Living Car Free - Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat

As for your comment about nitrate leeching and run-off into the rivers; yes, that is a problem. It is mostly a problem on poorly managed farms. Ironically, it is the small family farms that do much of the damage and nitrate polluting through poor soil management. When nitrates flow from farm to rivers, good topsoil usually goes along with it, so it is in the best interest of farms to do a good job of soil conservation and run-off management. Nitrate run-off pollution is mostly caused by animal farmers – especially dairy farms that do not effectively control animal waste. Animal waste is a problem whether the animals are organically raised or conventionally raised.

Given the choice of food or clean water, it seems from what I have seen that people will choose food over clean water. I have been to countries where rivers run black with bubbling organic sludge from run-off and waste discharge. These rivers often ooze right through crowded cities. They don’t stop the farms from polluting and they don’t stop discharging their human waste into the rivers. Consciously or not, they have made the choice to make clean water a second or lower priority.
From what I understand, a great source of polluting nitrates are the hog and other animal confinements. Seems like these industrial settings are not so good at retaining their own waste products. Unfortunately, there are quite a few of them in Iowa.

You point about making a choice of food over water is a sad statement and I hope it is a false one. The idea that we have to pollute outrstreams and rivers just to eat... that just doesn't ring right with me. Mankind has been feeding itself for millions of years and it is only recently that we have been unable to drink from streams and lakes. Even 30 years ago, giardia and other toxins were not as common as today.

In the context of the current thread, it is even sadder when we admit to polluting our drinking water just so we can drive to the mall. Yes, biofuels are a great threat!

An interesting thought occurred to me. In those regions that have already sustained agriculture for thousands of years (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mesoamerica) the people follow a largely vegetarian diet, and the meat they do eat comes mainly from pastured or herded animals, not animals fed cultivated grains. And they certainly don't grow crops to fuel SUVs! ;)That's because our oil is under their sand. ;)

Organic farmers get better yields because they integrate different crops and pay attention to soil quality. I think you get most of your info from the glossy Monsanto brochures. don't believe everything the big peto-corporations tell you!

Uh, no Roody. I get my information from the farmers who's products I sell. If you think that organic farming is as productive as non-organic, then you need to visit some farms and get the real scoop.

The reason organic foods are so expenive is because the yield of far les than non-organic. You can have all the people in the world out swatting bugs off of your organic tomatoes and peaches, but they still could not compete with a good dusting. Same with fertilizer. Organic waste is great fertilizer, but it isn't as great as a good application of synthetic fertilzer.

Uh, no Roody. I get my information from the farmers who's products I sell. If you think that organic farming is as productive as non-organic, then you need to visit some farms and get the real scoop.

The reason organic foods are so expenive is because the yield of far les than non-organic. You can have all the people in the world out swatting bugs off of your organic tomatoes and peaches, but they still could not compete with a good dusting. Same with fertilizer. Organic waste is great fertilizer, but it isn't as great as a good application of synthetic fertilzer.

Sounds like these farmers of yours have certainly bought a load of crap! :D

It might be a tiny bit cheaper to farm with chemicals, but numerous studies have shown it to be no more productive. The main reason organic produce is sometimes more expensive is because consumers are willing to pay more for the better quality of organic goods.

Sounds like these farmers of yours have certainly bought a load of crap! :D

It might be a tiny bit cheaper to farm with chemicals, but numerous studies have shown it to be no more productive. The main reason organic produce is sometimes more expensive is because consumers are willing to pay more for the better quality of organic goods.

It might not be any cheaper to farm with petro-chemicals when you factor in the cost of securing the supply. (The petro end of it, I mean...)

As for productivity, I guess you should first of all define what "organic" means. My understanding of organic farming is that there are many nuances to the practice. Many large corps have bought into smaller companies and are now running operations that are pretty much mono-cultured and large/industrial scale. At the other end of the scale are smaller farms, perhaps most of them selling into farmer's markets and the restaurant trade. It's kind of hard to really see both of these ends of the spectrum as both being "organic".

For my purposes, when I plant a garden, I don't worry too much if the yield fertilizing from my compost heap is better or worse than it would be using Roundup and 10-10-10. I try to grow what I think is the best quality food.

Biofuels needn't be a 'greenhouse threat.' The problem is that CURRENT biofuel crops are inefficient and land is being cleared to grow them. Alternative biofuel crops, like miscanthus giganteus, appear very sustainable:

http://www.miscanthus.uiuc.edu/

These perenial grasses require meager fertilization and they offer incredible yields (~40 tons per hectare compared to ~10 tons per hectore in Corn). As Miscanthus is cold tolerant it’s optimal for growing on the 35 million hectares of land left fallow in the United States alone. We needent slash rainforest or endanger food security to implement biofuels.

Biofuels needn't be a 'greenhouse threat.' The problem is that CURRENT biofuel crops are inefficient and land is being cleared to grow them. Alternative biofuel crops, like miscanthus giganteus, appear very sustainable:

http://www.miscanthus.uiuc.edu/

These perenial grasses require meager fertilization and they offer incredible yields (~40 tons per hectare compared to ~10 tons per hectore in Corn). As Miscanthus is cold tolerant it’s optimal for growing on the 35 million hectares of land left fallow in the United States alone. We needent slash rainforest or endanger food security to implement biofuels.


But how much acreage would be needed to supply some modest fraction of current energy consumption? And meagre fertilization - what's that? Where will it come from? How will it affect the "fallow" land?