Ethanol production could jeopardize soil productivity

Jun 02, 2009

There is growing interest in using crop residues as the feedstock of choice for the production of cellulosic-based ethanol because of the more favorable energy output relative to grain-based ethanol. This would also help provide a solution to the debate of food versus fuel, because less of the grain would be diverted to ethanol production, leaving more available for food and feed consumption.

Crop residues are viewed as a low cost and readily available source of material since more than 50% of is residues. However, crop residues should not be considered simply a waste or benign material. They possess a critical role in sustaining soil . Consequently, extensive removal of crop residues for —or for other industrial purposes—may impact the long-term productivity of soils.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientists at the Indian Head Research Farm in Indian Head and the Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre in Swift Current, all located in Saskatchewan (SK), measured the impact of straw removal after 50 years on soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil organic nitrogen (SON) using the Indian Head Long-Term Rotations established in 1958. These rotations included a series of fallow-spring wheat-spring wheat crop sequences where straw was removed through baling on selected plots. In this study, straw removal with baling occurred 2 years out of 3, or 66% of the time. The study was converted to no-till in 1991.

Another 4-year study was conducted to quantify how much wheat straw is actually removed through baling when different harvesting systems are used. The three harvesting/straw removal systems involved (1) swathing-harvesting-baling, (2) straight harvesting-baling, and (3) harvesting with a stripper header-swathing-baling. Both of these studies were funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Panel on Energy Reduction and Development, and the Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation.

Results from these studies were published in the May-June 2009 issue of Agronomy Journal, "Quantifying Straw Removal through Baling and Measuring the Long-Term Impact on Quality and Wheat Production," by G.P. Lafond and others. The results were also presented at the annual meetings of the Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation held in Moose Jaw, SK, on 27 Jan. 2009 and the Saskatchewan Soils and Crops Workshop on 26 Feb. 2009 in Saskatoon, SK.

Guy Lafond, who was the study leader, says, "The results would support the recommendation that some straw could be removed from fields providing that the frequency of removal was less than 66% and that no more than 40% of the aboveground residues other than grain are removed. From a crop management perspective, proper nitrogen fertility combined with no-till would further reduce the possibility of net losses in SOC and SON."

Research is ongoing at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to examine different types of crops for not only their grain and end-use quality but also for their crop residue production and quality. Some crops are being developed as platforms for biomass production.

More information: The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract here.

Source: American Society of Agronomy

Explore further: Australia set to pay polluters to cut emissions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A model to measure soil health in the era of bioenergy

Nov 19, 2008

One of the biggest threats to today's farmlands is the loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil organic matter (SOM) from poor land-management practices. The presence of these materials is essential as they do everything ...

No-tillage plus

Jul 28, 2008

Tropical soils often behave differently than temperate soils when being farmed. In tropical regions, soils lose nutrients quickly when cultivated. With food shortages looming and soil quality declining rapidly, new farming ...

Managing carbon loss

Dec 03, 2008

As the United States continues to develop alternative energy methods and push towards energy independence, cellulosic-based ethanol has emerged as one of the most commercially viable technologies. Corn stover remains the ...

Recommended for you

Australia set to pay polluters to cut emissions

1 hour ago

Australia is set to approve measures giving polluters financial incentives to reduce emissions blamed for climate change, in a move critics described as ineffective environmental policy.

TransCanada seeks approvals for pipeline to Atlantic

12 hours ago

TransCanada on Thursday filed for regulatory approval of a proposed Can$12 billion (US$10.7 billion) pipeline to carry western Canadian oil to Atlantic coast refineries and terminals, for shipping overseas.

Does it help conservation to put a price on nature?

15 hours ago

Putting a price on the services which a particular ecosystem provides may encourage the adoption of greener policies, but it may come at the price of biodiversity conservation. Writing today in the journal ...

Reef-builders with a sense of harmony

17 hours ago

Cold-water corals of the species Lophelia pertusa are able to fuse skeletons of genetically distinct individuals. On dives with JAGO, a research submersible stationed at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, scientists ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

theophys
2 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2009
Let it be known that I, a moderatly educated environmentalist, do not support using ethanol to fuel vehicles. Burning anything at all will emit some gas or another that could potentialy do some damage. Maybe deer are allergic, I don't really know.

The best thing we can do is move to fully electric cars with onboard energy collection systems or easily rechargable/replaceable batteries. We need to move past the inefficiences of burning things to create energy. We have a lot of alternatives out there and a lot of bright minds to work on improved efficiency. Switching to ethinol is like swithing from nachos to pizza and wondering why the irregularity is persisting. Just because you switch to a product that tastes better doesn't mean you'll have any less cheese obstructing your digestive tract.
To make a long rant short; burning things=undesirable.
SDMike
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2009
I wonder if the authors of this study have ever visited a farming operation? For many crops there is already zero crop residue. However, there is plenty of "cow" residue put back on the land.

BTW "burning things=undesirable" == "breathing=undesirable" After all, they are both combustion and they both emit "green house gas."
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jun 15, 2009
Ethanol produces significantly less CO2 emissions than gasoline/petrol.

The main ingredient of gasoline/petrol, ranging from 85% to 92% depending upon grade, is C8H18, with the rest of the formulation containing hydrocarbons ranging from C6H14 to C12H26.

On the other hand, Ethanol is C2H6O.

Do the math.

Going to all-electric vehicles will put more load on the electric grid, increasing CO2 emissions.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.