# Ethanol vs. Habitat



## n_108_nd (Oct 13, 2004)

The following is an editorial from the Star Tribune. It was written by Ed Crozier, a retired manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I have always bought gas with ethanol in it because it is the same price as normal gas and it helps the farmers. Ed raises a good point, and it might make me reconsider buying gas with ethanol in it. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

In Dennis Anderson's Jan. 13 "Duck strategy" column, he mentioned only in passing a much more serious problem for the recovery of Minnesota's waterfowl than his main concern, the DNR Duck Recovery Plan. 
If the ethanol and biodiesel industry flourishes with Gov. Tim Pawlenty's additional subsidies, it could encourage such intensive farming that all Great Plains wildlife will be threatened. Energy farming -- where "dedicated crops" are grown solely to produce energy -- will encourage the cultivation of even marginal land where other crop production hasn't been profitable. That will leave no land for wildlife.

This means that legislation which provides for using a dedicated portion of the state sales tax to increase the pace of acquisition of land for wildlife is imperative. Maybe there should even be a special tax on biodiesel and ethanol to compensate for the increased pressure on wildlife lands.

ED CROZIER, BURNSVILLE; RETIRED MANAGER, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I have sort of thought that all along. Certainly I want to do all I can to help the midwest farmers but are needless crops being planted on land that would otherwise be set aside?? If they were planting on ground that would have been planted anyway I am all for it but if marginal ground is put back into production that shouldn't be, then is it worth it??? Great question I think and there are many sides to this issue.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Is that to much to give up? Think of what the future generations that will live on this planet have lost to our greed. The oil in this planet is not replenishing itself and when it is gone it is gone. I sure as heck hope we can save some crude oil for the future generations to use as they see fit.

We will be remembered in history as the people who destroyed the planet unless we get busy and get un-hooked from fossil fuel energy. I would like to see a petition or list of the people who boycott ethanol so we can not grant land access to the people who do not support us.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

BE, Maybe I wasn't very clear. I _*do *_buy ethanol enriched gasoline and I am _*very *_supportive of the program. I just hope that land that really shouldn't be planted isn't planted just to be planted. I also don't think that and I hope that fossil fuels are not the main energy source in years to come. I would hope that we can be free of the bonds that fossil fuels have on us now within a 15 year time span.


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

This is, as are most environmental issues, truly a societal problem. We have become reliant upon a cheap and plentiful energy source. Petroleum was the low cost fuel that powered us to our current state of modern conveniences. It runs everything from factories that produce the goods we consume, the appliances we place in our homes, and the vehicles that transport us across the globe.

Now, we are running into a big problem; the oil supply is dwindling (projected to be nearly used up in 30 yrs) and at the same time is facing increased demand from developing countries(China, India) that still lag behind us in volume used but are closing the gap.

There are three solutions to this problem:

1. Find alternative fuel sources.
2. Make ourselves more efficient. - Temporary fix as oil reserves would still be expended.
3. Go without our modern conveniences.

2. and 3. are not going to happen. Homes are getting bigger. Cars, though more efficient, are being driven more and have not significantly increased in overall efficiency in the last 20 years.

If you are concerned with energy farming incroaching on habitat then do something to reduce the amount of energy you consume.

WE ARE THE PROBLEM. This is not an us/them issue.

Energy prices would have to increase for it to become economical to farm marginal land. That is why it is marginal. If the commodity price increases, this sways the balance and it becomes economical to farm. Commodity prices decrease and the land becomes uneconomical to farm. Commodity prices are not the only factor, so are operating costs.

Think about how every aspect of your life contributes to the degrading of the environment. You enjoy a cheap and plentiful food supply, don't you? You consume electricity, you drive a vehicle, you drink water, you flush your toilet. Conservation isn't only setting aside waterfowl habitat. It's recycling. It's driving more efficient vehicles. It's not heating your house to 75 in the winter and cooling it to 65 in the cummer.

Before you complain about how someone else may cause damage to the environment, think about what you yourself are doing.


----------



## Trois_Beaux_Canards (Dec 14, 2005)

What an excellent topic!

I too drive (and buy fuel for) an ethanol vehicle. I did this for two reasons; cleaner burning fuel and cheaper costs for me. Without getting too far into the last reason it was not all that cheaper...

This said, I still support the program to a degree. As long as marginal lands, and/or land in CRP are not used for ethanol production I can continue to support it. However, alternatives should be found and people need to change habits to ensure the longevity of our current resources until alternatives are put into wider usage.

Without a doubt I would choose habitat over ethanol production. What point is there for me to drive, if there is no habitat for ducks or otherwise?

I'd rather walk through a life of ecological riches, than drive through a barren wasteland.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Another question that is going to need to be addressed in the near future with renewable fuels is the Quota for consigned crops.

As many of you probably know many crops are grown, harvested and sold on consignment contracts. Using this principal the farmer is under contract to provide x number of Lb's., Bu's. etc per contract. IMO knowing a little something about profit and loss seems to me the farmers will not be using the land that gives them a less than proportionate share of profit for their contract crops, simply because marginal land will require a greater percentage of input of resources to achieve an equal proportion of profit on a comparable basis with more prime tillable land. Subsidy prices will also have a major effect on this process, and could very well be the wild card.

Will some CRP go under the plow? you bet it will, it is going to be very fertile ground. The legumes and grasses have been increasing the Nitrogen and mineral content of the soil and have changed some soil from marginal to an improved status.

I am not 100% in favor of using CRP for renewable fuels without some form of wildlife/habitat "safety net". I remember what happened in the years that followed the demise of Soil Bank. It was a bad time for wildlife, Not right away but today the waterfowl populations have to date never rebounded to levels from that era, even with todays waterfowl management practices (another subject for another time)

Do we need renewable fuels. Yes we do. Are we capable of producing alternative energy sources for our use. Yes we are! the question you need to ask is; why when we have been talking about these problems and solutions for future energy sources for years are we not much closer to a solution than we are today. Could it be that some one some where some industry does not want to see it happen? Just speculating. 

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I caught that right away dj  and thanks for doing your part, I wasn't responding so much to your post but more just the idea in general. These big energy companies do business like there is no tomorrow, I really do wonder what they as people are thinking.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Probably the only land that will go back into crop production will be land that shouldn't have been in the CRP program in the first place.

I think the trend has been set with the government letting the landowners hay and graze part of their CRP. If this works right the landowners will have altered their operation to include those X amount of extra hay and grazing acres by owning more cattle, if the cattle market stays good this will also help keep the plow away from marginal land.

There are people at work all day long trying to figure this out and I do think the current trends will save the day for habitat.


----------



## Rick Acker (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm all for saving the planet for future generations, but I would like to add that there are many scientists who do indeed believe that fossil fuel DOES replenish itself overtime! I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to try to tell you otherwise. This really all comes down to politics and The big oil companies hold on us! We have the technology today to be driving vehicals that run on hydrogen and not gas, but it's not going to happen anytime soon and you know why!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

For those of you who have been around the Mott area can you say those acres should be mostly tilled or grass?

The two adjoining counties in that part of the state where the highest tilled in the state of ND. I bet that is a surprise to a lot of people.

Now back 15-20 years the land was mostly raising small grain and sunflowers with some acres of corn for silage. They had some of the lowest county average in the state for the crops. Part from climate, part from soil. Climate and soil have not changed what has changed is that today Genetically modified corn and beans have come on the market requiring less days to mature or less moisture to grow. CRP will not compete in dollars even with commercial hunting for value per acre. This same scenario will play out all across the state. All in chasing a false belief that we can grow our way out of depends for oil.

I am not saying we should not look for alternative energy or abandon the possibility of grain fuels. But the reality remains that we will need 5 million new acres of corn for I do believe 1000 years to achieve the same energy value that would come from ANWAR alone. Let alone the multiple places where energy is currently at that we have not drilled or tapped into.

Now look north. Many oil fields in Canada are burning off Natural gas and other burnable gases so they can extract oil from the ground. The same people feeding us the line of BS on ethanol also blocked the building of pipelines from Canada to the US to utilize these fuels.

I have for the last 5 years encouraged everyone to educate themselves on energy issues so that when this time came as I said it would in 02 we would be able to stop the loss of CRP for false claims and promises.

We would be much better off importing sugar and using the beets grown in the valley to make ethanol than doing so from corn or bio diesel for soybeans. But that is not on the table. Instead marginal lands which the Gov in the 70's paid to be broken up went back into grass in the 80's and 90's only to have subsidize programs once again turn them into crop lands!

Few people I talk with can tell me what the break even point is for yield where less fossil fuel is consumed than produced from corn or soybeans. Fewer yet can tell me what lands in ND are capable of achieving those production levels on a consistent basis. So educate yourselves on this issue and do not take snippets and sound bites for fact. We need to be able to educate those we speak with on this issue to have any chance of saving CRP in ND and SD.


----------



## honkbuster3 (Jan 11, 2006)

cool  Tganks for sharing  :sniper:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

buckseye wrote



> I think the trend has been set with the government letting the landowners hay and graze part of their CRP. If this works right the landowners will have altered their operation to include those X amount of extra hay and grazing acres by owning more cattle, if the cattle market stays good this will also help keep the plow away from marginal land


FARGO, N.D. (AP) - The Agriculture Department says cattle numbers are up for the first time since 2001 in North Dakota. But the agency says the state's sheep flock is the second smallest since record-keeping began in 1920.

The department says cattle and calves on January first totaled one-point-seven (m) million. That's up about 100-thousand animals from the same time last year. The agency says it the first increase following four years of decline.

Sheep and lamb numbers totaled 104-thosuand on January first. That was down one percent from 2005. Nationwide, cattle and calves totaled 97-point-one (m) million. That's up two percent.


----------

