backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 161 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on May 30 at 3:53 AM

Switchgrass is one promising cellulose producing candidate for cellulosic ethanol production. However some of its characteristics that make it most viable -- hardiness and fast growth -- worry some that it would become an invasive species.  (Source: ehponline.org)
Biofuels are widely blamed for raising the prices of food crops; what is the solution?

Renewable energy enthusiasm is at an all time high.  Unfortunately, the logistics of the energy source most widespread in commercial deployment, ethanol, are not as green nor as economically sound as one might hope.  The biofuel ethanol is currently produced from sugar from crops such as corn and sugarcane.  The high price of gasoline has created a catch-22 situation in which people want to buy ethanol to save money on lower gas prices, but if they do so they will raise the price of food crops and have to pay more at the supermarket.

Worse yet, ethanol's net carbon output is stated in some studies to be worse overall than gasoline's, due to the extra carbon cost needed to harvest the sugar crop and drive the conversion.  And the social situation is no rosier; a UN expert called biofuels "a crime against humanity" and has stated that they are contributing to starvation and war worldwide.

With all the challenge associated with the current less-than-savory state of biofuels, some researchers are rising to the occasion and considering how to fix the biofuel infrastructure.  The journal Nature Review Genetics carries a large study in next month's edition, which explores in depth advances and possibilities that genetic engineering holds to help produce cellulosic ethanol.

Cellulose is an abundant plant sugar which makes up the cell walls of plants.  It consists of long chains of individual glucose sugar molecules which could be converted to ethanol, but it is difficult to break these chains apart.  If it was easy to break apart cellulose, it would open the door to mass production of ethanol from crop waste, yard waste, and other sources, such as the non-crop plant switchgrass, greatly raising the promise of the resource.

Current cellulosic efforts focus on harvesting cellulose digesting enzymes from fungi and bacteria.  While this is one possible method, the study suggests that another more promising method would be to genetically engineering plants to store cellulose digesting enzymes within safe compartments within the cell.  When the plant was initially processed these enzymes would be released and would start breaking down the cellulose.

Other suggestions in the study are genetically engineering non-food cellulose source crops such as switchgrass to be taller.  Another idea is to add more cellulose mass to plants by duplicating genes for cellulose production catalyzing enzymes.  Yet another possibility is to reduce the enzymes that catalyze cellulose cross-linkages to make the cellulose easier to digest.

Another salient document to the future of the ethanol industry was published by the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) this week.  The GISP published a cautionary set of recommendations (PDF) about potential ethanol crop candidates.  Since fast growth and endurance of a variety of climates are desirable characteristics for such a plant, it is unsurprising that GISP states that nearly all the candidates are invasive species, which could have the detrimental environmental effect of killing native plants and harming ecosystems.  The exceptions, it states are food crops used for their cellulose, including wheat, peanuts, and soy

The GISP advocates risk assessments and cost/benefit analyses.  They say that a certification system should be in place to ensure responsible agriculture.  Finally, they suggest that when possible native species be used to produce the biofuel.

The AAAS journal Science published an editorial that is also pertinent to the future of biofuels.  It discusses the bacteria that produce the cellulose-digesting enzymes.  It says that other symbiotic bacteria could help to foster the growth of plants with useful chemical character.  Further they could be used to sequester carbon.  The key, the post concludes is to gain a better understanding of how the carbon cycle works in bacteria.

While ethanol certainly fairly deserves criticism for its current implementation, these new efforts promise a new responsible face for the ethanol industry.  While they may take some time to be implemented, it is exciting to see the interest in the scientific community.  The best part about these developments is if achieved, they would have the end effect of saving the consumer money, something the vast majority of consumers want.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By AnnihilatorX on 5/26/2008 1:31:27 PM , Rating: 4
It should be possible to genetically engineer switchgrass to retain their fast growth property, while being infertile and unable to produce large amount of seeds and hence cannot spread effectively in the wild.

Being a grass, should be able to regrow after harvesting when roots are not destroyed.

On a different topic:

http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?story...
quote:
Due to the instability of food prices, farmers are switching to the increasing biofuel market.


It seems counter-intuitively, the rising food price actually makes farmers switch to biofuel production.




RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Motoman on 5/26/2008 1:41:55 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, I'm not sure that statement quite makes sense as is...because of major subsidies for growing ethanol and the high price ethanol plants will pay for corn, farmers are abandoning other crops intended for food and are instead growing fuel.

Seems like a good idea, right? Let's incent our farmers not to feed us, but to put fuel in our cars and trucks.

The commercial pain is amazingly immediate. Here in MN, we have had a history of ample supplies of hay for livestock (my wife breeds and trains horses), until now. Immediately farmers stopped growing hay and are switching en masse to corn for ethanol...our hay cost immediately went up by 50%, and I can guarantee that there will be insufficient supplies of hay this year...we will literally have starving horses and other livestock and people having to get rid of their animals because they either can't afford to feed them, or can't find anything to feed them anyway. We'll be importing hay from Canada and other states, and probably be paying $10 or $12 a bale by the middle of winter (we paid $4.50 last year).

Just in the interest of demonstrating how immediate and how brutal the effect is of stupid agricultural policies like this.


By MonkeyPaw on 5/26/2008 2:17:28 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, and to make matters worse, corn requires more water than most other crops and demands more from the soil it grows in. Despite what many people might think, it doesn't rain all that much in the Great Plains, so to grow corn there and get a bumper crop, you must irrigate. In other words, the Biofuel push not only stresses the food supply, but it also stresses the water supply. The shift to growing exclusively corn also taxes the soil, and the monoculture effect increases the chances of disease and pest outbreaks. It will no doubt increase the use of fertilizers and pesticides (which must be manufactured) and increase the dependence on the bioengineering of crops.

It's one of those things that casual environmentalists just don't understand. ALL plant species depend on 3 things: climate, soil, and water. You simply can't grow whatever you want wherever you want. Sure you can try and even think you're succeeding, but it always comes at a cost. Things like Biofuels (or anti-livestock ideas) just cause people to throw out best management practices. Ultimately, the environment is STILL what suffers the most.


By JonnyDough on 5/27/2008 5:33:21 AM , Rating: 1
You sir, deserve a SEVEN (7).

It's also been shown that biofuels are less efficient in cars, and therefore actually cost MORE. You get fewer MPG on biofuel people! As was said before in DT comments about biofuel: JUST SAY NO! IT IS NOT HELPING ANYTHING!

In fact, the switch to biofuel is HURTING US due to everything he just listed, such as soil erosion, irrigation causing our rivers to dry up, and rising food costs! Biofuel is NOT the answer.

Electric cars ARE a solution, but ONLY with alternative ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION METHODS, like SOLAR, WIND, or NUCLEAR ENERGY!

What we really need is to discover cold fusion. You know, like in that fantastic little movie "The Saint" (and yes I DO believe in all that scientific mumbo-jumbo)


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By tjr508 on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
By JonnyDough on 5/27/2008 7:13:03 PM , Rating: 3
WRONG.

Since you failed to do any research Mr. Scientist...I have some for you, and, rather than just post the AAA chart, I'll also add some articles so that you don't have to try to understand it.

From AAA:
http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/18870574.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/09/aaa-begins...
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2511

Just in case you want to do more basic gas research...

http://www.autoclubgroup.com/common/promos/FUEL_Br...
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/

Now, if you have anything more to say you can talk to your local 711 clerk. I'm done listening to you try to argue without any basis.


By snownpaint on 5/28/2008 2:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone looked into using Hemp for Biofuel.
(no I'm not a hemp-fix-all hippy)

I know it is cellulose plant which is better for
ethanol production then starches (corn). Which is why switchgrass is looked at as a source. Also left over crop can have duel purpose. Fiber and fuel source, which is still used in other countries..

What about using grass (lawn) clippings.. If all of the US interstates, FL and CA lawn clipping where combined, I'm sure it would total more then all of the food grown in the US.. Also being it grows almost all year (in sunny states) and in front of almost every house in US and is being cut by people regularly.. Wouldn't it be easy to bag and ship these clipping to a refinery. I mean it could be picked up with your trash.. If it can be used to make ethanol? (which from my understanding is pretty easy with almost anything that rots)


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By gerf on 5/26/08, Rating: -1
By omnicronx on 5/26/2008 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 3
What exactly is your point here? Food prices, especially corn have significantly raised in the past few years, far surpassing the prices in the 90's even when you take inflation into consideration.

quote:
So you bitch about farmers using crops for non-food purposes, then you turn around and feed crops to animals that serve no real purpose? *cough* hypocrite *cough*
Are you a moron? If i knew where you lived I would personally come to your house and punch you in the nose. Obviously farmers need food for their animals, and it does not make him a hypocrite, it just makes you a moron. It only takes a 6 year old to realize that we eat animals, animals need food, thus we need to use crops to feed the animals.
quote:
Again, prices are going to even out. It's going to be hard in the meantime.
How do you know? Prices are high right now because the price of oil is high, until oil prices go down, I would expect to see food prices stay high.


By omnicronx on 5/26/2008 3:07:49 PM , Rating: 4
When was the last time horses were the majority of the animal population on a farm. You are talking about a miniscule amount of horses compared to the amount of cows, chickens, etc.. that go through the system each year.

Also (i dont know why I know this) but horses eat the entire piece of grass including the roots, cows do not, they only eat the tops of the grass. I once heard that although cows and horses eat around the same, it can cost up to 50% more to feed a cow, depending on the size.

Whining about horses is like whining about cats and dogs.. they are all pets that in this day and age serve no purpose.. So unless you propose that we shotgun your dog scooter in the face to keep food prices down, I think you should rethink your response.


By gerf on 5/26/2008 3:23:49 PM , Rating: 3
Well, since you brought up cats and dogs...

Why not reduce all non-food usage of crops and fertilizers? What if we didn't "Weed and Feed" our lawns every year? What if we all put out gardens? What if we didn't keep more than a pet or two? There's a lot of things that are a lot less critical to the economy than fuel that foodstuffs are used for.

And as for your horses eating all the roots of grass as well, do you realize that kills the plant and takes longer to re-grow than just eating the top? That's more disastrous for erosion than even sheep, which simply crop grasses closer to the ground.


By PrinceGaz on 5/26/2008 3:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also (i dont know why I know this) but horses eat the entire piece of grass including the roots, cows do not, they only eat the tops of the grass. I once heard that although cows and horses eat around the same, it can cost up to 50% more to feed a cow, depending on the size.

I didn't know that, but doesn't that mean the horse is worse as you'll need to replant the grass after it has been eaten, whereas with a cow it'll just regrow naturally like if you'd cut it with a lawnmower. I suppose it depends on whether the addition land needed for the cow costs more than the time and effort involved in planting new grass-seed.


By Motoman on 5/26/2008 4:25:45 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, for the record, horses don't actually pull the roots of anything out of the ground to eat them. They will, however, eat the above-ground part down to the ground if they don't have adequate grazing area...take the horses off of that pasture, and it grows back.


By MonkeyPaw on 5/26/2008 5:07:26 PM , Rating: 4
First of all, livestock do not eat the roots of grasses. The only time livestock damage the vegetation and the land is when they are overgrazed. When you have too many animals in too small an area, the animals eat the grass faster than it can grow back, causing compaction and/or erosion. Grasses are tough, but grasses cannot grow well when they are eaten off faster than they can grow back. The obvious answer to sustainable livestock agriculture is to not overgraze. This means you need lots of land for lots of animals. Fortunately, lots of land is widely available in the western plains. There is a considerable area of agricultural land in the US is considered "marginal," which means it's not good for growing most crops (largely due to inadequate rainfall). However, this land is well-suited for raising livestock, provided you don't overpopulate the grazing area. Unfortunately, the meat industry doesn't promote sustainable production. Rather than grazing in the right areas, high-density feed lots (where the animals eat feed-grade agricultural products) are very popular. It's environmentally destructive (though very point-source) and isn't the best use of land or other resources, as you have to ship food to the animals. The big problem is that we depend on fossil fuels to produce our food, so how can our food solve our fossil fuel demands?

The hard part is always that these decisions come down to people that need to put food on the table, too. How they practice agriculture is ultimately their choice, until the government steps in with subsidies. Sadly, it Biofuels are just adding to a problem that already exists--non-sustainable agriculture.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By phusg on 5/27/08, Rating: -1