About ethanol, May 2008
Frank W. James farms. He blogs about his love of farming and delight in gun ownership on Corn, beans, spent brass, an empty page and a deadline. During a recent trip to California he encountered those disillusioned with developing ethanol as a fuel. They found rising food prices too much to pay.
A year or two ago ethanol was the new darling save-the-planet battle cry of the global warming crowd. Congress bought in, and funded ethanol plants and related programs. Tree huggers wept for joy.
Only now there are some uncomfortable findings. Instead of saving the atmosphere from releasing the ‘cached’ carbon of oil, gas, and coal, ethanol only reduces the amount of fossil carbon required. By the time all the transport, processing, and farming are counted, there is a slight energy deficit in using ethanol.
Then NASA released their minor little study that tree huggers ignore religiously. It seems every planet in the solar system is warming up. Burning coal and oil isn’t causing global warming at all. Nor is Al Gore, thank goodness.
Brazil enjoys a worldwide admiration for turning to ethanol. What they gained, though, wasn’t reduction of carbon emissions - not when they burned 1,000 square miles of rain forest last year, according to them - they gain national security. They don’t need mideast oil.
We cannot do what Brazil did. We cannot pull 1,000 square miles of new farmland out of the air, each year. We are also unlikely to be shipping farmers in to help the effort (Mom tells me several Northwest Iowa farmers are wintering over in Brazil, to farm their season before coming home to farm ours.)
The cost of ethanol will likely never drop below that of oil/gasoline. There is no market mechanism to separate the two commodities, and those invested are unlikely to change that.
Like many recycling programs, it appears that only government subsidies will make ethanol appear to pay for itself.
Here in Oklahoma, there are farmers around me that planted corn to sell for ethanol this year, rather than other crops that looked (at the time) to bring in less cash.
Fuel costs are changing the way some of my neighbors work, what crops they are willing to plant. Costs of custom work are skyrocketing as are food and livestock feed bills. Everyone seems to be reducing amount of equipment as much as possible, turning to low-tillage techniques, hiring some work done. Several farmers always got together to bale, rather than everyone own their own. Now so few own a baler that most baling is done for hire - and the prices are skyrocketing. A couple years ago I had hay cut for $6 and acre, and large round bales baled for $6 a bale. Last fall it was $10 and $10, and prices this spring are even higher. This has a direct effect on food prices - farmers here are cutting back on the number of cows they run. Beef prices historically never change that much, so the assumption is you keep the costs low, or stop raising cows and calves. And beef and other protein source food prices go up as the supply is reduced.
Agribusiness has always been about making money. Plant the crops expected to sell the best at harvest. Pick the seed sources that seem best suited for the expected weather that year. Pick a few strains or crops that would take advantage of likely changes in the weather or market forecast, or provide a useful rotation crop to keep the ground in good condition. So the allure of ethanol markets have a big impact on farmers, many of which changed a field or three to ethanol corn.
And then we have the insanity of patented seeds. Well, the patents I don’t mind that much, it keeps lawyers busy. But the seed companies got Congress and the courts to outlaw planting anything but patented seed, essentially. Grain elevator companies cannot sell wheat or other grain for seed, if it arrived from a field. Only if it arrived in patented bags. We had a screwy spring here in Northern Oklahoma, and neighbors wanting to plant oats - cannot. There isn’t any in the area. The seed companies didn’t plan to make any extra available, and no one else is allowed to provide oats for planting. This kind of pre-season shenanigans is having a nasty impact on food and feed prices, too.
So some of ethanol still shows advantage. Congress has already spent the money for processing plants and programs, so we just as well continue down that road awhile. Replacing foreign oil with ethanol, especially if we can use ethanol and bio-diesel to run the Department of Defense machinery, would help the balance of trade, reduce the influence of OPEC on our economy, and improve our security.
But the mixed environmental story means the protesters and tree huggers aren’t as supportive of the concept.
Frank points out that urban sprawl displaces crop land - reducing the amount of ground available for raising crops. (High-tension power lines and highways also cut up and displace farm ground.) Urban sprawl also destroys old-growth forest. Which changes weather patterns, above and below ground water flows, and atmosphere quality in surrounding regions.
I imagine the best way to satisfy tree huggers and environmentalists is to advocate orchards - hazelnuts are said to produce more food per acre than other crops. Grazing cattle, goats, and pigs under pecan trees makes use of windfalls. I can see it now, cottage industries in charcoal and pecan butter. Maybe keep cows and horses for transport and manure for fertilizer. Won’t that excite the people worried about how urban sprawl raises food prices!