.
Exports and renewable energy are at the top of Rod Nilsestuen’s priority list these days.
Nilsestuen, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection Secretary, visited Tomah Thursday and touted numbers that show a significant increase in Wisconsin agricultural exports.
Wisconsin’s exports rose by 45 percent and surpassed $2 billion in 2007.
“Agriculture has been on a real roll in Wisconsin thanks to record prices and increased exports,” Nilsestuen said.
The export story includes:
*Dairy products up 131 percent. Nilsestuen cited a “very strong demand for whey. It’s such a fungible and versatile product -- it can be used in anything from energy drinks to candy bars.”
*Dairy genetics up 40 percent. Much of the demand is driven by Mexico, which has a growing dairy industry.
*Dried distilled grains, up 245 percent. A by-product of the state’s growing ethanol industry, distilled grains are sought as high-protein livestock feed in Asia.
*Prepared vegetable exports up 135 percent. Potatoes went up 218 percent, driven by demand for frozen potatoes.
Nilsestuen even sees more exports for cranberries, a commodity which has traditionally received a cool reception abroad.
“Other countries, like Japan, where there were never cranberries before are accepting cranberries,” he said.
Nilsestuen said part of the export boom can be traced to the weak American dollar.
“The purchasing power of the nations we export to is increasing significantly, but it isn’t just the buck,” he said.
On the alternative energy front, Nilsestuen is promoting the use of ethanol through an ethanol blend called E85. His goal is for 400 stations in Wisconsin to sell E85 by the end of the year.
He defended corn ethanol from charges that it fails to create a net gain of energy.
“With the energy ratio comparisons, there are dozens out there, and you have to be careful which ones you use,” Nilsestuen said. He said many studies use farm productivity models that are outdated by more than 20 years. He also said ethanol plants have made considerable efficiency gains.
Nilsestuen also promoted biomass as a way to heat school buildings, especially schools in northern and western Wisconsin that have access to plentiful nearby wood supplies.
“Biomass is part of a portfolio for Wisconsin’s energy independence,” said Secretary Nilsestuen. “A school wood study illustrates that Wisconsin has both the renewable resources and innovation needed to reach Gov. Doyle’s goal of 25 percent renewable energy and fuel by 2025. We have a lot of biomass and a lot of under-utilized wood.”
.
Advertisement 
Advertisement 
Jeffrey B. Zeiger wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:50 AM:
Researchers from the USDA and Argonne conclude “Corn ethanol is energy efficient. For every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain. Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every BTU of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 BTU gain.” (British Thermal Unit)
Argonne is one of the US Department of Energy's largest research centers. In 2001, David Pimentel an Entomology Professor (the study of insects) from Cornell University said that corn-to-ethanol production is uneconomic. He said that it takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces. This one university bug professor has set the stage for this debate over the past 7 years. In many detailed studies since then, researchers including those at Michigan State University have contradicted Pimentel and said his findings are based on out-of-date statistics (22 year old data). In a later revised study Pimentel partnered with Tad W. Patzek to again discredit ethanol's energy benefits. This report again still used the antiquated data from Pimentel's study. What is interesting is that Tad W. Patzek worked for Shell Oil Company for many years as a researcher, consultant, and expert witness. He founded and directs the UC Oil Consortium, which is mainly funded by the oil industry at the rate of $60,000-120,000 per company per year. WHAT MORE IS THERE TO SAY!
If you compare the USDA and Pimentel studies, the USDA clearly states through research that U.S. farming and ethanol production are very efficient and that the energy content of ethanol delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil energy inputs required to produce it. The USDA estimates that ethanol facilities produce at least 1.34 units of energy as ethanol for every fossil BTU used, considering all energy inputs related to corn farming, corn transport, ethanol production, and distribution and transport of finished ethanol.
It is time for farmers, ethanol investors, public policy leaders, teachers, soccer moms, veterans and all patriotic Americans to stand up and let their voice be heard on ethanol! We need all forms of American made energy to reduce reliance on foreign oil. Ethanol clearly is one of those solutions that our country should support for so many good reasons.
"