Hello again Luis

<snip>

>Something needs to be corrected from your message is that:
>We have never used genetically modified sugar cane plants
>We have never used genetically modified yeast
>We do not endorse and have never used or recommended the use of genetically
>modified seeds, plants or any other organism.
>
>Kindly please review our posts and you will not find any reference to GMO.

It doesn't make much difference. GMOs can be a bit of a red herring. 
Not that the big red danger sign that's attached to them is wrong or 
misleading, far from it, but it can lead the uninitiated to the 
simplistic idea that GMOs = bad and therefore no-GMOs = good. But 
GMOs are just one symptom of an unsustainable and wasteful 
industrialised agriculture system without which there would either be 
no GMOs or there would be GMOs of a very different and much more 
useful and safer type (for which we still hold out hope).

As one case in point among too many, there were no GMOs associated 
with the so-called "Green Revolution" based on so-called "HYV" hybrid 
strains of grain - "High-Yielding Varieties", actually High Response 
Varieties bred for their response to chemical inputs, and eventually 
for their resistance to the very high levels of pesticides required 
to grow them at all. The damage to communities, small farmers and the 
poor, and to the environment wrought by the "Green Revolution" was 
and is horrific, despite the superficialities of improved yields and 
efficiency - your criteria. And in fact the HYVs did not outyield 
crops of ordinary, traditional varieties grown by good organic 
methods, without any inputs at all - and without being tied to the 
need to keep buying the hybrid seeds from the likes of Monsanto, 
because they didn't breed true. The farmers provided their own seeds 
from the previous crop, as ever.

The real criticism of your ethanol scheme and your GADA sugar system, 
Luis, doesn't have to do with whether or not you use GMOs, it's of 
the system itself - see my previous response to you, and P.V. 
Pannrselvam's response to you - criticisms to which you have not 
responded. The one-size-fits-all, magic-bullet,"best"-technology, 
"best"-crop, industrialised approach just doesn't work, GMOs or not. 
(For your convenience I've put my earlier response back, below, as 
P.V. Pannrselvam had it - no doubt you snipped it to save bandwidth, 
eh? LOL!)

To come back to your yeast, it has this in common with the "Green 
Revolution" hybrids: "The above described yeast & technology are 
available on a royalty fee basis." Exit, therefore, that much local 
self-reliance, and therefore your H-S L-E Yeast and Process as 
Appropriate Technology. Regardless of "yield" and "efficiency", local 
strains that do not have to be imported from outside and that do not 
render the community dependent on outside inputs will always be 
superior.

Also, I really don't know what to make of your sales brochure, which 
claims such high levels of expertise yet talks of "20 deg. Brix" and 
"32-35 deg. Brix" and so on. Brix levels are percentages, not degrees.

>Your comments will honour me again.

They didn't exactly honour you the last time.

Keith Addison



>With warmest regards,
>
>Luis R. Calzadilla
>VP Operations
>Fundaci˜n Sugar Cane Research Org.
>Cali, Colombia
>Tel (572) 557-0627
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: pan ruti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:13 PM
>Subject: RE: [biofuel] Re: Ethanol from sugar cane:Thebest and worst
>technolgy
>
>
>  I   being  dedicated research worker in Brazil  with PhD  in  Biochemical
>engineering  from India  about alcohol production from biomass from  one of
>the best research center in  Asia in 1980 , carefully following  the state
>of art  this technology  several decads,feel  that the views of the Keith
>is  ecological and Luiz , genetic engineering  which are totally  totally
>different.Even though  I  belonged  unfortunately  this  breed of the
>higher  caste of  biotechnology tribes with limited kespealized kwnowelge
>like Dr luiz , I am  fortunate enough to leave away  this caste.In india it
>is not possible to change the caste because they say genetica nad god made ,
>but with the interation of the active  yahoo   biofuel group (high quality ,
>vey ha limited  experts group  and making great effort to  become an
>ecological engineering student , rather than  to have limited specialist
>approach  like one that of Dr Luiz  approach   of genetic engineering ,
>transgenics and hybrids .The
> biotechnology experts in general  do not try to see all aspects and
>understand  what is  natural ,simple , decentralized ecological system , not
>even  this natural ecological system developments.
>
>   In  Brazil , all high  yielding projects  of fruits  and any crop   lead
>to total collapse of  the lands water leading  to degradation of  lands.
>   The insects devastations  of mono crops of the Cotton  has lead to
>billion dollars until now  the real  reason for the poverty  of the  people
>who were rich  10 years ago.Yet no biotechnology experts has introduced new
>one here.
>
>    Brazil has  high yielding cassava , which can produce twice the
>alcohol.Yet, not able to make it possible  reality , as they used the same
>method to implement as that of  luiz , with enorme waste of money  eventhouh
>this has higher productivity , 2 time that of cane per ha.
>     In India a lot  of alcohol made  in home scale micro distillery using
>biomass energy  cheaper and village leval pot distillation technolgy , with
>out any cane at all , using the palm tree can  help to make arrack killing
>people as food can be used as biofuel.No patent is there , not much
>literature, but every uneducated can make the biofuel.
>
>    This can be the best technology  as the yeast there can ferment everty
>thing.The best and  worst technolgy are very relative , change place to
>place.
>
> Dr luiz  really need to rethink  again  that the problem  of food , fuel
>,fertilizer, feed and food are inter connected to make  the whole thing work
>in Argo industrial system.Only one canot  be the best  system  to all the
>people , to all the country for all the the  time the best.
>
>    Biodiversity is less kwnown to many like Dr.Luiz. Any   less educated
>people  like  native tribal Indians  knows very well that  imported one; the
>hybrid, the transgenic, genetically modified are not better than naturally
>adopted local variety created by nature. There is great  debate in Brazil
>every where now a days   about the  way  the  biotechnology experts groups
>are trying to have rapid quick technological anda economical developments ,
>in sustainablel for long time where the future generations  food and energy
>cannot be assured , as if matter the  present generation.
>
>   Again , I  as an scientific  researcher on  behave of of the many of the
>members  fully agree with the Keith and wish that  our group need to focus
>the is so com objective  and  not an attack of personnel views and opinions.
>with out any base  and truth.
>
>      I am sure that   my words represent the views of  many members who do
>not have time  not even to read all the important so many  biofuel
>information, imagine  how they can reply .
>
>   Once  Again  best wishes Keith keep it up the correct critical
>ecological thinking.
>Your hard working  dedicated work can only be well understood to all the
>less developed one as you become the part  and parcel of it.When this large
>starving people can made his own food and fuel with  out importing fuel
>using the road map  our group make , there can be great green future for all
>.
>
>Sorry for my poor English, as I am way 20 years without the contact with the
>language .
>
>
>     For all the members  the  best wishes and    the new happy yaer to all
>our biofuel group.
>
>Thanking you
>
>Truely
>
>P.V.Pannrselvam
>
>
>>Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Luis R. Calzadilla wrote:
>>
>> >Wrong Keith:
>>
>> >You are wrong again Keith when you issue the following statement:
>>
>> >Wrong again, Keith when you utter:
>>
>> >Keith, who told you all the above?
>>
>> >Now, in reference to the yeast, you are wrong again, dear Keith:
>>
>> >Sorry Keith, but you have failed on all counts.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Heard it all before Luis, so many times, seen it all before too. I
>>did expect this sort of response from you, it's fairly obvious that
>>your thinking is locked to the industrialised, centralised, top-down,
>>"best-technology" approach to both crop and energy production which
>>is primarily what has brought us to this sorry pass we're in today
>>with both issues.
>>
>>I've seldom found people embedded in this kind of thinking who're
>>able to prise their way out of it easily, nor will even attempt to,
>>because they almost invariably resist anything that might shake their
>>overconfidence in it - as with, most infamously, any knowledge of the
>>victims, in their many millions, who tend to remain the
>>"beneficiaries" in their thinking. "Beneficiaries RIP". It seems you
>>haven't seen it, but I have, though you seem to assume I'm just
>>spouting what wrongheaded people have told me - and I seem to think
>>you've never really had a good look at what actually goes on on the
>>other side of the research station fence, though you think you have.
>>You can't see past the "highest yields", the maximised "efficiency" -
>>and that, Luis, is not a vision of how things can and should be, it's
>>peculiar a type of blindness. "The Best is the enemy of the Good."
>>
>>Who told me these things, you ask? The first people who told me them
>>were independent development workers trying to repair some of the
>>horrendous damage inflicted on the populace and the environment by
>>the kind of "best-technology" one-crop-solution approach you espouse,
>>in Negros Occidental, the main sugar-growing area of the Philippines,
>>more than 20 years ago. One thing they were doing was growing very
>>superior sugar crops, and other crops, without the use of any NPK
>>fertilizers, nor of any other off-farm inputs. True independence for
>>growers - but not via your route, that's just what had caused the
>>problems.
>>
>>Read on...
>>
>> >On January 13th, Keith wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Luis, I've wanted to say so a few times in response to your posts -
>> > > IMO the big hole in your scheme is your exclusive concentration on
>> > > sugar. It's no use telling me that it's the best crop for this or
>> > > that reason or scores of reasons: THERE IS NO BEST CROP.
>> > > Which crop is "best" depends entirely on the local circumstances,
>> > > which vary widely: a higher-yielding crop might not in the end
>> > > produce better results - better overall results - than a lower-yielding
>> > > one which local farmers grow, are familiar with and which has other
>> > >,benefits for them and their farming systems and their communities.
>> >
>> > > Yield is not everything, and too often it's claimed to be everything
>> > > while the adverse effects on other parts of the system (it's a system)
>> > > of achieving that high yield are concealed, or not even noticed.
>> >
>> > > Unless you diversify your scheme to include other crops and other
>> > > possibilities, you'll only be making the classic top-down, centralist
>> > > mistake of fitting the project to the technology instead of the other
>> > > way round - a mistake that has cost many millions of people most
>> > > dearly, while the technology promoters often remain unaware of that
>> > > and go right on promoting their technology and its "benefits".
>> >
>> >Wrong Keith:
>> >
>> >We are talking about producing an alternative fuel which is ethanol,
>> >fuel ethanol, that calls firstly to produce fermentable sugars, and,
>> >secondly, to convert those fermentable sugars into ethanol and other
>> >valuable by-products (PLease, do not ignore the other stream of additional
>> >value-added by-products).
>>
>>Luis, we're just a little bit beyond equating "fermentable sugars"
>>and sugar-cane, eh? Don't be so ingenuous.
>>
>>I NEVER ignore the by-products in any process - but YOUR approach
>>ignores them in demanding that ethanol production must use
>>sugar-cane. The almost infinite variety of local agricultural
>>production systems that you would adapt to your system rather than
>>the other way round is fraught with "by-products" that you would
>>either fail to notice or downgrade as "insignificant", subordinating
>>them to the priorities of your system. These are by-processes and
>>by-products carefully adapted to the needs and requirements of those
>>particular farms operating in that particular environment within that
>>particular community with its own particular requirements - but it's
>>mere clutter and inefficiency, it's unscientific, dump it all, do it
>>the BEST way, the most efficient way... and then ignore all the
>>"unforeseeable side-effects", um, collateral damage, er,
>>"Beneficiaries RIP". Seen it all before, too many times.
>>
>> >There is one "best" way to produce ethanol, there is a "worst" way to
>> >produce ethanol and there are many, many shades in between.
>>
>>Wrong Luis, as with all else: there is no best way, there is only the
>>way that fits best, which turns out to be as many "best" ways as
>>there are different situations in which they're implemented, and
>>they're ALL different. *The* best way to produce fuel ethanol is
>>independent of any particular feedstock, technology or proprietory
>>strain of yeast. That is when fuel ethanol is one among several
>>different bio-energy options produced from the various by-products
>>yielded by the ever-shifting cropping patterns of a mixed,
>>integrated, sustainable farm - which is a *small* farm (much more
>>efficient than big farms), with low to zero inputs from off-farm,
>>including technology inputs. No place for GADA on such a farm. The
>>yield and productivity per acre cannot be beaten nor even approached
>>by the GADA system or any other such system, because the amount of
>>land dedicated to fuel production is ZERO.
>>
>> >The "best" (meaning the most efficient)
>>
>>:-) I don't think you'll ever see it Luis, your idea of efficient is
>>much too narrow. What's truly efficient is what suits the farmer and
>>his farming system best, and super-efficient ethanol production is
>>unlikely to be it. "Adapting" the farm to fit such an "efficiency",
>>or imposing such an "efficient" system on top of such farming systems
>>(all agricultural areas are complex networks of such systems, where
>>agribusiness hasn't already displaced and destroyed them), will no
>>doubt sometimes produce the results you propose, at the cost of
>>massive externalised inefficiencies in the major functions of the
>>farming system, which are to produce food. (Not commodities - FOOD,
>>stuff people eat.)
>>
>> >way to produce ethanol, anywhere in
>> >the world, calls for obtaining the maximum possible amount of fermentable
>> >sugars from each unit of land in a sustainable fashion, with minimal inputs
>> >of water, fertilizers, labor, and in the shortest possible time; It also
>> >must increase soil's fertility, microbial population and organic 
>>matter with
>> >each crop; It must also enhance the population of Nitrogen fixing organisms
>> >in the soil and in the plant tissues in order to reduce chemical N input;
>>
>>I'll agree with you that it's a fool who buys N, if that's what 
>>you're saying.
>>
>> >It
>> >must look for the cane varieties that best capture and use 
>>sunlight; It also
>> >must even look for the presence and distribution of miniscule "leaf hairs"
>> >that interfere with some plant  functions.
>>
>>:-) Tell it to Elaine Ingham at www.soilfoodweb.com Luis. She'll
>>laugh at you, same as me.
>>
>> >The GADA System looks also for the creation of a biological environment
>> >where decease and pests cause the minimal damage;
>> >It also looks for the creation of stress-free conditions that lead
>> >the cane sugar plants to an early inflorescence that consume sugars
>> >and reduce the crop's output.
>>
>>There ain't no stress-free conditions in an industrialised monocrop.
>>Cane-sugar is actually a grass. Grass grows best in company with
>>legumes and deep-rooting herbs, and requires also the presence, even
>>if indirectly, of animals in the system. I doubt you know how to
>>produce and maintain the kind of rich soil micro-populations that
>>might make up for the lack of these conditions. Deprived of which
>>your sugar-cane crops will not be stress-free without artificial
>>support. Exit sustainability.
>>
>> >The GADA Sugar Cane Production System is all the above, plus
>> >a lot more... about which, unfortunately, you know nothing yet.
>>
>>You'd be surprised.
>>
>> >The GADA Sugar Cane Production System has been developed over 15 years of
>> >dedicated research and work and has been field-tested for a decade already.
>>
>>Newbies reinventing the wheel, and it's not much of a wheel anyway. I
>>wrote this 20 years ago - you should have a look at it:
>>http://journeytoforever.org/keith_phsoil.html
>>Nutrient Starved Soils Lead To Nutrient Starved People
>>
>> >The GADA System fully complies with the objectives set forth in the
>> >preceeding paragraph
>> >
>> >You are wrong again Keith when you issue the following statement:
>> >
>> > >"There is no "best site in the world" either - the best site is the local
>> > > site."
>> >
>> >You are probably familiar with sugar cane yields world wide, are you?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>> >If you are, you should know that the following figures represent 
>>the average
>> >TM cane/hectare/season yields for some of the sugar cane producing
>> >countries:
>> >
>> >India              63
>> >Brazil            80
>> >Cuba             40
>> >Viet Nam      51
>> >South Africa 70
>> >Australia       70
>> >Guatemala    52
>> >Colombia    126      (2003 crop year)
>> >
>> >Please, compare the above numbers with the yields in TM//Ha obtained in
>> >Colombia when the GADA System is used:
>> >
>> >160 to 180 TM/13 mo  for cane to be processed for sugar production
>> >240 TM/12 months       for cane to be processed for ethanol
>> >
>> >Let it be known that the GADA Sugar Cane Production System can
>> >overcome (except for water availability and some other climatic
>> >site-specific conditions)  the local limitations that interfere with high
>> >sugar cane yields.
>>
>>Yields are not very relevant.
>>
>> >Low sugar cane yields can be attributed, worldwide, mainly to lack of
>> >knowledge in the art of sugar cane cultivation. There are too many
>> >misconceptions around the best ways to grow cane; There are too many voids
>> >in the knowledge base of cane cultivation, even amongst the
>> >largest sugar cane producers of the world.
>> >
>> >Any grower, as well as any country in the world, will be delighted at the
>> >possibility of increasing sugar cane production (and/or sugar) by unit of
>> >land by 50% or even by a smaller percentage, in a way that
>> >improves, at the same time also,  the soil's fertility.
>> >
>> >Could you please ask a Vitnameese sugar cane grower, for example, 
>>if he/she
>> >would welcome come 25 additional MT /Ha of sugar cane per season while
>> >improving upon the soil's structure, quality and fertility?
>> >
>> >Wrong again, Keith when you utter:
>> >
>> > > "Best best best, eh? There is no need for NPK fertilizers. Why do you
>> > > want to use unnecessary and costly inputs derived from fossil fuels
>> > > and part of an unsustainable agricultural production system to
>> > > produce biofuels you claim are sustainable?"
>> >
>> >Keith, who told you all the above?
>>
>>Among many others (let's put it this way: many MILLIONS of others
>>worldwide) I did, many times, in assessing the results of my farming
>>systems work and other people's farming systems work, and the farming
>>systems work done by the scientists at the institutes I've worked for
>>and with, and so on and on and on.
>>
>>Millions:
>>
>>"Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New
>>Evidence" Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex
>>http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEWexecsummfinalreport.htm
>>
>>"47 Portraits of Sustainable Agriculture Projects and Initiatives"
>>Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex
>>http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEW47casessusag.htm
>>
>> >You can not produce healthy crops of sugar cane or of any other crop if you
>> >do not have in the soil the sufficient amounts of NPK, Sulfur, Calcium,
>> >Magnesium, Iron, Copper, Boron, Molybdenum, Zinc, Cobalt and, sometimes,
>> >Silica for the plants to daw on. Not only that, those elements must be
>> >present and available to the plants in the right proportion but 
>>at the right
>> >time also.  Any deficiencies in the chemical balance will lead lead to a
>> >reduced crop.
>>
>>Chemicals chemicals chemicals - go and talk with a soils
>>microbiologist Luis, not a chemist, and not with me either, it's
>>rather clear that I know rather more about this than you do.
>>
>> >Of the above list of elements only Urea, a form of Nitrogen, is produced by
>> >the input of fossil fuels. Therefore, if you do not use Urea,
>> >(which I have not advocated, have I, Keith?)  for sugar cane production,
>> >then there is no input of any fossil fuel, except for the small ammounts of
>> >fuels used in the mining, conditioning and transportation from 
>>the source to
>> > the point of use. If the fuels so spent are substituted for ethanol, then
>> >there is zero (yes, ZERO) input of your "fossil fuel concern"... and your
>> >assumption then, is completely wrong and, therefore, invalid.
>>
>>Uh-huh. By the same point-of-use token, the corollary of your big,
>>centralised, industrialised, monocrop-dependent production scheme
>>imposed from above as if dropped by helicopter upon the unfortunate
>>place beneath is that, unlike with truly localised production, your
>>fuel will not be produced where it's to be used and will have to be
>>transported there, which is a waste of fuel, whether it be bio- or
>>dino-fuel. Also your fuel will not be able to compete with locally
>>produced fuel - and even if it can compete on a purely cost-price
>>basis, there are many factors not included within that basis with
>>which it won't be able to compete, regardless of the price: the
>>farmers' on-farm priorities and efficiencies, local community
>>self-reliance, the value of local jobs and local enterprises, to nae
>>a few.
>>
>>To extend your preposterous claims a little further, with all your
>>overuse of "best" and "only" and "best in the world", Europe should
>>now abandon production of ethanol from sugar-beet and instead export
>>the whole industry offshore to Columbia and the GADA system, not
>>fogetting to invest in a fleet of ethanol super-tankers, and the USA
>>and Canada should do the same with their maize- and wheat-based
>>ethanol industries, while maybe South Africa and the Philippines
>>should just give up on their pathetic attempts to grow sugar and
>>subcontract it all to you. Yield yield yield.
>>
>> >Now, in order to further dismiss your concerns about use of fertilizers,
>> >read on, please:
>> >
>> >You should know that you can not find in ethanol ANY ELEMENT TAKEN FROM THE
>> >SOIL... Did you know that, Keith?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>> >Ethanol
>> > formula is:  CH3CH2OH, that is, ethanol is only a "blend" of
>> >Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms as you can see in the formula, Wright
>> >Keith?
>> >
>> >Then, it stands to reason that if all the N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg, and the other
>> >microelements taken from the soil are not present in the end product, they
>> >must be somewhere, since the Laws of Conservation of Matter teaches us that
>> >elements can not vanish from the face of the earth or transmute into other
>> >elements.
>> >
>> >Yes, dear Keith, all the elements are acounted for: They are all present in
>> >the distillery effluent (Vinasse), except for Nitrogen that has been
>> >consumed in the cane growing process and end up with the trash (crop
>> >residue) or has returned to the air as molecules of N2, at the end of the
>> >Nitrogen Cycle.
>> >
>> >Therefore, if you are smart enough as to return the Vinasse minerals
>> >(and behold, they are now "Organic Minerals") back to the soil, 
>>you would be
>> >almost "home free", fertilizer-wise, and would have only to replenish the
>> >Nitrogen & P plus a minute portion of the minerals taken up by the cane
>> >roots. (The K is all in the Vinasse).
>> >
>> >Then, dear Keith, if you put back the Vinasse into the soil where it came
>> >from, your only fertilizer input for the following crop is just a fraction
>> >of the input used for the first crop.  Do you gather me, Keith?
>>
>>Well, I'm unmoved by your trying to schoolmarm me Luis. I suggest you
>>have a much closer look at Journey to Forever than you've apparently
>>done so far before you try it again.
>>http://journeytoforever.org/
>>
>> >Now, in reference to the yeast, you are wrong again, dear Keith:
>>
>>Only if your priorities of yield and efficiency and your definitions
>>of them are accepted, but I don't accept them, they're misplaced, and
>>so is everything you posit on top of them.
>>
>>Luis, there's not a lot of difference between sustainable food supply
>>and sustainable energy supply, the two have a great deal in common,
>>perhaps chief among which are localisation and diversification, on
>>both of which grounds you and your GADA scheme fail utterly.
>>
>>This is now very well known regarding sustainable food production,
>>especially among development scientists, but less well-known
>>regarding sustainable energy production, which, though not at all a
>>new problem, is not as yet as visible a problem as a billion-odd
>>starving people are in this world of plenty, plus the fact that each
>>purported attempt to solve the hunger problem (by using the same
>>methods that caused them - your methods: best best best, yield yield
>>yield) has only served to increase it.
>>
>>So I'll strongly urge you to visit the links I've given you here, to
>>Jules Pretty's work at Essex university for instance, and the
>>sustainable farming information at Journey to Forever, and to study
>>it carefully. There's a lot for you to learn.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>> >Sorry Keith, but you have failed on all counts.
>> >
>> >Unfortunately you have made a lot of wrong  and subjective assumptions,
>> >which demonstrates that you are completely unfamiliar
>> >with the issues of cane growing and ethanol production.
>> >
>> >If you would like to be better informed on both fields, we can lend you a
>> >helping hand.
>>
>>:-) Thanks anyway Luis, I think I'll manage to struggle along somehow
>>on my own.
>>
>>When you first joined the list just on a year  ago you wrote: "I have
>>extensive archives on fuel ethanol, please be my guests."
>>
>>I replied off-list: "I'd welcome more discussion on the list of fuel
>>ethanol issues. Please feel free to take the initiative."
>>
>>To which you replied: "Ok, the challenge is accepted, I will plan to
>>contribute in the area of ethanol" - and sent me a sales pitch
>>featuring your system and crediting you and BPI, a biotechnology firm
>>in Indiana. Your email address, "Contactos Mundiales", means
>>"World-wide Contacts" - more sales. Far from useful information from
>>an "extensive archives on fuel ethanol", virtually all we've had from
>>you is various sales pitches on the benefits of your GADA sugar
>>system and your proprietary yeast, which I assume is a GMO, no?
>>
>>To sum up, Luis, all you seem to do here is to push your commercial
>>interests, which may concern ethanol but are seriously at odds with
>>the sustainability precepts of this list. It might seem on-topic on
>>the surface, but actually it's just spam, and we've had enough of it,
>>if you don't mind, and even if you do.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Keith Addison
>>Journey to Forever
>>http://journeytoforever.org/
>>Biofuel list owner
>>
>>
>> >With best regards,
>> >
>> >Luis R. Calzadilla
>> >VP Operations
>> >Fundaci˜n Sugar Cane Research Org.
>> >Cali, Colombia
>> >Tel (572) 557-0627
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>Previous:
>>
>> >Luis R. Calzadilla wrote:
>> >
>> >>Dear Steve:
>> >>
>> >>The financial success of a cane juice-to-ethanol project will depend
>> >>on a few key variables, such as:
>> >>
>> >>1- Total fermentable sugars produced yearly per unit of land
>> >>2- Number of ratoons that can be harvested from each planting
>> >>3- Sugar cane production cost per unit of land
>> >>4- Capital cost of the distillery
>> >>5- Efficiency of Yeast and the Fermentation Process
>> >>
>> >>A few comments follow on the above:
>> >
>> >Luis, I've wanted to say so a few times in response to your posts -
>> >IMO the big hole in your scheme is your exclusive concentration on
>> >sugar. It's no use telling me that it's the best crop for this or
>> >that reason or scores of reasons: THERE IS NO BEST CROP. Which crop
>> >is "best" depends entirely on the local circumstances, which vary
>> >widely: a higher-yielding crop might not in the end produce better
>> >results - better overall results - than a lower-yielding one which
>> >local farmers grow, are familiar with and which has other benefits
>> >for them and their farming systems and their communities. Yield is
>> >not everything, and too often it's claimed to be everything while
>> >the adverse effects on other parts of the system (it's a system) of
>> >achieving that high yield are concealed, or not even noticed.
>> >
>> >Unless you diversify your scheme to include other crops and other
>> >possibilities, you'll only be making the classic top-down,
>> >centralist mistake of fitting the project to the technology instead
>> >of the other way round - a mistake that has cost many millions of
>> >people most dearly, while the technology promoters often remain
>> >unaware of that and go right on promoting their technology and its
>> >"benefits".
>> >
>> >>The best site in the world to produce sugar cane for direct 
>>fermentation to
>> >>ethanol is Colombia, for the following reasons:
>> >
>> >There is no "best site in the world" either - the best site is 
>>the local site.
>> >
>> >>a) In Colombia we can harvest cane all 365 days of the year, 
>>therefore, the
>> >>distillery and harvesting equipment could run the year round without any
>> >>interruption for lack of cane thus using the capital investment more
>> >>efficiently than in a situation where you have a short harvest season.
>> >>Therefore, depreciation cost/unit of ethanol product will be lower than in
>> >>almost any other country of the world.
>> >>
>> >>b) By the implementation of the GADA Sugar Cane Production 
>>System, developed
>> >>by our Research Foundation, we can produce
>> >>around 38,000 kilograms of fermentable sugars/Hectare/Year
>> >>that translate into some 20,000 liters fuel ethanol/Ha/Year.  This
>> >>yield seems to be, by far, the highest in the world.
>> >>
>> >>c) Under the GADA System, the productive life of sugar cane fields
>> >>can be extended up to 20 years and more...Right now we can show
>> >>30 (thirty) year-old fields yielding more than 150 MT sugar 
>>cane/Ha/Year of
>> >>cane planted for high sucrose content intended for sugar production.
>> >>
>> >>d) The GADA System affords the best way to lower production costs
>> >>while simultaneously doing it in a sustainable fashion; Soil fertility is
>> >>increased with each crop;  It permits to minimize input of irrigation
>> >>water; Application of N-K-P fertilizers are reduced to around 2 (two) kgs
>> >>per MT of harvested cane.
>> >
>> >Best best best, eh? There is no need for NPK fertilizers. Why do you
>> >want to use unnecessary and costly inputs derived from fossil fuels
>> >and part of an unsustainable agricultural production system to
>> >produce biofuels you claim are sustainable?
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >>e) All Saccharomyces Serevisiae yeasts have an "ethanol 
>>inhibiting point" or
>> >>ethanol concentration tolerance.  That is, as the ethanol concentration
>> >>rises in the substrate being fermented, the yeast will
>> >>react by inhibiting (not producing any more alcohol) when it reaches
>> >>its cncentration limit. Common yeasts usually stop producing
>> >>alcohol when the ethanol concentration reaches 5-6% in the broth
>> >>(substrate).  A yeast that possesses a higher ethanol concentration
>> >>tolerance, for example 12% ethanol tolerance, will be more
>> >>desirable for two important reasons:
>> >
>> >This seems to be wrong. Common yeasts usually stop producing at
>> >5-6%? More like 15% I think. A higher ethanol concentration
>> >tolerance would be 12%? Turbo yeasts produce clean alcohol up to
>> >21%. Here's one example, but there are quite a few of them.
>> >
>> >http://www.stillspirits.com/webfiles/StillSpirits/files/tb2turbonotes.pdf
>> >
>> >Best
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>> ><snip>
>>


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



Reply via email to