I don't know about an average. Clearly, there are quite a few places where the yield would be zero without irrigation, and can be quite good with irrigation.

I found this Colorado USDA publication. It says that in 2005 in Colorado, the average yield of irrigated corn was 184.0 bushels per acre, while the average yield of the dryland corn was 38.5 bushels per acre.

Meanwhile, farm inputs per output have been shrinking for decades.

Benjamin, that's a broad statement that you should back up with some hard data. I made a quick plot of US fertilizer consumption vs corn yield for the years 1961 to 2002 and, at a glance, the two are pretty well correlated. I didn't have the best of data. All I had was gross fertilizer consumption -- in other words, not specifically what was applied to corn. The data though, don't seem to support your contention that unit input per unit output is shrinking.

What my plot does show is that until the early eighties, US fertilizer usage was rising more rapidly than avg per ac corn yield, but since that time the two look to be more closely correlated.

Keep in mind, too, that when talking of putting idled agricultural lands back into production, any farmer is not going to take his best land out of production. If he/she takes land out of production, it will be the marginal land -- that which yields less output per unit input than the best land.

And Monsanto has the gene guys on it now.

Meaning?

And, given how much you want to project you know something on the topic. feel free to talk about the water issue.

The record 2004 corn harvest was about 11.8 billion bushels.  If we can boost that by 68% and get 3.0 gallons/bushel out of it, that's an increment of 24 billion gallons of ethanol.  This is about 1/6 the volume and a mere 1/9 the energy of US gasoline consumption, even if you assume that there are no offsetting energy inputs whatsoever.

Ethanol from corn is a scam on the taxpayer, no more.

The only serious solution is to move away from chemical (and especially liquid) fuels for transportation.  The most feasible replacement is electricity, which can power perhaps 80% of light-duty vehicle mileage and 100% of rail energy requirements and already has infrastructure installed and paid for.

Even with your fabulous "Monsanto gene guys", the net energy densities don't even compare. A field of bushels of corn and a barrel of oil as about as far apart as geological time can have it. Ethanol is another "guppy" of a subsidized swindle, easily belittled by far more strategically adventurist role as the worlds' remaining superpower willingly able to start wars, which, of course, revolve around oil and the propaganda to keep everything-okay-all-the-time except mushrooms clouds are out to get you if you don't go along with our policy! Tricky world, the media is. Ethanol makes gasoline slightly pricier while hardly at all pinching on the fat ass of oil demand. Don't get me wrong about the price of gasoline, I don't own a car and live in a unsustainable urban environment which at least has good, comprehensive public transit. I've accepted that the price of gas is going to go up, just pick your political, military or geological duck, reasons and beliefs abound. Or stick your head in the ground like a cornucopian, so be it. Ethanol is just another non-starter, Federal Ponzi scheme while subsidizing farmers and higher gas prices--but they're gonna go up anyway so thank your wasteful federal spending! Meanwhile, lie to the public and make them feel good, a la the corporatist praising mentality that Benjamin Cole flaps on about all day and all night...The absurdity quickly presents itself as conservatives bemoaning government intervention and subsidy, aka pork--but ah, oh my how quickly they'll run to it when the best crop to grow by farmers in the US is corn (sugar cane only grows in tropical climates--lets tear down the fucking Amazon, yay forward-bound progress!), particularly when the government is paying you to produce a commodity we use for everything from feeding it to cows to make cheeseburgers to chicken for--yummy!--chicken tenders... Again, don't get me wrong, I think *all* politicians sound like such dumbfucks, it is truly astounding. The amount of contradiction and nonsensical rationalization that spews forth from politicians, lobbyists, corporations, et al ad infinitum is just too fucking much to actually address. It's like trying to understand a creationist if you're an intelligent, well educated, scientifically literate individual. That's why they win by default. Rapid fire nonsense can never be adequately responded too, and there is much of it--and many people get taken in... Until next time, thaa thaya, tha, thaaaaat's all folks!

Genetically Modified plants may have ugly side effects.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/032307EA.shtml

jbunt

Farmers never, ever make money and they never will. Just ask them (or check their tax returns). But, when you group any category of Americans - doctors, lawyers, CPA's, dentists, etc (let's leave out NY investment bankers and hedge fund managers) they are by far the wealthiest group. Please do not throw me into the briar patch and please, never make me farm.

There was some debate about the issue of fertilizers at the Columbia meeting, but since the most advanced crops (in terms of both yield per acre and gallons per bushel) are still being developed in the labs I don't have the parameters that they are being bred for. It is reasonable to assume, though, that they will be looking to provide more drought-resistance and other favorable features, but I really don't know. The increase in corn production is coming from creating better varieties, I believe. But here I am functioning more as reporter than expert since this is not really a field I know huge amounts about. So I am glad to yield the floor to those who farm and know more about it.

Your analysis will be on the main site. Based on threading, I'm guessing the part he wants to save is the photon-energy efficiency.

One can use the permalink feature or the bio page. I've put stuff on my bio-page (and the money links were inspired by your comments on money Gail)

Hi Gail,

I do think this article should be attached as part of the Ethanol analysis. It is well written, clear and complete. You are building an excellent reference blog. The Oil Drum is a great discussion site, but it scares away most I refer here with sheer volume of unedited material.

My reply was to Gilgamesh, because so many useful comments are lost here in the forums and very difficult to find again. (possible in an article like this, if you can remember which article, but nearly impossible in the drumbeat if you cannot remember the author.)

The Book bit is me and it was on my list for this summer - except that things keep getting in the way, but it will get done. I did say it would take more than a semester.

at what point does driving and economic upheavel require the bringing back of MTBE?

Theres nothing that a law won't fix. The pressure will be very high on lawmakers. It already is.

well part of the problem now (PV cost) is because only the silicon fab plants at the end of their industrial life are being used. I can talk to some of my buds who are going into fabrication about this, but im fairly sure that computer silicone also has to be more tightly controlled for ppm/ppb dopants than current solar cells.

Anyways im not sure if it's the amount of silicon that is the true backstop, it is the ingot creation which is the limiting step. because its a batch process and takes quite some time, computers and PV are limited by available high quality silicon.

finally i will note that comp chips are getting smaller! (thus requiring LESS silicon... meaning that a solution to producing ingots en-mass may never have been properly explored)

and futuristically i will note that until i can see a self sufficient solar powered PV system manufacturing plant, this is all for naught. (ro at least one which over time switches to producing its own source of power, which is a prerequisit for exponential growth)

While true, you still need to consider the battery costs. The cost of electricity is just a small part of the costs associated with EV or PHEVs. In any event, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on increasing our wind power percentage, boosted by the fact that some of that variable wind could be used to recharge the EVs or PHEVs at night.

Having said all that, the real breakthroughs need to occur in battery technology unless we can have vehicles which can use electricity in real time. And why not? This technology existed decades ago in the form of bumper cars. And wouldn't that be fun?