Algae – and to a lesser degree switchgrass, crop residue, and lumber waste – are widely considered to have great potential, since they can be grown in marginal areas that don’t compete with prime food-growing farmlands. Or so goes the thinking of the less informed who don’t understand the growing corn supply and the minimal impact corn-based ethanol has on food production.

But there’s a problem with algae which is thought by many second-generation feedstock advocates to be the next big thing…or, rather, several problems, according to a team of researchers from the University of Virginia. Their new study finds that growing algae for fuel is more energy- and water-intensive than other biofuel crops, including switchgrass, canola and corn. Oh, and it also produces more greenhouse gas emissions than those other sources.

Algae advocates contend algae tend to yield more energy than other biofuel crops like corn or switchgrass and their high fat content also promises to make refining more efficient than with other fuel stocks.

Still, significant hurdles stand in the way of algae becoming a cheap and easy source of fuel. And those hurdles need to be removed soon before we put too many eggs in algae’s basket.

Government and energy companies are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars for algae research. Last year, for example, ExxonMobil said it was investing $600 million into the quest for algal biofuels. And recently, the US Department of Energy announced it was directing $78 million in economic stimulus funds into algae fuel research.

All of which begs the questions, how much more efficient would corn conversion to ethanol be if corporations and government had not bought into the anti-ethanol food vs. fuel rhetoric and invested more research funds in the emerging and already increasingly efficient corn ethanol industry?

For all of California’s big talk about going green, the truth is they just can’t forget their first love – Big Oil. This photo is of Signal Hill in Southern California back in 1923. The hill became part of the Long Beach Oil Field, one of the most productive oil fields in the world. Signal Hill was covered with over 100 oil derricks, and because of its prickly appearance at a distance became known as “Porcupine Hill”.

You would think that after EPA reconsidered ethanol’s environmental benefits when issuing the RFS2 rule that California would take a second look at the homegrown fuel and make it part of their Low Carbon Fuel Standard. But last week’s action by the Southern California Association of Governments turning down federal funding to put in dozens of E85 fueling stations showed just how much the state is still in love with oil. Paul Wuebben, a clean fuels officer for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, urged the council to accept the dollars. Ethanol is not perfect, he said, but its wider use would reduce dependence on gasoline and remove pollutants from the air. He also called the panel’s decision a “major lost opportunity for the region.”

Wuebben attempted to sway the panel to reconsider along with Mike Lewis with Pearson Fuels, “It would have created 221 jobs. Dependence on foreign oil is the result of 1,000 little decisions and a few big decisions. This was a big decision.”

California lawmakers and bureaucrats believe that corn-based ethanol causes more harm than good for the environment after being transported from the Midwest. One recent article penned by Roland Hwang, Transportation Program Director for Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, calls it “old, dirty ethanol.” Seriously? If ethanol is old and dirty, what does that make oil?

I guess it’s true that love is blind.

Take this story from the Los Angeles Times:

 “A regional panel Thursday turned down nearly $11 million in federal stimulus dollars targeted to build 55 ethanol fueling stations across Southern California, saying it had policy concerns about ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. … Corn-based ethanol causes more harm than good for the environment because it has to be trucked from farms in the Midwest, said council members of the Southern California Assn. of Governments.”

One person told the council that told council members that “the project’s fuel, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, would remove 27,000 tons of greenhouse gases from the air and eliminate the need for 700 million gallons of petroleum.” But a majority of the panel could not be swayed, the Times reported.

California is not a major corn state, and corn and/or ethanol would need to be transported from the Midwest, but even perhaps as close as Colorado. But as a California native, I’m not seeing a lot of interest in drilling for oil off the California coast. Fact is, the oil California needs is often shipped in from fields a lot further than America’s heartland.

The other scandal here is that federal funds were turned down in a state that needs all the budget help it can get.

And then there’s this story, from AAA New York, in a hit piece on higher ethanol blends that totally ignores the environmental impacts of gasoline: “Producing ethanol is an energy-intensive process that still results in greenhouse-gas emissions. It won’t save the planet as it still produces pollutants.”

The AAA piece accuses the EPA of making its upcoming decision on E-15 because of political pressure from the ethanol industry, but interestingly enough points out that “the oil industry cites concerns over potential engine damage.” How altruistic of them!

It’s time for AAA to jump in and support its membership over Big Oil. You can go here to tell them what you think with their online poll.

Or, you can go here to send them a letter.

Instead, it has turned into a public relations nightmare for the company, burning up the social media platforms with protests over their support of the group that is threatening animal agriculture production as we know it in this nation. An avalanche of postings on the [yellow tail] Facebook page and Twitter have caused the company to say on Facebook late yesterday “we’re listening. Check back soon, as we’ll be announcing news shortly on our Tails for Tails program.” Not sure what that means, but they are definitely getting an earful from unhappy consumers. They may not be able to get their $100,000 donation returned to them, but this is a real great example of how agriculture can be heard through social media.

To make a comment to [yellow tail] on Facebook, you have to first become a fan – then you can un-fan them. I am going to wait and see what they do first before taking the un-fan action. If they reconsider and take some positive action to regain the support of agriculture fans, I may just buy a whole case of their best to celebrate!

*Post Update* Go ahead and un-fan after you have made your views known. [yellow tail] didn’t quite get the point. Here is what the company announced: “Okay, there’s been good feedback here recently. Here’s an update on where our donation will be directed to celebrate animals: We’ve decided to use all of our $100K gift to aid animal rescue.” Right. That’s like telling the federal government where you want your tax dollars spent.

The awareness campaign is now going to the local level, since there will be special promotions through the end of March featuring [yellow tail] and HSUS. Time to let your local wine retailer know what HSUS is and why you won’t support anyone who supports them.

That’s what Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in his address at the 4th Annual Iowa Renewable Summit last week.

“Now, before I get fired please allow me to clarify,” he continued. “I do not believe that the production of ethanol and biodiesel in the US leads to the destruction of the Amazon rain forest. Quite the opposite.”

After looking at this year’s corn and soybean production records, I have come to the conclusion that the simply astounding productivity gains of the American farmer is changing the way we use land in the United States. After all, 2009’s record corn crop was produced on 7 million fewer acres than the year before. Those acres went somewhere!

Shaw points out that “renewable fuels production has never used a kernel of “baseline” commodity production. American farmers produce more commodities for food, feed, exports and other non-fuel uses than they did in 1980 – and on fewer acres. Yet while expanding these non-fuel markets, the yield gains provided enough “new” corn to also produce 10.6 billion gallons of ethanol in 2009.”

I believe better science will clear up the current indirect land use debate. Plant technology will continue to improve production efficiencies. Seed technology and better agronomic practices will continue to boost commodity yields at an increasing rate. In short, it won’t be long until corn ethanol achieves the scientific benchmarks of an advanced biofuel.

Some food – and fuel – for thought. Read all of Monte’s remarks here on-line.

Ohio farmers tried to beat HSUS to the punch last fall and developed the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. The HSUS backed petition filed today would recommend standards to the farmers…Because vegans have the best ideas about caring for livestock, of course? Right?

 The gargantuan (HSUS) is now the animal rights industry’s richest and most powerful player. HSUS is exercising its prohibition-minded influence in every corner of America, over everything from the pets in our homes to the eggs on our plates.<

HSUS pursues a PETA-like agenda with a budget and seriousness that PETA itself has never been able to match. A new web site is being launched for those interested in tracking the activities and checkered history of the organization.

For a story regarding recent activity in Ohio from agriculture’s perspective, here’s a Link and the text to the story posted online at Farm and Dairy.  Ohioans for Humane Farms, backed by HSUS and Farm Sanctuary, submitted a petition — including signatures from Ohio voters in 48 counties — to Ohio’s Secretary of State in support of placing an anti-cruelty measure on the November ballot.

However, according to Jeff Ortega, a spokesman for the Ohio Secretary of State, the procedure is not that simple. The petition is actually still with the Ohio Attorney General’s office. The official will decide if the petition has a fair and truthful statement before it can go any further. The petition was filed Jan. 27 and the attorney general’s office has until Feb. 5 to make the decision.

If approved, the petition will make its way back to the secretary of state’s office where the ballot board will convene and vote on it. Then, the group can begin collecting signatures needed to place the initiative on the ballot.

The NCBA arguments ring hollow given the current corn and ethanol environment. Corn production remains at record levels. USDA projects U.S. corn production at a record 13.2 billion bushels. Immediately after their public comment the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), were released showing U.S. ethanol production hit a record high in November 2009 of 761,000 barrels per day (b/d). That is a 93,000 barrel increase from the previous year.

If you look at the numbers it becomes clear the continued blaming of our critical ethanol industry for the current economic plight of the nation’s cattlemen is inaccurate and unfortunate as well as being counterproductive for agriculture.

Over the last decade corn available for all uses has remained constant at nearly 10.6 billion bushels. We continue to meet all corn demand despite a seven-fold increase in corn for ethanol use. Add in the 1 billion bushels corn equivalent represented by distiller dried grains (DDG) and available feed supply is actually greater.

In 2009, after new corn demand for ethanol was met, there was still an additional 200 million bushels of increased production available for livestock feed. There is no conflict between food and fuel or feed and fuel.

Numerous factors are putting economic pressure on the profitability of livestock producers including weak export demand. Between 2008-09 U.S. beef and veal exports have declined 8%. U.S. per capita consumption of beef also declined for the first time ever. Global beef industry demand declined 5% last year.

Beef producers also see a challenge to beef production profitability coming from higher energy costs due to our increasing dependence on volatile and expensive imported oil. That is just the very thing ethanol is helping address. On a deflated basis, beef prices have increased much faster than corn prices. (As seen in the attached chart beef slide ) Beef producers have no room to call for lower corn prices.

For the first time, DDG availability will displace more than 1 billion bushels of corn this marketing year, providing a high-quality, high-value feed product for livestock producers, both in the US and abroad. At approximately $120 per ton this provides the corn equivalent protein and nutrients for livestock feed at the price equivalent of just over $1 per bushel.

Corn farmers cannot return to the days of $1.80 corn, just like cattlemen can’t continue to produce beef at the low price being fetched today. The livestock industry provides much needed protein for the U.S. and the world. It is also one of the largest markets for the nation’s corn crop and as such it has immense value. The livestock industry uses 33.5% of the U.S. corn crop annually with beef and dairy accounting for 14.5%.

The U.S. Meat Export Federation President and CEO Phil Seng sees tremendous trade opportunities for beef in the coming year and expects double digit growth in beef export markets. Let’s hope he is right. We have a great deal at stake in the future fortunes of our beef brethren and stand ready to work on real solutions.

Discover Magazine has a little pictorial on “Frankenfoods That Could Feed the World” which include golden rice with vitamin A, purple tomatoes with an antioxidant punch, and multi-vitamin corn on the cob (image from National Academy of Sciences).

Maggie Romuld, who “studies rivers, teaches Earth Sciences at a local college, and writes for a sustainability magazine,” picked up on that little story and wrote about it here on IndyPosted. “While the developed world has the luxury of debating the ethics of GM food, recent crises in Africa have drawn attention to the use of GM food as emergency food aid, and in other countries millions of hungry people wait anxiously for field trials to be approved,” she writes.

She suggests a couple of sources for those who might “need help deciding whether you are for, or against, GM food.” One is FrankenFoods.com, a website dedicated to “Exploring whether Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms are safe for human and animal consumption or if they are a real and present danger to human beings, animals, plant life and the environment.” It’s only a one page website with no information about the authors, but it appears to be pretty objective on the issue – albeit with articles that are a little dated.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is taking an active role in the evaluation of GMO foods “on the grounds that public health could benefit enormously from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient food production.” WHO offers some objective answers to 20 questions on GMOs that indicate a desire to get some global consensus on the safety of biotech foods.

With the global population explosion, governments that have actively opposed GMOs may find themselves forced to accept crops that are engineered to be more productive, more nutritious and even offering pharmaceutical benefits. The evolution of less resistance to GMOs may be underway.

John Voelcker at GreenCarReports.com uncovered this classic cartoon featuring the power of “corn dripp’ns” as a fuel for Betty’s roadster in “Musical Mountaineers.” Little Miss Boop runs out of gas in hillbilly country and finds help from some musical mountaineers who get her on her way again by filling her tank with moonshine made from corn. Voelcker says, “Meanwhile, we can’t help but wonder if there was a nice little “Flex-Fuel” E85 Ethanol logo on the back of that roadster?”

Funny!

James McWilliams, author of the opinion column “Freakonomics” on the New York Times blog, has a great article this week on “The Myth of Grass-Fed Beef.” McWilliams notes that the environmentalists who favor grass-fed beef as more natural and sustainable claim that “Before WW II, most Americans had never eaten corn-fed beef.”

Yet McWilliams finds references from agricultural journals as far back as 1822 promoting corn as a means of fattening cattle for meat. Not taking sides on the debate of whether grass-fed beef is healthier or more sustainable, McWilliams is just interested in making sure the truth is told. “I’m only suggesting to advocates of the grass-fed option that, if they feel so compelled to draw on the past to support the present, they should start by providing some footnotes,” he writes. “The romance of a pasture-fed past will only take the story so far.”

Actually, the widespread use of corn as livestock feed is a relatively recent development that allows us to enjoy a wide variety of fresh and affordable meat and poultry on a daily basis. Before World War II most Americans did not have that luxury. Animals eat about half the corn we produce every year and turn it into a tasty source of protein for us. And that is no myth.