Home > Crops, Farm Animals & Nursery > Will Corn Get Us Off the Hook?

It depends on the land used for planting corn. Converting large areas of pasture or hay land into corn production would give us the highest increase in nutrient losses—which means more nutrient pollution reaching the Bay and its rivers. But switching a field from soybeans and wheat to corn would not be nearly as significant.
I don’t think so. The first year, farmers responded to the corn market like anyone would. But the prices for soy, wheat, and hay have gone up too. So from a farmer’s perspective these other crops are also profitable. At the same time, we’re losing cropland for development. That doesn’t leave many new acres for corn production. As for farmland that’s under conservation agreements, the penalty for going out early is quite high. It’s true that some farmers might not re-enroll in their contracts, if the rental rate isn’t adjusted to reflect the increased potential profits from producing crops. But that’s always been the case.
The key from the Bay standpoint is how we grow our grain. The end use isn’t the issue. It’s what happens in the field. Despite all of this press over corn-based ethanol and the Bay, our perspective on the Bay won’t have much influence on what will happen at the national and international scale. Here we can only deal with how the grain is produced and what it means for water quality.
It’s good that people have brought attention to the potential problems, but we have to do a better job at reducing pollution whether we have more corn acreage or not. It’s not as if the Bay’s problems have been solved and ethanol is going to undo all the progress. If we want to improve water quality, we need more investments in making agricultural systems environmentally friendly. For corn production, we pretty much know how to cut nutrient losses significantly without reducing yields. But there is an increase in production costs. We can have the grain, but if we want clean water there will have to be an effort beyond what the market demands, which basically is cheap grain. If I could increase just one tool, it would be planting cover crops. It’s a key practice that’s been underutilized. We also need more emphasis on the timing and placement of fertilizer. The potential is there for significant improvement.
We’re importing more than 60% of our petroleum, and we need some alternatives. The reality is that corn-based ethanol is the only alternative that’s readily available, because our current infrastructure and technology support it. It’s also the only short-term option that we can produce on a renewable basis. Will corn always be the main feed stock? That’s unclear. But the public also needs to realize that agricultural crops won’t come close to meeting our energy needs. Corn won’t get us off the hook for our consumption habits. If we could convert the energy contained in all of crops that we grow in Maryland into ethanol, it would replace only about 12% of the gas used in Maryland. If we reduced our consumption of gas by 15% it would contribute as much as ethanol.
Cellulosic ethanol is produced from plant parts other than the grain or seed. That partly gets around the issue of cutting into our food supply to drive our cars. Also, perennial vegetation—either grass or trees—can be used as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol. This is a clear benefit from a water quality perspective because perennial crops have a longer growing season and a fully established root system that continually takes up water and nutrients. Perennial crops lose much less nutrients than annual crops like corn, soy, and wheat, which actively grow for only a short time each year. In general, perennial crops also deliver more energy relative to the energy used to produce it. The downside of cellulosic ethanol is that you have to convert the stored energy in the crop to a usable energy product. Right now, with all the focus on liquid fuels, the technology isn’t there. But aggressive research is underway.
In Maryland, thinking only about cellulosic ethanol is the wrong way to go. We need to look at more local applications. Switchgrass is one of the more promising things we are working on. There are great options for using switchgrass in selected settings to reduce the use of fossil fuels and also improve water quality. Switchgrass can be grown in riparian buffers and other limited spaces for small-scale energy production. That’s important in Maryland, which has a relatively small land base and lots of water quality issues. There are already short-term opportunities for using switchgrass for direct combustion. We currently burn lots of fossil fuels in stationary applications, mostly for heating water or space. Small-scale systems already exist for using switchgrass in these settings without converting it to ethanol. This is something that can be done now, and the overall benefits—improving water quality, reducing CO2 emissions, and supporting rural economies—are probably greater than what ethanol offers, at least here in Maryland.
For more information, contact Ginny Gerhart
Last updated: 03/10/2009
Video-HGIC Intro
Need help in the garden? View HGIC's latest video to see who we are and what we do. Then be a good friend and share the link with others! - posted Nov 23, 2009
What do Katie O'Malley, cover crops, and onthefarmradio.com have in common?
Answer: The Grow It Eat It Campaign! Onthefarmradio.com, promotes cover crops and the Grow It Eat It campaign with Katie O'Malley's Kitchen Garden. - posted Nov 19, 2009
Willie Lantz Receives Recognition at 2009 National Meeting
UMD Extension Educator received national achievement award. - posted Nov 5, 2009