In light of the recent discussion of biofuels and the consequences of 
growing corn to produce ethanol, the following editorial from today's NY 
Times may be of interest -- it points out yet another aspect of the problem.

I might also draw attention to Michael Pollan's recent book, "The Omnivore's 
Dilemma", which goes into great detail about the environmental and social 
cost of growing corn.

Bill Silvert

The Consequences of Corn

By now most farmers know what they'll be planting this spring. And all 
across the country the answer is the same: corn, corn, corn. The numbers are 
surprising. Farmers will plant some 90.5 million acres of corn this year - 
12 million more than last year and the most since 1944. Soybean acres are 
down by more than 10 percent, and there are similar decreases in wheat and 
cotton. The reason for this enormous shift is, of course, the ethanol boom 
and the corn rush it has created.

If it were just a matter of shifting the balance in already planted 
acreage - more corn, less wheat - a point of economic equilibrium might be 
found soon enough. The real trouble comes at the edges. This corn boom puts 
pressure on land that has been set aside as part of the United States 
Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program. Since the 
mid-1980s, farmers have enrolled some 37 million acres of farmland in the 
program. This is land that has been returned to nature, and it is part of 
what Americans pay for through the farm bill. Much of it is unsuitable for 
crops - too hilly, too wet, too valuable as wildlife habitat - but when corn 
prices are this high, the idea of suitable changes swiftly.

Agricultural interest groups have begun to call on the Department of 
Agriculture to release some of this land from the reserve so that farmers 
can put it into corn production. The U.S.D.A. has temporarily halted new 
enrollments in the program, and though it will probably not release land 
this year, the pressure to do so will only increase.

Much as we like the idea of ethanol production - and especially the 
potential of cellulosic ethanol, from sources other than corn - it would be 
a tragic mistake to jettison two decades of farm-based conservation for 
short-term profit. Corn ethanol will replace only a small fraction of the 
petroleum we use, and if it does so at the cost of a new agricultural land 
rush, then we will have lost much more in conservation than we gained in 
energy independence. 

Reply via email to