from Moses coming down the mountain? If people could predict crops with high levels of accuracy the board of trade would be a ghost town.
The traders and speculators would cash in, check out, and be sipping umbrella drinks in Tahiti.
Today’s crop report triggered all kinds of news stories and messaging in social media that all read like the crop of 2010 was in the bin. Just a note for future reference a corn crop isn’t made in June, July or even August. It is cumulative.
Corn production is forecast at a record high 13.4 billion bushels, up 2 percent from the previous record set in 2009. Based on conditions as of August 1, yields are expected to average a record high 165.0 bushels per acre, up 0.3 bushel from last year’s record of 164.7.
However every stage from planting to ear set to pollination is critical. And so is ear filling. August is traditionally the time when a crop is polished off…the shine is put on the apple so to speak. The size of the ears is already determined but the final yield depends on the number of kernels developed and its weight and size. The size of the kernel is still on the bubble for the 2010 crop in many areas.
For much of this key kernel filling stage many key corn production states have been experiencing severe heat and in some cases accompanying dry conditions.
Then why have we been doing these reports since 1863? Apparently President Abraham Lincoln was swayed by USDA’s contention (actually included in the first report) that “Ignorance of the state of our crops invariably leads to speculation in which the farmer does not obtain just prices and by which the consumer is not benefitted.”
It is hard to argue with that. I prefer to think of the report as a compass that helps point the way but you may be stopping to ask for directions before you reach your final destination.
At the end of the day the news is good. We will once again be blessed with an abundant harvest and it appears prices will be good enough to pay the bills and sustain family farmers for another year.
Every so often you come across a single well turned phrase that you wish had come out of your own mouth. I did so this morning while checking out a blog in the Los Angeles Times regarding the latest over-blown information purporting links between fructose sweetener and cancer.
Tami Dennis, health and science editor of the Los Angeles Times wrote the article about the recent UCLA study linking HFCS to the spread of pancreatic cancer contending that it could be an “overstatement.”
But the best line from the piece is a cutline under a lab photo accompanying her blog which said: “The road between a lab experiment and public policy is long. Or it should be.”
Wow! Words to live by. The UCLA hype is just the latest effort to take a free-standing nugget of information and attempt to pawn it off as scientific gospel akin to Galileo’s observation that gravity works.
Dennis cites the blog Respectful Insolence in her argument. “I hate science press releases that hype a study beyond its importance. I hate it even more when the investigators who published the study make statements not justified by the study and use the study as a jumping off point to speculate wildly.”
She is right on in her assessment. However, the problem is the UCLA news release got huge national exposure, fructose got another undeserved whack, and a small percentage of people who read the original news story will ever see the much lower profile condemnations of this shoddy approach to research.
Gilbert Ross, M.D., Executive Director and Medical Director of the American Council on Science and Health had a similar reaction to the UCLA gambit saying, “Both the authors and the press need to retract these alarmist and unsupported claims — especially the authors, since such gross over-interpretation of a lab study is inexcusable among academic scientists. They seem to be grasping for headlines and promoting some anti-fructose political agenda.”
For more background on this issue you might want to check out a much more thoughtful piece here.
A recent study attempted to make the case that if the U.S. government allowed the ethanol tax credit to expire it would have very few adverse consequences for the U.S. industry. The fact the study was funded by the Brazilian sugarcane ethanol industry was dutifully avoided.
Anti-ethanol folks, who have been receiving a lot of attention on this blog of late, made sure the study got plenty of media splash because it helped them further their own causes. Interesting they didn’t showcase the source of the funding for the study or point out how badly Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol industry lusts after access to the world’s largest ethanol market…the USA.
And in today’s budget conscious environment in Washington, DC their efforts are getting some traction. The direct cost of the ethanol incentives is being reviewed independently without any comparative assessment to savings in farm bill costs, how much we spend militarily on protecting our petroleum shipping lanes, or the economic fallout from depending on foreign oil. Federal tax revenue generated by the production and use of U.S. ethanol totaled more than $8 billion in 2009, $3 billion more than the value of the tax credit.
It is amazing how quickly some of our elected officials have forgotten the core rationale for putting the US ethanol tax credit in place. President Ronald Reagan, who was not exactly a political Dove, regularly noted it is in America’s best interest to reduce the world’s dependency on oil from unstable regions of the world.
That’s why Reagan and virtually every president since has asked domestic alternative energy producers like ethanol to step up. He also noted the expense related to America’s foreign oil addiction and how helpful bringing these energy jobs and the billions of dollars ($1 billion day) we send overseas could be for the U.S. economy.
Despite this clarion call the aforementioned detractors, which mysteriously enough include some environmental groups, like to preach the benefits of sugarcane ethanol; sometimes called “slash-and burn ethanol.”(See attached photo). It’s even more amazing some U.S. regulatory agencies actually tout Brazilian ethanol as an “advanced biofuel over the American made corn product. In case you were wondering the photo shows a burning cane field in Brazil. The Sao Paulo area alone burns 8,000 sq miles of field producing incredible amounts of volatile compounds and particulates.
To make harvesting easier, which reduces manual labor costs, sugarcane fields are burned prior to harvest to remove the plants’ leaves. Considering the near slave labor conditions in some cane fields I guess this burning might seem a gift for the machete wielding masses, despite the obvious environmental costs of the massive burning.
If critics are truly concerned about our fuel needs and specific environmental and economic consequences consider the following:
Data from the Brazilian sugar organizations clearly shows they are planning, by 2020, to export 63% more sugar and export 336% more ethanol – all at the expense of increasing the land area required for sugarcane by 78%. Corn based ethanol is being provided with increased corn yields on the same acreage and using modern production processes throughout the production chain.
Sugarcane ethanol provides primarily ethanol, with some electircal cogeneration. Corn based ethanol provides ethanol, high protein feed for livestock, corn oil, and even captured CO2 from the fermentation process to carbonate soft drinks.
Sugarcane ethanol provides jobs that don’t meet subsistence level incomes, while jobs in the ethanol production chain are highly skilled jobs that provide long term employment and taxable income for local schools etc…
And the next time you want to get on a soapbox promoting sugarcane ethanol consider the following items below which are being ignored to make Brazilian product look better than it is:
Ignoring direct and indirect emissions from crop residues;
Use of inappropriately low fertilizer rates;
Failure to account for energy inputs for dehydration of hydrous ethanol;
Failure to accurately assess transport of ethanol from Brazil to U.S.
Failure to assess actual cane harvesting practices and processing in Brazil
At the end of the day if the U.S. ends up importing more ethanol, then we will once again lose a domestic growth industry, export American jobs, and become dependent on foreign energy producers.
I just finished reading comments from The World Bank that say “…the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called “financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.”
The whole time I was reading it I kept hearing the Ghostly voice of Gilda Radner, of Saturday Night Live fame saying “Nevermind.”
Her character Emily Litella was an elderly woman with a hearing problem who made regular appearances on SNL’s Weekend Updateop-ed segment in the late 1970s. Attired in a frumpy dress and sweater, Litella was introduced with professional dignity by the news anchors, who could sometimes be seen cringing slightly in anticipation of the verbal faux pas they knew would follow.
After ranting in an outraged manner, the news anchor would point out she didn’t get the point to which Gilda would reply “Nevermind.”
The World Bank’s leaked” report in 2008 erroneously blamed biofuels for 75 percent of the commodity price spike. The authors of their most recent report conclude that it is unlikely biofuels played a significant role because they do not represent a large percentage of worldwide grain and oilseed use.
It really might have been nice to know this before the World cost the nation’s family farmers dearly in terms of public trust. More importantly, they left the public thinking we should reserve our corn for human food consumption alone. Given this market is mature and our corn yields are soaring, we must look to other markets to keep farmers profitable and viable. And the markets with the most growth potential are things like ethanol, biodegradable products and other industrial uses.
“In reversing course, this World Bank report reaffirms the marginal role biofuels play in world commodity and food prices,” said RFA President Bob Dinneen. “The RFA has long noted that ethanol production has continued to increase while corn prices have now returned to normal levels. Volatile oil prices, speculation, and adverse weather conditions all played far more significant roles in driving commodity prices to record and near record prices. This report should silence critics in the food processing industry, the livestock industry, on Capitol Hill, and anywhere else that sought to portray ethanol as the boogeyman. With this phony food and fuel discussion put behind us, perhaps a real conversation about America’s energy future can ensue.”
Well put Bob but I think the cow left the barn in regard to the damage the World Bank did with their previous faux pas. I wish Emily/Gilda was still around to tell American consumers “Nevermind.”
Dear New York Times…Your editorial today regarding corn-based ethanol is superficial, either uninformed or malicious, and a disservice to the citizens of this nation looking for real energy solutions we can implement today.
Before addressing some of the onerous points in your piece, please take a look at the attached photo. This is not from the BP spill in the Gulf but rather the latest incident in Michigan which has dumped a million gallons of oil into a river and is now 80 miles from polluting Lake Michigan. Oil is and always has been a loaded gun from an environmental perspective. From leaking tanks at service stations to oil tankers grounded on coral reefs in storms. No more explanation needed on this one.
However, perhaps the biggest point you fail to address is wind, coal, and geothermal don’t make your car go. Natural gas can be used as an automotive fuel but it too is not renewable and has other issues I won’t go into here today. Solar….I’ll race you with my bicycle.
Will ethanol be made from other sources some day? Undoubtedly. Other biomass sources show real potential and will come with the proper research and development, but corn-based technology and infrastructure is the very launching platform for this effort. Yet opponents would have us build our domestic energy house without a foundation.
Ethanol…dubious environmental benefit? Line up the hundreds of studies regarding ethanol, look at the funding sources and consider what is left. What you will find is a long trail of reputable scientists and institutions public, private and governmental that clearly shows the environmental benefits of ethanol.
When compared to petroleum especially, ethanol is a rock star in regard to cleaning the air, maintaining water quality, and soil management. On the oil side think tar sands.
Your reference to the land use issue is also comical. Incredible productivity on our existing corn acres is easily supplying the growing ethanol industry while also meeting the needs of other markets. And yield growth is accelerating.
And finally, I think we must aggressively pursue all forms of renewable, domestic energy given the finite nature of petroleum and do so in good conscience because of the legacy we stand to leave future generations. To suggest we put our entire energy investment in “maybe someday” sources while ignoring a viable and tested source like ethanol is shortsighted at best.
If you are a row crop farmer who hasn’t raised livestock in years you might wonder how much energy and personal capitol you want to expend educating people about the anti-livestock efforts of the Humane Society of the United States. Besides the obvious large feed consumption, recent developments should have you even more concerned.
Regular readers of this blog realize giving donations to your local animal shelters is a good thing. They actually help animals, unlike the loosely related Humane Society of the United States that gives nearly nothing to support these efforts. Instead, HSUS chooses to use its significant and questionably acquired resources to pursue an animal rights agenda and vegan lifestyle.
HSUS is systematically going from state to state trying to enforce their minority agenda by passing laws that would radically change safe, proven and productive livestock rearing practices. And they are leveraging their positive reputation – yes they have one because people think they are saving puppies – to tell farmers and ranchers how to do their job.
Their most recent effort in Ohio seemed to have ended well when voters showed them the door and told the carpetbaggers to go home. Ohio chose to form their own state board of experts to review, monitor and police livestock production practices.
This is where your radar should go up and the red lights should start flashing. HSUS is now trying to get an initiative on the November ballot that would force the state’s new Livestock Care Standards Board to mimic the policies that HSUS got passed with its last ballot measure, in California.
It appears the gathering of signatures wasn’t going well so HSUS sued the state of Ohio over a statute that was written to make sure only Ohioans could gather signatures to change state laws. HSUS remarkably won that suit.
This means groups like HSUS can now bring in paid, if not professional, employees to work the streets and gather the needed signatures to tell Ohio how to run their state. Given their past use of disingenuous images and information to acheive their goal, this does not bode well.
Personally, I am concerned other groups are watching the twisted success of HSUS and contemplating how this strategy might be applied to other issues and governing practices touching your profession and your day-to-day life. Precedence, even bad precedence, carries weight.
The good news is Ohio agriculture is working hard to assure a good outcome. In the interim, do your part by learning more about the real HSUS and tell your friends.
If you haven’t already tuned into the new level of activism in agriculture, especially regarding misinformation on our largest industry, then you won’t find better evidence of this evolving cultural phenomenon than the Corn Farmers Coalition.
Speaking to a couple of family farmers recently they expressed their frustration at the misinformation, innuendo and outright fabrications that are being used to frame their chosen profession. As upset as they were, there was also a prevalent sense that there was nothing they could do to change things.
If you are frustrated and tired of all the attacks and negative news swirling around agriculture you have come to the right place. Read slowly, soak this up, and then if you are a corn farmer give yourself a big pat on the back.
Imagine 60,000 city people getting a positive message about farmers every day. As they go to and from work, go out for dinner, go to a movie, or just go about their life in general. Next imagine that most of these people are employed in jobs on or near Capitol Hill in Washington, DC…Congressmen, staffers, agency employees, lobbyists, environmental groups, and even media. That’s what is happening right now as you read this thanks to the efforts of farmers themselves.
In the attached photo of the Union Station Metro stop in Washington, DC you can see several of the ads that will be prevalent throughout June and July as part of CFC’s efforts. From the highly trafficked Metro system, to Reagan National Airport, to the most widely read political publications like Politico and Congressional Quarterly. Throw in on-line advertising at the aforementioned publications, WashingtonPost.com, National Public Radio, ads in the Washington Nationals baseball team programs, and a smattering of talk, sports, and contemporary radio and you begin to get a feel for the breadth and scope of this campaign. It is conservatively estimated the educational campaign will create more than 10 million positive impressions in the land of policy and regulation.
Equally as impressive is that CFC, and the $1 million in corn checkoff funds backing the campaign, comes straight from family farmers in Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas and Michigan who believe we need to introduce a foundation of facts to the dialogue in Washington.
Ten messages based on USDA and EPA facts will be used in the campaign to show tech-savvy, innovative farmers are growing more corn every year – for food, animal feed, ethanol and exports – while using fewer resources and protecting the environment.
The coalition will meet with media, members of Congress, environmental groups and others to talk about what’s ahead: how U.S. farmers, using the latest technologies, will continue to expand yields and how this productivity can be a bright spot in an otherwise struggling economy.
We have a great story to tell so take heart. You can make a difference and CFC offers clear evidence.
Gluttonous profits: it cost the Saudis a bit less than one dollar to suck a barrel’s worth of oil from the ground. So, at $80 per barrel they make a profit of more than 8,000%.
Marc J. Rauch, Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher of THE AUTO CHANNEL doesn’t just smell a rat regarding the recent bashing of biofuels like ethanol, but rather felt like he tripped over a big fat alley dweller called big oil.
The headline on his latest column says it all – “Not Satisfied with Gluttonous Profits and Environmental Catastrophe, the Oil Industry Works Overtime to Malign Alternative Fuels.”
Rauch takes a look at just one example of how large petroleum interests are trying to discredit the great advances in supply and efficiency being experienced by U.S. ethanol producers. Their current target is the effort to increase the amount of ethanol being blended in gasoline from 10% to 15% per gallon.
Specifically he takes exception to the information – which looks amazingly like unsubstantiated propaganda – being posted and promoted at www.energytribune.com.
The bogus “news” entity’s latest gambit says the auto industry is urging the EPA to delay allowing E15 without naming a single company or a single individual. Some folks at GM and Ford might be disturbed to hear this revelation given the years and billions of dollars they have spent developing and promoting ethanol use and infrastructure.
“The story also did not say what tests were done, to which vehicles, when, and by whom. Nor did it say what kind of damage was sustained. There was no supportive data or information of any kind. The story was merely one large bogus threat sound bite designed to denigrate a viable alternative fuel versus gasoline’s dominance,” Rauch writes, adding “If oil industry lackeys can convince enough people that there is no viable alternative to gasoline then we are left to believe that catastrophes such as oil spills and oil-induced wars are necessary evils that we just have to accept.”
In the category of strange but true, on the same day another news article says the Arab world need $144 billion to invest in meeting future food needs. In a Bloomberg/BusinessWeek article Tareq al- Zadjali, director general of the Arab Organization for Agriculture Development, is quoted as saying, “Arab countries need to invest $144 billion in agriculture between now and 2030 to meet the demand for food for their growing populations.”
So, if we need oil and they need food can good old fashioned bartering be far behind? Maybe farmers should hold out for 8,000 percent return on their investment?
As a more upbeat follow-up to our last discussion of ethanol in the Golden State, there is this news item about how ethanol and biodiesel availability is expanding in California.
