Last week’s Conservation in Action Tour in Virginia included several farms where Chesapeake Bay area farmers have a rich history of good conservation practices, most notably no-till. In fact, many farms in the area have been in continuous no-till for decades! The tour is conducted each year by the Conservation Technology Information Center. I participated and spoke with Wayne Kirby, Virginia corn farmer and Chairman of the Virginia Corn Board. Wayne says a lot of people are interested in agriculture in their area and especially what’s happening with the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort.
The restoration effort is very important to corn growers since regulations and policies are being set that have direct impact of farming. Wayne says corn growers been working diligently to improve their production practices and the tour provided an opportunity for them to show what they’re doing to other farmers as well as farm policy makers who also participated. In my interview with him he describes how much of what area farmers are doing is not being taken into account in the models used for watershed management.
You can download (mp3) and listen to my interview with Wayne here:
In our recent series discussing ethanol a lot of the information has been more philosophical in nature and has focused on some of the critics and their motivations. The idea was to get you thinking in a skeptical way rather than beat you up with statistics. That ends with this installment which will discuss petroleum. (Skip to the end for the stats).
Black Gold, Texas Tea, or carbon crack…at the end of the day there is a reason they call it crude. Even in its refined form it remains crude. This stew of dead, decayed plants and animals we call oil is nothing but another anachronistic fossil fuel that is little removed from cavemen rubbing sticks to keep us warm.
We may have become highly technical and efficient in finding oil and getting it out of the ground but the final product remains, well…crude.
Over the years more than 200 ingredients have been put in gasoline to try to make it burn better, make your engine knock less, and sometimes just because it was a convenient way to make unpleasant chemical waste products from the petroleum industry disappear out your exhaust pipe.
And all of us gonzo gas mavens would ignore the obvious imperfections and hideous social costs because it was abundant, cheap and made our powered toys sing. Cars, boats, motorcycles, weed-whackers, generators, power washers, etc…..Yikes, the list does go on.
Today, I would gladly trade in my heated seats, directional headlights, and GPS for a modern fuel (hopefully domestic) and new engine technology that moves us away from the oil-fed internal combustion dinosaurs we depend on today.
If we can have cell phone technology that changes daily, digital television technology sharper than the human eye can even see, and tractors that steer themselves we surly should be able to market a functional, fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly car that runs on a cleaner, renewable fuel source. (more…)
California is attacking corn ethanol again. The newest affront is complements of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) who has created a new working group to study soil sustainability provisions of biofuels. The current crops under review include corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, wood based fuels, palm oil, and soy biodiesel. The ultimate goal is that biofuels’ greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reductions will be measured by both indirect land use and also soil sustainability to be given a final GHG reduction number.
So what factors are considered to impact soil sustainability?
Carbon content
erosion
crop rotation
nutrition/chemical use
productivity
crop expansion
I believe that several recent events have led to these new proposed biofuels provisions, the biggest one being the ongoing attack of environmental organizations, such as Friends of the Earth, who are opposed to all things corn ethanol and commodity farming. What I find interesting is that many environmental groups seem to oppose everything – fossil fuel use, alternative energy and production farming. It’s almost like they oppose all things energy.
Similar to the same path CARB has traveled regarding indirect land use, a theory light on scientific support, this new path is also one with little to no scientific support in terms of how to “categorize” biofuels based on soil sustainability. You simply cannot create effective policy this way.
The other issue I take with these types of provisions within California policy making, is that they don’t include any provisions for gasoline. What are the indirect land use effects of oil production? No one asked until University of Nebraska finally studied them and found that they are even greater than originally estimated.
What are the ’soil sustainability’ or should we say, ‘environmental impacts’ of oil production? Drilling impacts soil. Spills impact soil.
Until more people become educated about the benefits of corn ethanol, we continue to have a fight on our hands, one that the agricultural industry is taking very seriously. I encourage people to reach out to organizations like CARB and enlighten them regarding the errors of their ways through the sharing of facts.
No matter how hard the anti-ethanol factions continue to fight, we still have one truth on our side: corn ethanol is a more environmentally friendly fuel at its worst, than gasoline is at its best.
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.
Geoff Cooper with the Renewable Fuels Association took part in the event and chaired one of the technical sessions. Geoff used to work for the National Corn Growers Association, so he has been involved in this conference before, and he says it has definitely changed over the years. “Five or six years ago if you had come to this conference, you would not have heard many mentions of greenhouse gases and carbon footprint and things like that, but those issues are front of mind with the industry today and those themes really permeated a lot of the sessions this year,” he said.
Cooper says there was also some discussion at the conference about an environmental group lawsuit over the Renewable Fuel Standard that claims EPA did not account for the “Global Rebound Effect.” “In essence, what the theory suggests is that by using more biofuels in the United States, we’re driving down oil consumption, which results in oil prices decreasing, and because oil prices are lower then people in other parts of the world start using more oil,” Geoff said. “So they’re suggesting that would occur as a result of the RFS 2 and that those emissions should be attributable to biofuels like ethanol.” Since the goal of the RFS2 is to reduce oil consumption, Geoff says they “find it a little questionable that now they would be suggesting that it’s a bad thing that we’re reducing our oil consumption in the U.S. as a result of that policy.”
The theme of the Corn Utilization and Technology Conference was “Corn: America’s Renewable Resource” and Geoff says since this year’s crop is expected to be another big one, increasing markets continues to be important. “Corn is a great crop with a lot of utility, let’s put it to work,” he said.
Listen to an interview Chuck Zimmerman did with Geoff Cooper at CUTC here:
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.
It seems that the attacks on corn commodities and corn ethanol will never stop. In a new report released last week called Green Scissors 2010, Friends of the Earth (aka FOE, how apropos) is calling for an end to subsidies in several areas including agriculture, biofuels, energy, infrastructure, and public lands.
Many of the recommendations of this report cut into corn ethanol from various angles. First, FOE calls for an end of government subsidies for commodity crops including corn. Next, they call for an end of ethanol subsidies, specifically the ethanol tax credit (VEETC) and the ethanol tariff. They do, however, acknowledge that the subsidies directly go to oil but indirectly help the ethanol and agricultural industry.
They write on their website, “Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money has already been wasted under the credit [VEETC]. And these funds do little more than to further line the coffers of the oil industry. This coalition is working to prevent an additional 30 billion plus dollars from being lavished on the industry to fulfill a legally mandated requirement to blend an environmentally harmful fuel into another environmentally harmful one.”
They argue that eliminating commodity crop subsidies by 50 percent could save taxpayers more than $26 billion over the next five years. They also argue that eliminating VEETC could save the U.S. Treasury as much as $5.4 billion in 2011.
If attacking the subsidy issue isn’t enough, they also attacked corn and corn ethanol on multiple environmental fronts including water quality (Dead Zone and hypoxia) as well as the ‘major’ amount of land that must be used to grow the crops. They go so far in the report to accuse corn-ethanol as being a bigger environmental offender than petroleum.
Corn ethanol may not be perfect, but I can’t stomach the false accusation that corn ethanol is environmentally worse than petroleum. But maybe the most frustrating thing is that not only is Friends of the Earth uneducated about agriculture and the corn ethanol industry, they don’t want to be. And in a world that is so “concerned” about the environment, FOE’s refusal to be open to non-fossil fuel options is a disservice to the American public.
My brother-in-law recently asked me why ethanol had a great reputation for two decades and suddenly seems to be getting pounded constantly, especially in editorial/opinion pages by the media.
He doesn’t have a farming background and isn’t invested in the ethanol industry so he is a neutral and somewhat uninformed observer. He is also one of the busiest guys I know so for him to notice it means the anti-ethanol crowd are now officially pervasive. Apparently, it’s not just me feeling paranoid.
The conversation came back to me in a hurry this week with the latest “ethanol is evil” Tsunami rolling across the country once again. It started with the Wall Street Journal (No link here because you have to pay for this tripe) and the Washington Post and worked its way across the country hitting the Chicago Tribune and Des Moines Register yesterday and likely making its way for the West Coast like some cheap traveling circus.
And like the aforementioned Circus the anti-ethanol gang leave a trail behind much like Barnum and Bailey’s elephants only there is no guy with a shovel and bucket cleaning up in their wake. They leave their load of “misinformation” to fester in the road in full knowledge that most people are also too busy to check the veracity of their propaganda.
The public lynching of ethanol began with the bogus food vs. fuel charade in 2008 and since then has continued to resurface over and over again in several different guises that get trotted out and recycled whenever opportunity presents itself.
Several things remain consistent as the attacks continue. The noxious cocktail they serve up is made with equal parts of the best bad science money can buy and poor logic. And the olive on the toothpick seems to be just plain old avarice.
That’s greed, materialism, or covetousness with a Capital “C.” The people fanning the fires of these attacks have rationale and motivation that are simple if not transparent. They are the folks that want the cheapest corn possible because it boosts their profits; want ethanol to be made from another source; or want ethanol crippled forever because the market share just got too big.
So, for the next couple of days come back here and you will get a sneak peak each day of some of these players and the Machiavellian games they play and fund all to snuff out the only real competition that imported petroleum faces in the marketplace today…ethanol.
When it comes to efficiently producing corn, water is a very important factor. So water usage was the topic of the concluding session at the Corn Utilization and Technology Conference. One of the presenters during the session was Derrel Martin, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His presentation was titled, “Impact of Irrigation Efficiency & Farming Practices on Ag Hydrology and Economics.”
Derrel says that since Nebraska is the state with the most irrigated land this has been a very important subject for his research and work. He says that farmers are being challenged by water limitations and to meet the bottom line while optimizing the use of ground water resources. He says that contrary to what some people may think about the aquifer going dry, it’s not. There’s plenty of water there. But states are looking at water a lot more critically and that’s putting pressure on farmers to make more efficient use of it. He says they’ve been looking at crop water use efficiency for quite a while.
When it comes to irrigation efficiency he says “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.” Technology today makes that pretty easy to do though. He says about 80 percent of the irrigated land is done with center pivots which can be very efficient but they need to be managed to make sure they’re working properly. He also cautions farmers to be careful about irrigating too early in spring and too late in the fall. Interestingly, Arkansas is the fourth largest irrigated state. He says irrigation is moving east.
You can download (mp3) and listen to my interview with Derrel here:
A recent initiative in one of South America’s largest agricultural areas shows deforestation is not being driven by expanding soybean acres. The findings of the GTS Soy Work Group show that less than ¼ of 1 percent of land use change over the 3 year time frame studied was due to additional soybean acres.
From a corn grower perspective the GTS info is more than a little interesting because ethanol critics often argue increased ethanol production drives demand for U.S. corn, reduces U.S. soybean acres, and thus opens the door for more soybean acres – and more deforestation – in South America.
The tactic has always been a bit suspect because the vast majority of new corn demand is being filled through burgeoning yields on existing U.S. acres. Even more interesting is this convoluted logic is now being drawn into serious doubt by an effort that uses real-world data rather than speculation and hyperbole.
The industry-led project in the Brazilian Amazon, now in its third years shows land clearing for cattle remains a much bigger contributor to than diversion than expanding soy production.
GTS, a coalition that includes their Ministry of the Environment, NGOs, exporters and civil society organizations, uses a combination of state of the art satellite technology and on-the-ground shoe leather assessment to gauge deforestation and any relationship to crops, specifically soy planting.
A company called Globalsat conducted flyovers and field visits in Brazil’s Mato Grosso, Para, and Rondonia part of the Amazon Biome and the virtual epicenter of Brazilian soybean production.
Ethanol bashers seem to be remarkably mum on this revelation. Hmmm
Last week’s Conservation in Action Tour in Virginia included several farms where Chesapeake Bay area farmers have a rich history of good conservation practices, most notably no-till. In fact, many farms in the area have been in continuous no-till for decades! The tour is conducted each year by the Conservation Technology Information Center. I participated and spoke with Wayne Kirby, Virginia corn farmer and Chairman of the Virginia Corn Board. Wayne says a lot of people are interested in agriculture in their area and especially what’s happening with the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. 
Indirect land use change and DDGs quality were two of the ethanol-related topics that were featured at the recent 
When it comes to efficiently producing corn, water is a very important factor. So water usage was the topic of the concluding session at the Corn Utilization and Technology Conference. One of the presenters during the session was Derrel Martin, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His presentation was titled, “Impact of Irrigation Efficiency & Farming Practices on Ag Hydrology and Economics.”