Hi MM > >I don't know if he reads the list, but this article is dated 22 > >August 2001. It's here: > >http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01a.htm > >I have read this before, but hadn't revisited it in awhile. I think >you will enjoy tying some of this in with an article that came up the >other day: > >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020530/sc_nm/envi >ronment_organic_dc_1 > >----------------- > >""But mean energy input per hectare (2.4 acres) was about 50 percent >higher (in conventional plots). As a consequence, energy input per >crop unit is lower in organic." > >"Energy input includes fuel used to produce fertilizer and pesticides, >and the actual ingredients of such chemicals. Mader's team found 34 to >51 percent less nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients were added >to the soil in the organic systems than in the conventional ones. > >"But, because the crop yields from the organic systems were 80 percent >as large conventional yields, the organic systems use resources more >efficiently, they concluded. > >---------------- > >So, I think it would be *really* interesting to re-do the >ethanol-production calculations, using the amount of energy put into a >given amount of organically produced corn, according to the numbers >presented in this study. > >Just this one paragraph, for example, would take on a different >meaning: > >"According to USDA, fertilizer accounts for about 45% of the energy >required to grow, harvest corn. Pimentel ignores publicly available >information supplied by the US fertilizer industry trade association >regarding the energy efficiency of the U.S. fertilizer industry and >instead assumes that it performs like a third-world industry in >accordance with a UN FAO world average analysis. He thus assumes a >pound of US fertilizer nitrogen requires 33,500 BTU to produce today, >while the US Industry actually used only 22,600 BTU in1987 according >to The Fertilizer Institute."
You're quite right. I've pointed this out quite a few times, and said that it's something else that Pimental surely must know, since he sets himself up as a sustainable farming expert. These figures are very conservative though. I certainly wouldn't be very proud of them, of neither the inputs nor the yields. Maybe not too bad for the first year under an organic regime. It rather depends what you mean by "organic". One US organic farmer makes a distinction between "organic by substitution" (substituting "organic" for "chemical" inputs, which is usually high-input low-output), "organic by neglect" (self-evident, low-input low-output) and "organic by management" (real organics, low-input high-output). On an "organic by management" farm the energy inputs would be much lower and the yields the same as or more than industrialised farming yields (which has no right to call itself "conventional"). This is not theoretical, it's rather commonplace. So a best-current-practice scenario would be even more interesting, and certainly not leave the likes of Pimental with a lot of legs to stand on. But he just doesn't seem to care about getting his feet shot off. His integrity is very much in question, IMO. Interesting too is the exercise itself - there's just no way of running different sets of figures like that on fossil-fuel efficiencies, is there? No matter what sort of hidden and unhidden subsidies you might chuck its way. This is interesting: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=12561&list=BIOFUEL >------------- > >Another issue is some dissection of the form of energy. For example: >let's say you plough a field with a tractor and consumer x amount of >energy. But let's say the tractor is powered by E-85. Then while the >amount of energy may stay roughly the same, dramatically less fossil >fuel is used. > >While this does not change the energy equation (BTU of Ethanol >produced/BTU used in production of Ethanol) it does seem to reduce the >net amount of fossil fuel used in the production of ethanol. I guess >then you'd be effectively using your product up rather than sending >it to market, but somehow I've always thought that this "closing of >the loop" is an under-emphasized idea. I think it's an absolutely valid point. It also reduces the net amount of fossil fuel used overall. It's a bit hard to find figures but it seems to be entirely possible to power the farming operation on ethanol (or biofuels generally, including ethanol) and still have ethanol left to export from the farm. I believe the more mixed the farm (ie the more sustainable) the more that's the case. The low-input part of low-input high-output "organic by management" farming applies to energy too. I'd call that integrated farming, "organics" doesn't mean much these days. I just ate an "organic" banana from Mexico, bought in Osaka Japan. In other words it complied with the organics standards of both Mexico and Japan, but no way is it organic, not with thousands of food miles behind it. Organic is local. Something else that doesn't get calculated. Regards Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Kwick Pick opens locked car doors, front doors, drawers, briefcases, padlocks, and more. On sale now! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
