The food vs energy debate arose from the 2008 crash in the American housing market and the fact than bankers started to speculate on food crops instead. Food prices have always been artificially high, because many crops have already been sold before the farmer actually plants them, sold to someone who never had any intentions of taking delivery, but instead waiting to sell it on when the market price is high enough to make a profit. It is called "the finance industry", and it is a misleading term because they are not producing anything. In 2008 it just got a lot worse, and people blamed it on biofuel. But lets analyse it, Brazil is one of the top producers of bio-ethanol worldwide, and less than 1% of its arable land is used for this purpose, so how could it possible affect more than 1% of food price increases? The worldwide bio-energy production relies on less than 0.1% of all arable land. When you currently drive from York to Leeds, you will see a great deal of prime farmland abandoned by farmers who get paid to not plant anything to avoid overproduction. We have worldwide overproduction, and we can easily produce more food and more energy with the arable land we have on Earth. There is no need to convert existing forests into farmland, and one should conserve every bit of natural forest left on Earth. But it is a misconception that natural forests are carbon sinks. Mature forests (rain or not rain) are in perfect equilibrium, they release as much carbon dioxide as they fix. The only way to create a carbon sink is to plant young trees on land, let it grow until mature, then use the wood to build houses, furniture etc.. and plant new trees. With respect to food versus non-food, the only thing that matters is how much can you produce per surface and time, how valuable is what you produce compared to what you invest in terms of fertilisers and fuel-driven machinery, and how flexible is the crop to allow crop rotation. The biggest quantum leap to increase productivity would be to convert animal farm land into crop farm land, you would get 10 times more calories per surface and time, and twice the amount of protein is you grow both legumes and starch crops. That gives so much more that you can easily afford making some bio-ethanol as well with the surplus of carbohydrates (starch). What we need is sensible farming, not food vs food debates. Growing soybean in America, shipping it to the UK, and feeding it to pigs.... how sensible is that?

The food vs energy debate arose from the 2008 crash in the American housing market and the fact than bankers started to speculate on food crops instead. Food prices have always been artificially high, because many crops have already been sold before the farmer actually plants them, sold to someone who never had any intentions of taking delivery, but instead waiting to sell it on when the market price is high enough to make a profit. It is called "the finance industry", and it is a misleading term because they are not producing anything. In 2008 it just got a lot worse, and people blamed it on biofuel. But lets analyse it, Brazil is one of the top producers of bio-ethanol worldwide, and less than 1% of its arable land is used for this purpose, so how could it possible affect more than 1% of food price increases? The worldwide bio-energy production relies on less than 0.1% of all arable land. When you currently drive from York to Leeds, you will see a great deal of prime farmland abandoned by farmers who get paid to not plant anything to avoid overproduction. We have worldwide overproduction, and we can easily produce more food and more energy with the arable land we have on Earth. There is no need to convert existing forests into farmland, and one should conserve every bit of natural forest left on Earth. But it is a misconception that natural forests are carbon sinks. Mature forests (rain or not rain) are in perfect equilibrium, they release as much carbon dioxide as they fix. The only way to create a carbon sink is to plant young trees on land, let it grow until mature, then use the wood to build houses, furniture etc.. and plant new trees. With respect to food versus non-food, the only thing that matters is how much can you produce per surface and time, how valuable is what you produce compared to what you invest in terms of fertilisers and fuel-driven machinery, and how flexible is the crop to allow crop rotation. The biggest quantum leap to increase productivity would be to convert animal farm land into crop farm land, you would get 10 times more calories per surface and time, and twice the amount of protein is you grow both legumes and starch crops. That gives so much more that you can easily afford making some bio-ethanol as well with the surplus of carbohydrates (starch). What we need is sensible farming, not food vs food debates. Growing soybean in America, shipping it to the UK, and feeding it to pigs.... how sensible is that?

Very well put, Jürgen. I too don't believe all this talk of "food shortages" in the UK (hence why its in inverted commas!). I was always taught that there were food mountains and milk lakes and that if you over produced you would get fined.

Only 0.1% of global arable land? I thought it would be slightly higher...or is it that in order for us to make a good go at bio-fuels that we need to utilise more than 0.1%?

I also agree with your point on deforestation, there is no need when there is so much extra land out there from said overproduction, so then why do people do it? I had a good chuckle at your statement about using pastoral land for bio-crops, definitely the way forward! You would also save on fertiliser costs too!

At the end of the day sensible and sustainable farming is the way forward, its just hard to change the perspective. It's changing that perspective and getting policy makers to back it up that's the problem.

Thank you again for such a wonderful answer.

The use of arable land for the production of non-food crops has been accused of competition with global food production and blamed for the rising grain prices in 2008. Fluctuation in food prices is a complex issue which needs to be put into its right context to fully take into account all relevant factors. Cropland used in Europe for energy production is currently rather small, and to judge the impact of energy crops on

global nutrition and food prices, it is crucial to adopt a holistic approach. While any use of arable land can influence prices for agricultural products, many factors - both structural and cyclical - can have a substantial impact on food prices, including:

Weather conditions

Oil price

Growing demand from emerging economies

Low investment in agricultural research

Export/import policy

Speculative investment.

Land use change related to bioenergy - both direct and indirect – is currently at the center of policy discussions. Indirect land-use effects occur when the production of biomass feedstock displaces certain activities to other areas, with potentially negative impacts on carbon stocks and biodiversity. At present, there is no consensus regarding the possible indirect land use change impact of energy crops and its importance in terms of carbon impact. Direct land use change needs to be carefully considered and managed to ensure that the cultivation of energy crops does not cause negative land use changes such as deforestation.

The Food vs Energy is a great concern worldwide, the issue is much in the developing countries of Asia and the Africa as the per acre food production and per capita consumption is very low as compair to the developing counties like US, UK, Austrelia, Japan and Europian countries. If all the people of the world consume as an American, Japanise or Europian then we need to double the food production of the earth. If so how can we double the food production. if we not double the food production with in time bound period then the malnutrition will again increrase as big fish eat the share of the small.

Comming to the energy even if we need more energy, this can be solved by the technology innovation, alternative energy and better management of energy. The Japanise energy management can be a model for the other nation. how they are managing the energy even if the energy production is bellow 50% during the last disaster.

In my opinion the the answer to the this question is different to developed and developing countries, but the right choice is to donot change the landuse pattern and do not convert the food growing area to energy production. The best example is the promotion of the Jatropha worldwide and its result. we should learh from past experience of Jatropha cultivation before thinking for the above issue.

Each region has its own perculiarities with regards to the economics and politics of land use. The issue of committing land to either energy crops or food crops is both economic and political. In Zimbabwe, we tried to promote Jatropha for production of biodiesel for example, and the project failed to take off. My own view is that energy crops like Jatropha take too long to yield rewards for farmers and the market is poorly developed, therefore farmers are not excited about it. Only governments can venture into such long term projects using some of the dead spaces around the country. Even then, parts of such dead spaces accommodate wildlife, which again in my country is a major income earner for the fiscus. the preference is food>wildlife>energy crops.

My sense is that the debate about "using preexisting cultivated land for energy crop production" focused on climate and global environmental change has focused more on categories like "food shortage", " food security", "biofuel production efficiency", and "indirect LU effects". That would mean that it has given relatively small attention to changes in the agrarian/rural spaces, market chains for food (and biofuels), and some other topics that may be of particular interest at local and regional scales.

Although the debate may be of great interest to "traditional" political economy, rural sociology, rural geography, etc. it appears there is a hint of a divorce between these fields and global environmental/climate change research, suggesting a high degree of disciplinary fragmentation in the broad domain studying agrarian questions.

Sophie this is really interesting for us

We are producing a small scale gasification plant which can be mass produced. It works everything fine we are in R&D right now to mass produce at the Polish Ship Yard with our PowerCan 200 we are working with three European Universities

Land use for growing biofuel is nonsense for several reasons

We made a lot of studies regards land use and agricultural dereliction in Poland as a result of past policy and of course economics and we have been studying the history of Polish forest and Polish forest management and especially the reserves which start North East of Poland. Poland has a good mix of forest and fields most farming land is given over to strip farms still. Poland was mainly organic it entered the global distribution network late and it fast becoming dependent on global supply

We can see where different communities around the world can achieve all kinds of dependencies from the current energy-food supply chain and how and what is needed to kick start a reversal of this on a local scale.

We are promoting energy farming on a small scale woody biomass through forest grooming and food Independence through hydroponics and better food production.

Better management of forest is a real necessity it has far more impact than using land for growing fuel from corn for example. It also offers far better energy security long run. The impact of good grooming for the benefits of local wildlife and its diversity is unquestionable

On a national scale better management of forest means better forest welcome to read here http://powercan200.pl/why-wood-chip we have looked a several models for local small scale energy production which we can adapt to many different scenarios.

Small scale gasification produces Diesel 4 tons of wood waste can produce in the region of 300 litres of Diesel this is way ahead of any efficiency which can be had from Corn. www.powercan200.com

Our colleagues had made a test rig for what we call the ConcordeFT in France with surprising results from our wood chip Synthesis Gas. Developing corn for fuel in our opinion is a far out dated notion and any current intentions to develop corn for fuel benefits the long term aims of the seed growers not for the benefit of the economy. For one thing it means small strips of land need to be united somehow to produce big fields and create new land owners, there seems little economic benefit to the indigenous population to do this in Poland there is a lot if resistance to this

As PowerCan 200 goes into production our front end team is moving on we are working on ContainerPonic to study the economic effects of Hydroponic grown leaves in 40ft containers maybe powered by PowerCan 200. Our ContainerPonics is an open source project and will follow the PowerCan 200 to be based at the hospital or shopping centre where the energy can be best used and the food produced best benefits the actual consumer.

The bottom line is, and this is fast becoming reality, that hydroponics locally long term will solve a lot of problems because it reflects current eating trends. More land needs to become forest because small scale farming can support food production and energy production if they have the right circumstances and if we develop the tools to do this.

In any event in our opinion any transition will need to make sense and be voluntaty

Thank you for your input Steve.

I personally think bio-fuels from 2nd generation (wood residue) and 3rd generation (algae) is much more yielding than 1st generation (energy crops), but everything is still going through research in its own right, especially development in increasing algae efficiency.

1st generation does have all the land use issues, which is why 2nd generation seems more popular, and I even read a few papers on how much more efficient forestry crops are compared to energy crops. I definitely agree with more small scale production and getting your energy from sources off the grid, sustaining your demand independently.

Thanks again.

Energy crop could be planted with some food crop example is the Jatropha crop . The crop could shield food crop from been consumed by animals. Additionally, some energy crops could be planted on marginal land

Both food and energy are necessary for human life, and we cannot live without them.

I think only few countries which have no problem with this. So, each country is looking to the matter according to its needs. Some of them have a lot of energy, but they have shortage of food, and vise versa. So, its very difficult to make people think the same, and this is i think the big problem facing the world in the future. At the end of the day, I think, each country decide its policy, and then they start thinking about the effect of their decisions on the environment. So generally the latter is always the last one to think about, and this is bad for our planet.

I have done a research on food production cost and economic use of energy for that. You can refer my PhD thesis uploaded in RG

Sophie our wood chip conversion in a small scale gasifier was plugged in and making electricity for a decade. Algae is for anaerobic digestion we are a long way from producing algae and using it for gasification. Gasification is far more efficient than anaerobic digestion gasification it is self standing without the need of subsidies. Only rich nations can afford subsidies even though they pay far less for energy than poor Small Island Nations. Without the sponsorship of the waste system anaerobic digestion would not exists and it certainly makes no sense to poor countries

First, I would hesitate to say any land use is "bad". We use land that is what we do. Different uses have different consequences and some of these are unintended, some are very harmful and some benign. What we should do is look to maximize the utility of land resources, protect the more fragile land resources and recognize that some time people will differ on the validity and utility of individual uses and the locations where they occur. That said, there are only three ways I can address the justification issue, economically, environmentally, sociologically. From the eco side, is the net negative impacts is less than the gains in terms of environmental impact and carbon emission, that is justified. From economics, if its more profitable than growing food crops, its justified. Lastly, if the conversion of food ground into energy ground is generating shortages in the world food supply it is not justified. However, I am under the impression global hunger is not a production issue it is an issue of redistribution of the resources. In other words, we produce enough food, but its not evenly distributed to the people who need it.

We do not put land to its "best" use lets take the forest lands for example here in Europe we have created hundreds and thousands of hectares of forest parks which are not managed. Man has been managing forests since time began.

If we are to manage forests here in Central Europe as we are in Sweden for example it would mean forest maintenance would ensure the thinning of trees and the removal of dead trees [more tree still die because of infection from other dead trees than they do from forest fires].

Allowing the sunshine on the forest floor assists the diversification of wildlife but most importantly it allows the forest to do what it does best and absorb CO2 some scientists believe that Central Europe forest could become more than 30% more effective [that would represent many very large PV farms].

Proper maintenance of our forests [better land use] would create a billion Euro industry in Poland and elsewhere where the process would create significant biomass for small scale gasification and a dispersed network of renewable energy second to none. Displaced grid ensures the heat can be better used, having 1000 small scale power plants is far better energy security than the current model

This is certainly favorable to all large scale farming being turned into corn production

I have worked with a team on a number of commercial projects in this area. In general, cultivated land that is capable of producing food crops without having a significant negative impact on the environment should continue to be used for producing food/feed. More marginal land can be converted to perennial crops for producing energy and have multiple beneficial effects. Perennial crops should persist for a minimum of 10 years and preferably more for the cropping system to be environmentally beneficial. In some cases where double-cropping can be used annually, one food crop and one energy crop can be rotated, especially if the energy crop adds some benefit for the food crop (i.e. a legume oilseed crop followed by a cereal grain). The energy crop should produce usable energy and restore soil carbon to be most beneficial. Income for farmers is very important and it must satisfy their needs in order for cropping changes to occur. In instances where certain food/feed crops receive government subsidies and energy crops do not, then farmers will not shift cropping systems. For nearly any system, the most efficient energy conversion occurs when the harvested biomass is burned directly; however, many crops must be processed to produce the needed form of energy (liquid fuel, gaseous fuel) within the production area. In most cases, transportation must be limited to about 80-100 km in order for the biomass to be competitively priced for processing.

The topic of renewable and alternative energy is very important. Almost everywhere in the word the demand for energy and food is growing and has to be managed. Food and energy are interacted subsystems in any “socioeconomical system”. Some of countries have a lot of energy, but they have shortage of food, and vise versa. Hundred of acres of forests are unmanaged in the northern and southern latitudes where dead parts and trees “are wasted”. Also in the middle latitudes, in the fast and great deserts, enormous sources of solar energy could be exported to areas where there is plenty of food and shortage of energy. I think this would be a solution or at least a major part of the solution of of “food/ energy” problem.

What is energy crop?

I think the quantity of food crop is accordant to the energy crop. Because the food account for only a small part of the crop, large part of crop become agriculture waste which could be used to produce enengy if it is not used in other fields.

Apologies Xinyuan, I meant energy crop in terms of Palm Oil plantations. Food crop such as oilseed rape would also extend into this category, if its primary purpose was for making biofuels, not oils for food.

The whole purpose of energy crops is to extract the oil, that would normally go on for food uses, which is then made into biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel. Agricultural waste goes into a different process, as it is made up of solids, not oils. The solid waste from the oil collection process then goes on for co-firing or into animal feed production. This actually reduces the need for importing soybeans, which saves energy and carbon emissions in the process.

Here in the UK, there are political restrictions on how much of these food crops can be reallocated for biofuel purposes (only 5%). Otherwise there are fields designated to only energy or only food uses.

Do you know what is it in your home countries, if you have this system also?

Let’s talk about numbers, a common family (2 adults +2 kids) eats maximally 10,000 kiloCalories per day and hopefully less than that unless they are very physically active people. This translates to 41,855 kiloJoules/day, or in electrical energy terms 11.626 kilowatthours. Divided over 24 hours, the average power of the human contingent of a typical household is 0.484 kilowatts, let’s round it up to half a kilowatt. A modern household in temperate climate is heated with 10 kilowatts for half a year, so let’s say on average 5 kilowatts permanently. Electricity for computers, lights, television, electric kettles etc.. usually accounts for 3 kilowatts. A family car powers 100 kilowatts, and if you use it approximately 1 hour a day, that will be just over 4 kilowatts permanently. 5+3+4 = 12 kilowatts for non-food energy, which is 24-times more than what we need for food (0.5 kilowatts). Most US households consume double or triple that amount. But then we also haven’t counted the energy required to build streets and motorways, houses with concrete blocks, all our metal constructions (bridges, cars, ships, planes), plastics, electrical cables etc….. all these materials have an energy equivalent which is considerable, and often higher than the energy contained in food (i.e plastics and metals). If we count everything together, we need at least 50 times more energy for non-food then for food on our planet, and I guess it is much higher than that because I’m sure I forgot some. If anybody thinks that using the waste products of the food or agricultural industry is going to save us from the energy crisis then I’m afraid I have bad news. The bottom line is we have to work very very hard on reducing our energy consumption, and at the same time we need to explore all sorts of alternative energy strategies and at the same time work on ways to produce more and better quality food, and we have to do it with the resources we have on this planet. The biggest killer for innovation is peer-pressure (food versus food debates) and government subsidies (for wind-power in central Germany with no wind, or solar panels in Yorkshire with no sun). There are only three considerations for the use of land: How much food, energy, materials can you obtain from a given surface per time, what is the quality of those products, and how sustainable is the culture in the long term? Every square-inch of land is precious, and growing poplar trees or miscanthus for 10 years is not only very unproductive, the quality of the product is low, and there is no crop-rotation and no flexibility for the farmer. Growing a high starch potato with a yield of 50 tons per hectar in 6 months, and rotating it with other food crops (legumes, oil-seed) is not only more productive, it is flexible, it is sustainable (less fertilizer, less pesticides), and you can either eat those potatoes, or produce 8000 litre per hectar ethanol and a few valuable by-products (cellulose pulp for the paper industry and yeast extract for the food industry), that’s win, win and win. But we cannot eat poplar trees, and once plated you’re stuck with them for 10 years or more. Instead it is much more sensible to plant better quality fast growing wood (eucalyptus, fir, cedar) and build more houses with wood rather than concrete. Technically speaking, those forests would be energy crops, but being forests, they also promote atmospheric water circulation which is far more important than carbon dioxide for our planet. So please let’s stop talking about “food versus fuel”. Instead we need to advocate “more renewable energy, materials and food”, or “plant one, get one free”, or simply “think sensible farming”.

As long as there is people starving the cultivation of "crop for energy" in an environment with imperfect energetic usage is morally debatable.

On the other hand there are specific energy plants like miscanthus giganteus that can be grown in middle europe having a positive biomass bias for the renewables sector without negative impacts on food production.

As usual there is no "yes" or "no" answer.

Thank you for your explanation, it is the first time for me to learn the concept of “energy crop”. I really do not know whether the energy crop has been concerned in my country, i think the bioenergy from energy crop will be a significant part in the energy structure in the future, and at that time a debate about land use for food production or energy crop production wil start.

Hi Sophie,

I have made up my mind already some time ago. There are only a few conditions under which I would accept energy cropping. These are, that the energy crops should be able to grow on soils on which food crops are not able to grow.

So only marginal soils would come into focus for me, to practice energy cropping. This would mean that non-irrigated, non-fertilized soils, with an energy crop which is able to grow on it would be acceptable for me. Fertilizer is out of the question for use It increases the cost. So no use of fertilizers allowed for energy crops. It sould be a purely and completely extensive cropping method.

What I want to see is that energy cropping would be performed with completely self-sustaining plant species, which do not need fertilizer nor irrigation for growth, just the sun apoor soil and natrural rain- or snowfall.

Under all other cirucmstances I would forbid energy cropping. As long as their exist food shortages on this globe. We should not use fertile land for energy croping. According to me that's close to a criminal action.

But there are some examples of plants able to grow under the harsh growing conditions which i described. One of them is an Eucalyptus species which grows (has been planted) in the bone dry Sierras of Central Spain. But even there it is not used very often as an energy crop, but as raw material for the paper industry.!

Can just you imagine using wheat as an energy crop? One of the most important foodstuffs produced in agriculture on the richest soils of the globe!

An then producing ethanol with it? Pure lunacy! It is the same as usng drinking water to flush your toilet. You DON't do that with drinking water, but ypou flush your toilet with rainwater (or grey water). Drinking water is for drinking, nothing else. For the rest people should use grey water.

Why should we do that you aks? Just compare the intrinisic value, effort and hence cost involved in growing wheat versus Eucalyptus or to produce drinking water versus grey water.

Nobody makes that comparison. Nobody! I hope your all realize which is the cheapest (has the lowest financial cost) of the two examples I gave, wheat and drnking water? It's clear no and evident.

Cheers,

Frank

Frank has a point, using arable land to produce energy crops is lunacy

I had the same thoughts Frank, thank you soo much for your contribution. I have one question though, what is the typical rate of competition for these kinds of marginal plants? If I had to grow in basic soil with only nature to nuture me and there was my neighbour getting all this extra treatment, I'd sure want to invade. Guess this is where genetic modificaion comes in right? To breed out all competative, invasive traits?

Still, some still have a different view on the use of marginal land for the production of energy crops:

https://www.cbd.int/doc/biofuel/Econexus%20Briefing%20AgrofuelsMarginalMyth.pdf

True Sophie,

When you would have fertile soil on which you do food cropping, the risc on invasive species from poor and unfertilized soils is present. But, I assume that our energy cropping will take place in countries with a lot of sunshine, just as if we would plant solar panels (which is another option by the way). We don't put solar panels in Bergen (Norway) with 3 weeks of sunshine a year do we?

The energy cropping species should be well adapted to a very dry and very sunny climate. I don't think we will ever see them expanding in the UK or Western Europe for that matter. Polygonum japonicum is such a fierce invader, but remarkably enough I'v never seen it in cropland. It apparently grows best on much disturbed grounds, along roads, railways, dumps and the like, nut never in forests or cropland as far as I know (sometimes in unmanaged gardens as well) . Lucky for us and the farmers.

So I figger the risk will be quite small, if we leave energy crop farming for the dry soils in southern Europe or Northern Africa. I was impressed when visiting the Sierras in Spain by the way, that Euclayptus, a real Australian bush tree, could quite easily grow in the Spanish bone dry Sierra's (in summer). I guess the climate there must resemble that of their homeland a bit. Moreover, the Eucalyptus protects the sierra's against erosion, a problem in Southern Europe duirng the dry period, with a lot of wind erosion and even worse, sometimes gully erosion. One heavy summer shower is enough to remove tons of soil ftom the Sierra hills, and kick off the process of desertification.

I have been in the midst of such a landslide in an area close to the yellow river once (in China) . Bone dry loam soil, and all of a sudden a heavy shower. Tons and tons of bare loam soil (very fertile soil) went down straight to the yellow river. That's the reason why its called the yellow river by the Chinese anyhow , because it carries kilotons of loam, washed away by showers along the rivercatchment which crosses the biggest loam area of China with loam layers up to 20 meters thick In some areas it has all gone. Hence cropping is finished as well, and people that lived there had to move, mostly to the big cities.

Just to say that when one finds well adapted species like Eucalyptus (maybe there are even more interesting Eucalyptus species to be found in the Australian bush) then energy cropping is also benificial to stabilize soils in hilly terrain. In the meantime, one can harvest the trees (carefully managed) and make use of the wood to produce local heating wood, or to use it in the paper industry, or to make pellets of it, to fire a modern pellet oven during winter. It's a win win, but not in Western Europe. Energy cropping is something to be practiced in Mediterranean or Sahel or Australian bush climates, hence bone dry during a long part of the seasons and lots of sun and well adapted species for these conditions.

A collaegue of mine is even looking whether the Baobab tree can be used in plantations in the Sahel for wood, food and raw materials. That's according to me the way to go. For the Western European countries with enough rainfall and enough rich clay and loam soils and their high fertilization levels, I repeat, energy cropping is no option, It is a waste of arable land and resources.

The US and Mexico have both options open. Energy cropping on its marginal and dry lands, and food cropping,on their fertile rainfed or irrigated soils.

Spain, the south of Italy and some parts of Greece in Europe, could enlarge the areas for energy cropping based on Eucalyptus plantation or other species. If they make paper of it or pellets, nothing can stop them to earn some money with it. They need it desperately. Replace parts of the olive production if needed by the Eucalyptus. Diversificitation in cropping does not harm. It mostly leads to a stronger agro-sector, especially in marginal areas.

Cheers,

Frank

Completely agree Albert,

Frank

In my opinion, land is now using for food production should not be spared for other uses (energy) since some of the countries like India, the food production is diminishing due to unpredictable weather conditions. Increasing population demands more food and some of the cultivated lands are being occupied for human settlements and industrial developments. Already many countries are spending their money for import of food products and fuel from other countries. Under this situation concentration should be on increasing food production from the available land. The countries having lesser population and excess of land can think for energy production.

I also share the same viewpoint as that of Albert. My priority is in favor of food crop rather than energy crop with respect to the utilization of arable land. One should think about growing energy crop only when the soils are unfit for food crop. Another point that I would like to mention is that instead of using farm land to grow energy crop it is feasible to utilize unlimited resources such as the vast ocean and solar energy to grow marine algae, for example the sea weeds, and use them as feed stock to generate biofuels.

For poor small-scale farmers in semiarid areas trees for energy can be produced with the aim to improve food production - it is a matter of species selection and management. As Frank suggest; "energy cropping is also beneficial to stabilize soils in hilly terrain. In the meantime, one can harvest the trees (carefully managed) and make use of the wood to produce local heating" In semiarid area where most of the poorest farmers live soils are unfertile and poor in organic matter. Surrounding hillsides are denuded of vegetation mainly due to the local need of energy and grazing livestock. During heavy rains overland flow is accumulated on these denuded hillsides causing erosion on the surrounding farmland particularly on fields with soil of a poor structure (exhausted soil with poor organic matter). During the rainy season dry spells frequently occur in these areas causing significant damage to the food crop. The poorest farmers lack farm yard manure and cannot afford fertilizer. In this situation Nitrogen fixing trees can be intercropped with the food crop or as short duration improved fallow. These trees like the Sesbania sesban, Gliricidia sepium, tephrosia vogelii etc increase nitrogen and organic matter levels in the soils. With a higher organic matter content the water holding capacity of the soil increase, significantly decreasing the damage of the dry spells. Increasing N-levels will also contribute to improve food production. After harvesting the N-fixing trees can be used as fuelwood by the household or sold for cash on the local market or to a wood chip factory. Planting trees on strips along the contours on the surrounding hills will decrease overland flow and soil erosion and at the same time increase infiltration and the sub-surface storage of water.

By the way - is there anybody out there who has an insight into production functions of energy crop. I am currently trying to work on a comparative analysis of different renewables energy functions. Obviously in Biomass driven Renewable Energy Sources (RES) input data like availability of land, quality of soil, irrigation/water, "food" needs of the local population are very important as well as sets of other data on different qualities on primary energy level would also be interesting. Thanks Karl-Erik for the input, maybe somebody has a link to a list of usable crop for energy production with data like calorific value per KG, volume & storage needs. I would appreciate and thank in advance.

My opinion, due to the limitation of arable land which is suitable for food production, it is therefore it should be preserved for food production as first priority.

On a daily basis,lakhs of hectares of agricultural land are getting barren due to various reasons.They are adding to lessing the food kitty.World human population is increasing by the day & not decreasing.Unpredicted weather conditions also leads to lesser agricultural production.

On the other hand for e.g food grains given to animals in former U.S.S.R. equals the total agricultural food production of India,not to speak of the same scenario in other similar countries.

Percentage of wastage due to inadequate processing facilities & available technology in third world countries & storage conditions is still quite high especially in the tropical countries- that make up the majority of agricultural world food production.

Taking all into account,using land for energy crop production doesn't hold good in my opinion.

Dear Sophie, I think important to consider your question in a situation where the development and undevelopment countries is analized. Corn for example you can to get Biodiesel, but in a Central American Countries is very dangerous because it affects the food security. However if you work with Jatropha there are no problema.

I think it is important today to move the debate to the distribution of food production and global wealth. The world is not a problem of hunger, but people who work hard and keep the surproductioon to maintain balance or the price on the international market.

The use of land for food production to energy production could be an alternative to equilibrate commercial balence of some countries too expense for the purchase of fossil energy and launches into a green energy biodefradale.

I would like to add to the commment Oriza that We must consider that fossil resources are being depleted. As such a strong demand for food, fiber and energy sources to continue the development of a sustainable and balanced society is coming. Now I am coordinating a network CYTED precisely in order to promote the issue in discussion with an ecosystem approach

Thank you all so very much for your contributions, it has been a great insight into the issues people are interested in, especially concerning food and energy resources.

My work is focusing around Europe with local and international sourcing of crops for use into biofuels, so it is good to hear about what those in the international sector of my research have to say about this.

A question to the field: if there was a market for utilising wheat straw and oilseed rape straw wastes for the use of energy production, do you think it would work along side the food industry and prevent the issues we have all discussed in such depth?

I have created a new question feed for this if you would rather post there than here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_parallel_market_for_energy_from_food_crop_straw_wastes_without_impacting_the_food_industry

To put it in a nutshell: Leftovers from Food Production is never wrong to be used any way better than "waste" - from the biomass point of view there is nothing to say against the usage for energy production, taken into consideration that effectivity is given. It would be "useless" if there was a higher energy input (especially from fossil sources - e.g. transportation) than the actual energy harvested.

There are many good opinions and suggestion but I full agree with Albert, Aran Incharoensakdi and others. I am in favor of food crops over energy crops with respect to the utilization of arable land. However if one can utilize saline areas (sabkha) or salt water for irrigation to produce halophyte crops for energy production, this would be highly favorable and would be a good start to solve the energy problems. Recently I came to know that very famous airlines (Boeing, British, Qantas, Emirates, Etihad, etc.) are investing a lot in research related to the use of saline irrigation water in producing plants that can be a source of energy.

Mahmoud in Bioeconomic approach there are productive sectors, well the Ecointesification consider the Bioremediation that is considers biofertilize and other input thar make the productivity on the land. (Trigo, 2013), (Zuniga and Trejos, 2013)

Carlos, could you please provide me with full references for those Citations? Just tried looking and now google hates me.

Thanks

Dear Archer take some them:

Alarcón, J.V. (1990) "La Matriz de Contabilidad Social y la Planificación de las Necesidades Básicas", en Necesidades Básicas y Desarrollo, ILPES-ISS-ILDIS, Hisbol La Paz - Bolivia, Publicación de Ponencias en el Seminario sobre Necisades Básicas y Desarrollo auspiciado por ILPES-ISS y el Ministerio de Planificación y Coordinación - 1989.

Alarcón, J.V. (1996) "Introduccisn to Social Accounting Matrix Modelling; An application to Ecuador SAM-1975", The Hague-ISS, mimeo.

Alarcón J. V. (1997), “Matrices de Contabilidad Social, Objetivos, Características, Construcción y Extensiones”. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Económicas- Universidad de Costa Rica.

Agüero Murillo, A. C. (2009). Producción de bacterias fijadoras de nitrógeno (Azotobacter, Bacillus y Pseudomonas); en medio líquido a base de melaza, para su aplicación en el cultivo de caña de azúcar (Saccharum spp.) en Azucarera El Viejo, Guanacaste, Costa Rica (Doctoral dissertation, Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica. Escuela de Biología). Carpintero, Oscar (2005), Los precursores de la economía ecológica: El desafío de la bioeconomía.

Adelman, I. y Robinson, S. (1978), Income Distribution Policy in Developing Countries, Standford University, California.

Blanco Orozco, N. V., & Zúniga González, C. A. (2013). Productivity Analysis in Power Generation Plants Connected to the National Grid: A New Case of Bio Economy in Nicaragua. Journal of Agricultural Studies ISSN 2166-0379, Vol. 1, No. 1

Brambila Paz, José de Jesús (2011). Bioeconomía: Instrumentos para su análisis económico. 1a Edición, Texcoco, Estado de México, marzo de 2011. ISBN: 978-607-7668-05-3

CEPAL (1994), “Organización de la Información y de los Datos Estadísticos en el Campo del Medio Ambiente: Propuestas Metodológicas” División de Medio Ambiente y Asentamientos Humanos. Naciones Unidas, LC/L. 852, 29 de Julio.

Cañal, MJ; Rodríguez, R; Fernández, B; Sánchez-Tamez, R; Majada, JP. 2001. Fisiología de cultivo In vitro. Biotecnología Vegetal 1:3-9.

Calderón, C., Aburto, e. Excurra (2009). El valor de los manglares. Biodiversitas 82: 1-6.

Cassman, KG. 1999. Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96:5952–5959.

Cruz Ramos, Ariel, Flores Delgado, Alfredo, Ibarra-Yúnez, Alejandro y Zamorano Cervantes, Homar (2011). Análisis de la distribución territorial de proyectos del mecanismo para un desarrollo limpio. El caso de los estados de la república mexicana. Economía mexicana nueva época, vol. XXI, núm. 2, segundo semestre de 2012 . PP. 213-250

Coelli, T. J., L. Lauwers, & G. Van Huylenbroeck. (2007). "Environmental Efficiency Measurement and the Materials Balance Condition", Journal of Productivity Analysis, 28:1, pp.3-12 Doré, T; Makowski, D; Malézieux, E; Munier-Jolain, N; Tchamitchian, M; Tittonell, P. 2011. Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: Revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. European Journal of Agronomy 34(4):197-210.

Engelmann, F. (1991). In vitro conservation of tropical plant germoplasm- a review. Euphytica 57: 227-243.

Escalona, M. (2006). Temporary immersion beats traditional techniques on all fronts. A novel bioreactor for plants tissue culture. Prophyta Annual. 48-49 p.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION C (2005), “New perspectives on the knowledge based bio-economy: A conference report”, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2005.

Fernández, H., & Galetto, A. J. (2002). Modelo bioeconómico de programación lineal para el análisis de decisiones en el tambo. In Congreso Argentino de Producción Animal. 25. 2002 10 02-04, 2-4 de octubre, 2002. Buenos Aires. AR..

Gonzales, C., Trigo, E., Herrera Estrella, L., Farias, A. , (2013), Current status and future potential of knowledge based bio-economy related research & innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean and policy recommendations. Bioeconomy Working Paper No. 2013-02. ALCUE KBBE FP7 Project No. 264266. 12 p .

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. "Process analysis and the neoclassical theory of production." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54.2 (1972): 279-294.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energy and economic myths. Southern Economic Journal, 347-381.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. "The steady state and ecological salvation: a thermodynamic analysis." BioScience (1977): 266-270.

Haggar, J; Staver, C; Melo, E. 2001. Sostenibilidad y sinergismo en sistemas agroforestales con café: estudio de interacciones entre plagas, fertilidad del suelo y árboles de sombra. Agroforestería en las Américas 8(29):49-51.

Hodson de Jaramillo E., Chavarriaga-Aguirre P., (2013), Natural resources in Latin America and the Caribbean from a bioeconomy perspective and policy recommendations, Bioeconomy Working Paper No.2013-02. ALCUE KBBE FP7 Project No. 264266, 10 p.

Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura, IICA (2010). Atlas de la agroenergía y los biocombustibles en las Américas: II Biodiésel. Programa Hemisférico en Agroenergía y Biocombustibles. San José. C.R. IICA, 2010. ISBN 13:978-92-9248-196-4.

Leyva, A; Lores, A. 2012. NUEVOS ÍNDICES PARA EVALUAR LA AGROBIODIVERSIDAD. Agroecología 7:109-115.

Méndez, V. E., & Bacon, C. (2005). Medios de vida y conservación de la biodiversidad arbórea: las experiencias de las cooperativas cafetaleras en El Salvador y Nicaragua. LEISA Revista de Agroecologıa (Perú), 20(4), 27-30.

O'Ryan, R., de Miguel, C. J., & Miller, S. (2000). Ensayo sobre equilibrio general computable: teoría y aplicaciones (No. 73). Centro de Economía Aplicada, Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile.

OECD (2010). The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda. OECD International Futures Project, OECD, Paris, France.

OECD (2008). Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? Round Table on Sustainable Development, IEA Bioenergy Executive Committee, Oslo, Norway, 14 may.

Pedro J.Rocha S., (2013) Policy and institutional framework for the development of bioeconomy in Latin America and the Caribbean, Bioeconomy Working Paper No.2013-04. ALCUE KBBE FP7 Project No. 264266, 8 p.

Pellerin, William and Taylor Wayne D. (2008), Measuring the bio based economy: A Canadian perspective. Gen Publising Inc., A Mary ann Liberty Inc. Company. Vol 4. No 4 Winter 2008.

Poveda, M. (2007). Eficiencia energética: recurso no aprovechado. OLADE. Quito. Sánchez, M; Prager, M; Naranjo, R; Sanclemente, O. (2012). EL SUELO, SU METABOLISMO, CICLAJE DE NUTRIENTES Y PRÁCTICAS AGROECOLÓGICAS. Agroecología 7:19-34.

Sawaya, David., Arundel, Anthony ( ), La evolución de la bioeconomía hasta 2030: diseño de una agenda política.

Sarandón, S; Flores, CC. (2009). EVALUACIÓN DE LA SUSTENTABILIDAD EN AGROECOSISTEMAS: UNA PROPUESTA METODOLÓGICA. Agroecología 4:19-28.

Tittonell, P; Giller, KE. (2013). When yield gaps are poverty traps: The paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Research 143(0):76-90.

Trigo E.J., Henry G., Sanders J., Schurr U. , Ingelbrecht I. ,Revel C. , Santana C. , Rocha P., (2013), Towards bioeconomy development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Bioeconomy Working Paper No.2013-01. ALCUE KBBE FP7 Project No. 264266, 15 p.

Taylor, L., E. Bacha, E. Cardoso y F. Lysy (1980), Models of Growth and Distribution for Brazil, Oxford University Press, London.

Wilson, E. O. (1988). Biodiversidad. National Academy Press, Washington.

Zúniga G., Carlos Alberto (2013). Total Factor Productivity and the Bio Economy Effects. Journal of Agricultural Studies ISSN 2166-0379, Vol. 1, No. 1.

Zúniga G., Carlos Alberto & Trejos, Rafael (2013) Measuring the contribution for Bio-economics: A Nicaragua Case. Instituto Interamericano de cooperación para la agricultura IICA-CAESPA.

Zanoni, J. R. (1999). La integración energética latinoamericana. Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura, 5(1), 255-266.

Archer you must to focus in productive sectors of the Bioeconomic. You theme is regarding with Econintesinfication (biorremediation, biofertilizer, )

The key to this debate, as ever, is in definition of terms; all bioenergy feedstocks are not equal, they do not have the same environmental or atmospheric impacts. Take care to understand the difference between first generation biofuels, produced by input hungry, annual crops such as corn based bio-ethanol which quite likely present little or no carbon benefits when viewed over a whole lifecycle and can result in large releases of N2O to the atmosphere, and second generation fuels produced from perennial, low input crops such as Miscanthus, developed to be grown on poor quality, underproductive agricultural land.

The same distinctions need to be applied when considering “previously cultivated land”; there is a big difference between soil carbon stocks in land that has been in continuous annual arable or perennial forestry or grassland. The continual disturbance of annual arable cultivation keeps soil carbon stocks very low and high inputs of fertiliser and irrigation mean large releases of other greenhouse gases such as N2O and water vapour; conversion of these lands to perennial bio-fuels crops such as Miscanthus or short rotation coppice can see very significant gains in soil carbon and potential reductions in other agricultural greenhouse gases.

Even ‘grassland’ is not a simple concept; they may be long term semi-natural grazed grasslands, ancient hay meadows or improved grassland silage production systems, land-use change on any of these will have varying impacts. Most improved grasslands have high levels of nitrogen fertiliser; huge impacts on biodiversity through early season silage cutting and methane production from subsequent grazing, conversion of this energy and input intensive animal production to a perennial bio-fuel crop could see great gains in greenhouse gas mitigation.

In terms of the food vs fuel debate; there is absolutely no shortage of food in the world. For now hunger lies in poor distribution; broken markets, perverse subsidies and the failure of politicians to have any real power, or vision, in a corporate ridden world. That is not to say that there won’t be problems in the coming years, increasing preference for more meat based, fossil fuel produced diets, both in the developed and developing world, are driving up both the landscape, environmental and carbon cost of producing food. I completely disagree with the endlessly trotted out caveat that we must not allow bio-energy production to compete with food production; continually striving to produce cheaper meat at the expense of both the environment and the atmosphere in no way contributes to feeding hungry people, it just adds profits for speculators and inches to already overfilled waistbands. There is no shortage of food in the world but there is a serious and, possibly fatal, shortage of clean, sustainable, renewable energy.

I would like to add to this discussion the Bioeconomy approach. So there are productivy sectors for the Bioeconomy, like Biodiversity resources, Eco intensification, Biotechnology Application, Biorefinery and Bioproducts, agregated change value, Ecoturism services. So this theme is relationated with Eco intensification where the Bioremdiation for the soil is used.

I would like to add that in under developed and developing countries and even in developed country like China where food security is main issue, the diversion of land from food crop to fuel crop has no jsutification. Itis considered more appropriate to cut ares from cash crop to food crops for food security . Hunger major issue in African and Asia countries and cannot afford to divert area under food crops to fuel crops. Moreover, tehncology should be devsied to use crop residues for energy production. Lot of paddy and wheat straw and organic waste in forest is destroyed by burning.

A K Dhawan

Changing land use from food crops to fuel crops is not as bad as converting Agricultural land into human settlements. This is happening in the outskirts of Nairobi. I have asked my friends what Kenyans will eat when they build houses everywhere. Under Kenyan circumstances it would less worrying to see fuel crops than to see high density settlements in areas that a reserved as agricultural lands.

I agree with you James that changing land use from food crops to fuel crops is not as bad as converting Agricultural land into human settlements. Some scientists predicted that in the future, every person build in an agricultural land will remove his building and plant wheat or anything for food purposes. As you know there is a huge gap in food, and the new generation will face more problems regarding to food shortage.

There is a bigger issue behind all these. One must decide what should be our trade off points, whether conserving environment for the future generations or current economy and life styles. Just by sacrificing a little now (reducing the fuel consumption) we can gift a better world to our grand and great-grand children. Even in case of food crops, there are many feasible vertical farming models that consume less space and offer healthy horticulture produce rather than high calorie cereal crops that require vast arable land.

I agree with the views first point) of Bhagyalakshmi. In the second point she stressed only on horticultural product with available land. We cannot live with horticultural produce alone.

Energy conversion efficiency of photosynthesis is 3%, and that of photovoltaics; direct conversion of sunlight to electricity or energy is about 10%. If your aim is to produce energy and not as carbon sink, photoconversion to electricity is a much better option.

The idea of using the food crops land for energy crops is not bad. However, to we cannot withdraw the food crops at the cost of energy crops. Unless you eat food you will not get energy. My suggesting would be the food cum energy crops (eg.) Sorghum, Cassava, Sugarcane, etc may be used as a dual-purpose crops to satisfy the need of both sectors.

Elangovan

I agree with the views of Elangovan. But cultivation of these crops are very limited and is not able to meet the demands of energy. My opinion is the barren lands could be used effectively for cultivation of energy crops. It will be suitable only for the countries with vast area with low population.

I invite you to check our chárter book https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Zuniga_Gonzalez/contributions?ev=prf_act

The Bioeconomy have productive Path, so you must remember that crop production is limited and Remember that the bioeconomy is the economic activity that uses waste production to intensify production in underdeveloped countries but it is important that biofuels are applied to crops such as jatropha is not edible.

There is no more food and energy debate as FAO explains. You can read it here:

http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2015/01/19/biofuels-fao-to-finish-food-vs-fuel-debate/

Food AND energy is possible. We have around 2.8 billion hectares not going to be used for food and to meet 100% of bioenergy crops requirements in land we only need around 50M hectares.

Additionally, bioenergy promtoes food production  and food security thorugh FOOD ACCESS (income generation for example rural electricification, etc.).

That all said, I agree with you. I would never degrade a forested land for bioenergy. My approach is to promote sustainable perennial bioenergy (woody, herbaceous, bushes, etc.) with sustainable extractions, reforestation/afforestation, agroforestry, analogue forestry and perennial grasses among many other options. Soil improvement, carbon sequestration, more biodiversity. We have tons of evidence about this all. Just contact and I send you the links.

The International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA) supports the idea of perennial biomass crops to feed the bioeconomy. They expect more than 30% of total bioenergy coming from dedicated species. 

http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2015/02/17/biomass-usa-2030-35-bioenegy-crops/

The fact is that waste management is not always sustainable. Forest detritus and straw removals can seriously impact on soil fauna!

In addition, biomass systems with perennials (woody, herbaceous and even shrubs) can improve the soil: http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2014/10/20/energy-crops-can-improve-soil-fertility/

and Sequester massive amounts of carbon:  http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2015/04/21/carbon-negative-in-usa-bioenergy-is-critical-new-study-found/

and Increase biodiversity:http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2014/06/25/energy-crops-new-study-showed-improvement-biodiversity/

And of course increase food security:

http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2014/09/09/food-security-and-biofuels-land/

http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2013/09/12/biomass-stoves/

And reduce deforestation

http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2015/02/17/biomass-stoves-reduced-deforestation-tanzania/

We normally see detractors using arguments that are a bluf. Most of them prefer nuclear or coal energy and they don't care about pesticides in horticulture, importfing diesel and irea in small islands to have food security or cultivate and plow every year in monocropping systems without rotations.

Sounds like there is a contradiction about it.

Thank you for all your contributions Emiliano, I shall take a good look at the resources you have provided.

Thank you. You will find the links and posts I sent have scientific references and official documents in all cases.

There is not any single and correct answer to this question. The situation varies from one country to another. The level of economic development and the productivity of the agricultural sector are also critical to the conversion of land from food production into energy crop production. For instance, in Ethiopia where agriculture is the mainstay of the economy that employs about 80 percent of the labor force and accounts for 45 percent of the GDP the productivity of the sector is very low. As a result, many projects aimed at producing energy crops in the early 2000s faced stiff resistance from  rural communities on the ground that their primary concern was to produce enough food to feed the rapidly growing human population.

There is not any single and correct answer to this question. The situation varies from one country to another. The level of economic development and the productivity of the agricultural sector are also critical to the conversion of land from food production into energy crop production. For instance, in Ethiopia where agriculture is the mainstay of the economy that employs about 80 percent of the labor force and accounts for 45 percent of the GDP the productivity of the sector is very low. As a result, many projects aimed at producing energy crops in the early 2000s faced stiff resistance from  rural communities on the ground that their primary concern was to produce enough food to feed the rapidly growing human population.

oil from Jatropha resulted no viable worldwide. Ethanol from corn is the same.

But we are talking about sustainable bioenergy with perennial species, biodiverse stands, perennial grasslands and agroforestry, short rotation coppice and reforestation in marginal lands. Most biomass projects with emission savings are focused on power and heat, not in biofuels. Brazil examples worked well just because of bagasse electricity.

www.Biomassresearch.eu has published a study in which they found to critical things nobody says here:

a) One hectare producing soybean has a % for food and a % for energy. Palm oil has a similar issue. Waste producing power/heat mitigating emissions and saving fossil energy. Food production in the process.

b) One hectare producing oil crops often is an hectare having two crops in a year. Typical example is wheat and soybean (Argentina).

c) A bioenergy project often introduces NEW INCOME SOURCES at regional level, improving food security through MAIN DRIVER which is FOOD ACCESS.

Poor countries are improving food security through food access and income, not by increasing their food production only....

This argument holds water in countries were you have well functioning input and output markets. In many developing countries agricultural markets are poorly integrated and the fact that there are poor infrastructure and inefficient market information system make it difficult to rely only on market forces.

Kassa could give examples? In particular I have experienced FAO, UN and other organizations working in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I have a book on food security showing figures and I don't find any (20 years ago, things worked like you say):

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Agriculture-Security-America/dp/1907132317

I engaged in such work to produce 10% of vehicles fuel in Jordan. A large land area was found required to plant single kind of food staff to produce that small fuel quantity. The project prooved to be huge, effective in shorting food, and complicated to manage.

agreed with Mahmoud. There are many good examples on how bioenergy MUST NOT be developed. In general oil to biodiesel is not efficient and residues are not used for power or biofertilzers. Besides there is a critical aspect to consider. Most jatropha, pongamia, plan oil and soybean projects are not being 100% sustainable just because the co products were not considered and also because sometimes (jatropha) yields are too low in marginal lands, similarly to rapeseeds in EU in marginal lands (Spain).

Thank you Emiliano, The relation between food and energy is not that simple or easy balance to predict. It differs from place to place, plant to plant, procedure to another, technology used to another, standard of living of local people to another, human needs and..............  .. so many variables must be considered.

Yes, I agree. The truth is that we are deforesting and we still see subsidies to fossil energy (and nuclear). Food and energy are linked in agri industries, agri forestry industries too, and all food processing. There are thousands of existing companies using biomass for thermal applications worldwide and also for power. They create new opportunities, develop income, bring clean investment to poor countries and create jobs. Food security is mostly related to income and food access, not to land. The land available is simply huge and it hasn't changed from 60's to now while food production and food access have. 

My point is that there is enough land for reforestation and perennials to produce renewable energy and biomaterials helping food sector.

The point that every one agrees on is that food must be given priority

in the same time other sources of renewable energy must be exploited as much as possible

GROWING ENERGY CROPS WILL NOT AND SHOULD NOT DISTURB GROWING OF FOOD CROPS. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT ENERGY CROPS ARE GROWN ON MARGINAL LAND AND IT HELPS TO PREVENT AND IMPROVE SUCH LAND. ALSO ENERGY CROP LIKE JATROPHA PLANT COULD BE USED AS FENCE  OR INTERCROP WITH FOOD CROP WITHOUT NO PROBLEM AND FARMERS WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE THE MERITS

I can support the ideas of each country has its own status, I cant take the situation in Brazil and  apply it in Jordan as example. We in Jordan have 80% of land is desert and yearly rain quantities of less than 400 mm. So instead of using lands of food crops for energy crops we can have endless land farms of PV solar energy generators and can produce as much as 20% and more of total energy produced in our country. Or more.

I would like to ask about the Brazilian situation. "What is the percentage of the bio fuel produced from the total energy yearly consumption.??.

All petrol in Brazil contains 20% bio-ethanol by law, and there are quite a lot of cars that run on 95% ethanol too. That's very good considering the fact that Brazil uses just 0.7% of the arable land for bio-ethanol production. In Jordan you have the option to use solar panels and it makes a lot of sense to use the little fresh water you have as efficiently as possible to produce food. Every country is different, and there is no general strategy, the only global issue that is affecting us all is that we use two thirds of the arable land worldwide to grow animals for 10% of the human population, and only one third to grow plants to0 feed 90% of the human population and subsidise the pasture land as it fails to feed the animals. There are 50 billion chicken on Planet Earth, that's 7 chicken for every human, and they eat about the same as one human. That's not to mention the cows and pigs that eat far more than the humans. Only so that the rich part of the world can have meat, eggs and milk every day. If we replace only half of this by lentils, chickpeas, beans, peas, potatoes and nuts, we have enough arable land in temperate zones to replace all mineral oil by ethanol from starch crops. Not in Jordan...but in the Ukraine, Canada, America, India, China and Europe. If you have a desert, build solar power stations and make hydrogen for export, and use hydrogen to make hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide. People always say you have to count the tractors and fertilisers when you calculate the carbon footprint of biofuel, but what about petrol? We currently use 3 barrels oil world wide to produce 4 barrels oil, if you count prospecting, unproductive drilling, shipping, refining and distribution. Compared to that, a potato field in Northern America is much more efficient, and much cleaner.

What I can say is that all right, but still numbers away from the results that is ready for decision making. Food for animals which is source for meat, human food is also essential for living basic requirements. But still  we need to know another variable which is more helpful for decision making: is it better to use the land to produce direct human food or to produce animal food, and these animals will be used as source of meat for human consumption. Not forgetting other products like milk, eggs, clothes furniture and   and  much more. 

As I said before this is a complicated issue and all considerations of all specialties   should be counted for. 

as 

I see the experience of Brazil in producing bio fuels is very rich and successful. I wounder why it is only Brazil? Is there any second country on the track? I do not know. 

The taking out the lands from food production into energy crop production seems attractive in short terms during the current scenario of price hike in the energy sources. But  this practice might very cost intensive and may be derogatory to human being. One possibility for energy crops is on the lands already lying barren, that may become environment friendly and useful option in the long run.

there are 2.9 billion hectares that FAO said nobody will use ever for food. Half is highly suitable land for any arable crop. Marginal lands are abundant (1.5 billion ha).

Most bioenergy systems produce income and food. There are thousand of examples of double products or co products. 

Food security is not linked to food availability but to food access.

Evidence supporting above statements is overwhelming 

Article Implications of agricultural bioenergy crop production and p...