Good news! The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, down there at the base of the Mississippi River where 40% of the river water in the United States empties, is not caused by corn fertilizer running off into mid-continent watersheds, according to a new study.

"Complex natural phenomena, such as seasonal hypoxia [dead zone] in the Gulf, are seldom the result of a single cause," said the study's author, Dr. James McLaren said. "Extensive analysis of the data across several factors indicates that there is no evidence relating modern corn nitrogen use with the occurrence of hypoxia in the Gulf."

Glad we can put that behind us. After all, Dr. McLaren would know. He's CEO of StrathKirn, Inc., "a business consulting firm." And if the doctor's credentials as a "business consultant" don't persuade you that he knows about dying oceans and their lack of deadness due to corn, well, he worked for Monsanto for 13 years!

Oh and did I mention who paid for the study? The National Corn Growers Association! So there you have it. America's largest corn lobbying group and its schill say corn is not to blame. Case closed.

Except for the fact that last year, a far more reputable outfit, the National Academy of Sciences, published a study edited by a researcher from Cornell on the problem of the Gulf's dead zone, as it pertained to the growing acreage of corn in the United States. The report concluded:

The results of this study suggest that the projected expansion of corn-based ethanol production could make the already challenging goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers to the Gulf of Mexico practically impossible without radical shifts in feed production, diet, and agricultural land management.

Oops. So I guess when Dr. McLaren says:

"If there is any nitrogen fertilizer from corn going down the Mississippi then it is most likely to be in a barge in the form of grain exports that contribute to the economy of the Midwest and the Gulf ports."

He failed to read this NAS study, which said:

Fertilizer applied to corn in the U.S. Midwest is a primary source of nitrogen exported to the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.

Heh. Well, obviously, Dr. McLaren most certainly did read the NAS study, or, at least, the National Corn Growers Association did, and they feared an inference of culpability. Indeed, I'm guessing the phrase "mitigation scenario" jumped out at them in big, electric, cartoon letters and prompted the NCGA to call up Dr. McLaren for his obfuscating and spin doctoring little "white paper." Here's a lengthy chunk from the NAS paper, which must have stood the corn silk on King Corn's head straight up on end when they read it (emphasis added for dramatic effect):

[A] low corn cultivation in the mitigation scenario reflects the extreme changes in crop and food production that could be taken to meet both the long-term ethanol-production [demanded of President Bush's 36 billion gallons of ethanol goal] and nitrogen-reduction goals [for eliminating the dead zone in the Gulf]. The crops used to generate feed for half of the red meat produced from Mississippi Basin croplands are replaced with crops to support lacto-ovo vegetarian diets. . .  The total production of food protein is kept constant. A fraction of the surplus former corn land is then used to cultivate corn to meet the 15 billion gallon goal. Over 70 million acres of land formerly used for corn, soybean, and other feed crops is then theoretically available for cultivating advanced biofuel crops toward meeting the 36 billion gallon goal. In addition to the shift in production, riparian wetlands capable of removing 35% of nitrogen leaching out of fields are constructed adjacent to all corn and soybean lands. The scenario, although arguably not realistic, is intended to represent the largest reduction in nitrogen export that could be achieved without altering on-farm crop and nutrient management.

To sum up, the mitigation scenario is talking about a lot of money, probably from farmers, for building barrier wetlands, reducing corn acreage, changing American diets to reduce the reliance on corn-swilling beef, and switching corn acreage to other biomass options, all to reduce the size of a dead zone that Dr. McLaren, anyway, barely sees as a problem.

Indeed, if it weren't for the run-off from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin [MARB], there might not even be a fishing industry in the Gulf! Just think of the benefits of river run-off, says Dr. McLaren!

The MARB flow brings nutrients to the Gulf, algae are fertilized by these nutrients, and the food chain realizes a benefit - that has perhaps not been well accounted for in the overall picture.The menhaden [fish] catch is valued at $35‐40MM/year in recent years and has been as high at $68MM/year.

You ungrateful Cajun sods in your measley fish and shrimp boats should be down on your knees -- DOWN, I say! -- and thanking King Corn for his nitrogen! Praise him from whom all nutrients flow!

The reason for all this corn spin is the ethanol debate, of course, especially as it pertains to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in Congress. The last thing King Corn wants is to open up another front with eco-friendly White House by debating the origins of the dead zone, too. Rep. Collin Peterson, corn and ethanol's BFF, has been laying down some heavy suppressing fire on behalf of King Corn, this week, turning and charging against Obama and the democrats by saying famously,

"They're saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it's going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that's a good thing since they'll be able to grow more corn."

Yeah. That's what we need. More corn. That grandstanding has got to make oceanographers, shrimp boatmem, and the writers of that NAS study simply seethe at Peterson's corn-fed stupidity.