John Beeby, former Ecology Action apprentice
and staff person, sent us an estimate of growing
corn to produce ethanol for energy use. He states
his figures are based on this information taken
from a 1995 USDA article:
“If you grew one bushel
of corn, you could produce roughly 209,000 BTU in
the form of ethanol. It would take 199,000 BTU to
produce that ethanol (farm machinery and fertilizers
to grow corn, drying the corn, hauling the corn
to an ethanol conversion plant, converting corn
into ethanol, and distributing the ethanol. It does
not include secondary energy requirements like building
the farm machinery or ethanol conversion plants.
So there is a net gain of about 10,000 BTU.”
John used the USDA figures to
compute the following: “If we assume an acre
of land in Illinois produces 120 bushels/acre, then
about 1,200,000 BTU is produced per acre. 1.2 million
BTU is equivalent to about 10 gallons of gasoline.
In 2002, the US had 445 million acres in arable
and permanent crops. If it were all used to produce
ethanol, that would produce 534 trillion BTU, which
is only 1/180th the energy the US used in 2003.”
• This
information was taken from “A push for less
pricey produce” by Kathleen Hennessey of the
Associated Press, in the September 5, 2005 issue
of Inland Valley Bulletin:
Protected Harvest, a Maryland-based non-profit,
is “pushing to certify, label and market produce
grown according to a set of agricultural standards
labeled as sustainable,” to provide an alternative
to the new organic certification process. “Certified
growers must meet requirements regarding soil management,
water quality, wildlife protection and labor practices,
as well as pesticide use.” The “program
does not prohibit farmers from using synthetic pesticides
[but] farmers are scored on their pesticide practices
and are asked to do detailed research before applying
chemicals.” In a similar program in Wisconsin,
“farmers used about 54 percent fewer toxic
chemicals than the industry standard on that land.”
• There
are two articles of interest in the May 2005 Permaculture
Activist: “Silvopastoral Agroforestry
Using Honeylocust” by Andy Wilson states that
the tree “produces pods and seeds high in
carbohydrates and protein that provide animal feed
during autumn and winter when pasture grass production
declines. Its open canopy produces a light shade,
minimizing possible negative effect on summer grass
production. Casual observations by field workers
suggest that pasture grasses and legumes do well
under honeylocust, growing right up to the trunk
of the tree. The tree’s small leaflets are
easily absorbed into pasture grasses during autumn
leaf drop and provide an additional source of fertilizer.
Because sheep, in contrast to cattle and swine,
can digest between 70% and 90% of honeylocust seed,
they fit best with silvopastoral honeylocust. The
sheep reproduction cycle also coincides with pod
production. Pods have a nutritional value between
that of oats and barley, depending on the cultivar,
growing culture and location. Although difficult
to quantify, additional benefits include reduction
of water runoff and topsoil erosion, shade for livestock,
a productive pollen and nectar source for bees,
a more diversified and aesthetically pleasing pasture
environment, and timber upon project completion.”
The downside to the tree is that it is thorny in
its natural state and can be invasive.
The second article
is “Pattern and Process in the Underground
Economy,” about tree root ecology. This is
a longer, detailed article which needs to be read
in its entirety for those interested in the subject.
However, here are a few quotes: “Most
tree roots grow horizontally through the soil near
the surface. The top one to two feet of soil typically
contains 60-80% of tree roots by weight, the top
three feet up to 99% of root mass. It appears that
deep soils are important for healthy, productive
trees even though most roots grow near the surface.
Deep soils allow deeper rooting, therefore better
nutrition and moisture supplies, hence higher and
more stable yields, healthier and longer-lived trees,
and better nutrient cycling for the whole system.”
• The
information in this article comes from “Not
So ‘Inert’ after All?” in the
May 2005 HortIdeas: Two biochemists at a
French University did a study on Roundup. They “looked
at two different ways that Roundup might cause pregnancy
problems in mammals. They looked at Roundup’s
toxicity to placenta cells, as well as Roundup’s
ability to inhibit an important enzyme, called aromatase,
that synthesizes a sex hormone. Next they compared
Roundup to glyphosate, the ‘active’
ingredient in Roundup. Differences between the two
are related to the inert ingredients in Roundup”
[which are not required to be named on the label].
“The researchers found that Roundup damaged
placenta cells ‘at least 2 times more efficiently
than glyphosate.’ The concentration of Roundup
that inhibited the enzyme was four times less than
the concentration of glyphosate.” The inert
ingredients “probably make the glyphosate
more available to living cells by making it easier
for the glyphosate to penetrate inside them.” |