Published: April 11, 2008 10:26 am            

Commentary: Tillman’s position on biofuels is wrong

Originally published in the April 4, 2008, print edition.

Unless you’ve lived in a cave for the past five years, you should be aware of the tremendous impact that ethanol production has had on the rural economy of Minnesota. This includes the rural communities as well as farmers. This has been good, and I believe the future of biofuels is bright.

In fact, there are several faculty members in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resource Sciences conducting research that focuses on some aspect of biofuel production.

Unfortunately, not all faculty are in agreement with this position and some have attempted to convince us that the opposite is true. The most recent is an attempt by David Tillman and associates who believe that with biofuels there will be a conversion of rainforests, peat lands and savanna (grasslands) to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States. To me, this reasoning is not logical and lacks common sense.

The Tillman and associates position is described in a recent issue of Science (supposedly a high-quality journal). I’ve studied the article and do not believe that the position taken by Tillman and associates is supported by fact (data). I’m not alone in this belief. Professionals at Argonne National Lab, Oak Ridge National Lab and the Pacific Northwest National Lab have stated that the report reads like “conclusions looking for an underlying rationale.” In other words, I have a belief and I will generate, through nebulous calculations, data that will support this belief.

The data cited by others show that average U.S. corn yields have increased by approximately 2 percent per year since 1975 and corn exports continue to rise. In addition, the so-called carbon imprint in the production of ethanol is much less than the imprint for burning of fossil fuels.

It’s discouraging that CFANS administrators, in media interviews, have chosen to provide a marshmallow defense of Tillman and associates. They chose not to highlight all of the excellent research being conducted by CFANS faculty in the area of biofuel production. That was a mistake.

This is not the first time that the writings of Tillman and associates have been questioned. Approximately one year ago, they attempted to convince us through writing in the same journal (Science) that a mixture of native species was better than production of a single species such as switchgrass. That report of a small study extrapolated to the whole world has been challenged by highly respected faculty in CFANS. They “contend that their (Tillman and associates) conclusions are not substantiated by their experimental protocol.” In other words, conclusions were not substantiated by the data collected. This report published in Science would probably not have been accepted for publication in Agronomy Journal.

The debate that surrounds ethanol production is not over. At the same time, we can expect to see significant advances in the technology and the science that supports ethanol production. The critics will continue to criticize. But, the impact of that criticism will diminish.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.