Corn-Based Ethanol Could Worsen “Dead Zone”

WASHINGTON - Growing more corn to meet the projected U.S. demand for ethanol could worsen an expanding “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico that is bad for crawfish, shrimp and local fisheries, researchers reported on Monday.

The dead zone is a huge area of water — some 7,700 square miles — that forms above the continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico every summer. It contains very low levels of oxygen.

The dead zone starts in Midwestern corn country when farmers fertilize their fields with nitrogen. The fertilizer run-off flows down the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico, making algae bloom on the surface and cutting oxygen to creatures that live on the bottom.

The low levels of oxygen in the zone make it difficult for crustaceans and bottom-feeding fish to survive, said Simon Donner, who worked on the study published the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Crustaceans will likely struggle to stay alive, Donner said by telephone. Fish will swim out of the zone, potentially devastating local fisheries, he said.

“We’re already at a point where recommendations have been made that nitrogen levels in the Mississippi River have to decrease by up to … 55 percent in order to shrink the dead zone,” said Donner, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

“And now with this incentive to produce more corn and use more fertilizer, we’re pushing in the other direction,” Donner said. “The two policies are just completely incongruous.”

A recent Senate energy policy proposal recommended the manufacture of 15 billion to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2022, Donner’s team found.

To reach that goal with corn-based ethanol would increase nitrogen pollution in the Mississippi River by 10 to 18 percent, Donner said.

Editing by Eric Beech

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

26 Comments so far

PhysicsTeacherGuy March 11th, 2008 10:45 am

One day soon, someone will channel this farm runoff into wetlands, add organic materials like recycled paper, mechanically aerate it with a wind turbine, and discover that they’ve invented a soil farm. It will solve pollution problems and soil degradation problems.
Now, will this happen before we have an even greater disaster? I hope so. But I;m not holding my breath.

Craig

cheencheen March 11th, 2008 10:48 am

All this for corn ethanol - an inefficient energy source in the first place that is already devastating poor communities with rising food prices. Switchgrass ethanol would be efficient, would not require so much machinery and chemicals, wouldn’t mess with food prices, and thus wouldn’t be so destructive, but that wouldn’t be as profitable for agribusiness. Companies like Monsanto have a lot of money to buy politicians with. It’s a shame for all the voters who would like to participate in a democracy.

tonkatsu March 11th, 2008 11:10 am

The real question is Why do otherwise intelligent farmers Allow the erosion that is steadily destroying their farms, year after year?

If the farms weren’t being eroded, the fertilizer would remain in the Fields, helping their crops to grow and reducing their Costs.

So, why don’t they do something to Stop the runoff?

USAn March 11th, 2008 11:27 am

Maybe this is nit-picking, but the river in the picture is most definitely NOT the Mississippi. The terrain is way too arid. It looks like the Missouri in the Dakotas somewhere - or maybe the Columbia in western Washington?

BigLick March 11th, 2008 11:27 am

Wouldn’t the logical thing to do to stop corn ethanol be to NOT BUY IT??

whatfools March 11th, 2008 11:39 am

Wouldn’t the logical thing to do to stop corn ethanol be to drink it?

Simple Sauce March 11th, 2008 11:52 am

The problem here is more fundamental. It has to do with trying to make an unsustainable way of life look more sustainable. Ethanol (or any other biofuel) used to transport humans and our stuff as far, as fast, and as frequently as we currently do can never be produced in sustainable ways. The problem is that our way of life is out of balance with the needs of the natural world that allows us to grow crops.

Only when we start living in a more sustainable way will the earth be able to sustain us.

sjc_1 March 11th, 2008 11:53 am

The runoff from farms should be treated like any other pollutant. They have to divert the runoff from their fields and treat the water before releasing it. We did it with other industries and we will do it here. Tell the farm lobby to sit down, shut up and start doing what is required.

homeward-angel March 11th, 2008 12:42 pm

INDUSTRIAL HEMP PEOPLE!!! I-N-D-U-S-R-I-A-L H-E-M-P!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COMarc March 11th, 2008 1:59 pm

Anything that leaves your land and effects others should be regulated like a pollutant. A farmer who’s runoff is killing the river should be paying damages to everyone downstream.

It doesn’t really matter which crop you use for ethanol, its going to effect food prices. For instance, lets say farmers were growing hemp for ethanol instead of corn, that would still effect corn prices. How? Well, if farmers are making more money growing hemp for fuel instead of corn for food, they’ll plant more hemp and less corn. Then you have less corn on the market and the price goes up. At some point, its the diversion of good crop land from food production to energy production that makes food prices rise.

bbr-001 March 11th, 2008 2:44 pm

Corn isn’t a renewable energy source. It takes more energy to make ethanol than it gives back. The susidies for this nonsense are driving up food, fuel and environmental mitigation costs.

Beyond stupid.

good2go March 11th, 2008 3:08 pm

You can have food and energy production at the same time, using permaculture and small scale ethanol
alcoholcanbeagas.com for more information
Industrial agriculture is to blame, not ethanol. Fight the power, the power is OIL! These reports add ammo to those who would keep us in fossil fuels.

Notice all the negative studies on ethanol say “IT COULD” or “IT MAY”. Not that it has… yet. All it takes is good system design.

CrazyCanuck March 11th, 2008 4:09 pm

homeward-angel - I am encouraged ( slightly) that more people are talking about Industrial Hemp. Superior fibre for clothing or paper, superior lubricating agent for engines, superior source for bio-diesel. All of this is attainable on marginal land, year after year after year. Just look at the industries and their lobbies and vested interests and it is not hard to see why Industrial Hemp is so opposed. Once again, North Americans, get your head out of your ass.

Gordon Clark March 11th, 2008 4:21 pm

Dear good2go -

The studies that say “could” or “may” regarding global warming effects are more likely than not the way that scientists need to couch their language. There is no question, in this particular case, that nitrogen fertilizer used to grow corn produces the negative effects being talked about. It’s been happening in the Chesapeake Bay, around where I live, for years, and the increase in corn production to produce mass amounts of ethanol will simply make it worse, no could or may about it.

Industrial agriculture is indeed a massively destructive practice that needs to be stopped, but you can never produce the billions and billions of gallons of ethanol our current driving habits require with small scale farming, so it is ultimately a sustainability question, as others above have noted. And using good arable land to produce fuel is going to increase food prices no matter what the crop, all the more so when you consider that global warming-induced droughts are going to make it harder and harder to grow crops.

Of course, in addition to driving less and using mass transit, we could easily convert a huge percentage of the global car fleet to electric vehicles, with the electricity derived from absolutely clean solar energy. And we already had good electric cars on the road in this country 10 years ago. Wanna guess who killed the program? (Rent and watch “Who Killed the Electric Car?” if you can’t guess yourself - it’s a great documentary.)

Greg R March 11th, 2008 4:31 pm

tonkatsu-Some of the fertilizer components are highly mobile, especially nitrogen, and move with rainfall as surface run-off or out of tile lines that drain off excess moisture and likewise find there way to the Mississippi. The fact that fertilizer prices are tremendously higher than just a couple of years ago helps by reducing the total volume of fertilizer applied. However, with very high grain prices, it still ‘pays’ to apply quite a bit of fertilizer. Farmers also have increased the use of nitrogen ’stabilizers’ and have gotten better at applying fertilizer in a more timely manner, but unfortunately this all seems like a drop in the bucket.

brontoburger March 11th, 2008 5:04 pm

corn ethanol = scam

Mike Corbeil March 11th, 2008 6:05 pm

I agree with Simple Sauce.

” Simple Sauce March 11th, 2008 11:52 am

… The problem is that our way of life is out of balance with the needs of the natural world that allows us to grow crops.

Only when we start living in a more sustainable way will the earth be able to sustain us.”

EVIDENTLY, MOST PEOPLE don’t want to go through thorough analysis and thereby arrive at this conclusion, that western-like societies have been long UNSUSTAINABLE! And it applies to more than only agri., while it is one of the most critical examples of lack of sustainability.

In farming, which I spent (and nearly full-time) two or three months learning about a few years ago, I learned of a few different ways that sustainable agri. can be practiced, and these methods are:

*) organic, which requires relatively expensive certification (and is often abused by unjustifiably demanding higher prices and/or falsely claiming ‘organic cert.’, f.e.);

*) permaculture; and,

*) other ‘environmentally friendly’ methods.

I believe permaculture probably (how probable?) is usually employed in the other two cases, but while I suppose they focus less on this than farmers who specifically focus on practicing the method. It doesn’t really cost more to farm in these three manners, as compared to using Big Chem.’s synthetics, crap; while seeds may cost initially more, intelligent farmers would get seeds from their first harvests and then use these free seeds for following seasons, which’d help offset any needs of hiring additional workers and/or for buying organic, fully natural fertilizers, the latter of which is perhaps not always needed. And when more workers are needed, then farmers who can afford to hire the number needed do good for society overall, for people who’d try to get such jobs typically are in the economic gutter, very low on the economic scale; and like is often said, “What goes around comes back around” too. Plus the cost of extra hands is offset by not needing large and expensive machinery, in addition to the related maintenance and operation costs.

In any case, NO good farmer can justify refusing to farm in only sustainable, healthy ways on the basis of cost prohibitiveness; NONE. It’s total bs for excuse; another Big Corp. LIE. And this means that there are absolutely no terms upon which refusal to conduct strictly healthy agri. methods can be justified.

ALL [INTELLIGENT] farmers would well know of and practice these types of farming methods. They would realise that they’ve been suckered and big time by charlatan-run corporations.

AS for HEMP being a crop that could be grown to produce ethanol, while also being excellent for other uses, like those listed in a post somewhere above this one, I’ve read that farming hemp is not something farmers can be assured of being able to do for long, for once a virus or fungus that attacks hemp is found in a hemp field, then that field purportedly is no longer good for growing hemp. Or maybe some research has found a solution for this, since I read of this a few years ago or so ?.

I’ve been impressed by the excellent uses hemp can be put to, but mass-scale cultivation would require a solution to this fungus or virus problem. The article I read said that a farmer might have a few successful years and then the nasty fungus or virus has “invaded”, putting an end to these fields being usable again for this crop. The reason stated was or is that once a hemp field has become infected with this “bug”, then it’ll keep happening again every season the same field is used for trying to grow hemp; although I’m not sure if that would be true if, f.e., once the field has become infected, then other crops would be grown in these fields for a few seasons, before trying with hemp again. Maybe the latter would work, though certainly and obviously not for farms growing only or mostly hemp; unless they have a lot of land and not all continguous, perhaps (?).

If it wasn’t for that problem, then govts could designate x-hundreds-of-thousands or -millions of acres as strictly being for growing hemp and for preventing larger numbers of farmers from also trying to get in for a piece of this “pie”. It’d make a good contribution in terms of sustainability, given the many excellent things hemp can be well used for; but they need to resolve the fungus or virus problem.

Maybe it’s related to rain or moisture, but I don’t recall enough of what the article specified, so am not sure what the cause or trigger is.

bobpomeroy March 11th, 2008 7:34 pm

I’m a physicsteacherguy’s kid, and you’re correct. I think the answer is over on the poetry blog back in today’s stuff. It’s going to take a lot of consistent trying, but there’s a sense of hope springing up around us.
Now back to corn and alcohol.
First we’re told that it uses more petroleum than it yields in alcohol, and it’s not a carbon solution anyway, but this Texas oilman is pushing it? Come on.
New Orleans was the main port for Havanna. They can grow more sugar cane into alcohol down there than we can grow corn, but noooo. We have the free-marketers in charge of the hen house. We ain’t speaking to Cuba anyway because there’s a Cold War. We don’t trade with people we disagree with or haven’t spoken to in years. Besides, it would take Halliburton to use the trade in alcohol or sugar cane through New Orleans to rebuild both it and the fuel sector. Don’tcha know? We’ve got all this government subsidized corn alcohol infrastructure in place, and we’re Free Traders so don’t be talking about sugar cane alcohol and Cuba and New Orleans around this administration. Besides, it isn’t really about fuel or corn-based drinking alcohol, it’s about being right. And we are right! (a faint effort at satire Jeff)
So, Mr physicsteacherguy, maybe just enough people believing in it will be enough. Maybe the largest hindrance to solving some of these problems is the total destruction of government credibility and it’s profoundly demoralizing effect on the body politic. We do nothing, invest nothing, give up the field to people like W (I’ve never liked him), and expect the worst so that we aren’t disappointed when it happens.
Time to get up and hope. We are after all, still America.

J D Smith March 11th, 2008 10:04 pm

Spend an hour or so at:

http://ericshevin.com/untoldstory/#INDEX

and the included links.

Marijuana and Hemp were given a bad rap to protect the owners of sythetic fiber patents.

willo March 11th, 2008 10:17 pm

It’s one big sewer and should be treated as such.

purvis ames March 12th, 2008 5:34 am

I don’t care whether ethanol is made from corn, switchgrass or hemp. Burning it will produce carbon emissions equivalent to burning fossil fuels and do nothing to slow global warming. Ethanol is just another scam to keep energy monopolized and turn attention away from clean non-monopolizable sources - wind, solar, wave, geothermal, fusion, etc.

Vince Lawrence March 12th, 2008 8:19 am

PhysicsTeacherGuy: What a simple and possibly workable solution
to nitrogen run-off from farmland. Do you know if this has been
tried anywhere? For those that don’t know: organic compost is
made by mixing nitrogen containing material and carbon containing
material in approximately a 40/60 ratio, the exact mix being
dependant upon the type of material used. For instance, at the
municipal composting facility composting municpal sewage sludge
that I worked at we mixed sludge from various sources with large
(approx. 1-1/2″ wood chips,) the large size of the chips was
to prevent “clumping” of the moist dense sludge and to create
air infiltration passageways, as the composting process is aerobic,
requiring oxygen.

Mike Corbeil: I’ve also been studying/researching renewable “biofuels”
for at least three years now, but haven’t heard of the fungus/virus
on hemp you talk about. Will follow up on this today. If true, the same problem
exists with the monoculturing of sunflowers, another source of oil-laden
seeds. Monoculturing of any crop is a potential problem and crop rotation
is a necessity for any sound agricultural strategy.

Don’t like to make long posts, but there is so much to discuss here.
Perhaps I should take all of the information I’ve accumulated in the
past three years and try to compose a piece that CD would accept,
though I haven’t had any luck with past submissions.

Mike - once again I apologize for wrecking the page on the No Sadam
Al Quida Link article.

USAn March 12th, 2008 8:55 am

A few misconceptions need to be busted here:

1. With current efficiency improvements, corn alchohol does produce much more energy than the inputs to make it.

2. Biofuels do not increase atmospherec CO2, because the carbon produced burning it is exactly offset by the carbon mass of crops grown to porduce it.

3. But food-grain based alchohol fuel is still unacceptable, as world food supplies are already critical and si it entails taking foor from starving people to fuel a rich-mans car - unacceptable, period.

good2go March 12th, 2008 9:08 am

USAN, read the book at alcoholcanbeagas.com and have a few other myths busted
food and fuel together, no conflicts, no monoculture, etc. There is no food shortage, there is just a money shortage to pay for the food. Check out Malawi, they grew all their food and exported some. Other stable govts can do the same. And check this out

http://biopact.com/2008/03/scientists-discover-genetics-of.html

This details the symbiotic relationship with plants and soil and how we can reduce fertilizer input. Funny, it’s in the book I mention too!

Gordon Clark
“but you can never produce the billions and billions of gallons of ethanol our current driving habits require with small scale farming”

No question we all have to use less fuel. But small scale farming can indeed have a big impact on food and fuel production. READ THE BOOK. Check out the crops- desert crops, cattails, etc. NOT your father’s or grandfather’s ethanol. And only sustainable biofuel production can reduce CO2. No other alternative energy source can make that boast.

Best everyone read the book first before repeating the drones of an undereducated media, most of whom accepts massive amounts of advertising from big oil and whose reporters don’t do their homework because they have deadline pressures

Greg R March 12th, 2008 9:55 am

Mike Corbeil- Your mention of virus or fungus attacking hemp brings to mind the problems of monoculture. Ultimately I would hope that a mix of perennials would give us ethanol/bio-diesel, along with an assortment of valuable byproducts. The perennials would allow us greater use of erosion prone land and decreased need for nitrogen as compared to corn. Preliminary research has been done on this with a favorable outlook.

Mr. Obvious March 12th, 2008 11:23 am

Here is a recent scientific article on global warming, just to stir the pot. It uses a little higher math so you might have to think.

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

PhysicsTeacherGuy March 11th, 2008 10:45 am

One day soon, someone will channel this farm runoff into wetlands, add organic materials like recycled paper, mechanically aerate it with a wind turbine, and discover that they’ve invented a soil farm. It will solve pollution problems and soil degradation problems.
Now, will this happen before we have an even greater disaster? I hope so. But I;m not holding my breath.

Craig
cheencheen March 11th, 2008 10:48 am

All this for corn ethanol - an inefficient energy source in the first place that is already devastating poor communities with rising food prices. Switchgrass ethanol would be efficient, would not require so much machinery and chemicals, wouldn’t mess with food prices, and thus wouldn’t be so destructive, but that wouldn’t be as profitable for agribusiness. Companies like Monsanto have a lot of money to buy politicians with. It’s a shame for all the voters who would like to participate in a democracy.
tonkatsu March 11th, 2008 11:10 am

The real question is Why do otherwise intelligent farmers Allow the erosion that is steadily destroying their farms, year after year?

If the farms weren’t being eroded, the fertilizer would remain in the Fields, helping their crops to grow and reducing their Costs.

So, why don’t they do something to Stop the runoff?
USAn March 11th, 2008 11:27 am

Maybe this is nit-picking, but the river in the picture is most definitely NOT the Mississippi. The terrain is way too arid. It looks like the Missouri in the Dakotas somewhere - or maybe the Columbia in western Washington?
BigLick March 11th, 2008 11:27 am

Wouldn’t the logical thing to do to stop corn ethanol be to NOT BUY IT??
whatfools March 11th, 2008 11:39 am

Wouldn’t the logical thing to do to stop corn ethanol be to drink it?
Simple Sauce March 11th, 2008 11:52 am

The problem here is more fundamental. It has to do with trying to make an unsustainable way of life look more sustainable. Ethanol (or any other biofuel) used to transport humans and our stuff as far, as fast, and as frequently as we currently do can never be produced in sustainable ways. The problem is that our way of life is out of balance with the needs of the natural world that allows us to grow crops.

Only when we start living in a more sustainable way will the earth be able to sustain us.
sjc_1 March 11th, 2008 11:53 am

The runoff from farms should be treated like any other pollutant. They have to divert the runoff from their fields and treat the water before releasing it. We did it with other industries and we will do it here. Tell the farm lobby to sit down, shut up and start doing what is required.
homeward-angel March 11th, 2008 12:42 pm

INDUSTRIAL HEMP PEOPLE!!! I-N-D-U-S-R-I-A-L H-E-M-P!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMarc March 11th, 2008 1:59 pm

Anything that leaves your land and effects others should be regulated like a pollutant. A farmer who’s runoff is killing the river should be paying damages to everyone downstream.

It doesn’t really matter which crop you use for ethanol, its going to effect food prices. For instance, lets say farmers were growing hemp for ethanol instead of corn, that would still effect corn prices. How? Well, if farmers are making more money growing hemp for fuel instead of corn for food, they’ll plant more hemp and less corn. Then you have less corn on the market and the price goes up. At some point, its the diversion of good crop land from food production to energy production that makes food prices rise.
bbr-001 March 11th, 2008 2:44 pm

Corn isn’t a renewable energy source. It takes more energy to make ethanol than it gives back. The susidies for this nonsense are driving up food, fuel and environmental mitigation costs.

Beyond stupid.
good2go March 11th, 2008 3:08 pm

You can have food and energy production at the same time, using permaculture and small scale ethanol
alcoholcanbeagas.com for more information
Industrial agriculture is to blame, not ethanol. Fight the power, the power is OIL! These reports add ammo to those who would keep us in fossil fuels.

Notice all the negative studies on ethanol say “IT COULD” or “IT MAY”. Not that it has… yet. All it takes is good system design.
CrazyCanuck March 11th, 2008 4:09 pm

homeward-angel - I am encouraged ( slightly) that more people are talking about Industrial Hemp. Superior fibre for clothing or paper, superior lubricating agent for engines, superior source for bio-diesel. All of this is attainable on marginal land, year after year after year. Just look at the industries and their lobbies and vested interests and it is not hard to see why Industrial Hemp is so opposed. Once again, North Americans, get your head out of your ass.
Gordon Clark March 11th, 2008 4:21 pm

Dear good2go -

The studies that say “could” or “may” regarding global warming effects are more likely than not the way that scientists need to couch their language. There is no question, in this particular case, that nitrogen fertilizer used to grow corn produces the negative effects being talked about. It’s been happening in the Chesapeake Bay, around where I live, for years, and the increase in corn production to produce mass amounts of ethanol will simply make it worse, no could or may about it.

Industrial agriculture is indeed a massively destructive practice that needs to be stopped, but you can never produce the billions and billions of gallons of ethanol our current driving habits require with small scale farming, so it is ultimately a sustainability question, as others above have noted. And using good arable land to produce fuel is going to increase food prices no matter what the crop, all the more so when you consider that global warming-induced droughts are going to make it harder and harder to grow crops.

Of course, in addition to driving less and using mass transit, we could easily convert a huge percentage of the global car fleet to electric vehicles, with the electricity derived from absolutely clean solar energy. And we already had good electric cars on the road in this country 10 years ago. Wanna guess who killed the program? (Rent and watch “Who Killed the Electric Car?” if you can’t guess yourself - it’s a great documentary.)
Greg R March 11th, 2008 4:31 pm

tonkatsu-Some of the fertilizer components are highly mobile, especially nitrogen, and move with rainfall as surface run-off or out of tile lines that drain off excess moisture and likewise find there way to the Mississippi. The fact that fertilizer prices are tremendously higher than just a couple of years ago helps by reducing the total volume of fertilizer applied. However, with very high grain prices, it still ‘pays’ to apply quite a bit of fertilizer. Farmers also have increased the use of nitrogen ’stabilizers’ and have gotten better at applying fertilizer in a more timely manner, but unfortunately this all seems like a drop in the bucket.
brontoburger March 11th, 2008 5:04 pm

corn ethanol = scam
Mike Corbeil March 11th, 2008 6:05 pm

I agree with Simple Sauce.

” Simple Sauce March 11th, 2008 11:52 am

… The problem is that our way of life is out of balance with the needs of the natural world that allows us to grow crops.

Only when we start living in a more sustainable way will the earth be able to sustain us.”

EVIDENTLY, MOST PEOPLE don’t want to go through thorough analysis and thereby arrive at this conclusion, that western-like societies have been long UNSUSTAINABLE! And it applies to more than only agri., while it is one of the most critical examples of lack of sustainability.

In farming, which I spent (and nearly full-time) two or three months learning about a few years ago, I learned of a few different ways that sustainable agri. can be practiced, and these methods are:

*) organic, which requires relatively expensive certification (and is often abused by unjustifiably demanding higher prices and/or falsely claiming ‘organic cert.’, f.e.);

*) permaculture; and,

*) other ‘environmentally friendly’ methods.

I believe permaculture probably (how probable?) is usually employed in the other two cases, but while I suppose they focus less on this than farmers who specifically focus on practicing the method. It doesn’t really cost more to farm in these three manners, as compared to using Big Chem.’s synthetics, crap; while seeds may cost initially more, intelligent farmers would get seeds from their first harvests and then use these free seeds for following seasons, which’d help offset any needs of hiring additional workers and/or for buying organic, fully natural fertilizers, the latter of which is perhaps not always needed. And when more workers are needed, then farmers who can afford to hire the number needed do good for society overall, for people who’d try to get such jobs typically are in the economic gutter, very low on the economic scale; and like is often said, “What goes around comes back around” too. Plus the cost of extra hands is offset by not needing large and expensive machinery, in addition to the related maintenance and operation costs.

In any case, NO good farmer can justify refusing to farm in only sustainable, healthy ways on the basis of cost prohibitiveness; NONE. It’s total bs for excuse; another Big Corp. LIE. And this means that there are absolutely no terms upon which refusal to conduct strictly healthy agri. methods can be justified.

ALL [INTELLIGENT] farmers would well know of and practice these types of farming methods. They would realise that they’ve been suckered and big time by charlatan-run corporations.

AS for HEMP being a crop that could be grown to produce ethanol, while also being excellent for other uses, like those listed in a post somewhere above this one, I’ve read that farming hemp is not something farmers can be assured of being able to do for long, for once a virus or fungus that attacks hemp is found in a hemp field, then that field purportedly is no longer good for growing hemp. Or maybe some research has found a solution for this, since I read of this a few years ago or so ?.

I’ve been impressed by the excellent uses hemp can be put to, but mass-scale cultivation would require a solution to this fungus or virus problem. The article I read said that a farmer might have a few successful years and then the nasty fungus or virus has “invaded”, putting an end to these fields being usable again for this crop. The reason stated was or is that once a hemp field has become infected with this “bug”, then it’ll keep happening again every season the same field is used for trying to grow hemp; although I’m not sure if that would be true if, f.e., once the field has become infected, then other crops would be grown in these fields for a few seasons, before trying with hemp again. Maybe the latter would work, though certainly and obviously not for farms growing only or mostly hemp; unless they have a lot of land and not all continguous, perhaps (?).

If it wasn’t for that problem, then govts could designate x-hundreds-of-thousands or -millions of acres as strictly being for growing hemp and for preventing larger numbers of farmers from also trying to get in for a piece of this “pie”. It’d make a good contribution in terms of sustainability, given the many excellent things hemp can be well used for; but they need to resolve the fungus or virus problem.

Maybe it’s related to rain or moisture, but I don’t recall enough of what the article specified, so am not sure what the cause or trigger is.
bobpomeroy March 11th, 2008 7:34 pm

I’m a physicsteacherguy’s kid, and you’re correct. I think the answer is over on the poetry blog back in today’s stuff. It’s going to take a lot of consistent trying, but there’s a sense of hope springing up around us.
Now back to corn and alcohol.
First we’re told that it uses more petroleum than it yields in alcohol, and it’s not a carbon solution anyway, but this Texas oilman is pushing it? Come on.
New Orleans was the main port for Havanna. They can grow more sugar cane into alcohol down there than we can grow corn, but noooo. We have the free-marketers in charge of the hen house. We ain’t speaking to Cuba anyway because there’s a Cold War. We don’t trade with people we disagree with or haven’t spoken to in years. Besides, it would take Halliburton to use the trade in alcohol or sugar cane through New Orleans to rebuild both it and the fuel sector. Don’tcha know? We’ve got all this government subsidized corn alcohol infrastructure in place, and we’re Free Traders so don’t be talking about sugar cane alcohol and Cuba and New Orleans around this administration. Besides, it isn’t really about fuel or corn-based drinking alcohol, it’s about being right. And we are right! (a faint effort at satire Jeff)
So, Mr physicsteacherguy, maybe just enough people believing in it will be enough. Maybe the largest hindrance to solving some of these problems is the total destruction of government credibility and it’s profoundly demoralizing effect on the body politic. We do nothing, invest nothing, give up the field to people like W (I’ve never liked him), and expect the worst so that we aren’t disappointed when it happens.
Time to get up and hope. We are after all, still America.
J D Smith March 11th, 2008 10:04 pm

Spend an hour or so at:

http://ericshevin.com/untoldstory/#INDEX

and the included links.

Marijuana and Hemp were given a bad rap to protect the owners of sythetic fiber patents.
willo March 11th, 2008 10:17 pm

It’s one big sewer and should be treated as such.
purvis ames March 12th, 2008 5:34 am

I don’t care whether ethanol is made from corn, switchgrass or hemp. Burning it will produce carbon emissions equivalent to burning fossil fuels and do nothing to slow global warming. Ethanol is just another scam to keep energy monopolized and turn attention away from clean non-monopolizable sources - wind, solar, wave, geothermal, fusion, etc.
Vince Lawrence March 12th, 2008 8:19 am

PhysicsTeacherGuy: What a simple and possibly workable solution
to nitrogen run-off from farmland. Do you know if this has been
tried anywhere? For those that don’t know: organic compost is
made by mixing nitrogen containing material and carbon containing
material in approximately a 40/60 ratio, the exact mix being
dependant upon the type of material used. For instance, at the
municipal composting facility composting municpal sewage sludge
that I worked at we mixed sludge from various sources with large
(approx. 1-1/2″ wood chips,) the large size of the chips was
to prevent “clumping” of the moist dense sludge and to create
air infiltration passageways, as the composting process is aerobic,
requiring oxygen.

Mike Corbeil: I’ve also been studying/researching renewable “biofuels”
for at least three years now, but haven’t heard of the fungus/virus
on hemp you talk about. Will follow up on this today. If true, the same problem
exists with the monoculturing of sunflowers, another source of oil-laden
seeds. Monoculturing of any crop is a potential problem and crop rotation
is a necessity for any sound agricultural strategy.

Don’t like to make long posts, but there is so much to discuss here.
Perhaps I should take all of the information I’ve accumulated in the
past three years and try to compose a piece that CD would accept,
though I haven’t had any luck with past submissions.

Mike - once again I apologize for wrecking the page on the No Sadam
Al Quida Link article.
USAn March 12th, 2008 8:55 am

A few misconceptions need to be busted here:

1. With current efficiency improvements, corn alchohol does produce much more energy than the inputs to make it.

2. Biofuels do not increase atmospherec CO2, because the carbon produced burning it is exactly offset by the carbon mass of crops grown to porduce it.

3. But food-grain based alchohol fuel is still unacceptable, as world food supplies are already critical and si it entails taking foor from starving people to fuel a rich-mans car - unacceptable, period.
good2go March 12th, 2008 9:08 am

USAN, read the book at alcoholcanbeagas.com and have a few other myths busted
food and fuel together, no conflicts, no monoculture, etc. There is no food shortage, there is just a money shortage to pay for the food. Check out Malawi, they grew all their food and exported some. Other stable govts can do the same. And check this out

http://biopact.com/2008/03/scientists-discover-genetics-of.html

This details the symbiotic relationship with plants and soil and how we can reduce fertilizer input. Funny, it’s in the book I mention too!

Gordon Clark
“but you can never produce the billions and billions of gallons of ethanol our current driving habits require with small scale farming”

No question we all have to use less fuel. But small scale farming can indeed have a big impact on food and fuel production. READ THE BOOK. Check out the crops- desert crops, cattails, etc. NOT your father’s or grandfather’s ethanol. And only sustainable biofuel production can reduce CO2. No other alternative energy source can make that boast.

Best everyone read the book first before repeating the drones of an undereducated media, most of whom accepts massive amounts of advertising from big oil and whose reporters don’t do their homework because they have deadline pressures
Greg R March 12th, 2008 9:55 am

Mike Corbeil- Your mention of virus or fungus attacking hemp brings to mind the problems of monoculture. Ultimately I would hope that a mix of perennials would give us ethanol/bio-diesel, along with an assortment of valuable byproducts. The perennials would allow us greater use of erosion prone land and decreased need for nitrogen as compared to corn. Preliminary research has been done on this with a favorable outlook.
Mr. Obvious March 12th, 2008 11:23 am

Here is a recent scientific article on global warming, just to stir the pot. It uses a little higher math so you might have to think.

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)