When new technology is first introduced, there’s always a little patience required before all the bugs are worked out. Ethanol isn’t any different. This isn’t a new technology, but its development stage into a major energy producer was new. Each year a new layer of technology comes along to make it a more efficient operation. The process continues until the next big technology comes unto the scene. As ethanol production becomes more efficient, it’s also doing its primary job of diversify this country’s energy mix. That’s the real success story.

RKP

Renewable Energy World.com reports that Poet plans to decrease water use in the production of ethanol by 22 percent over the next five years in the first goal of its sustainability initiative, Ingreenuity. If successful, it will cut the company’s water used per gallon of ethanol from an average of 3 gallons to 2.33, an annual water savings of one billion gallons.

In 2009, Poet plants used an average of three gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, which is an 80 percent decrease from when the company first produced ethanol in 1988.

Here’s a story that directly shows that technological innovation in dealing with animal waste doesn’t have to be a distraction. We shouldn’t punish more efficient ways of growing food that will feed a population expected to be 9 billion people by mid-century. That waste from animal production can be recycled into energy or fertilizer. Technology improves the human conditions when thoughtfully applicated.

RKP

Cutting back on consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite repeated claims that link diets rich in animal products to production of greenhouse gases. That’s the conclusion of a report presented recently at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.

Air quality expert Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., who made the presentation, said that giving cows and pigs a bum rap is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also distracts society from embracing effective solutions to global climate change. He noted that the notion is becoming deeply rooted in efforts to curb global warming, citing campaigns for “meatless Mondays” and a European campaign, called “Less Meat = Less Heat,” launched late last year.

“We certainly can reduce our greenhouse-gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk,” said Mitloehner, who is with the University of California-Davis. “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.”

The focus of confronting climate change, he said, should be on smarter farming, not less farming. “The developed world should focus on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries where growing populations need more nutritious food. In developing countries, we should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices to make more food with less greenhouse gas production,” Mitloehner said.

Developed countries should reduce use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels. Transportation creates an estimated 26 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., whereas raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent, he said.

Mitloehner says confusion over meat and milk’s role in climate change stems from a small section printed in the executive summary of a 2006 United Nations report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” It read: “The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.”

Mitloehner says there is no doubt that livestock are major producers of methane, one of the greenhouse gases. But he faults the methodology of “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” contending that numbers for the livestock sector were calculated differently from transportation. In the report, the livestock emissions included gases produced by growing animal feed; animals’ digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But the transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving and not all other transport lifecycle related factors.

“This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue,” he said.

Here’s a story showing how technology over the ages has increased food productivity. This country’s obesity problem is directly tied to agricultural efficiency. Cheap food, bigger bellies.

RKP

The sizes of the portions and plates in more than four dozen depictions of the Last Supper – painted over the past 1,000 years – have gradually grown bigger and bigger, according to a Cornell University study published in The International Journal of Obesity (April 2010), a peer-reviewed publication.

The finding suggests that the phenomenon of serving bigger portions on bigger plates – which pushes people to overeat – has occurred gradually over the millennium, says Brian Wansink, the John S. Dyson Professor of Marketing and of Applied Economics and director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab.

“We took the 52 most famous paintings of the Last Supper (from the book ‘Last Supper,’ 2000) and analyzed the size of the entrees, bread and plates, relative to the average size of the average head in the painting,” said Wansink.

The study found that the size of the entrées in paintings of the Last Supper, which according to the New Testament occurred during a Passover evening, has progressively grown 69 percent; plate size has increased 66 percent and bread size by about 23 percent, over the past 1,000 years.

The research, conducted with Wansink’s brother, Craig Wansink, professor of religious studies at Virginia Wesleyan College, Norfolk, Va., and an ordained Presbyterian minister.

The analysis was aided by computer-aided design technology that allowed items in the paintings to be scanned, rotated and calculated regardless of their orientation in the painting.

The researchers started with the assumption that the average width of the bread is twice the width of the average disciple’s head.

“The last thousand years have witnessed dramatic increases in the production, availability, safety, abundance and affordability of food,” said Cornell’s Wansink, author of “Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think.” “We think that as art imitates life, these changes have been reflected in paintings of history’s most famous dinner.”

Despite what our attorney general says about health care reform trampling our individual freedoms, there’s plenty of Nebraskans who have a different opinion.

Here’s a sampling of some rural and agricultural groups are saying about health care reform after it was passed Sunday by the House and now President Obama has signed it into law.

RKP

Center for Rural Affair, Lyons, NE

The health reform bill, which passed the Senate in December, will now go to President Barack Obama’s desk to be signed and become law.

“We applaud the House for passage of these historic reforms.  Rural America needs reform.  Efforts to build a better future for rural America will be greatly enhanced by family farmers, ranchers and rural entrepreneurs having access to affordable health care – a stern challenge under the current system,” said Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Center for Rural Affairs

As the President prepares to sign the legislation and the Senate prepares to take up a number of improvements to the bill that also passed the House on Sunday, the Center for Rural Affairs continued to urge all parties to move the process forward.

“If Congress had failed to act, our research indicates that by 2019 as many as one in three rural Americans in towns of 2,500 or fewer would go without health insurance.  Rural America’s family farmers, ranchers, mainstreet businesses and rural communities simply cannot afford to wait another decade for reform,” cautioned Hassebrook.

On March 19th the Center for Rural Affairs, National Farmers Union and National Rural Hospital Association sent a letter to House members urging Congress to pass health care reform. According to the letter, health care access for rural people will be strengthened through the establishment of health insurance exchanges for the self-employed and small businesses.

And premium assistance will be provided through tax credits for small businesses and for low and moderate income individuals purchasing insurance through the exchange. The letter also contains a list of provisions in current legislation of great importance to farmers, ranchers, rural small businesses and rural health care providers.

“The independence and entrepreneurial spirit of rural America’s farmers, ranchers and mainstreet businesses are the economic lifeblood of rural America.  Health care costs have shackled rural small business owners and their employees as well as self-employed farmers and ranchers.  This legislation will help remove those constraints and create opportunities for their entrepreneurship and the fulfillment of their hopes and dreams,” said Hassebrook.

Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest

Rebecca L. Gould, Executive Director of Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, issued the following statement after the passage last night of the health care reform legislation by the House of Representative:  

“By passing health insurance reform last night, the House of Representatives stood on the right side of history and took a critical step to ensure not only the health of every American, but the future health of the nation.  In Nebraska, we have long known that the current system is not sustainable for our families, our farmers, or our businesses.  Last night the House made clear that they would stand with our families rather than insurance companies.
 
Health insurance reform will protect those Nebraskans with pre-existing conditions, making it possible for them to purchase insurance that actually covers the care they need.  Nebraskans with moderate incomes (up to $88,200 for a family of four) will receive sliding-scale premiums to help them afford their insurance premiums.  And an estimated 149,000 uninsured Nebraskans will gain coverage by 2019.
 
This was an historic moment and we are gravely disappointed that our Representatives Terry, Fortenberry, and Smith voted against this legislation.  The partisan bickering and the politics around this issue has not changed the reality and the struggles facing too many Nebraskans.  Premiums have grown nearly three times faster than wages, while nationally insurance company profits rose 428% between 2000 and 2007.  In 2009, 101,000 non-elderly Nebraskans with insurance were in families that spent more than 25% of their pre-tax income on health care.
 
Nebraskans could not wait any longer for reform.  Now, we will finally move towards a more just and rational health care system.  We hope that in the future our Congressmen will work to improve health care access for all Nebraskans.” 

National Farmers Union

National Farmers Union President (NFU) Roger Johnson today commended the U.S. House of Representatives on the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590).

“This is a historic day,” said Johnson. “Today’s vote is a huge victory for the nation, especially farmers, ranchers and rural Americans. NFU has long stood behind the need for health care reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will bring down the cost of coverage; bring more physicians to rural hospitals; and prevent insurers’ discriminatory practices with regards to preexisting conditions.

“The United States has a moral obligation to stop insurance companies from dropping coverage on ailing patients,” said Johnson. “Rural Americans are among the oldest in the population, and denying them the coverage they need based on preexisting conditions must be stopped.
“Accessible, affordable coverage for rural Americans will be strengthened through the establishment of health insurance exchanges for the self-employed and small businesses.”