If you have a small enough lawn, you can use UCG from Starbucks. The problem with them is that they're only about 2% N so it takes a lot more to provide enough nitrogen for the lawn. The advantage to them from this viewpoint is that they're a waste byproduct. Any oil used to produce or ship the coffee grounds was for the purpose of making the coffee. By spreading them on the garden, you're keeping them from a landfill and also reducing the oil used to transport them to the dump.

Isn't corn gluten a byproduct of the corn industry as well? If people weren't using on there lawn it would still be used in feed and pet foods.

Since getting the methanol from corn is very expensive and people would not try it if not for the supplements they get for doing that no one would make fuel from corn, or any other grain, a far better end use for Corn Gluten Meal is on your lawn.

Corn gluten meal is the by product of pressing corn to produce corn oil and corn syrup. It has been used for years as cattle feed. Now, using mechanized methods of picking corn does not add petroleum products to the CGM. Virtually all food products are "picked" mechanically including such things as milk. If these products were hand picked, no one could afford the products.

The oil usage is a good point. I had to scrutinize the labels to make sure that their usage of "organic corn gluten meal" meant the corn itself was organic and not just a part of an organic lawn care system. I don't want GMO corn and would want the corn raised with the same care and environmental consideration I'm giving my lawn. I'm not 100% sure, but how I read my bags (Bradfield Organics Lucious Lawn) it seems I did buy gluten meal from organic corn.

Virtually ALL corn raised these days is hybradized to resist smut and other maladies that effect corn. Drive through farm land and read the sighs around corn fields. The OP said her husband was concerned about oil in CGM. I addressed that issue.

"Virtually ALL corn raised these days is hybradized to resist smut and other maladies that effect corn. Drive through farm land and read the sighs around corn fields. The OP said her husband was concerned about oil in CGM. I addressed that issue."

Wow. Thanks. Now that you've chimed in, nobody else needs or should respond.

Actually, your earlier response completely missed the point of the question the OP asked. The OP was asking about the amount of petroleum used in the production of CGM, not whether the petroleum is added to the CGM, which was the question you answered.

On really hot days, I've heard corn grow, but I've never heard it sigh.

Still interested in the responses... I'm actually interested in finding out the comparative energy production "costs" between CGM, soybean meal, etc. It's mostly a theoretical question. Does anyone need a dissertation topic? :)

The poster who mentioned coffee grounds has a good point - no extra oil involved. I'm already collecting and spreading as much as I can, but it is definitely hard to get enough for a regularly sized city lot, and I'm bringing bags home weekly!

I don't know the full answer and I think it would be tough to really quantify how much oil is used in total. I know there was a guy who did something similar WRT ethanol and calculated that it used more to create than it replaced. He later found a mistake in his calculations and determined that there's a small net gain (but the original research was what got the most publicity).

But if the CGM is a waste byproduct, the argument could be made that the oil is being used to create the other products and will be used whether the CGM is used on the lawn or discarded.

"But if the CGM is a waste byproduct, the argument could be made that the oil is being used to create the other products and will be used whether the CGM is used on the lawn or discarded."

I think that's the biggest point here. Whether we buy CGM for garden use or not it would still be around for other uses. Whether it's used for Feed, discarded, or used in the lawn there is no additional energy going into making it because it would have been made while making something else anyway.

The economics of producing Ethanol (not oil) from corn are not sustainable. The reality is that producing Ethanol from corn requires more energy then we get from that Ethanol. I probably should not be on this side of the issue with John Stoessel but even he can be right sometimes.

Here is a link that might be useful: About Ethanol

"The reality is that producing Ethanol from corn requires more energy then we get from that Ethanol."

The research referenced in that article is more than 30 years old and has been disproved. It has since been shown that there is a modest net increase in energy from using corn to create ethanol.

If you only count the energy used at the gasification plant that produces the ethanol. If you count the energy required to produce the corn (which you must) and get the corn to the gasification plant the net energy used is greater than what we eventually get from Ethanol produced from corn.
There are other forms of vegetation that Ethanol can be derived from that actually produce the product at much less energy that it takes ot manufacure it, that grows on land that does not do good at producing foods, and is pretty much self sustaining. No one, today, would be in the Ethanol form corn business if they did not get bery large subsidies from us to make that.

Sorry, Kimmsr, the more recent research included all the energy used, including those you listed and even the energy to deliver it to the pumps. The original research (done by an entomologist) was done in 1979 and has been debunked repeatedly since that time. More current research shows a small net gain for corn based ethanol.

Having said that, I agree with you that it's not the best choice. It provides a small net gain in energy, but there are other options that produce much larger net gains (one that has been getting a lot of attention is switchgrass, which will grow in places that corn won't and doesn't require much input).

If producing Ethanol from corn is such a good deal why is it that no one will build a gasification plant and make that Ethanol without prodigous subsidies from you and me?

The cost of distilling ethanol in a fuel plant is probably not much different than the cost at a whiskey plant. What might make a difference is using solar power sources and possibly growing the feed stock near the distillery to reduce shipping. Back in 2008 when the gas prices were so high there was some talk about converting a food processing plant (distillery) outside of Amarillo to making ethanol. Then after the high fuel prices helped the president get elected, the prices reverted back and talk of converting the plant died away. (did I just say that out loud?)

Kimmsr--please reread my posts. I didn't say it was great, only that the research that was done by the bug scientist in the 70s has since been debunked by scientists working in the actual fields of study. The bug doctor has even admitted that his work was flawed.

Ethanol made from corn isn't perfect and it isn't a huge net gain of energy. It's a small net gain.

There are other processes that show more promise.

I've learned a lot from you over the years, but I've also learned that you love to find a dead horse and beat it. This horse is dead and I'm done beating it. You can continue beating it if you want.