Corn is No “Big Blue Frog”

BY:  Rick Tolman, CEO

Folk singers Peter, Paul and Mary were a very popular singing trio in my era.  If you grew up in the 1960s and 70’s, you will remember them as well, particularly their hit song “Puff the Magic Dragon.” (Or that may help explain why you may not remember them or much about that time period. But that is another story for another day.)

Fans such as I, even remember their less popular song “I’m in Love With a Big Blue Frog.”  The first few lyrics were:  “I'm in love with a big blue frog.  A big blue frog loves me.  It's not as bad as it appears.  He wears glasses and has a PhD.”

Of course, if they were to redo this song today, it would have to be retitled: “I’m in Love With a Big Green Frog.” After all, a blue frog today is not politically correct. Blue is out. Green is in. Just look at Big Oil. They are busy spending lots of money trying to convince the public that they are not blue but “green.”

But it’s not easy being green (to quote another popular song). They and others have dug deep into their coffers to cast corn production and ethanol as “blue frogs.” This campaign features old, tortured and selective data, and liberal use of the word “if.” They raise the specter of increased soil erosion, more pesticides, more fertilizer and significant water use and water degradation.  (Fascinating, the studies and visibility one can buy with deep pockets and clever sound bites.)

Is corn production a “blue frog” or a “green frog?”  Corn producers I know say that their farming practices have never been greener and there have been dramatic changes in the way they produce crops, making their practices very green.  They talk of increasing top soil and organic matter; increases in wildlife and biodiversity; more use of filter strips, conservation tillage and less use of pesticides and more precise use of fertilizers.

Let’s review some of the environmental improvements that make corn production green.

Soil Erosion:  A National Resources Inventory Report (NRI) from 2007 published by the Natural Resource Conservations Service (NRCS) states that sheet and rill erosion declined 42 percent between 1982 and 2003.  Likewise soil erosion from high winds has declined 44 percent during the same time frame.  Why?  The reduction in soil erosion mimics the dramatic increase in adoption of conservation tillage methods, adoption of contour farming and the use of filter strips and grass waterways.  In fact, more than 75 percent of corn acres this year are estimated to be grown using some form of conservation tillage.

Pesticides: Pesticides registered in the United States are less toxic and degrade more rapidly than in years past. The most recent (2006) U.S. Geological Survey  report on the quality of the nation’s streams and groundwater states that “pesticides were commonly detected at concentrations far below Federal or State standards and guidelines for protecting water quality.”  Insecticide use is down more than 81 percent from levels of 1990.  Why? The adoption of biotechnology is one big reason. Corn plants have built in insect resistance and so less need to be sprayed.

Fertlizer Use:  The latest advances in precision farming enable producers to apply fertilizer with pinpoint accuracy, minimizing the impact to soil, water and air.   According to USDA, corn growers are using less nitrogen to produce 50 percent more corn than was produced in 1990. Furthermore, during the past five years, corn producers increase nitrogen efficiency, which means more output per input. Simply put: The nutrients are being used to produce corn and not being lost to runoff.

Water Use:  Critics claim dramatic rates of water use for corn production, but fail to note that more than 85 percent of our nation’s corn production is produced without irrigation. It is watered by natural rainfall. In fact, much of what that corn plant takes up it returns back to the atmosphere. It’s been estimated that over the growing season, one acre of corn may transpire 400,000 gallons of water. As liquid water, this would cover the field with a lake 15 inches deep.

Critics also lament the amount of water used to process a gallon of ethanol and often cite a figure of between three and four gallons. Without anything to compare it to, that sounds like a lot. Here’s some perspective: According to the USGS, the average American uses 183 gallons of water a day and it takes 150 gallons of water to produce an average size Sunday newspaper. (The same amount needed, by the way, to process 50-60 gallons of ethanol.) Given the news lately, I’d gladly make that trade. And for those who decry the use of water to produce ethanol, according to the University of Florida, it takes 1,851 gallons of water to refine one barrel of crude oil (about 20 gallons of gasoline from a barrel of crude oil).

All that said, I am guilty of being in love with a big green frog that many are telling me is blue. The facts don’t bear that out and I am a little more than tired of the hype and misinformation from those with the deep pockets to pay for all of the blue paint they are throwing around. What about you?

References and resources
NCGA Sustainability Video
Sustainability Papers
Water Use and Corn Production
Elements of the Clean Water Act