Stan Moore wrote, "He tells me that government programs funding CRP are likely to give way = to large-scale plantings of corn for ethanol, " The irony here is that annual mowing of CRP would make a perfectly fine = biofuel feedstock, with added advantages for wildlife (though not = necessarily for resident ground-nesting birds), honey production, = aesthetic values, and plant biodiversity. =20 "We already and have long had major environmental and ecological = problems associated with agriculture in this country. High prices for = agricultural commodities will not translate into farming practices that reduce = impacts or mitigate damages in my view, if history is any guide." And it is not merely supply-and-demand economics, but incentives are = going the wrong way. All the incentives so far are to support = High-Input, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems. Just imagine if we tilt the = tables slightly, and offer incentives for prairie restoration, using = mowing (i.e. producing biofuel feedstocks) to maintian the prairies. = This would be a major boon to biodiversity. =20 A note: soil respiration resulting from plowing seems to be one of the = most overlooked problems with High-Input biofuels systems. The = energetic inputs and outputs are not the only factors influencing the = carbon dioxide released by HILD systems. =20 " In fact, I fear that the boom in grain will set back efforts by Wes Jackson at the Land = Institute in Kansas to develop grains for commercial use that require little or no tilling or other practices designed to make farming more sustainable in terms if soil depletion, usage of less chemicals, etc." =20 If the target is the absentee landholder, biofuels production using = Low-Input, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems can be viewed as very = attractive. Imagine that instead of plowing, planting, paying royalties = for trangsenic switchrass or corn, fertilizing, irrigating, inspecting = crops for weeds, herbiciding, pesticiding, and harvest - you can 'just = harvest'. And we do not need to invent any new technology: there is a = tradition worldwide (and also in much of the US) for utilizing hay = meadows. Unfortunately, high-diversity hay meadows are disappearing = everywhere - mostly due to development, abandonment, and encroachment by = woody plants. Imagine having a cost-effective way to preserve these = threatened systems. It now seems that we might. =20 =20 (though it could be that conservationists in the US do not like the idea = of maintaining cultural landscapes because they are not 'natural', = despite their high native biodiversity. I have found that = conservationists elsewhere are not so squeemish).
"I guess no one can blame farmers for wanting to ride this boom. And politicians are eager to please their constituents. But the long-term = cost of this boom, and even the short-term international costs may make the = boom turn out to be a boondoggle." Or we can turn the tables and argue how we can all benefit. Whether or = not we agree with all the details (I don't), everyone interested in the = issue should read and understand: Tilman, Hill and Lehman (2006): = Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland = biomass. Science 314(5805):1598-600. This concept can serve as a = rallying point for ecologists interested in truly making a difference. =20 I agree that we should not blame the farmers. We should also not blame = the politicians. The current debate seems to be dominated by the = Cellulosic technology firms, and as recent news items in Science and = Nature attest, money is being thrown at plant geneticists at rates they = can barely handle. =20 (Ironically, the #1 target of the biotech industry is to reduce biomass = recalcitrance - i.e. the thing that presents fungi from being able to = break down plant cell walls. Now imagine they succeed, and we plant = many square miles of transgenic switchgrass. This is like an invitation = to the dinner table for plant fungal pathogens. No problem, though. I = am sure agritech already has a fungicide they want to sell). We should, however, blame ourselves. When I have spoken to = non-ecologists about LIHD ideas, they seem generally receptive. When I = speak to people who grew up on the land, they seem to like the idea of = keeping their grasslands. The only people who seem downright = antagonistic to LIHD are the scientists who see the funding boon for = plant breeding, or in patenting microbes for degrading homogeneous = feestocks. Why can't the ecologists stake an even bigger claim for this = funding? The ultimate challenge is in the production end, not the = conversion technology, and who knows more about the initial conversion = of solar energy into chemical energy, processed through living systems, = than the ecologists? =20 ---Mike Palmer, Oklahoma State University
