There is this lady on Yahoo Answers that is against using ethenol as an alternative fuel(read details)?

Question

There is this lady on Yahoo Answers that is against using ethenol as an alternative fuel because she says producing a maximum yield of corn, without allowing the fields to go fallow, will ruin the soil for other crops. Corn is naturally hard on soil as it is, so constant production of corn in one place will drain all of the naturally occurring nutrients in the soil. How true is this?

Answer 1

True.
But who said they were going to constantly produce corn in one place? I'm sure they will follow good agricultural practices including crop rotation, letting the fields lie fallow, and addition of needed chemical nutrients via fertilizer.

Answer 2

It's never a good idea to grow any crop year after year on the same ground. Each plant has a different nutrient requirement, so eventually takes everything there is out. Also, if ground is not left occasionally, all the humus is robbed out. This isn't a nutrient, but is very important in maintaining soil structure. What you can do is replace this by spreading vegetable or animal waste (manuring) on the ground in between crops.

Growing corn for ethanol production is no better or worse than any other form of intensive cultivation.

Answer 3

Her position makes a lot of sense. Crops need to be rotated because each crop uses up specific nutrients in the soil. Rotating allows those nutrients to replenish. I have also heard that in producing ethanol, the additional fuel used by the farm implements takes away from any benefit we may gain from the ethanol for personal vehicles. I agree about the sugarcane. Brazil has been using it for years!

Answer 4

Crop rotation has always been thought of as the best way to promote healthy soil. It adds nutrients to depleted soil. Now if she's saying that continually planting corn instead of rotating crops would ruin the soil, she may have a point. But in todays age of soil fertilization, her case may be moot.
I think we may have progressed to the point that we don't have to worry so much about soil depletion. I think that anything we can do to further the independancy of fossil fuels, is a step ahead.

Answer 5

Corn takes nitrogen out of the soil, but legumes (beans) put it back in. Companion planting is one way to address the problem. Crop rotation is another.

This is a weak argument against ethanol. Another argument against it I have heard is that we would be taking food away from people by using corn for ethanol production. It's just not true. There are government warehouses filled with grain that sits and spoils so that the price can be manipulated! Plus, a friend of mine said she has seen many WIC moms at the grocery store and has never seen a single one getting armloads of corn. Besides that, corn is rather bankrupt nutritionally. There are much healthier more nutritious grains.

Some people may not mind being addicted to oil and sending our money over to regimes that hate us and big oil companies who fleece us. But I mind. Ethanol is one way to address the problem. Electric cars are another.

Answer 6

There are a lot of negatives in using corn. First it drives the price of food up. The poor are suffering in Mexico because the corn prices are so high.

Ethanol has less energy, it takes more fuel to drive the same distance.

It still produces green house gasses.

The process produces more ghg's than regular gas because of the trucks that transport fertilizer and the product. More water is also used.

It's far from an ideal product. However it does buy votes for the politicians!

Answer 7

Very. Corn is the hardest on the soil of any crop that my father grew on the farm.

Corn used to make ethanol is a foolish act.
Brazil uses sugarcane

Answer 8

"a million. you're taking the verse out of context." Christians use this maximum whilst the questioner misses the lead-as much as the verse in question. Any plot ending is perplexing once you bypass the initiating and the midsection. "2. examine the Bible." Christians use this whilst they're too lazy to furnish a right away answer. "3. God Bless You." i do no longer see this used very regularly. "4. It replaced into mistranslated." i do no longer see this very regularly. "5. It replaced into meant to be taken metaphorically." The Bible is composed of various categories of literature, which includes historic narrative, allegorical, music, proverbial, etc. some passages are meant to be taken actually, others figuratively. in case you have seen the previous Get clever series, you have seen the comical consequences of Hymie the robotic taking actually what Agent 86 meant figuratively: "Shake a leg, Hymie!" "Hop to it, Hymie!" similarly, questioners can get thrown off the music via no longer understanding this way of literature they're quoting from. "6. They throw a bible verse at you." this happens regularly if the Christian believes the Bible has a undeniable answer. besides the undeniable fact that, i think of the verse might desire to be defined for sure as to WHY it replaced into an proper answer. "7. God works in mysterious techniques" i do no longer see this used lots, yet i've got self belief God has defined lots approximately how He works in the Bible. i would not use this answer myself. "8. The devil is messing jointly with your minds." This answer usually isn't powerful. Too obscure. "9. Jesus fullfilled the guidelines." This answer isn't sparkling to a nonbeliever. "10. settle for Jesus or burn." back, this answer, particularly regularly utilized in numerous ameliorations, is overused and usually would not make contributions to the communicate. i might say a million, 2 and six are used the main. (i'm a Christian.)

Answer 9

Yes that is true about the effect of the soil. My point is I don't trust the Arabs and think they will use the fuel problem against U.S.

Answer 10

doesnt rotating crops solve this problem