Sweet Substitute in Ethanol Production

There is no shortage of commentary on the good, the bad, and the ugly of ethanol.  For corn producers – good.  For livestock producers – bad.  Those with opposing views are busy attacking the integrity and credibility of their foes – ugly.

While this war of words rages on, scientists at North Carolina State University are focused on a potentially sweet alternative to corn in producing ethanol - the industrial sweet potato. 

Whereas ethanol from corn causes an increase in food prices, the industrial sweet potato will not have any impact.  And, since it isn’t the sweet potato you buy in the grocery store, there won’t be an uproar over diverting a food source to a fuel source. 

According to Craig Yencho, lead researcher on the project, “these are not your grandmother’s sweet potatoes.  The industrial sweet potato is edible, but not palatable.”  That’s because the high starch content takes away the sweetness.  This root vegetable’s starch content, almost double that of corn, is what makes it so attractive as a source of ethanol.

The problem right now is the cost of production.  Planting by hand is a costly endeavour.  If researchers can develop a way to plant them mechanically, like regular potatoes, then production costs drop and this alternative becomes, well, sweet.

Wouldn’t it be great to see those involved in all sides of the ethanol debate admit that there are concerns, and focus on solving problems?  In the meantime, kudos to these, and other researchers, who are seeking viable alternatives.

AC Barrie is Seed of the Year

Researchers at Agriculture and Agri-food Canada were acknowledged Wednesday when AC Barrie, a hard red spring wheat variety was named Seed of the Year.  In a ceremony at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair on Wednesday, the wheat variety overcame competition from white bean, peach, and barley varieties.

Seed of the Year is a competition designed to highlight Canadian public research and development of seed for field crops, forages, fruits, vegetables, and herbs. 

The program, designed by SeCan and the University of Guelph, and the recognition it brings to public breeding programs is about to become more important than ever before. 

The fall issue of Top Crop Manager includes an article on the shortage of breeders in North America.  It seems that the number of people taking part in both public and private sector breeding programs is falling rapidly, and may indeed become a crisis in the very near future.

The article suggests that government funding has become a challenge as other areas of spending have taken precedence, so the challenge of attracting new breeders has fallen onto the shoulders of researchers at universities in Canada and the US. 

Kudos to those already involved in the field for their determination in creating plant breeding programs, and their efforts to ensure funding for these advanced education opportunities.  And congratulations to those who created Seed of the Year, for encouraging continued excellence in Canadian public plant breeding.

I, the consumer

The American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund just released a report warning that people with extra body fat have a higher risk of cancer.  That would be me.  As well, those who eat red meat should be concerned.  Again, me.  Those who consume alcohol aren’t safe either.  Okay, there is nowhere for me to hide.

Reports are released to the media and, especially in this case, receive a great deal of coverage.  Those who rebut the findings, like the organizations involved in the production and processing of these “threatening” products react, and people say they are being defensive.  Of course they are, and rightly so. 

Then we end up with some people taking drastic measures to change their lifestyles, and others who yawn and turn to the next news item.  What do I, the consumer, need to know in order to make informed decisions about what’s safe and what’s not?  Where do I find the information that will help me decide?

Not everyone has the same pool of resources to draw from, so many are at a disadvantage when it comes to learning more.  The web is a great tool, but when does a tool become a weapon?  Is it when readers can’t discern a reliable source from a questionable one?  Are we skeptical when information comes from someone we feel has a vested interest in a topic?

Back to the cancer report for a minute:  Has anyone thought to ask whether genetic predispostions, lifestyles, pre-existing conditions, environment, stress level or myriad other concerns exacerbate the risk of cancer?  What about using moderation as a guide.  There are a lot of naturally occurring substances that can be toxic at a certain level, but we use common sense to protect ourselves from risk, don’t we?

Here is another prime example of an unbalanced issue:  The push to ban cosmetic pesticides from municipalities in order to protect citizens, especially children.  It is a growing concern, but who is causing it to be so?  Special interest groups who base their opinions on emotion, rather than science? 

The Ontario Green Party claims that the risks of pesticides outweigh the benefits.  Several health organizations agree, but what conclusive results are they basing their opinions on?

Then, we have manufacturers of these products trying to balance the equation and they are accused of having ulterior motives like profit.  This is a rather ignorant accusation.  These people are consumers too, they have families, and they are very well educated.  They are governed by a strict set of standards and tests that measure the safety of the products before they ever reach the store shelf.  A great educational tool available to consumers comes in DVD format, and was produced by Syngenta Crop Protection Canada.  It contains easy to understand information on the risks and benefits of manufactured pesticides.  The DVD, titled “Primer on Pesticides: What do we really know about them?” has already been sent to schools, and to municipalities currently debating the cosmetic pesticide ban. 

The one factor that seems to me to be out of control is the person buying the product and using it incorrectly.  Yes, the human factor is the biggest problem we face in this debate.  People buy a pesticide, take it home, and start spraying.  I’ve seen them in shorts and T-shirts, in bare feet, and puffing away on a cigarette while they’re at it.  Guess what, products have a label for a reason.  The label lists the ingredients, the approved method of application, the rate at which it should be applied, and the conditions under which it should be used.  The greater danger than the product is the person holding the bottle.

Don’t take things at face value.  Take the time to ask questions, get involved, learn more.  It is your right as a consumer to do so.  Don’t allow yourselft to be railroaded into something, or have control over your own property taken away when it doesn’t need to be.