Here is my original
exploration about combining true prairie and native meadow restoration with
alternative energy and the discussion a year later,
-----Original
Message-----
From: Marc Imlay [mailto:
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006
5:09 PM
To: Skip Kauffman
Cc: Marc Imlay at AWS
Subject: switch grass
Hi
Skip,
At the MCAC meeting
today we talked about the need for ecological
research on growing
native American Switch Grass as both a
biofuel and component of
prairie and meadow restoration. We
at the Anacostia
Watershed Society are planning to grow Switch
Grass along the banks of
the Anacostia as a component of
restoration and may be
able to contribute to the reasearch.
The following article by
Danielle Murray advocates environmentally
responsible sources of
biomass energy. In particular she notes that
"One likely candidate is
switchgrass, a tall perennial grass used by
farmers to protect land
from erosion. It requires minimal irrigation,
fertilizer, or
herbicides but yields 2-3 times more ethanol per
acre
than corn
does."
Research is urgent to
determine if switchgrass is a practicable
source of biofuel when
harvested from native prairie and meadow
restoration. It is great
as a crop but if it is also good when harvested
as a dominate component
of native ecosystem restoration we
would have an
environmental benefit as well as an alternative
energy benefit. Native
prairie restoration would get a much needed
boost across millions of
acres in vast areas of the
that were natural
prairies in pre-colonial times.
Fortunately the research
just takes a few years unlike forest restoration
research. Research will
probably yield good results but is still
necessary for us to be
sure.
Maintenance of these
open ecosystems is carried out by a mosaic
pattern of fire and/or
grazing that follows the natural pattern of fire
and grazing by bison and
other grazers. Maintenance mowing is
done once a year in mid
or late summer about one foot above
ground. Switchgrass is a
dominant component of native American
prairie and meadow
species along with Indian Grass, Joe-pye Weed
and
Bluestem.
It would be great to
have your opinion on the status of research on
this issue and what we
should advocate. Could you also forward
this to researchers with
the
Marc Imlay,
PhD
Conservation biologist,
Anacostia Watershed Society
(301-699-6204,
301-283-0808),
Board member of the
Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council,
Hui o Laka at
Vice president of the
Maryland Native Plant Society
Chair of the
Biodiversity and Habitat Stewardship Committee
for the
ETHANOL'S POTENTIAL:
LOOKING BEYOND CORN
http://earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update49.htm
By Danielle
Murray
At the fuel pumps in
Since the mid-1970s,
ethanol, an alcohol
distilled from locally grown sugarcane. Today
ethanol
accounts for 40 percent
of the fuel sold in
Ethanol can be produced
from a wide variety of plant-based feedstocks,
most commonly grain or
sugar crops. It is then blended with gasoline as an
oxygenate or fuel
extender for use in gasoline vehicles, or it can be
used
alone in "flexible-fuel
vehicles" that run on any blend of ethanol and
gasoline.
(15 billion liters). The
producing 3.5 billion
gallons last year, almost exclusively from corn.
of ethanol, and
France, the front-runner
in the European Union's attempt to boost ethanol
use, produced over 200
million gallons from sugar beets and wheat. In all,
the world produced
enough ethanol to displace roughly two percent of
total
gasoline consumption.
(For more examples of ethanol production by
country,
see data at
http://earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update49_data.htm
.)
Efforts to substitute
alternative fuels for petroleum are gaining
attention in a world
threatened by climate change, rural economic
decline,
and instability in major
oil-producing countries. Biofuel crops take in
carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere while they are growing, offsetting the
greenhouse gases
released when the fuel is subsequently burned.
Replacing
petroleum with biofuel
can reduce air pollution, including emissions of
fine particulates and
carbon monoxide. Biofuel production also can
improve
rural economies by
creating new jobs and raising farm incomes. As a
locally produced,
renewable fuel, ethanol has the potential to
diversify
energy portfolios, lower
dependence on foreign oil, and improve trade
balances in
oil-importing nations.
Although ethanol's
popularity is growing, today's inefficient
production
methods and conversion
technologies mean that this fuel will only produce
modest environmental and
economic benefits and could impinge on
international food
security. The largest obstacle to biofuel production
is
land availability.
Expanding cropland for energy production will
likely
worsen the already
intense competition for land between agriculture,
forests, and urban
sprawl. With temperatures rising and water tables
falling worldwide,
global food supply and demand are precariously
balanced. World grain
reserves are near all-time lows, and there is
little
idle cropland to be
brought back into cultivation. Shifting food crops
to
fuel production could
further tighten food supplies and raise prices,
pitting affluent
automobile owners against low-income food
consumers.
Placing greater emphasis
on land efficiency-that is, maximizing energy
yield per acre-will be
essential to making the best use of ethanol. Though
corn has broad political
support as a feedstock in the
is one of the least
efficient sources of ethanol. For example, ethanol
yields per acre for
French sugar beets and Brazilian sugarcane are
roughly
double those for
American corn.
Also important is the
amount of energy used to produce ethanol. Growing,
transporting, and
distilling corn to make a gallon of ethanol uses
almost
as much energy as is
contained in the ethanol itself. Sugar beets are a
better source, producing
nearly two units of energy for every unit used in
production. Sugarcane,
though, is by far the most efficient of the current
feedstocks-yielding
eight times as much energy as is needed to produce
the
ethanol. Given their
positive energy balances and higher yields, it
makes
more sense to produce
ethanol from sugar crops than from grains.
Ethanol could quickly
take off in sugarcane-producing tropical countries,
which have the advantage
of year-round growing seasons, large labor
supplies, and low
production costs. As fuel demand rises in these
developing nations,
biofuel production could check oil imports while
bolstering rural
economies.
ethanol to meet total
domestic fuel demand by increasing the area used to
grow sugarcane for
alcohol from 6.6 million acres to 13.8 million
acres
(5.6 million hectares)
or by shifting all current sugarcane acreage to
ethanol production.
Unfortunately, new fields may cut further into
already
shrinking rainforests,
making them a serious environmental liability.
If ethanol is to become
a major part of the world fuel supply without
competing with food and
forests, it's primary source will not be grains or
even sugar crops; it
will be more-abundant and land-efficient cellulosic
feedstocks, such as
agricultural and forest residues, grasses, and
fast-growing trees.
Promising new technologies are being developed that
use enzymes to break
down cellulose and release the plants' sugars for
fermentation into
ethanol. A demonstration plant using this
technology
opened in
commercially viable by
2015.
Agricultural residues,
such as corn stalks, wheat straw, and rice stalks,
are normally left on the
field, plowed under, or burned. Collecting just a
third of these for
biofuel production would allow farmers to reap a
sort
of second harvest,
increasing farm income while leaving enough organic
matter to maintain soil
health and prevent erosion. The agricultural
residues that could be
harvested sustainably in the
for example, could yield
14.5 billion gallons of ethanol-four times the
current output-with no
additional land demands.
"Energy crops," such as
hardy grasses and fast-growing trees, have higher
ethanol yields and
better energy balances than conventional starch
crops.
One likely candidate is
switchgrass, a tall perennial grass used by
farmers to protect land
from erosion. It requires minimal irrigation,
fertilizer, or
herbicides but yields 2-3 times more ethanol per acre
than
corn does. Such crops
could potentially be harvested on marginal land,
avoiding the conversion
of healthy cropland or forests to energy-crop
production.
Still, with world energy
demands rising, biofuels will meet only a
fraction of fuel needs
unless there are substantial improvements in
vehicle fuel economy.
Fortunately, the technologies required are
available
and affordable. Shifting
vehicle production to gas-electric hybrids, like
those on the market
today, and reducing weight and drag would decrease
fuel use several fold.
Adding an extra battery and plug-in capability to
hybrid vehicles would
allow short trips to be made using only electric
power - preferably
produced from wind - decreasing fuel demand to
levels
that could be met with
ethanol alone.
Increasing the role of
ethanol in meeting fuel demand will require ongoing
research and development
to improve biomass-ethanol conversion
technologies, along with
consistent legislative support for biofuel
production and greater
fuel efficiency in the automotive industry.
Shifting government
energy subsidies, such as from oil exploration to
biofuel development, is
a clear choice as new oil fields prove
increasingly elusive.
With improved vehicle fuel economy and the use of
more-efficient
cellulosic feedstocks, biofuel has the potential to
supply
a substantial share of
the world's automotive fuel.
Original
Message:
I had an interesting
conversation with NPMC last week about the
aggressiveness of
switchgrass cultivars. It is well known among
people who do meadow
plantings in our area (the
watershed, the east
coast of the
percentage of
switchgrass seed in the meadow mix low, otherwise
it will dominate and
crowd out all the other meadow species you
have sown.
Normally, however, the cheapest switchgrass seed
available is from
cultivars of the species, and so that's what people
normally use. We
concluded that cultivars of switchgrass might
not be the best choices
for native meadows, and would like to
know if local ecotypes
would perform better (in otherwords be
part of the mix rather
than dominating the mix). Unfortunately
we don't think the
research has been done.
I am so sorry to hear
the switchgrass species was introduced
into
I think anyone who does
meadows on this coast would warn you
against introducing
switchgrass into areas where it is not native.
That warning would go
double for cultivars of switchgrass -
cultivars are typically
selected for characteristics such as disease
resistance, rapid
growth, etc., which make them super plants and give
them even greater
invasive potential. And Balint (from
I don't work with the
species of Elymus that you specified, but do
know that Elymus
virginicus can also be overseeded in a mix and
crowd out other
species. Certainly there must be an existing
crop or plant that is
native to
Sara
Sara Tangren, Ph.D.,
President
Chesapeake Natives is a
nonprofit dedicated to helping you with
your native plant
needs.
www.ChesapeakeNatives.org
Mailing Address Only:
Phone 301 580
6237
Fax 301 270
4534
----- Original Message
-----
February 11,
2006
Op-Ed
Contributor
The Grass
Station
By CONSTANCE
CASEY
THOSE of us who labor in
the garden got an unexpected thrill listening to
the State of the
grass to be exact, as a
way to "make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a
thing of the
past."
How pleasing to see
official presidential recognition of the usefulness
and
worthiness of this
common member (panicum virgatum) of the millet
family.
Previously
insufficiently appreciated in our capital, switch grass
is
inexpensive food for
cattle, horses, sheep and goats. This deep-rooted
perennial controls
erosion by slowing down water run off and keeping
beneficial sediments in
the field, and it is habitat for songbirds, game
birds and
waterfowl.
And yes, ethanol can be
made from switch grass, which grows in abundance on
the prairies of the
propagate), the panicum
virgatum might see itself as a cure for global
warming and a savior of
the family farm. If burning compressed switch grass
really does work to
reduce the use of fossil fuels, it would reduce the
carbon we release into
the air. Then farmers could find new profits in
growing the stuff. And
the more, the better. Switch grass, like every
other
plant, takes carbon
dioxide out of the air and uses it to build plant
tissue. Fold that,
Republicans, into your Clear Skies legislation.
Switch grass cleans
water as well as air; its wide-spreading roots
filter
out pesticides,
herbicides and excess fertilizer before they reach
the
waterways. Up in
warm, they're
experimenting with stoves that burn pellets of switch
grass.
Senator Joseph
Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, recently
recommended
switch grass as a balm
for international tension. It's likely we'll find
ourselves competing with
Relations, so we'll need
to look at other fuels. He suggested that tons of
agricultural materials,
like corn, sugar cane and switch grass, could be
used "to create billions
of barrels of new fuels."
At this point I wouldn't
be surprised to hear someone say that switch grass
is a cure for lower-back
pain and nearsightedness.
Family farmers know that
switch grass is easy to grow. It doesn't complain
about growing in sand;
it doesn't mind clay either. It's tolerant of
floods
as well as of droughts.
It would work as part of the effort to restore the
Switch grass is native
to most of North America, from
day after the State of
the
a few extra dollars at
his Crawford ranch by growing switch grass for
fuel.
Whoa, Mr. President,
take a look next time you're trimming the brush:
odds
are you have
plenty.
Let's not forget that
switch grass is beautiful and looks great in floral
arrangements. On the
very same day the president spoke, I got the latest
the mail. The handbook
strongly recommended switch grass as part of a
perennial border.
There's "Dallas Blues," "
wine-red "Shenandoah."
The handbook suggests combining switch grass with
asters, sunflowers and
black-eyed Susans for an all-native garden with a
nice prairie
feel.
To me, though this may
seem at first unrelated, this is just one more
reason
that "
song with the bombs
bursting in air. The clue to achieving clean fuel,
clean
air, clean water, world
peace has been right there all the time in those
"amber waves of
grain."
Constance Casey, a
former New York City Parks Department gardener,
writes
about gardening for
Slate.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:51 AM
To:
CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Re: Prairies could fuel the
future
Hey, what's wrong with
that?
County, where I live)
has been importing logs to mill for years. Actually,
just in case my sarcasm
isn't coming through, ethanol seems to me to be just
another federally
financed grandiose scam.
ON the other hand,
however: Is Iowa--or any of the
states--investing
seriously in wind or solar energy technology? I don't
know, but it seems a
natural.
Diane
Beck--
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:45 AM
To:
CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Re: Prairies could fuel the
future
For now, that will
probably be the case. At least
until this country gets
together, Sierra Club
included, and devises a
climatic crop plan for each
region of this country
for biofuels.
The Club does not even
have a basic summary of
Biofuels on the national
homepage for Americans to
learn from. Our
leadership on this issue is not
public.
Standish
--- Rich Koster
<Richkoster2@aol.com> wrote:
Here in
land for corn
production. Their worry is that so many ethanol plants are
being built
Rich
K.
Thanks again
Evan! Have you and your group started
reviewing any of
the programs mentioned below eg GRP? If yes, have
you
determined any
action plans or is it too early in the
process?
D.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:19 AM
To:
CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Fw: Interesting study on
biofuels -- does any
There seem to be
parallel, but not intersecting, conversations on this topic
on various Club
listserves --
----- Original Message
-----
From: "Kevin McCabe"
<kevinmccabe@yahoo.com>
To:
<CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CARBN-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, December
14, 2006 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Interesting
study on biofuels -- does any
Perhaps I'm not
understanding the terminology. The
article refers to the
benefit of growth in poor soils.
I thought that the last
time marginal lands in the
prairies were developed
for agriculture, we wound up
with the dust bowl. On
the other hand, I like the idea
of not using land that
is currently devoted to
(potential) food crops.
Avoids the ethical problem of
food for the poor v.
transportation for the middle
class. Anyone got a clue
as to whether this requires
irrigation. For me, that
would be the real kiss of
death. We've been
tapping the aquifers and topsoil
stores for too long and
human history (particularly
recent) is replete with
examples of turning marginal
lands that due well with
native vegetative cover into
saline deserts through
irrigation.
--- irvin dawid
<irvindawid@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ernie,
I think we, as
enviros, need to 'push' sustainable ag, be it for food
or
fuel.
(sorry, I may not be answering the question you
pose
below).
Sustainable may
not be organic, it's more a way for
family and smaller
scale farmers, esp. in developing nations, to
'profit'
from what I hope
will be a growing demand for bio-fuels.
An
example?
See:
Bio-Diesel As A
Rural Development Strategy
Central and
Economic
Development |
Energy |
Environment | Government & Politics | Land
Use | Social &
Demographics
Posted by: Irvin
Dawid
Thanks to: Ralph
Borrmann
21 September 2006
- 7:00am
Having become the
world leader in ethanol
production,
bio-diesel, with a
policy that is intended to benefit small, family farms
so
as to keep them on their
land, and benefit President Luiz da Silva in his
reelection bid.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/21274 now look
at:
Taking Back Farmland In
Central and
Development | Land
Use |
Social &
Demographics
Posted by:
Nathaniel Berg
12 December 2006 -
11:00am
As poverty
increases in
lands into the
overcrowded city's and ghettos, some groups are
doing
whatever it takes
to re-distribute farmland to the poor.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/22204
the 2 articles highlight
my concern....we need policies to benefit farmers,
and I don't mean big
corportations! I think this is what Lester Brown failed to take into account in
his discussion of this topic:
Is It Better To Use Corn
To Make Fritters Or Fuel?
World | Energy |
Environment
Posted by: Irvin
Dawid
Thanks to: Jon Findley
via Sierra Club Energy Forum
10 December 2006 -
5:44pm
Lester Brown is a farmer
turned environmentalist,
and a MacArthur genius.
When he questions the use of corn to fuel
automobiles as opposed
to feeding the world's growing population, people listen. He pushes other
technologies to fight global warming.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/22183
Regards,
Irvin
Dawid,
----Original Message
Follows----
From: Ernie Rogers
<Arcologic@aol.com>
Reply-To: Carbon
Emissions Forum
CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CARBN-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>
To:
CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CARBN-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Re:
[CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CARBN-FORUM]
Interesting study
on
biofuels -- does
any
Date: Wed, 13 Dec
2006 18:18:57 EST
Thanks,
Irvin,
For the Pimentel
interview. I don't believe him--
he seems to
have his own
agenda.
(We've talked about the slanted paper by
Patzek and
Pimentel
(Natural Resources
Resch, p. 65, Mar 05), and it's
evaluation
by Farrell et
al.
(Science, p.
506-8, 27 Jan 06)-- Oh, sorry, that
was on another
list.)
What do you think
of this statement by Pimentel?
/Ernie
Rogers
>>>>>>>>>>
Philpott: What do
you think about the prospects for
sustainable
or organic agriculture to meet these increasing
population
demands?
Pimentel: I don't
want to say that organic can supply all the food in the world,
but it can be much more sustainable than conventional ag and just
as
productive. I
recently coauthored a 22-year study of organic
agriculture
utilizing corn and
soybeans, which are certainly two dominant crops in
the
with less energy,
while improving the sustainability of the soil. [The
study
involved] rotating
corn with soybeans in conjunction with cover crops.
We
had one field that
was dependent on legume cover crops [for fertility],
and
one dependent on
manure.
Philpott: Which came out
better?
Pimentel: Well,
the manure was slightly better in
terms of
increasing soil organic matter. Slightly ... I think the yields
were
about the same. In
both cases, the yields equaled those in
conventional
corn.
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:17
AM
To:
CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Re: Prairies could fuel the
future
Here in
Rich K.
Thanks again Evan! Have you and your group
started reviewing any of the programs mentioned below eg GRP? If yes, have you
determined any action plans or is it too early in the
process?
D.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:59
PM
To:
CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Re: Prairies could fuel the
future
I asked an
Jane Clark
***
Please pardon my joining this discussion. I'm
a lifetime Sierra member and longtime prairie enthusiast in central
I certainly agree that prairie
plantings may be good potential sources of biofuel.
But cautionary thoughts come to mind. (Apologies if most of you know
some of this.) I realize these concerns may not apply everywhere, but they
are relevant to much of the tallgrass prairie biome, at
least.
(1) Genetics and habitat value --
I suspect there will be strong financial and logistical incentives to grow
as much biomass per acre as possible when
planting biofuels. That's a major reason aggressive cultivar
switchgrass is a prime candidate -- the growth is very tall and
dense.
Prairie remnants and high-quality tallgrass prairie
plantings don't look or behave like cultivar switchgrass. That's
one reason they are far better wildlife habitat. In remnants and good
plantings, there is room between the plants for animals to move around.
(For example, as Pheasants Forever now recognizes, pheasant chicks have a
hard time moving through dense cultivar switch.) And in remnants and
good plantings, the plants form a community in which many plant species
find room and niches to grow.
I'd guess that Tillman used genetically-local
prairie plants from
It's taken more than two decades for
Now, despite big challenges, many
Already I've heard speculation that in some parts of the
I admit to personal bias. I've invested
two decades of effort in this issue, and donate my own local-ecotype seed
for plantings near prairie remnants to try to protect them. Others in
the tallgrass region have also worked hard on this. The
possibility of pollen from ethanol prairie plants genetically swamping
the remnants and local-ecotype plantings that we have worked hard on
is a gloomy one for me.
Perhaps the environmental benefits of ethanol
prairie plantings would outweigh the costs, given the perils of
global warming. However, I strongly feel that
the potential costs should at least be considered. And we
should definitely not assume that plantings of species bred or
selected for biofuels would provide the same kinds and
qualities of habitat as current good-quality plantings, for large
animals, invertebrates, and everything in between.
(2) CHEMICAL INPUTS -- To the best of my
knowledge, small-scale research has been done on native prairie
remnants in
That isn't surprising. Removing large amounts of
biomass year after year without putting back those nutrients isn't really
natural. Bison and other herbivores regularly removed biomass from
prairies, but they also replaced it in the form of excrement, dead bodies,
etc.
If prairie plants were annually harvested for
ethanol down to a few inches, it's probable that some kind of
fertilization would be required and/or desired. So might various
kinds of herbicide, insecticide, etc.
As has been pointed out, we're talking about trying to
plug native plants into the industrial-agriculture system, and Farm
Bill veterans know that system won't change easily, if at
all. We probably wouldn't know the full environmental
effects of ethanol prairie plantings until they started
playing out on the landscape.
(3) ALTERNATIVES -- Even the most optimistic advocates
of cellulosic biofuels aren't claiming they could completely replace
petroleum. So it really bothers me that I'm hearing so little in
the mass media about energy conservation, at least here. I fear
that biofuels are currently regarded as a means by which farmers can
make money and we can keep right on living and driving as we do
now, with no serious conservation efforts. If that remains the
case, I have very strong objections to that attitude, regardless of
what species we use for biofuels.
I realize that we could theoretically
do ethanol prairie plantings in ways that were good for wildlife and didn't
imperil local gene pools. As a rural resident, however, I've learned the
difference between what could theoretically happen out here and what almost
always does.
Thanks for reading this.
Cindy
Hildebrand
grantridge@aol.com
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:04 PM
To:
CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Fwd: FW: Biofuel Net
Energy
You are welcome
Mark. I have attached it again if
anyone missed
it.
I would love to chat
about your work, it seems very
interesting. call
me at 513-226-2020 when you have 15
vminutes. As for futures
markets for various crops,
know that the future
markets are not used by farmers.
I thought this as well
until I went to the Ethanol
conference in
seperate market for
actual growers, but (as I
understand it) the
futures market has little to do
with the actual price
the farmer gets.
Standish
Fortin
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:30 AM
To:
CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Re: Prairies could fuel the
future
Hi
Everyone;
My name is Mark Easter,
from
at the Natural Resource
Ecology Lab at
research group is
studying this very issue- that is, biofuel
production
and in particular it's
potential for carbon sequestration in soils and
offsetting greenhouse
gases. Our group conducts the yearly greenhouse
gas
inventory for tillage
agriculture and provides those data to the EPA,
which then gets reported
under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change (precursor to the
Kyoto Treaty).
Just so you know I'm not
an interloper on this conversation, I'm also an
activist with the Poudre
Canyon Group in
local campaign against a
proposed new dam on the
(check out
www.savethepoudre.org).
Thank you (!) to whoever
first posted the Tilman article summary. This
may seem like kind of an
arrogant thing for somebody who hasn't
participated much in
this discussion to jump in with a lengthy post, but
I
sincerely hope it
contributes to the discussion.