Hawai i Energy and Environmental Technologies (HEET) Initiative

Transcription

1 Hawai i Energy and Environmental Technologies (HEET) Initiative Office of Naval Research Grant Award Number N TASK 4 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS 4.7 Alternative Biofuels Development: Crop Assessment Prepared by: GreenEra LLC Prepared for: University of Hawai i at Mānoa, Hawai i Natural Energy Institute December 2013

2 2250 Kalakaua Avenue, Suite 319 * Honolulu, Hawaii Deliverable 4: Report for Project No Biofuels Assessment Purchase Order No. Z GreenEra LLC FEIN: Submitted by: GreenEra LLC Submitted to: Hawaii Natural Energy Institute Submitted December 19, 2013

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements Executive Summary Introduction Biofuels Assessment; Activities 1 through 5 and Final Report Background - Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company Part 1 - Crop Survey 2.2 Activity 2, Part 1 Crop Survey Objective Process Broad-Based Crop Survey for Biomass Crops Product Category #1: Crops Producing Crystalline Sugar ) Tropical Sugarbeet Product Category #2: Crystalline Sugar and Ligno-cellulosic Fiber ) Sugarcane ) Type I Energycane Product Category #3: High Soluble Solids and Ligno-cellulosic Fiber ) Sweet Sorghum Product Category #4: Ligno-cellulosic Fiber-Only Grasses ) Type II Energycane ) Elephantgrass (variety banagrass) ) Forage Sorghum ) Giant Reed (Arundo donax) ) Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) ) Erianthus (Erianthus arundinaceous) ) Bamboo (Primarily the genera Dendrocalamus, Phyllostachys and Bambusa) Potential Bioenergy Tree Crops ) Giant Leucaena ) Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus species and hybrids) Product Category #5: Crop Grown for Direct Oil Extraction Perennial Oil Seed Crops

4 14) African oil palm ) Jatropha Other Perennial Oil Seed Crops ) Pongamia ) Kukui ) Malunggay Annual Oil Seed Crops ) Soybean ) Canola ) Safflower ) Sunflower ) Various mustards ) Camelina ) Castor bean ) Sesame Algae Development of Short List of Candidate Crops Agronomic Selection Criteria Rating System Crop Selection Matrix Short List of Crops for Further Examination in Part Part 2 - Crop Assessment 2.6 Activity 2, Part 2 Crop Assessment Objective Process Short List of Crops - Advantages and Disadvantages Short List of Crops Sugarcane Biannually-harvested Sugarcane Advantages Disadvantages Annually-harvested Sugarcane Advantages Disadvantages

5 2.7.3 Energycane Type I Energycane Advantages Disadvantages Type II energycane Advantages Disadvantages Banagrass Advantages Disadvantages Tree Crops (Giant Leucaena and Eucalyptus) Advantages Disadvantages Short List of Crops Crop Composition Sugarcane Composition of the Sugarcane Plant Composition of Hawaiian Sugarcane Energycanes Banagrass Tree Crops Leucaena Eucalyptus Summary of Crop Composition Short List of Crops Crop Performance Based on Biomass Yield Potential Sugarcane Yield of Burned, Biannually-harvested Sugarcane Yield of Unburned, Biannually-harvested Sugarcane Annually-harvested Sugarcane Comparison: Burned, Biannually-harvested Sugarcane; Unburned, Biannually-harvested Sugarcane; and Unburned, Annually-harvested Sugarcane Energycanes Banagrass Banagrass Yields Molokai Banagrass Test Molokai Large Block Banagrass Test Summary of the Banagrass Yield Tests

6 2.9.4 Tree Crop Yields Giant Leucaena Eucalyptus Summary of Biomass Yields for Crops on the Short List Short List of Crops - Potential Public Concerns Existing Studies and Community Plans Environmental Considerations Water Consumption Water-use Water Requirements for the Short List of Crops Air Quality Considerations Potential By-Products Other Environmental Considerations Community Considerations Continuing Agriculture / Diversified Agriculture Biomass Suitability Other Community Concerns Summary of Potential Public Concerns Activity 2 Summaries Optimal Crop or Mix of Crops Estimated Cost of Biomass Production References Activity Appendix 2-A: Glossary - Activity Appendix 2-B: Background HC&S Appendix 2-C: Activity 2 Lead Researcher Appendix 2-D: Brief Description of Three Community Studies / Plans List of Tables Table 2-1: Tropical Sugarbeet Table 2-2: Sugarcane Table 2-3: Type I Energycane Table 2-4: Sweet sorghum Table 2-5: Type II Energycane Table 2-6: Elephantgrass

7 Table 2-7: Forage sorghum and sorghum/sudangrass hybrids Table 2-8: Giant reed (Arundo donax) Table 2-9: Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) Table 2-10: Erianthus (Erianthus arundinaceous) Table 2-11: Bamboo Table 2-12: Giant leucaena hybrids Table 2-13: Eucalyptus Table 2-14: African oil palm Table 2-15: Jatropha Table 2-16: Vegetable oil yields Table 2-17: Crop selection matrix Table 2-18: Crop selection matrix score in descending order Table 2-19: Composition of unburned Hawaiian cane (%) by component and constituent 90 Table 2-20: Yield ratios for unburned sugarcane divided by the burned sugarcane Table 2-21: The effect of crop age on dry weight of above ground sugarcane components 92 Table 2-22: Composition of sugarcane in a short-age crop at HC&S Table 2-23: Total dry matter and percentage of dry matter in the components of harvested, unburned sugarcane Table 2-24: Summary of sugarcane composition studies Table 2-25: Field 415 Ratoon-crop Composition in Closed Loop Study at HC&S Table 2-26: Energycane composition (component percentage) of commercial Louisiana and Hawaii sugarcanes Table 2-27: Long-term average yields for net sugarcane, sugar and dry matter yields for HC&S by field groups Table 2-28: Experimental yield of sugarcane components in biannually-harvested, unburned sugarcane, including trash Table 2-29: Effect of burning on fresh weight, fiber, REFSOL, and POL content of cane and purity of the sugarcane juice (ratio of REFSOL and POL) Table 2-30: Annual sugarcane yields for high yielding countries Table 2-31: Sugarcane fresh weight for countries producing over one million tonnes of sugar Table 2-32: Summary of sugarcane and sugar yield from annually-harvested sugarcane experiments conducted in Hawaii Table 2-33: Experimental yield of dry matter in unburned, annually-harvested sugarcane Table 2-34: Comparison of Hawaii sugarcane: biannually-harvested (burned and unburned) and annually-harvested (unburned) Table 2-35: Comparison of three types of cane production on dry matter yield Table 2-36: Energycanes compared to commercial Louisiana sugarcane Table 2-37: Dry matter yield of cane grown for fiber at HC&S Table 2-38: Adjusted yield of Barbados Type I energycane and Hawaii cane variety at HC&S

8 Table 2-39: Banagrass and sugarcane yields for plant-crops in five sites on four Hawaiian islands Table 2-40: Banagrass and sugarcane yield for ratoon-crops in five sites on four Hawaiian islands Table 2-41: Averages and combined yields for banagrass and sugarcane plant- and ratooncrops in five sites Table 2-42: Plant and ratoon harvest results for HC&S portion of the HSPA banagrass yield test Table 2-43: Plant- and ratoon-crop yields for banagrass harvested seven times over a 4.3- year period at the Plant Materials Center, USDA, Molokai Table 2-44: Results for the Molokai banagrass large plot test Table 2-45: Mechanical harvesting results for Molokai banagrass test Table 2-46: Summary of banagrass dry matter yield from 19 harvests Table 2-47: Height, diameter, and dry biomass per acre for three tree species at Hoolehua, Molokai, and Puunene, Maui at five years after planting Table 2-48: Activity 2 yield summary Table 2-49: Yield summary for Short List crops considered for biomass feedstock production at HC&S (Experimental yields discounted by 25%) Table 2-50: Estimated relative water-use for crops on the Short List Table 2-51: 2010 HC&S cost by Cost Center Table 2-52: Cost of production for conventional sugarcane and estimated costs of production for the Short List crops Table 2-53: Cost of energycane establishment for plant, ratoon and life-cycle at HC&S. 159 Table 2-54: Harvest and crop establishment costs for energycane at HC&S using two harvesting systems List of Figures Figure 2-1: Flow of Activities in the Biofuels Assessment Figure 2-2: Location of HC&S Figure 2-3: U.S. Raw Sugar Price Figure 2-4: Tropical sugarbeet; Kunia, Hawaii Figure 2-5: Sugarcane at 24 months, prior to burning for harvest Figure 2-6: Sugarcane at 24-month harvest, after burning in Hawaii Figure 2-7: Billet harvest of energycane at HC&S Figure 2-8: Type I energycane forage harvested at HC&S Figure 2-9: Sweet sorghum demonstrating day-length sensitive types (left) and insensitive type (right) Figure 2-10: Banagrass at about six months from planting at HARC Kunia Substation Figure 2-11: Forage sorghum Figure 2-12: Giant Reed (Arundo donax)

9 Figure 2-13: Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) Figure 2-14: Erianthus (Erianthus arundinaceous) timor wild Kunia, Oahu Figure 2-15: Bamboo Figure 2-16: Giant leucaena grown for cattle grazing in Queensland, Australia Figure 2-17: A clonal eucalyptus plantation in Brazil Figure 2-18: Two-year-old hybrid African oil palms on Molokai, Hawaii, Figure 2-19: Malaysian oil palm farm using dwarf varieties Figure 2-20: Jatropha curcas Ka`u landrace, Olsen Trust, Ka`u Hawaii Figure 2-21: Push-rake harvesting biannually-harvested sugarcane at HC&S Figure 2-22: Harvesting annual sugarcane in Australia Figure 2-23: Banagrass harvested at 8 months following planting on Molokai, Hawaii with a Claas billet harvester Figure 2-24: Harvesting willow as a coppice stand in New York Figure 2-25: The effect of crop age on weight (tons) of sugarcane components - Variety H Figure 2-26: The effect of crop age on weight (tons) of sugarcane components - Variety H Figure 2-27: Summary of the composition of sugarcane by component (tops. stalk and trash) Figure 2-28: Acres in Sugarcane in Hawaii, Figure 2-29: State of Hawaii Value of Crops, 1985 to Figure 2-30: HC&S Plantation Map Figure 2-31: HC&S Topography Figure 2-32: HC&S Slope Figure 2-33: HC&S soil characteristics based on rockiness Figure 2-34: HC&S Rainfall Distribution Figure 2-35: HC&S Irrigation Infrastructure Figure 2-36: HC&S Stream and Ditch Networks Figure 4-37: HC&S Well Distribution

10 Prepared for: The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute University of Hawaii at Manoa Prepared by: Robert V. Osgood, Ph.D. Agricultural Consultant, AgResult Agricultural Consultant, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Agronomist (retired), Hawaii Agriculture Research Center 2-9

11 Acknowledgements The GreenEra Team sincerely thanks the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company ( HC&S ) of Puunene, Maui for its guidance, assistance, and information, without which this assessment could not have been completed; and the personnel of the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. Lee Jakeway, M.S. Director of Energy Development & Planning, Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. Rick Volner, Jr. Plantation General Manager, Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. Chris Norris Crop Technology Consultant, Norris Energy Crop Technology Kirsten Baumgart Turner Community Development Services, Inc. Stephanie Whalen, M.S. Executive Director, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Paul Moore, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Research Scientist, Texas A&M, Texas AgriLife Research Formerly with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service Chifumi Nagai, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Ann Marsteller, M.L.S. Librarian, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center 2-10

12 2.0 Executive Summary The purpose of Activity 2 of the Biofuels Assessment 1 is to select the optimum crops for advanced biofuel production at the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company ( HC&S ) and to characterize the composition and yield potential of the crops selected. The Activity was conducted in two parts; Part 1 is a Crop Survey, Part 2 is a Crop Assessment. Part 1 surveyed the existing literature to identify crops suitable for use as feedstock in the production of advanced biofuels. It also reduces the alternatives to a short list of crops ( Short List ) for further examination in Part 2. Part 2 further evaluates the crops on the Short List, and selects the optimum crops based on composition and yield potential, as well as considerations specific to HC&S, such as the estimated cost of dry matter per ton and per acre. Additional HC&S requirements for crop selection included the following. 2 The crops under consideration must be well adapted to central Maui growing conditions, with production and research experience in Hawaii. The lack of Hawaii experience with crops other than sugarcane is a criterion against crops with different, more complex growing procedures, and that require extensive field renovation. In addition to providing feedstock for conversion to a biofuel, HC&S prefers to continue its crystalline sugar production in the near term, primarily while sugar prices are favorable. However, it is understood that, if the price of sugar were to fall to a point unacceptable to HC&S, it would consider transitioning entirely to a biofuel production operation. Another reason to assume that HC&S will continue sugar operations in the near term is the five to 10 years that would be required for the transition. The crops should be perennial and harvested infrequently. HC&S is not interested in short-cycle, annual crops requiring multiple harvests per year and requiring additional specialized equipment. 1 2 See Section for additional information on the Biofuel Assessment project. Additional information on HC&S is provided in Section and Appendix 2-B. 2-11

13 While it may appear that HC&S s preference toward sugarcane predetermines the selection of traditional sugarcane as currently grown on Maui, a process was followed that allowed for the identification of crops better suited for conversion to liquid fuel, and for the replacement of sugarcane as sugar prices fall. Part 1 - Crop Survey The crop survey portion of the Activity begins with a review of 26 potential biomass crops. The crops are divided into five categories based on the products produced: 1) crystalline sugar alone 2) crystalline sugar and fiber 3) sugar juice suitable for fermentation 4) fiber alone 5) direct oil extraction Each crop was researched, as documented in this report, and then evaluated through a selection matrix composed of eight equally weighted criteria: #1 High yield of products or by-products useful for conversion to advanced biofuel, soluble solids, fiber, and plant oils #2 Equipment developed for production and harvest #3 Farming history in Hawaii, local knowledge of crop #4 Adaptation to central Maui weather, soils, and growing conditions #5 A research base in Hawaii, with adapted crop varieties #6 Successful application to biofuel conversion #7 Environmentally acceptable #8 Water-use efficiency From the matrix, a Short List of six crops was chosen for further review: Grass Crops: (sugar and fiber) Grass Crops: (fiber-only) Tree Crops: (fiber-only) 1) Traditional sugarcane, as currently grown on Maui 2) Type I energycane 3) Type II energycane, a high yielding variety adapted to central Maui 4) Banagrass (Pennisetum purpureum) 5) Giant leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) 6) Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus species) Both sugarcane and Type I energycane can be used to produce both sugar and lignocellulose. Type II energycane, banagrass, and the tree crops produce only ligno-cellulose, 2-12

14 and may be used as fiber supplements to sugarcane and Type I energycane in a crystalline sugar plus advanced biofuel operation. Both banagrass and Type II energycane may be used in a fiber-only operation, which may become advisable should the price of sugar decline to below acceptable levels, and conversion to dense liquid fuel is demonstrated as suitable on a commercial-scale. The use of Type II energycane would require that a high yielding variety be adapted to central Maui. This could take up to 12 years. The yield potential of banagrass, a Pennisetum purpureum variety, is well documented in Hawaii. However, since it is classified as invasive as a weed in sugarcane, it should not be grown as long as sugarcane is produced on Maui. An alternative is a purple variety of P. purpureum, (elephantgrass) incorrectly named purple banagrass. This variety of elephantgrass is non-flowering and not invasive by seed. In addition, it is possible to cross P. purpureum with pearl millet (P. americanum) to produce sterile hybrids having high biomass potential. Tree crops are lower yielding but could possibly be used to produce additional fiber on lands less suited to the row crop grasses. Part 2 Crop Assessment The crops chosen for the Short List were then characterized by composition and yield potential based on commercial data, where available, or from experimental yield tests. Where experimental data were used, the yield reported was reduced by 25% to reflect special handling of the crops in the experiments. Since burning of the crop before harvest is an option to improve harvest efficiency, burning of the biannually-harvested sugarcane crop was also assessed. The highest dry matter yield potential was found for the all-fiber crop, banagrass, at 23.2 tons of dry matter per acre per year in an HC&S - Hawaii Agriculture Research Center ( HARC ) experiment. The dry matter yield potential of crops on the Short List, in terms of dry matter per acre per year, was found to be as follows. This information is extracted from Table

15 Crop Dry Matter Yield 3 Banagrass (HC&S/HARC experiment) Hawaiian cane H (grown on close-spacing as energycane) Banagrass (average of 19 Hawaii experiments) Barbados Type I energycane (B52298) Annually-harvested sugarcane (average of 21 experiments) Hawaiian commercial sugarcane (unburned) Hawaiian commercial sugarcane (burned) Trees (leucaena and eucalyptus) TDMA 4 TDMAM 5 (t/ac/yr) (t/ac/m) Banagrass grown at HC&S had the highest yield potential, producing greater than 23 tons of dry matter per acre annually. The most productive sugarcanes were those grown in close-spacing. These included the Barbados Type I energycane and Hawaiian cane H (which was grown in the same manner as the Barbados energycane). The Barbados cane produced its biomass primarily as fiber, while the Hawaiian cane produced a large portion of its biomass as soluble carbohydrate measured as refractometer solids. The choice of which crop to grow is highly dependent on HC&S s interest; sugar production or fiber production. Type I energycane allows both avenues to be pursued, producing large quantities of both sugar and fiber. In addition to crop selection, the grown yields of the grasses are highly dependent on the amount of irrigation water and fertilizer inputs applied. Both grass crops on the Short List are considered high yielding; however yields will vary widely based on water and nutrient availability These yields are reduced by 25% for all but the commercial biannually-harvested sugarcane TDMA - total (tons) dry matter per acre TDMAM - tons dry matter per acre per month (the sum of the sugar, fiber, and molasses solids produced) 2-14

16 At 0.67 tons per acre per month, tree crops produced only one-third to one-half the dry matter of the grasses, and should only be considered if additional fiber is needed and fields less suitable for the grasses are available. 6 The morphological and chemical composition of the potential crops is another important aspect of biomass crop selection. Commercial sugarcanes are composed of high amounts of refractometer solids; up to 18% in net sugarcane, and 10 to 13% in cellulosic fiber. Refractometer solids are primarily sucrose (16.4 %) with smaller amounts of reducing sugars (glucose and fructose) and soluble ash. The ligno-cellulosic fiber is primarily composed of lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose; all of which can be converted to liquid fuels via gasification followed by catalytic reformation or fermentation (aerobic or anaerobic) followed by distillation. Other components of the dry matter are mineral ash, protein and other minor insoluble organic constituents. Type I energycane is composed of about 17% ligno-cellulosic fiber and about 13% refractometer solids; a higher percentage of ligno-cellulosic fiber and lower percentage of refractometer solids than commercial canes. Type II energycane is composed mostly of fiber (26% to 30%), and only about 5% of refractometer solids. Very little is known about the productivity of Type II energycane. Banagrass dry matter is mostly cellulosic fiber (up to 34%), with perhaps as much as 5% refractometer solids, including ash, both of which are mostly eliminated (lost) in the de-watering/de-ashing process. The tree crops have even higher amounts of ligno-cellulosic fiber (up to 70%, if mostly wood is harvested) and lower amounts (about 50%) if the trees are harvested young and immature stems and leaves are a large part of the harvest. Water is the single most important input for growing sugarcane on Maui, and the amount of water required by crops on the Short List is expected to differ substantially, with productivity highly correlated with the amount of water applied. At this point, the choice of 6 Trees do not require the same inputs as do the grasses. Trees and grasses have different requirements, and the crops are given inputs as required. e.g., Leucaena does not require nitrogen fertilizer since it is nitrogen fixing. 2-15

17 crops is related to the products produced. For instance, sugarcane is the preferred crop in the near term, because it produces both sugar and fiber. Within the sugarcanes, the preferred variety would be the more drought-resistant, with adequate yields. For Hawaii-adapted varieties, Type I energycane is expected to be more drought- resistant and higher-yielding than standard sugarcanes. Type II energycane is expected to be even more drought resistant, but since it has no sugar, it cannot be considered for HC&S unless an all-fiber path is pursued. Further, the productivity of Type II energycanes in the Hawaii environment in unknown. Water usage is expected to be greatest for the conventional high sugar content grasses, followed by lower sugar content grasses, and the grasses without sugar. Trees are expected to be the most water efficient due to its deep rooting. As a physiological principle, the higher the sugar content of the plant, the more water it takes to support sugar storage in the stems. Table 2-50 summarizes the relative estimated water-use for the crops on the Short List. Table 2-50: Estimated relative water-use for crops on the Short List Crop Sugar Content Fiber Content Rhizomes Expected Wateruse Average Water-use (% of evap.) Biannually-harvested sugarcane high low no high 100 Annually-harvested sugarcane high low no high 100 Type I energycane moderate moderate few moderate 85 Banagrass Type II energycane none high moderate moderate Tree crops none high no low 50 It is expected that all of the crops on the Short List will require irrigation. Tree crops would likely be grown in the wettest part of HC&S and have the lowest water requirement. 7 All of the grass crops will require irrigation in all sections of the farm. 7 Figure 2-34 shows HC&S s rainfall distribution. 2-16

18 Activity 2 Conclusions Based on research conducted in Activity 2, there are several options open to HC&S. Its prime options depend upon the products it chooses to pursue, and are as follows. Option #1: Grow traditional biannually-harvested sugarcane; burn the cane in the field before harvesting by push-rake or billet harvester (if feasible); crystallize the sugar juice fraction to make raw sugar; gasify or ferment the fiber fraction for conversion to liquid fuel. Option #2: Grow traditional biannually-harvested sugarcane; forgo burning the cane in the field before harvesting by push-rake or billet harvester; crystallize the sugar juice fraction to make raw sugar; gasify or ferment the fiber fraction for conversion to liquid fuel. This option will almost certainly require that the trash be separated from the cane. Option #3: Grow annually-harvested sugarcane (or higher fiber energycane); billet harvest; crystallize the sugar juice fraction to make raw sugar; gasify or ferment the fiber fraction for conversion to liquid fuel. (This is option 2, with annual cane, rather than biannual cane, and limiting harvesting methods to mechanical harvesting.) If additional fiber is required, a tree crop could be grown to supplement. Option #4: Convert the entire farm to the production of an annually harvested fiber crop, such as Type II energycane or banagrass for conversion to liquid fuel. Banagrass should not be considered if sugarcane continues to be grown, because of its potential invasiveness by seed. Other cultivars of Pennisetum purpureum may also be considered, such as the purple elephantgrass or hybrids of Pennisetum purpureum with pearl millet which are sterile. Hybrids of banagrass with pearl millet are a good possibility, several of which were produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture s ( USDA ) Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS ) in the mid-1980s. Tree crops could be grown to supplement the fiber produced by the grasses in rocky portions of the farm or where conditions are more suitable for trees. The cost per ton of biomass delivered to the mill is an important consideration in crop selection. Based on current costs and HC&S practices, biannually-harvested cane at HC&S costs about $105 per dry ton. Unburned, biannually-harvested cane is estimated to cost $95 per dry ton, and annual canes are estimated to cost between $66 and $67 per ton. The all-fiber option of banagrass cost is estimated at $66 per ton, and trees at $61 per ton. These cost estimates are provided in Table

19 2.1 Introduction The purpose of Activity 2 of the Biofuels Assessment is to select the optimum crops for advanced biofuel production at the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company ( HC&S ) and to characterize the composition and yield potential of the selected crops. The Activity was conducted in two parts; Part 1 is a Crop Survey, Part 2 is a Crop Assessment. Part 1 is a survey of existing literature to identify crops suitable for use as feedstock in the production of biofuels. It also reduces the alternatives to a short list of crops ( Short List ) for further examination in Part 2. Part 2 further evaluates the crops on the Short List, and selects the optimum crop or mix of crops for biofuel production at HC&S. Cost estimates to produce a ton of dry matter from the selected crops are also summarized in Part 2. This report includes a list of references and four appendices. References are listed alphabetically. Appendix 2-A is a glossary. Appendix 2-B is a brief description of HC&S. Appendix 2-C provides brief background information on the lead researchers that prepared this report. Appendix 2-D provides a brief description of three of the sources used in the preparation of Section 2.10 regarding Environmental and Community Concerns Biofuels Assessment; Activities 1 through 5 and Final Report This report is the second of a six-part Biofuels Assessment ( Assessment ). The purpose of the Assessment is to advance the development of alternative fuel production facilities within the State of Hawaii through a review of existing literature and research. The research conducted in this undertaking focuses on facilities that would utilize biomass conversion technologies to produce renewable liquid fuels, including ethanol, renewable diesel, and renewable jet fuel for commercial and military use. To facilitate the application of its findings, the Assessment is structured around an examination of the transition of an operating sugar plantation, the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company ( HC&S ) of Puunene, Maui, to a biofuel-producing energy farm. The outcome of this Assessment is a model that may be adapted for the development of other alternative fuel production facilities within the State. The Assessment is organized into the following five Activities and a Final Report. Activity 1: Site Survey Activity 1 is a survey of the conditions specific to the HC&S plantation, and the preparation of a comprehensive graphical mapping and tabular database. 2-18

20 Activity 2: Crop Survey and Crop Assessment Activity 2 is a survey of available literature to identify crops suitable for use in the production of biofuels at HC&S, followed by a closer examination of crops with the potential to serve as biofuel feedstock. The Activity includes the determination of the optimal crop or mix of crops that will result in the most cost-effective and maximum crop yields for biofuels production at the HC&S plantation. Activity 3: Production, Harvesting, and Handling Assessment Activity 3 is an assessment of the best practices and equipment required for the production, harvesting, and handling of the selected feedstocks with potential applicability to HC&S. Activity 4: Feedstock Assessment, Processing Assessment, and Waste Handling Activity 4 is additional analysis of the crops selected in Activity 2, examining their suitability for HC&S biofuel production, followed by the identification of thermochemical, biochemical, and hybrid conversion technologies that can be used to convert the selected feedstocks into usable, sustainable, high-value energy products. This Activity includes a detailed evaluation of one conversion pathway. Activity 5: Biofuel Model Activity 5 is the development of an illustrative Biofuel Model to demonstrate the economic viability of an HC&S transition from an operating sugar plantation to an energy farm capable of commercialscale, next-generation, advanced renewable biofuels production. Final Report: This report integrates the five Activities into a comprehensive plan for commercial-scale production of renewable fuel production at HC&S. 2-19

21 The primary flow of information among the given Activities is as represented below in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-1: Flow of Activities in the Biofuels Assessment 2-20

22 2.1.2 Background - Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company HC&S is an integrated grower and processor of sugarcane on over 35,000 contiguous acres in the central valley of Maui. It is bordered by the Pacific Ocean on the north, the West Maui Mountains on the west, and by Haleakala on the east. (See Figure 2-2.) Using modern agronomic practices, HC&S cultivates biannuallyharvested sugarcane (found only in Hawaii and a few other locations around the world), and its sugarcane and sugar yields are among the highest in the world. HC&S produces raw commodity sugar and specialty sugars that are marketed as Maui Brand and other private labels. Approximately 200,000 tons of raw sugar (equivalent) and 65,000 tons final molasses are produced. In addition to its extensive sugar operations, electrical power generation and Figure 2-2: Location of HC&S production of process steam from the burning of bagasse are by-products of sugar production. The steam is used to power the cane cleaner and sugar mill, and to evaporate water from the sugarcane juice. The electrical power is generated though HC&S' hydroelectric and cogeneration facilities, with bagasse as the primary fuel for cogeneration. HC&S generates about 200,000 megawatthours ( MWH ) of electricity per year. The electricity is used for mill operations, pumping irrigation water, and sales of about 95,000 MWH to the county s public utility, the Maui Electric Company. HC&S has been in operation for over 125 years. Currently, it is the only sugar operation remaining in Hawaii, and has over 800 employees. It is a part of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. s 8 Agribusiness group. HC&S is described further in Appendix 2-B. Assumptions related to HC&S operations and Activity 2 are as follows. 8 See and Accessed: 31 Jan

23 1) While sugar prices are favorable, HC&S has a strong preference towards continuing sugar operations. One of HC&S s strengths is its experience and expertise in the sugar industry. To the extent sugar prices remain relatively high, the crops or mix of crops selected as feedstock must support the production of both (1) crystalline raw sugar for conversion to refined and specialty sugar and (2) ligno-cellulosic fiber for conversion to advanced liquid biofuel(s) or electricity. 2) Based on its operating experience, HC&S has a preference towards perennial crops that are harvested infrequently. 3) A significant consideration in crop selection is an understanding of the effect that candidate crops may have on the environment and the community. HC&S is one of Maui s largest businesses and has a long history of community leadership and responsible environmental stewardship. Any change in its operations will be highly visible and has a potential to generate public concerns. Therefore, environmental and community matters must be considered in crop selection. 4) At the time of this writing, HC&S was reviewing internally first generation fermentation ethanol production to determine if there is any economic advantage over the current business model for crystalline sugar production with co-products. In the past, HC&S has clearly stated issues surrounding the production of ethanol, particularly the waste disposal issues with vinasse. However, it will consider entering into its production if waste disposal issues can be solved and if can be determined from internal financial modeling there are clear economic advantages over raw sugar production. 5) HC&S has a strong preference towards crops that have been proven in commercial production and harvesting, particularly in central Maui, with farming history and research in Hawaii. 2-22

24 2-23

25 Part 1 Crop Survey 2.2 Activity 2, Part 1 Crop Survey Objective There are many crops capable of supporting biofuel production in Hawaii s subtropical environment, and there is much existing research readily available. The objective of Part 1 of Activity 2 is to survey existing literature on candidate crops, and narrow the list based on HC&S s agronomic considerations. The Part 1 survey is broadbased, and seeks agronomically suitable crops. The result is a short list ( Short List ) of crops that warrant further examination in Part 2 for suitability in an integrated sugar and energy operations at HC&S. Other considerations are incorporated later in Part 2, through an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each crop on the Short List, and their effect on an HC&S transition from a traditional sugar plantation to one that incorporates economically-viable, commercial-scale biofuel production into its ongoing operations Process Part 1 of Activity 2 was conducted in the following steps. 1) Conduct a broad-based survey of suitable crops (Section 2.3) The universe of crops was surveyed and 26 candidate crops were identified for review, and classified by the carbon-based products produced. All crops were determined to be adaptable to the central valley of Maui, but not all crops had the yield potential or local cropping knowledge and research base required to reduce the risk for planting on a large scale. Crop characteristics are briefly described and summarized in a table accompanying the discussion. Generally, the candidate crops were compared with sugarcane, since it is the only biomass crop with a commercial production history in the central valley of Maui. The focus of the survey is on crops that are capable of producing advanced, drop-in fuels such as diesel and jet fuel. Other potential sources of fuel such as algae, waste vegetable oil were not considered. 2) Identify crop selection criteria and a rating system (Sections and 2.4.2) Criteria were developed emphasizing productivity, practicality, and a high probability for profitable production on a scale large enough to attract commercial adoption. The criteria applied here are primarily based on agronomic characteristics in order to avoid biasing the outcome based on near- 2-24

26 term considerations. For instance, through 2011, the U.S. raw sugar price has been favorable, as shown in Figure U.S. Raw Sugar Price ( cents per pound) Figure 2-3: U.S. Raw Sugar Price 9 3) Develop a crop selection matrix (Section 2.4.3) The candidate crops are rated on the selection criteria in a matrix, with numerical values assigned to each crop for each of the criteria. 4) Select the Short List of crops (Section 2.5) Other Studies Consulted Based on the selection matrix, a Short List of crops is identified for further examination in Part 2. Two reports, both funded by the Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism ( DBEDT ), have recently set the stage for crop-based fuel 9 U.S. raw sugar price, duty-fee paid, New York, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year. Table 4 from USDA Economic Research Service website: Accessed: 23 May

27 production in Hawaii: The Potential for Biofuels Production in Hawaii Black & Veatch (2009) and the Hawaii Bioenergy Master Plan (2009). Both reports provide an overview of the land, water, and crop assets required to produce crop-based transportation and fixed asset fuel in Hawaii. An earlier review, Shleser (1995), is also helpful for developing a list of potential crops and other sources of biomass suitable for feedstock. Foley et al. (2007) lists crops suitable for both ethanol and biodiesel production in Hawaii and provides an estimate of the acreage suitable for biomass production in each Hawaii county. The HNEI Bioenergy Master Plan divides biomass crop feedstocks into product categories: sugar, starch, fiber, and oil. A wide range of primary and secondary liquid fuels are proposed from the feedstocks, including ethanol, diesel oil and jet fuel. The crops suggested for production of the fuels were: sugarcane, elephantgrass (banagrass), cassava, corn, sorghum, eucalyptus, giant leucaena, jatropha, oil palm, sunflower, soybean, kukui nut, peanut, and micro algae. Sugarcane, including the energycanes, and the sweet varieties of sorghum, were especially noted, since they produced significant quantities of both fermentable sugars and ligno-cellulose. A somewhat reduced list of crops for biomass production in Hawaii was presented by Keffer et al. (2009). The authors selected sugarcane, banagrass, eucalyptus and giant leucaena as having the best potential for ethanol production. 2-26

28 2.3 Broad-Based Crop Survey for Biomass Crops At the outset, a large list of crops suitable for biomass production in the Maui central valley was prepared. The crops included are perennial and annual grasses, trees, and a wide range of seed and fruit oil-bearing crops for direct oil extraction. Crops were divided into five groups based on the products produced, as shown below. Crops within the designated categories were numbered consecutively beginning with sugarbeet as number 1. A total of 26 crops were initially considered in the five categories. Product Category #1: Crops producing only crystalline sugar 1) Sugarbeet Product Category #2: Crops producing crystalline sugar and large quantities of ligno-cellulosic fiber 2) Sugarcane 3) Type I energycane Product Category #3: Crops producing non-crystalline sugars and ligno-cellulosic fiber-only (i.e., crops producing fermentable soluble solids and ligno-cellulosic fiber suitable for conversion to liquid fuel) 4) Sweet sorghum Product Category #4: Crops producing ligno-cellulosic fiber-only (i.e., crops producing only ligno-cellulosic biomass suitable for conversion to liquid fuel) Both grass and tree crops are represented in this category. Grasses 5) Type II energycane 6) Elephantgrass (variety banagrass) 7) Forage sorghum 8) Giant Reed (Arundo donax) 9) Miscanthus x giganteus 10) Erianthus 11) Bamboo 2-27

29 Tree Crops 12) Giant leucaena 13) Eucalyptus Product Category #5: Crops producing oil by direct extraction Perennial Oil Seed Crops 14) Oil palm 15) Jatropha Other Perennial Oil Seed Crops 16) Pongamia 17) Kukui 18) Malunggay Annual Oil Seed Crops 19) Soybean 23) Sunflower 20) Canola 24) Camelina 21) Safflower 25) Castor bean 22) Mustards 26) Sesame Product Category #1: Crops Producing Crystalline Sugar Sugarbeets are the only crop grown exclusively for crystalline sugar, and tropicallyadapted types of sugarbeet are now available. The extracted sugarbeet pulp is used for animal feed, but there is not enough fiber to make either conversion to fuel by burning or conversion to advanced biofuels worthwhile. All aspects of sugarbeet production and processing were thoroughly reviewed by Draycott (2006). Tropical versions of sugarbeet are relatively new and very little published information is available. 1) Tropical Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Sugarbeet can be grown as a primary crop or may serve as a harvestable catch crop (fallow crop) between cycles of sugarcane, energycane Photo credit: R. V. Osgood and sweet sorghum. (See Figure 2-4.) Figure 2-4: Tropical sugarbeet; Kunia, Hawaii Mills in India are reported to process both sugarbeet and sugarcane at different times of the year. Tropical sugarbeet has not been 2-28

30 grown commercially in Hawaii and would require considerable research and development to be considered for commercial production. Sugarbeet is considered a demanding crop, requiring agronomic techniques unfamiliar to sugarcane growers. Tropical varieties of sugarbeet were trialed in the tropical Mackay and Burdekin sugarcane regions of Australia with mixed results. Morgan et al. (1996) concluded that sugarbeets could only be grown in the winter season in tropical Australia, but would tolerate higher levels of salt compared to sugarcane. The crop required specialized skills not known to the sugarcane growers in the regions and further research was deemed necessary if sugarbeets were to be grown. Sugarbeets were trialed by Younge et al. (1950) in Hawaii, but not adopted as a commercial crop. The cropping cycle was four to five months. The initial crop performed well, but subsequent crops on the same ground failed due to nematodes. Characteristics of tropical sugarbeet are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Tropical Sugarbeet Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crop Cycle Origin Invasive Climate Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Tropical Sugarbeet Beta vulgaris (tropically adapted varieties) An annual root crop second to sugarcane in world production of crystalline sugar 5 months Mediterranean No Widely adapted from tropics to temperate zone Not found in literature Irrigation required for high yield High High sunlight and adequate water Requires deep, well-drained soil Nematodes considered problematic True seed Not determined in Hawaii Not determined in Hawaii Roots are dug from soil by machine One report 2-29

31 Table 2-1: Tropical Sugarbeet (cont.) Cropping Experience in Hawaii Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted Varieties References One experiment by the University of Hawaii at HC&S in the early-1960s Not determined Yes No No Draycott (2006); Morgan et al. (1996); Younge and Buchart (1960) Product Category #2: Crystalline Sugar and Lignocellulosic Fiber This group of crops must be milled or processed by diffusion for the extraction of sugar. The residual fiber component is then converted to gas or liquid fuel or burned directly to produce electricity. Potential crops are: 2) Sugarcane 3) Type I energycane 2) Sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids) Photo credit: R. V. Osgood Figure 2-5: Sugarcane at 24 months, prior to burning for harvest Photo credit: R. V. Osgood Figure 2-6: Sugarcane at 24-month harvest, after burning in Hawaii 2-30

32 Commercial sugarcane varieties are widely grown between 20 north and south of the equator for the production of crystalline sugar, molasses, fiber (bagasse) and ethanol. World production of sugarcane was reviewed by Heinz et al. (1994) and in a series of papers edited by James (2004). Bioenergy attributes of sugarcane were reviewed by Waclawovsky et al. (2010). Sugarcane has been grown commercially in Hawaii for over 150 years and is well supported by research, including the development of locally adapted varieties. Sugarcane is harvested over a wide range of ages; from less than a year to over two years. In Hawaii, sugarcane is typically harvested on a two-year cycle. (See Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6.) Commercial sugarcane varieties have a higher proportion of sugar than fiber; sugar varies from 16% to 18%, and fiber varies from 11% to 13%. However, sugar content and fiber content are traits that can be modified by breeding and selection, as demonstrated by the energycanes considered later in the report. Although sugarcane is a high water-use crop, it is considered to have a low water footprint for bioenergy production due to its high yield of dry matter (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2008). Sugarcane characteristics are summarized in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Sugarcane Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crop Cycle Origin Invasive Climate Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Sugarcane Saccharum spp. hybrids Sugarcane is a large, photosynthetically efficient, perennial, tropical C4 grass grown primarily for crystalline sugar, but with significant by-products, including bagasse and molasses. It is increasingly being considered as a feedstock for production of ethanol and advanced liquid fuel. 1 to 2 years with several ratoon-crops possible Tropical Asia No Tropical, sub-tropical Moderate, but yield low with water stress Requires water equivalent to pan evaporation for optimum yield amounting to 98.6 inches per year when evaporation averages 0.27 inches per day. Considered a high water-use plant. However yield per unit of water is high; thus a relatively low water footprint. Moderate with selection of salt-tolerant varieties High sunlight and adequate water 2-31

33 Table 2-2: Sugarcane (cont.) Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted Varieties References Requires deep, well-drained soil Insect pests cause minimal damage to sugarcane in Hawaii and all are under some degree of biological control resulting in no insecticide being used in Hawaii production. Weeds are the most significant pest problem in sugarcane production and control is both through agronomic practice and the use of herbicides. Sugar seed pieces are treated with hot water and fungicide to control fungus disease. Vegetative seed pieces There are many diseases; however they are under control in Hawaii as a result of breeding and selection. Seed treated for fungus diseases, including smut, pineapple disease, and ratoon stunting disease ( RSD ). High yields of sugar and fiber. Annualized dry matter yield of 15 to 20 ton per acre per year in commercial practice. Harvested commercially by push-rake harvester in Hawaii. Billet-harvesting being considered. Extensive breeding and agronomic research Yes Yes Yes Yes Heinz et al. (1994); James (2004); Waclawovsky et al. (2010) 2-32

34 3) Type I Energycane (Saccharum spp. hybrids) Type I energycanes are medium fiber content (16% to 18% fresh weight basis) hybrids of Saccharum spp (Tew and Cobill, 1988). These hybrids have a higher fiber content and a lower sugar content than commercial sugarcane varieties. They are high yielding and generally ratoon well. (See Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8.) Type I energycane is expected to be more drought resistant than commercial sugarcanes. This is attributable to their rhizomatous habit and lower requirement for hydration. There is a lower hydration requirement, because not as much sugar is stored. Irvine (1975) reported that Saccharum spontaneum, which comprises up to one-half the genome of the energycanes, is more photosynthetically efficient by 30% compared to commercial Saccharum species hybrids. Photo credit: Lee Jakeway Figure 2-8: Type I energycane forage harvested at HC&S 10 Photo credit: Lee Jakeway Figure 2-7: Billet harvest of energycane at HC&S The harvest cycle for energycanes is expected to be annual; however, two-year cropping is also possible. Although the fiber content is higher in Type I energycane, cf. commercial varieties, commercial sugar production is still feasible with the possibility that the higher total biomass produced will compensate for the lower sugar content (Alexander, 1975; Tew and Cobill, 2010). Locally adapted, disease resistant varieties of Type I energycane are required for Maui sites. Characteristics of Type I energycane are summarized in Table

35 Table 2-3: Type I Energycane Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crop Cycle Origin Invasive Climate Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Dry Matter Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Cropping Experience Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Type I energycane Saccharum spp hybrids Sugarcanes that have been selected for a higher percentage of fiber compared to commercial varieties. They typically have 16% to 18% fiber in net cane. 1 to 2 years with 4 to 6 ratoons expected Tropical Asia Slight owing to rhizomes Tropical, sub-tropical Moderate to high, but lower yielding under stress. More tolerant to drought compared to commercial sugarcane. Like commercial sugarcane, the yield is very high, thus the water footprint is relatively low. Requires an estimated 80% of pan evaporation for optimum production. Moderate High sunlight and water required. There is a high correlation between the amount water applied and yield. Requires deep, well-drained soil Most insect pests are under biological control; no insecticides used Vegetative seed pieces Many, but under control through breeding and selection. 20 to 22 tons dry matter per acre per year Billet-harvest, forage harvest, or push-rake harvest Extensive Yes Yes Yes 2-34

36 Table 2-3: Type I energycane (cont.) Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted varieties References Yes Yes Tew and Cobill (2008); Alexander (1985); Jakeway et al. (2004) Product Category #3: High Soluble Solids and Lignocellulosic Fiber This group of crops is grown for the production of sugar juice that is fermented and distilled to produce ethanol and other fuels, as well as high fiber for liquid fuel production. Potential crops are sweet sorghum, sugarcane and Type I energycane. See descriptions of sugarcane and Type I energycane above. 4) Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) Sweet sorghum is grown as an annual crop in the temperate zone, but may be grown as a perennial in the sub-tropics and the tropics. Sweet sorghum was reviewed by Smith and Frederikson (2000). Sorghum bicolor is a widely variable species of C4 grass, including the grain sorghums, the forage sorghums, and the sweet sorghums. Of most interest for biomass are the forage and sweet varieties, but the grain sorghums have a place in some environments for the production of ethanol from starch hydrolysis and fermentation. Sweet sorghum has been proposed both for cellulose production and for a combination of cellulose and sugar juice for fermentation to ethanol. In the temperate zone, the sorghums are true annuals. But in the tropics, and to a certain extent in the subtropics, they are more perennial, allowing for the harvest of more than one crop (ratoon-crops) from the same planting. Normally, a planting would not be harvested more than three times (a plant-crop and two ratoons) and, more typically, only one ratoon would be harvested. The sorghums have some advantages and some disadvantages when compared to the perennial grasses, sugarcane, and elephantgrass. The main advantage is that the sorghums are planted with true seed, rather than vegetative seed pieces. This substantially reduces planting costs. The primary disadvantage for sorghum is that it is a short-cycle crop, requiring more frequent planting and harvest, compared to perennial grasses like sugarcane. Both annual sorghum and perennial energycanes can be harvested with similar equipment, although cane harvesters are over-designed for the lighter sorghum crops. 2-35

37 In order to extend the harvest season, sweet sorghum has been considered as a complimentary bioenergy crop to sugarcane in Louisiana (Tew and Cobill, 2006). Louisiana s climate is more temperate than in Hawaii. Sugarcane cannot grow in its cold winter season. A crop of sweet sorghum can be planted (after the last sugarcane ratoon) in the spring and be ready for harvest before the sugarcane harvest season; thereby expanding the harvest season. This is not necessary in Hawaii. 11 Sorghum Experience in Hawaii There was some experimentation with forage and grain type sorghums in Hawaii in the late-1960s and early-1970s by the University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. The results of the work were published by Plucknett et al. (1972). Sweet sorghum research has also been conducted by the USDA s, Agricultural Research Service ( ARS ) at the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association ( HSPA ) substation in Kunia, Oahu, as part of a national experiment to determine the range of conditions under which sweet sorghum varieties could grow (Smith et al., 1987). The highest yields in the trials were obtained for the Kunia site in Hawaii. A day-length sensitive cultivar identified as MN 1500 was outstanding as a summer plant-crop, but poor as a winter ratoon-crop. Differences between day-length sensitive and insensitive varieties of sorghum are shown in Figure Sorghum cannot be ratooned in the winter season in Louisiana. In Louisiana, sorghum is planted in the spring following the last ratoon of sugarcane, which is cut in the fall. And it is harvested in the late-summer, before the sugarcane season starts. This practice makes sense for Louisiana, but is not a good fit for Hawaii. 2-36

38 Photo credit: R. V. Osgood Figure 2-9: Sweet sorghum demonstrating day-length sensitive types (left) and insensitive type (right) MN 1500 is a day-length sensitive variety of sweet sorghum; meaning that it flowers on short days. Advantage can be taken of this by planting after the critical day-length for flowering has passed in the spring. Two long duration day-length sensitive sorghum crops can be grown between April and October. The period from November through March can be used to grow a fallow crop (break crop) to prepare the land for the spring planting of sorghum. The fallow crop could be a short-term annual that would be returned to the soil or grown for harvest. Growing continuous sorghum is not a recommended practice [personal communication, Rooney (2009), Texas A&M University ( TAMU )]. Characteristics of sweet sorghum are summarized in Table 2-4. Table 2-4: Sweet sorghum Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crop Cycle Origin Invasive Climate Drought Tolerance Salt Tolerance Irrigation Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Crop Yield Sweet sorghum Sorghum bicolor Sweet sorghum is a large tropical grass which is also adapted to subtropical sites. It is a summer annual, but is somewhat perennial in sub-tropical sites. There are both day-length sensitive and insensitive types. Crop length is typically 4 to 5 months, but varies with variety. Two crops per year are recommended, with fallow crop in winter. Crop cycle of 3 to 5 months. West Africa No Tropical, sub-tropical Moderate Variety determined Requires about 70% of pan evaporation. Higher amounts of water will produce more biomass. More drought tolerant than sugarcane. High sunlight and adequate water Requires deep, well-drained soil Many insect pests; insecticide use is likely True seeds Many Two crops; 10 to 16 dry tons per acre year 2-37

39 Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Cropping Experience in Hawaii Adapted to Central Maui Small billet-type harvest or forage harvest; two to three harvests per year. Minimal None Yes, based on experimentation at HC&S Table 2-4: Sweet sorghum (cont.) Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted Varieties References Yes Somewhat, but usually considered an annual. Ratoons are possible in Hawaii at low elevation. No Smith and Frederikson (2000); Tew and Cobill (2006); Plucknett et al. (1972); Smith et al. (1987; Rooney (2009) Product Category #4: Ligno-cellulosic Fiber-Only The ligno-cellulosic fiber-only crops are grown exclusively for the ligno-cellulosic fiber component. Field drying or milling is required for de-watering to prepare for fuel conversion. The crops can be used for direct combustion (for electricity generation), or conversion to gas and further to liquid fuel. The fiber-only crops are being considered to supplement fiber when both sugar and fuel are the designated products in commercial operations, as in steam reformation, pyrolysis, and gasification. A wide range of crops are considered in this category, including both grass and trees. Potential crops are: 5) Type II energycane 9) Miscanthus x giganteus 6) Elephantgrass (variety banagrass) 10) Erianthus 7) Forage sorghum 11) Bamboo 8) Arundo donax Grasses 5) Type II Energycane (Saccharum spp. hybrids selected for very high fiber) Type II energycane does not produce commercial amounts of sugar, but serves as an excellent source of fiber suitable for conversion to fuel. Type II energycane varieties are sugarcanes selected for very high levels of fiber; from 28% to 30%, as described by Tew and Cobill (2010). They have a very high percentage of S. spontaneum germplasm and are 2-38

40 usually F1 hybrids of commercial sugarcanes and S. spontaneum. The Type II energycane alternative would only be used in an advanced biofuel production operation or to supply supplemental fiber in a combined sugar and fuel operation. It is comparable to banagrass, discussed later in the report. Characteristics of Type II energycane are summarized in Table 2-5. Table 2-5: Type II Energycane Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crop Cycle Origin Invasive Climate Type Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Type Pests Propagation Disease Annual Dry Matter Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Adapted to Central Maui Type II energycane Saccharum spp hybrids Sugarcanes that have been bred and selected for a very high percentage of fiber compared to commercial varieties and Type I energycane. They typically have 28% to 30% fiber and no recoverable sugar. 1 to 2 years with 4 to 6 ratoons expected Type I energycane does not exist in nature. It has been bred and selected. Slight, through rhizomes Tropical, sub-tropical Moderate to high, but lower yielding under stress. More tolerant to drought compared to commercial sugarcane. Requires an estimated 70% of pan evaporation for production. Higher yields with more water. Moderate High sunlight and water applied at about 70% of pan evaporation Requires deep, well-drained soil Most insect pests are under biological control. No insecticide use in anticipated. Vegetative seed pieces Many, but under control through breeding and selection Estimated 20 to 22 tons dry matter per acre Billet-harvest, forage harvest, or push-rake harvest Minimal, although varieties are being developed Yes 2-39

41 Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted Varieties Yes Yes No, being developed References Tew and Cobill (2010) 6) Elephantgrass (variety banagrass) (Pennisetum purpureum) Duke, (1984) described the elephantgrasses as a general class of potential bioenergy crop. The specific elephantgrass variety, banagrass, is well studied and has provided impressive yields of fiber in Hawaii trials. Banagrass remains upright for the entire cropping cycle, which greatly improves harvest efficiency and differentiates it from other elephantgrasses. The elephantgrasses, including banagrass, are important weeds of sugarcane and care would need to be taken to avoid mixing vegetative seed of banagrass with sugarcane seed. Banagrass was not invasive in a dry site on Oahu, but was invasive by seed in wet Hawaii sites (personal observations, R.V. Osgood). Banagrass Photo credit: R. V. Osgood was studied for the purpose of providing Figure 2-10: Banagrass at about six feedstock for electrical power generation on Oahu months from planting at (Kinoshita, 1995). It was later commercially HARC Kunia Substation planted on former Waialua Sugar Co. land on Oahu; however the operation closed before harvest was initiated. (See Figure 2-10.) Banagrass has been extensively evaluated by the HSPA and Hawaii Agriculture Research Center ( HARC ) and was found to have outstanding yield potential and agronomic traits that facilitate harvesting (Osgood et al., 1996). Elephantgrass characteristics are summarized in Table 2-6. Table 2-6: Elephantgrass Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crop Cycle Elephantgrass variety banagrass Pennisetum purpureum Banagrass is a large, upright, high-yielding variety of elephantgrass which is well adapted to both tropical and sub-tropical sites. Excellent regrowth (ratooning). One year or less with opportunity for 6 to 8 ratooncrops 2-40

42 Origin Invasive Climate Africa Moderately invasive in sugarcane operations by true seed; especially in wet sites and by vegetative seed pieces and rhizomes in all sites Tropical, sub-tropical Table 2-6: Elephantgrass (cont.) Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Dry Matter Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Cropping Experience in Hawaii Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial References Moderate Requires about 70% of pan evaporation. Higher amounts of water will produce more biomass. More drought tolerant than sugarcane. Not found in literature High sunlight and adequate water Requires deep, well-drained soil None observed Vegetative seed pieces None observed in Hawaii 20 to 24 tons of dry matter per acre Small billet-type harvest or forage harvest. One to two harvests per year. Minimal Yes Yes, based on experimentation at HC&S Yes Yes Duke (1984); Osgood et al. (1996); Kinoshita et al. (1995) 2-41

43 7) Forage Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and Sorghum/sudangrass hybrids Forage sorghum and the sorghum/sudangrass hybrids are similar to sweet sorghum, but produce high yields of only fiber. (See Figure 2-11.) The forage sorghums are harvested from three to five months after planting or ratooning. Harvest is year-around, with much lower yields expected in the winter. The forage sorghums were described by Clarke (2007). Forage sorghum has been grown in Hawaii for cattle feed, but is not currently grown. Characteristics of Figure 2-11: Forage sorghum forage sorghum and sorghum/sudangrass hybrids are summarized in Table 2-7. Table 2-7: Forage sorghum and sorghum/sudangrass hybrids Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crops cycle Origin Invasive Forage sorghum and sorghum/sudangrass hybrids Sorghum bicolor Many varieties and hybrids Forage sorghum is a variety of sorghum with a high fiber content, but without commercial amounts of sugar. The sorghum/sudangrass hybrids are also high fiber, but of shorter stature, more frequently harvested, and also without commercial amounts of sugar. One plant-crop and one ratoon-crop for forage sorghum; more frequent for sorghum/sudangrass hybrids Africa Slight for forage sorghum. 2-42

44 Climate Drought Tolerance No, for the sorghum/sudangrass hybrids, if the male sterile varieties are used. Tropical, sub-tropical Moderate Table 2-7: Forage sorghum and sorghum/sudangrass hybrids (cont.) Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Dry Matter Yield Harvesting Technique Requires about 70% of pan evaporation. Higher amounts of water will produce more biomass. More drought tolerant than sugarcane Not found in literature High sunlight and adequate water Requires deep, well-drained soil Many reported elsewhere True seed None observed in Hawaii 10 to 15 tons per acre Forage harvest Minimal, however sorghum sudangrass hybrids are Research in Hawaii widely grown as windbreaks in vegetable production and were grown as forage in the past. Cropping Experience No Adapted to Central Maui Yes Harvesting Equipment Available Yes Crop Perennial Yes References Clark (2007) 2-43

45 8) Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Giant Reed (Arundo donax) is a large C4 grass widely adapted to the tropics, as well as the temperate zone. (See Figure 2-12.) It is undergoing testing in Europe for biomass (Angelini et al., 2005), but is considered invasive in the United States and by the Hawaii Figure 2-12: Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Photo credit: R. V. Osgood Table 2-8: Giant reed (Arundo donax) 2-44

46 Crop Name Table 2-8: Giant reed (cont.) Scientific Name Climate Drought Tolerance Description Salt Tolerance Irrigation Crop Cycle Growing Conditions Origin Soil Invasive Pests Propagation Giant cane, giant reed Arundo donax Arundo Tropical, donax sub-tropical is large lower C4 grass temperate which is widely Not adapted found from in literature the tropics to the temperate regions. It is sterile Not found and in cannot literature reproduce by seed. High dry matter content in hollow stems. Yes, needs abundant water One harvest per year; followed by many ratoons High sunlight and abundant water. Arundo donax is listed India as an aquatic plant. Considered Not described, invasive but adapted by stem to fragments, wet lands layering and rhizomes. Listed as invasive on federal and Hawaii lists. Not found Invasive in literature mainly near streams. Rhizomes Invasive Species Committee. The giant reed is difficult and expensive to establish, but once established is difficult and expensive to remove. Characteristics of the giant reed are summarized in Table

47 Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted Varieties References Not found in literature 10 to 16 dry tons per acre per year Harvest once per year with billet-type harvester None Yes, with irrigation Yes Yes No Duke (1983); Angelini (2005); USDA website; Hawaii State website; Luciana et al. (2009) 2-46

48 9) Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) Miscanthus species are other examples of large, vigorous C4 grasses being considered for biomass feedstock. (See Figure 2-13.) A hybrid, miscanthus referred to as Miscanthus x giganteus, a natural cross of M. sinensis and M. saccharriflorus (Miscanthus x giganteus), is being considered in Europe for biomass. There are also a few experimental plantings in the United States, mostly in the Midwest. Figure 2-13: Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) Miscanthus x giganteus is a sterile triploid, with a vigorous rhizome system making it a potentially noxious weed in some environments. Miscanthus was extensively reviewed by Heaton et al. (2010). Angelini (2008) compared Miscanthus x giganteus with Arundo donax in central Italy. Miscanthus species are closely related to sugarcane and crosses with sugarcane have been made and are currently being evaluated in the United States. The hybrids are designated as Miscanes. Its primary contribution to the hybrids is to add cold tolerance, allowing production in the temperate zone. The Miscanes are at an early stage of development and are not currently available for commercial use. Commercial seed would have to be produced. Miscanthus x giganteus characteristics are summarized in Table 2-9. Table 2-9: Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crop Cycle Origin Invasive Climate Miscanthus x giganteus Miscanthus x giganteus Miscanthus x giganteus is a large C4 grass that is widely adapted from the tropics to the temperate regions. Miscanthus x giganteus is a sterile triploid and is not reproduced by true seed. One crop per year with many ratoons East Asia Considered invasive by rhizomes. Listed as invasive on federal and Hawaii lists. Plant is a sterile triploid, thus propagation by seed is not an issue. Tropical, sub-tropical lower temperate zones 2-47

49 Table 2-9: Miscanthus (cont.) Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaiian-adapted Varieties Likely more tolerant than sugarcane owing to rhizomes. Required in dry sites Not found in literature High sunlight and abundant water Not found in literature Not found in literature Rhizomes and vegetative seed pieces No serious diseases 10 to 16 tons per acre Harvest once per year with billet-type harvester None Yes, with irrigation Yes Yes No References Luciana et al. (2009) 2-48

50 10) Erianthus (Erianthus arundinaceous) Photo credit: R. V. Osgood Figure 2-14: Erianthus (Erianthus arundinaceous) timor wild Kunia, Oahu 12 Erianthus is another vigorous C4 grass with biomass potential on its own and in hybridization programs with sugarcane. (See Figure 2-14.) It is less well known than Miscanthus x giganteus and Arundo donax (described above) and is primarily known as an ornamental. There are over 100 species. Erianthus arundinaceous has been hybridized with sugarcane and clones of the hybrids were evaluated in Hawaii (Nagai, 1991). Several Erianthus accessions were observed in Hawaii in 2011 and were found to be recumbent at nine months after planting, thereby limiting their usefulness (personal observation, R.V. Osgood). However hybrids with Saccharum spp may be worthwhile pursuing in a breeding program (Nagai, personal communication). Characteristics of Erianthus are summarized in Table Table 2-10: Erianthus (Erianthus arundinaceous) Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crop Cycle Origin Invasive Climate Erianthus Erianthus arundinaceous A large C4 grass that is widely adapted from the tropics. One crop per year with many ratoons East Asia Considered invasive by rhizomes; not an issue Tropical, sub-tropical 12 Note: Lodged habit after nine months at Kunia, Oahu. 2-49

51 Drought Tolerance Not found in literature Table 2-10: Erianthus (Erianthus arundinaceous) (cont.) Irrigation Required in dry sites Salt Tolerance Not found in literature Growing Conditions High sunlight and abundant water Soil Not found in literature Pests Not found in literature Propagation Rhizomes and vegetative seed pieces Disease No serious diseases reported Annual Crop Yield 10 to 16 tons per acre Harvesting Technique Harvest once per year with billet-type harvester Research in Hawaii Very little Adapted to Central Maui Yes, with irrigation Harvesting Equipment Available Yes Crop Perennial Yes Hawaiian adapted varieties No References Nagai et al. (1991) 2-50

52 11) Bamboo (Primarily the genera Dendrocalamus, Phyllostachys and Bambusa) 13 There are 1200 species and 75 genera of woody grasses referred to as bamboo, which are widely used, primarily in Asia, for fiber and food products (Scurlock et al., 2000). Bamboos are largely tropical, but also extend into the temperate zone. They differ from other grasses by having much higher dry matter content in the stems; thus, bamboo is often mentioned as a potential biomass energy crop. (See Figure 2-15.) It is perennial, yielding ratoons over many years. Hunter and Junqi (2002) reviewed the biomass potential of bamboo in a white paper of the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan. They reported: A key issue in the profitability of bamboo plantations is the productivity that can be expected. This working paper summarizes the accessible published information. The evidence is scant and contradictory. Consequently it is difficult to reach conclusive findings. However the working paper finds that the biomass of bamboo differs from that of tree crops by degree only. Productivity of bamboo is generally within the range of woody biomass in the same environment with the exception that bamboo culm biomass never seems to reach the very high values attainable by tree stem biomass in favourable situations. Photo credit: R. V. Osgood Figure 2-15: Bamboo. Dendrocalamus in Madagascar 13 Many genera and species of woody grasses are referred to as bamboo. 2-51

53 Further, Hunter and Junqi concluded: The variability of the currently published data makes it difficult to generalise. More, simple biomass determinations are needed. Ultimately the bamboo-growing industry needs a simple productivity relationship linking bamboo biomass growth to environmental variables but to calculate such, much more data are needed. Scurlock et al. (2000) questioned whether bamboo was any more productive than other grass and woody biomass crops, yet considered bamboo a potential biomass feedstock. Its characteristics as feedstock for biofuels is more tree-like than grass-like, due to a high percentage of fibrous dry matter. The authors concluded that a great deal more research is needed to develop bamboo as a commercial biomass feedstock and that it would be especially difficult to decide on which species to develop. Bamboo characteristics are summarized in Table Table 2-11: Bamboo Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crops cycle Origin Invasive Climate Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Bamboo Bambusa, Dendrocalamus, Phyllostachys, etc. The bamboos are examples of vigorous grasses with woody characteristics. There are many genera and species. Once per year or longer depending on species East Asia In some cases they are highly invasive; depends on the species. Spread by seed and vegetative movement by rhizomes. Tropical, sub-tropical lower temperate Depends on the species. Widely variable. Required in dry sites Not found in literature High sunlight and abundant water Depends on species Few 2-52

54 Propagation Rhizomes Table 2-11: Bamboo (cont.) Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted Varieties Depends on species Highly variable and dependent on species Hand-cutting or machines designed for harvesting trees None Possible, but dependent on species Not found in literature Yes None References Hunter and Junqi (2002); Scurlock et al. (2000) Potential Bioenergy Tree Crops Two genera of trees have been proposed for bioenergy use in Hawaii. These are the giant leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) and several species of Eucalyptus, especially E. grandis, E. urophylla, and hybrids of E. grandis and E. urophylla called urograndis. Giant leucaena is best suited for low-land sites and Eucalyptus species for up-land sites. Both will likely require irrigation at least for establishment on dry Maui sites. Tree crops, although lower yielding on an annual basis, have at least two distinct advantages over the grasses. Whereas the grasses need to be harvested on a defined schedule, the trees can maintain biomass in the field and are not subject to a specific harvest date. Another advantage of tree biomass is that it is harvested drier than grass biomass. The trees are deeper rooted and have better access to deep moisture in the soil. The potential tree crops are: 12) Giant Leucaena 13) Eucalyptus 12) Giant Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala, K636) and other Leucaena selections and hybrids. Developed in Hawaii, the giant leucaena varieties are well adapted to low-land sites and with proper management can produce high annual increments of woody biomass feedstock in the range of 8 to 10 tons per acre. (See Figure 2-16.) The trees are reestablished by coppice growth and are expected, with good management, to produce for 20 or more years after establishment (personal communication Dalzell, 2010). Giant leucaena is primarily used for cattle grazing, but similar growing techniques can be used for machine- 2-53

55 harvested biomass feedstock production. Giant leucaena is usually referred to in Hawaii as haole koa or koa haole. This refers to the wild type Leucaena leucocephala often considered to be as a weed. Modern leucaenas such as the named varieties, K636 and Taramba, are differentiated from the weedy type of giant leucaena (found in waste-areas and on hillsides in Hawaii and throughout the tropics) by higher biomass production and lower seed production. A Waimanalo, Hawaii experiment by agronomists at the University of Hawaii demonstrated that giant leucaena has an outstanding potential (Takahashi and Ripperton, 1949; Kinch and Ripperton, 1962). Other yield trials were conducted in Hawaii by Brewbaker et al. (1972). Yield trials with giant leucaena were also Photo credit: Peter Larson Figure 2-16: Giant leucaena grown for cattle grazing in Queensland, Australia conducted in Hawaii by Osgood and Dudley (1993) and by Brewbaker (1980). Brewbaker proposed utilizing giant leucaena in a biomass plantation on Molokai. Shelton and Dalzell (2007) reported on the productivity and economics, and environmental benefits of growing giant leucaena. Austin et al. (1997) compared the yields of mixed and pure stands of giant leucaena and eucalyptus in Hawaii. Giant leucaena productivity is further described by Suttie in a Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) of the United Nations white paper as part of a series on forage species. Hawaii became the world center of giant leucaena research and development in the 1960s based on the work of James Brewbaker at the University of Hawaii. Although this work is primarily forage-related, it has direct application to biomass feedstock. With emphasis on forage biomass, Dalzell (2007) produced a guide to establishment and management of giant leucaena which is an excellent source of information fully applicable to establishing giant leucaena for biomass feedstock. Characteristics of giant leucaena hybrids are summarized in Table Table 2-12: Giant leucaena hybrids Crop Name Scientific Name Description Giant leucaena hybrids Leucaena leucocephala Giant leucaena is a fast growing deep rooted nitrogenfixing tree well adapted to Hawaii lowland sites. 2-54

56 Table 2-12: Giant leucaena hybrids (cont.) Crop Cycle Origin Invasive Climate Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Cropping Experience Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted Varieties References Once per year in coppice system; stand may last 20 or more years Central America The selected giant leucaena is much less invasive than the wild type, owing to less seed production. Tropical, sub-tropical Moderate Required in dry sites, at least for planting and for high yield potential Low High sunlight and moderate water; estimated to use about 50% of pan evaporation, depending on rooting depth Does not tolerate acid soil; grows well in calcareous soil Psillid insects are the most serious pest. Seed; seedlings are either nursery grown or direct seeded into field None serious 8 to 10 tons per acre per year Hand-cutting or machines designed for trees Extensive Extensive in Australia; mostly experimental in Hawaii Yes, based on trials Yes Yes Yes Suttie (Web); Dalzell (2010); Takahashi and Ripperton (1949); Kinch and Ripperton (1962); Brewbaker et al. (1972); Osgood and Dudley (1993); Austin et al. (1997); Shelton and Dalzell (2007); Brewbaker (1980); Dalzell (2007) 2-55

57 13) Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus species and hybrids) Eucalyptus is well known for producing high yields of high quality woody biomass. Brazil leads all other countries in the development of eucalyptus. (See Figure 2-17.) Uses have included charcoal as coking fuel, paper pulp, lumber, and biomass feedstock. Productivity has reached levels in Brazilian plantations approaching that of C4 grasses (Stape et al., 2010). Eucalyptus can be grown on very short rotations or longer rotations up to seven years in subtropical or tropical environments. Short rotation, closely spaced eucalyptuses were trialed in California with good results (Sachs et al., 1980). Whitesell et al. (1992) provided guidelines for the establishment of short rotation eucalyptus plantations in Hawaii. Rockwood et al. (2008) proposed eucalyptus for short rotation biofuel production in Florida. Several species of eucalyptus, including Figure 2-17: A clonal eucalyptus plantation in Brazil. some hybrids, were selected in Hawaii for high rates of biomass accumulation. The hybrids between E. grandis and E. urophylla known as urograndis have been especially productive. Eucalyptus, like giant leucaena, is regenerated by coppice (regrowth) and has the potential for long-term production cycles. Yields of 10 to 14 tons of biomass per acre per year were obtained in Hawaii sites. (Osgood and Dudley, 1993) Selections of E. grandis, E. urophylla, and urograndis seedlings were made by HARC in Hawaii island trials in the 1980s. These selections have been cloned and are available for propagation and testing. In five Hawaii trials, eucalyptus was not as productive as sugarcane or banagrass, except for one location, Hamakua on Hawaii island. Eucalyptus characteristics are summarized in Table

58 Table 2-13: Eucalyptus Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crops cycle Origin Invasive Climate Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Cropping Experience Adapted to Central Maui Harvesting Equipment Available Crop Perennial Hawaii-adapted Varieties References Eucalyptus Eucalyptus species including E. grandis, E. urophylla and hybrids between eucalyptus species Eucalyptus is a large, vigorous tree with a high potential for biomass production. One per year in a coppice system. Biannual and longer cropping is also possible. Coppice is long lived, but in longer cycles it may be better to replant each cycle, depending on species growing conditions and pest pressure. Australia and Papua, New Guinea Depends on species and site Tropical, sub-tropical Drought tolerant, but more productive in sites with adequate rainfall. Required in dry sites. Did not grow well in mill water at HC&S. Low Moderate rainfall, upland soils in Hawaii. Widely planted in Hawaii. High water-use, but usually grown in upland sites with adequate rainfall. Widely adapted to Hawaii soils. Mostly planted in upland soils. Beetles may affect coppice growth Seed and vegetative propagules None serious in Hawaii 8 to 14 tons per acre per year in Hawaii Hand-cutting or machines designed for tree harvest Extensive Extensive Yes, based on trials, but wind damage may be a factor Yes Yes Yes Stape et al. (2004); Sachs et al. (1980); Whitesell et al. (1992); Osgood and Dudley (1993); Rockwood (2008) 2-57

59 2.3.5 Product Category #5: Crop Grown for Direct Oil Extraction Although filtration and refining of the raw oils is required for most uses, this group of crops does not require complex conversion facilities as required for the ligno-cellulosic crops, since oil is directly extracted from the harvested seed or fruit. Crops in this category are either perennial or annual. There are many annual and perennial crops that produce seed or fruit suited for direct oil extraction. A summary of world vegetable oil production and prices is provided at: (Accessed: 12 Feb 2012.) There were only a few crops in 2007 and 2008 that comprised the bulk of world trade in vegetable oil. These are soybean (225 million metric tons), palm oil (kernel and pericarp, 53.5 metric tons); rapeseed oil (51 million metric tons), cottonseed oil (44 million metric tons), peanut (32 million metric tons) and sunflower oil (30 million metric tons). The annual vegetable oil crops are very important in international trade, and some crops like soybean are highly subsidized by governments through direct payments and fuel blending credits. Some of the major oil seed crops are food crops and also have significant animal feed by-products; e.g., soybean. Others, like rapeseed, are industrial oil crops. All of the vegetable oils can be converted to biofuels. But oil seed crops have widely differing melting points and iodine numbers that will affect fuel performance. A useful website comparing various crop oils is found at (Accessed: 3 Feb 2012.) Potential crops in this category are: Perennial Oil Seed Crops: Other Perennial Oil Seed Crops: Annual Oil Seed Crops: 14) African oil palm 15) Jatropha 16) Pongamia 17) Kukui 18) Malunggay 19) Soybean 20) Canola 21) Safflower 22) Sunflower 23) Various mustards 24) Camelina 25) Castor bean 26) Sesame The annual and perennial oil seed crops considered to have some potential for Hawaii were reviewed by Poteet (2006). With the exception of castor bean and jatropha, all have food uses mainly as edible vegetable oils. The yields of vegetable oil crops are 2-58

60 provided in Table The vegetable oil yields are provided in two ways; ascending order of oil production and in alphabetical order. A column (the 4 th column from the left) was added to show the type of crop, whether the crop is annual or perennial Perennial Oil Seed Crops 14) African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) Photo credit: R. V. Osgood Figure 2-18: Two-year-old hybrid African oil palms on Molokai, Hawaii, USDA, NRCS Plant Materials Center African oil palm is a large tropical tree originating in West Africa, but commercially grown mostly in southern Asia, Indonesia, and Malaysia. (See Figure 2-18 and Figure 2-19.) Oil palm produces both a pericarp oil (fruit oil) and a seed oil. It produces the highest oil yield per acre of all the oil crops and is second only to soybean in annual oil production. Because of its productivity, palm oil has the greatest potential of all the perennial oil crops to supply raw oil for direct extraction biodiesel production. The primary oil produced is the pericarp oil (43 million metric tons in ). A normal yield of 1.6 tons of pericarp palm oil is produced per acre each year. A high-yield farm may produce 2.8 to 3.2 tons per acre per year. Only 10% of the oil palm biomass is harvested as oil, leaving a large resource of biomass (mainly leaves and extracted palm fruits) for collection as a biofuel source. This amounts to a significant resource, if it can be collected efficiently. For every 1.6 tons of oil produced (normal yield per acre), there is an additional 15.3 tons of biomass, composed of fruit pressings, flower parts, leaves, seed cake, and tree trunks (from terminated orchards). Extracted oil palm fruits are used in Figure 2-19: Malaysian oil palm farm using dwarf varieties Ecuador to supplement bagasse at sugar mill. They also use wood chips, coffee hulls and cacao waste at the sugar mill. Everything is stored outdoors, with no cover (personal observation, R. V. Osgood). Characteristics of African oil palm are summarized in Table

61 Table 2-14: African oil palm Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crops cycle Origin Invasive Climate Drought Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Cropping Experience Adapted to Central Maui Harvester Developed Crop Perennial Hawaii Varieties Developed African oil palm Elaeis guineensis A member of the Arecaceae (palm family), African oil palm is a robust producer of both oil and biomass. Continuous production after three years. Replacement of trees when yield decline to uneconomic level, which may be up to 20 years. West Africa No Tropical No Required in dry sites. Usually grown in sites with adequate rainfall. Low High water-use; usually rain-fed where grown Well-drained Palm borer Seed or tissue culture plants None serious in Hawaii 1.6 to 2 tons of oil per year (about 600 gallons) and 15 tons of biomass from leaves and oil press residue Hand harvest with harvest aids Minimal, but ongoing in multiple sites Minimal Likely, but wind may be problematic No Yes No References Basri et al. (2004); Basiron (2007) 2-60

62 15) Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) Photo credit: R. V. Osgood Figure 2-20: Jatropha curcas Ka`u landrace, Olsen Trust, Ka`u Hawaii. Jatropha is a small tree with oil bearing seeds. (See Figure 2-20.) It is a native of Central America and was spread across the tropics due to its usefulness as animal barriers and as a source of oil for lamps and soap-making. Recently, it has been touted as a source of feedstock for biodiesel. The historical and agronomic aspects of jatropha were described by Henning (2009) and Heller (1996). Poteet (2006) reviewed the potential for biodiesel crops in Hawaii and Poteet (2008) reported on international aspects of jatropha production and processing based on site visits to Cape Verde, Germany, England, India, the Philippines, and Madagascar. In Hawaii, an extensive review of oil crops suitable for production of biodiesel was made (Poteet, 2006). See Accessed: 3 Feb 2012.) Jatropha characteristics are summarized in Table Table 2-15: Jatropha Crop Name Scientific Name Description Crops cycle Origin Invasive Climate Type Salt Tolerance Irrigation Salt Tolerance Physic nut, jatropha Jatropha curcas A small tree in the Euphorbiaceae having oil bearing seed. Annual harvest. Crop is long lived and may produce for up to 20 or more years. Central America Low Tropical Not found in literature Required in dry sites Not found in literature 2-61

63 Table 2-15: Jatropha (cont.) Growing Conditions Soil Pests Propagation Disease Annual Crop Yield Harvesting Technique Research in Hawaii Cropping Experience Adapted to Central Maui Harvester Developed Crop Perennial Hawaii Varieties Developed Usually rain-fed and considered a low water-use crop. High yields require irrigation; around 50% of pan. Well-drained Papaya mealy bug and mites observed in Hawaii Seed or cuttings Few Low yielding at less than one-half ton oil per acre per year (about 125 gallons). Potential is reported by commercial interests to be much higher with new varieties and hybrids. (Need verification.) Hand harvest or mechanical harvest with modified berry picker Moderate; yield information being collected at HARC Minimal Likely, but wind may be problematic. Yes Yes Work in progress References Henning (2009); Heller (1996); Poteet (2006); Poteet (2008) Other Perennial Oil Seed Crops 16) Pongamia (Millettia pinnata). Pongamia is an oil seed producing tree with commercial extraction operations in India. It is mostly wild collected. There is some commercial interest, but presently there are no commercial orchards in Hawaii. 17) Kukui (Aleurites moluccana) Also known as candlenut tree. Kukui is an oil seed producing tree widely disbursed at middle elevations in Hawaii as an invasive species. Oil is used cosmetically in Hawaii; although mostly imported. Previously classified in the genus Jatropha. 2-62

64 18) Malunggay (Moringa oleifera, also known as the horseradish tree) A small oil seed bearing tree, which produces Oil of Ben ; named for its high concentration of behenic acid, which has some specialty uses. The plant has many specialty food uses and is propagated vegetatively or from seed. The tree is tropical and fast growing, producing a high yield of seed and biomass Annual Oil Seed Crops Annual oil crops include soybean, canola, various mustards, safflower, sunflower, camelina, castor bean, and sesame. The problem with this group of crops is that only a small portion of the crop is used for oil production; thus the yields of are very low. Fortunately, most of the annual oil seed crops have animal feed by-products that improve their economics. The yields of the annual oilseed crops were compared with the perennial sources of oil at website Journey to Forever 14. Crops such as corn and soybean have very low oil yields, but have by-products that increase the value of the crops. Corn and soybean also have high subsidies in the United States and low costs of production in foreign countries, also improving farm income to growers. The perennial crops have a much higher oil yield compared to most of the annual crops. As a group, the annual oil seed crops are low yielding for their primary product, oil, and do not produce enough cellulosic biomass to be of interest for conversion to advanced biofuel. Most annual oil seed crops produce by-product animal feed which improve the economics in markets where there is a need for high protein feeds, such as the mid-west. In addition, the annual oil seed crops are frequently harvested, a trait considered undesirably by HC&S. For the purposes of the selection matrix, the annual oil seed crops are considered as a group. A brief discussion of each of the crops under consideration follows. 19) Soybean Soybean (Glycine max) is the most important (with the highest production) of all the annual oil seed crops, with most of its production going to food such as vegetable oil and animal feed. It is also currently the world s primary source of biodiesel fuel. Soybean has been bred to tolerate growing conditions from the tropics to the northern United States. Yields of oil are very low (about 48 gallons per acre) in comparison to its major competitor, palm oil (about 635 gallons per acre), and in comparison to other annual oil seed crops such as canola/rapeseed (at about 127 gallons per acre). The income expected for soy oil is expected to be too low to attract growers in Hawaii. Also, there is no experience with large 14 (Accessed: 28 Feb 2012) 2-63

65 scale soybean growing in Hawaii and considerable time would be required to develop adapted varieties. 20) Canola ( Canadian Oil Low Acid ) Canola was derived from the rapeseed (Brassica napus) by conventional plant breeding in Canada the 1970s. It was later genetically modified to improve its quality and to provide herbicide resistant seed to farmers. Canola, which stands for Canadian oil low acid is used both as a food and industrial product and is principally grown in Canada. Canola is one of many mustard oils originating from the family Brassicaceae. Other mustard oils are described below. The principle industrial use for both rapeseed and canola is the production of biodiesel by extraction of the seed. Animal feed is an important byproduct. In addition, there is an extensive market for canola (and not rapeseed) as an edible oil. There is no experience growing canola or rapeseed in Hawaii and considerable time would be needed to develop adapted varieties. The income expected is too low to be of interest to growers, as shown on Table ) Safflower Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) in the Asteraceae family is a non-brassica oil seed plant with only a minor importance among the vegetable oils. According to some, safflower has potential for biodiesel production in Hawaii. Others consider this unlikely, due to its low yield. Pacific Biodiesel is currently managing a $2.4 million military grant to determine whether annual oil-producing plants, like safflower, can produce enough biodiesel to significantly reduce the military s dependence on petroleum. The project was announced on June 29, 2011, and is named the Hawaii Military Biofuels Crop Demonstration Project 15. At the time of the announcement, it was anticipated that first yields would be produced in a little more than three months. The project is the first of its kind on Oahu and will study three plant varieties; safflower, sunflower, and camelina. 22) Sunflower Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in the Compositae family is another non-brassica oil that is primarily used as a vegetable oil, although there has been some conversion to biodiesel. Sunflower is one of the three crops planted in the Hawaii Military Biofuels Crop Demonstration Project mentioned earlier ps_planted/ accessed: 17 May

66 23) Various mustards A number of mustard crops, including camelina and canola (considered separately in this report) have been suggested as sources of biodiesel. Other mustards include Brassica nigra (black mustard), Brassica hirta (white mustard) and Brassica juncea (Indian mustard). All have potential as biodiesel crops, but all are low yielding and do not offer enough potential of income to be of interest to growers. In addition, multiple plantings and harvests are required which is clearly not in the interest of HC&S. 24) Camelina Camelina (Camelina sativa) is another member of the Brassicaceae family. It is considered separately from the various mustards (above), because of the interest by the U.S. government in promoting it as a source of biodiesel and advanced biofuels. It is also low yielding and will likely not be of interest to growers in Hawaii. The crop seems to fit well as a catch crop between crops of wheat in the northern United States. Camelina is one of the three crops planted in the Hawaii Military Biofuels Crop Demonstration Project mentioned earlier. 25) Castor bean Castor bean (Ricinus communis) is a non-mustard oil in the Euphorbiaceae family. It was previously grown in the United States, and is again being considered as a source of feedstock for biodiesel. It suffers from the same low yielding properties as the other annual oil seed crops. It is grown on a wide scale in India for use as lubricating oil. The seed cake is toxic to animals, and is therefore not used as feed. Castor bean is the source of ricin, a highly toxic plant poison. There is a tendency for castor bean to become perennial in the subtropics and tropics, thus multiple crops are feasible from a single planting. It is considered a noxious weed and is highly invasive. Castor bean is the highest yielding of the annual oil seed crops, as shown on Table ) Sesame Sesame (Sesamum indicum) is a member of the Pedaliaceae family and is a wellknown source of vegetable oil. It is very low yielding and grown primarily in Burma for export to Japan. Sesame is not likely to be grown for biodiesel due to its high value as a cooking oil and low yield Algae Algae have good potential, because of its very high anticipated yields of bio oil. However, since there are no commercial operations at present, algae was not considered in 2-65

67 this study. Both autotrophic (requires sunlight) and heterotrophic (does not require sunlight) algae projects are currently underway, including a number of Hawaii test projects. In May 2011, Cellana LLC 16, announced that it had received a three-year $5 million grant to develop a protein supplement from algae as a byproduct of algae biofuels production and to demonstrate its nutritional and economic value in livestock feeds. As of the announcement, Cellana has invested over $100 million in developing its algae strains, production technologies and its demonstration facility in Kona. 17 In June 2010, Phycal LLC, an Ohio-based energy company, announced that it had leased land and was preparing an environmental assessment for a $65 million pilot project involving the development of shallow ponds and processing facilities on 40 acres of former pineapple plantation land in Wahiawa. 18 In July 2008, HR BioPetroleum 19, Alexander & Baldwin, Hawaiian Electric Co., and Maui Electric Co. announced that they had signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue a joint development of a commercial-scale microalgae facility on Maui to produce lipid oil for conversion to diesel and other valuable products, such as animal feed. 20 In December 2008, General Atomics was awarded a Defense Advanced Research Project Agency ( DARPA ) grant to explore algae as a commercial source for biofuel. As of May 2011, it had an algae farm under construction on Kauai Cellana LLC is a subsidiary of Cellana, Inc. (formerly HR BioPetroleum, Inc.) Accessed: 17 May = Accessed: 17 May 2012 In April 2011, HR BioPetroleum Inc. changed its name to Cellana, Inc. 1ca/?vgnextoid=e9fd b110VgnVCM c011bacRCRD&vgnextfmt=d Accessed: 17 May Accessed: 17 May

68 Table 2-16: Vegetable oil yields Ascending order Alphabetical order Crop litres oil/ha US gal/acre Annual /Perennial Crop litres oil/ha US gal/acre corn (maize) A avocado cashew nut P brazil nut oats A calendula lupine A camelina kenaf A cashew nut calendula A castor bean cotton A cocoa (cacao) hemp A coconut soybean A coffee coffee P coriander linseed (flax) A corn (maize) hazelnut P cotton euphorbia A euphorbia pumpkin seed A hazelnut coriander A hemp mustard seed A jatropha camelina A jojoba sesame A kenaf safflower A linseed (flax) rice A lupine tung oil P macadamia nut sunflower A mustard seed cocoa (cacao) P oats peanut A oil palm opium poppy A olive rapeseed/ canola A opium poppy olive P peanut castor bean A/P pecan nut pecan nut P pumpkin seed jojoba P rapeseed/ canola jatropha P rice macadamia nut P safflower brazil nut P sesame avocado P soybean coconut P sunflower oil palm P tung oil Adapted from website: Journey to Forever. (Accessed: 28 Feb 2012) The type of crop (A= annual and P= perennial) was added as a column. 2-67

69 2.4 Development of Short List of Candidate Crops Before a detailed assessment of potential crops is prepared, it is reasonable to reduce the number of candidate crops to a manageable number. This is accomplished by developing a process with which the number of crops under consideration may be reduced to those with the best combination of characteristics that may support biofuel production at HC&S. The reduction process used is as follows: 1) Establish agronomic selection criteria that are critical to biofuel production at HC&S 2) Develop a rating system 3) Prepare a crop selection matrix, rating the 26 candidate crops As stated earlier, criteria applied at this point in the assessment are primarily based on agronomic characteristics in order to avoid biasing the outcome based on near-term considerations Agronomic Selection Criteria Eight criteria were developed to reduce the number of candidate crops, based on the understanding of HC&S priorities and biofuel feedstock requirements. Generally, the criteria are designed to rate a crop on its adaptability to central Maui, agronomic traits, cropping history and research, development of harvest techniques, and adaptability for a large-scale biofuel production at HC&S. The eight criteria are as follows. Criterion #1: High yield of products or by-products useful for conversion to advanced biofuel, soluble solids, fiber, and plant oils The crop selected must be able to provide high biomass yield and have other characteristics required for efficient, profitable conversion into biofuel. Criterion #2: Equipment developed for production and harvest The capital cost of equipment and the ongoing operations and maintenance expenses related to the equipment are a significant part of field operations. The availability of developed equipment is therefore important, because its availability and efficiency will determine whether the crop can be planted, harvested, processed in 2-68

70 support of a biofuel operation on a timely and ongoing basis, and at an acceptable cost. Criterion #3: Farming history in Hawaii, local knowledge of crop This is an important criterion, because introducing a new crop successfully is a lengthy process involving many years of research. A time line of 8 to 10 years is estimated to mitigate the various risks associated with replacing an existing crop with a new crop, and to develop local experience in managing both planned and unplanned situations. Both public and private resources are needed to support this effort. Criterion #4: Adaptation to central Maui weather, soils, and growing conditions 22 This is an important criterion, because there are significant risks associated with introducing a new crop, and the risks are better controlled through experimentation. This includes the testing of varieties and agronomic practices. Central Maui is a harsh environment for crops and only the hardiest will survive in a commercial operation and produce requisite yields. Criterion #5: A research base in Hawaii, with adapted crop varieties This is an important criterion, because many of the crops under consideration have not been adequately studied in Hawaii. A research base would expedite the development of a variety capable of supporting a successful ongoing operation. A crop without a local research base and adapted varieties would have a long lag-time before attaining commercial levels of production on a meaningful scale. Criterion #6: Successful application to biofuel conversion This criterion is included, because a new crop must have been successfully used as feedstock for conversion to biofuels in either a 22 Generally, all crops grown commercially on Maui will need, at a minimum, supplemental irrigation. Most will require full irrigation; with the amount of water consumption determined by crop characteristics in relation to pan evaporation. Tree crops will require, at a minimum, supplemental irrigation, particular at start-up. System design for capacity will be less for trees, than for grasses. All grasses require irrigation. 2-69

71 demonstration project or in commercial operation in order to be considered for an HC&S transition. Without conversion experience, a new crop would introduce unnecessary risks. Criterion #7: Environmentally acceptable This is an important criterion, because the new crops must not pose a threat to either existing agriculture, the environment, or the community. This criteria includes the effects of planting, harvesting and processing that the crop may have on air quality and water quality. Invasiveness is another important environmental criterion. Plants are invasive either by seed or by vegetative propagules, with seed propagation by far the most important criterion. Criterion #8: Water-use efficiency This is an important criterion, because water is limited on Maui. Therefore, the crop selected must be able to produce high yields with the water available. This does not mean that a high water requirement would rule out a crop, if that water was used efficiently to produce biomass. This is the concept of the water footprint, which measures the efficiency of a crop s water usage by the amount of product produced. Some low water-use crops produce very little product and therefore have a high water footprint. Other crops use high amounts of water, but also produce high yields of biomass and are considered to have a low water footprint. The concept of the water footprint is covered further in Section

72 2.4.2 Rating System To evaluate the 26 crops with potential for producing advanced biofuels at HC&S based on the eight agronomic criteria just described, a simple rating system was developed. The rating system consists of the following. 1) Crops were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing the highest favorable rating, and 1 representing the lowest rating. 2) Criteria were given equal weight. Since all eight considerations are required characteristics of the crops that may go forward, it was determined that a weighting of the criteria was not necessary. 3) Ratings for the crops were based on published and unpublished information, and the personal experience and general knowledge of the Assessment s researchers and their colleagues. Since Hawaii s growing conditions are unique in the United States, local knowledge of the production of the biofuel crops was considered very important. Therefore, where crop production knowledge was not available, the crop was given a low rating. 4) Rather than select a fixed number of crops for the Short List, it was assumed that the total score for each crop would present a natural break point, beyond which candidate crops would not be examined further. The 26 candidate crops fall into three groups; individual crops, lesser known perennial oil-bearing crops, and annual oil seed crops. The crops are listed by common name. 2-71

73 1) Sugarbeet 2) Sugarcane 3) Type I energycane 4) Sweet sorghum 5) Type II energycane Group - Individual Crops 6) Banagrass 7) Forage sorghum 8) Giant reed 9) Miscanthus x giganteus 10) Erianthus 11) Bamboo 12) Giant leucaena 13) Eucalyptus 14) Oil palm 15) Jatropha Group Lesser Known Perennial Oil-bearing Crops Group - Annual Oil Seed Crops 16) Pongamia 17) Kukui 18) Malunggay 19) Soybean 20) Canola 21) Safflower 22) Mustard 23) Sunflower 24) Camelina 25) Castor bean 26) Sesame Crop Selection Matrix The following table (Table 2-17) presents the 26 crops and their rating by the eight criteria described earlier. The ratings ranged from 1 to 5; the higher the rating the more desirable the crop for the purposes of feedstock for conversion to biofuel at HC&S. As stated earlier, the eight criteria are of equal weight. Therefore the total score for each crop is a simple sum of each of its eight ratings. 2-72

74 Table 2-17: Crop selection matrix Criteria Crop Number Crops High Yield Operating Equipment Hawaii History Maui Conditions Hawaii Research Conversion Experience Environmentally Acceptable #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 1 Sugarbeet Sugarcane Type I energycane Sweet sorghum Type II energycane Banagrass Forage sorghum Giant reed Miscanthus x giganteus Erianthus Bamboo Giant leucaena Eucalyptus Oil palm Jatropha ,17 Kukui, Pongamia 18 Malunggay Soybean, Canola, 19,20 Safflower, 21,22 Sunflower, Mustards, 23,24 Camelina, Castor 25,26 bean, Sesame Ratings from one to five. (5 = best rating; 1 = lowest rating) Water Efficiency Total Score 2-73

75 Each crop s total score is shown on Table The three categories of sugarcane scored high in the matrix, with traditional sugarcane scoring the highest. Type I energycane and Type II energycane scored lower than traditional sugarcane, primarily because of the lack of cropping experience both world-wide and in Hawaii. However, due to the higher fiber yields required in the production of advanced biofuels, the energycanes require consideration. The energycanes are also expected to have a lower irrigation water requirement, relative to traditional sugarcanes which have a higher sugar content and requires more water for stem hydration. And energycanes are known to re-grow well (ratoon) following harvest [Paul Moore, personal communication; (1975)]. Type II energycane does not produce commercial quantities of sugar, and cannot be considered as a sole crop in a combined sugar and fiber to fuel operation. The tree crops, Leucaena and Eucalyptus, are considered only as supplemental fiber crops as their yields are considerably less than the grasses in the HC&S environment. The tree crops do, however, have important desirable traits such as the lower moisture content of the harvested wood and storability; both standing in the field and following cutting into chips. Banagrass also scored high in the matrix, as there is considerable research experience in Hawaii with this potential biomass crop. Banagrass, like Type II energycane, has no sugar component and is grown entirely for its fiber. Banagrass has many desirable agronomic and harvest traits, but is considered to be invasive by seed in wet sites and invasive by vegetative Table 2-18: Crop selection matrix score in descending order Crop No. Crop seed pieces in all sites. It has an unfavorable environmental rating, because it is an important weed threat to sugarcane Total Score 2 Sugarcane 35 3 Type I energycane 33 5 Type II energycane 33 6 Banagrass Eucalyptus Giant leucaena 29 4 Sweet sorghum 26 7 Forage sorghum Erianthus 24 8 Giant Reed Oil palm Jatropha 23 9 Miscanthus x giganteus 23 1 Sugarbeet 22 Soybean, Canola, 19,20 Safflower, 21,22 Sunflower, Mustards, 23,24 Camelina, Castor 25,26 bean, Sesame 21 16,17 Kukui, Pongamia 18 Malunggay Bamboo

76 production on Maui. This limits its desirability as a biofuel crop, unless sugarcane is no longer grown in close proximity. 23 The remaining grass crops all suffered from a lack of research and production experience in Hawaii. The direct oil extraction crops, with the possible exception of oil palm, all have reportedly very low yields and can be expected to produce insufficient amounts of biomass to support a biofuel operation. Oil palm, although reportedly providing high oil yields in Asian locations, has not been commercially grown in Hawaii and mechanical harvesting equipment has not been developed. On a positive note, it has desirable fuel properties (in addition to oil) as a supplement to bagasse as feedstock for advanced biofuel and boiler feed. 23 The findings of a September 2012 U.S. Department of Energy study, Observational Field Assessment of Invasiveness for Candidate Biofuels in Hawaii, was reviewed. Lead researcher, Dr. Osgood, is not in agreement with its ratings and its discussion of banagrass. That study can be found at /07/120919%20Subtask%2012.1%20item%202%20Deliverable.pdf Accessed: 8 Jun

77 2.5 Short List of Crops for Further Examination in Part 2 The crop selection matrix resulted in the selection of the following short list of crops for further examination as biomass crops suitable for biofuel conversion at HC&S in central Maui. The selected crops fit the desired profiles of crops that may supply both commercial sugar and fiber for conversion to liquid fuel. 1) Traditional Sugarcane (high sugar and low fiber) 2) Type I energycane (medium levels sugar and fiber) 3) Type II energycane (very low sugar and high fiber) 4) Banagrass (fiber-only) 5) Giant leucaena (fiber-only) 6) Eucalyptus (fiber-only) All of the crops selected for the Short List are perennial with a good potential for ratooning, and it should be noted that sugarcane and the energycanes can be harvested either biannually or annually. It is expected that banagrass would be harvested annually, although shorter-cycle crops and longer-cycle grass crops are possible. Trees are not harvested on a particular schedule and can be harvested when supplemental fiber is needed or when sugar operations are interrupted. Tree crops are expected to be harvested on an annual or biannual cycle with off the shelf machinery similar to that used for sugarcane and banagrass, but adapted for harder stems. The annualized tree yields are lower compared to the perennial grasses, but are of interest owing to the storability of biomass, both standing in the field or in a storage facility. Part 2 of Activity 2 will further evaluate these crops, taking into consideration HC&S desires to have both a crystalline sugar and an advanced liquid fuel operation. 2-76

78 Part 2 Crop Assessment 2.6 Activity 2, Part 2 Crop Assessment Objective The objective of Part 2 of Activity 2 is to assess the Short List of crops identified in Part 1, and to determine the optimal crop or crops best suited for production of advanced biofuel at HC&S. Part two concludes with a summary table providing estimated costs of production. This information will be used in later Activities in the subject Biofuels Assessment Process Four of the primary determinants of a crops suitability as feedstock for conversion to biofuel are its: Crop composition characteristics Biomass yield potential Effect on the environment and community Cost of agricultural operations for dry matter production To address these factors, Part 2 of Activity 2 continued research of available literature, as documented in the following sections. Section 2.7 Short List of Crop Advantages and Disadvantages First, the advantages and disadvantages of each of the crops on the Short List are briefly considered. Section 2.8 Short List of Crops Crop Composition Next, the composition of the dry matter produced by the crops on the Short List is assessed. Both morphological and chemical composition of the crops is assessed where available. Section 2.9 Short List of Crops Crop Performance based on Biomass Yield Potential Yield potential was a primary consideration in the selection of the Short List of crops. Yield potential sets the upper limit for biomass 2-77

79 production, which may or may not be reached due to adverse soil characteristics, an inability to irrigate or adverse weather. Section 2.10 Potential Issues Related to Public Concerns This section addresses the concerns that the general public may have related to feedstock crop selection, as part of an HC&S transition to include biofuel production in its operations. This includes potential environmental and community considerations. Section 2.11 Activity 2 Summaries Lastly, this section summarizes the crop assessment and provides the optimal crops for HC&S, along with estimates of the related cost of production. 2-78

80 2.7 Short List of Crops - Advantages and Disadvantages Short List of Crops There are six crops on the Short List of crops selected in Part 1 for further review in Part 2. Among these, there are four C4 grass crops that produce both crystalline sugar and fiber, or fiber alone, and two tree crops that only produce fiber. As stated earlier, it is assumed that both sugar and advanced liquid fuel will be produced at HC&S. The sugar will be produced using conventional sugarcane or Type I energycane, and the fiber will be produced by a combination of the sugar-producing crops and fiber-only grasses and/or trees. Grass Crops: (sugar and fiber) Grass Crops: (fiber-only) Tree Crops: (fiber-only) 1) Sugarcane (commercial high sucrose, low fiber; Saccharum spp. hybrids) 2) Type I energycane (Moderate sucrose, moderate fiber; high biomass yield Saccharum spp. hybrids) 3) Type II energycane (very low sucrose, high fiber; high biomass yield Saccharum spp. hybrids) 4) Banagrass (Pennisetum purpureum) (High fiber; no sucrose; very high biomass yield) 5) Giant leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) (high biomass yield; selections and hybrids) 6) Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp. and hybrids) (high biomass yield; species and hybrids; some Hawaii-selected clones available) The advantages and disadvantages of these crops are covered next, with a focus on the effect they will have on HC&S s sugar operations and as feedstock for a biofuel conversion. 2-79

81 2.7.2 Sugarcane The crop cycle (growing period) for sugarcane varies from less than one year to over two years. While most of the world s sugarcane is harvested on a one-year cycle and is ratooned several times before replanting, in Hawaii, sugarcane is harvested on a biannual cycle and ratooning is not generally practiced because of the damage to ratoons that results from the current practice of push-rake harvesting. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, the discussion of the sugarcane alternative is divided into two sections; biannually-harvested sugarcane and annually-harvested sugarcane. An additional consideration is that Hawaii s current practice is to burn sugarcane before the harvesting process. However, harvesting cane unburned may be advantageous at HC&S in future operations that include production of advanced biofuels. HC&S s burn/no burn options will be briefly discussed here, and covered further in Activity 3 Production, Harvesting and Handling Assessment Biannually-harvested Sugarcane Biannually-harvested sugarcane ( two-year sugarcane or biannual sugarcane ) provides ligno-cellulosic fiber and sugar, and is the current production method practiced in Hawaii. Biannual sugarcane currently produces sugar, molasses and fiber, with the fiber portion used to produce electricity via combustion. The sugar fraction is sold as raw sugar or specialty sugar and the molasses is sold as an animal feed component. The fiber fraction is currently burned to produce electrical power for operating the mill and pumping irrigation water. Excess power is sold to Maui Electric Company. Biannual sugarcane is normally harvested following burning, with unburned crops harvested only when the cane is too wet to burn, or when there are unfavorable weather conditions. This includes situations where in the wind is blowing in a direction that may adversely affect neighboring residences or other commercial operations, or when conditions are calm and the atmospheric temperature is inverted. Advantages of Biannually-harvested Sugarcane Biannually-harvested sugarcane is a proven biomass crop in the central valley of Maui. Under a cooperative agreement between HARC and HC&S, varieties of sugarcane were developed which are well adapted to central Maui and have been bred and selected for long growing cycles, high yield potential, and disease resistance. A long standing sugarcane breeding and selection program is maintained as a cooperative program between HARC and HC&S to provide a pipeline of new varieties as the current varieties decline in yield. The primary advantage of biannually-harvested sugarcane is the requirement to harvest only once every two years at a relatively low cost per ton. (Harvesting is covered further in Activity 3.) Another advantage of a biannual harvest cycle is that the fields are 2-80

82 open (soil exposed to erosion) only for a short time every two years, instead of every year; thus reducing the erosion potential. There is also a lower risk of crop failure due to adverse weather when the growing season is spread over two years. In addition, biannual cropping is nutrient efficient, because no fertilizer is applied in the second year as the sugarcane ripens (increases in sugar). Also, a larger portion of the sugarcane stalks contains sugar as the proportion of tops is much-reduced in biannuallyharvested cane relative to the proportion of tops to stalk in annually-harvested cane. The selection of sugarcane varieties adapted to biannual cropping is essential for the success of biannual cropping. Two-year cane produces large amounts of organic matter which is placed in the soil as roots and decaying leaf trash. Disadvantages of Biannually-harvested Sugarcane Biannually-harvested sugarcane requires a harvesting system called push raking that damages the cane stools to such an extent that under most circumstances ratooning is not practical. Stalk damage in the harvested crop is also extensive resulting in sugar loss. The push-rake loading and hauling operations also damage the soil through compaction, the result of infield trafficking of heavy hauling trucks and other equipment. (See Figure 2-21.) Further, with push-rake harvesting, the long stalks are often damaged and cane must be cleaned with large amounts of water at the mill cleaning plant. This results in large losses of sugar in the washing operation. (These sugar losses Photo credit: R. V. Osgood are also covered in Activity 3.) The cane Figure 2-21: Push-rake harvesting biannuallyharvested sugarcane at HC&S must be burned before harvest to reduce the extraneous matter entering the mill and to improve extraction and clarification of sugar juice. With push-raking fields are usually planted every crop; cf., annually-harvested sugarcane, which is planted every 3 to 5 years and harvested as ratoons each year. Ratooning is a soil saving practice which is not only environmentally beneficial but cost effective Annually-harvested Sugarcane Annually-harvesting sugarcane ( one-year sugarcane or annual sugarcane ) is not practiced in Hawaii, but is the standard production practice in other sugar growing areas of the world. Machines have been developed to harvest both upright and semi-lodged 2-81

83 sugarcane; up to about 70 tons of cane per acre. 24 Annual sugarcane harvest has been trialed in Hawaii since the early days of the industry. However, for a number of reasons, the industry has continued with biannually-harvested cane. Minimizing the frequency of harvest is the primary reason for continuing the conventional growing of biannual sugarcane. Advantages of Annually-harvested Sugarcane Annually-harvested cane is harvested from 10 to 16 months from planting or ratooning. In most countries the plant-crop is usually grown several months longer than the ratoon crop, and in some circumstances may reach 16 months from planting. Ratoons are usually harvested at 12 months after the previous harvest. Harvest is accomplished with a billet harvester that operates over the row with minimal field damage (Billet-harvesting is covered in additional detail in Activity 3.) The sugarcane is gathered up by the harvester, chopped into pieces and delivered to an infield transporter. (See Figure 2-22.) There is minimum damage to fields in the harvest operation, Photo credit: C. P. Norris Figure 2-22: Harvesting annual sugarcane in Australia and results in an ability to take several ratoon-crops (two or more). Further, the number of acres in seed cane is reduced by 50% 25 for each ratoon (from the current practice of not ratooning. Ratooned cane requires less water than planted cane, and there is less water lost to percolation through the soil at start-up. A system of GPS-guided field operations may also be implemented, which has the potential to result in reduced tillage or zero tillage sugarcane. (This will also be discussed in Activity 3.) Further, the yield of dry matter produced per acre month may increase with annual cane. With billet-harvesting, there is an option to bring all the trash into the mill with the cane, and separating the fiber and sugar at the mill. Sugar losses are also substantially lower This is a limitation of the harvesting machines; not a reflection of the ability of a field to produce cane in larger quantities. Traditional cane would be planted twice in a four-year period. 2-82

84 compared to push-raked cane harvesting, since the quantity of wash water applied is reduced. And therefore, the harvested cane washing operation is correspondingly substantially reduced, freeing up the acres used for wastewater disposal for additional cane production. Disadvantages of Annually-harvested Sugarcane Field preparation is initially more costly for annually-harvested cane, because of the more precise requirements. Fields will need to be designed for mechanical harvesting, including rock removal, smoothing of the soil surface, and in some cases leveling. Some land will be lost to production due to the redesign of fields to accommodate the billet harvester s need to maneuver. For annual harvesting, high potential, adapted sugarcane varieties that do not readily lodge (fall over) excessively will need to be developed. This will take about 8 to 10 years and during the interim, the most upright standard Hawaii, biannual cane varieties will have to suffice. This may require that the harvest be made early (less than perhaps 14 to 16 months), because of lodging and the tonnage of the biannual cane may be too heavy for the billet harvester. HC&S plans to conduct trials designed to manage a harvest under these conditions (Jakeway, personal communication). Annual cane is riskier to a producer, because yield is dependent on the weather and water availability for a shorter period compared to biannual cane where yield is normalized over about twice the annual cane growing period. Billet-harvesting requires a higher level of experience compared to push-raking and is more costly per ton of sugarcane harvested. (The relative benefits of push-rake harvesting and billet-harvesting are also covered further in Activity 3.) Yields of annual cane will be more variable than biannual cane, because water availability over a single year is less normalized, as compared with water availability over a two-year period. Lastly, for annual cane where the trash is taken to the mill, there will be an additional requirement for juice clarification. Separation of trash from cane at the mill would be required. 26 This can be accomplished with either an additional mill or a dry cleaner to handle the trash. Cane is likely to be harvested green, increasing the amount of material hauled to the mill, and increasing the need for more clarification and possibly degrading the quality of the sugar produced by increasing color in the sugar crystal. 26 A separate de-watering mill may be required. However, if the trash has a low moisture content (at or less than bagasse at 50% moisture), it can be dry cleaned and a dewatering will not be necessary. 2-83

85 2.7.3 Energycane Energycane is sugarcane that has been selected for higher fiber content, rather than commercial sugarcane varieties that are selected for high sugar and low fiber. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that energycane will be harvested about annually with a billet harvester. The energycanes first proposed by Alexander (1985) were further divided into two groups by Tew and Cobill (2008). They are now designated as Type I energycane, a medium fiber sugarcane, and Type II energycane, a high fiber sugarcane. Type I energycane is dual-purpose, producing both fiber and sugar. Type II energycane is a single-purpose crop, producing only fiber Type I Energycane Advantages of Type I energycane Type I energycane produces both crystalline sugar and ligno-cellulosic fiber and may be ideally suited for a dual sugar and advanced biofuel operation. Type I energycanes are high yielding, and re-grow vigorously following harvest. (It ratoons well.) It is expected that the Type I energycanes will be more efficient users of water, relative to the standard commercial sugarcanes. This is due to its more extensive, deep root system and a tendency to produce of rhizomes (underground stems). The fact that less sugar is maintained in the stalk requires less irrigation water [P. Moore (2010) personal communication]. Moore s communication was supported by Bull and Glasziou (1963) who ranked the moisture content of the Saccharum complex of grasses according to fiber and sucrose content. Saccharum officinarum had the highest moisture content and the highest sugar content. The lowest moisture content in the complex occurred in Miscanthus, which also had the lowest sugar content. A total of 85 members of the complex were surveyed for fiber and moisture content, with a 94% correlation between fiber content and stalk moisture. Irvine (1975) reported that sugarcanes with a high percentage of S. spontaneum and having a rhizome system of stems were more photosynthetically efficient. Alexander (1985) proposed that the low sugar content of the energycane would be compensated for by higher total yield of biomass; but this remains to be proven under Hawaii conditions. Disadvantages of Type I energycane Type I energycane is selected for its higher percentage of fiber than commercial sugarcanes, and consequently has a lower sugar content. Excessive flowering can be expected on short days due to a higher percentage of S. spontaneum germplasm. It is slightly invasive, due to rhizomes. Type I energycane has a major disadvantage in that there 2-84

86 are currently no Hawaii-adapted varieties; although a program is now in place to select energycanes in Hawaii Type II energycane Advantages of Type II energycane Type II energycane uses less water and is more tolerant to drought than commercial sugarcane. It characteristically provides high yields of ligno-cellulosic fiber, about 20 to 22 tons of dry matter per acre. Type II energycanes can likely be ratooned about three to five times. Disadvantages of Type II energycane Type II energycane is selected for its fiber, and therefore has a disadvantage in that it does not produce crystalline sugar. As with Type I energycane, excessive flowering can be expected on short days, and there is a major disadvantage in that there are no Hawaiiadapted varieties. True Type II energycane may be considered as similar to banagrass as an all-fiber alternative to commercial sugarcane. (See discussion of banagrass next, in Section ) Banagrass (Pennisetum purpureum) Banagrass, a cultivar of elephantgrass, is ideally suited for biomass production due to its high yield, ratoon-ability, and erect habit. Banagrass has been widely studied in Hawaii with trials on Kauai, Oahu, Maui and Hawaii island (Wu and Tew, 1985). In these studies high yields of dry matter were produced especially in the ratoon-crop. Dry matter of combined plant- and ratoon-crops exceeded sugarcane in the trials. An attempt to grow banagrass commercially for use in the production Photo credit: R.V. Osgood of electricity was initiated at Waialua Sugar Company (Kinoshita et al., 1995), but was Figure 2-23: Banagrass harvested at 8 curtailed when the plantation closed. The months following planting elephantgrasses are known to be serious weed on Molokai, Hawaii with a pests of sugarcane and this fact needs to be kept Claas billet harvester in mind if banagrass is chosen for biomass production in close proximity to sugarcane. However, there are other cultivars of elephantgrass that may substitute for banagrass while sugarcane is still being grown on Maui. Notably, a purple leafed cultivar (incorrectly called 2-85

87 purple banagrass) is a possible substitute since it does not flower and is therefore not invasive by seed. Another alternative is the use of infertile hybrids of banagrass and pearl millet. Cultivars of this hybrid are currently available in Hawaii from the USDA s NRCS Plant Materials Center on Molokai. They are relatively untested, but may have promise. Neither alternative is considered to be as agronomically suitable as banagrass. Advantages of Banagrass Banagrass is a high yielding variety of elephantgrass, with an upright stem architecture ideal for mechanical harvest. Seven or more ratoons are possible, considerably reducing the planting and tillage costs (Osgood et al., 1996). Banagrass is considered an ideal candidate for a permanent bed culture with designated wheel tracks. This procedure will allow for reduced or possibly no tillage production of grass biomass crops. Very high yields of fiber have been reported with summer-grown crops of banagrass yielding considerably more than winter-grown crops. Disadvantages of Banagrass Banagrass produces rhizomes that expand the cultivated area of the growing bed with successive ratoons and will likely require stubble shaving after several ratoons to reduce the width of the mat of rhizomes. Stubble shaving is a procedure that cuts the rhizomes and narrows the cultivated bed width. Plant-crop stands of banagrass tend to be sparse and may require some filling-in (replanting). The ash content of banagrass is reported to be high; however, milling to de-water will reduce the ash content of the fiber (Turn et al., 1997). Banagrass is a potential weed in sugarcane, but appears less weedy than other Pennisetum purpureum cultivars present in Hawaii. As a result, fields designated for banagrass must not be returned to sugarcane production. Banagrass vegetative seed pieces must not be produced in fields in close proximity to sugarcane seed owing to its weed potential. Banagrass has no sugar component, thus it serves only to supplement fiber during periods of reduced fiber from other operations or when sugar operations are shut down for repair Tree Crops (Giant Leucaena and Eucalyptus) 2-86

88 Giant leucaena and eucalyptus are expected to be harvested as coppice stands (regrowth) in short rotation of one to two years following the longer-term plant-crop of three to five years. This procedure is used for harvesting willow, cottonwood, and poplar stands in temperate sites. A machine such as the one shown in Figure 2-24 is envisioned for harvesting coppice stands of giant leucaena and eucalyptus after one to two years of growth. Both giant leucaena and eucalyptus have been extensively studied in Hawaii (Brewbaker, 1980; Whitesell et al., 1992; Osgood and Dudley, 1993). Commercial plantings of several eucalyptus species and hybrids were made along the Hilo and Hamakua coasts of Hawaii island. Commercial plantings of giant leucaena were proposed for Molokai island, but not implemented (Brewbaker, 1980). Advantages of Tree Crops Although the yields of giant leucaena and eucalyptus are reported to be lower than the perennial grasses with potential as biofuel feedstock, there are some advantages related to storage of the tree-generated fiber in the field as living trees until the fiber is needed. This differs from the grasses that have designated harvest cycles. Also, the harvested tree fiber has a long period of utility with little decomposition, thus it can be stored until required. Machines are developed that can the harvest the coppice stands, as shown in Figure 2-24 above. Defoliants can be used to remove the leaves from the trees to aid in drying. Machines have been developed for harvest, which are similar to those used for perennial grass harvest. Tree replacement may not be needed for 20 years or longer. Disadvantages of Tree Crops Timothy Volk State University of New York ( SUNY ) College of Environmental Science and Forestry Figure 2-24: Harvesting willow as a coppice stand in New York The primary disadvantages of using tree-biomass as feedstock is its low fiber yield compared to grasses in most locations and longer initial harvest cycle times. The result is that larger land areas must be dedicated to the tress crop in order to produce the required amount of biomass, and for longer periods. 2-87

89 2.8 Short List of Crops Crop Composition It is important to know both the morphological distribution of the components of the biomass and the component composition of the biomass, because different parts of the plant produce different products. For example, sugarcane leaves, tops and trash do not have significant amounts of sugar, but they contribute to the total fiber collected. By contrast, sugarcane stalks have a high concentration of both sugar and fiber. Since sugarcane can be grown as an annual (one-year cane) or biannual crop (two-year cane) and the crop is either burned or harvested green, these factors are also considered Sugarcane Since the early-1900s, sugarcane seedlings produced in organized breeding programs around the world have been selected for high sugar content, low fiber content, and desirable agronomic qualities. Three species of sugarcane: S. officinarum, S. robustum, and S. spontaneum have been used to provide high sugar, robust growth, and disease and insect resistance (Manglesdorf, 1946 and 1953) and (Warner, 1953). The seedlings produced in the programs varied widely in the percentage and amount of sugar and fiber produced. Only recently have sugarcane breeders considered selecting varieties for higher fiber content. This is because fiber has become potentially more valuable for the production of liquid fuel, rather than thermal energy for electricity Composition of the Sugarcane Plant Annually-harvested sugarcane is reported to be 73% to 76% water, 10% to 16% soluble solids (refractometer solids), and 11% to 16% fiber (Chen, Sugarcane Handbook, 12 th edition). The data refer to the composition of annually-harvested sugarcane and provide a wide range of values from around the world. The variation in composition is due to an interaction of many factors, with the primary factors being variety, environment, and method of harvest. The following data are presented as a range, because of the great variation in conditions where sugarcane is grown Composition of Hawaiian Sugarcane Hawaiian sugarcane varieties are unique and are considered separately here. The dry matter composition (refractometer solids plus fiber) of biannually-harvested sugarcane stalks plus trash in Hawaii has been determined to be 32.5% 27. The sampling was extensive and 27 This is the sum of refractometer solids (14.5%) and fiber (18%) in Table 2-19; Kinoshita,

90 based on 21 test plots on 11 plantations. The general analysis for biannual cane (entire plant, including leaves and trash) for Hawaiian sugarcane was determined in the Kinoshita study to be: 67.5%, water 14.5%, soluble solids 18%, fiber 12.3%, fiber in net cane stalks There is a small mineral component to the dry matter content of sugarcane. A large portion of the minerals are soluble (primarily potassium) and appear in the refractometer solids with the sugars. Mineral concentrations (ash) are much higher in the tops of sugarcane where they can reach 12.5% of the dry matter and gradually diminish toward the base of the stalk reaching a value of about 1% of dry matter (Ayers, 1933). Average ash content in fresh stalks of Hawaiian sugarcane ranged from 0.77% to 1.02% in Hawaiian varieties of sugarcane (Maxwell, 1901). Ash as a percent of dry matter in stalks ranged from 2.21% to 3.74% in Hawaiian varieties. In leaves, tops and dead cane the ash content as a percent of dry matter varied from 8.42 to % (Maxwell, 1901). Ash content was also reported to vary by age of the crop with younger sugarcane having high levels of ash compared to older sugarcane (Ayers (1936). There was also a minor variation in ash content by season of the year. Ash in sugarcane stalks is primarily composed of silica and potassium, accounting for about 62% of the total. Other contributions to ash in Hawaii sugarcane are titanium, phosphorus, sulfur, carbonic acid, chlorine, iron, aluminum, manganese, calcium, and magnesium, plus some minor elements.(maxwell, 1900; Ballard, 1940). Sugarcane leaves contained a higher proportion of silica and lower proportion of potassium compared to the stalks. An excellent discussion of the mineral composition of sugarcane is presented by van Dillewijn (1952, pages ). 2-89

91 In summary, a small proportion of the dry matter of sugarcane is composed of minerals amounting to about 3% of the total dry matter, with a much higher proportion of ash occurring in the leaves and tops in contrast to the stems. Ash in stems was much lower in the stalk base compared to the tops. The full analysis of the composition of dry matter as fiber and refractometer solids in the components of sugarcane for a series of 21 tests is provided below in Table This is from Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association ( HSPA ) Factory Report No. 165 (Kinoshita, 1985). The factory reposts were unpublished reports generated for the use of the Hawaii plantations. Table 2-19: Composition of unburned Hawaiian cane (%) by component and constituent Sugarcane Constituent Fresh Wt. % contribution to components Fiber Net Cane Sour Cane Sugarcane Component Dead Cane Green Leaves and Tops Dry Leaves and Trash Percentage (weighted) Average In component (t/ac) Contribution (%) REFSOL In component (t/ac) Contribution (%) POL In component (t/ac) Contribution (%) Note: The gross fresh weight of the biomass was 151 tons/acre Source: Kinoshita (1985) To calculate the dry weight percentage, add the fiber percentage (18%) and the refractometer solids ( REFSOL ) percentage (14.5%) to get 32.5%. The average age for the 21 tests was 23.7 months and the average yield was 151 tons per acre of gross fresh weight of sugarcane plus trash. Note that 34% of the fiber component is in the dry leaves and trash, demonstrating its contribution to total dry weight in the field. 2-90

92 To put the numbers into perspective, based on a gross tonnage of 151 tons per acre, fiber accounted for tons per acre 28 and REFSOL accounted for ton per acre 29. Total dry matter was calculated as the sum of REFSOL and fiber, or tons per acre. Since this yield was obtained in 23.7 months, the yield of dry matter produced was 2.07 tons per acre per month. Commercial harvest would be expected to yield about 25% less at 1.55 tons per acre per month, or ton per acre for 23.7 months Kinoshita compared yields for burned and unburned sugarcane for 10 sites on seven plantations. The ratios of the yields are presented below in Table Table 2-20: Yield ratios for unburned sugarcane divided by the burned sugarcane Fresh Wt. Fiber REFSOL POL Purity Fresh Wt. per Unit of POL Fiber per Unit of POL Average Std. Dev Note that burning reduced the fresh cane tonnage by 14%, and reduced the fiber by 51%. There was no significant effect of burning on juice, REFSOL, POL, and purity. Source: HSPA Factory Report No (Kinoshita, 1985) Evensen et al. (1997) measured the distribution of biomass in two varieties of Hawaii sugarcane; H , a very recumbent typical Hawaii sugarcane, and H , a more upright sugarcane more suitable for annual harvest. (See Table 2-21.) Biomass was measured in stalks, tops, trash, stool, and root. Above-ground biomass increased up to 18 months of age. Trash biomass comprised up to 30% of the above-ground biomass and exceeded 12 tons per acre. The importance of intercepted radiation as a factor affecting sugarcane yield was reported in a companion paper (Muchow et al., 1997) tons per acre x 18% = tons per acre 151 tons per acre x 14.5% = tons per acre 2-91

93 Table 2-21: The effect of crop age on dry weight of above ground sugarcane components Crop Age (months) Variety H Component Top Stalk Trash Wt Wt Wt % % (tons) (tons) (tons) The Evensen studies demonstrate a dramatic difference in cane component composition by harvest age. (See Figure 2-25 and Figure 2-26.) Figure 2-25: The effect of crop age on weight (tons) of sugarcane components - Variety H Total Wt (tons) Variety H Source: Evensen et al. (1997) % Weights are tons per acre for above-ground portion (cultivar H ) Source: Evensen et al. (1997) 2-92

94 Figure 2-26: The effect of crop age on weight (tons) of sugarcane components - Variety H Values are tons per acre (dry) for above-ground portion (cultivar H ) Source: Evensen et al. (1997) Jakeway et al. (2004) conducted a sugarcane Closed-loop Biomass Co-Firing Pilot scale and Full scale Test on 40 acres (Field 415) at HC&S. This experiment is the most complete study of the fiber cane energy alternative conducted in Hawaii. Jakeway measured the components of sugarcane yield in both plant- and ratoon-crops of two varieties of sugarcane grown on a short, 8-to-10 month cycle. The comparison included Barbados 52298, a known moderate-level fiber cane variety Type I energycane, and H , a Hawaii commercial cane known for semi-upright presentation of stalks at one-year harvest. A third series of plots was established with the Barbados cane, and harvested with a forage harvester (Claas Jaguar). The forage harvest plot was planted at a higher density to accommodate the harvester. Plots were both hand-harvested to determine yield, and machine-harvested to determine harvest performance of the forage and billet harvesters. There were 8 to 10 replications depending on treatment. Water was not limiting in the experiment. The treatments were as follows: Treatment A - close-spaced Type I energycane (B52298) planted in a dense configuration (30 inches between rows) for forage harvesting Treatment B - Type I energycane (B52298) with rows spaced at 45 inches Treatment C - a Hawaii commercial cane (H ) also with rows spaced at 45 inches. The results are shown on Table 2-22 and Table This table deals with morphological composition (cane parts), although yield is also given. 2-93

95 Table 2-22: Composition of sugarcane in a short-age crop at HC&S Treatment (growing months) A B52298 (9.6 mo) B B52298 (9.4 mo) C H (8.9 mo) Stalks (t/ac) Tops (t/ac) Attached Leaves (t/ac) Ground Trash (t/ac) Total (t/ac) Total (t/ac/mo) Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Source: Jakeway et al. (2004) Table 2-23: Total dry matter and percentage of dry matter in the components of harvested, unburned sugarcane Treatment A B52298* B B52298** C H ** Age (mo) Total DM (tons/ac) Stalks Percentage of Dry Matter Tops Attached Leaves Ground Trash * Average 30-inch row spacing; 80% higher than normal. ** Average 45-inch row spacing; 20% higher than normal. Source: Jakeway et al. (2004) 2-94

96 The crop composition data are summarized in Table 2-24 and plotted in Figure Table 2-24: Summary of sugarcane composition studies. (Values in table are a percentage of dry matter in component) Source Variety Harvest Age (mo) Location Component % Tops Stalks Trash Evensen H Kunia, Oahu Evensen H Kunia, Oahu Evensen H Kunia, Oahu Evensen H Kunia, Oahu Evensen H Kunia, Oahu Evensen H Kunia, Oahu Evensen H Kunia, Oahu Evensen H Kunia, Oahu Kinoshita* Many 23.7 Average of 21 Fields Jakeway** H HC&S Fd Jakeway** B HC&S Fd * Dead and dying cane included in trash component ** Attached leaves included in trash component Source: Jakeway et al. (2004); Evensen et al. (1997); Kinoshita (1985) 2-95

97 Figure 2-27: Summary of the composition of sugarcane by component (tops. stalk and trash) Source: Kunia studies by Evensen (1997); HC&S study by Jakeway et al. (2004) multi-location study by Kinoshita (1985) 2-96

98 The stalk component dominates the dry matter composition for all harvest dates of the plant-crop. The tops-component decreases with age of harvest, while the trashcomponent increases with age of harvest. It is expected that this trend would also apply for ratoon-crops. Jakeway measured the composition of the components of the ratoon-crop for variety B52298, as shown in Table Table 2-25: Field 415 Ratoon-crop Composition in Closed Loop Study at HC&S Treatment Ratoon of B52298 Stalks (t/ac) Tops (t/ac) Attached Leaves (t/ac) Ground Trash (t/ac) Totals (t/ac) Totals (t/ac/mo) Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Note: Data were taken only for Treatment A in the ratoon, the forage harvested portion of the experiment. Crop age was 7.8 months. Source: Jakeway et al. (2004) The low yield of the ratoon-crop was attributed to very young age (it was harvested at only 7.8 months) and because most of the growth occurred in the winter months. This is an important observation and emphasizes the need to harvest additional acres for wintergrown crops to maintain the daily delivery of a constant amount of dry matter to the mill. Dry matter yields in winter-grown cane were 24% lower than the summer-grown cane. The distribution of dry matter was stalks 62.2%, tops 19.7%, and attached leaves and trash 13%; confirming that the cane was very immature at harvest. The composition studies for sugarcane emphasize the importance of the trash and tops component of the crop for maximizing the delivery of dry matter for conversion to fuel Energycanes Tew and Cobill (2008) working in Louisiana divided energycanes into two categories: Type I and Type II, following the original criteria presented by Alexander (1985). Type I energycanes have about 17% fiber and 13% sugar. Type II energycanes have 26% to30 % fiber and about 5% sugar. By comparison, typical, conventional Louisiana sugarcane has 12% fiber and 13% sugar. Only the conventional sugarcane and Type I energycanes can be used for combined sugar and fiber production. 2-97

99 Type II energycane is only suitable for ligno-cellulosic biomass feedstock. Alexander (1985) proposed that by eliminating the stringent requirements for high sugar content, high-yielding biomass canes can still produce significant amounts of sugar. To a certain extent, this has been the policy in the Hawaii breeding program, where cane tonnage was the preferred selection criteria for increasing yield. Higher fiber, within reason, was permitted in the Hawaii selection program. It is costly to substitute fiber for sugar, but power generation was also a consideration in recent years. Alexander (1985) also proposed that the whole cane be processed, eliminating burning and topping. This idea was termed the Energycane Alternative and is of more interest today than at the time of his proposal. Due to the push-rake method of harvesting used in Hawaii, a large quantity of trash is brought into the mill, increasing the amount of fiber recovered from fields. This results in the growth of Hawaii commercial cane with similarities in many ways to the growth of an energycane. Not burning sugarcane before harvest would further increase the recovery of fiber, perhaps as much as 50% (Kinoshita, 1985). Type I energycane is reported to have high yield potential and excellent ratooning character, with up to eight ratoons. High fiber energycanes were released in the United States by Florida and Louisiana sugarcane breeders in These were CP X Tainan S. spontaneum, HoCP , and Ho These canes were classified as Type I energycanes having a fiber content in net cane of 16%. They were still acceptable for use as commercial sugarcanes, although less sugar per ton of sugarcane is produced. Tonnage was higher; thus, yield of sugar per acre was not affected. Hawaii sugarcane breeders have also developed higher fiber canes using Saccharum spontaneum germplasm obtained from Thailand. These half-sponts and quarter-sponts remain in the HARC collection and are available for breeding (Nagai, personal communication). Modern energycanes as described by Tew and Cobill (2008) have a much higher percentage of S. spontaneum compared to the Hawaii commercial sugarcanes. The higher percentage of S. spontaneum will cause the canes to flower profusely and may reduce yield on longer age-cycles. Energycanes with high amounts of S. spontaneum are, however, expected to ratoon strongly and increase the number of ratoons. Type II energycane is produced by crossing commercial sugarcane hybrids with S. spontaneum and selecting for very high fiber. It typically has 26% to 30% fiber (Tew and Cobill, 2008). Plant breeders have found that once selection for sugar is decoupled from selection for fiber, the biomass yield potential increases, as well as cold tolerance, erect habit, stand-ability (resistance to wind throw) and ratooning. The cultivar (variety) L is a Type II energycane bred at Louisiana State University ( LSU ) and released for planting in It is a hybrid of CP and Tainan S. spontaneum. This variety is present in Hawaii in the HARC breeding collection. 2-98

100 Giamalva et al. (1984) reported that a Type II energycane, L , produced 151 gross tons fresh weight per hectare (61 tons per acre) in the plant-crop and 229 gross tons per hectare (91 tons per acre) in the first ratoon at Shreveport, Louisiana. (32.1 latitude). Gross tonnage included cane, leaves and tops. There were no related problems in the mill, except that milling was slow due to a 30% increase in bagasse. Brix in the L was 12% and the fiber was 28%. Type II energycane can likely be grown at higher, cooler elevations in Hawaii. Growth of Type II energycane should also be better in the winter in Hawaii (relative to Hawaii commercial canes), but only if flowering of cane is prevented. Milling of this type of cane would be for de-watering only, since it is likely not practical to pursue sugar recovery. The Type II energycane is more comparable to the all-fiber elephantgrass cultivar, banagrass, than to Hawaii commercial canes. The composition of the components (in terms of percentages) of the energycanes, and commercial Louisiana and Hawaii canes are provided Table Table 2-26: Energycane composition (component percentage) of commercial Louisiana and Hawaii sugarcanes Component Louisiana Commercial Sugarcane Type I Energycane Type II Energycane Hawaii Biannual Net Cane, Unburned Hawaii Biannual Cane including Trash, Unburned Water 75% 70% 65% 73.1% 70% Fiber 12% 17% 30% 12.3% 18% Sugar 13% 13% 5% 14.6% 12% Source Tew and Tew and Tew and Kinoshita Kinoshita Cobill (2008) Cobill (2008) Cobill (2008) (1985) (1985) Banagrass There are many cultivars of elephantgrass. The cultivar most studied in Hawaii for biomass feedstock is banagrass; a tall, erect growing, high yielding plant introduced to Hawaii from Australia (originally from Africa). Banagrass is grown entirely for its fiber, and will likely require de-watering and rinsing for use as a biofuels feedstock (Turn et al., 1997). Since banagrass is harvested without separation into parts, there is no need to prepare a separate analysis for the tops, stalks, and trash, as provided for sugarcane. An evaluation of the composition of the entire plant is the only analysis required. 2-99

101 Turn et al. (1997) studied banagrass composition in Hawaii. In the study, chopped banagrass had a dry matter content of 34.4% at harvest, and de-watering increased the dry matter to 47.9%. Further rinsing and de-watering increased the dry matter to 50.7%, about equivalent to the dry matter in sugarcane bagasse. Ash comprised 3.94% of the dry matter and on de-watering, ash was reduced to 3.05%. Further leaching and de-watering reduced the ash to 2.69%, a value lower than for the sugarcane bagasse (Paia, HC&S) it was compared with in the study. The ash was primarily composed of oxides of silica, aluminum, and iron comprising 83.68% of the total ash. In trials on Molokai, banagrass dry matter averaged 28.37% at harvest for plant-crops and 35.8% for ratoon-crops [Osgood et al. (1996)]. Age of crop, time of year for harvest, and irrigation schedule affected the dry matter content of banagrass Tree Crops The tree crops chosen for supplemental fiber production at HC&S are Leucaena leucocephala (giant leucaena) and Eucalyptus species, including hybrids of E. grandis and E. urophylla. As with banagrass, the trees would provide only cellulosic biomass. Tree biomass is made up of lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose. The concentration of fiber content is determined by the species and variety of tree grown Leucaena (Giant leucaena) Giant leucaenas (Leucaena leucocephala) are trees adapted to lowland environments, as in the central valley of Maui. The tress are nitrogen-fixing, thus, nitrogen applications are not required. Giant leucaenas can be grown either for forage or as feedstock for fuel production. Most of the information available for the giant leucaenas was developed for forage production; however it is also valid for biomass feedstock production. In an early Hawaii study of leucaena, a wild type called haole koa or koa haole was grown for forage on Oahu (Kinch, 1962). The study s findings included the following: Dry matter was low because of the short harvest interval (82 days) and is expected to be much higher if the growing cycle is one year or longer. Dry matter composition was 25.2% Total fresh weight per acre per year was 32 tons Dry matter obtained was 8 tons per acre per year

102 At two other Hawaii sites, using the University of Hawaii-selected giant leucaena (cv. K636), the wood moisture level was reported to be 45.81%, averaged over the two sites. In this study, the giant leucaena was harvested on longer cycles, and wood was a larger proportion of the dry matter composition [Osgood et al. (1992)] Eucalyptus Eucalyptus, in contrast to giant leucaena, is better adapted to cooler upland sites, but is not nitrogen-fixing. It is also more tolerant of acid soils, than giant leucaena. In sites where rainfall is over 50 inches, it can be grown without irrigation. Like giant leucaena, it is likely that eucalyptus would be grown in very short one-year to two-year rotations, based on coppice growth (re-growth). Eucalyptus has been thoroughly studied in Hawaii for biomass production with work primarily completed on Hawaii island. Initial work was conducted by the Bioenergy Development Corporation in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service (Whitesell,1992). Additional experiments were conducted by the HSPA [Osgood and Dudley (1993)]. The Eucalyptus species used in the trials were primarily E. grandis, E. saligna and E. urophylla, and hybrids of E. grandis and E. urophylla. The work was mostly conducted with crop cycles considerably beyond the 1- to 2-year cycles currently under consideration. Dudley and Fownes (1992) measured and estimated biomass production on very young eucalyptus and other tropical trees in Hawaii sites. The diameter of the stem was found to be the most important value for estimating yield. The ash content of eucalyptus boles (stems) was reported by Turn et al. (2005). Proximate analysis measured ash at 0.42%, considerably lower than for the grasses. The primary components were oxides of phosphorus (19.79%), calcium (23.3%), potassium (14.25%), silica (3.25%) and magnesium (4.25%). Gasification produced 0.84 cubic meters of fuel per kilogram combusted in a fluidized bed Summary of Crop Composition For the purpose of providing feedstock for conversion to advanced biofuel, the Short List of crops may be categorized into two broad groups: C4 grasses and trees. The tree and the grass crops were further grouped by those producing biomass as soluble carbohydrates and ligno-cellulosic fiber, and those producing only ligno-cellulosic fiber. The trees also fall into the ligno-cellulosic fiber group. For the sugarcanes, including Type I energycane, the soluble carbohydrate component is primarily sucrose, and the fiber is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Banagrass and the Type II energycane produce fiber as cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin and have similar composition to trees in this respect

103 Morphological (structural) classifications of sugarcanes are commonly presented, because the various parts of the plant produce both sugar and fiber, and are at different moisture levels. The harvestable portions of sugarcanes are composed of tops, stems and trash. Trash includes dead cane, leafy trash, and ground trash (leaves which have fallen on the ground). Because both sugar and fiber are produced, it is important to separate the parts of the sugarcanes, both in the field and in the mill, to minimize the amount of trash that is milled with the cane. This is important in sugar operations for reducing the degree of clarification required for cane juice and for prevention of color in the raw sugar crystals. Type II energycane and banagrass could also be classified in this way, but since they produce only fiber, they are not divided into component parts. Likewise, tree crops are considered only for their fiber and are not separated into component parts. Since a portion of the dry matter produced by crops is mineral (ash) and not convertible to fuel, it is important to know the ash content of biomass crops. In general the grasses have higher ash content than the wood in trees. Grass leaves and tree tops and leaves have much higher ash content than stems

104 2.9 Short List of Crops Crop Performance Based on Biomass Yield Potential This section provides the historical and/or experimental yields for crops on the Short List. Because the sufficiency of feedstock is critical to an economically viable biofuel operation, a crop s biomass yield information is a prime consideration in the selection of the optimum crop or mix of crops for use by HC&S in a transition from a traditional sugar plantation to one that produces advanced biofuels. For biannually-harvested, burned sugarcane, there is an extensive database available for fields at HC&S. For information on the other crops on the Short List, experimental data are available. When experimental data are used, the experimental yields have been reduced by 25% to account for harvesting and other losses not incurred in experimental plots. The 25% reduction reduces the possibility of overestimating biomass production, which often occurs when estimating commercial yield from experimental yield data. The 25% reduction is taken in the summary tables for the individual crops Sugarcane This section compares the yields of burned biannually-harvested sugarcane (commercial sugarcane) at HC&S with experimental subsets of unburned, biannuallyharvested sugarcane and annually-harvested sugarcane. The components of yield were sugar, fiber, and molasses solids, the sum of which was reported as total dry matter. It should be noted that about 3% of the total dry matter is mineral (ash) and not usable for the production of fuel Yield of Burned, Biannually-harvested Sugarcane Yield data for biannually-harvested, burned sugarcane were obtained from a longterm HC&S database. Appendix 2-B contains a map from Activity 1, identifying the HC&S fields. A summary of the yield data is presented by field-groups in Table 2-27, a statistical analysis of sugarcane tonnage data. This table, uses acronyms and terms that are commonplace in the sugar industry, and will be used throughout the remainder of this report: Age - number of months from planting or ratooning to harvest TCA - tons net cane per acre TCAM - tons cane per acre per month TSA - tons sugar per acre TSAM - tons sugar per acre per month TFA - tons fiber per acre TFAM - tons fiber per acre per month 2-103

105 TDMA - total (tons) dry matter per acre TDMAM - tons dry matter per acre per month (the sum of the sugar, fiber, and molasses solids produced) HAR - number of harvests Fields in the 100-group (fields identified by numbers between 100 and 120) are characterized by lower sunlight and higher rainfall (when compared with the rest of the farm), and are located in the northern part of the farm. Fields in the 900-group (fields identified by numbers between 900 and 920) are characterized by high sunlight and very dry conditions, and are located in the southern part of the farm. The remaining fields are mostly contiguous and located between the 100 and 900 fields. The highest sugarcane and sugar yields are found in the 900-fields, and the lowest yields are found in the 100- and 200-fields. The 300-fields recorded the same sugar per acre month as the 900-fields; however, the cane per acre month was higher in the 900-fields. This was presumed to be a result of better cane ripening conditions, which resulted in higher sugar content in the 300-fields. The database for the HC&S sugarcane yield spanned 27 years and provides a record of fields that were converted to drip irrigation. All harvests were considered, including some that were unburned. A total of 2,333 harvests are included in the analysis. The age of the crop in the field groups averaged months and varied from 23 months in the 600-fields to 24 months in the 300-fields. The average net sugarcane yield was tons per acre, and ranged between tons per acre in the 100-fields and tons per acre in the 900-fields. When cane tonnage was normalized for age, the average yield was 3.94 TCAM, and ranged between 3.72 TCAM and 4.43 TCAM. Sugar yield averaged TSA, with a range between 11.21TSA in the 100- and 800-fields and TSA in the 300-fields. When normalized for age, the sugar yield averaged TSAM and ranged between TSAM in the 100-fields and TSAM in the 300- and 900- fields

106 Fiber in net cane was estimated as 12.3%. Trash in cane was estimated at 10% and dry matter in trash was estimated at 40%. Fiber yield averaged TFA and when normalized for age ranged from TFAM in the 400-fields to TFA in the 900-fields. When the sugar and fiber yields are combined and the molasses solids are added, the total dry matter per acre per month averaged TDAM over the months. Dry matter yield was estimated by adding the sugar, fiber, and molasses solids, and ranged from TDMAM in the 100-fields to TDMAM in the 900-fields

107 Table 2-27: Long-term average yields for net sugarcane, sugar and dry matter yields for HC&S by field groups Field Group Age TCA TCAM TSA TSAM TFA TFAM TMSAM TDMAM HAR Average Age number of months from planting or ratooning to harvest TCA tons net cane per acre TCAM tons cane per acre per month TSA tons sugar per acre TSAM tons sugar per acre per month TFA tons fiber per acre based on 12.3% fiber in net cane with 10 % trash at 40% dry matter TFAM tons fiber per acre per month TMSAM tons molasses solids per acre per month TDMA tons dry matter per acre per month (the sum of the sugar, fiber, and molasses solids produced) HAR number of harvests Source: HC&S database 2333 total 2-106

108 Yield of Unburned, Biannually-harvested Sugarcane A large data set for unburned, biannually harvested commercial sugarcane does not exist. In its place, there is a large set of experimental trials conducted by Kinoshita (1985). A total of 21 trials were conducted, measuring the yield components of unburned cane. (See Table 2-19.) Using the sugarcane composition data in the study, the yield of net cane, the yield of refractometer solids (sucrose plus reducing sugars and soluble ash), and the yield of fiber can be calculated. Field cane in the study was high at 151 tons per acre and the net cane was measured at tons per acre. (See Tables 2-19 above and Table 2-28 below.) It is important to note the following. 1) The data presented are based on experiments. 2) In accordance with convention, the experimental yield data has been reduced by 25% to adjust for differences between trials and a commercial harvest. 3) The best estimate of dry matter per acre that can be obtained from the data is the sum of the refractometer solids and the fiber in net cane plus the fiber in trash. Data from the burned and unburned biannually harvested sugarcane will be compared with the yield of annually harvested sugarcane. The harvest of unburned, biannual sugarcane demonstrated the tremendous potential for increasing dry matter yield compared to burned cane. The study was summarized by Kinoshita (1985) as follows: Sound net cane and sour cane, combined contain 84% of the fresh weight, 58% of the fiber and more than 98 percent of the pol (sugar) in unburned cane. Dead cane green leaves, and tops and dry leaves, which are more likely to be consumed in cane fires than are sound and sour cane, contain the remaining 16, 42, and less than 2% of the fresh weight fiber, and pol, respectively in unburned cane. Comparisons of unburned and burned cane test plots indicate that unburned cane has 15% greater fresh weight and 54% more fiber than burned cane. Processing unburned cane, without detrashing, would probably decrease overall factory recovery by 4-5 points and increase the amount of bagasse by more than 50%. Whether the expected lower factory recovery would actually result in less sugar being produced per acre 2-107

109 depends on the effect of not burning cane on sugar lost during harvesting, loading, transporting and cleaning Table 2-28: Experimental yield of sugarcane components in biannually-harvested, unburned sugarcane, including trash Field Cane (t/ac) Net Cane (t/ac) REFSOL in Net Cane (t/ac) Fiber in Net Cane (t/ac) Dry Matter in Trash (t/ac) Age (mo) Total Dry Matter (t/ac) Dry Matter per Month (t/ac/mo) Source: Kinoshita (1985) Note: See also Table Dry matter in trash was measured as the sum of fiber and REFSOL in sour cane, dead cane, green leaves and dry leaves Molasses solids included in refractometer solids Age = Period from planting to harvest Total dry matter = REFSOL plus fiber in cane plus fiber in trash Dry matter per acre per month = total dry matter/age in months Number of experimental harvests was 21 Field cane standard deviation was 34.9 tons Age standard deviation was 3.8 months REFSOL in net cane (includes sugar, reducing sugars and soluble ash was 16.3% Fiber in net cane was 12.3% After the yield and composition of the unburned cane was measured, comparisons were made with burned cane in the same field. Ratios for fiber, refractometer solids and POL were made. Comparisons were made in 10 of the 21 experimental fields (Kinoshita, 1985). (See Table 2-29.) 2-108

110 Table 2-29: Effect of burning on fresh weight, fiber, REFSOL, and POL content of cane and purity of the sugarcane juice (ratio of REFSOL and POL) Fresh weight Fiber REFSOL POL Purity Fresh wt/pol Fiber/POL Average Std. Dev Note: Values are the ratios of the measured components for unburned and burned sugarcane Source: Kinoshita (1985) Burning decreased fresh weight by 14%, and fiber by 51%. Refractometer solids decreased by 3%, POL increased by 1%, and juice purity increased by 4% Annually-harvested Sugarcane Production of annually-harvested sugarcane is not common in Hawaii, therefore yield information is based on hand-harvested experiments that tend to exaggerate yield. Waclawovsky et al. (2010) provides a summary of published, world-wide, one-year cane yields; experimental maxima and physiological, theoretical maximum cane yields. The results are presented on Table The commercial average annual yield for high-yielding countries (Australia, South Africa and Colombia) was reported to be 34 tonnes per acre per year, with commercial maxima at about double the average at 60 tons per acre per year. Experimental yields were much higher at 86 tons per acre per year. For comparative purposes, when Hawaii s biannual sugarcane yield is annualized, its yield is 41.7 tonnes cane per acre per year. This is above the world average of high-yielding countries, but well below the commercial maxima for high production countries. 30 Kinoshita (1985)

111 Table 2-30: Annual sugarcane yields for high yielding countries Cane Yield (tonnes/ha/yr) Cane Yield (tonnes/ac/yr) Commercial average* Commercial maximum* Experimental maximum* Theoretical maximum* Hawaii yield annualized** * Survey of high yielding countries, Australia, South Africa and Colombia. ** 27-year average for HC&S converted to metric tons per hectare and acre for comparison Source: Waclawovsky et al. (2010) Annual sugarcane fresh weight yields were also summarized by Tew and Cobill (2008) for countries producing over one million metric tons (tonnes) per year. For comparative purposes, HC&S s 27-year average is also added to this table. The yield of sugarcane at HC&S is about 8% higher than the next highest yield for an individual country, Guatemala. (See Table 2-31.) Summary of Annually-harvested Sugarcane Studies in Hawaii Short-cycle, annually-harvested sugarcane yield experiments have been conducted in Hawaii since Hawaii research on the age of cane at harvest was summarized by May and Middleton (1972). 31 The survey covered an enormous amount of work between 1911 and 1970 and came to the following conclusions: There is not a fixed or even a general time (age) at which all cane should be harvested in Hawaii. There is apparently an optimum age for harvest, even between fields on a single plantation. The optimum age of harvest in Hawaii may vary from 12 to over 36 months depending upon conditions. Table 2-31: Sugarcane fresh weight for 31 The survey is a historical summary of the Hawaiian industry as of

112 Choosing the optimum age should be based on the profit potential, and not entirely on the yield of sugar. For Puna Sugar Company, the optimum age based on dollars per cultivated acre was 20 to 21 months. In terms of 1972 dollars, it was determined that for the average leeward, irrigated plantation: o 9.24 tons of sugar per acre would be required on an annual basis for a plantation producing 13.2 tons of sugar per acre on a two-year cycle, if 25% of the plantation were on the one-year cycle o o assuming no extra capital investment assuming $100,000 extra profit was expected Additional information on short cropping can be found in Chalmers (1930), Allen (1929) countries producing over one million tonnes of sugar Yield of Cane, Country Fresh Weight (tonnes/ha/yr) Brazil 72.5 India 64.5 P.R. China 56.2 Mexico 69.4 Australia 88.1 Thailand 48.0 USA 66.0 Pakistan 48.5 South Africa 50.8 Colombia 93.5 Indonesia 58.6 Argentina 63.3 Philippines 84.0 Guatemala 94.7 Cuba 24.2 Egypt 79.7 HC&S (annualized )* * HC&S annualized sugarcane yield added for comparison. The Hawaii yield quoted is the 27-year average cane yield for HC&S. All other data are averages for the individual country for the year Source: After Tew and Cobill (2008) and Hagstrom (1959). There has been additional experimentation on shorter cropping ages in Hawaii, but outside of a few commercial attempts, there has been little interest in switching from biannual cane to annual cane. The experimental work following the May and Middleton review on annual cropping has ranged from very successful to disappointing, and commercial trials have generally failed due to a lack of consideration of field design and preparation; both integral parts of the agronomic process. The experimental work for annually-harvested sugarcane is summarized in Table These data are further summarized in Table

113 Table 2-32: Summary of sugarcane and sugar yield from annually-harvested sugarcane experiments conducted in Hawaii 32 Test ID/ Location Year Comment/ Variety Cycle Age (mo) TCA TSA TCAM TSAM Ref. HSPA/ Makiki HSPA/ Makiki HSPA/ Makiki HSPA/ Makiki HSPA/ Kahuku Sugar Co. HSPA Ewa Plantation Company HSPA/ Makiki HSPA/ Makiki HSPA Waipio Substation, HSPA Harvest (a) HSPA, Lihue Plantation Co. (b) Oahu Sugar Co. Field 410 Lihue Plantation 1911 Average for test, var. many 1911 High for test, H Average for test, various 1912 High for test, H Three ages compared, H Seven ages compared Installed mo cane only, with 3 ratoons, Var. H Amts. of Nitrogen test summarized / H plant HPR, Vol.4 plant HPR, Vol.4 ratoon HPR, Vol.6 ratoon HPR, Vol.6 plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant ratoon ratoon ratoon 1950 plant ratoon 1952 One and two year cane compared 1968 One and two year cane compared year cane variety HSPA Mo Rpt, Sep HSPA Dir Rpt. Sep HSPA Agron. Dept. Files Exp 26. R. Borden plant HSPA Agron. Dept Rpt. #27 plant ratoon plant plant plant ratoon ratoon Totals Totals plant ratoon NA NA NA NA HSPA files HSPA files HSPA internal files HSPA harvest 32 Of the locations included in this table: The Ewa Plantation Company and Oahu Sugar Company were most similar to HC&S The HSPA experimental stations at Makiki and Waipio were also similar to HC&S The Jakeway study was conducted at HC&S 2-112

114 Co. H 45 test(c) files Table 2-32 (cont.): Summary of sugarcane and sugar yield from annually-harvested sugarcane experiments conducted in Hawaii Test ID/ Location Year Comment/ Variety Cycle Age (mo) TCA TSA TCAM TSAM Ref. Lihue Plantation Company Field 27A Lihue Plantation Company Field 27A Oahu Sugar Company Field 088 Oahu Sugar Company Field 105 Jakeway closed-loop biomass field demo results, HC&S Field 415 Jakeway closed-loop biomass field demo results, HC&S 1989 Compared harvests for two varieties harvested at different ages but at the same time of year. Var Same experiment as above except that variety is H Test of one year cane, Var. H Test of one year cane/ Var Cane biomass study, (d) 2004 BD1 BD2 plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant HSPA harvest files HSPA exprmntl harvest files plant HSPA harvest files plant HSPA harvest plant plant plant ratoon plant plant NA NA NA NA NA NA files Jakeway. HC&S closed cycle test Closed cycle test Field 415 (a) HSPA Waipio Substation harvest data from files (b) HSPA, Lihue Plantation Company HSPA harvest data from files. Lihue Fd. 33 (c) One-year cane variety test; best variety CO 62175; H best in ratoon (d) Cane biomass study, B52298 (average 30-inch row spacing, 80% higher than normal); H (average 45-inch row spacing, 20% higher than normal); B52298 (average 45-inch row spacing, 20% higher than normal) Note: TCA on fresh weight basis. Includes some comparisons with older cane harvests TSAM is presented with three significant digits, consistent with common practice Data for 12- and 24-month crops are only comparable if the plant and ratoon for the one-year crop are compared with a single two-year crop 12- and 24-month crops are best compared using TCAM and TSAM TCAM and TSAM are the averages of the plant and ratoon crops Source: Primarily from HSPA files 2-113

115 Table 2-33: Experimental yield of dry matter in unburned, annually-harvested sugarcane Field Cane (t/ac) Net Cane (t/ac) Sugar Measured as POL (t/ac) Fiber in net cane (t/ac) Fiber in trash (t/ac) Fiber total (t/ac) Molasses solids (t/ac) Age (mo) Dry matter Per acre (t/ac) Dry matter per month (t/ac/mo) Source: Hawaii Data from HSPA files. Data summarized from annual cane trials in Table Note: Fiber in net cane is 12.3%; Kinoshita (1985) Fiber in trash = (trash %) x (dry matter in trash at 40%); Kinoshita (1985) Number of harvests was 23 Standard deviation of net cane from data set was 29.3 tons Standard deviation of sugar yield 3.22 tons Age was 11.7 months Age standard deviation was 3.38 months Comparison: Burned, Biannually-harvested Sugarcane; Unburned, Biannually-harvested Sugarcane; and Unburned, Annually-harvested Sugarcane This section compares three types of sugarcane production: 1) Burned, biannually-harvested sugarcane 2) Unburned, biannually-harvested sugarcane 3) Unburned, annually-harvested sugarcane Table 2-34 shows yields for burned biannually-harvested sugarcane, unburned biannually-harvested, and unburned annually-harvested sugarcane. Yields are provided for sugar, molasses solids, fiber, and total dry matter produced. Total dry matter is provided in terms of tons per acre and tons per acre per month. The burned biannual cane is the commercial method of cane production, thus the data summarized are part of the official record of HC&S. In contrast, the unburned biannual cane and the annual cane data are from experimental records. For experimental data we have chosen, by convention, to reduce reported values by 25%

116 Table 2-34: Comparison of Hawaii sugarcane: biannually-harvested (burned and unburned) and annually-harvested (unburned) Type of Crop No. of Harvests Age (mo) TCA TSA TFA (f) TMSA TDMA TDMAM Burned Biannuallyharvested Sugarcane (a) Unburned Biannuallyharvested Sugarcane (b) (d) NA (e) (g) Unburned Annuallyharvested Sugarcane (c) (a) From long-term HC&S database for commercially-harvested sugarcane (HC&S, Table 2-27) (b) From experimental harvests of unburned sugarcane [Kinoshita (1985) Table 2-29] (c) From HSPA experiments (HSPA files) (d) Measured as refractometer solids (e) Included in refractometer solids (f) Includes fiber in cane and trash (g) To be reduced by 25% to reflect experimental data. No reduction required for commercial cane. Age TCA TSA TFA TMSA TDMA TDMAM number of months from planting or ratooning to harvest tons net cane per acre tons sugar per acre tons fiber per acre tons molasses solids per acre total (tons) dry matter per acre tons dry matter per acre per month 2-115

117 And for comparison purposes, the dry matter yields with the 25% reduction are presented below in Table These values will be used later in Assessment Activity 4 (Feedstock Assessment, Processing Assessment, and Waste Handling) and Activity 5 (Biofuel Model). Table 2-35: Comparison of three types of cane production on dry matter yield Type of Sugarcane Production Burned Biannually-harvested Unburned Biannually-harvested Unburned Annually-harvested DMAM - Dry Matter (tons) per Acre per Month Reported With 25% reduction for experimental harvests For the commercial harvests, all losses are accounted for, including those in the cleaning plant, the extraction mill, and the sugar boiling house. This is not the case for the unburned biannually harvested sugarcane and the unburned annually-harvested sugarcane. These losses are addressed further in the Assessment s Activity 4 (Production, Harvesting, and Handling Assessment). Kinoshita (1985) addressed concerns regarding sugar losses with unburned cane and stated that the expected factory recovery (extraction and boiling house) would be reduced by 4 to 5 % if the fiber was increased by 51% (the case in his studies), and the juice purity was reduced by 4%. Other losses are expected to be substantial, primarily in the cleaning plant where up to 20% 33 of the sugar in cane may be lost. Minimal losses are expected for fiber in the cleaning and milling of the cane. The 25% reduction used in Table 2-35 covers some of the added losses, but likely not all. Billet-harvested annual cane would bypass most of the cane cleaning, so factory losses would not be as large as with the processing of unburned biannual cane. There is also the opportunity for milling the trash separately. This matter is also addressed further in Activity The 20% loss estimate is from an industry-wide study conducted by the HSPA Committee on Plantation Agricultural and Processing Practices ( PAPP Committee ). Sugar is lost, and not fiber, because of the solubility of the former

118 An additional benefit of harvesting annual cane with a billet harvester is that it allows for ratooning. Further, this reduces cleaning plant waste water disposal requirements, and also reduces the area required for seed production. These factors will need to be taken into consideration. For the purpose of this report, the yields shown in Table 2-35 as dry matter per acre month will be used without further adjustment. Lastly, primarily due to the trash component of unburned sugarcane (both biannual and annual) the dry matter yields are expected to exceed those of burned biannual sugarcane, the commercial system in Hawaii. Sugarcane dry matter yields are compared to those of other crops on the Short List crops in Table Energycanes Type I energycane was defined by Tew and Cobill (2008) as cane that is selected and cultivated to maximize both its sugar and fiber components. Type II energycane was defined as cane that is bred, selected and cultivated primarily or solely for its fiber content. There is very little experience with growing high-fiber Type II energycanes in Hawaii. In fact, there is little experience with energycanes world-wide, since the primary purpose for growing sugarcane has always been, and still is, to produce sugar, and not fiber. Every effort throughout the history of breeding sugarcane was to lower fiber content and increase sugar content. Energycanes are derived by crossing commercial canes with S. spontaneum to increase fiber content, and the durability of the canes as ratoons. In addition to Tew and Cobill (2008), there are several other references to energycanes. Alexander (1991) described the energycane US that produced 20 to 30 tons of dry matter per acre per year and the yields did not decrease through eight ratoons. The energycane variety L , developed in Louisiana by the Louisiana State University ( LSU ), was released in 2007 and is expected to be grown for both fiber and sugar. Energycane varieties HoCP and HO were released in the United States as high fiber varieties that approach commercial sugar yields of current varieties and maintain a fiber content of 16%. Giamalva et al. (1984) reported fresh weight yields of mechanically harvested energycane plots in Louisiana. Planted cane produced 41.7 net metric tons of cane per acre and ratoon plots yielded 71.6 net metric tons of cane per acre

119 Gross cane yields, which included leaves, top and trash were much higher at 61 metric tons per acre for the plant-crop and 92.7 metric tons per acre for the ratoon. A recent review of energycanes was published by Tew and Cobill (2008). The authors compared three types of sugarcane: 1) Commercial sugarcane (selected for high sugar content) 2) Type I energycane (selected for both sugar and fiber) 3) Type II energycane (selected mainly for fiber) Energycanes were compared with commercial Louisiana sugarcane with the following result (Tew and Cobill, 2008). (See Table 2-36.) Table 2-36: Energycanes compared to commercial Louisiana sugarcane Constituent Sugarcane Type I Energycane Type II Energycane Water 75% 70% 65% Fiber 12% 17% 30% Sugar 13% 13% 5% Source: After Tew and Cobill (2008) Jakeway et al. (2004) compared the fiber yields of a reportedly high-fiber Type I energycane from Barbados (B52298) and two lower-fiber Hawaiian varieties (H and H ) in a preliminary hand-harvested study at HC&S. The following summarizes his findings. The Barbados variety yielded 17.5 tons of fiber per acre while the Hawaiian varieties averaged 15.5 tons. The Barbados variety remained upright in comparison to the Hawaiian varieties and presented a better profile for mechanical harvesting. It was also noted that the Barbados variety maintained good growth during drought conditions that occurred during the experiment. The fiber content of the Barbados variety was 15%. The Hawaiian varieties had a more typical fiber content of 10 to 12%

120 Based on these results Jakeway et al. (2004) conducted a large-scale evaluation of the Barbados cane and the Hawaiian variety H This large-scale planting was made in HC&S Field No. 415 on 40 acres. Three treatments were compared: 1) Barbados Type I energycane planted at close-spacing for forage harvesting 2) Barbados cane planted at a wider spacing for billet-harvesting 3) Hawaiian cane also planted for billet-harvesting The field was prepared for mechanical harvest, which required the removal of rocks. Yield was assessed by hand-harvesting the plots and measuring the weight of the yield components: net cane, trash (tops, attached leaves, and ground trash), refractometer solids, POL, and fiber. The field did not undergo drought stress during the experiment. Plots were harvested at a very young age, varying from 8.9 to 9.6 months. (See Table 2-37.) Table 2-37: Dry matter yield of cane grown for fiber at HC&S Variety Barbados Type I energycane (B52298); narrow rows for forage chopper; average 30- inch row spacing Barbados Type I energycane (B52298); average 45-inch row spacing Hawaiian commercial cane (H ); average 45-inch row spacing TCA REFSOL AGE Fiber TDMA TDMAM (t/ac) (t/ac) Source: Jakeway et al. (2004) The commercial Hawaiian cane yielded a significantly higher quantity of sugar, but less fiber than the Barbados energycane. Total dry matter produced and normalized for age was 5.4 to 14% greater for the Hawaii variety than for the Barbados variety. The age of harvest was very low in the experiment; however, the yields of dry matter were high, ranging between 2.01 to 2.33 tons dry matter per acre month (TDMAM). The density of planting was 20% higher in the plots designed for billet-harvesting and 80% higher in the plots designed for forage harvesting relative to commercial practice in Hawaii

121 Because the plots in the experiment were hand-harvested and considered experimental, a 25% reduction in the reported yield should be applied. This reduces the yields are shown in Table 2-37 as follows (in Table 2-38): Table 2-38: Adjusted yield of Barbados Type I energycane and Hawaii cane variety at HC&S Barbados Type I energy cane (B52298); narrow rows Barbados Type I energycane (B52298); wider spacing Hawaiian commercial cane (H ) TDMAM (total tons dry matter/ac/mo) Reported 25% Reduction Yields in Table 2-37 reduced by 25% to reflect experimental nature. Yield tests using Type II energycane (fiber 26 to 30%) are required for comparison. Type II energycane varieties would more appropriately be compared with banagrass, as both are all-fiber crops and an alternative for the production of biomass feedstock. The use of Type II energycane would require that a high yielding variety be adapted to central Maui. This could take up to 12 years Banagrass (Pennisetum purpureum) Banagrass Yields Banagrass was evaluated in seven yield tests in Hawaii; all were installed by either the HSPA or HARC. The first observation tests were installed at the Oahu Sugar Company in the 1970s. Based on promising observations, banagrass was increased and placed in 2-120

122 biomass tests at five sites on four Hawaiian islands. Results are provided by site in the following tables; Table 2-39 for plant-crop and Table 2-40 for ratoon-crop. Table 2-39: Banagrass and sugarcane yields for plant-crops in five sites on four Hawaiian islands Plant-crop Test Site Age (mo) Wet Biomass Yield (t/ac) Dry Biomass Yields (t/ac) TDMAM Sugarcane Banagrass Sugarcane Banagrass Sugarcane Banagrass Mauna Kea HC&S McBryde Lihue Waialua TDMAM = tons dry matter per acre per month Source: Wu and Tew (1988) Table 2-40: Banagrass and sugarcane yield for ratoon-crops in five sites on four Hawaiian islands Ratoon-crop Test site Age (mo) Wet biomass yield (t/ac) Dry biomass yields (t/ac) TDMAM Sugarcane Banagrass Sugarcane Banagrass Sugarcane Banagrass Mauna Kea HC&S McBryde Lihue Waialua TDMAM = tons dry matter per acre per month Source: Wu and Tew (1988) Table 2-41 provides the averages and combined yields for banagrass and sugarcane plantand ratoon-crops for the five test sites

123 Table 2-41: Averages and combined yields for banagrass and sugarcane plant- and ratooncrops in five sites Cycle Plant-crop Average Ratoon-crop Average Combined Plant and Ratoon Average yield Source: Wu and Tew (1988) Grass Wet Weight (t/ac) Dry Weight (t/ac) Dry Matter (t/ac/mo) Sugarcane Banagrass Sugarcane Banagrass Sugarcane Banagrass Banagrass produced 62% more biomass than commercial Hawaii sugarcane varieties harvested in two crops (plant and ratoon) at an average harvest age of 8.46 months. The plant-crops of banagrass and sugarcane were about equal in biomass production; however, the ratoon yield was highly in favor of banagrass. The total growing time for the combined plant- and ratoon-crops was months for both banagrass and sugarcane. For comparison, individual HC&S test results for banagrass are as shown on Table Table 2-42: Plant and ratoon harvest results for HC&S portion of the HSPA banagrass yield test Age (mo) Wet Weight (t/ac) Dry Weight (t/ac) Total Dry Matter (t/ac/mo) Sugarcane Banagrass Sugarcane Banagrass Sugarcane Banagrass HC&S Plantcrop HC&S Ratoon crop Totals Source: Wu and Tew (1988) At HC&S, banagrass produced less total tons dry matter per acre per month (TDMAM) in the plant-crop than did the sugarcane plant-crop. However, in the ratoon

124 crop, the TDMAM yield was highly in favor of banagrass. The average TDMAM for the sugarcane plant- and ratoon-crops was The banagrass average was 2.57 TDMAM, as shown on Table Molokai Banagrass Test A plant-crop and six ratoons of banagrass were grown on Molokai as part of a comparative test to determine the relative productivity of grasses and trees in a HSPA study supported by the state of Hawaii s Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism ( DBEDT ). The test was harvested seven times over a 4.3-year period at the Plant Materials Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ), Molokai [Osgood and Dudley (1993)]. The results of this test are shown below on Table Table 2-43: Plant- and ratoon-crop yields for banagrass harvested seven times over a 4.3-year period at the Plant Materials Center, USDA, Molokai Crop cycle Crop Age (mo) Harvest Date Dry Matter Yield (t/ac) Dry Matter (t/ac/mo) Dry Matter (t/ac/yr) Growth Period Plant /20/ fall /winter First Ratoon /8/ fall/summer Second Ratoon /24/ summer/winter Third Ratoon /22/ fall/winter Fourth Ratoon /23/ spring/summer Fifth Ratoon /3/ fall/winter Sixth Ratoon /8/ summer/winter Totals NA (average) (average) TDMAM= tons dry matter per acre per month note: summer growth means most of the crop-cycle was in the summer Source: Osgood and Dudley (1993) NA There was a large variation in banagrass yields related to plant- and ratoon-crop cycles. A large variation in yield was also observed; related to the time of year of harvest. Banagrass with most of its growing months in the spring and summer, or the summer and 2-123

125 fall produced the highest yield. One of the reasons for low yield in the plant-crop was due to the poor initial stand of plants. The problems with poor stand were overcome in the ratoon. Plant-crop yields can be improved by planting more seed Molokai Large Block Banagrass Test An additional banagrass experiment was established on Molokai; on acres at the USDA Plant Materials Center. The purpose of the test was to evaluate the Claas CC1400 sugarcane billet harvester for banagrass harvest. Replicated small plots (12 replications) were also taken in the test for the plant-crop and a single ratoon-crop. Results of the small plot harvests for the plant- and ratoon-crops are provided in Table 2-44 below. Table 2-44: Results for the Molokai banagrass large plot test Yield Plant-crop (7.7 months) Ratoon-crop (8 months) Plant and Ratoon Combined (15.7 months) Fresh Weight (t/ac) (total) Fresh Weight (t/ac/yr) (average) Dry matter (%) (average) Dry matter (t/ac) (total) Dry matter (t/ac/mo) (average) Dry matter (t/ac/yr) (average) Data obtained from 200 square-foot plots replicated 12 times. Source: Osgood et al. (1996) For the mechanically harvested banagrass, the average yield of dry matter in the plant-crop was 26.1 tons per acre per year (2.16 t/ac/mo). (See Table 2-44.) Dry matter percentage averaged The ratoon-crop averaged 30 tons per acre per year (2.50 t/ac/mo). Dry matter content of the biomass in the ratoons was 35.8%, considerably higher than obtained in the plant-crop. The combined yield for the plant and ratoon was 28.1 tons per acre per year (2.34 t/ac/mo). Less tonnage was harvested in the ratoon-crop; however, due to a higher dry matter percentage, the dry matter harvested was much higher in the ratoon, compared with the plant-crop. The mechanical harvester pictured in Figure 2-23 harvested 73% of the field-measured biomass at the rate of 0.65 acres per hour. The biomass harvest rate was 27 tons per hour. Other results of the mechanical harvesting are also shown on Table

126 Table 2-45: Mechanical harvesting results for Molokai banagrass test Harvester Productivity Adjusted for Time Waiting for Haulers Average Particle Length Bulk Density of Biomass 0.65 ac/hr 11.3 inches Recovery of Biomass 73 % Harvest Rate Source: Osgood et al. (1996) Summary of the Banagrass Yield Tests 7 to 8 lb/cubic foot 27 tons/hr Banagrass yield was measured in seven experiments with a total of 19 harvests from the late-1980s to the mid-1990s, as shown on Table The average yield was 2.17 tons of dry matter per acre per month (TDMAM). Because these data were obtained from handharvested experimental plots, the yield is reduced by 25% to more accurately represent commercial practice. With this adjustment, the expected banagrass yield is 1.70 TDMAM or tons per acre per year. For the experiment installed at HC&S, the yield was higher than the average of the sites at 2.57 TDMAN. With the 25% discount, the yield was 1.93 TDMAM

127 Table 2-46: Summary of banagrass dry matter yield from 19 harvests Source Wu and Tew (1988) Osgood and Dudley (1993) Osgood et al. (1996) Wu and Tew (1988)* Description 10 harvests of one plant-crop and a single ratoon-crop in 5 sites; 10 total harvests One plant-crop and 6 ratoons on Molokai One plant and one ratoon harvest on Molokai One plant and one ratoon at HC&S Yield (TDMAM) Yield (TDMAM) with 25 % Discount Yield (TDMA) Average 18 harvests * Yields included in Wu and Tew (1988) 10-harvest totals, and not included in the derivation of the 18-harvest averages Tree Crop Yields Yield information for tree crops in Hawaii is less extensive than the information available on grass yields. However, there is enough data to support some estimates and predictions of commercial yield for tree crops in Hawaii. Experimental work on biomass production from trees in Hawaii has centered on giant leucaena and eucalyptus. Currently, some of the Hawaii island eucalyptus is being harvested, but not primarily for biofuel production. There are plans to burn the tree tops and branches to produce electrical power Giant Leucaena The yields reported for giant leucaena in Hawaii are variable, ranging between 3.7 and 14.3 tons per acre per year in the literature reviewed. Kinch and Ripperton (1962) reported that common leucaena cut for forage on a 2.5-month cycle produced dry matter at the rate of 7.5 tons per acre per year. Van den Belt (1993) reported giant leucaena yields ranging from 12 to 32 tonnes per hectare per year (5.4 to 14.3 ton per acre per year). Austin measured the dry matter yield of frequently harvested giant leucaena hybrid KX3, and reported a yield of 22 tonnes per hectare per year (9.8 ton per acre per year). More recently, 2-126

128 Austin (1997) reported mean annual increments of dry matter for giant leucaena at 8.2, 15.6 and 15.5 tonnes per hectare per year (3.7, 6.96 and 6.92 ton per acre per year) in one-, twoand four-year rotations, respectively. Austin found that stem diameter was the best predictor of biomass yield. Using stem diameter measurements, Osgood and Dudley (1987) estimated giant leucaena yields ranging from 6.61 ton per acre per year at Hoolehua, Molokai to 8.43 ton per acre per year at Puunene, Maui. At five years from planting, harvested dry matter yield was measured at tons per acre per year at Puunene, Maui and 9.59 tons per acre per year at Hoolehua, Molokai, as shown on Table 2-47 (Osgood and Dudley, 1993) Eucalyptus A summary of eucalyptus yields in Hawaii in comparison with yields elsewhere was made in the Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism by Groome Poyry Ltd. (forestry consultants) in August The data are presented in the appendix to the Memorandum. In the report, commercial yield potential for eucalyptus species was estimated to range between 6.8 and 14 tons per acre per year. Commercial yield per gross acre was calculated as gross yield per acre less 25%. An additional 15% discount was made for calculation of yield per net acre, providing a range of 5.8 to 11.9 ton of dry matter per acre per year. In Hawaii, eucalyptus yield was found to be similar to high yielding plantations in Brazil and considerably higher than Australian and Asian yields. (Groome Poyry, 1994) Eucalyptus yields in Hawaii were estimated to be 9.5 ton per acre per year by Whitesell et al. (1992). Osgood and Dudley (1993) reported that dry matter yields of 5-yearold eucalyptus under furrow irrigation with mill water (water logging was a problem) at low elevation produced 7.46 tons per acre per year at HC&S. In the same study, in a lowland site at HC&S, giant leucaena (K636) produced tons per acre per year, as shown on Table Eucalyptus is better adapted to higher, better-drained sites, and at Honokaa on Hawaii island, E. grandis and E. urophylla produced dry matter at the rate of 13 and 14.2 tons per acre per year, respectively. Stape et al. (2004) studied the productivity 34 of eucalyptus across low-, medium- and high-productivity zones in Brazil. The range of yields was from 10.9 tonnes per hectare per year (4.9 t/ac/yr) in the low-productivity zone, 16 tonnes per hectare per year (7.14 t/ac/yr) in the medium-productivity zone and 27.5 tonnes per hectare per year (12.27 t/ac/yr) in the high-productivity zone. The highest yield recorded in the study of 14 sites was 39.1 tonnes per hectare per year (17.45 t/ac/yr). This highest yield exceeds the recovered dry matter produced by sugarcane at HC&S (15.36 t/ac/yr), but not the total dry matter produced if the 34 Generally, all yields are reported on a dry basis, unless otherwise indicated

129 sugarcane were not burned (18.59 t/ac/yr). Water was the main limiting factor for the productivity of eucalyptus in the Brazilian studies carried out by Stape et al. (2004). Tree yield trials were conducted on one-acre plots, as shown on Table The table includes data for the diameter, height, and biomass (dry matter) per acre for three tree species at Hoolehua, Molokai and Puunene, Maui at five years after planting (Osgood and Dudley, 1993). A poor stand due to poor drainage and fungal disease reduced the yield per acre for Eucalyptus grandis at HC&S. Commercial tree plantings of either giant leucaena or eucalyptus species (if used for biomass production) are expected to be planted at a spacing of approximately 4 feet by 12 feet (48 square feet per tree ); requiring approximately 900 trees per acre. The initial harvest is expected at two years after planting, and subsequent harvests are recommended at one to two years as coppice growth. Dry matter yields from this spacing and rotation are expected range from 8 to 12 tons per acre per year. Giant leucaena is expected to be planted in lowland sites and eucalyptus is expected to be planted in upland sites. The possibility of a eucalyptus and giant leucaena mixture might also be considered (de Jesus et al., 1988). Additional experimental work is needed to accurately predict commercial yield. The tree harvester is expected to straddle the row, with equipment similar to that used for sugarcane billet-harvest. (See Figure 2-24.) It is expected that tree crops will be used only as supplemental fiber at HC&S, if required by a biomass conversion facility designed to produce both crystalline sugar and advanced biofuel

130 Table 2-47: Height, diameter, and dry biomass per acre for three tree species at Hoolehua, Molokai, and Puunene, Maui at five years after planting Location Puunene* Hoolehua** Species Casuarina equisetifolia Eucalyptus grandis Leucaena leucocephala Eucalyptus camaldulensis Casuarina equisetifolia Leucaena leucocephala Stand Survival (%) Density of Planting (trees per acre) Diameter (in) Height (ft) Biomass per Tree (lb) Biomass (t/ac/yr) TDMAM * Puunene Maui at HC&S ** Hoolehua, Molokai at USDA, NRCS Plant Materials Center Source: Osgood and Dudley (1993) Summary of Biomass Yields for Crops on the Short List Based on the preceding information, the biomass yield potential for the crops on the Short List (under HC&S s growing conditions) may be expected as shown on Table The table includes: 1) Biannually-harvested cane, burned Based on the HC&S long-term data base for 171 fields harvested over approximately a 27-year period. The majority of fields were harvested approximately every 2 years. A 10% estimate was made for organic trash

131 2) Biannual-harvested cane, unburned Based on a study of 21 harvest fields, as recorded in HSPA Factory Report No. 165, Kinoshita (1985). 3) Annually-harvested cane Based on an experimental data set of 23 experiments harvested by the HSPA in Hawaii. 4) Energycane (Type I energycane, Barbados 52298) Based on Jakeway et al. (2004). 5) Hawaiian sugarcane planted as an energycane in an energycane trial Based on Jakeway et al. (2004). 6) Banagrass (HC&S trial) 7) Banagrass based on 19 harvests in tests installed by the HSPA and HARC 8) Trees (giant leucaena and eucalyptus experimental data; HC&S trials) 2-130

132 Table 2-48: Activity 2 yield summary Number / Source 1 HC&S 2 Industry wide 3 Industry wide 4 HC&S HC&S HC&S 7 Island wide 8 HSPA at HC&S LOEL Plant Type Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Energycane I Sugarcane Elephantgrass Elephantgrass Leucaena Variety various various various B52298 H banagrass banagrass K636 Age Class biannual biannual annual < 12 mo <12 mo <12 mo <12mo NA Type commercial experimental experimental experimental experimental experimental experimental experimental Harvest push-rake push-rake hand hand hand hand hand hand Burned / Unburned burned unburned unburned unburned unburned unburned unburned unburned Number 171 fields 21 expmts 23 expmts 10 reps 10 reps 6 reps 19 harvests 3 reps Cycle plant/ratoon plant plant/ratoon plant plant plant/ratoon plant/ratoon plant Location HC&S HC&S indus. wide HC&S 415 HC&S 415 HC&S 4 islands HC&S LOEL Irrigation drip drip various drip drip drip Drip/rain furrow/ mill Age (mo) No. Ratoons Expected none none 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 7 or more 7 or more 20 Length of Future Ratoons (mo/yr) NA NA to 12 9 to Harvests in Data Set Harvest Method Expected push-rake push- rake billet billet billet/forage billet/forage billet/forge billet/tree header Gross Cane (ton/acre) Net Cane (%) Net Cane (ton/acre) Trash (%) NA NA NA Trash (ton/acre) NA NA NA Sugar (ton/acre) NA NA NA Dry Fiber in Cane (%) Dry Fiber from Cane (ton/acre) Dry Fiber in Leaves and Trash (%) NA NA NA Dry Fiber in Leaves/Trash (ton/acre) included included included Fiber Total (ton/acre) Molasses Solids (ton/acre) NA NA 0.00 Total Dry Matter (ton/acre) Sugar per acre/mo (ton) NA NA NA Fiber per acre/month (ton) Molasses Sol per ac/mo (ton) NA NA NA Dry Matter per ac/mo (ton) (DMAM) No 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Additional Calculations reduction reduction reduction reduction reduction reduction Dry Matter per ac/mo (TDMAM) % reduction Annual Sugar Yield (t/ac) Annual Fiber Yield (t/ac) Molasses Solids Yield ( t/ac) Annual Yield (TDMA) Dry Matter with Trash 2,3 (%) Dry Matter w/o Trash 2,3 (%) NA NA NA Dry Matter in Net Cane 4 (%) NA NA NA Ash Calculation Ash in Dry Fiber (%) Ash in Molasses Solids (%) NA NA NA Total Ash (t/ac) Annual Dry Matter Yield less Ash (t/ac) Data Source Column 1 - Biannual cane burned. HC&S long-term data base for 171 fields harvested over a 27-year period Column 2 - Biannual cane unburned from above HC&S data base (based on data on burning information from HSPA Factory Report No.. 167, Kinoshita), Column 3 - Annual cane based on an experimental data set of 23 experiments harvested in Hawaii Column 4 - Jakeway energycane study (HC&S Fd. 418) Barbados variety Column 5 - Jakeway energycane study ( HC&S Fd. 418) Hawaiian variety Column 6 - Banagrass (HSPA experiment at HC&S including plant and ratoon harvest over a 16 month period Column 7 - Banagrass 19 harvests on 4 islands Column 8 - Trees (leucaena and eucalyptus) experimental data. (note: Data from Molokai is also available. Good quality water was applied. Yields were recorded at approximately the same level.) Footnotes 1 - Ash is included in the molasses solids 4 - On net cane without trash 2 - Dry matter calculated as percent of gross field cane 5 - Very young cane 3 - On gross cane 6 - Columns 4 and 5 based on refractometer solids Note: In order to derive true combustible dry matter per acre per year (estimates above), values are needed on the ash in the fiber and the ash in molasses, 2-131

133 Table 2-49 summarizes the biomass yield of the/short List crops. Table 2-49: Yield summary for Short List crops considered for biomass feedstock production at HC&S (Experimental yields discounted by 25%) Dry matter (t/ac/mo) Age (mo) Dry matter (t/ac/yr) Sugar (t/ac/yr) Fiber (t/ac/yr) Molasses solids (t/ac/yr) Source Commercial Biannual cane, burned Biannual cane, unburned HC&S data base Kinoshita (1985) Annual cane, unburned This report Type I energycane B52298, closespacing H , close- spacing ** NA ** NA Jakeway et al. (2004) Jakeway et al. (2004) Banagrass specific to HC&S Banagrass summary of 19 harvests on 4 islands NA NA Wu and Tew (1988) NA NA This report Trees* NA 8.04 NA Osgood and Dudley (1993) * Five year old trees harvested as mostly wood. Commercial harvest is expected to be at 1 to 2 years and therefore with a lower percentage of wood and a higher moisture content. Includes giant leucaena and eucalyptus. ** Based on refractometer solids, rather than sucrose

134 The highest yielding crop in the study was banagrass (HC&S experiment) at 23.2 ton dry matter per acre per year. It was followed by: close-spaced H grown as an energycane (21.0 tons per acre per year) banagrass summary of 19 harvests, including both plant- and ratoon-crops (19.9 tons per acre per year) Type I energycane (19.8 tons per acre per year) annually-harvested cane (19.7 tons per acre per year) unburned, biannual cane (18.8 tons per acre per year) commercial, burned, biannual cane (15.4 tons per acre per year) The tree crops, eucalyptus and leucaena, had considerably lower yields of dry matter compared to the grasses at 8.0 tons per acre per year and should only be considered, at present, for providing supplemental fiber to an operation based on grass crops as feedstock A tree crop could be used in an all-cellulosic biofuel operation, or when additional fiber is needed. Trees are at a yield-disadvantage to the grasses, thus there would have to be a reason to choose trees; such as limited water availability or storage considerations. Wood chips are better stored, than grass biomass

135 2.10 Short List of Crops - Potential Public Concerns HC&S is a major part of the Maui agricultural community. As Maui s largest ongoing agricultural and processing operation, HC&S has consistently demonstrated its commitment to leadership in exemplary stewardship of the land, water and air quality. A good example of HC&S stewardship is a recent commitment by HC&S to keep a large portion of its land in agriculture. Under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, the State is required to conserve and protect agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increase agricultural self-sufficiency and assure the availability of agriculturally suitable lands. Act 233, SLH enacted in July, 2008 triggered the commencement of the process to identify, map, and designate Important Agricultural Lands or IAL throughout Hawaii. The objective of the IAL Act is to increase agricultural income, job opportunities, and food security. 36 Only 30,906 acres have been designated as IAL to-date. On Maui, all 27,133 acres of IAL-designated land are HC&S plantation lands. 37 HC&S IAL acres represent 11.1% of the total area classified as IAL eligible (244,088 acres) on Maui island. As Maui s second largest employer 38, HC&S supports the Maui economy through the purchase of more than $60 million in goods and services from local vendors and an annual payroll of well over $40 million. HC&S further contributes to the quality of life on Maui by participating in numerous community activities and through its generous donations; roughly $400,000 in grants to Maui charities each year. This is in addition to employee donations of personal resources, both time and money. HC&S and its affiliates have established far-reaching program of support on Maui for worthwhile activities in the areas of health and human services, education, the community and arts, the maritime arena and the environment. 39 Therefore, in addition to the agronomic considerations, there are environmental- and community-related considerations in crop selection that may affect the success of a biofuels facility. These considerations are particularly important to a company like HC&S. It is an affiliate of one of the State s most prominent corporations 40, and a key member of the Maui community. Any transition away from its current business model will make waves such IAL designation provides significant tax credits, loan guarantees, water rights and other incentives to the landowner. The remaining 3,773 IAL-designated acres are on Kauai. Pacific Business News. Book of Lists, Hawaii s Ultimate Business Research Guide. Honolulu: PBN, 24 Dec Vol. 48. Issue 43. Print. HC&S website, Q&A about HC&S. Accessed: 29 Nov HC&S is part of the Agribusiness operating group of Alexander & Baldwin Inc

136 that, in addition to financial and operating factors, changes at HC&S must also consider the effect the changes may have on the environment and the community Existing Studies and Community Plans The high cost of electricity and fuel for ground, water, and air transportation in Hawaii has led to a number of initiatives designed to reduce the state s dependence on fossil fuels. Many of these efforts included the identification of environmental and community concerns relevant to biofuels development in Hawaii. Among the studies and plans reviewed are three prominent sources: the Hawaii Bioenergy Master Plan, the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, and the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan. Since the scope of the material provided by these sources is far beyond crop selection for biofuel feedstock, the subject of Activity 2, the environmental and community concerns covered here are greatly reduced. Further information on the three sources is provided in Attachment 2-D Environmental Considerations There are a number of environmental considerations related to crop selection. They may be grouped as follows. Section Water Consumption Section Air Quality Considerations Section Potential By-products Section Other Environmental Considerations Water Consumption In 2008, then Maui Mayor Charmaine Tavares stated We're in a situation for the first time in history that we need to conserve water in central Maui...Water is our number one priority." 41 In 2010, concerns about overall water supply resulting from years of drought and increased population demands led the Maui County Council to pass a law requiring developers to show a long-term source of water for their projects. Concerns for diminishing water supplies combined with a renaissance of the native Hawaiian concept of ahupua`a 42 has contributed to a community struggle over water rights Mayor proposes $31.25 million toward new water infrastructure by Chris Hamilton, The Maui News, Monday, March 17, The ahupua`a concept is the ancient Hawaiian land practices subdivided all land from the mountain ridge to the sea to include all the natural resources necessary for sustainable community living

137 Historically, HC&S and other plantations controlled the source water where they operate by re-directing some stream flows to their fields. Native Hawaiian organizations and environmental groups have charged that upstream diversions have caused diminishing stream flow in traditional agricultural areas negatively impacting traditional practices, including recreation, taro cultivation, and gathering vegetation and stream animals. It has also been charged that diminished stream flows have negatively impacted ecosystem maintenance and aesthetic appeal. In response, the State s Commission on Water Resource Management ( Water Commission ) eventually established instream flow standards to protect stream channels from alteration in order to provide for fishery, wildlife, recreational, aesthetic, scenic, and other beneficial instream uses in the public interest. The standard states any party diverting water from a stream shall be responsible to maintain system efficiencies, minimize offstream water losses, and minimize impacts to the natural stream resource. 43 There is now basically a 2-step process for gaining control over water resources; first the Water Commission sets the Instream, or Inter-Instream Flow Standard ( IIFS ) and then there is a separate permit process, which allows only very specific uses for the water. 44 In addition, the Water Commission recently reviewed the flows of important Maui water sources in a contested case proceeding; Iao Ground Water Management Area High- Level Source Water-Use Permit Applications and Petition to Amend Interim Instream Flow Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 174C State Water Code; Part VI. Instream Uses of Water; Section 71 Protection of Instream Uses. Instream use means beneficial uses of stream water for significant purposes which are located in the stream and which are achieved by leaving the water in the stream. Instream uses (listed in no particular order) include, but are not limited to: (1) Maintenance of fish and wildlife habitats (2) Outdoor recreational activities (3) Maintenance of ecosystems such as estuaries, wetlands, and stream vegetation (4) Aesthetic values such as waterfalls and scenic waterways (5) Navigation (6) Instream hydropower generation (7) Maintenance of water quality (8) The conveyance of irrigation and domestic water supplies to downstream points of diversion (9) The protection of traditional and customary Hawaiian rights Noninstream use means the use of stream water that is diverted or removed from its stream channel and includes the use of stream water outside of the channel for domestic, agricultural, and industrial purposes. HRS 174C-3 Definitions 2-136

138 Standards of Waihe e River and Waiehu, Iao, & Waikapu Streams Contested Case Hearing, Case No. CCH-MA Water-use Water-use by crops is both a function of the environment (including soil factors) and the inherent characteristics of the crop (including the stages of crop growth and length of the cropping cycle). The central valley of Maui (where HC&S is located) is a high water evaporation location requiring irrigation for the production of all the crops on the Short List. The amount of water required for production will vary according to the location on the farm and crop chosen. Crops are ranked more or less water-efficient based on the external composition of leaves stems and roots, as well as internal mechanisms related to the conversion of carbon dioxide- to-plant dry matter by photosynthesis and maintenance of hydration. The following discussion is not intended to address the mechanisms of water-use efficiency in crops. Rather, the intent is to rank the Short List of crops according to the estimated relative water requirement for crop production; the crop factor. There are two important factors to consider: 1) the amount of water lost to evaporation from a class A meteorological pan elevated to five feet (pan evaporation 45 ), or as determined by weather instruments designed to measure temperature, rainfall, humidity, sunlight and wind speed 2) the water required by the crop as a percent of evapotranspiration (crop factor) Crop factors are either given as averages for the various stages of the crop or for the specific stages of crop development. Crop factors are derived by dividing the amount of water used by the crop by the reference evaporation from a pan or weather instrument by the evaporation from the crop. For example, if the reference annual evaporation for a site is 80 inches and the water used by the crop is 60 inches, the crop factor is 0.8. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ) publishes a report with crop factors for a number of crops, including sugarcane and some tree crops. ( ) 46 Sugarcane was reported to have an average crop factor of 1 (Alcantera, 1980). This means that it requires 100% of the water lost to evapotranspiration. The value does not Pan evaporation estimates water used by plants and water evaporated from the soil surface. The sum of the water used by plants and the water evaporated is the evapotranspiration. Accessed: 12 Jun

139 consider the variation in water requirements from the initial planting through the full canopy stage and the ripening stage. The FAO report (provided immediately above) breaks down the crop factors for the various stages of sugarcane cropping as follows: initial stage was given a factor of 0.4 full canopy stage a factor of 1.2 ripening stage a factor of 0.75 Crop factor values can also be calculated on a monthly basis showing differences in the water requirements for warm summer and cool winter conditions. Crop factor values for sugarcane as high as 1.21 have been recorded in high evaporation months in Eastern Africa (Lecler, 2001). Crop factors for sugarcane in the central valley of Maui are expected to vary considerably depending on the season of year and stage of plant growth; e. g., full canopy growth and ripening. The design of irrigation systems should consider the highest water demand for optimal production. Evapotranspiration values for Hawaii were published by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources [ DLNR, Ekern and Chang (1985)]. Central Maui has a very high pan factor owing to high sunlight, strong winds, and low humidity; primary factors in the calculation. Sites in central Maui have evaporation rates as high as 98 inches per year (0.27 acre-inches per day) and monthly rates as high as 10 inches (0.33 inches per day). There are 27,154 gallons per acre-inch. Therefore, when the evapotranspiration rate is 0.27 acre inches per day, 7,332 gallons of water per acre day are removed from a combination of the soil and crop canopy. To calculate the amount of irrigation water required to grow a crop, the evapotranspiration loss is determined either by a meteorological pan or by a weather station (the method used at HC&S). The data are placed into a water balance equation, which has soil factors imbedded, to provide a guide to the irrigation water required for sugarcane growing on specific soils; sandy soils requiring more water and heavy clay soils requiring less water. HC&S, in most years, is considered to be in a water deficit, meaning that not enough water is applied to the crop for optimal sugarcane production. Another way of stating this condition is that the amount of water applied to the crop is less than the evaporation rate. The annual average adjusted evaporation from pans at five weather stations 47 in central Maui is 0.26 inches per day, with the summer high value about twice the winter low value (Ekern and Chang, 1985). The average annual adjusted evaporation from the stations 47 The stations surveyed were , , , and

140 was 95.9 inches. This is about the amount of water that would be required annually by conventional, biannually-harvested sugarcane with a crop factor of 1. Water Requirements for the Short List of Crops Water is the single most important input for growing sugarcane on Maui, and the amount of water required by crops on the Short List is expected to differ substantially. A broad based method of classifying a crop by its consumption or production of water is the water footprint. (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2008) As related to agriculture, the water footprint is a broad brush method of ranking the world s most important crops according to the quantity of water used to produce a specific quantity of product such as energy measured in gigajoules ( GJ ); thus comparisons are in terms of cubic meters of water per GJ. Water footprints were calculated for the production of bioelectricity, bioethanol, and biodiesel by 12 different crops (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2008). Sugarcane was near the top (best) for bioelectricity production, requiring only 50 cubic meters of water per gigajoule. Jatropha, a low water-use plant, ranked at the bottom, requiring 396 cubic meters of water per gigajoule. This is due to a low harvest index for jatropha (only a small portion of the plant is used to produce oil, the harvested product). In contrast, sugarcane (a high water-use plant) scored well, because all the plant can be used for energy production. The index provides a broad overview of water-use, but does not provide a meaningful evaluation of water-use between crops in a specific location such as central Maui. In the following subsections, the crops on the Short List are evaluated based on estimated water-use. Generally, sugarcane is considered at the high end of the water-use spectrum, followed by energycane, banagrass and the tree crops. Crops are evaluated by comparison to sugarcane. Conventional Sugarcane (Biannually-harvested, Burned) There is no question that conventional biannually-harvested sugarcane is a high water-use crop, requiring water at approximately the rate of evapotranspiration for optimum production. And higher amounts of water are needed of optimum growth during the boomstage of growth (full canopy). For HC&S s 34,000 acres, the amount of water required for sugarcane production each day, assuming an average evapotranspiration rate of 0.26 acreinches (7,060 gallons) per day, is million gallons. On an annual basis, an estimate of HC&S s water requirements for conventional sugarcane is billion gallons. Annually-harvested Sugarcane (High Sucrose Varieties with Low Fiber) 2-139

141 Like conventional sugarcane, annually-harvested sugarcane is a high water-use crop, and perhaps slightly higher due to a shorter ripening period. It is not clear whether growing annual cane would require more or less water compared to a biannual crop. Certainly the ratooning of annual cane would require less water than the annual planting of each crop. However, other factors will come into play and also affect water usage, such as the shorter length of the ripening period and the time of year for planting and harvest. At this time, there is no established basis for estimating that annual cane will have a higher or lower water-use than biannual cane. Therefore, a crop value of 1 (100% of the evapotranspiration value) can be used until more information is available. As with the biannual crop, a higher crop factor is assigned for the annual crop s boom-stage growth period. Energycane (Annually-harvested Sugarcane Varieties with Lower Sugar Content and Higher Fiber Content) It is expected that, as the fiber content of sugarcane increases relative to sucrose (as expressed in the energycanes), the water-use requirement will be lowered (Bull and Glasziou, 1963). This is due to a lower requirement for water to maintain high sugar concentrations in the stem need for high sugar varieties (Moore, 2010). Also, depending upon the degree that Saccharum spontaneum is used in the development of Type I energycane varieties, there will be variations in water requirements. The higher the S. spontaneum germplasm, the lower the expected water-use. Also owing to a S. spontaneum tendency to form underground stems (rhizomes), the water requirement for starting ratoon crops is reduced. Further, nutrients stored in the rhizomes are also beneficial for starting ratoon crops. Therefore, recognizing the benefit of S. spontaneum germplasm (for the purpose of this review), a reasonable estimate is that Type I energycane will have a crop factor of about 0.85, although experimental evidence is needed. Again, a higher factor is assigned for full canopy closure, as it is for the conventional sugarcanes. Type II energycane is expected to have even greater water efficiency compared to Type I energycane owing to even greater amounts of S. spontaneum germplasm. A crop factor of 0.8 is estimated. As with Type I energycanes, experimental evidence is required. Higher crop factors are assigned for full canopy, as it was for the conventional sugarcanes. Banagrass (Annually-harvested all-fiber crop having no recoverable sugar and a very high yield of fiber) Banagrass is expected to also have a lower water requirement compared to commercial sugarcane, because it has no sugar to maintain in the stems and it has a moderately rhizomatous habit. Due to these characteristics, it is estimated that banagrass may have a crop factor of about that of the Type II energycanes at 0.8. Banagrass will also 2-140

142 be assigned a higher crop factor for the boom-stage growth period. Experimental work has not been done to determine the actual water-use of banagrass. Tree crops Giant Leucaena and Eucalyptus Two tree crops were selected for the Short List of crops; giant leucaena and eucalyptus. The trees are considered only for supplemental fiber, if the grasses cannot supply the quantity of fiber needed especially in the sugarcane off-season. The trees are lower yielding, but have some water saving advantages. Trees have a deep root structure for accessing water deeper in the soil profile and an all-fiber biomass component which requires less hydration compared to the grasses. Trees are considered to require only 50% of the water required by the grasses. An FAO publication on water-use 48 reported that trees, in general, have lower crop coefficients than the grass crops; ranging from 0.4 to 0.1. Summary Generally, grasses are expected to have a higher crop coefficient relative to trees. However, there are many variables affecting relative water-use, such the depth of soil. Water usage in grasses is related to sugar storage in the plant, and to the ability of the plant to produce rhizomes. It therefore takes more water to maintain a high concentration of sugar in crops, such as sugarcane, relative to higher fiber crops, such as the energycanes and banagrass. Likewise, the ability of a plant to produce rhizomes will also reduce the amount of water required. This is due to moisture retention in these structures following harvest. Because trees are deeper-rooted than the grasses, it is expected that their water usage would be less that of the grasses, although this would be affected by the depth of the soil. Trees will require irrigation for establishment, but lower amounts of water relative to grasses after establishment. Table 2-50 summarizes the estimated water-use for the crops on the Short List. The water-use ranking is considered to be in the correct order; however the values shown are estimates and should be verified by experimentation. 48 FAO publication on water-use: Accessed: 12 Jun

143 Table 2-50: Estimated relative water-use for crops on the Short List Crop Sugar Content Fiber Content Rhizomes Expected Water-use Average Water-use (% of evap.) Biannually-harvested sugarcane high low no high 100 Annually-harvested sugarcane high low no high 100 Type I energycane moderate moderate few moderate 85 Banagrass Type II energycane none high moderate moderate Tree crops none high no low Air Quality Considerations The primary air quality consideration in crop selection relates to the practice of preharvest burning, followed by pushing the cane into windrows for collection. The current HC&S practice is to harvest biannually, and it selects varieties of sugarcane for planting accordingly. The resulting physical volume and levels of trash of the crop leads to the use of pre-harvest burning and push-rake harvesting, rather than billet-harvesting. HC&S mitigates the effects of cane burning by carefully analyzing wind and weather conditions to find the best time to burn each field, and does not burn directly upwind of schools and churches. It also avoids burning near major roadways during peak traffic hours, and HC&S rarely burns on Sundays and holidays. At HC&S, annually-harvested sugarcane and energycanes, banagrass, giant leucaena and eucalyptus would likely be billet or chopper (forage) harvested, and pre-harvest burning may not be necessary. All the crops under consideration are nominally carbon neutral; they take in as much carbon as they release in food or fuel use. As with water consumption, the screening in Part 1 precluded crops that are environmentally harmful from making it onto the Short List; one of the criteria on which crops were rated was their effect on the environment. Although the practice of cane burning is a harvesting matter and does not relate to the characteristics of the crop (sugarcane), realistically, it is a consideration in crop selection. However, HC&S s experience and management of effects of cane burning does not warrant exclusion of sugarcane as a feedstock crop

144 Potential By-Products Sugarcane has a number of potential by-products. However, to the extent that sugar is produced and bagasse is gasified to produce advanced liquid fuel, the by-products are limited to molasses, mineral ash, and possibly naphtha. There is an opportunity to use some of the energy produced to generate electrical power for operation of the mill and to pump irrigation water. There are also possible beneficial uses for by-products of the molasses, including food and fuel grade ethanol and yeast (single cell protein) for food and feed. And, the ash can be put back on fields as fertilizer. With respect to by-products from energycanes, banagrass, and the trees, only the ash fraction is available if the gasification process is used. If the bagasse fraction is hydrolyzed and converted to fuel by fermentation or pyrolysis, then by-products of stillage and lignin are produced which can be burned as fuel or disposed of Other Environmental Considerations As part of a complex ongoing operation, HC&S manages a number of other environmental matters, such as the following. Land-related considerations Use of pesticides Biannually-harvested Sugarcane Planting and harvesting under dry conditions obviously raises considerations related to dust and wind erosion. Under such conditions, biannually-harvesting sugarcane is a desirable practice, since it exposes soil to erosion on a minimum of acres each harvest season. Biannually-harvested sugarcane is fertilizer-efficient, as it requires fertilizer only in the first year of growth. No insecticides are used and fungicides are used only as a seed treatment. Herbicides are required following each planting, up to crop-close (about six months) every two years. Chemical flower control may be needed depending on the variety planted, and chemical ripeners are applied near harvest. Annually-harvested Sugarcane, Energycanes, Banagrass The effect of annually-harvested sugarcane, energycanes, and banagrass on landrelated considerations may be viewed more favorably, relative to biannually-harvested cane. These crops are always ratooned, with a third less planting if two ratoons are grown, and 2-143

145 therefore less dust and erosion may be expected in these operations. This is offset by the less desirable effects of annual harvesting, such as raising dust during harvest. However, the effects of harvesting can be somewhat overcome by leaving a portion of the trash back on the field. For instance, less dust will occur with the annual cane option, if trash is left on the field. Billet-harvesting will kick up some dust, but not as much as with push-rake harvesting and field loading operations. Banagrass grows very fast after harvest and covers the ground quickly, requiring much less weed control measures compared to sugarcane. With these ratooned crops, seed production is minimized, because only 25% to 33% of the land is planted each year. This frees-up land formerly required to grow seed cane. Land area is also increased by the lack of requirement for waste water disposal from cleaning operation, which is required by biannually-harvested cane. These two factors may add as much as 1700 acres to commercial production. Should HC&S transition to annual cane, it will need to determine the rates of nitrogen fertilization required, especially in conjunction with cane ripening. Determining the proper amounts of fertilizer will require both tissue and soil analysis and careful experimentation, especially for determining nitrogen amounts. It is likely that insecticides will not be necessary, due to the long-established biological controls in place. Seed treatment with fungicide will still be required. However, since about 75% less seed is used, this requirement will be correspondingly diminished. Herbicides will be needed for each crop of sugarcane, energycane, or banagrass. However, with a trash blanket resulting from billet-harvested annual biomass crops, herbicide usage will be less than for the current practice of growing biannual sugarcane. Banagrass grows very fast as a ratoon and will need very little herbicide, except for post-emergent vine control. Depending upon the variety of crops grown, chemical flower control may be needed; particularly for the cane varieties with a high percentage of S. spontaneum. Non-flowering varieties of sugarcane are needed. Chemical ripener treatments will be applied to annual cane and energycanes, but not banagrass. 49 The commercial sugarcanes are not invasive. Banagrass is potentially invasive, both by true seed and vegetative seed pieces and rhizomes. Great care will be needed to protect sugarcane seed fields and commercial fields. HC&S should proceed with banagrass only if 49 Chemical ripeners may be added to Type I energycane, and will not be added to Type II energycane. Ripeners are only used where additional sugar is desired. They serve no purpose in all-fiber crops

146 it discontinues its commercial sugarcane production and proceeds with an all-fiber operation. Trees Tree harvesting will result in the least amount of dust, because planting is very infrequent and harvest will be by chopper or billet harvester, and some trash will be left on the ground to prevent soil erosion. Regrowth is fast and soil is quickly covered; this also reduces dust. Giant leucaena is nitrogen-fixing and will only require nitrogen fertilizer at planting. The rates of phosphorus and potassium usage will be determined by the amount of biomass harvested, and liming will be required on acid soils. Eucalyptus will require a complete fertilizer as it is not nitrogen-fixing. It is unlikely that insecticide will be needed for tree crops. Fungicide use is also unlikely. Herbicides would be used at planting, with spot treatments for grasses and vines throughout the plant-crop. The coppice crops will close in quickly and not require much herbicide treatment, except for patches of grass and vines. Both eucalyptus and giant leucaena have some invasive potential by seed. Giant leucaena is much less invasive than the weedy, wild- type leucaena (haole koa or koa haole) found in Hawaii due to lower seed production. Eucalyptus invasiveness will depend on the species or hybrid chosen for planting and the location of the planting. It will be more invasive in wet sites. A report 50 prepared by the University of Hawaii ( UH ) found all of the crops on the Short List invasive, except for sugarcane. The UH study confuses the purple cultivar of Pennisetum purpureum with banagrass. Banagrass in Hawaii is also a clone of Pennisetum purpureum and should not be associated with the purple clone. Chromosome analysis done at HARC confirmed that banagrass in Hawaii is not a hybrid with pearl millet. Hybrids would be sterile with 21 chromosomes. The common name banagrass may have also been given to a hybrid of pearl millet and Pennisetum purpureum in other countries. This has caused great confusion in the literature. Because the 50 Department of Botany, Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit; Maui Agricultural Research Center, University of Hawaii. Observational Field Assessment of Invasiveness for Candidate Biofuels in Hawaii. Research. Honolulu: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Print /07/120919%20Subtask%2012.1%20item%202%20Deliverable.pdf Accessed: 17 Jun

147 purple clone of P. purpureum is apparently non-flowering 51, it offers a non-invasive (by seed) alternative to banagrass; although by observation it is not as ergonomically suitable as banagrass (Osgood observation at HARC Kunia Substation, Oahu). Hybrids of banagrass with pearl millet (P. americanum) were made by Bob Joy of the USDA NRCS Plant Materials Center on Molokai in the mid-1980s. The selected 25 year-old clones from this cross are still in plots on Molokai (April 2013) Community Considerations The review of existing studies and community plans gave rise to a number of considerations related to biofuel production Continuing Agriculture / Diversified Agriculture There was a time in Hawaii s past, when sugar was king. Hawaii's sugarcane production once spread across the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu. The acreage of sugarcane harvested in Hawaii has decreased from close to 100,000 harvested acres in 1981 to an average 20,700 acres in the 2000s. (See Figure 2-28.) 52 And growth in Hawaii s agricultural sector has shifted from plantation crops (sugar, pineapple) to crops from a more diversified agriculture, although much of the land remains fallow. Figure 2-28: Acres in Sugarcane in Hawaii, The State s sugar There are no reports of flowering in Hawaii : Dorrance, William H., and Morgan, Francis S. Sugar Islands: The 165- year Story of Sugar in Hawaii. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, LLC, Print : Hawaii. Department of Business and Economic Development. The State of Hawaii Data Book Honolulu: State of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Department of Business and Economic Development. Web. 6 Sep

148 production has declined from over 1.0 million tons in the first half of the 1980s to 238,000 tons in the 2000s. 53 Between 1990 and 2002 the value of sugarcane production fell from $213.8 million to $64.3 million in By 2003 the sugar harvest dropped its worth roughly one-fourth to one-eighth of its value in the 1970s. 55 In 2011, HC&S is Hawaii s only remaining sugar operation. Current production (2011) at HC&S is about equal to its long term average of 12.2 tons of sugar per acre per harvest. The entire state of Hawaii encompasses 4,112,388 acres and the Agricultural Land Districts comprises 1,930,224 acres, or 47% of that total. Maui Island contains 465,800 total acres of which 244,088 acres or 52% is classified as the Agricultural District. Therefore, there is great concern for the health and well-being of nearly half the island; both to support the ahupua`a land caretaking concept and to support diversified agriculture. The entire agriculture sector in Hawaii has also diminished in size. Since 2002 the amount of land in farms has gone down 12% to 225,568 acres in While the number of farms increased by 40% since 2002 to number 7,521 in 2007, the average size of individual farms decreased nearly 40% to just 149 acres. Market value of products sold meanwhile US Sugar Production, USDA, August 6, 2009: (Accessed: 4 Aug 2011) Economic Impacts of Shutting Down Hawaii's Sugar industry, Junning Cai and PingSun Leung, UH College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, April, (Accessed: 4 Aug 2011) Diversified Agriculture, Hawaii's Undervalued Resource By Ariyoshi, George R. Hawaii Business, November

149 went up 12% from 2002 to $139,326,000 in (See Figure )Farm revenues continued to climb reaching $609.4 million in Compared to the previous year, nine of the 20 ranked commodities were higher, including seed crops, macadamia nuts, algae, papayas, eggs, basil, sweet potatoes, sod, and ginger root. The value of Figure 2-29: State of Hawaii Value of Crops, 1985 to 2007 individually published diversified commodities rose 8%, including a 26% increase for seed. The $176.6 million seed revenue is a new record as demand for (primarily corn) seed for ethanol production continues to be strong. 58 This increase also reflects overall higher food prices and increased farm productivity. The number of people employed in the agricultural sector dropped meanwhile from 9,550 in 1990 to 7,300 in 2004 and 6,200 in USDA 2007 Agriculture Census ounty_level/hawaii/st15_2_001_001.pdf ounty_level/hawaii/st15_2_001_001.pdf (Accessed: 4 Aug page 232) ounty_level/hawaii/st15_2_008_008.pdf (Accessed: 4 Aug pages 239 and 240) Data on pineapple not published after 2006 to avoid disclosure of individual operations; 2010 State of Hawaii Data Book, Section 19, Table Value of Crop and Livestock; 2010 State of Hawaii Databook; (Accessed: 15 August 2011) Statistics of Hawaii Agriculture 2008, United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service In cooperation with Hawaii Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Development Division, January 2010 ( Bulletin/all2008.pdf) 2-148

150 2008. On Maui that number dropped from 2,550 in 1990 to 1, In 2005, agriculture contributed just 2.1% of total Hawaii sales, 1.2% of GDP, 2.8% of employment, and 1.5% of labor income. 60 Protection of agricultural land, water, and water delivery systems has been a central themes in the public discourse, and in the judicial and legislative branches of government in Hawaii. As stated earlier, HC&S voluntarily designated more than 27,000 acres as Important Agricultural Land as a demonstration of its commitment to agriculture. There are reasons for optimism for the growth of diversified agriculture in Hawaii, because of the burgeoning interest in Hawaiian Regional Cuisine and the use of farm fresh ingredients, and the dramatic growth of the seed crop industry. Public interest and concern has increasingly focused on the need to develop diversified agriculture through sustainable farming that simultaneously protects the natural environment and open spaces to preserve the quality of life, fuel the visitor industry, and provide local food sources at reasonable prices. There are also those who believe many more jobs can be created by agricultural diversification for food production than the approximately one job per 42 acres presently at HC&S (800 employees with 35,000 acres under cultivation). The U.S. Department of Agriculture s Agricultural Marketing Services in its Report on Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (2003) states, however, Agricultural shippers in non-contiguous States and Territories do not have access to adequate transportation infrastructure and equipment necessary to be competitive. HC&S continuing in sugar production, and/or completely or partially transitioning into an energy farm would clearly make a positive contribution to farming on Maui. For instance, it would contribute to the economies of scale for products needed by farms, such as fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, tools, equipment, worker education, ground and off-island transportation, infrastructure for water capture and transport, among other considerations Biomass Suitability Since HC&S has grown sugarcane on Maui for over 125 years, it is clearly the standard by which any other crops would be measured for suitability. Alternate varieties, such as those selected for annual harvesting or energycanes, are unlikely to raise any new community concerns. While there have been banagrass experiments on Maui and at other Hawaii sites, it is considered moderately invasive, as indicated in the crop survey Table Hawaii State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Hawaii Workforce Informer, Job Count by Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted Data, Historical Series Statistics of Hawaii Agriculture 2008, p

151 Both giant leucaena and eucalyptus have been extensively researched in Hawaii, with invasiveness dependent upon the species selected. (See Tables 2-12 and 2-13.) Here again, all of the crops on the Short List rated reasonably well in the matrix described earlier, and none should be excluded for further consideration based on suitability considerations Other Community Concerns Three other matters were considered in the crop section process. These are the effect of the crops on the Short List on employment, noise pollution, Maui s infrastructure, and cultural heritage crops. Employment Hawaii has become a service sector economy dominated in rank order by government, tourism and retail sales. These are generally low skill, low wage jobs. In a 2011 column in the Honolulu Star Advertiser, Lee Cataluna wrote about the rise of Wal- Mart as one of the top 10 employers in the state. Here, where we have fertile soil, reliable rain, year-round sun and plenty of mouths to feed, we instead turn to Wal-Mart to feed, clothe and employ us. 61 On Maui, although Alexander & Baldwin is the second largest single employer, 62 overall, the largest employment sectors of Maui s economy are touristoriented businesses (accommodation and food services, including arts and entertainment); retail trade; and government. 63 When the current global recession hit, and visitor arrivals plummeted, unemployment on Maui experienced a rapid rise. The visitor industry and related businesses are very sensitive to the fluctuations of the world economy. According to the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Maui island s December 2011 unemployment rate is 7.2%, which is higher than the state unemployment rate of 6.2% 64. From the perspective of the community at large, the more jobs the better, and the higher-skilled/better paying jobs are preferable. As stated earlier, HC&S employs approximately 800 workers in its biannual cane operations. Employment levels can be expected to remain about the same for annual cane. On a per acre basis, banagrass would Cataluna, Lee. Wal-Mart dominates isles as retailer and employer. Honolulu Star Advertiser. 13 Feb Web. 22 July < and_employer.html>. Book of Lists, Pacific Business News, Volume 48, Issue 43, December 24, 2010, p.99 Maui Economic Development Board: (Accessed: 23 Feb 2012) 2-150

152 require fewer workers than does production of biannually-harvested cane. Giant leucaena and eucalyptus has the lowest labor requirement, because of infrequent planting. Although difficult to quantify, the effect on employment of the crops on the Short List is not material. Noise Pollution HC&S occasionally receives public complaints related to the noise generated by its sugarcane harvesting and field preparation operations. This is usually limited to work on fields that are located adjacent to populated urban areas, and is further limited to once every two years, due to its two-year growth and harvesting cycle. The sugar mill is located in an industrial zoned area and generates noise, but HC&S is in full compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) rules related to worker safety and hearing protection. With respect to crop selection for feedstock, the effect of selection among the crops on the Short List will not materially affect the amount or level of noise pollution and is unlikely to become a community issue. Infrastructure The infrastructure that supports Maui s transportation services, energy and water delivery provides the foundation for a sound economy. As the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan points out (m)any of our roads, harbors, and water and sewer systems are overwhelmed by massive increases in population. 65 Nearly 80% of all goods consumed in Hawaii are imported, and 98.6% of these goods pass through Hawaii s commercial harbors systems. 66 Hawaii s ports handled 31 million tons of waterborne traffic in 2005, ranking it 26th in the nation. 67 Kahului Harbor is the only deep-draft harbor on the island of Maui and the busiest port in Hawaii outside of the island of Oahu. A variety of vessels use the piers, including fuel supply, container and passenger cruise ships. There is overcrowding at the harbor, which requires significant capital improvements to meet the increasing demand. This overcrowding has created challenges, including mitigation against introduction of invasive species and pests, and lack of adequate and low cost shipping alternatives for the agriculture industry. Renewable fuel production at HC&S would help mitigate this overcrowding by displacing imported petroleum and coal. Petroleum ships have the most Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan, p. 27 State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Plant Quarantine Branch, DOT DMS Docket Number MARAD Comments to the Environmental Impact Statement for Improvements to Kahului Harbor, Report Card for America s Infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers, September, 2008,

153 68, 69 port calls per year (365) except for inter-island cargo ships (526). The petroleum barges will be reduced freeing up more harbor space. number of Bioenergy production at HC&S Transition Plan would also help ease the pressure on ground transportation, as petroleum transportation trucks between the harbor and potential customers would be reduced or possibly eliminated. For instance, if Maui Electric Company 70 utilized biofuels from HC&S, trucks carrying fuel between Kahului harbor and its Maalaea Power Plant could be reduced or eliminated. Here again, as with noise pollution, the effect of selection among the crops on the Short List is not material to Maui s infrastructure situation. Any crop or mix of crops would help alleviate Maui s harbor and road congestion. Cultural Heritage Crops Another possible area of community concern is the effect that crop selection will have on cultural heritage crops. Although not clearly categorized, a reasonable assumption is that cultural heritage crops are those that were brought to Hawaii by the Polynesians that discovered Hawaii; food plants (taro, sweet potatoes, sugarcane) and medicinal plants (kava and noni). Additional food plants that are staples in the Hawaiian diet may arguably be included here, such as bananas, coconuts, breadfruit. None of the crops on the Short List should have an adverse effect on Maui s cultural heritage crops. Since HC&S is contiguous, any unforeseen effects at most may occur at the periphery of the farm and in the water shed and around kuleana lands 71 on the Wailuku side of the farm. However, this is unlikely since the criteria for reducing the candidate crops to the Short List would have eliminated undesirable crops from further consideration. (See also Section regarding water consumption.) If HC&S decides to use all of its sugar juice for energy production, then even more sugar ships will be replaced as sugar traffic accounts for 52 port calls per year with each call lasting 3 days. (See Final EA 2025 Master Plan Improvements Kahului Commercial Harbor, Table 3-1 Forecast 2025 Ship Schedule for Kahului Harbor, 2004.) Final EA 2025 Master Plan Improvements Kahului Commercial Harbor, Table 3-1 Forecast 2025 Ship Schedule for Kahului Harbor, Maui Electric Company provides electric service to the county of Maui and burns diesel fuel at its Maalaea Power plant on the southern coast of Maui Island, the opposite cost from Kahului Harbor. In 1850, the Kuleana Act was passed, allowing the native Hawaiian tenants an opportunity to acquire fee-simple property interest in land on which they lived and actively cultivated. Land affected by this Act is generally referred to as kuleana land

154 Summary of Potential Public Concerns Because of HC&S s high visibility, transitioning its core operations from sugar production and electrical power generation to sugar and biofuel production may give rise to some community and environmental considerations. With respect to crop selection, among the candidate crops, continued planting of sugarcane or energycane varieties would clearly be the least controversial alternative, due to its familiarity and long history in Hawaii. Banagrass, giant leucaena, and eucalyptus are less familiar, but from an agronomic perspective, should not be restricted from consideration for selection based on potential public concerns

155 2.11 Activity 2 Summaries HC&S has indicated a strong preference towards continuing its crystalline sugar operation in the near term, due to its profitability at the current price of sugar. Therefore, crop selection must consider both the need to produce sugar and feedstock for conversion to advanced biofuels Optimal Crop or Mix of Crops The optimal crop or mix of crops grown for the production of liquid high density biofuel on Maui clearly depends on whether sugar is a desired product. If sugar is desired, then sugarcane or Type I energycane are the best choices. Either crop could be harvested annually or biannually. If sugar is not desired, then an all-fiber solution may be the best choice, which would include either Type II energycane, the Pennisetum purpureum clone banagrass, or other clones of P. purpureum. Several options are as follows. Option #1: Grow traditional biannually-harvested sugarcane; burn the cane in the field before harvesting by push-rake or billet harvest, if feasible; crystallize the sugar juice fraction to make raw sugar; and gasify or ferment the fiber fraction for conversion to liquid fuel. Option #2: Grow traditional biannually-harvested sugarcane; forgo burning the cane in the field before harvesting by push-rake or billet harvester; crystallize the sugar juice fraction to make raw sugar; and gasify or ferment the fiber fraction for conversion to liquid fuel. (This is option 1, without burning before harvest, and with an alternative to either push-rake harvest or billet harvest, if feasible.) Option #3: Grow annually-harvested sugarcane (or higher fiber energycane); billet harvest; crystallize the sugar juice fraction to make raw sugar; and gasify or ferment the fiber fraction for conversion to liquid fuel. (This is option 2, with annual cane, rather than biannual cane, and limiting harvesting methods to mechanical harvesting.) If additional fiber is required, a tree crop could be grown to supplement. Option #4: Convert the entire farm to the production of an annually harvested fiber crop, such as Type II energycane or banagrass for conversion to liquid fuel. Banagrass should not be considered if sugarcane continues to be grown, because of its potential invasiveness by seed. Other cultivars of Pennisetum purpureum may also be considered, such as the purple elephantgrass or hybrids of Pennisetum purpureum with pearl millet which are sterile. Hybrids of banagrass with pearl millet are a good possibility, several of which were 2-154

156 produced by the USDA, NRCS in the mid-1980s. Tree crops could be grown to supplement the fiber produced by the grasses in rocky portions of the farm or where conditions are more suitable for trees. If the price of sugar falls to below profitable levels, then an all-fiber scenario may come into play with Type II energycane or another fiber crop alone. Banagrass should not be considered while sugar operations continue, because of its potential invasiveness. Should raw sugar prices drop below a threshold established as acceptable by HC&S, and HC&S decides to transition 72 out of sugar production, banagrass, a banagrass hybrid with pearl millet or another cultivar of elephantgrass, such as the all-purple cultivar, are good all-fiber options. Activity 1 of this Assessment 73 described conditions at HC&S with regard to rainfall, slope of the land, and rockiness. Although there are meaningful differences among the sections of the farm 74, these factors play only a minor role in the yield of sugarcane, and would be expected to play a similar role in the production of biomass from the energycanes and Pennisetum purpureum cultivars (such as banagrass). (See Table Long-term average yields for net sugarcane, sugar and dry matter yields for HC&S by field groups.) For the tree crops (eucalyptus and giant leucaena), different regions of the farm are expected to play a larger role. Leucaena is expected to be better suited in the central valley region where the Ph is high and temperatures warmer. While eucalyptus is expected to perform best in the wetter, higher elevated eastern portion of the plantation 75. Rockiness will affect the production of all the grass crops, which are expected to be harvested with a billet harvester. Rocks will need to be removed wherever they occur, and even the smaller rocks are problematic. 76 Slope is not a significant factor over the entire farm, with regard to billetharvesting or tree harvesting In a transition away from sugar production, about 5 to 10 years may be required to convert from current cropping methods. Primary factors involved will include redesign of the irrigation system, redesign of the fields to accommodate a billet harvester, rock removal, and variety development. See also and Appendix 2-B. For instance, the east-side of the HC&S plantation receives rainfall of between 39 and 59 inches per year, and its southern-side has less than 16 inches per year. See Figure 2-33: HC&S Rainfall Distribution. See Figure 2-31: HC&S Topography. See Figure 2-33: HC&S soil characteristics based on rockiness. See Figure 2-32: HC&S Slope

157 Mixing the crops on the farm is problematic, especially if different equipment is required. Fortunately, the crops chosen can, with minor modification to equipment, be used for all the crops chosen, including the trees if they are harvested on short cycles. The very rocky fields, such as the 400-Field Group, might be converted to tree crops and perhaps harvested with feller buncher equipment instead of a chopper harvester or forage harvester. In general, trees can be harvested under rockier conditions compared to the grasses. Trees can also be harvested in areas with higher rainfall (compared to grasses), and this would give trees some advantage in the wetter eastern part of the farm. The fields with greater slope would also be better suited for tree crops (compared to grasses), but this depends somewhat on the method of harvest Estimated Cost of Biomass Production In this section, the cost of producing a ton of dry matter for the commercial, burned, biannually-harvested sugarcane at HC&S is compared to the estimated cost per ton of the other crops on the Short List. At HC&S, the annual costs of field production and harvesting are divided into three cost centers: Ag Services, Ag Group and Ag Shops. The Ag Services cost center includes costs related to harvesting, seed cutting planting, and land preparation. The Ag Group cost center includes the farm group, weed control, ripener, agronomy (research), engineering and East Maui Irrigation Company ( EMI ). The Ag Shops cost center is a single line item for equipment repair and maintenance. The total annual cost of production for conventional sugarcane at HC&S in 2010 was $53.4 million. These costs were divided among Ag Services. ($14.8 million), Ag Group ($27.8 million), and Ag Shops ($10.8 million). (See Table 2-51: 2010 HC&S cost by Cost Center Cost Center* Cost ($-million) Ag Services $14.8 Ag Group $27.8 Ag Shops $10.8 Total $53.4 * for production of conventional biannual sugarcane. Table 2-51). The long term dry matter yield for HC&S is 510,716 tons per harvested acre (30.96 tons per acre). Therefore, the cost per ton is $ Since comparable data are not available for growing the other crops on the Short List; they were estimated from the work of Jakeway et al. (2004), as shown on Table

158 Table 2-52: Cost of production for conventional sugarcane and estimated costs of production for the Short List crops Conventional Burned Biannual Sugarcane 1 Conventional Unburned Biannual Sugarcane 2 Annual Sugarcane 3 Annual Type I Energycane 4 Annual Sugarcane Variety H Grown as Energycane 5 Banagrass HC&S test (Annualized) 6 Trees (Annualized) 7 Acres in crop 32,992 32,992 32,992 32,992 32,992 32,992 32,992 Acres harvested 16,496 16,496 32,992 32,992 32,992 32,992 32,992 Age Dry Matter (t/ac/mo) Dry matter per harvested acre (t/ac/yr) Dry matter per cultivated acre (t/ac/yr) Annualized total dry matter produced (ton) Cost per ton of dry matter ($) Total cost ($-thousand) Cost per cultivated acre ($) , , , , , , ,586 $ a $95.30 b $66.31 c $66.96 d $66.96 e $65.71 f $61.00 g $53,421 $59,141 $43,013 $39,712 $45,209 $50,204 $16,201 $1,624 $1,792 $1,344 $1,241 $1,370 $1,521 $507 Cost per harvested $3,248 $3,584 $1,344 $1,241 $1,370 $1,521 $507 acre ($) 1 - Conventional burned sugarcane with biannually-harvested and no ratoons 2 - Conventional unburned sugarcane with biannually-harvested and no ratoons 3 - Annually-harvested sugarcane unburned, billet-harvested and two ratoon crops 4 - Type I energycane, unburned, close-spacing, annually-harvested and five ratoons 5 - Hawaiian Cane unburned, grown on the same spacing as the Type I energycane and five ratoons 6 - Banagrass, unburned and seven ratoons 7 - Tree crops harvested on an annual basis a - Derived from 2010 internal HC&S report. Total cost of 2010 operations divided by the dry tons produced. b - Same costs as conventional sugarcane above, but with higher harvesting cost. c - Based on Jakeway et al. (2004), but using conventional spacing and two ratoons in place of five ratoons for the energy cane. d - Close-spacing and 5 ratoons e - Close-spacing and 5 ratoons, Jakeway et al. (2004). f - Extended to 7 ratoons. g - Based on 15 coppice harvests and a planted crop harvest. Also see Activity 3, Section

159 Discussion of Table 2-52 Cost of Biomass Crop Production The cost of production for conventional, burned, biannually-harvested sugarcane (no ratoons) is from HC&S s 2010 production report, and includes all costs associated with the annual cost of production. The cost was $ per dry ton. To estimate the cost of production for conventional, unburned, biannually-harvested sugarcane (no ratoons), the cost of establishment was assumed to be the same (as for burned crops), with harvesting costs increased over burned cane. The estimated cost is $95.30 per dry ton, lower than the cost for unburned conventional cane. This is primarily due to the higher amount of dry matter produced. The production cost of annually-harvested sugarcane, unburned, billet-harvested, with two ratoon crops is based on Jakeway et al. (2004), and is estimated at $66.31 per ton. This is a slightly lower cost per ton than for energycane, because energycane can be expected to have five ratoons. Jakeway et al. (2004) was also used to estimate the cost of production for Type I energycane, unburned, close-spacing, annually-harvested with five ratoons. The cost is estimated at $66.96 per ton. Annual sugarcane, Hawaiian variety H , unburned, and grown on the same spacing as the Type I energycane is expected to have five ratoons, and have the same production cost of $66.96 per ton. The cost is estimated to be the same, because the tonnage produced was about equal. The production cost of banagrass, unburned, with seven ratoons is based on annual cane and Type I energycane, but with seven ratoons; thus reducing the cost of field prep and seed. The cost is estimated to be $65.71 per ton. Banagrass produced the most biomass at the lowest cost per ton. Lastly, tree crops, harvested on an annual basis would have a high start-up cost. However, with many coppice crops, the cost per ton is the lowest of the crops on the Short List. The yields of dry matter from trees are low; thus, the dry matter produced is not enough to produce the desired amount of feedstock. Trees, if planted, could supplement the fiber produced by the grasses. An annual harvest would allow for the use of a chipper-type harvester similar to that used for the grass crops and may only require the changing of the harvesting head. The cost of production for trees is estimated to be $61.00 per ton. The costs per cultivated and harvested acre were also calculated, and are provided in Table

160 Cost of Energycane Because the annually harvested crops are expected to be extensively ratooned, Jakeway et al. (2004) assigned a cost per dry ton for establishing energycane assuming five ratoons. This reduced the crop establishment cost by one-third, compared to plant crop establishment costs. This was mainly due to the requirement for rock clearing to allow for billet-harvesting, and the requirement for seed to establish the plant crop. The greater the number of ratoons, the lower the cost of production. Thus, assuming a cropping system with a plant crop and five ratoons for an energycane scenario, crop establishment costs were reduced from $59.89 per ton of dry matter to $35.89 per ton of dry matter over the six year life-cycle 78 of the cropping system, as shown on Table Table 2-53: Cost of energycane establishment for plant, ratoon and life-cycle at HC&S HC&S Cost Center Plant Crop Cost ($ / ton dry matter) Ratoon Crop Cost ($ / ton dry matter) Life-Cycle Cost* ($ / ton dry matter) Preparation and planting $16.60 $5.53 $7.37 Weed control $4.43 $1.47 $1.96 Irrigation $5.97 $5.97 $5.97 Fertilizer $4.96 $4.96 $4.96 Other fixed costs $22.12 $7.37 $9.82 G&A applied $5.81 $5.81 $5.81 Totals $59.89 $31.11 $35.89 * 5 ratoons plus plant crop Estimates derived from Jakeway et al. (2004) When harvesting and transportation costs are added to the crop establishment costs, the total cost of producing a ton of dry matter is $ for the billet harvester and $66.90 for the forage harvester. (See Table 2-54). The primary factor affecting the total delivered cost was the yield of biomass. [Jakeway et al. (2004)] 78 The six year life-cycle covers a plant crop plus five ratoons

161 Cost Summary Table 2-54: Harvest and crop establishment costs for energycane at HC&S using two harvesting systems Cost Item Forage Harvester ($ / ton dry matter) Billet Harvester ($ / ton dry matter) Harvesting costs $25.33 $23.20 Transportation costs $5.68 $7.87 Subtotals $31.01 $31.07 Crop establishment cost $35.89 $35.85 Total delivered cost $66.90 $66.96 Estimates derived from Jakeway et al. (2004) The grass crop with the lowest estimated cost on a per-ton-biomass basis is banagrass at $ It is followed by unburned, biannually-harvested sugarcane at $95.30, annually-harvested sugarcane at $66.31, Type I energycane at $66.96, and burned biannually-harvested sugarcane at $ Tree crops have both the highest start-up costs and the lowest cost per ton of dry matter at $ But, it does not produce enough dry matter to support the biofuel operation contemplated at HC&S, and should only be considered as a supplemental source. The cost estimates for banagrass are close to the estimates from a 1995 study at Waialua Sugar Company on Oahu by Kinoshita (1995). That study found that banagrass billets FOB plant gate was $64 per dry ton

162 References Activity 2 1. Alcantera (1980). Verification of Simulated Water Use by Sugarcane. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agronomy, University of Hawaii. 2. Alexander, A. G. (1985). The Energy Cane Alternative. Sugar Series #6 Elsevier Science Publishing Co. Inc. New York NY. 479 pages. 3. Alexander, Alex (1991). High Energy Cane in Cogeneration in the Cane Sugar Industry. J. H. Payne (Ed.). Elsevier, New York. pp Allen, R. M. (1929). Short Cropping at Pioneer. Hawaiian Planters Record Vol. 33, No Angelini, L. G., L. Ceccarini and E. Bonari (2005). Biomass Yield and Energy Balance of Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Cropped in Central Italy as Related to Different Management Practices. European Journal of Agronomy (22). pp J.-Agron.pdf Accessed 14 May Austin, M. T., J. L. Brewbaker, R. Wheeler and J. H. Fownes (1997). Short Rotation Biomass Trial of Mixed and Pure Stands of Nitrogen fixing Trees and Eucalyptus grandis. Australian Forestry, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp Ayers, A. (1933). Variation in Mineral Content of Sugarcane with Age and Season. Hawaiian Planters Record. Vol. 37 pp Ayers, A. (1936). Effect of Age Upon the Absorption of Mineral Nutrients by Sugar Cane under Field Conditions. Journal American Society. Agronomy. Vol. 28, pp Ballard, S. (1940). The Role of the Spectrograph in the Analysis of Agricultural Materials. Hawaiian Planters Record.Vol. 44, pp

163 10. Basiron, Yusof (2007). Palm Oil Production through Sustainable Plantations. European Journal Lipid Science Technology 109. pp h%20sustainable%20plantations.pdf Accessed 16 May Basri, M.W., S. Abdulah, I. and Henson (2004). Oil Palm: Achievements and Potential 4 th International Crop Science Conference. Brisbane, Australia. 12. Black & Veatch (2010). The Potential for Biofuels Production in Hawaii, Final Report, B&V Project Number Overland Park, Kansas. 13. Brewbaker, J.L. (Ed.). (1980). Giant Leucaena (Koa haole) Energy Tree Farm: An Economic Feasibility Analysis for the Island of Molokai, Hawaii. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, University of Hawaii, Manoa. (HNEI-80-06). 90 pages. 14. Brewbaker, J. L., D. L. Plucknett and V. Gonzalez (1972). Varietal Variation and Yield Trials of Leucaena leucocephala (koa haole) in Hawaii. Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin No 166. University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. 29 pages. 15. Bull, T. A. and K.T. Glasziou (1963). The Evolutionary Significance of Sugar Accumulation. Australian Journal of Biological Science. Vol. 16. pp Chalmers, G. (1930). Short Cropping with Relation to Yield and Cost. Proceedings of the Fiftieth Meeting of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association. pp Chen, James C. P. and C. C Chung (2008). Sugarcane Handbook 12th edition. 18. Clark, Andy (Ed.). (2007). Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 3rd edition. Sustainable Agriculture Network, Beltsville, MD. 19. Dalzell, Scott (2007). Leucaena Establishment Book. Final Report. ISBN Meat and Livestock, Australia. 20. Dalzell, Scott (2010). Personal communication. 21. Draycott, Phillip (ed.) (2006). Sugar Beet. World Agricultural Series. Blackwell Publishing Co. Ltd., 9600 Garisington Rd., Oxford 4 2DQ UK

164 22. Dudley, N. and J. Fownes (1992). Preliminary Biomass Equations for Eight Species of Fast Growing Tropical trees. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp Duke, James (1983). Arundo donax L. Handbook of Energy Crops Accessed 14 May Duke, James (1984). Pennisetum purpureum. Handbook of Energy Crops, unpublished in print but on line at: Accessed 14 May Ekern, Paul and Jen-Hu Chang (1985). Pan Evaporation: State of Hawaii. Report 74. State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and Land Development 26. Evensen, Carl, R. Muchow, S. Elswaify and R. Osgood (1997). Yield Accumulation in Irrigated Sugarcane, Effect of Crop Age and Cultivar. Agronomy Journal 89: Gerbens-Leenes, W., A. Hoekstra and T. van der Meer (2008). The Water Footprint of Bioenergy. PNAS early edition. 28. Giamalva, Mike, S. Clarke and J. Stein (1984). Sugarcane Hybrids of Biomass. 2 nd Southern Biomass Energy Conf. Vol. 6, pp Groome Poyry Ltd. (1994). Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum. Prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. 30. Hagstrom, R. A. (1959). Economics of Increased Age of Cane. Proceedings. Hawaiian Sugar Technologists 19 th Annual Meeting. 31. Hawaii State. Department of Land and Natural Resources. Division of Water and Land Development (1985). Pan Evaporation: State of Hawaii Hawaii State, Hawaii Invasive Species Council. Stopping the Silent Invasion Giant Reed Arundo donax. Web. Accessed 14 May

165 33. Hawaii State. University of Hawaii. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (2009). Hawaii Bioenergy Master Plan, Vol. II, Issue Reports. oads/hawaii_bioenergy_master_plan_final_1209.pdf > Accessed 16 May Hawaiian Commercial &Sugar Company data base for cane yield 35. Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association (1911). Record Vol Heaton, Emily A., F. Dohlelman, A. F. Miguez, J. Juvik, V. Lozovaya, J. Widholm, O. Zabotina, G. Micisaac, M. David, T. Voigt, N. Boersma and S. Long (2010). Miscanthus a Promising Biomass Crop Advances in Botanical Research vol. 56 Elsevier Ltd %20Adv.%20Bot.%20Res..pdf Accessed 16 May Heinz, D. J., R. V. Osgood. P.H. Moore (1994). Sugarcane. Encyclopedia. Agriculture Science. 4, Vol. 25, p Heller, Joachim (1996). Physic Nut Jatropha curcas L. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). Accessed 14 May Henning, Richard K. (2009). The Jatropha book. The Jatropha, System an Integrated Approach of Rural Development %20henning.pdf Accessed 14 May Hubbard, H.H., C.M. Kinoshita, Y. Wang, M. Staackmann, D. Ishimura, R.V. Osgood, L.A. Jakeway, N.S. Dudley and A. Seki (1993). Investigation of Biomass-for-Energy Production on Molokai. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, University of Hawaii. 41. Hunter, I. R. and Wu Junqi (2002) Bamboo Biomass. International Network for Bamboo and Rattan Working Paper No. 36). Web. Accessed: 21 May

166 42. Irvine, James (1975). Relation of Photosynthetic rates and Leaf Canopy Characteristics to Sugarcane Yield. Crop Science, Vol. 15, Issue 5, pp Jakeway, Lee (2012). Personal communication. 44. Jakeway, Lee (2003). Application of Cane and Forage Harvesters for Biomass Fuel Recovery. Proceedings of the International Conference on Crop Harvesting and Processing. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Accessed 16 May Jakeway, Lee, S. Turn, C. Kinoshita, B. Jenkins, R. Williams and L. Blevins (2004). Closed-Loop Biomass Co-Firing Pilot Scale and Full scale Test results. Final Technical Report for the period Oct 1999 to Sept Prepared for U. S. Dept of Energy. Coop Agreement No. DE-FC36-99GO James, Glyn, (Ed.) (2004). Introduction to Sugarcane. Sugarcane Second Ed. Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Science LTD Garisington Rd. Oxford Ox4 2DQ, UK. 47. Journey to Forever. Oil Yields and Characteristics. Web. Accessed 16 May Keffer, V. I., S. Q. Turn, C. M. Kinoshita and D. E. Evens (2009). Ethanol Technical Potential in Hawaii Based on Sugarcane, Banagrass, Eucalyptus, and Leucaena. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 33, Issue 2, February 2009, pp Accessed May 12, Kinch, D.M., J.C. Ripperton (1962). Koa Haole: Production and Processing. Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA. Bulletin Kinoshita, Charles (1985). Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, Experiment Station Factory Report No Kinoshita, C., D. Ishimura, L. Jakeway and R. Osgood (1995). Production of Biomass for Electricity Generation on the Island of Oahu. Hawaii National Energy Institute report, University of Hawaii

167 52. Lecler, N. (2001). Sugarcane Evaporation Estimates in the Lowveld of Zimbabwe. Proceedings South African Sugar Technologists Association. 53. Legende, B L. and D.M. Burner (1995). Biomass Production of Sugarcane Cultivars and Early Generation Hybrids. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp Luciana, Angelina, L. Ceccarini, N. Nassio and E.Bonari (2009). Comparison of Arundo donax L. and Miscanthus x giganteus in a Long-term Field Experiment in Central Italy: Analysis of Productive Characteristics and Energy Balance. Biomass and Bioenergy (33), Issue 4, p Accessed 14 May Mangelsdorf, A. J. (1946). Sugarcane Breeding in Hawaii Part I. Hawaiian Planters' Record, Vol. 50, pp Mangelsdorf, A. J. (1953) Sugarcane Breeding in Hawaii Part II to 1952 Hawaiian Planters' Record, Vol. 54, pp May and Middleton (1972). Age of Harvest. Hawaiian Planters Record, Vol. 58, p Maxwell, W. (1900). Division of Agriculture and Chemistry, Expt. Station, Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association Bull. 5, p. 32. Reported in van Dillewijn (1952). Botany of Sugarcane. p Maxwell, W. (1901) Division of Agriculture and Chemistry, Expt. Station, Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association Bull. 6, p. 46. Reported in van Dillewijn (1952) Botany of Sugarcane. p Moore, P. (2010). Personal communication with information on relative drought resistance of sugarcanes with varying percentages of S. spontaneum germplasm. 61. Morgan, T.E., L.L. Chapman, S.J Elliot and A.J. Royal (1996). The Potential for Growing Sugarbeet in the Makay and Burdekin Sugarcane Areas. Proceedings of 8 th Agronomy Conference Australian Society of Agronomy. Accessed May 16, Muchow, R., C. Evensen, R. Osgood and J. Robertson (1997). Yield Accumulation in Irrigated Sugarcane II: Utilization of Intercepted Radiation. Agronomy Journal, Vol. 89, pp

168 63. Nagai, C. (2011). Personal communication. 64. Nagai, C., B.S. Ahoowalia and T. L. Tew (1991). Somaclonal Variants from an Intergeneric Hybrid: Saccharum spp. hybrid x Erianthus arundinaceum. 65. Odero, D. C. and C. Rainbolt (2009). Napiergrass: Biology and Control in Sugarcane. University of Florida Extension Publication #SS-AGR Accessed 16 May Osgood, R. and N. Dudley (1987). Biomass to Energy Plantings Completed Annual Report, Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, p Osgood R. and N. Dudley (1993). Comparative Study of Biomass Yields for Tree and Grass Crops Grown for Conversion to Energy. Final report of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association to the Hawaii Department o f Business and Economic Development and Tourism. Available on request to State of Hawaii, Department of Business and Economic Development and Tourism, Energy Office. 68. Osgood, R. V., N. S. Dudley and L. A. Jakeway (1996). A Demonstration of Grass Biomass Production on Molokai. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Energy report Number Accessed 14 May Plucknett. D. L., O. R. Younge, T. Izuno, Y. N. Tamini and S. M. Ishizaki (1972). Production of Sorghum in Hawaii. University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin Poteet, Michael D. (2006). Biodiesel Implementation in Hawaii. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center report to the State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Accessed 14 May Poteet, Michael with R. V. Osgood (2008). International Visits Exploring the Research Breeding and Commercialization of Jatropha curcas. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. Hawaii Department of Agriculture Contract. Accessed May 14,

169 72. Rockwood, D, A. Rudie, S. Ralph, J. Zhu and J. Winandy (2008). Energy Product Options for Eucalyptus Species grown as Short Rotation woody Crops. International Journal of Molecular Science, No. 9, Vol. 8, p Rooney, W. (2009). Personnel communication 74. Sachs, R., D. Gilpin and T. Mock (1980). Short-rotation Eucalyptus as a Biomass Fuel. California Agriculture August / September. 75. Scurlock, J. M. O., D. C. Dayton and B. D. Hames (2000). Bamboo: An Overlooked biomass Resource. Publication Number Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy. 76. Shelton, M. and S. Dalzell (2007). Production, Economic and Environmental Benefits of Leucaena Pastures. Tropical Grasslands, Vol. 41, Issue 3, pp Shleser, Robert (1994). Ethanol Production in Hawaii, Processes, Feedstocks, and Current Economic Feasibility of Fuel Grade Ethanol Production in Hawaii. State of Hawaii Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism. Available on request from DBED Energy Office. Accessed 17 May Smith, G.A., M.O. Bagby, R.T. Lewellan, D.L. Doney, P.H. Moore, F.J Hills, L.G. Campbell, G.J. Hogaboam, G.E. Coe and K. Freeman, (1987). Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum for Fermentable Sugar Production Potentia (abstract). Crop Science, Vol. 27, No Accessed 14 May Smith, W. and R. Frederikson (2000). Sorghum Origin, History, Technology and Production. Wiley and Sons, Inc. 80. Stape, Jose Luiz, Dan Binkley and Michael G. Ryan (2004). Eucalyptus Production and the Supply, Use and the Efficiency of Use of water, Light and Nitrogen Across a Geographic Gradient in Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 193, 31 pages

170 81. Surles, T., M. Foley, S. Turn and M. Staackmann (2007). A Scenario for Accelerated Use of Renewable Resources for Transportation Fuels in Hawaii. Report of Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, University of Hawaii. Accessed May 16, Suttie, J. M., Grassland Species Profiles Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit. CIAT/FAO collaboration on tropical forages. Accessed 14 May Takahashi, M. and J. C. Ripperton (1949). Koa haole (Leucaena glauca): Its establishment, culture and utilization as a forage crop. Hawaii Agriculture. Experiment Station Bulletin Tew, T. and R. Cobill (2006). Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum as a Complementary Bioenergy Crop to Sugarcane in Louisiana. (abstract) Journal of the American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Vol. 26, p Tew, Thomas L. and R. M. Cobill (2008). Genetic Improvement of Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) as an Energy Crop Chapter 9. Genetic Improvement of Bioenergy Crops. Springer Science-Business Media. W. Vermerris (ed). p Turn, S., V. Keffer, S. Dakka, D. Evans and W. Wang (2005). Preliminary Gasification Testing of Eucalyptus Fuels. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, University of Hawaii Report. 87. Turn, S. Q., C. M. Kinoshita and D. Ishimura (1997). Removal of inorganic constituents of biomass feed stocks by mechanical de-watering and leaching. Biomass and Bioenergy. Vol. 12, No. 4. pp Elsevier Science, Ltd. 88. Turn, S., C. Kinoshita, D. Ishimura, B. Jenkins and J. Zhou (1997). Leaching of Alkalis in Biomass using Banagrass as a Prototype Herbaceous Species. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory Contract DE-AC GO United States. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2007). Oilseeds World Markets and Trade. Web Accessed 16 May

171 90. United States. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Plants Profile: Arundo donax L., giant reed. Web. Accessed 14 May van Dillewijn, C. (1952). Botany of Sugarcane. The Chronica Co.: Book Department. p Waclawovsky, Alessandro J., P. Sato, C. G. Lembke, P. H. Moore and G. M. Souza (2010). Sugarcane for Bioenergy Production: An Assessment of Yield and Regulation of Sucrose Content. Plant Biotechnology Journal, Vol. 8, pp Warner, J. N. (1953). The Evolution of a Philosophy on Sugarcane Breeding in Hawaii. Hawaiian Planters' Record, Vol. 54, pp Whitesell, Craig D., Dean S. DeBell, Thomas H. Schubert, Robert F. Strand and Thomas B. Crabb (1992). Short-rotation Management of Eucalyptus: Guidelines for Plantations in Hawaii. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-137. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 30 pages. 95. Wu, K.K. and T. Tew (1988). Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association Annual Report. p Younge, O. R. and D. H. Buchart (1960). Irrigated Sugar beet Production on Maui. University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 52, 36 pages

172 Appendix 2-A: Glossary - Activity 2 Age Number of months from planting or ratooning to harvest Ash... The mineral matter in plants. Ash-free biomass... The dry organic matter in plants. Bagasse. The fibrous component of sugarcane after milling usually between 46 to 53% moisture. Billet harvester... A cane combine harvester designed to harvest standing cane and deliver it to an infield collecting truck. Biomass... The dry matter in plants often including ash. Cellulose.. A component of bagasse, long, branched chain carbohydrate. Commercial sugarcane Typically has about 11.5% fiber and 14 to 16% sugar measured as POL. Coppice... Similar to ratoon, only used in forestry applications. Coppice is the regrowth originating after the initial harvest is made. Coppice stands.. Stands of trees emerging after the planted trees are harvested. DBEDT.... Department of Economic Development and Tourism, State of Hawaii. Dry matter... The weight of a plant or plant part less the water. Energycane... Sugarcane with lower sugar and higher fiber content compared to commercial sugarcane. Type I energycane and Type II energycane differ by the amount of fiber and sugar contained in the stalk. Type II energycane has up to 30 % fiber. Type I energycane typically has 16% fiber. Fiber..... The non-water soluble component of plants and the primary component of bagasse. Field cane..... Fresh weight standing cane in the field, including trash. Fructose.... A six-carbon sugar and a component of sucrose. Glucose.... A six-carbon sugar and a component of sucrose. HAR. Number of harvests HARC.. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center HISC. Hawaii Invasive Species Committee HC&S... Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company Hemicellulose... A component of bagasse, long, branched chain carbohydrate

173 HNEI.... Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, University of Hawaii HSPA... Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association Juice purity.. The ratio of sucrose to refractometer solids in extracted sugarcane juice. A 90 purity juice is 90% sucrose usually measured as POL. Kilogram pounds Lignin... A component of bagasse; long, branched chain carbohydrate and the most difficult to break down to component sugars. Metric ton pounds Megagram (MG)... metric tonne or million grams, or 1000 kilograms or 2200 pounds Megaliter (ML)... million liters or 264,200 gallons Molasses... The residual material resulting after crystallization of sugar. Contains sucrose, reducing sugars and mineral ash and water. 96 DA sugar.. Raw sugar which is 96% pure sucrose. Net cane... Fresh weight of sugarcane less the trash. PDU.. Product development unit or semi-works scale-up of a commercial biomass conversion facility. Perennial crop.... A crop that is harvested without replanting for more than one year. Plant-crop.. The initial crop harvested after planting. A plant-crop is followed by one more ratoon crops. POL. An estimate of sucrose based on optical measurement of positive light rotation substances in cane juice. POL % cane.. The percentage of POL on the fresh weight of cane. Prepared cane... Cane plus the adhering trash as it enters the crusher or diffuser. Push-rake harvester Harvesting machine used in Hawaii to harvest sugarcane. Ratoon-crop.. The crop following the plant-crop grown without replanting. Raw sugar. An unrefined, crystalline substance derived from extracted sugarcane juice consisting almost exclusively of sucrose and a small amount of molasses. Reducing sugars... Primarily glucose and fructose in cane juice. Considered impurities in cane juice meant for crystallization. REFSOL.. Refractometer solids, the soluble ash and sugar percent in plants. Rhizomes.. Underground stems Starch... A storage product of plants easily broken down to component sugars. Sucrose. A 12-carbon sugar composed of fructose and glucose

174 TCA.. tons cane per acre, including moisture TCAM.. tons cane per acre per month TDMA.. total (tons) dry matter per acre TDMAM.. total (tons) dry matter per acre per month (the sum of the sugar, fiber, and molasses solids produced) TFA.. tons fiber per acre TFAM.. tons fiber per acre per month TMSAM tons molasses solids per acre per month TSA.. tons sugar per acre TSAM tons sugar per acre per month Trash..... the organic matter both attached and detached from the sugarcane stalk. Soil is sometimes included in the trash value but not in this report 2-173

175 Appendix 2-B: Background HC&S The Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company ( HC&S ) is an integrated grower and processor of sugarcane on over 35,000 contiguous acres in the central valley of Maui. It is bordered by the Pacific Ocean on the north, the West Maui Mountains on the west, and by Haleakala on the east. Using state-of-the-art agronomy practices, HC&S cultivates two-year sugarcane, unique to Hawaii, and its fields are among the highest yielding in the world. HC&S produces premium raw sugar products that are marketed worldwide under the Maui Brand name; approximately 200,000 tons of raw sugar (equivalent) and 65,000 tons final molasses. In addition to its extensive sugar operations, electrical power generation and production of process steam from the burning of bagasse are by-products of sugar production. The steam is used to power the cane cleaner and sugar mill, and to evaporate water from the sugarcane juice. The electrical power is generated from two hydro-electric plants and two steam turbines powered primarily by combustion of sugarcane fiber (bagasse). HC&S generates about 200,000 MWH of electricity per year. The electricity is used for mill operations, pumping irrigation water, and sales of about 95,000 MWH to the county s public utility, the Maui Electric Company. HC&S has been in operation for over 125 years. Currently, it is the only sugar plantation remaining in Hawaii, and has over 800 employees. It is a part of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. s 79 Agribusiness group. For Activity 2 purposes, HC&S s practices towards crop selection may generally be described in the following categories. Planting 1) Planting 2) Water usage 3) Crop maintenance, ripening 4) Cane burning 5) Preference between sugar and energy or biofuel production Of HC&S s 35,000 acres, about 33,400 acres are available for planting crops that may be used in biofuels production. About 500 acres are currently used for mill water disposal. And about 1,600 thousand acres are currently used for growing seed cane. It has 79 See and Accessed: 31 Jan

176 163 fields, each with a uniquely assigned number. The HC&S fields are shown in Figure The plantation s topography is illustrated in Figure 2-31, its slope is shown in Figure 2-32, and Figure 2-33 illustrates its soil characteristics based on rockiness. All of the maps in this section are from Activity 1 (Site Survey). Further information on HC&S s site can be found in the Activity 1 report, including information on the plantation s soil characteristics, as classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ). HC&S has a long history of demonstrated respect for the environment. It is unlikely that HC&S would plant a crop that may harm the environment. To that end, it is likely that HC&S would place a premium on crops that have been extensively researched in Hawaii, have adapted well to Hawaii growing conditions, and with which local experts have a reasonable amount of history. Water Usage For more than a century, Hawaii's sugar industry has recognized the need to protect watershed areas to sustain adequate water supplies. Today, through a joint stewardship agreement with the state and private landowners, HC&S manages 100,000 acres of watershed lands on the slopes of East Maui. Typically, HC&S gets over half of its irrigation water from surface sources (rain water). Figure 2-34 shows its rainfall distribution. Figure 2-35 illustrates HC&S s irrigation system. Figure 2-36 illustrates HC&S s stream and ditch network. During dry months, the plantation is largely dependent on water pumped from the company's 16 deep Maui-type brackish-water wells to draw slightly brackish water for supplemental irrigation for its sugarcane-growing operations. HC&S pumps the water to the surface via electricity-driven pumps. 81 The existence of this brackish groundwater lens is, according to geological evidence, due to ongoing sugarcane operations that help replenish the shallow groundwater lens. Figure 2-37 shows the location of HC&S wells. Water-use is maximized through the plantation's highly efficient drip irrigation system (shown on Figure 2-35) which also delivers fertilizer to the fields. Some of the fields are irrigated with wash water that is recycled from the Puunene Mill. The fields are graded to direct run-off to ponds or embankments This map also shows the network of both public and HC&S roads throughout the plantation. HC&S annually reports the volume of water pumped to the surface to the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

177 There are no known changes forthcoming to the availability of water for cultivation. Crop Maintenance, Ripening HC&S, in cooperation with HARC, has an aggressive program of breeding and selecting well-adapted and disease-resistant varieties of sugarcane for central Maui. This is the primary function of the HC&S research group and is essential for the success of a modern sugarcane operation. Sugarcane insect pests are controlled by natural predators, not insecticides. No insecticide is applied to the crop. Weeds require chemical control, but herbicides are almost exclusively used during the first six months of the 24-month growing cycle, before the cane plants shade between the rows preventing weed growth. Herbicides are applied mainly by tractor-mounted sprayers. A highly efficient system of drip irrigation supplies water and fertilizer to the sugarcane plants. Water requirements are determined by an extensive system of weather stations that determine irrigation needs by monitoring evapotranspiration. Fertilizer is applied to fields according to plant tissue and soil analysis. No fertilizer is applied in the 12 months preceding harvesting, which assists in the ripening of the crop. The sugarcane is ripened both by controlling the amounts and timing of nitrogen fertilizer and water applied to the crop and by the application of a chemical ripener. Ripener is aerially applied. Sugarcane seed pieces are treated prior to planting with a fungicide applied in a dipping tank Cane Burning The current practice at HC&S is to burn sugarcane in the field before it is harvested. About 100 acres burned each day during the harvest season. Almost all of the approximately 17,000 acres harvested is burned. Burning is strictly controlled and is monitored by the Hawaii State Department of Health. When winds are too low, as in Kona type weather, HC&S is not allowed to burn sugarcane. HC&S staff must inform residents close to a field when the field will be burned, and off-duty police are hired to control traffic when the smoke blows over roads. HC&S maintains a series of weather stations on the plantation to provide data on weather conditions that affect burning. It also contracts with the Weather Network, a weather monitoring company, to receive forecast conditions prior to burning. Burning is curtailed when the conditions do not permit adequate mixing of smoke in the atmosphere. In addition, HC&S has established a cane burning outreach program that will further improve communication with the Maui island community through an updated website, mailed letters, and newspaper ads

178 In accordance with the Clean Air Act, a number of studies have been prepared since 1973 to measure the effects of cane burning. The studies were conducted by the Hawaii Department of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the University of Hawaii s School of Public Health. The studies have largely focused on identifying hazardous materials in cane smoke. In response to the periodic expressions of concern, the Hawaii Agricultural Research Corporation ( HARC ) established a Cane Burning Committee in 1996 to analyze the potential for a different means of harvesting. In 2004, HC&S supported formation of the Committee to Review Possible Alternatives to Burning Sugar Cane Prior to Harvest. The purpose of the committee was to find an economic alternative to cane burning. Preference between Sugar and Energy or Biofuel Production HC&S s experience and knowledge in growing and processing sugarcane is an invaluable asset that may be leveraged in a transition to its long-term objective of being an energy farm. To that end, it is likely that HC&S will maximize its productivity by continuing its raw sugar operations as long as justified by sugar prices. HC&S has shown an interest in transitioning away from sole involvement in the sugar industry if and when warranted

179 Figure 2-30: HC&S Plantation Map 2-178

180 Figure 2-31: HC&S Topography 2-179

181 Figure 2-32: HC&S Slope 2-180

182 Figure 2-33: HC&S soil characteristics based on rockiness 2-181

183 Figure 2-34: HC&S Rainfall Distribution 2-182

184 Figure 2-35: HC&S Irrigation Infrastructure 2-183

185 Figure 2-36: HC&S Stream and Ditch Networks 2-184