The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal Media. The opinions expressed below are the author's own.

Loading News


Market Data provided by
Brought to you by Beyer

Economic Sense

RSS By: Matt Bogard, AgWeb

Matt's primary interest is in the biotech industry and ag policy.

Hybrid Corn vs. Hybrid Cars

Jun 03, 2012


By: Matt Bogard
Which is better for the environment, hybrid corn (with biotech traits) or hybrid cars? Which is most easily adaptable and consumable on a scale large enough to have any meaningful impact on the environment? Which can be achieved most easily through social cooperation vs. manipulation and force?  I’ll answer these questions and more below. 
According to research from PG Economics, in 2009 alone,  greenhouse gas reductions associated with biotechnology were equivalent to removing 7.8 million cars from the road. I like to contrast this with the stats related to the much beloved hybrid car. Worldwide there have been only about 1.6 million hybrid cars sold as of 2009.  As far as cars on the road, the US and Japan have about 600,000.  And, I understand that the Obama Administration is calling for  1 million plug in hybrids on the highway by 2015. 
 So with hybrids we are talking a few million cars at most, that  are still on the road, and still one way or another require electricity, coal, or gasoline, which still creates pollution.  And there is all of this hype and interest in government setting mandates or creating subsidies to coerce consumers into buying hybrids. 
 Of course, if we all drove hybrids the impact might dwarf the 7.8 million figure above, but we would still have to net out the effects of driving hybrids.  It would take more than 7.8 million hybrids to match the green impact of biotech!  And it might take a lot of coercion by government. It seems a lot easier for me as a consumer to freely choose to have a drink with high fructose corn syrup derived from GMO corn than to make a huge change in my lifestyle and devotion of resources to getting a hybrid! 
And that’s not counting the positive impact of biotech and pharmaceutical technologies in beef and dairy  production. Many are familiar with Jude Capper's research:
" the carbon footprint for a gallon of milk produced in 2007 was only 37 percent of that produced in 1944. Improved efficiency has enabled the U.S. dairy industry to produce 186 billion pounds of milk from 9.2 million cows in 2007, compared to only 117 billion pounds of milk from 25.6 million cows in 1944. This has resulted in a 41 percent decrease in the total carbon footprint for U.S. milk production." 
Based on research by Alex and Dennis Avery and the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
"Grain feeding combined with growth promotants also results in a nearly 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) per pound of beef compared to grass feeding (excluding nitrous oxides), with growth promotants accounting for fully 25 percent of the emissions reductions"
Yet again another case where the invisible green hand trumps rhetoric and force, and another case where I’m not so sure that ‘carbon’ isn’t already accounted for and rationed by the voluntary decisions of billions of producers and consumers.
GM crops: global socio-economicand environmental impacts 1996-2009. Brookes and Barfoot.
The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production. By Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, Centre for Global Food Issues.

Organic, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef: Profitability and constraints to Production in the Midwestern U.S. Nicolas Acevedo John D. Lawrence Margaret Smith August, 2006. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture)
The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science,Capper, J. L., Cady, R. A., Bauman, D. E. 2009; 87 (6): 2160 DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1781



Spell Check

No comments have been posted to this Blog Post