Ethanol plant location and intensification vs. extensification of corn cropping in Kansas

Abstract

Farmers' cropping decisions are a product of a complex mix of socio-economic, cultural, and natural environments in which factors operating at a number of different spatial scales affect how farmers ultimately decide to use their land in any given year or over a set of years. Some environmentalists are concerned that increased demand for corn driven by ethanol production is leading to conversion of non-cropland into corn production (which we label as "extensification"). Ethanol industry advocates counter that more than enough corn supply comes from crop switching to corn and increased yields (which we label as "intensification"). In this study, we determine whether either response to corn demand --intensification or extensification --is supported. This is determined through an analysis of land-use/land-cover (LULC) data that covers the state of Kansas and a measure of a corn demand shifter related to ethanol production --distance to the closest ethanol plant --between 2007 and 2009.

Recent grassland losses are concentrated around U.S. ethanol refineries

“…This industry-wide result was consistent with state-level findings from Kansas, over a comparable time period (2007À2009) [30]. There, corn intensification surrounding ethanol refineries, due to crop switching and an increase in continuous-corn production, was fivetimes greater, by area, than expansion of corn onto new cropland [30]. With respect to uncertainties surrounding feedstock sourcing, as acknowledged in EPA's first triennial report [13], our results are consistent with an argument that U.S. ethanol development has been achieved more so by corn intensification-including crop switching, yield improvements, and continuous-corn productionthan by corn extensification [32].…”

“…At the same time, potential ethanol capacity attributable to cropland expansion was modest. This industry-wide result was consistent with state-level findings from Kansas, over a comparable time period (2007À2009) [30]. There, corn intensification surrounding ethanol refineries, due to crop switching and an increase in continuous-corn production, was fivetimes greater, by area, than expansion of corn onto new cropland [30].…”

“…At 50-100 miles from refineries, a small (< 12 000 acres) net increase in wetland occurred (figure 5(d)). Others have found that the intensity of corn production increased under RFS2 as farmers supplanted traditional corn/soy rotation with continuouscorn production [29,30]. As an upper bound on potential ethanol capacity generated from recent conversion, suppose that all land initially planted to corn or soybeans represents the pool of new cropland available for feedstock production.…”

Ethanol Plant Location and Land Use: A Case Study of CRP and the Ethanol Mandate

“…This could even be an issue in studies that use an instrumental variables approach, if the instrumental variable is time-invariant and interacted with time effects, such as in Motamed et al (2016). Other studies such as Brown et al (2014) and Blomendahl et al (2011) do not directly address the issue of pre-trends.…”

Impacts of biofuel-based land-use change on water quality and sustainability in a Kansas watershed

“…Interviews of Kansas farmers indicate that many farmers support the CRP program and see their participation as important for being a good steward to the land. However, some farmers indicated that they have already converted CRP land to cropland at the end of contracts, or have expressed interest in doing so (Brown et al, 2014;Gray and Gibson, 2013). Farmers cite income potential of grain production and land scarcity as reasons for converting CRP to cultivated land.…”