Talk:Miscanthus × giganteus/Archive 1

Comparison with timber
the author has understated the production of timber, and understated the need for N fertilisation of Miscanthus. The article fails to cite appropriate science articles to support the comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.57.211 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

International units preferred
S.I. units should used for yields, energy content etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Variant definition of weasel
It's a natural progression *cough* excuse me (natural implies a living being, and here I am discussing artificial robot machines), correction, it's often the case that an article with Weasel Word Warnings that the warning should be taken as a flag, or sign stating that the words used may be easier to understand if taken in the context of the underlying conversation being discussed by machines. Such chatter is easier to interpret using spoken IPA as opposed to a program that translates machine language. If the reader, like me is a true beginner with reading employing spoken IPA as opposed to the school taught ABC's, it may be easiest to first Identify the patently false chatter such as the advantages of a non food source plant compared to a food source, as unless you are speaking of a biomass plant grown for structural uses, like poplar 2x4's, there is NO advantage to this or any fictional plant Giga or Zachariah(us), not when compared to any food plant and especially not the most depended upon high energy plant that produces maize, also known as corn. The first dead giveaway is that corn varietals not only produce more biomass than any other none food plant, is also provides more necessary starch/food fuel for human, animals, and animals masquerading as humane beings. It seems most WWW articles are really more about the animals whom masquerade discussing the ways they rational lies they tell themselves which are necessary for an intelligent being to ignore the Light and Truth and justify their wrongful control over those they illegally withhold God Given Rights, also known as Self-evident Rights which only serve to get them cut off from The Dispensation. The excuse that publishers didn't know any better, was only valid during the pre-electronic era. Holding onto to wrongful control hasn't been acceptable behavior for nearly one hundred years, and technically, the more direct word for wrongful control -- which is Abuse -- has not been acceptable for over 2000 Gregorian Calendar Years. Any time you feel compelled to lie or knowingly mislead a humane being; Either the behavior you are lying about is wrong and you need to quit doing it OR The person or entity you are lying to is not someone you are capable of having a healthy friendship with and therefore instead of lying you need to inform them they relationship with you is not at a level wherein you disclose the private aspects of your life that you felt compelled to lie about. When such matters are displayed in places that can be publicly viewed, that disqualifies the private status of said matters, despite the completely not effective disclaimer of "Wikipedia is not a forum", as it only needs to be published in a public space to disqualify the ideas or actions as private, in short, the publishing or ideas which are not truth needs to be removed from the Encyclopedic content and exist only in the realm of the varieties of fiction -Dirtclustit (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration
Miscanthus has the potential to sequester carbon in the soil. Plants sequester carbon by intaking atmospheric CO2 and assimilating it as plant tissue (leaves or roots) and sharing with its microbial partners in the soil (Clifton-Brown, Breuer, and Jones 2007). Clifton-Brown et al. reports a sequestration of 0.6 t C per ha per year. This carbon sequestering adds to the fossil fuel offset to give the net offset of Miscanthus as a bioenergy crop. Ar197913 (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled section
The article quotes "It is currently used in the European Union and United Kingdom as a commercial energy crop.". Surely this should read "It is currently used in the European Union as a commercial energy crop." As UK is part of EU, mentioning it is tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MerryweatherMI3635 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

<>

There is some language in there that suggests one advantage of Miscanthus production is that corn ethanol is derived from a potential food source for humans. This is incorrect, as field corn is not sold for human consumption--especially in the common biotech varieties grown in the US. Also, if acres currently planted in corn were planted in Miscanthus, the overall effect would be to reduce corn acres and to raise corn prices and indirectly food prices (as field corn is fed to animals used for food). If Miscanthus can be grown in places too arid for corn, or otherwise unsuitable there is a possibility that it could reduce food prices and commodity prices in the US by undercutting the price of corn based ethanol and shutting down the corn ethanol plants here in the US. History suggests that if that were to happen, government intervention in the form of taxation would be the result--to protect corn prices. This is the case with Brazilian sugar cane based ethanol which is essentially banned from the US market. Also, the suggestion that Miscanthus prices would not also fluctuate leaves the question, Why not? If both ethanol prices and corn prices fluctuate in response to the marker, why wouldn't Miscanthus or Miscanthus based ethanol prices fluctuate as well?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding poster, field corn is not the same thing as sweet corn. Furthermore, since field corn is generally used to feed livestock, no mention is made of the secondary product of corn ethanol fermentation, dried distiller's grains and solubles (DDGS) that is used to partially offset the loss of the corn to ethanol production. Additionally, that section glosses over problems inherent in processing of cellulosic feedstocks compared to corn; it misleadingly assumes that total biomass is the determinant of ultimate efficiency, rather than some combination of ease of processing. Yield numbers cited are not attributed and therefore I cannot make any judgment of what a realistic performance assessment of miscanthus giganteus compared to corn based on location, soil chemistry, etc. The person who wrote that section also makes overmuch of the still controversial food-fuel substitution argument for price, still being openly debated among economists. Furthermore, the section on comparison to wood (1) does not cite any sources, (2) does not cite the type of wood being compared, and (3) does not mention the inherent advantage of wood resources over grasses, such as miscanthus, in terms of embedded energy density and the resulting ease of logistics that confers. Instead it focuses only on total biomass productivity. Unfortunately, as there are no citations I do not know if the writer is comparing apples to oranges, so to speak. 206.16.109.32 (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Field corn is used as human food - much more than sweet corn (which is a very minor proportion of all the corn grown). We eat it in cereal, corn meal, corn starch, masa (tortillas, corn chips, tamales, etc.), polenta, grits, and many other foods we don't often contemplate. Also corn sugar, which is in a huge number of products comes mostly from field corn. Corn starch and other similar products is also in all sorts of food products. I buy bulk corn grits (polenta) and it's the very same field corn grown for all the other purposes (but it's processed in a human food plant). Oh, and field corn is also one of the most important feeds for animals we eat. Anyway from the above comments - which I assume are not from ignorant people - it's surprising how little we know about what we eat and where it comes from. I am an avid gardener - and grew up amongst farmers, and still work with farmers and ranchers often. However I still see a connection with corn biofuel and Miscanthus - because there is only so much land. I don't see that Miscanthus grows only on land not suitable for corn - so if you grow it, you will have to grow less corn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.24.164 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is debate in this talk page about the Comparison to Food Crop Based Ethanol section. This section contains weasel word sentences, especially since there are no sources to back this up <> The ideas presented by multiple authors on this section in the talk page prove to be an interesting discussion, but also lack sources that could aid in their points. Grain corn utilizes 55-60 million acres and is not directly consumed by humans. About 75% of this is used as livestock feed, 10% is exported, and 15% is used for various other corn products such as alcohol, corn-starch, syrup, sugar, flakes and meal (“Corn”, Purdue Agriculture, https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Corn.html). Humans do eat quite a bit of this corn, just not directly like sweet corn which only makes up 650,000 acres (“Corn”, Purdue Agriculture, https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Corn.html). Another concern is that Miscanthus as a biofuel crop will replace existing corn ethanol fields. This replacement may hurt corn prices and therefore cause government intervention in price regulation. This is speculative, but an interesting point brought up in the discussion. The Renewable Fuel Standard is calling for increased amounts of cellulosic fuel sources. (Renewable Fuel Standard 2016) Corn ethanol requires large inputs that Miscanthus would not require on the same, or more marginalized, land. (Heaton 2008, “Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus”) Miscanthus replacing corn, or utilizing marginalized/abandoned agricultural land could benefit the needed cellulosic goal. Grain corn is overproduced and financially needs propping up by the government, and the RFS limit on corn ethanol production has been reached and should not be exceeded when there are other sources that have higher potential than this current source. Ar197913 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words
Parts of this article read as propaganda, not independent copy. The conclusion that this plant is "completely noninvasive" because it's a sterile hybrid and propagates via rhyzomes is really biased: many invasive species propagate by rhyzomes. The mention of so many producers, with links, is also suspicious. – Tintazul msg 20:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Bamboo propagates by rhizomes and is notoriously invasive.  This needs to be checked.  The implication that rhizome propagation equals non-invasive can be immediately edited since it is flatly erroneous. Tmangray (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see very few 'weasel' words in this article - compared to most others. It's much more thoroughly referenced than most - for a Wiki entry.

Also - I speak from experience as I grow this plant. It's not a spreader, and the rhizomes do not transport well - they are hard and heavy, rather than thin and easily transported. So here (Utah) I've grown it for 20 years and it's spread about 10 inches! As far as I know it's not reported as invasive yet. Some confusion exists however in that other Miscanthus species are invasive (in some areas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.24.164 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

About invasive potential of Miscanthus rhizomes: There are multiple studies on the rhizome spread of Miscanthus. I cannot find the one I was thinking of, if I do I will link it later. However, here is one good study. 1.Matlaga, D. P. & Davis, A. S. Minimizing invasive potential of Miscanthus × giganteus grown for bioenergy: identifying demographic thresholds for population growth and spread. J Appl Ecol 50, 479–487 (2013). (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12057/full) Ar197913 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

General critiques
The lead is too short; it only describes the grass and does not summarize the features (low input, sterile) and uses (bioenergy, marginal land usage, sequestration). The structure is unbalanced. The biofuels section feels too focused on companies and could benefit from speaking more to biofuel research. The comparison sections are clear, perhaps a sentence or two indicating the importance of the findings would make it more interesting to the average reader. The coverage is not balanced; certain parts are overly long in proportion to their importance. It is understandably skewed to the biofuel side of the grass; this article could benefit from more viewpoints. Research implications and economic implications could be balanced and defined better- everything is mixed together and the research side of the article seems lacking. The talk of companies that are working to utilize Miscanthus is important to understand how Miscanthus can find its place in the bioenergy market. However, because of the amount of information relative to the rest of the section it seems biased. Also, this information needs an update to the current status of these projects. There are quite a few articles for the length of this article. Sources that are only links should be fixed to include authors and add specificity to what on the web page is being referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar197913 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)