# Biofuel production killing fish



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

In the Dec 2009 issue of TEXAS FISH AND GAME they say that Biofuel production is increasing the “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.
Fertilizers used to produce biofuel promote algae growth that is depleting oxygen in the Gulf. Another Federally mandated “Green” program is harming the environment. :roll:


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

redleg said:


> In the Dec 2009 issue of TEXAS FISH AND GAME they say that Biofuel production is increasing the "Dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.
> Fertilizers used to produce biofuel promote algae growth that is depleting oxygen in the Gulf. Another Federally mandated "Green" program is harming the environment. :roll:


Production of Biofuels would not be the only culprit, but would add to the problem.
The algal blooms are caused by excess fertilizer runoff - which can affect large bodies of water, as well as smaller lakes, ponds, and streams.
The excess nutrients can come from large scale farms, and even runoff from lawns, gardens, and golf courses, usually in the form of nitrates and phosphates. That is why it is critical to follow the application rates listed on your Miracle Gro (and other products).
These algal blooms also affect the GSL especially Farmington Bay. What happens is this - the excess nutrients cause cyanobacteria (alga) to multiply jinormously. When they die - the decomposing bacteria use up the Dissolved Oxygen "DO" in the water. Decomposition then switches to anaerobic respiration whiches produces some pretty foul smells. These foul smells have come to be known as the dreaded Lake Stink that we experience in the mid to late summer. It is not so much the lakes fault as we are the ones dumping sewage (treated hopefully) and by the use of excess chemicals around our homes, and farms.
So back to the original thread - The mighty Mississippi is a dumping ground for farm runoff, sewage, and of host of other sources. To blame it all on biofuels would not be completely accurate.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

The article didn’t claim raising biofuel was the only source of fertilizer. Just that biofuel production was increasing the expanse of the dead zone.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

It is a pretty biased statement to claim that biofuels are completely to blame for this problem, but in recent years there has been a surge of biofuel production. My guess is that the author used this fact to blame the expanding dead zone on biofuels. 

Yet another example of researching things for yourself! You can't believe everything you hear/read. EVERYONE has an agenda.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

But without biofuel production the dead zone would be smaller.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

redleg said:


> But without biofuel production the dead zone would be smaller.


Can that be measured? :wink: Non-point source pollutions can be very hard to determine, then dealing with the drainage basin for the mighty Mississippi would be an almost impossible task to try and measure.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

you are the type who drives a Prius, aren't you?


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

Sounds to me like he's the type who has his ducks in a row and his facts straight.

Sounds to me like your the type that shoots first and asks questions later.

Thanks fer yer service.

:?


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Chaser and Naturalist,you are both right Bio-Fuel production isn't the only farm product that uses the fertilizer thats killing the gulf. It is just one of them.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

OK I’ll have to admit Zimm. You guys worried about Global Warming might have something. 
Al Gore said if people stopped driving SUVs and converted to Hybrids the earth would get cooler. Well last year I saw a lot of Priuses on the road and the US is going through one of the coldest winters on record. 
I would join you if I weren’t afraid winters would get so cold it would kill too much game. 
Last year I sold my old Geo (which got better real mileage than a Prius but, for political reasons, isn’t allowed on the HOV lane). Maybe next year I should replace it with a used Prius. They will be going pretty cheap when the owners find out that it cost more to replace the batteries than the car is worth. Or I’ll just drive my 1980 Triumph car, which uses no natural resources to manufacture since it already exists. Contrary to the true result of cash for clunkers.
But since it was built in 1980, it wasn’t designed to burn some exotic alcohol that requires 10 acres of fertilized high productive farmland to support each vehicle. It runs on fossil fuels, which the alarmists said would start petering out in the 1970s and would be only in the history books by the year 2000. But then those same alarmists told us if the US didn’t halt its industrial economy, the smog would shade the planet and cause global cooling. :V|: 
Whatever the question, the answer is to force Western people to revert to the Stone Age.
At least bio-fuel doesn’t require people to pedal their cars like the Flintstones.


----------

