Farmers making more money but ripping up pristine grasslands to grow corn for fuel

U.S. green energy plan killing prairies


Robert Malsam nearly went broke in the 1980s when corn was cheap. So now that prices are high and he can finally make a profit, he is not about to apologize for ripping up prairie land to plant corn.

Across the Dakotas and Nebraska, more than 1 million acres (400,000 hectares) of the Great Plains are giving way to cornfields as farmers transform the wild expanse that once served as the backdrop for American pioneers.

This expansion of the Corn Belt is fueled in part by America’s green energy policy, which requires oil companies to blend corn ethanol into their gasoline. In 2010, fuel became the No. 1 use for corn in America, a title it held in 2011 and 2012 and narrowly lost this year. That helps keep prices high.

“It’s not hard to do the math there as to what’s profitable to have,” Malsam said. “I think an ethanol plant is a farmer’s friend.”

What the green-energy program has made profitable, however, is far from green. A policy intended to reduce global warming is encouraging a farming practice that actually could worsen it.

That is because plowing untouched grassland releases carbon dioxide that has been naturally locked in the soil. It also increases erosion and requires farmers to use fertilizers and other industrial chemicals. In turn, that destroys native plants and wipes out wildlife habitats.

It appeared so damaging that scientists warned that America’s corn-for-ethanol policy will fail as an anti-global warming strategy if too many farmers plow over virgin land.

The Obama administration argued that would not happen. But the administration didn’t set up a way to monitor whether it actually happened. It did.

More than 1.2 million acres of grassland have been lost since the federal government required that gasoline be blended with increasing amounts of ethanol, an AP analysis of satellite data found. Plots that were wild grass or pastureland seven years ago are now corn and soybean fields.

That is in addition to the 5 million acres of farmland that had been set aside for conservation — more than the Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite national parks combined — that have vanished since Obama took office.

In South Dakota, more than 370,000 acres of grassland have been uprooted and farmed since 2006. In Edmunds County, a rural community about two hours north of the state capital, Pierre, at least 42,000 acres of grassland have become cropland — one of the largest turnovers in the region.

Malsam runs a 13-sq.-mile (34-sq.-km) family farm there. He grows corn, soybeans and wheat, then rents out his grassland for grazing. Each year, the family converts another 160 acres from grass to cropland.

Chemicals kill the grass. Machines remove the rocks. Then tractors plow it three times to break up the sod and prepare it for planting.

Scattered among fields of tall corn and thigh-high soybeans, some stretches of grassland still exist. Cattle munch on some grass. And “prairie potholes” — natural ponds ranging from small pools to larger lakes — support a smattering of ducks, geese, pelicans and herons.

Yet within a mile (1.6 km) of Malsam’s farm, federal satellite data show, more than 300 acres of grassland have been converted to soybeans and corn since 2006.

Nebraska has lost at least 830,000 acres of grassland, a total larger than New York City, Los Angeles and Dallas combined.

“It’s great to see farmers making money. It hasn’t always been that way,” said Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group. He advocates for clean energy but opposes the ethanol mandate. “If we’re going to push the land this hard, we really need to intensify conservation in lockstep with production, and that’s just not happening,” he said.

Jeff Lautt, CEO of Poet, which operates ethanol refineries across the U.S., including in South Dakota, said it is up to farmers how to use their land.

“The last I checked, it is still an open market. And farmers that own land are free to farm their land to the extent they think they can make money on it or whatever purpose they need,” he said.

Yet Chris Wright, a professor at South Dakota State University who has studied land conversion, said, “The conversation about land preservation should start now before it becomes a serious problem.” Wright reviewed the AP’s methodology for determining land conversion.

The AP’s analysis used government satellite data to count how much grassland existed in 2006 in each county, then compared each plot of land to corresponding satellite data from 2012.

Corn prices more than doubled in the years after Congress passed the ethanol mandate in 2007. Now, Malsam said, farmers can make about $500 an acre planting corn.

His farm has just become profitable in the past five years, allowing him and his wife, Theresa, to build a new house on the farmstead.

Jim Faulstich, president of the South Dakota Grasslands Coalition, said the nation’s ethanol and crop insurance policies have encouraged the transformation of the land.

Faulstich, who farms and ranches near Highmore, in central South Dakota, said much of the land being converted is not suited to crop production, and South Dakota’s strong winds and rains will erode the topsoil.

“I guess a good motto would be to farm the best and leave the rest,” he said.

  • Franz Pichler

    The main problem is that there are just to many people on this planet. The ethanol myth fits nicely into the idiotic “sustainable growth” model that economists and politicians are trying (with huge success) to sell. Entropy can’t be fought, evey living organism consumes, there’s nothing as such as “sustainable growth”! People need to wake up, the only way out of this already unfolding crisis is a u-turn in consumption and a u-turn in population growth. Jungles are disappearing at an ever faster rate, not only the amazon, but Western Africa as well, Indonesia and Malaysia are almost treeless! Siberia’s taiga is flattened as we speak/write…. the seas are acidifying and loosing oxygen, over fished… one could go on and on. The only way out is to value things and hence consume very very little. Buy a tv for life, buy a bed for life ecc. If we really want to sustain 7 billion people that’s the only way to do it. However, the forces in power are to great, the world is truly looking into a hole…… I decided for only one child, I hope my daughter will decide for no child at all! We need less people on this planet. it’s not just ours! Animals and plants have a right to their ecosystem as well!