Pollinating tropical maize
When University of Illinois crop scientist Fred Below began growing tropical maize, the form of corn grown in the tropics, he was looking for novel genes for the utilization of nitrogen fertilizer and was hoping to discover information that could be useful to American corn producers.
Now, however, it appears that maize itself may prove to be the ultimate U.S. biofuels crop. Early research results show that tropical maize, when grown in the Midwest, requires few crop inputs such as nitrogen fertilizer, chiefly because it does not produce any ears…What it does produce, straight from the field with no processing, is 25 percent or more sugar in the forms of sucrose, fructose and glucose.
His early trials show that tropical maize requires much less nitrogen fertilizer than conventional corn, and that the stalks actually accumulate more sugar when less nitrogen is available. Nitrogen fertilizer is one of major costs of growing corn.
The tall stalks of tropical maize are so full of sugar that producers growing it for biofuel production will be able to supply a raw material at least one step closer to being turned into fuel than are ears of corn.
Yet another delightful example of setting out along one research path – searching for one sort of result – and discovering other results and uses which may be even more useful.
neither corn or maize come close to the sugar content of sugar beets. Sugar beets can be grown from Canada to the tropics and for every unit of energy put into the growing and processing you get 7units out of sugar beets vs 1-2 for corn or maize. You can thank ADM for the corn craze and the waisting of your money
Has anyone given any thought to where the water will come from to grow our fuel?
#1 – Monsato must be laughing all the way to the bank.
#2 – Extremely valid point, every year thousands of farmers must dig deeper wells. Water is a huge problem in the mid-west.
Using dead (no life) sea water from the Gulf of Mexico, removing the salt, pumping it hundreds of miles inland – instead of oil – will be a new hot industry.
Bringing icebergs from the North down South – there won’t be any ‘bergs left in 20 years.
Biofuels put food for the poor in competition with rich people’s transportation. Guess which one will win.
Corn ethanol is the worst of the biofuels. Cellulosic ethanol may be better and may not require the huge land mass dedicated to growing food that is then converted to fuel. This may help a bit for the short term.
Corn is not even good for the short term, at least not when the kernels are used rather than the stalks. Corn ethanol takes almost as much power to produce as it gives back. It ends up being about a 1.3x multiplier of fuel if done perfectly efficiently.
Mostly though, corn ethanol is just a way for the government to funnel huge quantities of our tax dollars into the pockets of enormous agribusiness and get little or nothing in return.
#4 I think everyone knows that by now, nobody contests that.
Scientists were trying Switchgrass instead, now this plant. Some are looking to using the Ocean to grow crops for bio-fuels. Wave/Wind/Solar Energy, free food & water.
A bio-fuel farm in the dead zones of the Gulf of Mexico might also have the extra benefit of removing toxins from the water.
#1
“neither corn or maize come close to the sugar content of sugar beets”
I’m no scientist but the first thing you think of when you hear sugar production is cane or beets, seems like a no-brainer to grow sugar crops for sugar production. I guess I don’t see the big picture…
#4 totally in agreement. Everything I have read about “biofuels” makes it less and less viable as a renewable fuel.
“Using dead (no life) sea water from the Gulf of Mexico, removing the salt, pumping it hundreds of miles inland – instead of oil – will be a new hot industry.” – except the energy needed to do all that would exceed what the resulting biodiesel can produce.
Solar and Geothermal energy, and in some places wind are the only viable sources of renewable energy. That means within a couple of decades we will all have to drive electric cars.
Ethanol is the biggest scam that is going. It is having a negative impact on our food supply by raising prices on other products. We can’t feed the poor but lets start burning our food in a process that gains us nothing. Ethanol also gives you less gas mileage than gas.
I’m not against biofuels but that actually need to have a positive effect that actually gains us something. Not some pipe dream just because people have this insane hatred of Oil Companies.
Water should not be a problem. Just build some nuke plants to run desalination of seawater.
#5 Mark Derail,
I hadn’t heard about farming the hypoxic zones. Seems to me that doing so might even replenish the oxygen, no?
#7 – ArianeB,
Nothing wrong with electric cars. They worked well before gasoline. They’ve worked well since. And Tesla is already making one that competes with Ferrari on all but top speed.
With only a few seed suppliers left in the US, do you guys suppose there is collusion between the seed suppliers to manipulate the yield, in order to maximize their profits?
\Tin foil hat
The amount of misinformation about biofuels is amazing.
Corn has taken off as a fuel because it was relatively cheap to set up with existing technology, and the infrastructure to grow it is already in place. It was originally used in motor fuels to decrease pollution, not replace oil.
There are lots of research projects underway to find better ways to produce alcohol, but you have the chicken and the egg syndrome. No one will build the plant to process the fuel without the raw material supply in place. Farmers can’t change crops until there is a market for their crop. If existing equipment cannot be utilized for the new crop, expensive new equipment will have to be purchased. Few farmers will be willing to take the gamble.
As the price of oil stays at it’s currrent high levels, or continues to climb, we will see a gradual change over to more efficient crops.
Don
#12 So here is some interesting information. Ethanol as a fuel additive makes pollution from vehicles worse.
Stanford University study – the same fine folks doing Folding@Home.
From CBS ::
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/03/tech/main508006.shtml
From FOX ::
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266842,00.html
The amount of misinformation about biofuels isn’t amazing – it’s predictable.
Between Luddites, cowards, junk scientists and analysts fronting for Big Oil – and just plain lazy journalists ready to “adapt” the latest press release – there’s no shortage of deceit available to drag both feet when you try to move to renewable fuel sources.
So – which food prices in your neighborhood big box store have risen because of biofuels – eh? See if you can answer that without relying on a Googled answer from an “analyst” in the EU.
Market distortions will exist – guaranteed. Agribiz hustlers switch crops at the drop of this week’s Congressional subsidy. Long term – meaning beyond the few months since some folks discovered there were biofuel alternatives – market forces will balance out and methods like Fred Below’s will be producing alternatives to imported oil cheaper than today’s prices.
And it’s renewable, folks. Doesn’t that sink in. Fossil fuels are a finite resource.
Mark – read the stuff you’re linking to. The articles are about individual factories that don’t come up to existing pollution standards.
Whoop-de-doo. What a surprise! Industrialists climbing on board a chance to make a buck – and not caring whether or not they live up to the spirit of the enterprise.
Gee. And I thought all American capitalists had the sun shining out their butts.
The Great Bio-Fuel Hoax
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54218/
Pretty good, Ariane. A blog quoting a blog. Do you run all of your life on such authoritative sources?
And a final note for the morning – anyone here actually click the link – read the article – feel like commenting on the topic?
God, welcome to dvorak.org 🙂
What about George Olah’s methanol solution? According to the Science Friday podcast he has created a fule cell that can produce electricity and can be reversed to produce methanol.
Hey, “god”, does that mean we can clear-cut the Tongass National Forest and the Brazilian rainforest for woodgas? Trees are a renewable resource. Hey, we can strip mine the Tongass for the moss on the ground, that’ll burn, too.
Naw, I don’t think so.
I think most biofuel schemes impose too much ecological cost, you have to also consider habitat loss along with the water required and the food diversion. Someone might come up with something that would work some time, but not corn, and probably not switch grass.
#1
“neither corn or maize come close to the sugar content of sugar beets. Sugar beets can be grown from Canada to the tropics and for every unit of energy put into the growing and processing you get 7units out of sugar beets vs 1-2 for corn or maize.”
Idiot, do you have any idea how much pesticide is required to keep the bugs away from those precious sugar beets specially in the tropics? You think that spraying them once with Raid will keep the bugs away until the beets are ready for harvest? You might as well plant sugar cane instead.
Funny how nobody has mentioned bio-diesel, which seems to me anyway as a far better way to fuel automobiles with the technologies now in use for diesel engines outside North America. Unfortunately, here in the USA, diesel is almost always considered dirty, noisy and slow. But it doesn’t have to be that way anymore.
And as far as that goes, nobody has mentioned hemp as a base crop? IIRC, hemp oil would make an excellent diesel fuel, and you get to use the stocks for making linen and all sorts of other things. It grows like weeds!
#22, Hey Angel, WTF do you know about growing sugar beets that gives the the authority to call someone else an idiot on the subject?
I thought #1 brought an interesting point to the topic.
I agree with M Scott. Electric cars currently (cough) seem to be the best way to go. Lets develop and use the amazing crops to feed the world.
Sugar cane harvesting and burn-off of the chaff, is quite a sight. I saw it in Fiji. They leave the cut off waste bits to dry out, then burn it off. An entire field seems to explode, something to do with the sucrose. In a minute or two it’s all over. It returns the CO2 to the atmosphere, kills diseases pests and weeds, returns mineral nutrient to the soil, and uses no chemicals. They replant almost right away. Tropical maize would be very similar, it’s basically another jungle grass.
#15 Wrong. You’re so full of manure in 99% of your posts.
Anything BIO is the new gold, you need capital investment to make anything work.
Algae to Bio-Diesel is the best solution I’ve read so far, and the least financed.
Changing Food Crop Farmers to Non-Food crops is just another way to screw things up real bad. No matter what you grow.
Why, it’s even raising Beer Prices.
#27 – Mark Derail,
And tequila prices as well. Whole agave fields are being burned to clear the way for corn for ethanol. This has to be a bad trade by anyone’s standards.
Here’s my .02 on corn: If it’s so great, then why don’t the “free market” people let it stand on its own two feet, without billions in subsidies paid for by my tax dollars? Same thing with nuclear energy: If it’s competitive, let people invest in it and let it stand or fall on its own.
#29, >>without billions in subsidies paid for by my tax dollars?
Now researching how to get the govt. to pay me not to grow corn.
#24
“Hey Angel, WTF do you know about growing sugar beets that gives the the authority to call someone else an idiot on the subject?
I thought #1 brought an interesting point to the topic. ”
I know fire ants, I know beetles, I know mice and most of all I know there’s enough of them to make growing sugar beets in the tropics a bad idea.