Now
Fair
75°
High
75°
Low
66°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Columns
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Local View: Anti-ethanol arguments all wet

Comments 16 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY JON HOLZFASTER

Monday, Oct 01, 2007 - 12:18:57 am CDT

The Journal Star’s anti-corn, anti-ethanol campaign continues withthe Sept. 21 article headlined “Environmental group raises water-ethanol concerns.” The focus of the article is a new report from a group called Environmental Defense that examines the impact of biofuels on natural resources, specifically ethanol production on the Great Plains and the Ogallala Aquifer.

While it makes for a sensational headline, the report fails to offer many specifics and even acknowledges “numerous assumptions … due to lack of information.” We feel compelled to add some badly needed perspective to the issue of water usage by corn producers:

n  Yes, irrigated corn may use around 325,000 gallons per acre per year. Did you know it takes 684,000 gallons of water per acre per year to irrigate a golf course? Or that, on average, a homeowner uses 21,600 gallons to water his or her lawn each year? Which is more important — producing food, fuel and fiber, or keeping our fairways green?

Story Photo

n  Nearly 40 percent of the corn acres in Nebraska are nonirrigated, relying solely on rainwater. Even on irrigated acres only a portion of the water needed to raise corn is supplied by irrigation. Across the United States, 86 percent of corn does not utilize irrigation.

n  Irrigation efficiency has improved dramatically in the past 20 years. Farmers have adopted reduced-tillage practices, which help to conserve moisture. They are also converting from flood irrigation to center-pivot systems, which are much more water efficient. Those farmers with pivots are continually trying new water-saving techniques such as low-pressure nozzles.

n  Back in grade school, we all learned about water transpiration. As a corn plant grows, it takes in water, but it also transpires water, releasing it into the atmosphere and starting the hydrologic cycle all over again. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, an acre of corn gives off 3,000-4,000 gallons of water each day through transpiration.

n  Our local natural resource districts are doing a good job of monitoring water usage by irrigators. They are constantly checking water tables, and many districts in the state have implemented agricultural water use limitations. Remember, we are just coming out of a seven-year drought. As rainfall returns to normal, water supplies will be replenished.

n  Just what do we get in return for the water used to grow corn? A bushel of corn produces three gallons of ethanol and 18 pounds of distillers grains that can be fed to livestock. Or it can be used to make 68 boxes of cereal. Or it can be turned into 22.4 pounds of corn-based plastic, which is more environmentally friendly than petroleum-based plastic.

Those who want to blame the expansion of ethanol for increased water usage are ignoring the fact that corn is going to be produced in Nebraska whether or not there is an ethanol industry. And that those same acres will likely be irrigated whether they are growing corn, soybeans or any other crop.

They also fail to mention the tremendous economic benefits ethanol has brought to our state. Recent figures provided by the Nebraska Public Power District show that the ethanol industry in Nebraska has created more than 700 permanent jobs at ethanol plants. An additional 1,500 have been indirectly created in related industries and from increased economic activity created by the ethanol industry.

The NPPD also estimates that, in 2006, Nebraska’s then-12 ethanol plants generated more than $18 million in tax revenues. Recent numbers indicate that ethanol has also added nearly $1.8 billion in economic output in the state. And with every new plant that comes on line, those numbers continue to increase.

A good example is the town of Madrid, which Environmental Defense called an example of “questionable siting.” The Madrid ethanol plant has brought 40 new jobs to a town of 250 people. It has created a tremendous new market option for corn producers in southwest Nebraska, and local cattle feeders are eagerly utilizing the distillers grains produced by the plant. Try telling the folks in and around Madrid that this is a “questionable siting.”

In closing, isn’t it ironic that this report came out the same week the Grand Island officials are investigating ways to lower the groundwater table under the city? One city official said Grand Island’s groundwater table is at its highest level in 23 years.

Go figure.

Jon Holzfaster of Paxton is chairman of the Nebraska Corn Board.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Columns > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
over 60 wrote on October 1, 2007 9:07 am:
" Jon what you failed to mention that a ethanol plant uses 120,000 gal per hour of water. Figure 24 hours a day, you do the math amd add that into your computations. Add also that the federal government is supplying billions in subsidys to the ethanol plant. How is any of this saving the water supply or the taxpayer. When Bushie gets out of office the taxpayers have to start paying back this fiasco. Now add in the extra cost of the price of everything connected to this. I plan on seeing a shortage of groceries as the corn will get up in price to make ethanol. If the farms want to sell to the ethanol plants take away the other subsidys. It's proven that ethanol takes away gas milage not helps. I see that you are chairman of the nebraska corn board so everone should consider that too. "

 Edgar Pearlstein wrote on October 1, 2007 9:21 am:
" The article implies that every feature of corn-ethanol production is a plus! Not mentioned is the cost of subsidies--to build and operate plants and tax-loss on the ethanol-gasoline fuel. Nor does it take into account the energy used to produce ethanol from corn. Let's see a real balance sheet. "

 whatever wrote on October 1, 2007 11:51 am:
" The anti ethanol arguments aren't all wet. Having said that the ethanol industry needs to exist and develop more efficient means of production, which I believe in time will happen. The sad thing is that most of the ethanol plants we now have in Nebraska will be bankrupt in less than 10 years. The big players are now making their move in the industry, albeit slowly. The shakeup will leave a landscape of billions of dollars of plants sitting idle due to low production, lack of corn, old technology and bad management. "

 SB wrote on October 1, 2007 12:30 pm:
" I try to read these pro/anti ethanol articles with as little bias as possible, but it always seems like the pro-ethanol writers are always searching for something to grab onto and in the process provide only one side of the story which is catered to their personal greed/gratification. And then you have the anti-ethanol crowd who has no personal stake in ethanol production, and only worry about the economical and environmental aspects of leaving this world/country better for future generations. Case in point with this article as every point made has been well refuted or skewed to make a weak point. Residential watering is excessive as people of all walks are greedy, but the overall numbers just aren’t comparable to warrant an analogy and cities have the right to deny homeowners water usage. Nebraska non-irrigated corn is less then 40%, but the US average is 86% - how is that good? Irrigation has improved however most farmers won’t/can’t afford switching technologies. Water transpiration is part of the NATURAL hydrologic cycle, however growing corn on arid land is not natural and only contributes to drought and global climate change. NRD’s are forced to check water tables and implement restrictions because the farmers would have the aquifer run dry if left up to them – and one year of rain does not mean the drought is over. Corn produces ethanol, but ethanol is more expensive then gasoline, produces more carbon gain then gasoline production, and is less efficient to burn. Feeding our cattle alcohol byproducts that are stripped of their nutrients/energy is not a great practice. Corn would not “be grown anyway” as we now have CRP land being tilled back into ag land due to record corn prices – you will rarely ever see any other crop besides corn irrigated. Immediate economic benefits are there (if you disregard the subsidies spent), but only for the immediate time and studies show 75% of the plants will go under in 2012 for numerous reasons – why do you think they’re leaving it up to the little guy to build and support these plants. Having family in Madrid, I can tell you they all agree it is “questionable siting” as they’ve seen their wells dry up and most of the ‘40 new jobs’ don’t even live there or in the state. The G.I. water table is now normal after 23 years – it’s what’s called a ‘flood plain’ or ‘wetland’ – something Madrid hasn’t seen for generations. Go figure. "

 Husker 55 wrote on October 1, 2007 1:28 pm:
" This article was written by a member of the corn lobby. Would you, could you, ever expect a balanced spread sheet or an honest analysis of the facts from him or anyone else in the corn or ethanol lobbies? They gloss over truths like my grandma used to scrub the kitchen counter. "

 JK wrote on October 1, 2007 8:28 pm:
" well, i'm glad i don't get my version of reality from either an internet message board or the Lincoln Journal Star editorial board - do you people ever view anything in that is good for Nebraska as, well, good? Amazing how some people always find the dark lining in the silver cloud. Very well written John, good job debunking the obvious bias that has pervaded the LJS. "

 Des wrote on October 1, 2007 8:29 pm:
" Meanwhile, Mexico has imposed price controls on corn tortillas. Wonder why? Ask yourself which is better, putting a corncob in your gas tank or feeding a hungry child in Mexico? "

 Clay wrote on October 2, 2007 1:43 am:
" Nice try Jon in trying to justify an industry that has already reached its apex. Try explaining to the American consumer why food prices have increased at their fastest rate since 1990! Because of the increase in the price of corn!! Just another indoctrinated lackey trying to justify the existence of an industry that is sucking the taxpayer dry at the rate of 51 cents a gallon! "

 Neighbor wrote on October 2, 2007 8:05 am:
" To me, the bottom line in the ethanol arguement is this: would you rather see corn grown to feed cattle or to make ethanol? Farmers will grow corn because it is a profitable crop. Every gallon of ethanol made in the U.S. is one less gallon of gas imported from some country we have to help defend. "

 Ed Toribio wrote on October 2, 2007 9:31 am:
" What is going t happent to those ethanol plants when the federal subsidies end? They will shut down and we are already seeing some of that happening today. Ethanol will never be a solution for our energy problems even worst they are selling people false expectations about the real benefits of this desperate attempt to solve our oil dependency "

 eddie wrote on October 2, 2007 10:26 am:
" How much foreign oil does Brazil import? I may be mistaken, but I read somewhere that they are foreign oil independent because of ethanol. "

 AB wrote on October 2, 2007 11:36 am:
" Corn is bad. And farmers are bad...is the basis for most of these arguments. "

 Husker55 wrote on October 2, 2007 12:02 pm:
" Neighbor, you say "Every gallon of ethanol made in the U.S. is one less gallon of gas imported from some country we have to help defend." Problem with that line of thinking is that growing the corn, fertilizing the corn, applying herbicides to the corn, harvesting the corn, transporting the corn, making the ethanol and transporting the ethanol uses more gas than if we just used the dang gas in the first place! And, of course, you (and most pro-ethanol folks) conveniently forget to mention the environmental damage of the above, including the sapping of our precious groundwater supply. "

 Umm...Eddie wrote on October 2, 2007 2:33 pm:
" Bringing up Brazil and their oil independence from oil due to ethanol is comparing apples to oranges. Brazil for one, has a much smaller population than the U.S., therefore they consume a lot less energywise. Also their ethanol is not derived from corn, rather it is from sugar cane plants which grow very well down there and do not use nearly as much water. There was talk about importing Brazilian ethanol, but guess which lobby blocked that? Yep, good ol corn ethanol. "

 whatever wrote on October 2, 2007 3:40 pm:
" Some posters here have pointed out one of the few positives of ethanol industry. Because so much corn is going into fuel there is less of a supply of food grains, thus increasing our leverage on the world political stage, because we are still the big dog when it comes to food production. "

 bubba wrote on October 3, 2007 9:23 am:
" your food price increase has more to do with the limited fuel supply than the price of corn in cornflakes. all foods have increased in price due to the additional cost of transportation, aka fuel cost. the US needs fuel to maintain the high quality of life we now enjoy. even if the fuel prices increase we absolutely have to become less dependent on energy from outside the US. ethanol is a transition alternative, as technology is already utilizing grass as the base ingredient instead of corn. most experts anticipate the corn ethanol plants will get converted when the technology advance to the point where grass is more cost efficient. that should appease those wanting the plains to go back to a huge grassland. "

Ads by Yahoo!