Food-fuel debate
As discussed in the last column, the price of corn and soybeans has soared as the result of the massive investment of the biofuel industry and the support of the Bush administration. With all that cash flowing into farm communities in the Corn Belt it is not hard to understand the temptation to keep on growing those cash crops year after year abandoning the constraints of the crop rotation system, despite the negative impacts on the environment.
Nature is a mysterious force and the functioning of the nitrogen cycle is great example. Soybean plants are legumes which have bacteria or nodules on the roots. The bacteria in the nodules take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the soil where other plants that require nitrogen, like corn, can absorb the nutrient. To maintain a healthy nitrogen cycle, crops must be rotated. A two-year cycle is the most common, that is, soy and corn, but a four-year cycle ”“ meaning a soy, corn, alfalfa, wheat rotation ”“ is said to create the highest yields and serves to maintain soil health without additional fertilizer. Treated properly, the earth maintains the fertile land we need. However, farmers, trying to get the last bushel out of every acre, frequently add fertilizer anyway falling under the influence of the chemical manufacturers who have little faith in the natural systems.
It is not hard to understand the farmers”™ interest in maximizing the profit available in the ethanol craze by skipping the rotation system and just growing corn, but the price for that strategy is extraordinarily high. To replace what nature provides so well, large amounts of chemical nitrogen fertilizer must be added to maintain the output. This results in ground and river pollution, contributing to the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. Aquifer contamination by nitrate is widespread and at dangerously high levels in many rural regions.
Industry”™s attempt to control the natural world in order to increase the bottom line has created all manner of unintended consequences. Take the practice of confining grass-feeding animals in feedlots so that they can be force-fed grains, which their systems are not designed to digest easily. Because feedlots are exceptionally crowded there is a need for massive use of antibiotics, which, in turn is contributing to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans. If that weren”™t enough, the meat produced by this unnatural process is less nutritious. The reason for abandoning the natural habitat for raising cattle has been the availability of massive amounts of cheap corn caused by the aforementioned misguided Farm Bill policies. The government has had to find ways to get rid of all that grain and feeding grass-eating animals cheap corn was one way. However, another avenue for getting rid of excessive corn supplies was to encourage food processors to include the ingredient in almost every processed food we eat. Hence, the product that fattens up the beef we eat is also fattening up the entire population. There may be a plus side to expensive corn. If depending on corn becomes too expensive to feed cattle dare we hope that they are allowed to return to their grass-feeding habits and thus create a far healthier product. Or maybe not.
The famous scream from Mexico caused by the soaring cost of tortillas gave a bit of material to the late-night comedy shows but did little to explain why there was a scream. It all goes back to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which was supposed to raise all boats, so to speak. Cheap corn flooding into Mexico from the U.S., however, undermined Mexico”™s domestic corn sector, forcing many Mexican farmers off their land. Two million agricultural jobs were lost while U.S. corn exports to Mexico increased 240 percent. Could there be a connection to the flood of Mexican immigrants coming over the border? Another unintended consequence?
Contrary to those promoting “green fuels,” the massive cultivation of corn, sugar cane, soybean, palm oil and other fuel crops being pushed by the industry, all to be genetically engineered, will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, if all American corn and soybean production were dedicated to biofuels, that fuel would only replace 12 percent of gas demand and 6 percent of diesel demand. Nonetheless, the rush to get on the biofuels bandwagon is gaining ground internationally. Two studies in the latest issue of the journal Science take on the boosters of corn ethanol by claiming that, far from reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) by one-fifth, ethanol production actually doubles the output of GHG emissions. What has not been factored in to the rosy picture pushed by the ethanol industry is the change in land-use precipitated by the rush to make money on the production of ethanol. The decision by farmers worldwide to convert forest and grasslands to grow feedstock changes the equation rather significantly when one considers the CO2 released by removing tree cover and natural vegetation, called “carbon sinks.” Furthermore, changes in land-use can result in food shortages and reduced biodiversity. Even if biofuels are grown on cropland previously used to grow food, farmers tend to then clear other forests and grasslands in order to grow the food elsewhere. Clearing land in Brazil to grow sugar cane and draining and clearing peatlands in Malaysia and Indonesia to grow palm oil results in the same increase in GHG emissions, rather than the reduction promised by the biofuel industry.
The material just described further underlines the profound negatives of trying to solve problems on the basis of political expediency resulting in countless unintended consequences. No peer-reviewed studies demonstrated the unassailable benefits of biofuels and certainly no examination of the negative effects on global farming patterns were factored in to the administration”™s wholesale backing of corn ethanol. Those studies that did question the benefits were dismissed as not giving a true picture of the benefits of ethanol. Billions of dollars have been spent chasing “goat feather””™ as my father used to say. When will we learn? Next time ”“ “It takes energy to make energy ”“ Right?”