Reactions keep coming in about a University of Nebraska-Lincoln study on harvesting corn stover for use as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol. Last week, <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/blog/article/2014/04/new-corn-stover-study-not-in-the-realm-of-reality" target="_blank">I wrote a blog</a> that pointed to the ethanol <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/10967/biofuel-industry-criticizes-study-on-corn-stover-and-soil-carbon" target="_blank">industry&rsquo;s response to the study</a>, which has been called deeply flawed.
A few days later, we republished a <a href="http://www.betterenergy.org/blog/cellulosic-ethanol-corn-residue-worse-gasoline-not-so-fast" target="_blank">Great Plains Institute blog post</a> written by Brendan Jordan.&nbsp;He pinned the blame on &ldquo;sweeping conclusions&rdquo; reached by the media. For example, The Daily Caller printed the inflammatory headline, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/21/study-corn-ethanol-is-natures-enemy/" target="_blank">&ldquo;Study: Corn ethanol is nature&rsquo;s enemy.&rdquo;</a>&nbsp;Besides the fact that I don&rsquo;t believe that&rsquo;s true about corn-based ethanol, the headline doesn&rsquo;t make much sense since the study is actually about cellulosic ethanol made from corn stover. Calling corn stover ethanol, a second-generation advanced biofuel, corn ethanol is, at the least, confusing, and, at most, intentionally misleading.
I see Jordan&rsquo;s point. The mainstream media does have a history of taking a 60,000 foot (and perhaps 60 minute) view of complicated scientific studies and boiling it down into sound bite conclusions that aren&rsquo;t exactly what the study authors intended. There&rsquo;s usually a lot more to the story than fits into a neat little package on page 2. Readers sometimes also skim over an article, which does contain both sides, but only come away with the part of the message. Even the Daily Caller story, with its negative and splashy headline, included information from the U.S. EPA, calling the study&rsquo;s conclusions into question. It was only one sentence and it was buried in paragraph eight, but it was there.
However, I&rsquo;m not quite sure the intentions of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln study were, in this case, misrepresented. The title, after all, is <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2187.html" target="_blank">&ldquo;Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO2 emissions.&rdquo;</a>&nbsp;And, as Jordan and others have said, the study assumes bad agronomic practices on the part of farmers and biofuel producers. If 25 percent stover removal rates (approximately what is being removed) then 75 percent (what is assumed in the study) is even better right? Wrong. Those that harvest biomass and those that turn it into advanced biofuel are well aware of the need to do it sustainably. In fact, Douglas Karlen, a research soil scientist with USDA&rsquo;s Agriculture Research Service,&nbsp;was quoted in a <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/04/22/experts-say-ethanol-study-used-bad-model/7994223/" target="_blank">Des Moines Register</a> newspaper article saying that it&rsquo;s not even physically possible to remove 75 percent of corn stover, even with a giant field vacuum cleaner. (Color commentary my own. I&rsquo;m enjoying imagining a hovering riding version. In pink.)
Poet DSM Advanced Biofuels, one of the companies currently working to construct a corn stover-to-cellulosic ethanol production facility, <a href="http://poetdsm.com/biomass/good-farm-management" target="_blank">addressed the topic on its website</a>.&nbsp;That company points out that Poet DSM has commissioned multi-year research completed by Karlen and an Iowa State University professor, which has concluded that as much as two tons of biomass can be removed from corn stover fields yielding at least 180 bushels per acre. Poet-DSM only asks farmers to harvest half that amount, or 25 percent of the available biomass. When asked for his reaction to this study, Karlen wrote in a <a href="http://poetdsm.com/resources/docs/karlen-response.pdf" target="_blank">two-page response</a> that, &ldquo;This article makes unrealistic assumptions and uses citations out of context to reinforce the authors&rsquo; viewpoint.&rdquo;&nbsp;In other words, the authors started with an assumption, cellulosic biofuels = bad, and created a scenario where that idea was supported.
Never fear. The advanced biofuels industry isn&rsquo;t going to just fold and give up in the face of such criticism. Many of the players, like Poet LLC, are also veterans of the first-generation corn-ethanol industry. They not only weathered the storm of criticism but they have built very successful businesses producing a fuel that provides a multitude of economic and environmental benefits to this country. I see a similar future for the second-generation fuel. Yes, even corn stover ethanol.&nbsp;

A flawed study that cast doubt on whether cellulosic ethanol produced from corn stover was environmentally friendly won't keep the industry from moving forward. Three well-known companies are poised to complete construction and start producing fuel. 

Corn stover ethanol will triumph over criticism

Related Stories

WASDE maintains forecast for 2023-’24 soybean oil use in biofuel

Conestoga to host SAFFiRE cellulosic ethanol pilot plant

USDA increase estimate for 2022-’23 soybean oil use in biofuel

USDA increase 2023 soybean forecast

Novozymes launches Quara LowP

Upcoming Events

Biodiesel Summit: Sustainable Aviation Fuel & Renewable Diesel

Corn stover ethanol will triumph over criticism .css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}