Over 50 million acres of good farmland will be used to grow corn to fuel the inefficient American motor vehicle.

Draglines will scoop up Florida for the Midwest corn growers.

Corn is a heavy feeder of phosphate. Midwest Corn depends on Florida phosphate. Florida is the largest producer of phosphate rock mined in the United States.

We have witnessed radiation contamination, polluted rivers and destroyed wetlands as well as mercury, sulfuric acid and flouride air pollution in Florida since the early mining years. Expect this to
double.

Phosphate production will have to double in Florida to meet the fertilizer requirements of expanded Midwest corn acreage for ethanol production.

Phosphate mining currently disturbs 5,000 - 6,000 acres of land annually in north and central Florida.

Mosaic Phosphate Co., (200,000 acres)  sends 75% of
their phosphate to the cornbelt in the Midwest. Mosaic plans to develop two new mines and extend existing mines in south-central Florida to continue meeting the demand for phosphate.

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (PCS) is draglining over 100,000 acres of wetlands along the Suwannee River near White Springs.

Geologic experts are warning that phosphate deposits will be depleted in Florida within 20 years.

The US will become dependent on costly finite supplies of phosphate from Morocco in competition with China and the rest of the world.

America will become more energy dependent as we exhaust our local natural resources with the Energy Bill.

December McSherry

Every possible waste stream source of organic fertilizer must be utilized.  With biogas digestion.

Clean energy, prevention of pollution (manure, sewage, landfill run off and methane release), and water recycling are the byproduct benefits.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Nitrogen:

A group in Minnesota is working on using wind power for synthesizing nitrogen fertilizer. I don't know whether it is ammonium, nitrite, or nitrate. I posted a link to the article elsewhere on the Grist site, but don't have time to look for it right now.

Anyway... the beauty of the system is that the fertilizer would be produced locally by co-ops, would not generate greenhouse gases (fertilizer production is a BIG contributor to greenhouse gas emissions), and you would not have to transport the fertilizer long distances. Please use google to find out more or send me an email and I find the info for you.

Hey! I resisted pushing the use of GMOs for solving this problem!

Phosphate:

There is an enormous amount of phosphorous locked up in the soil. Plants cannot use it, so farmers apply inorganic phosphate mined out of the Earth and environmentally harmful.

This is another of my favorite uses for GMOs -- again, posted elsewhere in the Grist website. We have already engineered plants to secrete a small amount of an enzyme from their roots, which releases phosphorous from the soil immediately around the roots of plants so they can use it. No need for broad application of inorganic phosphate and no need for mining it and transporting it to the fields. Furthermore, it virtually eliminates phosphate in the run-off from the fields. The phosphate is released from the soil only around roots that can immediately absorb it. Sadly, environmentalist seem to prefer the mining and broad application of inorganic phosphate and all the hazards that accompany it, rather than a simple and very well defined GMO.

Peace.

Thanks for the info on phosphorus mining in Florida. The environmental costs of industrial "homegrown" energy and food are not trivial. You describe sacrificial landscapes that support bigger sacrificial landscapes.  We are living on stacks of sacrificial landscapes connected by profit and codependency, but all adding up to eventual collapse.  Stacked genes or stacked landscapes create big profit but bring big fall once you erode the foundation of genetic and landscape diversity.  The pyramid is turned upside down and technology can no longer substitute for eroded ecological services without continued and growing additions from sacrificial energy or material landscapes.

Peak phosphorus is another of the "peaks" that add credence to the concept of limits -- to not only growth but also to sustainable production of current levels.  

I have posted previously on the shortages and skyrocketing cost of anhydrous ammonia, the main fertilizer used for field corn production.  Limited supplies of natural gas, the base ingredient for most nitrogen fertilizers, and reduced manufacturing capacity in the US have resulted in our importing 80% of this key input.  

At the same time, the corn industry is telling us that we can almost double our average corn yields within ten years to almost 300 bu/acre.  This would entail fertilization rates at least 1.5 times current levels!

Achieving energy independence via "home grown" corn is one of many big lies propagated by industry, Washington lobbyists and their bought and bridled congressmen. (Can an Obama really speak truth to these lies?)

And WIid, we are not selling or defending any of this stuff.  Just describing the world as it really works.  Soils differ greatly in their native phosphorus levels.  Your concept might work in very low yield environments to assist subsistence farmers but would likely be very inadequate in high yield, industrial agricultural environments.  The traits you describe typically involve complex interactions of multiple genes which are very long shots to companies like Monsanto that are geared to achieve high profits from the stacking of single gene traits.    

...but it can provide some assistance.

justlou wrote...

"...we are not selling or defending any of this stuff. Just describing the world as it really works."

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "we". Grist? All the Grist users? Environmentalists? Environmentalists opposing corporations? Environmentalists opposing GMOs? For sake of discussion, I'll interpret "we" as "environmentalists". Please forgive me if I'm wrong and the rest of this post is not a suitable response.

Pretty much everyone posting stories and comments here is selling, defending, rejecting, et cetera. We are not simply describing the world as it really works. I doubt there is a single person on the planet who can describe the world as it really works. It is all filtered by what we know, what we've read, what we've experienced, how we believe the world should work, indoctrination, et cetera. There is nothing wrong with this.

I think the whole point of a website like this is to ensure people with different views come together and not only describe the world as they believe it works, but also compare notes, question whether our views are accurate, and try to come up with some workable solutions -- considering ALL options -- to the problems human beings and other creatures are encountering in the 21st century.

So... environmentalists, when discussing GMOs,are not just describing the world as it really works but usually condemn corporations and GMOs as a single entity. There is little interest in looking at examples of GMOs not owned by corporations and/or not increasing the use of chemicals. There is little interest in reforming the situation so more people benefit from GMOs. There is little interest in examining and offering constructive criticism regarding how we might benefit from GMOs and avoid the problems.  It is always... corporations, bad! GMOs, bad!

This is not the reality of the world. Monsanto has created problems, lied, tried to sit on useful technology, et cetera. But that does not mean all corporations and all GMOs are bad.

justlou also wrote...

"The traits you describe typically involve complex interactions of multiple genes which are very long shots to companies like Monsanto that are geared to achieve high profits from the stacking of single gene traits."

Regarding "the traits", not necessarily. The gene for the enzyme I mentioned is easily put into plants -- you could put it into multiple varieties to avoid monocultures -- and has been shown to work in field trials. Sure, it isn't going to help all crops growing in all environments, but it would REDUCE the need for mining and applying inorganic phosphorous. Wouldn't that be good? Or is it all or nothing? If we can't save all of a natural habitat we are not going to bother saving a small part of it?

I believe a lot of problems will be solved more quickly by combining several different approaches. I also believe GMOs are one approach. I've repeatedly tried to say GMOs are not always a good idea. I realize there are bad GMOs. But I do not understand the notion of rejecting them when there is a clear advantage and little risk, especially if they reduce the need for chemicals, reduce harm to the environment, and lower costs.

Regarding "companies like Monsanto", true. But it is not a good reason to avoid GMOs. It is a reason to find ways to prevent corporations from owning genes. Much of the work could be done by public institutions and released for general use by breeders and growers. Not easy, but people have and are trying to do this.

Monocrop for a monoculture.

Am here in Central Florida and have just seen a disturbing article in the lakeland ledger about the disappearing scrub jay - now it's the wetlands (again/still) - Floridians be warned.