In the March issue of BioScience, researchers present a sophisticated new analysis of the effects of boosting use of corn-derived ethanol on greenhouse gas emissions.

The study, conducted by Thomas W. Hertel of Purdue University and five co-authors, focuses on how mandated increases in production of the biofuel in the United States will trigger land-use changes domestically and elsewhere. In response to the increased demand for corn, farmers convert additional land to crops, and this conversion can boost carbon dioxide emissions.

The analysis combines ecological data with a global economic commodity and trade model to project the effects of US corn ethanol production on carbon dioxide emissions resulting from land-use changes in 18 regions across the globe. The researchers’ main conclusion is stark: these indirect, market-mediated effects on greenhouse gas emissions “are enough to cancel out the benefits the corn ethanol has on global warming.”

The indirect effects of increasing production of corn ethanol were first addressed in 2008 by Timothy Searchinger and his coauthors, who presented a simpler calculation in Science.

Searchinger concluded that burning corn ethanol led to greenhouse gas emissions twice as large as if gasoline had been burned instead. The question assumed global importance because the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act mandates a steep increase in US production of biofuels over the next dozen years, and certifications about life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are needed for some of this increase.

In addition, the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires including estimates of the effects of indirect land-use change on greenhouse gas emissions. The board’s approach is based on the work reported in BioScience.

Hertel and colleagues’ analysis incorporates some effects that could lessen the impact of land-use conversion, but their bottom line, though only one-quarter as large as the earlier estimate of Searchinger and his coauthors, still indicates that the corn ethanol now being produced in the United States will not significantly reduce total greenhouse gas emissions, compared with burning gasoline. The authors acknowledge that some game-changing technical or economic development could render their estimates moot, but sensitivity analyses undertaken in their study suggest that the findings are quite robust.

In a report that has major ramifications on fossil-fuel dependent agriculture, a new study from scientists in Kuwait predict that world conventional crude oil production will peak in 2014, which is almost a decade earlier than some other predictions.

According to the study, if the findings are true, efforts to conserve oil must speed up and an intense effort to search for alternative fuel sources must become worldwide priority.

Their study is in American Chemical Society’s, Energy & Fuels, a bi-monthly journal.

Ibrahim Nashawi and colleagues point out that rapid growth in global oil consumption has sparked a growing interest in predicting “peak oil” — the point where oil production reaches a maximum and then declines.

Scientists have developed several models to forecast this point, and some put the date at 2020 or later. One of the most famous forecast models, called the Hubbert model, accurately predicted that oil production would peak in the United States in 1970.

The model has since gained in popularity and has been used to forecast oil production worldwide. However, recent studies show that the model is insufficient to account for more complex oil production cycles of some countries. Those cycles can be heavily influenced by technology changes, politics, and other factors, the scientists say.

The new study describe development of a new version of the Hubbert model that accounts for these individual production trends to provide a more realistic and accurate oil production forecast. Using the new model, the scientists evaluated the oil production trends of 47 major oil-producing countries, which supply most of the world’s conventional crude oil.

They estimated that worldwide conventional crude oil production will peak in 2014, years earlier than anticipated. The scientists also showed that the world’s oil reserves are being depleted at a rate of 2.1 percent a year. The new model could help inform energy-related decisions and public policy debate, they suggest.

The American Farm Bureau reports Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a lower court acted hastily and incorrectly by banning the cultivation of biotech alfalfa despite extensive scientific evidence documenting the safety of the crop. 

A coalition of agricultural organizations, including the American Farm Bureau, filed on March 8 a joint friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners in “Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms.”

The brief was submitted by the American Farm Bureau Federation, Biotechnology Industry Organization, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cotton Council and National Potato Council.

According to Farm Bureau, the groups urge that the lower courts’ decision to approve an injunction without adequately hearing the key evidence must be reversed “to protect the farmers who choose to grow genetically-engineered crops, as well as the public benefits that agricultural biotechnology brings to producers and consumers around the world.”

Last year, Nebraska ranked 7th in the nation in alfalfa production with 3.61 million tons of production. According to the USDA, the value of hay receipts in 2008 was nearly $130 million making it the fourth largest crop commodity in Nebraska behind corn, soybeans and wheat.

In the lower court case, environmental groups and individual organic alfalfa farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), claiming that USDA’s decision to grant deregulated status to glyphosate-tolerant (or “Roundup Ready^®”) alfalfa violated the National Environmental Policy Act, according to Farm Bureau.

The courts in the Ninth Circuit determined that USDA should have done an environmental impact statement (EIS) before it decided to deregulate, and the court ultimately enjoined almost all planting and sale of Roundup Ready^® alfalfa pending the issuance of the EIS. 

Farm Bureau said that the lower court’s injunction against biotech alfalfa, however, was made without the court conducting a thorough review of evidence that precluded a finding of irreparable harm, according to the brief. In addition, Farm Bureau said the brief explains that the lower courts failed to consider the public benefits of agricultural biotechnology, which already is adopted widely in the United States for a number of key crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets, and in 2005, USDA’S Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) concluded that there is no significant impact on the human environment due to granting non-regulated status to Roundup Ready^® alfalfa. 

In Nebraska, last year, the USDA reported that 91 percent of all the corn planted in the state was of a biotechnology variety and 96 percent of all soybeans were of a biotechnology variety. More than 13 million acres of corn and soybeans were harvested last year in Nebraska.

Following the lower court’s ruling, APHIS completed a 1,400-page document as its draft EIS, and again has recommended that Roundup Ready^® alfalfa be deregulated and that farmers be allowed to grow it. This is an important case because it will be the first time the high court has weighed in on the risks of genetically engineered crops, Farm Bureau  said.

Of the more than 10,000 cases appealed to the Supreme Court each year, only about 1 percent is accepted for review on the merits and oral arguments. This matter is scheduled for oral argument on April 27. A decision is expected from the Court by June.