I just spent three days talking about biofuels with other scientists who work at historically black land grant universities. These institutions exist in most southern states because of an 1890 law requiring states to either set up a land grant institution for people of color or demonstrate that race was not an admission factor at their existing institution. Kentucky State University, where I work, is one of these '1890 land grants.'

The 1890 land grants are interesting because of their mission to serve under-served constituencies, including minorities and people with limited resources. The 'get big or get out' prescription sometimes associated with land grant universities ought to be an anathema to 1890 land grant universities.

This week's meeting was called to explore ways for 1890 land grants to contribute to USDA goals, including "the development of biofuels and processes to efficiently convert renewable plant products to fuel." It came at a time when food prices are skyrocketing and people are going hungry, in part because a growing proportion of America's corn is being turned into fuel.

At one point I expressed to a USDA economist my opinion that the large scale corn to ethanol program has been a complete failure, neither reducing carbon emissions, nor contributed to energy independence. The economist surprised me with his defence that neither of these were program objectives. The real goal, he said, was to raise corn prices. By that measure the program has been a resounding success(!).

After three days of intense discussion we hammered out a list of research objectives for 1890 land grants working on biofuels. They are:

1. Identify, produce, characterize and improve alternative feedstock crops.
2. Develop and optimize small scale technologies for biofuel production.
3. Evaluate and improve biofuel and byproduct quality.
4. Educate and train students, farmers, and other professionals regarding biofuels.
5. Analyze economic, environmental and social impacts of biofuel production and use.

So those are my guiding principles as I continue to participate in the Energy Farms Network and collaborate with the Post Carbon Institute. Over the summer I'll work with researchers from Virginia State University and North Carolina A&T University to pull together a full proposal, based on these objectives, for a collaborative project involving all eighteen 1890 land grant universities.

Some of my current research is funded by Southern SARE, so I took note when the organization released a position paper on the type of biofuel research it will fund in the future. SARE identifies eight themes for future projects to "expand the focus in bioenergy beyond corn- and soybean-based ethanol and biodiesel:"

1. Energy conservation and efficiency;
2. Energy efficient production practices;
3. Non-biomass renewable energy sources;
4. Alternative biomass feedstock production systems;
5. Environmental impact of bioenergy production;
6. Community and rural development impacts of bioenergy production;
7. Local and regional economic impact of biofuel production; and
8. Whole farm integrated energy systems.

It looks like the Energy Farms Network is on the cutting edge.

-----

• The goal is to feed more people, not fewer people. There is an old adage that has already been quoted about putting all your eggs in one basket. If I were one of those fifty people who was being fed by only one farmer, I'd be more worried than if there were four or five-or ten. Suppose the one farmer dies?
• Two and a half percent of the population is feeding all the rest. That is very small. And as far as I can see, nobody is worrying about where the cutoff point is. There is always a bottom half. We are always concerned about eliminating the bottom half because we say they're inefficient. I think that our doctrine of efficiency is suspect anyway because it only applies to major quantities. We waste stuff at our place all the time because we can't sell it. It's too little to sell. You can't give it away unless you cook it for somebody.
• How small do you let the percentage of farmers get before you are in danger? We have no alternative energy source on the farm now. When one farmer's feeding fifty people he is absolutely dependent on petroleum. When the economy shifts to reflect the realities of energy, it may be too expensive to produce some of this food; certainly at current prices.
• --Wendell Berry, 1974 http://www.tilthproducers.org/berry1974.htm

I saw this today, had a morbid laugh, then got pensive.

(cartoonists web site: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/cartoons.aspx#cararch)

A couple of years ago, biofuels were hot. There were the promoters touting "green" fuels, getting off "foreign oil" and helping "American farmers." A perfect set of environmental, geopolitical and populist allies created a basket of incentives to boost corn-based ethanol production.

A few of us were decrying this as bad policy. The net energy of ethanol was around break even, so it couldn't be climate neutral or help with oil dependency. The rise in food prices would impact the poor around the world, causing much pain and unrest that could destabilize nations. And American farmers would go through another painful boom-bust cycle rather than transition to a sustainable agriculture system that is realistic about energy constraints.

Other issues are exposed by this fiasco. Why is it that so many people ARE dependent on cheap, often imported grains (especially in Africa)? Some have ridiculed the local food movement for potentially depriving farmers in the developing world of their markets in the wealthy nations. But if these developing nations are ones who can't feed themselves, shouldn't we ask if it might be better for them to focus on food self-sufficiency rather than production for export? Especially if our energy and financial policies can cut them off from our food so blithely.

Take a look at not only corn in the fuel tank, but coffee, tea, coconuts, palm oil, cane sugar, papayas, bananas, out of season vegetables, etc. All these tropical products may be produced in places dependent upon trade for money that is used to buy imported staples such as grains. What if they decided to relocalize instead? Would they be better off?

As crude oil reaches record highs of $110 a barrel, the connection between the cost of food and the rise in energy prices can no longer be ignored. In a recent statement, Josette Sheeran, executive director of the UN's World Food Program, said the global economy had created "a perfect storm for the world's hungry, caused by high oil and food prices and low food stocks." Sheeran continues, “Higher food prices will increase social unrest in a number of countries which are sensitive to inflationary pressures and are import-dependent. We will see a repeat of the riots we have already reported on the streets such as we have seen in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal."

Sheeran notes that food prices have been aggressively increasing to historic highs and cites four major drivers for this:

1. The rise in oil and energy prices which affect the entire value chain of food production from fertilizer to harvesting to storage and delivering and access to water;

2. The economic boom in nations such as India and China, creating increased demand for all commodities including food and forcing China, which was a major food exporter just a little more than one year ago, to now being an importer of food;

3. Increasingly harsh and frequent climatic shocks like hurricanes, floods and drought, have made for some bad harvests in particular regions like Australia and regions of Africa;

4. The shift to increased biofuel production that has diverted hundreds of millions of metric tons of agricultural output out of the food chain, and has caused food prices to be set at fuel price levels in many places, including, for example, palm oil in Africa which is now being priced out of household reach because it is being set at fuel prices as a biofuel addition.

On the energy front, Sheeran's claim is supported by recent reports coming from farms across the globe. Although farmers appear to enjoy record commodity prices, the recent spikes in the cost of fertilizer and fuel are eroding gains. Not only has the price of nitrogen fertilizer risen 113% since 2000, but also potash has risen from $225 a ton to nearly $500 a ton and increasingly scarce phosphate has gone from $312 to between $800 and $900 a ton this year. The ingredients of these fertilizers are often imported to the United States from other countries and these resources are mined and processed using markedly energy-intensive processes that consume diesel and natural gas.

In other news, the world’s largest poultry processor closed a U.S. processing plant-cutting 1, 100 jobs. The processor blames record feed prices and U.S. ethanol policy for the current industry-wide crisis. Even if you are a vegetarian, the implication of this news is still hard to hear, as it is illustrates the fact that agribusiness is designed to grow food in a way that creates high profit. Once the profit margin is challenged the corporate producers of food may simply quit the job of growing food.

These trends should be clear indicators to all of us to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources and begin to support those that are willing and capable of producing food, fuel, and organic fertilizer close to where we live. Click here to see if there is a CSA or farm in your area.

Soybeans hit a 34 year high as drought, increased demand from China, and falling U.S. stockpiles drive prices.

Check the article: Soybeans Rise After Government Cuts U.S. Inventory Forecast

Now, take a look at this graph.

Source: www.biodiesel.org

Notice the change in U.S. biodiesel production from 2004 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2006 and you will see drastic increases in production. Between 2004 and 2005 biodiesel production tripled, and the estimate for 2006 is more than double 2005! A majority of biodiesel in the U.S. is derived from soybeans. During this time, U.S. stockpiles have been diverted to make increasing amounts of domestic biodiesel.

We are facing increasing global demand of soy for livestock rations, food, cooking oil, and now fuel. Check this out:

Source: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0608-adm.html

Archer Daniels Midland has a plan to increase the production of soy-based biodiesel in Brazil. Where is all the land coming from to make soy-based biodiesel? You guessed it, the rainforests-or at least what used to be rainforest. The operation was slated to begin August in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. Sadly, Mato Grosso is the site of some of the worst deforestation in the world, and while projected crop production looks rosy, it is far from clean, green fuel.

The trouble with planting crops in what used to be the Amazon Rainforest is that the soil is incredibly low in organic matter. Once the soil is stirred up (as a result of logging and cultivation), the soil biology quickly consumes the organic matter. This forces farmers to adopt a no-till system of farming that leaves crop residue on the surface and uses herbicides to kill the weeds as the next crop is seeded. No-till cropping systems try to preserve the organic matter in order to prevent the soil from quickly turning to dust. As you might expect from agribusiness it relies on substantial fertilizer inputs to prop up weak soils. While production of soy in Brazil may lower global soy prices, (for at least a short time), it is creating the biofuel nightmare that we are all afraid of! Think about it for a moment... Imported biofuel from Brazil, grown in what was once a rain forest, which utilizes huge amounts of artificial chemicals and genetically modified seeds. ....Terrifying, don't you agree?

Biofuel initially appealed to “greens” because it seemed to be a cleaner option. In some cases biodiesel can be made locally to be utilized by local consumers. From an agricultural standpoint, biodiesel still appears promising as an energy source to support farm s that will grow the world’s food. However, as consumers, we must be careful and temper our demand for liquid fuels with an understanding of the current state of the climate and the global food system. In short, we are faced with a dwindling food surplus and increasing demand by developing nations, while at the same time the climate is screaming to get our attention.

As always, we need to think about the way we use liquid fuel and oils and we need to prioritize the ways in which we use these scarce and vital resources. It is our responsibility to make choices for the future, and that means considering what is safe for the earth and the climate. Constant Growth is a False Assumption and if we do not choose to take the implications of climate change, food, and energy security seriously, we will be forced to address these issues when we have far fewer options to work with.

For those who want to read more you can click here to read the article: "Switch to Corn Promotes Amazon Deforestation". It is from the recent December 2007 volume of Science.

Unseasonably dry weather in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas have farmers concerned about next summer’s yields. Over-winter wheat, sown in October and November is still awaiting rain before going dormant for the winter. Common practice is to sow grain and allow autumn rains to germinate the seed early in hope of establishing a healthy stand before the winter freeze. However, there are alarming reports that scant November precipitation has seed lying in the ground un-germinated. With global grain reserves at their lowest in half a century poor germination is sure to disappoint--likely spelling lower yields.

A lower yield from the U.S. makes many nervous as current demand is outpacing yield and domestic and international grain reserves continue to decline. When tracking the recent spike in prices of major agricultural commodities you will find that global demand for wheat is increasing due to the simple fact that a majority of nations do not have surplus and must import. Drought, disasters, lack of domestic production, and the falling value of the U.S. dollar are driving the demand to import surplus U.S. grain.

For instance, Bangladesh is intent on purchasing 500,000 tons of grain after the recent cyclone destroyed their stockpiles and crops. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India, and Pakistan are also looking to purchase grain this month-and it is no surprise why. These nations have dense populations that cannot grow enough food within their own land-base to support the nutritive and energetic demands of their citizens. These issues are compounded by rising energy prices and shipping cost. Crude oil continues to flirt with $100 a barrel, and there is little flexibility for importing nations to avert paying higher prices for ocean freight.

As this discussion revolves around global food and energy security it appears that politicians appear focused on their own careers. The tensions between demand and supply are increasingly influenced by climate uncertainty, advancing population, and global petroleum dependence.

We have an opportunity to take these issues seriously by making connections locally to provide for ourselves in the places we live. This effort is called Relocalization. Visit the Relocalization Network to link with groups in your area working to address these issues and build strong, self-reliant communities.

Also, check Bloomberg’s report: Wheat Rises as Drought Hurts Crops in Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma

Soybeans Rise to 19-Year High as China Plans More Purchases

By William Bi and Madelene Pearson (Nov 15. 2007)-Bloomberg

“Soybean futures for January delivery rose as much as 3.75 cents, or 0.4 percent, to $10.8325 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade, the highest since June 1988, and traded at $10.775 at 5:57 p.m. Beijing time. Most-active futures jumped 62 percent in the past year after U.S. farmers planted the smallest acreage in 12 years to sow more corn.”

``In this market, the risks are that any problem will see higher prices; those fears will remain as we go into 2008, as there's just too much demand around.''

This article summarizes the current commodities market of both soy and wheat. Each crop has seen over a 50% jump in price in recent months as the world is pressed to expand food production and climate uncertainty affects crops across the globe. We have seen the price of major agricultural commodities reach record highs in 2007 due to large portions of U.S. cropland diverted to corn and because developing countries are coping with increased demand for better diets. Since many countries around the world find themselves unable to expand domestic production they are forced to import agricultural commodities from the U.S. While global import and export is a quick short term plan to stave off starvation, it is likely to spell trouble in the coming months and years as crude prices reach record highs nearing the $100 a barrel, making ocean freight transportation more expensive and thereby increasing the imbedded cost of food even further.

I listen to many conversations about: "What will it take for people to WAKE UP and begin to make some good choices regarding their roles as consumers and about their interaction with the environment. I often here the response: "When people begin to get hungry then they will start to act." --Must we wait until then??

August 30, 2007: Wheat Rises to Record, Extending Rally, on Strong Global Demand
By Tony C. Dreibus

"Overseas orders for U.S. wheat from June 1 through Aug. 23 are up 95 percent, and prices have almost doubled in the past year."

"The U.S. and the Russians are the only ones that have any wheat and there's not going to be any more'' until growers in Argentina and Australia start harvesting, Pfitzenmaier said. ``Obviously, $7.50 isn't enough to choke off demand.''

Read the full story here.