According to Scientific American Mag.


Farmers in Nebraska and the Dakotas brought the U.S. closer to becoming a biofuel economy, planting huge tracts of land for the first time with switchgrass—a native North American perennial grass (Panicum virgatum) that often grows on the borders of cropland naturally—and proving that it can deliver more than five times more energy than it takes to grow it.
Working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the farmers tracked the seed used to establish the plant, fertilizer used to boost its growth, fuel used to farm it, overall rainfall and the amount of grass ultimately harvested for five years on fields ranging from seven to 23 acres in size (three to nine hectares).

Once established, the fields yielded from 5.2 to 11.1 metric tons of grass bales per hectare, depending on rainfall, says USDA plant scientist Ken Vogel. "It fluctuates with the timing of the precipitation,'' he says. "Switchgrass needs most of its moisture in spring and midsummer. If you get fall rains, it's not going to do that year's crops much good."

But yields from a grass that only needs to be planted once would deliver an average of 13.1 megajoules of energy as ethanol for every megajoule of petroleum consumed—in the form of nitrogen fertilizers or diesel for tractors—growing them. "It's a prediction because right now there are no biorefineries built that handle cellulosic material" like that which switchgrass provides, Vogel notes. "We're pretty confident the ethanol yield is pretty close." This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies.

Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does: Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn)

Why then would we waste our tax dollars subsidizing the conversion of food to fuel when we have a bio-fuel alternative available that is naturally replenished and is not part of the human diet ?

It's a way for our government to control the amount of food grown and leading to higher prices for food for human and animal consumption. If they tie up the viable land with this crop, then real food cannot be grown. I read something similar lately also. Remember, big agribusiness is really big money and getting the government to "subsidize" this is just another way to give say ADM or Monsanto more of our money making more people rich at the expense of us little people. They are also heavily distributing the "suicide seeds" or GMO seeds around the world resulting in seeds that do not allow a farmer to use seeds from last year's crop to be replanted for this year's crop. The seeds must be repurchased from big agribusiness again and again each year. Also GM foods are now starting to be responsible for all sorts of biological problems with both humans and animals. There are certain countries in Europe who have banned GM seeds and GM foods. Russia has banned GM seeds and the importation of any GM foods. They are aware of the hidden dangers lurking in the GM foods. Just like they banned the sale and use of microwave ovens years ago as they thoroughly researched the problems inherent with microwave ovens. You can still use a microwave oven over there but they are very hard to find as they are not sold there.

If they create GMO that can grow where no other crop is capable of why should they not profit from it ? I think GMO is the best option to eradicate hunger in the world . We should not fear frankenfood.

I am not interested in big business conspiracy theories ;or class envy "little people against the greedy corporate rich" .

I think it is just bad policy to subsidize the turning food into diesel when there are viable better alternatives . It is bad government policy and not the fault of the business that benefits from it.

Sorry to disagree with you about GM food. You need to do more reading about the devastation that GM foods have caused around the world before you think they are so wonderful. The GM foods are modified so that they can withstand the Monsanto pesticide used for weeds. The pesticide also ends up killing any other plant life that is beneficial such as the seeds that are from last year's crop that are not GM. Please do more reading. You'll be happy you did. You'll be able to see the vicous cycle created by the GM foods. Oh, by the way the GM foods are not really good for human consumption either.

Don't lump all GM foods together . You may have a point about sterile seeds ;but don't discount inovations like rice modified to grow in inhospitable environments or those that are modified for things like high vit A content which is saving the sight of children world wide. Really ;what is the difference between this and fortifying milk and cereals ? One is an additive and one has it produced into the crop directly .

But that is really off topic. Growing corn for fuel has had a lot of unintended consequences that could be eliminated by switching to renewable cellulose plants like grass. That is research that I would prefer my tax dollar to support .

You wrote: "Why then would we waste our tax dollars subsidizing the conversion of food to fuel when we have a bio-fuel alternative available that is naturally replenished and is not part of the human diet ?" To buy votes, why else does the government intervene in economic decisions? This is a good question and should be posed to your congressman and senators. I would like to know their response.

Thanks George... for the purpose of making this a posting worthy of staying on the politcs board I posed a rhetorical question. The sad truth is that if any candidate went to Iowa and came out against any agricultural subsidy they not only would've lost tellingly ;but possibly would've been escorted out of the state on a rail.

I already know what Senator Chucky Schumer would say .Every couple of weeks he has a photo op in front of a gas station sign that shows the price ,where he calls for some sort of government intervention .

Growing corn for fuel has had alot of unintended consequences
Certainly true, and I agree with your basic point that providing huge government subsidies to turn food into fuel is neither wise stewardship nor responsible public policy, but...

that could be eliminated by switching to renewable cellulose plants like grass. That is research that I would prefer my tax dollar to support .
I think you greatly overstate the virtues of cellulosic ethanol. In the first place, getting usable energy out of cellulose is chemically and energetically much harder (more costly) than getting it out of starch, and the technology to do it is a long way from being mature and commercially viable. In addition, even if it was commercially viable, taking many tons of material per year off the land, hauling it many miles, displacing existing land uses, and any number of other changes that a large-scale production industry would require are all bound to have their own set of "unintended consequences". The fact that the particular plant used to make the fuel isn't edible does not mean that a large-scale shift to such production will have no impact on food prices or availability. If land currently used to produce food is diverted to fuel production, food prices will increase, without a doubt.

All the details are not there but reality moves on. “Khosla Ventures-backed startup intends to deliver ethanol for under $1 per gallon using agricultural and municipal waste. But challenges remain. Stealthy ethanol startup Coskata has signed a partnership deal with automaker General Motors, the companies announced Sunday at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.”

Greentech Media | With GM Deal in Hand, Coskata Promises $1 Ethanol (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/with-gm-deal-in-hand-coskata-promises-1-ethanol-483.html)

Good question tom, it would seem to be a perfect fit. It produces over 20 times more energy than corn, doesn't strain the food supply and is environmentally friendly. It's a boon to wildlife, grows in poor and highly erodible soil and removes CO2 from the atmosphere. What's not to love about it?

The fact that the particular plant used to make the fuel isn't edible does not mean that a large-scale shift to such production will have no impact on food prices or availability. If land currently used to produce food is diverted to fuel production, food prices will increase, without a doubt.

Today's headline:
Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/business/worldbusiness/19palmoil.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all)

A startling change is unfolding in the world’s food markets. Soaring fuel prices have altered the equation for growing food and transporting it across the globe. Huge demand for biofuels has created tension between using land to produce fuel and using it for food.

So true, all politicians buy votes, it is part of the system.

Bush added the horrendously expensive Medicare Part D program to Medicare in hopes of garnering the votes of senior citizens for the 2004 election.

Politics as usual...