Two local businessmen and a farmer who work directly with the ethanol industry in the region said the University of Minnesota study released last week which states the use of corn ethanol may be no better than the use of gasoline doesn't tell the whole story.
"It's disappointing," said Brian Kletscher, the chief executive officer and president of the new Highwater ethanol plant under construction near Lamberton. "I'm not sure why the university continues to bash corn-based ethanol."
The study finds that cellulosic ethanol has fewer negative effects on human health because it emits smaller amounts of fine particulate matter, an especially harmful component of air pollution, the U of M said. Researchers also found that depending on the materials and technology used in production, cellulosic ethanol's environmental and health costs are less than half the costs of gasoline, while corn-based ethanol's costs range from roughly equal to about double that of gasoline, the U of M said.
A key piece left from the study is the by-products from corn-based ethanol, said Kletscher and Hendricks farmer Tim Dritz, who is also the treasurer of the Minnesota Corn Growers.
Kletscher said corn-based ethanol has more benefits than the U of M study shows and less of a negative impact on the environment than the study states.
Sweeteners used in soda pop and other foods come from many ethanol plants, Kletscher said.
For some, the sweetener is the main product, while ethanol is almost a by-product, Dritz said.
Another by-product is the livestock food produced in the process, Dritz and Kletscher said.
"Livestock producers understand how to use the by-product," Kletscher said. "We're utilizing by-product for feed for poultry, beef..."
The grain dried in the distilling process has a high protein value, Dritz said.
The high protein content in the feed means the manure produced by the livestock is more valuable to soil, Dritz said.
That factor must also be considered in the cost of ethanol production.
Many farmers use manure as a fertilizer and that reduces the need for commercial fertilzers, Dritz said.
To see another study that seems to pit gas and oil, corn-based ethanol and cellulosic ethanol against each other is frustrating, said Scott Dubbelde, the general manager of Farmers Elevator Cooperative based in HanleyFalls. Dubbelde and FCE are supporters of the ethanol plant near GraniteFalls.
"I'm not against oil or gasoline...," Dubbelde said.
But he does know that gasoline is costing Americans more than just the price per gallon, Dubbelde said. Oil is costing American lives in the Middle East, Dubbelde said.
The U.S. will still need oil and gasoline but if it is to reduce dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil, then it needs corn-based ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, too, Dubbelde said.
But the technology to use cellulosic is not ready for expansion in an affordable and efficient way yet, Dritz said.
"The technology is still coming," Dritz said.
Farmers aren't opposed to planting switchgrass to produce ethanol, Dritz said.
As a young farmer, he will likely see the day when he will bring corn and switchgrass to an ethanol plant. But, corn isn't going away and nor will corn-based ethanol, the three men said.
"In 15 to 20 years or less we could be producing 300- bushel corn," Dubbelde said.
That kind of production could happen, but Kletscher and Dritz don't expect farmers to turn every available field to corn.
"People have to understand...we need a balance of corn, small grains, soybeans, alfalfa...," Kletscher said.
"You want your cropping system to be diversified," Dritz said.
While the recent U of M study doesn't show the whole picture, Kletscher, Dritz and Dubbelde said, it does come from a university that works closely with the agriculture industry and organizations such as the Minnesota Corn Growers.
Dritz said the Corn Growers recently funded other studies by the U of M.
With this recent ethanol study, Dritz said it wasn't the study that bothered him as much as the science behind it and how quickly it was released to the public.
The study had limited peer review and had not yet been published by a scientific magazine, Dritz said.
"The study is released to grab the publicity," Dritz said.
Later, when the study is reviewed by peers and when other scientists find flaws, it doesn't get media attention, Dritz said.
But, Dritz said, it's becoming more common to get peer review after the study is released to the public and media.
Source: The Marshall Independent
