A new study by researchers at South Dakota State University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (see full paper here), shows that more than 1.3 million acres of grasslands in the western corn belt (WCB) of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska, have been converted to agricultural use since 2006 to grow corn and soybeans for biofuel production.

The researchers introduce their paper by writing:

“In the US Corn Belt, a recent doubling in commodity prices has created incentives for landowners to convert grassland to corn and soybean cropping. Here, we use land cover data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer to assess grassland conversion from 2006 to 2011 in the Western Corn Belt (WCB)…”

They go on to write:

“Our analysis identifies areas with elevated rates of grass-to-corn/soy conversion (1.0–5.4% annually). Across the WCB, we found a net decline in grass-dominated land cover totaling nearly 530,000 ha.[hectares]. With respect to agronomic attributes of lands undergoing grassland conversion, corn/soy production is expanding onto marginal lands characterized by high erosion risk and vulnerability to drought. Grassland conversion is also concentrated in close proximity to wetlands, posing a threat to waterfowl breeding in the Prairie Pothole Region. Longer-term land cover trends from North Dakota and Iowa indicate that recent grassland conversion represents a persistent shift in land use rather than short-term variability in crop rotation patterns.”

“The concentration of grassland conversion on lands vulnerable to erosion implies negative impacts on soil quality and a subsequent cascade of negative impacts on, e.g., crop yields, primary productivity, and carbon sequestration. Tillage of adjacent uplands increases sediment inputs to wetlands by several orders of magnitude, limiting the productivity of duck food sources, including aquatic plants and invertebrates, and reducing food water storage.”

In the conclusion, the researchers note:

“Our results show that rates of grassland conversion to corn/soy (1.0–5.4% annually) across a significant portion of the US Western Corn Belt are comparable to deforestation rates in Brazil, Malaysia, and Indonesia, countries in which tropical forests were the principal sources of new agricultural land, globally, during the 1980s and 1990s. Historically, comparable grassland conversion rates have not been seen in the Corn Belt since the 1920s and 1930s, the era of rapid mechanization of US agriculture. Across the WCB, more than 99% of presettlement tallgrass prairie has been converted to other land covers, mostly agricultural, with losses in Iowa approaching 99.9% of an original 12-million ha. of tallgrass prairie. Potential expansion of corn and soybean cultivation into remaining fragments of tallgrass prairie in the WCB presents a critical ecosystem conservation issue.”

This is another example of so-called “green energy” being not so green. As the authors note, ” A number of studies have now shown that a biofuel strategy based on corn ethanol and soy biodiesel may indeed be suboptimal in terms of net energy and carbon balances.”

See also:

Ethanol fuel not as green as you think

Ethanol from Sugarcane, not so green

Death Toll from Biofuels

Mandated use of ethanol as a partial substitute for gasoline was supposed to decrease our oil imports and be more environmentally friendly.  But like many green fantasies, the program has failed on both counts.

While the mandate may be a boon to corn growers, especially large agribusiness, it is not cost effective for end users.  Currently, seasonal gasoline is 10% ethanol, but E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is being touted as a solution to our dependence on foreign petroleum sources.  Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline.  Consumer Reports (Oct., 2006) tested E85 in a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV (flexible fuel vehicle).  CR found that E85 delivered 27% lower mileage compared to gasoline in the same vehicle.   The Tahoe traveled 300 miles on a tank of E85 compared with 440 miles on gasoline, so you will have to fill the tank more often with E85, making it more expensive and less efficient.

A new study by Michigan State University economist Soren Anderson says in part: “Federal law requires increasing volumes of renewable fuels to be blended with the nation’s fuel supply. This year, the requirement includes the use of more than 13 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol nationwide.  Ethanol is more expensive to make than gasoline and must be sold at a loss or subsidized unless consumers are willing to make up the difference.” “If our goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this is quite a costly way to go about doing it.”

Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply.  It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study.  A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.”  A study by the University of Calgary questions the ethics of burning a food crop for fuel.  It also notes that the required land use change results in a net increase of greenhouse gases.  Ethanol produced from sugarcane rather than corn has also been touted as a solution.  However, a study has shown that when all productions steps are taken into account, the greenhouse gas emissions from sugarcane ethanol are higher than those from burning fossil fuels.

Use of ethanol for transportation fuel has not reduced our petroleum imports.  According to the Energy Information Administration, between 1999 and 2009, U.S. ethanol production increased seven-fold, to more than 700,000 barrels per day.  During that  period, however, oil  imports  increased by more than 800,000 bl/d.

Burning ethanol-gasoline blends produces more ozone and hence smog which creates a health hazard.

Cellulosic ethanol has been touted as an alternative to corn- or sugar cane based ethanol production. But that too seem economically non-viable.  Recently we learned that a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia has failed.  The project raised $320 million, largely in the form of federal, state, and local subsidies, but the plant never produced a drop of ethanol. Nor did the factory ever hire the 50 to 70 permanent employees its promoters had promised.  This shows, again, that the government is incompetent at picking economic winners.

While use of ethanol may have seemed like a good idea at first, there are too many unintended  and detrimental consequences.  Closer scrutiny shows it fails on too many levels to ever be considered as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

At the end of 2011, Congress failed to renew the federal tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline and a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.  However, the mandate remains.  It’s time to get rid of that too.

See also:

Death Toll from Biofuels