Regional Feedstock Partnership: Agricultural Residues & Stover Removal Tool PI’s: Doug Karlen and David J. Muth April 7, OBP Peer Review

Goal Statement Implement field trials quantifying short- and long- term effects of harvesting corn stover, wheat straw, and or grass residues Develop methodologies and collect data on GHG and water quality impact of residue harvest Develop assessment tools to help guide the implementation of sustainable agricultural residue harvest for bioenergy production.

Quad Chart Overview January 1, 2008 December 31, % Ft-A. Resource Availability and cost Ft-B. Sustainable Production Ft-D. Sustainable Harvest Total project funding – Sun Grant: $3,313,500 – Cost Share: $910,574 – INL: $1,000,000* Funding received in FY09 – Sun Grant: $1,182,500 – Cost Share: $298,000 – INL: $300,000* Funding for FY10 – Sun Grant: $1,089,500 – Cost Share: $274,750 – INL: $400,000* Timeline Budget Barriers USDA ARS University Partners Monsanto Idaho National Laboratory Partners *Cost share only required for non-lab funding

Sun Grant Locations and PI’s Ames, IADoug Karlen & Stuart Birrell Florence, SCJeff Novak & Jim Frederick Brookings, SDShannon Osborne & Tom Schumacher Morris, MNJane Johnson & Lowell Rasmussen St. Paul, MNJohn Baker & John Lamb Lincoln, NEGary Varvel & Richard Ferguson Univ. Park, PAPaul Adler & Greg Roth Residue Tool – Simulation Modeling Rob Anex, Keith Paustian, Joe Benjamin, Dave Muth, Hero Gollany, Dave Lightle, Richard Nelson, Ken Bryden, Dave Archer, Emerson Nafziger, Mike Edgerton, & many others Industry Partner – Monsanto Project Partners

Project Overview Developed multi-agency/multi-institution field trials evaluating corn stover, wheat straw, and grass residue harvest Quantifying local and regional impacts of crop residue harvest Developing assessment methodologies to guide development of sustainable crop residue harvest strategies Selected field sites instrumented for sustainability studies Using to quantify GHG impacts of stover harvest Using to monitor water quality impacts of stover harvest Developing a simulation modeling framework Provides a mechanism to use field trial data to guide site specific sustainable harvest Supports development and implementation of advanced crop residue production and harvest strategies

Approach: Field Trial Execution Implemented a standard baseline set of corn stover residue removal treatments and data collection protocols Based on site specific characteristics Adapted management practices Available harvest equipment Implemented additional treatments (e.g. cover crops or biochar) where feasible Developed an economic drivers versus limiting factors balance to clearly communicate the challenges associated with sustainable feedstock production and harvest

The Agricultural Residue Challenge Wilhelm et al., Balancing Economic Drivers & Limiting Factors. Ind. Biotech 6:271 – 287.

Establishing the Framework

The Core Corn Stover Experiment Establishment of replicated plots on highly productive soil Use of no tillage or the least possible for successful crop production Continuous corn if possible or corn – soybean rotation if necessary Minimum stover harvest treatments – none, ~50%, and the maximum collectable (~90 to 100%) Baseline soil sampling to a depth of 1m using increments of 0 to 5 cm, 5 to 15 cm, 15 to 30 cm, 30 to 60 cm, and 60 to 100 cm Total organic C, pH, total N, bulk density, soil-test P & K at a minimum Plant sampling Agronomic practices, grain yield, N content, and moisture content Corn stover yields, moisture content, and N-P-K concentrations Dry matter retained in field computed by subtraction

Lincoln – Soil C Change in No-till Corn 9 Year Dataset

Plotted (treatment/control) as a function of the number of harvest cycles shows no strong or consistent trends. Relative Value = 1 -- if treatment and control yields are equal Morris – Relative Corn Yield

Brookings, SD Humic acid assay is starting to be affected by residue removal and by cover crop Short term pools of SOM are being affected by removing corn residue and by cover crop Particulate organic matter Soil recalcitrance and carbon character Total soil protein Bacteria to fungal ratios Residue after grain removal Residue after grain and stover removal Residue after silage removal

Mean corn yields for 2008 to 2010 in Florence, SC (unpublished data) Mean corn yields (bu/ac; SD)+ % residue removed* XSDXSDXSD Florence – Yield Response

University Park, PA 2010 Residue impacts on early-season growth

Ames, Field 70/

Ames Site - Sustainability Field 70/71 CO2 Flux Summary BiocharNo-char0%50%90%ChiselNo-till Stover Removal µ mol m -2 s -1 8 measurement sites/treatmentn = 18 dates 2011 Plans Increase N 2 O measurements (only 2 in 2010) Develop annual CO 2 flux estimates (Q 10 approach) Develop relationships describing GHG flux versus soil temperature & water content Further soil characterization (particle size, C, N)

Distribution of the corn biomass (ton ac-1) approximately 55% in the bottom half St. Paul – Biomass Characterization

Primary focus – N 2 O 2 sites – Rosemount and Northfield St. Paul – Sustainability

Corn Stover 3-Year Summary Short-term – limited residue harvest showed some positive and few negative effects May be beneficial for overcoming Midwest cool, wet soil conditions that limit early-season corn growth Long-term – excessive harvest will decrease soil organic matter pools Observed in humic acid, POM & other measurements Will likely reduce N mineralization potential Harvest rates must be site specific Rates could average 1 to 1.5 tons/acre on non-erosive land

Corn Stover Summary Continued No-tillage corn production remains difficult at more northern latitudes Cool, wet soils slow germination & emergence Nutrient cycling may be slower Compaction may be problematic Soil quality indicators can be used to monitor sustainability of biofuel feedstock production To date, soil C & soil-test K have had the lowest indicator scores

Cereal Straw Research Symposium on long-term plot findings on residue removal Mapping of NASS yield data for wheat, barley, oat, grain sorghum and rice with subsequent residue estimation Harvest index studies in 2008 and 2009 Exploration of existing residue uses in high residue areas Soil Requirements Values vary depending on location – soil type, soil slope, rainfall 3000 to 4500 lb/a seems to be the minimum for sustainability Effective post-harvest baling will require an additional 3000 lb/a 6000 lb/a (i.e. 3 tons/a) would be the minimum straw production to support a sustainable harvest

Cereal Straw Research: Conclusions Despite vast acreages of grains, given year-to-year variation in yield and harvested acres, there may be few areas where straw can be sustainably harvested as the sole source for a biomass conversion facility Possible sites depend on the amount of straw needed for soil quality maintenance and the volume of straw required for a specific plant – i.e. size matters Assessments need to be made of competing residue uses at possible plant sites

Residue Removal Tool Focused on quantifying the limiting factors, so we can effectively develop the agronomic strategies

The limiting factor models exist, We’re building a framework where models can plug together to more comprehensively assess all factors affecting sustainability. Approach: Residue Removal Tool

Case Study: Ames, IA 25 Acre Experiment Current Analysis Approach: Erosion alone indicates that full removal is sustainable Erosion (T=5.0) (t/acre/yr) Removal RateConv TillNo Till 0% % % Analysis with erosion + SOC changes: Conventional tillage does not provide sustainable resource, limited availability through no till SOC (lbs/acre/yr) Removal RateConv TillNo Till 0% % % Impact of implementing innovative management strategies: Consistent sustainable feedstock supply is available without decreasing SOC or increasing erosion SOC (lbs/acre/yr) Removal Rate NT w/Rye Cover NT w/Legume + Clover Cover 0% % % Potential value added through other ecosystem services: Carbon sequestration Reduced nutrient runoff Reduced erosion

Residue Analysis Applications Large Spatial Assessments Management Unit Decision Support Sustainable Feedstock Production Analysis: Integrated Models Include- RUSLE2 WEPS I-Farm DayCent CQESTR

National Assessment Results

Adair County, Iowa 212 Kennebec Silt Loam 0% to 2% Slope 1.25 Miles Large Scale Assessment: Spatial Discretization

Managements2009 crop 2009 yield (bu/ac) Harvest index (%) Model 2009 yield (bu/ac) Modeled threshold yield (bu/ac) Farm 1: Corn, Soybean; Manure Inject; Chisel Plowbeans Farm 2: Corn, Soybean; Manure Spread; Chisel Plowbeans Farm 3: Cont Corn; Manure Inject; Chisel Plowcorn Farm 4: Cont Corn; Manure Inject; Chisel Plow; Grazecorn Farm 5: Cont Corn; Manure Spread; Chisel Plowcorn Farm 6: Corn, Soybean; Rtry Harrow, Field Cultbeans Farm 7: Corn, Soybean; Field Cultbeans Farm 8: Cont Corn; Tandem Disk, Field Cultcorn Farm 9: Cont Corn; Chisel Plow; Flail Shreddercorn Farm 10: Corn, Soybean; No Tillbeans Demonstration Project Support Ten farms from DAM project: 2010 crop year Management units enrolled, then down selected for removal based on sustainability Strict NRCS based sustainability assessment Threshold yield based analysis

Implementing Sustainable Harvest

Entry Points for Dedicated Energy Crops Quantifying Opportunities Unused At-risk Economic Benefits Incremental step toward the landscape vision

3 - Relevance Identifying sustainable and reliable biomass feedstocks remains a critical risk factor for an emerging biorefinery industry. This project is at the forefront of this challenge for agricultural residues. Defining the critical factors for determining sustainable available supplies Developing the scientific approaches and methodologies for assessing these factors Collecting and analyzing the data Moving this knowledge into methods, approaches, and tools required to support a viable and sustainable agricultural residue harvest industry

4 - Critical Success Factors Success Factors Scale-up Data extensibility and engaging demonstration scale projects NRCS/FSA as a user: currently engaged on dataset development for CRP program enhancements Challenges Integrated site longevity: some key environmental factors can require 5+ years of monitoring Climatic variability: helps generated valuable experience and data, but complicates baseline development on and across sites Impact This project represents the key collaboration for developing the methodologies, guidelines, and tools required to implement sustainable residue harvest

Future Work Field data for the 4 th and 5 th growing seasons will be collected from all locations Data collected in response to Sun Grant funding from the DOE will be coupled with other data sets collected by university (including IL) and ARS collaborators to predict long-term trends Key Milestones In conclusion of the project a synthesis report, and accompanying peer reviewed publications, will be prepared highlighting the key conclusions Milestones are upcoming for the removal tool efforts including: Expanded analysis for integrated cropping systems (2011), and Completed toolkit ready for distribution (2013) If fiscal resources are reduced, efforts will be made to collect the minimum data sets

Summary Relevance Ag residues are a primary resource for an emerging bioenergy industry. Serious questions remain about sustainable management of ag residue harvest. This work is at the forefront of establishing sustainable residue harvest guidelines Approach Geographically distributed field trials have been coupled through a baseline experimental plan to generate critical data which is being synthesized through multiple mechanisms included an integrated simulation modeling framework ultimately developing sustainable residue harvest guidelines Technical accomplishments Field trials have been successfully executed creating critical new data and knowledge, the simulation modeling framework has been developed and deployed providing initial assessments of accessible ag residues Success factors and challenges A key focus of this effort going forward is scale-up to move quickly toward an integrated assessment framework guiding sustainable residue harvest

36 Additional Slides Provided for Review Team, but will not be presented on

Publications and Presentations Johnson et al Soil processes and residue harvest management. p In Lal and Stewart (eds.) Carbon management, fuels, and soil quality Taylor and Francis, LLC, New York. Johnson et al Conservation considerations for sustainable bioenergy feedstock production: If, what, where, and how much? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65 (4):88A-91A. Johnson et al Nutrient Removal as a function of corn stover cutting height and cob harvest. BioEnergy Res. 3: Johnson et al Crop Residues of the Contiguous United States: Balancing feedstock and soil needs with conservation tillage, cover crops, and biochar Sustainable. In: Proc. Feedstocks for Advanced Biofuels. SWCS September, 2010, Atlanta, GA. Johnson et al Soil management implications of producing biofuel feedstock. p. In-Press. In J. Hatfield and T. Sauer (eds.) Soil management: Building a stable base for agriculture. American Society of Agronomy Series. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Karlen, D.L Corn Stover Feedstock Trials to Support Predictive Modeling. Global Change Biology – Bioenergy 2: Karlen et al Monitoring Soil Quality to Assess the Sustainability of Harvesting Corn Stover. Agron. J. 103: (Accepted for publication 6/25/2010). Wilhelm et al Balancing limiting factors & economic drivers for sustainable Midwestern US agricultural residue feedstock supplies. Industrial Biotechnology 6: Wilhelm et al Vertical Distribution of Corn Stover Dry Mass Grown at Several U.S. Locations. BioEnergy Res. Bioenergy Research 4(1):11–21. Anex et al An integrated analysis tool to guide sustainable biomass production. 32 nd Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals., Clearwater Beach FL April , Hess et al “Agriculture and land use issues.” in Food versus Fuel. Eds. Rosillo-Calle F and FX Johnson. Zed Books, London. Muth et al Developing an integrating model framework for the assessment of sustainable agricultural residue removal limits for bioenergy systems. In review: Proc. ASME 2011 (IDETC/CIE) DETC

38 Responses to Previous Reviewers’ Comments Why are there no studies in Illinois or Indiana? For the 2011 and 2012 growing seasons, Dr. Emerson Nafzinger (UIUC) will partner with Dr. Jane Johnson (ARS) as part of the corn stover regional partnership team. Emerson will be contributing not only 2011 and 2012 data but also several other years of stover harvest data to the information base being developed by the Regional Partnership team. Funds were also routed to South Dakota State University for sustainability studies on switchgrass, to the University of Illinois for studies on miscanthus, and to Texas A&M University for sustainability studies on sorghum cropping systems.

39 Responses to Previous Reviewers’ Comments Sustainability studies were not clearly articulated Additional resources from the DOE were used by the ARS researchers at Ames, IA and St. Paul, MN to measure greenhouse gases (CO 2 and N 2 O) and to monitor soil water content and leaching. The ARS Renewable Energy Assessment Project (REAP) team also includes a partner (Dr. Diane Stott) from Indiana who is contributing information from the GRACEnet and other sites to the overall REAP stover removal database.

40 Responses to Previous Reviewers’ Comments Why are there no studies in the western U.S. Although most of the crop residue research focuses on corn stover, evaluations of wheat and grass straw residues in the western U.S. were evaluated and summarized. Those studies show that with the exception of irrigated areas, the amount of available wheat straw or other small grain/grass residues will generally be insufficient to support anything more than localized bioenergy production. There are also several established competing uses for the small amount of available straw residues that must be contended with.

41 Responses to Previous Reviewers’ Comments Data is needed on nutrient loss from tile drained sites. The Corn Stover Partnership team agrees completely with this suggestion and several possible locations for getting this type of data have been considered during the past two years. Unfortunately this type of research is very expensive and there are very few controled drainage research sites where this could be conducted. A study at Iowa State University is addressing this and members of the REAP and Regional Partnership teams are interacting with Dr. Matt Helmers on the “COBS” study to be aware of those results. The partnership team is collecting suction lysimeter leachate data as part of the added sustainability studies.

42 Responses to Previous Reviewers’ Comments Larger “field scale” studies would be a good addition. Data from the Regional Partnership and output from the Stover Tool have been used to help guide the “DAM Stover Project” being conducted by John Deere, Archer Daniel Midland, and Monsanto scientists. Members of the Partnership Team are serving as technical advisors for the DAM Stover Project and gaining the benefit of field-scale evaluations within 60+ fields during the past three years.

43 Responses to Previous Reviewers’ Comments The Stover Tool needs to be made more available for those interested in feedstock production. A preliminary version of the Tool was used to make projections for the revised Billion Ton Report and to help guide field-scale stover harvest at sites associated with the DAM Stover project. The preliminary version was demonstrated at the Sustainable Feedstocks for Advanced Biofuels Workshop on September A beta version of the model will be made available to the NRCS for testing in June 2011.

Regional Partnership, REAP & the “DAM Stover Project” D – John Deere A – Archer Daniels Midland M – Monsanto

Large round bales Large square bales Total harvest (dry tons) Baling rate (dry tons/ac) 1.2 ± ± ± 0.3 Enrolled fields Harvested fields Average corn yields Participating farmers over the three years Harvest Statistics: DAM Project

Climatic Impacts: DAM Project

Bühler/Inland 2500 Bale Carrier REAP Equipment Lessons: DAM Project

Stover harvests were improved each year as operators gained experience and better equipment was used. – Bale carrier (Bühler/Inland 2500), wider rake (New Holland HB5980), hardened balers (Case IH RB564) were key improvements Target harvest rates can be maintained on fields with simple topology There is still significant room for improvement. – Hardened large square baler, Jim Straeter’s Corn Rower, variable rate raking/harvest technology Bale composition varies by field, by year and by bale. – Each year is different, no year is average – Nutrient replacement value averaged $10.00 per large round bale DAM Project Summary

Ames, IA Research Site

18 measurement dates, ~8 measurements/treatment Avg

Ames Site: Log[NO3-N]: Significance tests by date X = ns; * < 0.1; ** <0.05; ***<0.01

Residue after silage removal Residue after grain removal Residue after grain and stover removal Two year corn-soybean rotation No till Randomized complete block (3 reps) Split-plot design Whole Plot (2000) Grain only (low) Grain and stover (medium, 4296 kg ha -1 residue) Silage (high, 22,770 kg ha -1 residue) Split-plot (2005) Cover crop No cover crop Brookings Experimental Design

Morris – 3 field experiments Tillage Systems: No Till (Established 1995) No Till (Established 2005) Chisel Plow, spring disk Removal rates: 0, 50, 75 (cob only since ‘08) and 100% of rows Assessments: yield, biomass produced, returned, % cover, germination, soil carbon (0 to 1m), infiltration

Florence – plot description & measurements 20 plots total (30’ x 50’) with 5 treatment levels (n = 4) Residue removal (0, 25, 50, 75, & 100% by wt) Planted 12 rows of corn per plot in April (30” rows) Collected 2008, 2009, 2010 soil samples (Mar.), corn plant samples, yields and biomass (Sept.) Analyze soil and plant samples according to contract Keri - Thermal energy and plant composition results Warren - soil infiltration Tom – Fungal and bacteria populations survey Corn yieldsDiaper for biomass collection Plant composition

St.PaulFieldSitesChiselPlowStrip-TillTmts.

Key Points from St. Paul After two years of stover harvest: No differences between tillage systems in biomass nutrient removal or soil-test values Approximately double or more nutrient removed in biomass with 100% treatment At this point, small differences in soil-test values for some micronutrients; these appear to be related to variations in pH and organic matter content

University Park Yield Response RotationRemovalCover 2009 Yield 2010 Yield Mg/ha CC0none CC50none CC100none CC0rye CC50rye CC100rye Mean CC - with & without cover

Crop Rotation Systems: Corn/Soybean Rotation versus Continuous Corn. Residue Removal Rates: Conventional (0%) removal, Low Cut (50%) removal, High Cut (90% Removal, Bottom Cut, Cobs Removal (2009) Tillage System: Minimum Tillage possible (light fall chisel) Agronomic Practices: Standard hybrids, fertilization and chemical application practices for Central Iowa Harvest Systems: Single pass prototype combine harvester Plot size: Approx. 0.5 plot treatment units, 3 reps. Ames – Boyd & Bruner Farms,

Crop Rotation Systems: Continuous Corn Residue Removal Rates: Conventional (0%) removal, Low Cut (50%) removal, High Cut (90%) Removal, Tillage System: Chisel Plow No-Till Agronomic Practices: Standard Fertilizer Management (Population 30K, 30” Rows) Intensive Fertilizer Management (Population 45K, Twin Rows) Biochar (9000, 18,000 kg.ha-1) Cover Crops (Annual Perennial) Harvest Systems: Single pass prototype combine harvester Plot size: Approx. 0.3 acre each replicated 4 times Ames – Field 70/71,

ARS Leveraged GHG Studies Brookings, SD Morris, MN Lincoln, NE University Park, PA Several other GRACEnet Locations GRACEnet – greenhouse gas reduction through agricultural carbon enhancement network

Management Unit Scale Analysis: Farm Management Description Nitrogen Application (165 lb/ac total) – April 7 Light Tillage – April 13 Planting (continuous corn rotation) – April 15 Harvest ( 1.3 DMT/acre removal ) – October Yield: 189 bu/acre 2010 Yield: 186 bu/acre

Management Unit Scale Analysis: Farm 3-2