Let’s face it. Oil is still has a much smaller carbon footprint and social consequences than ethanol. Part of our plan, at least for the short term is to use oil wisely.

As for the geopolitical ramifications, I suggest that we take that leftover $350 billion from TARP, buy oil on the market and pump it back into the Prudhoe bay field which is 1/2 full right now (14B bls of capacity). The oil price is heading for $25/bl. At that point, the math works.

Let’s face it. Oil is still has a much smaller carbon footprint and social consequences than ethanol. Part of our plan, at least for the short term is to use oil wisely.

As for the geopolitical ramifications, I suggest that we take that leftover $350 billion from TARP, buy oil on the market and pump it back into the Prudhoe bay field which is 1/2 full right now (14B bls of capacity). The oil price is heading for $25/bl. At that point, the math works.

Let’s face it. Oil is still has a much smaller carbon footprint and social consequences than ethanol. Part of our plan, at least for the short term is to use oil wisely.

As for the geopolitical ramifications, I suggest that we take that leftover $350 billion from TARP, buy oil on the market and pump it back into the Prudhoe bay field which is 1/2 full right now (14B bls of capacity). The oil price is heading for $25/bl. At that point, the math works.

I didn’t say the “least efficient way to raise beef,” I said the “least efficient use of land to make food.” You’d have to agree that there are other types of food besides beef. And certainly, you’re right, if we’re going to raise beef to eat, the most humane and healthiest way is on open pasture eating grass.

Regardless, all that still doesn’t change the fact that it takes way more land and energy to feed a cow and subsequently feed a human off that cow than it does simply to feed a human from that same land.

Again, I’m not personally advocating that we all stop eating meat, just stating that your argument that even land incapable of growing actual human food crops can be used to raise beef is not a good argument. From the standpoint of energy efficiency and making the best use of land, when you compare making cellulosic biofuels on a particular plot of land to growing beef, the cellulosic ethanol wins hands down no contest.

“Turning grass into cows is one of the most inefficient uses of land to make food that I can think of.”

Name a more efficient way to raise beef. I’ll give you the alternative: confining animals to feedlots and trucking the feed to them and hauling out the waste.

“Turning grass into cows is one of the most inefficient uses of land to make food that I can think of.”

Name a more efficient way to raise beef. I’ll give you the alternative: confining animals to feedlots and trucking the feed to them and hauling out the waste.

Working for the Oregon Department of Agriculture, regulating the grass seed industry and being a licensed professional soil scientist, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Willamette Valley has far more than 500,000 acres of arable land. What your comment implies is that you assumed there were only 500,000 acres of arable land in the Valley.

For sure the Valley can grow crops other than grass seed (and where it can it does very well, like close to the Willamette River in the sandy well-drained soils with plenty of irrigation), but not on that land that doesn’t have irrigation or the wells run dry in the middle of the summer. If you are a farmer of any size in the Willamette Valley, you should know this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Turning grass into cows is one of the most inefficient uses of land to make food that I can think of. Not that I’m opposed to it (I’m a meatie), just that I think it happens to be a horrible way to argue that land incapable of producing food crops can “grow” food.

In all of the switchgrass trials and research I’ve seen, it doesn’t require “copious” amounts of fertilizer or pesticides (in fact that’s one of the selling points). It doesn’t matter if you get some weeds in your cellulosic biofuel feedstock because it can all be turned into biofuel.

Farmers will never make more money growing fuel crops than food crops once we get our subsidies worked out and the commodities markets find their new tracks. And again, there are some types of land that cannot be used to grow food, so people with that land will be profiting from this new type of income potential.

Being a farmer in the Pacific Northwest I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the Willamette Valley is capable of growing crops, including corn.

I happen to turn grass into protein in the form of beef, so yes, areas that can only grow grass have to be considered capable of growing ‘food’. Properly managed ruminants (cattle, sheep, etc) recycle nutrients back into the soil (and carbon in the form of increased organic matter) via manure.

If grasses like switchgrass are raised as feedstock for ethanol those lands will require copious amounts of synthetic fertilizers. If they are marginals lands the nutrients will quickly be mined out and then they will be truly worthless for raising anything.

Finally, if farmers can get more money for growing fuel, then why would they plant anything else? It will compete with food.

Being a farmer in the Pacific Northwest I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the Willamette Valley is capable of growing crops, including corn.

I happen to turn grass into protein in the form of beef, so yes, areas that can only grow grass have to be considered capable of growing ‘food’. Properly managed ruminants (cattle, sheep, etc) recycle nutrients back into the soil (and carbon in the form of increased organic matter) via manure.

If grasses like switchgrass are raised as feedstock for ethanol those lands will require copious amounts of synthetic fertilizers. If they are marginals lands the nutrients will quickly be mined out and then they will be truly worthless for raising anything.

Finally, if farmers can get more money for growing fuel, then why would they plant anything else? It will compete with food.

Being a farmer in the Pacific Northwest I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the Willamette Valley is capable of growing crops, including corn.

I happen to turn grass into protein in the form of beef, so yes, areas that can only grow grass have to be considered capable of growing ‘food’. Properly managed ruminants (cattle, sheep, etc) recycle nutrients back into the soil (and carbon in the form of increased organic matter) via manure.

If grasses like switchgrass are raised as feedstock for ethanol those lands will require copious amounts of synthetic fertilizers. If they are marginals lands the nutrients will quickly be mined out and then they will be truly worthless for raising anything.

Finally, if farmers can get more money for growing fuel, then why would they plant anything else? It will compete with food.