There is a ot of talk nowadays about the prospects of biofuels in world and its potential for replacement of conventional fossil fuels
Most policy makers tend to forget in the hurry that there is a need of immense amount of land in several million of hectares to cultivate these so called bioenergy crops
A slow conversion based in the incentive offered to farmers especially in the developing country which are net energy deficient could jeopardize food production
Is it correct to lure farmers to cultivate biofuel crops in place of food crops ?
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
A slow conversion based in the incentive offered to farmers especially in the developing country which are net energy deficient could jeopardize food production
Is it correct to lure farmers to cultivate biofuel crops in place of food crops ? |
Good question. But I wonder why biofuel has to take land away from food production? Can't it use other land not suitable for food crops?This kind of approach leads to greater deforestation and loss of precious wild ressources.
Biofuel is good as long as it uses "spare" land. Either replacing food production or wild land by biodiesel cultures represents a potential long-term hazard. It would be a much better idea to try to use the wastes caused by our agricultural activity, such as the cornless corn plants or unused tree parts once the trunk has been removed. These decay anyway, producing either CO2 or, even worse, CH4 (which is more than ten times more dangerous for greenhouse effect than CO2). In this particular approach, burning these products might even be a better solution than simply letting them be.
I will prefer Food first and then fuel
The best would be if we could stop using carbonbased fuel for example through fuelcells (bränsleceller in Swedish, I am not sure on the english name) or some kind of electricpowerdriven cars. The problem with both these are that you have to get the hydrogene and the electricity in some way, often through fossile fuel.
Cold fusion would be nice...
there are enough agriculture production to feed the world many times over. The problem is with distribution because the poor in asia and africa can't afford to pay for them. These excess supply should be turned into biofuel. For the less fortunate in asia and africa, if the crop that they cultivate do not provide sufficient return to feed them even for 6 months of the year, then they should switch to "energy crop". Proceeds from the sale of these "energy crop" would allow them to purchase the needed foods. .. At least this is how it should work.
| outofnicks wrote: |
Good question. But I wonder why biofuel has to take land away from food production? Can't it use other land not suitable for food crops? |
Most, if not all biofuels are made from crops not that different than food crops, it can even be made from edible crops so they need the same type of land as food crops.How about we genetically modify "bio-fuel food crops" (corn, oil palm, soybean etc) that are distined for biofuel plants so that their yields are tripled or 4X or more (at the same time "bio-fuel food crops" distined for food kept clear from any modifications).
Do you think this will solve the problem of land being taken out of agriculture for food production; or prevent more forest being cleared for food or for biofuel production 
Now that sounds like a brilliant idea. It wouldn't even matter if they were not safe for human consumption and it could create a large supply using minimal land area.
It would have to be done in a way that the variants could not cross pollinate with the standard food stock varieties, but surely this would be possible with the degree of genetic engineering now possible.
A great idea.
It probably isn't possible. There are *reasons* why yields are what they are. It's not like farmers haven't been interested in making high-yield lines for decades. Genetic engineering is a powerful tool, but it isn't magical. It also doesn't break any rules, it just finds solutions for problems that can't be solved without genetic engineering.
For example: scientists can engineer crops that have resistance to a certain herbicide. They can then treat the crops with large quantities and eliminate plant pests from cropland. Fewer pests mean marginally higher yields at substantially less cost (no time or money spent on weeding), but you can't quadruple yields using these techniques.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| It probably isn't possible...Genetic engineering is a powerful tool, but it isn't magical. It also doesn't break any rules,... |
Good point and to a certain degree I agree. But if scientists has already identified gene(s) that make human obese, its a matter of time and money that they will one day learn how to modify these gene(s) to not make human obese. Accordingly, in plants, I believe scientis will be able to use the knowledge learned from human genetic to reverse the process by making plants obese. Caveat: not to make giant fruits, but to make these plants produce a lot of whatever that they are suppose to produce (soybean, corn, oilpalm fruits, coconut). 
When discussing biofuels and other energy sources, keep in mind the fundamental problem: we live in a culture (civilization) which requires constant growth and expansion. In a finite world, this strategy can only work for so long before we bump up against finite limits. Right now we seem to be hitting the limit of cheap energy; we've exploited about half the conventional oil in the ground, which means that oil will cost more and more to extract from now on, and we will get less and less of it from the ground each year.
Things like biofuels are grasping efforts to make up for the ever-increasing cost of fossil fuels. But so far, it seems that biofuels (except for sugar cane in Brazil, used to make ethanol at the expense of massive inputs of sweat-shop conditions human labor) give an energy return on energy invested of somewhere around 1 -- maybe less, maybe a bit more. So for every calorie of biofuel we produce, we had to invest somewhere close to 1 calorie of energy input, and much of that input energy came from fossil fuels to carry out industrial agriculture. So I don't see much promise in biofuels for giving us lots of new energy.
In places where biofuels can give a positive energy return on energy invested, I expect people will exploit them as much as they can, which means further environmental destruction and continued addiction to a way of living ultimately doomed to collapse. So from the standpoint of future generations and the landbase, the more challenges people have switching to a biofuel economy, the better.
The solution I am following for the energy crisis is to end my dependence on fossil fuels and on civilization. I am learning primitive skills and food-cultivation techniques as fast as I can!
Scrub
i think its the food that came first on this planet.... and then it was the fuel
...but you need fuel to plant "food" , to harvest "food", to process "food", to trade "food".
Yes. I concede that biofuel is not a permanent solution because land is finite. However, for the short run, it does, I believe, empower those countries that do not have petroleum as a source of energy to be less dependent on fuel imports.
| Soltair wrote: |
This kind of approach leads to greater deforestation and loss of precious wild ressources.
Biofuel is good as long as it uses "spare" land. Either replacing food production or wild land by biodiesel cultures represents a potential long-term hazard. It would be a much better idea to try to use the wastes caused by our agricultural activity, such as the cornless corn plants or unused tree parts once the trunk has been removed. These decay anyway, producing either CO2 or, even worse, CH4 (which is more than ten times more dangerous for greenhouse effect than CO2). In this particular approach, burning these products might even be a better solution than simply letting them be. |
I totaly agree with you hereI will prefer food then fuel.Because first humans should survive then only he can use fuel for his development.Its like food is the fuel for human.So finally food is fuel.But if you are separating fuel and food ,obviously food is most important necessity.
i worry about biofuel. though a lot of my friends are into it, and i do want to make a grease-powered vehicle within the next few years.
sometimes i think:
will i live to see a day when mcdonalds & the gas station are the same business? where a monopoly on fry grease is directly linked to a monopoly on fuel?
anyway. i prefer food first. for EVERYONE.
Surely, I would mind food first then next Fuel. We all know that as our civilization start, We don't need fuel, just plain food. People just need food, They hunt food, then cook it in their caves. They even just eat this raw.
Now, life is more complicated. Our needs have rise up. Computers, Gadgets, Cars, etc. So, in short, it's just us who make our life complicated, and difficult to live.
So I say, We need food first then Fuel. 
| iresc wrote: |
How about we genetically modify "bio-fuel food crops" (corn, oil palm, soybean etc) that are distined for biofuel plants so that their yields are tripled or 4X or more (at the same time "bio-fuel food crops" distined for food kept clear from any modifications).
Do you think this will solve the problem of land being taken out of agriculture for food production; or prevent more forest being cleared for food or for biofuel production |
That sounds good. The problem where I live is the farms are all being turned into housing developements. Can't very well grow neither type of plant then. i prepare food before fuel......food is save of my life 
As has been mentioned already there is more than enough food produced in the world to feed everyone currently alive. The problem is where the food is concentrated - ie in the developed countries like Europe. So if European farmers want to convert farms to biofuel then there is not going to be rationing or anything of the sort - farmers are already paid by the EU to not grow crops on their land because it will only go to waste due to overproduction!
But a farmer in a developing country does not have access to the same level of technology and so the yields are much much lower and so in places like these there is a danger of food shortages and in these cases it seems foolish to me that they would switch to biofuel.
The ideal scenario would be (as mentioned before) if the overproducing European nations sent more food aid to the underproducing developing nations at cost - ie do not charge them market prices because they are only going to destroy the food anyway. Then everyone would be fed enough and the horrific suffering of some people could be avoided.
David.
A) Food is a necessity. You die without it. B) Fuel is a luxury. It is not a necessity. Therefore food > fuel.
