Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Experts divided on the environmental impact of second-generation biofuels

By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor

ST. LOUIS, Mo. — What would be the environmental result of growing feedstock for non-corn and non-soybean biofuel, and how far should the United States get into this “second generation biofuel” production, such as cellulosic ethanol?

Several speculated on these questions at the “Transition to a Bio Economy” conference in St. Louis in mid-October. One topic brought up repeatedly was global warming and greenhouse gases (GHG) – most notably, carbon dioxide – many scientists believe contribute to it.

Plants and soil store carbon; when burned or otherwise disturbed (such as through tilling), carbon gases are released into the atmosphere. This traps heat. The question some of the researchers and policymakers at this conference had is how much making biofuel cuts down on the amount of carbon dioxide and other GHGs released into the air, as compared to petroleum.

“If you look … at the ways of making ethanol out there, there’s actually quite a spread of GHG emissions,” said Bill Hohenstein, director of USDA’s Global Change Program Office.

He said the benchmark is for ethanol to create 19 percent fewer emissions than fossil fuels, but that this is not an industry standard. Emissions aren’t confined to a vehicle burning the fuel – there’s also the process of farming (tilled soil, adding fertilizer, what a tractor and combine give off while burning fuel to run), transportation to and from an ethanol plant and creation of the fuel itself.

With biofuel, he sees the chance to trim GHG emissions. With corn ethanol, Hohenstein said growers could improve and/or reduce their application of fertilizer, plant cover crops and switch to conservation tillage. With cellulosic ethanol, he said there are grasses and perennial feedstocks that can restore degraded lands; too, harvesting small-diameter woody plants for fuel could reduce a local fire hazard.

“There’s significant opportunities out there on the farm side to improve GHG emissions,” he added. “Greenhouse gases have been, until recently, an afterthought.”

Land use

Still, as population grows, food will remain important to land use. Hohenstein said China’s dependence on soybeans, for example, will continue to grow “astronomically” until by 2016, the country will be importing 80 percent of what it consumes. As the demand for commodities increases, so will pressure to create more farmland to grow it.

He said researchers need to address land productivity, not just availability. Deforestation to create more farmland – such as in South America – also adds to GHG emissions.

This is one of the “significant” indirect GHG emissions impacts of land use change, explained Robert Larson, associate director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Transportation and Climate Division. Other examples he cited are increased carbon-based inputs to grow more corn instead of soybeans, and changes in livestock inventory because of feed prices and availability.

John Reilly, associate director for research in the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wonders if cellulosic biofuel can power the world.

The “key question as we go forward,” he said, is whether nations will need to convert non-farmland to crops or find ways to increase production on existing cropland, to provide enough food and fuel.
“Is biofuel a net benefit or a net negative?” he asked. “We think the U.S. would be a better producer of grain and feeds in the world, rather than biofuels stock.”

He explained we would have to become a “huge importer” of food in order to plant enough biofuel feedstock to produce the energy we will need, and that it would be better to import some biofuel instead of more food.

Fuel security

Conference attendee Gary Clark, senior director of marketing for the Missouri Corn Growers Assoc., asked how importing biofuel is supposed to help the U.S. attain energy security. Reilly believes biofuel production does not offset the usage of petroleum gasoline, and that it adds to carbon emissions.

He added the current political rhetoric about biofuel is not in line with what is realistic about ensuring domestic energy security, and that under the next president perhaps the EPA will get to rethink what he calls an “ill conceived” energy security mandate.

“We have to be a little less narrow in our thinking” about creating a biofuel niche for the American farmer, Reilly said, and instead, perhaps focus more on food production for global trade.

Larson said the federal renewable fuel standards (RFS) mandate leans heavily on non-food biofuel for the future, with its eventual cap on corn ethanol and encouragement of cellulosic ethanol manufacturing.

“It truly is for energy independence,” he said of the RFS and the Energy Independence and Security Act that Congress passed last year. “That’s the theme of it.”

To choose the best land use options, especially for biofuel, Larson said the government should know the GHG values for each potential fuel “pathway” in the U.S. – dry mill ethanol, wet mill corn ethanol, coal, natural gas – and the international impact of reduction in U.S. food production and exports, in favor of increasing domestic biofuel plantings.

The EPA is compiling a proposal it will publish this month, detailing such impacts by 2022 resulting from the RFS enacted last year. This report, he said, is in keeping with President Bush’s directive to reduce domestic petroleum usage 20 percent within 10 years.
“It’s 400 pages right now,” Larson quipped, “but it’s wonderful reading.”

The final federal rule-making from this information should be made next summer, he added.

11/5/2008