We've been covering the ongoing debate on whether or not ethanol is to blame for the increase in corn and feedstock prices, and opinions on both sides seem to be pretty strong. According to Pilgrim's Pride President and Chief Executive Clint Rivers, "Our company and industry are struggling to cope with unprecedented increases in feed-ingredient costs this year due largely to the U.S. government's ill-advised policy of providing generous federal subsidies to corn-based ethanol blenders." Because of the high feedstock prices, Pilgrim's Pride is cutting 1,100 jobs and closing some of their complexes. Corn prices are not solely to blame, though, as soybean-meal has also increased in price. There is apparently too much chicken available on the market as well.

So, is ethanol production really to blame for the 1,100 lost jobs at Pilgrim's Pride, or is it a convenient scapegoat for other problems? We honestly can't say, but no matter what the answer to that question is, we sincerely look forward to the breakout of cellulosic ethanol which is a much more efficient process in any case.

[Source: Dow Jones Newswire]

Although some have argued, even recently, that the drive to convert large amounts of farming acreage to ethanol production has had no effect on the prices people pay for food, that is not the memo our prez has received. I guess someone in Washington noticed the price of corn has shot up 250 percent in the past two years. Not content to let the market work it out for itself, Bush spake to the masses gathered before him at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIRC), "And so we got to do something about it." My, but he is a man of words, isn't he.

And what is this "something" the Decider has decided we should do? Make more ethanol, of course. But now, we should make it out of wood chips and agricultural waste. Apparently, we still have lots of trees we don't need and our agricultural waste isn't currently being used for anything besides soil enrichment. According to this article in the New York Times, Bush informed the crowd that the effort is well under way and that the Energy Department had already spent over $1 billion kick starting a "cellulosic ethanol" industry.

Speaking of nuts, the president also let it be known that he had been impressed with the recent flight Virgin Atlantic made from London to Amsterdam on fuel derived from the babassu nut. Though Bush said he had never seen the nut in person, he was amazed it could help power a plane the size of a 747. I guess if the plane had been smaller he would have been less impressed.

[Source: New York Times]

GM Inside News forum member HoosierRon has posted what he feels is "definitive proof that ethanol is not creating a food corn shortage." He goes on to give real raw data to support his claims. His data concentrates on the amount of corn produced in the U.S. and the amount of ethanol produced in the U.S. His data seems to indicate that there is more corn available for food now than there ever has been before.

This type of data is good to keep an eye on, but it hardly offers definitive proof that ethanol fuel is not raising corn prices. Instead, it shows that there is plenty of corn available for use as either ethanol or food. Additionally, the data does not indicate whether farmers who previously planted other crops are instead choosing to plant corn. None of this is to say that ethanol is creating a food shortage, just that more data is needed before any fair conclusion can be reached.

As is often stated, making ethanol from corn is not very efficient, but hopefully soon we will start seeing cellulosic ethanol take its place as an alternative to petroleum.

[Source: GM Inside News]

Billionaire Sir Richard Branson made headlines recently when he knocked the way Americans produce ethanol. In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Branson fleshed out his ideas on ways America can improve the way it produces the alcohol fuel. Thirty minutes in, he says sugar produces seven times more ethanol than corn per acre and would not emit CO₂. Branson also said sugar would not mean cutting down the rain forest because there is plenty of it and the price is at an all-time low.

The best argument Branson gave is that "sugar-based ethanol would be cheaper than conventional fuels imported from the Middle East." Of course, if we lived in Branson's world, we may not have to worry about making fuel from plants at all. He explained that his plans for going into space with Virgin Galactic could one day help fuel the world: just "two space ships full of helium 3 [from the moon] will power America's electricity for a year," he said. Space mining sounds interesting, but what if that space ship crashes?

Related:

• Richard Branson, Mayor Bloomberg slam biofuels
• Soon at a pump near you: Virgin Fuels
• Branson looks towards Virgin territory: biofuel
• Richard Branson promotes alternative fuel movement by driving a Saab 9-5 BioPower

[Source: Google Video]

We (humans) tend to see ourselves as having dominion over nature. We take and destroy when we cut down trees and harvest crops. But here's a question: What if, like with bees, plants are actually using us and they are getting more out of the farming relationship than we do? Take ethanol production from corn, which we know to be very inefficient when compared with other sources. It's always assumed Americans do it because of an accident of presidential politics, history of farming in America, economics of farming, etc. What if corn is manipulating us into making ethanol to perpetuate its genes and increase its habitat?

That's a theory of Michael Pollan, author of the 2001 book The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World and the speaker at a recent TED talk (you can watch is after the jump). Ten minutes into the talk, Mike says "We are all now being manipulated by corn. And the talk you heard about ethanol earlier today, to me, is the final triumph of corn over good sense. It's part of corn's scheme for world domination." We assume we are the greatest species and consciousness is the apex, but ethanol just might be the best proof that corn is ruling us.

Related:

• Mexico wants to limit corn ethanol with "Food comes first" law
• Esquire: The case for corn
• The EU is going to rethink its biofuel policy

[Source: Ted via Treehugger]

American farmers use a lot of fertilizer on their crops and much of that fertilizer ends up running off the fields before it's absorbed by the plants. When that happens it ends up in streams and rivers. In the central part of the United States where a lot American agriculture happens, most of those rivers end up eventually flowing into the Mississippi River. That means that anything that goes into those rivers ends up down the Mississippi and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico.

Unfortunately decades of intensive nitrogen-rich fertilizer use has created a zone at the mouth of the Mississippi that is starved of oxygen. This "dead zone," which now measures over 7,900 square miles, was first discovered in 1985 and it now appears to be growing much larger. The increase in corn cultivation as a result of ethanol demand may be partly to blame. The business of growing corn means that more nitrogen runs off from corn fields and into the watersheds. Previous EPA estimates had about 210 million pounds of nitrogen fertilizer going into the Gulf annually, with 2007 figures not yet available. The increase in corn growing and the size of the algae bloom visible from satellite photos points to a big increase.

[Source: MSNBC]

One more position in the food vs. biofuel debate, this one clearly slated towards food. México is about to pass an amendment to the "Ley de Bioenergéticos" (Bioenergy sources law) that clearly states that "Corn will only be used for making ethanol as long as there is a national production surplus." The amendment, however, opens a door for other sources and states no limits for other sources, such as waste from any type of food production.

México depends on corn imports to satisfy its internal demand for the cereal, which is considered the keystone of this country's nutrition. Although there are voices that claim that biofuels aren't so guilty, the Mexican government is convinced that there is indeed a direct relationship.

The Congreso de los Diputados (Chamber of Representatives) is expected to pass this amendment next week.

Related:

• Seven-layer rules for Mexican ethanol economy
• Brazil teaming up with Mexico to produce ethanol
• University of Georgia and Mexico to partner on biofuels from dung

[Source: Agroinformación (link is in Spanish)]

Alan Greenspan is getting a lot of press because of his opinions on Bush. Last year, when Alan Greenspan was still fed chair, he said a few things about ethanol in testimony. He says corn ethanol will play "only a limited role." Greenspan contends corn ethanol's "ability to displace gasoline is modest at best." Greenspan continues "I'd like to see us move quickly to determine whether cellulosic is feasible." Greenspan thinks we can push alternatives so that "oil in the years ahead will remain an important element of our energy future, but" ... "no longer be the dominant player."

[Source: Washington Post]

There is a danger in planting corn over and over again in the same field. If the crops are never rotated, the soil quality suffers immensely, which is why farmers usually rotate their crops from year to year. However, many are expecting that the high prices that corn has been generating, which may or may not be the fault of ethanol, might prompt farmers to continue to plant that crop without switching to others. I am not so sure that this is a real problem yet, and I don't think that there is enough data available to back up the claim. But, it is not too early to think about alternatives, which is what this article is prompting.

Alfalfa indeed would produce less ethanol than corn. Even corn is not a good choice if the amount of ethanol per acre is considered, but that doesn't seem to be on the minds of decision makers these days. Alfalfa is mentioned as an alternate crop because of the positive effects that it has on the soil, replenishing it for the following crop of corn. Most of us would rather see the corn go back to food production, but perhaps the alfalfa would feed the cattle that is missing out on their usual corn-based diets. The real point is that corn is not the only source that the United States can use to generate their alcohol fuels, which are being mandated by the government.

[Source: Earth Portal via Treehugger]

Chuck Klosterman watched the "Live Green" Superbowl ad. Then he bought a flex fuel car. In this article from Esquire, he made an incredible argument for ethanol of the like I have never seen before. I think it reflects a lot of people that support ethanol. First, there is nothing technical in this article. He says there is a debate about emissions in one sentence in parenthesis and that ended that. The article is about the power of Culture.

Chuck says "culture beats strategy every time." "No business strategy can compete against the sheer power of everyone buying into the same ideas, working toward identical goals, and wanting the same things. A well-built machine is still no match for a living organism, because the organism can evolve over time." Live Green "is attempting to generate a hipster culture around corn."

He has "never experienced a marketing move that is aimed so directly at" his "life, quite possibly to the exclusion of everyone else in America." Why does he support ethanol? It's "neither environmental nor political. It's not economic, either." He likes "the idea of ethanol only because it seems like the last hope for the survival of small U.S. farmers, many of whom exist within a completely insane business model that's a product of their own efficiency."

If you are still anti-ethanol, cleanse your pallet with the video from CNBC's Larry Kudlow on ethanol. Pro: Lou Ann Hammond from Carlist.com. Con: Jeff Goodell. He wrote an article in Rolling Stone called the Ethanol Scam. All very logical, very political, very large scale with no mention of the struggling good 'ol American farmer. In fact, you could say it's lost in the discussion of big agro.

[Source: Esquire]

So, farmers are able to sell corn for higher prices because ethanol fuel is becoming more popular here in the United States, right? Whether of not that means that food products such as tortilla's, beer, tequila and milk are directly related to ethanol is often debated. Obviously, if you are a consumer who is paying more for a product such as milk or tortilla's, and the maker of said product blames the price increase on ethanol, you may get a bad taste in your mouth about the alternative fuel. Those of us out there who must work nights might be cursing ethanol over something which seems oddly unrelated: coffee. Not just any coffee mind you, but the super-potent stuff that your local neighborhood Starbucks is serving up. A commenter from the cited source article mentions an excellent point: if your coffee drink contains no dairy, why would the price go up for that? I imagine that if the price sweep is across the board and includes even black coffee or soy-based alternatives, those consumers are helping to pay for the rest of the drinkers' dairy addiction. But a later comment says that the price increase will not affect regular black coffee. I dunno... I'll check the menu at the Starbucks down the street and see for myself.

The writer of the Environmental Economics blog, Tim Haab, has coined the phrase "Ethanol Dominoes" when referring to products which cost more seemingly due to high corn prices seemingly due to ethanol. True or not, it's pretty catchy, huh?

Related:

• The myth of the "tortilla effect". Ethanol prices don't affect food prices
• Raising voices about corn ethanol
• Ethanol prices down, but might go up soon
• Energy Star Awards given to two ethanol plants

[Source: Environmental Economics via Treehugger]

I'll admit that I was mildly surprised to read that Toyota was going to start offering flexible fuel vehicles for sale in Brazil soon. Well, let me clarify that: I was surprised to hear the Toyota was not already offering flexible fuel vehicles for sale in Brazil. There, that's better. As the article mentions, ethanol is much cheaper in Brazil than petroleum, and most consumers would not want to purchase a car that they would be forced to use gasoline in. As you are probably aware, Brazil has been pushing forward for a while now to do away with gasoline in general, replacing it with ethanol derived from locally grown sugar cane. Most vehicle manufacturers have been selling vehicles which are capable of running on the alcohol fuel, again as the article mentions, including Honda - arguably Toyota's chief rival from Japan. With 80 percent of all vehicles sold in Brazil flex-fuel compatible, this news should not be surprising to anyone, unless, like me, they assumed that Toyota had already been offering them!

Note the flag above. It says "Order and Progress" (translated into English). Any thoughts on whether the conversion to ethanol from petroleum is progress? I'll say "Yes", but qualify that by saying that it could progress even further if they were able to use a cellulosic process to get the alcohol. At least they're not using corn!

[Source: Detroit News]

I'm pretty sure that by now most readers of this site can explain the difference between ethanol made from grains like corn and cellulosic ethanol. But, here is a nice article from What's Next Network that explains some of the differences and what it takes to get more ethanol from corn using a cellulosic process. The process described simply uses water to pretreat the biomass, corn in this instance.

Of course, this would not solve the perceived problem of using corn, a food source, for fuel production. What it would do, however, is extract more fuel from the corn that is currently being used to generate fuel, meaning that either the amount of corn being used for fuel could be reduced, or more likely, additional ethanol could be generated from the current amount of corn being used for fuel... 'cause there's lots of money to be made from selling the fuel. Make sense?

[Source: What's Next Network]

I am sure that by this time we have all heard about how the use of corn for fuel use has caused the prices for food products like tortillas to go up. But, did you know that record high tortilla prices have recently been set... we're talking well over a thousand dollars per tortilla! Not only that, but the tortilla's in question are not even new. These tortilla's have all been pre-used by a man named Joe Bravo. And to be sure that everybody can tell which tortilla's he is reselling, he marks them all up with paint. Unbelievable, I know. If you want to know more about this, click here.

[Source: Joe Bravo]

Robert Kennedy Jr. recently spoke at a press conference in the Bloomington, Illinios area, and gave his opinions on ethanol production. Kennedy suggests, quite correctly, that it takes too much corn from the food arena to create ethanol fuel from that particular crop, and instead believes that cellulosic ethanol from crops such as switchgrass makes much more sense. Kennedy also said that the actual environmental benefit of ethanol is reduced dramatically because of all the mechanized equipment required to farm the corn. These sentiments were given to area television stations shortly before an address sponsored in part by the Illinois Corn Growers Association.

We have pointed out many times in the past that ethanol has some benefits to fossil fuels, and could even provide a performance benefit if used instead of gasoline, however, the potential of ethanol as a fuel source is limited by the amount of crops available for fuel use. Using corn to create ethanol is rather inefficient, and there are many better choices as a starting crop. I was going to make links out of that entire sentence above, but figured you'd get the picture even if I stopped there.

[Source: Myke Feinman / Grainnet]