General Discussion Discuss your Oldsmobile or other car-related topics.

Corn based ethanol in fuel may have just become a thing of the past ...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old March 31st, 2014, 11:24 AM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Professur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Mo-Ray-Al, K-Bec.
Posts: 1,815
Corn based ethanol in fuel may have just become a thing of the past ...

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/rootwor...tance-bt-corn/

Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It

Corn rootworm on the roots of a corn plant. Image: Sarah Zukoff/Flickr

One of agricultural biotechnology’s great success stories may become a cautionary tale of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits of genetic modification.
After years of predicting it would happen — and after years of having their suggestions largely ignored by companies, farmers and regulators — scientists have documented the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn.
Until Bt corn was genetically altered to be poisonous to the pests, rootworms used to cause billions of dollars in damage to U.S. crops. Named for the pesticidal toxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis gene it contains, Bt corn now accounts for three-quarters of the U.S. corn crop. The vulnerability of this corn could be disastrous for farmers and the environment.

“Unless management practices change, it’s only going to get worse,” said Aaron Gassmann, an Iowa State University entomologist and co-author of a March 17 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study describing rootworm resistance. “There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used.”
First planted in 1996, Bt corn quickly became hugely popular among U.S. farmers. Within a few years, populations of rootworms and corn borers, another common corn pest, had plummeted across the midwest. Yields rose and farmers reduced their use of conventional insecticides that cause more ecological damage than the Bt toxin.
By the turn of the millennium, however, scientists who study the evolution of insecticide resistance were warning of imminent problems. Any rootworm that could survive Bt exposures would have a wide-open field in which to reproduce; unless the crop was carefully managed, resistance would quickly emerge.
Key to effective management, said the scientists, were refuges set aside and planted with non-Bt corn. Within these fields, rootworms would remain susceptible to the Bt toxin. By mating with any Bt-resistant worms that chanced to evolve in neighboring fields, they’d prevent resistance from building up in the gene pool.
But the scientists’ own recommendations — an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer’s fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges — were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn’t even follow those recommendations.
Fast forward to 2009, when Gassmann responded to reports of extensive rootworm damage in Bt cornfields in northeast Iowa. Populations there had become resistant to one of the three Bt corn varieties. (Each variety produces a different type of Bt toxin.) He described that resistance in a 2011 study; around the same time, reports of rootworm-damaged Bt corn came in from parts of Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota. These didn’t represent a single outbreak, but rather the emergence, again and again, of resistance.
'A widespread increase in trait failure maybe just around the corner.'
In the new paper, Gassmann describes further incidents of Bt resistance in other parts of Iowa. He also found rootworms resistant to a second variety of Bt corn. Moreover, being resistant to one variety heightened the chances of resistance to another. That means corn engineered to produce multiple Bt toxins — so-called stacked varieties — won’t do much to slow the evolution of rootworm resistance, as was originally hoped. Farmers likely won’t stop using Bt corn, as it’s still effective against other pests — but as rootworms become more resistant, said Gassmann, farmers will turn to insecticides, thus increasing their costs and losing the ecological benefits originally gained by using Bt corn. As entomologists concerned by rootworm resistance wrote to the EPA in 2012, “When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-*protected corn quickly disappear.”
Entomologist Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona called Bt resistance “an increasingly serious problem,” and said that refuge sizes need to be increased dramatically and immediately. He and other scientists have pushed the EPA to double current refuge requirements, but so far without success.
“Biotech companies have successfully lobbied EPA for major reductions in refuge requirements,” said Tabashnik.
Entomologist Elson Shields of Cornell University agrees. “Resistance was caused because the farmers did not plant the required refuges and the companies did not enforce the planting of refuges,” said Shields, who has written that “a widespread increase in trait failure may be just around the corner.”
In addition to increasing refuge sizes, farmers also need to vary the crops planted on their fields, rather than planting corn season after season, said Gassmann. Breaks in the corn cycle naturally disrupt rootworm populations, but the approach fell from favor as the high price of corn made continuous planting appealing. “Continuous corn is the perfect habitat for rootworm,” said Gassmann.
Shields also lamented the difficulty he and other academic scientists long experienced when trying to study Bt corn. Until 2010, after organized objections by entomologists at major agricultural universities forced seed companies to allow outside researchers to study Bt corn, the crop was largely off-limits. Had that not been the case, said Shields, resistance could have been detected even earlier, and perhaps stalled before it threatened to become such a problem.
“Once we had legal access, resistance was documented in a year,” Shields said. “We were seeing failures earlier but were not allowed to test for resistance.”
There’s a lesson to be learned for future crop traits, Shields said. Rootworm resistance was expected from the outset, but the Bt seed industry, seeking to maximize short-term profits, ignored outside scientists. The next pest-fighting trait “will fall under the same pressure,” said Shields, “and the insect will win. Always bet on the insect if there is not a smart deployment of the trait.”

Professur is offline  
Old March 31st, 2014, 11:57 AM
  #2  
71 cutlass convertible
 
lshlsh2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Trappe, MD
Posts: 2,017
Not suprising at all. Have a plant nursery and we rotate pesticidies whenever possible for just this reason. There are now aphids with a longer nose that can't be smothered with oils or soaps. I could go on and on but the insects will always win.

Larry
lshlsh2 is offline  
Old March 31st, 2014, 12:08 PM
  #3  
Registered User
 
Eric Anderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North East PA
Posts: 766
Sounds like a great reason to keep ethenol in the gas. They can probably milk another 2 bucks a gallon out of that article.
Eric Anderson is offline  
Old March 31st, 2014, 12:34 PM
  #4  
Registered User
 
nsnarsk65cutlass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Grass Valley Ca
Posts: 973
I always thought it was a bad idea to burn food for fuel all that does is raise food prices as supply decreases,costs more to feed livestock etc.
nsnarsk65cutlass is offline  
Old March 31st, 2014, 05:01 PM
  #5  
Registered User
 
dc2x4drvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,659
Thanks for the post, good read.
dc2x4drvr is offline  
Old March 31st, 2014, 07:57 PM
  #6  
Registered User
 
jaunty75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: southeastern Michigan
Posts: 14,150
Originally Posted by lshlsh2
the insects will always win
It's called evolution.
jaunty75 is offline  
Old March 31st, 2014, 08:26 PM
  #7  
Registered User
 
Nilsson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,076
Ethanol is a scam, it takes the energy equivalent of 1.5 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.
Nilsson is offline  
Old April 1st, 2014, 01:54 AM
  #8  
Registered User
 
Daverd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 133
Sure is a BIG scam mileage per gallon with ethanol goes
Down according to how much ethanol percentage is mixed in
With the gas more ethanol less mpg per gallon of gas.
Daverd is offline  
Old April 1st, 2014, 06:47 AM
  #9  
Registered User
 
jaunty75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: southeastern Michigan
Posts: 14,150
Originally Posted by Daverd
mileage per gallon with ethanol goes Down according to how much ethanol percentage is mixed in With the gas more ethanol less mpg per gallon of gas.
This is nothing new and has been known from the beginning with ethanol in gasoline. Adding ethanol to gasoline was never about getting better or even the same miles per gallon. It was about using domestically-produced, renewable fuel sources in place of imported oil. The fact that mileage decreased, that it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get back when you burn it, and that we're burning our food instead of eating it is beside the point as long as the corn lobby gets its way.

The poorer mileage is not that much of an issue for the 10% ethanol in gasoline you see as standard all over the country. Mileage IS lower, but we have no choice as that's usually the only gas available.

Where the problem exists, in my opinion, is the E-85 gasoline that some "flex-fuel" vehicles can use. Mileage using that fuel is well lower than pure gasoline or even 10% ethanol in gasoline, so the cost of E-85 fuel needs to be considerably lower than normal gasoline to make up for the mileage loss. In my experience, the various gas stations around town that have E-85 sell it at a price that isn't anywhere near low enough to offset the lower mileage, and I'm surprised anyone buys it.
jaunty75 is offline  
Old April 1st, 2014, 07:20 AM
  #10  
Registered User
 
Daverd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 133
I'm in agreement with you 100 percent on this
I have discussed this with friends they dident
Realize lower mileage costs to produce ..
I remember as a kid in the 70s
When this crap first came out in volume
And the trouble I caused then with
The carburated cars ( as it does again now)..
One of the biggest boondoggles ever ...
( burning our food source )
Daverd is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sarum
Electrical
9
August 17th, 2014 01:31 AM
navvet
General Discussion
5
August 22nd, 2011 03:57 PM
auto_editor
General Discussion
10
April 25th, 2011 08:10 AM
Grumpy
General Discussion
1
March 30th, 2009 04:25 PM



Quick Reply: Corn based ethanol in fuel may have just become a thing of the past ...



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:07 AM.