Many international organizations have back tracked on their criticism of biofuels based on research which has found biofuels to have played a very minor role in the escalation of food prices globally. In fact, David Hallam, the FAO’s own Deputy Director has said that “unexpected oil price spikes could further exacerbate an already precarious situation in food markets.”

“Mr. Da Silva would do well to listen to the International Energy Agency’s dire warnings about our energy security future when commenting on biofuels,” said Baker. “The IEA concluded that biofuels could provide 27 percent of total transport fuel by 2050 and avoid around 2.1 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions per year when produced sustainably without jeopardizing food security,” said Baker.

The GRFA has repeatedly called for an increase in the use of biofuels to help reduce the world’s crippling reliance on crude oil.

“I would urge the new FAO Director General to focus on the real cause of high food prices – the rising cost of energy,” added Baker.

Texas Corn Producers Board member Wesley Spurlock of Stratford has been speaking to groups across the Midwest explaining how U.S. corn farmers continue to grow a crop abundant enough to meet all growing demands and he has gained attention from industry publications looking to find the truth behind the headlines.

“To put it simply, growth in demand from the ethanol industry has mirrored an increase in productivity that yields larger corn crops,” Spurlock said. “We are still supplying the livestock industry with the corn that they need for feed, but we now have a market that utilizes an increasingly abundant resource to help solve our energy problems also.”

Listen to an interview with Sprulock in the National Corn Growers Association’s podcast series “Off the Cob” discussing how corn farmers are growing a larger crop on the land already in production while decreasing inputs used. During this interview, he also discusses the innovations facilitating increased yield trends, how the Texas drought plays a major role in recent cattle industry shifts, and the amazing story of modern American agriculture.

The turkey itself is what gobbled up most of the price increase this year. According to AFBF, a 16-pound turkey will cost about $21.57 this year at $1.35 per pound, an increase of about 25 cents per pound over last year. That triggered some misinformed columnists to start crying fowl and place the blame for the higher price on ethanol, as pointed out in a blog post from Growth Energy.

“Our biofuels policies are a big cause of the rising cost of food in recent years, and it just feels wrong to use food for fuel with so many families struggling to feed their families,” wrote Marie Brill of ActionAid in the Huffington Post, adding that “federal ethanol subsidies … are driving up the price of everything from eggs to milk to — yes, turkeys — and undoubtedly, some families will just have to go without.”

However, AFBF economist John Anderson says it’s more a case of basic economics – supply and demand. “Turkey prices are higher this year primarily due to strong consumer demand both here in the U.S. and globally,” said Anderson.

A more well-rounded and less emotional look at the cost of turkey comes from New York Times’ Wealth Matters columnist Paul Sullivan. “It turns out that turkey pricing is not much tied to commodities prices. Instead, other factors, like tight margins for farmers and perceptions of value, play a much bigger role,” he explains. “For most of us, the price we pay for our turkey bears little relation to what it costs to raise it.”

Read “Let’s Talk Turkey” from Growth Energy.

At a global grains summit in Turkey on Monday, Quatari food security program advisor Mahendra Shah was quoted as saying, “Biofuels will trigger an increase in agricultural prices. Biofuels will result in another 120 million people hungry, just because we’re growing biofuels.” He cited a study by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Fund for International Development (OFID) which claims the use of crops for biofuels is forecast to raise food prices by 30 percent to 50 percent by 2050.

Noting that the report cited was funded by OPEC’s International Development arm, GRFA spokesperson, Bliss Baker said, “This so-called report from 2009 cannot withstand any level of academic scrutiny and is a self serving attempt to distract people from the real impact that energy prices are having on global commodities.”

“Qatar, a key OPEC member and promoter of this report, derives 85% of its export earnings and over 70% of its government revenues from crude oil. Qatar’s agenda is to promote crude oil and discredit alternatives like biofuels,” Baker added.

According to GRFA, there is evidence that demonstrates that the OFID report is wrong, including a 2011 study by the International Energy Agency that says “by 2050, biofuels could provide 27% of total transport fuel” and will “not compromise food security”. The GRFA recently published data showing a clear and direct link between crude oil prices and the UN FAO’s Food Price Index.

“It is the first evidence-based evaluation of ILUC utilizing actual historic data, employing a ‘bottom-up’, data-driven, statistical approach based on individual world regions’ land use patterns and commodity grain imports,” stated Dr. Roger Conway, senior partner at Rosslyn Advisors LLC and former director of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Office of Energy Policy and New Uses.

The authors say that very few previous studies have attempted to find empirical evidence for or against indirect land use change from historical data, rather most studies rely on global economic simulations.

Dale said, “Unlike most other ILUC work this study relied on very few assumptions and did not attempt to quantify nor to predict ILUC effects. We searched for direct historical evidence for ILUC in relevant world areas rather than attempting to project or predict what course ILUC might take. Projecting forward can force scientists to make untestable assumptions.”

This study was unique in that is used data from 1990, when the U.S. biofuels industry was very small, as its baseline. It then measured crop changes against that as U.S. ethanol production has significantly grown during the past decade.

To test the hypotheses that ILUC had occurred, the authors searched for actual land use change in 18 regions around the world where either corn, soybeans or both are produced. The authors explain that had ILUC occurred, then use of crop land and arable land would have increased while the area of natural ecosystem land would have declined. In addition, grain shipments from the U.S. to other regions would decline. Finally, the authors said cropland in other regions would positively correlate with changes in harvested acres for corn and soybeans in the U.S. and this simply was not the case.

“Prior modeling studies that relied on many assumptions have led to inflated projections for indirect land use change,” added Dr. Steffen Mueller of the Energy Resources Center at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Some work has substituted other data, such as the price of corn, to project ILUC. Modeling is important, but all models need to be tested and verified. These findings show that there is no substitute for using actual historic data when investigating ILUC.”

The report, which was prepared for the Renewable Fuels Foundation, is an historical analysis of corn, commodity and consumer prices from 1985-2010. One of the key findings of the study was that no single factor has been responsible for higher consumer food prices over time, “but rather, there is a complex and interrelated set of factors that contribute to food prices.”

The report also found that other supply and demand factor besides ethanol, such as increased exports, have also contributed to the rise in the commodity price for corn. “Furthermore, corn prices have a relatively weak correlation with food prices, as the farm share is a relatively small portion of the overall retail food dollar and for many products corn is only a portion of the farm value,” said report author Bruce Scherr, CEO and Chairman of Informa Economics.

“Yet again, sound analysis has demonstrated that the farcical food-versus-fuel debate is just that – a joke,” said Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen. “Unfortunately, the effort to scapegoat ethanol in order to continue our addiction to imported oil is not funny. The fact remains that no statistical evidence exists demonstrating a significant link between ethanol, corn prices, and rising food costs.”

Seth Meyer, economist with the MU Food and Agricultural Food and and Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) ran a “what-if” scenario on FAPRI computers. With incentives in place, the results showed fuel production from corn would increase by 1.2 gallons over current production levels and corn prices would increase by 18 cents per bushel. In addition, the model predicts that corn acreage would increase by 1.7 million acres.

Earlier this year, the team ran the scenario without tax credits and tariffs. However, this time the scenario was run on the assumption that they would continue but did not factor in any changes to current biofuel mandates.

“This analysis looks at an alternative scenario that keeps ethanol tax credit and tariff at current levels,” said Pat Westhoff, director of MU FAPRI. “There is debate about federal support of the ethanol industry. At a Paris meeting last week, G-20-nation trading partners raised concerns about U.S. support of biofuels. The revised baseline gives FAPRI a tool to study proposed policy changes.”

Westhoff notes that U.S. ethanol policy is complex with a broad set of assumptions. It is assumed that the blender of record who receives the tax credit would keep part of the benefit and then share part of the benefit with station owners. From there, it is assumed station owners would pass along the savings to consumers at the pump. In addition, the tax credit is also designed to allow blenders the ability to pay more for ethanol and ethanol producers the ability to pay farmers more for corn. However, this is not always the case.

Westhoff concluded, “Our work suggests that how benefits of the blender’s tax credit are shared among fuel consumers, ethanol plants and corn farmers is very sensitive to market conditions.”

The report predicts that the price of food, already at a record high, will more than double in the next 20 years. In addition, by 2050, demand for food will rise 70 percent, yet the report says the world’s capacity to increase food production is declining. A contributor to these issues: global climate change and pro biofuel policies throughout the world.

“Our world is capable of feeding all of humanity yet one in seven of us are hungry today,” said Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam. “In this new age of crisis, as climate change impacts become increasingly severe and fertile land and fresh water supplies become increasingly scarce, feeding the world will get harder still. Millions more men, women and children will go hungry unless we transform our broken food system.”

Both Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association acknowledge that Oxfam is partially correct in their identifying the role that high oil prices and international trade have on the price of corn. However, they diverge with the report on biofuels being a cause of starving “millions of people” as the report purports.

“Oxfam is wrong to propose ending the Renewable Fuel Standard or the biofuels tax credit, as these are the most effective policies we have to displace oil – a primary driver of rising grocery prices,” said Jim Nussle, Growth Energy President. “It is unfair and erroneous to single out ethanol for high food prices, especially because the U.S. ethanol industry uses just three percent of the global grain supply on a net basis.”

RFA President Bob Dinneen highlighted the significant improvements in agriculture over the past few decades and called for more widespread adoption of improved agricultural practices worldwide. “The same opportunities at varying scales are available to farm communities in developing nations. Together with improved farming technologies, local biofuel production can provide developing rural economies with the kind of economic prosperity needed to become more food secure,” concluded Dinneen.

The report is comprised of a series of step-by-step evaluations that seek to answer critical questions regarding the feasibility of bioenergy development and the impacts on food availability and household food security. In addition, social and environmental dimensions are also considered. The paper also serves as a platform for bringing key ministries and institutions together so they can work on the same page.

“Our goal is to help policy-makers take informed decisions regarding whether bioenergy development is a viable option and, if so, identify policies that will maximize benefits and minimize risks,” explains Heiner Thofern, who heads FAO’s Bioenergy and Food Security (BEFS) project.

The drive to biofuels have been driven by both worries over greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels as well as high oil prices and energy security concerns. FAO believes that one important benefit of investments into the bioenergy sector is that it could spark much-needed investment in agricultural and transport infrastructure in rural areas. This would create jobs and boost household income. These benefits could lesson both poverty and food security concerns. FAO has also conducted separate studies that show small-scale bioenergy projects not designed for export markets can improve food security and help boost rural economies.

“FAO has been saying for years that under-investment in agriculture is a problem that seriously handicaps food production in the developing world, and that this, coupled with rural poverty, is a key driver of world hunger,” says Thofern. “Done properly and when appropriate, bioenergy development offers a chance to drive investment and jobs into areas that are literally starving for them.”

Yet while there are major potential benefits to bioenergy production, FAO warns there are also potential negatives. They write that large-scale biofuel production could come at the expense of food production, leading to less food available, and higher food prices. In addition, deforestation is also a concern. Therefore, potential risks and benefits need to be weighed.

According to the article a “confluence of events” has caused the prices to skyrocket. “They include an unusual price discrepancy between European and North American oil and below average gasoline supplies in the U.S., which drives up whole-sale prices that also affect Canada.” Other factors include geography and bad weather south of the border.

Don’t let out sigh of relief that biofuels escaped blame. They didn’t and today a coalition of Canadian on-road diesel fuel associations are raising concerns that the biodiesel mandate set to go into effect in Canada on July 1st will actually cause gas prices to go even higher.

According to the coalition, which includes the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), Motor Coach Canada (MCC) and the Owner-Operator’s Business Association of Canada (OBAC), the Canadian government’s own regulatory impact analysis statement predicts the biodiesel mandate will cost taxpayers $2.5 billion over the next 25 years and increase pump prices for diesel fuel. The report also believes fuel economy will decrease and any greenhouse gas emission reductions will be negligible.

To support their point, the coalition pointed the finger at Massachusetts and New Mexico’s biofuel mandates that allow for the suspension of the regulation should the price of diesel fuel be more than conventional diesel fuel. In addition, the coalition says that U.S. state biodiesel mandates have raised diesel prices anywhere from 1-8 cents per gallon, even with subsidies.

The coalition also cited other fears. The price of canola is at record prices and volumes. The country will have to import 85 percent of its biodiesel to meet the mandate and they cite higher costs of food as another reason to abandon the mandate. In addition, they believe the biodiesel will harm engines, cause problems in the winter due to “cold start issues” and void warranties.

“The biodiesel mandate is going to exacerbate the problem of higher fuel costs through increased prices at the pump and through reduced fuel content of biodiesel,” said David Bradley, president and CEO of the 4,500 member trucking alliance. “The only question is by how much. We can’t control some of the things that are currently impacting fuel prices, but we can avoid introducing policies domestically that could make things worse. In addition, the biodiesel program is completely inconsistent with the federal government’s announced intention to introduce a national fuel economy/GHG reduction standard for heavy truck engines,” he said.

Brian Crow, MCC president, says bus companies, like trucking fleets, are worried about the impact the biodiesel mandate will have on the costs of operating a motor coach, as well as on engine durability and operability. Currently there are no Canadian standards for biodiesel production, limited blending facilities to make the product and government plans to allow the retail sale of biodiesel above recommended manufacturer warranty levels for both light and heavy-duty vehicles putting consumers at risk for expensive repair bills.

The long and short of the argument is that the coalition would like to see the mandate disappear before it arrives; whereas the country’s biofuel industry believes the mandate will spur economic growth and provide jobs among other benefits.

“If governments want to go down this road they should mandate that all government vehicles – buses, trucks and cars – should be the guinea pigs, not the people and companies trying to stay afloat during these very difficult times,” concluded Crow.

Heliae was formed about four years ago when the team met two professors at Arizona State University (ASU) who told them about a new process by which they could take algae and turn it into jet fuel. The more they heard and understood about the technology, the more hooked they became.

“We looked in to it more and what was of particular interest to us was that their particular strains of algae grew very rapidly, doubled its weight every day, it was high in oil content, greater than 30 percent, and it had the right oil components,” said Seitz. That means it has a component of carbon that goes from C8 to C16 and that happens to be roughly the same carbon string that kerosene has. Kerosene is the main component of aviation fuel.”

Another pro of algae, said Seitz, is that not only can you produce fuel, but also food.

Listen to my full interview with Karl Seitz: Heliae - Measuring Algae by the Barrel

I asked Seitz about their technology and how they were going to go from pilot to commercial scale. “We’re going to start off with our proprietary strains of algae and improve upon them. We do not use a GMO strain. We use a strain that has been chemically altered and provides us with higher oil content and a faster growth rate,” said Seitz. “We also combine that with our closed photobioreactor and then we use our proprietary and patented extraction formulas and techniques to get the fuel out as well as the protein and carbohydrates.”

Seitz said the other issue they are focusing on is developing algae strains that are suited for different parts of the country or different regions around the world.

There are still questions about whether or not algal fuels and products can be competitive with petroleum based fuels and products. Seitz said their initial goal was to produce one barrel per day per acre and at that rate they think they can be competitive. And while many other companies are measuring success by the liter or the gallon, Heliae is measuring success by the barrel. The reason is that the world needs billions of barrels of renewable fuels to replace just aviation fuels. So in the future, Heliae hopes to play a major role in helping the world achieve that goal.

Click here to view the Advanced Biofuels Leadership Conference flickr photo album.

The study on “Effects of Biofuels and Bioproducts on the Environment, Crop and Food Prices and World Hunger” they say “should put an end to the ongoing debate of whether the grain we grow should be used for food or fuel. We can and should do both.”

As farm yields climb and investments are made in farm production in the developing world, feeding and fueling the world can even be done cost effectively. “My corn yields have increased by 35 percent since I started farming in 1975,” says Don Kenny who farms just outside of Ottawa and is the chair of Grain Farmers of Ontario. “I am confident that my land will continue to be productive and that new products and technologies will ensure my family supplies our local livestock market and the ethanol plant down the road for many years to come.”

The study found that global grain production has increased by 1.5% per year over the past 20 years, more than the 1.1% per year food demands are growing, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Quite frankly, it is a relief for us to learn that production of biofuels, like ethanol, here in Ontario makes such a positive contribution to our environment without any notable impact on overall food prices and the world’s ability to supply food,” says Barry Senft, CEO for Grain Farmers of Ontario.

Read the study here.

Our new ZimmPoll is now live and asks the question, “How do farmers compare in social media use?” Let us know what you think and thanks for your your participation.

And if you have any questions you want to suggest for future ZimmPolls please let us know.

ZimmPoll is sponsored by Rhea+Kaiser, a full-service advertising/public relations agency.

This beat-down occurred during his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York and was published by The Independent. During his presentation he said, “Today, 35 per cent of US corn goes into biofuel. From an environmental point of view this is a nonsense, but more so when we are running out of food in the rest of the world.”

Brabeck-Latmathe continued, “It is absolutely immoral to push hundreds of millions of people into hunger and into extreme poverty because of such a policy, so I think – I insist – no food for fuel.”

The fuel versus food debate has been raging for several years. For each report that debunks the theory, another is published that places primary blame on rising food costs at the feet of America’s corn and ethanol industries. Yet, scores of economists have publicly acknowledged while there are dozens of factors that affect food prices, the current spike is being driven by speculators, a global increase in demand for protein and the unrest in the Middle East to name a few reasons.

National Corn Growers President Bart Schott responded to Brabeck-Letmathe’s comments. “It is scandalous, ludicrous and highly irresponsible for the chairman of a global conglomerate that tripled its profits last year to talk about higher corn prices forcing millions into starvation. Perhaps if Nestle is so concerned about food prices, its board will consider putting more of their $35.7 billion in 2010 profits back into poor communities. Just their profits alone represent more than half the entire farm value of the 2010 U.S. corn crop.”

Schott continued, “It’s time for the food processing industry, which has been using higher grain prices to justify its price increases, to explain to hungry families why they have to eat less so those who can afford company stock can make more money. Profiteering off world hunger needs to end, and that is what is truly immoral. If there is a ‘food versus fuel’ crisis it exists because families are being forced to decide which of the two they can afford, gasoline from Big Oil or food from companies like these. That’s something I challenge Nestle to step forward and help alleviate. They certainly can afford it.”

Ironically, Nestle has its own brand problems – especially related to its use of water resources (Brabeck-Letmathe accused the biofuels industry of using too much water) and links to baby deaths in Africa and Burma as a result of its infant formula. In 2007, Brabeck-Letmathe was given the “Black Planet Award” for the company’s “irresponsible marketing of baby food contaminated by genetically manipulated nutrition, their tolerance of child labour and monopolisation of water resources.”

Today, Nestle is actively lobbying for European leaders to curb their biofuels policy even in the wake of many country’s commitments to reducing CO2 emissions.

So what lesson have we learned here? Maybe you should have a clean plate before you start throwing food at others.

During the recent Commodity Classic, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack took on the food vs. fuel debate head-on.

“It is irritating to me that we have to read about this all the time, because what it is basically is saying is that the folks advancing this argument either do not understand or do not accept the notion that our farmers are as productive and smart and innovative and creative enough to meet the needs of food and fuel and feed and export.”

And Vilsack took the blame for food price increases off the American farmers and biofuels industry and put it on a more likely culprit.

“I think OPEC has more to do with food price increases than farmers,” pointing out that even if you doubled the price of commodities, farmers, with their paltry 20 cents of every food dollar share, wouldn’t see much of an increase in their pocketbooks.

Vilsack said that those who are trying to stop the opportunity for the nation to be more energy secure, while creating good-paying jobs in the biofuels industry, don’t understand what is at stake.

“First and foremost, it is about national security. We import 60 percent of our oil. Sixty percent of the resources we spend on energy are traveling somewhere overseas probably to countries we don’t agree with or don’t like us. It makes far more sense to me to continue to provide opportunities for investment here in the United States.”

Listen to more of Vilsack’s comments on biofuels at Commodity Classic here: Vilsack on Biofuels at Commodity Classic

In a Washington Post editorial today, long-time ethanol opponent Tim Searchinger writes about “How biofuels contribute to the food crisis.” While admitting the “2008 food crisis” resulted from a number of causes, Searchinger said, “We should recognize the ways in which biofuels are driving it.”

In response, Growth Energy released a chart showing ethanol’s small slice of total global grain supplies and CEO Tom Buis said Searchinger used the op-ed to defend his “indirect land use scheme.”

“Ethanol is both a food and a fuel business. What is ignored in this piece is that every ethanol plant in the country turns out animal feed as well as fuel – we only take the starch out of the corn kernel but put all the protein, fiber and oils right back into the food supply as ‘dried distillers grains.’ Even then, ethanol’s use of the global grain supply is a fraction,” said Buis. “The notion that ethanol is causing today’s food crisis ignores reality: the reality of the market, the reality of global trade agreements, the reality that other countries have their own domestic farm policies, and the reality that Wall Street’s rampant speculation is driving up food prices.”

Buis and Todd Becker, CEO of Green Plains Renewable Energy, held a telephone press conference this morning to address the issue.

Becker noted the reasons our country should be very supportive of ethanol. “Ethanol today, without the tax credit, is the cheapest motor fuel in the world that you can buy today,” he said. “We’re even cheaper than Brazilian ethanol today because we can make it more competitively than they can.”

Noting the importance of low cost distillers grains as livestock feed, Becker said, “When you talk about 40% of the corn kernel that goes right back into the feed supply, ethanol doesn’t just fuel, it feeds America as well. “Anybody that says that we’re not contributing that we’re not contributing to cheaper food supplies doesn’t understand the full equation.”

Listen to the press conference here – Becker’s comments start at about 22 minutes in when he joins the call. Growth Energy Press Conference

One group who is disappointed with the decision is the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). “It’s very disappointing that the administration made this decision given the rising price of corn and the lower estimate for this year’s corn harvest that recently was announced,” said Randy Spronk, a hog and crop farmer from Edgerton, Minn., who serves on NPPC’s board of directors and is chairman of the organization’s Environment Committee.

Last week, the USDA announced the final corn harvest numbers, down 5 percent from previous estimates. The report states that corn stockpiles were the lowest on record and that the national “carryover is now expected to be less than three weeks’ worth. The ethanol industry found that the lower number would not negatively affect any industries that use corn.

NPPC “strongly opposes” raising the blend rate because they claim it will put further upward pressure on corn supplies, increasing pork producers’ cost of production and reduce supplies. The ethanol industry denies that this will be a result of allowing E15. NPPC is one of several livestock groups that filed a lawsuit in federal court last November against the EPA over the E15 decision.

“EPA’s decision means more corn will be used for ethanol production and that means the price on a shrinking supply will rise,” Spronk said. “We don’t want a repeat of a couple of years ago when, due mostly to high feed-grain prices, pork producers lost an average of almost $24 a hog over a 28-month period, and the industry lost nearly $6 billion. We saw a lot of family hog farms go out of business during that time.”

Also opposed to this decision is a “diverse coalition or organizations” that sent out an press release containing statements from a number of the coalition members. Robb Mackie, the President and CEO of the American Bakers Association stated, “EPA’s decision to increase the ethanol blend to E15 will further increase volatility in the grain markets. This could hasten the reduction in wheat acres and raise Americans’ food bills. U.S. cropland is already stretched to its limit. Increasing the blend has the potential to further impact commodity stocks and ultimately food prices. The grain markets are currently experiencing near record volatility and prices have edged closer to the record levels of 2008.”

But “food versus food,” that has largely been disputed by third party research, is not the only argument from the opposition against using E15. Others cite engine problems, negative net energy, and ethanol “environmental crimes” as other reasons this decision should not have been made by the EPA.

“With this decision, the Obama administration has just voided car warranties for millions of Americans at the behest of the corn and ethanol lobby,” said Shelia Karpf, the Legislative and Policy Analyst fro the Environmental Working Group. The confusion at the pump will be unimaginable, as will the costly burden placed on taxpayers as cars and small engines not made to burn corn ethanol break down after misfueling. Taxpayers have invested billions in a fuel that does little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while tearing up the land and polluting fresh water.”

The study was led by civil and environmental engineering professor Ximing Cai who identified land around the globe available to produce grass crops for biofuels, with minimal impact on agriculture or the environment. Cai noted going into the study that prior research concentrated on biofuel crop viability focused on biomass yield or how productive a crop could be regionally; yet, there was little research on land availability, a key constraint of biofuel development. He also noted that there is major concern as to whether, on a global scale, biofuels can meet fuel demand without compromising food production.

“The questions we’re trying to address are, what kind of land could be used for biofuel crops? “If we have land, where is it, and what is the current land cover?” said Cai.

For this particular study, Cai’s team assessed land availability from a physical perspective – focusing on soil properties, soil quality, land slope, and regional climate. The researchers collected data on soil, topography, climate and current land use from some of the best data sources available, including remote sensing maps but the point of differentiation of this research was that the study only considered marking land for biofuel crops. By doing this, current crop land, pasture land and forests were ruled out as viable land options for biofuel production. In addition, the research team ruled out any land that must be irrigated, thus eliminating concerns over the need to divert water from agriculture crops.

Using fuzzy logic modeling, a technique to address uncertainty and ambiguity in analysis, the researchers considered multiple scenarios for land availability. First, they considered only idle land and vegetation land with marginal productivity; for the second scenario, they added degraded or low-quality cropland. For the second scenario, they estimated 702 million hectares of land available for second-generation biofuel crops, such as switchgrass or miscanthus.

The researchers then expanded their sights to marginal grassland including low-impact high-diversity (LIHD) perennial grasses. By adding this category, the amount of land nearly doubled to 1,107 million hectares globally.

“Based on the historical data, we now have an estimation for current land use, but climate may change in the near future as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which will have effect on the land availability,” said graduate student Xiao Zhang, a co-author of the paper.

“We hope this will provide a physical basis for future research,” said Cai “For example, agricultural economists could use the dataset to do some research with the impact of institutions, community acceptance and so on, or some impact on the market. “We want to provide a start so others can use our research data.”

Next, the team plans to study the possible effect of climate change on land use and availability. Former postdoctoral fellow Dingbao Wang, now at the University of Central Florida, also co-wrote the paper.

The year-long promotion, designed to highlight the many uses of corn and its importance to Iowa, traversed a year of Iowa State versus Iowa sporting events that included football, basketball and wrestling matches. Iowans were able to register to win from August 20th through November 20th and the grand prize was free food and fuel for one year valued at $5,000 in groceries and $2,500 in ethanol from Kum & Go.

Runner-up prizes were also awarded. Marc Foster, also of Iowa City, was randomly selected to win free food and fuel during the Iowa versus Iowa State wrestling meet on Friday, December 3. In addition, Chris Dodel’s name was drawn to win the same prize during the Iowa versus Iowa State women’s basketball game on Thursday, December 9th. He resides in Urbana, Iowa.

“We’ve reached thousands of people with the Iowa Corn Fed GameDay GiveAway promotion,” said Mindy Williamson, director of communications and public relations for the Iowa Corn Promotion Board (ICPB) and the Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA). “Ethanol use was just one benefit featured in the program, which included food and feed uses for corn and messages about corn’s importance to Iowa’s economy, environment and energy independence.”

On behalf of ICGA and ICPB, Williamson thanked Kum & Go, Cyclone Sports Properties and Hawkeye Sports Properties for helping to sponsor the Iowa Corn Fed GameDay GiveAway sweepstakes that is part of a four-year contract with both Hawkeye Sports Properties and Cyclone Sports Properties. The promotion includes radio, television, internet, and on-site marketing and highlights the many uses for corn and its importance to Iowa- as everyday is GameDay for Iowa’s farmers.

According to Jim Thomas of ETC Group, an international research institute located in Ottawa, Canada the fossil fuel economy is transforming rapidly into a bio-economy. “Plants, trees and forests are the new oil fields. They’re above the ground, and they’re easy to grab,” said Thomas.

Thomas, along with other leaders spearheading the global farm movement from Brazil, Mali and Haiti will be presenting during Earth Grab. The forum officially kicks off the Food Secure Canada national conference that takes place at University of Montreal from November 26-28.

Earlier this month, ETC Group released a new report, “The New Biomassters,” that detailed how global energy, forestry, agribusiness, chemical, and biotech companies are creating a bio-economy built on converting biomass into fuels and other products. According to the report, the result has been a “global grab” of plants, lands, ecosystems, and traditional cultures.

“The emerging global bio-economy is worth trillions, and it threatens to eat up our crops, forests and other plant life,” said Thomas. “However, what’s being sold as a ‘green’ switch from fossil fuels to plant-based production, is in fact a red-hot resource grab on the lands, livelihoods, knowledge and resources of the peoples of the Global South.”

Based on this scenario, Brazil is seen as one of the worst offenders, and Camila Moreno, Friends of the Earth, Brazil states Brazil becomes the number one bio-energy oilfield. “Brazil wants to become the Saudi Arabia of biofuels,” said Moreno. “Not only are our country’s land and biomass up for grabs, but Brazilian corporations are actively grabbing land in other countries.”

So what is the solution? According to Moreno, the emphasis on biomass-based energy solutions sidesteps the real issues. “We can’t really address climate change by replacing our fossil fuel addiction with a bio-energy addiction. We actually have to set real targets to reduce our emissions. And the evidence is piling up that growing crops commercially for fuels could be even more damaging to the environment, and make our carbon footprint worse,” said Moreno.

Another issue up for discussion during Earth Grab is the impact of biofuels on food prices. Susan Walsh, Executive Director of USC Canada claims increasing production of corn ethanol drove food prices up causing widespread hunger. She also says that “All signs indicate that we could be months away from another devastating global ‘food crisis’ like we witnessed in 2008.”

Needless to say, the ethanol industry disputes a solid link between corn ethanol production and the rising cost of food citing rising oil costs as the largest contributor to the problem.

Ultimately, Walsh believes that small farmers, who produce nearly 70 percent of the world’s food will be most affected by land and resource grabs and calls for a transformation from ‘industrial’ to ‘ecological’ principles.

This week, the Wall Street Journal published an article about rising food prices. Many of you may know that they rarely miss an opportunity to blame the ills of the world on biofuels. However, in “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices,” the authors mention several reasons why food prices are on the rise, one being a greater demand for meat in emerging countries such as China and India. This demand has raised grain prices, which have also been adversely affected due to the drought in Russia. Speculators also have a hand in the volatility of commodities.

For more than two years, the ethanol and agriculture industries have been fighting back. In addition, dozens of research studies have been released from organizations around the world with the conclusion that biofuels had “little to no effect” on rising food prices in 2008. The most recent report from the World Bank also came to this conclusion.

However, in the midst of this most recent food hike, Growth Energy is saying that although the debate has weakened, they “have to keep telling people the truth.” They believe that, “The article further proves that food price increases are impacted by a number of factors. Not surprisingly, however, nowhere in the story do the authors mention any impact by biofuels.”

Growth Energy concludes, “We have said it before and we will say it again, food vs. fuel has always been and will always be nothing more than a myth.”

The webcast will be coming from CME’s third annual Global Financial Leadership Conference in Naples, Florida and the panel will focus on commodity markets and the fundamental factors driving supply and demand for global food and energy. Participants will include Tim Gallagher, Executive Vice President–Grains and Biofuels, Bunge North America; Ian Goldin, Former Vice President, World Bank and Director, Oxford University’s Oxford Martin School; John Hofmeister, Former President, Shell Oil Company and Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Citizens for Affordable Energy. The webcast of the panel will be from 1:20 to 2:00 pm Eastern time.

The GFLC is an event that brings together decision-makers from the world’s leading financial institutions to discuss emerging geopolitical trends, debate critical economic issues and provide perspectives on future developments in the financial marketplace. Registration for the webcast can be found on the GFLC website. You can also follow the entire GFLC conference on the company’s blog at Open Markets.

In a statement released today from the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) the groups focused on ethanol’s successes and benefits. “America’s ethanol industry has been an undeniable success, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and reducing our nation’s reliance on foreign oil. These groups that have repeatedly attacked ethanol without validation would leave America with just one course of action: increasing our addiction to foreign oil.”

The groups continued by pointing out that ethanol has ‘paid dividends’ and ‘returns more to the federal government in the form of tax revenue than is spent in investment’. They also noted that ethanol has helped the country save billions of dollars in foreign oil expense.

“Constantly pining for fictional fuels or seeking to keep America hooked on the oil standard runs contrary to the desire most Americans have to become energy independent. Instead of facts or new approaches, these groups are recycling tired rhetoric that does nothing to help solve America’s energy problems,” the statement continued.

In the statement, the groups highlighted some key points:

• • A global perspective is important. Global coarse grain supplies are nearly unchanged, the USDA reports, with lower U.S. supplies offset by increased foreign coarse grain production.
• • As of Oct. 3, only 37 percent of the U.S. corn crop was harvested. Much of what has been harvested to date was in the areas most adversely impacted by the summer weather. There is potential for an upward adjustment in the overall production number as the harvest is completed.
• • For the first time, distillers grains availability will displace more than 1 billion bushels of corn in domestic livestock rations this marketing year, providing a high-quality, high-value feed product for livestock producers, both in the United States and abroad.

Ironically, the proposal that the groups have presented would eventually phase out all subsidies/taxes once ethanol has complete marketplace access through widespread blender pumps and flex-fuel vehicle availability.

One last area of concern for the ethanol producers is that they believe the anti-ethanol camp will once again accuse ethanol of raising food prices. Therefore the group took a preemptive strike by saying, “It’s not surprising that the corporate interests which have profited by hiking the grocery bills of everyday American families would continue to promote the widely-disproven ‘food versus fuel’ fiction. It is sadder to see the other groups be so misled as to think that domestic ethanol is anything but a job-creating, renewable, clean-burning fuel.”

“The FAO has recognized a variety of drivers behind food price spikes, such as drought, energy prices and trade restrictions; however, the impact of crude oil prices on food inflation cuts across all national boundaries and has a disproportionate impact on food prices,” said GRFA spokesperson, Bliss Baker. “As long as we are dependent on crude oil for our primary source of energy, we will continue see food prices climb as crude oil prices climb.”

According to GRFA, this crude oil / food price connection is even more acute in developing countries where 37 of the 44 poorest countries on earth are net energy importers. The rising long-term outlook for energy prices puts true food security for many of these countries in jeopardy.

However FAO claims, “increased demand for biofuels will help revitalize the worldwide agricultural sector without putting our secure food supply in jeopardy. Next generation biofuels production hold even greater promise and will create new markets for farmers in developing countries and help bring unproductive land into production.”

Baker stressed that the global biofuels industry is very concerned about food prices and supports the World Bank’s recent analysis highlighting the crippling impact of oil prices and drought on food prices. He noted that, “There is no doubt that Biofuels are part of the solution. They reduce our reliance on crude oil and therefore limit the impact of crude oil prices on food inflation.”

Specific benefits of the grain module, that is an extension of the plant’s Dynamics ERP system, are enhanced financial reporting capabilities, integration of all inventory items into a single, unified inventory system, and a better tool to establish risk management strategies that allow them to lock in margin when available.

“We currently engage in operations that dramatically exceed industry standards.  Our employees have a wealth of knowledge and experience in grain merchandising, grain manufacturing, logistics, ethanol, engineering, and software development,” said Luke Burmeister, Didion CFO. “My core team partnering with C&A has developed a fully automated ERP system from the procurement of corn to the production and traceability of food and fuel to the delivery of  financial statements.”

Didion Milling is a unique facility in that it produces both food for the consumer market and fuel. The majority of ethanol facilities produce dried distillers grains (DDGs) which is sold for animal feed.

Burmeister concluded, “We will continue to diversify our customer base, add product mix, and reduce our overall costs and carbon footprint through a reduction in energy taking us to the next level in our food AND fuel vision. It is all about adding value to the kernel of corn. We intend to leverage our high-quality workforce and extensive process and software development experience working with the leader in the industry in developing and enhancing the most efficient automated software system in the renewable fuels industry.”

Last week, Didion Ethanol hosted a Green Energy Expo to educate consumers about ethanol. Earlier this year, C&A released its annual Biofuels Benchmarking Report, a look at ethanol plants efficiency and financial viability. Tools such as Intellago Grain Software have been designed to help improve a biorefinery’s bottom line.

In this case, I’m going to focus on Bello’s explanation of how biofuels contributed to rising food costs. Bello states that biofuels have been blamed for the food price increases over the past few years, but continues by saying while they were a contributing factor, they were not the cause of the volatility of food prices.

He writes, “More central as root causes have been structural adjustment, free trade, and policies extracting surplus from agriculture for industrialization, all of which have destroyed or eroded the agricultural sector of many countries. No one factor can be pinpointed as the cause of the global food crisis. It is the confluence of these conditions that has made the contemporary food price crisis so threatening and difficult to solve.”

But despite this concession, he is still not a supporter of biofuels, at least in the context of environmental benefits, and he says, “Indeed agrofuels contribute to global warming and certainly do not provide a solution to climate change.”

So, Bello takes us through a very brief discussion U.S. and EU agrofuels policy (such as the Renewable Fuels Standard created under President Bush) and then claims, “The triad of strict mandates and standards, import tariffs, and subsidies make for a strong agrofuels policy that is skewing the marketplace in a negative direction, driving up the price of food, and harming the environment.”

One report that he uses in support of biofuels driving up food prices is The World Bank report that came out last year. Needless to say, the ethanol industry attacked the report and then this year, The World Bank actually came out with a new report that contradicted its own claims and said that biofuels did not heavily contribute to food price increases.

The irony with reports, including those cited by Bello, are that they can be presented to match your personal views on an issue. In this case, Bello makes no point to hide his distaste for biofuels and the worldwide policies that have been passed to develop them.

Despite my obvious disagreement on how he presented that chapter, Bello does a good overall job of trying to address all the factors that contribute to the rise and fall of food prices. In his conclusion, he offers some ways to help people take control of their food security and points to small farmers or peasant-based farming as a good model to develop local or regional sustainable alternative economies.

Corn farmers play a major role in helping America produce domestic, renewable fuels such as ethanol and I also spent last Saturday with more than 900 Iowa corn farmers, many who are growing corn for ethanol. The Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) sponsored the game on Saturday as part of their mission to educate consumers about the role Iowa corn farmers play in producing their food and fuel.

ICGA CEO Craig Floss said that during the game, they were able to tell the story of how ethanol fits into the picture and what that means for Iowa corn farmers.

“There is no other liquid form of petroleum product like ethanol that can actually replace foreign produced oil. And the bulk of our oil comes from countries that have governments that are not like ours,” said Floss. He continued that everyone was touched by the event and has a connection to the event and we need to find a way to send less money to those countries. That is why we like corn farmers, explained Floss. They’re good for our economy and good for our security.

Floss concluded that corn farmers will continue to exceed global needs of corn and said that we haven’t even started to unlock the genetic code of what corn can do.

You can see pictures from game day in the Iowa Corn Fed Game Day photo album.

You can listen to my interview with Craig Floss here. Iowa Corn Farmers Will Reach New Heights

In Iowa alone, 40 percent of the corn crop goes to ethanol but nationally only 20 percent of the total corn crop goes to ethanol. Also, the livestock industry is the largest consumer of Iowa corn.

I was spent some time with the Iowa Corn Growers Association’s (ICGA) new President Dean Taylor last Saturday before the Iowa versus Iowa State football game to learn more about what this record corn crop means for both farmers and consumers. My first question for Dean, was in fact, what are we going to do with all this corn? We’re going to produce feed, food, fiber and fuel, he said.

“The fuel, the feed, the fiber, the ethanol….all these things are very important. Especially now that we grow so much corn, we have to remember that what we put into ethanol was never even in the market for feed in the past because we’re just growing that much more corn,” said Taylor.

ICGA, along with the Corn Promotion Board, joined together to sponsor the Cy-Hawk series – the men’s football, basketball and wrestling matches. I asked Taylor why this sponsorship was so important. He said it’s a great opportunity to showcase all of their products and what they do in Iowa. “It’s contributing to our fuel situation in this country because it’s homegrown instead of imported and that adds to our bottom line. It adds a little bit to our fuel security and the way to look at it, every little bit helps,” said Taylor.

He continued, “I think it gives a much higher profile to corn and the importance of corn, and the corn products like ethanol and dried distillers grains (DDGs).” He also mentioned that corn is a huge contributor to Iowa’s economy as is the ethanol industry which employs 80,000 people in just Iowa alone.

So, what is a product that uses corn that many don’t realize? Bioplastics. When corn is added to bioplastics in replacement of oil, then the plastics become biodegradable. But bioplastics are just one product among thousands that use corn. To learn about the other products, visit www.iacornfed.com.

Well, Iowa won the football game in a landslide but that didn’t dampen anyone’s spirits. In conclusion, Taylor said, “Every day is a corn day and every day is a winning day for Iowa corn farmers.”

You can see pictures from game day in the Iowa Corn Fed Game Day photo album.

You can listen to my interview with Dean Taylor here. Corn, Corn Everywhere

But the real winners today are the football fans who have had the opportunity to learn more about how much their daily lives are impacted by corn and the farmers who grow it as part of the Iowa Corn Fed Game Day promotion.

From the moment you wake up until the moment you go to bed, you have been touched by corn. It’s in your toothpaste, your breakfast cereal and even the milk you pour on top. It’s in your fuel and in your tires and in the plastic containing your water. It’s also in your hair products and the carpet fibers in your office floor. Every day, Iowa corn farmers, and corn farmers around the world make the things you enjoy possible with their hard work and dedication. Each year they are meeting the country’s and the world’s demands by growing more corn per acre using less inputs and less land. Pretty amazing.

So let’s take a moment to thank our corn farmers and congratulate the University of Iowa for a game well played and give some props to ISU who played with a lot of heart.

We’ll see you next year and you’d better bring your game, Iowa, because the game is in Ames and ISU will be bringing it on!

You can see pictures from game day in the Iowa Corn Fed Game Day photo album.

For you football fans, if ISU doesn’t score a touchdown in this game, this will be the third year in a row they’ve failed to visit the end zone. Even so, they have won in the past three years – on field goals.

While many Iowa corn growers were making predictions on the game, Captain Cornelius was also making a prediction, for both teams. He is impartial – or at least that what we think he mimed when Iowa Corn Growers CEO Craig Floss interviewed him in the member tent this morning before the game. I guess this means that Captain Cornelius’ predictions were right.

After his insightful interview, Captain Cornelius headed to the ICGA consumer tent where he met the football fans and encouraged them to learn more about all the products that are made with corn including ethanol. In the state of Iowa, 80 percent of drivers are filling up with ethanol blended fuel, so the chances are, 8 out of 10 fans at this game drove here using the homegrown, renewable fuel grown by our very own Iowa farmers.

You can see pictures from game day in the Iowa Corn Fed Game Day photo album.