PDA

View Full Version : USA, the world's largest producer of bioethanol.



Aubi7
28th April 2008, 04:29 AM
USA is the world's largest producer of bioethanol.
Its production is about 13 million tonnes of corn - ethanol.
It requires almost 6 million hectares of corn (USA has 27 million hectares of corn...)...
Ethanol - corn industrial price is around 0.7 Us$/litre...

What do you think?

Scanlan
30th April 2008, 07:28 PM
I think the only reason they are using corn is because of Monsanto.

GM Corn, Roundup Ready, Monsanto have a lot of control in the Government.

Sugar Beet would give twice the yield and still have the byproducts to feed to cow's etc.

From sources on the web Sugar Beet 412 Gallons acre to Corn 214 Gallons.

Less energy to grow and process as it is a sugar and not a starch.

Regards.

Aubi7
2nd May 2008, 10:20 PM
The problem of sugar beet is that it's voluminous(Probably.. it's 1 corn x 5 sugar beet for the same ethanol content...)
Probably it needs an agricultural machine that produces directly nectar.. etc...

Tony From West Oz
3rd May 2008, 04:24 AM
While I know nothing about corn or sugar beet, I firmly believe that the growing of corn, in the USA, is more a political decision than an economic one (disregarding subsidies).

Regaerds,
Tony

Captain Echidna
3rd May 2008, 06:41 PM
While I know nothing about corn or sugar beet, I firmly believe that the growing of corn, in the USA, is more a political decision than an economic one (disregarding subsidies).

Regaerds,
Tony

Possibly that to be seen to be looking at bio fuels, they have gotten heavily behind one that will probably not work well, to the point where the average joe believes that all biofuels are ethanol made from corn. Of course when it doesnt work, it will be all biofuels dont work. Its like George W's family are all texan oilmen........

Aubi7
4th May 2008, 06:17 AM
While I know nothing about corn or sugar beet, I firmly believe that the growing of corn, in the USA, is more a political decision than an economic one (disregarding subsidies).

Regaerds,
Tony


Infact ethanol import is now subject to a tax of 54 cents a gallon...
However Bush in his Brazil visit said the tax would stay at least until its expiration in a few years...

smokey2
4th May 2008, 01:14 PM
The biofuel/food debate is not as clear cut as we are lead to believe.
I still think corn is a crazy way of creating biofuel compared to sugar cane however -
The corn is brewed and crushed and the major by product is brewers mash. This is used directly by cattle feed lots as feed. This is not a new idea. I had a friend with a dairy farm 40 years ago and brewers grain - by product of CUB was his main source of feed for his cows. It is important to see the larger picture and be aware of the whole process to understand the market and political pressures behind the process.

Scanlan
4th May 2008, 06:49 PM
We live in confusing times and it’s hard to determine what the best way to go is.

In the early days the USA caused lots of problems dumping cheap food on the global economy killing off many farmers globally. In Mexico they’ve stopped growing corn because they couldn’t compete with the USA. Now we have a food crisis worldwide.

The UN wants to stop bio fuels, at the same time we need fuel to ship produce over the globe and surplus oil is running out.

It looks like LPG & coal will also increase in price along with other necessities. Coal is expected to reach $150 tonne this year.

We will see some big changes soon. I think we all have to learn to live within our own means, and go back to local communities.

Here in Tasmania, Australia, our apple farmers are going broke resulting in farming land being turned into housing. No one wants to farm the land that is then left idle and not used. Old growth forest is cut down for woodchips or pulp leaving thousands of hectors of land with 1000’s of tonnes of waste wood annually to be burnt off resulting in us living 3mths under a smoky haze.

I could go on and on. It’s time for a change.

Start at home, make a change and lead by example.
Maybe the politicians will follow.

Aubi7
4th May 2008, 07:44 PM
The biofuel/food debate is not as clear cut as we are lead to believe.
I still think corn is a crazy way of creating biofuel compared to sugar cane however -
The corn is brewed and crushed and the major by product is brewers mash. This is used directly by cattle feed lots as feed. This is not a new idea. I had a friend with a dairy farm 40 years ago and brewers grain - by product of CUB was his main source of feed for his cows. It is important to see the larger picture and be aware of the whole process to understand the market and political pressures behind the process.


Infact this Us decision to produce ethanol from corn raises food price...
Us takes corn from Mexico and raises its(also) corn price...
It's the market...
Why Us doesn't take sugar from Mexico?...
Mexico would have the advantage of producing electric energy from bagasse(as Thailand) at low costs...
Thailand government promotes sugar cane production, now it exports sugar and produces electric energy at low costs from bagasse(around 5% of its electric energy production)...
Evidently Us wants to protect its corn market...

smokey2
5th May 2008, 02:29 PM
It is complex however the relationship between fuel, food and water and the use of will give much debate into the future as all Three decline. Amazing the UN has not recognised this relationship earlier and the likelyhood that the UN can convince governments to convince companies to abandon the concept of a free market forces is not going to happen.

The reason beef feedlot produces like corn brewers grain is that it contains lots of protein and I do not think sugar beet would be comparable. Ch2 Landline had infomation on this on Sunday. Feedlot farms fit in with the American concept of big factory farms.

Tried to find the landline article but unable to. Like I said Scanlon, corn brewers grain is almost completely protein. Whether it be a chook broiler farm producing birds for the table or a beef feedlot protein is what gives the animals muscle/meat and corn residue is good for doing this. This also allows the big companies to control the feed market for producers. Sugar beet and cane residue do not contain much protein.

Whether it be water, fuel or food one can be converted to the other. With water you can grow more food. Fuel can be used to create more usable water etc. Government changes to the use of water are more likely to have a greater impact on food production than the use of biofuels in Australia.

Scanlan
6th May 2008, 10:48 AM
I don’t think any one product should be used, bio-diversity is best.

Information I have regarding by-products from Sugar Beet and some of the uses.

If you would like a copy of the Sugar Beet Feasibility study in Tasmania email me.

scanlancs8@bigpond.com

Extract from Sugar Beet Feasibility TAS
by Robin Thompson and Sarah Campbell
(Department of Primary Industries, Water and
Environment, Tasmania)
February 2005

Sugar Beet
Preliminary feasibility of
ethanol production from sugar
beet in NE Tasmania
A report for the Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation

4.2 Value of Sugar Beet and Fodder Beet as an animal feed
A literature review was compiled that investigated the value of sugar beet and fodder beet, plus the byproducts
of ethanol production for animal feed. A summary of this report and the recommendations
are as follows;
Summary
• After the extraction of sugar, there are five main types of by-products that can be produced (wet
pulp, pressed pulp, dried beet pulp, molassed dried beet pulp and beet molasses), all of which are
an effective and nutritious source of animal feed.
• Sugar beet and fodder beet has been extensively used in Europe and the U.K as a source of feed. If
the nutrient deficiencies of both are corrected (ie. low protein), they could provide a suitable
alternative to many traditional feeds such as grain.
• Sugar beet and fodder beets have a high yield potential in terms of energy available for lactation
when compared to cereals. The other benefit seen from the data is the replacement of high starch
cereals in the ration with sugar beet pulp. This would reduce the demand for grain imports into
Tasmania.
• Although fodder beet has been tried by a few growers in the state in past years, there remains an
opportunity for dairy and red meat producers to incorporate fodder beet as a feed crop.
• The curing of beet tops to reduce the level of nitrate and oxalic acid in leaves may prove to be
difficult due to Tasmanian conditions. With the majority of sugar beet harvesting carried out in the
winter months, the tops may not be able to dry properly. Drying facilities like those seen in Europe
are required (Frappell, 1980).
• Fodder beets have been specifically bred for animal feed purposes, so their nitrate content is lower
than sugar beet. It would be advisable however to graze the tops of the fodder beet whilst attached
to the roots by using temporary fencing to restrict grazing area.
• The use of tops and silage from sugar and fodder beet may be limited due to the amount of labour
required and the level of knowledge required to utilise these feeds effectively. Good extension
would have to be provided to encourage growers to take advantage of the left-over tops either as a
feed or as a green manure crop.
• Some experiments explained in the review were for stock in production systems quite different to
those seen in Australia. For instance, housing sheep during winter would mean that their
maintenance requirements and thus production would be quite different to open grazing stock.