Keeping Hypoxia Debate About the Facts
Posted: August 10, 2010
Readers have asked for a response to the blog post by Tom Philpott at Grist.org in which he takes me to task for some of my comments made earlier.
In the first place, the farmers I know don’t consider themselves “manipulated by government policy and corporate interest.” They love what they do and they are proud of their work. Most of them are multigenerational family farmers who see the wisdom of applying modern technology to farming traditions.
When it comes to the Gulf hypoxic zone, Philpott shows a static and ineffective USGS chart that does not provide the whole picture when it comes to the hypoxic zone. It does not show the trend of nutrient flux over time nor does it show how the trend has shifted away from nitrogen and toward phosphorus.
Philpott leaves out another chart that shows that nitrogen flux was lower in the 2000s, just as ethanol production increased, than in the two prior decades. Since ethanol production ramped up, the average annual amount of nitrogen load in the Mississippi has decreased. There is no correlation between increased ethanol production and the size or intensity of the hypoxic zone.
The size of the hypoxic zone is beyond our control. Just look at the difference between 2009 and 2010. What is within our control is the amount of nutrients that flow down-river to the Gulf, and farmers are working hard to increase nutrient use efficiency.
The ethanol industry is accused of using the Gulf oil disaster to promote ethanol. No one talks about how environmental extremists are using it to push for their pet projects while attacking America’s family farmers.
DonEWG Said,
August 10, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
“The size of the hypoxic zone is beyond our control.”
I guess someone should tell USDA to hold off on that $320 million they’re spending in the Mississippi River Basin.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8658437
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/mrbi/mrbi_overview.html
Ken Said,
August 10, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
The size of the hypoxic zone fluctuates greatly because of issues we cannot do anything about, such as weather. That is the explanation some give for the small size of the 2009 zone.
Cindy Said,
August 10, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Great post, Cathryn!
Kum Dollison Said,
August 10, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
Good Job.
kim Said,
August 11, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
Cathryn, I know you’re not a scientist, just paid flack. But you might want to consult a scientist before you make conjectures about scientific data because you’re making yourself look silly.
Nobody doubts that there are many factors that contribute to hypoxia in the gulf, including some we can’t control. But that doesn’t mean that corn production doesn’t have a negative effect on the problem or that we “can’t control” it. That’s utter nonsense, to put it lightly. In order to determine how much of a correlation each of these factors has on the problem, we’d have to see a regression analysis. Only then would we know how strongly the hypoxia is tied to various factors. Please show me a regression analysis proving that corn production has little or no effect on hypoxia and we can call it a day.
Aureon Kwolek Said,
August 11, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
CRITIQUE of: “More corn for meat and ethanol, less habitat for Gulf fish” (Philpott):
The conclusions in Philpott’s article are false, because they’re based on omissions and false information. For example, the article says: “Responding to higher corn prices, farmers have been moved to shift more land into corn production” – That’s totally false.
Total corn ACREAGE in the U.S. today is smaller than it was in 1944. It’s not expanding as the reporter falsely claims. Since 2007, corn acreage has dropped 7 million acres, roughly 8%…
During the same period, ethanol production has increased 65%, from 6.5 billion gallons to 10.7 billion gallons a year. The fact is, we are producing more corn per acre on fewer acres, because the yield per acre keeps going up. In 2007, it was 150.7 bushels per acre. In 2008, it was 153.9 bushels per acre. And in 2009, the yield was 165.2 bushels per acre. The truth is - ethanol mandates are Not causing corn acreage to expand.
Only 10% of U.S. corn is grown for human consumption. The other 90% is feed corn, and only part of that is used for ethanol, 28 to 30%. And out of that portion, 10% comes back out as a high protein feed product, and about 3% comes out as corn oil and other coproducts. So the portion of the corn crop used for ethanol is less than 17%.
Corn is not just used for meat and ethanol. It’s also used to produce milk, cheese, ice cream, yoghurt, eggs, poultry and fish, etc. It’s also used to feed pets.
There are many other commercial crops that contribute to “hypoxia”, because the vast majority of all crops are treated with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In 2009, total crop acreage in the U.S. for ALL crops was 321 million acres, one third of the arable land. The harvested corn crop that same year was 80 million acres – about 25% of the total. Now take 25% of 17% used for ethanol. That’s less than 5% for ethanol’s impact on hypoxia for all crops. That’s if crops were the only cause of dead zones. But they’re not:
There are many other causes that factor into the deadzones:
(1) You have people applying growth stimulants and weed killers to their gardens, lawns, parks, and golf courses - that all runs-off into the watershed…
(2) You have unfinished industrial effluent and unfinished sewage effluence - routinely released into the watershed from factories, sewage disposal plants, and septic systems that overflow when it rains…
(3) You have dairy farms, poultry farms, hog farms, cattle ranches, feed lots, zoos, horses, goats, wild animals, birds, fish, etc - all contributing to run-off…
(4) You have a vast source of organic matter that also washes away in runoff and decomposes.
(5) You have sulfurous black carbon soot causing acid rain runoff from coal burning power plants, diesel exhaust, and a multitude of other pollutants, also contributing to the problem.
So when you look at the whole picture, corn used for ethanol is only a tiny fraction of the cause.
Cathryn is correct when she says:
“Philpott leaves out another chart that shows that nitrogen flux was lower in the 2000s, just as ethanol production increased, than in the two prior decades. Since ethanol production ramped up, the average annual amount of nitrogen load in the Mississippi has decreased. There is no correlation between increased ethanol production and the size or intensity of the hypoxic zone.”
Again, that’s because, corn acreage has Decreased, as yield per acre has Increased.
Kim Said,
August 12, 2010 @ 11:48 am
@aureon All the points you make don’t prove that corn is “only a tiny fraction” of the hypoxia in the gulf. Acreage and the amount of fertilizer used are 2 separate issues. More yield could be gained from a smaller area of land, but that doesn’t mean the overall amount of fertilizer being used has decreased. In fact, isn’t it possible that those gains in productivity have happened because there is a heavier application of fertilizer?
Again, does anyone have a regression analysis that sorts out the correlation of the various factors to the hypoxia? Because there are so many variables, that’s the only way to truly know how corn production affects the dead zone in the gulf.
Aureon Kwolek Said,
August 12, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
The issue of corn ethanol causing the dead zones is way way overblown by biofuel and ethanol critics, spreading false conjectures. That’s because we don’t have complete and current information on all of the causes, and what percentages they are contributing. If you were to accurately measure ALL the causes of hypoxia, then you would see what percentage is really caused by corn. It’s nowhere near what Philpott falsely claims it is.
Wrap your head around the list of the other causes I provided above. And visualize how big that is.
There are other factors too, such as flooding, droughts, and other weather events, and possibly more, that we haven’t even considered, such as “Pollution Migration Effect.”
What’s causing confusion is people like Philpott who base their conjectures on false and omitted information, in order to bash corn, meat and ethanol – his pet peeves.
“So when you look at the whole picture, corn used for ethanol is only a tiny fraction of the cause.” If you look at the top of the list I gave, I am referring to all hypoxia everywhere, not specifically the Gulf, which you misinterpreted. Corn is likely to be a bigger factor in the Gulf, but nowhere near what critics are falsely claiming.
Outside of the Corn Belt, we have many other dead zones, like the hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay - No one is blaming that on corn. So what are the causes there? You can add most of those same causes to the Mississippi Water Shed. When it rains, both of these watersheds are an alphabet soup of pollutants.
It’s junk science to assign an overblown percentage of nitrogen-phosphorous to corn, when you haven’t done a full analysis of all the other sources of N-P and other pollutants. Algae blooms respond to many kinds of stimulants, not just N-P and not just N-P from corn. They especially love human sewage, animal manure, natural sugars, and a host of other organic and synthetic chemicals.
“In fact, isn’t it possible that those gains in productivity have happened because there is a heavier application of fertilizer?” (Kim) That’s a conjecture, not based on fact.
Monsanto, the company developing advanced corn prototypes, says that yield per acre will double by 2030. That’s NOT based on increasing the volume of chemical fertilizers. It’s based on genetic engineering, advanced farming methods, and cutting edge technology. Corn is a work in progress, and so is fertilizer… and so is farming.
Also, from what I’ve heard, there’s an optimal period of time to apply chemicals to corn. Let’s get some corn farmers on here to explain how fertilizer and pesticide is applied.
Matt Said,
August 12, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
Kim makes a good point. People shouldn’t be pinning the hypoxia zone on ethanol if they don’t have a regression analysis that sorts our the correlation of the various factors to the hypoxia. They have no way of knowing to what degree corn would have any impact on the dead zone.
Matt Said,
August 12, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
And when exactly did people just get to go around making irresponsible accusation and then demand proof that it’s NOT true? We’ve apparently jumped into the guilty-until-proven-innocent world here.
Aureon Kwolek Said,
August 12, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Kim said: “All the points you make don’t prove that corn is ‘only a tiny fraction’ of the hypoxia in the gulf.”
She misrepresented what I said… I said “CORN ETHANOL” is only a tiny fraction of the cause – not Corn:
“So when you look at the whole picture, ‘Corn Used for Ethanol’ is only a tiny fraction of the cause.”
I believe I did prove that. Corn used for ethanol, after you back out roughly 1/3 for the co-products, is less than 17% of the corn crop. The corn crop is 25% of all crops. So corn used only for ethanol is less than 5% of all crops.
Now factor-in the many other causes for hypoxia:
(1) Applying growth stimulants and weed killers to gardens, lawns, parks, and golf courses…
(2) Unfinished industrial effluent and unfinished sewage effluence – routinely released into the watershed from factories, sewage disposal plants, and septic systems that overflow when it rains…
(3) Run-off from dairy farms, poultry farms, hog farms, cattle ranches, feed lots, zoos, horses, goats, wild animals, birds, fish, etc…
(4) A vast source of organic matter that also washes away in runoff and decomposes…
(5) Sulfurous black carbon soot causing acid rain runoff from coal burning power plants, diesel exhaust, and a multitude of other pollutants…
When you get done with all that - ‘Corn Used for Ethanol’ - IS only a tiny fraction of the cause.”