Research Report Logistics of Agricultural-Based Biomass Feedstock for Saskatchewan

Transcription

1 Project No. E7810 Date: May 10, 2012 Humboldt, SK Research Report Logistics of Agricultural-Based Biomass Feedstock for Saskatchewan For: ABC Steering Committee, SaskPower, NRCan

2 May 10, 2012 Humboldt, SK E7810 Final Report Research Report Logistics of Agricultural-Based Biomass Feedstock for Saskatchewan Carrie Sampson, B.Sc., B.Eng. Project Leader Joy Agnew, P.Eng., Ph.D Project Manager Agricultural Research Services James Wassermann, P.Eng. Vice President Saskatchewan Operations

3 Acknowledgements PAMI acknowledges funding for this project from the Applied Bioenergy Centre, SaskPower, and Natural Resources Canada. PAMI also thanks Frederick Hoelk of Cantus BioPower for the information supplied on miscanthus production in Canada and Brent Hergott, Bryan Lung, and Nathan Gregg of PAMI for their contribution to this document.

4 Executive Summary Dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues can be used as biomass feedstock for the bioproduct, bioenergy, and biofuel industries. Dedicated biomass crops including switchgrass, miscanthus, and sorghum have been used widely as feedstocks for these industries around the world; however, yield trials to assess their production potential in Saskatchewan are lacking. Other crops, including some cool-season grasses such as reed canarygrass, may have even higher production potential in Saskatchewan s growing conditions. The total cost to deliver this feedstock is dependent on the supply chain from field to biorefinery. The biomass supply chain includes production, collection, processing, storage, and transportation. A spreadsheet model, which incorporates many supply chain costs and assumptions, also accompanies this document as a cost estimation tool. Before selecting biomass feedstock, it is important to note quality considerations such as moisture content, ash content, nutrient content, cellulosic content, and heating value. The quality and yield of the biomass feedstock will vary depending on the year, climatic conditions, and field. In general, the higher the yield of a biomass feedstock, the lower the cost of production will be per tonne. The yield of some biomass feedstocks in Saskatchewan can range from no production at all to over nine tonnes per hectare. There are different production considerations for dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues. For dedicated biomass crops input requirements, input costs (including nutrient replacement), growth requirements, seeding costs, farm machinery costs, harvest requirements, storage losses, storage costs, and delivery to farmgate must all be considered. In general, dedicated biomass crops can be produced using similar equipment to forage crops, with the exception of miscanthus. The literature that they can be grown on land deemed unsuitable for other crops. For agricultural crop residues, only nutrient replacement, farm machinery costs for harvest and collection, storage losses, storage costs, and delivery to farmgate need to be considered as they are thought to be a byproduct of cereal and oilseed crop production. It is important to note that the willingness of producers to sell crop residues may be highly variable due to their nutrient and soil conservation values and lack of time during the harvest season for added tasks such as baling. Agricultural-based biomass feedstock can be densified or preprocessed at fieldside, a centralized facility, or at the biorefinery. Densification options for biomass feedstock include compressed square bales, briquettes, cubes, pucks, pellets, and torrefied pellets. The equipment for densification and preprocessing of agricultural based biomass feedstock has not yet been widely commercialized. Therefore, information and costs associated with

5 large-scale processing equipment, particularly torrefaction, is lacking. The estimates of processing costs in this study were conservative. Biomass feedstock can be either transported by truck or transhipped by truck to a railway or a pipeline. There are two different trailer types that are required for truck transport of bulk biomass feedstock by a semi-tractor: a flat deck trailer and a dry bulk trailer. The flat deck trailer would be used for hauling bales whereas the dry bulk trailer would be used for hauling forage harvested and densified biomass. It is important to consider not only costs, but also the volume and weight restrictions as these factors will ultimately determine the number of loads required to haul the feedstock. The transportation cost analysis in this report was performed by breaking down and comparing flat deck and dry bulk trailer costs and capacities. The results showed that densification did not significantly reduce the transportation costs when material was transported by truck. The Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) created a spreadsheet model that looked at the total delivered cost of biomass feedstock, taking into account major cost components of the supply chain such as production, densification/preprocessing, loading/unloading, and transportation of various types of biomass feedstock based on potential biomass yields in Saskatchewan. Case studies were performed by inputting values into the spreadsheet model and running the accompanying macro. The spreadsheet model found that transporting the bales directly to the biorefinery and then processing on site was the most economically feasible option. In fact, the cost of delivered biomass in bale form was comparable to the cost of delivered coal (in $/GJ). However, further work needs to be done to incorporate particular storage and handling costs.

6 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Biomass Feedstock Potential in Saskatchewan Why Use Biomass Feedstock? Canadian Renewable Energy Strategies Project Description Project Objectives Overview of Agricultural-Based Biomass Feedstock Characterizing Biomass Feedstock Market Potential of Biomass Feedstock Saskatchewan Environmental Conditions Dedicated Crops for Biomass Feedstocks Dedicated Land for Biomass Feedstock Potential Dedicated Crops Production of Dedicated Crops Harvesting Dedicated Biomass Crops Potential Yield of Dedicated Energy Crops Farmgate Costs of Dedicated Biomass Crops Agricultural Crop Residues for Biomass Feedstock Agronomic Considerations Harvest Considerations Potential Yields Farmgate Costs of Agricultural Crop Residues Biomass Feedstock Quality Comparison Supply Logistics Biomass Feedstock Collection Densification and Processing

7 9.3 Transportation Storage Logistics Spreadsheet Model Estimates/Assumptions Literature Models and Case Studies Discussion Feasibility and Costs Associated with Biomass Utilization Discussion of the Case Studies Identification of Future Work Conclusions References Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V

8 List of Abbreviations Abbreviation t dry t t/ha g GJ BTU HHV LHV N P K Refers to: metric tonnes dry metric tonnes tonnes/hectare grams gigajoule (10 9 joules) British Thermal Unit higher heating value lower heating value nitrogen phosphorous potassium

9 Disclaimer This document is intended to be a source of information and a general guideline for biomass production. Yields, costs, and other information contained in this document may be based on locations other than Saskatchewan where data from Saskatchewan was unavailable. Therefore, caution should be exercised when assessing the potential of certain dedicated biomass crops in a Saskatchewan climate as certain crops may not produce as well in Saskatchewan conditions. It is noted throughout this document that crop production and required inputs can vary from year to year and location to location. Consult an agrologist or biomass crops specialist for specific information on agronomic requirements of biomass crops. The costing information provided in this document is based on general estimates gathered from personal communication and the literature reviewed in this study. These costing estimates were chosen based on their proximity to Saskatchewan but, in some cases, may be from other provinces or countries. PAMI does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of these costs; they are to be used as a general guideline only. Further details and research are required to determine the complete economic feasibility of the topics addressed in this study.

10 3 1. Introduction A large portion of Saskatchewan s land is devoted to agriculture. Fields in Saskatchewan produce large quantities of agricultural crop residues every year that have potential to be used as biomass feedstock for the bioenergy, biofuel, and bioproduct industries. Marginal land deemed unsuitable for other crops may have the potential to produce dedicated crops that could then be used for biomass feedstock to the bioenergy, biofuel, and bioproduct industries. The use of such feedstocks is gaining popularity in many countries and provinces due to growing concerns with greenhouse gas emissions and the lowered carbon emissions associated with biomass feedstock. 1.1 Biomass Feedstock Potential in Saskatchewan Many countries around the world utilize biomass feedstock for bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts. Woody biomass is the most commonly used biomass feedstock in North America. Therefore, its supply chain is relatively well defined. The use of agricultural-based biomass is gaining in popularity. In Alberta, it has been suggested that the use of agricultural residues as biomass feedstock is more economically beneficial than utilizing forest residues (Kumar, Cameron, & Flynn, 2003). Many places in the world are now growing dedicated crops specifically for use in the bioenergy, biofuel, and bioproduct industries as they are a renewable resource that offers environmental benefits due to their net-zero carbon emission potential. However, agricultural-based biomass feedstock is bulkier than other feedstocks. Therefore, it is important to analyze and optimize the supply chain and related costs. The concerns pertaining to the agricultural-based biomass feedstock supply chain are limited availability, scattered distribution, low conversion efficiency, and storage and transportation costs due to its low bulk density. These concerns need to be addressed to help determine whether or not Saskatchewan agriculture can play a key role in the evolution of bioenergy, biofuel, and bioproduct industries. In Canada, Saskatchewan has the largest land area devoted to agricultural production. The amount of farmland and cropland area in Saskatchewan is approximately 26.2 and 15.4 million hectares respectively (Wood & Layzell, 2003). Out of this large amount of farmland, only 19.4 million hectares is currently cultivated (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2010b). Therefore, Saskatchewan also has the potential to be a significant agricultural-based biomass feedstock producer. Many dedicated biomass crops can be grown on marginal land not suitable for other crops. This offers potential to use land that is not currently cultivated. Furthermore, land that is currently cultivated for the production of other crops produces a considerable amount of crop residues in the form of straw and chaff. With the increasing use of zero tillage in Saskatchewan, these residues are either left on the field or burned. The use of biomass feedstock for the bioenergy, biofuel, and

11 4 bioproduct industries would provide Saskatchewan producers with additional markets for their crops and residues and increased employment opportunities. Although Saskatchewan shows great promise due to the amount of land area that could be potentially available for biomass feedstock production, the amount of biomass the land can yield compared to other places with longer growing seasons, higher rainfall, and higher temperatures is questionable. Some note that the arable land of the Canadian prairies is unlikely to be able to produce the quantities of biomass required to ensure a reliable supply (Keyowski & Fulton, 2008). Furthermore, in years without a straw surplus, some may argue that straw is needed on the field for soil conservation and to restore nutrients. 1.2 Why Use Biomass Feedstock? Currently, fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas supply the majority of the world s energy and fuel markets. Petroleum is also used in many products from fertilizers and pesticides to plastics and other compounds commonly used in various industries, medical devices, and homes. With growing concerns about depleting fossil fuel reserves and protecting the environment, there is a push towards alternative, environmentally friendly, and renewable feedstocks. Agricultural-based biomass feedstock is not only renewable but also has the potential to produce net-zero carbon emissions to aid in reducing overall GHG emissions. Cai, Zhang, and Wang (2011) suggest that mixed perennial native grasses, known for their low input requirements, may even have a potentially carbon negative footprint due to the net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 Mg/ha/yr of carbon dioxide sequestered in soil and roots) as compared to the carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 Mg/ha/yr). In contrast, fossil fuels release ancient carbon into the atmosphere resulting in net positive carbon emissions. Recent research in bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts proposes that biomass can substitute or supplement the use of fossil fuels in many major markets; however, challenges exist to the mass production and use of biomass feedstock. In the mid-1800s, woody biomass provided over 90% of fuel and energy for the United States (Klass, 2004). Biomass use as an energy source, however, declined with the increase in fossil fuel production due to its higher energy value. Some experts are projecting irreversible shortages of fossil fuels before the middle of the 21 st century as known reserves are not large enough to meet the demand (Klass, 2004). Therefore, the use of biomass for energy has been revitalized in the form of green energy. This shift back towards bioenergy, specifically from biomass crops, is being felt globally in food and feed markets (Keyowski & Fulton, 2008). Countries are now investing in biofuels for a number of reasons including: energy security issues, rising petroleum prices, climate change concerns, and revitalizing rural economies (Keyowski & Fulton, 2008).

12 5 There are many countries in the world that utilize biomass resources to supply a large percentage of their energy. For example, 17.5% of Sweden s energy demand, 20.4% of Finland s energy demand, and 23.4% of Brazil s energy demand are met by utilizing biomass. Some South American, African, and the Far East countries supply the majority of their energy through biomass (Klass, 2004). Among the countries that use biomass feedstock for bioenergy, some use it for energy due to lack of fossil fuel reserves. Other countries use it due to increasing environmental government legislation and the push towards energy that will lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 1.3 Canadian Renewable Energy Strategies Canada is no exception in the drive to reduce GHG emissions. In the Copenhagen Accord, the Canadian government declared a 2020 target reduction of GHG emissions by 17% from the year 2005 (Bradley, 2010). One key factor in increasing the economic feasibility of biomass feedstock is the use of carbon credits ($/tonne of CO 2 abated) or carbon taxes. Recently, many provinces have taken the initiative to reduce GHG emissions by using taxes and incentives. Increasing taxes and incentives for GHG emissions plays a major role in the economic feasibility of agricultural-based biomass feedstock. Canada is subsidizing the development of a biofuels industry by mandating renewable content in gasoline and diesel, introducing production incentives, and providing fuel tax incentives. In 2006, the Canadian government implemented a fuel strategy that required 5% ethanol by volume in gasoline and proposed 2% biodiesel in diesel by Cellulosic ethanol produced from dedicated biomass crops or agricultural crop residues offers potential to fulfill this requirement without taking away a resource that could otherwise be used for food. Furthermore, considering the present energy sources and costs, oilseed and grain prices, biofuel production is only profitable with industry subsidies. British Columbia installed North America s first carbon tax on fossil fuels; the province s carbon tax was set to $20/t CO 2 -e in Quebec is committed to reducing GHG emissions by 20% from 1990 to 2020; they started a carbon tax on energy companies of 0.8 cents/l gasoline and 0.9 cents/l diesel. Alberta is also proactively trying to reduce GHG emissions; in 2007, they required high-emitting companies to reduce emissions by 17%. Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, and seven US states formed the Western Climate Initiative with a cap-and-trade system to reduce GHG emissions (Bradley, 2010). There has also been a push within the provinces to reduce the use of coal. Increasing coal costs, mine closures, and because coal firing is becoming increasingly environmentally unacceptable led Nova Scotia to implement renewable energy strategies. The focus of these strategies was to produce 18.5%, 25%, and 40% of their

13 6 electricity from renewable energy sources by 2013, 2015, and 2020 respectively. Part of these strategies includes cofiring woody biomass with coal (Bradley, 2010). Similarly, Ontario is also trying to reduce coal firing. The Ontario government legislated the discontinuation of coal burning by the year 2014 (Aung, Albion, Hewson, 2011). In New Brunswick, 23% of energy is produced from renewable energy sources such as hydro and wood; harvest residues are also being used for energy (Bradley, 2010). Saskatchewan is investing in renewable resources. Currently, Saskatchewan has two wind-generated power facilities and seven hydro stations in operation. Saskatchewan is also developing a large-scale, integrated carbon capture and storage project, which in the future could be used on their other power facilities. There may also be the potential to cofire coal with biomass feedstock at one of the three coal-firing stations currently in use in Saskatchewan. The first, the Boundary Dam Power Station is located near Estevan and contains six units with a total generating capacity of 824-net megawatts (MW). The second, the Poplar River Power Station, is located near Coronach and contains two units with a total generating capacity of 582-net MW. The third, the Shand Power Station, is located near Estevan and consists of only one unit with a generating capacity of 276-net MW (SaskPower, 2010). Offsetting even 15% of the coal used at these facilities with biomass would significantly reduce GHG emissions and help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

14 7 2. Project Description Saskatchewan has the capacity to grow biomass crops and the potential to offset fossil fuel consumption by utilizing biomass in the production of ethanol or cofiring with coal. To assess the feasibility and practicality of biomass utilization, the biomass supply chain as a whole needs to be evaluated. Saskatchewan has the largest area available for crop production in Canada; therefore, Saskatchewan has great potential to produce and utilize biofeedstocks such as dedicated energy crops and agricultural residues. The supply chain for woody biomass is well defined, but there are few comprehensive studies focused on the collection, processing, and transportation of energy crops and agri-residues. The aim of this project is to provide producers and markets with information on the costs associated with biomass production, harvesting, collection, processing, transportation, and storage. This project will aid in determining whether or not dedicated energy crops and agricultural crop residues are a commercially viable and economically feasible renewable resource for the production of bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts. There are many different factors that will influence the biomass supply chain. Some of these influential factors will include biomass type, form (raw, dried, shredded, pulverized, etc.), required quantity, distance from end facility, storage capacity both on farm and at end facility, and desired quality. There are a variety of means to optimize production, harvesting, collection, processing, transportation, and storage while aiding in finding the most economic pathway forward for agricultural-based biomass feedstock.

15 8 3. Project Objectives The objectives for this project are as follows: Provide Saskatchewan producers and biomass users with the best available scientific and practical information on the agronomic factors associated with growing and harvesting herbaceous energy crops. This study will help producers and users determine if herbaceous energy crops are viable and commercially feasible as a crop option for Saskatchewan producers and to better understand how producers can enhance their returns from this emerging opportunity. Evaluate theoretical crop yields based on data from Saskatchewan or, where unavailable, data from provinces or states with similar climates. This data will aid in supporting business case applications throughout the agricultural sector. Provide insights into the supply chain of biomass feedstock from farmgate to market including transportation and storage costs and considerations. Provide an overview of densification processes and properties of densified biomass. Provide information relating to biomass quality such as energy value, energy density, moisture content, ash content, nutrient content, etc. This information will help producers and end users to decide which biomass feedstocks may be the most feasible for various end uses and markets. Develop a spreadsheet model to estimate the delivered cost to a biorefinery of various types of agricultural-based biomass feedstock. This model will take into account the costs of biomass feedstock production, harvest, collection, transport, and processing.

16 9 4. Overview of Agricultural-Based Biomass Feedstock The market potential for biomass is not well defined. However, there are several ways to convert biomass into energy. The conversion efficiency depends on key biomass characteristics. This section outlines those key biomass characteristics as well as conversion methods for biomass and theoretical market potentials. 4.1 Characterizing Biomass Feedstock There are numerous traits that determine whether or not a particular biomass feedstock is ideal for a specific end use. To determine what characteristics make a particular biomass feedstock desirable, it is important to understand how biomass feedstock is grown and what constituents are predominant C3 vs C4 Photosynthesizing Plants Biomass captures solar energy and uses ambient carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) along with water to produce organic compounds (sugars) and oxygen in a process known as photosynthesis where light energy is converted to chemical energy. The fact that crops use ambient CO 2 to produce biomass allows them to potentially achieve net-zero carbon emissions. The overall photosynthesis chemical reaction is represented by the following equation: 6CO 2 + 6H 2 O + light energy C 6 H 12 O 6 + 6O 2 According to Samson, Duxbury, and Mulkins (n.d), there are two different photosynthesizing plants that can be used for herbaceous bioenergy crop feedstock: C 3 and C 4. Before the sugar is formed in photosynthesis, the first stable compound that is formed is glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate, which contains three carbon atoms; this is where C 3 plant originates. C 3 plants undergo a photosynthetic process that produces this three-carbon compound before sugar. C 3 plants have to stop photosynthesis in very hot, dry weather to reduce evaporation of water by keeping their stomates (which let in water and CO 2 ) closed for water conservation so that CO 2 can no longer enter. Photosynthesis can only happen if there is sufficient CO 2 and water; therefore, photosynthesis stops and the plant enters a dormant state, turning brown. For this reason, C 3 grasses are generally known as cool-season grasses that are tolerant to wet conditions. Samson et al. suggest that C 4 photosynthesizing plants are better equipped to conserve water than C 3 photosynthesizing plants, which is why they are more desirable as biomass feedstock in hot, dry climates. C 4 plants have a special enzyme that can function at even low CO 2 levels. Ultimately, this enzyme leads to a reaction in which CO 2 can be released and a four-carbon sugar is produced (Samson et al., n.d). C 4 plants have the tendency to out-yield plants which undergo C 3 photosynthesis but require

17 10 warmer conditions in the spring to initiate growth (Lewandowski, Clifton-Brown, Scurlock, & Huisman, 2000). Additionally, C 4 plants tend to be lower in ash and nutrient content than C 3 grasses (Lewandowski, Scurlock, Lindvall, & Christou, 2003; Samson et al., n.d). In fact, some C 3 species were found to have even twice the amount of ash as their C 4 counterparts (Samson et al., n.d). Their low ash content is related to their low silica content since they uptake less water and, in turn, less silica from the soil (Samson et al., n.d). Although high yielding, C 4 plants tend to have low winter survivability and short vegetation periods. These plants have not performed well in Northern European countries, such as Finland and Northern Sweden, where typically growing conditions are not as harsh as in Saskatchewan (Lewandowski et al., 2003) Biomass Plant Composition Dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues are made up of cellulose (30% to 50%), hemicellulose (20% to 40%), lignin (15% to 25%), and other compounds (5% to 35%) (Lee, Owens, & Boe, 2007). The aim of biomass feedstock production is to maximize lignocellulose concentrations while maximizing quality by minimizing concentrations of unwanted constituents (Sanderson, Martin, & Adler, 2007). The quality of the biomass feedstock will be determined by moisture, ash, nitrogen, sulphur, potassium, and chloride content, each of which varies by location, inputs, climate, and soil type. The quality of the feedstock for herbaceous energy crops will also depend on the proportion of the leaf to the stem, as the feedstocks vary in quality and their leaves typically have a higher ash and nutrient concentration (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997; Paulrud & Nilsson, 2001). Moisture Content: High moisture content is undesirable in a biomass feedstock for a variety of reasons. Moisture content increases the weight of the biomass, making it more costly and difficult to handle, store, and transport. Increased moisture content also lowers the heating value of the fuel and increases the volume of the flue gas, negatively impacting combustion efficiency (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). Additionally, the number of unburned components of the fuel increases as the combustion temperature is lowered with increased moisture content due to the water vapor cooling effect (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). There are many methods for reducing the moisture content of a particular biomass feedstock including: field drying in windrows, shelter storage, and squeezing moisture out through densification. The weather conditions at harvest will have an impact on the moisture content of the biomass feedstock; locations with higher precipitation and higher air humidity will have lower drying rates. Ash Content: Campbell (2007) suggests that ash content is one major barrier to the widespread use of agricultural-based biomass feedstock in the energy sector for a number of reasons. First, inorganic ash cannot be combusted, resulting in a lower heating value and the formation of clinkers, which are chunks of metal ash that can build

18 11 up, clog elements, and require removal. Second, ash will build up causing slagging in the boiler where ash deposits a hard coating on the surfaces of the boiler affecting air flow, heat transfer, and coating the heat exchanger tubes. The higher the ash content in a feedstock, the more frequently maintenance is required to remove the ash buildup in the boiler, resulting in a higher operating cost. Generally, agricultural crop residues have the highest levels of ash, followed by C 3 photosynthesizing plants, followed by C 4 photosynthesizing plants (Samson et al., n.d). According to Samson et al. (n.d), silica content is the main component of ash in grasses, but calcium and potassium also play a significant part in ash formation (Paulrud & Nilsson, 2001). There are two ways silica gets incorporated into the biomass feedstock: First, through water uptake and second, through surface deposition by soil contamination (Samson et al., n.d). The application of chemicals and nutrients that are high in potassium and silica will also have an impact on the amount of ash in a particular biomass feedstock. The ash content will also vary depending on the soil type. Heavy clay soils are known to produce biomass feedstock with the highest ash content. Biomass feedstock grown on humus rich soils can produce biomass feedstock with 2.5 times lower ash content (Burvall, 1997). It is suggested that cultivating crops on sandy soils could promote lower ash biomass feedstock due to the lower silicic acid content (Bailey-Stamler, Samson, & Ho Lem, 2007; Samson, 2011). For these reasons, minimizing biomass feedstock soil contamination will also help reduce ash content (Clarke & Preto, 2011). Warm-season grasses typically have lower ash content than cool-season grasses. Harvesting the stem portion of the crop will also help lower the ash levels since leaves are higher than stems in ash content (Clarke and Preto, 2011). The longer dedicated biomass crops are left to mature on the field, the lower the ash content will be (Sanderson et al., 2007). Cofiring biomass with coal can help lower the ash content in the boiler as coal ash has a higher melting point than ash from agricultural-based biomass feedstock (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). For the disposal of ash, Kumar et al. (2003) note that once a biomass power plant starts up there may be a demand for the ash. Producers and foresters will take the ash away from the plant at no cost to the biorefinery to work it back into the land since it contains high amounts of potassium, which is wanted for fertility. They note that the possibility of disposing the ash through such a means has been demonstrated in two Canadian biomass-based plants. Although this method of disposal can be considered, the alternative case in which the biorefinery needs to pay for ash disposal should also be taken into account. Potassium Content: High potassium (K) content can also lead to the formation of clinkers in boilers as it is a major component of ash. For this reason, target values for

19 12 potassium in biomass feedstock should be below 0.2% (Bailey-Stamler et al., 2007; Samson, 2011); however, others recommend that potassium concentration by dry weight in the biomass feedstock should be less than 7.0% to reduce depositions, corrosion, and aerosol formation (Obernberger, Brunner, & Bärnthaler, 2006). High levels of potassium and calcium are generally the cause of a low ash melting point; therefore, when possible, measures should be taken to lower potassium and calcium contents in the biomass feedstock to raise the melting point of the ash (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). In addition, potassium and chloride emissions can form potassium chloride (KCl), which can lead to corrosion of the heating surfaces (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). Chloride Content: High concentrations of chloride can lead to gaseous emissions from hydrochloric acid (HCl), and under poor conditions, the emission of dioxin (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). Due to the negative effect chloride has on bioenergy production, the target value for chloride content is below 0.1% to reduce possible corrosion of the boiler and HCl emissions, and less than 0.3% to protect against polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin and polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDD/F) emissions (Obernberger et al. 2006). To reduce potential corrosion of the boilers, a maximum steam temperature of 450 C is recommended if there are high concentrations of chloride (>1-2 g/kg) and potassium (>5 g/kg) and low concentrations of sulphur (<2 g/kg) (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). Sulphur Content: One benefit of combusting biomass instead of coal is that biomass feedstock usually has significantly lower sulphur content (usually less than 0.2%, with a few exceptions (Clarke and Preto, 2011)). Most coal has sulfur contents between 0.5% to 7.5%, which is a concern due to sulphur oxides (SO x ) that are formed during combustion and can lead to increased particulate matter emissions and acid rain (Clarke and Preto, 2011). In general, SO x emissions from biomass combustion plants are significantly lower than the legal allowance; therefore, sulphur emissions from biomass feedstock is not of great concern (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). It is, however, recommended that sulphur concentration by dry weight in the biomass feedstock should be less than 0.1% to reduce SO x emissions and less than 0.1% to reduce possible corrosion of the boiler (Obernberger et al., 2006). Nitrogen Content: The higher the nitrogen content of a biomass feedstock, the more NO x emissions will be produced in its combustion. The nitrogen content of biomass ranges from 0.2% to over 1% (Clarke & Preto, 2011). There are different combustion technologies that can be used to reduce NO x emissions so that nitrogen concentration is not a major issue; however, low nitrogen content in biomass feedstock is desirable to reduce costs of combustion technologies. Obernberger et al. (2006) recommends that nitrogen concentration by dry weight in the biomass feedstock should be less than 0.6%.

20 Desirable Biomass Properties In terms of pollution and carbon neutrality, a biomass feedstock that is able to produce high yields with low inputs is preferable. Biomass feedstock has the potential for net-zero carbon emissions; however, requirements of the supply chain may prevent carbon neutrality such as fertility inputs, transportation, or energy usage in preprocessing or processing. According to Mann (n.d), fertility manufacturing can produce over 75% of agricultural carbon emissions. Therefore, energy requirements should be lowered in the supply chain. It is important that a biomass feedstock has the ability to use resources such as nutrients and water efficiently. This will not only decrease the amount of inputs required but will also decrease the cost associated with producing the feedstock. The efficient use of water and nutrients will also aid in producing higher yields with little required input. The higher the yield that is produced, the lower the feedstock cost will be on a per tonne basis. An ideal biomass feedstock is also one that has the ability to be relatively resistant to pests and disease, noninvasive, and adaptive to a wide range of environmental conditions including harsh winters, droughts, and floods. Desirable biomass feedstock would also have the ability to be produced with existing agricultural infrastructure. According to Aung et al. (2011), perennial crops are desirable as biomass feedstock for a number of reasons. Perennial crops promote greater carbon sequestration and soil improvements such as: increased protection from soil erosion, reduced runoff, and reduced soil nutrient loss due to the year round vegetative cover (Sanderson & Adler). Aung et al. (2011) propose that perennial crops can produce yields 5 to 20 years after establishment without reseeding; this can reduce production costs a significant amount. Although there are many perennial crops that could be used for bioenergy production, only a few have been studied intensively for that specific purpose. Aung et al (2011) suggest that perennial crops also have lower moisture contents at harvest, usually in the range of 8% to 20%, which would reduce the need for drying prior to processing. All pollutants emitted from a biorefinery burning biomass will have to be monitored and assessed to abide by environmental regulations. The important pollutants to assess include: NO x, SO x, CO 2, CO, HCl, and volatile hydrocarbons (Bailey-Stamler et al., 2007). The concentrations of these pollutants are likely to increase with increased mineral and nutrient content of the biomass feedstock. Particulate matter emissions should also be considered as there are municipal and provincial standards in Canada that must be met. Particulate matter emissions could potentially be lowered by improving preprocessing techniques to ensure higher quality densified feedstock or by using biomass that is low in dust promoting K, Cl, Na, and S (Bailey-Stamler et al., 2007). Heavy metals are also a concern as a pollutant; however, it should be noted that the heavy metal concentration in biomass feedstock is significantly lower than that in coal (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997).

21 Market Potential of Biomass Feedstock According to Searcy, Flynn, Ghafoori, and Kumar (2007), biorefineries have the potential to significantly increase the value of biomass through the production of bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts while providing a substantial economic return. Traditionally, some of the crops currently used for biomass feedstock have been used for agricultural purposes such as for feed, bedding, and soil reclamation. Biomass feedstock can also be used as feedstock for combined heat and power; it can be combusted either alone or cofired with coal. It can also be used as a feedstock for syngas production, biodiesel production, or cellulosic ethanol production. Relatively new technological developments, such as pyrolysis and carbonization, have been creating industrial products such as pyrolysis oil and biocarbon/biochar, which have further end uses. Furthermore, research is taking place on the use of biomass feedstock as a replacement for petroleum in plastics; these new plastics are known as bioplastics. The goal of many manufacturers that use biomass feedstock for their products is not only to create a green product but to create a better product than the fossil-fuel-based equivalent Combustion/Co-combustion Energy storage in crops occurs in photosynthesis when light energy becomes stored in the plant as fixed carbon. This carbon can later be released during combustion. Biomass can be utilized for combustion either by cofiring with coal or firing independently in boilers specifically designed or retrofitted for biomass feedstock combustion. One of the major considerations when determining whether or not a particular biomass feedstock should be used for combustion is its energy value. The energy content of fuel is reported in GJ/t or BTU/lb where 1 GJ/t is equivalent to approximately 430 BTU/lb. The higher heating value (HHV) or the gross calorific value is defined as the maximum quantity of energy that can possibly be released per dry unit weight of fuel by complete combustion. HHV is affected by the ash content and condensed moisture in the biomass feedstock. It is generally the HHV that is compared across fuels to help determine the fuel s value and quality. In contrast, the lower heating value (LHV) or net calorific value assumes moisture is vaporized and certain constituents in the biomass feedstock are in their gaseous form (Clarke & Preto, 2011). Generally, higher carbon content fuel sources will have greater energy contents. Biomass has a carbon content of approximately 45%, whereas higher grades of coal have a carbon content of approximately 60% (Clarke and Preto, 2011). High hydrogen contents will also lead to higher heating values. The hydrogen content of biomass is typically around 6% (Clarke and Preto, 2011). HHV is usually measured using a bomb calorimeter; however, an estimate of HHV (in GJ/dry t) for biomass, coal, and peat can

22 15 be obtained through the following equation that takes into account carbon content (Klass, 1998): HHV = (%C) Biomass formed from photosynthesis, such as herbaceous energy crops and agricultural crop residues, typically has HHVs in the range of 15.6 GJ/dry t to 20.0 GJ/dry t (Klass, 2004), whereas coal typically has higher heating values ranging from 17 GJ/t to 30 GJ/t depending on whether it is lignite or bituminous (Clarke & Preto, 2011). The efficiency of the combustion process should also be taken into consideration along with the HHV when determining the estimated amount of energy available in a biomass feedstock. Theoretically, the higher heating value would be the available heat if a boiler was 100% efficient. However, typical boiler efficiencies are usually around 80%. If biomass feedstock is to be used for combustion, it is important that standards be set since increased ash and alkali content can lead to slagging, corrosion, and fouling in the plant (Heinsoo, Hein, Melts, Holm, & Ivask, 2011). There are 140 kw to 180 kw boilers that exist in Europe that can candle high ash fuel with moisture content between 5% and 30% (Paulrud & Nilsson, 2001). One such boiler is the Öko Therm compact type C2 with regulation system Öko Therm Lambdamatic MC 1.1; this boiler was used for reed canarygrass (3% to 9% ash content) combustion in a Swedish study (Paulrud & Nilsson, 2001). This particular boiler contains an ash screw, a moving ash stoker, and a slag scraper to handle the extra ash and slag associated with biomass feedstock (Paulrud & Nilsson, 2001). Therefore, there are systems currently in use that are suitable to deal with the extra ash content in biomass feedstock. Cofiring biomass with coal is common in Europe. Many systems are reported to handle 15% biomass (on an energy basis) without significant equipment modifications or influence on the properties of the fly ash. If 15% (representing 252 MW) of the coal burned by SaskPower is offset by biomass at a HHV of 18 GJ/t, then 624,000 tonnes of biomass would be required (assuming a 75% conversion efficiency). If agricultural crop residues were used at an assumed available yield of 1 t/ha, then over half a million hectares of agricultural crop residues would be required to satisfy a 15% of power demand. If a dedicated biomass crop were to be grown at an assumed available yield of 4.0 t/ha, then 156,000 hectares of dedicated biomass crops would need to be grown to satisfy 15% of power demand Cellulosic Ethanol Production In Canada, 67% and 31% of ethanol is produced from corn in eastern Canada and wheat in western Canada respectively (Bradley, 2010). The portion of ethanol produced from wheat will increase as more ethanol production facilities are created in the western

23 16 provinces. Western Canada has an estimated production potential of 4.1 million litres of ethanol. This estimate includes 14.6% ethanol production from cereal residues, 28.8% ethanol production from cereal grain, and 57.3% ethanol production from perennial biomass (Bradley, 2010). An average-sized cellulosic ethanol operation (25 million L per year) producing ethanol from dedicated biomass crops or agricultural crop residues would require 5,000 to 10,000 metric tonnes of biomass per day (Keyowski & Fulton, 2008). Assuming a biomass production average of five tonnes per hectare for dedicated energy crops, then a land base of approximately 2,000 ha is required to supply the feedstock for a single plant. If the requirements are to be met by agricultural residues (average yield of 1 tonne/ha), then up to 10,000 ha would be required to supply the feedstock for a single plant. The cellulosic content of agricultural-based biomass is a very important consideration for feedstocks for ethanol production. Agricultural-based biomass feedstock consists of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose. Lignin holds the cellulose and the hemicellulose together and cannot be fermented; therefore, if a feedstock is to be used for ethanol, higher concentrations of cellulose and lower concentrations of lignin would be desirable (Sanderson et al., 2007). Currently, lignocellulosic biomass must undergo preprocessing prior to ethanol conversion to enhance the surface area available for reaction. To provide this enhanced surface area, knife mills or choppers are used to cut the biomass into smaller pieces to promote flow through fine grinders. It has been suggested that the required size reduction of biomass prior to ethanol conversion requires one third of the total power needed for ethanol production (Bitra, Womac, Igathinathane, & Sokhansanj, 2010) Gasification Synthetic gas can also be produced through biomass gasification, which uses carbon oxides and hydrogen for production (Klass, 2004). Biomass gasification can also be used to create products that can undergo further conversions to various fuels and chemicals including those in bioproducts. Gasification of biomass may further produce products that could be used instead of petroleum products. The gasification process with biomass involves taking ambient air, with approximately 360 ppm CO 2, and using hydrogen contained in the biomass feedstock as an energy source to create methane (CH 4 ) known as synthetic natural gas in the following reaction (Klass, 2004): CO 2 + 4H 2 CH 4 + H 2 O

24 17 According to Hartley et al. (2009), a feedstock suitable for gasification and pyrolysis can be chosen based on the feedstock components. For example, the char yield has been found to increase with higher C content, lower O content, and high lignin content. The char yield will also increase with lower H/C ratios and higher N contents (Hartley, Gibson, Sui, Thomasson, & Searcy, 2009) Pyrolysis Some companies are using biomass feedstock to produce commercially available renewable fuel oil from pyrolysis oil with production costs similar or slightly less than the production costs for fossil fuel-based oil. Many companies are also researching renewable transportation fuels that are pyrolysis oil based. Although all biomass feedstock can be converted to pyrolysis oil, rates vary depending on the ash content. Generally, the higher the ash content of the biomass feedstock, the longer the biomass will take to be converted to pyrolysis oil Other Uses Human health and the environment may also benefit if biomass feedstock is used as a replacement for fossil fuels. For example, methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE) is a historic additive to gasoline produced from methanol that can contaminate ground water, posing risk to human health. However, ethyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (ETBE), produced from biomass-based ethanol, can be added instead of MTBE; this would increase octane, change emissions levels, and be less toxic than MTBE (Sanderson et al., 2007). There are various manufacturing companies that are also looking at biobased technologies to minimize the quantity of fossil fuels that are going into their products. One major car company has started to use biomass feedstock such as wheat straw, hemp, and cellulose in their plastic composites. This car company is using wheat straw as a feedstock to make biofilled polypropylene, which is then used to manufacture storage bins for the vehicles; this change alone has led to a 9 t annual reduction of petroleum use for this particular product (Lee, 2011). Furthermore, certain biobased precursors are being used in the manufacturing of nylons (PA6 and PA11) and polyesters (PET and PBT) (Lee, 2011). The University of Maine (2011) has been performing research on a process called thermal deoxygenation (TDO), which produces a biobased drop-in fuel oil from cellulosic feedstock using high temperatures and chemicals common to the pulp and paper industry. In this process, cellulose is converted to organic acids, which are then combined with calcium hydroxide to form a calcium salt that is constantly stirred and heated to 450 C. The reaction removes all of the oxygen from the oil as CO 2 and H 2 O as oxygen does not provide any energy when biomass is to be used as a fuel; this makes it different from other processes. The reaction creates a dark, amber-colored oil with less

25 than 1% oxygenates, which the University of Maine believes with little or no refining could be used to replace approximately 25% of kerosene, diesel, and heating oil in the state of Maine. 18

26 19 5. Saskatchewan Environmental Conditions The production potential of a particular biomass feedstock will in part depend on the required environmental conditions for growth and how they coincide with the Saskatchewan climate. Before selecting a crop for use as biomass feedstock, many factors should be considered. The soil type, ph, salinity, drainage, and texture will all impact plant growth (Hutton, Berg, Najda, Cole, & Yoder, 2005). In addition to soil conditions, a region may not have adequate temperature or rainfall to ensure high yields of certain crops. In Saskatchewan, winter hardiness is a major concern as many crops that are grown for biomass elsewhere are warm-season grasses that are accustomed to a longer growing season and higher rainfall. Latitudes at which certain dedicated biomass feedstocks are grown should also be a consideration as the latitude will be related to the growing season and the temperature. Furthermore, crop growth will vary from year to year depending on all of these environmental conditions. The soil zone in which the biomass feedstock is grown will impact the production of the feedstock. Soil zones are divided based on their potential for evaporation. One crop production evaluation demonstrated that the black and grey soil zones of Saskatchewan offered the greatest potential for high biomass yields with little variability thereby producing greater yields than the brown and dark brown soil zones (Cochrane-SNC-Lavalin, 1994). The six Saskatchewan soil zones (brown, dark brown, black, dark grey, grey, and mesisol), along with their corresponding crop districts and rural municipalities, are shown in Figure 5-1.

27 20 Figure 5-1 Soil zones of Saskatchewan, including rural municipalities, with black and grey zones offering the greatest potential for high biomass yields (Government of Saskatchewan, 2005). Environment Canada (2011) has a database for environmental conditions in various Saskatchewan locations. Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 show average temperature and rainfall data and the latitude for selected locations.

28 21 Table 5-1. Average monthly temperatures in Saskatchewan (adapted from Environment Canada, 2011). Average Daily Temperature ( C) by Month and Location Swift Current Estevan Regina Yorkton Humboldt Saskatoon North Battleford Prince Albert Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Table 5-2. Average annual precipitation and latitude for various locations in Saskatchewan (adapted from Environment Canada, 2011). Location Average Annual Precipitation (mm) Latitude Swift Current N Estevan N Regina N Yorkton N Humboldt N Saskatoon N North Battleford N Prince Albert N According to Willms and Jefferson (1993), biomass production in the prairies is limited by soil nutrients and water availability. They suggest that precipitation accounts for the greatest biomass production variation from year to year. They suggest that over a 50 year period in southeast Alberta, yearly production ranged from 96 kg/ha to 925 kg/ha; over half of this variation was attributed to precipitation fallen between the months of April and June. Willms and Jefferson further comment that temperature will further influence the plants water use efficiency and the biomass growth rate. Malhi, Soon, and Brandt (2009) found there to be a considerable interaction between rainfall and the plant s nutrient uptake from the soil. They found that nitrogen fertilizer uptake is correlated with rainfall and is influenced by rainfall in May more than any other month.

29 Fluctuations in production from year-to-year and location-to-location are to be expected and are an important consideration when determining potential supply risk. For example, average straw production in the Canadian prairies is about 15 million tonnes but can experience great fluctuations with variations between 2.3 million tonnes to 27.6 million tonnes (Stephen et al., 2010). Whether or not there will be enough biomass feedstock will depend on the specific expected annual yield and the quantity of crop residue required for soil conservation. To overcome supply-associated risks, more than one type of biomass feedstock is recommended (Stephen et al., 2010). For example, this could mean using combinations of different dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues as the biomass feedstock. 22

30 23 6. Dedicated Crops for Biomass Feedstocks There are a wide variety of crops that have the potential to be used as biomass feedstock. Dedicated biomass crops are produced specifically for their yield potential or cellulose content. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with dedicating land to biomass feedstock production that must be addressed. Bill Deen, an associate professor at the University of Guelph, suggested that bioenergy crops have greater potential to be sustainable feedstocks than agricultural crop residues (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, 2011). For agricultural crop residues, a portion must remain on the field for soil conservation in many locations, whereas perennial dedicated biomass feedstock offers a larger root system that will support soil conservation. There are two genres of dedicated biomass crops that will be examined in this report: 1) crops that have been produced around the world specifically for biomass feedstock due to their high yields or ethanol potential, and 2) crops that have been produced in Saskatchewan as introduced or native grasses to reclaim land or as forages. Crops that have been specifically produced for biomass feedstock around the world include switchgrass, miscanthus, sorghum, and reed canarygrass. Crops that have been grown in Saskatchewan for forage or reclamation purposes may include potential for dedicated biomass feedstock include forage pearl millet, western wheatgrass, northern wheatgrass, altai wild ryegrass, dahurian wild ryegrass, Russian wild ryegrass, mammoth wild ryegrass, and green needlegrass. There are other crops that have been identified as having the potential to be produced as a biomass feedstock. However, for many of these crops there is insufficient data on whether or not they would be able to flourish in Saskatchewan. 6.1 Dedicated Land for Biomass Feedstock There are many concerns and benefits associated with dedicating land specifically to the production of biomass feedstock. The concerns are that useful land that would otherwise be used for food will be used for fuel and that using the land for biomass feedstock may not provide comparable economic return to other crops such as canola, flax, or wheat. Although concerns warrant consideration, there are also many benefits associated with dedicating land to biomass feedstock. A key social concern with bioenergy, biofuel, and bioproduct production is that biomass feedstock production would be taking away valuable cropland that would otherwise be used for food. Cai et al. (2011) raised this concern when discussing the land use applications for biofuel production. They suggested that the use of marginal cropland and grassland would alleviate this concern in six different agricultural regions around the world, including the United States. Unfortunately, Canada was not one of the countries

31 24 assessed in their study. Based on their findings, Cai et al. proposed that 26% to 55% of the world s liquid fuel consumption could be fulfilled by planting biofuel feedstock on cropland and grassland with marginal productivity potential. Although dedicated biomass crop production on marginal land has been suggested to alleviate food versus fuel concerns, the majority of yield trials for dedicated biomass crops are performed on what is considered to be good cropland or grassland. Furthermore, marginal productivity land warrants definition in terms of soil type and nutrient content. If dedicated biomass crops can be produced on marginal land as suggested, this offers the opportunity for producers to make a profit on land that may otherwise not be used. To sell the idea of producing dedicated biomass crops to farmers, the crop must be at least as profitable as what a producer currently grows on their land. The cost to grow a crop will also depend on the amount of fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides used. Although low required inputs are a benefit of certain dedicated biomass crops, inputs should still be an important consideration, especially if the crop is to be produced on marginal land. The required fertilizer input will vary by location, and although there are estimates available in the literature for fertility, which will be discussed in the following sections of this report, they are for specific case scenarios. Therefore, soil tests and/or consultation with crop production experts is always recommended to determine a cost benefit ratio for fertilizer application and potential yield. One potential selling feature to producers is that many of the dedicated biomass crops can be produced and harvested with equipment a Saskatchewan producer would have access to. The only exception would be miscanthus, which requires equipment suitable for planting rhizomes. The growth of biomass may not only benefit producers with poor to marginal land not suitable for food crops, but it also offers environmental benefits. Dedicated biomass crops offer habitat for many different organisms, promote better soil quality, protect riparian zones when grown around water bodies, and reduce soil nutrient loss. In addition to being used for biomass, many types of dedicated biomass crops are well suited for use as feed and bedding. 6.2 Potential Dedicated Crops Switchgrass, miscanthus, sorghum, and reed canarygrass have been identified in various locations around the world to have great biomass feedstock potential. In the Canadian prairies, the native prairie grasses specific to North Dakota and Montana have been identified as having the greatest yield potential for biomass feedstock production (Jefferson et al. 2002). High-producing grasses commonly used as forage crops in Saskatchewan may also offer biomass feedstock potential.

32 25 Jefferson et al. (2002) further suggest that the grasses with the highest potential for use as a biomass feedstock in the Canadian Prairies are cool-season grasses, such as northern wheatgrass, green needlegrass, mammoth wildrye, and western wheatgrass. In their study they found that these grasses produced among the highest yields in Saskatchewan; these grasses also demonstrated superior establishment. These coolseason grasses showed even greater yield potential in Saskatchewan than grasses such as big bluestem, little bluestem, sideoats grama, switchgrass, indiangrass, and prairie sandreed. Their tests also revealed, however, that the ash content was generally higher in the cool-season grasses than in the warm-season grasses and that cool-season grasses show poorer adaptation to low available nutrients. According to the authors, warm-season grasses commonly used for biomass feedstock, such as sideoats grama and little bluestem, occur rarely in the Canadian prairies and have a relatively low adaptive range when compared to other warm-season grasses such as switchgrass and indiangrass. Jefferson et al. suggest that if warm-season grasses are to be grown, they may be better suited to the southern locations of the prairies, whereas northern grasses may be better suited to the central and northern prairie regions. Samson et al. (n.d) suggest that prairie sandreed and prairie cordgrass are two native warm-season grasses that are better adapted to the cooler prairie regions of Canada than switchgrass. According to Samson et al., prairie sandreed was supposed to be well adapted to the drier (greater than 400 mm of precipitation) prairie regions. Jefferson et al. (2002) performed yield trials with a variety of native grasses including prairie sandreed and switchgrass and found that Saskatchewan yields were very low. Therefore, prairie sandreed and prairie cordgrass were not included in this report. McKernan, Ross, and Tompkins (2001) evaluated the growth of several grasses under low maintenance conditions in southern and central Alberta which have lower and higher rainfall respectively. There was no irrigation and minimal pesticide application. They found that crop area cover was associated with lower weed density and evaluated the crop area cover based on a visual rating scale: one represented poor performance and nine represented superior performance. According to McKernan et al., in southern Alberta western wheatgrass had an area cover rating that ranged from 3.5 to 6.9 depending on the year and location, northern wheatgrass was given an area cover rating that ranged from 4.0 to 7.8, and Russian wildrye grass had an area cover rating that ranged from 3.8 to 7.1. McKernan et al. reported that western wheatgrass and northern wheatgrass were among the most drought tolerant grasses evaluated. Western wheatgrass, northern wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye grass were among the tallest grasses of the grasses evaluated; however, they only reached heights in southern Alberta of 12.3 cm, 10.1 cm, and 9.0 cm respectively. The grass species assessed in central Alberta showed poorer area cover and higher weed densities than the grasses in southern Alberta but were considerably taller. Northern wheatgrass reached a height of 35 cm and green needlegrass reached a height of 69 cm.

33 26 It is important to understand the importance of crop area cover and quick establishment due to its association with weed infestation. In general, dedicated biomass crops that will be the most successful for biomass feedstock production will require little input in terms of herbicides, fertility, and pesticides. The less input required to produce a wellestablished stand, the less expensive a crop will be to produce and therefore, the lower the cost will be at the farmgate Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Around the world switchgrass has been a common crop for biomass feedstock due to its low cost of production, minimal input requirements, and high biomass yield (Figure 6-1). Figure 6-1. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Switchgrass is a warm-season, perennial, rhizomatous grass with C 4 metabolic pathways. It grows naturally between the latitudes of 30 N and 55 N and has known tolerance to poor soil nutrients (Kludze, Deen, & Dutta, 2011; Wark, Poole, Arnott, Moats, & Wetter, 1995). It requires more than 450 mm of annual precipitation which is relatively high compared to some other grasses. Switchgrass is highly tolerant to flooding but has shown poor resistance to drought (Wark et al., 1995); this is an important consideration since many locations in Saskatchewan do not see this much precipitation. Switchgrass can tolerate a wide range of soil conditions from clay loam to shallow and rocky; however, it performs better in loam and sandy soils with a ph of 4.9 to 7.6 than it does in clay soils, since loam and sandy soils facilitate root spreading

34 27 (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b; Kludze et al., 2011; Lewandowski et al., 2003). Loam and sandy soils may also be preferred over clay soils as they result in biomass feedstock with lower ash content. There are many uses for switchgrass not only as feedstock for bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts, but also in agriculture (Sanderson & Adler, 2008). In agriculture, switchgrass has been used for prairie restoration, erosion control, forage, water buffering, mushroom compost substrate, and livestock bedding. Many advantages exist for the use of switchgrass for bedding over cereal straws: it is drier, has excellent structural strength which prevents lumps, is soft if prechopped, and does not rot as quickly as other grasses (Samson, 2011). The University of Tennessee has found that switchgrass is similar in hay quality to fescue and orchardgrass at their most optimal time; it may even be preferred over fescue as it is not susceptible to endophyte fungus, which can decrease cattle pregnancy rates by 30% (Johnson, 2012). There are two main types of switchgrass, the upland type and the lowland type. The upland type is adapted to middle and northern latitudes, whereas the lowland type is more adapted to the southern and middle latitudes of the United States (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b). The upland type, which is more suitable for the colder, drier prairie Canadian climate, is normally shorter, finer stemmed, favorable for drier soils, is less prone to winterkill, and is more susceptible to rust and disease than the lowland type (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b). Despite the fact that the upland type is more adapted to colder climates, it may not be adapted to a climate as cold as Saskatchewan. There are a number of switchgrass upland varieties. These varieties include Blackwell, Brooklyn, Caddo, Carthage, Cave-in-Rock, Dacotah, Forestburg, Nebraska 28, Pathfinder, Shawnee, Shelter, Summer, and Sunburst. Trailblazer was a variety developed based on Pathfinder traits, but with greater winter hardiness (Sharp Bros. Seed Co., 1997). Kanlow and Alamo are popular lowland varieties grown mostly in the southern United States. Other switchgrass varieties that have been developed include NJ50, BoMaster, and Performer (Sanderson & Adler, 2008). Compared to other crops there has been little research involving the breeding of switchgrass, such that most cultivars are quite similar to their original germplasm (Sanderson & Adler, 2008). Furthermore, some cultivars of switchgrass cannot be genetically differentiated from natural stands, indicating the potential for germplasm improvement (Sanderson & Adler, 2008) Miscanthus Miscanthus (Figure 6-2) is a C 4, perennial, rhizomatous grass native to East Asia where it is grown as an ornamental grass (Heaton et al., 2010). Studies have shown since the

35 s that miscanthus has the ability to adapt to a wide range of climatic conditions (Lewandowski et al., 2000). Miscanthus also has very high yield potential; some suggest even twice the yield potential of switchgrass (Kludze et al., 2011). It owes its yield potential to the fact that it has greater levels of carbon fixation than other grasses (Heaton et al., 2010). Giant miscanthus or Miscanthus x giganteus (M. x giganteus), has been specifically identified, along with switchgrass, to be among the best choices for growth as a bioenergy crop in the warmer regions of North America and Europe due to exceptionally high yields. Figure 6-2. Miscanthus. Miscanthus can be used for bioenergy, revegetation of land, hard boards, cellulosic ethanol, syndiesel, packaging, and horse bedding (F. Hoelk, personal communication, January, 2012). Certain varieties of miscanthus are considered to be highly tolerant to colder temperatures; miscanthus in Europe grows as far north as Scandinavia and has proven yield potential in latitudes ranging from 35 N to 60 N. Miscanthus has also flourished in the Canadian region of the great lakes (El Bassam, 1998). Miscanthus, especially the hybrid triploid M. x giganteus, has been widely used in Europe as a perennial feedstock for combustion steam generating plants. According to Lewandowski et al. (2000), in Denmark, there has been miscanthus combustion success on a commercial scale using a 78 MW circulating fluidized-bed combustor cofiring (50%) with coal. Additionally, miscanthus has been cofired (20%) with coal in a 160 MW powdered fuel combustor. It should be noted that these plants required retrofitting to cofire the miscanthus with coal.

36 29 One concern that has been raised regarding harvesting miscanthus for biomass feedstock in North America, where it is not native, lies in the potential to be an invasive species. Small-scale studies in Europe have assessed invasive behaviors and have found no proof to this claim (Khanna, Dhungana, & Clifton-Brown, 2008). Furthermore, miscanthus spreads by rhizomes and not seed, suggesting that control would not be an issue. In the first year miscanthus is planted, known as the establishment year, it has poor winter survival, but if it survives the first winter the crop will likely make it through even harsher subsequent winters. Although miscanthus has been shown to survive temperatures as cold as -29 C and -33 C (Heaton et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2011), this does not compare to harsh Saskatchewan winters where temperatures can plummet beyond -40 C. Furthermore, some tests showed that 50% of the rhizomes were killed when the temperature reached a low of only -3.4 C (Heaton et al., 2010). Other studies showed crops were damaged or killed when soil temperature 5 cm below the surface reached -3 C (Anderson et al., 2011). This is important to consider since Saskatchewan soil temperatures at 5 cm depth can plummet to -12 C or colder. Miscanthus has high water use efficiency but also requires higher water use than many other crops due to its high yield of biomass. Typically, miscanthus needs 100 L to300 L of water for every kg of biomass grown (Heaton et al., 2010). Generally, an annual rainfall of 750 mm to 1,000 mm is required; severe drought will cause leaves to curl up and die, significantly reducing the yield (The Research Park, 2009). Miscanthus performs better in clay soils than in well drained sandy soils, perhaps due to the ability of clay soils to retain water; however, waterlogged soil will produce poor biomass yields (Heaton et al., 2010). Dark soil colors and light textures have been shown to enhance miscanthus growth (El Bassam, 1998). There are three main genotypes of miscanthus: M. x giganteus, M. sacchariflorus, and M. sinensis. M. x giganteus is sterile, natural cross between M. sacchariflorus (tetraploid) and M. sinensis (diploid). There are also hybrids of M. sacchariflorus/sinensis available (Ampong-Nyarko, 2009). Many trials in the United States and Europe have shown that M. x giganteus is the highest producing of all three genotypes; however, M. sinensis has proven frost resistance (Lewandowski et al., 2000). In fact, in the northern, cooler, European climates, such as in Denmark, M. x sinensis has reached yields comparable to M. x giganteus (Lewandowski et al., 2000). It is suggested that M. x giganteus does not have the winter hardiness that is required for the prairie climate (F. Hoelk, personal communication, January, 2012). There are many varieties of M. x giganteus that are available for commercial production. In the United States, Freedom giant miscanthus, which is produced by SunBelt Biofuels,

37 30 was developed by Mississippi State University as a variety suitable for the American climate. Freedom giant miscanthus was developed to be drought tolerant and flourish in temperate regions. New Energy Farms offers two clones for growth in the United States and Canada: the Illinois clone and the Wisconsin clone. Other cultivars, such as Nagara and Amuri, are available in Canada and were developed to have cold tolerance to produce high yields in colder climates. Other varieties of miscanthus are available from Cantus Bio Power for production in Canada. These varieties include (F. Hoelk, personal communication, January, 2012; Ampong-Nyarko, 2009): M105 Rainbow (M. x sinensis) M114 Amuri Natural Winner (M. sacchariflorus / sinensis hybrid) M115 Amuri Robustus Flame (M. sacchariflorus / sinensis hybrid) M116 Nagara (Miscanthus x giganteus) M117 (Miscanthus x giganteus hybrid) M119 Lake Erie (M. sacchariflorus / sinensis hybrid) M143 Amuri Golden Sunset (M. sacchariflorus / sinensis hybrid) M144 Amuri Big Sunrise (M. sacchariflorus / sinensis hybrid) M145 Amuri Bright Sunshine (M. sacchariflorus / sinensis hybrid) M146 Amuri Country Winner 9 (M. sacchariflorus / sinensis hybrid) M147 Amuri Prairie Harvest (M. sacchariflorus / sinensis hybrid) Sorghum Sorghum (Figure 6-3) is an annual, warm-season, C 4 photosynthesizing, frost-sensitive grass commonly used for grain, syrup, and forage. It is one of the most widely produced cereal crops in the world. Recently, however, it has been gaining the interest of many as a bioenergy and biofuel crop as some suggest that it has greater yield potential than switchgrass (Hartley et al., 2009).

38 31 Figure 6-3. High biomass sorghum. Although perennial crops are usually preferred for bioenergy crops, since seeding only takes place once for many year s growth, sorghum offers many advantages over perennial crops. The most apparent advantage is that an annual crop can offer high yields even in the establishment year. Furthermore, annual crops offer production stability which cannot be offered if a perennial crop fails to establish. Bankers and producers are also more familiar with annual crops, which may cause sorghum to be particularly appealing over some perennial bioenergy crops. Rooney (n.d) suggests that sorghum may be a desirable dedicated biomass crop for many other reasons including its ability to: adapt to a wide range of environments, produce high yields, be resistant to pests, be used for crop rotation (annual crop), and be noninvasive. Sorghum generally requires less precipitation than other grasses. Sorghum is considered to have good drought tolerance and high water use efficiency (Hartley et al., 2009; Rooney, n.d). An acceptable amount of rain for sorghum is between 800 mm to 1000 mm; however, higher rainfall is associated with higher yields (Rooney, n.d). Although many regions of Canada have rainfall amounts well in excess of this figure, it should be noted that Saskatchewan generally has much less average annual rainfall (300 mm to 600 mm). Rain is of particular importance during the establishment phase and later on in the growth cycle (approximately 80 to 90 days post emergence) as biomass increases substantially around that time (Blade Energy Crops, 2010a).

39 32 Although sufficient water is required to produce high yield, too much water in the soil can lead to plant death. Sorghum grows best in regions where the temperature is between 25 C to 30 C during the day and 15 C to 20 C at night during the growing season (Rooney, n.d). The optimal temperature for growth is around the 21 C to 25 C mark; however, acceptable yields have been obtained at temperatures above 20 C (Blade Energy Crops, 2010a; Rooney, n.d). According to Roth and Harper (1995), the minimum temperature for sorghum growth is 60 F (approx. 16 C). Sorghum is known to perform well even on marginal land; therefore, the production of food crops would not be jeopardized (Hartley et al., 2009). Sorghum is also considered to be tolerant to poorly drained soils; however, it performs better in soils with good drainage, no flooding, and a ph that is around neutral (Hartley et al., 2009). The ph should be above 6.0 but optimal soil ph is 6.5 (Roth & Harper, 1995). Furthermore, soils that are deep and well drained allow room for a deep root system. There are four types of sorghum differentiated by the amount of carbohydrates produced. The four types of sorghum are: grain sorghum, forage sorghum, sweet sorghum, and high-biomass sorghum. There is currently interest in all four of the sorghum types as a feedstock for either bioenergy or biofuel depending on the type; however, Canadian studies are lacking for the growth of sweet and high-biomass sorghum. Grain sorghum is the fifth most widely produced cereal crop in the world. It contains approximately 50% grain and is used as a gluten-free food grain, feed grain, or to produce ethanol through starch hydrolysis and fermentation (U.S. Department of Energy, 2011). For grain sorghum, the grain contains the starch, whereas the stover portion of the plant contains lignin and cellulose (Rooney, n.d). According to Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada Inc. (AERC Inc.) (2007b), there has only been recent development of a grain sorghum variety suitable for the Canadian climate. This grain sorghum has flourished in south western Ontario conditions. According to AERC Inc., there are two varieties of grain sorghum available in Canada: CGSH 27 (Red Grain Type) and CGSH 8 (White Grain Type). These plants have reached heights of 120 cm to 140 cm in south western Ontario. They show good adaptation to a wide range of soil types and flower within 55 to 60 days of planting. Uses for the two varieties of grain sorghum include feed in the dairy, beef, hog, and poultry industries, ethanol production, and human consumption. These plants are, however, frost sensitive. Although Ontario conditions have shown that 5 t/ha grain yields are possible, there is insufficient information in the literature as to potential biomass yield in Canada. Also, in western Canada sorghum is not a cereal crop that is commonly grown.

40 33 Therefore, information related to grain sorghum production, harvesting, collection, and quality will not be presented as the amount of grain sorghum crop residue available in Canada is unknown. Forage sorghum on the other hand, is produced for its biomass. Although it is drought tolerant, it is also highly sensitive to frost (AERC Inc., 2007a). Forage sorghums can be fertile and produce as much grain as grain sorghum or they can be sterile and produce no grain; it depends on the hybrid (Roth & Harper, 1995). There are two main types of forage sorghum: sorghum-sudangrass hybrids and silage-sorghum hybrids. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (2011), sorghum-sudangrass hybrids are usually used for grazing and hay whereas the silage-sorghum hybrids are typically chopped and ensiled for feed and are tall, thick, and have high grain yield. AERC Inc. (2007a) has Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid 30 available for growth in Canada; it was specifically developed for the Canadian climate from sudangrass type parents. They suggest that there are many uses for this hybrid including: hay, silage, green chop, or pasture. They suggest that this fine stemmed crop can grow 0.9 m to 1.8 m tall in Ontario and flower in 45 to 60 days. AERC Inc. also has another forage sorghum hybrid available for production in Canada (Forage Sorghum BMR1), which has a sweet brown midrib trait that is essentially altered lignin (AERC Inc., n.d). Forage Sorghum BMR1 has been specifically developed to increase meat and milk production in cattle by improving digestibility. According to AERC Inc. (2007a), their hybrid BMR1 sorghum-sudangrass generally has larger leaves than conventional sorghum. Sorghums with this BMR trait, however, tend to have higher risk of lodging since the cell walls are weak. Due to the available information for forage sorghum growth in Canada and known biomass yield potential, forage sorghum is considered in this study as a potential Saskatchewan dedicated energy crop for biomass feedstock. Sweet sorghum is generally used as an alternative to sugarcane for the production of syrups and sugar. Sweet sorghum carries its name due to its ability to accumulate high amounts of sugars in a juice in the stalk; this juice can then be extracted and used as a sweetener or the sugars can be extracted and used for ethanol production. According to Rooney (n.d), flowering is essential for the accumulation of sugars in the stalk of sweet sorghum. Other than sugar, additional carbohydrates present in sweet sorghum include lignin and cellulose in the bagasse, which is what remains after the stalks are crushed to extract the sugary juices, as well as the starch in the grain (Rooney, n.d). One Iowa study found that forage and sweet sorghums had the potential to produce higher biomass yields than switchgrass (Rooney, n.d). In the southern United States, a sweet sorghum hybrid was developed to increase the seed yield of sweet sorghum so production was more reliable such as that in the production of grain sorghum or corn seed (Rooney, n.d). A study conducted in northern Italy found that the net energy

41 34 produced from sweet sorghum was higher than fibre sorghum and wheat when taking into account all energy requirements for its production, harvest, and collection as well as its energy value (Monti & Venturi, 2003). Although it is reported that sweet sorghum has greater potential biomass tonnage than the grain and forage sorghums in the United States, there is little information available for its production in Canada (Monk, Miller, & McBee, 1984). High-biomass sorghum or dedicated bioenergy sorghum has been specifically developed due to the interest in bioenergy crops. It can possibly be used as forage as well, but may not have the same nutritive value as other forages. High-biomass sorghum is different than the grain, forage, and sweet sorghums which contain sugars, starch, lignin, and cellulose as it only contains lignin and cellulose (Rooney, n.d). It is also different in that it is typically a photoperiod-sensitive delayed flowering hybrid which does not form a head (Blade Energy Crops, 2010a). High-biomass sorghum can be used for ethanol production but it is cellulosic ethanol that is produced. There are a variety of traits that mark high biomass sorghum as a potential bioenergy crop aside from its potential to produce high yields. According to Rooney (n.d), high biomass sorghum has the ability to adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions and recycle nutrients. Additionally, high-biomass sorghum does not display lodging and has highly efficient water usage. Its highly efficient water usage is due to the fact there are twice as many secondary roots as primary roots. High-biomass sorghum absorbs water with few leaves to allow evaporation, making it highly drought tolerant. Furthermore, with high-biomass sorghum there is no competition with food or feed systems as this particular sorghum would be specifically grown for bioenergy purposes. According to Blade Energy Crops (2010a), there are two hybrid types of high-biomass sorghum that are available and suitable for bioenergy production. The sorghum x sorghum type offers the highest biomass yield potential and is designed for a single harvest with minimal input and management. The forage sorghum x sudangrass hybrid, with female grain sorghum and male sudangrass parents, is used mostly for grazing and hay but can also be used for bioenergy production. Sorghum x sudangrass has the benefit of allowing multiple cuts due to rationing properties (ability to regrow after cutting) and a lower moisture content than sorghum x sorghum. Although information for the growth of high-biomass sorghum in Canada is lacking, it may offer great potential due to its high biomass yields for biomass feedstock. Forage sorghum and high-biomass sorghum are examined in this report for Canadian biomass feedstock due to their potential, end uses, and the fact that they are not in competition with food.

42 Forage Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum) Forage pearl millet (Figure 6-4) is a tall, warm-season, high-yielding annual grass that is resistant to drought and performs well even on soils with low nutrient levels and low ph (AERC Inc., 2005; Sedivec & Schatz, 1991). Its origins are in Africa and India where it is produced for forage and grain, but it was introduced to the Southern United States as a forage crop (Sedivec & Schatz, 1991). The spread of use as a forage crop eventually spread to the Northern United States and some regions of Canada. Aside from being used as forage, it has also been used to restore soil nutrients. Producers have suggested that livestock prefer pearl millet over alfalfa; it can also be used to supress weeds if there is sufficient crop density as it is highly aggressive in nature (AERC Inc., 2005). Forage pearl millet is frost sensitive and will not survive the winter. It is also important to consider frost sensitivity when planting. Figure 6-4. Forage pearl millet. Forage pearl millet performs best in light sandy to loamy soils; however, it is not recommended for use on heavy clay soils (AERC Inc., 2005). Forage pearl millet generally has a higher leaf to stem ratio than other forages (Sedivec & Schatz, 1991); this high leaf proportion would be detrimental to boilers due to the high ash content. AERC Inc. (2005) has developed a cultivar of forage pearl millet that is suitable for growth in Canada; it is the Canadian Forage Pearl Millet (CFPM) 101 variety. Although it is not generally used as biomass feedstock, this variety of pearl millet was grown for a biomass field trial in Saskatchewan and has shown the potential to produce high biomass yields.

43 Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Reed canarygrass (Figure 6-5) is a cool-season, perennial, rhizomatous, high-yielding grass with C 3 metabolic pathways. It has been noted to have the ability to grow in many places across Canada from Newfoundland to the Yukon, but it is native to the Nordic and Scandinavian regions in Europe (Kludze et al., 2011). Reed canarygrass is classified as an invasive species in the United States, especially in the northwest pacific region. It moves into stream banks, stream bottoms, and wetlands and displays high competitiveness after the establishment year. The estimated lifetime of reed canarygrass is approximately 10 years (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Figure 6-5. Reed canarygrass. Reed canarygrass has a wide variety of uses. According to Stannard and Crowder (2003), although reed canarygrass is generally used for hay and pasture, it was originally used to restore soil nutrients where logging operations had left debris and made the land unsuitable for farming. They suggest that reed canarygrass is also used for wastewater management due to its high response to nutrient input along with its ability to take in high levels of nutrients (Kludze, 2011). Some claim it is even the most popular species used for pollution control. Planting reed canarygrass facilitates the degradation process for debris allowing for easy removal (Stannard & Crowder, 2003). Recently, another use for reed canargyrass has been emerging as a northern bioenergy crop based on its ability to produce relatively high biomass yields. In Finland and Sweden, there are already many examples of where reed canarygrass has been combusted for heat and power.

44 37 Samson et al. (n.d) suggest that reed canarygrass has the highest potential as a bioenergy crop for regions of Canada that tend to have cool nighttime temperatures, whereas in warmer zones, warm-season grasses may be more productive. Reed canarygrass is highly tolerant to freezing and is therefore well adapted to cold conditions such as those in Canada and Northern Scandinavia (Lewandowski et al., 2003). In fact, in Scandinavia approximately 10,000 acres of reed canarygrass are cultivated for biofuel production (Stannard & Crowder, 2003). Reed canarygrass fares well on soils ranging from sandy to clay; however, for higher yield production it prefers fine sand and loamy soils within a ph range of 4.9 to 8.2 (Tahir, Casler, Moore, & Brummer, 2011). Yields potential is the highest on soils with less than 15% clay (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Reed canarygrass is usually found in wet areas such as lake shores and along rivers (Lewandowski et al., 2003); it has a great ability to withstand poorly drained soils and flooding (Sheaffer, Marten, Rabas, Martin, & Miller, 1990). Mature plants have been shown to tolerate five to eight weeks of flooding; however, if there is sufficient water on the stand for a long period of time, then the stand will die from oxygen deprivation (Stannard & Crowder, 2003). If reed canarygrass experiences drought, senescence will occur and growth will not resume unless sufficient moisture is available (Stannard & Crowder, 2003). Reed canarygrass cannot tolerate salinity (Sheaffer et al., 1990). Traditionally, in North America reed canarygrass is grown where pastures have poor drainage and where other grasses may not grow (Kludze et al., 2011). Reed canarygrass is also quite tolerant to freezing (Kludze et al., 2011) and annual burning (Stannard & Crowder, 2003). According to Sheaffer et al. (1990), in Minnesota it is considered to be one of the most persistent grasses. Reed canarygrass spreads by underground stems (rhizomes) (Sheaffer et al., 1990). If the reed canarygrass develops a strong rhizome system it will have good carbohydrate storage and elicit more robust growth (Landström, Lomakka, & Andersson, 1996). Older varieties of reed canarygrass, such as Common, Rise, and Vantage, have higher alkaloid levels than other grasses and should be avoided if there is potential for the reed canarygrass to be used as feed as well as a biomass feedstock (Sheaffer et al., 1990). Alkaloid levels are an important consideration if there is potential for feed use because alkaloids are a bitter, nitrogen-containing compound that can decrease animal performance, cause diarrhea, and reduce palatability (Sheaffer et al., 1990). Newer varieties of reed canarygrass, such as Palaton and Venture, have lower alkaloid levels (Hall, 2008). The new varieties are also high yielding, relatively tolerant to harsh winters,

45 38 and can be used for silage and/or hay (Hall, 2008). The Palaton variety has been used in Sweden for bioenergy production trials for over 10 years (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Palaton has also shown potential in Canada as it has been grown in Ontario with success. Another variety of reed canarygrass that offers potential for growth in Canada is Bellevue (Tahir et al., 2011). Since reed canarygrass is typically used as a forage, new cultivars will have to be developed if use as an energy crop progresses to decrease nutrient content and increase yield (Lewandowski et al., 2003) Wheatgrasses The wheatgrasses (Figure 6-6) summarized in this study include Western and Northern Wheatgrass. Figure 6-6. Wheatgrass. Western Wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii): According to Wark et al. (1995), western wheatgrass is a sod-forming, cool-season, rhizomatous grass native to the Canadian prairies. It is edible for all livestock and wildlife and is very valuable to grasslands in western Canada (Ogle, Loren, & Winslow, 2009; Brett Young, n.d). Western wheatgrass can grow either in clusters or in singles reaching heights of 30 cm to 91 cm (Ogle et al., 2009). Although western wheatgrass is not considered a weedy species, it can spread to nearby vegetation under certain conditions (Ogle et al., 2009).

46 39 In general, western wheatgrass has low maintenance requirements, making it an ideal crop for reclamation or growth for biomass feedstock purposes (Ogle et al., 2009). Western wheatgrass requires low fertilization inputs (Wark et al., 1995). Weed control may be needed during the establishment phase for western wheatgrass; however, 2,4-D should not be applied until plants have four to six leaves (Ogle et al., 2009). After establishment, western wheatgrass can be highly competitive, and can out-compete weeds. Rhizomes allow for wide spreading with shallow yet dense roots penetrating to depths up to 150 cm (Brett Young, n.d). Rhizomes allow western wheatgrass to spread even on clay bottom soils prone to cracking (Brett Young, n.d). Its dense root system makes it a suitable candidate for soils that are in need of stabilization, such as those next to streams or ditches (Ogle et al., 2009). It is suitable for sites that are in need of revegetation such as industrial sites or roadsides (Brett Young, n.d). Western wheatgrass is known to be tolerant to a wide range of environmental conditions including various soil moisture and high salinity conditions. Western wheatgrass shows both good tolerance to flooding and droughts. It is also tolerant to fire (if in the dormant stage), shade, and very cold temperatures (Ogle et al., 2009; Brett Young, n.d). It remains green well into the winter. It is suggested that in order for western wheatgrass to have optimal growth, annual precipitation in the area of growth should range from 350 mm to 500 mm (Ogle et al., 2009; Wark et al., 1995). Also, western wheatgrass prefers neutral to basic (ph 5 and above) poorly drained soils. It can be grown on soils that are moderately coarse to very fine including clay and clay loam. It is also able to grow through thick layers of silt (Brett Young, n.d). Western wheatgrass is widely adapted to the brown and dark brown soil zones (Abouguendia, 1995). Western wheatgrass can be planted with other grasses, but should not be planted with non-native or aggressive species as they may impede establishment. Western wheatgrass is not considered to be a weed, but has been known to spread to nearby vegetation by rhizomes or seed (Ogle et al., 2009). There are four main cultivars of western wheatgrass that are available for growth in Saskatchewan. Walsh was specifically released for growth in Western Canada, whereas the other two cultivars: Rosana and Rodan originate in Montana and North Dakota respectively (Wark et al.,1995). In recent years, W. R. Poole was developed for growth in western Canada (Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan). Other varieties of wheatgrass that are available but not suitable for growth in Saskatchewan include: Ariba, which is suitable for the southwestern United States; Barton, which was

47 40 developed from a native collection from central Kansas; and Flintlock, which was also developed from Kansas (Ogle et al., 2009). Northern Wheatgrass (Agropyron dasystachyum): According to Wark et al. (1995), northern wheatgrass is the most widely distributed native grass in the Canadian Prairies. It is a cool-season, rhizomatous grass that has the potential to reach heights of 1.1 m, with shallow dense root spreading to depths of 25 cm, some reaching depths of 60 cm (Wark et al., 1995; Brett Young, n.d). It is commonly used for reclamation since its rhizomatous root system promotes good erosion control (Brett Young, n.d). Northern wheatgrass also forms a smooth sod which can is useful for creating smooth fields (Brett Young, n.d). Similar to western wheatgrass, northern wheatgrass is highly adapted to a wide range of conditions including soils with high salinity content and moderate alkalinity, along with flooding and drought (Brett Young, n.d). Northern wheatgrass prefers drier regions and is commonly found in the brown and dark brown soil zones, although it is also well adapted to the black soil zone; it can also be grown on soils that are susceptible to wind and water erosion (Brett Young, n.d; Smoliak & Johnston, 1980). For optimal growth conditions, northern wheatgrass requires at least 25 mm of annual precipitation (Wark et al., 1995) and moderate to well-drained sandy soils with fine to moderately coarse texture (Brett Young). Northern wheatgrass also grows optimally at a ph ranging from weakly acidic to moderately alkaline (Wark et al., 1995). There are three main cultivars of northern wheatgrass that are available. Elbee was developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Lethbridge, Alberta, and was the first licensed cultivar in Canada (Smoliak & Johnston, 1980). The Elbee cultivar, however, is particularly prone to leaf and stem rust; it is even more prone to rust under irrigated conditions (Smoliak & Johnston, 1980). Polar was also developed from a western prairies collection by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Critana was developed from a Montana source (Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan, n.d). According to Smoliak and Johnston (1980), yield trials over 10 years in Lacombe, Lethbridge, and Swift Current showed that Elbee on average produced 5% more dry matter than Critana. However, the Swift Current, Saskatchewan, location generally had higher yields produced with the Critana cultivar Wildrye Grasses The wild ryegrasses (Figure 6-7) summarized in this study include Altai, Dahurian, Russian, and Mammoth wild ryegrass.

48 41 Figure 6-7. Wildrye grass. Altai Wildrye (Leymus angustus): Altai wildrye is a grass native to China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, southwest Asia, and Europe (St. John, Ogle, Duckwitz, & Tober, 2010a). It is a drought resistant, perennial grass, with a root system that can reach depths up to 13 feet, allowing for more efficient use of soil moisture than other grasses (St. John et al., 2010a). According to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (2011), altai wildrye grass is a saline tolerant grass that fairs well on medium to heavy textured soils that are loam to clay-loam in texture. It is not tolerant to flooding or saturated soils; however, it is drought tolerant and can be grown in all soil zones. Altai wildrye fairs best in areas where there is between 356 mm to 457 mm of annual precipitation (St. John et al., 2010a). Altai wildrye grass has poor seedling vigor which can lead to establishment difficulties, especially if weeds are not controlled in the establishment year (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). In the years following establishment, however, Altai wildrye is competitive with most weeds (St. John et al., 2010a). According to St. John et al. (2010a), altai wildrye is susceptible to leaf spot diseases; therefore, these diseases have been an important consideration in the variety selection. There have been three varieties of altai wildrye developed for Saskatchewan production. Eejay was released in 1989 from Agriculture Canada in Swift Current for its higher seed and forage yield and resistance to leaf spot diseases. Pearl was also released by Agriculture Canada in 1989 for seed production and also its resistance to leaf spot

49 42 diseases; however, it has a lower forage yield. Prairieland was developed by Agriculture Canada in 1976 for its high seed yield, high forage yield, and resistance to leaf spot diseases; however, Eejay has higher seed yield and forage yield than Prairieland. Dahurian Wildrye (Elymus dahuricus): Unlike altai wildrye, dahurian wildrye grass is very competitive and quick to establish (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). Dahurian wildrye grass is also well adapted to all of the soil zones and tolerant to salinity (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). Dahurian wildrye is considered to be short-lived and is recommended for short-term hay pasture; it requires replanting every two to three years (Sedivec, Tober, Duckwitz, & Hendrickson, 2011). It is often seeded in alternate rows with other longer living but slow establishing varieties of perennial grasses (Sedivec et al., 2011). According to Sedivec et al. (2011), Arthur and James are two varieties of dahurian wildrye suitable for growth in the Canadian prairies. They were first released in Canada in Russian Wildrye (Psathyrostachys juncea): According to the Government of Saskatchewan (2009), Russian wildrye was introduced to Canada in 1926 from Siberia as a grass that was exceptionally cold tolerant and well adapted to semi-arid climates. It is a cool-season, perennial bunch grass (Ogle et al., n.d). Russian wildrye is adapted to the brown, dark brown, and black soil zones of Saskatchewan and prefers loam to clay loam soils, as sandy soils may dry too quickly. It is most commonly used for pasture, but is not as suitable for hay production as other grasses since it is difficult to pick up with harvesting equipment (Ogle et al., n.d) Four varieties of Russian wildrye have been developed for Canadian production. Cabree, Swift, and Mayak were developed in Alberta in the 1970s. Cabree was developed for superior seed retention and resistance to powdery mildew, spot blotch, and leaf rust (Ogle et al., n.d). Swift was developed for superior seed emergence and resistance to leaf spot and Mayak was developed for its high forage yield, high seed yield, and resistance to leaf spot (Ogle et al., n.d). The Swift variety is widely available in Saskatchewan (Government of Saskatchewan, 2009). Another variety, Tetracan is available; it is a tetraploid variety with twice the number of chromsomes as the other two varieties, it is suggested that it may have improved seedling vigor over the other varieties (Government of Saskatchewan, 2009). Russian wildrye grass, similarly to altai wildrye grass shows difficulties in establishment due to poor competition with weeds; however, once established it is highly competitive with legumes and other grasses (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011; Government of Saskatchewan, 2009). Russian wildrye grass is tolerant to both saline

50 43 conditions and drought, but is not tolerant to flooding or soils that are highly saturated (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). Russian wildrye prefers widely spaced rows for high production; therefore, it is not a suitable grass species if the land is susceptible to water or wind erosion (Ogle et al., n.d). Producers recommend increasing the row spacing of Russian wildrye grass to enhance production in dry years (Government of Saskatchewan, 2009). Mammoth Wildrye (Leymus racemosus): Mammoth wildrye is a perennial, rhizomatous grass that is used for wind erosion control on fine sandy loam soils and revegetation in fire prone areas (St. John, Ogle, Stannard, & Pavek, 2010b). It is not considered to be suitable for use as forage (St. John, Ogle, Stannard, & Pavek, 2010b). Mammoth wildrye was first introduced to North America from Asia. Mammoth wildrye has the potential to be invasive and therefore proper management is necessary (St. John et al., 2010b). It has developed incredible strategies to survive; the seedling can survive even if it has been under desiccated conditions for up to 40 days as long as the root length exceeds 15 mm (St. John et al., 2010b). Mammoth wildrye is also highly tolerant to fire when compared to other grasses. According to St. John et al. (2010b), mammoth wildrye demonstrates superior performance in regions with greater than 178 mm of annual precipitation. They suggest that mammoth wildrye does extremely well in sandy soils that are neutral to moderately alkaline in ph; however, it can also be grown on loam, silt loam, and clay loam soils. Mammoth wildrye growth on heavier soil will limit rhizome spread. The mammoth wildrye Volga cultivar was first released in North America in 1949; it was later rereleased in 1986 to include seed propagation (St. John et al., 2010b) Green Needlegrass (Nassella viridula) According to Wark et al. (1995), green needlegrass (Figure 6-8) is a C 3 photosynthesizing, cool-season, perennial grass that is native to Saskatchewan. Green needlegrass has a dense root system that can extend up to 3 m (Brett Young, n.d; Knudson, 2005); it also grows to heights ranging from 40 cm to 80 cm (Brett Young). Green needlegrass can be used for: bioenergy, critical area establishment, revegetation of lands used for mining, reclamation of land to native vegetation, and wildlife habitat (Knudson, 2005).

51 44 Figure 6-8. Green needlegrass. Green needlegrass is fairly flood tolerant and moderately tolerant to drought (Wark et al., 1995); however, it cannot tolerate shade (Brett Young, n.d). It displays superior yield production in low lying areas, such as depressions in the land, with increased moisture (Abouguendia, 1995). Green needlegrass is often recommended for mixes where annual precipitation ranges from 305 mm to 457 mm; it is more often planted in mixes than by itself (Knudson, 2005; Wark et al., 1995). According to Knudson (2005), in North and South Dakota, green needlegrass rarely accounts for more than 30% of a mix. Green needlegrass has a relatively high seed dormancy rate, but this dormancy rate can be reduced if dry storage, moist prechilling, mechanical scarification, or acid treatment is used (Abouguendia, 1995). Green needlegrass does possess good seedling vigor, which promotes quick establishment (Brett Young, n.d). Green needlegrass prefers loam to clay soils with medium to moderately fine soil texture, but has also been shown to perform well in sandy soils. Green needlgrass is well adapted to the moist brown, dark brown, and black soil zones, performing best

52 45 where the soil is neutral to weakly basic (ph of ) (Abouguendia, 1995; Brett Young, n.d). There are a few varieties of green needlegrass available for use in the Canadian Prairies. Lordom was selected from North Dakota sources for its lower seed dormancy. Trials in southern Saskatchewan have revealed that it does well on deep heavy textured soils but shows yellowing on poorer on sandy soils (Abouguendia, 1995). Mallard was developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada from southwest Manitoba sources and Big Valley was developed by Ducks Unlimited from an Alberta source (Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan). Another cultivar available for use in the central plains is the Cucharas Germplasm, it has improved germinability over Lodorm (Knudson, 2005). 6.3 Production of Dedicated Crops Seedbed Preparation The number of producers in Saskatchewan practicing zero tillage or conservation tillage is on the rise. In 2006, 60% of Saskatchewan producers were practicing no tillage followed by conservation/minimum tillage (22%), and conventional tillage (18%) (Hofmann, 2008). From the years 1991 to 1996 across Canada, the number of farms using conventional tillage dropped by 60% (Hofmann, 2008). Now, the majority of farms use no-tillage practices followed closely by conservation/minimum tillage (Hofmann, 2008). Since the majority of farms in Saskatchewan today are practicing no-tillage, zero till agricultural practices are the focus for producing grasses in this report. Miscanthus production is the only exception as it requires some tillage for the planting rhizomes. According to Hofmann (2008), each tillage option has its own advantages. Conventional tillage uses multiple passes over the field to bury crop residue, loosen the soil, break up roots, help with weed control, increase porosity, incorporate manure, and help the soil to warm up faster in the spring; however, it leaves the surface bare and without protection, making land more susceptible to wind and water erosion and taking away from the many benefits of having crop residue left on the field. Conservation tillage or minimal tillage, on the other hand, leaves most of the crop residue on the surface and no till or zero till involves the direct seeding into stubble. Notillage offers many benefits in terms of soil conservation and reduced greenhouse gas emissions since soil disturbance is kept to a minimum, not only reducing air pollution but also costs. As a result, it is the preferred practice for dedicated biomass crop production. No-tillage also promotes soil aeration and water channels, provided by the mixture of old and new roots (PAMI, 1999). Hofmann (2008) suggests that generally the greater the level of tillage, the more soil organic matter will be lost. Hofmann proposes that soil organic matter plays an important role in crop production. Soil organic matter stores

53 46 carbon and has bacteria, fungi, and worms that help to breakdown pesticides and cycle nutrients. Wark, Gabruch, Penner, Hamilton, and Koblun, (2004) do not recommend tillage operations as it increases the likelihood of significant soil erosion and increases GHG emissions. Coxworth, Leduc, and Hultgreen (n.d) found that using a no-tillage system reduced the carbon emissions by 11% to 26% compared to conventional tillage operations. Coxworth et al. (n.d) also found that no-till systems had approximately 4 t/ha more carbon storage than conventional tillage systems. Alternatively, Wark et al. (2004) recommends the use of herbicides for weed control. However, if tillage is required, equipment should be used that minimizes the surface residue loss such as rod weeders, wide blade cultivators, or cultivators with low crown sweeps or trailing rod attachments. Additionally, to reduce erosion they suggest that the equipment should be operated without harrows at shallow depths and speeds no more than 6 km/h. The direct seeding of grass seed into standing stubble offers numerous benefits over tillage, especially during the establishment stage. According to Hutton et al. (2005), standing stubble can help reduce evaporation, prevent soil erosion, reduce soil crusting, and provide some shade for the seedlings. When seeding into stubble, the soil is also usually somewhat firm, which helps provide adequate depth control (Hutton et al., 2005). If grass seeding is to take place into the stubble of an annual crop, then care should be taken to remove as much of the stubble as possible. Hutton et al. (2005) propose that grass seeding into sod poses more challenges than direct seeding into stubble. They suggest that sod roots and top growth can cause difficulties for seed placement. Therefore, care must be taken to rid the old stand of grass by applying a nonselective herbicide in the year preceding planting. Hutton et al. (2005) consider coulter and knife openers to be the most suited for seeding into sod, suggesting that hoe openers tend to rip up the seedbed. Wark et al. (2004) According to Wark et al., (2004), if seeding is to take place in existing sod, knife and hoe openers can be used to tear open the sod, but this can result in an inconsistent seed depth. To prevent inconsistent seeding depths, specialized equipment should be used to seed in sod and to firmly pack soil around the seed. A herbicide should be applied to the sod prior to seeding, as the sod can compete for nutrients and water with the seedlings. Sod seeding is quite risky and usually not recommended; it should be avoided if possible Establishment There are many factors that require consideration for the successful establishment of a dedicated biomass crop. The Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (2011) recommends a few key steps for seeding success and good establishment; these steps include:

54 47 1. using good quality seed with high germination, 2. planting seed at proper depth, 3. seeding into a firm seedbed to ensure good seed to soil contact, 4. metering seed accurately to improve seed flow, 5. controlling weeds before, during, and after the establishment year, 6. using optimal seeding rates, and 7. using the recommended row spacing for the crop. The majority of establishment difficulties encountered are due to poor seed quality, incorrect planting depths, poor weed control, and poor soil and environmental conditions (Sanderson & Adler, 2008). For many grasses, if there is poor establishment, reseeding may be required. Jain, Khanna, Erickson, and Huang (2010) estimate the replanting rates of miscanthus and switchgrass to be between 15% to 50% for low to high cost estimates in the second year after seeding. Switchgrass: Switchgrass establishment is often very slow and finicky; a productive stand can take two years to develop (Sanderson & Adler, 2008). Teel, Barnhart, and Miller (2003) suggest that switchgrass seed also has a high dormancy rate; ten percent dormancy or less is considered excellent. There are many factors that may aid in establishing a successful switchgrass stand including: proper weed control, planting depth, firmness of seedbed, and soil moisture (Lewandowski et al., 2003). According to Blade Energy Crops (2010b), the optimal time for switchgrass planting is in the spring when soil temperatures reach 10 C; this allows for proper germination, which takes approximately 3 to 14 days. According to Teel, Barnhart, and Miller (2003) there has also been proven success in Iowa with the dormant planting of switchgrass in November or December once the risk of fall germination has subsided. Teel et al. also note that there has been some success with frost seeding as early as February in Southern Iowa. According to Samson (2007), 10 kg/ha of pure live seed (PLS) should be used for successful establishment, with higher seeding rates needed for relatively poor growing conditions. Teel et al. (2003) suggest lower seeding rates at 5 lb/acre to 6 lb/acre PLS (approximately 6 kg/ha to 7 kg/ha) for southern Iowa. The bulk volume of seed lots with equivalent PLS may be different; Samson suggests that this should be taken into account when calibrating equipment used for seeding. The cost of switchgrass seed ranges from $7/kg to $21/kg (Samson, 2007). Estimates for the cost of switchgrass seed are shown in Table 6-1.

55 48 Table 6-1. Estimates for the cost of switchgrass seed. Parameter Seeding Rate Required Cost Seeding 8 to 10 kg/ha of PLS a $7 to $21/kg a Frost seeding 6.7 kg/ha of PLS b $8.82/kg b Spring seeding 5.6 kg/ha of PLS b $8.82/kg b Seeding 16.8 kg/ha of PLS c $19.8/kg c Seed (Saskatchewan) a Samson, 2007 b Duffy & Nanhou, 2001 c Bagg, McDonald, Banks, Molenhuis, 2009 d Bill Letondre of PickSeed, personal communication, January 30, 2012 $10.01/kg d Switchgrass can be planted by either broadcasting or air drilling, ensuring a seed depth of 1.3 cm to 1.9 cm for conventional tillage, with planting depths up to 2.5 cm for coarser soils (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b). For no-till planting, switchgrass seeds should be sewn at a seed depth of 0.5 cm to 1.3 cm (Lewandowski et al., 2003). If planting is too deep there will be poor emergence and a thin stand (Teel et al., 2003). A small seed attachment should be used for air drilling switchgrass seed. Also, the drills should have press wheels to ensure optimal soil-to-seed contact. Generally, one to three plants per square foot at the beginning of the second growing season indicates well established switchgrass (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b). Miscanthus: Miscanthus may be either planted from rhizomes (underground stems which can produce new plants) or plugs (micro-propagated plantlets) as shown in Figure 6-9. Planting plugs requires sufficient moisture levels such that irrigation would be needed in the case of drought; as a result, rhizome planting is more popular. However, planting plugs reduce the risk of failed establishment when compared to rhizomes, since the plants are already growing. According to Lewandowski et al. (2000), since miscanthus requires the planting of rhizomes instead of seed rhizomes typically have to be macro-propagated (mechanically divided) in a nursery field. For macro-propagation, a rotary tiller makes one or two passes over the field every two to three years breaking up rhizomes into pieces. Macrohttp:// Figure 6-9. Miscanthus rhizome (a) and miscanthus plugs which are usually 3 cm in diameter by 15 cm deep (b).

56 49 propagation can also be performed through disc harrowing. After, macro-propagation rhizomes are then collected via a stone picker, potato harvester, or flower bulb harvester. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (2011), the propagation of a one year old miscanthus plant usually yields 7 to 10 rhizomes and the propagation of a two year old miscanthus plant usually yields more than 25 rhizomes. The storage of the rhizomes prior to planting is critical for successful establishment. If improperly stored, rhizomes can dry to a moisture content of less than 50% and not survive planting (Heaton et al., 2010). Rhizomes should be stored at a temperature of 3 C to 4 C to ensure later viability; the higher the storage temperature, the higher the risk of poor establishment (Pyter, Voigt, Heaton, & Dohleman, 2010). Furthermore, establishment is more successful when stored for one month or less, but storage in the suggested temperature range is safe for four months. Rhizome size also has an impact on stand establishment. Pyter et al. (2010) found the optimal size of rhizomes to maximize harvestable biomass in the first year was 60 g to 75 g, but rhizomes as small as 40 g did not produce significantly less biomass. Pyter et al. recommends maximizing the number of rhizomes from the mother plant, in which case 40 g may be ideal for a rhizome size. They also suggest smaller rhizomes (<40g) may be the cause of increase winter kill in the establishment year. In Germany, Lewandowski et al. (2000, 2003) suggest that before planting, the soil should be ploughed to 20 cm to 30 cm depth and planted once risk of frost has subsided to maximize biomass yield. Harrowing is also recommended to decrease weed competition. They advise that although trials have planted one to four plants per m 2, only one plant should be planted per m 2 as the higher yield does not make up for the increased planting costs. For rhizome planting, tillage is generally required to achieve proper planting depths. Rhizomes planted 10 cm deep typically produce the highest amount of biomass at the end of the first growing season (Pyter et al., 2010). Successful planting rates in Illinois varied from 10,000 to 12,000 rhizomes or plugs/ha; however, if small rhizome segments and plugs are planted, planting rates can be upwards of 20,000 to 25,000 rhizomes or plugs per hectare (Heaton et al., 2010). In Europe, rhizomes have even been planted as densely as 1 rhizomes/m 2 to 4 rhizomes/m 2, which is the equivalent of 10,000 rhizomes/ha to rhizomes/ha (Anderson et al., 2011). Miscanthus growth will occur when the rhizome base temperature reaches 10 C to 12 C and the air temperature is higher than the base temperature (Heaton et al., 2010; Lewandowski et al., 2000). Miscanthus sprouting or emergence rates can range anywhere from as low as 50% to as high as 98% (Heaton et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2011). Full establishment of miscanthus may take up to three to five years, but

57 50 production of a single stand can last up to 20 years which is greater than the estimated 10 year production potential of switchgrass (Lewandowski et al., 2000; Kludze et al., 2011; Jain et al., 2010) According to Jain et al. (2010), there is uncertainty about the cost of miscanthus plugs and rhizomes as they are not readily commercially available for large farms. Cantus Biopower, located in Ontario, estimates the cost of miscanthus rhizomes in Canada to be as low as $0.08 to $0.10 due to new technology (F. Hoelk of Cantus Biopower, personal communication, January 16, 2012). Sorghum: According to Blade Energy Crops (2010a), there are normally three growth phases of sorghum: GI, GII, and GIII as shown in Figure The period of time from when the plant emerges to the time it enters the reproductive stage is considered GI, and then from the time the plant has reached the reproductive stage to the time the plant reaches the grain-filling stage is GII. Many high biomass sorghums do not reach GIII, the grain-filling stage as they are usually late or nonheading and photoperiod sensitive. Figure The growth stages of sorghum (Blade Energy Crops, 2010). Generally, agronomic practices for grain, forage, and sweet sorghums are well defined and the same practices used for those sorghums can be used for the relatively new high biomass sorghum (Blade Energy Crops, 2010a). AERC Inc. (2004) suggests that forage sorghum should not be planted until the soil temperature reaches 12 C. For their specific hybrid sorghum they recommend a soil ph from 5.5 to 7.5 and a planting depth of 1.3 cm. The BMR1 Forage Sorghum requires a planting depth of 2.5 cm. AERC Inc. also recommends a row spacing of 18 cm with 5 cm to 8 cm spacing within the row. The main supplier of sorghum in Canada is AERC Inc. According to Om P. Dangi, the president and CEO, they have four different hybrids of sorghum that have been

58 51 developed in south western Ontario over the past five years for Canadian production; their forage sudan and silage sorghum hybrids have been developed for biomass production and their sweet sorghum hybrid has been developed for sugar and ethanol production (personal communication, January 13, 2012). These sorghum hybrids have seeding rates at 13 kg/ha and a cost of $4.41/kg of seed (O. P. Danji, personal communication, January 13, 2012). AERC. Inc. warns against broadcasting seed, suggesting that it results in an uneven stand. Blade Energy Crops (2010a) suggests that high biomass sorghum should only be planted once there is no longer a risk of freezing and once day lengths exceed 12 hours and 20 minutes. In Canada, this usually means delaying planting until May or June. Otherwise, a low biomass yield will be caused by early flowering due to photoperiod sensitivity. Furthermore, soil temperature needs to be at least 16 C to 18 C for seed germination to occur. According to Blade Energy Crops (2010a), ideally, the planting depth for high-biomass sorghum should be from 1.9 cm to 3.2 cm for medium to heavy soils and up to 5 cm for light soils. Seeding rates vary from 185,000 seeds per hectare to 297,000 seeds per hectare; this results in a seeding rate of approximately 4.7 kg/ha to 8.4 kg/ha based on 35,000 seeds/kg to 40,000 seeds/kg. Row spacing from 50 cm to 76 cm is advised, but narrower row spacing is currently under evaluation as it may enhance drying and reduce ash content. According to Blade Energy Crops (2010a), in the United States the cost of high biomass sorghum with seed treatment is approximately $6.50/kg (F. Hardimon, personal communication, January 19, 2012). Blade Energy Crops also has a sorghum-sudan hybrid with seed treatment available for sale. The cost of the seed is approximately $3.75/kg. Roth and Harper (1995) suggest that the two main causes of sorghum stand problems are either seeding too early when the ground temperature is not high enough or seeding too deep. Additionally, although an efficient water usage system renders high biomass sorghum relatively tolerant to drought; drought during the establishment phase can cause stress and potentially lead to plant death. Therefore, limited irrigation can be useful if there is insufficient moisture. Reed Canarygrass: Similar to other perennial grasses, reed canarygrass can be slow to establish resulting in lower yields in the first and second year (Sanderson & Adler, 2008; Landström et al., 1996). Reed canarygrass is propagated from seed, vegetatively, and should be sown in moist soil (El Bassam, 1998). Seeds are known to require many days at low temperatures for

59 52 germination to occur (Stannard & Crowder, 2003). According to Hall (2008), reed canarygrass seeding can take place in the spring and in late summer if used for pasture, hay, or silage. Although spring seeding is the most common, less weed competition is associated with summer seeding. The seeds show poor vigor and are not competitive; therefore, weed reduction measures are important (Sheaffer et al., 1990). Reed canarygrass should be planted at a depth of 0.6 cm to 1.3 cm in a firm, level seedbed with good seed to soil contact (Sheaffer et al., 1990). The 1.3 cm seeding depth should be reserved for sandy soils, later plant dates, and when soil moisture is a concern. Reed canarygrass seed should never be planted at a depth greater than 1.3 cm since planting at greater depths may impede establishment (Sheaffer et al., 1990). The Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (2011), suggests that reed canarygrass can be seeded at a rate of 5.6 kg/ha. Hutton et al. (2005) recommend Alberta seeding rates for 15 cm, 23 cm, and 30 cm row spacings of 10 kg, 7 kg, and 5 kg PLS/ha respectively. In Sweden, they recommend a row spacing of 12.5 cm if reed canarygrass is to be grown as a dedicated biomass crop, generally they also use higher seeding rates (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Reed canarygrass seed in Saskatchewan sells for approximately $12.13/kg to 12.54/kg for the Palaton variety (Ag-Vision Seeds Ltd., 2012; B. LeTondre of pickseed, personal communication, January 30, 2012). Forage Pearl Millet: According to AERC Inc. (2005), seeding into heavy crop residue may impede forage pearl millet establishment. They suggest that forage pearl millet should be seeded at a depth of 1.3 cm and a row spacing of 19 cm with 5 cm to 8 cm spacing between plants. AERC Inc. is one of the main suppliers of forage pearl millet in Canada. They recommend a seeding forage pearl millet at a rate of 11.2 kg/ha (AERC Inc. Om P. Dangi, personal communication, January 27, 2012). There is approximately 111,100 seeds/kg of forage pearl millet, the seed supplied by AERC Inc. costs approximately $8.82/kg (AERC Inc. Om P. Dangi, personal communication, January 27, 2012). Wheatgrasses, Wildrye Grasses, and Green Needlegrass: Grass seeding can take place both in the spring and in the fall. Regardless of when seeds are sewn, moisture must be available during seedling establishment as moisture deficiency is a major cause of seedling failures (Saskatchewan Forage Council, 2007). In Saskatchewan s brown and dark brown soil zones, it is recommended to seed grasses from early April to mid- May, whereas in the black and grey soil zones seeding can be completed as late as mid- June (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). Warm-season grasses should not be planted until soil temperatures reach at least 10 C (Wark et al., 2004).

60 53 Alternatively, the seeding of cool-season grasses can be performed in the fall after October 20, but only when the soil temperature falls to below 2 C to prevent germination (Hutton et al., 2005; Wark et al., 2004). For this reason, planting dates closest to the onset of winter will have the highest rate of success (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). Fall seeding may offer benefits that spring seeding cannot. In the fall, there may be more time to prepare seeding equipment and there is less of a risk of flooding which may pose difficulties for heavy machinery. Seeding warm-season grasses is only recommended in the fall if there is a high risk of spring (Wark et al., 2004). If possible, certified seed should be ordered since it is generally adapted to the specific growing region. Certified seed usually has good germination and low weed content. It also ensures good quality, disease resistance, and winter survivability (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). The certified seed should list the percent pure live seed, percent inert seed, and percent germination (Wark et al., 1995). Ultimately, not all seeds will produce a plant and the percent pure live seed refers to the percentage of seed that are capable of plant production (Hutton et al., 2005). Additionally, a seed analysis report should be requested to ensure quality control. If certified seed is unavailable and seed must be purchased as common stock, information pertaining to the genetic origin and point of origin should be requested. To determine the seeding rate for seeds of a specific PLS percentage, the following equation can be used (Hutton et al., 2005): PLS seeding rate/fraction PLS = bulk seeding rate For example, northern wheatgrass with 75% PLS and a PLS seeding rate of 9 kg/ha would require a bulk seeding rate of 12 kg/ha. Seeding rates and associated costs for seed of various grass species can be found in Table 6-2. Higher seeding rates will be required for smaller row spacing (Hutton et al., 2005).

61 54 Table 6-2. Estimated seeding rates and the seed costs for various species of grasses, averages were taken for more than one reference. Grass Species Seeding Rate Bulk Seed Cost Western wheatgrass 6-12 kg PLS/ha a $12.57/kg bf Northern wheatgrass 5-9 kg PLS/ha a $13.96/kg bf Altai wildrye grass kg PLS/ha ad $12.13/kg g Dahurian wildrye grass kg PLS/ha a $4.70/kg bf Russian wildrye grass 4-8 kg PLS/ha ad $9.37/kg bf Mammoth wildrye grass 17 kg PLS/ha c $15.43/kg e Green needlegrass 25 kg/ha d $10.08/kg bf a Hutton et al., 2005 b Ag-Vision Seeds Ltd., 2012 c St. John et al., 2010b d McCartney, Bittman, Nuttal, 2004 e Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc. f Bill Letondre of PickSeed, personal communication, January 30, 2012 g Ag-Vision Seeds Ltd, personal communication, February, 2012 The recommended row spacing varies based on the soil zone due to evaporation rates. In the brown soil zone a row spacing of 31 cm to 46 cm is recommended, whereas in the other soil zones rows need only be spaced 31 cm (Abouguendia, 1995). The Saskatchewan Forage Council (2007) suggests that a row spacing of only 15 cm can be used in areas with high moisture. Recommended row spacing can also vary between crops. Grass seeds are generally small and seeding too deep can prevent emergence or cause a poor stand. Smaller grass seeds do not have the energy required to emerge from deep seeding depths (Hutton et al., 2005). Hutton et al. (2005) suggest that the seeding depth should depend on the soil type; seeds can be sewn deeper in sandy soils with poor moisture conditions whereas heavier soils require shallow seeding depths. The Saskatchewan Forage Council recommends planting grass seeds at a depth of 0.7 cm to 1.3 cm; however, optimal depths will vary between species with some grasses requiring seeding depths up to 2.5 cm (Government of Saskatchewan, 2009). Western wheatgrass should be seeded at a depth of 1.3 cm to 2.5 cm for coarse to medium textured soils and at a depth of 0.6 cm to 1.3 cm for medium to heavy textured soils (Ogle et al., 2009; Abouguendia, 1995). Western wheatgrass is rather slow to establish in the first year, but in the second year it grows and spreads more rapidly, with good stands occurring in the fourth year and beyond (Wark et al., 1995). Similarly to western wheatgrass, northern wheatgrass should be seeded at a depth of 1.3 cm to 2.5 cm (Abouguendia, 1995). Altai wildrye should be seeded at a depth of 0.6 cm to 1.3 cm due to reduced competitiveness in the establishment year (St. John et al., 2010a). According to the

62 55 Saskatchewan Forage Council, dahurian wildrye grass should be seeded at a depth no greater than 1.3 cm since deeper seeding depths are associated with poor emergence. Russian wildrye can be seeded at deeper seeding depths (2.0 cm to 2.5 cm) and wide row spacing (46 cm to 91 cm) (Government of Saskatchewan, 2009). Mammoth wildrye can either be planted by rhizomes or by seed. If rhizomes are planted, a planting depth of 46 cm is recommended (St. John et al., 2010b). If seeding, seeds should be planted at a depth of 1.3 cm to 1.9 cm (St. John et al., 2010b). Green needlegrass should be seeded at a depth of 1.5 cm to 3.0 cm (Abouguendia, 1995). Green needlegrass seedlings are relatively quick to establish, but are known to have a relatively high dormancy rate. Sometimes only 40% of viable seed emerges in the establishment year (Wark et al., 1995). According to Knudson (2005), if the awns have been removed from the seed, green needlegrass can be seeded similarly to other grasses Fertility In the establishment year, before applying fertilizer, soil tests should be performed to determine whether or not soil ph adjustments or nutrient application is required. Some soil testing laboratories will perform a fertilizer economics report, along with analysing the soil, to determine the cost/benefit ratio for application. Following the establishment year, the general rule of thumb, with some exceptions, is to replace the nutrients that have been taken off the field in the form of baled biomass. The following sections contain information on fertility applications that have been used for a particular crop on a particular site. They are not recommendations that can be generalized for Saskatchewan soils. For site-specific fertility, consultation with an agrologist is recommended. Although fertility can enhance yield up to a certain point, it is also expensive and increases the release of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. Saskatchewan soils are generally low in phosphorous and nitrogen; this is an important consideration since nitrogen is the most limiting nutrient for grass production (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011; Saskatchewan Forage Council, 2007). Phosphorous is an important nutrient for root development, and if inadequate, it should be added to the soil (Wark et al., 1995). Additionally, some soils are low in sulphur and/or potassium. Although fertility is important, it is important to consider that if too much fertilization is added, weed competition may be increased and crops could lodge (Hutton et al., 2005). Smith, Zentner, Nagy, Khakbazan, and Lafond (2008) note that the main energy input in cereal and oilseed production on the Canadian Prairies is incurred through the manufacturing of nitrogen (N) fertilizer. Similarly, this requires consideration for the production of dedicated biomass crops. According to Smith et al., nitrogen fertilizer requires more energy to produce (45.19 MJ/kg N) than other macro nutrients required in

63 56 crop production like phosphorous (P) (7.50 MJ/kg of P 2 O 5 ) and potassium (K) (3.31 MJ/kg K 2 O). Producers have few options available to them to reduce fertilizer energy inputs. There is the potential to see a reduction through increased fertilizer use, or nitrogen use, efficiency. This involves more active monitoring of fertilizer placement, crop development and weather forecasting to reduce the amount of fertilizer placed with the seed and employ in crop fertilizer applications as the crop develops. Smith et al., 2008 also note three other alternatives to reduce fertilizer energy inputs: Grow nitrogen fixing legume crops Utilize grain legumes as green manure crops Grow a legume hay crop, such as alfalfa, in rotation with annual crops. Switchgrass: Once established switchgrass is relatively productive on medium to low fertility soils compared to other crops due to its extensive root system and drought tolerability; its extensive root system allows it to scavenge quite efficiently for nutrients in the soil (Samson, 2007b). According to Sanderson and Adler (2008), nitrogen fertility should not be applied to switchgrass in the establishment year, since seedling growth is slow and fertilizer application encourages weed growth. In the establishment year, switchgrass does not usually require phosphorous and potassium applications unless soil tests reveal deficiencies. If phosphorous content is below 10 ppm and potassium content is below 90 ppm nutrient application is required (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b). Switchgrass requires nitrogen fertility following the establishment year, but can produce reasonable yields without high nitrogen application rates (Sanderson & Adler, 2008; Teel et al., 2003; Blade Energy Crops, 2010b; Samson, 2007). Generally, the higher the latitude, the less nitrogen should be used due to lower yield potential. It is recommended that 12.4 kg of nitrogen be applied for each metric tonne of biomass harvested (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b). Teel et al. (2003) recommend that after three years of switchgrass production, the soil should be tested for phosphorous and potassium levels to determine exactly how much nutrient should be replenished. Suggestions for applying nutrients in years following establishment vary. Duffy and Nanhou (2001) grew switchgrass in Southern Iowa. During years following establishment, Duffy and Nanhou applied phosphorous and potassium to replenish nutrients removed from the field. According to Duffy and Nanhou, the phosphorous and potassium fertility quantities lost for harvested switchgrass are 0.97 kg P 2 O 5 /tonne and 11.4 kg K 2 O/tonne. Khanna et al. (2008) found no positive growth response with phosphorous and potassium applications applied to replenish nutrients taken off the field.

64 57 Miscanthus: Nutrient input needs for miscanthus are relatively low compared to other crops, as a portion of the nutrients translocate to the rhizomes before a late harvest. The rhizomes also act as an underground overwinter storage organ from which new shoots emerge in the spring. Some suggest that if nitrogen is to be applied, it should only be applied following the first two years as it may encourage greater weed growth during the establishment period (Heaton, 2010). Others suggest applying nitrogen in the establishment year to help production. Dien Tiessan of New Energy Farms in Ontario applies approximately 110 kg N/ha to 170 kg N/ha to his miscanthus fields in the establishment year (Growing the Margins Conference, personal communication, March 7, 2012). Following the establishment year, if nitrogen fertility is applied, it can be applied to replace nitrogen lost (2-5 kg N/tonne of dry matter removed) (Lewandowski et al., 2003; Jain et al., 2010). However, many suggest that yearly applications of nitrogen are not necessary. D. Tiessan of New Energy Farms in Ontario suggests that the miscanthus still produces high yields without any replacement nutrient application (Growing the margins conference, personal communication, March 7, 2012). Studies in Europe have also shown that miscanthus shows little to no response to nitrogen fertilization (Khanna et al., 2008; Sanderson & Adler, 2008; Lewandowski et al., 2000). Furthermore, Pyter et al. (n.d) claim that miscanthus in Illinois showed high yields for 18 years with no fertilizer application. The lack of response to nitrogen fertility may make miscanthus more desirable than other potential biomass feedstocks, such as reed canarygrass, which require higher nitrogen input (Sanderson & Adler, 2008). It is noted that the high-yield responses displayed in many field trials without yearly nitrogen application may not be achieved without additional fertility application for soils that are low in nutrients (Heaton et al., 2010). Soil tests are still recommended since nitrogen fertilization requirements may change depending on the year and the field. If the soil is deficient in nutrient, application of all nutrients should take place in early spring before new growth occurs (El Bassam, 1998). In the establishment year, potassium and phosphorous should be applied based on whether or not there is insufficient nutrient content in the soil (Heaton, 2010). Following the establishment year, potassium and phosphorous are typically applied only in sufficient quantities to replace quantities taken from the soil (Khanna et al., 2008). Typically, 0.3 kg to 1.1 kg of phosphorous and 0.8 kg to 1.2 kg of potassium is removed from the soil with each dry tonne of miscanthus harvested (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Magnessium may also need to be applied if soil is sandy with a magnesium concentration of less than 3 mg/l to 4 mg/l (El Bassam, 1998).

65 58 Sorghum: In general, applications of N, P 2 O 5, and K 2 O are recommended for sorghum growth, but quantities will vary depending on planting location and whether or not nutrients need to be applied to counteract nutrient deficiencies prior to planting (Blade Energy Crops, 2010). According to Blade Energy Crops (2010a), nitrogen deficiencies are the most common type of nutrient deficiency in sorghum crops. They recommend nitrogen applications of 5 kg to 10 kg per tonne of dry matter removed. In addition to fertilizer application, crop rotation (growing sorghum every two to three years) is encouraged to replenish nutrients depleted from the soil to maintain high yields, as well as to avoid increased weed, pest, and disease problems (U.S. Department of Energy, 2011). For their forage sorghum, AERC Inc. recommends applying 70% of silage corn fertilizer or 78 kg N/ha, 34 kg P/ha, and 78 kg K/ha; however, these recommendations are based on soil conditions in Ontario. In a field trial, PAMI (2010) found that broadcasting 112 kg/ha of urea (46-0-0) was sufficient for a relatively high sorghum yield. Reed Canarygrass: Nitrogen elicits a greater growth response in reed canarygrass than in other cool-season grasses (Hall, 2008). Reed canarygrass yield has been shown to be linearly related to nitrogen fertilization; however, nutrient application should be optimized taking into account costs and feedstock quality (Tahir et al., 2011). Landström et al. (1996) found that the nitrogen concentration in the harvested reed canarygrass was much higher in a crop fertilized with 200 kg N/ha than in a crop fertilized with 100 kg N/ha. Since nutrient content in the feedstock negatively impacts feedstock quality this should be a consideration. It should also been proposed that nitrogen may be the essential macronutrient for reed canarygrass growth. Sheaffer et al. (1990) suggest that reed canarygrass is more responsive to nitrogen fertilization than to potassium and phosphorous fertilization. According to Hall (2008), the quantity of nitrogen applied should depend on the soil conditions and the yield. In general Hall recommends applying 80 kg N per tonne of reed canarygrass removed. If annual nitrogen application rates are greater than 54 kg, it is recommended that nitrogen applications are split. Potassium content in the feedstock has been found to be affected by nitrogen application rates. Higher levels of potassium were found in the crop with the higher nitrogen application rate despite the fact that 100 kg K/ha was applied in each scenario (Landström et al., 1996). Potassium application rates can vary significantly depending on the soil. Annual potassium application rates can range from 0 kg/ha to 179 kg/ha (Hall, 2008). Hall (2008) suggests applying phosphorous annually at a rate of 34 kg/ha.

66 59 Forage Pearl Millet: Similar to other crops, the fertility applied to a forage pearl millet crop will depend on the soil and the location. PAMI (2010) found relatively high yields of forage pearl millet when they broadcast 90 kg/ha of urea (46-0-0) in Saskatchewan. AERC Inc. (2005) in Ontario recommended seeding with roughly 70% of corn fertilizer. Sedivec and Schatz (1991) in North Dakota recommend applying similar fertility to annual grain crops to produce high yields. Sedivec and Schatz (1991) suggest fertility rates similar to oats at 45 kg N/ha to 67 kg N/ha and 11 kg P 2 O 5 /ha to 22 kg P 2 O 5 /ha if soils are low in phosphorous (<6 kg P/ha). In Saskatchewan, the suggested fertility rates for oats in the brown soil zone are 62 kg N/ha and 34 kg P/ha, in the dark brown soil zone fertility rates are 67 kg N/ha and 34 kg P/ha for the dark brown soil zone, and in the black soil zone fertility rates are 78 kg N/ha and 34 kg P/ha (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2012). Wheatgrasses, Wildrye Grasses, Green Needlegrass: Recommendations for fertility inputs will vary depending on the location of the field and year of production. Care should be taken to ensure optimal applications, taking into account the cost of fertility, yield potential, and quality of the feedstock (Sanderson & Adler, 2008). In some cases, fertilizer application for native grasses may not be even required. Wark et al. (1995) suggest that if a pre-establishment year summerfallow is planted for soil preparation, fertilizers for native grasses may not even be necessary (Wark et al., 1995). Hutton et al. (2005) advise that nitrogen placed in with the seed should be minimal (<30 kg/ha), since it has been shown to reduce emergence. Hutton et al. (2005) suggest that if large quantities of phosphate or potash are banded into the seedbed in the establishment year, there could be enough to supply the plant for years to come. Phosphate can also be placed within the grass seed, but only 16.7 kg/ha of phosphate (P 2 O 5 ) or less is safe and only with good to excellent soil moisture, a 2.5 cm spread, and 15cm to 17.5 cm row spacing (Saskatchewan Forage Council, 2007). Monoammonium phosphate fertilizer ( ) can be used to carry small seed during seeding if recommended application rates are followed; this can help provide a higher volume and density for grass seed with low seeding rates to help with seed flow (Saskatchewan Forage Council, 2007; Hutton et al., 2005). Care must also be taken to seed as soon as possible with such a mix to prevent seed injury. Hutton et al. also suggest that if soil is sulfur deficient, sulphate can be broadcast or banded. McCartney, Bittman, and Nuttall (2004) evaluated the growth of various grasses under fertilized and unfertilized multiple cut conditions. For the fertilized grasses, they incorporated monoammonium phosphate at a depth of 5 cm. In the years following establishment, McCartney et al. broadcast 50 kg N/ha, 13 kg P/ha as urea and monoammonium phosphate every April. The quantities of fertility applied were determined based on farm experience in Pathlow, Saskatchewan, along with research data. They found that fertilizer significantly increased biomass yield when compared to

67 60 the unfertilized condition, with the exception of one year which they attributed to a lower rainfall and an aging stand. Their yield results for their various grasses are shown in Table 6-3. Table 6-3. The effect of fertility on a multiple cut harvest system on dry matter yield of grasses in Pathlow, Saskatchewan, from 1982 to 1984 (Adapted from McCartney et al., 2004). Grass Species Without Fertilizer Two-cut system (t/ha) Multicut system (t/ha) Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4 Green needlegrass Altai wildrye Russian wildrye With Fertilizer Green needlegrass* Altai wildrye Russian wildrye *Green needlegrass tends to require more fertility inputs than other grasses such as the northern and western wheatgrasses (Wark et al., 1995) As previously mentioned, as a general rule of thumb, the nutrient requirements in years following establishment will depend on nutrients taken off the field in the form of harvested biomass. Table 6-4 can be used as a guideline to determine the quantity of nutrient that is generally taken off the field once grasses are harvested. However, this should only be used as a guideline since soil nutrient requirements will vary from site to site. Table 6-4. Nutrients removed from forage grasses (information may be used as an indicator for nutrient requirement, but not a recommendation as soil tests and fertilizer use efficiency must be considered) (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). Approximate nutrient removal per dry tonne Nutrient Nutrient Removal (kg/dry t) Nitrogen (N) 17.5 Phosphate (P 2 O 5 ) 5 Potash (K 2 O) 25 Calcium (Ca) 3.5 Magnesium (Mg) 2.5 Sulphur (S) 2.5 Iron (Fe) 0.15 Manganese (Mn) 0.05 Boron (B) 0.04 Zinc (Zn) Copper (Cu) Molybdenum (Mo) 0.001

68 Weeds, Pests, and Disease Weed and pest control is a critical step in the establishment of any crop. It is especially crucial for the slower establishing perennial grasses. When applying herbicides or pesticides to a crop, it is important to consult the Annual Guide to Crop Protection published by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture for spraying rates and which herbicides and pesticides are registered for use on a particular crop. In the case of certain dedicated biomass crops, there may not be a recommendation in the guide if a crop is not typically grown in Saskatchewan. In such a case, a producer should consult with a professional specialist for recommendations. The following section for weed and pest control includes information on what others have done in other provinces and/or countries to be used as a general guideline only; these are not by any means recommendations for Saskatchewan. Switchgrass: According to Samson (2007) weed control is particularly important for a successful switchgrass establishment, since switchgrass is slow to form a canopy and weeds can shade the seedlings. Although switchgrass is competitive with invading warm-season perennials, cool-season perennials such as quackgrass, bromegrass, and reed canarygrass may pose a problem for establishing switchgrass. Luckily, research has shown that even if there is significant weed growth in the first year, the stand may still be able to recover and be successful in the second year (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Blade Energy Crops (2010b), suggest that the best weed control in the establishment year is obtained by planting an annual herbicide tolerant crop in the pre-establishment year. Also, delaying planting until spring allows for weeds to emerge and then be sprayed with a broad-spectrum herbicide before switchgrass is planted (Samson, 2007). Blade Energy Crops (2010b) recommend that glyphosphate application in the United States prior to planting will control grassy and broadleaf weeds; however, in Canada, there are no herbicides specifically registered for switchgrass use (Samson, 2007). Samson (2007) warns against using spring applied formulas such as Round-up Ultra or Max due to phytotoxic effects. After the point at which switchgrass reaches the four-leaf stage in the first year, a broad spectrum herbicide can be applied in the United States (Blade Energy Crops, 2010). From what is known today, insects do not pose a major threat to switchgrass, but grasshoppers, moths, nematodes, crickets, and beetles can cause minimal damage. To help prevent damage granular insecticides may be used in the rows when planting (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b) The upland varieties of switchgrass are prone to diseases such as rust, spot blotch, smuts, barley yellow dwarf virus, and panicum mosaic virus (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b). The Cave-In-Rock variety of switchgrass, which is commonly grown in the

69 62 Northern United States, is particularly prone to a fungal, smut disease which can reduce switchgrass vigor and yield (Teel et al., 2003). Miscanthus: There are many different mechanical methods used for weed control for a miscanthus crop. Some producers have used a rotary hoe between rows in the second year, some producers clean rhizomes before planting to ensure no weed seeds are in the attached soil, some use harvesting and tillage equipment, and some time planting as to not plant in times when problematic weeds are emerging. If chemical methods of weed control are used, herbicides are only required in the first two years of growth. In its first year, miscanthus shows poor competition and in the second year herbicide is used if early canopy closure does not occur (Khanna et al., 2008; Heaton et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2011). Usually, however, after the first year of growth miscanthus ground cover is sufficient to suppress weed growth and herbicide application is not needed (The Research Park, 2009). Miscanthus is susceptible to many pests including: the corn leaf aphid, which can carry the barley yellow dwarf virus; the yellow sugarcane aphid; larvae of the rustic moth; the western corn rootworm; and the fall armyworm (Heaton et al., 2010). Although it has been reported that miscanthus is not susceptible to disease (U.S. Department of Energy, 2011), pathogens have been found. Some of the pathogens found include: Fusarium spp., Leptosphaeria spp., L. breviannulatus, and Pithomyces chartarum (Heaton et al., 2010). It should be noted that diseases and pests will vary depending on the variety of miscanthus. Sorghum: There are a variety of seed treatments that are available for sorghums to protect the seed during the establishment phase. Seed treatments can include fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides; however, compared to other crops seed treatment options are limited (Rooney, n.d; Blade Energy Crops, 2010a). It is important to minimize pressure from weeds prior to seeding, as it can lead to stand establishment problems. Generally though, sorghum does not require weed control as it has the ability to supress weeds; once sorghum is established, it is highly competitive and can shade out weeds (Roth & Harper, 1995). Therefore, it has the advantage over other energy crops such as switchgrass and miscanthus, which require herbicides (The Research Park, 2009). There are many pests and diseases that can impact sorghum crop production. Pests that can lead to crop damage include cutworms on seedlings, nematodes on roots, greenbugs or fall armyworms on leaves, and panicles and sugarcane borers in the stalks

70 63 (Blade Energy Crops, 2010a). Sorghum is also susceptible to diseases such as anthracnose, downy mildew, and fusarium (Blade Energy Crops, 2010a). Reed Canarygrass: Reed canarygrass establishment is highly threatened by weed competition. The crop may even fail if weed competition is severe in the first year (Hall, 2008). Shinners, Boettcher, Muck, Weimer, and Casler (2010) found in one Wisconsin study with reed canarygrass and switchgrass that although switchgrass produced higher yields, its slow spring growth required more weed control than the reed canarygrass. According to them, this suggests that production costs for reed canarygrass may be lower than for switchgrass. Lewandowski et al. (2003) suggests that herbicides for broadleaf species can be used with reed canarygrass, but once there is significant ground cover after the establishment year, weed control should not be required. After establishment, reed canarygrass is a highly competitive species and in some regions considered to be invasive. Reed canarygrass is relatively tall compared to other species and will outgrow them, depriving them of light (Stannard & Crowder, 2003). Reed canarygrass may not be as susceptible to some diseases as other grasses. In fact, reed canarygrass is considered to be more resistant to foliar diseases than other coolseason grasses (Hall, 2008). Forage Pearl Millet: Prior to planting, if weeds are considered to be a problem, glyphosate can be applied prior to planting (AERC Inc., 2005). Following planting, broadleaf herbicides can be applied to control broadleaf species. Herbicide carryover will also affect forage pearl millet, causing yellowing, slow growth, and poor yield (AERC Inc., 2005). Wheatgrasses, Wildrye Grasses, Green Needlegrass: Controlling weeds, especially perennial weeds, is an essential step in grass production since weeds compete for moisture, nutrients, and light (Saskatchewan Forage Council, 2007). There are many steps a producer can take to prevent weed competition in the pre-establishment year, the establishment year, and years following establishment. In the pre-establishment year, a producer should obtain the crop history of the site. Residues from certain herbicides can prevent the stand establishment of certain native grasses for up to two years, so it is important to know what chemicals have been previously sprayed (Wark et al., 1995). Furthermore, the pre-establishment year could be used as a control year to rid unwanted perennials. If weed control is successful in the year prior to establishment, weeds in the years to follow will be significantly reduced and predominately annuals.

71 64 Weed control in the establishment year is of particular importance; a grass stand may fail if weeds are not controlled (Hutton et al., 2005). Before seeding, a glyphosphate application such as Roundup is recommended as a nonselective herbicide to control weeds without disturbing the seedbed (Saskatchewan Forage Council, 2007; Hutton et al., 2005). Frost may have an effect on weed control; therefore, it is recommended to wait until there has been no frost for at least one week before spraying (Wark et al., 2004). Following establishment, fields should be inspected for weeds every two weeks. According to Wark et al. (2004), weeds should be managed through the application of a broadleaf herbicide. The main exception is where Canada thistle exists, for which Curtail M should be applied instead of a broadleaf herbicide. Wark et al. suggests that if Canada thistle does exist, spot spraying patches is an effective control method. They do not recommend spraying herbicides on native grasses that are specifically for controlling broadleaf weeds on native cool-season forages. If weed control is needed in the second year of growth, a general herbicide should be sprayed in mid-may, followed by a spot spray in late summer (Wark et al., 1995). For the third year and beyond if weed control is needed an early and late summer spot spray could be performed; smooth bromegrass and quackgrass can be invasive in the third year and beyond. One way of controlling these weeds is to create a warm-season barrier strip at which Aatrex 480 is applied; this selectively controls cool-season invaders, which account for the majority of invasive species in Saskatchewan (Wark et al., 2004). Fall controlled burns can also be helpful for removing accumulated litter (Wark et al., 2004). Accumulated litter can lead to the sparse penetration of light and moisture. A controlled burn can stimulate new growth and rid the crop of weeds and woody plants; it also helps lower the risk of damage by a wildfire. The pest that poses the greatest threat to grass stands and requires the most control is the grasshopper. Grasshopper infestations can last for 20 years if not taken care of and can lead to establishment failure (Saskatchewan Forage Council, 2007; Wark et al., 2004). Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food has an annual Grasshopper Infestation Map that can be used to predict infestation. Whether or not grasshopper control is required is dependent on the price of insecticide and the value of the crop. The benefit of grasshopper control varies widely from year to year. Green needlegrass is considered to be resistant to damage by grasshoppers and relatively disease resistant (Wark et al., 1995; Knudson, 2005). Other grasses are not so resistant to grasshopper damage. Grasshoppers are known to cause damage to wheatgrasses. Western wheatgrass is also susceptible to ergot, and rusts on the stem

72 65 and leaf (Ogle et al., 2009). Mammoth wildrye is also susceptible to ergot (St. John et al., 2010b) and Russian wildrye is susceptible to grasshoppers, cutworms, and some other insects, but is not considered to be prone to disease (Ogle et al., n.d) Equipment Used for Seeding Dedicated Energy Crops Generally, the equipment used for traditional cereal and forage crops can be used for seeding, spraying, and harvesting dedicated energy crops. Therefore, a producer can use farm equipment they already own or have access to. For crops like miscanthus, specialized planting equipment is required. For dedicated biomass crops, a specific seed depth or packing pressure might be required, so some seeding equipment might be better suited than others. Rhizome Planting (Miscanthus): Rhizomes can be planted using conventional potato planting machinery, bare root or tree planters, or specialized miscanthus planting machinery that has recently been developed in the United Kindom (DEFRA, 2007). New Energy Farms located in Ontario also has specialized miscanthus rhizome planting equipment they have been developing that can plant one hectare of miscanthus for under $100/ha (D. Tiessen, personal communication, February 9, 2012). A major drawback to the production of miscanthus is the fact that planting is rhizome based as it should be noted that rhizomes are relatively expensive to buy and many Saskatchewan producers may not have familiarity with the equipment required for planting. Double Disk Press Drills: Seeds may be planted using a double disk press drill. A double disk press drill has sets of vertical disks placed at slight angles to each other, meeting at the leading edge to cut single furrows through the soil which the seed is placed into. Seed is metered from on-frame mounted seed boxes with metering wheels, and gravity fed to each opener. Each set of disk openers is trailed by an on-row steel packing wheel, closing the furrow and packing the seed row. Six inch row spacing is common with these units. Double disk press drills have a reputation for good depth control and positive seed-tosoil contact due to the on-row packers. These units have a relatively low draft requirement, and can be effectively operated at higher ground speeds (8 km/h to 11 km/h), but are limited by residue handling ability. Heavy residue conditions can cause plugging and hair-pinning (pinning longer residue stalk material into the v-shaped soil trench). Because of this, double disk drills are not ideal for zero-till or minimum till practices, as some sort of pre-seeding tillage is normally required. Due to the small size of the on-frame seed boxes, seed/fertilizer carrying capacity is also limited. Some seeds, which are light and fluffy are prone to bridging; therefore, agitation is required to ensure even seed metering.

73 66 Hoe Drills: Hoe drills are very similar to double disk press drill in construction except that the disk openers are replaced with hoe-style knife openers. This feature improves their residue clearance capability and penetration in heavy residue and/or hard soil conditions. Row-spacing is normally slightly wider (18 cm to 25 cm.) than the disk models. Broadcasters: If seeds are broadcast-seeded, generally seeding rates should be increased to compensate for nonideal seed-bed conditions. Broadcasting does not ensure adequate soil coverage, seeding depth, or seed-to-soil contact. These factors can limit germination and cause slower emergence, unless surface moisture is adequate. Generally packing or harrowing post-seeding is recommended to offer some seed/soil engagement. Broadcasting can be an effective seeding method for seeds that are sensitive to seeding depth, ensuring seeds are not buried too deeply. If moisture conditions are sufficient, these sensitive seeds can easily germinate at (or near) the surface. Air Seeders: Air seeders are equipped with a pneumatic seed distribution system that delivers seed to individual openers through hoses running from a towed commodity cart. Unlike press-drills, with their frame mounted boxes that rely on gravity for seed distribution, air seeders meter seed from a separate cart and an air system is required to distribute it to the individual openers. This advancement allows for much greater carrying capacity relative to the press drills, but high air speeds can potentially result in seed damage. Also, by removing the tank from the seeding unit frame frame-to-ground clearance is increased enabling greater residue handling capabilities. Air seeders are typified by a cultivator-based seeding tool, usually with a rigid hitch. Shanks with a ground-engagement tool (knife, spoon, and disk) are mounted to the unit frame. Depth is controlled through hydraulic adjustment of the frame height. Accurate depth control is not a strength of these units especially at shallow seeding depths. Harrows or packer-wheel gangs are often mounted to the rear of the unit frame, but the seeding operation may be followed with coil-packing either directly behind the air seeder or as a separate operation. Air seeders allow for greater flexibility in working width, row-spacing, seeding/fertilizer rates, and opener choice. Air seeders are also often capable of banding fertilizer separately, maintaining separate air delivery streams to isolate the fertilizer and seed products. Double-shooting, as it is called, allows placement of seed and fertilizer separately in the soil using side-band or paired-row openers. Wider row spaces from 20 cm to 30 cm are also common on air seeders, and opener selection allows for a range in severety of surface disturbance. Desired level of soil disturbance and accuracy

74 67 of seed placement dictate operating speed, but generally speeds below 8 km/h are targeted to reduce soil throw. Air Drills: Air drills are a variation of an air seeder. The principles of operation are the same, utilizing an air delivery system combined with a ground-engagement seeding opener. An air drill incorporates other features such as on-row packers, and a floating frame which allows the frame segments (wings, center section) to float individually, providing better terrain contour following across the seeding width. The seeding tool frame is supported by castor wheels on the front of the unit and the packers on the rear, offering the advantage of greater depth control and superior packing. Modern air drills have evolved to include a fixed frame with independent groundfollowing opener assemblies mounted to this frame. Depth is controlled by an integral gauge-wheel behind each opener. The frame height stays constant while the independent openers adjust to the terrain contours. Many of these styles of air drill opener assemblies are hydraulically controlled allowing hydraulic adjustment of packing and trip pressures. The independent openers provide superior depth control, even at shallower seeding depths, and facilitate even crop emergence across the seeding width. 6.4 Harvesting Dedicated Biomass Crops The harvest of dedicated biomass crops requires a different way of thinking compared to harvesting crops that would be used for feed. The harvest of dedicated biomass crops should generally take place later than forages, since lower moisture and nutrient content is desirable in biomass feedstock. Furthermore, delaying harvest until the spring, known as overwintering, is even recommended in certain cases to reduce nutrient and moisture content. The recommendations for overwintering crops should be taken with extreme caution, as trials have yet to show that the Saskatchewan climate offers a suitable condition for this harvesting practice. Perennial grasses that are slow to establish may not be harvested the first year if there is not a substantial yield; this should be considered as producers may want to plant an annual crop as well. There is generally no information available in the literature for the effects of delayed harvest and overwintering on quality for forage pearl millet, forage sorghum, wheatgrasses, wild ryegrasses, and green needlegrass, since biomass feedstock is not a common use for these crops. Therefore, the following section will focus on the harvest of crops that have been used for biomass feedstock, focusing on harvesting practices that may improve biomass feedstock quality. The collection (baling) of both dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues will be examined in Section 9 of this report. Generally, all of the dedicated biomass

75 68 crops included in this document can be harvested similarly to forage crops. Some of the options available for harvest are: Mowing followed by baling or chopping with a silage chopper Mowing using a mower-conditioner followed by baling or chopping with a silage chopper Swathing into windrows and then baling or chopping with a silage chopper (has an advantage over mowing/conditioning for overwintering) (Samson, 2007) Using a forage harvester to harvest biomass with high moisture content (>60%) Crop specific harvesting Switchgrass: Switchgrass can either be harvested in the fall or in the spring. Either way, the moisture content of the switchgrass at harvest should be equal or less than 15% so that baling can be performed immediately after mowing or swathing (Teel et al., 2003). Some sources suggest that overwintering switchgrass has multiple benefits including lowered nutrient (N, K) and ash content due to leaching as well as lower moisture content, which reduces the chances of spoilage (Samson & Bailey-Stamler, 2009; Jannasch, Duxbury, Samson, 2001). One Québec study found that the moisture content of fall harvested switchgrass (40% to 50%) was much higher than the spring harvested switchgrass (10% to 15%); this reduction is substantial since no further drying would be required for the spring harvested switchgrass (Jannasch et al., 2001). Additionally, they propose that overwintering in the establishment year allows for endurance and dynamic regrowth (Samson, 2007). The benefits of overwintering switchgrass do come with disadvantages. The major disadvantage is the high loss of biomass yield, which can be as high as a 20% to 40% loss of a fall harvested yield (Jannasch et al., 2001; Samson, 2007). Even delaying switchgrass harvest until after a killing frost can reduce yields by 10% to 20% (Sanderson & Adler, 2008). Samson and Bailey-Stamler (2009) found there was a significant biomass loss when overwintering switchgrass in Quebec. They discovered a 36% overall loss of biomass taking into account the head, leaf, leaf sheath, and stem of the switchgrass. Furthermore, Samson and Bailey-Stamler (2009) found that there was a 21% decrease in the yield from the fall mow and spring bale to the spring mow and bale. If a fall harvest is preferred, switchgrass should be harvested after the leaves reach the dormancy stage (once they have yellowed), usually two to three weeks after the first killing frost which will reduce the moisture content (Blade Energy Crops, 2010b; Teel et al., 2003). This allows translocation of adequate amounts of carbohydrates and nutrients to the root. Samson (2007) recommends that 10 cm of switchgrass stubble should be left

76 69 on the field after harvest to ensure winter survival of the stand; however, according to Teel et al. (2003) only 6 cm is recommended in southern Iowa to prevent crown and lower stem injuries. Shinners et al. (2010) found that in Wisconsin, switchgrass swath widths that were 100% of the cut width (4.5 m) dried faster than swath widths that were 60% and 30% of the cut width. Shinners et al. (2010) also found that a roll conditioner elicited a faster drying rate than an impeller conditioner. Miscanthus: Similar to switchgrass, miscanthus harvest can take place either in the fall or in the spring. Miscanthus harvest should also only take place in the second year after establishment and beyond. Many suggest that yield in the establishment year is so low that it is not worth harvesting (The Research Park, 2009). Second year yields should be significantly greater, but the yield will not reach its full potential until year three and beyond. In the fall, miscanthus harvest should take place after the first frost has occurred. The first frost triggers senescence (where the plant goes into a dormancy stage). Lewandowski et al. (2003) recommends a late harvest to decrease the moisture content and speed up drying time. However, they note that biomass yield will decline the longer biomass is left in the field following senescence. Generally, though it is suggested that a delayed harvest is the best method of lowering concentrations of ash and nutrients (Lewandowski et al., 2000). If miscanthus is overwintered, it can reduce moisture content from 50% or greater, down to 10% (Anderson et al., 2011). However, overwintering results in a significant biomass loss (30% to 50%) due to the dropping of the leaves and translocation of nutrients to the rhizomes (Heaton et al., 2010). In Germany, it was found that a February harvest reduced moisture contents by 30% from a December harvest (Lewandowski & Kicherer, 1997). The stages of annual miscanthus growth for dedicated biomass feedstock production are shown in Figure 6-11.

77 70 Figure Annual growth of miscanthus in the United States (Heaton et al., 2010). Lewandowski and Kircherer (1997) found that the combustion quality of the miscanthus increased for a February harvest over the December harvest due to lowered concentrations of ash, minerals, and moisture. Additionally, they found that a colder German site had higher concentrations of chloride, nitrogen, and potassium, suggesting that there was not enough time to allow for translocation of nutrients. It is suggested that most of the technology used for harvesting and baling hay is not designed for heavier stemmed dedicated biomass crops, such as miscanthus. Therefore, harvesting high-yielding biomass would require a mixture of harvesting equipment used for both hay and woody biomass crops depending on the size of the stem. The growing location needs to be considered for the harvesting practices however, as more northern climates will not get the same heavier stemmed biomass as the southern United States. Therefore, although specially designed equipment for biomass harvesting may be required in some regions, lower yields in Canada may not call for such equipment. According to Lewandowski et al., (2000), until further design is performed for harvesting equipment, it is recommended that miscanthus be harvested by mowing and baling. Alternatively, miscanthus can be harvested using a forage harvester to chop and then it can be compacted if desired. Due to the fact that miscanthus stems are usually tall and thick where very high miscanthus yields are produced most mowers do not work very well with the crop. In high-yielding areas, it is therefore recommended to use adapted rotary mowers, or the Kemper mowing attachment for forage harvesters. The crop should then be dried out in the swath before baling to reduce the moisture content as much as possible. Where thicker miscanthus stems are produced, slower baling rates are recommended (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Sorghum: Forage sorghum should only be cut annually since it has poor regrow after

78 71 cutting (Roth and Harper, 1995). In contrast, high biomass sorghum is can be either cut annually or multiple times per year (Rooney, n.d). If multiple cuts are preferred, high-biomass sorghum should be harvested no more than three times per year (Rooney, n.d). Rooney suggests that to ensure faster recovery of growth if performing multiple cuts, at least 10 cm to 18 cm of stubble should remain. Sorghum can be harvested before or after a killing frost, but delaying harvest until after the first frost or maturity has been reached can significantly reduce the moisture content of the sorghum crop (Blade Energy Crops, 2010a). According to Blade Energy Crops (2010a), sorghum moisture content at the time of harvest can be as high as 80%, but crop management practices can reduce the moisture to 15% to 20%. New varieties of high biomass sorghum have been bred to harvest late in the season, specifically for higher quality biomass feedstock production, whereas this may not be the case for older varieties (Blade Energy Crops, 2010a). If there is a large quantity of biomass produced, later harvests may increase the susceptibility to lodging; however, when sorghum lodges it tends to lean onto itself rather than completely fall over. According to Blade Energy Crops (2010a), one method of harvesting sterile forage sorghum or high biomass sorghum, since they usually do not produce grain, is to use a swather to form windrows that can then be baled or chopped; this is in contrast to grain sorghum which would require combining. This method allows for field drying. Another harvest method is to us a forage harvester to achieve direct chopping of the sorghum crop; they suggest this is the most convenient method but it requires processing to occur soon after, as sugars present in the sorghum contribute to degradation (Hartley et al., 2009). According to Hartley et al. (2009), sorghum can also be harvested using a mowerconditioner; however, the harvesting of high biomass sorghum poses new challenges for drying due to the higher quantities of biomass produced. According to them, one study using a rotary disc mower found that sorghum would build up in front of the mower, causing sorghum to be fed through in spurts. Also, clumps of soil would enter the machine as lodged stalks were pulled out by their roots. They found that a rotary disc impeller motor fared better when picking up material. Reed Canarygrass: Reed canarygrass harvest can take place either in the fall or in the spring, following overwintering of the grass to reduce moisture and nutrient contents. When overwintering reed canarygrass, the moisture content can be reduced to as low as 10% to 15% and the nutrients from the plant will be translocated to the rhizomes and returned to the soil, increasing the feedstock quality (El Bassam, 1998; Nilsson & Hansson, 2001). In Sweden, Landström et al. (1996) found that reed canarygrass nitrogen content

79 72 decreased from an August to an October harvest, but did not decrease any further from October to a spring harvest. Landström et al. also found that when 100 kg N/ha, 100 kg K/ha, and 25 kg P/ha were applied, nearly all of the nutrients were removed with the crop in an August harvest, whereas only half of the nitrogen and phosphorous and 1/3 of the potassium were removed with the spring harvested crop. This same study found that both potassium and chloride content decreased from the August to the spring harvest due to nutrient leaching. Furthermore, the ash content decreased from the August to October harvest and decreased even further to the spring harvest. Landström et al. noted that soil type was directly related to the ash content in the reed canarygrass and that it accounted for ash content differences between sites. Paulrud and Nilsson (2001) note that overwintering reed canarygrass can also reduce calcium. Additionally, Burvall (1997) found that in Sweden alkali and sulfur contents were reduced when reed canarygrass was overwintered. Unfortunately, although overwintering does seem to offer great benefit in terms of reduced moisture content and reduced nutrient content, it can also lead to yield losses upwards of 20% to 30% (El Bassam, 1998). Landström et al. (1996) found that the loss over the winter in Sweden varied depending on whether reed canarygrass was produced in the north or in the south. In the first year, dry matter losses of 15% occurred in the north and dry matter losses of 26% occurred in the south of (Landström et al., 1996). Heinsoo et al. (2011) suggest that in many cases the yield losses from overwintering is not worth the benefits of the reduced nutrient and moisture contents. In their Estonian study they found that overwintering led to losses as great as 42% depending on the soil type and commented that the high moisture content of their fields in the spring made spring harvest too difficult. They suggested that producers growing reed canarygrass in Estonia should harvest in the fall. In Sweden, Hadders and Olsson (1997) determined that by delaying harvest of reed canarygrass from summer to winter or spring, crops were more valuable. The increased value of the crop was due to lower concentrations of nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorous, chlorine, and potassium. In the fall, nutrients such as these translocate to the roots of the plant (Kludze et al., 2011), leaving the atmosphere-exposed plant with lower nutrient content and higher carbon content as a result. Lower concentrations of nutrients, along with higher carbon concentrations promotes cleaner, more efficient combustion. Tahir et al. (2011) assessed five different harvest management systems of reed canarygrass in Iowa and Wisconsin: an autumn harvest, a winter harvest, a spring and autumn harvest, a spring and winter harvest, and three harvests in the spring, summer, and autumn. The three harvest and two harvest systems produced the highest yield, but the authors concluded that the additional yield of the three harvest system was not worth

80 73 the extra costs of the field work. Tahir et al. found that the higher heating value of reed canarygrass cultivars ranged from 17.2 to 17.4 depending on the harvest management system. The lowest HHV was found in the single autumn harvest and the highest HHV was found for the spring and autumn harvest management system. Tahir et al. (2011) also assessed various constituent contents for reed canarygrass grown on loam and silt loam soils under different harvest management systems. They suggest that the ash content found in their trials was high compared to other studies. They found that spring-harvested reed canarygrass had superior fuel quality with lower P, K, S, and Cl, along with high cell wall content; however, the benefit of the higher fuel quality came with the cost of a lower yield and higher silica content. They also found from their five harvest management systems that in the spring and autumn harvest management system, the moisture content of the reed canarygrass was higher than harvests at other times of the year. Tahir et al. (2011) found that harvest was not possible for the winter harvest if there was sufficient snow compaction. They discussed that overwintering the reed canarygrass created many problems when harvesting; it required special machinery that could lift the overwintered plant off the ground and the soils were saturated causing difficulties in operating some of the heavy machinery on the field. Reed canarygrass is typically harvested by mowing and then raking into windrows. Disc mowers are commonly used for harvesting reed canarygrass in Sweden and the use of mower conditioners has proven to increase biomass losses (Kludze et al., 2011). Once windrowed, reed canarygrass is usually baled into large round bales. A Wisconsin study conducted by Shinners et al. (2010) found that swath widths for reed canarygrass that were 100% of the cut width (4.5 m) dried faster than swath widths that were 60% and 30% of the cut width, and that a roll conditioner elicited a faster drying rate than a impeller conditioner, similar to switchgrass in the same study which was previously mentioned Equipment used for harvesting As with seeding and spraying, traditional equipment can be used for harvesting biomass crops. In some cases, specific equipment may be more suitable that others. Forage Harvester: Forage harvesters consist of a rotating knife bank which shears crop material against a stationary shear bar. Material is gathered and fed into the machine with crimped feed rolls. The chopped material is then blown with a large fan out a spout into a truck or trailer to be hauled away. Several header attachment options are available for gathering the crop material. Tine

81 74 pickup attachments gather previously cut and windrowed material while all-crop header attachments cut and gather standing material in a single operation. Specialized headers are also available for corn and similar stalk crops. Forage harvesters are available in large self-propelled models (>800 hp), as well as smaller pull-type units (150 hp to 300 hp). Cutting Equipment: Several machinery options for cutting standing biomass crops exist. Windrowers cut the crop with a sickle-knife blade, and conveyor belts transport material from across the whole cutting width and combine it into a windrow on the ground. Mower conditioners ( MoCo ) perform much the same task except that the crop material is fed from the cutting system through a set of crimping rolls (to crimp the crop stalks and facilitate faster drying) prior to forming the windrow. Mower conditioners are available with sickle-knife or rotary disc cutting systems. Rotary disc cutting systems are more robust and able to cut closest to the ground. In general, mower conditioners are capable of lower cutting heights, faster drying times, and faster field operation than windrowers. Both windrowers and mower conditioners have self-propelled and pull-type versions. Often for self-propelled versions the power unit can operate either windrower or mower conditioner header attachments. Simpler cutting equipment like mowers, either sickle or rotary, without any crimping or windrowing functions, are also available. Crop material is cut and laid in place with this equipment speeding the drying process, but requiring a follow-up operation to windrow the material in preparation for harvesting or baling. Mowers are typically pull-type. Miscellaneous Equipment: Hay rakes are used to gather mowed material into a windrow or to combine several windrows into one. Radial spring tine wheels rotate, progressively ushering crop material sideways into a windrow. Swath inverters are used to expedite drying of the material on the underside of an existing windrow. Swath inverters lift and flip (invert) the windrow, exposing the underside of the windrow to the sun and wind to assist drying activity. 6.5 Potential Yield of Dedicated Energy Crops The potential yield of dedicated biomass crops will vary depending on soil type, climatic conditions, nutrient input, weed competition, disease resistance, and susceptibility to pests to name a few factors. Therefore, all yield data presented in the following section is based on a specific case and is therefore only an estimate of yield potential in a region. In many cases, additional field trials are required to determine whether or not

82 75 certain crops have potential for use as a biomass feedstock in Saskatchewan. Switchgrass: In many locations around the world switchgrass has proven yield potential, growing to heights over three meters in some locations with roots as deep as 3.5 meters (Kludze et al., 2011; Sanderson & Adler, 2008). Switchgrass yields are quite variable depending on the location as shown in Table 6-5. It is the potential Saskatchewan yields that must elicit the greatest consideration; however, the limited field trials performed in Saskatchewan may not be sufficient to determine true potential yields. Table 6-5. Switchgrass yields obtained from studies which assessed growth in climates similar to Saskatchewan. Location Yield (dry t/ha) Notes Québec 10.6 to 12.2 a Cave-in-Rock cultivar showed highest yield potential North Dakota 4.9 to 7.4 a Sunburst cultivar showed Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota 5.2 to 11.1 a highest yield potential Manitoba 1.62 to 8.75 b Clay soil, Melita location, highest yield in third year Manitoba 2.15 to 3.65 b Sandy soil, Kilarney location, highest yield in second year Saskatchewan 0.1 c Dacotah cultivar, Melfort location, hand harvested Saskatchewan 1.0 c Dacotah cultivar, Swift Current location, hand harvested Saskatchewan 4.3 c irrigated Dacotah cultivar, a Sanderson & Adler, 2008 b Manitoba Agriculture c Jefferson et al., 2002 Swift Current location, hand harvested Switchgrass typically produces 30% of its yield in its first year, 70% of its maximum yield in the third year, and 100% of its maximum yield by year three (Samson, 2007). Therefore, the yields presented in Table 6-5 should not be considered for years one and two since switchgrass may not even be harvested. Low switchgrass yields in years following the establishment year require attention. It is important the reason for the low switchgrass yield is identified and remediated if possible. According to Teel et al. (2003) there may be many different reasons for poor yields including: inadequate fertility, weed competition, disease, and inadequate stand

83 76 density (less than one plant per square foot or 10 to 11 plants per square meter). Fertility can be corrected by proper testing and application of fertilizers, but weed competition is more difficult to address. Teel et al. (2003) suggest that weeds may be particularly invasive if stands thin from poor harvest management, rodent burrowing, and erosion. Miscanthus: Miscanthus is used widely around the world as a dedicated biomass crop specifically due to its high yield potential. Established miscanthus plants have been shown to reach heights of 2 m to 4 m depending on the year and level of maturity (Anderson et al., 2011). There are three main yield phases identified for miscanthus. In the establishment year, the crop is not usually harvested. Most of the energy used for growth during the first year goes towards the plant's extensive rhizome/root system. The first phase of growth following the establishment year yield is considered to be the yield building phase (years two to four), the second phase is considered to be the stable yield phase where yields are at their maximum (years 5 to 11), and the third phase is the reduced yield phase where yield is declining (years 12 to 16 and beyond) (Anderson et al., 2011). However, miscanthus can have a stand life upwards of 15 to 30 years (Heaton et al., 2010). Most yield trials for miscanthus observe yields at years two to five, since the yield in the establishment year is low. Miscanthus yields obtained in North America and around the world are shown in Table 6-6 and Figure 6-12 respectively. Table 6-6. Yields of miscanthus in various locations. Location Yield (dry t/ha) Notes Oklahoma 9.0 a Maryland 11.2 a 30% yield in year one, 67% yield in year two, Iowa 10.3 a Southern Iowa 3.65 to a Illinois 9.42 a Canadian yield 6 to 33 b Ontario 16.5 to 19.5 c Trials for crop productivity, soil quality, carbon and nutrient recycling at the University of Guelph British Columbia 20.1 to 36.4 e Trials in Deroche on numerous varieties, M. x giganteus showed highest yield British Columbia 10.1 to 43.9 e Trials in Abbotsford on numerous varieties, M. x giganteus showed highest

84 77 Alberta 3.6 to 7.0 d Trials in Edmonton, Brooks, and Cremona Alberta (M119 variety) d Edmonton, 23% survival rate, shortest height of 50 cm Alberta (M145 variety) d Edmonton, 66% survival rate Alberta (M144 variety) d Edmonton, 96% survival rate Alberta (M146 variety) d Edmonton, 96% survival rate, tallest height of 162 cm, highest yield yield Alberta (M114 variety) to d Edmonton Alberta (M143 variety) d Edmonton Alberta (M147 variety) d Edmonton Alberta (M115 variety) to d Edmonton Alberta (M116 variety) to d Edmonton Alberta (M117 variety) d Edmonton Alberta (M105 variety) d Edmonton a Khanna et al., 2008 b Kludze, 2011 c Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, 2011 d Ampong-Nyarko, 2009 e F. Hoelk, personal communication, January, 2012 Figure Miscanthus yields across Europe and the United States (1 Mg/ha = 1 t/ha) (Heaton et al., 2010). PAMI (2010) assessed five cultivars of miscanthus in the Prince Albert, Melfort, and Lake Lenore areas to determine which variety showed the highest survivability and vegetative growth. The M146 Amuri Country Winner variety showed the highest

85 78 survivability rate (70% to 90%) and vegetative growth (90 cm to 112 cm plant height). The M146 Amuri Country Winner was followed by (from best to worst): M114 Amuri Natural Winner, M144 Amuri Big Sunrise, M115 Amuri Robustus Flame, and M116 Nagara. Although the plant heights were able to be determined, the miscanthus planted did not survive the winter. According to Cantus Biopower, although M. x giganteus itself is not winter hardy enough for the Saskatchewan climate, expected yields of Amuri and Nagara are in the 12 dry t/ha to 15 dry t/ha range in the Canadian prairies (F. Hoelk, personal communication, January 16, 2012). Therefore, perhaps more trials are needed to determine if miscanthus cultivars can be successfully grown in Saskatchewan. Sorghum: Sorghum, especially the high-biomass sorghum that is grown in the southern United States, has been gaining the interest of many as a biomass feedstock. Although high biomass sorghum is known to have the highest yield potential of all of the sorghums, according to the literature, its yield potential has not been assessed in Saskatchewan or Canada. The yield potential of sorghum in the United States, Canada, and Saskatchewan, can be found in Table 6-7.

86 79 Table 6-7. Yield potential of sorghum in the United States and Canada Location Yield (dry t/ha) Notes Texas 5.47 to a (High biomass sorghum) Texas (High biomass sorghum) 23 b Ontario (Forage sorghum) Manitoba (Forage sorghum) Northern United States (High biomass sorghum) Saskatchewan (Forage sorghum) Saskatchewan (Forage Sorghum) Saskatchewan (Forage Sorghum) Saskatchewan (Forage Sorghum) a Amosson, Girase, Bean, Rooney, & Becker, 2011 b Kludze et al., 2011 c U.S. Department of Energy, 2011 d PAMI, 2010 e AERC Inc., to 10.9 e CFSH e CFSH to 13.2 c 3.7 e CFSH d Prince Albert location, produced on good land 2.2 d Melfort location, frost occurred after seeding (sorghum is frost sensitive, produced on good land 9.2 d Lake Lenore location, produced on good land PAMI (2010) assessed the yield of Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid 30 produced on considerably good land in Prince Albert, Melfort, and Lake Lenore, Saskatchewan. The seeding rate was approximately 17 kg/ha with 19 cm row spacing. A single row garden seeder was used for seeding at a depth of 1.3 cm to 1.9 cm. Nitrogen was applied at a rate of 112 kg/ha prior to seeding on June 2 (Lake Lenore), June 3 (Melfort), and June 4 (Prince Albert). It should be noted that frost occurred at the Melfort site after seeds were planted, which may have affected the yield as sorghum is frost sensitive. This treatment as shown in Table 6-7 elicited yields of 7.5 dry t/ha (Prince Albert), 2.2 dry t/ha (Melfort), and 9.2 dry t/ha (Lake Lenore). Reed Canarygrass: The potential for reed canarygrass use as a biomass feedstock is gaining interest in northern European countries. Reed canarygrass yield is considerably high for a cool-season grass and may be a great biomass feedstock option in climates that cannot achieve high yields for the warm-season grasses. Reed canarygrass can grow to heights of 0.5 m to 2.0 m or higher, flourishing in regions with short vegetation periods and cold winters (El Bassam, 1998). Estimates of potential yields in the United States and Canada can be found in Table 6-8.

87 80 Table 6-8. Reed canarygrass yields in the United States and Canada. Location Variety Yield (dry t/ha) Notes Indiana a Experimental plots grown over three years Iowa a Experimental plots grown over five years Québec b Southern Ontario Palaton variety 9.5 c Average yield Northern Ontario Palaton variety 8.0 c Average yield Saskatchewan Palaton variety 1.58, 4.86, 4.81 d Brown, dark brown, and black soil zone yields Saskatchewan Rival variety 1.47, 4.71, 4.71 d Brown, dark brown, and black soil zone yields Saskatchewan Venture variety 1.65, 4.86, 4.76 d Brown, dark brown, and black soil zone yields Saskatchewan Vantage variety 1.65, 4.96, 5.02 d Brown, dark brown, and black soil zone yields a Sanderson & Adler, 2008 b Massé et al c Kludze et al., 2011 d Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2010a Forage Pearl Millet: PAMI (2010) conducted forage pearl millet trials in Prince Albert, Melfort, and Lake Lenore, Saskatchewan. Canadian Forage Pearl Millet (CFPM) 101 was seeded and produced yields of 5.6 dry t/ha in Prince Albert, 5.8 dry t/ha in Melfort, and 7.8 dry t/ha in Lake Lenore. According to AERC Inc. (2005), forage pearl millet (CFPM 101) trials were also conducted in Ontario. One Ontario trail yielded 7.8 dry t/ha when 110 kg N/ha, 33 kg P/ha, and 156 kg K/ha were added. Other yield trials in southern Ontario have produced dry matter yields ranging from 6-12 t/ha. According to AERC Inc., trials in Saskatchewan only produced yields of 1.95 t/ha. Western Wheatgrass: According to Ogle et al. (2009), western wheatgrass is generally a low-yielding forage crop; however, it can reach heights of up to one meter (Ogle et al., 2009). In Saskatchewan, however, its yield potential may be greater than warm-season grasses such as switchgrass and miscanthus. Estimated potential yields as determined from Saskatchewan trials and data can be found in Table 6-9.

88 81 Table 6-9. Estimated yield of western wheatgrass in Saskatchewan. Location Variety Yield (dry t/ha) Notes Saskatchewan Walsh variety 2.63 a Brown soil zone Saskatchewan Walsh variety 2.61 a Dark brown soil zone Saskatchewan Walsh variety 3.58 a Black soil zone Saskatchewan Rodan variety 3.3 b Melfort Saskatchewan Rosana variety 2.1 b Melfort Saskatchewan Rodan variety 2.2 b Swift Current Saskatchewan Rosana variety 2.5 b Swift Current Saskatchewan Rodan variety 5.2 b Swift Current irrigated land Saskatchewan Rosana variety 5.4 b Swift Current irrigated land a Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2010a b Jefferson et al., 2002 Northern Wheatgrass: Northern wheatgrass is native to Saskatchewan and there are many years of yield production data that is available. The potential yield estimates for northern wheatgrass growth in Saskatchewan are shown in Table Table Potential northern wheatgrass yields in Saskatchewan. Location Variety Yield (dry t/ha) Notes Saskatchewan Elbee 3.26 a Brown soil zone Saskatchewan Elbee 3.46 a Dark brown soil zone Saskatchewan Elbee 3.63 a Black soil zone Saskatchewan Elbee 4.6 Saskatoon Saskatchewan Elbee 1.3 Swift Current Saskatchewan Critana 2.7 b Melfort Saskatchewan Critana 2.7 b Swift Current Saskatchewan Critana 4.0 b Swift Current irrigated land Saskatchewan Critana 1.4 Swift Current a Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2010a b Jefferson et al., 2002 c Smoliak & Johnston, 1980 Wildrye Grasses: The yield potential of altai, dahurian, Russian, and mammoth wildrye may be greater than some of the warm-season grasses. Potential yield estimates based on trials performed in Saskatchewan can be found in Table 6-11.

89 82 Table Yield estimates for altai, dahurian, Russian, and mammoth wildrye grasses in Saskatchewan. Location Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Type of Wildrye & Variety Yield (dry t/ha) Notes Altai Wildrye Prairieland variety Altai Wildrye Eejay variety Altai Wildrye Pearl variety Dahurian Wildrye James variety Dahurian Wildrye Arthur variety Russian Wildrye Tetracan variety Russian Wildrye Swift variety Russian Wildrye Mayak variety Mammoth Wildrye ND-691 variety Mammoth Wildrye ND-691 variety Mammoth Wildrye ND-691 variety a Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2010a b Jefferson et al., , 5.16, 4.55 a Brown, dark brown, and black soil zones 2.57, 4.59, 4.36 a Brown, dark brown, and black soil zones 2.29, 5.05, 4.09 a Brown, dark brown, and black soil zones 2.95, 5.47, 5.56 a Brown, dark brown, and black soil zones 2.71, 5.69, 5.28 a Brown, dark brown, and black soil zones 2.17, 4.43, 3.66 a Brown, dark brown, and black soil zones 2.17, 4.67, 3.81 a Brown, dark brown, and black soil zones 2.32, 4.39, 3.93 a Brown, dark brown, and black soil zones 3.0 b Melfort 2.2 b Swift Current 6.6 b Swift Current irrigated land Green Needlegrass: The yield potential of green needlegrass has been evaluated both in Saskatchewan and in North and South Dakota as shown in Table Green needlegrass can grow to a height of 46 cm to 91 cm where its peak production lies in mid to late August (Knudson, 2005).

90 83 Table Yield potential in Saskatchewan as well as North and South Dakota. Location Variety Yield (dry t/ha) Notes North and South Dakota a Low yields for sandy loam soil higher yields for clay loam soil, 5 yr avg. yields Saskatchewan Lodorm 2.1 b Melfort Saskatchewan Lodorm 2.0 b Swift Current Saskatchewan Lodorm 5.3 b Swift Current irrigated land a Knudson, 2005 b Jefferson et al., Farmgate Costs of Dedicated Biomass Crops Farmgate costs represent the value of the biomass to the producer and are a function of the production, harvest, and collection costs as well as other expenses and a profit margin. The cost at the farmgate is usually expressed on a per tonne basis; therefore, scales to weight the biomass are necessary. In some instances, there may be densification equipment present on the farm, in which case the cost of densification would require inclusion. There are many available estimates that express costs on a per tonne basis for biomass feedstock in the literature, but these estimates take biomass yield into account. Therefore, there will generally be lower costs per tonne for biomass feedstock in regions where higher biomass yields are obtained. The cost per tonne of biomass presented in the following section cannot be directly applied to Saskatchewan since there may be differences in expected biomass yield. For this reason, a spreadsheet model was developed to accompany this document for acquiring farmgate cost estimates that may be more representative of Saskatchewan yields. This spreadsheet model is presented in Section 10 of this report. Switchgrass: According to Samson (2007), switchgrass is the crop with the lowest cost for capturing and storing solar radiation in Ontario. Its relatively low cost can be attributed, in part, to its ability to be grown on marginal less expensive land with relatively low inputs (Samson, 2007). Samson suggests that if switchgrass could be grown for $70/t and pelletized for an additional $40/t it could be highly competitive as a feedstock. Currently, in Ontario, switchgrass pellets have a bulk retail value of $125/t which is approximately $7/GJ (Samson, 2007). If the cost of natural gas were to rise and if provincial and federal incentives for bioenergy feedstock were instilled, then switchgrass may have competitive potential as an energy source. Aung et al. (2011) also estimated the costs of switchgrass in Ontario as shown in Table They suggested that the total cost for pellets at a power company s door would be

91 84 around $8.17/GJ. They also estimated that the baled farmgate cost of switchgrass would be approximately $89/t, with establishment costs of $850/ha. Table Costs associated with switchgrass production, preprocessing, and transport (Aung et al., 2011). Parameter Switchgrass cost ($/GJ) Growing 3.50 Harvesting 1.26 Preprocessing (pellet) 1.68 Transport 1.72 Total cost 8.17 The Research Park (2009) estimated the cost of switchgrass based on yields that varied +/- 15% from year to year in Ontario. They proposed that the cost of switchgrass baled at the farmgate, based on production costs for the best land with higher rent costs, was between $77/dry tonne to $104/dry tonne. Duffy and Nanhou (2001) assessed the establishment budget for the frost seeding of switchgrass in Southern Iowa. They assessed expenses associated with disking, harrowing, mowing, using an airflow spreader, seeding, applying fertilizer, applying lime, and spraying herbicide. Fertilizer ( ) was applied at the cost of $33.85/ha ($US) based on phosphorous and potassium costs. The application of herbicides and lime was also required. Duffy and Nanhou found, in the year 2000, that the total establishment cost of converting the field from cropland to switchgrass was $431.67/ha ($US) and the total establishment cost of converting grassland to switchgrass was $414.42/ha ($US). Duffy and Nanhou (2001) assumed that in the second year of growth, switchgrass would require approximately 25% reseeding. They found the expected reseeding cost by taking 25% of the total reseeding cost. They discovered that the reseeding cost was greater for cropland that was converted to switchgrass than for grassland that was converted to switchgrass. In years following establishment, they only considered costs associated with the airflow spreader and seed, as well as the fertilizer and herbicide spraying since land preparation was not required. They used the same fertilizer quantity in post establishment years as that was applied in the establishment year; however, there was no lime application. They found that the cost of switchgrass harvest and collection in post-establishment years taking into account mowing/conditioning, raking, baling (large square bales), staging and unloading was $28.72/t ($US). Bagg, McDonald, Banks, and Molenhuis (2009) assessed the cost of switchgrass production in Ontario. They found the total establishment cost for switchgrass was $962.73/ha with total annual costs amounting to $559.77/ha based on an amortization of 10 years at 5%. The total production cost was found to be $73.07/t based on an

92 85 expected yield of 7.66 t/ha. A breakdown of some of the expenses can be found in Appendix I, where all costs are in $CAD from the year Miscanthus: The cost of miscanthus establishment is relatively high compared to other bioenergy crops due to the fact that it is sterile and requires rhizome planting instead of seed. Rhizome planting is performed vegetatively and is considered to be more difficult and expensive than the planting of seed. The Research Park (2009) estimated the costs of producing miscanthus in Ontario on considerably good land. They suggested that rhizome planting would cost $350/ha, weed and pest control would cost $200/ha, fertilizer would cost $100/ha, harvesting would cost $350/ha, and removal after harvest would cost $400/ha. They annualized the establishment and removal costs which also took into account the life of the crop and the land rental along with other factors and came up with an annualized cost of $275.54/ha. They determined that baled miscanthus would cost $66-90/dry t at the farmgate, based on a variable yield (+/- 15%) depending on the year. Jain et al. (2010) estimated the breakeven prices for miscanthus and switchgrass grown in the Midwestern United States. They found that the miscanthus yield was twice that of switchgrass and the breakeven prices, which included the cost of crop production and the cost of land, ranged from $58/t ($US) to $169/t ($US) for miscanthus and $97/t ($US) to $159/t ($US) for switchgrass depending on the site yield. They suggested that the upper-end costs were based on either the high cost of land or low yield at certain sites. Aung et al. (2011) also estimated the costs of miscanthus feedstock production in Ontario as shown in Table They suggested that the total cost for miscanthus pellets at the power company s door would be approximately $7.28/GJ. They also estimated that the baled farmgate cost of miscanthus would be approximately $76/t, with establishment costs of $2,500/ha due to the high cost of rhizomes. Table Costs associated with miscanthus production, preprocessing, and transport (Aung et al., 2011). Parameter Miscanthus cost ($/GJ) Growing 2.77 Harvesting 1.12 Preprocessing (pellet) 1.81 Transport 1.58 Total cost 7.28 Cantus Biopower suggests that chopped miscanthus can be produced for approximately $60/dry t at the farmgate. They also suggest that the marketprice of miscanthus pellets

93 86 is approximately $150/t to $180/t and that it would cost a power company an estimated $4.00/GJ not including transportation (F. Hoelk, personal communication, January 12, 2012). Sorghum: Sorghum production costs will vary depending on the type. According to the U.S Department of Energy (2011), sorghum production costs range from $494/ha to $790/ha. Amosson et al. (2011) assessed the yields and farmgate costs of high biomass sorghum associated with silage harvesting. At their Texas research station they found that yields of high biomass sorghum produced on dryland of 5.47 t/ha to t/ha were associated with farmgate costs of between $105.57/t to $63.23/t ($US) respectively. One might assume that farmgate costs associated with Saskatchewan would be at the higher end of the farmgate costs, as Texas generally has higher biomass crop yields and lower yields would be associated with higher farmgate costs. However, as there is insufficient data for high biomass sorghum yield trials in and around Saskatchewan, one cannot precisely predict the price high biomass sorghum would be at the farmgate. Other: Other crops including forage pearl millet, forage sorghum, wheatgrasses, wildrye grasses, and needlegrass, if sold, are generally sold in the forage market in Saskatchewan. Therefore, to get a representation of their baled value at farmgate, Saskatchewan forage markets and bulletins can be consulted. According to the Saskatchewan Forage Council (2011a), the high and low buying prices of grass hay were $88/t and $50/t respectively, the high and low asking prices for grass hay were $77/t and $34/t respectively, and the settled high and low prices for grass hay were $88/t and $44/t respectively.

94 87 7. Agricultural Crop Residues for Biomass Feedstock Agricultural crop residues have the potential to be used as biomass feedstock in Saskatchewan; however, there are many concerns associated with their widespread use. Agricultural crop residues refer to the by-products produced when harvesting cereal and oilseed crops. Each year producers have to deal with excess agricultural residue from their crops (PAMI, 1995). Small amounts of residue are required for soil conservation and fertility but the amount left on the field often exceeds these requirements. These excess residues are burned on the field or left to rot. Alternative uses for these surplus residues may be appealing to many producers. 7.1 Agronomic Considerations The available data on agronomic considerations of biomass feedstocks varies significantly. Consideration of soil erosion from wind and water, water conservation, nutrient and weed management, and soil organic matter content needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis for each producer and field. These considerations are driven not only by the field and feedstock, but also by the environmental conditions and economic markets. There are concerns associated with the use of crop residues for biomass feedstock. For example, with increasing grain prices, producers are focused on improving their soil management practices rather than on straw sales for bioenergy. Another major concern is that if crop residues are taken off the field, soil conservation will be compromised. Agricultural crop residues help reduce wind speeds at the soil surface and standing stubble helps anchor the soil. According to the Government of Alberta (2008), the majority of soils are protected by wind erosion if at least 30% of the ground is covered by plants or crop residues. The Government of Alberta (2008) suggests that the quantity of residue required for soil conservation will depend on the soil type, soil characteristics, tillage practice, and the slope of the land, where higher slopes require more protection. They recommend the use of 0.90 t/ha to 1.12 t/ha of cereal crop residues for wind erosion control. Crop residue recommendations, based on the slope of the land, are shown in Table 7-1. Table 7-1. Recommended quantity of cereal residues to remain on the field for soil conservation depending on the slope of the field (Government of Alberta, 2008). Field Slope Residue Required to Control Erosion (kg/ha) Gentle: 6% to 9% 785 to 1,121 Moderate: 10% to 15% 1,121 to 1,681

95 88 The Government of Alberta (2008) also advise that crop residues can help control water erosion, which can remove the top layer of the soil causing rills and gullies that would otherwise require reclamation. Crop residue lowers the impact of raindrops and slows water flow, reducing runoff and erosion. The Government of Alberta (2008) suggests that crop residue quantities required for water erosion control can be reduced if zero tillage practices are used since standing stubble will act as an anchor for the soil. According to Karkee, McNaull, Birrell, and Steward (2010), soil erosion can vary substantially even within a field; therefore, the removal rate of agricultural residues should be site specific. In their analysis, they used the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE), along with an iterative technique, to make sure soil loss did not exceed the threshold for a sustainable removal rate. Karkee et al. found that 98% of the agricultural residues could be sustainably removed for loam, clay, and silt loam soils with slopes of 0.1%, 1.1%, and 2.6% respectively. Karkee et al. (2010) only considered the soil erosion associated with agricultural residue removal and did not consider how other important factors such as soil structure, soil organic matter content, soil organic carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, soil biodiversity, and crop production would be affected by residue removal. Many other studies have shown that agricultural residue removal can lead to reduced soil carbon content, depleted nutrients, reduced microbial and fungal activities, and diminished earthworm populations, which can lead to poor soil quality and reduced biomass yields (Karkee et al., 2010). Nutrient removal from the field is another concern associated with the removal of crop residues for biomass feedstock. Lal (2009) suggests that in the year 2001, the nutrient contained in crop residues accounted for approximately 83% of the fertilizers consumed globally. Stumborg et al. (1996) noted, based on data from the Saskatchewan black soil zone, that although residue removal will lower nitrogen, organic carbon levels in the soil will be unaffected. As a result, Stumborg et al. (1996) propose that residues can be safely removed from soils without a negative impact on soil productivity; however, according to Coxworth et al. (n.d), extra nitrogen fertilizer will be required to replace the nitrogen removed. Kumar et al. (2003) suggest that the removal of agricultural crop residues from the field will lead to higher input costs. When straw is spread over the field it offers an opportunity for the nutrients to leach out so they can be returned to the soil. In contrast, if the straw is taken off the field, it removes this opportunity. This would ultimately result in higher application rates and increased fertility costs for cereal and oilseed crops. As a result, Kumar et al. propose that the cost of agricultural crop residues for biomass feedstock should include the cost of replacing the nutrients removed along with all costs incurred for harvesting, collection, labor, and capital recovery.

96 89 Furthermore, the Government of Alberta (2008) advises that crop residue cover can help retain moisture to ensure higher yields since it can trap snow and moisture and reduce evaporation. A crop residue cover also helps protect winter crops from low soil temperatures, it provides a microclimate to protect seedlings during emergence, and it suppresses weeds between seed rows (PAMI, 1999). There are also many advantages to the collection of agricultural crop residues. For example, chaff collection from the field can reduce the need for herbicides, as it gets rid of weed seeds (Cochrane-SNC-Lavalin, 1994). Furthermore, according to the Government of Alberta (2008), if agricultural crop residues left on the field are too heavy, it may cause complications, such as plugging and hair-pinning when direct seeding. Although newer units have been adapted to deal with these challenges, older equipment does not perform as well in fields with heavy residues. According to the Government of Alberta (2008), excess residues are especially problematic in the black soil zone during years with increased rainfall. The conflicting reports in literature suggest that it is difficult to define sustainable removal rates of straw. The available yield of straw will depend on the actual yield, soil conditions, and nutrient requirements of the soil and subsequent crops. Refer to Section 7.3 for estimated yields of agricultural residues. 7.2 Harvest Considerations The harvesting and collection of crop residues requires attention despite the fact that farming practices are well established compared to dedicated energy crops. Harvesting equipment preference may change if higher straw yields are desired, and the collection method and equipment used for the residues will also have an effect on the total cost of the biomass feedstock. Furthermore, producers of cereal and oilseed crops may have varying opinions on collecting the agricultural crop residues. There are two types of combines that are used to harvest cereal crops: conventional and rotary. According to Gustafson, Maung, Saxowsky, Nowatzki, and Milijkovic (2011), rotary combines have faster grain harvesting and gentler seed handling, but rotary combines tend to have higher horsepower requirements and straw expelled from a rotary combine exits in very small pieces that can even resemble dust. Therefore, rotary combines may be disadvantageous if the straw residue is to be used in the bioenergy and bioproduct industries. Consequently, crop residues exiting a rotary combine are more difficult to pick up and bale than crop residues from a conventional combine. PAMI (2001a) suggests that straw coming out from behind a conventional combine can be baled with either a large round or square baler, whereas straw coming out from behind a rotary combine may be

97 90 unusable for some large round balers. Gustafson et al. (2011) claim that the use of a rotary combine can reduce the potentially available straw by half; this could be a problem for the use of crop residues to bioenergy and bioproduct industries as today the general trend is that many producers are moving towards use of the rotary combine. Whole crop harvesting processes may gain favour as new markets for straw and chaff emerge in the bioenergy and bioproduct industries. It is suggested that one possible way of reducing the cost of crop residue delivery to a processing plant would be to bale the whole crop in the field and then transport the bales to the processing facility instead of combining the crop, which is one of the most expensive unit operations on a farm (Cochrane-SNC-Lavalin, 1994). The grain, chaff, and straw would then be separated at a processing plant. PAMI (1998) examined and compared various whole crop harvesting systems. Six harvesting systems were examined in 1997 for their ability to efficiently collect and process grain, chaff, and straw. Costs took into account labor, losses, energy consumption, crop yield, farm size, grain value, chaff value, straw value, hauling distance from the field to farmyard (8 km), truck size, bale size, and bales per load. The windrow/combine system not only had the highest operating cost, but also the lowest net harvest product value (NHPV), which was found by taking the produced commodity value and subtracting the operating costs over 405 ha (1000 acres). In contrast, the whole crop baling system had the highest NHPV. For all harvest systems except for the whole bale harvest system, processing took place in the field. The six harvest systems investigated, along with their calculated net harvest product value based on 1997 $CAD, are shown in Table 7-2. Table 7-2. NHPV of various harvest and collection systems (PAMI, 1998). Harvest System NHPV Windrow/combine $87, Straight cut combine $94, Stripper header combine $94, McLeod harvester $101, Whole bale (rebale) $103, Whole bale (no rebale) $112, According to PAMI (1998), in comparison to the other harvest systems tested, the windrow/combine had the lowest NHPV but ranked the highest for practical application. The straight cut header is not applicable for many crops grown on the prairies and the higher straw stubble left behind leaves less straw available for biomass feedstock. To maximize the potential of the stripper header, the combine would require modification to address a feedstock that contains primarily grain and chaff. Currently, combines available to producers are engineered to efficiently separate the entire mixture of grain, chaff, and straw. Stationary processing equipment, like the McLeod system, need time to

98 91 mature before considering full integration into crop production as with a whole crop baling system. 7.3 Potential Yields The estimated amount of straw available for bioenergy in Saskatchewan varies from approximately two million tonnes per year (Coxworth et al., n.d) to 7.9 million tonnes per year (Sokhansanj, Mani, Stumborg, Samson, & Fenton, 2006). These estimates account for soil and livestock requirements. Sokhansanj et al. (2006) note that this wide range of available straw is indicative of the uncertainties in straw availability and the regional considerations in straw availability. The Government of Alberta (2008) suggests that the typical straw and chaff quantities exiting a combine will depend on the soil zone. In Saskatchewan, the black soil zone produces the highest crop residue yields, followed by the dark brown soil zone, and then the brown soil zone. The estimated yields should only be considered as a guideline since yield will vary based on soil type, climactic conditions, soil conditions, crop management, inputs, and harvesting practices. The yields of straw and chaff can be estimated by the amount of grain produced as shown in Table 7-3. The straw estimates shown in Table 7-3 are based on an assumed 80% recovery for cereals and a 50% recovery for canola based on 5 cm to 10 cm of stubble left on the field. Chaff estimations are based on harvestable chaff under the assumption that there is no weed chaff.

99 92 Table 7-3. Quantity of straw and chaff exiting the combine per bushel of grain (Adapted from Government of Alberta, 2008). Crop Soil Zone kg of straw per bushel of grain kg of chaff per bushel of grain HRS Wheat Brown 23 9 to 11 Dark Brown 30 9 to 11 Black 36 9 to 11 CPS Wheat Brown 18 9 to 11 Dark Brown 23 9 to 11 Black 27 9 to 11 Barley (hulled) Brown 14 2 to 5 Dark Brown 16 2 to 5 Black 20 2 to 5 Barley (hull-less) Brown 14 9 to 11 Dark Brown 16 9 to 11 Black 20 9 to 11 Oats Brown 14 2 to 5 Dark Brown 16 2 to 5 Black 20 2 to 5 Canola Brown 18 7 to 9 Dark Brown 23 7 to 9 Black 27 7 to 9 Flax Although Table 7-3 displays yield estimates for chaff and straw based on grain production, there are other factors for estimating total available yield that require consideration. The yield of straw would vary with different cut heights. The estimates shown in Table 7-3 are based on 5 cm to 10 cm stubble height whereas, based on PAMI s experience, a 15 cm to 10 cm stubble height is more common for crops in Saskatchewan. Higher cut heights will be associated with a lower tonnage of crop residues. Furthermore, a portion of the available residues may be allocated towards animal feed or bedding. This will further reduce available straw yield and therefore will require consideration Wheat Residues PAMI (2001b) assessed straw to grain ratios of wheat at six locations in Saskatchewan. PAMI sampled wheat from six areas: Swift Current, Kindersley, North Battleford, Melfort, Yorkton, and Indian Head. Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) was grown at all locations, Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) was grown at North Battleford and Melfort. Canada Western Amber Durum (CWAD) wheat was grown at Kindersley, Swift Current, and Indian Head. PAMI found that the northern and eastern parts of the province (Melfort, Yorkton, and Indian Head) had higher straw-to-grain ratios than the southern and western parts of the province (North Battleford, Kindersley, and Swift Current). CWRS had the highest straw-to-grain ratio at 1.37, followed by CWAD with a straw to grain ratio of 1.20 and CPS with a straw-to-grain ratio of 1.00.

100 93 PAMI (2001b) suggested that Melfort, Yorkton, and Indian Head may have had higher wheat straw-to-grain ratios since those areas of the province have typically have higher rainfall levels than the southern and western areas. The straw yield can further be predicted by soil type, nutrient supply, and net moisture. Other than moisture content, PAMI proposed that the straw yield was also related to straw height, straw type, and cutting height. PAMI hand-cut straw samples at four cut heights to determine potential straw yields. The results for the dry yields at the various cut heights are shown in Table 7-4. Table 7-4. Straw yields at four cut heights at Saskatchewan locations (adapted from PAMI, 2001b). Field Sample Wheat Type Moisture Content (%) Dry Straw Yield (t/ha) at cut heights 0 cm 10 cm 20 cm 30 cm Melfort #1 CWRS Melfort #2 CPS Melfort #3 CPS Melfort #4 CWRS North Battleford #1 CPS North Battleford #2 CWRS North Battleford #3 CWRS North Battleford #4 CWRS Kindersley #1 CWRS Kindersley #2 CWRS Kindersley #3 CWAD Kindersley #4 CWAD Yorkton #1 CWRS Yorkton #2 CWRS Yorkton #3 CWRS Yorkton #4 CWRS Swift Current #1 CWRS Swift Current #2 CWRS Swift Current #3 CWAD Swift Current #4 CWAD Indian Head #1 CWAD Indian Head #2 CWAD Indian Head #3 CWRS Indian Head #4 CWRS The Government of Saskatchewan (n.d) analyzed crop production data for wheat residues over a five-year period from different soil zones as shown in Appendix II. This data was used, along with estimations for kilograms of straw and chaff per bushel of grain (Table 7-3), to determine potential yields based on soil zone for winter and summer wheat residues as shown in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 respectively. The estimated yields shown did not take into account losses that would be associated with collection and transportation. The tables containing all calculations can be found in Appendix II. The average yield over five years, assuming 16% moisture content (Kumar et al., 2003), was determined as well as the average dry yield of the straw and chaff.

101 94 Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 illustrate the relative low variability of straw yield from year to year (for the five years shown). Table 7-5. Estimated straw and chaff production for winter wheat based on the three soil zones not taking into account soil conservation practices. Year Brown Soil Zone Dark Brown Soil Zone Black Soil Zone Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Avg. wet Avg. dry Table 7-6. Estimated straw and chaff production for spring wheat based on the three soil zones not taking into account conservation practices. Year Brown Soil Zone Dark Brown Soil Zone Black Soil Zone Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Avg. wet Avg. dry Flax Residues The potential yield of flax residues was estimated using data in Table 7-3 and the approach described for wheat residues. The estimated straw and chaff production for flax is shown in Table 7-7. Again, the variability from year to year is relatively low.

102 95 Table 7-7. Estimated straw and chaff production for flax, not specific to any soil zone, and not taking into account conservation practices. Year Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Avg. Wet (1) Avg. dry (1) 16% moisture content assumed PAMI (2004) measured flax straw yields from small 1 m 2 hand-cut samples, combine collectors, and bales from windrowed samples. Samples were taken from three sites in the Humboldt, Saskatchewan area. It is generally accepted that the combine collector yield represents a realistic available quantity of straw, since it does not take into account losses associated with baling. PAMI found that the yield of flax straw, as determined from the combine collector, ranged from 1.10 to 1.33 dry tonnes per ha, depending on the field. It should be noted that this yield also accounted for chaff mixed in with the straw. Flax straw yields for all three collection methods are shown in Table 7-8. The differences in combine collector yields and baled yields are based on losses associated with baling. These baling losses account for both pickup and mechanical losses. PAMI found the baled straw recovery was 93% in one field and 86% in the other field. Table 7-8. Flax straw yields as shown based on m 2, combine collection, and baled samples (Adapted from PAMI, 2004). Field Sample Moisture Content at Processing (%) Dry Straw Yield (t/ha) at cut heights 0 cm 10 cm 20 cm 30 cm Combine Collector Yield (t/ha) Combine Baled Yield (t/ha) Field # Field # Field # According to PAMI (2004), flax straw may be easier to bale than other types of straw since it tends to stick together allowing for facilitated pickup by a baler Barley Residues The potential yield of barley residues was estimated using data in Table 7-3 and the approach described for wheat residues. The estimated straw and chaff production for barley is shown in Table 7-9. Again, the variability from year to year is relatively low.

103 96 Table 7-9. Estimated straw and chaff production for barley not taking into account conservation practices. Year Brown Soil Zone Dark Brown Soil Zone Black Soil Zone Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) a a a 1.21 b 1.21 b 1.21 b a a a b 1.55 b a a a 1.48 b 1.48 b 1.48 b a a a 1.11 b 1.11 b 1.11 b a a a 1.23 b 1.23 b 1.23 b Avg. wet a a a 1.32 b 1.32 b 1.32 b Avg. dry a a hulled barley b hulless barley 1.12 b a 1.12 b a 1.12 b Oat Residues The potential yield of oat residues was estimated using data in Table 7-3 and the approach described for wheat residues. The estimated straw and chaff production for oats is shown in Table The variability from year to year is relatively low. Table Estimated straw and chaff production for oats not taking into account conservation practices. Year Brown Soil Zone Dark Brown Soil Zone Black Soil Zone Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Avg. wet Avg. dry Canola Residues According to Cochrane-SNC-Lavalin (1994), canola straw and chaff are considered too brittle to collect and transport for use as a biomass feedstock. They suggest that other

104 97 crop residues, such as those produced from wheat, barley, oats, and flax, may be better suited as a biomass feedstock for a bioenergy conversion facility. If Canola residues are to be used as biomass feedstock, the Government of Alberta (2008) has crop production data for canola, as shown in Appendix II, Table A-10, which can be used along with Table 7-3 to determine the five-year average yield values for straw and chaff for various soil zones, as shown in Table Again, the yields for straw and chaff are based on residues exiting a combine and do not take into account losses associated with collection or transportation. The wet and dry yield for both straw and chaff residues were found assuming a moisture content of 16% (Kumar et al., 2003) to calculate dry yield. Table Estimated straw and chaff production for canola not taking into account conservation practices. Year Brown Soil Zone Dark Brown Soil Zone Black Soil Zone Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Chaff Yield (t/ha) Avg. wet Avg. dry Farmgate Costs of Agricultural Crop Residues Some have the opinion that farmers/producers may be willing to give their crop residues away for no charge as long as an external service provider collects the residues from their field. However, crop residues do have value in terms of the benefits they can offer, and for this reason producers should expect compensation. For producers to receive a fair price for their agricultural crop residues, consideration should be paid to the value the residues offer for soil conservation, nutrients, retaining moisture, etc. Producers should then receive a price per tonne of biomass, which should take into account the moisture content of the agricultural crop residues. Producers may have varying opinions on whether or not they would be willing to sell or give away their agricultural crop residues. Gustafson et al. (2011) conducted a focus group with producers in North Dakota, where producers representing each county in North Dakota were invited to discuss supplying biorefineries with wheat straw and corn stover. One main concern of the crop producers involved the lack of a stable market for

105 98 crop residues. Generally, producers do not want to take on any supply risk and would prefer if crop residues were sold by contract rather than on an open market. However, producers showed a general interest in selling crop residues depending on the contract price. Another major concern brought forth by the producers in North Dakota was the lack of time they would have to bale the straw during the baling window. If custom operations are used for the collection of crop residues, the custom operator would bale the straw and haul to the road-side to be stacked. A transportation provider, or trucks owned and operated by the biorefinery, would then pick up the biomass feedstock and haul it to the appropriate storage site or the biorefinery. One cost estimate for custom operations in North Dakota suggested collection costs for wheat straw would range from $33/t to $61/t depending on the rate of removal and residue yield (Gustafson et al., 2011). They suggested that increasing the rate of removal would further reduce the collection cost. Bailey-Stamler, Samson, and Ho Lem (2007) assessed the value of baled wheat, barley, and oat straw at farmgate in Alberta based on an estimated $60/t livestock hay price. The value of wheat, barley, and oat straw was estimated to be worth 48%, 52%, and 64% respectively of hay based on feed values. Therefore, the cost of wheat, barley, and oat straw was estimated to be $28.8/t, $31.2/t, and $38.4/t respectively. According to hay commodity prices advertised in Saskatchewan for 2011, $60/t is still a reasonable farmgate price for hay, but would be among the higher costs; therefore, these prices may still be valid in Kumar et al. (2003) acknowledged that the removal of nutrients from the field by removing the straw is associated with an increased cost of fertility. They suggested that due to this fact, the resulting value of the straw should be 150% of the bedding value of the straw provided that the current market value does not account for nutrient value of straw. Paying 150% of the current market value would compensate for nutrient value, labour, equipment, capital recovery, and all other costs incurred with harvesting straw as well as a profit margin (estimated to be $4/tonne). Kumar et al. estimated the cost of straw recovery (baling and tarping) to be $8.86/dry t in 2003 costs, which is $10.23/dry t in 2011 costs, adjusting for inflation according to the Bank of Canada (2011). The Saskatchewan Forage Council (2011a, 2011b) assessed baled cereal straw prices based on purchasers buying cereal straw, producers selling straw, and settled purchase agreements in January and September of High and low prices as well as weighted averages (W. avg) are shown in Table 7-12.

106 99 Table High, low, and weighted averages (W. avg) of buying, asking, and settled prices for baled cereal straw. January 2011 Prices ($/tonne) September 2011 Prices ($/tonne) High Low W. avg. High Low W. avg. Buying Asking Settled The Government of Alberta (2008) estimated the prices of wheat, barley and oat straw, and chaff based on 10% moisture content and the nutrient value contained in the straw and chaff. They found barley to have the highest chaff value and one of the highest straw values based on the nutrient content as shown in Table In contrast, wheat straw and chaff had the lowest value based on nutrient content. However, low nutrient content is desirable for biomass feedstock, so in actuality it may be wheat straw that has the higher biomass feedstock value in terms of quality due to its lower nutrient content. Table Estimated partial value of crop residues based on 10% moisture and fertilizer prices of $2.18/kg N, $2.42/lb P 2 O 5, $0.92/lb K 2 O, and $0.53/kg S (Government of Alberta, 2008). Straw Feedstock Value Straw ($/tonne) Feedstock Value Chaff ($/tonne) Wheat Barley Oat

107 Biomass Feedstock Quality Comparison There are many factors that influence the quality of a particular biomass feedstock. These factors include the ultimate end-use, cellulose content, leaf-to-stem ratio, moisture content, nutrient content, and the higher heating value of the biomass feedstock. Delaying harvest has been shown to reduce nutrient and ash content resulting in a higher quality feedstock with a greater higher heating value. A higher stemto-leaf ratio within the biomass feedstock has been associated with lower ash content and a higher heating value due to a difference in chemical composition (Madakadze, Coulman, Mcelroy, Stewart, & Smith, 1998a; Samson, 2011, Klass, 1998). Furthermore, lower moisture content, low clay content in soil, and fewer nutrient inputs have all been associated with a higher quality biomass feedstock as previously mentioned in this report. Generally, high quality biomass feedstock for combustion will be that with low nutrient and ash content, as well as greater higher heating values. For cellulosic ethanol, the higher the cellulose content of the biomass feedstock, the more value a feedstock will have towards that particular market. The quality of biomass feedstock is extremely variable depending on the growing conditions. Therefore, the quality information presented in this section should be used as a guideline only. The quality may not be the same as what may be found with Saskatchewan growing conditions. Table 8-1 compares and contrasts biomass feedstocks based on their higher heating values and content of ash, various nutrients, and cellulose.

108 101 Table 8-1. Quality factors and their values for various types of biomass feedstock based on the literature. Crop/Crop Residue HHV (GJ/dry t) Ash (% of DM) N (% of DM) P (% of DM) S (% of DM) Cl (% of DM) K (% of DM) Cellulose (% of DM) Switchgrass 16.8 o to 19.1 s 4. to -8.5 a 0.36 d to 1.35 d k 0.05 d to 0.12 j d 0.10 to 1.33 d 32.5 c to 36.1 j Miscanthus 17.8 o to 19.4 u 1.5 d to 5.8 j 0.28 m to 0.5 f k 0.02 m to 0.12 j f 0.5 to 1.0 j Forage Sorghum 5 a to 6.6 f 1.0 f 0.3 to 0.4 n 0.1 f f 29 h High Biomass Sorghum q 6.6 h to 8.65 d 1.1 h 0.08 d 0.13 d 29 h Reed Canarygrass 16.9 o to 17.4 t 1.9 i to 8 a 0.42 i to 1.4 k k 0.05 i to 0.2 k 0.27 i to 0.56 j 0.46 i j Forage Pearl Millet 16.9 to 17.3 o 0.3 l Western Wheatgrass 16.9 to 17.3 o 8 to 11 c 1.4 k k 0.2 k 0.8 k k 29.1 c Northern Wheatgrass 16.9 to 17.3 o 7 to 10 c 1.4 k k 0.2 k 0.8 k k 35.8 c Altai Wildrye 16.9 to 17.3 o 7.0 k 1.4 k k 0.2 k 0.8 k k Dahurian Wildrye 16.9 to 17.3 o 7.0 k 1.4 k k 0.2 k 0.8 k k Russian Wildrye 16.9 to 17.3 o 7.0 k 1.4 k k 0.2 k 0.8 k k Mammoth Wildrye 16.9 to 17.3 o 5-8 c 1.4 k k 0.2 k 0.8 k k 33.6 c Green Needlegrass 16.9 to 17.3 o 6 to 10 c 1.4 k k 0.2 k 0.8 k k 35.0 c Wheat Straw 16.8 to 17.2 o 1.4 to 10.2 a 0.5 k to 0.48 b k 0.17 b 0.32 b 1.3 b 38 h Wheat Chaff 5 to 7 b Barley Straw 16.1 to 16.7 o 5.9 f to 11 a 0.5 k to 0.64 b k 0.16 b 0.67 b 2.1 b Barley Chaff 4 b Oat Straw 16.3 to 16.5 o 8 b 0.64 b 0.22 b 0.78 b 2.4 b Oat Chaff 7 b Flax Straw to p 3.7 f to 4 b 0.8 k to 0.88 b k 0.12 b 0.23 b Flax Chaff Canola Straw 16.4 to 17.0 r 6 b 0.8 k to 0.57 b k 0.34 b 0.38 b 1.05 b Canola Chaff a Lee et al., 2007 g Lal, 2009 m Tumuluru, Boardman, & Wright, 2010 s Samson and Bailey-Stamler, 2009 b Bailey-Stamler et al., 2007 h Hartley et al, 2009 n AERC Inc., 2007a t Tahir et al., 2011 c Jefferson et al., 2004 d The Research Park, 2009 e El Bassam, 1998 i Burvall, 1997 j Samson, 2007 k Obernberger et al., 2006 o Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2011 p University of Technology Vienna, n.d q Blade Energy Crops, 2010a u Scurlock, 1999 f Clarke and Preto, 2011 l AERC Inc., 2005 r Tabil, Adapa, & Kashaninejad, n.d

109 Supply Logistics The feasibility of utilizing biomass for bioenergy production will depend not only on the production and harvest costs of dedicated biomass crops, but also on collection, transportation, densification, and storage costs. Once the biomass feedstock is collected from the field, it is hauled to the farmgate for transportation to a biorefinery with limited storage, a processing/densification facility with storage, or a satellite storage facility (SSL) as shown in Figure 5-1. The concept of a satellite storage facility was introduced in Cundiff, Grisso, and Ravula (2004). A satellite storage facility is an intermediate storage site that is centrally located among biomass producers. The SSL is an uncovered gravel lot that is relatively close the main highway or paved (secondary) road and is the storage point for either a single large production field or multiple smaller fields (Judd, Sarin, & Cundiff, 2012). Producers haul biomass from their field to the SSL and the conversion facilities take it for processing or conversion. The SSL can also include a processing/densification facility on site to decrease the number of trips required and the amount of loading/unloading which adds to transportation costs and decreases the economic feasibility of the logistics system. Processing/ Densification Facility Field Side Biorefinery Figure 9-1. Biomass feedstock supply chain. Satellite Storage Facility 9.1 Biomass Feedstock Collection Biomass feedstock harvest and collection are discussed in two separate sections in this report. Harvesting of dedicated biomass crops and agricultural residues was covered in Section 7 and Section 8, respectively. Collection is covered in this section. It is assumed that the biomass will be lying on the field in windrows after it is harvested, following which, a baler or forage harvester will be used to collect the feedstock. Biomass feedstock collection losses should be considered along with storage losses to determine how much biomass feedstock will be available for use at a biorefinery Collection of Biomass Feedstock from Windrows Typically, agricultural-based biomass feedstock is either baled in large round or large square bales. An alternative method of collecting is to collect and chop with a forage

110 103 harvester. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with all three collection methods. Table 9-1 shows a comparison of the three different methods evaluated in this report for collecting biomass feedstock. Table 9-1. A summary of some parameters for large round baled, large square baled, and forage harvested biomass feedstock. Size Parameter Bulk Density Water Shedding Ability Handling and Storage Other Notes a Clarke & Preto, 2011 b Sokhansanj & Fenton, 2006 c PAMI, n.d(a) d Lewandowski et al., 2000 e Judd, Sarin, & Cundiff, 2011 f Teel et al., 2003 g Cundiff & Marsh, 1996 Large Round Bales (hard core) 1.8 m x 1.5 m a (diameter x width) Large Square Bales Forage Harvested 0.9 m x 1.2 m x 2.4 m a Cut length ranges up to 16 mm c 130 kg/m 3 to 150 kg/m 3 to 60 b kg/m 3 to 240 kg/m 3 ad 255 kg/m 3 ad 200 a kg/m 3 Good e Fair e how it is stored, shape Poor. Depends on of pile, etc. Lower bulk density makes for poor storage compared to square bales Heavier windrows produce lower density bales g Higher bulk density and shape makes for good handling and storage f Heavier windrows produce lower density bales g Potential low bulk density makes for poor handling and storage Forage harvested material more suitable for densification The production cost of round bales was similar to the production cost of square bales. Cundiff and Marsh (1996) evaluated the costs associated with large round bales (1.8 m diameter x 1.5 m wide) and large square bales (1 m high x 1.2 m wide x 2.4 m long) that were similar in mass. They assessed costs for switchgrass yields of 4.5 dry t/ha, 9 dry t/ha, and 18 dry t/ha. They found that total harvest (mow-condition, rake, bale, handling, and storage) costs for the round bales were $17.00/dry t, $15.90/dry t, and $19.15/dry t for those respective yields. The square bale harvest costs were $13.40/dry t, $12.25/dry t, and $11.95/dry t for yields of 4.5 dry t/ha, 9 dry t/ha, and 18 dry t/ha respectively. According to Cundiff, Grisso, and Ravula (2010), the per-tonne harvest and storage costs of large round bales and large square bales were approximately the same. They found that although the square baler had a higher purchase cost than the round baler, it also had a higher throughput (tonne/hr) than the large round baler, such that the costs of producing bales with both the round and square balers were equivalent. Aside from evaluating costs, Cundiff and Marsh (1996) also noted that the square bales had 25% higher density than the round bales. Furthermore, the square baler also

111 104 required 7% less power than the round baler. Due to its higher density, the total hauling cost from yard to on-farm storage for 18 large square bales (approximately 10 tonnes) was found to be 42% less expensive than the cost to haul eight round bales (approximately 5.5 tonnes). Anderson Group (2011), based out of Québec, created the Biobaler Harvesting System to harvest woody biomass crops. The biobaler is a single piece of equipment that cuts and bales woody biomass crop in one pass. The Biobaler s design also allows airflow throughout the bale to naturally dry out the bales without risk of spontaneous combustion or deterioration of biomass quality. The throughput capacity of the biobaler for a woody crop, like short rotation willow, is 18 t/hr. The cost of operating the biobaler for short rotation willow is $9.36/t including the cost of a 180 horsepower tractor, wages, a tractor with self-loading trailer to transport the bales, fuel cost, repair, maintenance, and transportation to a facility within 25 km (Anderson Group, 2011). Perhaps in the future a similar piece of equipment could be designed such that only one operation would be required for the harvesting of dedicated biomass crops. A reduction in the number of steps required to harvest and collect biomass feedstock may potentially reduce the farmgate cost. Morris Industries, located in Saskatchewan, has trailers capable of loading and unloading both large round and large square bales. These trailers can be hauled by a tractor to transport bales to field side or to a satellite storage location using only one operator. There are many other interesting options to haul and load/unload bales. Some other options are shown Figure 9-2 through to Figure 9-4.

112 105 Figure 9-2. Self-loading self-unloading bale truck available from Cancade Company Ltd. out of Brandon, Manitoba. Figure 9-3. Self-loading self-unloading bale loader with fingertip control from within truck.

113 106 Figure 9-4. Excavator with bale grab attachment to save time loading and unloading large numbers of bales Collection Losses It is important to note that the yields previously discussed for dedicated energy crops/grasses and agricultural crop residues are for the potential yield once cut and do not account for losses associated with collection. There are two different types of losses associated with collection: natural losses and machine losses. The baling losses will differ depending on the crop and will be greater for agricultural crop residues than for dedicated energy crops/grasses. Losses associated with collection will differ depending on various factors. PAMI (2001a) found that considerable straw losses occurred during the baling operation following harvest by a combine. When baling a hard red spring wheat crop they found the following: There was a 90% straw recovery rate for the conventional combine and square baler combination. There was an 85% straw recovery rate for the conventional combine and round baler combination. There was a 53% straw recovery rate for the rotary combine and square baler combination. The round baler could not bale the straw from a rotary combine. For the Canada Prairie Spring wheat straw, PAMI (2001a) found no significant difference between the conventional combine and round baler or square baler combinations. Both

114 107 combinations had recovery rates less than 70%. This recovery rate worsened with the use of a rotary combine. According to PAMI, round baler losses could be as little as 5% with good crop management techniques and as much as 25% with poor crop management. Sanderson, Egg, and Wiselogel (1997) found that the total switchgrass biomass loss during baling was 5.6% based on eight bales. These losses were higher for biomass with lower moisture content (11% moisture content) than for biomass with higher moisture content (19.8% moisture content) as a result of increased susceptibility of dry biomass to breakage. Additionally, they also attributed the loss to the large windrows caused by a high yield and a tall stubble height and suggested that these losses could be further reduced. The Government of Alberta (2011) suggested that higher moisture content biomass feedstock and heavy windrows, which allowed balers to be used at their capacity, were associated with lower baling losses. They further proposed that operating the baler pickup at the correct speed relative to the speed of travel was also important for minimizing biomass losses. Grisso, Smith, and Cundiff (2009) commented that bale chamber loss was determined in part by the windrow size, field speed, hay moisture content, bale rotating speed, and twine wrapping. The Government of Alberta (2011) summarized numerous PAMI and Alberta Farm Machinery Research Centre evaluation reports prepared for many different types of balers. The losses associated with the bale chamber of large round balers ranged from as low as 2% for heavier windrows to as high as 17% or greater for lighter, dryer windrows, such as those with alfalfa. The pickup losses for large round balers ranged from less than 1% to 12% or greater for alfalfa. Grisso et al. (2009) suggested that for hay, large round baler pickup losses could be as high as 12% but are generally between 1% and 3%. They also suggested that large, round bale chamber losses could be as high as 18% and that this loss is generally two to three times higher than the chamber loss would be for a square baler. Dry-matter losses associated with a forage harvester may be slightly less than or similar to baling losses. According to Buckmaster (n.d), dry-matter losses for a forage harvester were 1.3% less than baling losses for alfalfa. Buckmaster suggested that the losses associated with baling alfalfa were 5.4% whereas the losses associated with forage harvesting alfalfa were only 4.1%. Buckmaster, Rotz, and Black (1990) assumed that the pickup losses associated with forage harvesters were similar to baler pickup losses. 9.2 Densification and Processing Biomass feedstock is generally not useful for energy generation in its bulk form. It is also costly to handle and transport bulky biomass material. Several modes of processing are

115 108 available to make biomass a more valuable feedstock that is easier to transport. Biomass processing can involve size reduction/grinding, drying, densification, and/or torrefaction. For cofiring, processing can also involve steps like washing or leaching to remove some of the nutrients that can cause slagging and fouling during combustion. For cellulosic ethanol production, processing can involve steam explosion to improve enzymatic activity during the fermentation process. The goal of processing is to make the material less costly to transport and to make the material a better feedstock for its end use. For agricultural biomass like straw or dedicated energy crops, drying is either not required or occurs naturally in the field. Therefore, only size reduction, densification, and torrefaction are covered in this section Field-Side versus Centralized Processing Processing can occur in-field or at a centralized processing facility as shown in Figure 9-5. Each option has benefits and drawbacks. Field-side densification, for example, results in minimal transportation of feedstock in its bulky form. However, field-side systems rely on less efficient power systems like a diesel engine. Centralized facilities have higher capacities and are generally more efficient. Centralized facilities can also be located to take advantage of other transportation options such as railway or pipeline. Field-side processing also requires additional or unnecessary handling. Often, material is first baled and then transported to field side only to be chopped before the grinding and densification processes. The baling step can be skipped, but the material still needs to be gathered from a windrow before it can be processed. Therefore, field-side processing might be more suitable for material collected by a forage harvester.

116 109 Figure 9-5. Example of possible supply chain for centralized (top) and field-side (bottom) biomass processing Size Reduction (Grinding) As-harvested, biomass feedstock is heterogeneous with a large size distribution, making it challenging to handle and utilize. Most densification processes require biomass to be chopped and, in some cases, ground (<6 mm) before densification (Samson et al., 2008). If biomass is in bale form, it needs to be shredded before it can undergo further size reduction. A tub grinder or bale processor can be used to prepare the biomass for grinding. Preparation of biomass for cofiring in a boiler also requires reducing the material to a smaller size. It is usually not practical or necessary to bring biomass feedstock to the same size or shape as coal, but large chunks can cause issues for fuel conversion efficiency. Pulverized fuel burners suitable for biomass usually require particle sizes below 1 mm (Hoque et al., 2007). Processing and size reduction of biomass can be carried out by hammermilling and/or disc milling to produce particle sizes below 5 mm. Hammermills result in a high size reduction ratio and provide good control of particle size range with screens (Hoque et al. 2007), and tub grinding or knife milling to produce particle sizes in the range of 5 mm to 50 mm. Knife mills are good for shredding forages under various crop and machine conditions (Hoque et al., 2007).

117 110 Judd et al. (2012) estimated that the total cost to operate a tub grinder (including tub grinder, electric motor, and dust control system) for biomass shredding was $33.88/h for a capacity of 22.7 t/h. This results in a cost per tonne of $1.50 for tub grinding. Hoque et al. (2007) found that processing agricultural residues in a tub grinder cost $3.32/tonne for a capacity of 64 t/h. Hoque et al. s estimate accounted for all capital and operating costs of a tub grinder. Hammermilling costs are significantly higher than tub grinding and are typically included in the cost to produce pellets (refer to Section 9.2.3) Densification Volume and weight constraints are the limiting factors to the quantity of biomass that can be transported by truck. In cases where the bulk density of the biomass feedstock is low, such as bales and loose biomass, the volume constraint is reached first. On the other hand, if the bulk density is high, the maximum weight can be reached resulting in more biomass delivered in fewer trips. One way to increase the bulk density of biomass involves densifying the material to a compressed bale, briquette/puck, cube, or pellet. Densifying the biomass feedstock may have a significant impact on the cost of transportation and storage as less volume is required for the same weight of biomass feedstock. The costs of the actual densification process must also be considered as the cost of densifying the biomass feedstocks may outweigh its advantages for transportation. Densification is costly due to the degree of preprocessing required. If material is already in bale form, it must first be shredded. Then, depending on the moisture content, it must be dried. Drying is typically the highest cost of preprocessing (Campbell, 2007). Most densification processes can effectively densify material with a moisture content between 7% and 15% (PAMI, 2008). The moisture content of straw is typically in this range in the field, so drying is not required. Then, depending on the degree of densification, more size reduction may be required. Biomass material can be densified into (from largest to smallest) briquettes/pucks, cubes, or pellets where the smaller the output, the higher the energy requirements (and cost). Typical sizes and bulk densities of bales, ground biomass, briquettes, cubes and pellets are shown in Table 9-2.

118 111 Table 9-2. Typical size and bulk density of different forms of biomass (Clarke & Preto, 2011; Sokhansanj and Fenton, 2006; PAMI, 2012). Form of feedstock Estimated bulk density (kg/m 3 ) Typical Size Large, round bale, hard core 190 to m dia x 1.5 (dia x width) m Large, square bale 210 to m x 1.2 m x 2.4 m Ground biomass (hammermilled) and packed 60 to mm to 5 mm Briquettes 350 up to 100 mm diameter x 100 mm thick Cubes mm to mm square x 50 mm to100 mm long Pellets 550 to mm diameter Torrefied pellets mm diameter Kludze et al (2011) summarized the benefits of biomass densification: Increase in the net calorific value (heating value) per unit volume Reduced cost and improved ease of storage Improvements in transportation efficiency Decreased losses of biomass through deterioration or spontaneous combustion Increased ease of handling if utilized as a biomass pellet/briquette fuel Increase in the efficiency of potential combustion Enhanced uniformity of properties Easier to grind (for use as a cofiring fuel) Ability to standardize (size and quality) feeding mechanisms for biomass based systems Several process variables affect the characteristics of densified biomass and the energy (cost) required to produce them. These variables include fibre length or particle size, moisture content, temperature, operating pressure, and other equipment-specific variables. It is recommended that the chop size of the material be one-half the diameter of the die (Samson & Duxbury, 2000). Most researchers use a chop size of 3 mm or less (Sokhansanj et al., 2005; Kaliyan & Morey, 2007; Samson et al., 2001). The disadvantage of using a small chop size is that much of the energy required to create the pellets is spent on hammermilling. Most researchers recommend a moisture content between 8% and 12% for densification (Kaliyan & Morey, 2007; Sokhansanj, Cushman, & Wright, 2003; Sokhansanj et al., 2005). Wetter material requires less power due to lubricity, but too much moisture decreases binding characteristics. Too little water also decreases binding characteristics as the water naturally contained within raw biomass material acts as a binding agent during densification. Natural binders (lignin, hemicellulose, starch, protein, pectin, water) are activated when certain temperatures are reached during the densification process. According to Sokhansanj et al. (2003), the literature suggests that the energy requirements for densification into cubes or pellets can range from 30 MJ/t to 150 MJ/t. Additional power is required for processing (size reduction and drying).

119 112 In addition to biomass variability, several equipment variables need to be controlled during the densification process. For example, a pellet mill will have several variables including screen size, length/diameter (L/D) ratio, gap distance, die rotational speed, feed rate, dwell time, geometry, friction coefficient, compression ratio, etc. The L/D ratio affects the dwell time the biomass material is subjected to the densification pressure and friction heat. For biomass, it is recommended to achieve an L/D ratio of 8 to 10 (Samson & Duxbury, 2000; Kaliyan & Morey, 2007). Information specific to the different forms of densified material (high density bales, briquettes, cubes, and pellets) is summarized in the following section. High Density Balers and Bale Compressors: According to Yu, Larson, English, and Gao (2011), stretch wrap baler technology exists that can create large, round bales that are twice the density of regular large, round bales. In their evaluation, they found these balers to be more cost effective than regular large round bales and pellet mills. Bailey- Stamler et al. (2007) concluded that high density bales produced by a high density press baler could reduce transportation costs by $1.54/t. Steffen Systems ( claims that their system can compress a large square bale to less than half its original size and more than double its bulk density. However, there is limited applied data on their systems for power requirements, capacity, or reliability. Producing compressed bales might be more cost effective than more intensive densification and result in the same outcome (lower transportation costs), but it would require much less energy than cubing or pelleting. However, high density balers or bale compressors are not commonly used and there is little information available on their capacities or energy (cost) requirements. In addition, compressing bales will reduce transportation costs, but the material will likely require further processing (size reduction) before use at a combustion or cellulosic ethanol facility. Briquetting (Pucks): Briquetting is accomplished by compacting biomass material using a piston press, roller press, or screw extrusion. The roll press briquetting process consists of two opposing rollers with several mating pockets that capture the raw material and compact it into briquettes under high pressure (Kaliyan & Morey, 2007). A major advantage of the briquetting process over the pelleting process is the elimination of the frictional forces associated with conventional pelleting (Sokhansanj et al., 2005). Briquettes formed in a roll press are usually pillow or almond shaped with a size of 10 mm to 38 mm or larger (Kaliyan & Morey, 2007). More recently, the word briquette is also commonly used to refer to large cylindrical extruded biomass. These briquettes have a diameter of up to 100 mm or more (PAMI, 2008).

120 113 Briquetting is more reliable than pelleting, more tolerant to different moisture levels and more energy efficient. Briquetting requires less preprocessing of the raw material (less grinding and drying). However, the larger size of the product requires different handling/utilization equipment (not suitable for a pellet stove) (Kludze et al, 2011). Large-scale briquetting systems are commercially available through CF Nielsen in Europe. These systems are designed for puck formation of a variety of feedstocks. The modular design allows capacities of 0.5 to 50 t/h. The manufacturers claim that pucks can be used in same applications as pellets but requires less energy to produce. Cubing: The cubing process usually involves an initial size reduction and accumulation before being fed into the cuber head where a rotating press wheel forces the biomass into stationary dies located around the perimeter of the cuber head. This mechanical action converts the loose biomass into cube-shaped extrusions. The size of the cube depends on the size of the die which can range from 13 mm to 38 mm and lengths range between 25 mm and 100 mm (Kaliyan & Morey, 2007). Cubes can be made from shredded (but not ground) biomass whereas biomass for making pellets must be preground in a hammer mill (Sokhansanj and Fenton, 2006; ASABE, 2007; PAMI, 2008). Tapered dies work better for biomass as the taper results in more compression and resistance, creating a denser and more durable cube. Straight-through dies allow the material to pass easier and result in unformed cubes and fluff (PAMI, 2012). As cubing is less common than pelleting or briquetting, very few commercial scale facilities exist. The capacity of a stationary cuber in la Broquerie, Manitoba, was estimated to be 3 t/h at peak production. But during testing outlined in PAMI (2008), it was noted that good quality straw cubes required a high dwell time, reducing the capacity of the cuber to 0.5 to 1 t/h. The energy consumption during these trials was as high as 0.40 GJ/tonne and this estimate considered the cubing process only, not the size reduction. These trials verified that a cold extrusion process (no heat addition required) was suitable for densification of straw. In-field densification (cubing) equipment was summarized in PAMI (2008). As there was a limited market for this type of equipment, production was limited to a few hundred units. The John Deere 400 Series Field Cuber was used for cubing hay for feed. It could achieve a capacity of 4.5 t/h on average and a maximum of 8 t/h. Disadvantages of this system included low capacity, breakdowns, high initial cost, and need for support equipment. The world s first mobile straw cuber was developed by Bernewode Designs Ltd of Aylesbury, England (PAMI, 2008). The pull-type cuber had its own engine and was developed in response to laws that banned straw burning. The 19 mm cubes were produced at a rate of 5 t/h. The Biotruck 2000 produced by Haimer of Germany is the most recent in-field densification system (Sokhansanj et al., 2003). The massive

121 114 machine weighed 25 t and required a 475 hp (354 kw) engine. Its capacity rating was 3.3 t/h to 8.8 t/h but required 0.47 GJ to process a tonne of crop. A demonstration study of PAMI s field-side cuber prototype showed that the maximum capacity of straw cube production was 1 t/h (PAMI, 2012) and the energy requirement to cube the straw was equivalent to approximately 10% to 15% of the energy content of the cubed product. If the yield of wheat straw is 1 t/ha, the cuber rate of work on a per ha basis is 1 ha/hr. For a quarter section of 65 ha, the time required to densify straw from the entire quarter section would be 65 hours of continual operation. Pelleting: Pellets are formed by an extrusion process using a piston press. During pelleting, the raw product is pressed with a press wheel through an outer centrifugal or stationary ring that contains several cylindrical dies. Usually, if the outer die ring is rotating, the inner press wheel is stationary. If the outer die ring is stationary, the inner press wheel acts like a planetary gear as it maintains a path around the inner surface of the die ring (PAMI, 2008). Pellets are of cylindrical shape and vary in length. The pellet diameters vary from 5 mm to 20 mm and lengths between 13 mm and 25 mm (Kaliyan & Morey, 2007). Because pellet dies are small, pelleting requires material to be finely ground (<5 mm) before densification. A typical pelleting process includes bale chopping, drying (to 8% to 12% moisture content), grinding, pelleting, cooling, storage, screening/bagging. The resulting product is uniform and can be handled with conventional grain handling equipment. Commercial scale (>1 t/h) pellet plants are common for wood waste. However, due to the difficulty in pelleting agricultural residue such as straw, there are few commercial scale pellet plants that handle straw biomass. Typically, straw must be blended with other material (grain, sawdust, etc) before it will pellet properly. Pelletizing is the only established densification technology in Canada (Kludze et al., 2011). There are 26 pellet plants operating in Canada with capacities of 10 t/h to 25 t/h. They primarily pellet wood and wood waste for export to Europe and the Eastern US. The wood pellet market is well established and is growing, but the technology to pellet wood does not transfer perfectly to pelletization of agricultural products due to their heterogeneity, difficulty to chop/grind, difficulty to convey, etc. Also, wood pellets burn cleaner than other pellets so there is greater demand for wood pellets (Kludze et al., 2011). Pellet plants typically cost $70,000 to $250,000 per t/h capacity. Electrical demands range from 50 kw to 100 kw per t/h production capacity plus energy for chopping, grinding, drying, cooling, and bagging equipment (Kludze et al., 2011). An estimated

122 115 total pelletizing cost is $40/t of switchgrass based on a 50,000 t/yr (6.7 t/hr) power plant. Alternatively, briquetting costs approximately 50% of that required for pelletizing when capital and operating costs are considered (The Research Park, 2009). The cost of biomass pellets in Ontario created from cereal crop straw was also investigated by Aung et al. (2011). They found that the cost of harvesting and baling, processing, and transportation were $2.44/GJ, $1.76/GJ, and $1.80/GJ respectively, adding up to a total of $6.00/GJ. In their analysis of costs, they suggested that utilization of agricultural residues was approximately 20% less expensive than energy crops Torrefaction Torrefaction is a thermal treatment that takes place in an anaerobic environment to convert biomass to a char product with increased energy density. Torrefaction also helps to provide a uniform feedstock with minimum variability in moisture content, eliminating the need for inefficient and expensive methods to handle feedstock variability. Torrefaction also reduces the energy required to grind biomass, reducing the costs associated with pelletization. Finally, torrefaction improves storage characteristics as torrefied pellets tend to be hydrophobic, limiting moisture uptake. Torrefied biomass has been used successfully as cofiring fuel in coal fired electricity plants. The torrefaction process results in three product streams: torrefied solid product, condensable volatiles and gas. Char-optimized torrefaction results in two product streams: solid product and condensable volatiles. The heating rate, reaction temperature, and retention time dictate the quantity of each product stream (product distribution). The effect of process parameters on product distribution has been investigated for wood torrefaction, but little work has been done on optimizing operating parameters for torrefaction of agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops. The product yield for torrefaction of straw pellets and miscanthus was depicted in van der Stelt, Gerhauser, Kiel, and Ptansinski (2011). At a reaction temperature of 230ºC, the solid product yield was 90% and greater for 1 h to 3 h retention times. At higher temperatures (up to 280ºC), the solid product yield drops to 75% for straw pellets. For miscanthus, the solid product yield is lower than straw at all temperatures and retention times. At 230ºC, the solid product yield is 88% at all retention times but the solid product yield of miscanthus drops to 60% at higher temperatures (van der Stelt et al., 2011). Sadaka and Negi (2009) looked at the effect of reaction temperature and retention time on the moisture content and heating value of several feedstocks including wheat straw at a batch scale. During torrefaction at 260ºC and 1 h residence time, the moisture content was reduced by 70.5% and the heating value was increased by 15.3% for wheat straw. The highest heating value (22.75 MJ/kg) and highest weight loss (54%) of wheat straw were observed at torrefaction temperature of 315ºC and 3 h residence time. Tumurulu,

123 116 Sokhansanj, Hess, and Wright (2011) noted that the maximum HHV of torrefied wheat straw was 22.6 MJ/kg for straw torrefied at 563 K (290ºC). An example of the overall mass and energy balance of the torrefaction process for wood material is shown in Figure 9-6. Volatiles kg 10.7 GJ/t Biomass 1 kg 17.6 GJ/t 17,630 (+/- 240) kj Torrefaction Reactor, 300 C, 10 min 124 (+/- 400 kj) 3541 kj Torrefied Biomass kg 21.3 GJ/t 14,213 (+/- 160) kj Figure 9-6. Overall mass and energy balance of the torrefaction process for wood material (Adapted from van der Stelt et al., 2011). Since there are no commercial-scale torrefaction facilities, actual energy balances for industrial-scale operations are not available. Energy needs for torrefaction can be generally categorized as pretreatment energy and process energy. Pretreatment usually consists of chipping and or grinding and drying. Process energy is the energy required to drive the torrefaction process plus any additional heat needed to compensate for losses in the system. Process energy can be provided internally (from combustion of torrefaction gases) or externally (from fossil fuels or other heat sources). Bridgeman, Jones, Shield, and Williams (2008) investigated the effects of torrefaction on wheat straw, reed canarygrass, and short rotation coppice willow. They found that torrefaction had the greatest effect on wheat straw, altering its fuel properties significantly. In general, they found that the higher the torrefaction temperature, the higher the carbon content of the product. This effect was the reverse for hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen contents where higher torrefaction temperatures decreased the percent contents. Furthermore, with torrefaction there was a significant increase in not only energy value, but also ash content, which would be a concern for combustion. The results from the Bridgeman study are shown in Table 9-3.

124 117 Table 9-3. Proximate analysis and HHV of raw and torrefied fuels (adapted from Bridgeman et al., 2008). Parameter Raw Torrefaction Temperature ( C) Reed canarygrass Moisture content (%) Volatile Matter (%) Ash Content (%) Fixed carbon (%) HHV* (GJ/t) Wheat straw Moisture content (%) Volatile Matter (%) Ash Content (%) Fixed carbon (%) HHV* (GJ/t) Short rotation coppice willow Moisture content (%) Volatile Matter (%) Ash Content (%) Fixed carbon (%) HHV* (GJ/t) *On dry ash-free basis Bulk density of biomass does not appear to change appreciably during torrefaction. However, several analyses indicate that the energy density does increase noticeably resulting in energy densities generally ranging from 102% to 120% of the original (Ciolkosz & Wallace, 2011). Torrefaction increases energy bulk density of agricultural biomass more than for wood biomass (15 to 18.5 GJ/m 3 for agricultural biomass versus 8 to 11 GJ/m 3 for wood pellets). Torrefaction improves the grindability of biomass, which helps improve the efficiency of the densification process. Torrefaction of wood reduces the power consumption required for size reduction by 50% to 85% (Sadaka & Negi, 2009). Ciolkosz and Wallace (2011) noted that the energy requirements to pellet torrefied biomass were 50% lower than the energy required to pellet raw biomass. Combining the torrefaction and pelletization process makes economical and logistical sense. Nondensified torrefied biomass is still bulky and can pose a dust hazard. Densification alone requires drying, size reduction, and preconditioning before densification. Torrefaction alone requires drying and size reduction before processing. Combining the processes requires drying and size reduction, torrefaction, finer size reduction, steam preconditioning and densification. High density pellets (750 kg/m 3 to 850 kg/m 3 ) can be produced from torrefied biomass.

125 118 Tumuluru et al. (2010) suggested that torrefaction can also increase grinding and pelleting capacity by a factor of ten. Torrefied biomass is believed to be a superior solid fuel for combustion, especially when cofired with coal due to its higher energy density and coal-like handling properties (Ciolkosz & Wallace, 2011). Small particle sizes are desirable for cofiring facilities using entrained flow gasification. Biomass has a tenacious and fibrous structure that makes it difficult to grind for cofiring in existing coal fired stations or other pulverized systems. Torrefied material is much easier to grind and pulverize, making torrefaction a valuable pretreatment for combustion applications. However, torrefaction does not address the issues related to biomass chemical properties such as ash slagging, fouling, sintering and corrosion caused by Na and K salt (Kludze et al., 2011). Torrefied biomass also has superior storage characteristics compared to raw biomass. Storage issues like off-gassing and self-heating may be insignificant in torrefied biomass as most of the solid, liquid, and gaseous products that are chemically and microbiologically active are removed during the torrefaction process (Tumurulu et al., 2011). Torrefaction produces a hydrophobic product by destroying OH groups and causing the biomass to lose the capacity to form hydrogen bonds, limiting its ability to take up moisture during storage. Basu (2011) outlined the technologies available for torrefaction including fluidized bed, moving bed, screw conveyor/auger, and rotating drum. Depending on the torrefaction technology (fixed bed or fluidized bed), the particle size distribution is also very important. Some technology developers have claimed capacities up to 7 t/h, but none have been operating at a commercial scale for a significant amount of time and it was unclear what type of feedstock (woody vs herbaceous) was processed at these capacities. The ECN reported that a 50 kg/h to 100 kg/h torrefaction pilot plant for processing wood and agricultural residues would be commissioned in the Netherlands in There is some question as to whether or not torrefaction provides a net benefit to the bioenergy value chain. The segments of the supply chain that are most likely to benefit from torrefaction are transport, storage, and conversion or utilization, whereas the torrefaction process will add to overall cost. Utilization benefits are related to the higher energy content, lower oxygen content, and lower moisture content relative to unprocessed biomass (Ciolkosz and Wallace, 2011). Enhanced conversion and utilization, when compared to the other steps in the supply chain, probably provide the most significant opportunity for cost savings (followed by transport costs). However, the torrefaction technology is more complex than densification and there is a limited research and development base in Canada and extremely limited commercial experience/large scale testing/technology suppliers in Canada (Kludze et al., 2011).

126 119 Torrefaction is an old technology but its role in the optimization of the biomass supply chain needs to be further investigated. There is a need for studies to optimize the torrefaction process, assess the energy balance of the process, investigate the storage behaviour of torrefied products, and assess the combustion characteristics of the product. 9.3 Transportation Lowering the cost of biomass feedstock transportation is a major challenge for the biomass feedstock supply chain. In Saskatchewan, agricultural-based biomass feedstock requires a shorter transport distance than woody biomass feedstock because agricultural residues are more spatially distributed. However, the low bulk density and lower energy value of agricultural-based biomass feedstock results in costly transportation challenges. There are a few options for transporting biomass in Saskatchewan: truck, railway, or pipeline. According to Kumar, Cameron, and Flynn (2004, 2005), fossil fuel plants generally acquire their fuel by rail, ship, or pipeline due to the high costs and traffic congestion that is associated with truck transport. Gas and oil are generally supplied by pipeline and coal is usually supplied by railway or ship depending on the location. High traffic congestion can be a major issue for many different biorefineries, including power plants producing power in the gigawatt range since trucks could be arriving as frequently as one truck per minute. The cost of biomass feedstock transportation is dependent on numerous factors including: contracts, transportation distance, biomass feedstock moisture content and bulk density, load capacity of transport vessel (volume and weight), supply frequency, and loading/unloading (Searcy et al., 2007; Sokhansanj & Fenton, 2006; Khanna et al., 2008). There are two components that make up transportation costs: fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs are independent of transport distance. Examples of fixed costs include loading/unloading, insurance, depreciation, and administrative costs. Variable costs, such as fuel expenses, maintenance, and labour take into account the cost per kilometer. If contracting a company to transport agricultural-based biomass feedstock, a long-term contract may decrease the cost of transportation. Whether or not the contract is seasonal or year-round will also influence the cost of transportation, as seasonal contracts are usually higher in cost (Searcy et al., 2007). Contracting a company to haul the biomass may have certain advantages. Fruin, Stowers, and Tiller (2010) found that when the loading, transport, and unloading of the bales was done by an independent service provider the efficiency increased.

127 120 The transportation distance will have a significant impact on the cost and will therefore determine the most economic mode (truck, rail, or pipeline) of transportation. Road restrictions, conditions, and availability may also affect the transportation distance as weight limits may be further restricted on certain roads. In other cases, the road conditions may be bad due to poor weather or flooding such that trucks will have to be rerouted. The shortest route may also have the most traffic congestion, which the driver may want to avoid to save time. Vehicle engine idling further influences the cost of fuel and labor associated with transportation. The moisture content and bulk density of the biomass feedstock will largely influence the number of trucks or railcars required. Increased moisture content will lead to a higher metric tonnage than dry biomass feedstock. Higher tonnage is associated with higher transportation costs and weight-related transportation restrictions (Sultana & Kumar, 2011). Biomass feedstock with lower bulk density will require more trips by truck or more rail cars since volume capacity could be reached before weight restrictions. Square bales, condensed bales, and densified biomass may help to solve this problem as they have a higher bulk density than large round bales. The cost of loading and unloading will depend on the hours of labor involved and the cost of the equipment whether it be a forklift, a telehandler, or other machinery. According to Mahmudi & Flynn (2006), in North America it typically costs $5/t for loading and unloading a straw or wood chip truck. Bailey-Stamler et al. (2007) estimate the cost of loading and unloading bales to be slightly higher at $6.69/green tonne (16% moisture content). There is also a social cost involved with transporting biomass feedstock to a biorefinery that requires consideration. Residents near a biorefinery or processing facility may express concerns about added traffic it would bring to the area. Nearby residents may be concerned about increased traffic congestion, possible emissions (dusts and odors), and increased noise. It is therefore important to have a plan to alleviate community concerns, such as avoiding delivery very late at night or early in the morning and avoiding loading and unloading during those times. Furthermore, traffic patterns should be considered and worked around if possible to avoid added congestion. Arranging meetings in the community to provide an opportunity for community members to express concerns about changes may alleviate some of these issues Truck Truck transport may be the most economical option for smaller biorefineries. To transport biomass feedstock by truck, a biorefinery can either contract out a company to transport feedstock or purchase their own fleet of trucks and hire drivers. Each has its own advantages. If a company is contracted to do the hauling, very little investment, if any, will be required by the biorefinery since the trucks are owned by the contracted

128 121 company. Aside from labour, maintenance, and trucking fees, the contracted company will require profits and additional overhead, whereas this will not have to be covered for a fleet of trucks owned by the biorefinery. Contracts are usually on a per tonne per kilometer basis. When transporting the biomass feedstock by truck there are a few considerations that are different than other modes of transportation. One such consideration is the highways or roads that will need to support the weight of the truck. According to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (2011), there are four major classifications of roads and highways: primary highways, secondary highways, municipal highways, and year-round weight restricted highways. Each type of highway has its own weight restrictions that will need to be considered, especially when determining maximum allowable tonnage as the truck, trailer, and freight will need to be considered for planning transportation routes. Additionally, there are height, width, and length restrictions that must be legally followed. According to Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation (2006), no vehicle, building, or object can exceed a height of 4.15 m on the road without a special permit. Additionally, no vehicle, building, or object can exceed 2.5 m width unless it is a house trailer or has a special permit. The maximum vehicle length depends on the type of vehicle/trailer combination. A list of vehicle types and their maximum allowable lengths can be found in Appendix III, Table A-12. The number of hours a driver is allowed to drive and the number of drivers available could have an impact on the labour costs associated with transportation and should be considered if the biorefinery decides to purchase their own fleet of trucks rather than contracting out. According to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (2011), a driver requires at least 10 hours of off-duty time each day, which constitutes a 24 hour period from midnight to midnight. Regulations limit the amount of commercial driving in a day to 13 hours, with no commercial driving after 14 hours of on-duty time. Regulations also limit diving to no more than 70 hours in seven days and no more than 120 hours in 14 days. If there is unplanned adverse weather a driver may not exceed regulated commercial driving time by more than two hours. In this case, adverse driving conditions must also be logged. There are many truck and trailer combinations common to Canadian trucking operations which can be used to transport biomass feedstock. The type of truck/trailer combination used will depend on the form of the biomass feedstock. For bales of any type, the most common trailer used is a flat deck trailer, whereas for other types of feedstock dry bulk trailers are used. The size of the truck and trailer can have a significant impact on cost. A larger truck may lower the transportation cost, reducing the number of trips required. However, to determine how much benefit using a larger truck may provide, it must be

129 122 compared with the costs of smaller semi-tractor trailer combinations. The most common tractors and trailers that would be used to haul biomass feedstock such as bales and densified biomass are as follows (Logistics Solution Builders Inc., 2005): Tractor for a five-axle semi configuration: 380 horsepower, tractor tare weight 7,620 kg, 87,100 lb Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW), Tractor for a six-axle semi configuration: 430 horsepower, tractor tare weight 7,938 kg, 100,000 lb GVW Tractor for an eight-axle semi configuration: 475 horsepower, tractor tare weight 7,938 kg, 140,000 lb GVW Flat deck trailer: common with five-axle (trailer weight = 5,897 kg), six-axle (trailer weight = 6,804 kg), and eight-axle (trailer weight = 8,845 kg) semi configurations Bulk dry trailer: common with five-axle (trailer weight = 9,616 kg) and eight-axle (trailer weight = 9,980 kg per trailer) semi configurations Common combinations of the tractors and trailers can be found in Figure 9-7 to Figure Figure 9-7. Five-axle semi configuration (flat deck trailer). Figure 9-8. Six-axle semi configuration (flat deck trailer).

130 123 Figure 9-9. Eight-axle semi configuration (flat deck trailer). Figure Five-axle semi configuration (bulk dry trailer). Figure Eight-axle semi configuration (bulk dry trailer). Cundiff and Grisso (2008) examined two additional options for the truck transport of large round bales. In their analysis, they looked at hauling the bales in a 12.2 m ISO container capable of holding 32 bales at 20% moisture content. A truck equipped with a

131 124 chassis and a truck equipped with a Swinglift trailer were both assessed for loading and unloading the ISO container in this scenario. The chassis had an annual operating and ownership cost of $5,810 and the Swinglift trailer had an annual operating and ownership cost of $41,760. Taking the costs of loading and unloading the ISO container onto the truck into consideration, they found that the Swinglift trailer system had a cost that was 7.3% higher than the cost of using a chassis and a forklift for the ISO container. Cundiff and Grisso noted that an ISO container for bales is not commercially available, the concept of packing bales into an ISO container is not proven, and the cost of the ISO container requires further consideration as it was not included in the analysis. Forklift costs were not considered in their analysis. The time it took to pack and unpack the ISO containers with the forklift (30 minutes) was also the limiting factor, as only 16 containers would be able to be hauled in a ten-hour work day. They suggest that with proper scheduling, the cost of using the forklift could be reduced since wait times would be minimized. Cundiff et al. (2004) also assessed two other logistics options for a preprocessing plant: a walking floor trailer with the ability to self-unload onto a bale conveyor at the plant and a trailer with a bale frame system capable of holding 32 bales for which the entire frame would be unloaded from the trailer with a gantry crane at the plant. The cost for the walking floor trailer with expanding sides and a hydraulic module was estimated to be $67,450 total ($18,730 annually including operating costs, interest rate of 8%, and design life of five years). The cost of the chassis to haul the removable frames was estimated to be $10,400 total ($4,410 annually including operating costs, interest rate of 8%, and design life of five years). The cost of the frame required for the bales was estimated to be $15,000 total ($2,485 annual including operating costs, interest rate of 8%, and ten-year design life). They estimate the cost of the gantry crane for the unloading of the frame carrying the bales at the plant to be $300,000 total ($40,700 annually including operating costs, interest rate of 8%, and design life of 30 years). Allowable Load: The load capacity of the truck will determine the number of trips that must be made. The maximum allowable weight load varies depending on the type of road. The weight load can be determined using the gross vehicle weight (GVW), which refers to the combined load and vehicle weight that the truck is licensed to carry. The GVWs of associated tractor trailer combinations, according to Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation (2006), are shown in Table 9-4. The GVWs for secondary highways and winter conditions are also available from Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation; they further limit the load capacity.

132 125 Table 9-4. Allowable load in tonnes for primary highways in Saskatchewan based on the combined tractor trailer weight and the GVW. Truck Type Tractor and semi-trailer five axles (flat deck) Tractor and semi-trailer five axles (dry bulk) Tractor and semi-trailer six axles (flat deck) Truck B train eight axles (flat deck) Combined Tractor and Trailer Weight (kg) a Primary Highways GVW (kg) b Allowable Load (tonnes) 13,517 39, ,236 39, ,742 46, ,628 62, Truck B train eight axles (dry bulk) 27,898 62, a Logistics Solution Builders Inc., 2005 b Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation, 2006 Both weight and volume constraints limit the quantity of biomass that can be hauled per load. When the biomass feedstock is in bale form, the loads are usually limited by volume restrictions. The volumetric capacity of a tandem (five-axle truck) or tridem (six-axle truck) flat deck trailer varies from 70 m 3 to 100 m 3 depending on manufacturer and the volumetric capacity of a B-train (eight-axle truck) flat deck trailer can vary from 95 m 3 to 140 m 3 depending on the manufacturer. These estimates account for width, length, and height restrictions (Suh & Suh, 2010; Bailey-Stamler et al., 2007; Doepker Trailers, 2011). In contrast, higher bulk density feedstock such as pellets will have loads limited by weight restrictions. Densified feedstock would be hauled by a dry bulk trailer. Tandem and tridem trailers have a volumetric capacity ranging from 40 m 3 to 60 m 3 and B-trains would have a capacity of 80 m 3 to 90 m 3 (Doepker Trailers, 2011). Table 9-5 illustrates the effect of volume and load restrictions for several trailer types. Note that for flat deck trailers hauling bales, the volumetric capacity is reached before the allowable load. For dry bulk trailers hauling pellets, the allowable weight is reached before the volumetric capacity. The optimal bulk density of the payload was calculated by dividing the allowable load by the volumetric capacity for each trailer type. Note that for bales, a slight increase in bulk density is all that is required to optimize transportation by truck. Bale compression systems designed to increase the bulk density by 20% to 30% would satisfy this requirement. The bulk density of pellets exceeds the optimal bulk density of biomass that can be hauled by truck using dry bulk trailers. Therefore, the costs associated with producing high density pellets may be resulting in further inefficiencies down the supply chain. For densified material, a lower bulk density would

133 126 optimize transportation so briquettes (which require less energy to produce) might provide the most economical solution. Table 9-5. Effect of volume and load restrictions for several trailer types. Trailer Type Five-axle flat deck (bales) Six-axle flat deck (bales) Eight-axle flat deck (bales) Five-axle dry bulk (pellets) Eight-axle dry bulk (pellets) Volumetric Capacity (m 3 ) Allowable Load (tonnes) Bulk Density of Payload (kg/m 3 ) Volume of Load if Maximum Weight is Used (m 3 ) Weight of Load if Maximum Volume is Used (tonnes) Optimal Bulk Density of Payload (kg/m 3 ) to 255 (1) 102 to to to 255 (1) 125 to to to 255 (1) 145 to to to to to a 550 to to to (1) Assuming that literature values represent bulk density of several bales stacked together. Range includes both large round and large square bales (Refer to Table 9-2). (a) Lighter weight dry bulk trailers can have tonnage capacities as high as 42 tonnes (Ray s Trucking, personal communication, March 29, 2012) Cost Estimates: According to Logistics Solution Builders Inc. (2005), labour and fuel account for the greatest cost components in transporting by a tractor/trailer unit. A breakdown of the percentage of cost a component accounts for can be found in Appendix III, Table A-13. There are a wide variety of studies that assess the cost of biomass feedstock transport either based on inquiries to trucking companies for a certain distance and feedstock or by developing a formula that takes into account fixed and variable costs for a particular feedstock over a variable distance. However, there are many gaps using these methods of cost analysis as estimates from trucking companies will be based on a particular biomass feedstock at a set distance and the formulas do not account for cost changes and trailer type. According to Bailey-Stamler et al. (2007), the cost of transporting wheat, oat, and barley straw a distance of 50 km in Alberta is $16.72/t. According to them, in 2006, an Ontariobased company transported 20 tonnes of baled switchgrass at approximately 291 kg/bale with 12% moisture content at $300/trip or $15/t. This cost included $66.66 for loading per trip and $33.33 for unloading per trip. They suggest that using large bales as feedstock may help reduce loading/unloading costs. The cost estimate per tonnage also included per km costs based on a trip length of less than 200 km at $1.25/km. For trips less than 100 km, the cost per km would have been $2.00/km.

134 127 Cameron, Kumar, and Flynn (2004) determined that the cost of supplying straw 38 km on average to a 50 MW straw fired plant in western Canada would be $9.00/t (2003 $CAD) based on a moisture content of 16%. They suggest that a 450 MW straw firing plant is the maximum size as anything greater would cause traffic congestion. To deliver feedstock to a 450 MW plant, one truck would arrive every four minutes. Therefore, for straw-fired facilities requiring greater than 450 MW, it is recommended that more than one unit is built. The 450 MW plant would have an average transportation distance of 116 km in western Canada, depending on available agricultural crop residue with an average transportation cost of $18.50/t ($US). Sokhansanj and Fenton (2006) assessed switchgrass transport costs using the bulk density of 36 large square bales (1.2 m x 1.2 m x 2.4 m), ground biomass (assumed bulk density of 140 kg/m 3 ), and pellets (assumed bulk density of 580 kg/m 3 ) by truck in western Canada. Their cost breakdown for transportation of large square bales, ground biomass, and pellets is shown in Table 9-6. It was unclear in the study if the authors accounted for the higher cost of the style of trailer required to haul bulk materials. Table 9-6. Cost of transporting switchgrass as large square bales, ground biomass, and pellets a variable distance (20 km to 100 km) (adapted from Sokhansanj and Fenton, 2006). Transport Operations Square Bales ($/t) Ground Biomass ($/t) Pellets ($/t) Load Transport Unload Stack 0.36 Grind 5.65 Overall Wood and Layzell (2003) estimate the cost of baling in addition to transportation by truck. They based their cost analysis on the assumption that a producer would not want the straw and would be willing to give it away if they did not have to collect it. In this estimate a 50 km radius was considered to have a $33.00/t cost associated with the collection and transport of uncovered bales, with an extra $1.65/t cost if a protective covering was used to cover the bales. Others estimate a cost of transporting baled straw a distance of 50 km to be approximately $24.69/green tonne, taking into account loading/unloading costs and costs per km (Bailey-Stamler, Samson, & Ho Lem, 2007). Other studies assessed truck transport costs of one particular biomass feedstock based on a developed formula to estimate costs as shown in Table 9-7. Using a formula to determine the costs meant that other researchers could use it as a cost estimate for variable distances, rather than just stating a cost for a specific distance. The formulas developed determine the cost based on the summation of the fixed and variable cost components. This method, however, does not consider the bulk density of various forms of biomass feedstock or the different types of trailers required to haul different forms of biomass. Transportation costs are quite variable from place to place and change from

135 128 year to year based on fuel and labour costs. This is important to note as many studies developed cost estimates in 2011 that were based on cost estimates from the year Table 9-7. Transport cost estimate formulas used in various studies, where overall truck transport cost = fixed + variable cost and adjustments for inflation to 2011 costs are shown in brackets. Reference a) Kumar, Sokhansanj, & Flynn (2006) b) Kumar et al. (2003), also used by Mahmudi & Flynn (2006) and Miao, Shastri, Grift, Hansen, & Ting (2011) Fixed Cost Component ($/dry t) 3.31 to 6.76 (3.67 to 7.49) Variable Cost Component ($/dry t-km) 0.05 to 0.19 (0.06 to 0.21) (5.97) 1 (0.16) 1 1 Note that cost estimates for this formula were based on the year 2000 Applicable Notes Cost of trucking biomass feedstock in general Transporting straw bales using midrange cost estimates found in other studies Suh & Suh (2010) conducted a comprehensive analysis of biomass feedstock transportation for the cellulosic ethanol industry including a detailed account of all of their cost estimates. They accounted for numerous factors including administration and licensing costs, purchase and salvage values, interest rates, operating costs, labor rates, etc. Their assumed cost estimates are shown in Table 9-8 and also adjusted for inflation according to the Bank of Canada (2011). They also considered a road winding factor to account for the fact that biomass transport is not in a radial straight line from the biorefinery.

136 129 Table 9-8. Cost estimates and considerations based on USD (Suh and Suh, 2010). Parameter Consideration (costs are based on year 2007) Capacity (m 3 ) 68 Maximum load (tonne) 20 Cargo type (bale) Flat bed trailer Cargo type (pellets, cubes) Dry bulk trailer Fuel Diesel Fuel efficiency (km/l) 2.93 Costs Adjusting for Inflation to Year 2011 Fuel cost ($/L) Trip Round-trip Lifetime of truck and trailer (years) 10 Driving miles (km/year) 75,000 Driver labour cost ($/hr) Taxes, insurance, licence ($/year) 3, Repair cost ($/year) 2, Purchase/salvage price of truck ($) 110,000/33, ,340/33,502 Purchase/salvage price of trailer ($) 55,000/16,500 59,170/17,751 Interest rate (%) 7 They found that round bales are the least cost option for a biorefinery producing up to 277 million litres of ethanol per year. They found that pellet transportation is the least cost option for a biorefinery producing more than 277 million litres of ethanol per year. However, it appears that these estimates do not account for the higher cost of a dry bulk trailer or maximum load restrictions. Logistics Solution Builders Inc. (2005) conducted a comprehensive analysis of trucking costs for Transport Canada. Their methodology was very similar to Suh and Suh s estimation method; however, all of their costs were based on information from Canadian provincial semi-tractor and trailer dealerships (including Saskatchewan). In their estimates, taxes were not included for trailers due to the fact that fleet operators can claim offsetting GST credits. Table 9-9 shows their price estimates and an inflation adjustment to 2011 dollars. In their assessment, they estimated the salvage value based on relating the equipment write-off to current replacement cost rather than using a book value determination. They based salvage value on a depreciation of one percent per month over eight years for trailers and 79.2% depreciation for tractors. They suggest that for median utilization ( km/yr) operators will keep a truck for five years and a trailer for eight years.

137 130 Table 9-9. Purchase price and salvage value estimates for Saskatchewan tractor and trailer dealerships for common Canadian trucks (adapted from Logistics Solution Builders Inc, 2005). Tractors Equipment Tractor for five-axle semi combination Tractor for six-axle semi combination Tractor for eight-axle semi combination Trailers Flat deck trailer for five-axle semi combination Bulk dry trailer for five-axle semi combination Flat deck trailer for six-axle semi combination Flat deck trailer for eight-axle semi combination Bulk dry trailer for eight-axle semi combination Purchase Cost/Salvage Value in 2005 $Cdn (2011 $Cdn) 121,910/25,357 (136,485/28,389) 129,400/26,915 (144,870/30,133) 134,750/28,028 (150,860/31,379) 24,610/9,378 (27,552/10,499) 100,310/38,223 (112,303/42,793) 29,960/11,416 (33,542/12,781) 42,800/16,309 (47,917/18,259) 167,850/63,959 (187,917/71,606) PAMI verified costs reported in Logistics Solution Builders Inc. (2005). PAMI found that the costs reported for dry bulk trailers in Logistics Solution Builders Inc. were higher than the cost of typical grain trailers which could be used to haul densified biomass, as they may have taken into account other types of dry bulk trailers in their analysis. PAMI found that the typical purchase price for a five-axle dry bulk grain trailer ranges from approximately $40,000 to $50,000 and a typical purchase price for an eight-axle dry bulk grain trailer ranges from approximately $90,000 to $120,000 (Golden West Trailer & Frontline, personal communication, March 29, 2012). Logistics Solution Builders Inc. (2005) also assessed the licensing fees for Saskatchewan based on the GVW. These costs include: administration, interest on working capital, insurance, and annual borrowing rates from financing. These added costs are shown in Table 9-10.

138 131 Table Annual fees accounting for administration, interest on working capital, insurance, and annual borrowing rates for tractors and trailers (adapted from Logistics Solution Builders, Inc., 2005). Gross Vehicle Weight (kg) Number of Axles Annual fee for Power Unit in 2005 $Cdn (2011 $Cdn) Annual fee for Trailer in 2005 $Cdn (2011 $Cdn) 39, ,378 (2,662) 32 (36) 46, ,495 (2,793) 32 (36) 62, ,041 (4,524) 64 (72) Although there are various cost estimates available for biomass feedstock transportation in the literature, the studies do not compare and contrast the effect of bulk density, biomass feedstock form (pellets, bales, cubes, etc.), biomass feedstock type (switchgrass, wheat straw, etc.), biomass feedstock quantity, travel distance, and truck capacity have on the overall transport cost to a biorefinery. The transportation costs in the model developed in this study (refer to Section 10) accounts for all these factors Transhipment to Railway Trucks are used for the greater portion of biomass transport (approximately 90%); however, rail may be preferred for large biorefineries as traffic congestion is a major issue (Sultana & Kumar, 2011). Whether or not rail transport is more economically feasible than truck transport will depend on the distance the biomass is hauled. In a transhipment model, biomass feedstock is brought to a grain terminal by truck where the biomass is stored until there is sufficient quantity for it to be shipped by rail. Allowable Load: Suh, Suh, Walseth, Bae, and Barker (2011) estimated costs for corn stover transport by railway in Minnesota by assessing costs per rail car required. According to the authors, the volume and weight capacities of a single rail car used to transport ground stover are m 3 and tonnes respectively. Densified biomass feedstock and ground biomass feedstock could be transported by the same type of railcar. Bale transport by rail, on the other hand, would require a different type of railcar. Bale transport by rail generally takes place by flat bed car and is loaded and unloaded by forklifts (Searcy et al., 2007). Cost Estimates: With railway transportation there are different ownership considerations than with a fleet of trucks. Generally, the rail carrier owns the railway tracks but the shipper owns the siding (the small amount of track going to a loading/unloading station) and all unloading and loading equipment (Mahmudi & Flynn, 2006). Additionally, for a long-term contract, the shipper will likely own railcars and have dedicated unit trains. A short-term contract will differ from this as there is a fixed cost based on the cost per rail car and a variable cost based on the distance travelled (Suh et al., 2011). The variable costs associated with rail transport include capital recovery,

139 132 maintenance, fuel, and operating costs. The fixed costs include the costs of rail siding, rail cars, and loading/unloading equipment (Kumar et al., 2006). In a specific case study, Mahmudi and Flynn (2006) assessed a transshipment model in Alberta where straw was brought by truck to a grain terminal for rail transport. They took into account rental fees for land at the grain terminal so that straw could be stored until there was a sufficient quantity (2,650 t) for a 100 car unit train. This size of train is typically used for coal shipments to power plants and for grain shipments. They suggest that most grain elevators have the capacity to load a unit train of this size and that there are lower rates charged by the rail carrier due to the relatively fast turnaround time (i.e. short loading/unloading time). The rail cars themselves are owned by the biorefinery through a purchase agreement or a long-term lease. Mahmudi and Flynn (2006) estimated that the fixed cost to the shipper for rail siding and loading/unloading was $6.74/dry t, and the fixed cost the rail carrier billed to the shipper was $10.27/dry t. This amounted to a total fixed cost of $17.01/dry t charged to the shipper and a variable cost of $0.0277/dry t-km. They noted that the shipper fixed cost component is dependent on the specific case due to loading/unloading costs for different feedstock and varying quantities of rail siding. They noted that rail shipment has a lower variable cost but a higher fixed cost than truck transport; therefore, truck transport is more cost effective for shorter distances. These costs adjusted to 2011 $Cdn, using a 2% annual inflation rate, would be approximately $19.48/dry t for the fixed cost component and $0.0324/dry t-km for the variable cost component. The same costs were used by Kumar et al. (2006) for rail transport. Suh et al. (2011) estimated costs, as shown in Table 9-11, for rail transportation based on quotes for similar transport material types to corn stover in 2007 $US. They found that for Canadian Pacific Rail, the cost of rail transport could be traditionally estimated using variable costs of $0.0091/dry t-km and fixed costs of $35.47/dry t. Adjusted for inflation to 2011 $Cdn, using an average annual inflation rate of 2%, the variable cost would be $ /dry t-km and the fixed cost would be $38.39/dry tonne. It is unclear why the fixed cost estimate in Suh et al. is higher than the estimate in Mahmudi and Flynn (2006). However, the lower variable cost estimate in Suh et al. results in similar total cost estimates when transporting high tonnages (100,000 t) long distances (1,000 km).

140 133 Table Cost considerations for rail transport (Suh & Suh, 2010; Suh et al., 2011). Consideration Parameter Capacity per rail car (m 3 ) Maximum load per rail car (tonne) Fuel Diesel Fuel efficiency (km/l) Rail cost ($) Canadian Pacific ($ per car/$ per km) 1,150/0.118 CP Rail demurrage charges ($/day) 50 to 75 According to Mahmudi and Flynn s (2006) truck and rail transportation estimates, transshipment from truck to rail for a 250 MW (1,180,000 t/yr of feedstock based on t/ha) straw burning power plant in Alberta is not considered to offer an economic advantage over trucking. They suggest that transhipment of straw does not make sense unless there is a minimum rail shipping distance of approximately 170 km or until, based on their case study, a plant size reaches 2,700 MW. However, the optimal size of a straw-fueled power plant ranges from only 250 MW to 750 MW. Mahmudi and Flynn suggest their findings are consistent with discussions with grain terminal personnel who propose that even when a single rail car is available to transport grain alongside a trucking route, the truck would be used to haul the grain up to distances of 300 km. They concluded that the minimum economic shipping distance for rail exceeds the distance from which biomass feedstock is drawn from for a 250 MW plant in Alberta and, therefore, should only be used if traffic congestion is a major problem Pipeline Transporting biomass by pipeline can also reduce traffic congestion. Pipeline transportation of biomass may be applicable for ethanol production plants. For example, a plant producing 960 ML/yr of ethanol would require 15 highway trucks per hour to supply enough biomass feedstock (Kumar et al., 2005). If pipelining or rail transport is not considered, biorefineries would be limited to capacities of one to two million dry tonnes per year due to high traffic congestion. The feasibility of pipeline transportation varies depending on the cost of trucking and specific information such as quantity of biomass feedstock, end use, frequency of required deliveries, type of pipeline, and the size of biorefinery. Kumar et al. (2004) indicated that for pipeline transport to occur, biomass feedstock would be brought from the field to a local inlet station by truck. The inlet stations would then pump a slurry of biomass feedstock, with water as the carrying fluid, to a booster station or to the biorefinery depending on the distance. They suggest that other carrier fluids, such as heavy gas oil, can be used but would result in a fuel that is greater than 30% oil on a mass basis and approximately two thirds oil on a thermal basis, which defeats the main purpose of using biomass feedstock.

141 134 According to Kumar et al. (2005), pipeline transport of biomass feedstock within a slurry to an ethanol producing plant is not a concern since fermentation is already an aqueous process. Mahmudi & Flynn (2006) suggest that if biomass feedstock is to be used for combustion, the feedstock would absorb the carrier fluid and become too wet for combustion. They suggest that transporting biomass feedstock in slurry through a pipeline only makes sense for end uses such as fermentation or supercritical gasification. Problems associated with high moisture content biomass includes reduced combustion temperature, poor ignition, delayed volatile release, and higher volumes of flue gas. Therefore, although pipeline transport may be satisfactory for transport to an ethanol conversion facility, it is not satisfactory for other applications that require dry feedstock. To pump the slurry through larger pipelines, Kumar et al. (2005) recommend that an increased number of inlet and booster stations would be required. Suh et al. (2011) indicate that the number of booster stations required for pipeline transport will depend on the head loss associated with different pipe diameters, the concentration of solids in the slurry, and friction in the pipe caused by the through movement of the slurry. They recommend that the maximum pipeline length between booster stations should be no greater than 75 km for 2.0 million dry tonnes of biomass feedstock per year. Electricity demands for the inlet and booster stations are estimated at 72,170 MWh and 72,228 MWh respectively. Kumar et al. (2004) noted that pipelines can either be one- or two-way. In one-way pipelines, the carrier fluid is discharged or reused at the outlet station/biorefinery. It is important to check with local regulations prior to discharge of the carrier fluid in case it is prohibited. For two-way pipelines, the carrier fluid is sent back to the numerous inlets to be reused as a carrier fluid. Two-way pipelines are more costly than one way pipelines, and are therefore only feasible at higher biomass feedstock quantities. Allowable Load: Kumar et al. (2004) suggest that one-way pipeline transport of biomass feedstock (based on woodchips) requires at least 0.5 million dry tonnes per year and a two-way pipeline would require at least 1.25 million dry tonnes per year to be economical. They recommend that at 2.0 million dry tonnes per year, the economical distance for a one-way pipeline is 75 km. For a two-way pipeline, the economical distance is 470 km. Cost Estimates: According to Kumar et al. (2005), there are both fixed and variable costs associated with transporting biomass feedstock by pipeline. All pipeline costs are dependent on the scale of the operation. For a pipeline, the fixed costs include the cost of the facilities at the inlets and outlet of the pipeline. The variable costs on the other hand are dependent on distance and account for costs associated with capital recovery (depreciation and return) for the pipeline and stations, operating the pipeline, and

142 135 maintaining the pipeline. Kumar et al. claim that the fixed costs associated with the pipeline are relatively low compared to variable costs, such as the cost of the actual pipeline. The costs Kumar et al. (2005) estimate for the variable costs associated with pipeline transport of biomass feedstock (corn stover) to an ethanol biorefinery can be found in Table They suggest that the fixed costs, based on pipelining woodchips, for the inlet and outlet facilities are low and only account for 15% of the total investment. They found that the fixed cost associated with wood chip transportation by pipeline at a capacity of 2.0 million dry tonnes per year was $1.50/dry tonne for a one-way pipeline and $1.47/dry tonne for a two-way pipeline. At a capacity of 1.0 million dry tonnes per year, the fixed cost associated with wood chip transportation by pipeline was $2.63/dry tonne for a one-way pipeline and $2.65/dry tonne for a two-way pipeline. The authors noted that this is significantly less than the fixed costs associated with trucking biomass feedstock. Another estimate of pipeline transportation costs by Kumar et al. (2006) found that the fixed cost was $1.82/dry t and the variable cost was $0.11/dry t/km for a pipeline capacity of 2.0 million dry tonnes per year.

143 136 Table Cost estimates for the transportation of biomass feedstock by pipeline based on plant capacity, solids concentration, pipeline diameter, and one-way distance (Kumar et al., 2005). Solids Concentration (wet basis) (%) Capacity (M dry tonnes/yr) Diameter of Pipeline (m) Variable Cost ($/dry t-km) Distance Between Pump Stations (km) After their cost analysis, Kumar et al. (2005) found that at 20% solids concentration (wet basis) a one-way pipeline transport of 1.4 million dry tonnes per year or more of corn stover to an ethanol biorefinery cost less than midrange trucking costs despite the high capital costs associated with a pipeline. They suggest that at 1.0 million to 2.0 million dry tonnes per year, truck congestion should be a major challenge and would limit the size of the biorefinery. Therefore, pipelining feedstock to an ethanol biorefinery would allow for higher biomass feedstock capacities. Using pipeline information from Kumar et al. (2005), Suh et al. (2011) found that the cost of transporting corn stover biomass feedstock by pipeline to an ethanol biorefinery was also less than truck transport or rail transport. Rail transport was the highest cost option for transporting biomass feedstock in the scenario studied by Suh et al. (2011) Transportation Losses In addition to collection losses, there will be losses associated with transporting the bale from the field to the biorefinery. Losses occurring during transport are considerably lower than losses associated with collection. Grisso et al. (2009) suggest that approximately 1% to 10% of the yield may be lost when transporting the bale from the field to a storage or utilization site. Sanderson et al. (1997) found that biomass loss over an 11 mile (18 km) transport distance was only 0.4% of the bale weight (including handling losses).

144 Storage Biomass feedstock delivery and storage are important to consider for satisfying year-round demand, keeping costs low, and preventing spoilage. The biomass feedstock bulk density will determine the number of required deliveries as well as the storage cost and requirements. Proper storage plays an important part in the quality of biomass feedstock. A storage facility should serve the purpose of keeping the biomass dry and in good condition to prevent moisture uptake and spoilage. The facility should be conveniently located for facilitated transfer to the next step in the supply chain. There are four possible storage locations: on farm, at a centralized location, at a densification/processing facility, or at the biorefinery. At these storage locations, biomass feedstock can either be stored outside, under a roof, or ensiled. Aside from the type of storage, additional considerations will be required. According to Cundiff and Grisso (2008), storage is an issue for biomass feedstock that has been harvested using a forage harvester. Unlike combines, forage harvesters do not have a storage mechanism within the machine. The high-dump wagons require a truck to be available for dumping. The truck can haul the biomass to a conversion facility, unload, and return so that the high-dump wagon and consequently the forage harvester are not stopped. If this process is scheduled perfectly, the biomass feedstock in the high-dump wagon should not have to be dumped on the ground for later pick up by a truck, which adds to the costs involved. However, creating an optimal schedule for deliveries and harvest poses many challenges. The need for appropriate storage will increase depending on the size of the biorefinery. Additionally, certain storage sites may require a scale to determine the cost based on tonnage for storage or delivery. For delivery, storage sites should have all-weather road access with appropriate weight and axle restrictions (Fruin et al., 2010) Outside Storage Although it is associated with the lowest capital and operating costs, outside storage of biomass feedstock is generally considered to be only temporary for the duration of the harvest season due to its relatively high dry matter losses. For outside storage, tarps may be used to protect biomass feedstock from the weather, as shown in Figure 9-12, especially if outside storage will be used for a prolonged duration. Storage of biomass outside on crushed rock on a reusable tarp was found to be the most cost-effective method for storing biomass (Khanna, 2008).

145 138 Figure Tarp storage of hay to prevent spoilage. Bales can also be wrapped prior to storage to prevent biomass losses. Ideally, bales would not be stored on sod as this is associated with the most significant loss to spoilage (Shastri et al., 2009; Sanderson et al., 2007). Bales can be wrapped with twine, net wrapped as shown in Figure 9-13, or plastic wrapped with silage wrap as shown in Figure One study wrapped sorghum bales with SUNFILM silage wrap to a 3 mm thickness to inhibit oxygen transfer during storage (Hartley et al., 2009).

146 139 Figure Net wrapped bales in storage. Figure Bales wrapped in plastic silage wrap. It has been suggested that on-farm storage can substantially decrease the overall cost in the biomass feedstock supply system (Fruin et al., 2010). There are many different options for biomass storage: outside on sod, outside on gravel, outside on concrete or asphalt, and covered storage. The majority of farm-storage options do not use covered storage.

147 Covered Storage Covered storage, although more expensive, would be necessary for long-term storage to minimize dry matter loss (Shastri et al., 2009). Covered storage, such as that shown in Figure 9-15, would either be located at the farmgate or at a centralized location. According to Shastri et al. (2009), there is a variety of covered storage options for baled biomass feedstock. These options include a pole-framed structure with one side open, all sides open, all sides closed, or a storage shed with or without a concrete floor. Aside from building a covered storage facility, there would be additional costs associated with land, insurance, repairs, labour, and fans. Although covered storage under a roof is the most expensive option, it minimizes the problem of the tarp or plastic sheeting blowing off in windy conditions. Figure Large rectangular bales of switchgrass stored in a covered shed. Sokhansanj et al. (2003) note that in the forage industry pellets and cubes are stored in a flat storage building or steel bins. According to Sokhansanj and Turhollow (n.d), finely ground and pelleted biomass have storage characteristics comparable to grain; therefore, they can share the same handling equipment and be stored in grain bins. Based on PAMI s experience, however, storage of ground biomass and pellets in grain bins may be problematic as bridging occurred when the material flowed through the hopper. There must also be storage available at the preprocessing facility and biorefinery. On-site storage at either facility will usually consist of a gravel, crushed stone, or concrete floor with drainage (Fruin et al., 2010).

148 Ensiling Ensiling is another option for biomass storage, but it is not common since it is generally targeted towards a higher moisture content biomass used for feed. During ensiling, the biomass feedstock is sealed off from the ambient environment using plastic sheeting to create an anaerobic environment. Sugars in the feedstock should be adequate in most cases for the production of lactic acid that in turn kills most microbes (Lewandowski et al., 2000) Storage Costs The cost of storage will likely be the determining factor in deciding the method of storage that is used. The cost estimates in the literature for storage are extremely variable. The Research Park (2009) suggested that the cost of biomass feedstock storage ranged from $2.00/dry t to $5.00/dry t, depending on the location. According to Cundiff et al. (2004), satellite storage of round bales in a single layer was approximately $3.01/dry t based on the establishment and upkeep of a crushed rock surface. Gustafson et al. (2011) proposed that the cost of outside square bale storage under a tarp was $5.50/t. Storage at a preprocessing facility was expected to cost approximately $10.44/bale (Cundiff et al., 2004). The cost of storage should also take into account the value of biomass losses associated with spoilage. According to Cundiff and Marsh (1996), despite the lower harvest cost of the square bales, their storage requirement was more expensive than round bales that can be net wrapped and stored on crushed rock with only 5% storage/handling losses. To achieve 3% storage/handling losses, the square bales require covered on-farm storage at an annual price of $14.16/dry t. This amounts to a 2011 cost of $19.19/dry t after inflation adjustments according to the Bank of Canada (2011). This covered storage assumes a pole-frame structure at the cost of $86/m 2 ($116.53/m 2 ) with a 15 year life and 8% interest Storage losses How the biomass is stored will have a significant impact on biomass losses, which can be in the range of 5% to 10% of the dry harvested weight (Fruin et al., 2010). Regardless of the type of storage, the storage of biomass with moisture content greater than 15% is not advised to minimize biomass losses due to spoilage (Sokhansanj et al., 2003; Anderson et al., 2011; Lewandowski et al., 2000). If biomass feedstock is stored at cooler temperatures, it can be stored at higher moisture content (up to 20%) for less than one month (Sokhansanj et al., 2003). Furthermore, proper drainage is very important to prevent spoilage and moisture uptake. Round bales store better than square or rectangular bales due to their ability to shed water, as previously discussed (Fruin et al., 2010). Covering the round bales and stacking them in a pyramid will further prevent the bales from acquiring moisture (Fruin et al., 2010).

149 142 Shinners et al. (2010) found that dry round bales of switchgrass and reed canarygrass stored outside for 293 days to 334 days had higher average dry matter losses than bales stored under a cover (3% average dry matter loss). The bales stored outside were wrapped by plastic film (3.8% average dry matter loss), breathable film wrap (4.8% average dry matter loss), net wrap (7.5% average dry matter loss), plastic twine (8.7% average dry matter loss), and sisal twine (14.9% average dry matter loss). Sanderson et al. (1997) evaluated switchgrass bale storage over a six-month and twelve-month period in Texas. The six-month storage period involved switchgrass bale (1.19 m long x 1.39 m diameter) storage outside on sod. The twelve-month period storage conditions involved switchgrass bale (1.17 m long x 1.76 m diameter) storage outside on sod, outside on gravel, and inside. Sanderson et al. found that the smaller diameter bales stored outside on the sod for the six-month condition were associated with a greater percent loss by weight (13%) than the larger diameter bales stored outside on sod for 12 months (5.6% and 6.0% depending on year harvested). The inside storage condition was associated with the least loss at 2.2% of the original weight. The outside gravel storage condition was associated with a storage loss of 4.0% and 4.7% of the original weight depending on year harvested. They also found that bales stored on the sod had a large rotten area where the bale had been in contact with the ground; they suggest that this may have led to the greater losses of the smaller diameter bales. Shinners et al. (2010) found that, aside from dry matter losses, there can also be cellulose and hemicellulose losses during the storage of dry bales. Although cellulose losses were attributed to general dry matter loss, as lignin generally acts as a physical barrier, which prevents losses of cellulose and hemicellulose, hemicellulose concentration reduction was attributed to the grasses having enzymes that break down the hemicellulose over time.

150 Logistics Spreadsheet Model The spreadsheet model accompanying this report can be used to obtain a rough estimate for the total delivered cost, delivered cost per tonne, and delivered cost per gigajoule of various forms of biomass feedstock. The model is useful for comparing the relative costs among different supply chains (bales vs pellet transport) for varying distances and for comparing the costs among different biomass crops (straw vs annual vs perennial dedicated crops). Many estimates and assumptions used in the spreadsheet model will affect total cost; those estimates and assumptions are discussed in this section. The cost estimates in the model were validated with literature in cases where the literature values were well defined. Case studies were also used to demonstrate the usefulness of the model Estimates/Assumptions The PAMI logistics model can be used to compare the costs of producing, processing, and transporting various dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues. The costs in this model will vary from farm to farm and case to case. The spreadsheet model allows the user to input many factors that are known to them and outputs information pertaining to the cost of the feedstock based on the user inputs. The key input is the area providing biomass (ha) which can be the actual area available or based on a required tonnage and the expected yield data provided on the user input page (based on soil zone or rural municipality). The user is also asked to indicate the biomass crop (from a selection of 19), the degree of profit margin for the producer, the type of processing (field side vs centralized) and the average one-way transport distance(s). There were many assumptions and estimates that were used in the spreadsheet model. Therefore, these costs should only be used as a very general guideline. It should be noted that all of the information used and reasoning behind the assumptions used for the spreadsheet model has been taken from information already presented in this document. The following factors were considered to develop the estimates and assumptions associated with dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues (unless otherwise indicated): Zero tillage practice (except miscanthus) Seed and rhizome cost and seeding rates for dedicated biomass crops only Seedbed preparation equipment cost for dedicated biomass crops only Establishment year fertility cost for dedicated biomass crops only Fertility replacement for biomass taken off field Fertility application equipment cost for dedicated biomass crops only Hauling cost for fertility for dedicated biomass crops only Herbicide cost for dedicated biomass crops only

151 144 Spraying equipment cost for dedicated biomass crops only Seeding equipment cost for dedicated biomass crops only Harvesting equipment cost (cutting) for dedicated biomass crops only Collection equipment cost (baling/forage harvesting) Hauling equipment to haul biomass feedstock from field to field-side for pickup or densification/preprocessing Fuel and labour associated with farm equipment Profit margin to the producer for crop residues only Compensation to the producer to account for land, insurance, profit costs for dedicated biomass crops only Annual vs perennial growth (costs for establishment and reseeding perennial crops annualized over the life of the crop) Potential biomass yield based on soil zone or rural municipality Collection and storage loss (transportation losses considered negligible) Bulk density of biomass feedstock Round-trip distance for transport costs Economic life of semi-tractors and trailers before being sold Average yearly kilometers put on truck Volume and weight restrictions for trailers (assuming no over-width or over-weight permits) Purchase price and expected salvage value of all semi-tractors and trailers considered (five-axle, six-axle, eight-axle, flat deck, bulk dry) Annualized costs per truck based on depreciation, interest costs (60% owned, 40% financed), and annual fees/licensing requirements Repair, maintenance, fuel and truck driver labor costs for trucks Loading/unloading costs and associated labor Field scale versus centralized scale densification units and their respective annual throughput capacities, costs, and operation hours Pelleting and briquetting labour, electricity, operating, repair, and maintenance costs Pelleting and briquetting loading/unloading equipment Property taxes for centralized scale pelleting and briquetting plants only Depreciation for pelleting and briquetting buildings, storage/receiving station, and equipment Pelleting and briquetting plant capital costs associated with site preparation, buildings, receiving station, scale, storage, various types of plant equipment, project management, installation fees, freight fees, and engineering fees Cost of energy required for drying and torrefaction Capital, operating, repair, and maintenance costs for torrefaction equipment Mass loss associated with torrefaction used for determining pelleting, transport, and total costs

152 145 Reduced energy requirement for pelleting torrefied biomass Higher heating values for both nontorrefied and torrefied biomass feedstock Tub grinder ownership and operating costs for the preprocessing of bales at the biorefinery The following factors were not considered for estimates or assumptions for various reasons: Shipment cost for seed (highly variable) Pesticide cost (highly variable) Stone removal cost (highly variable) Straw residue required for soil conservation (highly variable it is up to the user to account for this when entering the acreage available for biomass production) Profit margin for truck transport (cost estimate already conservative) Storage costs unless otherwise indicated (highly variable) Variations in bulk densities from crop to crop (lack of information) Drying operations (assumed to be not required for agricultural biomass) Pellet and briquette bagging, palleting, and marketing (may not be used) Wait times/queues and traffic congestion (considered in other models reported in the literature) Efficiency of the combustion process (costs based on the supply chain only) User Inputs Prior to using the spreadsheet model, the user should consult the soil zone map provided on the main output sheet of the spreadsheet model to determine which soil zones or rural municipalities biomass feedstock will be drawn from. The user must also know the amount of land available for production (or calculate the land available based on required tonnage and the expected yield for that soil zone), and the maximum expected travel distance either from the farm or storage site to the biorefinery or from the farm to a centralized facility and then to the biorefinery. The user will be prompted to enter in the amount of land (hectares) available for production and either the soil zone or rural municipality the feedstock will be grown in. When entering the amount of land available for production, if the user knows a percentage of yield that would be required for soil conservation, they subtract that percentage away from their available land so it will be accounted for in the potential yield. If the user knows the soil zone from which the biomass will be drawn, they can input up to two different soil zones and the relative percentage of area covered by each zone. If the user does not know the soil zone, there is also the option to input up to 25 different rural municipalities for which up to two soil zones will automatically be considered based on the soil zones contained in those rural municipalities.

153 146 Following the input of these values, the user will be asked to select one or more feedstocks from a list. The program then computes the total available tonnage of each feedstock assuming the amount of land from the user input is available to produce each crop. For example, if the user inputs 100 ha of land, along with switchgrass and wheat straw for feedstocks, the program will assume 100 ha of land is available to grow switchgrass and 100 ha is available from which to collect wheat straw. When comparing costs associated with different feedstocks, the user must select one feedstock at a time. The user will then be asked whether or not they would like to use a default producer compensation of $247.15/ha to account for land cost, insurance, and producer profit associated with dedicated biomass crops. If not, they are prompted to input a new value they wish to use. The user will also be asked if they would like to use a producer profit margin for the collection of agricultural crop residues. Both input messages will come up regardless of the feedstock the user has chosen. Next, the user will be prompted to enter in an average one-way travel distance. It is up to the user whether or not they would like to be conservative. It should be noted that the spreadsheet model adds a 20% road-winding factor to the distance provided by the user. The model then considers a two-way transport distance when calculating costs. There are two transportation scenarios assessed in this model. 1. The biomass feedstock is transported to the field for storage pickup in bale or forage harvested form or the biomass feedstock is densified field-side 2. The biomass feedstock is transported in bale or forage harvested form to a centralized facility where the biomass is densified and stored for transport to a biorefinery Production The costs associated with agricultural residue (e.g. wheat straw) production and with dedicated energy crop (e.g. switchgrass) production were different. The production costs for dedicated energy crops include seedbed preparation equipment, seed, seeding equipment, fertility (for establishment), fertility replacement (after harvest), spraying equipment, herbicides, harvesting equipment, collection equipment, and hauling equipment. Since crop residues are considered by-products of cereal and oilseed crop production, the production costs for agricultural crop residues are solely based on fertility replacement, collection equipment, and hauling equipment. The cost estimates used in the spreadsheet model should not be used only as a guideline. It is ultimately up to the producer, through consultation with an agrologist, to decide what inputs should be used on their field for a particular crop. For this reason, costs used in this model may be considered by some producers to be too high or too low; if this is the case, costs can be modified on a case-to-case basis adjusting for other input and equipment scenarios.

154 147 The cost of land, insurance, and producer profit are considered in the model for dedicated biomass crops. Land costs and insurance will vary substantially in Saskatchewan. Some land has been passed down through generations whereas other land is rented. It is up to the user to estimate this value, but a reasonable default value of $247.15/ha (approx. $100.00/acre) is used if this value is not known. Land, insurance, and producer profit are then added to the total cost at farmgate. For example, if the user inputs a value of $150/ha to account for land costs, this value will be converted to $/t based on yield and added to the other production costs to estimate the total farmgate costs. Land and insurance costs are not considered for agricultural crop residues. If the user inputs a 5% profit margin for agricultural crop residues then the model estimates margin as 5% of the production costs (nutrient value and baling cost). For example, if the nutrient value and baling costs for straw total $30.00/t, the total farmgate becomes $31.50/t. The seeding, harvesting, and collection costs take into account whether or not the crop is an annual or a perennial and how many years the crop is produced before complete reseeding is required. The costs are annualized over the years of production by taking a weighted average of the costs. For example, a crop that can produce for 10 years before complete reseeding is required would have one-tenth establishment year costs and nine tenths other year costs. Costs for forage sorghum, forage pearl millet, and the agricultural crop residues are all annualized over one year. Miscanthus is annualized over 15 years and dahurian wildrye is annualized over three years. All other dedicated biomass crops are annualized over 10 years. Seedbed Preparation/Seeding: It was assumed that in the production of all dedicated biomass crops except for miscanthus, zero tillage would be used. Generally, miscanthus requires some tillage to prepare the seedbed for rhizome planting. Furthermore, for seedbed preparation it is assumed that the soil has sufficient alkalinity; therefore, no lime application is required. Stone removal was not considered in the cost of production for seedbed preparation since it is dependent on the particular field and location. Also, the spreadsheet model does not take into account the cost of shipping or hauling seed due to extreme variations in location. For example, some seed may require shipment from Ontario or the United States whereas others may be shipped less than 50 km. The model does, however, take into account the cost of hauling fertilizer for all crops except for miscanthus. It has been noted in Section 6 of this report that miscanthus may not require added fertility unless the soil is deficient. The costs for seeding were annualized over the life of the crop before complete reseeding was thought to be required. In certain cases, it was assumed that 25% reseeding would be required in the second year as previously suggested in this report.

155 148 All seeding rates and costs are shown in Table In the cases where seeding is required in the second year, the two annual costs were added to get the costs associated with seed for various crops. The costs shown in Table 10-1 do not take into account equipment costs. Table Seeding rates and costs used in the spreadsheet model (excluding equipment costs). Crop Seeding Rate Seed Cost Establishment Seed Cost Switchgrass 10 kg/ha $10.01/kg $100.09/ha Western Wheatgrass Northern Wheatgrass 11.2 kg/ha $10.14/kg $113.58/ha 7.9 kg/ha $12.02/kg $94.92/ha Altai wildrye 17 kg/ha $12.13/kg $206.13/ha Dahurian Wildrye Russian Wildrye Mammoth Wildrye Green Needlegrass Forage Sorghum Forage pearl Millet Reed Canarygrass Miscanthus 15 kg/ha $4.32/kg $64.82/ha 6 kg/ha $7.94/kg $47.62/ha 17 kg/ha $34.02/kg $262.35/ha 25 kg/ha $9.02/kg $225.42/ha Annualized Seed Costs $10.01/ha a $2.50/ha e $11.36/ha a $2.84/ha e $9.49/ha a $2.37/ha e $20.61/ha a $5.15/ha e $19.45/ha c $4.86/ha e $4.76/ha a $1.19/ha e $26.23/ha a $6.56/ha e $22.54/ha a $5.64/ha e Total Annualized Seed Cost $12.50/ha $14.20/ha $11.86/ha $25.76/ha $24.31/ha $5.95/ha $32.79/ha $28.18/ha 12 kg/ha $4.41/kg $52.91/ha $52.91/ha d $52.91/ha 11.2 kg/ha $8.82/kg $98.77/ha $98.77/ha d $98.77/ha 5.6 kg/ha $12.13/kg $67.90/ha 12,000 rhizomes/ha a perennial first year seed assuming 10 year production before total re-seeding b perennial first year seed assuming 15 year production before total re-seeding c perennial first year seed assuming 3 year production before total re-seeding d annual seeding e re-seeding costs (assumed to require 25% re-seeding in year 2) $6.79/ha a $1.70/ha e $8.49/ha $0.10/rhizome $2,645.55/ha $176.37/ha b $176.37/ha Fertility: Fertilizer requirements and application rates can vary from farm to farm and should be adjusted based on soil tests and known soil conditions. Fertilizer inputs used in the spreadsheet model are literature based and may not be appropriate for Saskatchewan s cooler, drier climate that may not produce yields as high as other geographical locations despite added fertility. Fertility costs were considered for both dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues. For dedicated biomass crops, it

156 149 was considered as both an input in the establishment year and subsequent years (years two-plus) to replace soil nutrients removed with the collected biomass based on the estimated nutrient content of the biomass feedstock. For agricultural crop residues, the required fertility was considered as a replacement based on the estimated nutrient content of biomass taken off the field. Therefore, the fertility requirement to replace nutrients taken off the field in the form of biomass feedstock was dependant on the potential yield. As previously discussed, miscanthus is efficient at translocating nutrients to the rhizomes and may not require fertility input. Therefore, the spreadsheet model assumes that there is no nutrient application required for miscanthus. This is important to note, since as a result it will decrease the cost of production. Furthermore, the fertility input for sorghum and forage sorghum do not take into account replacement fertility in the second year and beyond since they are annual crops requiring annual fertility. It is assumed in the spreadsheet model that phosphorous and potassium are applied with the seed and act as a seed carrier to facilitate flow and metering for all crops except miscanthus, forage sorghum, and forage pearl millet. It was also assumed that the seedfertilizer mix allows good flow through the seeding system without bridging. The fertilizer blend used in the spreadsheet model was 50% and 50% (NPKS). The small amounts of nitrogen used in all crops except for forage sorghum and forage pearl millet is due to the nitrogen component in fertilizer. In general, perennial grasses do not receive nitrogen in the establishment year due to the potential for weed competition. Forage sorghum and forage pearl millet are annuals for which nitrogen application is required. It is assumed that the fertility application rates used, as shown in Table 10-2, should assist crop establishment without harming the seed or contributing to weed growth.

157 150 Table Fertility application rate estimates used in the spreadsheet. Year 1 (kg/ha) N P K Annualized Year 2+ Year 1 (kg/ha) b (kg/ha) Year 2+ Year 1 (kg/ha) b (kg/ha) Year 2+ (kg/ha) b Cost ($/ha) e Switchgrass 1.65 a c Western Wheatgrass Northern Wheatgrass 1.65 a c 1.65 a c Altai Wildrye 1.65 a c Dahurian Wildrye Russian Wildrye Mammoth Wildrye Green Needlegrass Forage Sorghum Forage Pearl Millet Reed Canarygrass 1.65 a d 1.65 a c 1.65 a c 1.65 a c a c Miscanthus OD OD OD OD OD OD 0 OD = apply only if soil tests show deficiency (OD stands for Only Deficient) a Nitrogen promotes weed competition for grasses in establishment year, only applied due to 11% contained in , which is required for phosphorous b Required fertility rate based on nutrients removed in baled biomass, determined by average dry matter yield c Cost annualized over 10 years of production by taking a weighted average d Cost annualized over 3 years of production by taking a weighted average e Based on fertility costs of $675/t ( ), $805/t ( ), $625/t ( ) The estimated 2012 price for nitrogen ( ) is $675/t, phosphorous ( ) is $805/t, and potassium ( ) is $625/t (B. Frerichs. of CO-OP, personal communication, February 12, 2012). These costs were used in the spreadsheet model to determine the total costs of fertility ($/ha) for dedicated energy crops and agricultural crop residues as shown in Table 10-2 and Table 10-3 respectively. The annualized costs per hectare are dependent on the yield of the crop where the yield was averaged over the life of the crop.

158 151 Table Fertility application rate estimates and estimated total nutrient cost used in the spreadsheet; these estimates are in addition to what would normally be required for the crop if straw was left on the field. Agricultural Crop Residue N (kg/ha) P (kg/ha) K (kg/ha) Annualized Cost ($/ha) Winter Wheat Straw a Spring Wheat Straw a Oat Straw 6.2 c 5.5 b 36.4 b Flax Straw a Barley Straw a Canola Straw a a Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, 2000 b Sawyer, Mallarino, Killorn, & Barnhart, 2011 c Estimate based on estimate that N nutrient value for oat straw is somewhere in between values for wheat and barley (Saskatchewan Soil Conservation); therefore, and average of the two was taken. Herbicide /Pesticides: Herbicide and pesticide usage will vary considerably depending on the location of the field, the year, and the crop. Certain weeds and pests may be a problem for one crop but not another. Chemicals registered for use also vary based on the crop and region. Therefore, the assumptions used in this model were used solely to create a general cost estimate for Saskatchewan. It is important that producers should calculate their own costs based on their knowledge of weeds, pests, and diseases that need to be controlled on their land. Producers should also consult with specialists in their region before using certain chemicals. In the spreadsheet model, only herbicides were considered due to the high variability with pests and pesticide spraying on an as needed basis. The two herbicides used to calculate costs in the spreadsheet model were glyphosate (Round Up Transorb or Vantage Plus Max) at $3.25/L and Curtail M at $17.50/L (B. Frerichs. of CO-OP, personal communication, February 12, 2012). Approximately 2 L/ha of glyphosate is assumed to be applied for total burn-off prior to seeding at $6.5/ha for all dedicated biomass crops except for miscanthus since weeds are already broken up during tillage prior to miscanthus planting. Curtail M is applied by spot spraying assuming 25% of the land will require spraying after seeding for switchgrass, the wheatgrasses, the wild ryegrasses, green needlegrass, miscanthus, and forage pearl millet at an in crop rate of 2 L/ha and a cost of $35/ha (B. Frerichs. of CO-OP, personal communication, February 12, 2012). It is assumed that reed canarygrass would require a full spray of Curtail M following establishment due to poor weed competition. It was also assumed that forage sorghum would be able to out-compete weeds such that a spot spray would not be required. Equipment: The Farm Machinery Custom and Rental Rate Guide (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2010c) was used to gather all information used

159 152 for equipment costs in the spreadsheet model. These costs consider labour, fuel, and the appropriate tractor where pull-type equipment is used. In the spreadsheet model, a $20/hr labor rate was used instead of the $14/hr labor rate indicated by the guide, since it was thought to be representative of current labour rates. For further information on assumptions used to determine the costs used in the spreadsheet model, please consult the Custom and Rental Rate Guide. If the cost per tonne at the farmgate estimated by the model is considered to be high, alternative equipment combinations may help lower the cost. The equipment costs for all crops were calculated on the basis of no tillage with the exception of miscanthus. Miscanthus requires more field preparation than the other dedicated biomass crops since rhizomes require loose soil and greater planting depths. It is assumed that, prior to miscanthus planting, the land would have to be worked with a heavy-duty cultivator and then heavy harrowed to break up lumps. A 12 m cultivator and a 15 m harrow were chosen for this job, since they require the same sized tractor. The annual hours of use for the heavy-duty cultivator were based on the lowest value due to low usage of this type of equipment. The cost of the cultivator was based on small sweeps as small sweeps create less drag than regular sweeps. It was assumed that the equipment used for spraying would be a high-clearance sprayer and a gas truck would be used to haul fertilizer to the field. It was estimated that a 2.7 t gas truck would be required to haul the fertilizer and to load the seeder for a 40 ha field. This trucking fee would be applied to all crops except for miscanthus, which is assumed to not require fertility based on the literature. For planting seeds, a single-shoot air drill, double-shoot air drill, or miscanthus rhizome planter was used depending on the dedicated biomass crop. A single- and double-shoot air drill were used for seeding in the spreadsheet model under the assumption that the fan speed would be set as low as possible and seed brakes would be used to reduce seed bounce in the rows. The travel speed during seeding was considered to be approximately 6 km/hr to ensure that seed would be covered by soil before the press wheel packed seed into the ground. It is assumed that dedicated biomass crops not requiring nitrogen in the establishment year would be seeded with a 12 m single-shoot independent opener air drill and that other dedicated biomass crops requiring nitrogen would be seeded with a 15 m double-shoot independent opener air drill. For miscanthus planting, it was assumed that a specialized miscanthus rhizome planter would be used at the cost of approximately $98.80/ha (Personal communication, D. Tiessen, New Energy Farms, February 2, 2012). Perennial crops were not harvested in the first year due to an assumed low yield. Therefore, the costs of harvesting and collection equipment were only considered for the year following establishment and beyond. A pull-type mower-conditioner was used to

160 153 harvest the dedicated biomass crop to speed up the drying process. In particular, a disc type mower-conditioner was used due to lower maintenance costs as presented in the Farm Machinery Custom and Rental Rate Guide. Both costs associated with large round bales and large square bales were assessed for the collection of dedicated biomass feedstock and agricultural crop residues. A large pull-type forage harvester was also used to harvest dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues. According to the Government of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development s (2008) Farm Machinery Cost Calculator, the work rate for a 610 mm (considered to be large) pull-type forage harvester is approximately 3.43 ha/hr. This work rate was used in conjunction with the hourly cost of large forage harvesters provided in the Farm Machinery Custom and Rental Rate Guide to determine the costs per hectare associated with the forage harvester and its corresponding tractor. It is assumed that the dedicated biomass crop would be mowed with a mowerconditioner before forage harvesting to decrease the moisture content. Due to lack of information on hauling with a forage wagon to the field-side, it was also assumed that hauling to field-side would be the same cost as hauling large round bales. It should be noted that baling costs are on a per bale basis, which takes into account the yield of the biomass feedstock. Forage harvesters, in contrast, have a work rate that is on a per hectare basis. Therefore, the costs associated with baling biomass feedstock will be dependent on tonnage produced, whereas forage harvester costs will not. This means that the production costs of baled biomass may not be directly comparable to the production costs of biomass collected by a forage harvester. For hauling costs in the spreadsheet model, the cost of large round bale haulers is used to determine the cost of hauling both large round bales and large square bales as information was lacking in the literature for the cost of hauling large square bales. In the spreadsheet model, it is assumed that the bales were hauled 3 km to the field side/farm yard or loading area. It is assumed that 200 large round bales could be hauled per ten hour day with one operator on a 14 to 16 bale trailer pulled by a tractor. For the large square bales, it was assumed that a smaller trailer would be used for hauling, such that only 150 large square bales would be hauled per 10 hour day with one operator, using a small (seven to eight bale) hauler. Table 10-4 displays all information used to determine the equipment costs for each crop. If an x is shown in the table, that piece of equipment was not used for a particular crop. For costs associated with baling and bale hauling, an average yield estimate was used based on 15% moisture content to determine the number of bales that would be produced. Total annualized costs are not shown in this table as they will be dependent on the yield of the individual case.

161 Table Estimated equipment costs used for spreadsheet model. Heavy-Duty Cultivator Heavy Harrow Switchgrass Wheatgrass Wildrye Grass Green Needlegrass Forage Sorghum Forage Pearl Millet Reed Canarygrass Miscanthus x x x x x x x $16.23/ha x x x x x x x x $6.29/ha x Crop Residues 154 High-Clearance Sprayer Single-Shoot Air Drill Double-Shoot Air Drill $2.66/ha a $0.67/ha b $2.66/ha a $0.67/ha b $2.66/ha a $0.67/ha b $2.66/ha a $0.67/ha b $2.66/ha a $2.66/ha a $2.66/ha a $2.66/ha e $0.67/ha b x $30.38/ha $30.38/ha $30.38/ha $30.38/ha x x x x x x x x x $35.89/ha $35.89/ha $35.89/ha x x Potato Planter 3-Ton Gas truck (truck fertilizer) PT Mower Conditioner PT Forage Harvester (large) x x x x x x x $98.80/ha x $2.85/ha $2.85/ha $2.85/ha $2.85/ha $2.85/ha $2.85/ha $2.85/ha x x $33.58/ha $33.58/ha $33.58/ha $33.58/ha $33.58/ha $33.58/ha $33.58/ha $33.58/ha x $44.45/ha $44.45/ha $44.45/ha $44.45/ha $44.45/ha $44.45/ha $44.45/ha $44.45/ha $44.45/ha Large Round Baler d $9.59/bale $9.59/bale $9.59/bale $9.59/bale $9.59/bale $9.59/bale $9.59/bale $9.59/bale $9.59/bale Large Square Baler d $7.23/bale $7.23/bale $7.23/bale $7.23/bale $7.23/bale $7.23/bale $7.23/bale $7.23/bale $7.23/bale Bale Hauler (14-16) 3 km Bale Hauler (7-8) 3 km x = not used for this crop PT = pull type a Pre-seed weed control b Spot-spray at 25% c Post emergence weed control d Bale cost includes twine $5.41/bale $5.41/bale $5.41/bale $5.41/bale $5.41/bale $5.41/bale $5.41/bale $5.41/bale $5.41/bale $4.46/bale $4.46/bale $4.46/bale $4.46/bale $4.46/bale $4.46/bale $4.46/bale $4.46/bale $4.46/bale

162 Yield The potential yield estimates used in the spreadsheet model are based on yield data obtained from the literature previously presented in this document. The yield potential of a crop is extremely variable and is based on numerous factors including soil conditions, climatic conditions, crop production practices, crop inputs, and year. Therefore, these yields should be used only as an estimate or guideline. The yield data that the spreadsheet model displays in the output is on a dry basis. The spreadsheet model takes the closest approximation it has to determine an estimated yield based on the soil zone or rural municipality input from the user. In some cases, a potential yield for a particular soil zone exists, for other cases the spreadsheet model uses yield information taken from the nearest possible location. For example, the model does not have Saskatchewan miscanthus yield data, so it uses the yield obtained from research conducted in Edmonton, Alberta. A message box is then displayed to the user to warn that other soil zones or locations may be used to estimate the potential yield of a particular biomass feedstock. It is important to note that the potential yield for agricultural crop residues did not account for residue required for soil conservation. Furthermore, there was no monetary value assigned to the use of agricultural crop residues for soil conservation in this model. It is up to the user to account for this when they input the amount of production area (ha) that is available for collection of agricultural residue. Estimated losses associated with the collection, storage, and transportation of biomass feedstock have been previously reported in this document. These losses were accounted for in the model by adjusting the available yield. The losses associated with transportation are assumed to be negligible and are therefore not considered. In the spreadsheet model, it is assumed that losses associated with a forage harvester are similar to balers as previously suggested in this document. It is also assumed that higher storage losses associated with large square bales will be approximately equal to the higher collection losses associated with large round bales; therefore, an overall loss estimate is used for all three harvest/collection options. For all crops, a 3% storage loss was considered to be a close approximation to the losses associated with a 12 month maximum outside storage period under a tarp cover on crushed rock. This approximation is based on results presented in this document for various storage scenarios with large round and square bales. For collection losses, 6% was used for crops with lower leaf content whereas 8% loss was used for crops with higher leaf content based on pickup and chamber losses for balers as previously reported in this document. For crop residues, a 20% collection loss was assumed based on a midrange estimate for collection losses reported for wheat straw.

163 156 The available yield estimates used for determining total costs in the spreadsheet model are shown in Table These yield estimates were used when determining total costs, total costs on a per tonne basis, and total cost per gigajoule. Table Yield information used in the spreadsheet model. Crop/Crop Residue Total Yield Losses f (%) Brown Soil Zone Estimated Dry Yield with Losses (t/ha) Dark Brown Soil Zone Black Soil Zone Grey Soil Zone Switchgrass 9 a Forage Sorghum 11 b Miscanthus 9 a 4.82 de 4.82 de 4.82 de 4.82 de Forage Pearl Millet 11 b Northern Wheatgrass 9 a Western Wheatgrass 9 a Altai Wildrye 9 a Dahurian Wildrye 9 a Russian Wildrye 9 a Mammoth Wildrye 9 a Green Needlegrass 9 a Reed Canarygrass 9 a Winter Wheat Straw 23 c Spring Wheat Straw 23 c Barley Straw 23 c Oat Straw 23 c Flax Straw 23 c 0.36 d 0.36 d 0.36 d 0.36 d Canola Straw 23 c a Six percent baling loss estimate based on pickup and chamber losses reported for hay b Eight percent baling loss estimate based on pickup and chamber losses reported for hay and assumed to be more than grasses due to more leaves c Twenty percent baling loss estimate based on data for wheat straw presented in PAMI 2001a, which showed baling losses between 10% to 34% depending on the type of combine used d General estimate, but used for all soil zones e Based on data from Edmonton, Alberta f Accounts for baling losses and storage losses assumed that the storage and baling losses for round and square bales will even out Processing The processing (densification and torrefaction) costs presented in the spreadsheet model were used to determine the cost of processing bales or forage-harvested biomass feedstock into a denser or torrefied form either at the field-side or at a centralized processing facility. The costs used in the spreadsheet model for field-side and centralized densification are based on studies that quoted general estimates. Since some processing and densification equipment are not yet at the commercial scale for agricultural-based biomass, commercial quotes are not readily available. Once these processes become more commercially available, costs may decrease. Furthermore,

164 157 equipment costs in the literature are based on new equipment, whereas used equipment may be available at a lower cost. In the spreadsheet model, it was estimated that densification would achieve the bulk densities outlined in Table It should be noted that in reality, the bulk densities of the different crops will vary. Table Bulk densities of material assumed in the spreadsheet model. Biomass Feedstock Form Estimated Bulk Density (kg/m 3 ) Large Round Bales 190 Large Square Bales 230 Forage Harvested Biomass 140 Briquettes 350 Pellets 625 Torrefied Pellets 800 The scale of the densification units, and their respective costs, were considered in the spreadsheet model. The throughput capacity of briquetting and pelleting field scale units was assumed to be 1.8 t/h whereas the capacity of a centralized densification unit was assumed to be 12.7 t/hr. Since costs for densification and preprocessing units are on a per tonne basis, the number of units required does not affect the cost per tonne. However, the number of units required to process a given amount of biomass will affect total cost and this is considered in the model. Pelleting: Campbell (2007) conducted a detailed cost estimate for agricultural biomass based pellet plants. All costs used for pelleting in the spreadsheet model were taken from this analysis. Campbell suggests that generally, a 1.8 t/hr biomass pellet plant would be considered farmscale, whereas a 12.7 t/hr plant would be considered to be a larger-scale facility, where these capacities refer to the tonnage of finished pellets, not feedstock tonnage. In Campbell s analysis, it was assumed that a 12.7 t/yr plant would operate 6,000 hours out of the year, which is approximately 85% capacity, to take into account downtime, start-up time, and shut-down time. The annual hours of usage would account for holidays, vacation, and one day per week when the plant is not running. Generally, farmscale units would only operate during daylight hours, so a 1.8 t/yr pellet plant would only operate 2,000 hours per year without any particular operating schedule. Campbell advises that a 12.7 t/hr pellet plant would require six workers in addition to one on-call worker, resulting in a total labour cost of $12.43/t. In addition to the labour at the plant, professionals such as a general manager, finance manager, marketer, and clerk or administration assistant would be required at a total cost of $3.46/t. For labour, the

165 t/hr pellet plant would require labor from the owner, family members, or hired laborers; this cost would be approximately $24.80/t due to the lower tonnage produced by the farm-scale equipment. For energy consumption, Campbell estimated that the 12.7 t/hr plant would cost $5.86/t whereas the 1.8 t/hr plant would cost $9.76/t. Campbell also considered costs associated with a drying operation for 20% or 30% moisture content feedstock; however, the author noted that some pellet plants do not necessarily require drying for feedstock within the 13% to 15% range. Furthermore, others do not necessarily consider a drying cost for agricultural based biomass pelleting (Bissen, 2009). In the spreadsheet model, drying is not considered for pelleting as a cost since all feedstock is assumed to have a moisture content of 15%. According to Campbell, operating, repair, and maintenance costs also require consideration. Campbell suggested the cost for dies, rollers, and other parts were approximately $3.30/t for both the 1.8 t/hr and 12.7 t/hr plants. Routine maintenance was considered to cost approximately $0.55/t for both the 1.8 t/hr and 12.7 t/hr plants as well. A wheel loader would be purchased for the 14 ton/hr plant at a cost of $0.81/t. Although the 1.8 t/hr plant would not require a wheel loader, there would be costs associated with the use of a tractor and other required equipment; this is estimated to be $3.38/t. It is also estimated that a forklift would be required for the 12.7 t/hr plant at $0.13/t, a forklift is not considered for the 1.8 t/hr plant. Bagging, palleting, and marketing fees are not considered for either plant in the spreadsheet model. It is assumed that augers would convey the material into trucks that would be continuously picking up the pellets from the plant or farm. Property taxes are also considered for the 12.7 t/hr pellet plant at $1.23/t (Campbell, 2007). For the 1.8 t/hr pellet plant property taxes were not considered since it was assumed that the pelleting would be performed in already existing buildings on the producers land or field-side. The depreciation on the buildings, storage/receiving station, and equipment are also accounted for. These costs are estimated at $8.95/t for the 12.7 t/hr pellet plant and $16.13/t for the 1.8 t/hr pellet plant (Campbell, 2007). To determine the interest on long term debt and the capital costs, the dryer was excluded from Campbell s capital cost estimates. A new total capital cost was found to be $8,707,600 for the 12.7 t/hr pellet plant and $585,500 for the 1.8 t/hr plant accounting for:

166 159 Site preparation Buildings/offices Receiving station/scale Feedstock storage Pellet storage Plant equipment (excluding dryer) Engineering Project management Freight Mechanical installation Electrical installation Other equipment/tools (wheel loader and fork lift) Based on all of Campbell s cost estimates, the total cost per tonne for each plant was found by adding up each cost category. The cost estimates used in the spreadsheet model can be found in Table It was assumed that, to pellet biomass that was collected using a forage harvester, the biomass would not have to go through a primary grinder but it would have to be processed by a hammermill. Therefore, the energy costs associated with primary grinding are excluded for forage-harvested biomass for the 12.7 t/hr plant. For the 1.8 t/hr plant, the energy requirement costs for initial size reduction (chopping) were not considered in Campbell (2007) but were assumed to be negligible. Table Pellet plant costs used in the spreadsheet model t/hr Plant 1.8 t/hr Plant Parameter Costs ($/t) Costs ($/t) Labor Professional labor 3.21 Not considered Electricity and horsepower 5.86, 5.19 a 9.76 Discs, rollers, parts Maintenance Wheel loader or tractor Forklift 0.13 Not considered Property taxes 1.23 Not considered Depreciation Interest on long-term debt (60% of capital is financed) Capital (40% of capital is down) Total cost of pelleting biomass a Cost associated with forage harvested biomass feedstock Briquetting: Information pertaining to the cost of briquetting agricultural-based biomass feedstock is lacking in the literature since briquetting plants for agricultural-based biomass are not yet widely commercially available (Bissen, 2009). Therefore, to estimate

167 160 costs for briquetting, data presented for pelleting based on Campbell (2007) was used in conjunction with information presented in Bissen which compares capital cost and equipment horsepower requirement estimates for briquetting and pelleting agricultural crop residues. Information presented in Bissen (2009) was used in conjunction with information in Campbell (2007) to estimate the total capital cost of a field-scale and full scale briquetting plant. These capital costs are presented in Table Table Comparable categories and relationships from Bissen (2009) used to determine briquetting plants costs comparable to pellet plant cost estimates from Campbell (2007). Category (Bissen, 2009) Feedstock In-feed/ Size Reduction Conditioning/ Densification Relationship of Pelleting and Briquetting Cost (Bissen, 2009) B a = P a / B a = P a Pelleting Capital Costs used for Calculations (Campbell, 2007) Capital Equipment Costs 1.8 t/hr plant 12.7 t/hr plant Primary Grinder $0 b $650,000 c Hammermill d $14,879 $332,385 $31,200 b $47,000 c Conditioner/Feeder $43,900 b $87,900 c Pellet Mill $230,343 $871,590 $96,300 b $442,600 c Cooling/Screening N/A N/A $0 $0 Boiler N/A N/A $0 $0 Other N/A Convey, tanks, other equipment $200,000 b $1,356,000 c $200,000 $1,356,000 Total Equipment Cost $445,222 $2,559,975 a P = pelleting cost, B = briquetting cost b Cost based on 1.8 t/hr pelleting plant c Cost based on 12.7 t/hr pelleting plant d Hammermill is not used in briquetting but is used for briquetting cost based on ratio determined from Bissen For other briquetting costs in the spreadsheet model, it is assumed that other capital costs associated with briquetting would be comparable to the capital costs associated with pelleting. Based on the capital equipment costs calculated for briquette plants shown in Table 10-8, a new total capital cost was calculated including all other capital costs accounting

168 161 for 60% financing and 40% down at an 8.5% interest rate. Similar calculations to Campbell were used to determine the cost of interest on long-term debt and the capital costs associated with the down payment for a briquette plant. It was determined that the cost of interest on long term debt was $5.42/t for the 12.7 t/hr plant and $7.93/t for the 1.8 t/hr plant. The capital down-payment costs were $2.12/t for the 12.7 t/hr plant and $3.11/t for the 1.8 t/hr plant. To estimate the power consumption associated with briquetting, ratios were also used based on the estimated horsepower required for briquetting reported by Bissen. It was found that pelleting required 1.26 times the power of briquetting. Based on this ratio, the power consumption costs for a 1.8 t/hr briquetting plant and the costs for a 12.7 t/hr briquetting plant are estimated to be $7.74/t and $4.82/t respectively. In the briquette cost analysis, it was assumed that the major cost differences between briquetting and pelleting would be certain capital costs and the power usage. All other costs are considered to be the same as the pelleting plant discussed in Campbell (2007). The cost estimates used in the spreadsheet model for briquette plants are shown in Table It should be noted that forage-harvested biomass would not have to go through a primary grinder for briquetted biomass. Therefore, the energy costs associated with primary grinding are taken out of the equation for the 12.7 t/hr plant. For the 1.8 t/hr plant, the energy requirement costs for size reduction are not considered in Campbell (2007) and are assumed to be negligible. Table Briquetting plant costs used in the spreadsheet model t/hr Plant 1.8 t/hr Plant Parameter Cost ($/t) Cost ($/t) Labor Professional labor 3.46 Not considered Electicity and horsepower 4.82, 4.27 a 7.74 Discs, rollers, parts Maintenance Wheel loader or tractor Forklift 0.13 Not considered Property taxes 1.23 Not considered Depreciation Interest on long-term debt (60% of capital is financed) Capital (40% of capital is down) Total cost of pelleting biomass a Forage harvester energy requirements are lower since no tub grinding is required Torrefied Pellets: Reports of commercial scale torrefaction facility capital and operating costs are lacking in the literature. Maski, Darr, and Anex (2010) suggest that the capital

169 162 and operating costs of such a facility can be estimated based on the costs for a wood chip torrefaction facility. It should be noted that there are no cost estimates available for field-scale torrefaction; therefore, the cost of centralized torrefaction was used for field-scale torrefaction where the cost difference presented in the spreadsheet model for the two sizes of plants lies in the pelleting process of torrefied biomass feedstock. Maski et al. (2010) also provided many equations that can be used to estimate costs incurred for a torrefaction facility as shown in Appendix V. These equations are used for torrefaction cost estimates in the spreadsheet model. During the torrefaction process, biomass is dried to approximately 4% moisture content. Therefore, even though agricultural biomass does not require drying for densification, drying is a component of torrefaction that requires energy and incurs a cost. The drying cost is included in the spreadsheet model for torrefaction based on a biomass feedstock moisture content of 15%. The total net energy required to torrefy raw, wet biomass with 15% moisture content based on the equations in Appendix V is 1.22 MJ/kg. The cost of energy to dry biomass feedstock was found to be $3.79 per tonne of dry biomass feedstock entering the torrefaction process and the cost of energy to torrefy biomass feedstock, based on a torrefaction temperature of 250 C, was found to be $3.55 per tonne of raw dry biomass feedstock based on equations in Appendix V. According to Maski et al. (2010) other costs for torrefying biomass feedstock, including operating costs, repair, and maintenance can also be estimated using formulas provided in Appendix V. They estimate that torrefaction equipment for a 23 t/yr capacity torrefaction facility will cost approximately $7 million and will be operated 24 hours/day, 120 days/yr. They suggest that the rate of repair and maintenance will be 10% of the equipment cost. Maski et al. also proposed that ten operators will be required to run such a facility at a labor rate of $15/hr. The operating cost of miscellaneous equipment such as lighting, ventilation, etc. is considered to be $25/hr. The total operating, repair, and maintenance costs were found to be $16.72 per tonne of dry biomass entering the torrefaction process. The capital (fixed) and total costs of a torrefaction plant were also estimated by equations in Appendix V. The total capital fixed cost was calculated to be $7.82/dry tonne of biomass entering the torrefaction process. Accounting for all four parameters involved (drying energy, torrefying energy, operating costs, and capital costs), the total cost to torrefy agricultural based biomass is approximately $31.88/dry tonne of biomass entering the torrefaction process as shown in Table

170 163 Table Total estimated cost associated with torrefaction of biomass feedstock at a 23 t/yr plant. Parameter Energy required to dry biomass from 15% moisture content Total Cost ($/t dry biomass in) 3.79 Energy required to torrefy biomass 3.55 Operating, repair, maintenance costs Capital costs 7.82 Total Cost According to Bergman (2005), if torrefaction is taking place at temperatures in the range of 250 C to 300 C, the products of torrefaction will be approximately 70% solids and 30% volatiles. Therefore, for every 1 kg of mass entering torrefaction at 15% moisture content, 70% of the 0.85 kg of solid mass will remain as solids. In other words 1 kg of raw biomass at 15% moisture content will result in kg of torrefied biomass. This loss in mass was taken into account for determining the pelleting, transporting, and total costs for torrefied biomass. The costs used for pelleting untorrefied biomass were used for pelleting torrefied biomass feedstock with one exception. Torrefaction makes the biomass more friable, reducing the energy required to grind and hammermill the product. Sadaka & Negi (2009) and Ciolkosz & Wallace (2011) reported that this energy reduction is approximately 85%. This reduction in energy required to grind torrefied material was taken into account in the spreadsheet model. Tub Grinding at Biorefinery: In the case where there is no densification or preprocessing, bales require shredding so that the feedstock is in a useable form (for direct conversion or further processing). Hoque et al. (2007) estimated the costs associated with tub-grinding biomass feedstock. Their estimate is based on a 64 t/h tub grinder and accounts for the hourly ownership and operating costs. In their analysis, the ownership costs included purchase price, interest on investment, and insurance. The operating costs included machine maintenance, fuel, and labor. All tub grinding costs used for the spreadsheet model are shown in Table

171 164 Table Tub grinding costs for a 64 t/hr tub grinder used in spreadsheet model for preprocessing at a biorefinery. Parameter Purchase price Interest Insurance Subtotal owning cost Machine maintenance Fuel cost labour cost Subtotal operating cost Total owning + operating cost Estimated cost US$/ton Total cost Cost $61.23/hr $13.26/hr $7.35/hr $81.84/hr $28.62/hr $70.00/hr $30.00/hr $128.62/hr $210.46/hr $3.01/hr $3.32/t Transportation The model estimates costs for truck transportation only. A variety of tractor/trailer combinations common to Saskatchewan trucking operations are included in the spreadsheet model to help determine the most cost-effective option. Volume and weight restrictions for Saskatchewan are also considered as they affect the number of loads required. All costs used are based on values presented in the literature and previously reported in this document. Where applicable, some of these values are adjusted for inflation using the Bank of Canada (2011) online calculator or adjusted to Canadian dollars. The transportation calculations performed in the spreadsheet model are based on costs associated for a round-trip distance. It should be noted that a profit margin was not included for transportation costs since these cost estimates are already considered to be conservative. For truck costing estimates, Logistics Solution Builders Inc. (2005) suggest, in a report conducted for Transport Canada, that most for-hire line haul trucking operations put approximately 160,000 km (medium annual use) on their trucks per year and retain them in a line hauling trucking service for five years. After approximately 800,000 to 1.2 million km the unit will be sold or used for deliveries in a city. According to Logistics Solution Builders Inc., trailers used for these trucks will be bought new and operated for an average of eight years. Section 9 of this document reports on the purchase price and salvage value Logistics Solution Builders Inc. found when conducting their analysis. It is important to note that the trailer cost of a dry bulk trailer is more than the cost of a flat deck trailer. An estimate more typical of dry bulk grain trailers was used in the spreadsheet model based on consultation with dry bulk grain trailer salespersons as

172 165 discussed in Section 9. The purchase prices and salvage values used for five-axle, sixaxle, and eight-axle truck and trailer combinations are shown in Table Table Purchase and salvage values of trucks and trailers used to determine trucking costs in spreadsheet model. Truck or Trailer Purchase Price Salvage Value Five-axle semi-tractor $136,485 $28,389 Six-axle semi-tractor $144,870 $30,133 Eight-axle semi-tractor $150,860 $31,379 Flat deck trailer for five-axle $27,552 $10,499 Flat deck trailer for six-axle $33,542 $12,781 Flat deck trailer for eight-axle $47,917 $18,259 Dry bulk trailer for five-axle $45,000 $17,147 Dry bulk trailer for eight-axle $100,000 $38,105 The ownership and operating cost calculations in this model were done on a per-truck basis. Each truck is allotted 160,000 km/yr in the economic analysis. Therefore, the distance travelled will have a direct influence on the number of trucks required and thus, the total transportation cost. To determine the annual costs associated with ownership, the purchase price and salvage values of the semi-tractors and trailers are considered along with the years of ownership to find the yearly depreciation. Sixty percent ownership is assumed with 40% financed and an interest rate of 5.25% (as in Suh & Suh, 2010) to annualize semi-tractor and trailer costs. The ownership costs are calculated by summing the annual costs of depreciation, interest on investment, repairs, and insurance, taxes, license fees, etc. Repair costs in the literature are annualized over the life of the truck at $2,690/yr (Suh & Suh, 2010). The cost of taxes, insurance, and license fees for five- and six-axle trucks is considered to be $3,228/yr (Suh & Suh, 2010), whereas the cost of taxes, insurance, and license fees for eight-axle trucks is considered to be $4,596/yr (Logistics Solution Builders Inc., 2005). The annual ownership costs used in the spreadsheet model are shown in Table The operating cost estimates shown in Table are calculated on a per-truck basis and include the cost of fuel and labour. The cost of diesel fuel is estimated to be $1.28/L based on a survey of Saskatchewan diesel prices in November Fuel subsidies are not reflected in this value so fuel cost estimates are conservative. In the future, there may be fuel subsidies for biomass feedstock transportation due to the fact that it is a renewable energy source. Assuming 160,000 km are put on a truck per year this amounts to a minimum fuel cost of $80,896 annually per five- or six-axle truck, based on a fuel efficiency of L/km (Office of Energy Efficiency, 2000), and $117,965 annually for an eight-axle truck, based on a fuel efficiency of L/km (Office of

173 166 Energy Efficiency, 2000). The fuel costs do not account for idling time. The cost of truck driver labour was assumed to be $18.36/hr (Suh & Suh, 2010). At an assumed average travel speed of 85 km/hr the labor cost per truck per year would be $34,560. Table Ownership and operating costs, on a per truck basis, used in the spreadsheet model. Tractor/Trailer Combination Ownership Costs (per truck) Operating Costs (per truck) Five-axle flat deck trailer $31,503/yr $115,456/yr Six-axle flat deck trailer $33,453/yr $115,456/yr Eight-axle flat deck trailer $37,11/yr $152,525/yr Five-axle dry bulk trailer $39,019/yr $115,456/yr Eight-axle dry bulk trailer $49,531/yr $152,525/yr The loading/unloading cost considers both loading and unloading costs and truck driver wait time. In the spreadsheet model, the loading/unloading cost is estimated at $7.20 per tonne of biomass feedstock (Suh & Suh, 2010). It is assumed in the spreadsheet model that one load and one unload will take approximately three hours (Logistics Solution Builders, 2005); this is considered to be a very conservative time estimate. The cost of labour for loading/unloading is based on the three hour wait time at the truck driver s labour rate, taking into account the total tonnage to determine the number of loads required. In the spreadsheet model, it is assumed that only flat deck trailers are used to transport bales and only dry bulk trailers are used to transport forage harvested feedstock, briquettes, pellets, and torrefied pellets. The number of loads required is determined based on the total tonnage of feedstock, the assumed bulk density of the feedstock, the volume restrictions for a particular trailer based on trailer dimensions and height restrictions as discussed in Section 9, and Saskatchewan road weight restrictions as previously discussed in Section 9. The volume and weight restrictions used for spreadsheet model calculations are presented in Table The number of loads required based on volume is then compared to the number of loads based on weight for the same trailer in the spreadsheet model. The maximum number of loads is then used for the number of loads required for a particular trailer. The number of loads is then used to calculate the total trucking cost for each trucking scenario in the spreadsheet model. For example, the number of required loads for an eight-axle flat deck based on volume would be compared to the number of loads for an eight-axle flat deck based on weight. If the number of loads based on volume is higher than the number of loads based on weight, the volumetric capacity is the limiting factor and the number of loads based on volume is used to determine transportation costs. The

174 167 transportation cost for an eight-axle flat deck is then compared with 5 and six-axle flat decks to see which transportation option is the most cost effective. Table Volume and weight restrictions used in the spreadsheet model (assuming GVW for primary roads). Transportation Information Maximum volume flat deck estimate (five-, six-axle) Maximum volume flat deck estimate (eight-axle) Maximum volume dry bulk (five-, six-axle) Maximum volume dry bulk (eight-axle) Maximum weight tractor & semi-trailer five-axles (flat deck) Maximum weight tractor & semi-trailer five-axles (dry bulk) Maximum weight tractor & semi-trailer six-axles (flat deck) Maximum weight truck B train eight-axles (flat deck) Maximum weight truck B train eight-axles (dry bulk) a Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation (2006) b Logistics Solution Builders Inc. (2005) c Doepker Trailers (2011) d Ray s Trucking, personal communication, March, 2012, for a relatively light bulk trailer (grain trailer) Assumption 100 m 3c 140 m 3c 60 m 3c 85 m 3c 25.9 t a,b 22.3 t a,b 31.8 t a,b 36.9 t a,b 42.0 t d Storage The costs associated with storing biomass feedstock are not accounted for in the spreadsheet model as the costs will be dependent on the cost of land and method of storage. The user can add storage costs, based on information provided in Section 9, to the total costs found in the output of the model Delivery Congestion, wait times, and queues are not considered in this model. According to the literature, there are other models available that can be used for determining such challenges and costs Energy Value The higher heating values for various types of biomass feedstock used in the spreadsheet model are based on a midrange estimate of higher heating values reported in Section 8 of this report. The higher heating value (HHV) of torrefied biomass feedstock is assumed to be 15% higher than the HHV for nontorrefied biomass feedstock based on reported values for torrefied wheat straw in Sadaka & Negi (2009) and Tumurulu et al. (2011). All HHVs used in estimating the cost per gigajoule in the spreadsheet model are shown in Table

175 168 Table Higher heating values used in the spreadsheet model for nontorrefied and torrefied biomass feedstocks. Crop/Residue HHV (GJ/dry t) Torrefied HHV (GJ/dry t) Switchgrass Sorghum (Forage) Miscanthus Reed Canarygrass Pearl Millet (Forage) Northern Wheatgrass Western Wheatgrass Altai Wildrye Dahurian Wildrye Russian Wildrye Mammoth Wildrye Green Needlegrass Winter Wheat Straw Spring Wheat Straw Barley Straw Oat Straw Flax Straw Canola Straw Literature Models and Case Studies There are numerous models in literature that assess costs associated with biomass logistics. None of the models are specific to Saskatchewan and very few incorporate all aspects of biomass costs (production, processing, and transportation) in a comprehensive and transparent way. Even fewer studies discuss the logistics of agricultural biomass; most are focused on transportation of woody biomass or single feedstocks like corn stover. These models are useful for assessing costs not considered in this model (e.g. storage costs) and for validating the results generated by this model Literature Models Integrated Biomass Supply and Logistics (IBSAL) Model: Sokhansanj, Kumar, and Turhollow (2006) developed a dynamic integrated biomass supply analysis and logistics model (IBSAL) which simulated the supply of biomass feedstock to a biorefinery. The goal of this model was to determine the delivered cost of corn stover, model climatic, and operational constraints, and quantify and allocate resources (labour, equipment, trucks, etc.). The model simulated collection, storage, and transport options for the biomass feedstock and looked at the supply chain as a whole including using queues for wait times associated with equipment capacities and deliveries.

176 169 The IBSAL model is a very comprehensive biomass logistics model. The model simulates the flow of biomass from the field to the biorefinery while accounting for biological, geographical, and climatic constraints and their effect on biomass quality, quantity, and costs. The model also provides managerial insights to improve the biomass logistics system in terms of demand fulfillment, logistics costs, and resource utilization. However, the model does not appear to account for the nutrient value of the biomass crop, resulting in an underestimated farmgate cost. Also, the method of calculating truck transportation costs is unclear. It is unclear if the model accounts for the different costs of different trailer types. Finally, the model does not appear to allow a comparison of field-side and centralized processing. BioFeed: Shastri et al. (2009) created an optimization model called the BioFeed model that optimized the production and delivery of switchgrass biomass feedstock along with the activities associated with providing that feedstock to the biorefinery. This model optimized farming activities (harvesting, raking, baling, ensiling, etc.) and biomass feedstock storage (outside on-farm, covered on-farm, centralized, etc.) as well as transportation for farms in Illinois, U.S. The model chose both the type and number of optimal harvesting, raking, and packing machines for the farms along with the optimal harvest window for each farm. Additionally, it selected storage locations, decided the size of on-farm closed storage facilities and centralized location storage facilities, and also determined the optimal distance of a centralized storage facility based on biomass feedstock distribution. The BioFeed model also optimized the size of the central storage facility, including one or two more storage sites if needed. Shastri et al. (2011) later modified the BioFeed model to incorporate the impact of weather on harvesting operations and cost. Weather impacts both the number of working days on the farm and the selection of farm equipment. According to the authors, the number of work days on a farm was influenced by precipitation, snow depth, soil moisture content, soil type, and soil temperature; these factors also interacted with the slope of the field, the drainage characteristics of the field, and the farm operations that were required. The BioFeed model was modified to incorporate the concept of number of working days and proper farm equipment selection based on the environmental conditions. BIMAT: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2010) has an online mapping tool, the Biomass Inventory Mapping and Analysis Tool (BIMAT), which can be used to determine the availability and spatial variability of wheat, barley, oat, and flax straw within a particular Canadian radius. BIMAT has internet-based, geographical information system (GIS) functionality that allows users to query biomass data, taking into account tillage practices, producer participation rate, and biomass required for cattle usage.

177 170 BIMAT can be used to determine specific geographical biomass data. This tool was used to determine the availability of straw within a 200 km radius of the coal-firing power plants located in Estevan and Coronach, Saskatchewan, to assess the feasibility of cofiring coal with agricultural residue feedstock. Assumptions made included current tillage and 50% producer participation, which was assumed to account for cattle use. Yields available around both locations are shown in Table Table Available straw agricultural residues within various radii of Estevan and Coronach as determined from BIMAT. Radius (km) Yield (Dry Tonnes) Oat Straw Flax Straw Wheat Straw Barley Straw Estevan, SK 50 3,966 5,957 89,803 7, ,020 18, ,911 24, ,645 38, ,819 61, ,942 59,009 1,051, ,745 Coronach, SK , ,093 4, ,965 2, ,047 16, ,710 11, ,575 34,265 1,008,143 40,522 Other Models in Literature: Kumar et al. (2006) used PROMETHEE, a well-known preference ranking organization method to compare and rank alternatives for biomass collection. They assessed biomass collection and transportation systems based on economic, social, environmental, and technical factors to find the best collection and transportation option for their biomass feedstock case. Gustafson et al. (2011) used GIS along with a cost minimization transport model to assess the supply chain costs of wheat straw and corn stover residues from numerous supply points in North Dakota to a biorefinery. They also looked at the optimization of the combination of the two feedstocks. The model minimized transportation costs based on transport distance, yield of crop residue, density of crop residue, and storage size. In order for the model to take supply from a certain area, there would be a minimum crop density requirement to reduce costs; this is due to the fact that it would not be economic to collect crop residues from low density areas. They use a density requirement of 15% and an assumed removal rate of 50%. Also, in their analysis to account for a straight line radius distance they used a road winding factor of 30% to take into account the actual distance. Cundiff, Dias, and Sherali (1997) developed a linear programming model to evaluate the costs of biomass storage and transport from producers to a biorefinery. The model examined the affect weather, storage losses, and handling losses had on the biomass feedstock. They assessed a specific case in Virginia, U.S., using 20 producers and

178 171 looking at transport distances, quantity of biomass harvested each month, as well as access to roads around the area. Suh et al. (2011) discussed a model, based on a linear programming model, geographical information system (GIS), and MATLAB, which was developed to estimate optimal corn stover logistics in Minnesota. The model looks at set storage locations and quantity of biomass feedstock to be stored along with the number of planned biorefineries and their capacities to allocate biomass feedstock supply and calculate associated CO 2 emissions and costs (operation, feedstock, capital, transportation, etc.) Case Studies in Literature There are many publications that discuss the cost of biomass transportation. In many cases, it was unclear what factors were accounted for in the cost calculation, so it is difficult to compare the literature values with costs calculated using the PAMI model. In addition, biomass logistics costs are dependent on geographic location and the achievable yields of certain crops. Therefore, the production cost of miscanthus in Ontario would not be comparable to the production cost of miscanthus in Saskatchewan because the yields in Ontario are higher. Bailey-Stamler et al. (2007) estimated that the delivered cost per GJ of wheat, oat, and barley straw in Alberta was $2.76/GJ, $3.37/GJ, and $2.90/GJ respectively. The average transport distance was 50 km and the energy content of the straw was assumed to be 16.5 GJ/t. In comparison, the delivered cost of wheat, oat and barley straw in Saskatchewan (based on the PAMI logistics model and a 50 km transport distance) was $3.37/GJ, $4.13/GJ and $3.55/GJ respectively. The results from the PAMI logistics model were 18% higher but agreed well with the Bailey-Stamler study. It s possible that the PAMI model accounted for more costs (i.e. replacement of nutrients removed due to straw removal), but the higher cost could also be due to higher fuel and labour costs in 2012 compared to Cameron, Kumar, & Flynn (2004) suggested that a 450 MW straw fired plant in western Canada would produce electricity for $49.63/MWh or $13.79/GJ ($US). The 450 MW plant would have an average transportation distance of 116 km in Western Canada, depending on available crop residue with an average transportation cost of approximately $18.50/t. In comparison, the PAMI model estimated that the straw required for a 450 MW straw fired plant would cost $3.84/GJ delivered in bale form and $9.92/GJ delivered in torrefied pellet form. However, the PAMI model does not account for costs associated with added infrastructure for storage and handling at the facility, which would be required for this case (25,000 to 40,000 truck loads of straw per year, depending on form).

179 172 The total cost per gigajoule for miscanthus and switchgrass bioenergy crops in Ontario were estimated based on costs for growing, harvesting, processing (densification), and transportation (100 km) of the biomass (The Research Park, 2009). These results are summarized in Table In Ontario, miscanthus was found to offer the lowest cost per gigajoule due to its high yield. Table Total cost of biomass ($/GJ) delivered to Ontario Power Generation's door (adapted from The Research Park, 2009). Grind ($/GJ) Briquette ($/GJ) Pellet ($/GJ) Miscanthus Production Processing Transportation Total Switchgrass Production Processing Transportation Total For comparison, the same costs for miscanthus were assessed using the PAMI model, shown in Table Table Total cost of miscanthus ($/GJ) delivered to a Saskatchewan biorefinery (for comparison with results from The Research Park). Grind ($/GJ) Briquette ($/GJ) Pellet ($/GJ) Miscanthus Production Processing Transportation Total The production costs for miscanthus are considerably higher in Saskatchewan due to the lower yields seen in Western Canada. The production costs of switchgrass in Saskatchewan were even higher ($27.50/GJ), but the processing and transportation costs were comparable. A review of several other literature case studies is included in Appendix IV. One paper reviewed the costs to harvest biomass in Tennessee and discussed the effect of different harvesting methods (single pass vs multiple pass). Another series of papers discussed the feasibility of satellite storage locations and the economics of specialized equipment for rear-loading and side-loading bale racks Case Studies Based on Spreadsheet Model Specific case studies were assessed using the spreadsheet model developed at PAMI to determine production, processing, transportation (by truck), and total costs (per tonne) for biomass utilization. The case studies included:

180 173 Case Studies 1 and 2: Hauling biomass material (wheat straw, forage sorghum, reed canarygrass) for combustion at two cofiring plants (Coronach and Estevan), assuming biomass is used to offset 15% of coal used Case Studies 3 and 4: Hauling biomass material (wheat straw) for cellulosic ethanol conversion (25 and 54 million L per year facilities in Birch Hills and Swift Current) Case Study 5: Hauling biomass material (flax straw) for bioproduct utilization (Humboldt and Maple Creek) For case studies 1 and 2, several options for the supply chain were investigated, shown in Figure For options B, C, and D, processing (densification and torrefaction) costs were assessed assuming both field side and centralized processing. For case E, processing (torrefaction and grinding) costs were assessed assuming centralized (onsite at biorefinery) processing. Baled Baled Baled Baled Baled Briquetted Trucked Pelleted Torrefied & Pelleted Trucked Trucked Ground at biorefinery Ground at biorefinery Trucked Trucked Torrefied & ground at biorefinery (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) Figure Supply chain scenarios used for case studies 1 and 2. It was assumed that pelleted and torrefied and pelleted material did not require processing at the biorefinery before use.

181 174 For all case studies, the average transport distance was assessed with the assistance of BIMAT, a GIS based tool that accounts for agricultural productivity and allows an estimate of biomass availability. BIMAT was used to estimate the radius around sites that would provide a specified amount of a biomass material. For example, according to BIMAT, 216,000 tonnes of wheat straw would be available within an 88 km radius of Coronach, Saskatchewan. This is equivalent to an area of 2.4 million ha. The area estimated by BIMAT assumes a 50% participation rate (i.e. 50% of the wheat straw would be available for bioenergy). Based on typical wheat straw yields in that area, 436,000 ha of wheat fields would result in 216,000 available tonnes of wheat straw (assuming 50% participation rate). Therefore, BIMAT estimates that 18% of the land within 88 km of Coronach, SK is cropped to wheat. To haul 216,000 tonnes of wheat straw from the Coronach area to Coronach, the maximum transport distance would be 88 km. For all case studies, the average straight-line transport distance was assumed to be 70% of the maximum transport distance. The model added a 20% road winding factor to all straight-line transport distances. The BIMAT software does not include information on the availability of dedicated energy crops. The required acreage of dedicated energy crops was lower than the area required for agricultural residues (due to the higher yields of dedicated energy crops), but the expected availability of biomass crops was expected to be lower than that of agricultural residues. Therefore, the transport distances for dedicated energy crops were assumed to be the same as for agricultural residues. For all case studies, 5% of the nutrient and equipment costs were added to the feedstock cost as a profit margin for the producer for agricultural residues. For dedicated energy crops, a $247.15/ha premium was added to the feedstock cost to cover profit margin and land costs. Case Study 1 (hauling biomass material to Coronach cofiring facility): To offset 15% of the 582 MW produced from SaskPower s Coronach coal-firing facility, 216,000 tonnes of biomass feedstock would be required, which accounts for a 75% conversion efficiency. This assumes an average energy content of 17 GJ/t. Based on the soil zone in the Coronach area and average yield data presented in Table 10-5, straw from 218,000 ha of wheat crop would yield 216,000 tonnes of straw. To meet the feedstock requirement with dedicated energy crops, 26,500 ha of forage sorghum would need to be grown and 74,000 ha of reed canarygrass would be required. These area requirements account for collection and storage losses. Using the BIMAT software, the maximum transport distance for these quantities of feedstock was 88 km. The average one-way (straight-line) transport distance was 62 km (70% of maximum distance). These distances account for availability of biomass.

182 175 The estimated feedstock (farmgate), processing and transportation costs for this scenario (scenario A in Figure 10-1) are summarized in Table Table Results for Case 1A. Bales trucked on a flatbed trailer and shredded at a biorefinery (wheat straw, sorghum, and reed canarygrass). Feedstock Cost ($/t) Processing Cost ($/t) Transportation Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/GJ) Straw Bales (round) $38.80 $3.32 $16.51 $58.63 $3.45 Straw Bales (square) $37.50 $3.32 $15.26 $56.08 $3.30 Sorghum Bales (round) $99.29 $3.32 $16.51 $ $6.61 Sorghum Bales (square) $98.06 $3.32 $15.26 $ $6.47 Reed Canarygrass Bales (round) Reed Canarygrass Bales (square) $ $3.32 $16.51 $ $8.75 $ $3.32 $15.26 $ $8.61 Based on this analysis, large square bales resulted in a lower cost than large round bales due to slightly more efficient baling and transportation costs. As sorghum and reed canarygrass are dedicated energy crops, the total cost of production (including seeding, fertilization, and harvesting) costs must be recovered in the price of the feedstock. Although reed canarygrass is a perennial crop and sorghum is an annual, the reed canarygrass has a lower yield, resulting in a higher cost per tonne than sorghum. The cost of production (feedstock cost) is broken down into equipment costs, agronomic costs, and margin for producer for round bales of wheat straw and sorghum in Table This breakdown assumes a 5% profit margin for the producer for wheat straw (5% of agronomic and equipment costs) and $247.15/ha margin for dedicated energy crops. It would be misleading to break down the costs for a perennial crop like reed canarygrass as the equipment costs vary widely from year to year. Agronomic cost includes value of nutrients for straw and cost of seed, fertilizer, herbicide, etc. for sorghum. Table Breakdown of production (feedstock) costs for round bales of wheat straw and sorghum. Wheat straw ($/t) Sorghum ($/t) Agronomic cost $13.18 $30.32 Equipment cost $23.77 $34.31 Margin for producer $1.85 $34.66 Total $38.80 $99.29 The model was also used to assess the costs for cases B, C, and D (Figure 10-1) assuming the densification was done field side or at a centralized processing facility.

183 176 These costs are summarized in Table For this case study, the average transport distance of bales to the centralized facility was assumed to be 20 km and the average transport distance of densified material to the biorefinery was assumed to be 60 km. Only the results for wheat straw are shown as the processing and transportation costs are the same for wheat straw, sorghum, and reed canarygrass (on a per tonne basis). Table Cases 1B, 1C, and 1D. Bales, field side or centralized densification, trucking to a biorefinery (wheat straw only, briquettes also shredded at biorefinery). Briquettes (field side) Briquettes (centralized) Pellets (field side) Pellets (centralized) Torrefied Pellets (field side) Torrefied Pellets (centralized) Feedstock Cost ($/t) Processing Cost ($/t) Transportation Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/GJ) $38.80 $70.27 $16.51 $ $7.19 $38.80 $46.30 $27.94 $ $6.65 $38.80 $69.39 $15.55 $ $7.28 $38.80 $44.59 $27.01 $ $6.49 $38.80 $ $18.64 $ $9.59 $38.80 $89.26 $35.08 $ $9.20 Note that the processing cost is lower for centralized processing, but the transportation cost is lower for field side processing. This is because centralized plants are more energy and cost efficient, being able to take advantage of more efficient power sources and economies of scale. However, centralized processing requires more handling (loading/unloading) and longer transport distances overall. The number of delivered trucks required to meet the biomass demand for this case are shown in Table Bales were hauled using flat deck trailers while briquettes, pellets and torrefied pellets were hauled in a dry bulk trailer. Assuming an average unloading time of 40 min per flat deck trailer and 60 min per dry bulk trailer, hauling biomass feedstock to offset 15% of the coal used at Coronach would result in minimal traffic congestion on site.

184 177 Table Number of delivered truck loads required to meet biomass demand for Case 1. Form of Feedstock Total Number of Loads (eight-axle trailer) Loads Per Day (assuming 300 days/year) Loads Per Hour (assuming 12 hrs/day) Round Bales 8, Square Bales 6, Briquettes 7, Pellets 6, Torrefied Pellets 4, Case Study 2 (hauling biomass material to Estevan cofiring facility): To offset 15% of the combined 1,100 MW produced at SaskPower s Estevan coal-firing facilities, 408,000 tonnes of biomass feedstock would be required which accounts for a 75% conversion efficiency. This assumes an average energy content of 17 GJ/t. Based on the soil zone in the Estevan area and average yield data presented in Table 10-5, straw from 366,000 ha of wheat crop would yield 408,000 tonnes of straw. To meet the feedstock requirement with dedicated energy crops, 50,000 ha of forage sorghum would need to be grown and 139,000 ha of reed canarygrass would be required. These area requirements account for collection and storage losses. Using the BIMAT software, the maximum transport distance for these quantities of feedstock was 124 km. The average one-way (straight-line) transport distance was 87 km (70% of maximum distance). These distances account for availability of biomass in this area. The estimated feedstock (farmgate), processing and transportation costs for this case and scenario (scenario A in Figure 10-1) are summarized in Table Table Case 2A. Bales trucked on a flatbed trailer and shredded at biorefinery before use (wheat straw, sorghum, and reed canarygrass). Feedstock Cost ($/t) Processing Cost ($/t) Transportation Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/GJ) Straw Bales (round) $38.80 $3.32 $19.41 $61.52 $3.62 Straw Bales (square) $37.50 $3.32 $17.65 $58.47 $3.44 Sorghum Bales (round) $99.29 $3.32 $19.41 $ $6.77 Sorghum Bales (square) $98.06 $3.32 $17.65 $ $6.60 Reed Canarygrass Bales (round) Reed Canarygrass Bales (square) $ $3.32 $19.41 $ $8.92 $ $3.32 $17.65 $ $8.75

185 178 The only difference in cost per tonne between the Coronach and Estevan case studies was in the transportation cost. This is because the transport distance was higher for the Estevan case study. The model accounts for the maximum allowable distance per truck per year (160,000 km). Therefore, the Estevan case required more trucks to haul the biomass the required distances so the transportation cost per tonne was higher for Estevan. For this case study, the average transport distance of bales to the centralized facility was assumed to be 30 km and the average transport distance of densified material to the biorefinery was assumed to be 80 km. Again, only the results for wheat straw are shown in Table as the processing and transportation costs are the same for wheat straw, sorghum, and reed canarygrass (on a per tonne basis). Table Cases 2B, 2C, and 2D. Bales, field side densification, trucking to a biorefinery (wheat straw only, briquettes also shredded at biorefinery). Briquettes (field-side) Briquettes (centralized) Pellets (field-side) Pellets (centralized) Torrefied Pellets (field-side) Torrefied Pellets (centralized) Feedstock Cost ($/t) Processing Cost ($/t) Transportation Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/GJ) $38.80 $70.27 $19.27 $ $7.35 $38.80 $46.30 $31.30 $ $6.85 $38.80 $69.39 $17.93 $ $7.42 $38.80 $44.59 $30.06 $ $6.67 $38.80 $ $21.01 $ $9.71 $38.80 $89.26 $38.64 $ $9.38 Again, the processing cost was lower for centralized processing, but the transportation cost was lower for field-side processing. This is because centralized plants are more energy and cost efficient, being able to take advantage of more efficient power sources and economies of scale. However, centralized processing requires more handling (loading/unloading) and longer transport distances overall. The number of delivered trucks required to meet the biomass demand for this case study are shown in Table Bales were hauled using flat deck trailers while briquettes, pellets, and torrefied pellets were hauled in a dry bulk trailer. Assuming an average unloading time of 40 minutes per flat deck trailer and 60 minutes per dry bulk trailer,

186 179 hauling biomass feedstock to offset 15% of the coal used near Estevan would result in minor traffic congestion on site. Table Number of delivered truck loads required to meet biomass demand for Case 2. Form of Feedstock Total Number of Loads (eight-axle trailer) Loads Per Day (assuming 300 days/year) Loads Per Hour (assuming 12 hrs/day) Round Bales 22, Square Bales 18, Briquettes 19, Pellets 17, Torrefied Pellets 11, Note that bales are hauled on a flat deck trailer and briquettes, pellets, and torrefied pellets are hauled in a dry bulk trailer. An additional analysis was carried out to determine the costs of transporting bales to the Estevan facility and torrefying (but not pelleting) and grinding the biomass on-site (scenario E in Figure 10-1). Some research suggests that, if biomass is torrefied, the cofiring ratio can be as high as 45% without any problems. For this scenario, 25% of Estevan s production would be offset by 525,000 tonnes of torrefied material (assuming torrefied biomass has an energy content of 19.6 GJ/t and the conversion efficiency is 85%). Since the torrefaction process results in a 30% mass loss (on a dry basis), 750,000 tonnes of raw biomass is needed to achieve 525,000 tonnes of torrefied material. To collect 750,000 tonnes of wheat straw in the Estevan area, the biomass would need to be collected from approximately 673,000 ha and hauled a maximum distance of 170 km and an average distance of 120 km. The cost of production (round bales) was $38.80/tonne, the cost of processing (torrefaction and grinding) on site was $35.38/tonne and the transportation cost was $45.87/tonne for a total cost of $120.05/tonne. The total cost of biomass, transportation, and processing for this scenario is $6.13/GJ. However, hauling 750,000 tonnes of raw material in round bale form requires 28,000 loads per year or eight loads per hour (assuming 12 hour days and 300 days per year). This would result in significant traffic congestion in addition to the time, labour, and space required for on-site processing and storage. Case Study 3 (hauling biomass material to a cellulosic ethanol facility in Birch Hills, Saskatchewan): Depending on the conversion technology, cellulosic ethanol plants utilize several different processing strategies, some of which require the biomass to be in baled or shredded form (but not pelleted or torrefied). Furthermore, the densification costs were prohibitively high for truck transport at distances less than 150 km (as shown in case studies 1 and 2). Therefore, only bale transport was modeled for the cellulosic ethanol case studies (scenario A in Figure 10-1). As the production costs

187 180 of dedicated energy crops were also shown to be high in case studies 1 and 2, only wheat straw collection and transportation were modeled in the cellulosic ethanol case studies. To produce 54,000 m 3 (54 million litres per year (MLY)) of ethanol, 480,000 tonnes of biomass feedstock is required. Therefore, a small ethanol production facility, capable of producing 25 MLY of ethanol would require 222,222 tonnes of biomass feedstock. Based on the soil zone in the Birch Hills area, the midsized and small ethanol facilities would require 325,000 and 150,000 ha of wheat crop, respectively. According to BIMAT, the maximum transport distances were 101 km and 67 km respectively (the average transport distances were 70 km and 47 km, respectively). The feedstock (farmgate), processing, transportation, and total costs for this case study are summarized in Table Table Case 3A. Bales trucked to Birch Hills, Saskatchewan, on a flatbed trailer and shredded at biorefinery (wheat straw). Straw Bales (round) for 25 MLY Straw Bales (square) for 25 MLY Straw Bales (round) for 54 MLY Straw Bales (square) for 54 MLY Feedstock Cost ($/t) Processing Cost ($/t) Transportation Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/t) $38.80 $3.32 $14.77 $56.89 $37.50 $3.32 $13.82 $54.64 $38.80 $3.32 $17.44 $59.55 $37.50 $3.32 $16.03 $56.84 The transportation cost per tonne is higher for the larger facility because of the longer transport distance required to haul the additional biomass to the facility. The model accounted for the maximum allowable distance per truck per year (160,000 km). Therefore, the 54 MLY case required more trucks to haul the biomass the required distances so the transportation cost per tonne was higher for the 54 MLY facility. The number of delivered trucks required to meet the biomass demand for this case study are shown in Table Bales were hauled using flat deck trailers. Assuming an average unloading time of 40 min per flat deck trailer, hauling biomass feedstock for a 54 MLY ethanol facility would result in minor traffic congestion on site.

188 181 Table Number of delivered truck loads required to meet biomass demand for Case 3. Form of Feedstock Total Number of Loads (eight-axle trailer) Loads Per Day (assuming 300 days/year) Loads Per Hour (assuming 12 hrs/day) Round Bales (25 MLY) 8, Square Bales (25 MLY) 6, Round Bales (54 MLY) 18, Square Bales (54 MLY) 14, Case Study 4 (hauling biomass material to a cellulosic ethanol facility in Swift Current, Saskatchewan): As in case study 3, a 54 MLY ethanol facility would require 480,000 tonnes of biomass feedstock and a 25 MLY facility would require 222,222 tonnes of biomass feedstock. Based on the soil zone in the Swift Current area, these amounts of wheat straw would require 485,000 and 225,000 ha of wheat crop, respectively. According to BIMAT, the maximum transport distances were 109 km and 70 km respectively (the average transport distances were 76 km and 50 km, respectively). The feedstock (farmgate), processing, transportation and total costs for this case are shown in Table Table Case 4A. Bales, trucked to Swift Current, Saskatchewan, on a flatbed trailer and shredded at biorefinery (wheat straw). Straw bales (round) for 25 MLY Straw bales (square) for 25 MLY Straw bales (round) for 54 MLY Straw bales (square) for 54 MLY Feedstock cost ($/t) Processing Cost ($/t) Transportation Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/t) $38.80 $3.32 $15.12 $57.24 $37.50 $3.32 $14.11 $54.93 $38.80 $3.32 $18.13 $60.25 $37.50 $3.32 $16.60 $57.42 The feedstock and processing costs are the same for the Swift Current facility as for the Birch Hills facility (on a per tonne basis). The transportation cost per tonne is higher for the Swift Current facility because of lower production of straw in the area and the longer transport distances. The number of delivered trucks required to meet the biomass demand for this case study were the same as shown in Table Case Study 5 (hauling biomass material to a bioproducts facility in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and Maple Creek, Saskatchewan): There is potential for utilization of flax fibres for bioproducts such as reinforcement for composite materials, textiles, insulation, or paper. Flax straw is also a valuable biofuel as the energy content of flax straw is 2% to 3% higher than for cereal straws. Utilization of flax straw for bioproducts

189 182 often requires the fibre to remain intact. Therefore, densification and processing costs were not assessed for this case study. The costs outlined below represent delivery of intact bales to the bioproducts facility. For this case study, the costs to purchase and transport 5% of the annual production of flax straw in Saskatchewan were assessed. Sohkansanj et al (2006) estimated that the average amount of flax straw available in Saskatchewan was 662,000 t; therefore, this case study assessed the feedstock and transportation costs for 33,000 tonnes of flax straw. Based on the average flax straw yield (Table 10-5), this requires 92,000 ha of flax fields in both areas (Humboldt and Maple Creek). However, due the limited availability of flax straw near Maple Creek, the maximum transport distance for the Maple Creek facility was 330 km compared to a maximum transport distance of 100 km near Humboldt (from BIMAT). The average transport distance was 70 km and 230 km for Humboldt and Maple Creek, respectively. The feedstock (farmgate) and transportation costs for this case are shown in Table Table Case 5A. Flax straw bales trucked to Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, on a flatbed trailer. Feedstock Cost ($/t) Transportation Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/t) Round Bales to Humboldt $37.17 $17.44 $54.61 Square Bales to Humboldt $35.87 $16.03 $51.90 Round Bales to Maple Creek $37.17 $35.97 $73.14 Square Bales to Maple Creek $35.87 $31.41 $67.28 The number of delivered trucks required to meet the biomass demand for this case study are shown in Table Since the tonnage is the same for both locations, the number of loads is the same for both locations. Bales were hauled using flat deck trailers. Assuming an average unloading time of 40 min per flat deck trailer, hauling 33,000 tonnes of flax straw would not cause any traffic congestion. Table Number of delivered truck loads required to meet biomass demand for Case 5. Form of Feedstock Total Number of Loads (eight-axle trailer) Loads Per Day (assuming 300 days/year) Loads Per Hour (assuming 12 hrs/day) Round Bales Square Bales

190 Discussion 11.1 Feasibility and Costs Associated with Biomass Utilization Biomass Availability and Potential Markets The quantity of agricultural residues available for use as biomass feedstock is highly variable; it depends on the type of crop, growing season, other competing uses (bedding, feed, etc.), the ability to get on the field to collect it, and the willingness of the producer to sell. There is approximately 2.75 million dry tonnes of cereal straw available in Saskatchewan available for biomass utilization assuming a producer participation rate of 50%, but this quantity will vary from year to year. The quantity of dedicated biomass crops available for use as biomass feedstock is also highly variable. Although it is suggested that dedicated biomass crops can be produced on marginal land, the few yield trials in Saskatchewan were on good cropland and yet showed highly variable yields depending on the growing year and conditions. If good cropland is used to produce dedicated biomass crops, such as switchgrass and miscanthus, this would require turning agricultural land from food production into dedicated biomass crop production. This could potentially limit the producers willing to grow dedicated biomass crops as they may be unlikely to invest the time required to do so without long-term contracts or a stable market for the product. Additionally, if producers were to switch their crop production to a dedicated biomass crop, the biomass crop would need to be at least as profitable as the crop they are currently producing. The producer s profit will be dependent on the yield of the crop and expected yields of dedicated biomass crops are unknown and highly variable. Therefore, more work will be required before producers will feel the risk is low enough and crop insurance agencies will insure a particular crop. Dedicated biomass crops generally require the same agronomic practices and farm equipment as forage crops, with the exception of miscanthus planting equipment. The main differences lie in the harvest time and inputs. Dedicated biomass crop production aims at achieving a low moisture and nutrient content; therefore, a later harvest time is usually preferred with fewer inputs. The production of dedicated biomass crops such as switchgrass, miscanthus, and sorghum are attractive in other provinces or countries due to their high potential yields; however, the lack of research in Saskatchewan combined with an unknown yield potential makes dedicated biomass crops such as these less attractive. In contrast, forages and native grasses are well established and have proven yield potential in Saskatchewan.

191 184 Before a producer makes the choice to produce dedicated biomass crops or bale agricultural crop residues, they will want to be certain there is a market. The market potential for biomass feedstocks is not well-defined. Cellulosic ethanol has been investigated and plans have been made for production, but these plans have not yet been finalized. Bioproducts made from biomass feedstock such as flax straw have been researched for many years, but the limited potential for large quantities has not required increased production. Both of these markets tend to rely on the biomass being viewed as a waste product and thus being of law value to the producer. But, agricultural residues have value (soil conservation, nutrient value, cattle use, etc). Surplus residues that are used for biomass feedstock need to be considered as having a reasonable value (nutrient content) to ensure producer participation that provides a reliable, adequate supply. As a result, long- and short-term supply contracts are typically a major challenge for biorefineries. Financing for biorefineries is often dependent on a secure supply of biomass feedstock, while securing supply contracts is often dependent upon financing. Utilizing biomass as a coproduct, such as for cofiring with coal, might be a reasonable solution as it is less dependent on a consistent biomass supply. The seasonality of biomass availability makes dedicated biomass boilers less attractive option Logistics Cost and Biomass Value In this report, logistic costs included production, harvesting, densification/preprocessing and transportation. Production costs for agricultural residues included reclaimable nutrient value, collection costs, and a profit margin for producer. Since the primary market for these crops (wheat, barley, oats, etc) is for the grain produced, the production costs for these crops were not included. Production of dedicated energy crops mustinclude costs for seed, fertilizer, chemicals, and return on land use. Harvesting agricultural residues includes the cost to bale the straw and transport the bales field-side or to a nearby storage facility. Harvesting dedicated energy crops included these costs plus the cost to cut and condition the crop. Processing costs depend on the type of processing required. Transportation costs depended on the type of material transported (bale versus densified material) and the distance traveled. The PAMI spreadsheet model was used to estimate that forage sorghum bales can be delivered for $125 to $150/t ($735 to $8.82/GJ), reed canarygrass bales can be delivered from $154 to $179/t ($9.05 to $10.53/GJ) and wheat straw bales can be delivered from $55 to $80/t ($3.23 to $4.71/GJ) for transportation distances ranging from 50 km to 250 km. The relative breakdown among costs for production, harvesting, processing, and transportation are shown in Figures 11-1 to 11-3.

192 185 For the dedicated biomass crops like sorghum and reed canarygrass, production costs are the biggest component of the total delivered cost. Even with relatively high yields of these crops, forage sorghum and reed canarygrass become costly if the producer is fairly compensated. This compensation is necessary to make the producer s profit comparable to what Saskatchewan producers are currently making with traditional crops. However, if producers were able to utilize marginal land not suitable for growing cereal or oilseed crops, it is possible that lower compensation would be acceptable. For wheat straw, the collection cost is the biggest component of the total delivered cost. Processing bales includes a nominal amount for shredding the bales at the biorefinery. Adding a densification process significantly increases the processing cost (up to $60/t) while reducing the transportation cost by a small amount ($5 to $15/t). Transportation costs contribute between 14% and 35% of the total delivered cost. While the wheat straw has the lowest delivered cost, the value of wheat straw for combustion is lower than reed canarygrass due to issues with corrosion, slagging, and fouling in the furnace. Processing 3% Transportation 21% Production 50% Collection 26% Figure Relative costs of forage sorghum bale production and delivery (production costs include seed, fertilizer, herbicide, and equipment costs as well as land use costs and margin for producer) (data from PAMI model).

193 186 Processing 2% Transportation 14% Collection 15% Production 69% Figure Relative costs of reed canarygrass production and delivery (production and harvesting costs annualized over 10 years, production costs include seed, fertilizer, herbicide, and equipment costs as well as land use costs and margin for producer) (data from PAMI model). Transportation 35% Production 23% Collection 37% Processing 5% Figure Relative costs of wheat straw bale production and delivery (production costs include cost of nutrient replacement and margin for producer) (data from PAMI model). The capital cost and capacity of trailers play a huge role in total transportation cost and are often overlooked in logistics studies. Bales are transported on flat deck trailers whereas densified and forage harvested material are transported in a dry bulk trailer.

194 187 The cost of dry bulk trailers is higher than flat decks, resulting in higher transportation rates. Furthermore, dry bulk trailers are heavier than flat decks, reducing the allowable payload. In fact, a typical bulk trailer can only be filled approximately three quarters full of pellets before it reaches its allowable payload. Overweight permits can be purchased but may be cost prohibitive in the long-term. Most studies conclude that densification significantly reduces transportation costs because denser material requires fewer trips. While this is true, the number of trips is reduced by a small amount (due to inefficient use of dry bulk trailers) and the added cost to operate dry bulk trailers negates the benefit of fewer trips. The analysis of transportation cost in this study suggests that biomass densification does not significantly reduce truck transportation costs. The added cost of densification means the delivered cost of briquettes and pellets is much higher than the delivered cost of bales when the biomass is transported by truck. When the biomass is transported by rail or ship, densification is more likely to reduce transportation cost. Although densification does not help reduce transportation costs, processing adds value to the biomass feedstock. Pelleted material is easier to handle and convey, and in some cases can be utilized as is. Torrefied material has been shown to exhibit better combustion characteristics but is bulky and difficult to handle. Torrefied pellets are a valuable fuel for combustion, are easy to handle, and have superior storage characteristics. This study did not account for the value of these characteristics so it is difficult to assess whether or not the cost to process biomass is economical. This is up to the end user to decide. However, the results from this study suggest that processing and densification does not lower transportation costs when the material is transported by truck. So handling, storage, and combustion benefits must be balanced against processing cost. Although variable, the cost for biomass collection, storage, processing, and transport to the biorefinery gate can cost 35% to 65% of the total production cost of cellulosic ethanol. By contrast, feedstock logistics costs associated with the harvest, transportation, and storage of corn grain contribute to roughly 7% to 19% of the total cost of producing fuel ethanol. The relative costs of feedstock logistics for electricity generation by combustion of coal are likely to be even lower than 7% to 19% of the total production costs. Therefore, improving biomass feedstock logistics efficiency and economics would reduce the overall cost of utilizing biomass feedstocks for renewable energy Using Fossil Fuels to Generate Renewable Fuels The energy balance of producing, harvesting, processing, and transporting biomass feedstock needs to be investigated in detail. PAMI conducted a quick assessment of the

195 188 diesel fuel requirements to deliver wheat straw cubes. Baling and transporting to field-side required approximately 2 L/t of biomass (based on a 100 hp tractor), field-side densification required approximately 60 L/t of biomass (based on field-side cubing, excluding size reduction), and transportation required approximately 2 L/t of biomass (based on 100 km, assuming a fully loaded flat deck trailer hauled 37 tonnes). Therefore, a total of 64 L of diesel fuel was required to deliver one tonne of biomass using field-side densification. Assuming the energy content of No. 2 diesel fuel is 35.8 MJ/L, 2.3 GJ of diesel energy is required to deliver one tonne of straw from field to factory. Assuming the energy content of the bales is 17 GJ/tonne, the energy required to deliver the bales represented approximately 14% of the energy content of the bales. If the efficiency of converting straw pellets to electricity by combustion is estimated to be 75%, it required 2.3 GJ of diesel fuel energy to produce 10 GJ of renewable electrical energy. As another example, one tonne of straw will yield approximately 113 L of ethanol. The energy content of ethanol is 24 MJ/L so one tonne of straw resulted in 2.7 GJ of ethanol energy. It required 2.3 GJ of diesel fuel to produce 2.7 GJ of ethanol. This analysis assumed field-side densification (which relied on diesel fuel as a power source), but this analysis did not account for the fuel or energy required for loading and unloading or size reduction. Complete energy balances are required to ensure that renewable energy technologies are not adopted without considering the amount of fossil fuels required to produce renewable energy Biomass Cost Comparison with Coal The US Department of Energy published information on the cost of producing electricity using a variety of fuels and technologies in These costs are summarized in Table Table Costs to produce electricity using a variety of technologies in Source of Electricity Cost to Produce ($/MW-hr) Cost to Produce ($/GJ) Conventional coal Combustion turbine (natural gas) Wind (on-shore) Hydro Biomass Based on this information, the cost to produce electricity from biomass is approximately $4.92/GJ higher than the cost to produce electricity from coal. It is unclear if these costs to produce electricity include costs of carbon taxes. For every GJ produced by burning coal, approximately 300 kg of CO 2 are emitted. If a carbon tax of $10/t was implemented,

196 189 this increases the cost of producing electricity by coal combustion by $3/GJ. Electricity produced from biomass is considered green electricity. Many utility providers have programs where consumers can pay a premium for green energy. SaskPower, for example, has a premium program for consumers who wish to purchase a 100 kw-hr block of green energy. This is a $0.025/kW-hr premium ($6.94/GJ premium). Therefore, assuming there is a carbon tax on coal burning and green electricity can be sold for a premium, the net cost of biomass electricity production may actually be lower than the net cost of coal electricity production. Table Theoretical net cost of electricity produced by coal and biomass (based on cost to produce in 2005). Source of Electricity Cost to Produce ($/GJ) Carbon Tax ($/GJ) Premium on Sales Net Cost ($/GJ) Coal $26.33 $3.00 $0.00 $29.33 Biomass $31.25 $0.00 $6.94 $24.31 To compare the delivered cost of biomass with the estimated delivered costs found in this study, we used the cost to deliver coal to the plant. Samson et al. suggested that coal could be delivered to a biorefinery door for $1.83 to $3.09/GJ but this estimate might not be valid for lignite coal which is typically used for electricity generation in Saskatchewan. SaskPower pays between $1 and $2.50/GJ for the coal to be delivered to their facility (Tim Zulkoski, personal communication). A summary of the delivered cost of coal and various forms of straw are shown in Table Based on these estimates, the delivered cost of agricultural residues is higher but comparable to the delivered cost of coal. Other considerations (carbon taxes and green energy premiums) will improve the feasibility of biomass utilization. Table Energy density and delivered fuel cost comparison Fuel Energy Content (GJ/t) Bulk Density (t/m3) Energy Density (MJ/m3) Lignite coal Straw bales Straw cubes Torrefied straw pellets Delivered Cost ($/GJ) However, the cost to produce electricity from biomass might be higher than the cost to produce electricity from coal. Some research has shown that up to 15% of coal can be offset by biomass without requiring major modifications to the combustion equipment, but most of the experience related to large scale cofiring is with woody biomass. Cofiring with agricultural biomass will result in issues related to ash building, slagging, fouling, and corrosion. The modifications required to cofire with agricultural biomass include (but

197 190 are not limited to): material processing/handling/storage infrastructure, systems and technology to deal with ash, slagging, fouling, and emissions control (NO x, particulate matter). Cameron et al (2004) concluded that power from straw in western Canada was more economically feasible than power by forest residues because of the high gross yield of straw. Other researchers found that the feedstock for forest residue was less expensive than agricultural crop residues or herbaceous energy crops. However, in Saskatchewan, forest residues are generally available in northern Saskatchewan so the transportation distance to biorefineries in the south might be cost prohibitive. Agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops are spatially distributed, making them available to a biorefinery located anywhere in Saskatchewan. Generally, the economics of biomass cofiring do not make sense at this time due to low coal and natural gas prices. But coal and natural gas prices are volatile and are projected to increase steadily over the next decades. In addition, carbon taxes might significantly increase the costs associated with utilizing fossil fuels for energy production. Finally, more research will lead to decreased production costs of dedicated energy crops and optimization of the supply chain, reducing the overall cost of delivered biomass. When all these factors are addressed, biomass utilization will be economically feasible Discussion of the Case Studies Case studies 1 and 2 outlined in Section showed that the cost of producing dedicated energy crops was significantly higher than the cost associated with the value of straw residue. This is assuming that the producer is fairly compensated for land use and production costs. Unless the yields of dedicated energy crops can be improved in Saskatchewan, it is unlikely that the advantages of dedicated energy crops as a combustion fuel outweigh the costs associated with their production. The most cost effective biomass feedstock is agricultural residues. A summary of the cost to deliver enough biomass to Estevan to offset 15% of the coal is shown in Table All processing was assumed to be field-side except for torrefaction and grinding on-site, where the material was delivered in bales and processed at the biorefinery.

198 191 Table Cost to deliver biomass to Estevan to offset 15% of the coal. Feedstock Cost ($/t) Processing Cost ($/t) Transportation Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/t) Total Cost ($/GJ) Straw Bales $38.80 $3.32 $19.41 $61.52 $3.62 Briquettes $38.80 $70.27 $19.27 $ $7.35 Pellets $38.80 $69.39 $17.93 $ $7.42 Torrefied pellets Torrefaction and Grinding On-site $38.80 $ $21.01 $ $9.71 $38.80 $38.70 $19.41 $96.91 $4.84 The lowest cost option (based on $/GJ) is straw bales. However, the value of straw bales is relatively low due to the need for further processing. Field-side processing helps reduce the transportation cost a small amount, but the low capacity and inefficient power systems of field side equipment makes the processing cost per tonne very high. Torrefaction and grinding (but not pelleting) on site results in a low total cost ($/GJ) while providing a high value product for combustion. However, nondensified torrefied material is difficult to handle and results in a dust and explosion hazard. The costs associated with storage and handling torrefied material should be assessed to ensure that torrefaction and grinding on-site represents an economically viable option. Again, the results of the case studies suggested that densification does not make transport by truck economical. The reduction in transportation cost was only marginally reduced for densified material while the processing cost made the overall cost of densification higher than delivery of bales for all transport distances examined in this study (up to 800 km) Fieldside Versus Centralized Processing Although densification and processing was shown to not significantly reduce transportation cost, processing may add value to the biomass feedstock and, in some cases, is required for improved handling, conveying, and conversion to useful energy. Field-side processing means the normally bulky material does not need to be transported very far before it can be processed. But, field-side units tend to have lower capacity and efficiency and rely on fossil (diesel) fuel to process feedstock for renewable fuel. Centralized processing requires transporting the bulk material over longer distances (assumed to be 20% longer on average) and requires more handling (loading and unloading). Based on the assumptions in this study for the costs associated with field-side processing, it is more economical to transport bulk residue to a centralized facility even for very short transport distances (refer to Table 11-5). Better estimates of the costs of

199 192 operating field-side units might make field side processing more cost effective for short distances. The total transport distance for centralized processing was assumed to be 20% higher than the distance for field-side processing. More accurate transport distances for centralized processing (via GIS or similar software) might lower the transportation cost associated with centralized processing. In this assessment, the transportation cost for centralized processed also includes added loading and unloading costs. In all cases, transporting round bales is more economical than field-side or centralized processing. But the value of round bales is less than that of pellets as bales or pellets require specialized handling. The cost of processing round bales on site can be as high as $50/t and the delivery of round bales would still be more economical than field side or centralized pelleting. Table Summary of processing, transportation and total costs for field-side versus centralized processing for a variety of transport distances. Field-side Pellets Centralized Pellets Round Bales 1 km 10 km 50 km 100 km 500 km Processing Transportation Total (a) Processing Transportation (b) Total Processing Transportation Total a Total includes production cost of $38.80/t b Transportation distance for centralized processing was 20% higher than listed 11.3 Identification of Future Work Identify Other Potential Dedicated Biomass Crops This report focused on specific dedicated biomass crops and agricultural crop residues. There are many other crops that were outside the scope of this study that could have excellent biomass feedstock potential. Camelina sativa (false flax) and Brassica carinata (Ethiopian mustard) are two of such crops. Currently, there is research investigating their use as biomass feedstock in the Canadian prairies due to their potential to be grown on marginal land in dry conditions. Jeruselum artichoke has also been identified as having potential as a biomass feedstock. Further work could be done on identifying more crops that have potential for various end uses.

200 Optimizing Inputs There needs to be further research into optimizing inputs including herbicides, pesticides, and nutrients as they can affect the quality and cost of the feedstock. Biomass feedstock nutrient requirements content is detrimental to various end uses. Therefore, work should be done that determines the minimal nutrient requirements to produce a high biomass yield, taking into account nutrients already present in the soil Identify Minimum Growing Requirements Many researchers comment on the ability for some dedicated biomass crops to be produced on marginal land, however, there is no comprehensive definition of how marginal land can be before there will be sparse or no growth. Studies are needed to determine the exact growth requirements for dedicated biomass crops and to define marginal land characteristics necessary for suitable growth Yield Trials Some potential biomass yield data used in this report were based on either one yield trial or yield information from another province. In order to acquire a more accurate representation of potential yields for dedicated biomass crops in Saskatchewan, more yield trials are required. This is especially important for dedicated biomass crops that have proven potential in other provinces and countries such as switchgrass, miscanthus, and high biomass sorghum. Also, these yield trialsshould take place in proximity to where a biorefinery is likely to be located Evaluate Quality of Saskatchewan Produced Feedstock Following yield trials, the quality of the biomass feedstock produced in Saskatchewan must be evaluated. The energy, nutrient, ash, cellulose, and hemicellulose should all be determined. Many of the potential dedicated biomass crops are forage crops and this relevant information to other end uses is not known Over-Wintering Trials More research needs to be done on the effects of overwintering biomass feedstock in Saskatchewan. There have been concerns that although there is a decreased nutrient and ash content associated with delaying harvest until the spring, the yield losses and difficulties arising from in-field moisture may be determental tooverwintering Develop and Evaluate Large Scale Processing Equipment Information on the capacity and cost to operate both field-side and centralized

201 194 processing (densification and torrefaction) is lacking. This is because very few large scale (>2 t/h) facilities exist that can handle agricultural residues and dedicated biomass crops. Energy audits of processing equipment need to be conducted to determine the total cost of processing including size reduction Design Improved Harvesting and Handling Equipment There is a need for equipment development to facilitate and make biomass feedstock production and handling more efficient. Equipment that can combine cutting and baling operations would reduce harvesting time and reduce associated costs. Furthermore, advances in field-side densification equipment may also help lower costs. Also, densification equipment that can intake a variety of different straw lengths directly from the field, may also be beneficial. There should also be handling equipment designed to speed up the loading, unloading, and conveying processes. Ideally, handling equipment would not require many operators, such as self-loading and unloading equipment Develop High Yielding Cultivars/Varieties Many of the dedicated biomass crops have the potential to produce high yields in other provinces, but may not be able to survive prairie winters. Further research could be done on developing cultivars that have excellent winter survivability and produce high yields Conduct Trials with Mixed Crops Perennial grasses are generally slow to establish; it may help to seed these grasses with annuals or another crop that establish quickly. Additionally, if one of the crops has a lowyield year, the other may not; this could help lower the risk to the producer. In order to recommend which crops could be grown for biomass feedstock purposes as a mix, trials should be performed to determine if there will be problems growing two different crops simultaneously. Intercropping woody biomass such as short rotation willow with dedicated biomass crops may offer other benefits Conduct Risk Analysis Producers may not be willing to produce dedicated biomass crops due to the potential risks. If there are not enough yield trials to show producers which dedicated biomass crops they should be growing (if any), producers will not be able to make an informed decision. Producers will need assurance that a dedicated biomass crop will be at least as profitable as crops they are currently growing. A risk analysis will also have to be performed before insurance companies may be willing to provide insurance for a dedicated biomass crop that is not widely grown in Saskatchewan.

202 Conclusions A considerable amount of work has been completed on defining the supply chain logistics for wood-based biomass, but little work has been conducted for agricultural based biomass. Therefore, this study focused on the agricultural practices and costs associated with agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops. Supply logistics of agricultural based feedstock involves production, collection, processing, transportation, and storage. The main conclusions for each component of the supply chain are summarized here in point form. Production Dedicated energy crops are costly to produce given that all costs associated with production (seed, fertilizer, chemical, equipment, land use, etc) must be recovered to be economical for the producer. Many dedicated energy crops can be produced using similar equipment used for forage production (with the exception of miscanthus). The yield potential in Saskatchewan for the most common dedicated energy crops (switchgrass and miscanthus) is much lower than in the US or eastern Canada but more research is required. Cool-season grasses such as reed canarygrass have yielded well in Saskatchewan. Generally, this study showed that annual energy crops are more cost effective than perennial crops in Saskatchewan due to the lower yields of perennial crops. For example, the farmgate cost (including production, collection and margin) for forage sorghum was approximately $99/t while the farmgate cost for reed canarygrass was approximately $129/t. However, if nutrient inputs were optimized for perennial crops, it is possible that the yields would be comparable such that perennial crops may be more cost effective due to their lower seeding requirements. Utilizing agricultural residues is more cost effective than using dedicated energy crops but the supply of agricultural residue is highly variable and the quality of agricultural residue is lower than that of energy crops. The farmgate cost (including nutrient value of straw, collection and margin) for spring wheat straw was approximately $38/t. Markets for biomass are not well defined, which increases the risk associated with biomass production. Collection Agricultural biomass is typically collected by baling (large square or large round bales). PAMI s analysis shows that the costs associated with producing large square bales is marginally lower than the costs for producing large round bales.

203 196 If the biomass will be processed field-side, it may be more economical to collect the material with a forage harvester instead of a baler. Forage harvested material will not need to be shredded prior to processing. Processing Biomass processing can include densification alone (production of briquettes, cubes or pellets), torrefaction alone, or torrefaction combined with densification. Processing adds value to the feedstock but is costly. Costs of densification alone ranged from $40 to $70/t while costs of combined torrefaction and densification ranged from $90 to $113/t. More studies are required to assess the total energy requirements and capacity of field-side and centralized processing equipment. Centralized processing is generally more efficient than field-side processing and the results of this study suggest that, even for short transport distances, it is less costly to process material at a centralized facility. Improving the efficiency of field-side equipment will reduce the costs associated with field-side processing. However, field-side processing relies on less efficient and mobile energysources (fossil based), often negating the benefit of generating renewable fuels. Transportation Transportating biomass feedstocks can be by truck, rail, or pipeline. The transportation distance and end use will dictate the most suitable form of transportation. The distances traveled within Saskatchewan are relatively small (<300 km) so a detailed analysis of transportation costs was completed for truck transport only. Contrary to most other logistics studies, the results in this study showed that densification did not significantly reduce transportation costs. This is due partially to the capital cost of bulk trailers (needed to haul densified material) being higher than the capital cost for flat deck trailers (needed to haul bales). Also, the allowable payload of dry bulk trailers on Saskatchewan highways meant they are used inefficiently (three quarters full maximum). Bale transportation (by truck) costs ranged from $10/t to $20/t for distances less than 100 km. PAMI s Logistics Model The spreadsheet model developed by PAMI can be used as to estimate the total delivered cost for a variety of dedicated crops and agricultural residues. It accounts for production, collection, processing, and transportation (by truck) costs. Production costs (for dedicated crops) account for seed, fertility, herbicides, equipment, land use, and profit margin. Production costs (for agricultural resides) account for nutrient replacement and profit margin. Collection costs account for equipment and labour

204 197 associated with baling as well as transporting bales to field side for both types of feedstocks. Processing includes densification (briquetting and pelleting) and torrefaction. Processing can be accomplished either at field-side or at a centralized processing facility. The transportation costs are based on capital and operating costs of trucks and trailers. Several logistics models exist in literature, but they are either for a specific feedstock or location and are not applicable for Saskatchewan. In addition, they are complex and it is not clear what assumptions or costs are included. This model, although it does not factor in things like storage costs or queuing theory, is a valuable tool, is easy to use, and can be used for Saskatchewan-based agricultural biomass. General Information In this study, the value of different biomass feedstocks was compared based primarily on the higher heating value (GJ/t). In fact, the value of a feedstock will be dependent on quality considerations for its particular end use. For example, if the feedstock is used for combustion, the nutrient and moisture content and ease of size reduction and conveyability will also affect its value. Also, storage characteristics will be important for large biorefineries needing to store large quantities of feedstock on site. Full energy balances of the supply chain need to be assessed to ensure more fossil fuel is not being usedthan green fuel being generated from the biomass. The cost of delivered agricultural residue is comparable to the delivered cost of coal (on a $/GJ basis). However, costs to change infrastructure to handle biomass feedstock needs to be defined. It has been suggested that 15% of coal can be offset by biomass without requiring significant changes to the combustion equipment, but handling and conveying equipment might need to be altered.

205 References Abouguendia, Z. (1995). Seeded native range plants. Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food: Grazing and Pasture Technology Program and Extension Service. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2010). Biomass inventory mapping and analysis tool. Retrieved from ocib_en.xml&extent= , , , &layers=place37M,place2 5M,place15M,place5M,place1M,place500K,place250K;rivers25M,rivers15M,river s5m,rivers1m,rivers500k,lakes37m,lakes25m,lakes15m,lakes5m,lakes1m,lakes5 00K,Roads25M,Roads15M,Roads5M,Roads1M,Roads500K,ferry500K,bndy5-37M,bndy1M,BndyLn1-5M;lcvr_15M; Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada Inc. (n.d). AERC forage sorghum BMR 1. Retrieved from Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada Inc. (2004). CFSH 30 factsheet. Retrieved from Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada Inc. (2005). Canadian forage pearl millet (CFPM) 101. Retrieved from Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada Inc. (2007a). Canadian forage sorghum hybrid 30 (Sudan-Multicut). Retrieved from Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada Inc. (2007b). Canadian grain sorghum hybrid. Retrieved from Ag-Vision Seeds Ltd. (2012) Forage Crops 2012 Retail Prices. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. (2000). Potassium fertilizer application in crop production. Agdex Retrieved from ASABE Standards. (1991). S269.4 DEC1991 (R2007). Cubes, pellets, and crumbles definitions and methods for determining density, durability, and moisture content. ASABE Standards. St. Joseph: Michigan.

206 199 Amosson, S., Girase, J., Bean, B., Rooney, W., & Becker, J. (2011). Economic analysis of biomass sorghum for biofuels production in the Texas high plains. Agrilife Research. Retrieved from Sorghum.pdf Ampong-Nyarko, K. (2009). Miscanthus introduction in Alberta. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Report to Cantus Bio Power Ltd. Anderson, E., Arundale, R., Maughan, M., Oladeinde, A., Whcislo, A., & Voigt, T. (2011). Growth and Agronomy of Miscanthus x giganteus for biomass production. Biofuels, 2(2), Retrieved from Anderson Group. (2011). BioBaler system. Retrieved from Aung O., Albion, K., & Hewson, D. (2011). Energy crops and agricultural residuals for power generation. The University of Western Ontario Research Park Bioindustrial Innovation Centre. Bagg, J., McDonald, I., Banks, S., & Molenhuis, J. (2009). Switchgrass cost of production estimates: Infosheet. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affiars. Bailey-Stamler, S. B., Samson, R., & Ho Lem, C. (2007). Assessing the agri-fibre biomass residue resources for creating a BIOHEAT industry in Alberta. Retrieved from canada.com/online_library/feedstock_biomass/assessing%20the%20agri- Fibre%20Biomass%20Residue...%20(Bailey- Stamler%20et%20al.,%202007).pdf Bank of Canada. (2011). Inflation calculator. Ottawa: Canada. Retrieved from Basu, P. (2011). Professional development course on biomass torrefaction. University of Guelph. Guelph: Ontario. Bergman, P. C. A. (2005). Combined torrefaction and pelletisation. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). Petten: The Netherlands Bissen, D. (2009). Biomass densification document of evaluation. Zachry Engineering Corporation.

207 200 Bitra, V. S. P., Womac, A. R., Igathinathane, C., & Sokhansanj, S. (2010). Knife mill comminution energy analysis of switchgrass, wheat straw, and corn stover, and characterization of particle size distributions. Trans.ASABE 53(5), Blade Energy Crops. (2010a). Managing high-biomass sorghum as a dedicated energy crop. Ceres Inc. Blade Energy Crops. (2010b). Planting & managing switchgrass as a dedicated energy crop. Ceres Inc. Bradley, D. (2010). Canada report on bioenergy Climate Change Solutions. Retrieved from nergy%202010%20sept%2015% pdf Brett Young. (n.d). Elbee Northern Wheatgrass. Retrieved from hern_wheatgrass.pdf Brett Young. (n.d). Green Needlegrass. Retrieved from dlegrass_2010.pdf Brett Young. (n.d). Walsh Western Wheatgrass. Retrieved from stern_wheatgrass.pdf Bridgeman, T. G., Jones, J. M., Shield I., & Williams, P. T. (2008). Torrefaction of reed canary grass, wheat straw and willow to enhance solid fuel qualities and combustion properties. Fuel, 87(6) doi: /j.fuel Buckmaster, D. R. (n.d). Forage losses = economic losses, so minimize them. Agricultural & Biological Engineering Factsheet I-107. Retrieved from Buckmaster, D. R., Rotz, C. A., & Black, J. R. (1990). Value of alfalfa losses on dairy farms. Trans. ASAE, 33(2) Burvall, J. (1997). Influence of harvest time and soil type on fuel quality in reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Biomass and Bioenergy, 12(3) Cai, X., Zhang, X., & Wang, D. (2011). Land availability for biofuel. Environ. Sci.

208 201 Technol. 45, Cameron, J. B., Kumar, A., & Flynn, P. C. (2004). Straw to power: economics and barriers a Canadian case. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Campbell, K. (2007). A feasibility study guide for an agricultural biomass pellet company. Agricultural Utilization Research Institute (AURI) Ag Innovations. Ciolkosz, D., & Wallace, R. (2011). A review of torrefaction for bioenergy feedstock production. Biofuel Bioprod Bioref, 5(3), Clarke, S., & Preto, F. (2011). Biomass burn characteristics. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. Retrieved from Cochrane-SNC-Lavalin. (1994). Assessment of the potential use of biomass resources as a sustainable energy source in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority. Publication No. T P-008. Regina: Saskatchewan. Coxworth, E., Leduc, P., & Hultgreen, G. (1995). Analysis of crop production systems for reducing carbon emissions, stashing carbon in soils and providing raw materials for bioenergy production. Agriculture Canada. Cundiff, J. S. & Marsh, L. S. (1996). Harvest and storage costs for bales of switchgrass in the southeastern United States. Bioresource Technology, Cundiff, J. S., Dias, N., & Sherali, H. D. (1997). A linear programming approach for designing a herbaceous biomass delivery system, Bioresource Technol., 59(1), Cundiff, J. S., Grisso, R., & Ravula, P. P. (2004). Management system for biomass delivery at a conversion plant. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper Number: St. Joseph: Michigan. Cundiff, J. S., & Grisso, R. D. (2008). Containerized handling to minimize hauling cost of herbaceous biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(4), doi: /j.biombioe

209 202 DEFRA. (2007). Planting and growing miscanthus. Policy for Energy Crops Scheme. Retrieved from /SOURCES%20OF%20BIOMASS/ENERGY%20CROPS/GRASSES%20AND%2 0NON-WOODY%20ENERGY%20CROPS/MISCANTHUS/MISCANTHUS- GUIDE.PDF Doepker Industries Ltd. (2011). Commercial trailers. Retrieved from Duffy, M., & Nanhou, V. Y. (2001). Costs of producing switchgrass for biomass in Southern Iowa. Iowa State University: University Extension. PM Retrieved from docs/pdf/costs%20of%20switchgrass.pdf El Bassam, N. (1998). Energy plant species: their use and impact on environment and development. London: James & James Ltd. Environment Canada. (2011). National climate data and information archive. Retrieved from ng=e&province=sask&provbut=search Fruin, J., Stowers, M. D., & Tiller, K. (2010). Convergence of agriculture and energy: IV. Infrastructure considerations for biomass harvest, transportation, and storage. CAST Commentary. QTA Government of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. (2008). Farm machinery cost calculator. Retrieved from Government of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. (2011). Balers and baler attachments. Retrieved from Government of Alberta. (2008). Estimating the value of crop residues. Direct Seeding series. Agdex Retrieved from Government of Saskatchewan. (2005). Soil zones of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Retrieved from

210 203 ec96c2e78b75 Government of Saskatchewan. (2009). Russian wildrye for pasture. Retrieved from a67d1ebc1d98 Grisso, B., Smith, R., & Cundiff, J. (2009). Management tips for round bale hay harvesting, moving, and storage. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Retrieved from Gustafson, C. R., Maung, T. A., Saxowsky, D., Nowatzki, J., & Miljkovic, T. (2011). Economics of sourcing cellulosic feedstock for energy production. Agricultural & Applied Economics Association s 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting. Pittsburgh: Pennsylvania. Hadders, G., & Olsson, R. (1997). Harvest of grass for combustion in late summer and spring. Biomass and Bioenergy, 12(3), Hall, M. H. (2008). Reed canarygrass. Agronomy Facts 26:. Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from Hartley, B. E., Gibson, J. D., Sui, R., Thomasson, J. A., & Searcy, S. W. (2009). Characteristics of high-biomass sorghum as a biofuel American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Meeting Presentation Paper Number St. Joseph: Michigan Heaton, E. A., Dohleman, F., Miguez, A. F., Juvik, J. A., Lozovaya, V., Widholm, J., Zabotina, O. A., McIssac, G. F., David, M. B, Voigt, T. B., Boersma, N. N., & Long, S. (2010). Miscanthus: A promising biomass crop. ADV BOT RES, 56(10), Heaton, E. (2010). Giant miscanthus for biomass production. Iowa State University Department of Agronomy. Retrieved from Heinsoo, K., Hein, K., Melts, I., Holm, B., & Ivask, M. (2011). Reed canary grass yield and fuel quality in Estonian producers fields. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(1) doi: /j.biombioe

211 204 Hofmann, N. (2008). Conventional tillage: how conventional is it? Statistics Canada. Retrieved from eng.htm Hoque, M., Sokhansanj, S., Naimi, L., Bi, S., Lim, J., & Womac, A. R. (2007). Review and analysis of performance and productivity of size reduction equipment for fibrous materials. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Retrieved from Papers_presented/ASAE%20Paper%20No% %20Review%20and%20a nalyis%20of%20size%20reduction%20equipments_hoque%20et%20al.pdf Hutton, G., Berg, B., Najda, H., Cole, D., & Yoder, C. (2005). Perennial forage establishment in Alberta. Agri-Facts: Practical Information for Alberta s Agriculture Industry. Retrieved from pdf?OpenElement Jain, A. K., Khanna, M., Erickson, M., & Huang, H. (2010). An integrated biogeochemical and economic analysis of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United States. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy, 2(5), doi: /j x Jannasch, R., Duxbury, P., & Samson, R. (2001). Development of bioenergy feedstocks: agronomy data from Eastern Canada. Final Report. REAP-Canada. Contract # /001/SQ Jefferson, P. G., McCaughey, W. P., May, K., Woosaree, J. MacFarlene, L., & Wright, S. (2002). Performance of American native grass cultivars in the Canadian prairie provinces. Native Plants Journal, 3(1), Jefferson, P. G., McCaughey, W. P., May, K., Woosaree, J. & McFarlene, L. (2004). Potential utilization of native prairie grasses from western Canada as ethanol feedstock. Can. J. Plant Sci., 84(4), Johnson, C. (2012). Double-duty switchgrass. Hay and Forage Grower. Retrieved from Judd, J., Sarin, S. C., & Cundiff, J. S. (2011). Cost analysis of a biomass logistics system. The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper Number: St. Joseph: Michigan. Judd, J.D., Sarin, S.C., Cundiff, J.S. (2012). Design, modeling, and analysis of a

212 205 feedstock logistics system. Bioresour. Technol., 103(1), Kaliyan, N., & Morey, R.V. (2007). Factors affecting strength and durability of densified produces. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Karkee, M., McNaull, R. P., Birrell, S. J. & Steward, B. L. (2010). Agricultural biomass removal rate estimation for real-time optimization of single pass crop grain and biomass harvesting system. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Keyowski, L., & Fulton, M. (2008). Agriculture as a source of energy: Is it sustainable. Prairie Soils and Crops, 1, Khanna, M., Dhungana, B., & Clifton-Brown, J. (2008). Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(6), Doi: /j.biombioe Kludze, H., Deen, B., & Dutta, A. (2011). Report on literature review of agronomic practices for energy crop production under Ontario conditions. University of Guelph. Retrieved from Klass, D. L. (1998). Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. San Diego: Academic Press. Klass, D. L. (2004). Biomass for renewable energy and fuels. Encyclopedia of Energy, 1, Knudson, M. (2005). Plant guide: green needlegrass. United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from Kumar, A., Cameron, J. B., & Flynn, P. C. (2003). Biomass power cost and optimum plant size in western Canada. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24(6), Kumar, A., Cameron, J. B., & Flynn, P. C. (2004). Pipeline transport of biomass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol, 113, Kumar, A., Cameron, J. B., & Flynn, P. C. (2005). Pipeline transport and simultaneous

213 206 saccharification of corn stover. Bioresour. Technol, 96(7), Kumar, A., Sokhansanj, S., & Flynn, P. C. (2006). Development of a multicriteria assessment model for ranking biomass feedstock collection and transportation systems. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., (1), Lal, R. (2009). Soil quality impacts of residue removal for bioethanol production. Soil Tillage Res 102(2), doi: /j.still Landström, S., Lomakka, L., & Andersson, S. (1996). Harvest in spring improves yield and quality of reed canary grass as a bioenergy crop. Biomass and Bioenergy, 11(4), Lee, D., Owens, V. N., Boe, A., Jeranyama, P. (2007) Composition of herbaceous biomass feedstocks. North Central Center South Dakota State University. Retrieved from Lee, E. (2011). Product life cycle and biomass opportunities. Ford Motor Company. Presented at Biofibe 2011 Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Levelton Consultants. (2004). Bioenergy opportunities for Alberta: Strategic feasibility study. Phase I report. File Lewandowski, I., & Kicherer, A. (1997). Combustion quality of biomass: practical relevance and experiments to modify the biomass quality of Miscanthus x giganteus. Eur J Agron, 6(3-4), Lewandowski, I., Clifton-Brown, J. C., Scurlock, J. M. O., & Huisman, W. (2000). Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19(4), Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J. M. O., Lindvall, E., & Christou, M. (2003). The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25(4) doi: /s (03) Logistics Solution Builders Inc. (2005). Operating costs of trucks in Canada Transport Canada File T Retreived from Madakadze, I. C., Stewart, K., Peterson, P. R., Coulman, B. E., Samson, R., & Smith, D.

214 207 L. (1998a). Light interception, use-efficiency and energy yield of switchgrass (panicum virgatum L.) grown in a short season area. Biomass and Bioenergy, 15(6), Mahmudi, H., & Flynn, P. C. (2006). Rail vs truck transport of biomass. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., 129(1-3), Malhi, S. S., Soon, Y. K., & Brandt, S. (2009). Effect of growing season rainfall and tillage on the uptake and recovery of 15 N-labelled urea fertilizer by spring wheat in a semi-arid environment. Can. J. Soil Sci., 89(4) Retrieved from Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. (n.d). Switchgrass as biofuel: is it economically feasible? Retrieved from Mann, J. (n.d). Comparison of yield, calorific value and ash content in woody and herbaceous biomass used for bioenergy production in southern Ontario, Canada. University of Guelph School of Environmental Sciences. Maski, D., Darr, M., & Anex, R. (2010). Torrefaction of cellulosic biomass upgrading energy and cost model. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Massé, D., Gilbert, Y., Savoie, P., Bélanger, G., Parent, G. & Babineau, D. (2011). Methane yield from switchgrass and reed canarygrass grown in Eastern Canada. Bioresource Technol, 102(22), doi: /j.biortech McCartney, D. H., Bittman, S., & Nuttall, W. F. (2004). The influence of harvest management and fertilizer application on seasonal yield, crude protein concentration and N offtake of grasses in northeast Saskatchewan. Can J Plant Sci, 84(1), Retrieved from ersofftake.pdf McKernan, D. K., Ross, J. B., & Tompkins, D. K. (2001). Evaluation of grasses grown under low maintenance conditions. International Turfgrass Society Research Journal, 9, Retrieved from Miao, Z., Shastri, Y., Grift, T. E., Hansen, A. C., & Ting, K. C. (2011). Lignocellulosic

215 208 biomass feedstock supply logistic analysis. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Monk, R. L., Miller, F. R., & McBee, G. G. (1984). Sorghum improvement for energy production. Biomass, 6(1-2), Monti, A., Venturi, G. (2003). Comparison of the energy performance of fibre sorghum, sweet sorghum and wheat monocultures in northern Italy. EUR J AGRON, 19(1), Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan (n.d). Native plant species attributes factsheet. Retrieved from df Nilsson, D., & Hansson, P. A. (2001). Influence of various machinery combinations, fuel proportions and storage capacities on costs for co-handling of straw and reed canary grass to district heating plants. Biomass and Bioenergy, 20(4), Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2011). Biomass energy data book: Appendix A. Retrieved from Obernberger, I., Brunner, T., & Bärnthaler, G. (2006). Chemical properties of solid biofuels significance and impact. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(11) doi: /j.biombioe Office of Energy Efficiency. (2000). Fuel efficiency benchmarking in Canada s trucking industry. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from m_trucke.cfm?attr=16 Ogle, D. G., Loren, S. J., & Winslow, S. R. (2009). Plant guide: western wheatgrass. United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from Ogle, D., St. John, L., Cornwell, J., Holzworth, L., Majerus, M., Tober, D., Jensen, K. B., & Sanders, K. (n.d). Plant guide: Russian wildrye. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. (2011). Summary report:

216 209 agronomy forum on agricultural biomass for combustion energy. Retrieved from PAMI. (n.d). Forage harvester operation. PAMI Gleanings. Portage Station Retrieved from OpenElement PAMI. (1995). Use of straw as a farm heating fuel. Project No. RP0594. Humboldt: Saskatchewan PAMI. (1998). Modeling and comparing whole crop harvesting systems. Project No. RH1196. Humboldt: Saskatchewan. PAMI. (1999). Direct seeding manual: A farming system for the new millennium. Humboldt: Saskatchewan. PAMI. (2001a). Field tests to correlate biomass, combine yield and recoverable straw. PAMI Project No. 5000H, ADF Project# Humboldt: Saskatchewan. PAMI. (2001b). Reliable data on sustainable wheat straw availability straw production. ADF# Humboldt: Saskatchewan. PAMI. (2004). Flax straw recovery during combining and baling. ADF# Humboldt: Saskatchewan PAMI. (2008). Final Report: Development of in-field portable densification system for crop residues. Project No: 21507R-TES. Portage la Prairie: Manitoba. PAMI. (2010). Demonstration plots for biomass crops. Project No. E6708. Humboldt: Saskatchewan. PAMI. (2012). Final Report: Cubing demo. Project no: E4911. Humboldt: Saskatchewan. Paulrud, S., & Nilsson, C. (2001). Briquetting and combustion of spring-harvested reed canary-grass: effect of fuel composition. Biomass and Bioenergy, 20(1) Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc. (n.d). Seed list: pasture and reclamation grasses. Retrieved from. htm

217 210 Pyter, R. J., Dohleman, F. G., & Voigt, T. B. (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), doi: /j.biombioe Pyter, R., Voigt, T., Heaton, E., Dohleman, F., Long, S. (n.d). Growing Giant Miscanthus in Illinois. University of Illinois. Retrieved from Rooney, W. (n.d). Sorghum as a bioenergy feedstock: types, design, and development. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Retrieved from Roth, G. W., Harper, J. K. (1995). Forage sorghum. Agronomy Facts 48. Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension Retrieved from Sadaka, S., & Negi, S. (2009). Improvements of biomass physical and thermochemical characteristics via torrefaction process. Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy 29(3), Samson, R. Duxbury, P., & Mulkins, L. (n.d). Research and development of fibre crops in cool season regions of Canada. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP) Canada. Retrieved from Samson, R., & Duxbury, P. (2000). Assessment of pelletized biofuels. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP) Canada. Bellevue: Quebec. Samson, R., Drisdelle, M., Mulkins, L., Lapointe, C., & Duxbury, P. (2001). The use of switchgrass biofuel pellets as a greenhouse gas offset strategy. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP)Canada. Retrieved from Samson, R. (2007). Switchgrass production in Ontario: A management guide. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP) Canada. Retrieved from uide-final.pdf Samson, R. & Bailey-Stamler, S. (2009). Strategies for improving yield and quality in

218 211 warm season grasses. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP) Canada. Retrieved from %20Yield%20&%20Quality%20in%20Warm%20Season%20Grasses% p df Samson, R. (2011). Developing market opportunities for warm season grasses in Ontario. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP) Canada. Retrieved from s%20%20for%20warm%20season%20grasses%20in%20ontario%20(2011).pd f Sanderson, M. A., Egg, R. P., & Wiselogel, A. E. (1997). Biomass losses during harvest and storage of switchgrass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 12(2), Sanderson, M. A., Martin, N. P., & Adler, P. (2007). Biomass, energy, and industrial uses of forages. Retrieved from Sanderson, M. A., & Adler, P. R. (2008). Perennial forages as second generation bioenergy crops. Int. J Mol. Sci., 9(5), doi: /ijms Saskatchewan Forage Council. (n.d) Seed production of dahurian wildrye grass. Retrieved from Saskatchewan Forage Council. (2007). Successful forage crop establishment. Government of Saskatchewan. Retrieved from Saskatchewan Forage Council. (2011a). Saskatchewan forage market report. Retrieved from rt/forage_market_report_jan_2011-sfc_website_version.pdf Saskatchewan Forage Council (2011b). Forage market price discovery in Saskatchewan. Retrieved from rt/forage_market_price_discovery_in_sk-sep_2011-website.pdf

219 212 Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation. (2006). Weight! Don t overload the road. Retrieved from Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. (n.d.). Agricultural statistics/statfacts.retrieved from Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. (2010a). Forages relative cultivar yields for perennial species. Retrieved from ,81,1,Documents&MediaID=8845&Filename=Forages+%E2%80%93+Rela tive+cultivar+yields+for+perennial+species+-+printer+friendly.pdf Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. (2010b). Saskatchewan agricultural statistics pocket reference. Retrieved from ddcb176618f4 Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (2010c) Farm machinery custom and rental rate guide. Retrieved from 55fa9f75b520 Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. (2011) Forage crop production guide. Retrieved from f8d3-4c9d-bc5c-c56a88baa2fb Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. (2012). Crop planning guide Retrieved from Saskachewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure. (2011). Saskatchewan truckers guide 2011 second edition. Queen s Printer for Saskatchewan. Retrieved from Documents&MediaID=5073&Filename=truckersguide.pdf Saskatchewan Soil Conservation. (n. d). Soil facts: value of cereal straw. Retrieved from SaskPower. (2010). The changing energy landscape. Sask Power Annual Report. Retrieved from:

220 213 Sawyer, J. E., Mallarino, A. P., Killorn, R., & Barnhart, S. K. (2011). A general guide for crop nutrient and limestone recommendations in Iowa. Iowa State University Extension PM Retrieved from Scurlock, J. M. O. (1999). Miscanthus: A review of European experience with a novel energy crop(.ornl/tm-13722) Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division. Retrieved from Searcy, E., Flynn, P., Ghafoori, E., & Kumar, A. (2007). The relative cost of biomass energy transport. Appl Biochem Biotechnol, , Sedivec, K. K., & Schatz, B. G. (1991). Pearl millet forage production in North Dakota. North Dakota State University. R Retrieved from Sedivec, K. K., Tober, D. A., Duckwitz, W. L., Hendrickson, J. R. (2011). Grass varieties for North Dakota. North Dakota State University Extension Service. R-794 (Revised). Retrieved from Sharp Bros. Seed Co. (1997). Switchgrass fact sheet. Retrieved from Shastri, Y., Domdouzis, K., Hu, M. C., Hansen, A., Rodriguez, L., & Ting, K. C. (2009). System level analysis of biomass feedstock production for bioenergy sector. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper number St. Joseph: Michigan. Shastri, Y., Hansen, A., Rodriguez, L., & Ting, K. C. (2011). Impact of weather on biomass feedstock harvest system operations and cost. The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers International Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Sheaffer, C. C., Marten, G. C., Rabas, D. L., Martin, N. P., & Miller, D. W. (1990). Reed canarygrass. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Station Bulletin Retrieved from Shinners, K. J., Boettcher, G. C., Muck, R. E., Weimer, P. J., & Casler, M. D. (2010). Harvest and storage of two perennial grasses as biomass feedstocks. Trans. ASABE, 53 (2)

221 214 Smith, E. G., Zentner, R. P., Nagy, C. N., Khakbazan, M., & Lafond, G. P. (2008). Decoding your fuel bill. What is your farm's real energy bill? Prairie Soils and Crops, 1, Smoliak, S., & Johnston, A. (1980). Elbee northern wheatgrass. Can. J. Plant Sci., 60(4), Retrieved from Sokhansanj, S., Cushman, J., & Wright, L. (2003). Collection and delivery of biomass for fuel and power production. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development, 5. Sokhansanj, S., Mani, S., Bi, X. Zaini, P., & Tabil, L. (2005). Binderless pelletization of biomass. ASAE Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Sokhansanj. S., & Fenton, J. (2006). Cost benefit of biomass supply and pre-processing. BIOCAP Canada. Retrieved from Sokhansanj, S., Kumar, A., & Turhollow, A. F. (2006). Development and implementation of integrated biomass supply analysis and logistics model (IBSAL). Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(10), doi: /j.biombioe Sokhansanj. S., Mani, S., Stumborg, M., Samson, R., & Fenton, J. (2006). Production and distribution of cereal straw on the Canadian prairies. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 48(3), Sokhansanj, S., & Turhollow, A. (n.d). Biomass Supply Systems and Logistics. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved from s.pdf Stannard, M., & Crowder, W. (2003). Plant guide: reed canarygrass. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from St. John, L., Ogle, D. G., Duckwitz, W., & Toder, D. (2010a). Plant guide: altai wildrye. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service. Aberdeen, ID Plant Materials Center. Retrieved from St. John, L., Ogle, D. G., Stannard, M., & Pavek, P. (2010b). Plant guide: mammoth wildrye. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources

222 215 Conservation Service. Retrieved from Stephen, J. D., Sokhansanj, S., Bi, X., Sowlati, T., Kloeck, T., Townley-Smith, L. & Stumborg, M. A. (2010). Analysis of biomass feedstock availability and variability for the peace river region of Alberta, Canada. Biosystems Eng., 105(1), doi: /j.biosystemseng Stumborg, M. Townley-Smith, L., & Coxworth, E. (1996). Sustainability and economic issues for cereal crop residue export. Can. J. Plant Sci., 76(4), Retrieved from Suh, K., & Suh, S. (2010). Economic and environmental implications of corn stover densification options for biofuel in Minnesota. Trans. ASABE, 53(4), Suh, K. Suh, S., Walseth, B., Bae, J. & Barker, R. (2011). Optimal corn stover logistics for biofuel production: A case in Minnesota. Trans. ASABE, 54(1), Sultana, A., & Kumar, A. (2011). Optimal configuration and combination of multiple lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks delivery to a biorefinery. Bioresour Technol, 102(21), doi: /j.biortech Tabil, L., Adapa, P., & Kashaninejad, M. (n.d). Biomass feedstock pre-processing part 2: densification. In M. Dos Santos Bernardes (ed),biofuel s engineering process technology ( ). Retrieved from Biomass_feedstock_pre_processing_part_2_densification.pdf Tahir, M. H. N., Casler, M. D., Moore, K. J., Brummer, E. C. (2011). Biomass yield and quality of reed canarygrass under five harvest management systems for bioenergy production. Bioenergy Research, 4(2) doi: /s Teel, A., Barnhart, S., & Miller, G. (2003). Management guide for the production of switchgrass for biomass fuel in southern Iowa. Iowa State University: University Extension. PM Retrieved from The Research Park. (2009). Report on energy crop options for Ontario power generation. University of Western Ontario Research Park. Retrieved from

223 216 Tumuluru, J. S., Boardman, R., & Wright, C. (2010). Changes in moisture, carbon, nitrogen, sulphur, volatiles, and calorific value of miscanthus during torrefaction. AlChE Annual Meeting. Idaho National Laboratory. Retrieved from Tumuluru, J.S., Wright, C.T., Kenney, K.L., & Hess, J.R. (2010). A technical review on biomass processing; Densification, preprocessing, modeling and optimization. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting Paper No St. Joseph: Michigan. Tumuluru, J.S., Sokhansanj, S., Hess, J.R., Wright, C.T., & Boardman, D. (2011). A review on biomass torrefaction process and product properties for energy applications. Industrial Biotechnology 7(5), University of Maine. (2011). UMaine researchers discover revolutionary process for biofuel. Retrieved from University of Technology Vienna. (n.d). Flax/straw gross calorific value. University of Technology Vienna Institute of Chemical Engineering, Fuel, and Environmental Technology. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy. (2011). U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. R.D. Perlack and B.J. Stokes (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 227p. Retrieved from Van der Stelt, M.J.C., Gerhauser, H., Kiel J.H.A., & Ptansinski, K.J. (2011). Biomass upgrading by torrefaction for the production of biofuels: A review. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(9), Wark, D. B., Poole, W. R., Arnott, R. G., Moats, L. R., & Wetter, L. (1995). Revegetating with native grasses. Ducks Unlimited Canada. Wark, D. B., Gabruch, L. K., Penner, C., Hamilton, R. J., Koblun, T. G. (2004). Revegetating with native grasses in the Northern Great Plains: professional s manual. Ducks Unlimited Canada. Retrieved from orthern_great_plains.pdf Willms, W. D., & Jefferson, P. G. (1993). Production characteristics of the mixed prairie: constraints and potential. Can. J. Animal Sci., 73(4) Retrieved from

224 217 nchar.pdf Wood, S., & Layzell, D. (2003). A Canadian biomass inventory: Feedstocks for a biobased economy. BIOCAP Canada Foundation. Contract No Retrieved from Yu, T. H., Larson, J., English, B. C., & Gao, Y. (2011). Evaluating the optimal logistics system of biomass feedstocks for a biorefinery with alternative harvest, storage, and preprocessing options: A case study of east Tennessee. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting. Paper Number: St. Joseph: Michigan.

225 218 Appendix I Switchgrass production cost estimates based on Ontario Production

226 219