Comments on: Switchgrass Looks Promising

By: back40

back40 — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:42:22 +0000

You get no ethanol from switchgrass without cellulosic technologies. If you have them the proper comparison to corn is to the whole plant – leaves, stems, cobs and all – rather than to just the grain used in current fermentation systems. Corn grown for whole plant use – such as when chopped for silage – is different – bigger and leafier – than that grown solely for grain yield. Also, the leaves and stems are richer in energy, an attribute selected against in varieties used only for grain.

No plant can be harvested in quantity from a sward repeatedly without fertilizing. A rule of thumb is that whatever is removed must be replaced or else the soil degrades monotonically. Not all plants use fertilizer as efficiently as others, and not all plants use other inputs – even sunlight – as well as others. When maximum biomass production is the objective you seek the net benefit of production minus inputs. It is almost always better to increase inputs to the maximum that can be used since land and water tend to be the hard limits of production. Get the most out of your limited time, land and water by growing productive cultivars in fertile soil.

The real danger here, from my perspective, is that corn can be repurposed in this way and so maintain its subsidies. The machine is running and will be very hard to stop.

By: Phil Bowermaster

Phil Bowermaster — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:59:56 +0000

Corn is just not a great food for humans.

That may be, but I don’t see how in the world we would make corndogs without it.

By: MDarling

MDarling — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:38:37 +0000

Minor quibble-
the best uses of corn are to feed livestock.

Not people. Corn is just not a great food for humans.

By: BMurdoch

BMurdoch — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:56:18 +0000

The Schmer article was a very good article. Most importantly, his article notes that switchgrass must be managed properly (just like other grassland & pasture) in order for it to economically yield enough biomass. Also, the switchgrass used in this study was an old cultivar. Newer cultivars yield about 20-30% more biomass. I encourage everyone to at least read the discussion portion of the article.

By: Stephen Gordon

Stephen Gordon — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:09:51 +0000

Yeah, this is a very attractive crop. You plant once and you harvest over and over again – with some light maintenance.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:41:31 +0000

Isn’t expecting untended grass to solve fuel problems as unrealistic as hoping gasoline will just spring forth from a hole in your lawn? (Even if it did, there are many who would still complain about the work required to lift it into the car)

From my usual cynical perspective, I imagine the pesticides and fertilizer producers would be upset if farmers switched their fields to maintenance-free grasses that made more money than corn. (which are exceptionally profitable thanks to subsidies. Subsidies which would probably be reduced in favor of fuel crops)

Discussion of Corn/Ethanol/HFCS always makes me conspiratorial– so I’ll stop here.

By: rjschwarz

rjschwarz — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:51:28 +0000

Perhaps that was rehashed in the previous discussion but flex-fuel’s advantage is that it can run on Ethanol/methanol/gas or any combination of the three at any time.

Methanol is often made from food waste. Corn husks, etc. This would not compete with food manufacturing at all.