Transcript The Regional Feedstock Partnership: Herbaceous Energy Crops and CRP Land for Biomass Production 6-8 April 2011 Feedstocks Platform Review Vance N.

The Regional Feedstock Partnership:
Herbaceous Energy Crops and CRP Land for
Biomass Production
6-8 April 2011
Feedstocks Platform Review
Vance N. Owens
South Dakota State University
Goal/Objectives
 Development of more accurate cost supply information
and improved communication with partners in the
biomass feedstock supply chain
 Replicated field trials across regions to determine the
impact of residue removal on future grain yield.
 Replicated filed trials to develop energy crops within
geographical regions.
 Regional assessment of feedstock resources which
can be used to determine supply curves.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
2
Quad Chart Overview
Timeline
Barriers
Project start date : 01/15/2007
Ft-A: Resource availability and cost
Project end date : 09/30/2013
Ft-B: Sustainable production
Percent complete : 50%
Ft-C: Crop genetics
Ft-G: Feedstock quality and
monitoring
Budget
Partners
Total project funding: $4,878,798
DOE share: $3,790,159
Contractor share: $1,088,639
Funding received in FY08: $1,267,473
Funding for FY10: $1,136,719
Collaborations: Sun Grant, DOE,
USDA-ARS, Land-Grant
Universities, National Labs
Project management:
Herbaceous lead, species leads,
field trial PIs
ARRA Funding: $0
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
3
Presentation Outline
 General Approach
 Overall Technical Progress and Accomplishments
 Species discussion
 Energycane
 CRP
 Sorghum
 Miscanthus
 Switchgrass
 Project Relevance
 Critical Success Factors
 Future Work
 Summary
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
4
General Approach
 Perform replicated field trials of diverse herbaceous
biomass feedstocks at different locations for assessing
potential expansion of these feedstocks as a bioenergy
resource
 Selected species and scale (field or small plot)
 Energycane (small plot)
 CRP (field scale)
 Sorghum (small plot; sustainability site)
 Miscanthus x giganteus (small plot; sustainability site)
 Switchgrass (field scale; sustainability site)
 Management approach: herbaceous lead, species leads,
field trial PIs
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
5
Overall Technical Progress and Accomplishments
 Establishment of 34 (±) replicated field trials across US
 Energycane (8)
 CRP (6)
 Sorghum (8)
 Miscanthus (5)
 Switchgrass (7)
 Sustainability trials
 Sorghum (1)
 Miscanthus (1)
 Switchgrass (1)
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
6
Energycane Trial Locations (Baldwin-MSU; Richard-ARS)
 N Georgia - Charlie Brummer (2008)
 S Georgia - Bill Anderson
 Hawaii - Goro Uehara, (2009)
 Louisiana – Ken Gravois
 C Mississippi - Jimmy Ray Parish
 N Mississippi - Brian Baldwin
 E Texas - Jürg Blumenthal
 SE Texas - Ted Wilson
 S Louisiana, ARS-SRU – Richard, Tew, Hale (common
plant material)
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
7
Energycane Approach
 Plots 10 x 6 m (governed by germplasm availability)
 Four replicates
 Genotype by location (five genotypes common to all
locations)
 Locally adapted cultivar at each location
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
8
Energycane Technical Progress/Results to Date
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
9
First Year Energycane DM Yield by Location
Energycane
Genotype`
Athens,
GA
S-ville,
MS
R-mond,
MS
Tifton,
GA
Bryan,
TX
B-mont,
TX
St. Gbrl,
LA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yield (US tons/A)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ho 02-144
2.50 c
3.47 ab
7.97 a
10.88 d
4.56 a
X
6.27 c
Ho 02-147
2.81 c
2.16 b
9.85 a
13.50 bc
5.07 a
X
7.87 ab
Ho 06-9001
4.35 ab
4.66 a
6.36 a
11.10 d
6.69 a
X
7.58 abc
Ho 06-9002
3.69 bc
3.31 ab
7.56 a
12.60 cd
6.29 a
X
6.44 bc
Ho 72-114
5.14 a
3.10 ab
6.29 a
17.07 a
7.68 a
X
8.83 a
L79-1002
LSD α0.05
14.80 b
1.30
2.01
3.70
2.09
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
3.84
1.54
10
Second Year Energycane DM Yield by Location
Energycane
Genotype
Athens,
GA
S-ville,
MS
R-mond,
MS
Tifton,
GA
Bryan,
TX
B-mont,
TX
St. Gbrl,
LA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yield (US tons/A)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ho 02-144
11.12 ab
7.06 ab
3.89 ab
10.09 c
11.99
18.28 c
6.76 d
Ho 02-147
9.85 bc
5.93 bc
6.81 a
11.15 c
9.72
21.22 abc
9.52 a
Ho 06-9001
12.44 a
10.08 a
5.68 a
14.98 a
9.18
25.44 a
8.02 bc
Ho 06-9002
11.58 a
8.83 a
6.12 a
15.18 a
10.17
23.44 a
7.52 cd
Ho 72-114
9.24 c
5.68 c
4.75 ab
14.26 ab
10.04
23.30 ab
8.92 ab
4.36
1.23
L79-1002
LSD α0.05
12.14 bc
1.61
2.41
3.13
2.79
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
11
Yield Ranking of Energycane Genotype by Location
Athens, GA
S-ville, MS
Tifton, GA
Bryan, TX
B-mont, TX
St. Gbrl, LA
06-9001
06-9001
06-9002
02-144
06-9001
02-147
06-9002
06-9002
06-9001
06-9002
06-9002
72-114
02-144
02-144
72-114
72-114
72-114
06-9001
02-147
02-147
02-144
02-147
02-147
06-9002
72-114
72-114
02-147
06-9001
02-144
02-144
Germplasm Line*
Ho 02-147
Ho 02-144
Ho 72-114
Ho 06-9001
Ho 06-9002
Pedigree
F1 (Wild Cane x Sugarcane)
F1 (Wild Cane x Sugarcane)
BC1 with Sugarcane
BC1 with Wild Cane
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
BC1 with Wild Cane
12
oBrix
by Genotype over the Season
25
Ho 02-144
Ho 02-147
Ho 06-9001
Ho 06-9002
Ho 72-114
15
o
Brix
20
10
5
0
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
13
Energycane Summary
 Spring onset of growth different
 Early onset in genotypes closer to sugarcane can lead
to higher yields at the southern locations
 Early onset of genotypes closer to wild cane are not
good for maximum growth in the “North” (spring frost)
 Yield varies by genotype and location
 Growth (height) increases through the end of season
 Sugar concentration peaks mid-Oct (13–17 oBrix), but
doesn’t decline until hard frost
 Location matters, with Beaumont, TX then Tifton, GA
topping locations
 Ho 06-900X seems best adapted to most locations
tested, but are the lowest sugar
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
14
CRP Trial Locations (Lee-UI; Adler-ARS)
 North Dakota – E. Aberle
 Kansas – K. Harmoney
 Montana – C. Chengci
 Georgia – C. Jordan
 Missouri – R. Kallenbach
 Oklahoma – G. Kakani
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
15
CRP Approach
Location
Species$
Fertility
(N lb/ac)
Harvest Timing*
Carrington, ND
Warm mix (SW, BB)
0, 50, 100
PSC, AKF
Hays, KS
Warm mix (SW, YC)
0, 50, 100
PSC, AKF
Altus, OK
Warm mix (SW, LB)
0, 50, 100
PSC, EGS
Moccasin, MT
Cool mix (WG, AF)
0, 50, 100
PSC, EGS
Bishop, GA
Cool mix (TF, OG)
0, 60, 100
PSC (2cuts), EGS
Columbia, MO
Cool mix (TF, RC)
0, 75, 150
2 cuts: PSC, EGS
$ SW: switchgrass, BB: big bluestem, YC: yellow
sweetclover, LB: little bluestem, WG: wheatgrass, TF: tall fescue, RC: red clover, AF:
alfalfa, OC: orchard grass
* PSC: peak standing crop, AKF: after killing frost, EGS: end of growing season
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
16
CRP Technical Progress/Results to Date
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
17
Project Progress
 Field setup: Spring 2008
 Baseline soil sampling: completed in 2008
 Fertilization: every spring since 2008
 Biomass harvest: every summer and fall since 2008
 Biomass yield and dry matter
 Biomass samples to INL
 Species composition: every year since 2008
 Feedstock composition
 Total N
 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber
(ADF) used to estimate cellulose and hemicellulose
 Acid detergent lignin (ADL)
 Ash
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
18
CRP Field Research Sites – Warm-Season Mixtures
at Peak Standing Crop Harvest, KS
after Killing Frost Harvest, OK
August, 2009 KS
at Peak Standing Crop Harvest, ND
September, 2008, ND
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
19
Warm-season Mixtures CRP (North Dakota)
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
20
CRP Biomass Production - Warm-season (left) and coolseason (right) grass mixture response to N from 2008-2010
6
-1
Yield (Mg ha )
Cool
MT
MO
GA
6
-1
Yield (Mg ha )
Warm
ND
KS
OK
4
2
4
2
0
0
50
100
0
-1
50
100
N Rate (kg ha-1)
N rate (kg ha )
Figure 3. The effect of nitrogen rate on the yield
of warm- and cool-season grasses when averaged
across 2008-2010
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
21
Warm
Cool
6
4
CRP Biomass Production
Harvest timing
*
*
*
2
Yield (Mg ha-1)
2008
*
Peak
AKF/EGS
6
*
2009
*
*
4
*
2
2010
*
6
*
4
2
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
0
ND
KS
OK
MT
MO
GA
22
CRP Biomass Production
Species composition (Missouri: Cool-season)
Table 2. Species composition of cool-season grass mixture in Missouri
Species
Year
Harvest
Timing
N-Rate (kg ha)
Peak
AKF
0
56
112
Yellow Sweetclover
2008
2009
2010
4.9
7.2
5.3
6.2
9.1
6.6
8.3
11.7
7.8
4.7
6.5
4.8
3.7
6.3
5.2
Red Clover
2008
2009
2010
18.9
21.3
17.9
15.8
19.1
15.8
24.3
27.2
20.8
18.0
21.0
17.8
9.7
12.5
11.8
White Clover
2008
2009
2010
5.0
7.8
6.0
2.7
6.9
4.6
5.5
8.3
5.5
3.2
7.3
5.2
2.8
6.3
5.2
Tall Fescue
2008
2009
2010
62.7
51.9
57.1
71.1
58.0
65.4
53.7
42.3
53.5
66.8
54.3
61.7
80.2
68.2
68.7
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
23
CRP Biomass Production
Species composition (Kansas: Warm-season)
Table 3. Species composition of warm-season grass mixture in Kansas
Species
Year
Harvest Timing
N-Rate (kg ha)
Peak
AKF
0
56
112
Sideoats
2008
2009
2010
20.1
24.0
14.6
22.0
24.6
15.1
20.9
28.5
9.1
18.1
19.4
14.5
24.1
25.1
20.9
Switchgrass
2008
2009
2010
15.3
18.7
8.8
14.8
17.4
13.1
14.3
13.5
7.2
16.2
21.1
11.7
14.6
19.6
13.9
Yellow
Sweetclover
2008
2009
2010
27.1
8.8
39.2
19.7
11.2
32.9
23.3
16.9
59.0
23.9
7.8
32.4
23.1
5.3
16.8
Grassy Weeds
2008
2009
2010
.
5.8
11.5
.
1.0
9.4
.
4.0
6.3
.
1.7
10.3
.
4.5
14.7
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
24
CRP Biomass Production - Feedstock composition
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
25
CRP Biomass Production
Feedstock composition (Kansas: Warm-season)
35
Cellulose
35
30
Composition (%)
Composition (%)
Hemicellulose
Cellulose
30
25
25
20
1.0
T-N
0.5
20
0
56
112
0.0
Peak
-1
N rate (kg ha )
AKF
Harvest Timing
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
26
CRP Biomass Production
Importance of agronomic management
6
Cool-season
Warm-season
Yield (Mg ha-1)
5
240% yield increase
160% yield increase
4
3
2
1
0
2008
2009
2008
2010
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
2009
2010
27
CRP Summary
 CRP land has a potential for biomass production.
However, sustainable management practices are required
to maximize biomass production;
 Optimizing N fertilization and harvest timing
 Considering legume species as a supplemental N
source
 Delaying harvest for stand longevity
 Agronomic management for maximum yield also has
positive impacts on feedstock quality
 To monitor stand persistence for sustainable biomass
production, field trials will be continued at the same
locations for ????
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
28
Sorghum Trial Locations (Rooney-TX A&M; Pederson-ARS)
 Texas (2 locations)
 W. Rooney
 G. Odvody
 Kansas – S. Staggenborg
 Iowa – K. Moore
 Kentucky – Barrett
 Mississippi – B. Maccoon
 North Carolina – R. Heiniger
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
29
Sorghum Approach
 Small/Medium plot size
 6 Genotypes
 Harvest
 Biomass Yield (Fresh, Dry),
 Height, Maturity
 Composition (Juice-Sweet; Biomass)
 Standard crop rotation for each region
 Harvest Schedule
 Multiple Harvest (Sorghum Sudangrass Hybrids)
 Single Harvest (Energy Sorghum and Sweet Sorghum)
 Standard Agronomic Practices
 Herbicide
 Fertilization
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
30
Sorghum Technical Progress/Results to Date
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
31
Sorghum Hybrids/Varieties
Designation
Type
Maturity
Harvest
Pioneer 84G62
Grain
Insensitive
SC
X
Graze and Bale Sorghum Sudan
Insensitive
MC
X
X
Graze All
Sorghum Sudan
Sensitive
MC
X
X
22053
Forage
Sensitive (bmr)
SC
X
X
Sugar-T
Forage*
Slight Sensitive SC
X
X
M81-E (variety)
Sweet
Mod. Sensitive
SC
X
X
TAMUX8001
Bioenergy
V. Sensitive
SC
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
2008
2009/11
X
32
2009 genotype means (ranges)
Fresh Weight
(Mg/ha)
Moisture %
Dry Weight
(Mg/ha)
Grazeall 3
64.7
(19, 110)
74.0
(63, 80)
16.8
(7, 23)
Graze-n-Bale
73.4
(40, 108)
76.0
(67, 81)
17.6
(9, 27)
22053
52.2
(31, 70)
73.5
(70, 75)
13.8
(9, 18)
TAM8001
60.0
(39, 104)
68.0
(63, 72)
19.2
(13, 34)
M81E
65.9
(40, 111)
75.5
(72, 82)
16.1
(9, 31)
Sugar T
61.5
(34, 98)
73.5
(66, 77)
16.3
(12, 24)
Variety (# cuts)
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
33
Progress/Results to Date (Mg fresh wt. ha-1)
Location
2008
2009
2010
Corpus Christi, TX
40.2
(30 – 70)
0
Too dry
being
analyzed
College Station, TX
25.0
(21 – 42)
43.8
(31 -56)
being
analyzed
Manhattan, KS
57
(37 – 74)
34.8
(18-40)
being
analyzed
Meade, NE
not in
program
not in
program
being
analyzed
Ames, IA
0
too wet
74.1
(47 – 108)
being
analyzed
Lexington, KY
28
(18 – 40)
32
20 – 54)
being
analyzed
Raymond, MS
24.9
(20 – 42)
62.8
(56 – 75)
being
analyzed
Plymouth, NC
18
(11 – 28)
99.0
(69 – 111)
being
analyzed
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
34
Composition by Sorghum Type
Sorghum Group
Component
Biomass
Forage
Sudan
Sweet
%
%
%
%
Ash
6.3 B
8.4 A
8.8A
5.7 B
Protein
3.3B
4.5A
3.7B
3.3B
Sucrose
9.0A
1.1B
2.4B
9.8A
Lignin
13.7
13.0
13.5
13.0
Xylans
16.4
17.2
15.4
Glucans
29.1C
37.2A
33.2B
29.9C
5.6A
1.8B
1.1B
7.3A
Starch
16.2
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
35
Sorghum Sustainability
 Soil CO2 and N2O emissions from bioenergy (high biomass)
sorghum production systems
 Continuous sorghum (0 and 250 kg N ha-1; 0% and 50%
biomass return)
 Sorghum-corn rotation (0 and 250 kg N ha-1; 0% and 50%
biomass return to soil)
 Approximately 2 – 38 g CO2 m-2 day-1 and 0 – 36 mg N2O m-2
day-1.
 Greater CO2 emissions in corn-sorghum rotation with applied
N
 Greater CO2 emissions in continuous sorghum when 50%
residue returned
 Application of N fertilizer increased cumulative N2O emissions
 N fertilization may be driving additional CO2 emissions in the
corn-sorghum rotation, but residue return may be driving
additional CO2 emissions in the continuous sorghum plots.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
36
Sorghum Summary
 Cut frequency
 Multiple cut hybrids provide
 greater window of harvest, harvest costs
 increase yields sorghum/sudangrass
 Single cut hybrids
 Similar yield in single harvest
 Adaptation, photoperiod sensitive
 Less susceptible to drought, higher yielding
 Moisture content
 Genotype effects significant but small for composition
 (narrow genetic basis in this study)
 Significant GxE interactions for compositional traits were
identified
 Environment effects significant and large for composition
 Management within a region is critical
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
37
Miscanthus x giganteus Trial Locations (Voigt-UI; Davis-ARS)
 Illinois – Tom Voigt
 Kentucky – David Williams
 Nebraska – Roch Gaussoin
 New Jersey – Stacy Bonos
 Virginia – John Fike (2010)
New Jersey
29 Nov. 2010
Nebraska
11 August 2010
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
38
Miscanthus Approach
 In 2008, Miscanthus transplanted IL, KY, NE, NJ, & IN.
IN left study in Spring 2009, and VA joined study in Spring
2010.
 10 m x 10 m plots arranged in a randomized complete
block design with 4 replicates.
 Three N fertility levels (0, 60, and 120 kg N ha-1) applied
each year.
 Spring 2009, % winter survival was determined, and each
year thereafter.
 2009 & 2010 growth morphology and yield data was
collected in KY, NE, and NJ. (only 2010 IL data).
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
39
Miscanthus Technical Progress/Results to Date
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
40
M. x giganteus Growth Across Seasons
Season 1-KY
August 14, 2008
Season 2-KY
October 19, 2009
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
Season 3-NE
August 11, 2010
41
Progress/Results to Date
Site
Transplanting date
in 2008
% winter survival
Illinois
July 24
17
Indiana
June 26 & July 1
33
Kentucky
June 20
99
Nebraska
June 18
79
New Jersey
June 19
100
•Replanting required in IL
•Indiana dropped from study (poor winter survival & personnel change), VA
added in 2010
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
42
Miscanthus yield in 2009 and 2010
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
43
Kentucky
Frost Damage - 19 April 2010
Lodging Damage - 2 June 2010
Photos courtesy of Linda Williams
• 44 days the temperature was greater than or equal to 90°F between May and September.
•Excessive rainfall in May and early summer and less than adequate late in season.
•Stressed environment caused Miscanthus to go dormant without flowering and maturing.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
44
2010 New Jersey – Nov. 29, 2010
•The temperature was greater than or equal to 90°F for 49 days between May and
September.
• Adequate, yet less than normal rainfall during most of the season.
• Sandy soil, low organic matter, restrictive layer: 50 and 80 cm.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
45
2010 Nebraska - August 11, 2010
• 25 days with temperature greater than or equal to 90°F
• 32 inches precipitation between April and September. ~10
inches more than normal
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
46
Miscanthus Sustainability Results
2009
2009
2010
2010
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
47
Miscanthus Sustainability Results
N2O emission
Fertilizer
2009
kg N ha-1
CO2 flux
2010
ug N2O-N m-2 h-1
2009-10
g C m-2 h-1
0
20
9
0.59
60
37*
16
0.58
120
41*
76*
0.62
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
48
Miscanthus Summary
 Good 2008-09 winter survival and establishment in NE, KY and
NJ. Poor survival in IL and IN.
 Biomass yield decreases between the 2nd and 3rd years in KY
and NJ (likely to be due to unusual growing-season weather).
 Extended dry weather conditions combined with high heat are
not a good combination for Miscanthus production.
 Biomass yield response to N at NJ in 2009. No N response for
biomass yield in 2010 at any location. Increased risk for N2O
emissions when fertilizer is used for production of Miscanthus.
 Total inorganic soil N is significantly related to fertilizer
treatment.
 CO2 emissions increased following urea application due to NH4
volatilization which can occur when urea is used as a fertilizer.
 Season-long CO2 emissions did not respond to fertilizer
treatments but were strongly related to temperature.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
49
Switchgrass Trial Locations (Owens-SDSU; Mitchell-ARS)
 Alabama – David Bransby (2010)
 New York – Don Viands
 Oklahoma – Rodney Farris
 South Dakota – Vance Owens
 Virginia – John Fike
 Iowa – Emily Heaton (2009)
 Nebraska – Rob Mitchell (2009)
South Dakota harvest 2010
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
Iowa planting 2009
50
Switchgrass Approach
 Field scale (0.4 to 0.8 ha experimental units)
 Four replicates across landscape
 Nitrogen (0, 56, 112 kg ha-1) applied in 2009 and 2010 to
all sites established in 2008 or 2009
 NE location did not have N treatments
 Locally adapted cultivar at each location
Sunburst
Alamo
Alabama
South Dakota
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
51
Switchgrass Technical Progress/Results to Date
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
52
Progress/Results to Date
 Initial soil characteristics utilizing minimum soil data set
 Total organic carbon; soil pH; Total N; Bulk density;
Soil-test P and K
 Yield using standard equipment
 Subsamples from plots for chemical characterization
 Samples from windrow and/or from bales have been
sent to INL
 Samples are also being analyzed locally for other
estimates of biomass quality
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
53
Switchgrass establishment
Bristol, SD – 25 June 2009
Bristol, SD – 20 July 2010
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
54
Switchgrass production at common treatment locations
(SD, NY, VA, OK, and IA) and in NE
14
SD
2009
2010
12
b
Year
Anthesis
Post-Frost
b
NS
10
Field Scale Yield
(Mg/ha)
NY
a
8
a
6
NS
4
Regrowth
a
b
2006
-
5.6
-
2007
7.4
8.7
4.5
2008
13.5
10.1
2.2
2009
11.2
-
2.9
2010
11.7
10.8
-
Dry matter yield (Mg ha-1)
2
0
VA
12
OK
a
10
ab
8
NS
6
NS
b
NS
4
2
0
IA
12
0
56 112
0
56 112
N application rate (kg N ha-1)
10
NS
8
6
4
2
0
0
56 112
0
56 112
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
N application rate (kg N ha-1)
55
Switchgrass biomass characteristics
 Sample collection at each location
 INL
 Local analysis
 Total N
 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent
fiber (ADF) used to estimate cellulose and
hemicellulose
 Acid detergent lignin (ADL)
 Ash
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
56
Nitrogen concentration in switchgrass (SD, NY, OK, and IA)
14
SD
2009
2010
12
NY
NS
10
8
a
ab
b
NS
4
2
0
14
OK
IA
NS
12
10
8
NS
6
NS
4
100
2
0
56
112
0
56
112
0
56
112
0
56
80
112
SD
2009
2010
90
0
NY
NS
70
N application rate (kg N ha-1)
60
50
40
N removal (kg N ha-1)
N concentration (g N kg-1)
6
30
a
ab
20
ab
a
b
b
10
0
IA
OK
90
80
70
60
NS
50
NS
NS
40
30
20
10
0
0
56
112
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
0
56
112
0
56
112
N application rate (kg N ha-1)
0
56
112
57
Switchgrass Sustainability Results
112
112
0
56
0
56
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
58
Switchgrass root characteristics
Switchgrass roots (right) in a Typic Fragiudept soil and root
development in cool season grass alleyway (left) (NY).
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
59
Switchgrass root biomass at various depths the year after
establishment (Bristol, SD)
Root biomass (kg ha-1)
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
NS
15
NS
Soil depth (cm)
30
NS
45
NS
60
N rate 0 kg N ha-1
N rate 112 kg N ha-1
NS
100
2009
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
60
Monthly NO3 concentration in leachate collected from
lysimeters placed 1 m deep (Bristol, SD)
2009
2010
NO3 concentration (mg L-1)
8
7
N 0 kg N ha-1
NS
N 0 kg N ha-1
N 56 kg N ha-1
N 112 kg N ha-1
6
N 112 kg N ha-1
NS
5
NS
4
LSD=1.02
3
LSD=0.47
2
LSD=1.11
LSD=0.58
NS
1
0
Aug.
Sep.
Jun.
Oct.
Jul.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Month
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
61
Cumulative N2O
800
0 kg N ha-1, Crest
56 kg N ha-1, Crest
112 kg N ha-1, Crest
0 kg N ha-1, Toe
56 kg N ha-1, Toe
112 kg N ha-1, Toe
600
-1
500
400
N applied
300
200
100
June
July
August
September
October
November
Cumulative CO2
2010
0 kg N ha-1, Crest
56 kg N ha-1, Crest
112 kg N ha-1, Crest
0 kg N ha-1, Toe
56 kg N ha-1, Toe
112 kg N ha-1, Toe
140
120
-2
0
May
CO2 flux (g CO2-C m )
N2O flux (g N2O-N ha )
700
100
80
N applied
60
40
20
0
May
June
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
July
August
2010
September
October
November
62
Switchgrass Summary
 Switchgrass yield not consistently affected by N
application
 N removal increases with N application
 Significant DM losses occur during storage, particularly
when stored outside
 Root biomass tends to increase with N
 Nitrate leaching higher with high N rate
 Cumulative N2O emissions affected by landscape position
and N application
 Cumulative CO2 emission affected by topographic
position
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
63
Project Relevance to Feedstock Supply through the
Energy Crops Pathway
 Multi-year, region-specific, yield and composition data for potential
feedstocks to help with construction of feedstock supply curves to
better understand ability to meet future biomass production goals
 Developing baseline productivity for various species across regions;
will have 3-5 years data for nearly all field trial sites after 2012
 Data regarding sustainable production systems being accumulated
for each species and CRP
 Selected sites are gathering environmental sustainability data to
better understand effect of feedstock production and management on
soil C, water use, and GHG
 2009 Milestone: Field trials of multiple species established across
regions
 2009 Milestone: Field trial data into KDF – some data already added,
more to be added
 All of this is highly relevant to industry as biorefineries are sited and
to policy makers as they evaluate bionergy practices
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
64
Critical Success Factors
 Establishment, management, and production of diverse energy crops
 Seeding year costs and production
 Consistent supply
 Feedstock resources, productivity, and environmental sustainability
 Baseline to be established utilizing current cultivars and
technologies
 Strength of this project is time
 Continued evaluation would be highly beneficial
 Feedstock composition
 Stockpiled samples to INL for detailed chemical composition data
 Chemical composition is being gathered for most species
independently simply because this information is critical to further
development of the bioenergy industry
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
65
Future Work
 Collect yield data for each species in 2011 and 2012
 Chemical composition analyses will be done at varying
levels for each species
 Data from all field trials entered in KDF using appropriate
templates
 Sustainability data collected at switchgrass, sorghum,
and miscanthus sites
 Reports by species and overall herbaceous energy crops
will be completed
 Decision point in 2012 affected by funding
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
66
Energy Crops General Summary
 Location and genetics influence production
 Challenges exist: weather, moisture, yield
 Critical baseline, multi-year data being gathered for these
species
 Management affects sustainability measures
 Long-term evaluation critical
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
67
Additional Slides
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
68
1. Response to Previous Reviewers’ Comments
 Previous comment: Replication of previous work and lack of
consistency across sustainability plots.
 Response:
 While some of the work being done in this study has been
done on various species or at various locations, there has
never been one done that covers such a wide geographical
range, and for switchgrass and CRP, at the field scale. This
presents unique opportunities and challenges, but now that
most locations have a minimum of two years of production
data, the opportunities to discuss yield and other factors
across this wide environmental gradient are more apparent.
This is information that should add greatly to our knowledge
data base and thus be acceptable in peer reviewed
publications.
 We have tried to standardize sustainability sites where
possible. Each is collecting CO2 and N2O at a minimum along
with other measurements as possible.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
69
2. Response to Previous Reviewers’ Comments
 Previous comment: Concern that trials are only on experiment
station land.
 Response: Some of the trials are located on experiment station
land. This varies depending on the species and plot size.
Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that all experiment
station land is highly suitable for row crops. In the case of
switchgrass, some trials are on experiment station land while
others are on private land. In either case, the PI was asked to
identify land that would be less suitable for traditional crops.
For CRP, each trial was on land rated for CRP, therefore, it
should by default fit this guideline. Miscanthus, energycane,
and sorghum are likely located on better land, and experiment
station land is well suited for small plots as were used with
these species.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
70
3. Response to Previous Reviewers’ Comments
 Previous comment: Knowledge of baseline species in
CRP studies needed.
 Response: Each of the CRP field trial PIs has identified
species composition each year of harvest. Therefore, a
baseline from project initiation has been done, and
changes in composition are being monitored.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
71
Publications and Presentations
 Peer Reviewed
 Ahonsi, M.O., B.O. Agindotan, D.W. Williams, R. Arundale, M. E. Gray, T. B. Voigt, and C. A.
Bradley (2010). First report of Pithomyces chartarum causing a leaf blight of Miscanthus x
giganteus in Kentucky. Plant Disease. April 2010. 94(4):480.
 Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, F. Miguez, J.A. Juvik, V. Lozovaya, J. Widholm, O.A. Zabotina, G.F.
McIsaac, M.B. David, T.B. Voigt, N.N. Boersma, and S.P. Long. (In Press). Miscanthus: A Promising
Biomass Crop. Advances in Botanical Research
 Pyter, R.J., F.G. Dohleman, T.B. Voigt. (2010) Effects of rhizome size, depth of planting and cold
storage on Miscanthus x giganteus establishment in the Midwestern USA. Biomass and Bioenergy.
34 (10):1466-1470.
 Gonzalez-Hernandez, J.L., G. Sarath, J.M. Stein, V. Owens, K. Gedye, and A. Boe. 2009. A multiple
species approach to biomass production from native herbaceous perennial feedstocks. In Vitro Cell.
Dev. Biol.-Plant 45:267-28.
 Book Chapters
 Pyter, R., E. Heaton, F. Dohleman, T. Voigt, and S. Long. 2009. Agronomic experiences with
Miscanthus x giganteus in Illinois, USA. p. 41-52. In Jonathan R. Mielenz (ed.) Biofuels: methods
and protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 581. Humana Press, a part of Springer Science +
Business Media, New York, NY.

 Extension
 Heaton, E.A., N. Boersma, J.D. Caveny, T.B. Voigt, and F.G. Dohleman (2010). Miscanthus for
biofuel production. eXtension.
(http://www.extension.org/pages/Miscanthus_for_Biofuel_Production).
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
72
Publications and Presentations
 Professional Meetings and Invited Presentations
 Baldwin, Brian S., J. Brett Rushing, Edward Richard, Thomas Tew, Anna Hale, 2010. Energycane:
Sugarcane gone North. Seventh Annual Bioenergy Feedstock Symposium. Champaign, IL. 11-12
Jan.
 Owens, V.N. 2010. Bioenergy crop production and utilizations systems in the USA. Symposium on
the BCRC Building Dedication-Current Status of Biomass/Bioenergy Technology and Way to Low
Carbon Green Growth. Bioenergy Crop Research Center, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural
Development Administration, Muan, Korea. 7-9 Dec. 2010.
 Owens, V.N. 2010. Production, utilization, and environmental impacts of perennial grasses for
bioenergy in the USA. Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea, 3 Dec. 2010.
 Owens, V.N. 2010. Production, utilization, and environmental impacts of perennial grasses for
bioenergy in the USA. Jinju National University, Jinju, Korea, 2 Dec. 2010.
 Owens, V.N., C.O. Hong, S. Osborne, T. Schumacher, and D. Clay. 2010. Environmental impact of
growing herbaceous perennials for bioenergy. ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual Meeting. Long Beach, CA,
31 Oct.—4 Nov. 2010.
 Maughan M., F. Miguez, T. Voigt, S. Bonos, J. Murphy, R. Gaussoin, D. Williams , and G. Bollero.
2009. Miscanthus x giganteus growth and survival in IL, IN, KY, NE, and NJ. In Annual Meetings
Abstracts. Pittsburgh, PA. November 1-4. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.
 Baldwin, B., D.K. Lee, V. Owens, W. Rooney, and T. Voigt. 2009. U.S. Dept. of Energy Regional
Biomass Feedstocks Partnership. Bioenergy Symposium, AAIC. Termás de Chillán, Chillán Chile.
15-19 Nov.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
73
Publications and Presentations
 Professional Meetings and Invited Presentations
 Rushing, J.R., B.S. Baldwin, E.P. Richard, T.L. Tew. 2009. Evaluation of cellulosic energy
feedstocks for production in north central Mississippi USA. Fiber and Cellulosics Division AAIC. .
Termás de Chillán, Chillán Chile. 15-19 Nov.
 Owens, V.N., B. Baldwin, D.K. Lee, W. Rooney, and T. Voigt. 2009. The Regional Feedstock
Partnership: herbaceous energy crops and CRP land for biomass production across environmental
gradients. US DOE Biomass 2009: Fueling our Future, Washington, DC, 17-18 March, 2009.
 Owens, V.N., B. Baldwin, D.K. Lee, W. Rooney, and T. Voigt. 2009. Regional Cellulosic Feedstocks.
Sun Grant Initiative Briefing on Regional Cellulosic Bioenergy, Washington, DC, 13 March 2009.
 Owens, V.N., B. Baldwin, D.K. Lee, W. Rooney, and T. Voigt. 2009. The Regional Feedstock
Partnership: herbaceous energy crops and CRP land for biomass production across environmental
gradients. Sun Grant Initiative Energy Conference, Washington, DC, 10-13 March, 2009.
 Owens, V.N., D.K. Lee, W. Rooney, and T. Voigt. 2009. The Regional Feedstock Partnership:
herbaceous energy crops and CRP land for biomass production across environmental gradients.
World Congress on Indust. Biotech. and Bioproc. Montreal, QC, Canada, 19-22 July 2009.
2011 Feedstock Platform Review
74