Agriculture – Part 7: Growing Food, Feed or Fuel on the Farm

Biofuel Isn’t Something New

Humanity discovered how to control fire hundreds of thousands of years ago with wood and dung our primary fuel sources. Tens of thousands of years ago our ancestors discovered that wood could be converted to charcoal. Peat fires to this day are still a principle heating source in parts of the world. And animal dung provides humans living in desert regions with an alternative to wood.

Humanity has also grown crops and converted them to fuel. Olive oil lit the lamps of Greek and Roman antiquity.

The age of whaling provided whale oil for lamps burning in the homes of European and North America well into the 19th century.

I found this Henry Ford quote that goes back to 1925.

“There is enough alcohol in one year’s yield of a hectare of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the field for a hundred years.”

In World War II, Germany took Henry Ford’s advice and partly fueled their transportation and industry using alcohol derived from potatoes.

In that same war Great Britain experimented with grain-derived alcohol as a fuel for its war industries.

To this day 9-10% of human energy consumption comes from the burning of biomass for heating and cooking. And the two primary sources remain animal dung and wood.

The Biofuel Dilemma Today

From left to right, soybeans, corn and sugarcane are grown for food, feed and fuel

Creating biofuels today Brazil, the United States, and other countries are using soybeans, corn, sugarcane, sugar beets and other crops instead of potatoes and grain (Germany and Britain’s experiment) to create ethanol, an alcohol-based fuel. The harvesting of these crops for fuel is changing the mix of what farmers in the Western World grow today and will be growing in greater quantities for the forseeable future. That’s because in a world where population growth is driving the need for greater food production, and energy demand is driving biofuel development, farmers are finding themselves asking the following question.

“Should I grow more food, feed or biofuel crops?”

The argument for food is obvious. The Developing World lacks the capacity to deliver enough domestically grown food to meet population demand. China, India, most of Africa, Southwest Asia and Russia are net importers of food.

The argument for feed seems obvious as well. The increasing demand for meat and dairy products in the Developing World and the continuing demand in the Developed World represents a thriving export and domestic opportunity for countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina and those in Western Europe.

The argument for biofuel is more about geopolitics and security. In the United States and Europe, biofuel production means less dependence on imported oil for energy use. For the United States, corn represents the primary biofuel source.  Corn usage for ethanol has increased annually for a number of years at a rate greater than the total national corn yield.

The second largest North American source for biofuel is vegetable oils. One-third of all the Canola grown in Europe and North America is used for industrial lubricants or biodiesel.  Soybeans, largely grown for domestic and foreign food consumption, are being converted to oil for industrial use.

In the Farm Foundation Issue Report – What’s Driving food Prices in 2011? it reports on changes in agricultural land use from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011. Most significantly, the top three crops are those being grown for ethanol, biodiesel and industry.

Net Changes in Land Usage for 13 Major crops from 2005-6 to 2010-11

American energy policy contributes dramatically to the growth in demand for biofuels. In 2010 corn-based ethanol production in the United States reached 13 billion gallons. The corn-based ethanol target for 2015 is 15 billion gallons. The U.S. government has set a target of 36 billion gallons by 2022.

A 2009 feasibility study by the Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California, looks at achieving a target of 90 billion gallons of ethanol by 2030, of which 75 billion gallons would come from non-food crops and 15 billion from corn, soybean and other food or feed crops. Farm-based biofuel sources included agricultural residue such as corn stover and wheat straw. Farms could also harvest switchgrass and short-rotation woody crops such as poplar and willow.

Biofuel’s Near Future – the Next 20 Years

Cellulosic Ethanol

The Sandia study sees almost all of  the capacity for biofuel growth coming from cellulose.  Cellulosic ethanol  can be derived from low-value residue of industrial processes such as sawdust and scrap wood. Add to this the byproduct residue of farming and the harvesting of woody shrubs and grasses from land not under cultivation. In deriving ethanol from “waste” sources the competitive dilemma for farmers to choose among food,  feed and biofuel crop production is mitigated. The pressure to plant more traditional crops on marginal land goes away.

Cellulosic ethanol production has its challenges. Producers need to find an economical way to break  down the woody fibres, called lignin, to get to the cellulose to convert it to sugars and ultimately ethanol. By studying the digestive processes of herbivores such as cattle, or studying the way termites break down wood fibre, scientists are developing better conversion processes. The first large-scale cellulosic ethanol plants in North America are expected to come on stream in 2013 able to pump out several million gallons. Getting to 75 billion gallons from this source requires continuous investment.

Algenol

Creating ethanol from algae, called algenol, represents another biofuel option that takes the farm out of the energy production equation. The process involves growing algae in waste water, seawater and brackish water near existing manufacturing or fossil-fuel power plants where CO2 is a byproduct.  Capturing and pumping the CO2 into the water along with exposure to sunlight generates algae growth with ethanol the byproduct. Called photobioreactors, these facilities can be located anywhere human activity is generating sufficient CO2 output to justify putting an algae-to-ethanol generator in place. One company in the forefront of commercializing algae-t0-ethanol is aptly named Algenol. Their goal is 20 billion gallons per year of ethanol by 2030.

Biodiesel

Biodiesel is another biofuel that can be produced from soybeans and other agricultural products. But biodiesel can also be produced in very novel ways, from the left over vegetable oil in a deep fryer, from kitchen grease, from rendered animal fats, and what typically is seen generally as waste oil.

Biodiesel has several advantages over other biofuels. It is biodegradable. It helps take care of waste oils that normally get dumped into domestic water supplies or landfill as garbage. It is less toxic and provides fewer emissions than conventional diesel fuel.

Germany and the United States are the world leaders in the production of biodiesel. In 2005 the United States produced 75 million gallons. Comparably Germany in 2006 reported sales figures of 600 million gallons. American output was forecast to reach 1-2 billion gallons by 2010.

Worldwide Biofuel Growth

In 2010 global biofuel production equaled 54.6  million gallons per day. This number is expected to more than double to 113.4 million gallons per day by 2030. Biofuels will generate 8.5% of global energy by 2030, up from 7.7% in 2005.

Agriculture – Part 3: Bio Engineering of Plants

Humanity has engineered plants and animals since the dawn of the Neolithic Revolution, selecting seeds from the best plants, and cross-pollination to create new plant and animal varieties. Humans used observation and experimentation to achieve improved crop yields and better livestock. Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel provided the foundational science behind what we know of today as genetics and bioengineering. Through Darwin we discovered how the natural processes of selection are influenced by environmental factors. Through Mendel we learned how inherited characteristics are passed down through human selection. Their scientific work comprised of observation and detailed record keeping.

Charles Darwin on the left, a failed teacher, and Gregor Mendel on the right, a priest, worked largely on their own in discovering the science behind natural and human-derived selection.

In 1859 Darwin published “The Origin of the Species.” Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel studied pea plants and made two discoveries which he called the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, the fundamentals of how inherited traits get passed along. When Mendel was promoted to abbott in 1868 he ended his experiments. Neither man knew of each other. Interestingly in 1869 another scientist, Friedrich Miescher identified something he called the nuclein inside human white blood cells. Miescher had found DNA. But it was 84 years later that James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the unique characteristics of the DNA molecule.

DNA Allows Us to Bio Engineer Living Things

DNA is  found in every chromosome in the nucleus of almost every cell in our bodies (red blood cells have no nucleus so they are the exception) as well as in all the cells in plants and animals on this planet. Every strand of DNA contains genes and it is genes that determine  inherited traits. Sexual reproduction combines the DNA of two parents in the offspring. When egg and sperm meet each represents half of the genetic content of each parent. This means that not all characteristics of a parent get expressed in an offspring. When Mendel studied his pea plants he uncovered how traits could be transmitted from generation to generation, some traits dominant and some recessive. Mendel didn’t know about genes when he was recording his observations. But he had discovered the mechanism of genetic manipulation. Today agricultural science manipulates genes in living things, not only intraspecies but interspecies.

Why Do We Want to Modify Agricultural Products Using Genetics?

On Monsanto’s website, a company that is heavily invested in genetically engineered crops, herbicides and pesticides, it describes our human dilemma caused by population growth. Monsanto is seen by environmentalists as a pariah because its genetically modified crop solutions help bolster the sales of its own herbicide and pesticide products. But nonetheless Monsanto is not wrong in stating the facts that by 2050 the planet will have a human population exceeding nine billion. That more than nine billion represents a 30% increase over our present human population, a number equivalent to adding a today’s China and India to the planet. What that means is we simply need to produce much more through agriculture to meet food demands. In Monsanto’s words “farmers must produce more in the next few decades than they have in the past 10,000 years combined.”

Genetic Engineering in Modern Agriculture

Genetic engineering is playing a significant role in worldwide agricultural production today. What proportion of  foods today are genetically manipulated?

• 60 to 70% of processed foods in U.S. grocery stores contain oils or ingredients derived from biotech corn and soybeans
• 45% of all corn grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered
• 85%  of soybeans in the U.S. are genetically altered

For farmers the attractions are obvious.  Genetically engineered crops produce higher crop yields and cost far less to maintain.

A brief discussion on some of the most commonly grown genetically modified crops follows:

Tomatoes

In attempting to stop tomatoes from rotting the Flavr Savr  was invented in 1994. It was the first genetically engineered food crop to receive human consumption approval. A tomato enzyme polygalacturonase, PG for short, was identified as having the ability to contribute to the ripening of tomatoes. Researchers at Calgene, Inc., introduced an altered antisense gene to reduce the formation of PG. The benefit to farmers was immediate. Tomatoes with the antisense gene could be left to ripen longer in the field. Rather than being treated chemically to ripen, Flavr Savr tomatoes could naturally mature enhancing the flavour of the end product.

Extensive testing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that these altered tomatoes posed no harm to humans. But what was an agricultural success in genetic engineering turned into a commercial failure when the product was introduced and labelled as genetically engineered. Today genetically engineered products are not so blatant in their labelling.

Corn

Corn of all plants cultivated in North America seems to be most associated with genetic engineering. Corn was domesticated in North America very early in the Neolithic Revolution. It has been engineered from its ancestral form, teosinte, a grass, into modern corn varieties. Farmers cross-bred various strains of primitive corn to improve yields and cultivate desirable traits. This manipulation of corn was intraspecies.

The genetic modification being made by agribusiness research companies today are more interspecies than intraspecies. Corn is no exception.

A protein toxic to caterpillars found in a strain of bacteria called Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) has been bioengineered into corn plants. The gene allows the corn to express the toxin and kill the caterpillars that feed on its leaves and cobs. But it has become an arms race between genetic engineers and the insect pests. By planting  too much bioengineered product farmers are speeding up evolutionary resistance to the toxin by new generations of caterpillars and ultimately crop yields have been affected.

Companies like Monsanto have invested heavily in developing new types of corn engineered to tolerate herbicides such as Roundup(TM), a popular weed killer used on home gardens and lawns. Monsanto is the inventor of Roundup. So developing Roundup-ready crops that contain genes tolerant to glyphosate, a chemical toxic to weeds, means crops can be sprayed and only the weeds die. But some weeds over time develop resistance to herbicides and these survivors pass along inherited traits. You see, Darwin was right.

Soybeans

Corn isn’t the most genetically manipulated crop grown globally. That honour goes to soybeans. Genetically modified soybeans containing resistance to herbicides like Roundup were first planted in the United States in 1996. By 2006 genetically modified soybean plantings extended to 9 countries.

In countries like Argentina almost 100% of the soybean crop is genetically modified. The United States is a close second. Today 58.6% of worldwide soybean production comes from genetically modified crops.

We ingest food additives laced with genetically modified soybeans. Our domestic farm-bred animals are raised on soybean-derived feeds.

When Monsanto developed Roundup-Ready(TM) soybeans the goal was to create plants that could be dosed with a less toxic herbicide than atrazine. Atrazine was a commonly used herbicide before Roundup. Atrazine had long-term environmental consequences where Roundup was perceived to have a shorter impact in the environment. But glyphosate, the active chemical in Roundup has proven to be highly toxic to many plants, and to aquatic life when it enters lakes and streams through agricultural runoff.

In some areas where Roundup-Ready soybeans are grown, nearby plants have begun to exhibit glyphosate resistance. When these plants are weeds the benefit of the herbicide is diminished impacting crop yields. As more weeds become Roundup resistant, new genetically modified soybean variants will need to be developed to counter this escalating arms race. New herbicide treatment plans will potentially introduce more herbicide residue into the larger environment.

New methods of tillage, crop rotation, growing of cover crops, and other biointensive techniques including weed tolerance may prove to be far more effective tools for maintaining quality and crop yield.

Rice

Rice provides basic nutrition to much of South and East Asia. Golden Rice, developed in 1999, contains two turned-off and two inserted genes that cause beta-carotene to accumulate in the rice grains. The golden colour indicates the concentration of Vitamin A to meet the recommended daily dosage in 100 to 200 grams of rice. Golden Rice is contributing  to reductions in diseases related to Vitamin A deficiency. Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD) causes blindness in 250,000 to 500,000 children annually. The blindness is an indicator of a more serious problem that leads to half of these  children dying within a year of becoming blind. That’s because VAD impacts a child’s immune system putting them at increased risk to common infections.

Cabbage, Broccoli, Sprouts and Cauliflower

Even members of the cabbage family have been targets for genetic modification. The insertion of a Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) genes in cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower was introduced as a toxin to kill Cabbage Butterfly larvae. Increasing resistance on the part of the butterfly population eventually led to a decline in Bt-cabbage. More recently a gene responsible for the poison in scorpion tails has been inserted into cabbage plants. The poison expressing genes are modified to not harm humans.

Using Genetic Engineering to Turn Plants into Medicine

Hepatitis B and cholera are among a number of diseases that may be treated by making humans eat fruit or vegetables that are genetically modified to produce vaccines.  Researchers are engineering bananas, potatoes, lettuce, carrots and even tobacco to produce a way to vaccinate people without a needle.

Bananas are particularly useful. An altered form of  the disease virus is injected into banana saplings. The altered virus genetic information is reproduced in the plant and fruit. When consumed by humans the bananas help build immunity to fight these diseases.