Do you think we should be using our land resources for producing ethanol versus food?

Question

What conservation risks are associated with mass producing ethanol? What risks are associated with the world's food supply? What benefits does converting food acres into fuel acres have?

Answer 1

We have not completely utilized arable areas in this world. There are waste lands where we can promote fuel crops like Jatropha carcus. But we need both food and fuel. So try to conserve our arable lands for food crops and waste lands for fuel crops. Even in waste land jatropha can perform well.

We are already facing the risk of low cereal production and in future demands for cereals, vegetables, fruits, egg and meat will be much higher than present demands. If we find alternate energy for fuel need, we can meet the demands of ever growing population in terms of fuel and food.

Answer 2

For U.S. and Europe - No, I really don't think we should.  Food prices are already so high, and producing less food can only drive prices higher.

But, I think Sub-Saharan Africa would be a great place to grow ethanol crops - it would give under-developed countries an economic boost AND help alleviate the world's dependence on fossil fuel.

Answer 3

One aspect to consider is problem of having to use energy to make the ethanol in the first place. In order to grow the corn a farmer needs to plow the field, fertilize it, pump water, and harvest. After the corn is harvested it sometimes needs to be hauled to a processing site, then it is heated to convert into ethanol. All of these steps require energy.

At least according to some scientists all the energy required to make the ethanol is more than the energy contained by the final product of ethanol. Another words more energy goes into making the ethanol than the energy contained in the final product of ethanol. A net LOSS.

If this the case we should think more about this before proceeding on a mass scale. At least some think this is a huge mistake that is driven more by politics than math. Even some environmentalists have conceded that more energy is consumed than produced.

I hope some take another look at this.

Answer 4

I think you can use the same land to produce Ethanol AND food.  Once the corn goes through the ethanol extraction process, it still retains 80% of it's protein and is valuable as a food product for livestock.  It's 'wet' and must be moved quickly, but that isn't a problem.  It's a win-win situation.  People who think the debate is either / or, don't realize that we can have it both ways.. cool huh.

Answer 5

no! sun light is our abundance of power...

Answer 6

One of the really interesting things is that (according to Joel Salatin) we can reduce 70% of our current corn usage by eliminating it from the diet of feedlot animals.  Cattle and sheep are ruminants, and are not made to consume large amounts of concentrates such as corn.

So, if we were to completely revise the way in which we manage the finishing of meat animals, then no, the impact of land usage for ethanol wouldn't be significant.

Recently, however, wheat prices were ridiculously high because of land use competition (something like $24 a bushel, as opposed to the normal $4-$6?).

In my opinion, Ethanol is something that we should definitely be taking a long, hard look at.  If done properly (and it all depends on the farmer and his particular land management style), no, there is no negative environmental impact.  They've also been looking at the possibility of using distillers grains (what's left over after the production of ethanol) as a source of protein in feedlot animals.

Conservation risks are low, again, based upon the farmer's land management style.  It will vary from farm to farm.  However, eliminating grain from other areas or lessening grain usage and just reapportioning our use of such resources would not change anything in the world's food supply.  By changing the acres used for animal feed into fuel resources, well, obviously we would have a more environmentally friendly fuel source.

The question of how we finish our livestock animals then arises.  The answer: grassfed animals have virtually no difference in flavor, texture, or amount of carcass fat versus feedlot animals.  The only difference is that feedlot animals, which are fed almost a straight concentrate (protein from grain) diet proceed along their growth curve at a much faster rate than those animals that are fed a mostly forage diet.  This just means that they will deposit body fat at a greater rate and will be ready for market a little bit sooner.

So, sorry, that went a bit off-subject but it was sort of required to explain my train of though.  Hope that helped!  :D

Answer 7

The risks are evident NOW: ethanol increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food prices

Biofuel technology began on a very small scale when grain surpluses were common. However, on a global scale, as it is now unfolding, biofuel technology has dire consequences.  You may want to refer to the link below for TIME magazine’s March 27, 2008 article, ‘The Clean Energy Scam.'



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...