About us
-
The BioPact unites EU citizens and African citizens who work towards a common bioenergy future, in which the EU couples part of its green energy policies to its humanitarian and development policies in Africa. We also monitor biofuels and bioenergy news coming from the developing world in general.
Read the Pact
Discuss
Categories (used this week only - for more, please use the Technorati search engine below)
Resources
- Bioenergy
- Bioenergy basics
- IEA Bioenergy
- EU Renewable Energy Portal
- FAO Bioenergy
- FAO Forest Energy Program
- Bioenergy Network of Excellence
- Bioenergy Future Group
- Bioenergy International
- Bioenergy Mailing List
- EUEI: European Energy Initiative for Poverty Eradication & Sustainable Development
- LAMNET: International cooperation on Bioenergy in the developing world
- Global Village Energy Partnership
- SparkNet: nergy for low-income households in Southern and East Africa
- World Energy Council: energy for sustainable development
- International Network for Sustainable Energy (in the South)
- The Energy & Resources Institute
- The Energy for Development Summit
- Renewable Energy for Development (SEI)
- CARENSA: Cane Resources Network for Southern Africa (supported by the EU)
- WIP: Partner in Renewable Energies (commercial but supports lots of projects in developing world)
- ETA: Partner in Renewable Energies (commercial but supports lots of projects in developing world)
- EUBIA: European Biomass Industry Association
- ENDA: Energie, Environnement et Développement
- Société Civile (République Démocratique du Congo)
- Wegweiser Bürgergesellschaft
- Ubuntu: World Forum of Civil Society Networks
- Choike: a portal on Southern civil societies
- Civil Society Building
- CSO at the UNDP
- Attac
- World Social Forum
- European Social Forum
- ADEME: France's energy & environment agency
- The EU's "Green Paper" energy website
- EuropaBio
- Bio-Economy: The EU Bio-based Economy web
- Alternatives Economiques
- Coopération Internationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité
- Agir Ici
- Centre de Recherche et d'Information pour le Développement
- Raisons d'Agir
- WorldChanging
- BioConversion Blog
- AllAfrica/slash/Sustainable
- AllAfrica/slash/Energy (Anglophone)
- AllAfrica/slash/Énergie (Franco- & lusophone)
Energy & development
Civil Society in Africa
Altermondialism
EU & African institutions
Social & green think tanks
Bio-blogs
Energy News from Africa
Previous Posts
- How about involving 30,000 poor families in biofuel production?
- Biofuels super power Congo implements transparancy in natural resources management
- Developing world to cut one billion tons of CO2 emissions by 2012 - U.N.
- Biofuels: to certificate or not to certificate, that is the question.
- The Global Benefits of Biofuels - a quick overview
- Producing ethanol from agricultural waste a step closer
- All vehicles to use ethanol in Japan by 2030: report
- Quicknotes on biofuels, from the lusophone world
- Biorefineries: Denmark global pioneer
- France's highly efficient trains to test 100% pure plant oil
Archives
-
2003-06-08
2003-11-16
2003-12-28
2004-02-15
2004-03-21
2004-04-04
2004-04-11
2004-04-18
2004-04-25
2004-05-30
2004-09-12
2004-10-17
2004-10-24
2005-01-30
2005-02-27
2005-04-10
2005-05-01
2005-05-29
2005-07-10
2005-08-07
2005-09-18
2005-10-02
2005-12-04
2006-01-01
2006-02-12
2006-02-19
2006-03-19
2006-04-02
2006-04-09
2006-04-23
2006-04-30
2006-05-07
2006-05-14
2006-05-21
2006-05-28
2006-06-04
2006-06-11
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Rising oil prices mean higher farming costs
It's going to cost more to put in the crop this year.
Anhydrous prices have risen to 28 cents per pound from 12 to 15 cents a pound in the mid- to late-1990s.
Retail diesel prices averaged $1.64 a gallon in Minnesota and Iowa last week, according to AAA. Prices a year ago averaged $1.57. The highest price ever was reported in March 2003, when diesel prices hit $1.76.
Mike Duffy, an Iowa State University Extension farm management economist, said fuel cost is a relatively small portion of the money spent to put in a crop, but when the products that are derived from petroleum are considered the impact is much larger.
Many chemicals and fertilizers are petroleum-based. Tires and transportation consume petroleum.
Annual production, transport and primary processing of Minnesota's agricultural output consumes 241 million gallons of diesel, 24 million gallons of gasoline, 123 million gallons of LP gas, 23 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 2.27 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, according to research done by Barry Ryan and Douglas Tiffany of the University of Minnesota.
Yet agriculture in the United States uses half the amount of energy per unit of output than it did in 1978, said Tiffany, a research fellow in the U of M applied economics department. Gains have been made from larger, more efficient equipment and processors are more efficient at making fertilizer.
But prices that have doubled in some cases have farmers thinking about ways to reduce cost.
Gyles Randall, a soil scientist at the Southern Research and Outreach Center in Waseca, has received questions about how much nitrogen needs to be applied.
For corn yields up to 175 bushels per acre, 120 pounds of nitrogen is plenty for corn following soybeans, Randall said. In southeastern Minnesota, 90 to 100 pounds of nitrogen is plenty for corn following soybeans.
Duffy said farmers need to use realistic yield goals in establishing the amount of nitrogen they need.
Many factors farmers are considering in terms of fuel economy are practices educators have been trying to get farmers to do from an environmental aspect. Cost saving is an important factor in convincing people to look at alternative types of tillage, he said.
In the short run farmers should be sure their equipment is properly tuned and that implements are clean so they pull easier. In the long run they should evaluate how many trips they make across the field.
"Farming is a lot of tradition � there's a certain pride of ownership, people do things to maintain clean fields that are not economical," Duffy said. "I think what we try to do is present sound scientific based information on the costs and the returns.
"I heard a friend say farmers are all in favor of progress -- it's change they hate."
The U.S. agricultural production system is fairly fossil-fuel intensive, he said, adding that the whole energy arena is going to continue to take on more importance in the future.
"I think that we should prepare ourselves for this wild fluctuation to be the norm, not to be the exception," Duffy said. In 20 to 25 years higher energy prices could change the way U.S. farmers farm.
Producers spent $10.22 per acre on fuel and oil, not including drying fuel, in 2003. The total direct cost on that acre was $288.50. That makes fuel 3.5 percent of total direct cash expense for an acre of corn.
For soybeans, farmers spent $8.20 for fuel. The direct costs were $194.25 or 4.2 percent of the total cost.
By Janet Kubat Willette
Agri News staff writer
Source: South Central Minnesota Farm Business Management Program
Full article
ethanol :: biodiesel :: biofuels :: bioenergy :: biomass :: renewables :: energy :: sustainability :: Africa ::
posted by Laurens Rademakers at 8:09 PM 0 comments