<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for USDA scientist: Some crop residues may be too valuable for biofuels]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:35:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/1 Eureka!

Over feeding soil bacteria! This is an illuminating concept.  By tilling it in you also expose it to anaerobic digestion in wet seasons.

This breaks down cellulose, containing the carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis.  Add on ammonia fertilizer and you get a GHG disaster of methane and nitrous oxide release.

Use crop "waste" (residue) as mulch and it preserves soil moisture in dry times and sequesters carbon, releasing it slowly over decades as the less harmfull GHG cO2 (methane 21x CO2 and nitrous oxide 296x GHG effect of cO2).

The estimate of soil organic matter from tilling and chemical ag maybe a bit low though.  Go down under the surface, 20 feet down.  Praitie soil was 20 feet thick before being busted by sodbusters.  Now it's a few inches of insert chemically toxic dust ready to blow into every lung around in the next dust bowl.  An iminent possibility in GHG climate weirding.

Overall, organic no-till, mulch agriculture  fed by biodigestion of manure and the portion of crop residue removed in food processing added to biomass vulnerable to massive firestorms, the dead wood in drought and disease wracked forests; could really reverse GHG disaster.  By halting methane and nitrous oxide release and sequestering carbon in the soil.

The biogas produced is a great backup energy source that offsets CO2 release from combustion.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Eureka!

Over feeding soil bacteria! This is an illuminating concept.  By tilling it in you also expose it to anaerobic digestion in wet seasons.

This breaks down cellulose, containing the carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis.  Add on ammonia fertilizer and you get a GHG disaster of methane and nitrous oxide release.

Use crop "waste" (residue) as mulch and it preserves soil moisture in dry times and sequesters carbon, releasing it slowly over decades as the less harmfull GHG cO2 (methane 21x CO2 and nitrous oxide 296x GHG effect of cO2).

The estimate of soil organic matter from tilling and chemical ag maybe a bit low though.  Go down under the surface, 20 feet down.  Praitie soil was 20 feet thick before being busted by sodbusters.  Now it's a few inches of insert chemically toxic dust ready to blow into every lung around in the next dust bowl.  An iminent possibility in GHG climate weirding.

Overall, organic no-till, mulch agriculture  fed by biodigestion of manure and the portion of crop residue removed in food processing added to biomass vulnerable to massive firestorms, the dead wood in drought and disease wracked forests; could really reverse GHG disaster.  By halting methane and nitrous oxide release and sequestering carbon in the soil.

The biogas produced is a great backup energy source that offsets CO2 release from combustion.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Comment #2 by Beth in Ohio http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:06:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/2 Cover Crops to Offset Loss of Crop Residue?

Encouraging news about the potential of cover crops to sequester carbon has been coming from various parties lately (USDA, researchers, Big Sky Initiative to name a few). If the farmers who choose to use their agricultural residues for cellulosic biofuels could be encouraged or even subsidized to plant cover crops, perhaps that would provide at least as much organic matter as the use of the residues currently does.

]]> Cover Crops to Offset Loss of Crop Residue?

Encouraging news about the potential of cover crops to sequester carbon has been coming from various parties lately (USDA, researchers, Big Sky Initiative to name a few). If the farmers who choose to use their agricultural residues for cellulosic biofuels could be encouraged or even subsidized to plant cover crops, perhaps that would provide at least as much organic matter as the use of the residues currently does.

]]> Comment #3 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:45:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/3 Can't wait till cellulosic gets going commercially

It will show its true colors then. Should be interesting.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Can't wait till cellulosic gets going commercially

It will show its true colors then. Should be interesting.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #4 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:02:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/4 Cooking trees in biodiesel

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=772398

They are going to try this here bio-d, I bet the energy/GHG equation will render it a huge mistake.  But pork barrel subsidies will keep it cooking.  Will they add crop residue too?  Most likely.

They burn diesel getting the logs out of the woods to the mill, then a whole lot of coal fired electricity is used to process it.  And a whole lot of natural gas will be burned to cook it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Cooking trees in biodiesel

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=772398

They are going to try this here bio-d, I bet the energy/GHG equation will render it a huge mistake.  But pork barrel subsidies will keep it cooking.  Will they add crop residue too?  Most likely.

They burn diesel getting the logs out of the woods to the mill, then a whole lot of coal fired electricity is used to process it.  And a whole lot of natural gas will be burned to cook it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Comment #5 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:05:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/5 Whoops.. I meant

Cooking trees into biodiesel.  Just like they want to cook coal into diesel.  Fischer-Tropsch style.

Both idiotic plans, cooked up by morons.  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Whoops.. I meant

Cooking trees into biodiesel.  Just like they want to cook coal into diesel.  Fischer-Tropsch style.

Both idiotic plans, cooked up by morons.  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Comment #6 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:16:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/6 Some More Fodder for Thought

Ron, good write up.  

One main point as this might affect soil health:
the combined impact of reduced residues and organic matter with increased wheel traffic on farm fields from the bailing and fetching of crop residues from the field to transport trucks.  Farmers are very sensitive about soil compaction. More compaction means more tillage, more costs, and less yield to boot.  

I don't anticipate many farmers being interested in purchasing or leasing all the additional machinery, trucks and trailers that would be needed to make this extra residue harvesting operation possible.  It would involve heavy investments plus potential economic opportunity costs as it competes for timely harvesting, transport and storage of their grain crops. And, it would involve hiring more farm labor which is not that easy to find in the Midwest. Plus, farmers are already seeing some major bucks going out for diesel fuel.  Why add another significant drain?  

I anticipate that the companies processing the residues into ethanol would have to vertically integrate much of the harvesting and transport of residues to their plants.  I can't imagine too many farmers being interested in having these companies mucking up wet fields and compacting soils with their heavy equipment.  And as to the economics of vertical integration, well, there just have not been too many of these agriculturally based companies surviving. If they have, they are in very concentrated locations and are processing very high value commodities.  

It is easy for arm chair pipe dreamers to come up with schemes like converting residues to ethanol.  But it seems like bad design building another monster to perpetuate bad design with liquid fuels.      

]]> Some More Fodder for Thought

Ron, good write up.  

One main point as this might affect soil health:
the combined impact of reduced residues and organic matter with increased wheel traffic on farm fields from the bailing and fetching of crop residues from the field to transport trucks.  Farmers are very sensitive about soil compaction. More compaction means more tillage, more costs, and less yield to boot.  

I don't anticipate many farmers being interested in purchasing or leasing all the additional machinery, trucks and trailers that would be needed to make this extra residue harvesting operation possible.  It would involve heavy investments plus potential economic opportunity costs as it competes for timely harvesting, transport and storage of their grain crops. And, it would involve hiring more farm labor which is not that easy to find in the Midwest. Plus, farmers are already seeing some major bucks going out for diesel fuel.  Why add another significant drain?  

I anticipate that the companies processing the residues into ethanol would have to vertically integrate much of the harvesting and transport of residues to their plants.  I can't imagine too many farmers being interested in having these companies mucking up wet fields and compacting soils with their heavy equipment.  And as to the economics of vertical integration, well, there just have not been too many of these agriculturally based companies surviving. If they have, they are in very concentrated locations and are processing very high value commodities.  

It is easy for arm chair pipe dreamers to come up with schemes like converting residues to ethanol.  But it seems like bad design building another monster to perpetuate bad design with liquid fuels.      

]]> Comment #7 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:39:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/7 Thanks for the informative comment, Justlou

Yes, I have wondered about the effects of soil compaction as well. I assume (perhaps naively) that somebody in one of the USDA-ARS units or land-grant universities is looking into that.

The way you describe the harvesting, it would be carried out as a separate, additional operation, conducted about 40 days after harvesting the grain. That was certainly the thinking a decade ago. (See this good summary of a 1995 investigation into harvesting corn stover for a proposed corn-based pulp mill in northwest Indiana, for example.) That method creates all kinds of challenges, not least to the problem of contaminating the residues with dirt.

I would have assumed that what the industry has in mind these days is harvesting the residues at the same time that the grain or oilseeds are harvested -- in the case of corn, what some call "Whole Stalk Harvest". That, in the least, would require either replacing or modifying existing harvesters, and towing or driving additional wagons to collect the residues. But I am not an expert in such matters.

In either case, I think your vision of the service being largely contracted out seems likely.

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Thanks for the informative comment, Justlou

Yes, I have wondered about the effects of soil compaction as well. I assume (perhaps naively) that somebody in one of the USDA-ARS units or land-grant universities is looking into that.

The way you describe the harvesting, it would be carried out as a separate, additional operation, conducted about 40 days after harvesting the grain. That was certainly the thinking a decade ago. (See this good summary of a 1995 investigation into harvesting corn stover for a proposed corn-based pulp mill in northwest Indiana, for example.) That method creates all kinds of challenges, not least to the problem of contaminating the residues with dirt.

I would have assumed that what the industry has in mind these days is harvesting the residues at the same time that the grain or oilseeds are harvested -- in the case of corn, what some call "Whole Stalk Harvest". That, in the least, would require either replacing or modifying existing harvesters, and towing or driving additional wagons to collect the residues. But I am not an expert in such matters.

In either case, I think your vision of the service being largely contracted out seems likely.

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Comment #8 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:22:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/8 Corn Silage

The dairy farmers have pretty well perfected this system.  Just one thing missing from the ethanol operation: cow crap to go back on the fields.

It takes quite a fleet of trucks to harvest 200 bushels per acre of corn grain.  Multiply that by about 10 for the whole stalk and what do you get?  

]]> Corn Silage

The dairy farmers have pretty well perfected this system.  Just one thing missing from the ethanol operation: cow crap to go back on the fields.

It takes quite a fleet of trucks to harvest 200 bushels per acre of corn grain.  Multiply that by about 10 for the whole stalk and what do you get?  

]]> Comment #9 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:41:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/9 Yup, Justlou

Just one thing missing from the ethanol operation: cow crap to go back on the fields.

Which brings us back to Ann Kennedy's observation: If residue were harvested, soil fertility would drop and farmers would have to find other ways to increase the amount of organic matter in their soils. "We need to constantly replenish organic matter -- so removing valuable residue, especially in areas with low rainfall, may not be the best practice."

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Yup, Justlou

Just one thing missing from the ethanol operation: cow crap to go back on the fields.

Which brings us back to Ann Kennedy's observation: If residue were harvested, soil fertility would drop and farmers would have to find other ways to increase the amount of organic matter in their soils. "We need to constantly replenish organic matter -- so removing valuable residue, especially in areas with low rainfall, may not be the best practice."

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Comment #10 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:08:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/10 Feasibility

Where organic matter would be depleted rapidly, fields harvested for residue could possibly only sustain such a harvest maybe once every 5 years or so.  So, this would expand the range of harvesting around any plant.  Which would add to transport costs.  

Adding up all these factors I wonder how the biomass to biofuel logistics, yield and efficiencies compare with direct combustion as as source of heat or electric generation in small scale, local facilities?  

]]> Feasibility

Where organic matter would be depleted rapidly, fields harvested for residue could possibly only sustain such a harvest maybe once every 5 years or so.  So, this would expand the range of harvesting around any plant.  Which would add to transport costs.  

Adding up all these factors I wonder how the biomass to biofuel logistics, yield and efficiencies compare with direct combustion as as source of heat or electric generation in small scale, local facilities?  

]]> Comment #11 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:11:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/11 Liquid fuels vs. biomass to heat or electric power

I wonder how the biomass to biofuel logistics, yield and efficiencies compare with direct combustion as as source of heat or electric generation in small scale, local facilities?

Poorly, in all the studies I have seen. But for policy-makers who are strong motivated by notions of energy independence, that difference in cost and efficiency doesn't matter very much. What matters is finding substitutes for (imported) petroleum

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Liquid fuels vs. biomass to heat or electric power

I wonder how the biomass to biofuel logistics, yield and efficiencies compare with direct combustion as as source of heat or electric generation in small scale, local facilities?

Poorly, in all the studies I have seen. But for policy-makers who are strong motivated by notions of energy independence, that difference in cost and efficiency doesn't matter very much. What matters is finding substitutes for (imported) petroleum

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Comment #12 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 03:19:15 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/top-of-the-crops/12 Biogas/natural gas

"What matters is finding substitutes for (imported) petroleum"

Biogas can do this.  And if only 5% of the total natural gas use is from biogas from waste, the rest of the CO2 from combustion is offset.

Also biogas production yields organic fertilizer and soil ammendment in the form of partially digested cellulose.  Clean GHG offsetting biofuel.

With new nano tech methane storage, gas tanks would be similar size and safety.  No high pressure tanks necessary.

Turning to natural gas/biogas to continue standard gas guzzling would cause gas prices to soar, just like oil products have.  Tha's a good thing.  Why?

Because it insures that plugin hybrids will still be the ultimate answer.  with only maybe 20% of present miles driven on natural gas/biogas.  The rest would be driven on renewable electricity in batteries and electrified rail.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Biogas/natural gas

"What matters is finding substitutes for (imported) petroleum"

Biogas can do this.  And if only 5% of the total natural gas use is from biogas from waste, the rest of the CO2 from combustion is offset.

Also biogas production yields organic fertilizer and soil ammendment in the form of partially digested cellulose.  Clean GHG offsetting biofuel.

With new nano tech methane storage, gas tanks would be similar size and safety.  No high pressure tanks necessary.

Turning to natural gas/biogas to continue standard gas guzzling would cause gas prices to soar, just like oil products have.  Tha's a good thing.  Why?

Because it insures that plugin hybrids will still be the ultimate answer.  with only maybe 20% of present miles driven on natural gas/biogas.  The rest would be driven on renewable electricity in batteries and electrified rail.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]>