Crops for Biofuel

The ethical questions about biofuels

2011-12-10T05:45:00.000-08:00

Dr. Peter Baker, CABI

Summary

Studies on the ethics of biofuels are starting to appear, in response to mounting concerns on a number of issues. The Nuffield Council’s report develops a framework to evaluate the various biofuels technologies. These include human rights, environmental sustainability, net reduction of greenhouse gases, and adequate remuneration for labour and equitable distribution of benefits. They conclude that many biofuel policies fail to satisfy ethical principles. The report hopes to give ‘a clear policy steer’ and incorporate the framework recommendations into certification schemes. A paper by Lena Partsch examines two certification systems and questions their legitimacy however, finding that they fail legitimacy and legal criteria through a lack of control and inadequate stakeholder representation. A French agricultural research committee representing two publically funded institutions also examines the ethics of biofuels, in particular palm oil, and finds that a simple mission-oriented strategy of improving production is no longer adequate for these institutions, which they imply may be becoming too subservient to private interests. They suggest that scientists should question not only the scientific merit of proposed research, but also its demands and social expectations. This will require interdisciplinary work with researchers in the humanities (legal, sociological and philosophical), to help scientists formulate and express the ethical problems they face.

Ever since Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, called the conversion of food to biofuels ‘a crime against humanity’¹, there has been a widely acknowledged need to examine the validity of his statement. Now, four years later, reports that examine ethical aspects are duly beginning to appear.

The Nuffield Council’s report on the ethics of biofuels² (briefly summarised by Buyx and Tait 2011³) is a useful opportunity to see how a group of diverse experts, including medical doctors, academics and an industry official view the moral issues surrounding biofuels. They conclude that many biofuel policies fail to satisfy ethical principles. The report recommends that a range of ethical conditions should be considered with the hope of giving ‘a clear policy steer’ and incorporated into certification schemes. The report derives an ethical framework that includes five principles that policy-makers can use to evaluate biofuel technologies:

Biofuels development should not be at the expense of people’s essential rights. The report suggests that the growth in biofuels may have already led to human rights abuses, for example, workers living in near-slavery conditions. Compulsory certification schemes are necessary, say the authors, and could help ensure that all biofuels meet human rights standards.
Biofuels should be environmentally sustainable. Problems include biodiversity losses caused by direct and indirect land clearing and land-use change (e.g. a recent Hart & CABI report⁴), excessive use of water and pollution through pesticide and fertilizer use. Biofuel policies related to sustainability are generally weak and vary from country to country. The report recommends a mandatory and enforceable international environmental sustainability standard for biofuel production, ideally developed by an international agency such as the UN Environment Programme, to replace voluntary schemes which are works in progress, with a number of unresolved issues and imperfectly defined concepts that limit their effectiveness.
Biofuels should contribute to net reduction of total GHG emissions. Although unmistakeably a fundamental requirement, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding measurement of emissions, and no controls to ensure that imported biofuels offer emissions savings throughout their production life cycle. Again, the report calls for a single international standard including a clear methodological framework for calculating GHG emissions across the whole biofuel life cycle.
Just reward: biofuels should recognize the rights of people to adequate payment for labour. This is required by the European Renewable Energy Directive but producers outside the EU may not abide by these policies, which can lead to overwork and low wages. Policy-makers should implement strict requirements with strong audit trails for pay and working conditions that respect vulnerable populations.
Costs and benefits of biofuels should be distributed in an equitable way. Investment in biofuels may threaten food security in poor countries, while delivering benefits for climate change and energy security in the developed world. Policies that govern biofuel production should balance needs of local and international markets and not disadvantage small scale producers who could provide essential energy to the local community. This is clearly not happening, with mounting evidence of land grabbing for biofuel production. The authors suggest that a cost-benefit analysis at the proof-of-concept stage should take account of the proposed ethical principles.

The authors make clear the large number of difficult ‘challenges’ (the word occurs more than 150 times in the report) facing ethical biofuel development and place a lot of emphasis on certification schemes to validate and verify. However the authors do not get around to considering the inadequacies surrounding certification itself. Happily though, this is the theme of a recent paper by Lena Partzsch⁵ from the Helmholtz Centre in Leipzig. She starts by reminding us of shortcomings in food certification systems that have tended to strengthen retail power at the expense of farmers in developing countries. Their marginalization, especially of smallholder farmers, therefore begs the question of how such deficiencies of certification as a private governance tool can be overcome and fully legitimised.

Partzsch then provides a simple taxonomy of legitimacy, distinguishing between an input-oriented perspective (authority of the people) and an output-oriented version (authority for the people). Ideally legitimacy should be based on both democratic norms (input) and equitable performance (output legitimacy), the latter an area of now general and intense development activity as donors struggle to prove to tax payers that their funds have achieved concrete results.

Private governance, says Partzsch, amounts to a new relationship between state, market and society. Its legitimacy rests solely on outputs, which are arrived at through consensus to solve perceived problems (e.g. to end rainforest clearance for oil palm estates). Such pragmatic solutions however are only weakly legitimate because of the lack of democratic norms, which actors try to solve by the inclusion of stakeholder groups that in effect, substitute for elected groups. The problem comes, of course, in how the stakeholder groups are defined and selected; this is a central challenge for legitimacy of private governance and previous studies (e.g. Busch 2000⁶) demonstrate the power asymmetries that arise between retail companies and the rest of the supply chain. These stakeholder representatives participate through vastly more informal structures than is the case with democratic institutions.

Partzsch looks at two certification processes; one privately initiated (Roundtable On Sustainable Palm Oil, RSPO⁷) and one public (the Cramer Commission⁸). The mission of both of these entities is to contribute to solving specific problems, such as the environmental externalities of production, i.e. a results-oriented focus that hopes to gain legitimacy if the outputs serve the common welfare. With these antecedents, Partzsch introduces three conditions that are needed to establish legitimacy which she illustrates with the RSPO and Cramer Commission cases:

De facto legitimacy: if output-oriented entities are effective at solving problems such as water pollution, land degradation etc. they are considered ‘de facto’ legitimate. Partzsch finds that both RSPO and Cramer are highly output oriented on required actions, e.g. the ending of deforestation. However there is no general consensus on what makes biofuel production sustainable e.g. on GMOs and indirect land use effects, where both entities have failed to agree on a position. Partzsch therefore finds that without agreement on outputs, neither initiative currently passes this legitimacy test.
Legitimacy through stakeholder inclusion: the Cramer Commission emphasizes balanced representation of business and civil society groups, whereas the RSPO faces strong opposition from several groups. Both initiatives however fail to ensure adequate stakeholder participation from affected developing countries hence they can only claim at best to be partially legitimate according to this criterion. A recent paper by Laurence et al.⁹ agrees: ‘[RSPO] should be restructured to give more weight and decision-making power to environmental organizations and experts.’ Yet another recent paper (Paoli et al.¹⁰) makes a range of related suggestions: 1) improve corporate governance of plantation companies to translate boardroom CSR decisions into conservation actions on the ground; 2) push RSPO member processors, traders, manufacturers, and retailers to share the cost burden of implementing sustainability, (3) strengthen NGO partnerships with companies to provide the social and environmental expertise companies require but still lack, 4) create a more supportive regulatory structure in producer countries to implement sustainability.
Control and accountability: the RSPO has assigned responsibility to its General Assembly and Executive Board, which includes a grievance panel to handle complaints. However these mechanisms are ‘private’ in the sense that there is no enforcement guarantee. Likewise the Cramer Commission criteria do not stem from the Netherlands’ legislature so there is also no legal accountability. Partzsch points out that the allocation of subsidies will depend on certification in the near future, so it is essential that modalities for control and accountability need to be established in order to guarantee that the political output serves the common good. A major challenge therefore is to integrate actors from developing countries including diverse and adverse civil society groups; private authority by the North is increasingly unlikely to be accepted by people in the South.

In France too, the various doubts raised by palm oil as a biofuel have surfaced, this time in the public science sector and has led to a review of the ethics of biofuels by the Joint Ethics Committee of INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique) and CIRAD (Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement).¹¹

For years explain the authors, researchers in these two institutes have concentrated on such goals as increasing productivity and improving food security in a highly mission-oriented sense. Now however the diverse implications of biofuel research are revealing difficulties in this approach as different competing research issues arise. The very fact that this Committee is now considering this problem suggests that there must have been some considerable debate already within these public French institutions, something that is unlikely to come as a surprise to scientists in many other institutions.

The Committee refers to Max Weber’s interpretation of social action that distinguishes between instrumental rationality, related to the expectations about the behaviour of others, which are effectively oriented to attain rational ends, and value-oriented (axiological) actions, which are undertaken for intrinsic ethical, aesthetic, religious or other motives. These distinctions are somewhat similar to Partzsch’s categories of output- and input-orientated action.

Public-funded scientists therefore find themselves in a quandary says the Committee, with an unusual hybridization between scientific and economic rationality that makes them now a full partner in the 'knowledge economy.’ Scientists may try to stick to what they know but increasingly more is expected of them. The fear is that in the process scientific and commercial institutions come to resemble each other more closely. This is the subject of ‘new institutionalism’ theory (e.g. Scott 2001¹²) that deals with the way institutions interact and how they affect society. It explains why so many businesses end up having the same organizational structure even though they evolved in different ways, and how institutions shape the behaviour of individual members.

The Committee suggests that a public research institution should not just be required to take the modern neo-liberal stance, but also to theorize and justify it. If not, public research activities could be reduced to an industry or service like any other. They quote Derrida and Pierre Veltz that the university must be ‘unconditional’ and by so doing, they clearly regard public sector scientists as more akin to their university colleagues than those in industry. Hence ‘freedom of questioning’ must be guaranteed and the Committee recommend revising the meaning of mission-oriented research and make specific recommendations on how to deal with ethical questions related to biofuels research. This will mean that when formulating research, scientists must question not only its scientific merit, but also its demands and social expectations. This will require interdisciplinary work with researchers in the humanities (legal, sociological and philosophical), to help scientists formulate and express the ethical problems they face.

Probably many who have worked on biofuels have felt troubled by the global implications that are now increasingly apparent, so it is encouraging to see the kind of deliberations outlined above now taking place, with the various authors deploying arguments by Kant, Rousseau, Weber and others in their attempts to grapple with these difficult issues. The role of the various actors, scientists, civil society and business is now indeed complex with the borders between them becoming very blurred, all perpetually seeking funding whilst needing to justify every action. None of the approaches reviewed here however offer easy solutions and it is clear that much more needs to be done to develop rational and broadly acceptable approaches to the development of biofuels.

Somehow too, there is a need to add a political dimension to this debate. What has happened is surely linked to the remarkable changes in global governance that have been occurring over the past two decades, something the late Konrad von Moltke was concerned with:¹³

“We are witnessing an extraordinary transformation of international governance linked to the processes of globalisation…[…]… not only governments make rules in international society, there are also private rule makers, there always have been private rule makers - but the balance between government rule making and private rule making is very much in flux and the ultimate challenge that we are facing is how to generate public goods from private markets.“

It is perhaps unfortunate and even ironic that the biofuel era has arrived during the full flood of globalisation, with its concomitant loosening of national government controls. Globalisation however has not led to serviceable and scalable global norms, which seem to be especially required now for biofuels, so implicated as they are in indirect land use change and so bound up with global CO2 emissions. Instead we seem now to be in a period of weak government and lack of leadership just at a time when, for biofuels and much else besides, strong, concerted and global guidance is required.

Dr. Peter Baker, CABI

References

SwissInfo (2007) UN rapporteur calls for biofuel moratorium. [Online]
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2011) Biofuels: Ethical Issues 226pp.
Buyx, A. & Tait, J. (2011) Ethical Framework for Biofuels. Science. 332: 540-541.
Hart Energy Consulting & CABI (2010) Land Use Change: Science and Policy Review. 53pp.
Partzsch, L. (2011) The legitimacy of biofuel certification. Agriculture and Human Values. 28: 413-425.
Busch, L. (2000) The moral economy of grades and standards. Journal of Rural Studies. 16: 273–283.
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
Projectgroep Duurzame productie van biomassa (2006) Criteria voor duurzame biomassa productie. 40pp.
Laurance, W.F., Koh, L.P., Butler, R., Sodhi, N.S., Bradshaw, C.J., Neidel, J.D., Consunji, H. & Mateo Vega, J. (2010) Improving the performance of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil for nature conservation. Conservation Biology. 24: 377–381.
Paoli, G.D., Yaap, B., Wells, P.L. & Sileuw, A. (2010) CSR, Oil Palm and the RSPO: Translating boardroom philosophy into conservation action on the ground Tropical Conservation Science. 3:438-446.
De Lattre-Gasquet, M., Vermersch, D., Bursztyn, M. & Duée, P.H. (2010) Quelles questions éthiques posent la production de palmier à huile et la recherche sur les biocarburants? Oléagineux Corps Gras Lipides. 17: 375-384.
Scott, R. ( 2001) Institutions and Organizations. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, London. 255pp
UNCTAD/IISD multi-stakeholder meeting: “Sustainability in the Coffee Sector: Exploring Opportunities for International Cooperation—Assessment and Implementation”. Palais des Nations, UNCTAD - Geneva Geneva 8-9th December, 2003.

Source: http://biofuelexperts.ning.com/page/the-ethical-questions-about-biofuels

Cassava Bio Ethanol Project

2011-05-24T16:38:00.000-07:00

See more ...
Cassava for Biofuel in Vietnam

Crops for Biofuel: Center Point April 2011

2011-04-19T05:26:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL to follow The New York Times. Thailand's cassava goes mainly to China, which has sought new energy sources to power growth. But last year, 98 percent of cassava chips exported from Thailand, the world’s largest cassava exporter, went to just one place and almost all for one purpose: to China to make biofuel. Driven by new demand, Thai exports of cassava chips have increased nearly fourfold since 2008, and the price of cassava has roughly doubled. Each year, an ever larger portion of the world’s crops — cassava and corn, sugar and palm oil — is being diverted for biofuels as developed countries pass laws mandating greater use of nonfossil fuels and as emerging powerhouses like China seek new sources of energy to keep their cars and industries running. Cassava is a relatively new entrant in the biofuel stream.

Rush to Use Crops as Fuel Raises Food Prices and Hunger Fears

Agnes Dherbeys for The New York Times

Farmers in Thailand face a surging demand for cassava, a fairly new crop for biofuel production.

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: April 6, 2011

The starchy cassava root has long been an important ingredient in everything from tapioca pudding and ice cream to paper and animal feed.

Multimedia

Graphic

Diverting Food to Fuel

A blog about energy and the environment.

Go to Blog »

Enlarge This Image

Agnes Dherbeys for The New York Times

Thailand's cassava goes mainly to China, which has sought new energy sources to power growth.

But last year, 98 percent of cassava chips exported from Thailand, the world’s largest cassava exporter, went to just one place and almost all for one purpose: to China to make biofuel. Driven by new demand, Thai exports of cassava chips have increased nearly fourfold since 2008, and the price of cassava has roughly doubled.

Each year, an ever larger portion of the world’s crops — cassava and corn, sugar and palm oil — is being diverted for biofuels as developed countries pass laws mandating greater use of nonfossil fuels and as emerging powerhouses like China seek new sources of energy to keep their cars and industries running. Cassava is a relatively new entrant in the biofuel stream.

But with food prices rising sharply in recent months, many experts are calling on countries to scale back their headlong rush into green fuel development, arguing that the combination of ambitious biofuel targets and mediocre harvests of some crucial crops is contributing to high prices, hunger and political instability.

This year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that its index of food prices was the highest in its more than 20 years of existence. Prices rose 15 percent from October to January alone, potentially “throwing an additional 44 million people in low- and middle-income countries into poverty,” the World Bank said.

Soaring food prices have caused riots or contributed to political turmoil in a host of poor countries in recent months, including Algeria, Egypt and Bangladesh, where palm oil, a common biofuel ingredient, provides crucial nutrition to a desperately poor populace. During the second half of 2010, the price of corn rose steeply — 73 percent in the United States — an increase that the United Nations World Food Program attributed in part to the greater use of American corn for bioethanol.

“The fact that cassava is being used for biofuel in China, rapeseed is being used in Europe, and sugar cane elsewhere is definitely creating a shift in demand curves,” said Timothy D. Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University who studies the topic. “Biofuels are contributing to higher prices and tighter markets.”

In the United States, Congress has mandated that biofuel use must reach 36 billion gallons annually by 2022. The European Union stipulates that 10 percent of transportation fuel must come from renewable sources like biofuel or wind power by 2020. Countries like China, India, Indonesia and Thailand have adopted biofuel targets as well.

To be sure, many factors help drive up the price of food, including bad weather that ruins crop yields and high oil prices that make transportation costly. Last year, for example, unusually severe weather destroyed wheat harvests in Russia, Australia and China, and an infestation of the mealy bug reduced Thailand’s cassava output.

Olivier Dubois, a bioenergy expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, said it was hard to quantify the extent to which the diversions for biofuels had driven up food prices.

“The problem is complex, so it is hard to come up with sweeping statements like biofuels are good or bad,” he said. “But what is certain is that biofuels are playing a role. Is it 20 or 30 or 40 percent? That depends on your modeling.”

While no one is suggesting that countries abandon biofuels, Mr. Dubois and other food experts suggest that they should revise their policies so that rigid fuel mandates can be suspended when food stocks get low or prices become too high.

“The policy really has to be food first,” said Hans Timmer, director of the Development Prospects Group of the World Bank. “The problems occur when you set targets for biofuels irrespective of the prices of other commodities.”

Mr. Timmer said that the recent rise in oil prices was likely to increase the demand for biofuels.

It can be tricky predicting how new demand from the biofuel sector will affect the supply and price of food. Sometimes, as with corn or cassava, direct competition between purchasers drives up the prices of biofuel ingredients. In other instances, shortages and price inflation occur because farmers who formerly grew crops like vegetables for consumption plant different crops that can be used for fuel.

China learned this the hard way nearly a decade ago when it set out to make bioethanol from corn, only to discover that the plan caused alarming shortages and a rise in food prices. In 2007 the government banned the use of grains to make biofuel.

Chinese scientists then perfected the process of making fuel from cassava, a root that yielded good energy returns, leading to the opening of the first commercial cassava ethanol plant several years ago.

“They’re moving very aggressively in this new direction; cassava seems to be the go-to crop,” said Greg Harris, an analyst with Commodore Research and Consultancy in New York who has studied the trade.

In addition to expanding cassava cultivation at home, China is buying from Cambodia and Laos as well as Thailand.

Although a mainstay of diets in much of Africa, cassava is not central to Asian diets, even though the Chinese once called it “the underground food store” because it provided crucial backup nutrition in lean harvest years. So the Chinese reasoned that making fuel with cassava would not directly affect food prices or create food shortages, at least at home. The proportion of Chinese cassava going to ethanol leapt to 52 percent last year from 10 percent in 2008.

More distant or indirect impacts are considered to be likely, however. Because cassava chips have been commonly used as animal feed, new demand from the biofuels industry might affect the availability and cost of meat. In Southeast Asian countries where China is paying generously for stockpiles of cassava, farmers may be tempted to grow the crop instead of, for example, other vegetables or rice.

And if China turned to Africa as a source, one of that continent’s staple food crops could be in jeopardy, although experts note that exporting cassava could also become a business opportunity.

“This is becoming a more valuable cash crop,” Mr. Harris said. “The farmland is limited, so the more that is devoted to fuel, the less is devoted to food.”

The Chinese demand for cassava could also dent planned biofuel production in poorer Asian nations: in the Philippines and Cambodia, developers were recently forced to suspend the construction of cassava bioethanol plants because the tuber had become too expensive.

Thailand’s own nascent biofuel industry may have trouble getting the homegrown cassava it needs because it may not be able to match the prices offered by Chinese buyers, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Biofuels development in wealthier nations has already proved to have a powerful effect on the prices and the cultivation of crops. Encouraged by national biofuel subsidies, nearly 40 percent of the corn grown in the United States now goes to make fuel, with prices of corn on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange rising 73 percent from June to December 2010.

Such price rises also have distant ripple effects, food security experts say. “How much does the price of corn in Chicago influence the price of corn in Rwanda? It turns out there is a correlation,” said Marie Brill, senior policy analyst at ActionAid, an international development group. The price of corn in Rwanda rose 19 percent last year.

“For Americans it may mean a few extra cents for a box of cereal,” she said. “But that kind of increase puts corn out of the range of impoverished people.”

Higher prices also mean that groups like the World Food Program can buy less food to feed the world’s hungry.

European biofuels developers are buying large tracts of what they call “marginal land” in Africa with the aim of cultivating biofuel crops, particularly the woody bush known as jatropha. Advocates say that promoting jatropha for biofuels production has little impact on food supplies. But some of that land is used by poor people for subsistence farming or for gathering food like wild nuts.

“We have to move away from the thinking that producing an energy crop doesn’t compete with food,” said Mr. Dubois of the Food and Agriculture Organization. “It almost inevitably does.”

Harnessing biofuels for enhanced smallholder livelihoods

2011-04-16T06:39:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIPOFUEL to follow ICRISAT Happenings 15 April 2011, No 1462. ICRISAT-CIAT-IFAD final workshop on biofuel project Harnessing biofuels for enhanced smallholder livelihoods “With a looming energy crisis and climate change at the forefront of everyone’s mind, there has never been a better time for alternative energy solutions to shine,” said DG William Dar.

Speaking at the two-day final workshop of the ICRISAT-CIAT-IFAD biofuels project Linking the poor to global markets: Pro-poor development of biofuel supply chains, Dr Dar emphasized that biofuels are essential to the economies of nations as fossil fuels are predicted to be depleted by 2050, and that each country must have long-term approaches on biofuel crops R&D along with policies to sustain the value chains of these crops. He identified three key drivers of biofuels R&D: economic security, not at the expense of food security as the earth needs to feed 9.2 billion people by 2050; environmental sustainability; and energy security. He added that a key part of the commitment is making bio-energy opportunities work for the poor.

The final workshop held on 14-15 April in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, aimed to assess the progress made by the project over the years to better address a range of issues as new alternative energy solutions evolve. The ICRISAT-CIAT-IFAD project was launched three years ago to enhance the productivity of three important biofuel crops – sweet sorghum and cassava for bioethanol and Jatropha for biodiesel

Dr CLL Gowda, Dr Dar, Dr Nguyen Van Bo, President of VAAS and Dr Bui Chi Buu, Deputy Director of IAS, took the opportunity during the meeting to discuss modalities to strengthen ICRISAT-Vietnam NARS research partnership.

The biofuel project exemplifies ICRISAT’s purposeful partnership approach in the conduct of innovative agricultural research and capacity building initiatives. With ICRISAT as the project executing agency, its partners are from universities and national programs (both public and private sectors) all actively engaged in R&D in sweet sorghum and Jatropha. Similarly, CIAT and other partners from Colombia, China and Vietnam are involved in cassava feedstock research and its use in bioethanol production.

During the meeting, Dr Dar congratulated the research teams of ICRISAT, CIAT, MMSU (Philippines), Nong Lam University (Vietnam), and nongovernment organizations for meeting all the deliverables of the project, developing improved cultivars and production techniques and transferring them to the private sector whenever possible.

Dr Rabindranath Roy, IFAD representative added that the achievements of this project and the gaps identified will go a long way in encouraging donors and countries to further support research on the three crops.

Dr Belum Reddy, project coordinator gave a brief outline of the project, while Dr CLL Gowda chaired the session on cassava and co-chaired the concluding session on general discussion. The meeting was hosted by the Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS), the Institute of Agricultural Sciences (IAS) and the Nong Lam University, and was attended by key scientists and managers from partner organizations in India, Vietnam, China, Philippines, Colombia and Mali.

Focus on higher education, agricultural growth and poverty alleviation

DG addresses graduates, receives honorary degrees from Philippine universities

framework, producing graduates who can lead the path to a sustainable and inclusive agricultural growth becomes the major challenge.

This is the main message of the commencement address delivered by DG William Dar as guest of honor during the 37th Graduation Rites of the Pampanga Agricultural College (PAC), Philippines, on 12 April. Speaking to 314 graduating students and their parents, PAC officials and visitors, Dr Dar challenged universities in the country to evolve into dynamic academic institutions, not only in teaching but in mainstreaming R&D interventions necessary to win the fight against food insecurity and poverty, particularly in rural communities.

Dr Dar receives the Doctor of Humanities honorary
degree from PAC President Jun Soriano.

Visit to the PAC-ICRISAT Sweet Sorghum
and Pigeonpea Production-cum-Research Station.

He added that beyond its traditional role, higher agricultural education must provide a stimulating environment for scientific and technological advances to flourish, balanced by a commitment to bring science-based information and technology to the awareness and reach of potential users, particularly the resource-poor farmers.

Elaborating on ICRISAT’s core value of “Science with a human face,” indicating a commitment to put people’s welfare first when setting priorities, Dr Dar urged PAC and other universities to tread the same path. In harnessing “Education with a human face,” he stressed the need to incorporate socio-economic dimensions in the academe, particularly to contribute in shaping a sustainable and inclusive Philippine agriculture, and in fighting poverty and food insecurity in the country.

During the Commencement rites, Dr Dar was conferred an honorary degree of Doctor of Humanities by PAC President Jun Soriano. The said degree was awarded in recognition of Dr Dar’s “dedication to the cause of the poor through his role as an excellent R&D global leader.”

Dr Dar, along with FETS Program Leader M Prabhakar Reddy, visited the ALIAS (Alternative Low Inputs for Agricultural System) Center to observe the PAC-ICRISAT Sweet Sorghum and Pigeonpea Production-cum-Research Station.

Prior to this, Dr Dar was invited as guest at the University of Southern Mindanao (USM) on its 65th Commencement exercises, where he was conferred a Doctor of Science (Rural Development) degree, Honoris Causa. Awarded by USM President Jesus Antonio Derije, the honorary degree was in recognition of Dr Dar’s commitment to promote research for development initiatives that benefit the people, bring major improvements to the lives of small-scale producers and food-insecure farmers all across the nation and the globe as well, and help reduce hunger and vulnerability especially in the rural areas.

Cassava for Biofuel in Vietnam

2011-04-16T05:40:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL This paper to supply the final report for three years (2008-2010) research and development of cassava varieties and new techniques at pilot site selection in Dong Nai, Tay Ninh, Ninh Thuan and Yen Bai province, a production map of cassava for biofuel in Vietnam: opportunities and challenges, and recommendation for next step.

Hoang Kim[1], Nguyen Van Bo[2] Rod Lefroy, Keith Fahrney⁴ Hernan Ceballos,
Nguyen Phuong, Tran Cong Khanh, Nguyen Trong Hien, Hoang Long Vo Van Quang[3],Nguyen Thi Thien Phuong, Nguyen Thi Le Dung
Bui Huy Hop, Trinh Van My, Le Thi Yen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Three urgent issues of global are energy crisis, environmental risk and food security. The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) received grant funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to implement this project, which is also known as the “Programme for Linking the Poor to Global Markets: Pro-poor Development of Biofuel Supply Chains,” but will hereafter be referred to as the “IFAD Biofuels Project”, during a three-year period, between Jan.2008 to Dec. 2010. The objective of the project is to integrate improved cultivars of biofuel crops in smallholder farming systems to provide an alternative source of income, while meeting the varied needs of rural communities for food security and animal feeds. The project will work on three continents, with three major crops as feedstock for biofuels: sweet sorghum (in India, the Philippines, and Mali), cassava (in China, Colombia, and Viet Nam), and jatropha (in India and Mali). A detailed description of the project is found in the project design document, which was submitted to IFAD in Dec. 2007. ICRISAT is the Programme Executing Agency, responsible to the project’s donor (IFAD). CIAT will manage the cassava research component of the IFAD Biofuels Project in partnership with the Viet Nam Cassava Programme (VNCP) in Viet Nam (including VAAS and NLU) , the Guangxi Subtropical Crops Research Institute (GSCRI) in China, and the Latin American and Caribbean Consortium to Support Cassava Research and Development (CLAYUCA) in Colombia. Two sections of CIAT are involved in the IFAD Biofuels Project, namely the CIAT Cassava Program based in Colombia and the CIAT Asia Regional Office based in the Lao PDR, Components of the cassava research programme the following Breeding, Varietal Evaluation, Agronomy, Crop Management, Analysis of Livelihood Systems, Assessment of Market Linkages, Models for decentralized bioethanol production, Waste management, Knowledge Sharing. This paper to supply the final report for three years research and development of cassava varieties and new techniques at pilot site selection in Dong Nai, Tay Ninh, Ninh Thuan and Yen Bai province, a production map of cassava for biofuel in Vietnam: opportunities and challenges, and recommendation for next step.

BRIEF RESULTS AND RECENT ADVANCES OF CASSAVA FOR BIOFUEL

Cassava production in 2009 in Vietnam reached 9.45 million tons from 1.99 million tons of production in 2000. It is the result of the expansion area from 237,600 ha to 560,400 ha and the yield from 8.36 tones / ha in 2000 to 16.90 tons / ha in 2009. Vietnam has made rapid technical progress in Asia in the selection and breeding of cassava. This progressive is due to many factors but the main factor is the achievement of breeding and cross breeding of cassava. Productivity of cassava production in many provinces had doubled by planting new cassava varieties and high yield cultivation techniques applied cassava appropriate and sustainable. Area of new cassava varieties cultivated over the whole country is 500,000 ha, mainly KM94, KM140, KM98-5, KM98-1, SM937-26, KM98-7. Cassava chip and cassava starch have a high competitive advantage and market potential of cassava. The combination of development and production of cassava as starch processing, animal feed and bio-ethanol has created more jobs, increase exports, attract foreign investment and contributed to industrialization, modernization of some rural areas.(Hoang Kim, Nguyen Van Bo et al. 2010).

The study on testing of breeding and introduction from the CIAT cassava is suitable for ethanol production targets being made bio in the Vietnam Cassava Program. With 24,073 cassava seeds introduced from CIAT, 37,210 cassava hybrid seeds made in Vietnam, 38 authors varieties and 31 local varieties of cassava have selected 98 prospected varieties. Three varieties KM140, KM98 and KM98-7-5 were released in the 2007-2009 period. The new cassava varieties KM419, KM414, KM397, KM228, KM325, KM318, KM297, KM21-12, SC5, HB60 are currently testing in Dong Nai, Tay Ninh, Ninh Thuan and Yen Bai (Hoang Kim et al. 2010).

CASSAVA FOR BIOFUEL IN VIETNAM: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Cassava development for bio-fuel is the golden opportunity for the farmers in rural of Vietnam. Three urgent issues of global are energy crisis, environmental risk and food security. Brazil is open towards bio-fuel production in 40 years so far has been entirely self-sufficient fuel in the country that does not face famine situation. There are five countries have developed bio-fuels program in large-scale: U.S. (18.4 billion liters per year), Brazil (17.0 billion liters per year), China (3.8 billion liters per year), India (1.9 billion liters per year) and France (0.9 billion liters per year). Currently, seventeen countries have been the evolution of bio-fuels. Americans spent 7.0 million ha of corn and 3.4 million ha of soy-been per year, up to 90% of the area of genetically modified plants for this program. Cassava for bio-fuel has the advantage of high in many Asian countries.

Cassava as raw materials for bio-fuels processing is the golden opportunity for Vietnam famers to increase their income. Reasons: 1) Cassava has a high yield of alcohol (six kg of fresh cassava tubers are processed one liter of alcohol) the price of biological material from cassava cheaper than other crops. 2) Cassava is a large volume of products. National cassava production reached almost 10 million tons of fresh. 3) Cassava is easy to grow, little cocoon of land with low cost investment in the appropriate economic conditions of many poor farmers. 4) Cassava varieties offered good and appropriate cultivation techniques. 5) Cassava has attractive profit. It has approximately 10-25 million per hectare. 6) Cassava price is stable outlook due to high demand for cassava export market and domestic consumption. Cassava areas of Vietnam are very close to China, the world's largest cassava market. Moreover, six ethanol factories in Phu Tho, Quang Nam, Quang Ngai, Binh Phuoc, Dong Nai and Dak Nong are building with a total capacity of 550 million liters of ethanol per year. 7) Vietnam farmers are hardworking, energetic, have accumulated much experience increased productivity and efficiency economic advantages of cassava reached high compared with other countries in the region. Cassava growing to supply the bio-fuel factories with competitive prices attractive acquisition will help farmers to increase their income. It creates new industries and products in rural areas, formation of industrial clusters and urban ecology, increase employment and livelihood for people, open countryside towards improving social life.

Environmentally friendly issues and food security The survey results of the Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development (Nguyen Anh Phong 2010) suggests: Cassava area up to now has exceeded the government's plan. However, it was small, scattered and lack organizational effectiveness. Maintaining the cassava area is now planned by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development will cause a local scarcity of cassava and seasonal ingredients for bio-ethanol competition will push prices higher cassava. The process of sustainable cultivation of cassava is available, but little has been applied by the spontaneous production, heavy exploitation of natural resources. Competitive land with cassava crops, sugarcane and forest land has taken place. In the future, needs of cassava for bio-fuel production maintained at a high level. Demand for meat and meat products as well as feed demand are also expected to increase in Vietnam. Some recommendations Need to review and adjust the plan in case the current status of cassava area was beyond the planning in several provinces. Production planning for medium and long term vision should identify the competitive advantage of the province / region to develop main cassava areas and the infrastructure associated to the processing industry to ensure environmental mitigation.The enterprise has the commitment of the province when the building materials applied to ensure applying good varieties, sustainable farming systems, minimize environmental impact for the region in main cassava station. ; Enterprises should also commit to the farmers in the area of raw materials to ensure stable raw materials for the business but also ensure income for farmers. This commitment can be regarded as a conditions as approved by the provincial planning of material areas for cassava processing. Building and developing the manufacturing sector focus should be accompanied with infrastructure development, especially water pumping systems, water supplies, roads and pollution treatment equipment (such as channel systems and wastewater discharge filtration) with the supervision and support of professional bodies and governments at all levels.

FIVE MAJOR SOLUTIONS FOR DEVELOPING CASSAVA

After twenty years of research, extension (1991-2010) Vietnam cassava plant was quickly converted from food crops to industrial crops. Cassava is now promising crop for both export and domestic use. Vietnam Cassava Program has agreed five solutions to develop cassava:

1. Determining the appropriate strategy of research and development in collaboration with the cassava processing factories to set the resource sector is stable, using cassava for bio-ethanol production.

2. Creation and dissemination of selected cassava varieties with high fresh yield, high percentage of dry matter and high starch content, less infected aphids, pests and diseases of cassava. Creating hybrid cassava by doing double haploid (DH) derived from CIAT materials, hybridization, mutation, and transgenic cassava breeding. Selecting and developing cassava varieties which have short growth duration, high fresh yield and high quality.

3. Construction process cassava cultivation techniques to synthesize and transfer of farming techniques suitable for cassava farmers to increase productivity, economic efficiency of cassava chip and cassava starch in different ecological zones.

4. Research and development of cassava processing technology. Development of the domestic market and for export of cassava products. Using cassava leaves as animal feed and food processing. Utilize substandard products of cassava starch processing and ethanol to make animal feed and fertilizer.

5. Environmentally friendly issues and food security Bio-fuels development from cassava should focus on building and expanding the raw material, paying attention to environmentally friendly and food security. The development of the program is not the direction of improved cassava production to increase output but also to focus on distribution systems, processing, consumption, regulate interest groups, improving economic performance quality products, competitive advantage, building a healthy environment and prosperous rural life.

Key words: cassava for biofuel, Vietnam.

[1] Nong Lam University (NLU), Linh Trung, Thu Duc, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam;

hoangkim_vietnam@yahoo.com; phuongdtg@yahoo.com

[2] Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS), Van Dien, Thanh Tri, Hanoi, Vietnam.

nvbo@hn.vnn.vn ; trong_hienccc@yahoo.com

³International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Regional Office for Asia, P.O.Box 783, Vientiane, Lao PDR; r.lefroy@cgiar.org;

⁴International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), CIAT , Apartado Aereo 67-13; Cali, Colombia; h.ceballos@cgiar.org and k.fahrney@cgiar.org

[3] Institute of Agricultural Sciences for South Vietnam (IAS),121 Nguyen Binh Khiem, district 1,

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; vovanquangvietnam@gmail.com

See more ...
http://foodcrops.vn

http://cropsforbiofuel.blogspot.com;

http://cassavaviet.blogspot.com;

http://foodcrops.blogspot.com

Cassava in Vietnam: a Successful Story

2011-04-11T02:16:00.000-07:00

FOOD CROPS: Cassava in Vietnam is among the four most important food crops. Cassava now an important source of cash income to small farmers. In 2008, cassava fresh root production in Vietnam was about 9.39 million tones, up from only 1.99 million tones in 2000 and marked increases in yield, from 8.36 t/ha in 2000 to 16.90 t/ha in 2008. Vietnam has made the fastest progress in application of new technologies in breeding and new cultivar propagation in Asia. Such progress has been considered as a result of many factors, of which the success in breeding and application of new technologies were the main contributing factors. Cassava yields and production in several provinces have more than doubled due to the planting of new high-yielding cassava varieties more than 500,000 ha, mainly KM94, KM140, KM98-5, KM98-1, SM937-26, KM98-7 varieties, and the adoption of more sustainable production practices. Cassava in Vietnam: a successful story

"My ten years of close collaboration with my cassava breeding colleagues in the 1990s and the reunion with them in this trip completely changed my assessment of the Vietnamese. As evidenced by the series of my reporting here, they are industrious, insightful, considerate and indefatigable, as if to emulate General Vo Nguyen Giap." ....... (Kazuo Kawano)

Reed more Cassava and Vietnam: Now and Then Cassava in Vietnam: a successful story

Cassava for biofuel Linking the poor to global markets: Pro‐poor development of biofuel supply chains see slideshow

CURRENT SITUATION OF CASSAVA IN VIETNAM AND ITS POTENTIAL AS A BIOFUEL

Cassava in Vietnam is among the four most important food crops. Cassava now an important source of cash income to small farmers. In 2008, cassava fresh root production in Vietnam was about 9.39 million tones, up from only 1.99 million tones in 2000 and marked increases in yield, from 8.36 t/ha in 2000 to 16.90 t/ha in 2008.

There are now 60 cassava processing factories in operation with a total processing capacity of 3.2 - 4.8 million tones of fresh roots/year. Total cassava starch production in Vietnam was about 0.8 -1.2 million tones, of which 70% was exported and 30% used domestically.

Vietnam has developed an E10 policy requiring the production of 100 to 150 million liters per year. Petrovietnam plans to build three tapioca-based ethanol plants in the northern (Phu Tho), central (Quang Ngai) and southern Vietnam (Binh Phuoc). Each costing $80 million which will use cassava as feedstock, is expected to open in 18 months with total annual capacity of 300 million liters per year. The first and second of which is already under construction in Phu Tho and Quang Ngai. The third plant will begin in Binh Phuoc in March next year and is due to be completed at the end of 2011.

Vietnam is now probably the second largest exporter of cassava products (chip and starch), after Thailand. Major markets of Vietnam’s cassava exports are China and Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and countries in Eastern Europe. Besides, animal feed factories also contributed significantly to the increasing demand for cassava roots. Although in Vietnam cassava processing is a relatively new business and export volumes are still low, the cassava processing factories are new and modern. That is why Vietnam’s cassava products may have a competitive advantage in the world market.

CASSAVA BREEDING AND VARIETAL ADOPTION IN VIETNAM

Vietnam has made the fastest progress in application of new technologies in breeding and new cultivar propagation in Asia. Such progress has been considered as a result of many factors, of which the success in breeding and application of new technologies were the main contributing factors. Cassava yields and production in several provinces have more than doubled due to the planting of new high-yielding cassava varieties in about 500,000 ha, mainly KM94, KM140, KM98-5, KM98-1, SM937-26, KM98-7 varieties, and the adoption of more sustainable production practices.

Since 2001-2007, a total of 24,073 cassava sexual seeds from CIAT and 37,210 seeds from 9-15 cross combinations made in Vietnam, 38 breeding lines (mainly from Thailand), and 31 local farmers’ varieties, have been planted. Of these, 98 of the best lines are now in the final stages of the selection process, and one of the most promising, KM140,KM98-7, KM98-5 has recently been released in the period 2007-2009.

Up to now 2011, the new advanced cassava varieties KM 419, KM414, KM397, KM228, KM325, KM297, GM444-2, KM21-12, SC5, HB60 ... are still being evaluated in the Regional Yield Trials (RYT) in Tay Ninh, Ninh Thuan and Yen Bai provinces.

CASSAVA IN VIETNAM A SUCCESSFUEL STORY

Initial Contacts

In September 1988, Dr. Kazuo Kawano (CIAT cassava breeder) and Dr. Reinhardt Howeler (agronomist), both working at the CIAT Cassava Office for Asia in Bangkok, visited Institute of Agricultural Science for Southern Vietnam (IAS) in Ho Chi Minh city. They discussed with Dr. Tran The Thong, Director, Dr. Mai Van Quyen, Deputy Director of IAS, and Mr. Hoang Kim (Director of Hung Loc Agricultural Research Center belong to IAS), possible future collaboration. They also visited Hung Loc Center and cassava growing areas in Dong Nai and Tay Ninh provinces.

In May 1989, Dr. Kawano and Howeler visited IAS in HCM city again as well as the Department. of International Cooperation of the Ministry of Agriculture in Hanoi. They discussed with Mr. Nguyen Ich Chuong possible cooperation between CIAT and various Vietnamese institutions. They also visited the Food Crops Research Center in Hai Hung (up to now in Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Science – VAAS) and some cassava growing areas in Chi Linh district. During a subsequent visit in Octorber 1989, Mr. Nguyen Ich Chuong requested CIAT to coordinate a comprehensive national survey on cassava production and usage. Cassava breeding and agronomy trials in collaboration with CIAT were initiated in Hung Loc Center in 1989 and in Thai Nguyen University in 1990.

Cassava Survey

The cassava production, processing and marketing survey was conducted in 45 districts of 20 provinces from 1990 to 1992, in collaboration with VASI, Thai Nguyen University., IAS and Nong Lam University. A total of 1,117 households were interviewed. This culminated in a Workshop, held in Hanoi from Octorber 29-31, 1992. The Proceedings of this Workshop with all the survey data was published by CIAT in 1996.

Cassava Breeding and Varietal Improvement

Before CIAT collaboration was initiated in 1988, a total of 24 local cassava varieties had been collected and evaluated at Hung Loc Center. In year 1987, three cassava varieties HL20, HL23 and HL24 were selected from local cassava collections and released by HARC and they were grown in about 70,000 ha in South Vietnam. In 1989, 16 Thai varieties and promising lines were introduced in the form of stem cuttings. These were evaluated in Hung Loc Center starting in 1989, in Thai Nguyen Univ. in 1990 and in VASI in 1991. In addition, large numbers of sexual seeds were introduced yearly from Thailand and Colombia. From 1989 to 2008 a total of 139,598 seeds were introduced by CIAT. These were germinated by Vietnamese cassava breeders and the resulting plants were evaluated through many cycles of selection.

During the period of 1993-2008, nine new cassava varieties, namely KM 60, KM 94, SM937-26, KM 95, KM 95-3, KM 98-1, KM98-5, KM140 and KM98-7 had been released. KM 60 and KM 94 are basically Thai varieties (KM60 = Rayong 60 =MCol 1684 x Rayong 1 ; KM94= KU50= R1xR90 = MKUC28-77-3) , while the other seven are Vietnamese selections from sexual seed from either Thailand (KM 98-1 = Rayong 72 = Rayong 1 x Rayong 5) or Colombia. (SM937-26, KM95-3 = SM1157-3; KM98-7=SM17-17-12 or Vietnam (KM98-5 = Rayong 90 x KM98-1; KM140 = KM36 x KM98-1). All are crosses with Latin American germplasm introduced by CIAT.

A recent survey indicates that in 2009/2010 more than 500,000 ha, or 90% of the cassava area in Vietnam, were planted with these new varieties, principally KM 94. It was estimated by Hoang Kim, Nguyen Van Bo, Reinhardt Howeler and Hernan Ceballos 2010, that the planting of these new varieties will increase farmer’s gross income by 3.00 – 9.00 millions dong per ha, meaning 6.00 millions dong per ha, price of 2008 (by 6.00 – 18.00 millions dong per ha, meaning 12.00 millions dong per ha, price of 2010 ) as compared to the traditional varieties. In 420,000 ha (in 2007/2008) this would correspond to an increased farm level income of 2,520 billion dong or 140 million US dollars per year in the period 2006-2010.

Cassava Agronomy and Soil Management

Cassava agronomy research in collaboration with CIAT commenced in Hung Loc Center in 1989, and in Thai Nguyen University in 1990. This included research on agronomic practices, such as planting distance, weed control, date of planting and intercropping, but it focused mostly on soil fertility maintenance, by the use of chemical fertilizers and animal or green manures, and on erosion control. Long-term fertility trials using chemical fertilizers have now completed 19 years of continuous cropping at Hung Loc Center as well as at Thai Nguyen University. Both these experiments highlight the importance of annual applications of N and K, with much less need for P. In the 12th year, the annual application of well-balanced fertilizers increased the average yield of two varieties from 3.19 to 23.1 t/ha in Thai Nguyen Univ., and from 11.3 to 29.7 t/ha in Hung Loc Center. A long-term green manure experiment conducted at Hung Loc Center indicates that in the 10th year the alley cropping system with Leucaena leucocephala or Gliricidia sepium could nearly double yields, from 12.10 to 21.45 t/ha, as compared to the check plot without green manure.

Numerous erosion control experiments conducted in Hung Loc Center and at Thai Nguyen University indicate that soil erosion can be markedly reduced by the planting of contour hedgerows of Tephrosia candida, Paspalum atratum, vetiver grass or pineapple, as well as by contour ridging, intercropping, closer plant spacing and balanced fertilization. A combination of these practices will often reduce erosion to less than 10% of that obtained using the traditional farmer’s practice.

Farmer Participatory Research

In 1994 CIAT obtained funding from the Nippon Foundation in Japan for a new project that had as the main objective to increase the adoption of more sustainable cassava production practices in Vietnam, Thailand, China and Indonesia. This was to be achieved through the use of various farmer participatory research (FPR) and extension (FPE) methodologies. Vietnamese researchers, extensionists and key cassava farmers received training in this new approach (see below). During the first phase (1994-1998) the project was executed in collaboration with scientists of Thai Nguyen University (TNU) and the National Institute of Soils and Fertilizers (NISF), and focused on two sites in Pho Yen district of Thai Nguyen province, and in one site each in Thanh Ba district of Phu Tho and in Luong Son district of Hoa Binh province.

In the second phase (1999-2003) the project quickly expanded to a total of 25 sites in 15 districts of 11 provinces, in collaboration with VASI, Hue University, IAS and Nong Lam University (NLU), in addition to TNU and NISF. In all these sites farmers were encouraged to conduct simple experiments on their own fields with the help of researchers or local extensionists on such topics as new varieties, balanced fertilization, erosion control, intercropping, weed control, as well as pig feeding trials using both cassava roots and leaves. In 2002 a total of 169 such FPR trials were being conducted in 25 sites in 15 districts of 11 provinces. A survey in these sites in 2002 indicated that a total of nearly 5000 farmers had adopted some or all of the improved practices in 1,411 ha of their fields, resulting in an increased income of 4,116 mil. dong or US$ 274,400. Many more farmers outside the 25 sites also benefited from the project after learning about the new technologies from extension workers, neighboring farmers, farmer field days, newspaper articles, TV programs etc.

Training/Workshops

Vietnamese researchers, extension workers and farmers trained in cassava research, cultivation practices and FPR. Since 1989 a total of 231 Vietnamese received training through various CIAT projects. In addition, three Vietnamese participated in the Regional Cassava Workshop in Indonesia in 1990, four in India in 1993, 11 in China in 1996, 25 in HCM city in 2000 and 17 in Thailand in 2002.

Vietnam Cassava Research and Extension Network

In 1991 a Vietnam Cassava Research and Extension Network was established with participation of researchers from institutions working on cassava, as well as extensionist from provinces with large cassava growing areas. Workshops have been held annually in different parts of Vietnam since 1996, usually with participation of CIAT scientists, to review the results of the previous year and to plan new activities for the coming year. This network has greatly contributed to the rapid spread of new varieties and improved cultivation practices in Vietnam, and this has indirectly contributed to the change of cassava from a poor man’s food crop to an important industrial crop for production of animal feed, starch and starch derived products, as well as for export.

Recognition

On March 4, 1997, both Dr. Kawano and Dr. Howeler were presented with a medal in the name of the Government of Vietnam, by Mr. Nguyen Gioi, Vice-Minister of Agriculture, for their contributions to agriculture in Vietnam.

Key persons of VNCP – CIAT

Dr. Nguyen Van Bo nvbo@hn.vnn.vnDr. Bui Chi Buu buichibuu@hcm.vnn.vn

Dr. Hernan Ceballos h.ceballos@cgiar.org

Dr. Rod Lefroy r.lefroy@cgiar.org

Dr. Kazuo Kawano Ke.Kawano@mist.ocn.ne.jp

Dr. Reinhardt Howeler r.howeler@cgiar.org

Dr. Tran Ngoc Ngoan tnngoan@vnn.vn

Dr. Hoang Kim hoangkim_vietnam@yahoo.com

Visit http://cassavaviet.blogspot.com and http://foodcrops.vn , http://cropsforbiofuel.blogspot.com , http://cassavanews.blogspot.com for additional information about Cassava in Vietnam and Crops for Biofuel.

Recent developments in the world of biofuels: Spring 2011

2011-04-11T01:06:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL to follow up Biofuel information exchange : Jatropha remains a hot topic in the scientific community and we start this review of recently published papers with an update on Jatropha around the globe. Then, because of a number of recent reviews on their future, we look at algal biofuels, which are seen by many as the biofuel panacea, despite the technical issues in production that still dominate the field. We then finish with some new biomass papers which, in common with oil from algae, emphasize the need for novel scientific solutions in the production processes, to enable them to achieve commercial viability.

Jatropha

The Indian experiment

A paper by Das & Priess¹ (2010) reviews progress on this crop in India and reminds us that a major aim of the Indian National Mission on Biofuels (back in 2003) was to realize the potential yields of oilseeds under different biophysical conditions and to assess their performance on degraded lands. This mission focused on the use of non-edible oils as a source of biodiesel, primarily from jatropha. Meticulous planning was exhibited in the outline of the programme, which had foreseen a testing phase (2003–2007) and a subsequent self sustaining production phase (2007–2012). Targets were made for what has turned out to be an optimistic 20% blending of biodiesel by 2011–2012. Research projects were initiated with more than 35 participating institutions, aiming at studying a multitude of aspects of oilseed-based biodiesel production (such as plant physiology, oil content variability, development of high oil yielding varieties, improved oil extraction technologies, efficient industrial processes, economic viability, and developing market mechanisms). However, despite all this planning, the authors report that the “level of uncertainty has neither been eliminated nor diminished in the last seven years” with the same questions the Mission posed in 2003 still extant today.

Conflict and competition

Indeed in the most recently published field-based study² of the agronomic and economic viability of jatropha plantations on private farms from Tamil Nadu (India), we find jatropha yields much lower than expected and unprofitable. Future viability is also strongly compromised by water access say the authors. On the whole, they conclude, the crop impoverishes farmers, particularly the poorer and socially backward ones. The highest yield in 3-year old plantations in rain-fed conditions was only 450 kg seed/ha compared to 750 kg/ha for irrigated conditions. This is but a fraction of estimated yields from those who boosted jatropha only a few years ago. The authors do not mince their words: jatropha cultivation “not only fails to alleviate poverty, but its aggressive and misguided promotion will generate conflict between the state and the farmers, between different socio-economic classes and even within households. The water demands of the crop can potentially exacerbate the conflicts and competition over water access in Tamil Nadu villages.”

Coincidentally, another paper from India, from the New Delhi based National Council of Applied Economic Research³ also raises the spectre of conflict over jatropha. The purpose of the study was to find out whether Indian jatropha could meet its 20% blending target by 2020 and lists estimates of wastelands for jatropha production including as fencing boundaries of crop fields and public lands along the railway tracks, canals, etc. In theory say the authors, India has sufficient land to meet biodiesel requirements without hampering normal agricultural production.

They question however whether this land is really available for jatropha since they are already occupied or are being used by millions of landless families, marginal farmers and floating population in the rural areas. Most of these lands would be occupied by these marginal people for their livelihood, often for cattle husbandry which would compete with jatropha cultivation and remove the only source of livelihood of this section of people. It would not be easy, say the authors, for governments to acquire these lands and transfer to the agencies, persons interested in cultivating jatropha. Taking away lands from them would encounter stiff resistance in many states and thus would not be politically feasible.

Yield issues in China

In Southern China, Cheng-yuan Yang and co-workers⁴ report that jatropha seeds were collected from 80 locations across the region and planted in a germplasm resource garden to study their biological characteristics and agricultural properties. Among the 80 sources, six with higher oil yield and better expression of phenotype were selected for a small-scale trial, conducted to determine oil yield. From these tests, a maximum value of 783 oil kg/hectare was recorded. The authors note that this amount is a somewhat surprising 2.7 times more than what Chinese jatropha farmers achieve for 3-year-old trees. These latter figures seem to be dramatically low and are further testament to the major yield problems faced by those trying to make this crop a commercial success. Small wonder therefore that scientists are turning to genetic engineering. For example, also in China, Jingli Pan et al. (2010)⁵ report some early advances in genetic engineering of jatropha through developing an Agrobacterium-mediated transformation protocol using cotyledon explants from jatropha seeds.

Land use effects in Brazil

Meanwhile In Brazil, Bailis & Baka (2010)⁶ analyse the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) produced from jatropha as a jet fuel substitute. The authors calculate that for a 20-year plantation life-cycle with no direct land use change (dLUC), use of jatropha could cut GHG emissions by 55% relative to conventional jet fuel. When dLUC is factored in however, widely varying scenarios result, ranging from an 85% decrease from the reference scenario when planted on former pastoral lands, to a 60% increase when planted on cerrado woodlands.

The African jatropha situation

Jatropha features prominently in a study of biofuel developments in Mozambique by Schut et al. (2010)⁷ for Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DIGIS) of The Netherlands. The paper and the report they made for DGIS⁸ are a mine of useful statistics on biofuels in Mozambique. Their report covered pipeline biodiesel projects of US$298 million and bioethanol projects US$1003 million. Average investment per hectare shows that sugarcane production is far more capital intensive than producing jatropha, mainly driven by higher planting density, and costly investments in irrigation systems and ethanol distilleries. The potential employment per hectare for the whole biofuel sector, was estimated to be between 0.14 and 0.17 jobs per ha. The 12 biodiesel projects that were examined, aimed to produce an average of 2.6 t jatropha oil/ha/year, which the authors suggest “will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.”

At the same time, the average expected yields by the three biggest sugarcane projects in Mozambique are 113 t cane /ha. But the authors point out that the best average yield for the Mozambican sugar industry over the past five years was 72 t /ha and the best average company yield over the same period was 87 t /ha. Data from the Brazilian sugarcane sector shows averages of 77.6 t /ha in 2007, so expected sugar yields look, as for jatropha, unlikely. The authors suggest that most of the ethanol produced in Mozambique will be exported to the EU.

Based on their analysis and geographical mapping, the authors conclude that biofuel developments are mainly taking place in areas near good infrastructure (roads and ports), where there is skilled labour available, and access to services and goods, processing and storage facilities. Compared to the policy objectives described in the Mozambique National Biofuel Policy and Strategy (NBPS), their analysis shows that currently few projects are located in remote, rural areas. Moreover, job creation as proposed by investors seems lower than expected by the government in the NBPS. Nonetheless, although the currently operational biofuel projects are not in the most remote rural areas, they do contribute to socio-economic development by generating employment, income and more indirect local spin-offs.

A similar study by Habib-Mintz (2010)⁹ was carried out in Tanzania which like Mozambique has become a major attraction for biofuel companies for its vast, apparently unused land. The author conducted fieldwork in 2008 to examine jatropha as the major feedstock of the Tanzanian biodiesel production experience. Although the government plans to produce biofuels for national usage, until the country sets up national targets and a grid feed-in system, producing companies are concentrating on exports. Two biofuel companies were the main focus for this study: Sun Biofuels (engaged in 11 villages in Kisarawe since 2006, occupying 9000 ha of land); and East Africa Biodiesel (EABD) (with 6000 ha of land from six villages the in Bahi district since 2008). Amongst other things, the author looked at the proposed benefits of the schemes for local people and found some surprisingly high estimates. For instance: for 6000 ha of jatropha, EABD claims to be able to employ 606,000 people, which seems extremely optimistic compared with the situation in Mozambique described above. In this study, the author refers back to repeated failures to profit from cash crops in past decades in Tanzania. This is seen as a fundamental weakness in the agricultural sector; namely an incomplete land tenure system, incomplete decentralization, inefficient infrastructures, and poor connectivity with the rural areas. These structural limitations, she says, hinder land utilization and reduce marginal returns. All of which then translate into prolonged poverty, food insecurity, and loss of human and social capital.

Finally in Kenya, Hunsberger¹⁰ reports farmers’ perceptions about growing the new crop of jatropha. Farmers expressed high hopes for what the new crop would bring them. The majority expected to use the oil for household purposes (lighting and/or cooking) as well as to sell either seeds or oil products for cash. Their specific goals were ambitious. One farmer said he was waiting for jatropha to provide enough income that he could buy a motorbike and a solar panel – both major purchases. One woman hoped it would support her in her old age so that she would no longer have to cultivate more labour-intensive crops, explaining, ‘I am old and I don’t have the energy to look after things like maize. Jatropha is less work’. Several described their plans to use jatropha oil for lighting to save the expense of buying kerosene. Their spirit of overall optimism was captured by one farmer’s statement that ‘this plant can change lives.’ Four farmers mentioned environmental benefits that they hoped would come from planting jatropha, using phrases such as ‘it will purify the air’ or ‘it enriches the soil’. Others explicitly talked about climate change, for example, ‘[jatropha] helps with climate change . . . Trees have been cut all around. The rains are no longer coming as they used to. I hope and believe that Jatropha will clean the air – it will fight with the smoke emitted by factories’.

Hunsberger’s study is important because it provides an opportunity to hear the authentic voice of the jatropha farmer, something that is rarely heard. Alas, their expectations seem far above what the hard field evidence is now telling us from so many sources. The term ‘hype’ has become commonly associated with jatropha and from perusal of recent papers for this report and previous ones in the series, we can only conclude that the situation is extremely discouraging. In the past there has been so much investment, so many scientific studies and so much previous donor-funded emphasis on farmer-field schools and participatory research in the agriculture sector. However, we see that the progress of scientific research and development as applied in recent times to biofuels, is not improving and that poor farmers continue to remain as inadequately advised and informed as in former decades.

Algae

We look now at the burgeoning interest in algal biofuels. As Tang et al. (2010)¹¹ remind us, the potential of microalgae has been known for over 50 years and the subject of serious research for over 20 years. The US Department of Energy’s Office of Fuels Development funded the Aquatic Species Program (ASP) program to develop renewable transportation fuels from algae from 1978 to 1996. Over the almost two decades of that programme, approximately 300 species of oil-producing algae were selected after screening, isolation and characterization efforts from over 3000 strains of algae. In spite of these efforts however, no microalgae-based processes for biofuel production have yet been developed that are commercially viable.

Algal biofuels – true or false?

A number of recent studies review prospects for this ‘third generation’ biofuel and we start with a review by Clarens & Colosi¹² who look at some of the claims that have emerged as this new industry develops. They look at seven common claims:

Claim 1: algae can produce 10 to 100 times more oil per hectare than terrestrial crops. ‘False’ say the authors; the figure is probably closer to two to eight times more than rapeseed; i.e. 6 to 25 tons/ha. They assert that algal yields are fairly consistent over a range of latitudes – algal ponds near the equator would yield more than in Scandinavia because the growing season is longer, but not because of light availability. They suggest that other considerations, such as water availability and inexpensive, flat land should drive the decision on where to locate production plants.

Claim 2: algae can be made into a variety of usable energy sources other than biodiesel. ‘True’ say the authors. Lipids are not the only energy carrier that can be produced from microalgae. In fact many of the conversion processes that yield non biodiesel energy carriers are better suited for dealing with algae as a wet suspension. For example, anaerobic digestion for conversion of algae biomass into methane gas is a well-documented possibility. Algal biomass can also be dried using a combination of mechanical and thermal processes to produce something akin to algal coal that could be co-fired with coal in conventional power plants for somewhat more ‘carbon neutral’ electricity.

Claim 3: algae have significant land-use benefits over terrestrial crops. ‘True’: the authors say that production of transportation energy from algae requires a third to a fifth of the land than liquid biofuels from terrestrial crops demands. However more must be done to validate current claims about algal cultivation on marginal lands, for example that such facilities would be deployed on lands that would otherwise serve as wildlife habitat.

Claim 4: engineered photobioreactors (PBRs) are suitable for widespread energy production from algae at field scale. ‘Maybe’ say the authors: technical evidence supporting the use of PBRs as a means to grow algae is compelling, with reported yields many times higher than achievable in conventional open ponds. However PBRs’ initial costs and environmental impacts associated with construction of the systems at field scale may well make them economically and environmentally unsustainable relative to open ponds. Algae-to-energy advocates ‘should think more like farmers and less like engineers’ suggest the authors.

Claim 5: algae sequester carbon dioxide much more efficiently than terrestrial crops. ‘False’: plants take up CO2 at roughly the same rate that they produce biomass. Real carbon sequestration implies that CO2 will be kept out of the atmosphere for some long time horizon; for example, centuries or millennia. By contrast, most of the studies undertaken to date assume that all or part of the algae biomass is ultimately combusted, releasing nearly all of the photosynthesis-fixed CO2 back into the atmosphere. Algae conversion technologies are still too unproven to say anything definitive about how much CO2 could be permanently kept out of the atmosphere. Advocates for algae-to-energy point out that algal facilities could be co-located with power plants to harness flue gases, but flue gas streams are hot, corrosive and large scale. Designing algae ponds that will harness these flue gas streams without becoming extremely acidic or over-heating the algae is a challenge.

Claim 6: industrial-scale algae production requires technological developments in several strategic areas. ‘True’: modelling has shown that large-scale algal cultivation as it is commonly envisioned (e.g., in large ponds using virgin fertilizers and CO2) would have significant environmental impacts. These would comprise significantly higher CO2 emissions, energy use and water use than benchmark terrestrial crops. The environmental burden of algae arises primarily from two factors; the use of polluting nutrients and energy-intensive separations and drying operations.

Claim 7: a biotechnology breakthrough could fundamentally alter the algae landscape. ‘True’: the authors cite the work by the ExxonMobil partnership with Craig Venter’s Synthetic Genomics Inc. to explore how algae synthesize and excrete lipids. ExxonMobil’s desire to pursue these investigations makes good sense only insofar as their engineers believe that algae are both scalable and compatible with their existing refining infrastructure. A glimpse of this comes from Subhadra & Edwards (2010)¹³ who give an enthusiastic account of the level of activity, innovation and investment currently happening the US on algal biofuels.

A view from Europe

Another review by Wijffels & Barbosa¹⁴ covers similar ground. They are up-beat about the chances of developing algal biofuels but emphasize that economically feasible production will only be achieved if combined with co-production of bulk chemicals, food, and feed as by-products from algae after the oil has been extracted. Research is needed to explore mild cell disruption, extraction, and separation technologies that retain the functionality of the different cell components (e.g., proteins, carbohydrates, omega-3 fatty acids, pigments, and vitamins). The algal biomass that could theoretically supply 0.4 billion m³ of biodiesel (Europe’s annual biodiesel requirement) consists of 40% protein; thus, the total by-product protein would exceed 0.3 billion tons. This is about 40 times as much as the amount of soy protein (18 million tons of soy beans with ~40% of proteins in 2008) presently imported into Europe. The authors believe that 10 to 15 years is a reasonable projection for the development of a sustainable and economically viable process for the commercial production of biofuels from algal biomass. A possible downside, the authors mention in passing, is that the area required to produce Europe’s future biodiesel requirement is roughly equivalent to the size of Portugal.

Cross-sector and integrated approaches

Another review finds yet more challenges: Greenwell et al. (2010)¹⁵ look at the nature of algal biofuel projects and conclude that a cross sector approach is required, with aquaculturists working with reactor manufacturers, biologists, engineers and chemists. Much remains to be done on the basic biology of microalgae, species selection, genetic manipulation and molecular characterization of the metabolic switch for carbon sequestering and storage. The chemistry of biofuel synthesis requires further investigation too. Although we know a lot about the upgrading of vegetable/algal oils, this has mainly been using model compounds, such as stearic acid and its esters, rather than actual algal oil. Additionally, for decarboxylation and trans-esterification upgrading, it is usually only the relatively short-chain-length aliphatic acids that were used—a comparatively small component of the total algal oils. Further investigation of catalytic decarboxylation and trans-esterification of specific algal oils or biomass is needed. Furthermore, a more efficient conversion route with innovative use of by-products could prove to reduce the overall cost of the algal biofuels production system.

Singh & Olsen (2011)¹⁶ also review algal biofuel prospects. They look at bio-diesel, -gas, -ethanol, -hydgrogen, algal gasification and sustainability issues. They too conclude that significant improvements in the efficiency, cost structure and scalability of algal growth, lipid extraction, and biofuel production must be made to be commercially viable. For this purpose a defined set of technology breakthroughs will be required to develop the optimum utilization of algal biomass for the commercial production of biofuel. Subhadra (2010)¹⁷ agrees and takes this further to propose a visionary integrated renewable energy park (IREP) approach, to amalgamate various renewable energy industries established in different locations. This, says Subhadra, would aid in synergistic and efficient electricity and liquid biofuel production with zero net carbon emissions while avoiding numerous sustainability issues such as productive usage of agricultural land, water, and fossil fuel usage. The author admits that there are significant economic and policy barriers that need to be addressed to maximize the success of this integrated approach to clean energy, and it would seem that this would need a substantial and lasting commitment from public funds for a technology that is still far from being proven.

The economics

Gallagher (2011)¹⁸ demonstrates the huge returns possible from algal biofuels if real crude oil prices were to rise significantly above $100 per barrel and keep rising at a strong rate. If these conditions are encountered, his economic analysis shows an increasing insensitivity to loss of subsidies and increases in capital and/or operating costs. In other words, if “Peak Oil” and decline become a reality, biodiesel produced from algae appears extremely attractive as crude oil and conventional diesel prices sharply escalate, even if the assumed capital and operating costs prove to be optimistic.

A sea view

A completely different approach is suggested by Thomsen (2010)¹⁹ who suggests that only 0.4% of global water is fresh water which will increasingly be a limiting factor. Instead he points to the 98% of all the water on this planet that is seawater and suggests that it is time to start using it. Bioreactor microalgae can be mixed with marine algae harvested from the sea to achieve a blend with the desired characteristics to be used by conventional biomass power plants. Harvesting marine algae from the ocean has been trialled, and can be carried out in an ecological suitable matter. Remote sensing and modelling of surface currents is used to find the suitable harvesting sites.

Algae get sick too

A new paper on algal diseases by Gachon et al. (2010)²⁰ adds a new twist that perhaps has been hitherto neglected. The authors suggest that the expanding use of open systems for the mass culture of microalgae for biofuels will also inevitably favour disease outbreaks and anticipate that epidemics will become a significant issue for this sector over the coming years. The authors review the great diversity of algal pathogens. The best known pathogens of algae are viruses, subject to intense studies over the last three decades, since their ecological role was first appreciated. Algae are also plagued by a variety of even lesser known, but arguably equally important bacterial and eukaryotic pathogens. Bacterial pathogens (mostly Gram-negative taxa such as Alteromonas, Cytophaga, Flavobacterium, Pseudomonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Saprospira and Vibrio) mainly cause rot symptoms and galls on seaweeds.

Shell calls it a day on algae

From the many studies recently published, there is no doubt that an enormous amount of work still needs to be done to make algal biofuels an economic reality. Singh et al. (2011)²¹ estimated that it currently costs €50/L algal derived oil. This means that more than an order of magnitude improvement is required to make algal derived oil viable, which inevitably is going to take a long time to acheive. So off-putting are the hurdles that Shell Oil recently announced they are pulling out of algal oil development whilst retaining investment in more conventional ethanol (first generation) and biomass (second generation) options.²²

Can the science be more user-friendly?

As we mention above in the case of jatropha, a question that emerges is whether the current way that science is done and reported is adequate for the immense effort that is required. To determine whether algae are a viable source for renewable diesel, Beal et al. (2010)²³ suggest that three questions must be answered are (1) how much renewable diesel can be produced from algae, (2) what is the financial cost of production, and (3) what is the energy ratio of production?

To help accurately answer these questions, the authors then propose a detailed and logical analytical framework and associated nomenclature system for characterizing renewable diesel production from algae. This framework consists of three principles: using well-defined metrics, using symbolic representation for unknown information (i.e. areas where additional data are needed are identified in standard notation), and presenting results that are consistent and include all relevant information. The authors provide examples of the confusing and partial reporting of some recently published papers and call for the widespread use of common nomenclature, and a consistent reporting framework by primary researchers. This would allow systems-level analysts to integrate the results of primary research into estimates for the potential of algae for renewable diesel. In turn, widespread use of a framework by systems-level analysts would lead to improved estimates, which are valuable for researchers and policy makers.

In essence then, the authors are proposing a sort of reporting standard for researchers to adhere to. This is a very welcome development, because the great majority of biofuel research to date (not only algal biofuels) has lacked sufficiently clear and unambiguous data from which to make accurate assessments about their true value. This is particularly important when so much public money is being placed in biofuels subsidies which some feel will never be repaid in terms of slowing the transport industry’s growing contribution to climate change.

Biomass

Featuring a new journal

We end this review with a look a developments in biomass sourced biofuels. To start, we draw the readers’ attention to an excellent series of biofuel reviews that appear in a new journal published by Future Science Ltd., called ‘Biofuels’ that started in 2010. We have already referred to some of these above, and on the subject of biomass for instance, Himmel et al. (2010)²⁴ review in some detail and with helpful graphics, the range of microbial enzyme systems that are available for biomass conversion. Kamban & Henson (2010)²⁵ on the other hand review the state of the art in upstream processing of cellulose for bioethanol production with bacteria, emphasizing the importance of engineering bacterial processes for efficient cellulosic bioethanol production. The authors note that although some advances have been made in the genetic engineering of plant feedstocks, research is still in its infancy and requires continuing efforts to engineer bacteria to synthesize cellulase enzymes, to ferment both pentose and hexose sugars, and to exhibit high ethanol productivities.

Webster et al. (2010)²⁶ give a comprehensive review of the role of plant community diversity in bolstering productivity, resistance to pest and pathogen pressure and wildlife habitat, among other ecosystem services for biomass production from grasslands. Tyner (2010)²⁷ reviews market uncertainties and government policies for cellulosic biofuels and for him the bottom line is that existing government policies do not provide the degree of reduction in uncertainty that would be needed to induce commercial investment in cellulosic biofuels. In today’s financial markets, it is even more difficult for venture capitalists to consider investments in this sector. Therefore he feels, without changes in our current approach, biofuels targets are unlikely to be achieved.

Wilkie & Evans (2010)²⁸ analyse the possibilities of using invasive aquatic plants as a biofuel. Invasive plants almost by definition grow very fast and to make a virtue of necessity, it may be economically feasible to harvest them. Aquatic weeds tend to grow in nutrient rich waters fed by agricultural run-off, so it is possible to imagine a system that makes use of this free resource and at the same time reduces the excess level of nutrients that reduce aquatic biodiversity and that may often need to be removed before human consumption. The review therefore makes the case that invasive aquatic plants represent an untapped potential bioenergy source. The authors call for the development of harvester machines and processing infrastructure that can deliver aquatic plant biomass to refineries in a cost-efficient manner. They point to a study on water hyacinth that suggests the amount of biomass collected may already be economically justifiable.

The problem with biomass

The problem with all biomass however is that it is not a very concentrated form of energy; Singh et al. (2010)²⁹ calculate that the energy content of a molecule from of biomass sources such as switchgrass, poplar and even sugars is only two thirds that of a molecule of gasoline. It is typical during biofuel production to lose up to a half of the carbon atoms in the biomass as carbon dioxide to meet the processing energy requirements. There is also a limit to how far you can move such material before the transport costs begin to outweigh the value of the energy collected. This therefore puts a cap on the size of the biomass energy plant and hence its efficiency.

There seems to be no way around this fundamental limitation, but Singh, Agrawal and co-workers at Purdue University have come up with an entirely novel solution. They reasoned that the collected biomass needs to be transformed on site to a more energy dense form before moving it. Their solution is a processing system based on fast hydropyrolysis, followed by catalytic hydrodeoxygenation, which they call H2Bioil. A fast-hydropyrolysis reactor rapidly heats solid biomass to about 500°C in the presence of hydrogen, breaking down the long chain biomass molecules. The oxygen in those smaller molecules reacts with the hydrogen resulting in high-energy density oil molecules. The quality of biofuel produced using H2Bioil can be two to three times the output from conventional processes they claim.

The crucial problem of course is how to make this a practical reality. The Purdue team propose to use a small-scale steam methane reformer which is a standard chemical engineering method of converting steam and methane into hydrogen and carbon monoxide (syngas). The source of the gas would come initially from natural gas, but the plan is to eventually obtain it from gasification of the biomass itself. Ultimately solar power might be used to produce the hydrogen. The new method could produce about twice as much biofuel as current technologies when hydrogen is derived from natural gas and 1.5 times the liquid fuel when hydrogen is derived from a portion of the biomass itself. A mobile version of this is apparently feasible and the team is now planning to try this out in the field to be commercially available within five years.

If this method proves successful, it would transform the potential of biomass for transport fuel, which currently needs just this sort of ‘out of the box’ thinking to turn it into a solid economic prospect that would attract the very significant funding that this will require.

References

Das, S. & Priess, J.A. (2011) Zig-zagging into the future: the role of biofuels in India. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 5: 18–27.
Ariza-Montobbio, P. & Lele, S. (2010) Jatropha plantations for biodiesel in Tamil Nadu, India: Viability, livelihood trade-offs, and latent conflict. Ecological Economics 70: 189–195.
Biswas, P.K., Pohit, S. & Kumar, R. (2010) Biodiesel from jatropha: Can India meet the 20% blending target? Energy Policy 38: 1477–1484.
Deng, X., Fang, Z. & Peng, D-P. (2010) Selection of high-oil-yield seed sources of Jatropha curcas L. for biodiesel production. Biofuels 1(5): 705–717.
Pan, J., Fu, Q. & Xu, Z-F. (2010) Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of biofuel plant Jatropha curcas using kanamycin selection. African Journal of Biotechnology 9(39): 6477-6481.
Bailis, R. & Baka, J. (2010) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil. Environmental Science & Technology 44: 8684–8691.
Schut, M., Slingerland, M. & Locke, A. (2010) Biofuel developments in Mozambique. Update and analysis of policy, potential and reality. Energy Policy 38: 5151–5165.
Schut, M.L.W., Bos, S., Machuama, L. & Slingerland, M.A. (2010) Executive summary: Working towards sustainability. Learning experiences for sustainable biofuel strategies in Mozambique. Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands in collaboration with CEPAGRI, Maputo, Mozambique. pp: 8.
Habib-Mintz, N. (2010) Biofuel investment in Tanzania: Omissions in implementation. Energy Policy 38: 3985–3997.
Hunsberger, C. (2010) The politics of Jatropha-based biofuels in Kenya: convergence and divergence among NGOs, donors, government officials and farmers Journal of Peasant Studies 37: 939–962.
Tang, H., Salley,S.O. & Simon Ng, K.Y. (2010) Recent developments in microalgae for biodiesel production. Biofuels 1(4): 631–643.
Clarens, A. & Colosi, L. (2010) Putting algae’s promise into perspective. Biofuels 1(6): 805–808.
Subhadra, B. & Edwards, M. (2010) An integrated renewable energy park approach for algal biofuel production in United States. Energy Policy 38: 4897–4902.
Wijffels, R. & Barbosa, M.J. (2010) An Outlook on Microalgal Biofuels. Science 329: 796-799.
Greenwell, H.C., Laurens, L.M., Shields, R.J., Lovitt, R.W. & Flynn, K.J. (2010) Placing microalgae on the biofuels priority list: a review of the technological challenges. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 7: 703-726.
Singh, A. & Olsen, S.I. (2011) A critical review of biochemical conversion, sustainability and life cycle assessment of algal biofuels. Applied Energy, In Press.
Subhadra, B. (2011) Sustainability of algal biofuel production using integrated renewable energy park (IREP) and algal biorefinery approach. Energy Policy, In Press.
Gallagher, B.J. (2011) The economics of producing biodiesel from algae. Renewable Energy 36: 158-162.
Thomsen, L. (2010) How ‘green’ are algae farms for biofuel production? Biofuels 1(4): 515–517.
Gachon, C., Sime-Ngando, T., Strittmatter, M., Chambouvet, A. & Kim, G.H. (2010) Algal diseases: spotlight on a black box. Trends in Plant Science 15(11): 633-640.
Singh, A., Singh, N.P. & Murphy, J.D. (2011) Mechanism and challenges in commercialisation of algal biofuels. Bioresource Technology 102: 26–34.
Lane, J. (2011) Shell Exits Algae as it Commences a "Year of Choices". RenewableEnergyWorld.com [online], available at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/01/shell-exits-algae-as-it-commences-year-of-choices.
Beal, C.M., Smith, C.H., Michael, E., Webber, M.E., Ruoff, R.S. & Hebner, R.E. (2011) A Framework to Report the Production of Renewable Diesel from Algae. Bioenergy Research 4:36–60.
Himmel, M.E., Xu, Q., Yuo, Y., Ding, S-Y., Lamed, R. & Bayer, E.A. (2010) Microbial enzyme systems for biomass conversion: emerging paradigms. Biofuels 1(2): 323–341.
Kambam, R.P.K. & Henson, M.A. (2010) Engineering bacterial processes for cellulosic ethanol production. Biofuels 1(5): 729–743.
Webster, C.R., Flaspohler, D.J., Jackson, R.D., Meehan, T.D. & Gratton, C. (2010) Diversity, productivity and landscape-level effects in North American grasslands managed for biomass production. Biofuels 1(3): 451–461.
Tyner, W.E. (2010) Cellulosic biofuels market uncertainties and government policy. Biofuels 1(3), 389–391.
Wilkie, A.C. & Evans, J.M. (2010) Aquatic plants: an opportunity feedstock in the age of bioenergy. Biofuels 1(2): 311-321.
Singh, N., Delgass, N., Ribeiro, F.H. & Agrawal, R. (2010) Estimation of Liquid Fuel Yields from Biomass. Environmental Science & Technology 44: 5298–5305.

Recent developments in the world of biofuels: summer 2010

2010-10-15T20:18:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL.To follow up BIOFUEL INFORMATION EXCHANGE. A recent review of no less than 67 biofuel life-cycle assessments (LCAs) was published recently in a new biofuel journal1. As Ester van der Voet and her colleagues point out, the very fact that politically determined biofuel targets have been set, has led to a major effort to show whether they might actually have a desirable effect for society. The review tries to find out what can be concluded from the studies and why and how they may differ. And differ they most certainly do: in the first place the studies do not adopt the same functional units. Some express results in terms of amount of energy contained in the fuel, others the weight of the fuel or the yield per unit area (e.g. hectare) or even a composite measure. Such differences make comparison between studies difficult and lead to major differences between them. Different allocation methods, all approved under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for LCA studies, can cause percentage improvement compared with fossil fuels to vary from negative to above 100%.

How functional are life-cycle assessments (LCA)?

The authors point out that the system boundaries vary between studies, which reflect their different purposes. Hence some are well-to-wheel, others are well-to-tank, cradle-to-gate (where ‘gate’ means the final product less costs of delivery to the tank) and even cradle-to-grave where the whole transport system is evaluated, including the car and the road. The latter is the most complete and indeed is surely needed if society is to evaluate the full costs of our current free-wheeling life styles. But by so doing, these most comprehensive studies tend to reduce the overall differences between the biofuel feedstock involved, which is often the centre of interest.

At the heart of this is a fundamental problem: LCAs were never designed to cover wide-ranging questions of such global concern. LCAs are, by concept, a way of determining costs and impacts of a particular process. They are especially useful for firms looking to reduce costs of energy and materials for a particular supply chain, or of reducing environmental pollution; Coca-Cola and Mobil Oil were early adopters. It is easy for a company to use LCAs, because they can be reduced to a bottom line expressed in terms of money saved.

But when we come to biofuels, the whole point of which is to be an overall benefit to humanity, the boundaries become global and the uncertainties proliferate. This is covered in some detail in a new book by Giampietro & Mayumi2, who point out that when dealing with living systems, one can easily get caught in an analytical loop in which everything depends on everything else. E.g. several options may be considered to calculate the required energy input for generating the supply of energy carriers (‘energy carriers’ are gasoline, biofuel and wind power for example):

Option A: include only the energy spent on the operation by the machines used in the energy sector;

Option B: Option A plus the energy used to fabricate and maintain the machines used in the energy sector;

Option C: A+B plus the energy used to reproduce the energy sector as a whole. This requires including the infrastructure and demand of services of the energy sector;

Option D: A+B+C plus the energy used to reproduce the humans working in the energy sector. Includes the leisure time, education & assistance to their families.

It’s easy to see that for an investor in a short term project, s/he might only be interested in A and B. For a long term investor option C would be important, and for a caring government, option D would be important though the reason may not be immediately obvious. For D, in the case of a country that decides to rely mainly on biofuels, many times more people would have to become involved in the business than for a fossil fuel economy because bio-energy is less efficiently created; long-sighted politicians would need to decide if it would indeed be feasible to divert so much capital and human assets to this end rather than to another part of the economy.

So fundamental is energy to the workings of a society, say Giampietro & Mayumi, that it is not possible to isolate and compare sub-systems such as biodiesel and wind power, without considering the way society itself functions. In other words, the very nature of our society depends on the way that it finds and processes energy. The authors refer to historical examples of civilizations that got it wrong: ruling elites that were no longer able to gain wealth by conquest, would turn inwards to divert more and more internal resources for their own ends, to the point that primary producers (mainly farming communities) collapsed or rebelled. Societies that can no longer afford fossil fuels may in future do the same, and perhaps the increase in land-grabbing that we are seeing in parts of the world is an indication that this has already started3.

Van der Voet et al. conclude that some of the problems with LCA can be fixed by standardizing methodologies. However, there are other limitations with regard to large-scale long-term impacts, where other types of analysis may be more appropriate; for example, land use change as a result of biofuel policies. Aspects such as risk of competition with food crops and local and regional social consequences are outside the scope of present LCA, and they may never be able to include all relevant aspects. However, the concept of social LCAs is being developed. All decision makers should take heed of what the authors say and then read Giampietro & Mayumi’s book to help reorient their thoughts.

LCA of second generation biofuels. When reading LCA papers on the impacts of second generation biofuels, it is sometimes easy to forget that second generation biofuels are not yet commercially available. A new review by Zhu and Pan4 highlights some of the challenges that are faced to commercialise cellulosic ethanol. Despite substantial progress in cellulosic ethanol research and development they say, many problems remain to be overcome. For example, the high energy consumption for biomass pre-treatment remains a challenge. Excellent wood cellulose saccharification efficiency can be achieved using the organosolv process, sulphite pre-treatment to overcome recalcitrance of lignocellulose (SPORL), and steam explosion in the case of hardwood; however improvement in the yield of hemicellulose sugars is still needed. Scaling up the whole process is a key challenge: capital equipment required for commercial demonstrations of some technologies, such as steam explosion, does not yet exist.

Zhu and Pan point out that the pulp and paper industry has the capability and infrastructure for handling biomass on the scale of 1000 ton/day, equivalent to the scale of a future cellulosic ethanol plant of 100 million litres/year, but there is a lack of economic incentive for that industry to shift to a stand-alone biorefinery for ethanol production because fibre for paper is still worth more than ethanol.

Other problems abound: the recovery of pre-treatment chemicals and wastewater treatment are also important issues in selecting commercial production technologies. The dilute acid and acid-catalyzed steam pre-treatment can be performed without the recovery of the acid because of the low cost of sulphuric acid. However, substantial amounts of alkaline chemicals are required to neutralize the pre-treatment hydrolysate. In addition, the salt produced from the neutralization needs to be properly disposed of. Furthermore, the dissolved organics in the stream of post-fermentation pre-treatment hydrolysate represent a significant amount of chemical oxygen demands and needs to be dealt with. On the other hand, the solvent ethanol used in the organosolv process can be easily recovered through distillation, but a significant amount of energy is required using current technology.

Finally, feedstock versatility is another factor to consider. Cellulosic ethanol is a commodity product and cannot afford high-grade feedstock. It is expected that future cellulosic ethanol refineries will have very little flexibility in their choices of feedstock (having to use what is cheap and available at any point in time), therefore the pre-treatment process must be versatile. Pre-treatment processes that are only effective on certain feedstocks will have difficulties in commercial adoption. Challenges in developing integrated forest biorefineries, include how to maintain pulp yield and strength and how to concentrate and ferment the hemicellulosic sugar stream that mainly contains pentose when hardwoods are used.

A new LCA review of switchgrass5, regarded as a promising second generation biofuel, finds that with regard to global warming potential, driving with switchgrass ethanol fuels would lead to less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than gasoline: a 65% reduction may be achieved in the case of E85 ethanol fuel. But apart from that, switchgrass would not offer environmental benefits in the other impact categories compared to gasoline. The authors estimate that switchgrass agriculture would become a main contributor to eutrophication, acidification, and eco-toxicity – and emissions from bioethanol production would cause a greater impact in photochemical smog formation.

A further review of LCAs of biofuels from a range of sources of lignocelluloses6, looks at seven impact categories. When it comes to GHG savings, it also finds that switchgrass is the best crop, followed by sugarcane+bagasse (the fibrous residue remaining after sugarcane stalks are crushed to extract their juice), which was included as a comparison. Fuels from corn stover, flax shives and hemp hurds led to a worse performance than gasoline. Sugarcane-derived ethanol turns out to be the best option in terms of photo-chemical oxidation potential (smog) whereas switchgrass and hemp are the poorest. In the category of human and ecotoxicity potential, as well as acidification and eutrophication potential, flax-derived ethanol showed the best environmental performance among all the ethanol fuels.

The authors point out that in many impact categories (global warming potential, photochemical oxidation potential, human and eco-toxicity potential, acidification potential and eutrophication potential) ethanol fuels as a whole do not show advantages over gasoline, so they suggest that strong promotion of bioethanol as a transport fuel needs to be carefully considered. They also suggest that more advanced technologies with optimization of energy use and emissions in both agriculture and ethanol refinery still need to be developed to reduce the current relatively high scores.

The economics of CO2 missions in LCA. In their recent paper, de Gorter and Tsur7 offer a green house gas (GHG)-reduction standard for biofuel production based on a cost–benefit test that allows for a changing carbon price and a positive social discount rate (SDR). They argue that the economic consequences of CO2 emissions and uptakes associated with a biofuel policy must be based on cost–benefit analyses and the latter cannot be adequately addressed by LCA, whether it recognises indirect land use change (iLUC) or not. This is so because LCA is based on the summation of physical GHG balances (where each GHG is weighted by its global warming potential) and the comparison of aggregate emissions with aggregate uptake over a specified period of time (e.g. 30 years). Physical balances summed over many years, however, are devoid of cost–benefit significance for two reasons. First, attaching an economic value (benefit if positive or cost if negative) to a physical quantity requires the use of prices. Second, summing values that accrue at different years requires discounting. Physical GHG balances can be used in cost–benefit tests (in the sense that using them instead of genuine costs and benefits would yield the same cost–benefit criterion) only if (i) the price of carbon (i.e. the price that converts physical quantities into values) is constant over time and (ii) the SDR is zero. Both conditions are inappropriate say the authors: the price of carbon increases over time as long as atmospheric GHG concentration increases (with its ensuing climate-change-induced threats); and a positive (though not necessarily constant) discount rate is required to determine intergenerational tradeoffs when economic growth is expected to persist (even at a reduced rate). Existing biofuel GHG-reduction standards (with or without iLUC) are therefore biased and distort the ensuing policy recommendation.

The impact of the inherent variability of biofuel production systems in LCA. Chiaramonti & Recchia’s recently published paper8 also finds fault with the LCA process. They agree that LCA methodology is a principal tool for the estimation of the impact of biofuel chains and that this is also reflected in the recently issued EU Renewable Energy Directive on the promotion of the use of renewable energy. However, the results of LCAs depend heavily on the quality of the information given as input to the study. In addition, the comparison of a large number of very different aspects (technical, geographical, agronomic), as some LCAs attempt, is a very difficult task due to the extremely large number of variable conditions and parameters. Their paper looks at these problems by considering a very specific biofuel chain: the production and use of sunflower oil in North-Central Italy. Their results showed very large variations in the calculation of the CO2 equivalent emissions, depending on local agricultural practices and performances, even for such a small and well defined biofuel chain. For instance, they graph over 100 different energy input/output field measurements, and reveal an extraordinary variation – a range of ~ 6 to 46 GJ ha-1 input and ~15 to 130 GJ ha-1 output, with no significant relationship between them. They suggest that adoption of the present standardized LCA approach for generalized evaluations in the bioenergy sector should therefore be reconsidered. They recommend that LCA studies, even while addressing very specific and well defined chains, should always include the range of the estimates, since this range of variation of LCA could be significantly greater than the initially set quantitative targets and therefore compromise the whole study. The authors make suggestions for small scale projects to help develop sound but realistic processes to assess biofuel sustainability.

There are growing signs, therefore, that LCAs have a number of methodological difficulties and inconsistencies that urgently need to be addressed. An uncomfortable, but inescapable conclusion is that the systems being measured are so complex and variable, that they can all too easily be tweaked to come to almost any desired conclusion.

Impacts of using crop residues in biofuels production

A major problem of biofuels is that their overall energy gains are often low. This means that in many cases, all crop residues are collected and used to generate additional energy, as so called co-products, and are nearly always counted as such in prospective models of second generation biofuel production. A problem of LCAs is that they often don’t consider the various downsides of doing this. A new review by Blanco-Canqui9 looks specifically at these downsides. He finds that indiscriminate crop residue removal harvesting for expanded uses has adverse impacts on soil properties, water quality, soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration, and crop production particularly in erodible and sloping soils. Alternatively, he found that growing perennial warm-season grasses (WSGs) and short-rotation woody crops (SRWCs) show promise to provide a range of ecosystem services over crop residue removal. Short-rotation woody crops sequester SOC, reduce soil erosion, improve soil properties, and promote wildlife habitat.

The authors suggest that the benefits of WSGs and SRWCs are greater when grown in marginal, degraded, and abandoned lands than when grown in prime agricultural lands. WSGs and SRWCs as biofuels would have to be carefully managed under such conditions however, to achieve the desired ancillary soil and environmental benefits. Development of sustainable systems of WSGs and SRWCs in marginal lands is a therefore a high priority say the authors.

An agro-ecological approach to second generation biofuel production

As if to reaffirm this point, a new paper by DeHaan et al. 10 reports detailed long-term studies of a field production system for a future grass-based lignocellulosic biofuel. There are two basic approaches to using grasses as biofuels: high input monocultures, or low input high-diversity grassland. The former is potentially easier to develop as a high yielding system, where high yielding strains can be continuously improved and deployed over time to give predictable performance. However, the latter scheme has many advantages since, low inputs decrease costs and pollution caused by those inputs, and there is an increase in biodiversity.

The authors looked at the relative yields from 168 plots in Minnesota where they varied the number of indigenous grass species. For some treatments they also included some leguminous species. Overall they found that the greater the number of grass species used (up to 16), the greater the yield, but the range of variation in yield was very high. Plots with legumes and grasses performed the best. Motivated by a desire to make future practical recommendations to farmers, they then calculated the minimum species number necessary for the system to have predictably high yields. They estimated that combinations of just one grass and the best performing legume (Lupinus perrenis) gave a performance as good as high diversity grass plots.

In practice, such ‘bi-cultures’ of one grass and legume species could be arranged so that the legume species is evenly distributed within a field, or the legumes could be grown in patches, fed to livestock, and the manure used to fertilize the grasses. With a sustained effort to breed and develop legume/C4 grass bi-cultures, plant breeders and agronomists might develop systems that are increasingly productive and mostly free from dependence on nitrogen fertilizers.

Clearly this is not a high diversity solution so the authors suggest an intriguing compromise. One strategy would be to develop numerous lower diversity systems and deploy them in a patchwork arrangement to achieve landscape-level diversity. Or, farmers could be paid to add noneconomic species to their fields solely to increase biodiversity. The authors also assert that this is not the final word: further research might show that the addition of other selected species to improved bi-cultures could increase their yields and the stability of these yields. This paper is therefore a very encouraging blend of agro-ecological theory, field experimentation and commercial awareness that many other researchers could learn from.

Jatropha update

We have just received a useful review of the present status of jatropha cultivation in Mexico and Central America11. This is the centre of origin of the plant and one of the first jatropha projects was started in Nicaragua in 1990, though it was abandoned in 1999. In this short review, Cifuentes & Fallot report that about 7,400 ha are currently under cultivation in seven countries of the region. The authors affirm the interest in jatropha throughout the region but point to the need to develop better regulatory frameworks and value chains in order to attract proper finance. Most of the projects they identify are no more than three years old and they suggest that much better dissemination of the data from these projects is required to show that the predicted yields are in fact achievable. Selection of varieties and development of technological packages appropriate to each country are also need, they suggest.

The need for better data from projects is a common deficiency and one that a recent report by GTZ tackles with some vigour12. It looks at the economics of jatropha growing for smallholders in Kenya and its conclusions are uncompromising:

‘The results of this survey, taken from interviews with hundreds of Jatropha farmers throughout Kenya, show extremely low yields and generally uneconomical costs of production. Based on our findings, Jatropha currently does not appear to be economically viable for smallholder farming when grown either within a monoculture or intercrop plantation model.

The only model for growing Jatropha that makes economic sense for smallholders, according to actual experiences in the field so far; this is growing it as a natural or live fence with very few inputs. Of course, this is precisely how Jatropha has been grown in this part of the world since it was introduced centuries ago.

Therefore, we recommend that the all stakeholders carefully re-evaluate their current activities promoting Jatropha as a promising bioenergy feedstock. We also suggest that all public and private sector actors for the time being cease promoting the crop among smallholder farmers for any plantation other than as a fence.

Although these conclusions provide a sobering retort to some of the unbridled hype that has swirled around Jatropha over the past few years, current research and development may lead to improved varieties. What is clear from the results of this field survey, however, is that that day has not yet arrived.’

The GTZ study uses the word ‘hype’ to describe the interest in jatropha and coincidentally the same word is also employed in another recent review of jatropha by Achten et al13. They write that ‘Popular claims on drought tolerance, low nutrient requirement, pest and disease resistance and high yields have triggered a jatropha hype with sky-high expectations on simultaneous wasteland reclamation, fuel production, poverty reduction and large returns on investments.’ Many of these claims are yet to be supported by scientific evidence, the authors conclude. They point to major knowledge gaps concerning basic ecological and agronomic properties (growth conditions, input responsiveness of biomass production, seed yield and the species’ genetics), that make seed yield poorly predictable. Considering the current expansion, this situation might hold considerable sustainability risks (economic, social and environmental). Among other issues, the water requirement and water footprint of jatropha are still poorly understood. A better knowledge of these agronomic properties is vital for the further application of the species. Jatropha should therefore still be considered a (semi-) wild, undomesticated plant showing considerable performance variability.

The authors highlight some potential breeding problems with this poisonous bush that might account for its notoriously variable yield: jatropha can set seed after both insect and self-pollination. However, self-pollinated fruits are lighter in general and abort before maturation in 25% of cases. It has been suggested that this could be due to early acting inbreeding depression and thus may reflect a high natural out-crossing rate. Preliminary studies indicate very low variation in microsatellite simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers within populations even of Mexican Jatropha. This is surprising since Mexico is the purported centre of origin of the species, and hence where you would expect genetically diverse populations to be found.

The authors point out that understanding the breeding pattern is central for design of domestication strategies. Breeding, large-scale mass propagation and distribution across landscapes will be much easier if the species is reproduced by natural selfing without inbreeding depression or, especially, if it reproduces by apomixis (asexual reproduction without fertilization). Given the successive introductions of jatropha and its ability of clonal mass propagation within a short time, it is possible that all African and/or Asian populations result from a narrow germplasm origin. Recent studies based on genetic markers uncovered surprisingly low levels of genetic diversity in jatropha landraces from China for instance. The authors suggest that, given the low genomic diversity in landraces, ‘smart’ out-crossing between superior Asian individuals with new introductions from the Americas should be performed. Such crosses should release any inbreeding depression and thereby increase vigour and fruit production if genetic diversity of American landraces is effectively larger.

The authors detail a number of steps that are needed to develop a breeding programme that might lead to reliable heavy yielding tree stocks. We recommend all those working on jatropha to read the paper and the GTZ report as two detailed and well argued contributions to the growing literature on this plant.

Jatropha mosaic disease

A paper by Gao et al. 14, reports the completion of the nucleotide sequence of the jatropha mosaic disease, which has emerged recently and now widely spread in India. Phylogenetic analysis of the virus genome suggests it is a new strain of Indian cassava mosaic virus. It is always unfortunate to have a single disease that affects two different crops, since this tends to make control of both more difficult. However, the authors suggest that with the genome sequenced information and the availability of the two infectious clones, it may be possible to use double-stranded hairpin RNA or artificial miRNA-mediated RNA interfering technology to generate transgenic Jatropha lines that are resistant to this new disease.

Microbial contamination of biofuels

Although it probably shouldn’t, it comes as a surprise to discover the amount of bacterial contaminants in the bioethanol industry. A new paper by Muthaiyan and Ricke15 reveals that in the process of scaling up ethanol production, bacterial contamination is becoming one of the more challenging problems facing the industry. The management of contaminants is often achieved in the bioethanol industry by using antibiotics such as penicillin G, streptomycin, tetracycline, virginiamycin, and monensin or mixtures of these compounds. Currently, penicillin and virginiamycin are commercially sold to treat bacterial infections of fuel ethanol fermentations, and some facilities use these antibiotics prophylactically. Of the antibiotics available, virginiamycin is considered one of the better choices for treatment since this antibiotic, unlike penicillin, retains its activity at lower pH values.

The authors question the concept of antibiotics use in an industrial process because of the considerable cost of adding large quantities of antibiotics and the rapid emergence of antibiotic resistance among the contaminant bacteria. This scenario represents potential public health consequences and therefore requires more research on the impacts of the bulk usage of antibiotics in bioethanol fermentation on antibiotic resistance in public health system. To avoid such a public health consequence consideration of better strategies by alternative means to control contaminants and much earlier detection of initial contamination long before drastic measures such as complete shutdown of the fermenter are required.

This paper therefore again reminds us of the ineluctable complexity of biofuel production: unlike gasoline which has rather few microbial contaminants, biofuels will always be more susceptible because there are many co-evolved organisms in the environment that will attack them and any method to control them will expend yet more energy on systems that struggle to achieve efficiency. It shows yet again that LCAs, which as far as we know never consider future problems of microbial contamination, are an imperfect tool to fully evaluate the utility of biofuels and the broader implications for society.

References

van der Voet, E., Lifset, R.J. & Luo, L. (2010) Life-cycle assessment of biofuels, convergence and divergence. Biofuels 1(3): 435–449.

Giampietro, M. & Mayumi, K. (2009) The Biofuel Delusion. Earthscan, London. 318pp.

Africa: up for grabs. The scale and impact of land grabbing for agrofuels (August 2010). Report Friends of the Earth Africa and Friends of the Earth Europe. http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/FoEE_Africa_up_for_grabs_2010.pdf.

Zhu, J.Y. & Pan X.J. (2010) Woody biomass pretreatment for cellulosic ethanol production: Technology and energy consumption evaluation. Bioresource Technology. 101: 4992–5002

Bai, Y., Luo, L. & van der Voet, E. (2010) Life cycle assessment of switchgrass-derived ethanol as transport fuel. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 15: 468–477.

Luo, L., Voet, E. & Huppes, G. (2010) Energy and Environmental Performance of Bioethanol from Different Lignocelluloses. International Journal of Chemical Engineering. 2010: 12pp.

de Gorter, H. & Tsur, Y. (2010) Cost–benefit tests for GHG emissions from biofuel production. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 37: 133–145.

Chiaramonti, D. & Recchia, L. (2010) Is life cycle assessment (LCA) a suitable method for quantitative CO2 saving estimations? The impact of field input on the LCA results for a pure vegetable oil chain. Biomass & Bioenergy. 34(5): 787-797.

Blanco-Canqui, H. (2010) Energy Crops and Their Implications on Soil and Environment. Agronomy Journal. 102(2): 403-419.

DeHaan, L.R., Weisberg, S., Tilman, D. & Fornar, D. (2010) Agricultural and biofuel implications of a species diversity experiment with native perennial grassland plants. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 137: 33–38.

Cifuentes-Jara, M. & Fallot, A. (2009) Jatropha curcas como biocombustible: estado actual del cultivo en Mesoamérica. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. 56-57: 165-169.

Jatropha Reality Check. A field assessment of the agronomic and economic viability of Jatropha and other oilseed crops in Kenya. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/publications/PDFs/B16599.PDF.

Wouter, M.J., Achten, W.M.J., Nielsen, L.R., Aerts, R., Lengkeek, A.G., Kjær, E.D., Trabucco, A., Hansen, J.K., Maes, W.H., Graudal, L., Akinnifesi, F.K. & Muys, B. (2010) Towards domestication of Jatropha curcas. Biofuels. 1(1): 91–107.

Gao, S.Q., Qu, J., Chua, N.H. & Ye, J. (2010) A new strain of Indian cassava mosaic virus causes a mosaic disease in the biodiesel crop Jatropha curcas. Archives of Virology. 155: 607–612.

Muthaiyan, A. & Ricke, S.C. (2010) Current perspectives on detection of microbial contamination in bioethanol fermentors. Bioresource Technology,. 101: 5033–5042.

What's in the news of biofuel december 2009

2010-04-18T06:59:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL to follow up Peter Baker 2010 in Biofuel Information Exchange: A new major report on biofuels by UNEP1 helps us do this by usefully summarizing the current global biofuels situation. Biofuels now account for 1.8% of transport fuels with ethanol production having tripled between 2000 and 2007 and biodiesel production rising eleven-fold. Mandates to blend biofuel into fossil fuels for vehicles had been enacted in 17 countries by 2006, mostly requiring blending with 10 to 15% ethanol or 2 to 5% biodiesel. In short, biofuels has become a major business with all the momentum that such a new commercial endeavour can create. Thus Brazil exported 5 bn L of ethanol in 2008 and investment in biofuels rose to US$4 bn in 2007 and has most likely risen substantially since then. So much for recent history: when we come to the future however, projections vary wildly, from a pessimistic energy provision of 40 EJ/annum2 to 200 to 400 EJ per annum or even higher by 2050. This compares to current fossil fuel energy use of 388 EJ/annum. The report considers that the most realistic range is 40 to 85 EJ/annum by 2050. Shorter term projections expect biomass and waste to contribute 56 EJ/annum by 2015 and 68EJ/annum by 2030. Most of this increase is expected to come in USA, EU, Brazil and China.

The end of the biofuel decade

A major agricultural phenomenon of the first decade of the 21st century has been the rise of biofuels, and as it draws to a close, it’s a useful time to take stock.

A new major report on biofuels by UNEP1 helps us do this by usefully summarizing the current global biofuels situation. Biofuels now account for 1.8% of transport fuels with ethanol production having tripled between 2000 and 2007 and biodiesel production rising eleven-fold. Mandates to blend biofuel into fossil fuels for vehicles had been enacted in 17 countries by 2006, mostly requiring blending with 10 to 15% ethanol or 2 to 5% biodiesel. In short, biofuels has become a major business with all the momentum that such a new commercial endeavour can create. Thus Brazil exported 5 bn L of ethanol in 2008 and investment in biofuels rose to US$4 bn in 2007 and has most likely risen substantially since then. So much for recent history: when we come to the future however, projections vary wildly, from a pessimistic energy provision of 40 EJ/annum2 to 200 to 400 EJ per annum or even higher by 2050. This compares to current fossil fuel energy use of 388 EJ/annum. The report considers that the most realistic range is 40 to 85 EJ/annum by 2050. Shorter term projections expect biomass and waste to contribute 56 EJ/annum by 2015 and 68EJ/annum by 2030. Most of this increase is expected to come in USA, EU, Brazil and China.

The report makes the important point that in making future projections there are major uncertainties regarding the demand for land for agriculture, especially considering expected low growth in crop yields, expanding populations as well as yield and land degradation due to climate change.

These uncertainties extend to Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), which, depending on the study, show wide variations in efficiencies. The highest variations are observed for biodiesel from palm oil and soya. The highest greenhouse gas saving come from biogas derived from manure and ethanol derived from agricultural and forest residues, as well as biodiesel from wood; though this latter is based only on experimental plants. And, despite many studies, the UNEP report finds them lacking in assessment of indirect effects, including eutrophication, acidification, human and eco-toxicity potential or ozone depletion. Significant variation in LCAs result from nitrous oxide emissions, which are a particularly strong GHG –many of the LCA studies have used rather low values from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change), but if the higher levels suggested by Crutzen et al.3 are corroborated, the LCA studies will have to be recalculated. Tellingly too says UNEP, none of the LCA studies look at biodiversity effects.

Estimates of land required for biofuels, to meet current country mandates, vary widely. These depend on basic assumptions – the feedstock, geographical location and levels of input and yield increases expected. The range of estimates is staggeringly broad, from 35 to 166 million ha by 2020, which is a conservative range, assuming no new biofuels policies are promoted. It is calculated that somewhere between 118 to 508 million ha would be required to provide 10% of global transport fuel demand.

However, by 2020 somewhere between 144 and 334 million ha of extra land is needed for food, so there is currently no convincing strategy or even concept of where biofuels will be grown. Some indication of where things might be heading can be found in a new article by Tom Simpson4. He points to the many deficiencies of corn based ethanol and seriously questions its viability on environmental and economic grounds.

Simpson believes that the future for US biofuels at least is more likely in perennial biomass crops, like switchgrass or fast-growing hardwoods, which lose 75 to 90 percent less Nitrogen to water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide habitat, and can be used to replace crude oil without conversion to ethanol.

In another recent paper, Jerry Melillo5, with his colleagues of the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory in the US, has modeled how growth in biofuel production will change world agriculture during the 21st century. They concentrate on the most likely future— which like Simpson, they believe is cellulosic biofuels from whole plants such as fast-growing grasses, rather than today’s biofuel crops mostly derived from food plants. Surprisingly perhaps, they believe that Africa is the best place to grow biofuels, and the one that will lead to most carbon capture in the long run. But their model also shows that expansion of biofuel crops is likely to cause a net global release of greenhouse gases during the first half of the century, as land is cleared and fertilized. In the right circumstances the CO2 account, they find, could move into profit by mid-century, but the nitrous oxide account never does. The problem with this of course is that with accelerating climate change, there is an urgent need to reduce emissions over the next 20 years, so it is very questionable whether it is justifiable to allow the carbon account of biofuels to enter what looks like a prolonged period of deficit.

Corroboration for this comes from a new paper by Vuichard et al.6, which through modeling shows a carbon deficit of at least 25 years for any implementation of a grassy biofuel production strategy on the 20 million ha of abandoned Soviet agricultural lands, compared to their current state of inactivity. An interesting new angle on the enigma that is Jatropha comes in a recent paper by Maes et al.7 who set out to define the climatic conditions in its area of natural distribution by combining the locations of herbarium specimens with corresponding climatic information. Most specimens (87%) were found in tropical savannah and monsoon climates and in temperate climates without dry season and with hot summer, while very few were found in semi-arid and none in arid climates. Surprisingly, more than 95% of the specimens grew in areas with a mean annual rainfall above 944 mm per year and an average minimum temperature of the coldest month (Tmin) above 10.5°C. The mean annual temperature range was 19.3-27.2°C.

However, when they compared these conditions with those in 83 Jatropha plantations worldwide, they found a very different story. Roughly 40% of the plantations were situated in regions with a drier climate than in 95% of the area of the herbarium specimens, and 28% of the plantations were situated in areas with a Tmin below 10.5°C. They suggest therefore that many plantations are sub-optimally located, holding the risk of chronic low productivity or cold damage.

Another Jatropha paper by Kheira and Atta8 studied its suitability under Egypt's climate in unused lands under scarce water conditions. The results revealed that the average water consumption rate of the Jatropha bush was 6 L per week throughout the growing season, which means that Jatropha can survive and produce full yield with high quality seeds under minimum water requirements compared to other crops. The yield of extracted oil however was extremely low, achieving only 58 kg oil yield per ha at an optimal 100% of potential evapotranspiration.

The sheer complexity of biofuels is brought out well by a recent exchange of letters in the December 4th edition of Science9: various scientists well-known in the biofuels sector comment on a previous article by Tilman et al.10 that argued that the search for beneficial biofuels should focus on feedstocks that (i) do not compete with food crops, (ii) do not lead to land-clearing, and (iii) offer real greenhouse-gas reductions. The various letter writers suggested additional criteria:

iv) Rist et al.: the maximization of social benefits, for example the negative impacts of oil palm development such as poor wages and labour standards, impacts on health and local culture, “land grabbing,” and the loss of environmental goods and services.

v) Biksey & Wu: environmental and health impacts of the co-products that arise during generation of biofuels from feedstocks. For example, maize-based ethanol production results in the production of by-products sold as animal feed. It has been found that any mycotoxins in the original maize become up to three times as concentrated in these co-products and production of biofuels from waste materials may release chemicals such as dioxins and heavy metals that could result in unintended environmental and public health exposures.

vi) Duffy et al.: algae were overlooked by Tilman et al. as a solution. They claim that about 30 million ha of algal culture would yield more than 100% of the US petroleum diesel usage, even assuming modest algal productivity. They consider that microalgae are typically at least an order of magnitude more productive than even the fastest growing terrestrial feedstock crops. However, as we reported in the October 2009 addition of 'What's in the News', not all scientists agree with this optimistic assessment of the efficiency of algae.

vii) Kauppi & Saikku: the neglected role of forests and carbon capture and storage. Trees offer promise as an energy crop in areas where they grow well on degraded lands. A new and permanent reservoir of carbon is created as planted forest develops toward a steady state where mature trees mix with young saplings. Forests also offer a great variety of ecosystem services such as biodiversity promotion, nutrient retention, and flood protection. Timber crops can be harvested at any time during the year, and the durable wood serves as an interim energy storage—two assets for energy transport logistics. The carbon budget of wood is competitive against other materials in end uses such as construction.

Opportunities to use side-products from wood-processing industries in electricity production should be fully explored. As Simpson above also suggests, biopower by almost any criterion deserves attention. Greenhouse gas benefits are better achieved making electricity than fuels.

viii) Lal & Pimentel: the dangers of using crop residues and harvesting biomass from double crops and mixed cropping systems. Retention of crop residues on soils, including the biomass produced from cover crops, is essential to numerous ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, conservation of soil and water, and high use-efficiency of inputs for increasing and sustaining agronomic productivity. They point out that the almost perpetual food deficit in sub-Saharan Africa is attributed to severe soil degradation caused by extractive farming practices. These involve continuous removal of crop residues for use as traditional biofuels and cattle feed that has created a negative nutrient budget. Soils are a source of greenhouse gases when prone to accelerated erosion and when under management that creates negative carbon and nutrient budgets. Furthermore, crop residues and other biosolids are essential to maintain activity and species diversity of soil biota (micro and macroorganisms) and to improve soil structure and tilth. Lal and Pimental urge that the indiscriminate removal of crop residues and harvesting of biomass from cropland soils is supported neither by science nor by conventional wisdom.

ix) Spangenberg & Settele: the downside of growing perennials on degraded lands that can no longer be used for agriculture. Land fertile enough to grow plants offering substantial yields for biofuels, should be suitable for agriculture as well. Even if not used today, this land could be kept as a productive reserve and used later to combat the foreseeable problems in feeding the world in the future. If the land is not fertile enough for that purpose, the perennial energy plants will probably be dependent on anthropogenic inputs such as fertilizers and, in some regions, irrigation. These are the factors disrupting the energy balance; nitrogen fertilization is the basis for nitrous oxide emissions with the potential to overcompensate all greenhouse gas gains. Economically, such plantations would not be viable without intensive farming practices, raising doubts regarding the expected benefits for biodiversity and wildlife.

Currently only about 10% of the global primary energy demand is covered by renewable resources, and humans already appropriate large percentages of the potentially available biomass (20 to 40% globally, 50% in some industrialized countries, up to 90% in intensively farmed regions). Hence, Spangenberg and Settele are sceptical about the potential of biofuels and they cannot support the demand that “a robust biofuels industry should be enabled now.”

The authors of this final letter end by suggesting to ‘better look before we leap’, which is a fitting epitaph on the ‘noughties’ (2000-2009) – when so many catastrophic political and economic decisions were made on flimsy evidence or a dogmatic, one-sided view of life. Let us hope that the future of biofuels can be placed on firmer ground by thoroughly modelling and researching their true potential to reveal all the complexity and long term ramifications that we are now just beginning to comprehend.

By Peter Baker

References

Assessing Biofuels, UNEP 2009
http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf EJ = exajoules = 1018 joules
Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA Winiwarter W, 2007. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 7: 11191–11205

Simpson T, 2009. Biofuels: The Past, Present, and a New Vision for the Future. BioScience Vol. 59 No. 11: 926-927

Melillo JM, Reilly JM, Kicklighter DW, Gurgel AC, Cronin TW, Paltsev S, Felzer BS, Wang X, Sokolov AP, Schlosser CA, 2009. Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important? Science, 326: 1397 - 1399

Vuichard N, Ciais P, Wolf A, 2009. Soil Carbon Sequestration or Biofuel Production: New Land-Use Opportunities for Mitigating Climate over Abandoned Soviet Farmlands. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43: 8678–8683

Maes WH, Trabucco A, Achten WMJ, Muys B, 2009. Climatic growing conditions of Jatropha curcas L. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 33 No. 10: 1481-1485

Kheira, A, Atta N 2009, Response of Jatropha curcas L. to water deficits: yield, water use efficiency and oilseed characteristics. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33: 1343-1350

Science Letters, Vol 326: 1345-46.

Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley J, Hill J, Larson E, Lynd L, Pacala S, Reilly J, Searchinger T, Somerville C, Williams R, 2009. Beneficial Biofuels — The Food, Energy, and Environment Trilemma. Science, 325: 270 - 271

Source: http://biofuelexperts.ning.com/page/whats-in-the-news-december

Relationship: http://biofuelexperts.ning.com/profile/HoangKimVietnam

Current situation of cassava in Vietnam and the breeding of improved cultivars

2010-04-18T06:10:00.000-07:00

Hoang Kim1, Nguyen Van Bo2, Nguyen Phuong1, Hoang Long 3,

Tran Cong Khanh 3, Nguyen Trong Hien 2, Hernan Ceballos4,

Rod Lefroy 4, Keith Fahrney 4, Reinhardt Howeler4 and Tin Maung Aye4

ABSTRACT

In 2008 cassava production in Vietnam was about 9.40 million tonnes, up from only 1.99 million tonnes in 2000. This was the result of both area expansion, from 237.600 ha to 557.700 ha, and marked increases in yield, from 8.36 t/ha in 2000 to 16.91 t/ha in 2008. Vietnam has made the fastest progress in application of new technologies in breeding and new varieties propagation in Asia. Such progress has been considered as a result of many factors, of which the success in breeding and application of new technologies were the main contributing factors. Cassava yields and production in several provinces have more than doubled due to the planting of new high-yielding cassava varieties in about 500.000 ha, mainly KM94, KM140, KM98-5, KM98-1, SM937-26. KM98-7 varieties. and the adoption of more sustainable production practices. Cassava chips and starch is now being produced competitively, and cassava markets are promising. The combination of wide spread production of fresh cassava roots and the processing of cassava into chips starch and ethanol has created many jobs, has increased exports, attracted foreign investment, and contributed to industrialization and modernization of several rural areas. The largest array of field trials to evaluate cassava varieties for improved ethanol production from the CIAT core collection that is held in Vietnam and from the breeding programmes of VNCP research partners. A total of 24.073 cassava sexual seeds from CIAT and 37,210 seeds from 9- 15 cross combinations made in Vietnam 38 breeding lines (mainly from Thailand), and 31 local farmer's varieties. have been planted. Of these, 98 of the best lines are now in the final stages of the selection process. and three of the most promising, KM140, KM98-5 and KM98-7 has recently been released in the period 2007 - 2009. The new advanced cassava varieties KM297, KM228, KM318, KM325, KM397, KM414, KM419, KM21-12, SC5, HB60 are being undertaken in the Regional Yield Trials (RYT) of Dong Nai, Tay Ninh, Ninh Thuan. and Yen Bai provinces.

Key words: Cassava, breeding, Vietnam

____________

1 Nong Lam University (NLU). Linh Trung. Thu Duc. Ho Chi Minh City. Viet Nam. hoangkim_vietnam@yahoo.com; phuongdtg@yahoo.com ; http://cropsforbiofuel.blogspot.com

2 Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS). Van Dien. Thanh Tri. Ha Noi nvbo@hn.vnn.vnn; trong_hienccc@yahoo.com

3 Institute of Agriculture Science for Southern Vietnam (IAS); 121 Nguyen Binh Khiem dist. 1. Ho Chi Minh city. trancongkhanh_vietnam@yahoo.com.vn ; luckydragon1985@yahoo.com

4 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Cali. Colombia; h.ceballos@cgiar.org ; r.lefroy@CGIAR.ORG; k.fahrney@cgiar.org ; r.howeler@cgiar.org; t.aye@cgiar.org
See more....
http://www2.hcmuaf.edu.vn/contents.php?ids=5380&ur=hoangkim http://biofuelexperts.ning.com/profile/HoangKimVietnam%22 ,

http://cropsforbiofuel.ning.com/profiles/blogs/current-situation-of-cassava

State President hails construction of ethanol plant

2010-03-21T07:20:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL to follow up VOVNEWS . State President Nguyen Minh Triet on March 20 attended a groundbreaking ceremony of a 100 million littre ethanol plant in Minh Hung commune, the southern province of Binh Phuoc.Mr Triet hailed the plant’s construction by the Vietnam National Oil and Gas Group, saying it will help stabilise the life of local people including ethnic minority groups. He asked project investors and operators to pay due attention to environment protection during construction and operation of the plant, avoiding adverse impact on the residents’ living environment.

The US$81 million plant has a design capacity of 100 million littres of ethanol per year, consuming 240,000 tonnes of dried cassava a year. It is expected to create stable incomes for about 15,000 households planting cassava in the province.

On this occasion, the investor and contractors presented VND500 million to Minh Hung commune to build schools and purchase health equipment.

The same day, Mr Triet attended a ceremony to inaugurate the Hoa Lu international border checkpoint in Binh Phuoc.

Cassava variety KM 140 was awarded the first-grade prize

2010-01-22T10:30:00.000-08:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL to follow up VGP News VIFOTEC 2009 . The Ministry of Science and Technology and the Việt Nam Union of Scientific Technological Associations (VUSTA) jointly held the 10th VIFOTEC prize-conferring ceremony in Hà Nội on January 19, 2010 in respect of candidates’ outstanding contributions to the country’s scientific and technological development. Some 66 individuals and organizations were awarded, including 6 first-grade prize, 12 second and 18 third ones. Cassava variety KM 140 was awarded the first grade prize.

Member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Việt Nam (CPV) Central Committee Tô Huy Rứa (2nd from left) and Deputy PM Nguyễn Thiện Nhân (3rd from right) at the 10th VIFOTEC prize conferring ceremony, Hà Nội, January 19, 2009 – Photo: VGP/Từ Lương

Source: http://news.gov.vn/Home/VIFOTEC-2009-boasts-for-high-applicability/20101/6051.vgp

Selection and development of hybrid cassava variety KM 140

Tran Cong Khanh (1), Hoang Kim (2), Vo Van Tuan (1),Nguyen Huu Hy (1), Pham Van Bien (1), Dao Huy Chien (3), Reinhardt Howeler(4) and Hernan Ceballos (4)

1. Institute of Agricultural Sciences for Southern Vietnam -IAS http://www.iasvn.org

2. Nong Lam University -NLU http://www.hcmuaf.edu.vn

3. Vietnamese Academy of Agricultural Sciences -VAAS http://www.vaas.org.vn/

4. International Center for Tropical Agriculture - CIAT http://www.ciat.cgiar.org

ABSTRACT

In Vietnam, cassava has rapidly changed its role from a food crop to industrials crop, with a high rate of growth during the first years of the 21st Century. There are now 62 cassava processing factories with a total processing capacity of 8.0 million tones of fresh roots/year. Total cassava starch production in Vietnam was about 1.2 million tonnes, of which 70% was exported and 30% used domestically. The main objectives of cassava breeding in Vietnam is improve root yield and starch content and enhance early harvestability to spread the time of harvest. Cassava variety KM140 is a hybrid selected from KM98-1 x KM36 cross by Hung Loc Agricultural Research Center (HARC) in 1997. KM140 was widely tested, demonstrated and selected by most members of Viet Nam Cassava Research and Extension Network (VNCP) and cassava growers. In 2009, more than 30,000 ha of KM140 were planted in Dong Nai, Tay Ninh, Binh Phuoc, Gia Lai, Binh Dinh…. KM140 is a short growth duration variety (best harvesting time 7-10 months after planting) with fresh root yield 34.0 ton/ha (tantamount and higher than KM94), starch content 26.1-28.5% and starch yield about 9.45 ton/ha for 8-10 months after planting, HCN content about 105.9 mg/kg of root dry matter, good root shape with white flesh, high adaptability to various production conditions. KM140 is a supplementary variety for main variety KM94 in order to extend harvesting time.

Key words: cassava breeding; KM140 cassava variety

Source: Selection and development of hybrid cassava variety KM 140

VIFOTEC 2009 boasts for high applicability

Selection and Development of hybrid cassava variety KM140 (Golden of VIFOTEC Award 2009)

Cassava breeding and varietal adoption in Vietnam

2010-01-13T16:46:00.000-08:00

Hoang Kim (1), Nguyen Phuong, Tran Cong Khanh, Nguyen Trong Hien, Hoang Long, Nguyen Van Bo, Hernan Ceballos, Reinhardt Howeler, Keith Fahrney, Rod Lefroy and Tin Maung Aye.

ABSTRACT

In 2008, cassava production in Vietnam was about 8.90 million tonnes, up from only 1.99 million tonnes in 2000. This was the result of both area expansion, from 237,600 ha to 556,000 ha, and marked increases in yield, from 8.36 t/ha in 2000 to 16.90 t/ha in 2008. Vietnam has made the fastest progress in application of new technologies in breeding and new varieties propagation in Asia. Such progress has been considered as a result of many factors, of which the success in breeding and application of new technologies were the main contributing factors. Cassava yields and production in several provinces have more than doubled due to the planting of new high-yielding cassava varieties in about 420,000 ha, mainly KM94, KM140, KM98-5, KM98-1, SM937-26, KM98-7 varieties, and the adoption of more sustainable production practices. Since 2001-2007, a total of 24,073 cassava sexual seeds from CIAT and 37,210 seeds from 9-15 cross combinations made in Vietnam, 38 breeding lines (mainly from Thailand), and 31 local farmer's varieties, have been planted. Of these, 98 of the best lines are now in the final stages of the selection process, and one of the most promising, KM140, has recently been released in 2007.

Key words: Cassava breeding and varietal adoption in Vietnam

(1) Paper presented at 8th Regional Cassava Workshop Vientiane, Lao PDR - October 20-24, 2008

Full paper at http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4856048919440403214&postID=9190407569663589609

News update at FOODCROPS and SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OP HYBRID CASSAVA VARIETY KM140 and The award of the VIFOTEC in 2009

Update year 2009 for current situation of cassava in Vietnam and its potential as a biofuel

2009-12-20T04:09:00.000-08:00

Nguyen Văn Bo (1), Hoang Kim (2), Rod Lefroy (3), Keith Fahrney (3), Reinhardt Howeler (3) Hernan Ceballos (3)

ABSTRACT

Cassava in Vietnam is among the four most important food crops. But it has always been considered a secondary crop even though it has played an important role in national food security, especially during the difficulty year of the late 1970s. During the past two decades of economic renovation, Vietnam has successfully escaped lingering food deficiency. Cassava now an important source of cash income to small farmers, who either use it for animal feeding or for sale to starch factories. In 2008, cassava fresh root production in Vietnam was about 9.39 million tones, up from only 1.99 million tones in 2000. This was achieved through both area expansion, from 237,600 to 556,000 ha and marked increases in yield, from 8.36 t/ha in 2000 to 16.90 t/ha in 2008. Vietnam has developed an E10 policy requiring the production of 100 to 150 million liters per year. Petrovietnam plans to build three tapioca-based ethanol plants in the northern (Phu Tho), central (Quang Ngai) and southern Vietnam (Binh Phuoc). Each costing $80 million which will use cassava as feedstock, is expected to open in 18 months with total annual capacity of 300 million liters per year. The first and second of which is already under construction in Phu Tho and Quang Ngai. The third plant will begin in Binh Phuoc in March next year and is due to be completed at the end of 2011. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development (MARD) has planned to remain cassava area around 450.000 hectares from 2011 to 2015 and efforts to increase fresh root yield from 16.90 to 20.00 ton/ha in 2011 and 23.00 - 24.00 ton/ha in 2015 (MARD 7256/TB-BNN-VP 25 12 2009). Vietnam is now probably the second largest exporter of cassava products (chip and starch), after Thailand. Major markets of Vietnam’s cassava exports are China and Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and countries in Eastern Europe. Besides, animal feed factories also contributed significantly to the increasing demand for cassava roots. Although in Vietnam cassava processing is a relatively new business and export volumes are still low, the cassava processing factories are new and modern. That is why Vietnam’s cassava products may have a competitive advantage in the world market.

Key words: Cassava in Vietnam, Bio-fuel

1 Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS), nvbo@hn.vnn.vnn

2 Nong Lam University (NLU), Linh Trung, Thu Duc, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, hoangkim_vietnam@yahoo.com; http://cropsforbiofuel.blogspot.com

3 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia; h.ceballos@cgiar.org ; CIAT c/o FCRI, Dept. of Agriculture, Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900 Thailand, r.howeler@cgiar.org

Lessons from CassavaViet

Six essential conditions for a successful cassava R&D program include: Materials, Markets, Management, Methods, Manpower and Money (6 Ms).

Main experiences in linking cassava R&D activities in Vietnam include:

1) Establishment of the Vietnam Cassava Program (VNCP) including advanced cassava farmers, researchers, extension worker, managers of cassava research and development projects, cassava trade and processing companies.

2) The establishment of on-farm research and demonstration fields (farmer participation research FPR)

3) Ten mutual link-up activities (10 T – in Vietnamese):

CONCLUTION:

Lessons from Vietnam (Trip report of Mr. Boma)

“Vietnam is a classic example of how cassava can contribute to rural industrialization and development. Previously, people were reluctant to grow cassava because they thought that cassava caused soil degradation and produced low profits. But in reality one hectare of cassava can produce 60-80 tones of fresh roots and leaves. The situation has changed because of the development of sustainable cultivation techniques and new high-yielding varieties with the availability of a large and growing market demand. Cassava has become a cash crop in many provinces of Vietnam. Cassava chips and starch is now being produced competitively, and cassava markets are promising. The combination of wide spread production of fresh cassava roots and the processing of cassava into chips starch and ethanol has created many jobs, has increased exports, attracted foreign investment, and contributed to industrialization and modernization of several rural areas”.

Cassava in Vietnam a successful story

Fictures: Boga Boma and Nigerians biofuel group visit to Vietnam

HOPE RISES ON ETHANOL FROM CASSAVA

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL to follow up 234NEXT.COM. By Ayodamola Owoseye December 20, 2009. With the whole world clamouring for reduction in the burning of carbon in order to slow down the effects of global warming, Nigeria may soon be able to reduce its carbon emission by using ethanol fuel as substitute for kerosene. (Picture: Dwindling cassava cultivation inhibits the planned conversion of cassava to ethanol for energy production)

More ...

Boma Anga, the chief executive officer of Cassava Agro Industries Service Ltd (CAISL) said in a telephone interview that Nigerians will soon be able to use ethanol across the country as an option for household cooking fuel.

"Nigerians will be able to purchase ethanol fuel for cooking by March 2010," said Mr. Anga. "The cooking fuel also known as Cassakero (cassava-kerosene) will be available to the public as an alternative to kerosene in order to reduce the money spent on fuel usage by most families," Mr. Anga added.

Ethanol as substitute

The idea of looking for a substitute for the carbonised cooking fuel (kerosene) and wood came as a result of the harmful impact on the environment and climate change.

Since carbon burning has been identified as one of the reasons for climate change, the world decided to look for alternative means in terms of biofuel, which is renewable fuel derived from biological matter, for instance biodiesel, biogas, and methane which are all believed to have less hazardous impact on the ecosystem.

Mr. Anga said the Cassakero initiative was planned as substitute for kerosene and wood for Nigerians through the production of ethanol from cassava root.

"This is to promote the use of ethanol as a substitute for kerosene in the country as this will reduce the greenhouse effect caused by the use of carbon fuel. The programme is targeted toward installing about 10,000 small-scale bio ethanol refineries in the 36 states of the federation, including the FCT, over the next four years, to produce daily ethanol cooking fuel requirement for four million families," he said.

Food security

But the project is raising concerns about food security as cassava is a major staple of most Nigerians. It is used in producing flour which is made into a paste and the popular garri, eaten in most homes across the land.

Mr. Anga, however, said the project will not have any negative effect on cassava supply in the market nor will it affect food security as the companies will be using specially cultivated, industrial cassava.

"Considering the tonnes of cassava required for the project, I want to assure you that it will not endanger food security as we will be using non-edible industrial variety of cassava which will be planted on fresh land.

"We have already established a feedstock supply that will produce eight million tonnes of cassava at an average yield of 25 tonnes per hectares from 320,000 hectares to be planted nationwide. To also ensure a steady supply of cassava for the feedstock, we have signed a contract with Nigerian Cassava Growers Association (NCGA) to supply eight million tonnes of cassava tubers," he added.

He said the contract would benefit over 250,000 cassava farmers across the country with additional 400,000 hectares to be deployed for cassava cultivation as the refinery will require 40 hectares of cassava to supply 100 per cent feedstock requirement annually.

Cassava farmers welcome the initiative

Cassava farmers see this as a welcome initiative, as it will increase the market for the produce and encourage more people to embark on farming.

Jimoh Bashir, a cassava farmer, said the initiative is a good one as this will allow more farmers to cultivate the crop more, knowing that there is a market for it as compared to when farmers had to seek for buyers to buy the commodity from them.

"This is a nice initiative that we hope will last long as it will open up the market," Mr. Bashir said.

"Most of what is produced in the country is used in the food sector. Having the product used in the industries will only enhance our financial status as this means there will be more produce with a ready market. This means most of the farmers that have abandoned farming will be lured back to it," he said.

Mr. Bashir is, however, concerned about the affect of this on food production in the country as there is a tendency for farmers to change from producing edible cassava for the industrialised ones.

"This might, however, pose a threat to the production of edible cassava by farmers. Farmers will tend to concentrate more on producing the industrial cassava root with a ready market and use, than cultivating the normal ones. This might also affect the market price of the crop," he said.

Economic implications for Nigerians

With the federal government's plan to deregulate the downstream oil sector which might lead to a sharp increase in the prices of petroleum products, especially kerosene, the domestic cooking fuel for most households, the average Nigerian will have to spend more on the purchase of the product or seek alternative means such as coal or wood which will further endanger the environment.

Mr. Anga arued that ethanol will be cheaper and available for the masses as it burns slower than the normal kerosene fuel.

"The new fuel will be locally produced; and provide Nigerians with a new household fuel for use in cooking, lighting, heating, refrigeration and electricity generation. This fuel will be cleaner, safer and cheaper than kerosene without the need for government subsidy and the introductory price will be retailed at about N75 per litre," he said.

"The production and the distribution of the ethanol based appliances will create employment and wealth to investors and the nation in general. The programme will also create sustainable employment and reduce poverty and deforestation while enhancing food and energy security in the Nation.

"The primary goal is to make ethanol as a cooking fuel available, accessible and affordable, in a commercially profitable and sustainable manner, to low income Nigerians," he added.

Alfa Laval to supply Vietnam plants

2009-12-10T06:59:00.000-08:00

CROPSFORBIOFUEL to folow up Ethanol producer magazine. Alfa Laval recently announced it has received a second SEK 100 million ($15 million) order from the PetroVietnam Group for equipment and engineering solutions that will be installed in an ethanol plant.

The second order will support the development of a cassava-based ethanol facility in northern Vietnam. The first order, which was announced in mid-October, will support the development of a similar facility in central Vietnam. Both orders are scheduled to be delivered in 2010. Heat exchangers supplied by Alfa Laval will be used in the plants’ starch-based fermentation, distillation and dehydration processes.

The PetroVietnam ethanol facilities are part of Vietnam’s biofuel development program, which was ratified by the nation’s government in 2008. The program aims to partially replace traditional fuels with renewable energy sources, and includes a goal to produce 86 million gallons of renewable fuel, including ethanol, by 2015

ICRISAT and IFAD call for a second Green Revolution

2009-12-03T10:07:00.000-08:00

CROPSFORBIOFUEL to follow up Checkbiotech.org (press release) Wednesday, December 2, 2009 . This clarion call was given by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Director General William Dar and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) President Kanayo Nwanze in dialogue with the media.

A second Green Revolution must be waged to end hunger and poverty in the drylands.

This clarion call was given by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Director General William Dar and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) President Kanayo Nwanze in dialogue with the media.

The two leaders also called upon national governments to draft polices that would transform dryland agriculture into a successful business. To turn agriculture profitable for farmers, governments need to create local demand and make local markets viable, they said. This would be the only way to attain food security in a world afflicted by climate change.

In a joint statement on the occasion of the 37th Annual Day celebrations of ICRISAT, Dr Dar and Dr Nwanze stressed the urgent need for a second Green Revolution focused in the semi-arid tropics. “Nearly 80 million hectares of India’s net sown area is rainfed. However, productivity levels of crops like millets, pulses and oilseeds continue to remain low. Though potential yields of up to 2 tonnes per hectare are possible, the yield gaps are exacerbated by vagaries of climate,” Dr Dar added.

Dr Nwanze said that a key strategy should involve the small farmers as they feed one-third of the world population. He also stressed the need to organize these farmers into groups and provide them with access to inputs and markets. Emphasizing the need for political will and the right policy atmosphere he points out, “We need a different landscape to feed a population of 9.6 billion by 2050. There is a need to develop better seeds, which can withstand water shortage, new pests and adverse weather conditions including flooding.’’

Referring to climate change, which is affecting agricultural productivity across the world, the IFAD President said, “Climate change is going to erode the development that took place (in agriculture) in the past two and half decades unless we take required steps and stress on research for more resistant crops.’’ Stating that the international community and the governments had long neglected agricultural research, he said that the amount spent for agriculture-related activities came down from 18% to 3% between 1980 and 2006. According to Dr Nwanze, IFAD has taken up projects worth $636 million in India. Two other projects including one for the North Eastern regions are in the pipeline.

The important role of women in agricultural production cannot be ignored. Underscoring the vulnerability of poor women to climate change, both ICRISAT and IFAD called for policies benefiting rural women. “Empower women with suitable technology, give them access to markets by connecting roads,” Dr Nwanze said. Thanks to the valuable knowledge that women have acquired over the years in water, forest and biodiversity management, women’s role in the identification of appropriate adaptation and disaster mitigation processes in a warmer world could be very useful, Dr Dar added.

ICRISAT and IFAD collaboration in Asia

The IFAD-funded project Harnessing the true potential of legumes: economic and knowledge empowerment of poor rainfed farmers in Asia aims to improve the well-being of the rural poor in Asia. In spite of unpredictable weather patterns that hit agricultural production last year, improved varieties and low cost legume management technologies shielded farmers from economic ruin. These innovations are now being taken up by the farming communities of Nepal and Vietnam.

Collaboration in sub-Saharan Africa

There are two initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa led by ICRISAT and IFAD. Under the Integrated Innovations for improving legume productivity, marketing linkages and risk management, poor farmers harness underutilized opportunities in livelihoods and income growth in four countries – Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi. Another project Growing out of poverty: intensification of sorghum and pearl millet based systems by unlocking local biodiversity and new market opportunities in semi-arid West Africa involves farmers in all activities from planning to evaluation and the assessment of results.

Bio-energy

Yet another project, Harnessing water-use efficient bio-energy crop for enhancing livelihood opportunities of smallholder farmers in Asia, Africa and Latin America recognizes biofuels as a major emerging market opportunity for the poor. Through this project, attempts are also being made to increase feed stocks such as sweet sorghum, jatropha and cassava. The stocks provide better income to poor rural communities living in remote areas under fragile agro-economic conditions.

Under this collaboration, ICRISAT and IFAD have identified improved sweet sorghum varieties, pest and disease-tolerant breeding materials and optimal spacing for maximizing grain and sugar yields. The tie-up has also helped collect 138 jatropha accessions and organize self-help groups to understand biodiesel options. High yielding cassava cultivars have been identified for different agro-eco zones and cassava-based livelihoods are being studied.

The road ahead

ICRISAT and IFAD will work together to enhance agricultural productivity, diversify and develop rural enterprises and improve livelihood opportunities in the drylands of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

With just six years until the 2015 deadline for the Millennium Development Goals, the challenges are immense and research will be fundamental in identifying better solutions for improving the lives of poor rural communities.

For this reason, IFAD is resolving to increase its engagement and support to the CGIAR Centers.

JBS Umanadh
Senior Media Officer

ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India

Tel: +91 40 3071 3187

Fax: +91 40 3071 3074

Email: j.umanadh@cgiar.org

Mobile: 9490441650

Source: SeedQuest

Khai thác cây nhiên liệu sinh học chịu hạn để tăng thu nhập cho các nông hộ ở Việt Nam

2009-09-02T05:18:00.000-07:00

Activity Report: Crops for biofuel in Vietnam 2009

PETROVIETNAM BUILDS SECOND BIOETHANOL PLANT

CAYLUONGTHUC to fowlow up Biofuels International, 7 September 2009. State-owned Vietnam Oil and Gas Company (Petrovietnam) has started construction on a second bioethanol plant in the central province of Ouang Ngai.The $80 million plant (€56 million), which will use cassava as feedstock, is expected to open in 18 months with annual capacity of 100,000m³.

The project is the second of three planned biofuel plants in Vietnam, each costing $80 million (€56 million), the first of which is already under construction in the northern province of Phu Tho, and due to open in December 2010. The third plant will be located in the southern province of Binh Phuoc, and construction will begin in March next year, and is due to be completed at the end of 2011.

The project is part of a biofuel development programme, which, according to Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, aims to produce 250,000 tonnes of ethanol and vegetable oil by 2015, and more than 1.5 million tons per year by 2025, meeting 5% of Southeast Asia’s petroleum demand. Albeit a modest target, the project is a step in the right direction towards reducing Vietnam’s dependence on fossil fuels. The project will also contribute towards reducing local poverty, as the investors, Bio-Petroleum and Petrochemical Joint Stock Company (PVB), will buy cassava from local farmers at prices equivalent to those available abroad.

Biofuel facts

2009-09-01T23:50:00.000-07:00

CROPSFORBIOFUEL to follow up BBC World Service Sep. 2, 2009.

*Biofuel is made with ethanol which is produced by fermenting and then distilling starch and sugar crops such as maize, sorghum, potatoes, cassava, wheat, sugar cane and even fruit and vegetable waste.

*Biodiesel is made from plant oils such as rapeseed and palm oil but only makes up about 5% of biofuels used.

*World biofuel production totals about 130 million barrels a year.

*This is just 4/10ths of 1% of the total petroleum-based fuel production.

*Africa's ethanol production makes up only 1% of the total global output.

*Biofuel is a renewable energy source, but concerns have been raised because the crops needed to make it might otherwise be used for food.

*Plans by the South African company Ethanol Africa to build a string of eight maize-fed ethanol plants at a cost of about one billion dollars have been put on hold because of the current global food crisis.

*Several other African countries have biofuel research projects underway, including Nigeria, which wants to use cassava, and Mozambique, which hopes to exploit sorghum and sugarcane.

Power facts

Fossil fuel facts
Solar energy facts
Hydro & wind power facts
Biofuel facts
Nuclear power facts

Cheat Sheet: Biofuel

2009-08-24T17:52:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL. To follow up Cheap Sheet: Biofuel- Earth 911.com by Haley Paul: Early expectations for biofuels, mainly in the form of corn ethanol, included:1) Helping farmers obtain a better price for their crop by supporting the corn ethanol market. This could raise demand and help lower the excessive supply that was keeping corn prices low. 2) Promoting national security by lessening the United States’ dependence on foreign oil 3) Reducing carbon emissions by growing a plant, thus absorbing CO2 4) Helping the environment by growing a fuel rather than drilling for one. (Waste-derived cellulosic ethanol is a product of agricultural waste such as corn stalks left in a field after harvesting. Photo: Jamie Lantzy, Wikimedia)

by Haley Paul

Earth 911.com August, 24, 2009

Biofuels are a growing topic of debate, especially in the past five years as national sentiments supporting energy independence and alternative fuels have gained momentum.

As the U.S. continues legislating, developing and promoting alternative fuels to supplement, and possibly replace, fossil fuels such as coal and oil (e.g. some of the provisions in the House-approved Clean Energy and Security Act), a refresher, and possibly an introduction, to biofuels might be helpful in sorting through this important issue.

What’s in a Name

To start, there are various types of biofuels. For example, it’s important to note the distinction between biodiesel, which only works with diesel engines (such as those found in semi-trucks) and ethanol, which is blended with gasoline and can be used to power a variety of vehicles.

In the beginning, scientists tested corn ethanol, however several problems made working with the vegetable harder than researchers initially thought. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

All biofuels can provide an alternative combustion fuel source to gasoline and diesel. The main types of biofuels include:

Biodiesel

Corn, sugar beet or sugar cane ethanol

Switchgrass cellulosic ethanol

Waste-derived cellulosic ethanol

Biodiesel is a clean-burning, biodegradable, nontoxic fuel. It is made from a variety of sources, including plant oils (such as vegetable oil), recycled grease and animal fats. Also, algae biodiesel is an up-and-coming biodiesel source that turns algae into vegetable oil.

Because algae thrive off of carbon dioxide, it is also a promising carbon sequestration technology. One start-up company, Solix Biofuels, envisions algae stations set up at natural gas processing plants to absorb the CO2 coming from vents.

According to the National Biodiesel Board, although it does not contain petroleum, biodiesel can be blended with petroleum to create a biodiesel-petroleum diesel blend. Addtionally, biodiesel can be used directly in a conventional diesel engine, requiring little to no modifications to existing engines.

Corn, sugar beet and sugar cane ethanol are made from these respective crops and are often grown directly for the purpose of creating fuel. The most common type of ethanol is made from corn, and the most common method for turning a corn crop into a fuel source is called “wet milling,” where the starch is extracted from the grain, fermented and transformed into alcohol, the building-block for ethanol.

Switchgrass cellulosic ethanol is made from switchgrass, a perennial grass native to Central and North America. As evidenced by the fact that it can grow up to 10 feet tall, it is a highly productive plant, producing enough biomass to make it appealing for ethanol production.

Waste-derived cellulosic ethanol comes mainly from agricultural “waste” that either remains after harvest (such as the stalks of a crop left in a field), or is produced after the processing of a crop (such as the corn cobs that remain after the kernels have been removed). Additionally, other sources of cellulosic ethanol come from waste paper, wood waste, pulp sludge and grass straw, according to Oregon.gov Biomass Energy.

How It All Began

Ever since the oil crises of the 1970s, U.S. interest in ethanol fuel has increased. The idea that the U.S. could grow the energy it needed, and not buy from potentially hostile areas of the globe, was extremely appealing at the time.

Because of this, the U.S. government has since promoted the production of homegrown energy solutions such as biofuels, with more recent federal policies put in place like the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

This legislation worked mainly by enacting standards that raised the amount of renewable fuels that were to be incorporated into the total U.S. fuel supply and by providing subsidies to farmers who produced corn.

By requiring the production and use of 4 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2006, increasing to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012, the law assured biofuel producers that a stable market would exist, thereby providing an incentive to ramp up production.

The act also makes the proclamation that “For calendar year 2013 and each year thereafter, the minimum required volume of renewable fuels would be an amount equal to the percentage of total gasoline sold in the Nation in 2012.”

To have as much biofuel as gasoline fuel available for energy consumption by the year 2013 will likely prove no small feat.

Early expectations for biofuels, mainly in the form of corn ethanol, included:

Helping farmers obtain a better price for their crop by supporting the corn ethanol market. This could raise demand and help lower the excessive supply that was keeping corn prices low.

Promoting national security by lessening the United States’ dependence on foreign oil

Reducing carbon emissions by growing a plant, thus absorbing CO2

Helping the environment by growing a fuel rather than drilling for one

But the promises offered by corn ethanol were not to be, and biofuels derived from corn have increasingly become a lightening rod of criticism.

Unintended Consequences

The rapid rise of corn’s prominence in the biofuel arena has presented a host of issues that landed corn ethanol in the hot seat. Since 2005, some of the main problems with corn ethanol discovered by researchers include:

Devoting fresh water to growing a fuel, rather than making it available for human consumption, could pose problematic as fresh water becomes an increasingly stressed natural resource.

Shifting cropland from food to fuel is suggested to be a contributing factor to the food crisis of 2007, in which food costs rose dramatically around the world.

Corn ethanol takes almost as much energy to produce as it provides. It also requires copious amounts of pesticides and fertilizers, contributing to the hypoxic (without adequate amounts of oxygen) dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where agricultural chemical runoff has killed off marine life.

Because biofuel crops such as corn fetch higher prices than in the recent past, more farmers are clearing land from forests or grasslands and converting it in to cropland. Because of this, corn ethanol may actually increase global carbon emissions.

Cellulosic vs. Corn Ethanol

With these concerns in mind, alternatives to corn-based ethanol already exist. And although corn ethanol still reigns, waste-derived cellulosic ethanol is appealing because, unlike corn ethanol, it does not require extra fertilizers, pesticides, energy or water to grow. It takes a would-be waste product and turns it in to a valuable fuel.

Switchgrass cellulosic ethanol holds promise too, as the grass could be established on marginal land where other crops are not easily grown. To highlight this, a recent regulatory announcement from the EPA recommended that a higher percentage of total renewable fuel volume comes from cellulosic ethanol sources.

With renewable fuel standards pushing for more cellulosic ethanol, research and development may begin to trend toward cellulosic and away from corn ethanol production.

It should be noted that demonizing one biofuel and fully advocating another will not solve the biofuel debate, as many factors contribute to the benefits and detriments of a particular fuel. The local ecology of the geographic regions where biofuels are grown must be considered to determine what is the best option for a specific location.

Haley Paul

Haley Paul is an Arizona State University graduate student studying sustainability with particular interests in food systems and in what encourages people to make more environmentally-friendly decisions.

EARTH 911 CHEAT SHEET ON BIOFUELS

Posted on August 27th, 2009 in Energy by Cathy
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I have to admit, that the discussion of biofuels, while interesting, I just can’t seem to get into writing about them! Fortunately Earth 911 one of my favorite blogs just wrote an incredible easy to read update about biofuels.

Biofuels are a growing topic of debate, especially in the past five years as national sentiments supporting energy independence and alternative fuels have gained momentum.

What’s in a Name

Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

In the beginning, scientists tested corn ethanol, however several problems made working with the vegetable harder than researchers initially thought. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

All biofuels can provide an alternative combustion fuel source to gasoline and diesel. The main types of biofuels include

Ethanol plant planned

2009-07-27T18:33:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL. To follow up The Phnom Penh Post, Friday, 24 July 2009. China's largest oil and gas company CNPC is looking to invest $58m in a plant that would process cassava, says govt source. Photo by: TRACEY SHELTON. A farmer stands in his cassava field in Preah Vihear province

AN official at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries said China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) is looking to invest US$58 million in an ethanol plant that would use cassava as its raw material to generate fuel.

CNPC is China's largest oil and gas producer.

The official, who would not allow his name to be used, said the ministry has not decided on the proposal since the factory would require 40 million to 50 million tonnes of cassava annually - about 15 times current domestic production.

"It would be a great benefit for our farmers who are struggling to find markets for their cassava yields," the official said, adding that the CNPC project would be funded by a Chinese government loan.

The project would require a huge amount of land, he said, and because concessions are contentious, the ministry needs to discuss the proposal with other ministries and government officials.

"So far we haven't identified a concession area because it would be so big, and also [CNPC] hasn't yet received the money from its government," he said. "So we are not sure about the project - they have simply come to ask for permission."

Cambodian law states that a land concession cannot be larger than 10,000 hectares.

Khem Chenda, the ministry's administrative director, said that, in the past, cassava was exported to Vietnam and Thailand. However, since the global economic crisis hit, most buyers have stopped purchasing. As a result, prices have halved from $100 per tonne last year.

"Cassava farmers are only able to sell to neighbouring countries at a very low price, so I would be happy if we could find a new market that would generate a more suitable price," Khem Chanda said.

Cambodia has 180,000 hectares of land producing 3.7 million tonnes of cassava, he said, with both figures up two-thirds since 2007.

Extrapolating those figures means the country would need to turn over a further 2.25 million hectares to cassava production. That represents an unrealistic 12.5 percent of Cambodia's entire land area, so buying cassava from outside Cambodia would be the only feasible option for the factory at its proposed size.

Lann Chhorn, deputy governor of Kampong Cham province, many of whose farmers grow cassava, said prices are so low that villagers are selling cassava in the markets and to buyers in Vietnam for just 200 riels [$0.05] per kilogram.

"I will be really pleased if we can get more markets for our local farmers and better prices as that will encourage them in this business."

Thailand's green energy, green growth revolution?

2009-07-27T18:21:00.000-07:00

CRS Asia 25 July 2009

Richard Welford

I have been in Thailand this week and certainly the economy is being badly hit by the general economic downturn and a major slump in tourists who evidenced the conflicts earlier in the year. In difficult economic times, reducing the costs of doing business is more important than ever and in today's Bangkok Post there is an article pointing out that electricity and energy costs in general are a significant burden for most companies in the country. Last year the nation spent 1.2 trillion baht (US$35 million) on imported energy, which represents almost 14% of gross domestic product. So the article points to a new green energy strategy, developing alternative or renewable forms of energy, such as biomass, biogas, ethanol-based oil, biodiesel, natural gas for vehicles, wind, solar and waste energy. The benefits to Thailand include less harm to the environment, less global warming, more jobs, more investment and reducing the nation's dependence on imported fossil fuel, especially oil, it claims. The government has a 15-year plan to lift alternative and renewable energy's share of total energy production from 6% today to 20% by 2022. The article says that Thailand's climate and soil provide great opportunities for crops such as rice, sugar cane, palm oil and cassava to be developed into alternative fuels. But what is not discussed at all is the impact on ecosystems, biodiversity and food production to achieve this. It's an old story but one does worry about simple "solutions" continuing to be pushed in the name of "green growth" which could end up being nothing of the kind. You can read the full article here.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ONE OF THE KEYS TO THAILAND'S GROWTH

Writer: PIYA SOSOTHIKUL

Bangkok Post 25/07/2009

Newspaper section: BusinessIn difficult economic times, reducing the costs of doing business is more important than ever. Electricity and energy costs in general are a significant burden for most companies and the potential for savings in this area is great.

Advanced Info Service began operating its first wind-powered mobile-phone base station in Ban Amphoe beach in Pattaya, in June.
What is good for business is also good for Thailand's competitiveness. Last year the nation spent 1.2 trillion baht on imported energy, which represents almost 14% of gross domestic product. Trimming this bill is essential if we want to progress economically.

One of the keys to achieving this is by developing alternative or renewable forms of energy, such as biomass, biogas, ethanol-based oil, biodiesel, natural gas for vehicles, wind, solar and waste energy. The benefits to Thailand include less harm to the environment, less global warming, more jobs, more investment and reducing the nation's dependence on imported fossil fuel, especially oil.

The government recognises these benefits, and has a 15-year plan to lift alternative and renewable energy's share of total energy production from 6% today to 20% by 2022.

That's a challenging target, but the good news is that Thailand's climate and soil provide great opportunities for crops such as rice, sugar cane, palm oil and cassava to be developed into alternative fuels, as well as converting waste to biogas. For example, a recent seminar Bangkok Bank organised on biomass energy opportunities from the palm oil industry attracted 28 executives from 16 crude palm oil mills.

Of course, we share these natural advantages with others. Some of our Southeast Asian neighbours, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, have many of the same physical characteristics and the potential to develop the same sources of alternative energy, so we will need to work hard to enhance our energy competitiveness.

To succeed requires strong collaboration between the government, industry and the financial sector. This was one of the reasons why the bank in June organised a workshop on alternative energy at the 2009 Euromoney Thailand Investment Forum.

For more than a decade now Bangkok Bank has actively supported private sector investment in the energy industry, in both its traditional and alternative forms.

We have lent more than 10 billion baht to more than 200 companies for investment in alternative energy. And we estimate that approximately one trillion baht in overall investment will be needed if industry is to meet the government's targets by 2022.

Our Bualuang Green project, for example, supports businesses of all sizes wanting to invest in projects for saving energy and improving efficiency, as well as producing environmentally-friendly products. It's part of our Bualuang Energy Saving Project initiated by bank executive chairman Kosit Panpiemras, who has long championed alternative energy as a way to reduce costs, for both the business sector and the nation.

This assistance includes credits worth billions of baht to customers - including businesses and farmers - who come up with innovations that use alternative energy, such as biogas and biodiesel consumption in the agricultural sector.

The fact that Thailand's energy needs are increasing is positive - it shows that the country is heading in the right direction economically. But for businesses struggling to keep a lid on their costs and stay competitive, finding cheaper and more efficient sources of energy has never been more important.

Piya Sosothikul is an Executive Vice-President with Bangkok Bank. Meeting the Challenges appears every two weeks.

Relate Search: biomass, biogas, ethanol-based oil, biodiesel, natural gas

Northern region builds first bio-ethanol maker

2009-06-23T07:38:00.000-07:00

Nhan Dan - Hanoi,Vietnam

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL To follow up Nhan Dan.com.vn. A ground-breaking ceremony to build northern Vietnam’s first bio-ethanol plant was held in the midland province of Phu Tho on June 21 in the presence of National Assembly Vice Chairwoman Tong Thi Phong. The US$80 million project is scheduled to become operational by December 2010 to produce 100,000 cu. m of ethanol a year as fuel from cassava and sugarcane locally available.Its products are not only environment friendly for reducing CO2 emissions but also contribute to poverty reduction for cassava and sugarcane farmers in the region.

The project investor, Bio-Petroleum and Petrochemical Joint Stock Company (PVB), will sign direct contracts with farmers to buy their products at prices equivalent to those available at northern border gates, said director Vu Thanh Ha at the ceremony.

On June 10, PVB signed a contract for engineering, procurement and construction of the factory with a group of contractors led by the Vietnam Petroleum Construction and Assembly Joint-stock Corporation (PVC) worth US$60 million.

The country now can produce between 15,000 and 30,000 litres of ethanol a day by small-scaled factories using out-of-date technology in southern and central regions. (VNA)

Work starts on Phu Tho bio-ethanol plant

2009-06-22T18:31:00.000-07:00

Thanh Nien Daily - Ho Chi Minh City,Vietnam

Construction of northern Vietnam’s first bio-ethanol factory began Sunday in Phu Tho Province. The US$80 million project, located in Tam Nong District, is scheduled to become operational in December 2010, producing 100,000 cubic meters of ethanol a year as fuel from locally sourced cassava and sugarcane.

The project investor claims its products will not only be environment friendly by reducing CO2 emissions but also contribute to reducing poverty among cassava and sugarcane farmers in the region.

The investor, Bio-Petroleum and Petrochemical Joint Stock Company (PVB), will sign direct contracts with farmers to buy their products at prices equivalent to those available at northern border gates, director Vu Thanh Ha said at the ground breaking ceremony.

Small-scale factories in southern and central regions now produce between 15,000 and 30,000 liters of ethanol a day using outdated technology.

Source: VNA

China's first bioenergy research center inaugurated in Nanning

2009-06-15T17:28:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL to follow up CHINA DAILY June 16 2009. China's first bioenergy research center was inaugurated Sunday in Nanning, the capital city of southern Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region, amid government's plans of new energy development to combat global energy crisis. The research center is set up based on the national guidance on energy and grain security, and will look to cassava, sugar cane, sweet sorghum as the main sources for new energy development.

Related readings:
No hunger for bioenergy
Sino-Latin American bioenergy co-op has broad prospects
China to boost forest-based bioenergy
China to boost bioenergy to reduce oil dependency

Bioenergy has good prospects in tackling energy crisis and protecting grain security and ecological environment since it has low emission and in contest with human beings for resources, said Huang Ribo, director of the research center.

China has abundant bioenergy resources, which is expected to total five billion tons. The tropical Guangxi has rich reserve of cassava, sugar cane, which takes up more than 65 percent of the nation's total, he said.

China's first cassava-for-alcohol fuel project, which has an annual capacity of 200,000 tons, was started in Beihai city of Guangxi in 2007.

The Guangxi Academy of Sciences will support the research center with research talents and facilities.

According to a report released by the Chinese Academy of Sciences on June 10, bioenergy is expected to realize commercial production on a massive scale in China and replace 30 percent of the oil imports by 2050.

NO HUNGER FOR BIOENERGY
By Hao Zhou (chinadaily.com.cn)

Updated: 2008-04-24 17:10 Comments(0) PrintMailChina will strictly control bioenergy development at the cost of grain and oil crop shortage, declared Agriculture Minister Sun Zhengcai, on April 21 in a talk with the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Eva Kjer Hansen, in China on a visit.

Related readings:
Biodiesel projects to solve energy shortage
General Biodiesel brings four projects to China
Waste cooking oil can be green recipe
ChemChina makes headway in waste water treatment
Biofuels under attack as world food prices soar
China to offer support policies for non-food biofuels

As crude oil prices have continuously broken new highs in reaching the current level of $110 per barrel, developing bioenergies is heating up around the world. Some 40.5 million tons of fuel ethanol and 5.4 million tons of bio-diesel were produced worldwide in 2006, increasing two and three fold respectively from the figures in 2001.

However, around 12 percent of corn in the world and 20 percent in the United States is used for producing fuel ethanol, and 20 percent of rap oil in the world and 65 percent in the European Union, as well as 30 percent of Southeast Asia’s palm oil is used for producing bio-diesel, and has contributed the current global grain and edible oil prices.

Both the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and International Monetary Fund have expressed their concerns that roaring demand for biofuels would pressure farm produce prices globally in the long-run.

In this case, China should mainly utilize agricultural wastes, such as wheat straws and corn stalks, animal feces, as well as rotten leaves, and non-grain farm produces, like cassava, sweet potato, sweet sorghum, sugar beet, and jerusalem artichoke, as its own approach to develop bioenergies, rather than at the expense of grains that already short in supply, said Sun.

China has about 100 million hectares of mountains, shoals, and saline or alkaline lands which are not suitable for growing grains but energy plants.

Sun said roughly 26 million Chinese families in rural areas had started making use of self-produced methane last year, and five million more are expected to join in this year.

According to the Renewable Energy Development Plan for the 11th Five-Year period released last month by the National Development and Reform Commission, by the year of 2010 renewable energies will account for 10 percent of the national energy consumption structure, and electricity generated by biological materials will reach an installed capacity of 5.5 million kW.

Meanwhile, some 2.2 million tons more of fuel ethanol produced by non-grain materials are set forth for the 11th Five-Year period, and annual bio-diesel consumption will reach 200 thousand tons by 2010.

GENERAL BIODIESEL BRINGS FOUR PROJECTS TO CHINA
By Li Huayu (chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2008-01-09 11:47

The US new-energy firm General Biodiesel plans to launch four projects in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Wenzhou of East China's Zhejiang Province, said company CEO Yale W. Wong in Beijing yesterday.

Currently on visit to China, Wong said that the planned initial investment for the four projects is about $500,000, and after a year the company will increase its total investment to $100 million.

Special Coverage:
Clean-Energy Trade Mission
Related readings:
US clean energy team arrives in Beijing
US clean-energy firms to join trade mission to China
A small beginning for emissions control

With an office in Beijing, the Seattle-based company specializes in producing high-quality biodiesel by processing vegetable oils - primarily palm, canola, soy, linseed, coconut, mustard and cotton - and by cleaning and recycling cooking oils.
As energy saving and environmental protection in China are increasingly pressing issues, the country has launched a slew of policies to encourage the development of new energies. For instance, the Chinese government has set the target of increasing biodiesel output to 200,000 tons by 2010 and two million tons by 2020.

Eyeing the huge potential, General Biodiesel is also seeking a joint-venture partnership in China. Wong said that the company has picked some potential partners, and is expected to ink a deal during this visit.

One of the potential partners is in the aviation sector, disclosed Wong, without revealing the company's name. He said his company is testing feasibility of using biodiesel products as jet engine lubricants or jet fuel.

Being a member of a clean-energy trade mission headed by US Assistant Secretary of Commerce David Bohigian and scheduled to visit China and then India, Wong said he would fly back to the United States after the China leg. "China is enough for us," he said.

Biodiesel is the natural equivalent to diesel. Diesel comes from petroleum, a nonrenewable resource, while biodiesel comes from organic, and all renewable, sources –such as soybean or rapeseed oils, animal fats, waste vegetable oils, or microalgae oils.

Wong said with the process from his company, biodiesel production will consume 99 percent of waste oils and no water at all. One of its by-products is glycerin, which can be made into fertilizers or distilled to 99 percent purity or higher and sold for cosmetic and pharmaceutical markets use.

Consortium inks ethanol production deal for northern Vietnam

2009-06-14T10:04:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUELS. To follow up Thanh Nien Daily - Ho Chi Minh City,Vietnam. A four-company consortium led by PetroVietnam Biofuel Joint Stock Company signed a contract in Hanoi Wednesday to build northern Vietnam’s first bio-ethanol plant.

PetroVietnam Construction Joint Stock Corporation, Alfa Laval (Sweden) and Delta T (US) have signed on with PetroVietnam Biofuel, the project’s main investor.

The US$80-million plant will be built in Tam Nong District, Phu Tho Province.

The plant is designed to produce about 100,000 cubic meters of ethanol at annual capacity, from cassava and sugarcane.

Reported by Truong Son

VAAS strengthens relations with NLU on Crops for Biofuel

2009-06-12T20:27:00.000-07:00

CROPS FOR BIOFUEL. President, Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS) and President, Viet Nam Cassava Programme Ass.Prof. Dr. Nguyen Van Bo strengthened VAAS’s collaboration with NongLam University when he visited the cassava trials for IFAD-ICRISAT-CIAT-VAAS Biofuels Project in Trang Bom district, Dong Nai Province Southeastern Region of Vietnam on 12 June, 2009 along with Rector of Nong Lam university Dr. Trinh Truong Giang and Leader Cassava Breeding & Secretary, Viet Nam Cassava Programme Dr. Hoang Kim and Dr. Nguyen Ngoc Thuy and Ms. Bui Huy Hop

PetroVietnam signs deal for $80m plant

2009-06-12T19:50:00.000-07:00

Crops for Biofuel. To follow Viet Nam News, Hanoi,Vietnam , 12-06-2009. The PetroVietnam Bio-ethanol Company (PVB) inked on Wednesday in Ha Noi an engineering, procurement and construction contract with a consortium to build the first biofuel factory, worth US$80 million, in northern Phu Tho Province.Crops for Biofuel. The consortium consisted of PetroVietnam Constructions Joint Stock Corporation, Swedish Alfa Laval and American Delta T.

The factory, expected to be completed in 18 months’ time, will process biofuel from sugarcane and cassava. It will be able to produce up to 100,000cu.m of ethanol per annum.

The project forms part of the national biofuel development programme, which runs until 2015 and which was ratified by the Prime Minister in November 2007.

The low-cost biofuel it produces will reduce the need for petrol in a bid cut CO2 gas emissions as well as create income for farmers, the PVB says.

To meet the rising demand for bio-ethanol, companies such as Bien Hoa sugar, Dong Xanh and Viet Nam bio-alcohol have been expanding their operations.

The US, Brazil and China are three leading producers of bio-ethanol.

In Southeast Asia, Thailand, one of the main producers in the region, makes bio-ethanol from cassava, corn, sugar and bagasse (surgarcane pulp). — VNS

IGES Biofuels Project

2009-05-26T22:22:00.000-07:00

ICES Biofuels

What's New ?
Activity Report: “Research workshop on sustainable biofuel development in Indonesia: Progress so far and future applied research”(4-5 February 2009, Jakarta, Indonesia)

Online

Biofuels are now a priority policy topic in Asia, and many countries are rushing to promote them. Biofuels show great promise for their potential to contribute to several urgent problems such as energy security, greenhouse gas reduction, poverty reduction, and to help promote sustainable development.

However, there is the danger that if they are not implemented in a sustainable way, these benefits might not be realised. Biofuels could end up causing more problems than they solve by endangering food security and aggravating environmental problems brought by possible deforestation, biodiversity loss, land degradation and water pollution. There is also the possibility of increased poverty. Some countries are now beginning to recognise the potential pitfalls of biofuels, but there is no consensus yet on what is the best approach to take.

The goal of the Biofuels Project is to develop policy recommendations to ensure that biofuels are produced and consumed in a sustainable manner, and that their potential economic, environmental, and social benefits can be fully realised.

Contact
IGES Biofuels Project
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115 Japan
Tel: +81-46-826-9587 / Fax: +81-46-855-3809 / E-mail: bf-info@iges.or.jp

Source: http://www.iges.or.jp/en/bf/index.html

Jane Romeo (an expert of IGES) visited to IFAD-ICRISAT-CIAT-VNCP Biofuel Project
(Tay Hoa village,Thong Nhat District, Dong Nai provinve, SER Vietnam, 28 May 2009)

Millettia pinata the sustainable biofuel crop of the future

2009-05-13T01:55:00.001-07:00

Source: http://www.millettiaplantations.com/

Source: http://www.millettiaplantations.com/

Learning to Doing at ICRISAT

2009-03-30T03:46:00.000-07:00

Cassava breeding and varietal adoption in Vietnam

2009-03-24T21:16:00.001-07:00

Hoang Kim (1), Nguyen Phuong, Tran Cong Khanh and Hernan Ceballos

ABSTRACT

In 2007, cassava production in Vietnam was about 8.90 million tonnes, up from only 1.99 million tonnes in 2000. This was the result of both area expansion, from 237,600 ha to 560,000 ha, and marked increases in yield, from 8.36 t/ha in 2000 to 15.89 t/ha in 2007. Vietnam has made the fastest progress in application of new technologies in breeding and new cultivar propagation in Asia. Such progress has been considered as a result of many factors, of which the success in breeding and application of new technologies were the main contributing factors. Cassava yields and production in several provinces have more than doubled due to the planting of new high-yielding cassava varieties in about 350,000 ha, mainly KM94 variety, and the adoption of more sustainable production practices. Since 2001-2007, a total of 24,073 cassava sexual seeds from CIAT and 37,210 seeds from 9-15 cross combinations made in Vietnam, 38 breeding lines (mainly from Thailand), and 31 local farmers’ varieties, have been planted. Of these, 98 of the best lines are now in the final stages of the selection process, and one of the most promising, KM140, has recently been released in 2007.

Key words: Cassava breeding and varietal adoption in Vietnam

(1) Paper presented at 8th Regional Cassava Workshop Vientiane, Lao PDR - October 20-24, 2008

New developments in the cassava sector in Vietnam

2009-03-24T21:13:00.000-07:00

Nguyen Văn Bo (1), Hoang Kim (2), Tran Ngoc Ngoan (3),
Nguyen Van Ngai (2), Reinhardt Howeler (4)and Hernan Ceballos (4)

ABSTRACT

Vietnam Cassava Program support by MARD in close cooperation with CIAT of the Nippon Foundation project, promoted the rapid multiplication and wide distribution of high-yielding and high-starch varieties, and the adoption of sustainable cassava production practices, especially in the Central Coast, Central Highlands and Northern mountains and uplands. Ten million stakes of new varieties, mainly KM94, KM98-5 and KM140, were distributed to various provinces in this project. Up to now, more than 350,000 ha of cassava in Vietnam were planted with new varieties; this corresponds to about 75 % of the total cassava area in the country. Cassava yields and production in several provinces have doubled, stimulated by the construction of new large-scale cassava processing factories. New high-yielding cassava varieties and more sustainable production practices have increased the economic effectiveness of cassava production. Many farmers have become rich by growing cassava. For example, in An Vien and Doi 61 communes in Dong Nai province, 97% of the agricultural land has poor gray sandy soil. Previously, farmers grew the old cassava varieties Gon and HL23 with average yields of about 9–12 t/ha. In recent years, by growing new high-yielding varieties and applying improved cultural practices, the average yield in this commune increased up to 16-32 t/ha. Many farmers are now growing varieties KM94, KM140 and KM98-5, obtaining 25-35 t/ha in areas of 3-5 hectares. In the Cat Lam village (Phu Cat district, Binh Dinh province), Bau Can village (Chu Prong district, Gia Lai province), Hong Ha village (A Luoi district, Thua Thien Hue province) of Central provinces of Vietnam, the total variable cost of cultivation in 2007 was about US$ 455- 567.5/ha, at an average root yield of 22.0 t/ha, the production cost would be US$ 20.68- 25.79 /t fresh roots. Gross income is US$ 1,155- 1,237.5 /ha. Net income is US$ 670 - 700/ha. On average, labour accounts for 59.9% of cassava production costs. In some regions, like the Binh Dinh and the Gia Lai, this may be as low as 52.8% and 68.7%, respectively. The average labour requirement is 125 mdays/ha. The second largest cost item is fertilizer, constituting 41.8% in Binh Dinh province and 24.7% in Gia Lai.

1 Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS), nvbo@hn.vnn.vnn
2 Nong Lam University (NLU), Linh Trung, Thu Duc, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, hoangkim_vietnam@yahoo.com; http://cassavaviet.blogspot.com
3 Thai Nguyen University (TNU), Thai Nguyen city, Vietnam; tnngoan@vnn.vn
4 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia; h.ceballos@cgiar.org ; CIAT c/o FCRI, Dept. of Agriculture, Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900 Thailand, r.howeler@cgiar.org

INTRODUCTION

Vietnam Cassava Program support by MARD in close cooperation with CIAT of the Nippon Foundation project, promoted the rapid multiplication and wide distribution of high-yielding and high-starch varieties, and the adoption of sustainable cassava production practices, especially in the Central Coast, Central Highlands and Northern mountains and uplands.

Objectives: The study aims to supply a production map of cassava in Vietnam and the central, production cost and production technique of farmers and supply chains, with a view to describing the lessons learned from past development interventions and their implications for a strategy of future investment in cassava research and development

METHODOLOGY

Field surveys: In order to meet the scope of the study, we will have field surveys to get primary information on farmers, trades, and processors, do group discussions with staff of Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in seventeen provinces provinces (Thai Nguyen, Tuyen Quang, Phu Tho in the North mountain and upland; Ha Tay in Red River Delta; Thua Thien Hue in the North Central Coast, Lam Dong, Dak Lak, Dak Nong, Gia Lai and Kon Tum in the Central Highland, Quang Nam, Quang Ngai, Binh Dinh in the South Central Coast; Dong Nai, Binh Phuoc, Ba Ria – Vung Tau, Tay Ninh in the South-East region).

Choice of site: Inclusive of visits to seventeen provinces during Sep. - Dec. 2007, six provinces were chosen as the project site for analyzing and evaluating of cassava cropping systems, varieties, agronomic practices, labour use, crop utilization and farm income. The team group from TUAF, NLU, VAAS, CIAT have paid three visits to access and define the site in four provinces of Thai Nguyen, Tuyen Quang, Phu Tho, Ha Tay. Since then scientists from the Nong Lam University and Enerteam have paid three visits to access and define the site in three provinces of Binh Dinh, Gia Lai and Thua Thien Hue. Finally, Cat Lam village (in Phu Cat district, Binh Dinh province), Bau Can village (in Chu Prong district, Gia Lai province), Hong Ha village (in A Luoi district, Thua Thien Hue province) were chosen to be research site.

Colleting and analyzing data: Collecting of map cassava and analyzing secondary data of the research region; conducting general survey to identify cassava production zones and present cropping pattern; colleting economic data of production costs, cropping patterns performance at farm level (sample of good farmers: 2 good, 1 not good / province; techniques: sample of good farmers; seasonal issues: sample; selling: sample); analyzing data collected by Excel program with a view to describing the lessons learned from past development interventions and their implications for a strategy of future.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

New Progress in Cassava Research and Extension
Up to now, more than 350,000 ha of cassava in Vietnam were planted with new varieties; this corresponds to about 75 % of the total cassava area in the country. Ten million stakes of new varieties, mainly KM94, KM98-5 and KM140, were distributed to various provinces in this project. Cassava yields and production in several provinces have doubled, stimulated by the construction of new large-scale cassava processing factories. New high-yielding cassava varieties and more sustainable production practices have increased the economic effectiveness of cassava production.

There are now 60 cassava processing factories in operation and another seven factories under construction, with a total processing capacity of 2.4-3.8 million tones of fresh roots/year. Total cassava starch production in Vietnam was about 800,000- 1,200,000 tones, of which 70% was exported and 30% used domestically.

Using cassava in bio- ethanol production is also a growing interest in Vietnam. Petrosetco, a division of PetroVietnam, plans to build two tapioca-based ethanol plants in southern and central Vietnam. The state-run company signed two separate deals with Japan's Itochu Corp. and UK's Bronzeoak Group last year. The joint venture with Itochu will see the set up of a plant with a 75 million litre annual capacity in southern part of the country. Petrosetco and Bronzeoak are investigating the possibility of a 150 million litre plant in central Vietnam.

http://cropsforbiofuel.blogspot.com

Many farmers have become rich by growing cassava.
For example, in An Vien and Doi 61 communes in Trang Bom district of Dong Nai province, 97% of the agricultural land has poor gray sandy soil. Cassava is the main crop (1,099 ha), followed by cashew (534 ha) and other minor crops. Previously, farmers grew the old cassava varieties Gon and HL23 with the average yield about 9 – 12 t/ha. In recent years, by growing new high-yielding varieties and applying improved cultural practices, the average yield in this commune increased up to 16-32 t/ha. Many farmers are now growing varieties KM94, KM140, KM98-5, obtaining 25-35 t/ha in areas of 3-5 hectares

In the Cat Lam village (Phu Cat district, Binh Dinh province), Bau Can village (Chu Prong district, Gia Lai province), Hong Ha village (A Luoi district, Thua Thien Hue province) of Central provinces of Vietnam, the total variable cost of cultivation in 2007 was about US$ 455- 567.5/ha, at an average root yield of 22.0 t/ha, the production cost would be US$ 20.68- 25.79 /t fresh roots. Gross income is US$ 1,155- 1,237.5 /ha. Net income is US$ 670 - 700/ha. On average, labour accounts for 59.9% of cassava production costs. In some regions, like the Binh Dinh and the Gia Lai, this may be as low as 52.8% and 68.7%, respectively. The average labour requirement is 125 mdays/ha. The second largest cost item is fertilizer, constituting 41.8% in Binh Dinh province and 24.7% in Gia Lai.

Lessons from CassavaViet

Six essential conditions for a successful cassava R&D program include: Materials, Markets, Management, Methods, Manpower and Money (6 Ms).

Main experiences in linking cassava R&D activities in Vietnam include:

1) Establishment of the Vietnam Cassava Program (VNCP) including advanced cassava farmers, researchers, extension worker, managers of cassava research and development projects, cassava trade and processing companies.
2) The establishment of on-farm research and demonstration fields (farmer participation research FPR)
3) Ten mutual link-up activities (10 T – in Vietnamese):

CONCLUTION:

Lessons from Vietnam (Trip report of Mr. Boma about Nigerian study tour to Thailand, Vietnam and China)

“Vietnam is a classic example of how cassava can contribute to rural industrialization and development.Previously, people were reluctant to grow cassava because they thought that cassava caused soil degradation and produced low profits. But in reality one hectare of cassava can produce 60-80 tones of fresh roots and leaves. The situation has changed because of the development of sustainable cultivation techniques and new high-yielding varieties with the availability of a large and growing market demand. Cassava has become a cash crop in many provinces of Vietnam. Cassava chips and starch is now being produced competitively, and cassava markets are promising. The combination of wide spread production of fresh cassava roots and the processing of cassava into chips starch and ethanol has created many jobs, has increased exports, attracted foreign investment, and contributed to industrialization and modernization of several rural areas”.

Current situation of cassava in Vietnam and the selection of cassava materials derived from CIAT

2009-03-24T21:06:00.000-07:00

Hoang Kim (1), Nguyen Van Bo, Reinhardt Howeler and Hernan Ceballos

ABSTRACT
In Vietnam, cassava is now the fourth most important food crop and an important source of cash income for small farmers, who either use it for animal feeding or for sale to starch factories. In 2006, cassava production was about 7.71 million tonnes, up from only 1.99 million tonnes in 2000. This was the result of both area expansion, from 237,600 ha in 2000 to 475,000 ha in 2006, and marked increases in yield, from 8.36 t/ha in 2000 to 16.25 t/ha in 2006. There are now 60 cassava starch factories in operation with a total processing capacity of 3.2-4.8 million tonnes of fresh roots/year. Vietnam has recently developed an E10 policy requiring the production of 100 to 150 million liters of fuel-ethanol from cassava per year. Vietnam is now the second largest exporting country of cassava products while animal feed factories also contribute significantly to the increasing demand for cassava roots.
Cassava yields and production in several provinces have more than doubled due to the planting of new high-yielding cassava varieties in about 350,000 ha, and the adoption of more sustainable production practices.
Since 2001-2007, a total of 24,073 cassava sexual seeds from CIAT and 37,210 seeds from 9-15 cross combinations made in Vietnam, 38 breeding lines (mainly from Thailand), and 31 local farmers’ varieties, have been planted. Of these, 98 of the best lines are now in the final stages of the selection process, and the most promising, KM140, has recently been released.

Key words: Cassava in Vietnam, Bio-fuel, cassava doubled haploid lines derived from CIAT

(1) Paper presented at Cassava meeting the challenges of the new millennium hosted by IPBO- Ghent University, Belgium 21-25 July 2008.