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
By masher2 (blog) on 5/27/2008 4:10:18 PM , Rating: 4
> "we need to switch completely to organic farming methods "

The problem is that "organic" farming methods have a substantially lower output per acre, which makes them both considerably more expensive and less feasible to feed a burgeoning world population.

> "If everyone were to halve the amount of meat they ate food prices would drop"

True. And if people would stop driving their cars on recreational trips, weekend dinners, and to visit friends and family, the cost of gasoline would drop also. If people would live in tiny apartments instead of large houses, the cost of electricity would decline also.

The trick is to find solutions that don't require massive cuts in our standard of living, however.


By hubajube on 5/28/2008 3:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The trick is to find solutions that don't require massive cuts in our standard of living, however.
I guarantee you if we ever have to do that, say bye bye to the billions of dollars we give to disaster relief, hunger, and all other charities.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By phusg on 5/29/2008 7:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is that "organic" farming methods have a substantially lower output per acre, which makes them both considerably more expensive and less feasible to feed a burgeoning world population.

Only more expensive when the competition is subsidized by low oil prices which hide the true costs of using up this finite resource. The lower output per acre could be compensated by eating less meat as I pointed out.
quote:
The trick is to find solutions that don't require massive cuts in our standard of living, however.

I disagree, the trick is to finding a way to transition smoothly to a high standard of living for everybody that isn't dependent upon massive amounts of non-renewable resources.

Here are a few solutions that arguably massively improve your standard of living: cycling, walking or taking public transport for recreational trips or social calls. Replacing a weekly junk food meat based meal with a fresh vegetable based meal.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By mdogs444 on 5/29/2008 8:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I disagree, the trick is to finding a way to transition smoothly to a high standard of living for everybody

And please enlighten me as to who decides what a high standard of living is, and what that standard will be? You? You're going to get to tell me that in order to have a high standard of living and live my life your way, that I need to give up my car and not eat meat? Take it somewhere else Mr. Gore....

quote:
Here are a few solutions that arguably massively improve your standard of living: cycling, walking or taking public transport for recreational trips or social calls. Replacing a weekly junk food meat based meal with a fresh vegetable based meal.


Wow, im not really sure where you live...but my guess is its not in "real world USA".

Don't get me wrong, I like going for a bike ride to get some cardio in with my workout. I like walking around the mall and parks. But you dont look at real world US perspective. When people drive 25-30 miles to work each way, and a grocery store is 3,4,5+ miles away, neither a bike nor walking are viable forms of transportation. How much groceries to do you expect to carry for 5+ miles? Enough to stock up your pantry, freezer, and fridge for an average family of 4? Ya right.

People who live in concentrated large cities such as NYC, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, etc may see those forms of transportation as well as public transportation as viable alternatives. But the other half of the nation does not want to live on top of someone else, they dont want a strip mall in their backyard...in fact, they dont want anything in their back yard. People here like land, and much of it, because we have the extra land to do so. People like to compare countries like England to that of the USA...when in fact England is about the size of Ohio, 2% of our country's landscape. Where do you people get off?

Junk food meat? You do realize that meat, fish, and poultry are essential parts of the food groups, do you not? When the fact is that you should have daily intakes of all of them, according to nutritionists. What now? You want to socialize the US into Vegans? Please.


By phusg on 5/29/2008 9:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And please enlighten me as to who decides what a high standard of living is, and what that standard will be? You?

No. That's another discussion entirely, but as you ask my personal opinion is that everybody should decide for themselves what standard of living they consider appropriate for themselves, with the simple limitation that in doing so they do not impair anyone else's standard of living.

Using up massive amounts of the Earth's finite resources is demonstrably damaging many people's standard of living at this very moment, let alone the standard of living of all of our decedents who inherit what's left of our planet.

quote:
You're going to get to tell me that in order to have a high standard of living and live my life your way, that I need to give up my car and not eat meat? Take it somewhere else Mr. Gore....

Uh, no that's not what I said, please don't try to polarize the discussion by putting words in my mouth. I'm not telling anyone to completely give up anything. I'm saying that eating less meat is a solution to the problem posed in this blog entry, that of how to reduce food prices for all. For a lot of people this would improve their health and arguably improve their standard of living.

On the issue of driving less, sure this is a lot easier if you live in a city. The city also has to be designed for alternative modes of travel, which many US cities are not. Luckily most people live in cities, so the sooner US cities are redesigned with something other that cars in mind, the better for all as far as I'm concerned.
quote:
You want to socialize the US into Vegans? Please.

Again not what I said. Why turn my suggested solution of eating less meat into me wanting to 'socialize' the US into Vegans?!? I don't know which green/socialist in particular made you so combative, but please try to approach each person and suggestion with an open mind.


By JonnyDough on 5/27/2008 5:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When was the last time horses were the majority of the animal population on a farm.


They're called Amish and they still use horses! :-P

http://www.mennohof.org/
http://www.lancastercounty.com/things_to_do/amish....


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By DoeBoy on 5/26/2008 4:46:32 PM , Rating: 5
When did people become so Utilitarian? America is about freedom and going where u want to go and doing what you want to do. Going off on some stupid tirade about getting rid of things that people enjoy for the better of the whole is not the way america became what it is. Maybe you guys need to relax a little and stop trying to take away peoples freedom to do waht they want. You want cheaper prices then start with decreasing our 60%+ oil imports which have doubled since the arab oil embargo. We didn't do anything to solve the problem since then and so we are suffering as a result of our own inaction to become less dependent on others for oil. Hell I would rather have the environment suffer a little than have people starving all over the world. Look at it this way aside from europe we probably have many more laws about pollution and its control than the foreign saudis which probably dont care about any oil spill. Point is less stop moving our problems to other countries and instead lets start taking some personal responsibility for the problems that we created.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Motoman on 5/26/08, Rating: -1
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 7:07:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...ummm, what? People are starving all over the world because the environment is suffering.


Nonsense.

quote:
And we're still importing oil because it's still the most cost-effective (and currently most eco-friendly) way to drive our cars. If there was, honestly, a better way...we'd be doing it.


Drilling and refining our domestic oil ? Lowering the gas taxes ? I think there ARE better ways. We're just refusing to use common sense and do them.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Motoman on 5/26/08, Rating: -1
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 7:31:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I can assure you that the American oil industry would be happily pumping out our own oil if it was more economical to do so.


They don't have much of a choice. If its illegal to drill in Alaska, its illegal. The myth of the huge " All powerful all knowing and controlling " oil companies, are just that, a myth. They don't pick our elected officials, they don't choose which cars we buy, they aren't the devil.

quote:
And how is it "nonsense" that people are starving because of environmental problems? I suppose the fact that Africa's arable lands have been so poorly managed that they've turned to desert has nothing to do with the fact that the people who rely on them for farming are starving to death? Oh, I'm sure they'd be just as starving if they had nice black dirt there.


Yes but poorly managed land isn't what I had in mind when someone says " environmental ". You know as well as I do that the way you phrased it I naturally assumed you meant " man made global warming ". If I misjudged than I apologize.


By Ringold on 5/26/2008 8:24:42 PM , Rating: 5
On top of that, Reclaimer, regarding the African problems, Zimbabwe is an example I particularly like. What happened there? In a pseudo-socialist move, Mugabe stole commercial farms from their white owners and distributed it to native blacks. Zimbabwe went from being a large net food exporter to starvation and yields dropped like a rock.

I would not call that an "environmental" problem at all, I'd call it a political one, like you said.


By onelittleindian on 5/27/2008 1:48:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If its illegal to drill in Alaska, its illegal.
It's also illegal to drill for oil off the coast of Florida, and a half dozen other places we have major oil deposits in the US. Sad, isn't it?


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By JonnyDough on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
By seamonkey79 on 5/27/2008 8:50:32 AM , Rating: 1
Wow.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 3
Look man, people like nature just fine. But we dont want to go back to the olden days of everyone living in a freakin' mud hut and singing peace songs around a campfire.

I can see that you are a tree hugging hippy, and thats fine for you. But for the rest of the majority of society, we've moved on. We do not require that you come with us, just dont bother us.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 3:35:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Look man, people like nature just fine. But we dont want to go back to the olden days of everyone living in a freakin' mud hut and singing peace songs around a campfire.


Oh no no no ! Not all of us would be living in mud huts. Just the ones who can't afford enough " Carbon Credits " to maintain a comfortable standard of living.

:(


By JonnyDough on 5/27/2008 6:59:21 PM , Rating: 1
Who even said anything about grass huts? Please! Your remarks are ignorant and insulting, they have no basis. It's a pretty simple concept for those of you who fail to see the earth as a whole, and us as a part of nature. (IF I was some sort of hippie, would I be typing on a computer or would I have TWO dual-core gaming systems? I think not.) The fact is that when you put too many fish into one fish tank, they don't grow to full size. Case in point, is that too many people = a lower standard of living. What happened in Europe with the plague would not have happened if people had lived a comfortable distance from each other. I for one do not desire to see our purple mountain's majesty turned into a Tokyo-like city with families stacked on top of each other in tiny apartments. No thank you. I believe my children's grandchildren will prefer their mountains just fine. Two words. POPULATION CONTROL. We NEED it. If we're going to beat naturally occurring checks and balances with medicine in an attempt to beat diseases, then we need to also learn to govern ourselves with better rules. Otherwise, when something does move through the ranks it'll jump from person to person so fast that we won't be able to stop it. 3/4's of Europe dead to plague is NOTHING compared to 95% of earth's mammals dying now. Call me whatever you want, but I believe in numbers and forward thinking, not just emotion.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Ringold on 5/27/2008 3:40:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The black plague that killed off 3/4's of Europe probably did the world a favor.


Extremist left-wing ideology occasionaly seeps out in a moment of honest truth, sort of like when Obama's wife admitted she'd never been proud of her country until her husband started winning some primaries.

You people are even more dangerous than Islamic terrorist extremists. They at least are up front about it; they want Sharia to pervail globally, and their methods are straight-forward attacks, both conventional and suicide attacks. You people on the other hand sneak things in to legislation, popular culture, etc, pawning them off as somehow legitimate or cool when really the above quote is the true motivation of liberal extremists. If you'd all strap on bombs and walk in to a shopping mall at least people would be aware of your existance.

The really sad thing is that well-intentioned people on the left don't see the dark forces moving among their own ranks.


By JonnyDough on 5/27/2008 7:03:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You people are even more dangerous than Islamic terrorist extremists.


I really don't see anything dangerous about the idea that people can take responsibility through a democratic process to limit how many offspring they have. It's called responsible planning and it's an idea to benefit the future of our children. Forgive me if I have ideas and dreams about quality living for all. You can take your little safe group and go and multiply in a 5x5 cell if you'd like. But that's all the room you get, because if you didn't notice...earth is big, but when you're talking billions of people trying to live on it, it is not quite so big after all.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By hubajube on 5/28/2008 3:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but when you're talking billions of people trying to live on it, it is not quite so big after all.
I guess you've never been to Montana. Hell, sounds like you've never been anywhere. Take a trip out west sometime. There's plenty of space on this planet, it's just we humans CHOOSE to live where we live. I and a few million other people live in a desert. it can be done. Then again, most people like yourself don't leave the confines of the cities you live in.


By JonnyDough on 5/30/2008 3:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of B.S. is this??? I live in southwest Michigan out in the country, I've lived in five states FYI. I've been to Wall Drug and the Black Hills in South Dakota and up into the boondocks of Wisconsin, thanks. You might live where it's cold and there's still plenty of space, but have you been to Florida recently, or maybe Europe? I wasn't talking about living space, I was talking about SUPPORTING space. You aren't living in Montana, you have to realize this. You're living everywhere you're buying food from, getting oil from, getting water from, etc. You are a consumer, and as such, a great deal of land AND sea goes to support your lifestyle. Ever buy furniture with imported lumber? 90% of Walmart's crap comes from China. You don't think that some of the resources arent' from Minnesota?

You really need to get a clue, and quit trying to assume things about people online. You have no idea what perspectives I have, just because I voice a broad opinion doesn't mean you can size me up and my whole life along with me. Get some brains.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 2:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did people become so Utilitarian? America is about freedom and going where u want to go and doing what you want to do. Going off on some stupid tirade about getting rid of things that people enjoy for the better of the whole is not the way america became what it is. Maybe you guys need to relax a little and stop trying to take away peoples freedom to do waht they want.


Somebody +6 this please.


By trax64 on 5/26/2008 3:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you a moron? If i knew where you lived I would personally come to your house and punch you in the nose.

lol I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to laugh at this. I can only hope this was typed with humorous intentions !


By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 2:37:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I agree it's not the best policy, and is probably a little too gung-ho, but I have to say that at least farmers are making something of a little profit for once, after nearly a decade of sub-$2 corn.


If there was no profit in it they wouldn't have been doing it. Especially not for 10+ years.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By gerf on 5/26/2008 3:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there was no profit in it they wouldn't have been doing it. Especially not for 10+ years.
Believe it or not, that's not true. Many if not all farmers could make more money doing something else. For the amount of input required, there's very little profit.

For example, one acre of farmland here sells for about $4000-5000 right now. If you rent it to someone else for corn, you can get about $100-120. That's only a 3.0% profit per year. You can do that well with a money-market account at your local bank!

Ok, so if you farm it yourself, you can make more, but for the amount of labor involved, and uknowns in what happens (possibly no crop due to disaster, poor yields, etc), it's really not a good investment to farm.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Motoman on 5/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By emboss on 5/27/2008 2:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Western farming, as we know, is totally unsustainable from a financial standpoint.


Not at all. See, for example, New Zealand. Sure, it was a bit of a mess for a few years after they got rid of all the subsidies, but the free market eventually got itself back on track again and now it's arguably got the most efficient farms in the world.

Yes, the people running inefficient farms would get shafted. However, this just means that the land is freed up for someone to do a better job. In the US, of all places, I would have thought letting the free market rule would have been popular.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Solandri on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 5/27/2008 9:13:53 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"Problem is you don't want efficient food production. A highly efficient food supply means there is little to no margin for error....If your farms are highly efficient and produce exactly 100% of the food your country needs, and a surprise cold spell drops that to 80%, people will starve and die"
Your point couldn't be more wrong. Efficiency in agricultural is defined in terms of production per acre (or hectare). It doesn't imply the lack of any surplus, and in fact a highly efficienct system allows you to have a large surplus with less cost.

Centuries ago, when food production was highly inefficient, hunger and famines were ubiquitous, coming for most people every few years. Now, if you live in a nation with efficient food production, you can live your entire life without ever knowing a day of hunger, or meeting someone who has.

That's the benefit of efficient food production.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Solandri on 5/27/2008 3:13:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Your point couldn't be more wrong. Efficiency in agricultural is defined in terms of production per acre (or hectare).

Well that flies in the face of every engineering definition of efficiency I've ever heard of (where it's always a dimensionless number -- a percentage). But I will take your word for it. My apologies for misunderstanding the initial assertion.

quote:
Centuries ago, when food production was highly inefficient, hunger and famines were ubiquitous, coming for most people every few years. Now, if you live in a nation with efficient food production, you can live your entire life without ever knowing a day of hunger, or meeting someone who has.
The definition of efficiency you've given does not determine the amount of food production. You can have a highly efficient (your definition) food supply, yet produce vastly inadequate amounts of food thus leading to starvation. Centuries ago, the capacity for food production (acres of land) multiplied by efficiency (your definition) was inadequate to meet the needs of everyone alive. Improved efficiency (your definition) eventually allowed production to meet the population's requirements even in the face of decreasing capacity (acreage).

Economic efficiency (my definition) of food production means the supply equals the demand. While that generates the optimal price for food, it also results in little or no overhead for shortfalls or emergencies. To maintain that safety margin, you need to maintain a capacity for oversupply. Unfortunately, if that capacity is used, the oversupply causes a drop in prices (since supply exceeds demand). Because of the way supply/demand curves work, the fact that we're not at the optimal supply/demand intersection means farms are being paid less overall even though they are producing more.

So maintaining that capacity while also maintaining the economic viability of food production means subsidizing the prices to restore them to the level they would've been at without oversupply, or paying farmers to keep the capacity available but not to plant the crops. That is my point. You do not want your food supply exposed to the whims of a completely free market.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/27/2008 4:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "The definition of efficiency you've given does not determine the amount of food production. You can have a highly efficient (your definition) food supply, yet produce vastly inadequate amounts of food"

Absolutely! In theory at least. But in practice, nations that efficiently produce food also produce large surpluses. This follows automatically if one thinks about it. The less land, labor, and resources it takes to grow a quantity of food, the more likely you are to have more than you need.

In the US, for instance, a single farmer can generate enough food to food 250+ families, . In some third-world nations, the ratio is more like 2:1....meaning half the entire population has to be farming, simply to keep up.

Also remember that the most important food crop is grains...and grains must be planted with grain itself. Meaning you destroy food to create it. That's why efficiency is so important. At one point in history, a farmer might have to hold back 1/4 or more of his entire crop, simply to plant the following year. Now in the US, its something like 100:1 to one, I believe.


By emboss on 5/28/2008 5:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
First, note that I was talking about economic efficiency, not land-use-efficiency. Masher went off on a bit of a tangent :) However, economic efficiency also demands land-use efficiency.

quote:
You do not want your food supply exposed to the whims of a completely free market.


This would be true if there were a single item, "food", that could only be used for eating and was not replacable with something else. In the real world, this is not the case, and the market for any given food is quite elastic in most countries.

For example, most fruits and vegetables are interchangable (from an economic point of view), so even a complete wiping out of apple crops (say) would not cause a food shortage, since people could eat oranges instead.

Additionally, many staple products are not eaten "as is". Many processed "luxury" foods are, from a nutritional point of view, inefficient usage of the raw material. A reduction of one of the basis crops would push up prices of all the derived foods, with the result that the less expensive, nutritionally efficient, foods would increase in volume at the cost of the more processed foods.

An example of this is in the US, grains are used heavily in the raising of animals. Nutritionally, this is a very inefficient usage of grain. A shortage of grains (and hence a price rise) would result in higher grain prices. This would push up the prices of many staple foods as well as meat. A consumer still needs the same amount of calories per day, so would respond by spending more money on nutritionally efficient foods (eg: bread) and less on inefficient foods (eg: beef).

Finally, modern storage techniques and global trade mean that a single bad season is unlikely to result in food shortages. Even a bad season in one hemisphere would be mostly covered by existing stores, and the slack taken up by increased planting for the season in the opposite hemisphere. In Ye Olde Days, it was much more of an issue as the supply side of the market could not repond as quickly, and many foods were also consumed in their best nutritional form, or close to it. To a certain degree, this is still the case in many third world countries. However, it's primarily first world countries that have agriculture subsidies.

(Not to mention that these subsidies are also on things that have no nutritional value whatsoever, like cotton.)


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Ringold on 5/26/2008 8:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. In any normal industry, firms would leave the business for more profitable work. Then there would be fewer farmers and more profitable prices.

The difference between farmers and most other industries is that farmers have an extremely powerful lobby, and get themselves subsidized to a degree no other industry today can come close to matching.

Now, after all the government handouts and protections, if it's still not profitable and a farmer is still farming then one must question the farmers wisdom.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By gerf on 5/26/2008 9:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
They do. I've heard of economists question farmers en masse why they farm. They reply because that's what they want to do.

Just look at dairy farmers. They spend decades milking their cows twice a day, with no day off, no vacation, nothing. Prices are shitty, and the work is hard. Why? Because they love doing it.

Why do people grow little gardens in crowded cities? Why do people like to see their lawns green and lush? There's a deep feeling behind growing things that is ingrained in us all, and more so in some.

There's an old saying that if a farmer would win the lottery, they'd just farm it away...


By Ringold on 5/27/2008 3:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Okay. If you all like it and do it regardless of pay, don't milk the government because milking cows doesn't pay the bills. That's not tax payers responsibility to help farmers live unsustainable lifestyles. That's my only complaint, how big was the Farm Bill this year? $300 billion? Insanity.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 3:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's an old saying that if a farmer would win the lottery, they'd just farm it away...


Maybe he should take that money and go to college instead of insisting on farming dirt ?

But hell, if I got government subsidies for doing my hobbies I would probably keep doing them too.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By Motoman on 5/26/2008 4:23:27 PM , Rating: 1
...without re-hashing the other posts...

Yes, for the vast majority of people, horses are a hobby and not a necessity. However, for my wife, they are her JOB. That's how she makes a living. And there's a massive industry around horses and equine sports, not just in feed but in tack, clothing, vehicles, recreation, so on and so forth. If the feed problem gets big enough to pull the rug out from under horse breeders and trainers, the entire industry collapses. Which is the same thing as would apply to dogs, cats, and whatever else.

Having said that, as pointed out, horses and other recreational animals barely register compared to cows, pigs, etc. - as much as I might "bitch" about my hay cost going up by a thousand dollars a year, think about the guys trying to produce beef and pork and such...horses are barely a drop in the bucket.

As for the switch happening last year, we saw little movement in the price of hay last year over the previous...farmers pretty much cultivated as much hay last year as the year before. This year is when our big price hit came...as in since the last time we called our hay guy to buy more hay. Like...2 weeks ago.

Also, I think your comment about "prices are going to even out" is very naive. They will even out, in our case, in the sense that vast numbers of people will abandon their horses and no longer be buying hay. And/or horse breeders/trainers/boarders/etc. will simply go out of business. While in an Economics 101 kind of way, sure, that's the market "evening itself out" - but it's a brutal actuality to behold.

I don't begrudge people being able to make a profit - and I can't say that I really can "blame the farmer" for growing the crop he can make the most profit from. That's called being in business as opppsed to going out of business. But it's not a genuine market economy - all of this foolishness is created and engendered by moronic political policies but into action by stupid people who pander to specific interests rather than considering what is best for the economy as a whole and the well-being of our environment and humanity as a whole. Not to mention the well-being of our animals too.


RE: Switch grass and farmers on biofuel production
By hubajube on 5/28/2008 3:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just saying... and keeping in mind that I consider horses who are not used as workhorses pets.
Most horse owners consider non-working animals as pets too. We just recently sold a horse because we would rather him have a job than to just be a big pet. We didn't think it would be fair to him to keep him.


By nofranchise on 5/29/2008 8:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
Lol - it seems I've been stigmatized and will forever be modded down no matter what I post. Oh well - life goes on.

Still - you cannot deny that those millions of fat pets is quite the slap in the face to those starving in Africa - or in Trailerville USA.


By mdogs444 on 5/29/2008 8:36:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you cannot deny that those millions of fat pets is quite the slap in the face to those starving in Africa - or in Trailerville USA.

THAT is a slap in the face? I actually consider that to be a stupid argument.

A real slap in the face is when we (the hard working tax payers of the United States of America) give aid to people (domestic through welfare & social programs, and global through anti-poverty funds) in which we give more dollars than any country in the world, yet everyone wants more more more from the USA. The USA is bound on a possible recession, our daily standards of living are decreasing, people are losing their homes and downsizing their cars and paying $4 for gas just to get by...and you still want more from us? Nothing we do is good enough - as if you people don't realize we have our own lives to live. We didnt want to be Europeans anymore for many reasons, remember - thats why our ancestors left in the first place. I forgot that its our problem to solve the aids epidemic in Africa, give our labor away to illegal aliens from Mexico and elsewhere, and work 12 of our 40 hours a week not for our own families, but to raise the families of lazy & unmotivated people who are liberal leaches on society wanting a free ride.

Now, if someone me sending over a few bags of Puppy Chow and several cans of Fancy Feast will help you to shut up, then I'll gladly do so.


By elgueroloco on 5/27/2008 1:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
And to compound the problem, and retardedness, so far as I know the federal govt is still paying farmers all over the country not to use all their land in order to keep prices up, as they have been doing since the great depression. Back then the policy worked fine, it stabilized food prices and kept farmers in business. Now it's just retarded and unnecessary, but probably won't go away because the farmers like their free money and the agricultural industry has a powerful lobby.

Correct me if I'm wrong. So far as I know this is still happening.


By afkrotch on 5/27/2008 12:04:37 AM , Rating: 3
I say harvest kudzu and figure out how to make ethanol from that. The thing grows like crazy anyways.


By Tumn1s on 5/28/2008 1:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
HEMP IS THE ANSWER TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS... How stupid and blind can you people be. I don't even use marijuana and its plainly clear what must be done. You should really read the book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes".

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter01.html

This would basically save the world by cleaning up the atmosphere and supplying us with all the fuel we would ever need. It amazes me how jaded people can be. Educate yourselves.


Q&A
By Cobra Commander on 5/26/2008 2:01:56 PM , Rating: 1
Question: Biofuels are widely blamed for raising the prices of food crops; what is the solution?

Answer: Solar Power

My lowly opinion, but biofuels is a bandaid patch and not a fix. Solar Power has zero foreign dependance - from every country's perspective as well. Solar Power has no immediate effect on global food supply's or prices. Solar Power has extremely little long term environmental ramifications. It's the holy grail of energy and money investmented into bandaids like biodiesel and ethanol is money wasted.




RE: Q&A
By cochy on 5/26/2008 2:14:38 PM , Rating: 4
Ok. But how functional can a solar powered vehical be? How about getting hydrogen up to speed?


RE: Q&A
By James Wood Carter on 5/26/2008 2:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
have you thought where on eartch you can get unlimited hydrogen from ? the energy requried to make hydrogen is as much as (or even more)polluting than using carbon fuels. Hydrogen requires to be made, and anything thats made requires energy and unless you can propose a sustainable source of energy for making hydrogen ... the dream of hydogen fuel is merely a dream


RE: Q&A
By gerf on 5/26/2008 3:35:19 PM , Rating: 1
Solar farms in the SW US, pumping H2 to the rest of the country? It's been thought of before.

I'm a big fan of Wind turbines when possible, as they are more useful in cloudier climes. Add in a Chevy Volt, or other plug-in hybrid, and you're talking pure awesomeness. Maybe make that Volt run on pure ethanol when needed, and you're starting to talk long-term.


RE: Q&A
By daftrok on 5/26/2008 3:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
Who says the car has to be solar powered. Check out this marvel of engineering:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

I feel that this is a step in the right direction. Once they make a 4 door sedan running on Tesla's technology, they can broaden the range of these vehicles and increase their efficiency.

As for solar power, lets just say one thing: Its best used for homes. Having it conveniently placed on the roof can really cut down energy and on top of that fuel our cars once we get home. As for powering cities, I think wind power is the logical choice. Not just the windmills that we place on mountains or off shore, I'm talking about these:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/architectural-w...

This can really move us away from fuels, be it bio or oil. And another helpful factor is saving energy at home:

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2006/12/19/25-gadge...

Once the country is more in the know for these alternatives, the better off we'll be.


RE: Q&A
By cochy on 5/26/2008 3:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who says the car has to be solar powered. Check out this marvel of engineering:


How much? =)


RE: Q&A
By daftrok on 5/26/2008 9:50:55 PM , Rating: 3
100 grand, but I'm not saying "Hey average joe, give these guys 30 grand down payment and wait 18 months for this electric car" I'm just saying the technology is there to give us the capability to use electric powered cars.


RE: Q&A
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 2:35:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Biofuels are widely blamed for raising the prices of food crops; what is the solution?


quote:
Answer: Solar Power


Wrong.

The answer is to drill for more oil and end this artificial dependency on foreign oil and this made up 'shortage'.

Why does everyone act like oil fuels and alternative fuels are mutually exclusive ? We can do BOTH.


RE: Q&A
By jeff834 on 5/26/2008 7:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well it seems pretty obvious to me that drilling for more oil is no less of a "bandaid" solution than any others. Yes, for the time being we should use fossil fuels and renewable energy sources together, but oil eventually runs out. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not for 100 years, but it WILL run out. While current solar power solutions are crappy and need a lot more work, the sun doesn't run out. Ever. Well correction, the sun will one day run out, but in that particular scenario what energy sources we are using becomes a moot point.

Drilling for more domestic oil is an extremely temporary solution. Solar power isn't really enough. We need more solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power (I live about 10 miles from a plant myself never checked but I probably get most of my energy from that). With the proper research those 4 things will probably be enough for the 100 years+ or so we need to get fusion or antimatter power going in a cost effective way. Who knows, in 20 years we may discover some new form of power we never even thought of, but we need to work on the things we have now and look not just to the next 10 years, but for many many years to come after that.


RE: Q&A
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 8:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
This is double speak. You say that " maybe " the oil will run out in 100 years. And then that maybe in 20 years we'll discover a new energy source. I already said we can both drill for oil AND explore new energy sources. So whats the problem with my post again ?

Your saying a whole lot of nothing. Maybe I don't give a damn what happens in 100 years when I go to gas up at the pump ? You probably don't either to be honest.

People are suffering under artificially high gas prices due to supply and demand. There is no voodoo magic to this problem. You can worry about 100 years from now if you want, but right now TODAY, we can fix this problem. Does this mean we drop alternative fuels and research ? NO ! I specifically said the two are NOT mutually exclusive !

quote:
Drilling for more domestic oil is an extremely temporary solution.


The most conservative estimates suggest there is enough oil in the Alaskan reserves alone to power the world for the next 100+ years, factoring in growth rates. Thats not exactly what I would call 'extremely temporary'.


RE: Q&A
By nofranchise on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Q&A
By nofranchise on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Q&A
By masher2 (blog) on 5/27/2008 9:05:11 AM , Rating: 3
> "No major oilfields have been discovered in North America in decades"

Untrue. Chevron discovered up to 15 billion bbl in the Gulf of Mexico just a couple years ago. And just this year, the US Geological Survey "rediscovered" the Bakken oil field, increasing estimates of its true size by 25-fold, and making it the largest continuous oil accumlation ever assessed in the US:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/
http://www.wallstreet-online.de/diskussion/1140450...

In 2004, Cuba discovered up to 9 billion barrels of oil just off its coast:

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060728T...

Mexico also has discovered new oilfields in recent years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4808466.stm


RE: Q&A
By nofranchise on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Q&A
By masher2 (blog) on 5/27/2008 9:38:14 AM , Rating: 5
> "Is that what you call major?"

The largest continuous accumulation of oil ever found in the US isn't "major"? All the oil discovered in North America in the past ten years alone totals more than 40 billion barrels...an amount that more than equals our foreign oil usage over the same period. And it would have been more, except for the fact that few companies are willing to explore for oil in places where its unlikely to be approved for drilling.

The fact remains that a major program of domestic drilling and production would solve the US foreign oil problem for at least our own lifetimes.


RE: Q&A
By nofranchise on 5/27/08, Rating: 0