Energy in Agriculture, 1 (1981/1982) 91--98 91 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

Review Article

FOOD AND ENERGY: CHALLENGES AND CHOICES

KENNETH L. McFATE

University of Missouri and Food and Energy Council, Inc., 409 Vandiver West, Columbia, MO 65201 (U.S.A.)

(Accepted 5 October 1981)

ABSTRACT

McFate, K.L., 1981. Food and energy: challenges and choices. Energy Agric., 1: 91--98.

The concerns about potential energy shortages and food shortages are addressed re- lative to needs of an increasing world population. Interacting relationships between avail- able energy supplies and food supplies are reviewed from different aspects, including the increasing competi t ion for water and land as such relate to energy, crop and livestock pro- duction. This overview should aid researchers, producers and consumers to better under- stand the complexities in making choices to meet the challenge of assuring ample amounts of energy to produce food in opt imum quantities.

INTRODUCTION

Since the embargo of oil imports to the United States in 1973, all con- sumers have been affected by and concerned about energy supplies. While progress toward development and use of supplemental or alternate energy forms is slowly being made, US petroleum prices have skyrocketed. The economic impact o f escalating energy prices encouraged US consumers to implement bet ter energy management and conservation practices. This, in turn, affected mid-1981 petroleum supplies, which were, at least temporarily, larger than demands. Electric energy use has also been markedly curtailed in recent years. It is because of these unpredictable responses to rapidly fluctu- ating economic condit ions and consumer habits that the US and world energy needs of 1990, 2000 and in the years beyond are so difficult to forecast. In- deed, predicted US energy needs for year 2000 varies from the National Geo- graphic's figure of 108 quads (Nat. Geogr. Soc., 1981, p. 17) to the Electric Power Research Institute's figure of 120 quads (EPRI, 1981). Even higher energy use predictions are no t uncommon. (1 quad = one quadrillon Btu's, or about 1018 joule).

There were concerns about energy shortages long before 1973. Few lis- tened. There have also been concerns about worldwide food shortages over the past few decades. The op t imum utilization of US resources, for the benefi t of mankind, may well depend upon the delicate balancing that must be done be tween future food supplies and future energy supplies.

0167-5826/81/0000--0000/$02.50 © 1981 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company

92

POPULATION GROWTH, FOOD NEEDS AND ENERGY SUPPLIES

As reported in Dun's Review (Adkins, 1981). leading US economists note that world populat ion by 1990, will increase almost 25%, from the 1980 base of about 4.25 billion. The pressures on our future food product ion systems are obvious. In recent years, world food demands have risen at an annual rate of 3--4% while food supplies have increased only about 2%. Addi- tional people and the additional buying power of some countries have com- bined to create a potential food shortage, say some experts. But the extent of any worldwide food shortage will depend upon supplies of energy (new and traditional), how they are produced, and how they are managed. When the op t imum amount of energy is used for food production, we are not always using less energy per farm. There is a critical interdependence between food and energy that all consumers around the world should and must recog- nize.

The world recognizes the US as a large food producer that is willing to share its supplies. Dun's Review notes that in 1980, the US exported $34 billion worth of food. That amounts to nearly 59% of all food exports from all countries. But during that year, the US imported 40% of the petroleum it used, at a cost o f nearly $80 billion.

FOOD-RELATED ENERGY USE

The highly mechanized US food systemuses about 16.5% of all energy used in the country, as Fig. 1 shows. According to a Council for Agricultural Science and Technology report (CAST, 1977), about 3% of US energy con- sumption is used on the farm to produce food. Almost one-third of that food is exported. Of all on-farm energy used, petroleum provides 80% or, on average, 800,000 barrels of oil per day. In maintaining balance between food and energy suppliers there are two critical interacting factors at work, availability and timeliness. It takes both to achieve record amounts of food, rather than average crop and livestock product yields.

Commercial fertilizers, irrigation and crop drying use a large part of on- farm energy. The off-farm product ion of that fertilizer, which typically con-

FOOd System Energy Use by Sectors:

roduction 18%

rocesslng 33% nsportatlon 3% /esale-Retall 16%

paratlon 30%

100%

Fig. 1. Energy used in the US food system.

i I i ° o ' ~ 1

1 oo- ~ 5 o . . . . Corn j

80- ~ Fertilizer Use J : t L40

° y t , ~ - t :

• ,s"

m . ~ "

20- 0

0 , - , , , I 0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Fig. 2. US fert i l izer use vs. corn product ion .

93

tains nitrogen, phosphorous, and potash, uses 2% of all the energy used in the US. But those commercial fertilizers are given credit for the product ion of one-third of US food product ion, about the same amount that is exported. With nitrogen fertilizer applied to corn, six units of energy are returned for each unit o f energy used in product ion, t ransportat ion and application of that fertilizer. The value of commercial fertilizer use is well recognized. The fertilizer use-production trends as developed from US Department of Agriculture data (USDA--Mo. Crop Livest. Rep. Serv.) are illustrated in Fig. 2.

High product ion requires energy. Fertilizer product ion is energy intensive. A report of the Am. Energy Independence (1978) notes that to pro- duce one ton of available phosphorous rock, it takes 100 kWh of electricity, six gallons of fuel oil and 3000 gallons of water. Natural gas, diesel fuel and electricity are primary energy sources for crop irrigation machines. Liquid petroleum and electricity are used extensively for on-farm crop drying operations so that quality products are available for export and for domestic use. Were it not for the intensive use of energy, there might be little or no food for export .

Those associated with the US food product ion system have not been sitting on their laurels. The concept of "no-tillage" or "minimum-tillage", that has emerged during the past three decades, has liquid fuel saving and soil saving potentials. Some studies have indicated that soil losses can be reduced by as much as 90% over conventional practices, Yet, more energy-intensive chemicals may be required to control weeds and insects on "minimum-ti l led" acres. Research will help evaluate disease and insect influences versus yields and yield-maintenance over long-term conditions, including double-crop prac- tices. Energy management, land management and food production are intri- cately intertwined. While mechanized cropland acres provide more food ener- gy for more consumers, animal agriculture also provides highly nutritious food energy. Animals of ten convert energy from land subject to high erosion which cannot or should not be tilled.

FOOD-RELATED ENERGY USE OFF-FARM

The type of energy used in off-farm links of the US food chain are as important as energy used on the farm. Crops that are produced must be pro- cessed, t ransported, marketed, distributed, and finally prepared for human consumption. The amount of food-related energy used by each segment is illustrated in Fig. 1. Electricity is second only to natural gas in importance to the food processing sector. In retail stores, refrigeration to preserve the food (and to save the energy to produce and transport it), is an essential element which depends on energy on a cont inuous basis. The wholesale-retail sector uses almost as much energy as does farming.

Energy used for food transport is 3% of food-related energy. But most of the energy for transport is petroleum used in "over-the-road" vehicles. Final preparation of food for consumers makes up 30% of food-related energy use. This sector is highly dependent upon electricity and natural gas.

94

FUTURE FOOD AND ENERGY SUPPLIES

In the future food and energy supply arena, there are many interacting challenges. Increased supplies of either food or energy are challenged by worldwide factors such as inflation, the cost of money, excess regulation, special pricing structures, and restrictions or limits placed upon the t imely application of new technology. There is competi t ion for land to produce fuel and to produce food.

US climatic factors affect energy production, food production and energy use. Of all factors that are common to the food and energy industries, climate may be at the top of the list. Temperature change is a major direct and inter- acting factor related to energy management and use.

Agricultural research, technology application and energy management have contr ibuted greatly to the productivity of the American farmer. Ac- cording to economic statisticians of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1981}, each farmer, on average, produced enough food for 77.5 people in 1980. Even so, agricultural research has not kept pace with need. In terms of real dollars, many Agricultural Experiment Stations are forced to operate at 65% of the budgets they had ten years ago. Technological break- throughs in food production, as in energy production, are not likely to come easily or quickly; certainly not with limited research. The fact is, there is little "on-the-shelf" agricultural technology that can be applied. Potential scientific breakthroughs in food and in energy production are, in themselves, a challenge.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT

Energy management has been practiced by the food system for decades. When energy costs were low, there was little at tention given to the con- servation component . Fig. 3 data (from USDA, 1979) show that fuels and farm energy make up less than 6% of total production costs. Yet, the wise and efficient use of energy (human, animal, electrical, fossil fuel, solar, wind, etc.} has been, is and will continue to be the key to the nation's food supplies. Good energy management does not always mean the use of less energy, how- vet.

Feed

Building and F e n c ~ ~ L i v e s t o c k and Poultry

Farm Supplies ~.,', ~ ~ •, ,~'J'~._'~._,~.~. " ~ Trucks, Tractors, Machinery

Farm Services ~ ~ Seed, Plants, Fertilizer,

Rent ~ Chemicals

Wages Interest and Taxes

Fig. 3. Fue l and energy vs. p r o d u c t i o n costs o n US farms.

95

There are gains to be made in obtaining supplemental energy from renew- able forms such as from solar, wind, biomass, alcohol, vegetable oils, etc. Contributions to be made from these sources are associated with economic and availability factors which affect all forms of energy. Substitute and/or renewable energy systems must be carefully integrated into existing systems so that no unreasonable and/or costly demands will develop.

The amount of "mechanically captured" energy expected from solar will be small according to US energy experts (Kessler, 1976). With possibly 5--15% of agricultural energy by year 2000, many often overlook the direct contribution that solar energy has made to food production, especially during the age of mechanized agriculture. Scientific research can enhance the solar-related energy contributions through more efficient photosynthetic and water using plants, improved livestock genetics, improved forestry man- agement, nitrogen fixations plants, etc. And solar energy is an important in- gredient for growing oil-producing plants.

LAND UTILIZATION AND ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

As recently as four decades ago, some 40 million acres (16 million ha) of US land were used to grow hay and grass for draft animals tha t furnished farm power. Farm mechanization has changed that. Those acres are now growing food for export. Many acres are growing two crops per year. Raising livestock in good environmentally controlled building has allowed additional acres to be used for growing food for the hungry. Such facilities have made better use of human energy in other forms. Today, five to six cents worth of electricity can do as much as one man in a 10-hour day.

There are some inherent disadvantages resulting from the American farmer's drive to maintain an economically viable farm unit. Many farmers with no livestock to feed have tilled sloping terrain that would have been in hay or pasture a few years ago. Because of such practices, millions of tons of good soil are lost to erosion each year. The choise between cropping and grazing of land is not an easy one. When cropped for an often necessarily high monetary return, lost top soil must often be supplanted with more generous amounts of energy-intensive fertilizers. Crop rotations to reduce use of commercial fertilizers do not always fit farming practices, nor do they always maximize return on labor. Even a good "plowed under" legume crop will not produce as much corn per acre as will opt imum amounts of commer- ciai fertilizer.

We can achieve large direct-solar benefits from growing corn, soybeans, peanuts and similar crops. We can also receive large solar benefits from in- creased forage yields produced on erosion-prone, hilly soils. As an example, University of Missouri researchers recently developed a new rescue grass tha t will produce 25% more beef per acre (Lennon, 1981).

us WATER RESOURCES

The impact of water upon food production is much like a two-edged sword. When we have too little, it costs our farmers billions of dollars in crop failures

96

and in lost energy; and that costs consumers as well. When we have too much water, improperly controlled, that too is costly. It 's estimated that soft erosion takes 3 million acres of US farmland ou t of product ion each year. In addition, many of our high producing acres are subject to flooding. Indeed, water is emerging as a " f ront runner" in national concerns. Water use challenges affect bo th food and energy production.

Energy product ion and transport (such as for oil shale development and for coal-slurry lines) may require billions of gallons of water. Coal-slurry lines require a ton of water to move a ton of coal. Dual lines may be required to keep water waste t o a minimum. The point is: competi t ion for water in food product ion and in energy product ion will increase. Consequently, water use and reuse practices, in each industry, will need to be carefully considered and prudently practiced.

FOOD VERSUS FUEL: THE DELICATE BALANCE

The use of farmland to produce energy is not new. Grain for alcohol pro- duct ion was used in the late 1930's. In petroleumshort Brazil, large quanti- ties of alcohol are being produced and used. In the US most of the alcohol used for transport is in the form of gasohol (a 10% alcohol--90% gasoline mixture) in spark-ignition engines. Use of small on-farm alcohol product ion facilities have not been economical in the US. Larger wet-mill alcohol pro- duct ion facilities show greater promise partly because of the effective use of by-products .

The primary goal of producing fuels on farmland should be one of in- sulating the US food product ion system from petroleum supply disruptions, notes a Public Policy Issues Report of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1981a). All US food consumers could benefit. On the contrary, if all potential US transportat ion units were converted to gasohol, using farm-produced alcohol, the food and livestock industry could face serious problems. The product ion and use of vegetable oils, as a dieselfuel substi tute, does have considerable merit for use as an insulation blanket to guard against petroleum supply disruptions to the farm -- the food producers.

Most US farm tractors have large, compression-ignition diesel engines. Vegetable oils (produced from sunflowers, soybeans, peanuts, etc.) can be made to be quite compatible for use in diesel engines. With an estimated 21-year life of such tractors, it is unlikely there will be sufficient demand to develop a new engine for farm tractors that is designed for alcohol. Present gasoline farm tractors, usually of relatively low horsepower, can use gasohol or can be modified, at owner 's risk, to use 200-proof alcohol.

Engineers predict that alcohol replacement of the 3.5 billion gallons of gasoline (used on farms in US in 1978) would require about 20% of the corn crop if corn alone were used. The 3.3 billion gallons of diesel fuel (used on farms in US in 1978) could be produced with moderate increases of vegetable crop acreages. All approaches to on-farm fuel product ion have food supply and price impacts.

The choice is not whether we will have energyto produce food. If we are

97

to produce food in ample quantities, we must have energy. The challenge is whether and how much farmland, and how much grain and vegetables can be allocated to energy production; and whether other energy alternates can be developed in time to assure an adequate future food supply for a rapidly in- creasing world population. This concept was emphasized by the author at the 1980 ASAE National Energy Symposium (McFate, 1981).

ELECTRIC ENERGY IN FOOD PRODUCTION

The preceeding discussion has focused primarily upon petroleum-based fuels because they make up the largest volume of energy used on farms. It is also the liquid fuels that const i tute the nation's large dependence upon un- predictable imported supplies. These liquid fuels can be stored for t imely use, often dicted by climatic conditions. But electric energy, because of its unique characteristics needs to be given special attention.

Central-station generated electric energy cannot b e stored. It is a manu- factured product . It can be produced with a number of " inputs": oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, waste, wood, water or coal. Coal, the most abundant of all US energy reserves, is increasingly important to electricity production. It is also of continuing concern because of its environmental impacts. Almost every citizen depends on electricity every day wi thout realizing the electric industry challenges. They expect it " to be there" at the flip of a switch. In fact, much of our electrical equipment operates automatically. Consumers become concerned only when equipment or power availability fails. Yet, it may not be available on a continuous basis in the years ahead.

Electricity producers are met with many of the same challenges facing food producers. Each must make large investments. Each is faced with regu- lations that materially affect the cost of their product . Each is affected by climatic factors. Each has peak load problems to deal with; and each has limitations on the price his product can carry.

Electricity is a key energy resource in most stationary farmstead operations. It provides "back-up" energy for many applications. It provides control ser- vice for many other types of machines operating on other forms of energy: solar, wind, methane, alcohol product ion units, vegetable oil extractors, etc. There are many opportunit ies to use supplemental and renewable energy resources on our fams. But conventional energy resources will dominate this decade. The potential for substituting electric energy for fossil fuel, stationary operations and for short-range transportat ion has yet to be seriously tapped. It should be considered.

THE QUEST FOR SOLUTIONS

The US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture have funded numerous studies on the development and application of re- newable energy resources on the farm. The results of many are reported in a three-volume report covering the 1980 National Energy Symposium spon- sored by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1981b). With

98

the e x c e p t i o n o f a lcohol and vegetable oil subst i tu tes , the use o f mos t o f these " r e n e w a b l e s " re la te to s t a t iona ry fa rms tead opera t ions . Yet t h e real US energy p r ob l em lies in l iquid fuel supply availabil i ty, c o n t i n u i t y and u p o n the na t ion ' s d e p e n d e n c e u p o n foreign oil.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND ENERGY STEWARDSHIP

Many o f ou r farmers have been s tewards o f the soft, using it t o p ro d u ce f o o d fo r mill ions. Now t h e y mus t also be b e t t e r s tewards o f o u r energy re- sources. Bu t being be t t e r s tewards o f energy is a chal lenge for every ci t izen o f every c o u n t r y , no t jus t he who supplies fo r food . Many energy intensive industr ies and sensitive individuals have a l ready accep ted the challenge Others have no t ye t d o n e so.

Some of the t ough decis ions re la te to wate r fo r f o o d and for h u m a n con- s u m p t i o n versus wa te r fo r energy; land for f o o d or land for energy; excessively high ene rgy costs and pure env i ronmen t s versus someth ing less bu t qu i te adequa te . St r ic t regula t ion versus reasonable rules.

I t will, indeed , make m u c h teamwork on the par t o f all t o resolve our d i lemma. I t can be d o n e if each o f us makes the r ight choices fo r best mee t ing each o f the m a n y challenges in reasonable fashion.

REFERENCES

Adkins, L., 1981. Enough Food for All. Dun's Review, Vol. 117, No. 4. Dun & Bradstreet, New York, NY, pp. 94--102.

Am. Energy Independence, 1978. Farm to Table: The Food--Energy Link. Americans for Energy Independence, Washington, DC, pp. 20--21.

ASAE, 1981a. The Biological Liquid Fuels Alternate, A Public Policy Issues Report. Am. Soc. Agric. Engr., St. Joseph, MI, pp. 4--28.

ASAE, 1981b. Agricultural Energy, Vol. I, II, III. Selected papers from ASAE National Energy Symposium, 1980. Am. Soc. Agric. PEng., St. Joseph, MI, pp. 1--580.

CAST, 1977. Energy Use In Agriculture, Now and In the Future. Report No. 68. Council for Agricultural Science & Technology, Ames, IA, pp. 5--10.

EPRI, 1981. Electricity: Today's Technologies, Tomorrow's Alternatives. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, p. 14.

Kessler, R., 1976. Wind and Solar Potential, 1985--1990. In: FEC Proceedings Annual Conference, "Energy-Key To Food Production." Food and Energy Council, Inc., Columbia, MO, pp. 86--91.

Lennon, A Max, 1981. Unpublished remarks/speech presented at Missouri Farm Electrifi- cation Council Conference. "Energy-An Ag College Perspective." February 1981, Columbia, MO.

McFate, K.L., 1981. Optimizing the Energy Option. In: ASAE Agricultural Energy, Vol. 1. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI, pp. 3--5.

Nat. Geogr. Soc., 1981. Special Report-Energy, National Geographic Society, Washing- ton, DC, pp. 2--24.

USDA--Mo. Crop Livest. Rep. Serv. Statistical Reports on Fertilizer Use & Corn Produc- tion as Provided by Missouri Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Columbia, MO.

USDA, 1979. Handbook No. 561. US Dep. Agric., Washington, DC, pp. 18--19. USDA, 1981. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Production & Efficiency Statis-

tics. Statistics Bulletin No. 65. US Dep. Agric., Washington, DC (In press).